Tried twice again and in???...
Welcome to this years Premiers - The Tuff Talkin Toddys...

This is pretty awful viewing this Michael Jackson stuff....


I wonder when Dman will ever come out & expose Idiot Des about what goes on behind closed doors in his Fortress on the northern beaches??

Des is so bad, his own players are feigning injury just to avoid having to train or play in the team.....
Others have tried doing illegal things to get a court or the NRL to rule them out!

Here goes another moron "expert" with complete disregard for human lifestyle....

Why stop at 30? Why not 10? I'm sure he's dumb statistics will show an even greater reduction than 30.

MORON

https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/proven-ways-to-reduce-road-deaths-and-injuries-20190221-p50zaq.html

Marki, I am sure people who live in rural areas (like myself) absolutely enjoy travelling long distances between towns at 80 km/h adding many unnessecary hours on the road. It's obvious this clown hasn't factored in fatigue statistics.

should be reduced to 80 km/h. "That is the absolute survivable limit of a head on or run-off the road crash into a tree," he said.

I'd have thought there was a difference between hitting a stationary object and two objects colliding head on at 80kmh each...

dman, it's quite obvious you are a city dweller. Lowering the speed limit doesn't save lives at all, you can be killed at 20km/h if you hit another object the wrong way. There are lots of conditions that cause death, admittedly excessive speed is one of them, alcohol and drugs are in the mix also but the condition of the road, the condition of the vehicle, the condition of the driver, weather conditions, the experience of the driver, these all play a part in an accident. These so called experts pinpoint on one hair-brained idea and think some unfounded theory will eliminate road deaths. With that thinking in mind, if you lock your car in the garage and never drive it, the chances of you having an accident in that vehicle is reduced to zero therefore saving your life.

sorry dman, I just re-read your reply and you are not agreeing with this d!ck at all. apologies dude.

I never watched the expose on Michael Jackson...neither did Michael Jackson...it is easy to slam someone who is dead and has no right of reply. As much as I think him weird I really don't think he was some evil paedophile...but then again those who didn't at the time like the dollar signs they see. Maybe I am wrong. But I would like a more even account of things. I would add I hate all of Michael Jackson's music...except perhaps "Ben"...a song about a rat.

Very well said ODF.
I'd prefer they called YOU the expert instead of this clown.

Speed seems to be the scapegoat in all this debate and all these speed reductions do is worsen the way of life of everyone.
No country has ever solved this problem so what the "experts" really need to do is accept a certain average road toll number for the population.

By all means, try and reduce it. Try it by encouraging safe driving and providing roads that limit the chance of fatal or major accidents.
But for goodness sake, stop blaming the speed limit!

Easy tom say "accept a certain average road toll number for the population" when they're all strangers.

But ok Marki, that boy of yours that you had in your avator. Tell me you'll accept it if he's killed by a driver, sober as a judge, driving an old clunker, street legal but you know.... doing the speed limit on a 90 kmh single lane road as we find up on here on the coast.

You'll accept it right?

I can promise you I wouldn't. I'm not gonna say there should be 80k limits everywhere, but I can promise you there's some roads up here, one I drive on every day, that are 90klm and they're f***in' death traps, Speed limit should be 70 tops on them.

Zef, it has to be in perspective...
Sure there are areas where a lower limit may be warranted or even needed but let's no throw tge baby out with the bathwater. 

If I drive to work and normally takes 40mins but with reduced speed limits that journey becomes 50mins, I either have to get up earlier or "make up" time by jag walking across city streets on a red signal rather than wait for the green man. I could be hit and killed just the same. 

Sure it's not an event that happens all the time but you can see what I'm getting at. We cant keep reducing the limit until we get to zero death toll. It's not plausible. 

I just drove passed Skye Winter bridge near Campbelltown.... she was the little girl killed when a crim tried to outrun a police pursuit. I never knew her but I always think about her when I drive passed the bridge. A sad event but unfortunately one that cant be eradicated unless you ban cars altogether.

Look, you're not doing your argument with me and i doubt anyone else any good if it's that it t takes you 10 more mins to get to work, so you have to get up 10 mins earlier.

And............................................?

110 on freeways, 90 duel lane rurals, capped at 80 any other roads, inc and especially 1 lane roads, 60 in the suburbs, 50 in some, 40 at schools.

You telling me you can't live with that?

The trouble with everyone who wants to drive faster, is that they think they can drive.

Yeah......

Until some idiot who can't drive crosses their path. THAT'S when you'll find out if you really can drive or not.

I walked away without a scratch from 3 car writeoffs before I was 25, back when I thought I could drive but I really couldn't. Two my fault, one through speed, one through an idiotic u-turn, the last time t-boned by someone going through a red light - they caved in the rear drivers side door almost to the other side of the car, imagine if they hit the front one.

Since then not an incident in 30 years, 1 ticket.

Because I drive like it could kill me, now I can drive.

I'll say one thing though in favour of the speed freaks.

The most dangerous driver on the M1 where it's 110 - is the one driving at 90klm or lower.

Here is my late thoughts on the trail game.

Overall very happy.

The game swung on a dropped ball from Olive, then the left side defence of Cogger, Olive and Okunbor has a major weakness which Canberra exploited resulting in 2 fairly soft tries and a line break which lead the the sin binning of Martin.
All 3 were to blame but Okunbor at least tried to read play and fully commit to a decision.
Cogger looked OK, in the first half defending on the right side with Holland.
Out of the 5 candidates for  centre, Holland, Hoppa, Smith, Harper and Olive, Olive is the weakest defender.
So what stood out to me the the trial was:-
1. Olive is not an NRL player, and is most unlikely to ever become one.
2. Lewis was very good significantly better than Cogger - Cogger was OK in the first half, but needs to work on defence.
3. Lichaa looked significantly better than JMK in attack and defence.
4. Hoppa looked like the best full back, but we didn't have many opportunities when Meaney was playing.
5. All of the forwards were good lead, by the usual suspects, Jackson, Tolman, Nappa, Elliott and RFM.
6. Special mention to Sue and Smith who were very good.
7. I'm happy with most of the backs, but Holland, Smith and Hoppa were the standouts.
8. Crichton  was OK IMO.
Taking everything into consideration, the round 1 side practically picks itself. 

Zef, I don't disagree with you regarding speed limits being lowered on certain thoroughfares such as narrow suburban streets, school zones, around shopping centres anywhere pedestrians are on or near the roadway. As I live in rural NSW where major centres are 100, 150 and even 200 km apart, the continuous lowering of speed limits forces people to drive for longer periods and as you are aware the longer you are "on the road" the greater the risk becomes of being involved in an incident, plus fatigue becomes a factor in the driving experience. I am not suggesting the government just re-instate higher speed limits, I am saying the government needs to upgrade the roads to an acceptable level for vehicles to be able to safely travel at increased speeds. A good start for Gladys is to construct better roads rather than waste our tax dollars on a new stadium.

You're talking about an infrastructure problem, not a speed limit problem.

They are related. If you keep ignoring the condition of our roads it is inevitable that reducing the speed limit is the only course of action. The politicians are failing their duty and they clearly know it.

You do realise that if you drove a little faster on that u-turn you would have completed the turn before the guy T-boned you!

In all seriousness though, you have to accept that some deaths are a result of bad timing. There are numerous examples of cars losing control and smashing into other side drivers who happen to be at that place at the unfortunate time....

A few seconds earlier or later and that smash doesn't happen. 

Speed is just a factor of magnitude of impact. 

I'm not advocating for speed to be increased, except on major arterial roads where it is clear that the road should be no less than 70kph. These roads are there for moving people around the city in an efficient manner. There should be a commitment to remove homes from these roads

What I'm trying to say is that there is no need to drop limits any further. We have already reached (or surpassed) the threshold where it is not effective enough to lower it. 

This clown just wants to leave a legacy and justify his existence. 

I believe there's a direct correlation between road rage and the variable speed limits introduced in the last few decades.

This road rage can then be the reason for accidents further up the road. 

It's something that has crept into the driving habits of many people (I'm guilty of it) which makes me break the law further down the trip. I'm sure there are more out there like me.

And believe it or not, it's not people who make mistakes on the road that get me riled.....its slow cars (Toyotas) or hesitant drivers - particularly at roundabouts. 

Time is precious for many people. Congestion and slowing down on the road will only result in more road rage and more road rule breakers. 

Marki all drivers should exercise patience and manners on the road and in particular driving around Sydney plan adequate time for the trip.

Part of manners is not unnecessarily holding other drivers up, but traffic and congestion, older, inexperienced, or less confident drivers are a fact of life, if your lack of planning causes you to drive like and idiot and cause an accident, it is 100% all your fault regardless of any slower driver you might have encountered.

Good driving is smooth driving where you don't cause another car to suddenly alter speed or direction because you drive in a clear controlled easy to predict fashion. IMO most accidents or near accidents are from people with a lack of patience and manners doing something sudden and unpredictable, they are relying on most other drivers being good enough to adjust and usually they are.

As modern cars are improving they are safer to drive and there is no need to lower speed limits, unless the speed limit was to high to begin with. But most accidents these days are caused by texting, talking on mobile phones, or a lack of patience and manners.

In regional locations like where I live things are far apart and lowering the speed limit adds to journeys as well we are a tourist area and the biggest annoyance for impatient drivers is tourists, who drive slowly and admire the view.  But the facts are tourists are paying money to be here, and are vital to the local economy, we also know in advance, that they will be on the road in the holiday season. So while it is annoying the reality is you your can plan and manage your time 5 minutes extra on a trip is nothing, just relax and enjoy the same view. 

Good driving is not driving so as to confuse so reckon paragraph 3 is right on

I notice a lot of drivers now do not know how to turn right where there are traffic lights, I would suggest it is bad habits passed on by family members as in my experience driving schools do it correctly. I learned way back in the day on a VW Beetle and the instructor from Barnes Driving School would say move into the intersection and if you don't get a break you can turn when the light changes but make sure the **** coming through stops first. Now, they will go when a right hand turn arrow gives them directions but stay anchored behind the line until the next change of light. I would only surmise that when learning to drive a family member told them to do this perhaps a dad worried about a car possibly being damaged. Now this is obvious but there are perhaps other things where the driver has been incorrectly instructed by family members. 

Steve, another one of my pet hates but to be fair, this is more a result of red light camera fears and fear of getting pinged by a cop than any passed on bad habits.....

HD with all respect.... you have no idea what it's like to drive in Sydney these days.....

I drove around downtown L.A. back-end of 2017 and thought it had nothing on Sydney......

This...
I've done a few defensive driver courses through work...
Unsurprisingly im a great driver... But not so great I can accommodate for others errors all the time; despite the fact I look ahead and never look at my passenger... I hit stuff I was sure I'd miss at speed... And by speed I mean 80....
Changed my technique over night; I now drive a car like I used to drive  truck... 

If they really wanted to change stuff, they'd stop all the TV adds showing a fekking corolla etc pulling maneuvers at high speed and put limiters on vehicles... Those ads are no worse than alcohol or ciggie ads...
Typically corp beats govts... 
There is no reason in a country with a max speed limit of 110 for personal conveyances should be able to hit 150 or above...
Now I wait for the going thatvfast helps you avoid incidents line... Its crap...
Every learner driver should have to spend a day in the passenger seat of a truck, and visit a crash victim in hospital...

Drive the  roads from Bangkok to Sangkhla if you want to learn fear...
Melbourne still has the worst drivers in the world...