Search  
Sunday, May 20, 2012 ..:: Forum ::.. Register  Login
 Please Register Minimize

Please register to be able to post to the forum. Click on Register in the upper right corner of the page.

      

 Forum Minimize

SearchForum Home
  Discussions  Have Your Say  Vote CLP ...
 Re: Vote CLP
 
 8/25/2009 5:12:01 PM
Neveragain
123 posts
3rd


Re: Vote CLP

the CLP are wavering...... If they do not stand by their word, there wil be no votes from this family. That is only 4 votes. But I am sure that many more will also votes for thin air!! (ie informal)

 

http://www.ntnews.com.au/article/2009/08/25/78471_ntnews.html

 8/25/2009 6:53:46 PM
BMW E46
38 posts
5th


Re: Vote CLP
If you get to the second paragraph it reads, "But other sections were safe enough to scrap the speed limit altogether." I agree that having open slather on 100% of our open highways may leave inexperienced drivers in trouble. Speed Advisory signs, (uno, those yellow diamond ones) in conjunction Open Limits are the way to go as they give reasonable advice to inexperienced travelers.
(/ /) - Divorces Traffic (130) - Marries It.
 8/25/2009 7:11:49 PM
BMW E46
38 posts
5th


Re: Vote CLP
& whats the with Gerry Wood not supporting the motion to re-instate? 'Independent MLA Gerry Wood did not support the motion, despite campaigning strongly against the speed limit three years ago.' C.O. www.ntnews.com.au
(/ /) - Divorces Traffic (130) - Marries It.
 8/26/2009 6:19:28 PM
Keepleft
72 posts
4th


Re: Vote CLP
Update, 13 August 2009
NSW group threatens NT over speed limits (Harold Scruby)

 "I am linking this to a cult of hillbilly politics coupled with unbridled apathy," he said.

Mr Scruby, who lives in NSW, said the speed limit was introduced after he threatened Ms Martin to launch a campaign warning tourists to stay away from the Territory.

Harold, Harold, Harold; you try very-hard, but no matter how hard and often you 'try', you just can't get it right can you??


Update, 24 August 2009 - NT speed limits 'working'
http://www.ntnews.com.au/article/2009/08/24/78001_ntnews.html
 Territory doctors from the Royal Australian College of Physicians wrote to the Northern Territory News to say they were "extremely concerned" at the CLP move to overturn the 130km/h rule.

The "doctors" can calm down a little, re-introduction of (//) is to apply to lengths of high-standard rural highway where it is quite pointless to have a speed-limit.

Doctors, need to understand, and this is NOT very difficult to comprehend dear's, is that since NT last had (//), *new* L-P2 category license holders since then introduced, WHEN on proposed (//) lengths of highway CANNOT EXCEED THE "LICENSE CONDITION" IMPOSED SPEED-LIMIT that can, and does apply typically to such holders, usually in the 80-100km/h range.

That means ladies, the inexperienced and immature CANNOT then go too fast.

Much 'dumb' hysteria applies by such groups.

If the "Royal Australian College of Physicians" NT membership, or others, were even remotely serious "about all things that can be done to reduce the road toll", you lot WOULD have advocated long ago, to mandate a triangle and safety vest per car, you would have advocated for a mandatory rear fog ADR rather than accept our useless 'optional' allowance.

Until the militant college membership mature somewhat, this advocate can take little notice. (Get my way in NSW and I'll have doctors *removed* from particular rescue choppers, unless requested per journey, this is the stuff for fit paramedics, not doctors taking the health system for a rort dollar ride).

Everything reader is political. What we have here is a sudden, ongoing organised campaign by more extreme-left personality types, who use 'the resources of the state' against any political party that might oppose their 'agenda'.


Update August 25, 2009:-
CLP in 130km speed limits U-turn

[url]http://www.ntnews.com.au/article/2009/08/25/78471_ntnews.html[/url]

Despite NT News getting the headline plain "WRONG", what we have here, as stated in description by CLP's Peter Chandler is "SPEED ZONING", and its all perfectly normal on most asphalt Aussie roads; where the same and lower speed-limits will apply to some lengths of currently 130km/h zoned highways, and speed derestriction simply applied to 'safer' sections of NT highway.

But not (//) as a rural default either, and that is livable, since 'default' rural roads are usually, 'tracks'!

Its really not that hard to understand.

Those who seek ongoing societal 'restrictions' need to learn this;- LIVE with speed and engineer and work for its ultimate safety, rather than against it. Your ongoing dumbing-down hysteria campaigns are doomed to failure, your actions bring speed-limits into disrepute leading to general non compliance, despite BIG scare fines and seasonal 'speed' campaigns.

Nobody likes an idiot who is obviously going too fast, and that has bugger all to do with (//) nor with with speed-limits.

http://www.fordforums.com.au/showthread.php?p=2820819

Purchase a hazard-warning triangle for use at crash scenes and breakdowns, mandatory in Europe, the triangle is used to improve on the warning time given to approaching traffic. I suggest Hella Part Number 2901.
 8/26/2009 9:08:28 PM
Administrator
131 posts
3rd


Re: Vote CLP
 Modified By Administrator  on 8/26/2009 9:49:13 PM)

Do not despair Neveragain, we have had discussions with the CLP and they are 100% committed to repeal the 130km/ph speed limit and I must say that I am proud that they are keeping their word.  Despite a constant stream of misinformation to make us all believe that this law is necessary they have stuck to the truth and not given in. 

 

The so-called success of the capped speed limits it not all what it's cracked up to be by authorities and in particularly, the Labor Government.

 

Fatality        Years                                                                          
        1999    2000    2001    2002    2003    2004    2005    2006    2007    2008   
Total   49      51      50      55      53      35      55      44      57      75     
130     8       11      16      16      16      11      14      6       7       7      
110     15      10      18      26      17      5       10      8       25      15     
_____________________________________________________________________
 
Fatality        Years                                                                          
        1999    2000    2001    2002    2003    2004    2005    2006    2007    2008   
130     16.3%   21.6%   32.0%   29.1%   30.2%   31.4%   25.5%   13.6%   12.3%   9.3%   
110     30.6%   19.6%   36.0%   47.3%   32.1%   14.3%   18.2%   18.2%   43.9%   20.0%  
________________________________________________________________________
 
Regardless of the exact causes, the road toll in the NT increased significantly in the two years immediately after its introduction. In 2006, the year before the raft of NT Road Law changes, the toll was 44, and including 2006 the average toll per annum was 49.

 

In 2007 the toll was 57 and in 2008 a 16 year high of 75 deaths was reached. If we average 2007 and 2008 we get an annual toll of 66 which is 34.7% higher than the average for the decade before the road rules were changed.

 

This makes an absolute mockery of Assistant Commissioner Kelly's claim that there were "25% less fatal accidents". Of course, statistics can tell almost any story you want because theoretically maybe there were actually 25% less fatal accidents, this could be entirely true. BUT, if there were multiple people killed in those accidents, then you end up with more fatalities.

 

The truth is, 44 people died on NT roads in 2006, the last year before the introduction of various rules & regulations to reduce the death toll & injuries, and in 2007/08 the road toll increased by, on average, 50% over 2006.

 

Earlier this year the NT Labor Government tried to claim that the speed limits on the previously unrestricted highways was effective in reducing deaths. This is not so, but the government twisted the statistics to paint a rosy picture.

 

The government claimed that as a percentage of overall deaths the deaths on the highways had reduced and was therefore a success. This is simply manipulation of statistics because the "real" numbers paint a completely different picture.

 

On the highways that are now 130kmh limited, in 2006 6 people died, but in both 2007 & 2008 7 people died. This is an increase of only 1 but is nevertheless an increase. The government glossed over the truth by saying that as a percentage of all deaths, deaths on these highways was down. Sure this is true, BUT remember, in those two years the road toll increased significantly.

 

Also, on the highways that are 110 limited, in 2006 8 people died. In years 2007 and 2008, 25 & 15 people died respectively on these roads which is a significant increase of 150%. Again, the Government said that as a percentage of overall deaths that deaths on these roads had decreased. Well, the actual numbers paint a completely different picture.

 

The significant increase in deaths in the 110kmh zones, on face value, paints a picture of fatigue and probably boredom. How else can you possibly explain such a dramatic increase? This totally flies in the face of reduce speed campaigners because if we go slower we are supposedly safe. NT's experiment de-bunks this myth totally.

  Discussions  Have Your Say  Vote CLP ...

Search  Forum Home       

Copyright © 2006 - Keep NT Limit Free   Terms Of Use  Privacy Statement