Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

how is he luckly not to be dead? He could of been going 80 and went into the back of a ute and lost his head on some timber. Fact is speed has never killed anyone (apart from the drug) people are going to continue to speed so some of you saying it's making it harder for the rest of you must be dulisional. I've riden a motorcycle at nearly that speed plus 80 clicks and i'm not dead.

If you beleive "speed kills" like the government would have us believe you are a fool.

Who cares he got caught now hes gonna pay for it.

And now you say "ohh he could of hurt someone" well no shit but he didn't so who cares? he could kill someone at 80 just as well as he could at 200.

umm, how can u deny that doing 250% more speed than other drivers on road doesn't increase your chances of an accident, especially if your weaving in and out of traffic. and u admit to doing 200km/h on a bike, now that's stupid. Speed HAS killed plenty of people on the roads eg, taking a corner too fast. the faster u go, the longer it takes to stop, it's that simple. 4 people at my high school were killed in a car crash bcoz they took a corner too fast and lost control. every1 speeds, yes, but doing 200 in a 80 zone is just ludicrous....

  • Replies 82
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Statistics show that there is an increased likely hood of having an accident when speeding. Its black and white. It doesn't only come down to the control factor- what if the car hadn't been maintained, wasn't roadworthy etc. These factors would only compound the likelyhood of an accident.

The fact that his g/f was in the car- frankly she is the brainless one who allowed him to speed. I'm sure she could've opened her mouth if she wasn't comfortable. Dumb x2. People make choices- sadly they are not always the right choices.

If you beleive "speed kills" like the government would have us believe you are a fool.

Who cares he got caught now hes gonna pay for it.

And now you say "ohh he could of hurt someone" well no shit but he didn't so who cares? he could kill someone at 80 just as well as he could at 200.

he could kill a member of your familly at 40k's.

sure 40 or 80 will cause damage, but the point is, 200 is cause a LOT more damage

i do believe 'speed kills'

i do believe 'speed kills'

I agree, Rules aren't there to be broken, they are there as a comprimise for everyone, they are the "safest" way about things! It's not hard to follow, If you can't grow up and live life following those rules then go back to your mum and suck on her tit some more!!!! :cool:

I couldn't give a rats ass if this guy had died.......... He speeds, His issue! BUT when there is other innocent people involed, then it becomes more of a community thing!

Edited by Deluxe
how is he luckly not to be dead? He could of been going 80 and went into the back of a ute and lost his head on some timber. Fact is speed has never killed anyone (apart from the drug) people are going to continue to speed so some of you saying it's making it harder for the rest of you must be dulisional. I've riden a motorcycle at nearly that speed plus 80 clicks and i'm not dead.

If you beleive "speed kills" like the government would have us believe you are a fool.

Who cares he got caught now hes gonna pay for it.

And now you say "ohh he could of hurt someone" well no shit but he didn't so who cares? he could kill someone at 80 just as well as he could at 200.

Yeah speed doesn't kill... it's the sudden deceleratation that gets you every time.

I'm guessing 200 in a 80 zone has a far higher chance of killing yourself or someone else when compared to 80 in a 80 zone. If you say otherwise then you're dreamin... and have fun on the 'other side'.

I think its more dangerous that other road users wont know you are speeding, and there fore will do something to cause you to crash. and hence why you should only do 60 on a 60 road. even tho I wont lie, I may have sped occasionaly in the past, but only under perfect "safe" circumstances.

but only under perfect "safe" circumstances

There is no such thing as Perfect Safe circumstances. There is only reduced risk :domokun:

But this thread reminds me of a quote on a "No Fear" poster from the mid 90's

"It's not the pace of life that concerns me. It's the sudden stop at the end."

personally, speeding (ie 100 in 60 metro zone) in a built up area is a big NoNo in my mind, whereas speeding in a rural zone to me is 'sortof' ok. as long as you are prepared to accept the consequences for your actions.

There is no such thing as Perfect Safe circumstances. There is only reduced risk :P

But this thread reminds me of a quote on a "No Fear" poster from the mid 90's

"It's not the pace of life that concerns me. It's the sudden stop at the end."

Ok then. When overtaking a car you are only allowed to do so at the posted speed limit. So if a car is doing 95 in a 100 zone you can only legally overtake at 100. I personally perfer to spend as little time as possible in the worng lane. But if you want to crawl past while spending around a kilometer in the wrong lane go ahead.

Ok then. When overtaking a car you are only allowed to do so at the posted speed limit. So if a car is doing 95 in a 100 zone you can only legally overtake at 100. I personally perfer to spend as little time as possible in the worng lane. But if you want to crawl past while spending around a kilometer in the wrong lane go ahead.

I think you missed the point of my post. I wasn't saying that I you shoul never speed, however, There is literally no "perfect safe" place to do it. I agree that when overtaking, do it as quick as reasonably possible (you are reducing the time on the wrong side) and then return to the speed limit as quick as possible. This way you have reduced the risk which was the point of my post. You can only ever reduce the risk, you can never eliminate it. That is what I was trying to point out :P

theres no "perfect safe" with anything in life.

As homer said "You could wake up dead tomorrow"

Australia is such a draconian country as it is. We are the biggest pussies around. We complain about shit the government does but never ever do a thing about it.

the problem is this doesn't stop idiots from driving.

there was a thing on the radio about a guy down at Christies being caught for drink driving for the 17th time, and he was driving with out a license. There really is no way to keep idiots off the road, short of locking them up, and i don't want to pay more taxes to keep em in the slammer :D

In actual fact the amout of money it costs in injuries & deaths caused by these dickheads, far outweighs what it costs to lock them up & prevent the accidents happening.

how is he luckly not to be dead? He could of been going 80 and went into the back of a ute and lost his head on some timber. Fact is speed has never killed anyone (apart from the drug) people are going to continue to speed so some of you saying it's making it harder for the rest of you must be dulisional. I've riden a motorcycle at nearly that speed plus 80 clicks and i'm not dead.

If you beleive "speed kills" like the government would have us believe you are a fool.

Who cares he got caught now hes gonna pay for it.

And now you say "ohh he could of hurt someone" well no shit but he didn't so who cares? he could kill someone at 80 just as well as he could at 200.

I think the key thing that's always missed is it's not how fast you go, it's where you do. There is such a thing as INAPROPRIATE speed. Personally I don't have a problem with someone doing 200 km/h on an open straight piece of road in daylight, but a busy suburban street at night is another story. Granted it may not have been the case with this 18 y.o. (not enough info) but he proved how street wise he was by getting caught in the first place.

Ok then. When overtaking a car you are only allowed to do so at the posted speed limit. So if a car is doing 95 in a 100 zone you can only legally overtake at 100. I personally perfer to spend as little time as possible in the worng lane. But if you want to crawl past while spending around a kilometer in the wrong lane go ahead.

I couldn't agree more with this statement. You should spend as little time as possible on the wrong side of the road.

Does anyone know the true laws governing this? Is "I was passing a truck" a valid excuse for speeding? I think it is, but will it hold up in court?

I grew up in a country town so I've done lots of country driving over the years and I am appalled when I see a family car attempt to pass a huge truck without going over the speed limit. Put your foot down or might not survive the pass.

Does anyone know the true laws governing this? Is "I was passing a truck" a valid excuse for speeding? I think it is, but will it hold up in court?

I grew up in a country town so I've done lots of country driving over the years and I am appalled when I see a family car attempt to pass a huge truck without going over the speed limit. Put your foot down or might not survive the pass.

no its not valid excuse as u would still be breaking the law. if the car in front of you is going a little slow, then bad luck. if they're going well below the speed limit, then u shouldn't have an issue overtaking them doing the speed limit

Amen to that, I remember my old man going 118 to over take a car going 90 in 100km zone.

cop got him, pulled him over, in the end dad almost got a 250 dollar fine, but, since the victorian cop was on the SA side of the border, he couldnt do shit. issued the fine anyway, dad never got it, never paid.

Edited by Pauly33GTS-t

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • It would be different if the sealant hadn't started to peel up with gaps in the glue about ~6cm and bigger in some areas. I would much prefer not having to do the work take them off the car . However, the filler the owner put in the roof rack mount cavities has shrunk and begun to crack on the rail delete panels. I cant trust that to hold off moisture ingress especially where I live. Not only that but I have faded paint on as well as on either side of these panels, so they would need to come off to give the roofline a proper respray. My goal is to get in there and put a healthy amount of epoxy instead of panel filler/bog and potentially skin with carbon fiber. I have 2 spare rolls from an old motorcycle fairing project from a few years back and I think it'd be a nice touch on a black stag.  I've seen some threads where people replace their roof rack delete with a welded in sheet metal part. But has anyone re-worked the roof rails themselves? It seems like there is a lot of volume there to add in some threads and maybe a keyway for a quick(er) release roof rack system. Not afraid to mill something out if I have to. It would be cool to have a cross bar only setup. That way I can keep the sleek roofline that would accept a couple bolts to gain back that extra utility  3D print some snazzy covers to hide the threaded section to be thorough and keep things covered when not using the rack. 
    • Probably not. A workshop grade scantool is my go to for proper Consult interrogation. Any workshop grade tool should do it. Just go to a workshop.
    • In my head it does make sense to be a fuel problem since that is what I touched when cleaning the system. When I was testing with the fuel pressure gauge, the pressure was constantly 2.5 bar with the FPR vacuum removed. When stalling, the pressure was going up to 3.0 bar (which is how it should be on ignition).
    • ECUtalk pages don't mention they support the ABS computer (consult port has more than one CAN), so you might just need a different scan tool. But, I would expect ABS is a different light to the brake warning/handbrake light, do you see an ABS light come on for a few seconds when you turn the key from ACC to IGN? But since you said: I'd have a look at the ABS sensors in the rear hubs to make sure they are not damaged, disconnected etc.
    • OK, if it idles at 1000+ with the AAC, its not an idle airflow problem. The cold start valve just gives extra air when the engine is cold, but you have enough air without it to idle at 1000. I think you are back to a fuel problem, sorry. Can you see the fuel pressure staying constant or does it drop as the revs drop to a stall?  
×
×
  • Create New...