When everyone must be wrong about the speed limit

[athol]

Bernd Felsche <bernie@innovative.iinet.net.au> wrote:

> http://www.cis.org.au/Policy/spr03/polspr03-1.htm

Good to see that a summary of what we alreay know has actually been
published.

--
Athol
<http://cust.idl.com.au/athol>
Linux Registered User # 254000
I'm a Libran Engineer. I don't argue, I discuss.

[Shane]

"Bernd Felsche" <bernie@innovative.iinet.net.au> wrote in message
news:nmm052xd3o.ln2@innovative.iinet.net.au...
> "Shane" <sdw@coolcats.net.au> writes:
>
>>That's where you're wrong. Most people support the speed limits and
>>in addition to that the way they're enforced.
>
> When asked in a survey... with leading questions... by the
> government or its contractors.

The only contractors I saw mentioned were totally independent ones. You can
say whatever you want about the credibility of the questions being asked,
fact is most people agreed with the speed limits in place and only admitted
to speeding *sometimes* just as I do. That doesn't mean people speed *all*
the time.

>
>>Go have a read of any number of surveys indicating this.
>
> We have read about the surveys; and tried to get the entire script
> of the survey but have *never* been able to obtain one. Some of us
> are well aware about how a survey of the unwashed can be fashioned
> to produce tailored results.

So you just assume the questions were tailored to suit the Government?
That's hardly compelling evidence that people don't support speed limits
just because you *fear* leading questions were asked. Mind you, it wouldn't
matter how the questions were posed, you wouldn't agree with them if the
result didn't suit your argument?

>
>>The only reason most people say they speed from time to time is
>>because the chances of being caught are so small it's hardly worth
>
> The reason people exceed the speed limiot is because they feel safe
> in exceeding the speed limit and that it appears reasonable to do
> so.

So it's got absolutely nothing to do with the fact that they're running
late? :)))))) Put it this way Bernd, I know when I'm running late I go over
the speed limit and that goes for just about everyone else I know.
Difference is, when I'm in no particular hurry to get anywhere I'm more
inclined to watch the speedo and stay within cooee of the speed limit.

>
>>mentioning and those who admitted to speeding did so at speeds that
>>were under the allowable tolerances therefore making detection all
>>but impossible anyway.
>
> Your perspective is clearly one of enforcement.

I'm also a driver Bernd.

You need limits to
> ease the detection of "excessive" speeds. Yet the vast majority of
> crashes, including those with serious injury and fatalities, occur
> from speeds below the posted limit.

And in the past you have used this to suggest that because most fatalities
occur at speeds below the speed limit, that speed has little to do with
crash occurrence or injury/death rates? Nothing could be further from the
truth. Just because pedestrians generally get run over in populated areas
where speed isn't a factor (admitted anyway) and these same people account
for a third of deaths, that driving faster isn't inherently more dangerous
when it comes time to *avoid* a situation? Your stance has always been that
these situations become less frequent at higher speeds. I have yet to see
any real credible evidence to suggest this would be true anywhere other than
freeways where lane discipline isn't the order of the day. Speed
differential crashes (in the sense you're referring to) are considered a
rare occurrence on highways.

>
> You wouldn't have caught them "speeding" anyway. Your actions, had
> you been perfectly vigilant about monitoring their speed and
> prosecuting even minute transgressions above the speed limit, could
> not have prevented the vast majority of fatalities.
>
>>If it was put to me I'd have to say I sped too. Does that make me
>>a supported of higher speed limits? No it doesn't and the majority
>>of the population also support this notion.
>
> Dumbing-down and brain-washing a population is no cure for solving
> the real problems of road safety.

You're doing a fine job of it yourself in this very forum Bernd.
>
> *You* know the main problem and to your credit, you have in the
> past tried to do something about it.

I believe there are many problems..........it's just that I don't see the
open slather raising of speed limits as the answer. Some in here honestly
beleive this to be the case.



> --
> /"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
> \ / ASCII ribbon campaign | I'm a .signature virus!
> X against HTML mail | Copy me into your ~/.signature
> / \ and postings | to help me spread!

[Shane]

"Bernd Felsche" <bernie@innovative.iinet.net.au> wrote in message
news:7hi052xilm.ln2@innovative.iinet.net.au...
> "Shane" <sdw@coolcats.net.au> writes:
>>"The Last Gunslinger" <jbngspam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:joYed.37920$5O5.8499@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>> Michael Culley wrote:
>>>> "The Last Gunslinger" <jbngspam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:KCXed.37878$5O5.2847@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
>>> I agree, it doesnt make it right but in a democracy majority
>>> rules and one lives by the standards of many.
>>> That doesnt/shouldnt stop people from having their own views and
>>> continually striving to improve something they see as being wrong.
>
>>Most companies cheat on tax returns, so using your thoery that
>>should make it ok in the future?
>
> Bullshit Shane.
>
> MOST companies dare not cheat on tax returns because they cannot
> afford to defend against the legal consequences. MOST companies
> would rather take a loss than invoke the ire of the ATO. Even a tax
> audit can be financially disasterous due to the loss of income it
> requires. MOST companies run on a very thin margin.

I'm yet to hear of anyone owning a business who doesn't make false claims in
some way shape or form. Whether they see cheating on mileage or other
operational expenses for instance as legitimate *because it's the way it's
always been done* or *everyone else is doing it* , or not is my point. I
know this kind of thing wouldn't occur at IR because you're not that kind of
person.

>
> Companies do make errors in filing information with the ATO; but
> those errors are unintentional and usually corrected within an audit
> cycle.


Stop it Bernd.......pleeeeaaaassseeeeeee.............:)))) )) My sides are
about to split :)

>
> Companies with "good" accountants will try to squeeze every cent out
> of a tax return to which they are _legally_ entitled.

Good accountant = Good accountant :)


>
> Tax laws are several orders of magnitude more complicated than
> traffic regulations.


I know that but I was just trying to illustrate a point albeit quite poorly
in your opinion.




> --
> /"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
> \ / ASCII ribbon campaign | I'm a .signature virus!
> X against HTML mail | Copy me into your ~/.signature
> / \ and postings | to help me spread!

[Shane]

"Bernd Felsche" <bernie@innovative.iinet.net.au> wrote in message
news:7hn052xtbo.ln2@innovative.iinet.net.au...
> Toby Ponsenby <toby@privacy.net> writes:
>
>><| Bernd Felsche |> did write on 26Oct2004 at 10:32:07 AM
>>> Tax laws are several orders of magnitude more complicated than
>>> traffic regulations.
>
>>Huh?
>>I thought they'd be much the same, since they apparently serve the
>>same purpose.
>>Pillage.
>
> You can probably read through the relevant Traffic Act in a day,
> cross-referencing to the Regulations at the same time.
>
> Tax laws change more quickly than you or any natural person can read
> them. One typically has to deal with taxation from 3 levels of
> government. If one does business across a tax boundary, taxation
> becomes even more of a burden.
>
> The ostensible purpose of taxation is pillage; for what the
> government deems equitable redistribution.
>
> The ostensible purpose of traffic laws is to provide for a
> reasonably safe traffic environment. The pillage is necessary to
> feed Shane enough doughnuts so that his arse moulds into the
> extrawidth seats in HWP cars. :-)


I definately resemble that last comment!!!!!


> --
> /"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
> \ / ASCII ribbon campaign | I'm a .signature virus!
> X against HTML mail | Copy me into your ~/.signature
> / \ and postings | to help me spread!

[Shane]

<OzOne> wrote in message news:bp7rn05ctubm5h2kr3hr6s0ceds9ojap10@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 22:12:48 GMT, "Shane" <sdw@coolcats.net.au>
> scribbled thusly:
>
>>Most companies cheat on tax returns, so using your thoery that should make
>>it ok in the future?
>
> Once again you show just how far from reality you live.
>
> Accountants are paid huge amounts of money to make sure that every
> company gets exactly what it is LEGALLY ENTITLED to in its tax return.
>
> Cheating is regarded very seriously and penatlies are just not worth
> the risk.


Oh no not another one :))))).................I can't take this anymore
:)))))))))))))
>
>
> Oz1...of the 3 twins.
>
> I welcome you to crackerbox palace,We've been expecting you.

[Albm&ctd]

On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 21:06:38 +1000, "Lord-Data" <data@ihug.com.au>
wrote:

>Theres been a shiteload of pplz arested/charged over child pornography
>lately, and apparntly thats "only the tip of the iceberg" .. So many people
>doing it .. Does that make it right?
>
IIRC it was 200 on the news, so the tip is small with respect to our
adult population. Perhaps there is no iceberg at all. Perhaps it's
more bullshit and scare tactics just like Iraqi WMD to justify some
other oppressive Gov control that not only affects paeodophiles but
each and every one of us. Our terrified Gov is now on about strip
searching 12 year olds.. gawd.

Znxrf lbh jbaqre ubj znal cnrqbcuvyrf ner va cbyvgvpf.

Al ert not Al armed
2004 insult page awaits your contribution
http://kwakakid.cjb.net/insult.html
*Inept dysfunctional descendants of Sloths*
are setting ridiculously low speed limits

[feral]

Albm&ctd wrote:

>
> Znxrf lbh jbaqre ubj znal cnrqbcuvyrf ner va cbyvgvpf.
>
No comment, except that I just bit my tongue.

T.C. Feral

[Bernd Felsche]

athol <me@privacy.net> writes:

>Bernd Felsche <bernie@innovative.iinet.net.au> wrote:

>> http://www.cis.org.au/Policy/spr03/polspr03-1.htm

>Good to see that a summary of what we alreay know has actually been
>published.

Hope you got a kick out of that. One guy at MUARC did.

http://www.cis.org.au/Policy/summer03-04/polsumm0304-8.htm
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | I'm a .signature virus!
X against HTML mail | Copy me into your ~/.signature
/ \ and postings | to help me spread!

[BenOne©]

Shane wrote:

> "BenOne©" <nosp@m.thanks.mate> wrote in message
> news:mp9hlc.4vd.ln@192.168.11.2...
>
>>Jeßus wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The Interceptor wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I was driving down a highway today doing about 85 km/h or so. It's a 70
>>>>km/h zone. So obviously I'm going straight to hell, but it seemed that
>>>>just
>>>>about everyone else around me was doing the same speed. What's wrong
>>>>with
>>>>this scenario? Could it be that the speed limit is too low?
>>>
>>>
>>>Could be too low... but anyway lets face it - they could up it to 120
>>>km/h
>>>and most ppl will then want to do 130km/h in that zone.
>>
>>Bullshit!
>>
>>Driving around on the weekend I found people always passed me when I
>>slowed to 80 or 60, but I passed them again when the limit went back up to
>>100.
>
>
> Well that's proof beyond a reasonable doubt. That'll do me.

I'll add that I've been driving for ten years and have always observed that
people do as I wrote above. You get the odd "hoon", but it's rare.

--
Ben Thomas
Opinions, conclusions, and other information in this message that do not
relate to the official business of my firm shall be understood as neither
given nor endorsed by it.

[clockmeister]

"BenOne©" <nosp@m.thanks.mate> wrote in message
news:l1ohlc.s05.ln@192.168.11.2...
> The Last Gunslinger wrote:
>
>> BenOne© wrote:
>>
>>> Michael Culley wrote:
>>>
>>>> "The Last Gunslinger" <jbngspam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:KCXed.37878$5O5.2847@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>>
>>>>> If the "majority" of people speed then speeding should be considered
>>>>> "right" and not persecuted/prosecuted.
>>>>> Speed limits should be brought in line with what the majority of the
>>>>> population believe is right which appears to be above a lot of current
>>>>> limits.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I agree with your conclusion but not how you go there. 50 years ago
>>>> drink
>>>> driving would have been acceptable to the majority and 200 years ago
>>>> the
>>>> majority would have thought public hangings for stealing bread was ok.
>>>> Because the majority believe it doesn't make it right.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It's really only your morals/reasoning that say what is right and wrong.
>>>
>> Agreed, however the laws that we live by should be set by the
>> morals/reasoning of the majority.
>
> I agree.
>
> But what if the majority are wrong? :) Just kidding.
>

What if the majority is stupid, influenced by brainwashing, or purposely
kept in the dark so they can't have an educated opinion on the subject to
make the correct choices in life?

[BenOne©]

clockmeister wrote:

> "BenOne©" <nosp@m.thanks.mate> wrote in message
> news:l1ohlc.s05.ln@192.168.11.2...
>
>>The Last Gunslinger wrote:
>>
>>
>>>BenOne© wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Michael Culley wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"The Last Gunslinger" <jbngspam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>>news:KCXed.37878$5O5.2847@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>If the "majority" of people speed then speeding should be considered
>>>>>>"right" and not persecuted/prosecuted.
>>>>>>Speed limits should be brought in line with what the majority of the
>>>>>>population believe is right which appears to be above a lot of current
>>>>>>limits.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I agree with your conclusion but not how you go there. 50 years ago
>>>>>drink
>>>>>driving would have been acceptable to the majority and 200 years ago
>>>>>the
>>>>>majority would have thought public hangings for stealing bread was ok.
>>>>>Because the majority believe it doesn't make it right.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>It's really only your morals/reasoning that say what is right and wrong.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Agreed, however the laws that we live by should be set by the
>>>morals/reasoning of the majority.
>>
>>I agree.
>>
>>But what if the majority are wrong? :) Just kidding.
>>
>
>
> What if the majority is stupid, influenced by brainwashing, or purposely
> kept in the dark so they can't have an educated opinion on the subject to
> make the correct choices in life?

Would that be the majority [1] that speed, or the majority that support the
government's stance and enforcement of speed limits [2]?

[1] What some people claim.
[2] Probably more realistic.

--
Ben Thomas
Opinions, conclusions, and other information in this message that do not
relate to the official business of my firm shall be understood as neither
given nor endorsed by it.

[D Walford]

Lord-Data wrote:
>
> Theres been a shiteload of pplz arested/charged over child pornography
> lately, and apparntly thats "only the tip of the iceberg" .. So many people
> doing it .. Does that make it right?
>

If you can't tell the difference between child porn and exceeding the
speed limit by a small amount then you have a serious problem.



Daryl

[Bernd Felsche]

"Steve" <steves@home.now> writes:
>"Bernd Felsche" <bernie@innovative.iinet.net.au> wrote in message
>news:5mcu42xou3.ln2@innovative.iinet.net.au...
>> budgie<me@privacy.net> writes:
>> >>The relevant section are still fenced-off to prevent direct
>> >>pedestrian access except at controlled intersections. The speed
>> >>limit drop was associated with a widening of parts of the highway
>> >>and re-surfacing of approaches to traffic lights; any reduction in
>> >>crashes will probably be attributed solely to the reduced speed
>> >>limit.
>>
>> >Are we talking about the Wilson stretch?
>>
>> Between Shelley Bridge and almost to the turn-off to the museum near
>> the freeway (Bull Creek Drive).

>Didn't it use to be 80 nearly all the way back to Manning Road?

Not in recent memory. There's been a Multanova for east-bound
traffic under the trees around the bend after Shelley Bridge for
yonks now for those who dare to disobey the former reduction to 70
signposted 1000 metres earlier.

>I believe that the MRWA causes more harm than good with it's
>apparent random assignation of speed limits on multi lane roads. We

Assignation? You'd better stop taking English lessons from Dubya.
:-)

WordNet (r) 2.0 [wn]
assignation

n 1: a secret rendezvous (especially between lovers) [syn: tryst]
2: the act of distributing by allotting or apportioning;
distribution according to a plan; "the apportionment of
seats in the House of Representatives is based on the
relative population of each state" [syn: allotment,
apportionment, apportioning, allocation, parceling,
parcelling]

>see examples of 4 lane divided roads with speed limits varying from
>60 to 90km/hr with no apparent relationship to how many accesses
>there are on to such roads or other speed-environment affecting
>issues. A bit of consistency would definitely help, and that
>doesn't mean make em all 60 :(

Inconsistency exists because they kowtow to political masters.
Political masters whose time is consumed by minority, do-gooder
lobbyists. Lobbyists who bounce around on a knee-jerk and have no
understanding of the best practice and not enough of a clue to ask.
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | I'm a .signature virus!
X against HTML mail | Copy me into your ~/.signature
/ \ and postings | to help me spread!

[Bernd Felsche]

Bernd Felsche <bernie@innovative.iinet.net.au> writes:

>"Steve" <steves@home.now> writes:
>>"Bernd Felsche" <bernie@innovative.iinet.net.au> wrote in message
>>news:5mcu42xou3.ln2@innovative.iinet.net.au...
>>> budgie<me@privacy.net> writes:
>>> >>The relevant section are still fenced-off to prevent direct
>>> >>pedestrian access except at controlled intersections. The speed
>>> >>limit drop was associated with a widening of parts of the highway
>>> >>and re-surfacing of approaches to traffic lights; any reduction in
>>> >>crashes will probably be attributed solely to the reduced speed
>>> >>limit.
>>>
>>> >Are we talking about the Wilson stretch?
>>>
>>> Between Shelley Bridge and almost to the turn-off to the museum near
>>> the freeway (Bull Creek Drive).

>>Didn't it use to be 80 nearly all the way back to Manning Road?

>Not in recent memory. There's been a Multanova for east-bound
>traffic under the trees around the bend after Shelley Bridge for
>yonks now for those who dare to disobey the former reduction to 70
>signposted 1000 metres earlier.

Erm... make that 100 metres.
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | I'm a .signature virus!
X against HTML mail | Copy me into your ~/.signature
/ \ and postings | to help me spread!

[The Interceptor]

Michael Culley <mculleyNOSPAM@optushome.com.au> wrote in message
news:2u309sF23tnvlU1@uni-berlin.de...
> "The Last Gunslinger" <jbngspam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:KCXed.37878$5O5.2847@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> > If the "majority" of people speed then speeding should be considered
> > "right" and not persecuted/prosecuted.
> > Speed limits should be brought in line with what the majority of the
> > population believe is right which appears to be above a lot of current
> > limits.
>
> I agree with your conclusion but not how you go there. 50 years ago drink
> driving would have been acceptable to the majority and 200 years ago the
> majority would have thought public hangings for stealing bread was ok.
> Because the majority believe it doesn't make it right.
>
> Michael Culley

We aren't talking about whether speeding is acceptable or not; we are
talking about what speed is acceptable for a particular road. It is more of
a technical discussion than an emotive one, and in that regard I think the
comparison with child pornography/public hangings/etc is somewhat flawed.
My original point was (perhaps not so clear) that by sampling the speed
people drive on a road, one might be able to gauge the sensible speed limit.

Brett

[Shane]

"BenOne©" <nosp@m.thanks.mate> wrote in message
news:mp9hlc.4vd.ln@192.168.11.2...
> Jeßus wrote:
>
>> The Interceptor wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I was driving down a highway today doing about 85 km/h or so. It's a 70
>>>km/h zone. So obviously I'm going straight to hell, but it seemed that
>>>just
>>>about everyone else around me was doing the same speed. What's wrong
>>>with
>>>this scenario? Could it be that the speed limit is too low?
>>
>>
>> Could be too low... but anyway lets face it - they could up it to 120
>> km/h
>> and most ppl will then want to do 130km/h in that zone.
>
> Bullshit!
>
> Driving around on the weekend I found people always passed me when I
> slowed to 80 or 60, but I passed them again when the limit went back up to
> 100.

Well that's proof beyond a reasonable doubt. That'll do me.

>
> --
> Ben Thomas
> Opinions, conclusions, and other information in this message that do not
> relate to the official business of my firm shall be understood as neither
> given nor endorsed by it.
>

[Shane]

"The Last Gunslinger" <jbngspam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:KCXed.37878$5O5.2847@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Lord-Data wrote:
>
>> Theres been a shiteload of pplz arested/charged over child pornography
>> lately, and apparntly thats "only the tip of the iceberg" .. So many
>> people doing it .. Does that make it right?
>>
>
> Hello simple minded troll. :)
> What is right for you or I depends entirely on our ethical standards.
> What is right for society depends (supposedly) on a the majorities ethical
> standards.
> In reality (IMNSHO), what is "right" is defined by a bunch of politicians
> who have lost sight of or have a warped view of the majorities standards
> and wishes.
> If the majority considered child pornography to be acceptable then it
> should be considered "right" and not persecuted/prosecuted.
> If the "majority" of people speed then speeding should be considered
> "right" and not persecuted/prosecuted.
> Speed limits should be brought in line with what the majority of the
> population believe is right which appears to be above a lot of current
> limits.


That's where you're wrong. Most people support the speed limits and in
addition to that the way they're enforced. Go have a read of any number of
surveys indicating this. The only reason most people say they speed from
time to time is because the chances of being caught are so small it's hardly
worth mentioning and those who admitted to speeding did so at speeds that
were under the allowable tolerances therefore making detection all but
impossible anyway. Farkkkkk If it was put to me I'd have to say I sped too.
Does that make me a supported of higher speed limits? No it doesn't and the
majority of the population also support this notion.



> JB
>
>>
>> "The Interceptor" <thisemailadress@willnotwork.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:1098614244.846096@quartz.westnet.net.au...
>>
>>>I was driving down a highway today doing about 85 km/h or so. It's a 70
>>>km/h zone. So obviously I'm going straight to hell, but it seemed that
>>>just
>>>about everyone else around me was doing the same speed. What's wrong
>>>with
>>>this scenario? Could it be that the speed limit is too low?
>>>
>>>By the way, it was Leach Highway in Perth, in a zone where the local
>>>state
>>>MP (a nanny-state Labor lefty) recently got the speed limit reduced from
>>>80
>>>km/h.
>>>
>>>Brett
>>>
>>>
>>
>>

[Shane]

"The Last Gunslinger" <jbngspam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:joYed.37920$5O5.8499@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Michael Culley wrote:
>> "The Last Gunslinger" <jbngspam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:KCXed.37878$5O5.2847@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
<snip>

> I agree, it doesnt make it right but in a democracy majority rules and one
> lives by the standards of many.
> That doesnt/shouldnt stop people from having their own views and
> continually striving to improve something they see as being wrong.


Most companies cheat on tax returns, so using your thoery that should make
it ok in the future?


>
> JB

[OzOne]

On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 22:08:31 GMT, "Shane" <sdw@coolcats.net.au>
scribbled thusly:

>That's where you're wrong. Most people support the speed limits and in
>addition to that the way they're enforced. Go have a read of any number of
>surveys indicating this. The only reason most people say they speed from
>time to time is because the chances of being caught are so small it's hardly
>worth mentioning and those who admitted to speeding did so at speeds that
>were under the allowable tolerances therefore making detection all but
>impossible anyway. Farkkkkk If it was put to me I'd have to say I sped too.
>Does that make me a supported of higher speed limits? No it doesn't and the
>majority of the population also support this notion.
>
Hmmm, "Most people support the speed limits" yet damn near everybody
speeds because they won't get caught.

Interesting!


Oz1...of the 3 twins.

I welcome you to crackerbox palace,We've been expecting you.

[Bernd Felsche]

"Shane" <sdw@coolcats.net.au> writes:
>"BenOne©" <nosp@m.thanks.mate> wrote in message
>news:mp9hlc.4vd.ln@192.168.11.2...
>> Jeßus wrote:
>>> The Interceptor wrote:

>>>>I was driving down a highway today doing about 85 km/h or so.
>>>>It's a 70 km/h zone. So obviously I'm going straight to hell,
>>>>but it seemed that just about everyone else around me was doing
>>>>the same speed. What's wrong with this scenario? Could it be
>>>>that the speed limit is too low?

>>> Could be too low... but anyway lets face it - they could up it
>>> to 120 km/h and most ppl will then want to do 130km/h in that
>>> zone.

>> Bullshit!

>> Driving around on the weekend I found people always passed me
>> when I slowed to 80 or 60, but I passed them again when the limit
>> went back up to 100.

>Well that's proof beyond a reasonable doubt. That'll do me.

More substantial proof than the current practice of Main Roads and
local councils to have their traffic qualifier data skewed by the
presence of speed cameras in their (temporal or spatial) vicinity.
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | I'm a .signature virus!
X against HTML mail | Copy me into your ~/.signature
/ \ and postings | to help me spread!