| DOES SPEED KILL? __________________ I am not discussing the drug, I am discussing the notion of a body coming from a state of rest to a state of movement and the means whereby. As everyone (?) must know, any change in motion of a body must result in a change of that body's state. That change results and reflects in the effects upon that-body-in motion from a state of rest to a state of movement. In other words, get up too quickly and you may bump your head. Option: don't get up. Life itself, is a risk. Any movement could result in injury. Option: do not move. The notion that speed kills is a spurious one. Speed is the acceleration (movement) of a body from a resting position (non-movement) to a motion forwards or backwards during a particular time. Speed is the amount of movement from rest to movement in a particular time. In itself, 'speed' is only a word. The word 'speed' does not kill. Acting (movement) at speed may do so. As I said, Life is a risk; we need to move; that is a consequence of our biological life. A fly must fly. It is important to remember that going too slowly may be as dangerous as going too fast in a given situation. The problem is the speed only in relation to an outcome. It is that outcome that is in question, not the speed of its performance. 'Driving' a motor vehicle. I have single-quoted 'driving' since this notion of propelling oneself in (or upon) a mechanised vehicle (self-propelled or otherwise), is one that is familiar to most people in what is chosen, here in Australia at least, to be called a 'civilised' country. Of course, 'driving' is the operative word (in both senses). 'Civilised' is another matter. Most people do not drive (see definition below). Most people propel their vehicles with a gay abandon that does not include this definition. Death and injury 'statistics' 'prove' that. To Drive: (a definition): a) The ability to get a stationary vehicle into movement without preventing the egress of another. b) The ability to consequently propel that vehicle (by whatever means commensurate on the properties of that vehicle) onto a described path with the intent to get to some destination (the Task). c) The ability to consider other drivers' equal opportunities of using that same path (and possibly at the same time), without hindering the other 'driver's' course (commonly called 'courtesy' and what are considered to be rules to that effect to prevent danger to oneself and others). d) The ability to consider these 'rules' as appropriate to the Task. That is, considering the other road-user/s intent (i.e. completing the same Task as you). These rules are self-regulatory, they do not need 'laws' to confirm them. "'Laws are made for 'controllers, not for the general public who pay heavily for them"). e) The ability to drive to the conditions of the roads. THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT. It is held in the least regard by 'drivers' in this country (and other countries). The conditions of the road (path to destination) is a fundamental. It is not taught; it is learned. It is not taught, therefore, it is LETHAL. The responsibility lies with those who 'teach' and those who let them. 'Governmental' Restrictions on the use of a road-user's entitlement of egress 'Speed' restrictions, were once considered to be part of the rules to which behaviour on the roads was conducive. They were statements by people who travelled the roads, using their expertise. In other words, they were the parameters which helped motorists decide on the appropriate method of negotiating their task to get to a destination. Nowadays, these 'speed restrictions' are indicators (for those who deem to control us), to generate revenue from their spurious and incongruous usage and the means by which this is effected. The subject of having a 'police force' (the word 'force' is paramount to political control of the people for whom your are servants) is the subject of another letter. I am specifically referring to Australian 'drivers' because I choose to live here (though less so in view of the serious desecration of this country by politicians). I have driven extensively over most parts of the world. I attach no 'blame' to a country's inability to observe rules of behaviour (whatever they may be). My observations are that Australia is a country of restrictive practices; not only in driving. However, 'driving' is my thrust here, not the disgusting political/police state this so-called 'country' has become. Australian 'drivers' have little or no concept of lane discipline, parking (i.e. backing into a space rather than driving into it and backing out), the negotiation of round-a-bouts, they have very little or no consideration of /for other road users, pedestrians, cyclists (motor or otherwise), or signalling intentions of their movements. Whether these subjects are part of the 'Australian Idea' or whether they are consequent upon ignorance, is any one's guess. My observation of deaths on roads in WA, are at least, borne out by the amount of 'crosses' on the road-side of perfectly straight, negotiable roads in fine conditions. This indicates that there is a real problem. These 'accidents' are ONLY related to speed in the sense that the owners of those vehicles cannot or have not the driving skills to allow them to proceed to their destination. There may be other factors (drugs, drink an so forth). If at fault, it is the instructors of these people who have failed in their duty to instruct correctly. If, at fault, it is the persons who allow the instructors to teach. Teachers of others' (as with all teachers) must be competent in their own skills. They must have a wide experience of driving conditions in other countries than this one, where the weather (for example) is a major factor in getting from A to B. Would-be drivers are not taught to drive at 'speed' or on 'Freeways'. They are rarely taught to drive at night (with its consequent dangers of reduced visibility and distance-spacing and so on). Time. I think, to get your act together, Minister. If it's for the 'too-hard basket', get another job. |
| Return to CONTENTS page |