NT derestriction

[Ext User(Mot Adv)]

Fight continues to return (//) to NT's key open road lengths:-

To date, a 38.9% increase in in toll since inception of 110 and 130km/h
speed restrictions.
(25 compared to 18 in the previous years).

Shop:-
http://www.keepntlimitfree.org/Shop/tabid/236/Default.aspx

JP
Mot Adv-NSW

[Ext User(Ron)]

"Mot Adv" <mot.adv@internode.on.net> wrote in news:13b2krl6jkam54
@corp.supernews.com:

> Fight continues to return (//) to NT's key open road lengths:-
>
> To date, a 38.9% increase in in toll since inception of 110 and 130km/h
> speed restrictions.
> (25 compared to 18 in the previous years).
>
> Shop:-
> http://www.keepntlimitfree.org/Shop/tabid/236/Default.aspx
>
> JP
> Mot Adv-NSW
>
>
>

That is rather odd!
Speed dosen't kill, the nut behind the wheel does :-)

[Ext User(John_H)]

Ron wrote:
>"Mot Adv" <mot.adv@internode.on.net> wrote in news:13b2krl6jkam54
>@corp.supernews.com:
>
>> Fight continues to return (//) to NT's key open road lengths:-
>>
>> To date, a 38.9% increase in in toll since inception of 110 and 130km/h
>> speed restrictions.
>> (25 compared to 18 in the previous years).
>
>That is rather odd!
>Speed dosen't kill, the nut behind the wheel does :-)

I'd be more inclined to blame the nut who imposed the speed limits!
Might get her comeuppance shortly. :)

--
John H

[Ext User(a t e c 7 7)]

John_H wrote:
> Ron wrote:
>> "Mot Adv" <mot.adv@internode.on.net> wrote in news:13b2krl6jkam54
>> @corp.supernews.com:
>>
>>> Fight continues to return (//) to NT's key open road lengths:-
>>>
>>> To date, a 38.9% increase in in toll since inception of 110 and 130km/h
>>> speed restrictions.
>>> (25 compared to 18 in the previous years).
>> That is rather odd!
>> Speed dosen't kill, the nut behind the wheel does :-)
>
> I'd be more inclined to blame the nut who imposed the speed limits!
> Might get her comeuppance shortly. :)
>
If what the bil says is correct yup there will be changes a plenty in the NT

[Ext User(Richard)]

"Mot Adv" <mot.adv@internode.on.net> wrote in message
news:13b2krl6jkam54@corp.supernews.com...
> Fight continues to return (//) to NT's key open road lengths:-
>
> To date, a 38.9% increase in in toll since inception of 110 and 130km/h
> speed restrictions.
> (25 compared to 18 in the previous years).
>
> Shop:-
> http://www.keepntlimitfree.org/Shop/tabid/236/Default.aspx
>
> JP
> Mot Adv-NSW
>

So... what's the increase in fatalities on the NEWLY restricted highways?
Please leave out any statistics for roads that originally had a limit or are
not coinsidered highways (ie dirt roads to aboriginal settlements)

Just had a look at the rest of the site.... golly, they are a weird mob up
there.

Never mind, as soon as a labor federal government gets in they will force
the NT to reduce the current 130km/h limit to 110 :)

[Ext User(RainbowWarrior)]

"John_H" <john4721@inbox.com> wrote in message
news:rgr2b3pa8qg24ti5cqnp0oqs23s2jv4na1@4ax.com...
> Ron wrote:
>>"Mot Adv" <mot.adv@internode.on.net> wrote in news:13b2krl6jkam54
>>@corp.supernews.com:
>>
>>> Fight continues to return (//) to NT's key open road lengths:-
>>>
>>> To date, a 38.9% increase in in toll since inception of 110 and 130km/h
>>> speed restrictions.
>>> (25 compared to 18 in the previous years).
>>
>>That is rather odd!
>>Speed dosen't kill, the nut behind the wheel does :-)
>
> I'd be more inclined to blame the nut who imposed the speed limits!
> Might get her comeuppance shortly. :)
>
> John H

Well maybe it's not the speed killing but more the velocity you impact other
things at when "safe" speeds suddenly fail to be safe?

[Ext User(Mot Adv)]

"Richard" <
> So... what's the increase in fatalities on the NEWLY restricted highways?
> Please leave out any statistics for roads that originally had a limit or
> are not coinsidered highways (ie dirt roads to aboriginal settlements)
Why should aboriginals not have asphalt roads you presumptous racist prick?
:-)


> Just had a look at the rest of the site.... golly, they are a weird mob
> up there.
I thought that of VIC, but anyhow . . .


> Never mind, as soon as a labor federal government gets in they will force
> the NT to reduce the current 130km/h limit to 110 :)

Damn! Thanks for the heads-up, better not vote for em then.

[Ext User(Mot Adv)]

"RainbowWarrior"
> Well maybe it's not the speed killing but more the velocity you impact
> other things at when "safe" speeds suddenly fail to be safe?
38.9% Increase since speed limtis all round that apply to 98% of previously
derestricted NT, god thats terrible, someone should do something about it.

Zzzzzzzz

[Ext User(John_H)]

RainbowWarrior wrote:

>"John_H" <john4721@inbox.com> wrote in message
>news:rgr2b3pa8qg24ti5cqnp0oqs23s2jv4na1@4ax.com...
>> Ron wrote:
>>>"Mot Adv" <mot.adv@internode.on.net> wrote in news:13b2krl6jkam54
>>>@corp.supernews.com:
>>>
>>>> Fight continues to return (//) to NT's key open road lengths:-
>>>>
>>>> To date, a 38.9% increase in in toll since inception of 110 and 130km/h
>>>> speed restrictions.
>>>> (25 compared to 18 in the previous years).
>>>
>>>That is rather odd!
>>>Speed dosen't kill, the nut behind the wheel does :-)
>>
>> I'd be more inclined to blame the nut who imposed the speed limits!
>> Might get her comeuppance shortly. :)
>
>Well maybe it's not the speed killing but more the velocity you impact other
>things at when "safe" speeds suddenly fail to be safe?

Yep, that's what makes air travel so bloody dangerous!
Not that the statistics support the theory.

--
John H

[Ext User(RainbowWarrior)]

"Mot Adv" <mot.adv@internode.on.net> wrote in message
news:13b34rf4q07ut39@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "RainbowWarrior"
>> Well maybe it's not the speed killing but more the velocity you impact
>> other things at when "safe" speeds suddenly fail to be safe?
> 38.9% Increase since speed limtis all round that apply to 98% of
> previously derestricted NT, god thats terrible, someone should do
> something about it.
>
> Zzzzzzzz

Yeah sh&t happening at 200kph instead of 100kph is so much
safer.............

[Ext User(Albm&ctd)]

In article <13b2krl6jkam54@corp.supernews.com>, mot.adv@internode.on.net
says...
> Fight continues to return (//) to NT's key open road lengths:-
>
> To date, a 38.9% increase in in toll since inception of 110 and 130km/h
> speed restrictions.
> (25 compared to 18 in the previous years).
>
> Shop:-
> http://www.keepntlimitfree.org/Shop/tabid/236/Default.aspx
>
> JP
> Mot Adv-NSW
>
Rather surprising to be more fatalities, thought it would be about the
same with a little noise either way.
Will there be public floggings for those that imposed the lower limits?

Al
--
When schools of fish were studied, it was found that the leaders had
brain damage.
We, the public should therefore demand a similar study be carried out on
our leaders.
http://kwakakid.cjb.net/insult.html

[Ext User(Albm&ctd)]

In article <7nhsi.15138$4A1.5421@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
emailaddress@tgr.fr says...
> "Mot Adv" <mot.adv@internode.on.net> wrote in message
> news:13b34rf4q07ut39@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > "RainbowWarrior"
> >> Well maybe it's not the speed killing but more the velocity you impact
> >> other things at when "safe" speeds suddenly fail to be safe?
> > 38.9% Increase since speed limtis all round that apply to 98% of
> > previously derestricted NT, god thats terrible, someone should do
> > something about it.
> >
> > Zzzzzzzz
>
> Yeah sh&t happening at 200kph instead of 100kph is so much
> safer.............
>
You've never been there (NT) have you?

Al
--
When schools of fish were studied, it was found that the leaders had
brain damage.
We, the public should therefore demand a similar study be carried out on
our leaders.
http://kwakakid.cjb.net/insult.html

[Ext User(Scotty)]

"Ron" <dodo@hotmail> wrote in message
news:Xns99809D5B6E498GPS@64.209.0.94...
> "Mot Adv" <mot.adv@internode.on.net> wrote in news:13b2krl6jkam54
> @corp.supernews.com:
>
>> Fight continues to return (//) to NT's key open road lengths:-
>>
>> To date, a 38.9% increase in in toll since inception of 110 and 130km/h
>> speed restrictions.
>> (25 compared to 18 in the previous years).
>>
>> Shop:-
>> http://www.keepntlimitfree.org/Shop/tabid/236/Default.aspx
>>
>> JP
>> Mot Adv-NSW
>>
>>
>>
>
> That is rather odd!
> Speed dosen't kill, the nut behind the wheel does :-)

Speed doesnt kill, its the sudden stop that kills.

[Ext User(budgie)]

On Thu, 2 Aug 2007 13:45:48 +1000, "Mot Adv" <mot.adv@internode.on.net> wrote:

>Fight continues to return (//) to NT's key open road lengths:-
>
>To date, a 38.9% increase in in toll since inception of 110 and 130km/h
>speed restrictions.
>(25 compared to 18 in the previous years).
>
> Shop:-
>http://www.keepntlimitfree.org/Shop/tabid/236/Default.aspx
>
>JP
>Mot Adv-NSW

Jeremy, as you would well appreciate the figures from one year to the next can
go either way and be rather unmeaningful in isolation, BUT ...

the ultimate irony is that if they had been the other way around (18 before and
25 now) there would be a huge torrent of "told-you-so".

There's lies, damned lies, and statistics.

[Ext User()]

>> Yeah sh&t happening at 200kph instead of 100kph is so much
>> safer.............
>>
> You've never been there (NT) have you?

I haven't been.
But I'd rather hit something solid at 200 than 100 - death on impact is
preferable to bleeding to death in the middle of nowhere.

-mark

[Ext User(Toby_Ponsenby)]

On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 18:37:29 +1000, John_H Blathered on:

> RainbowWarrior wrote:
>
>>"John_H" <john4721@inbox.com> wrote in message
>>news:rgr2b3pa8qg24ti5cqnp0oqs23s2jv4na1@4ax.com...
>>> Ron wrote:
>>>>"Mot Adv" <mot.adv@internode.on.net> wrote in news:13b2krl6jkam54
>>>>@corp.supernews.com:
>>>>
>>>>> Fight continues to return (//) to NT's key open road lengths:-
>>>>>
>>>>> To date, a 38.9% increase in in toll since inception of 110 and
>>>>> 130km/h speed restrictions.
>>>>> (25 compared to 18 in the previous years).
>>>>
>>>>That is rather odd!
>>>>Speed dosen't kill, the nut behind the wheel does :-)
>>>
>>> I'd be more inclined to blame the nut who imposed the speed limits!
>>> Might get her comeuppance shortly. :)
>>
>>Well maybe it's not the speed killing but more the velocity you impact
>>other things at when "safe" speeds suddenly fail to be safe?
>
> Yep, that's what makes air travel so bloody dangerous! Not that the
> statistics support the theory.

True enough - if you use air-miles as the base.
However, if car manufacturers had the same results insofar as %fatalities
per prang....
Those alloy cans are definably 'unsafe at any speed' Big Time.

__

Toby

[Ext User(PhilD)]

"Albm&ctd" <alb_mandctdNOWMD@connexus.net.au> wrote in message
news:MPG.211c45f2609c8b99989e77@news.readfreenews. net...
> In article <13b2krl6jkam54@corp.supernews.com>, mot.adv@internode.on.net
> says...
>> Fight continues to return (//) to NT's key open road lengths:-
>>
>> To date, a 38.9% increase in in toll since inception of 110 and 130km/h
>> speed restrictions.
>> (25 compared to 18 in the previous years).
>>
>> Shop:-
>> http://www.keepntlimitfree.org/Shop/tabid/236/Default.aspx
>>
>> JP
>> Mot Adv-NSW
>>
> Rather surprising to be more fatalities, thought it would be about the
> same with a little noise either way.
> Will there be public floggings for those that imposed the lower limits?
>
If Clare is the floggee I'll pay to be the flogger.

PhilD
> Al
> --
> When schools of fish were studied, it was found that the leaders had
> brain damage.
> We, the public should therefore demand a similar study be carried out on
> our leaders.
> http://kwakakid.cjb.net/insult.html

[Ext User(John McKenzie)]

Mot Adv wrote:
>

> Zzzzzzzz

And therein lies part of the drama - driver fatigue from a trip that
should reasonably take say 2 hours, ending up taking 3+. hell of a
difference in how fucked they'd be at the end of any given trip.

let's hope common sense prevails (which would be a rare thing nowadays,
much as the use of the word nowadays)

--
John McKenzie

tosspam@aol.com abuse@yahoo.com abuse@hotmail.com abuse@earthlink.com
abuse@aol.com vice.president@whitehouse.gov president@whitehouse.gov
sweep.day@accc.gov.au uce@ftc.gov admin@loopback abuse@iprimus.com.au
If you didn't know it was wrong,why did you cover it up? abuse@msn.com
$USER@$HOST $LOGNAME@localhost -h1024@localhost root@mailloop.com
abuse@federalpolice.gov.au fraudinfo@psinet.com abuse@cia.gov
$USER@localhost abuse@sprint.com abuse@fbi.gov abuse@asio.gov.au
$LOGIN@localhost

[Ext User(a t e c 7 7)]

John McKenzie wrote:
> Mot Adv wrote:
>
>> Zzzzzzzz
>
> And therein lies part of the drama - driver fatigue from a trip that
> should reasonably take say 2 hours, ending up taking 3+. hell of a
> difference in how fucked they'd be at the end of any given trip.
>
> let's hope common sense prevails (which would be a rare thing nowadays,
> much as the use of the word nowadays)
>
Some of these neophytes might try The Alice to Darwin at a legal speed ,
pretty soon fatigue cuts in yet at the 140+ you stay alert much more
easily
I guess staring at the long black strip really does get boring .

[Ext User(RainbowWarrior)]

"a t e c 7 7" <"atec 77 at hotmail dot com"> wrote in message
news:46b26644@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> John McKenzie wrote:
>> Mot Adv wrote:
>>
>>> Zzzzzzzz
>>
>> And therein lies part of the drama - driver fatigue from a trip that
>> should reasonably take say 2 hours, ending up taking 3+. hell of a
>> difference in how fucked they'd be at the end of any given trip.
>>
>> let's hope common sense prevails (which would be a rare thing nowadays,
>> much as the use of the word nowadays)
>>
> Some of these neophytes might try The Alice to Darwin at a legal speed ,
> pretty soon fatigue cuts in yet at the 140+ you stay alert much more
> easily
> I guess staring at the long black strip really does get boring .

And I bet you're more alert again at 250, how long can you run on adrenalin?