NSW state-wide speed limit 90km/h?

[glenc (Glen)]

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 (Rom)]

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]

Originally Posted by el_draco

Large areas of Tassie have 90km speed limits and 50 in the metro areas. We whinged about it for about 2 days.....


.....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.
.......

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 (Frank)]

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

[glenc (Glen)]

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 (Jeff)]

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).

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.

[mithrandir (Andrew)]

Originally Posted by 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).

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

Originally Posted by theodog

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.

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]

Originally Posted by glenc

.....
The best speed limit is usually the 85th percentile speed.
......

At last, some rational debate of the facts

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 (Frank)]

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 (Glen)]

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/1...y-5-of-crashes
http://www.nhtsa.gov/

[richardda1st (Richard)]

Most accidents are caused by negligence, stupidity, arrogance, etc.

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

[mithrandir (Andrew)]

Originally Posted by Peter Ward

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Peter Ward

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.

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 (Richard)]

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 (Jeff)]

Originally Posted by telecasterguru

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

I think the answer to this is below.

Originally Posted by richardda1st

Most accidents are caused by negligence, stupidity, arrogance, etc.

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

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

[rat156]

Originally Posted by telecasterguru

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

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 (Bryan)]

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 (Rom)]

Originally Posted by 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.

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)

They can stick it.

[OneOfOne (Trevor)]

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

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