The GTVeloce.com-munity

Let's define terms - by speeding we mean to say excessive, deliberate or inadvertent velocity beyond a posted speed limit. Legally it's anything above the speed limit, be it 1kmh or 5 kmh. But let's be generous and define excessive speed at anything beyond 5kmh above; although a case could be put for 10kmh, or perhaps more logically a 5-10% buffer above the posted limit. I'd recommend no more than 5% myself and would back 100% compliance if pushed, but it's open for debate. I'm simply allowing for some variation in attention, practical effects imposed by local hills (both going up and down) and inaccuracy in speedometers.

OK, so why is excessive speeding bad? Plenty of people do it. I stick pretty rigidly to the limit, as do most people, by what I see. But maybe 30% of drivers either miss a sign or choose to ignore it. By that I mean 60-70 in a 50kmh zone (past my house!) is pretty common. And 120-130 in a 100kmh zone, for another example. Hey, it happens, sure. Sometimes you just have to get someplace and are running late. But do you understand the risks and the impact on others, or do you just think the law's an ass and out to get you for no good reason?

Here are my top reasons to slow down and stick to the posted limit:

1. Traffic is more predictable when it flows at the same rate; by speeding at whatever rate you choose you are by nature unpredictable and are the cause of disturbance and risk to all traffic. Don't let anyone tell you it's 'safer' to speed, no matter what the stats supposedly say! (There are lies, damned lies and statistics... you can correlate something with anything if you try hard enough!)
2. Other drivers cannot as easily judge a speeding vehicle's closing distance and will seemingly jump out in front of you at intersections and make 'sudden' and inopportune lane changes or other manoeuvers. Slow down, let people come out of their driveways and intersections without having to guess what speed you may have chosen today. Let me guess, currently you are blaming them for your poor judgement!
3. Speeding screws up the traffic; by gaining on the cars ahead you eventually meet them and cluster in a group, forming an unnecessary bottleneck, especially when a hazard or delay is reached. Why not stay back, don't gain on those ahead, stay at the same pace and let the traffic flow?
4. By speeding you reduce your reaction time to the unexpected. Unless you are on a road with no other traffic, no potholes, no animals, no driveways, no intersections and no other unexpected obstacles, what makes you think it's safe to choose any speed you like?
5. Faster means more energy expended; so not only are you burning more gas and making more air and noise pollution you have raised the energy level in any collision that occurs. Instead, slow down, reduce the cost of your travel and reduce any impacts that may occur. Don't imagine it's more 'efficient' to go faster - any open road gains are lost above about 80kmh and in city driving any speed gained in quickly lost as heat when you apply the brakes for the next red light. Slow down, anticipate traffic flows and see the $ benefit yourself!
6. Other people live here too. Just because you can get away with it, why is it right to speed past other people's homes, workplaces, parks or whatever? It may seem 'safe' but only because other people fear death or injury and have learned to lock their kids and pets away from the roads and to shut doors and windows to keep the noise and fumes out
7. In summary, speeding is plain selfish and simply bad manners - why do you think that you can cause disruption to traffic, get ahead of everyone else, cause undue noise and fear and raise the risk of injury for everyone?

In answer to that last question, you are probably not even thinking about it, just doing what you see done to you. Whilst we respect each other when we meet face to face and usually don't push into queues, when sealed in our steel capsules the normal rules and niceties go out the window and it's open season on civilised behaviour. Why not set an example and buck the trend?

The topic of governing a car's speed comes up whenever a rash of crashes occurs and gets aired; these are usually fatal crashes and involve families, or young drivers in modded cars. It gets noticed. First thought, it's a statistical anomoly - just get over it. Second thought, it could be me one of those anomolies runs into next time.

So is governing good? Rules are made to be broken (or so the story goes!) and in the heat of driving some rules get forgotten. Whilst we tend to cool down as we get older, it still happens - especially to guys. "None shall pass" can be a rule to die for, beyond any road rules that may apply. You see it all the time - well I do - on the roads around Sydney. One car has to get past another, just because. To get ahead. To avoid a potential delay - even if the delay would be zilch by the end of the trip. You see a gap, a way to get ahead of everyone else and you take it. Forget manners, or concern for others. It usually involves some extra degree of risk, too. Some extra speed, an unnecessary lane change, some late braking or going 'round a curve a bit faster than is absolutely safe. We all do it, even if it's by accident.

So will governing a car car fix it? Nope, not as we understand governing. Governing as it stands will cut additional torque delivery when you hit a certain speed, irrespective of local limits. You can still speed, still do crazy last-minute manoeuvers. What we really need, if we are serious about stopping injuries on our roads is a major attitude change all round.

Cars should be made safer, even if that means you make it harder to get into it and harder or more uncomfortable to drive. Yes, harnesses, rollbars and helmets - all modded to suit road use, but all designed to make the car safer in an accident.

Smart cars could monitor local limits and let us know of dangers - and yes, possibly even govern our speed if we appear to have 'missed' a speed sign. But only 'smart', GPS, Cellphone or RFID-based governance would work, not the crude stuff we use locally on trucks in Australia.

Drivers should be better at driving. They should be better trained, better disciplined, more thoroughly monitored. Even if that impinges on so-called liberties and actually makes it harder to get a licence and keep it.

Roads should be funded by actual recoveries and fuel priced to reflect the real costs involved. Stop subsidising fuel and road infrastructure - price it to reflect the social and environmental costs.

With the possible exception of some of the 'smart car' stuff little of this will happen, simply because we like our 'liberties' too much. We don't want safe cars, we want ease of access, ease of use, a car at the door and to the door with no effort required. We want the thrills and the risks coupled with the "right" to drive. But we don't want to have to earn that right, do we?

At last an Aussie newspaper wakes up and realises that whilst personal car use is subsidised we will continue to over-use petrol and over-invest in vehicular infrastructure, effectively running down public transport at the same time. You can't have it both ways as the SMH says. Excellent. About time.

Make note - this is not the "Drive" section! It's in "Business". Can't have such logical thoughts expressed in the motoring section, can we?

In a nutshell, we have as a community, indeed as a global community, undervalued and underpriced petrol. Whilst we generally leave the market to decide pricing, in fact by providing community-owned infrastructure (roads, for example) at cost or below and by propping up car manufacturers with subsidies we have chosen short-term growth and employment over long-term sustainability. It's a distorted market because the true cost of using oil is not addressed in the price paid - the community carries the can on much of the infrastructure and the 'clean up' of health and environmental impacts.

Since the 'oil shock' of 1973 we have steadily increased the price by means of taxes as well as producer cartel activity, however consumers have protested politically and driven the cost down when it should be going much higher. We have even gone to war over the damned stuff in order to keep Joe Public happy with the end user price. In my opinion, anyway!

Did you read this? thecarconnection.com and AP reports that "the increasing girth of American children has led car-seat makers to super-size their products. The Associated Press says that more than 250,000 children between one and six years old are too big for their car seats, a problem that can lead to injury in accidents from poor-fitting seats and improper installation. More than 23 percent of kids from ages two to five are overweight, the AP cites from government data, and more than ten percent of children in the same age range were obese in the 2001-02 time frame. Seatmakers are responding by making seats that are wider and outfitted with stronger materials to withstand the forces generated in an accident by a larger child."

Don't want to be nasty to the kids in question, but isn't this cause and effect in action? Get driven around everywhere, eat more calories than you burn, you get fat. Solution? Eat less or walk more. Whilst beefing up the seats is a very practical response it's also a tad sad. Do you agree?