NSW state-wide speed limit 90km/h?

[glenc]

NSW NRMA’s regional director Graham Blight recently told the media that the RTA’s hidden agenda is to drop the state-wide speed limit to 90km/h. Mr Blight’s allegations came as the RTA dropped the speed limit on the Newell Highway fell from 110km/h in places to 100 on December 1. Mr Blight suggests the RTA’s first step in this process is to get rid of 110km/h zones that aren’t on divided roads (read: freeways and motorways).
http://www.caradvice.com.au/50781/nsw-state-wide-speed-limit-90kmh/

[Outbackmanyep]

The RTA need to go have a good hard look at themselves, the problem is not SPEED it's the IDIOTS! Sounds like the RTA is full of them!

Add to this, when has the RTA EVER considered MORE overtaking lanes?? Probably NEVER!

[Benno85]

Watch the retailers and supermarkets pass on a price rise for the "slower" trucks if this gets passed.

[mozzie]

theres some real problems there weather its the roads or speed or other factors to many people are dieing or getting injured i dont know of a solution but something needs to be done
mozzie

[rat156]

The problem isn't speed, it lack of driving skill and too many obstacles on the side of the road. Are the road death and injury statistics far worse in Germany where there are Autobahns, where there is no speed restrictions? The answer is no, because people drive at a speed that they are comfortable with and suitable to the road and conditions. I routinely drive faster than 160 kmh in a 30+ year old car, I have never died yet. The State and Federal governments collect about $160M/day in tax from fuel alone (approx $0.40/litre, 400Ml/day), how about putting some back into driver education and better roads...

Cheers
Stuart

[pgc hunter]

This is sick. Why there is so much emphasis on speed in this country is just beyond me. :mad2: Doesn't this overbearing nanny state understand that it's drunks, idiots, and REAL speeders (people actually doing several 10's of k's over the limit) that are the real problem? Ofcourse not, because these don't bring in revenue, unlike the innocent driver who was snapped by big brother revenue camera on a 10 lane freeway doing 3 over the limit :mad2:

Here is Sab's Formula:

Lower speed limits on 100km straight wide roads and freeways = people more likely to "speed" (note quotations) = more revenue. Simple.

Why don't we just ban cars altogether and limit walking speed to 0.001km/h? That might make the PC latte sipping communist mob in parliament happy :mad2:

[Peter Ward]

Arrrggghhhhh! :mad2::mad2::mad2:

[Outbackmanyep]

On rural roads i have seen plenty of people overtaking in the wrong places, now wether it's because the drivers are stupid or they don't know the road or both then i cannot answer.
The problem is that people get annoyed when the limit is 100kmh and there is a vehicle towing a caravan doing 80 and people can't get around them.....this is where accidents occur!
Why not put more overtaking lanes in to alleviate the traffic flow problem, on rural roads there are not enough of them!

When i travel to Sydney i head along the Bucketts Way, between Nowendoc and Gloucester there are only TWO places i know that you can overtake safely, now logging trucks traverse this tight winding road all the time, and there are no safe areas with overtaking lanes to get past them....so idiots (and i have seen plenty) try to get around them on blind curves and crests and don't give a stuff about who or what is coming the other way.

The RTA need to look at this a bit harder, especially in rural areas!

[Louwai]

Yep.
It's the idiots & people that can't drive that are the problem.
Idiots that think they are indestructable.
Idiots that just don't think.
People that don't have the ability of foresight.
People that don't give a crap about anyone else on the road except themselves.
People that have no concept of speed or cornering.
People that don't have the faintest idea what their vehicle capabilities or limitations are.
People that can't read the traffic or the conditions.

THEY are the problem. Not speed.

So many people say to me that I'm crazy riding a motorcycle because they are soooo dangerous. The only time a motorcycle is dangerous is when there's an idiot in charge of it.
Exactly the same as a car, or truck or scooter. Or a boat for that matter.

[seanliddelow]

No matter what you say the people in Perth are still 10 times worse.
They cant go around roundabouts and we have roundabouts every second street :lol:

Also you get the Sunday drivers who go 25km/h under the speed limit:sadeyes:

[OzRob]

I think they should make the speed limit 10km/hr everywhere!!!...:hi:


I'm from Perth but now live in Thailand. If you want to see idiots come spend some time here. The worst thing are the idiots on motorbikes (and that is most of them) who think they own the road. If you are sitting with your indicator on to turn right the idiots on bikes will overtake you on the right. Likewise, when you are turning left you better check that you are not being overtaken on the left be a motorbike before you turn...:screwy:

BTW if you do come here don't think that those white lines across the road give pedestrians the right of way on the road. If you think like that it will hurt....;)

[AstralTraveller]

I agree with most of this but also believe that no matter how bad the road, no matter how big a goose the bloke in front is, that is not an excuse to drive unsafely. Delays and slow traffic are a fact of life and one needs to allow for that when planning a trip. If a driver can't tolerate the least little delay they should take a long hard look at themselves. There are plenty of technically compatent drivers out there who I would ban on the basis of their bad attitude.

I had a '47 series troopie for 24 years and so I've had plenty of experience being the slow vehicle. I never tried to hold up other traffic but being polite isn't always as easy as some might think. Places where one can pull to the side are rarer than you might think, particularly on winding hilly roads (and especially considering the space I needed when carrying >1 tonne in the back). Then I've had drivers tailgate so close I could only see their roof. How can you think of touching the brakes under those conditions? (And why should I be polite to idiots like that anyway?) On other occassions I've been doing 95 on a dual carrageway and moved to the right lane to pass a truck doing about 80-90. After getting a safe distance in front of the truck I've wanted to move back to the left lane only to find some goose is trying to sqeeze between me and the truck so he can pass me on the left. What is wrong with people that they would risk an accident to save 5 seconds? :screwy:

BTW The other day I observed someone back a car down the driveway of the house diagonally across from me and park it, rather inexpertly, in front of my house. Another bloke was standing on the footpath and directed the driver where to park. The driver then got out of the car and hopped into the drivers seat of another car parked on the road and the bloke on the footpath got into the car which had been backed out of the driveway. Both cars then drove off together. My interpretation of the scene is that the driver of the car in the driveway cannot reverse a car. This may explain why the little buzz bomb didn't have a straight panel on it!! I'm glad I park off the road.

[supernova1965]

There is a joke about cars in Mackay

Q: Why are cars in Mackay $5000.00 dollars cheaper than anywhere else in Australia.

A: They come without rearview mirrors and blinkers.:rofl:

[glenc]

Please note that you can vote for more than one option.

[GrahamL]

I'd be happy to see 80KM/h round holiday time on the pacific hwy through the x-mass break round here.

and heres the reason


every year this attitude from sydney and brisbane meet around here
.. and to be honest the "HWY" around this bit of coast is mostly no more than an old bullock track (circa 1900's) thats been widened and sealed, A surveyer told me this 20 years back , make no mistake the drivers round my way are just as screwed up as everywhere else ... please don't get scooped up and hosed off the road up north this year.. it happens way to often on the holidays :(

[stephenb]

A lot of drivers do not know how to drive within their limits and the limits of the driving conditions.

Speed (and fatalites) can be the result caused by the inaction of my previous sentence.

[Kevnool]

How about observing the heavens .........Who cares about gossip.

[Starman73]

Hello All,

Rob, I was in Thailand March this year. I must say that I was very impressed with the drivers in Thailand, yes there were some idiots but by and large with the traffic and the shear number of vehicles (and by that I mean push carts too) on the road I don't think I saw one accident, and the taxis, I don't think I really saw one that had damage on it. After being in Bangkok I saw to never complain about Sydney traffic again.

On the subject of speed, its a known fact that in the NT when they didn't have speed limits on the majority of roads they had less accidents. Also the roads there aren't as good for the speeds people drive, but the accident rate and road toll are far less, meaning that the roads aren't the problem, its the idiots on them.

Paul

[stephenb]

I do not want to bag anyone from NSW, but I recently drove from Melbourne to Young, and the NSW half of the Hume Freeway is 20 years behind Victoria's half. What a shocking road for a National Highway! What has your State Governments been doing all this time????

We have some pretty poor planning down here in the Nanny State but at least we have an efficient and reliable train system. Oh wait.... :rolleyes:

[Louwai]

You obviously haven't driven from Brisbane to Cairns. !!! Most of it is still single lane each way. :eyepop:

[stephenb]

No I haven't Bryan, and after your comment I don't think I want to now! :rolleyes: I could handle the drive, but it is the idiots coming towards you which I do not trust!

[Peter Ward]

Maaate. They have been on the take in NSW for years. Sadly I'm serious. No-one could be that incompetent.:sadeyes:

[Louwai]

It's not too bad Stephen, until there's a huge cross wind blowing you into the path of the on-coming semi.
The duel highway is slowly creeping north from Brissy. It's almost up to Gympie now I think.
But Gympie's only 2hrs drive from Brissy. Cairns is 2 days drive from Brissy.


A bit of trivia, Did you know that Melbourne is closer to Brisbane than Cairns is???

[Starman73]

Hello glenluceskies,

I have to puff my chest out a little here. My grandfather was an engineer working on the roads in Victoria, so i can proudly say that my Grandfather had a lot to do with the quality roads down there. By the way, whenever he came to NSW he used to complain about our roads bitterly.

Paul

[AstralTraveller]

This was mentioned in another thread and I looked up more info but I forget whether I posted it. Basically, what you say is true but incomplete. The NT is small enough that a small number of accidents can significantly change the overall statistics. In first couple of years after the speed limit was introduced there was a spike in accidents on remote roads. Roads where speed, or at least the speed limit, is not an issue. On the major roads where the limit has been applied the accident rate has remained constant. I think there is good reason for that. The 130kmh limit hasn't changed the way most people drive but it does (perhaps) allow the coppers to weed out the true idiots.

[Ric]

After seeing what I've seen at some MVA's I'd love to say reduce the speed to 80kph.

But it's not the answer, I think more intensive education and testing is probably the better way to go.

[stephenb]

Sadly, I think you're right (at least from what we hear in the media over the years). But I think all State Goevenments suffer their share.





Not immediately Bryan, but now I think about it (and recall a plane flight to Cairns in '99), that would make sense.




Paul, Whilst I cannot comment on many other State's roads (except for NSW), I have extensively driven all around Victoria in my 25 years of driving, and although I think our state network certainly has some shortcomings, on the whole, the job the Country Roads Board (and later Vic Roads) acheived was incredible for their day and certainly laid the foundations for a decent road network. You should be rightly proud of your Grandfather.

[mithrandir]

A few years ago we did Sydney->Cairns->Undara->Hughenden->Mt Isa->St George->Sydney in 2 weeks. Once the Bruce Hwy dropped to one lane each way the traffic volume had dropped to the point that overtaking was not really an issue. Except for one escorted convoy with some huge piece of farm machinery we were stuck behind for over an hour. There was nowhere the police could stop the southbound traffic to let the hundred or so vehicles pass.

The biggest scare we had was meeting a road train on a narrow bridge near St George. He appeared around a blind curve after we were both committed to crossing the bridge. My mirrors went under his.



It is much simpler to build a good road from Melbourne to Albury than from Albury to Sydney. It is not all that far and is relatively level terrain. From Albury it runs continuously through the Great Dividing Range until you get to Picton.

The same holds true for much of the Princes, Pacific and Bruce Hwys.

On the other side of the mountains the Melbourne to Brisbane roads (eg Newell) run along the plains and are much better for the volume of traffic they carry.

A few comparison Vic/NSW stats I worked out. Not to be taken as gospel. It's easy to see why Victoria can have better roads.

[stephenb]

Yes Andrew, the topography is a very big factor. We are blessed to some degree with a relatively flat State.

[pgc hunter]

You should see the freeways they have in Europe among other places in far more mountainous regions. A few hills is no excuse for crap roads.

Generally, Australian roads are pretty crap by 1st world standards. There is STILL no continous freeway even from Melbourne to Brisbane, and the sections that are freeways have several at-grade intersections.

At the very least, Melbourne, Canberra, Sydney, Brisbane and Adelaide should be linked by a dual carriageway.

It's not a matter of how many vehicles use the road per day, it's about safety.

[Louwai]

Very true, but I suppose we have one up. Australia has some of the most rugged vehicles in the world which have been manufactured specifically to deal with the crap roads.

In the trucking world, Australia has THE largest & most durable trucks / Prime Movers in the world. (Road registered that is). Nowhere else in the world do they have 1 prime mover pulling up to 6 trailers down the highway.
http://spluch.blogspot.com/2007/03/worlds-longest-truck.html

Gotta say one thing. Australians adapt........:thumbsup:

[mithrandir]

OK, I've added some figures for Europe. Every European taxpayer/road user/etc pays for the upkeep of around 25% of the length or road your average Vic or NSW one does.
To be honest, I'd take the NSW roads in preference to the European population density.

Also they've been building roads for around 2500 years. Not 200.

Fatalities per 100,000 population per annum for Western Europe appear to average out at around 6 to 7. The latest figure I can easily find for all of Australia is 8.8. If believe NSW and Vic are lower.

[blindman]

You, who routinely drive faster than 160 kmh in a 30+ year old car, and have never died yet, just wait. Needs a little bit more of time.In general I agree with you.
And instead slowing down traffic every day, authorities should make some more efforts to teach pupils how to cross the street. Those who cannot learn that, should go to special schools.
When you see how guys in Italy drive, you will be freaked out, back on ozie roads. When green light is on, one by one, is starting moving here.
We need better driving schools here! Driving is not for anyone, anyway.
Cheers Nev

[multiweb]

Most of the freeways in Europe have tolls and are very expensive. Also they're all condensed in relativey small areas compared to the distance a typical interstate road has to cover in Australia. Finaly the population paying tolls per year is probably NSWx20 for France alone. Plenty of Money to maintain and expand roads.

[pgc hunter]

John Brumby is very nearly there....

[pgc hunter]

Ironic that we have the largest trucks in the world, yet they have to drive on tiny and unsafe roads because the retard premiers/PMs of past and present didnt invest in road infrastructure. For example...look at John Bumbly's solution to Melbourne's east-west traffic crisis....no, we won't build that tunnel from the Eastern Fwy to the ring road...we'll squeeze in an extra lane on the Westgate bridge.

2 things wrong with this most ridiculous of proposals:

1. The Westgate bridge doesnt have room for 5 lanes each way
2. the REST of the freeway will still be only 4 lanes each way....so you'll have merging issues coming up.

[pgc hunter]

Freeways have only emerged in the 1930s world wide. Paved roads probably in the 1900's. Any roads before then were nothing more than dirt tracks, which anyone with an atom of brain matter since the dawn of humanity would know how to construct.

[rat156]

Well Nev, if you look at the Avatar, you'll see where I drive at over 160 kmh, that picture is the 30yo car lifting a front wheel off the ground going around the final turn at Sandown racetrack. The car has a full rollcage, raceseat and five point 3" harness, I'm also wearing a racesuit and helmet.

Doing this helps me to keep to the speed limits on the roads, it doesn't stop me going fast around corners though, always within (or on) the speed limit though.

Cheers
Stuart

[rat156]

Umm...

The Roman empire was making paved roads BC, unless I'm mistaken that's around 2000 years ago.

Cheers
Stuart

"All roads lead to Rome!"

[pgc hunter]

paved with stone, and that was for only horse drawn carriages with a top speed of perhaps 20/30kmh, so my statement still stands.

Modern highways designed for high speed vechular traffic didnt appear until the 1930's world wide. In 2009, Australia still lacks these.

[Outbackmanyep]

I still think that there should be more overtaking lanes on two lane rural roads, making the speed limit more than 110km/h is not a good idea!

Reducing the limit is not the way to go either......

[glenc]

You can select two or more of the above choices.

[mithrandir]

Can we have an overtaking lane, or twenty, on the Oxley Hwy between Walcha and Pt Macquarie? Mostly the bit between Yarrowitch and Bago.

[Peter Ward]

Lies, dammed lies and statistics. It appears not much has changed.

Stats mean little unless a direct causality can be applied.

As has been demonstrated ad nauseum outside of Australia, traveling at speed in well regulated environments can be very safe.

Driving with zero predictability or ignoring the road conditions, pi$$ed, drugged or outside the vehicle limitations has a reasonable probability of being fatal over time.

A good percentage of planet Oz drive like selfish drongos....and because of them those with a modicum of sense are still regulated by dim bubble wrapping bureaucrats and pollies...that only think *speed*...and let's be honest...defacto taxation revenue.

If you think this to be true...don't post a reply here. Write to your local State Member.

Nothing gets their attention more than a few thousand letters (I wish) saying "Maate....you have lost my vote unless...."

[theodog]

Just returned from Wagga Wagga, mostly up the Newell Hwy. They have droped the speed limit from 110 to 100 last month. Two weeks before the school holidays we had a speed blitz with marked, unmarked and cycle cops everywhere.
While travelling down only saw 1 cop, at a T-bone near Forbes (nobody seriously hurt). On return -none.
Seriously tailgated by many truckies though. They complain about pulling in front of them while they are stoping, this doesn't seem to apply if they decide to tailgate, :screwy:, but thats another thread.
I choose to travel at the speed limit. For most it seems 100km/h really reads 110.:confused2:

[glenc]

I just looked up road crash death rates per 100,000 people.
Australia 9.3, China 19.0, Germany 8.8, NZ 13.7, Sweden 5.7, UK 5.6, USA 15.0.
http://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/publications/road_traffic/world_report/en/index.html

[Louwai]

That is true Jeff, But are you sure you ARE travelling at 100klm/hr when the others are tailgating???
My car is a 2007 Honda Legend. I have had the speedometer checked & when travelling at a TRUE 100klm/hr, my speedo actually reads 110klm/hr. So if I sat on 100 as indicated by my speedo, I'd actually be doing about 91klm/hr.

All vehicle manufacturers will not guarrantee their speedo accuracy better than 10%.
So it is quite possible that when you are travelling at 100klm/hr as indicated by your speedo, you could possibly be travelling at an actual speed of say 93klm/hr.
Mind you, it could also be the other way.

99% of drivers on the road don't realise the differences in speedo accuracy. This in turn causes much frustration to those that have an accurate speedo OR those that are aware of their speedo inaccuracy & compensate for it.

[mithrandir]

As I've said elsewhere, the speedo in my Prado reads slow. It always has. At 100kph indicated, cruise control on, straight and level road, all three of my GPSs flicker between 102 and 103.

Obviously it wasn't calibrated for the factory standard wheel/tyre combination on the vehicle.

[Manav]

Remove the driver airbags and put a spike on every steering wheel facing the driver. That should fix the problem.

[Lee]

I think 110kmph should only be signed on dual carriage ways with cable/concrete barriers. I routinely drive from Newcastle to Brisbane and tend to sit on 95 most of the way, I watch everyone scream past, only to meet them again at the next town/roadworks......

[mithrandir]

I wouldn't like to accuse you of selective quoting.

Austria 10.1, Belgium 13.9, Denmark 9.5, Ireland 10.1, Italy 12.1, New Zealand 13.7, Portugal 12.1, which you didn't include are higher.

Canada at 9.3 is the same as Australia.

I'll give you that the rest of Western Europe are lower.

I haven't included any 3rd world countries (no matter what some stirrers migh say about NZ).

These figures do not appear to take into account kilometres travelled. It's quite hard to kill anyone other than a pedestrian when you only drive a few km each day on clogged suburban streets. My daughter-in-law is probably in more danger commuting between Picton and Canberra on a multilane divided road.



There are samples and there are censuses. A sample can be a very accurate estimate of the complete population if it is taken the correct way. We have regular censuses which provide the baseline so that sample popupations can be selected to produce good estimates for all sorts of things.

Rates per km travelled is one problem I have with Glenn's figures, for the reasons above. Causality is another, but the WHO report does say what is included.

[theodog]

Prado driver as well. My speedo reads 5km to quick against the GPS. So I sit between 100~105.

[Louwai]

Andrew, only 2 or 3klm/hr out at 100klm/hr. Consider yourself lucky. That's pretty damn accurate & would be considered "bang on" by the manufacturers.
The norm would be 9 to 13klm/hr out @100klm/hr.

[mithrandir]

It's probably OK with the NSW police too.

Not with the Victorians from what I've heard.

The norm is for the speedo to read fast, not slow.

[Louwai]

That's probably why my 2007 Honda reads 10klm/hr fast @ 100klm/hr. I bought it in Melbourne when I was living down there.

[mithrandir]

Which wheel package have you got Jeff? I have 265/65 on 17" alloys and run them at around 38psi on the highway.

It handles better, tyres wear better and give better fuel consumption than the Toyota suggested value.

But the pressure probably contributes to the under reporting.

[glenc]

Andrew I picked two local countries, two large economies, and a couple of countries with low rates.
Germany was included because its rate is lower than ours despite higher speed limits. The WHO document did not give rates per 100,000 km.

You wrote "My daughter-in-law is probably in more danger commuting between Picton and Canberra on a multilane divided road."
That is not true if she is a careful driver.
The biggest killer on NSW roads is head on collisions where the vehicles are not overtaking. The risk of this is low on multilane roads.

If you take care when you cross the road there is a low risk of you being a dead pedestrian.
If you are a careful driver there is a low risk of your being involved in a single vehicle crash.
The main risk for a careful pedestrian and careful driver is a multi-vehicle crash.

In 2004 in NSW 222 people died in multi-vehicle (2 or more vehicles) crashes including 99 in head on collisions where the vehicles were not overtaking.
The next biggest multi-vehicle killer was right hand turns which killed 38 out of 222 people.
The third biggest multi-vehicle killer was rear end crashes which killed 15 out of 222 people.
Heavy vehicles were involved in 119 (54%) of those 222 deaths.
This is an example of of heavy vehicle head on. http://www.smh.com.au/national/parents-critical-after-daughters-killed-in-tanker-crash-inferno-20091228-lhbh.html

[mick pinner]

when looking at accidents, especially fatals, take note of the cars and vehicles involved. l work in the repair industry and note the different effects on vehicles depending on what they hit.
very few fatalities happen when two cars of similar design hit each other, it is generally when two vehicles with different designs collide, that being car/truck, small cars/4W.D's or cars designed in different eras.
two cars designed 20 years apart will have vastly different damage after they hit each other with the majority of bodily damage done to the driver/passanger of the older vehicle.
take for example the blanket rule that when travelling behind the car in front we leave x ammount of room for braking, do the powers that be tell anyone take into account what sort of car you are travelling behind?
anyone in a twenty year old vehicle is not going to stop in the same ammount of time or distance as a new car, the discrepency in vehicle design, size and performance all crammed onto the same road is what is killing people not a lazy 10 k's over the speed limit, l see it every day.

[Peter Ward]

My null hypothesis:

if you only allow Orangutans behind the wheel, and lower the speed limits, the road toll will rise.

Do we now infer lowering the speed limit was a dangerous move? :lol:

[mithrandir]

Picking that is being sensationalist. No-one yet knows the cause of the accident. Not being a divided road quite probably killed the people in the car. It may not have saved the truckie. It could have been the road, the truck, one or more cars, but might be another reason. Paraphrasing ABC 702 talking to the mayor of one of the South Coast shires this morning:

The Princes Highway (known also as the Princes Goat Track) between Wollongong University and the Victorian border is funded entirely by the NSW government, and for some distance on the Victorian side (to Traralgon IIRC) by the Victorian government.

The cop-out Federal government does not spend a single cent on that 790 Km [my calculation] section. The NSW government cut funding for their section in 2009 by $70M [I think that was the number quoted].

There is no railway south of Bomaderry and it is uneconomic to build one. The only transport available to that 710 Km [my calculation] section is road.

There are sections not up to B-double standard (generally bridges with insufficient load limits) so drivers have to uncouple, run one trailer through, uncouple, go back and pick up the other trailer, uncouple and recouple both trailers.

It will take an estimated $1B to bring it up to highway standard.

Glen, you aren't far from a federally funded highway. The people of Bega, Eden, Sale and the surrounds aren't that lucky.

Andrew

[glenc]

My parents used to live on the south coast and I have driven that "highway" many times.
I read somewhere that the truck may have been trying to avoid a car on the wrong side of the road.
A divided road would almost certainly have prevented this terrible tragedy and I agree that the federal government should help fund it.

[el_draco]

Large areas of Tassie have 90km speed limits and 50 in the metro areas. We whinged about it for about 2 days, now I wonder why it took so long to do it.

I'd like to see the limit lower now.

Having said that, the arterial roads still rate 100-110kmph and this place is a lot smaller; tyrany of distance issues.

However, the ultimate determinate should be whether it reduces the raod toll. Our toll almost doubled this year and speed was the culprit in many cases.

Having heard about the slaughter on the NSW South coast the other day... I'd halve the speed limit not to have to hear a story like that again. Worlds to Damn fast as it is....

[Peter Ward]

So you say in one breath, the speed limits were *lowered* to 90km/hr
...and in the next... the road toll *increased* last year?

Well that sure worked well!

Yet you'd be in favor of further lowering limits???

Speed is not the problem.

It's driver training, skill, attitude and responsibility. Unfortunately our dopey legislators can't see past the $$ in fine revenue.

[telecasterguru]

Can someone give me a reason why they go faster than the speed limit?

[glenc]

Speed limits are sometimes too fast and sometimes too slow.
Most people drive at a safe speed regardless of the speed limit.
In a democracy people should have a say in the setting of laws.
The best speed limit is usually the 85th percentile speed.
(A simple explanation is measure the speed of 100 vehicles, arrange them in order from slowest to fastest and take the speed of the 85th one.)

See:http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/sl-irrel.html
"For years, traffic engineering texts have supported the conclusion that motorists ignore unreasonable speed limits. Both formal research and informal operational observations conducted for many years indicate that there is very little change in the mean or 85th percentile speed as the result of raising or lowering the posted limit. Very few accident studies have been conducted to determine the safety effects or altering posted speed limits..."
Please read the Summary of Findings. Here are 4 findings.
1. Lowering speed limits by 5, 10, 15, or 20 mi/h at the study sites had a minor effect on vehicle speeds. Posting lower speed limits does not decrease motorist's speeds.
2. Raising speed limits by 5, 10, or 15 mi/h at the rural and urban sites had a minor effect on vehicle speeds. In other words, an increase in the posted speed limit did not create a corresponding increase in vehicle speeds.
3. Accidents at the 58 experimental sites where speed limits were lowered increased by 5.4 percent. The level of confidence of this estimate is 44 percent. The 95 percent confidence limits for this estimate ranges from a reduction in accidents of 11 percent to an increase of 26 percent.
4. Accidents at the 41 experimental sites where speed limits were raised decreased by 6.7 percent. The level of confidence of this estimate in 59 percent. The 95 percent confidence limits for this estimate ranges from a reduction in accidents of 21 percent to an increase of 10 percent.

[theodog]

The one thing that improved my quality of driving is to complete my motorbike licence at a mature age.

Riding a 250cc instantly focuses the mind on road conditions, speed and what other drivers are doing (even when sitting in their cars beside the road).:eyepop:

Being outside the lounge-room style of cars and travelling at any speed will keep people aware of what's going on.

Get rid of wind-screens, that will slow better than numbers in circles.:thumbsup:

[mithrandir]

I thought there wasn't a size restriction for learners over a certain age.



Ahh, the wind in your face, the summer sun roasting your back, the rain and wind-chill freezing your extremities at any time of year.

I've had a rider's license for 35 years but not ridden for quite a few. SWMBO insists I have enough insurance to pay for 24 hour paid care before I buy another bike, but then she doesn't ride. Not even a bicycle.

Everyone should learn to ride, but as Jeff hints, probably not on the roads as an immortal teenager.

Nothing focuses the mind on self-preservation faster than knowing you don't have a steel box protecting you from the tunnel visioned car drivers.

Alternatively, everyone physically capable should have to learn to ride before getting a car license. You can't ride with a mobile phone in one hand, and you can't have two or three mates in the vehicle yahooing and egging you on.

[Peter Ward]

At last, some rational debate of the facts :thumbsup:

Indeed the NTSB (USA) have noted the speed at which you have the lowest probability of a crash is around 10km/hr faster than the gaggle.....regardless of the posted limit.

Continued lowering of speed limits has done nothing to lower the road toll.

Traffic flow management in Oz is pathetic...leading to frustration and risky behavior by those stuck behind a dawdling vehicle.

It strikes me as odd that draconian "anti-hoon" laws are in place (in WA a journalist taking a new Ferrari for a run, got busted on a lonely back road, well over the limit: the Ferrari (not his) was impounded for two weeks). The manufacturer was livid. One ponders who was fairly penalised by the impounding of said vehicle?

Having held a drivers license for 35 years, I have never seen a "crawler in the right lane" (illegal in NSW on 80km/hr+ freeways) being booked.

[telecasterguru]

I do not believe that it is the speed limit that is the problem, it is the people that will not drive at the speed limit. Whether that being driving too slow or driving too fast. If the road toll has not come down as a result of lowering the speed limit maybe its because people will not drive at the lower speed limit.

I would still like to know why someone has to drive faster than the speed limit.

[glenc]

We've all heard the phrase 'speed kills', and it's been widely applied to situations both apt and not. A recent study conducted by the NHTSA examining over 5,400 crashes across a nearly three-year period presents some evidence that excessive speed, while it may cause more serious injuries, is not a leading cause of accidents.

Adopting a simplified linear model of an accident's timeline, the most frequent 'critical pre-crash event' cause is driver inattention. The 'critical pre-crash event' is defined as the action or event that puts the vehicle on an inevitable collision course - the point of no return.

Traveling to fast for the conditions was the critical pre-crash event in only 5% of cases, according to the study. The NHTSA says that 41% of all driver-related critical events were recognition errors related to inattention and internal or external distractions. Only about 8.4% of the driver-related critical events were related to excessive speed, however. By comparison, inadequate driver skill was deemed responsible for 10% of accidents...

http://www.motorauthority.com/blog/1031287_nhtsa-report-reveals-excessive-speed-responsible-for-only-5-of-crashes
http://www.nhtsa.gov/

[richardda1st]

Most accidents are caused by negligence, stupidity, arrogance, etc.:mad2::screwy:

The speed at which an accident occurs determines the severity of the impact.:sadeyes:

[mithrandir]

I learnt that very quickly on a bike. Car and truck drivers don't see you if you are beside them, so get past ASAP.



Me neither, and I've had a license longer. But then it's only been an offense for maybe 10 years. Given a few lifetimes the collective intelligence might learn to keep left, and handle roundabouts.

[richardda1st]

To get past ASAP will increase your speed, you can bet your last dollar that the idiot you are passing will one day choose that time to cut you off and cause collision.

[theodog]

I think the answer to this is below.



Imagine pilots choosing their own altitude over Sydney rather than following the controller.:eyepop:
It's the law.

[rat156]

I'll give you one Frank, but it'll involve a bit of a story so please be patient.

Each year in November I compete in a 6 Hour relay race at Winton motor raceway. As I also help to organise the event I drive up on Friday arvo in the racecar packed to the rafters with spares etc. I get to the event and start to help setup my team's garage and the event administration. On the way up I travel at or about the posted speed limit (110kmh), usually for the last hour or so of the two and a bit hour trip I am struggling with fatigue, even though I have stopped along the way.

During the weekend I have been competing in a three person team, I was due to go out last for a two hour stint. One of the cars broke down a bit early so I ended up going out for about 2.5 hours. The idea of the race is to set a lap time and try to reproduce it, there are 40 odd other cars on the circuit with me, we have to negotiate each other and drive pretty much flat out whilst trying to be consistent. I haven't suffered from fatigue yet, of course I do end up tired, but mentally sharp.

On the way home (on the Monday after the race) I again suffer during the last hour of the trip home.

So my conclusion is that travelling at 110kmh is not stimulating enough to make me concentrate. As the stats show fatigue is the cause of the crash, not speed. If I use my road car it is even less stimulating as I use the cruise control. If I was allowed to go faster I would as I would be less likely to fall foul of fatigue.

During my time on the track I have rarely seen an accident caused by speed. I have seen many caused by driver inexperience. I have spun my car at about 150kmh on the final turn at Phillip Island and ended up rearwards into the pit wall. I can usually go through that particular turn at full throttle, by the track conditions had changed and I ignored the feedback I was getting from the car and relied on the experience I had gained through many laps of the circuit. I also should have changed the tyres as the ones I had were worn out, but I was being cheap (yeah, that worked!). However if the coppers analysed the accident they would have concluded that I went through the corner too fast so would have blamed speed.

Cheers
Stuart

[Louwai]

It is very clear to me, and many others that the cause of accidents is lack of experience + lack of correct & propper training. While speed is a factor, it's a very small factor.
We are constantly bombarded with "Speed Kills" or "Speed was the major Factor of the accident". This is only conditioning so that the general public won't complain so much when speed limits are reduced.

Speed limits are reduced for revenue raising ONLY. They know damn well that it's driver training that is what's required, BUT, the gov dosen't make money out of better driver training.

Training in general has gone to the dogs since the "Competency Based Training System" was introduced. It's like craming for an exam at high school. As long as you pass on the day is all that matters. If you forget it all the next day, who cares.


EXAMPLE;
I have an RG1 Rigger's Cert, which I acheived about 25yrs ago.
To get this I was required to work on a construction site as a "learner" for 12mths. During this 12 mths I had to go to college 2 nights / week. At the end of the college course I had to pass an exam.
Then I was presented a certificate.

Under the current system, a person with absolutly NO construction experience can go to college, full time for 2 WEEKS & get a fully qualified Rigger's certificate.


A Construction Rigger may be seen as an unsuitable job by some, but it can be an extremly demanding job. In many instances people's lives depend on the rigger doing their job correctly.
2 weeks training is just not suitable for such a position, but the Gov seems to think it is.


I have not worked as a Rigger for well over 15yrs, but I know that I could walk onto a site & fill that position tomorrow. Because I was taught correctly & it stuck.

[el_draco]

I also said that SPEED was a major factor in many of the deaths, the vast majority in fact.

I understand people have varied opinions in this regard but there is a basic reality of physics and biology involved; when you increase the speed at which you are moving you decrease the time to react before the consequences arrive.

That is not debatable and it is a significant issue in road fatalities. Add booze, tiredness or half a dozen other factors and you have a slaughter like this and every other holiday season.

I've seen total insanity from my road bike, and my car and a lot of it is speed related.

Frankly, I don't want to see another dead child on the road and if cutting speed limits helps, go for it. You can toss in a ZERO B.A.C. as well IMHO.

[pgc hunter]

driving home last night, I noticed they dropped the speed limit from 70 to 60 on the main road to my place (which has no property access, is dual carriageway) :mad2:

They can stick it.

[OneOfOne]

I am in Vic and not NSW, but I think the principles are much the same. A classic happened many years ago on the Frankston Freeway, which covers a distance of something like 10km or so from Frankston to around Edithvale. It is divided almost the whole of its length, in some areas the division is more than 20 metres, with many trees. During peak times this freeway carries many thousands of cars in both directions.

Originally it used to be limited to 110, then one day a car load of young people slammed themselves into a tree along a stretch of the road at a speed well in excess of the limit...something of the order of 140+. The immediate reaction was to lower the limit to 90 for a number of years and then to put it back to 100. If the accident had occured near the posted limit, I could see some logic in the change, but it would not be reasonable to assume that had the limit been lower, that the car would have been travelling at a slower speed and therefore the speed limit in this case was nothing to do with the accident. Essentially, the accident was inevitable, regardless of any posted limit. In this case, the speed limit should never have been reduced in the first place. The reduction to 100 may be justified if they have made some logical decision about where 110 limited roads are situated and found this freeway did not fit this definition.

Basically, I favour 110 on divided roads far from large cities and 100 on what most people would call a "freeway". If there is an accident on a road, and the speed of the car is more than 20 above the posted limit, it is not logical to assume that the car would have been travelling any slower had the limit been set lower, and therefore the accident cannot be used to determine if a change needs to be made. If there are accidents on a road where the speed is just over the limit, or more so if it is under, then there is good reason to assume that a change of limit may have an effect and should be considered.

If people are going to speed excessively, changing the limits will not effect their behaviour and so you need to look at something else.

[pgc hunter]

This brings me to another thing: You have people 2-3 times drunk over the legal limit, then when accidents happen, you have idiots with presumably no brain start to harp on about reducing the legal alcho limit to 0.2. If the guy is well over the limit, what's the logic in dropping it? It's not the people who are under 0.5 causing the trouble.

Then ofcourse everytime someone dies, the solution of our esteemed state governments is to slash the speed limit, rather than trying to improve roads, driving conditions etc :mad2:

Australia (well the nanny dictatorships of VIC and NSW atleast) must have the most barbaric, totalitarian road rules on earth. This incompetent (impotent?) goverment is smothering the population to hell, not just with driving, but pretty much everything :mad2:

[glenc]

"It's not the people who are under 0.5 causing the trouble."
I tried to do research on that once but the NSW RTA does not provide BAC readings for individual accidents. I am not sure who they are trying to protect. I think some drivers under 0.05 are more dangerous than a sober driver.
I did find that many of the fatal crashes blamed on speed actually involved vehicles that were not exceeding the speed limit. For example if a car crashes on a corner they blame speed even if it is not exceeding the speed limit. A lot of drivers do not know how to pick a safe speed for a corner, especially when it is wet.
If the speed limit was set at the 85% percentile most people (85% at least) would be happy to obey it. (see post #65 below)

[Louwai]

[QUOTE=glenc;541621For example if a car crashes on a corner they blame speed even if it is not exceeding the speed limit. A lot of drivers do not know how to pick a safe speed for a corner, especially when it is wet.QUOTE]

This is EXACTLY what I was saying earlier. The driver training is appalling right across Australia. Raise the standard of the driver training & 40% of the road fatalities will disapear.

[richardda1st]

It is so obvious, the faster a collision occurs the worse the accident will be.

Wake up to yourselves, the public roads are not racetracks.:mad2::mad2:

All sorts of people drive on our roads. There's the car nut who thinks his Brocky to the little old lady, all have different levels of skill. :shrug:

We all need to drive on the same roads so we all need to cooperate. We must consider others. The public road system is for transport only. Yes we can enjoy a drive just for the sake of if, but there's no need to speed.:screwy:

Driver's skill is very important, but even the best drive will make a mistake without the involvement of any other driver. He will make the mistake all on his own. Once the mistake has occurred the inevitable collision will happen. Better to be going slow when it does.

Sadly one of our best known and loved drivers died because he made a mistake at high speeds.:( A race is a race and the drivers all know the risks involved.

Yes I have got a couple of speeding fines for just being slightly over the limit. In all cases the speed cameras were correct. I was being careless in not keeping a close watch on my speed. I was fined and so I should have. :screwy:

THE PUBLIC ROAD SYSTEM IS NOT A RACE TRACK

[pgc hunter]

With this government forcing people to watch their speedo so they don't accidentally hit 3 km over the limit, they are creating danger as people are constantly taking their eyes of the road so they don't get slugged for doing half walking speed over on a bloody multi lane freeway. :mad2:

What really infuriates me is how they have those signs "ROAD SAFETY CAMERAS OPERATE IN THIS AREA"....what a bunch of communist propaganda. Road safety yeah right....set a decent tolerance of say 10-20km/h then those big blue letters would be believable.

I've heard of people blowing these revenue cameras to smithereens with shotguns before..should I meet such an individual I'll be the first to shake his hand and buy him a slab.

[rat156]

Nor should it be a death trap!

I use both race tracks and public roads a lot. If more public roads were designed as race tracks are, then the road toll would be significantly lower still.

It beggars belief that really large coniferous trees line the Westagate freeway just West of the bridge. They have recently had motorcycle shredders (Wire barriers) installed, but only after a car load of youths ploughed into the trees at speed and incinerated themselves. Whilst the youths may have been exceeding the speed limit, and were certainly exceeding the driver's ability, should they have paid for this with the lives????????

This is one example of really poor road design on may way to and from work, there are many others.

Did it matter if the car had hit at 100kmh or 90 or 120kmh, probably not.

As you bring up Peter Brock, his car entered the corner at 110kmh, a road legal speed in many states. Something unexpected happened and Australia lost one of it's greatest drivers. Possum Bourne was killed in a head on smash do recon for a rally run, he was not speeding nor on the wrong side of the road as many people have said. These are two of the best drivers in the world who have died in motorsport, neither would have been booked for speeding at the point where the crashes occurred. SPEED IS NOT THE CAUSE of accidents.

I have had one of my closest friends killed on the road, he was over the BAC limit and paid for his mistake with his life. Recently, the brother of a friend of mine was killed in the Classic Adelaide rally. Both were killed because the car hit something large and solid that had no reason being on the side of the road unprotected (a bus stop in one case, and a large tree in the other).

To excuse bad driving based on the fact that some people have less skill than others is very dangerous. If i had my way everyone would have a MANDATORY road skills test every three years, if you fail, you're off the road.

Then again if I had my way there would be no automatic cars on the road either, so some may say that I'm a bit of a fanatic, but I don't care, if you can't manage the three pedal and steering bit at one time, you're dangerous. A licence to drive should be that, a licence, NOT an unwritten right.

[/rant]

Cheers
Stuart

[mithrandir]

One of the local revenue raising cameras has been vandalised so many times the RTA have put in a CCTV video camera to "protect" it.



This is obviously the reason why the multi-lane divided road through the local industrial estate had the limit reduced from 60 to 50.

Reduce all the speed limits to zero. That will make both you and nut case Harold Scruby happy.

[pgc hunter]

lol just walk up to the CCTV from behind with a black spray paint can (or bazooka), then proceed to make mince meat of the revenue camera :D



THe speed limit on a divided road, with NO property access in my area has been reduced to 60 from 70 after much sooking from local prudes and other assorted neo-commies and imbeciles. Apparently, it'll make it "safer" for pedestrians - as one girl got killed on this road a few months ago. But no one has disclosed the actual reason for this death :rolleyes::screwy: Could've been anything from the girl walking out onto the road into oncoming traffic, to a drugged driver. But you have to think....didn't the pedestrian see the oncoming car? Don't most people look before crossing? Surely if you see an oncoming car you don't cross....regardless how fast its going.

Furthermore...if you get hit at either 60 or 70, you're gonna die.

Seriously, why doesnt this pathetic governement / clowncils etc just crush every car in Australia into a cube and be done with it. Deaths are a fact of life, should be ban everything else that could result in death? If you think about it , pretty much every activity you participate in could kill you in some way...

[mithrandir]

The CCTV is about 5m up a power pole. Must check to see if it has been moved upwards to protect it too. :D

[Peter Ward]

I'd rather you watched the road, traffic, pedestrians, animals & potential threats.

Putting these ahead of being "slightly over the limit" says to me you are challenged as a driver.

[glenc]

The force in a crash depends on the mass of the objects involved, the speed of the objects involved and the time it takes to stop.

If you hit a large tree the mass includes the earth the tree is growing in. The tree does has no crumple zones so the time it takes to stop is very small and the force is very big. Both mass and time are against you, especially if you hit the tree side on.

If you hit a large loaded truck mass and time are also against you because most trucks have bull bars not crumple zones and the trucks are heavy.
Also the trucks are often traveling faster than the cars.

At car races like Bathurst the cars have similar masses and are mostly traveling at similar speeds in the same direction, hopefully. There are also barriers on the edge of the road to increase crash times and reduce forces.

Large trees near the road are dangerous and bull bars are too because they don't "give", and they increase the force in a crash.

[rat156]

Apparently the best thing to do is wrap them in gladwrap. It's non-destructive and registers your protest. Of course I couldn't possibly recommend doing it.

Cheers
Stuart

[richardda1st]

Keep playing with that rope.:lol:

[glenc]

The NRMA set up this site so you can tell the politicians, and others, what you think about the roads.
http://www.roadtube.com.au/

[glenc]

A 40 tonne truck traveling at 100 kph produces the same force in a crash as a 2 tonne car traveling at 1,008 kph. (The formula for force is a half times mass times velocity squared divided by stopping distance.) I am assuming the stopping distance (amount of crumpling) for the truck is 0.1m and the stopping distance (amount of crumpling) for the car is 0.5m. Cars don't travel that fast of course.
I think we need more divided roads and more rail freight.

[Louwai]

In many cases Speed is not the CAUSE of an accident. It just makes the accident worse as has been said.
In the heavy Construction industry (and I'm sure many others) we are trained to identify a safety issue at the source & REMOVE the hazzard, not just flop about with crap trying to make it look better.
Reducing speed limits to rediculous levels in areas that clearly should be running faster, is just flopping about with crap to appease the un-educated & trying to win votes. It has nothing to do with road safety.


EXPERIENCE and TRAINING are the major flaws in the current system. Spend more money on the training / licencing system you end up with a better prepared driver at the end. Then slowly comes the experience.

Half of the problem is young drivers being taught by their parents & piers. All those bad habits being passed on.
Yesterday I was travelling to my parents house north of Brisbane. There was a 'L' Plated car cruising along he highway at approx 90klm/hr in the right lane.:shrug:
What has happened to the "Keep Left" rule??? This alone causes accidents, with people who want to travel at the SPEED LIMIT trying to get around the slow driver.
I believe the fully licenced driver in this car should have been booked for poor instruction or something.

[glenc]

I thought that slow cars in the right lane was normal in Qld. ;)
Bryan I agree with you.

[Louwai]

Yes Glen,
Unfortunatley it's become the norm here....
It truely amazes me. The other day I was coming up on a slow car in the right lane. To his credit, he moved over to the left to let me pass, but then he moved straight back into the right lane again after I'd gone by.
The amazing thing is, there was no traffic at all in either lane.
I could have easily just moved to the left & gone around him... Sooooo.
Why MUST this driver sit in the right lane rather than the left???:shrug:

In this situation it was not a problem, but in traffic, it's a big problem.

[Peter Ward]

Err..your calculation is in error. Try 447km/hr for the car ;)

[Peter Ward]

Kinetic energy is the same in both cases.

40 ton truck @ 100km/hr has 200,000 "units" (sorry couldn't be bothered converting to joules) of energy.

A 2 ton car needs a velocity equivalent to the square root of that....447km/hr. How much the car or truck crumples does not change the initial KE.

[Louwai]

So we all need to be driving Bugatti Veyron's then Peter?? :P

I'll have one !!! My bike only does 310klm/hr. I wouldn't mind trying a Veyron at close to 400klm/hr :D

[Peter Ward]

My prancing horse will only do a slovenly 285km/hr :wink2:

[Louwai]

Really!!! I thought you'd do a bit better..... It's std then??? No chipping???

On the track at Phillip Is. I can just squeeze 300klm down the straight before I have to brake hard for the cnr. But only on really soft rubber so that I've got the grip when scrapping pegs around the curve.:P My road rubber is a little hard & slippery for that.......:D
Not too much mods. Flashed ECU, fuel mapping & Air-box.


ummmm sorry....... What was this thread about????? Oh. That's right. Slowing everyone down.....
Yeah RIGHT!!!!!

It'll never happen.



It's just like the gun laws. It only stops the honest people from acquiring guns. THe laws have made absolutly no difference to the criminals acquiring guns.

Speed limits have the same effect on drivers.

[glenc]

A 40 tonne truck traveling at 100 kph produces the same force in a crash as a 2 tonne car traveling at 1,000 kph.
I am assuming the stopping distance (amount of crumpling) for the truck is 0.1m and the stopping distance (amount of crumpling) for the car is 0.5m.
The vehicles are not crashing into each other.

[telecasterguru]

This might be worth a try?

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/0107/breaking66.htm

[Louwai]

Wouldn't happen here Frank. The person could scream discrimination. Larger fine just because he has more money.

Plus, I think that most 'speeders' here are the young ones with no money.

[mithrandir]

Finland a few years back news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3477285.stm (http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3477285.stm) They base fines on the driver's income.

In WA some doctor's Lambo was confiscated because the service mechanic took it for a spin & got busted at some rather high speed. http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/western-australia/police-cant-release-lamborghini-impounded-under-wa-hoon-law/story-e6frg13u-1225817075988 (http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/western-australia/police-cant-release-lamborghini-impounded-under-wa-hoon-law/story-e6frg13u-1225817075988)

[Louwai]

The "Hoon Laws" in Australia allow the police to confiscate a vehicle. I don't know the actual law in detail, but I think the person has to re-offend 3 times before the vehicle can be taken, or once if over a certain speed..

I think!!! Not sure exacty what the details are.

[richardda1st]

Well thanks for that Pete, at least you're being politically correct in using the term "challenged as a driver".:P:P

By the way, it want be long till Australia also starts fining drivers according to their wealth/income. It's also one of those obvious things to do , it makes sense. A fine is meant to be a deterrent, I'm sure you regard it as revenue, but remember it's a voluntary form of revenue. I can see this form of revenue really helping the nations economy, maybe other forms of revenue can be reduced. Good idea.:eyepop::thumbsup::D

As I said in another thread "AS IT SHOULD BE".:rofl::rofl:

[Peter Ward]

Maaate...in that case you have used the wrong equation.

F=ma
a= Dv/Dt (change in velocity)

Soooo......we need to know the *time* it takes to go from go to whoa.

This is not a simple calculation, as the full momentum of an articulated truck may take some seconds to be absorbed, and cars vary enormously in how much "crumple" they have before they stop.

The *energies* are equivalent at 100km/hr and 447km/hr respectively.

[Louwai]

I don't see how penalising wealthier people more, is going to reduce the road toll or make the roads safer.:shrug:

A large % of the speeding & dangerous driving offenders are young, low or no income people. If based on income, these people will pay the minimum, if anything. Therefore the "penalty by income" will not be a deterant to these people.
Which means that the current number of offences from this demographic will not change, & quite possibly increase. This demographic is often "mis-informed" & so they may think,
"income based fines - I have no income, so I won't have to pay a fine".
Stupid comment you say.... Believe me, some people would DEFINATELY think this way.

So penalising according to income seems to be purely a revenue raising excersize.

So I ask, How would this form of penalty reduce the number of offences, or the road toll????


Regarding the "stupid comment" above. I personally know a woman who divorced 20 years ago & received a settlement for the house. The husband stayed in the house. The house was legally changed from both names to his name at the time.
21yrs down the track, the husband sold the house & the woman truely believed that she still owned 50% of the house & he could not sell it without her permission + she would get 50% of the profit.

Needless to say that she got a rude shock!!!!!:lol::D

[Peter Ward]

What?? And increase the number of floggings with IQ....as after all, you should have known better! :lol:

[pgc hunter]

Pointless owning one of those in this country mate, unless you live in the northern territory or on the Nullabour. We'll be reduced to hitching a ride ontop of snails if these governments keep ruling this formerly "lucky country".

[pgc hunter]

lol then all one needs to do is get a rifle with a good scope and blow that piece of crap to smithereens from long range :lol:

[richardda1st]

Geez Louwai, simple, still maintain a minimum fine to at least equal the current fine. :)

I'm sure that clown in Finland who was fined $290,000 will at least give it a second thought.:confused2::confused2:

Don't forget this is a voluntary form of revenue. :shrug:

Not to sure about, "A large % of the speeding & dangerous driving offenders are young, low or no income people.

[Peter Ward]

Just as a foot note....a quick look at the VIC roads "wipe off 5" campaign gives an indication on how contrived "official" data can be.

Working backwards from their stopping distance table, they claim it takes around 1.5 seconds for a driver to "react" to a road event.

What a load of old cobblers! If humans normally reacted to events with this sort of brain dead delay, many activities would be physically impossible...eg tennis, cricket, football, ping pong..... forget it....the ball has always passed you by.

Yet the mantra is still chanted....even 5km/hr over is "dangerous"

Well, I suppose it is, if you are vision impaired, in a model-T with suspect brakes.:screwy:

The key is anticipation, reading the traffic & being predictable. Time spent staring at the speedo is time lost looking for an unexpected event.

[mithrandir]

Not sure about the low or no income part.

It's the "we know everything" and "we're immortal" and "live fast, die young" teens and twenties who are over represented in the road statistics.

Once you survive that, I'd say you are more likely to be the cause of an accident if you are drunk and/or tired and/or distracted by events inside the car (passengers, phones, ...) and/or inattentive to other vehicles.

[mithrandir]

There's the answer Peter. Victorians have to spend all that extra time making sure they are traveling slower than 2Km over the limit that they need that 1.5 secs to refocus and take action.

Is it time for all vehicle to have head-up displays?

Or GPS controlled speed limiters - which can't cope with cross-roads or parallel roads with different limits.

Or better driver education and regular testing.

[Peter Ward]

So, what's a 1000 km/hr impact really like?

For your entertainment....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSVfYwdGSsQ


Yes, even I'll admit, at ground level, that's a bit quick to be "safe"

[pgc hunter]

Just got back from interstate and everywhere in Vic there are huge new banners saying "SLOWING DOWN WONT KILL YOU". God, I am so sick of this constant nazi propaganda that these pigs keep putting out. These is no different than having Kim Jong's face pasted on every corner :mad2::mad2::mad2::mad2:

If it were up to me, all rural dual carriageways would be converted to full freeway standard, speed limit increased to 140km/h, 110km/h on urban freeways and rural two lane highways.

[Peter Ward]

Agreed, indeed slowing down may have a fatigue/boredom affect at the back end of a long trip... and may well kill you.

Sure, "stop, revive, sruvive" is a good way to go, but making a trip mind numbingly boring cannot help.

It would be interesting to see the stats on vehicle collisions *caused by* extreme speed...eg 160km/hr or faster. I suspect there are not that many compared to say 80-90km/hr.

[Kevnool]

Very nice i enjoyed that video...yep i,m impressed.

Cheers Kev.

[glenc]

Here is another calculation. A 40 tonne truck traveling at 24.6 kph has the same kinetic energy as a 2 tonne car traveling at 110 kph. But the truck will have more force in a crash at 24.6 kph because it does not crumple as much as the car. The best solutions are more divided roads and more rail freight. Also trucks and 4WDs need to replace their bull bars with softer bumpers. I am not suggesting that trucks travel at 25 kph but it concerns me when they overtake most of the cars on the road.

[Kevnool]

Sorry Glen but hell will freeze over before i replace or remove my roo bar which i,m proud of.
I take it that youve never never ploughed into a roo before in your car.
Its the best investment for a vehicle....But i,m talking out west here where its so dry that they sit on the side of the roads at night,But surely theres got to be animals on your roads also.

The best thing i liked about the roo bar law was that nothing shall overhang over the front of the bar such as those fishing rod holders.

Cheers Kev.

[Louwai]

Glen,
Rail freight has for a long time been very expensive. Which is why it's not used more widely.
I remember a little while back I priced the supply of a 40' container to a customer in Mackay.
The container was coming from Nth Africa.
The cost of rail freight from Brisbane to Mackay was more expensive than shipping the container from Nth Africa to Brisbane.

We ended up going by road freight as it was cheaper.

[glenc]

We need roo bars that protect cars without being deadly to people. My wife's sister was killed by a roo bar.
We also need rail freight that is faster and cheaper than road freight.

[Peter Ward]

An interesting point. The time it takes for a vehicle to decelerate after an impact can be deadly. F1 cars in particular literally are designed to fly apart and crumple to minimize the forces imposed on the driver after very high speed crashes.

Driving Toorak tractors or urban Shermans does give the occupant a better chance of survival if you impact some poor sod in a tiny Hyuandai.

But the tables are turned if you hit something decidedly more solid.

Sometimes refered to as the "ping pong ball" effect, the occupants in a solid vehicle have limited vehicle crumple to slow their deceleration. They in affect bounce around like lotto balls.

[Louwai]

This was a letter to the Editor from an ex policeman, published in the Gold Coast Sun newspaper.

Quote:
ONCE again we witnessed the horrific death toll on our roads over the Christmas period.

As an ex-trafic police officer I ask myself 'when are the politicians and bureaucrats going to realise that all their band-aid treatments have been a total failure?'

Their ideas seem to be more directed at detection and punishment of offenders rather than prevention.

Drivers cause collisions; there are no accidents. They run off roads, hit trees, lose control of their vehicles etc.

Speed, drink, drugs or whatever are secondary to the cause ... important symptoms but not the cause.

No one should be able to teach a person to drive other than a licensed driving instructor, qualified to teach a common system of safe driving (recommend the system used in police driver training.)

We should develop regional training centres equipped with a skid pan, driving simulators and eye-testing facilities to include tests to detect colour blindness.

Examination for a driving licence must be more comprehensive and should include driving at speeds up to 110 km/h, night-driving in poor weather conditions on country roads and on freeways.

Once passed as competent, L and P plates should be abolished.

The second stage of driver education should be through the courts, where instead of a tap on the wrist or paltry fine, traffic offenders may be fined and sentenced to special training at the offender's cost. [I think this may happen in some states in the USA, according to an episode of Malcolm in the Middle I saw recently.]

In cases of drink-driving, why is it necessary to even have a court case with all the associated cost and time consuming trials? If a perosn is deemed over the limit as a result of tests - straight to jail.

The community can no longer keep bearing the ever increasing cost of road trauma.

We have reached the time for some thinking beyond the square and it is high time the decision makers faced the fact that, so far, they have failed miserably to make any progress in solving the problems.
- PETER BROOKE, Mudgeeraba

End of quote.

Seems he has the same belief that I do. TEACH people correctly in the first place.

[Ric]

I was at a MVA callout last night, thankfully there was no major injurys but it could have been a lot worse.

The situation was a typical one we see a lot, basically two cars driving too close and a roo jumps out. The first car brakes heavily and the second car has nowhere to go except up the back of the other one.

Don't forget the 2 second rule and use it as the minimum, 3 or 4 seconds gap at night is much better.

cheers

[glenc]

We used to live next to a very dangerous corner on the Pacific Highway.
There was a right hand corner going up hill with an overtaking lane.
When it rained the accidents started. Mostly it was high powered rear wheel drives accelerating and going sideways while overtaking.
The worst crashes were when they went sideways into a truck or 4WD coming down the hill.
Recently there was a crash in the Adelaide hills that killed 3 people. It looked similar to me.

[glenc]

You can have your say about speed limits and speed limit signs in NSW.
https://www.saferroadsnsw.com.au/
https://www.saferroadsnsw.com.au/HaveYourSay.aspx