Is talking about speed limits banned yet?

[Peter Ward]

Originally Posted by marki

The speed limits are not set by brainless pollies but rather the engineers that designed the road ( I know I have worked in this area)

............local governments and councils reduce these speeds further it is because of public pressure to do so.

Mark

Mark you are having an each way bet here.

Sure there is an engineering aspect, taking into account projected 85th percentile speeds, shoulder width, road width, curve radius etc.

The problem I have is many roads indeed have this physical analysis tossed out by some bureaucrat/pollie and replaced with a "populist" limit which has no bearing on whether a higher limit would still be safe.

The constant changing of posted limits along the same road ( in NSW ) despite zero change in the nature of road itself is laughable....and sadly does promote good traffic flow or driver awareness of that flow... I'd suggest staring at a speedo is not a great idea in high traffic density environments.

In my own area, a local access road had a 90km/hr limit for decades, which for inexplicable reasons was reduced to 70km/hr....begging the question how was it "safe" to travel at that limit one day, yet not so the day after the change was implemented? (There had been no housing development or crashes fatalities to justify the change)

Similarly with school zones. Time of day has nothing to do with the presence of a child...yet in NSW major arterial roads are choked for 3 hours every week-day due to the mindless implementation of this policy.

Of course slowing down for kids is a good idea...but grinding almost to a halt on a road (while kids are in class or have long since gone home ) that is no-where near the school entrance yet within a deemed radius makes little sense...yet we are told we are being "safe"??

As Roy and HG would say: "It's a joke!"

[Peter Ward]

Originally Posted by Roobi

The overall autobahn death toll is difficult to determine, but a recent study on a stretch of the A66 in central Germany is giving ammunition to the speed limit proponents.

Lies, dammed lies and statistics. Despite carrying about 39% of nation's traffic, German autobahns still have just 3% of the road toll.

If speed were the only factor this patently would not be the case.

As I said well regulated flow and good driver training.... something we seem loathed to adopt in Oz....

[Roobi]

ok. Rat156
- to say that you haven't had a fine recently suggests that you have had them in the past, therefore you speed.
- your statement "It's the most risky thing many of us do (particularly without think about it)." those of you who do speed are breaking the law and putting yourselves and worse others that are doing the right thing in danger.
- When you say that this thread is not about being able to speed, but about raising the speed limits on appropriate roads to try to 'help mitigate driver fatigue.' Well sorry mate but they go hand in hand. If speeding does kill, and you can't deny that fact, then raising the speed limits will ultimately mean more deaths. You did condemn your own statement by saying that driver fatigue is more of an issue on rural roads. Thats why they also drill into us take 5 stay alive. Ther have been so many slogans that the tac drills into us, it's not just the speed kills one.
- while your pretty much right in saying "but hitting a tree at 100 or 130 kmh is likely to be fatal either way" its more of the control of the vehicle. I'm much more likely to regain control after a swerve or a skid if i'm doing 100 rather than 130, and thats a huge point to consider.
-You also say. "More alarmingly, the overrepresentation of young drivers in these statistics remains and the Governments are doing little about it. All the speed cameras in the world will not save someone who doesn't have the right training." Sorry but your not right here either. The points demerit system and fines are a start to scare hoons and others into doing the right thing in future, If i ever got a speeding fine (and i haven't ever because i do not speed) then i would be making damned sure i never did it again and now that they have the anti hoon laws, they are impounding third offenders that pose a risk of being a public danger. I think this is a great step in the right direction. Theres a lot of p platers that are driving their parents cars, Imagine if you got your parents car impounded or crushed. You'd be pretty much screwed.
But after all this is said I do agree that more needs to be done with the roads to fix them and better driver education.

anyway, i'm done for now.

[Lee]

Originally Posted by Roobi

.....
- while your pretty much right in saying "but hitting a tree at 100 or 130 kmh is likely to be fatal either way" its more of the control of the vehicle. ....

I'm not too sure about that one - your kinetic energy increases with the square of your velocity - so that 30kmph increase represents a 69% increase in energy you need to absorb, hopefully not with your skull. Your crumple zones can only absorb so much. Once they are exhausted, you start to crumple.

Be honest guys - going fast makes you feel cool, like Peter Brock etc - who knows?? Remember Mr Brock was a good driver, and how was he killed?

The roads are where the rest of us are taking our kids to swimming lessons etc.

Find another damned race-track.

[supernova1965 (Warren)]

Originally Posted by supernova1965

More speed = less reaction time scientific fact no'one can argue that this is not true.

I would like to see some of the people arguing the increase in speed limits to discuss the above statement instead of ignoring it altogether.

[Peter Ward]

Originally Posted by supernova1965

I would like to see some of the people arguing the increase in speed limits to discuss the above statement instead of ignoring it altogether.

Well it's wrong in several ways. Reaction time is the same.

The distance traveled in that time does however increase.

Regulatory authorities also pedal the myth it can take 1.5 to 4 seconds to react to an event. I'd suggest if it took anyone 4 seconds to alter the speed/direction of their vehicle they should have their license confiscated on the spot. (Traffic lights must be a real problem for them )

Speed can be managed well and with high levels of safety. If you still don't think that is true, take a boat rather than airplane on your next holiday

[supernova1965 (Warren)]

Yes reaction time stays the same but I think you knew that I meant the time you have to react in gets shorter and once it passes your reaction time you are in trouble. You said it yourself the distance traveled in the same amount of time increases. And in the sky you have a lot more sky between planes(Because they keep them apart when they haven't thats when you see the result on the news) than you have space between cars I know when I fly I can't see what the occupants in any other plane I see are doing but I can see into other cars as they are so much closer. I think we can agree that we want our friends to be safe which is I think the most important thing if we are talking saving time and driver fatigue then I think the mere at the most minitues time saved is not going to make us less tired if minitues make the difference then we are already to tired to drive.

I hope all are safe so we can have great conversations into the future.

[marki]

Originally Posted by Peter Ward

Mark you are having an each way bet here.

Sure there is an engineering aspect, taking into account projected 85th percentile speeds, shoulder width, road width, curve radius etc.

The problem I have is many roads indeed have this physical analysis tossed out by some bureaucrat/pollie and replaced with a "populist" limit which has no bearing on whether a higher limit would still be safe.

The constant changing of posted limits along the same road ( in NSW ) despite zero change in the nature of road itself is laughable....and sadly does promote good traffic flow or driver awareness of that flow... I'd suggest staring at a speedo is not a great idea in high traffic density environments.

In my own area, a local access road had a 90km/hr limit for decades, which for inexplicable reasons was reduced to 70km/hr....begging the question how was it "safe" to travel at that limit one day, yet not so the day after the change was implemented? (There had been no housing development or crashes fatalities to justify the change)

Similarly with school zones. Time of day has nothing to do with the presence of a child...yet in NSW major arterial roads are choked for 3 hours every week-day due to the mindless implementation of this policy.

Of course slowing down for kids is a good idea...but grinding almost to a halt on a road (while kids are in class or have long since gone home ) that is no-where near the school entrance yet within a deemed radius makes little sense...yet we are told we are being "safe"??

As Roy and HG would say: "It's a joke!"

Hi Peter

No I am not having a bet either way, I am talking from personal experience. When I was in my early twenties I lived and worked in Karratha (1600km NW of Perth)for 4 years. Every 12 weeks I would get R & R and would travel to Perth. At that time I owned a GT falcon with a fully worked 428 SCJ big block (~ 650 BHP) and a 1000 cc CBR honda motor cycle (at that time considered to be the fastest production bike in the world). Sure I could have jumped on the plane but I liked to get myself home. The roads up there are tedious with not a corner in sight for up to 90 miles at times. If I rode the bike I would lay over the tank with my feet resting on the 10L fuel drum strapped the pillion seat and twist the throttle back to the stop (the 22L tank was not big enough to get me between fuel stops). The RPM would hover in and out of the red zone most of the way. I once made it to Perth in 9 hours including stops for fuel, police and food. The consequence of this was I was wrecked when I got home and it took two days to recover (sore, tired, deaf.....) and I gained 11 demerit points between Geralton and eneabba (I had reduced speed to about 140kmh for the last 400km). Same with the car, drive flatout in one go and get home taking 2 days to recover. The only time I took it easy was when I had 4 other people travelling with me. We left at 12 pm and drove about 600 km to Canarvon arriving about 6 pm. Booked a motel, had a shower then went to the local pub for dinner and a few drinks then bed. Left 6 am the next morning and arrived in Perth at 6 pm with lots of stops along the way. That night I went to a bucks party and had a ball. Any one saying it is better to go faster over a long distance and arrive earlier is quite frankly a fool, I know I have been there.

As for school zones on days off well here is a bit of info for you. Just because it is a student free day does not mean students are not at school. We often have year 11 and 12 students attending over school holidays (of their own choice) to take advantage of the facilities and study or attend revision seminars, tutorials etc etc. Schools are very active places and many events are often held during the school holidays. At my school we are only ever trully closed between Dec 24 - Jan 2.

As for being suprised and unfairly penalised because the signposted speed limit keeps changing....a good driver will be aware of the environment around them as they are observant and never take things for granted. It may have been 60kmh yesterday but its only 40kmh today.....that may have been an empty pedestrian cross walk yesterday but there is someone on it today.... Any licenced driver should have enough control of a vehical to be able to judge speed without keeping one eye on the speedo. See the sign, slow down, adjust mentally to the speed and hold it there. You only need to sight the speedo briefly. Personally I have my GPS set to warn me if I am speeding. It is blue toothed to my mobile phone so updates automatically. The moment I exceed the speed limit a chime sounds and I backoff until it stops. Dont even need to look at the speedo. I used this when I was in Melbourne at easter (did not know any of the roads) and never got a fine or anything else.

Penalties do not only occur on public roads. If you are racing at a sanctioned event and overtake under the yellow or red flags you will get fined. Whats more if you ignor them you are likely to become part of the problem that caused them to be brought out in the first place as you will most likely plow into a crash or car that has spun out. Try getting your head around that after you have been going as fast as you can with the adrenalin levels through the roof. Often the flag man is very close to the crash and you have bugger all time to respond. If I have been racing I never drive home nor for about day after as my judement of speed is shot to pieces. It takes time to adjust to city speeds and if we had widely varying speed limits I fear that more accidents would take place as people just wouldn't comprehend (myself included).

I had hoons racing down my street all the time and there are quite a few young families and pet owners around here. We got together, lobbied the council, had the speed limit dropped and S bends placed along the road at intervals to stop it. Guess what, the hoons dont bother here any more. Most of the speed changes are not due to some money grabbing politician but rather their response to concerns expressed by the community.

Mark

[mithrandir (Andrew)]

Originally Posted by Roobi

-You also say. "More alarmingly, the overrepresentation of young drivers in these statistics remains and the Governments are doing little about it. All the speed cameras in the world will not save someone who doesn't have the right training." Sorry but your not right here either. The points demerit system and fines are a start to scare hoons and others into doing the right thing in future

This is patently not true. Young drivers are overrepresented for two reasons.
1) Lack of experience
2) Risk taking behaviour

People under about 25 indulge in much more risky behaviour than older people. The obvious manifestations are drugs including alcohol and driving. They believe they are immortal. Getting caught speeding or other road traffic infringements, vehicle accidents, STDs, AIDS, HepB/C and overdoses happen to someone else.

The people responding to this thread have lived through that stage of life. I've lost friends to traffic accidents but more to cancer or suicide.

[Roobi]

But getting caught may make them think twice next time. If anything helps save lives, even by a fraction, isn't that good?
and in regards to people thinking the school zoned times are crap, its only from 8 - 9:30 between the times that most kids arrive at school and 2:30 to 4. some kids hang around the school waiting for their parents to pick them up or have after school stuff going on. Theres nothing wrong with these times. Seriously how much extra time does it take to pass a school at 40kms as opposed to 50 or 60.
Why don't you have a serious look at yourselves, and consider the risks, an extra five minutes on the road wont kill you, but it may save someone else. I don't get what all the complaining is about.

[rat156]

Originally Posted by Roobi

ok. Rat156
- to say that you haven't had a fine recently suggests that you have had them in the past, therefore you speed.
- your statement "It's the most risky thing many of us do (particularly without think about it)." those of you who do speed are breaking the law and putting yourselves and worse others that are doing the right thing in danger.
- When you say that this thread is not about being able to speed, but about raising the speed limits on appropriate roads to try to 'help mitigate driver fatigue.' Well sorry mate but they go hand in hand. If speeding does kill, and you can't deny that fact, then raising the speed limits will ultimately mean more deaths. You did condemn your own statement by saying that driver fatigue is more of an issue on rural roads. Thats why they also drill into us take 5 stay alive. Ther have been so many slogans that the tac drills into us, it's not just the speed kills one.
- while your pretty much right in saying "but hitting a tree at 100 or 130 kmh is likely to be fatal either way" its more of the control of the vehicle. I'm much more likely to regain control after a swerve or a skid if i'm doing 100 rather than 130, and thats a huge point to consider.
-You also say. "More alarmingly, the overrepresentation of young drivers in these statistics remains and the Governments are doing little about it. All the speed cameras in the world will not save someone who doesn't have the right training." Sorry but your not right here either. The points demerit system and fines are a start to scare hoons and others into doing the right thing in future, If i ever got a speeding fine (and i haven't ever because i do not speed) then i would be making damned sure i never did it again and now that they have the anti hoon laws, they are impounding third offenders that pose a risk of being a public danger. I think this is a great step in the right direction. Theres a lot of p platers that are driving their parents cars, Imagine if you got your parents car impounded or crushed. You'd be pretty much screwed.
But after all this is said I do agree that more needs to be done with the roads to fix them and better driver education.

anyway, i'm done for now.

To imply that I speed because I have had a speeding fine in the past is misleading. I didn't want this to get personal, as that's the easiest way to get the thread locked and the discussion to finish. But I have to defend myself. Yes I have had speeding fines in the past, but I do not make a habit of traveling in excess of the speed limit. I might travel at the speed limit, which if you don't have a calibrated speedo, may look like I'm doing 5-10 kmh over the speed limit. I travel through four speed cameras everyday, unlike many other road users I don't have to slow down to negotiate them. I may exceed the speed limit briefly in order to overtake someone.

This is where you come in. You say that you never speed, which means that you either have a sixth sense as to the actual speed you're traveling, or you travel below the speed limit deliberately in order to make sure that in a momentary lapse, you don't exceed the limit. Or you spend most of the time driving with your eyes on the speedo, rather than the road. If you don't fit into these categories, then you must speed occasionally. Now what happens when I come up behind you on an open road, you're doing 95 kmh indicated, which is probably 90 kmh and I want to do 100 kmh, I want to do 100 kmh, so I have to overtake. In order to do this safely on a dual lane road, I pretty much have to go over the speed limit.

Yes, the TAC does produce some good stuff, but the overemphasis on speed is false, as can be seen from the article in the first post, degrades the good message. Propaganda doesn't work on everyone, and when they produce absolute rubbish like the "wipe off 5" campaign many people simply turn off the good message. That particular campaign had an ad with a guys hitting a pedestrian because he was doing 5 kmh over the speed limit, there are so many variables in that particular situation that to say his speed caused the accident is false, but the thrust of the campaign was for everyone to drive at 5 kmh below the speed limit. I didn't get it then and I still don't.

You obviously have never lost control of a car at 100kmh. If you had you'd know that there is very little chance of recovering the car, at 130 it's about the same, Buckleys. I have lost cars at 100 up to 140, at 100 I spun off the circuit, where there was nothing to hit, at 140 unfortunately there was a wall in the way, the car and my ego were crushed. The best way to avoid an accident, or a loss of control is to AVOID it, look at the reasons the driver lost control and address these.

I am right regarding the overrepresentation of the kids in the road toll stats. Fines etc have their place, remember I'm not advocating people break the law, merely that on certain roads the speed limit gets raised and that the money saved from useless "speed Kills" campaigns gets targeted at young driver education. The rest of the laws stay in place.

I think we actually agree on the last point.

I also know that you've lost someone to the road toll, pretty obviously to a speeding driver. Remember that you aren't alone, but some of us lost the loved one to fatigue or alcohol related accidents. There is not one solution to the road toll, we should look at all causes of all accidents, when about 20% of fatalities are put down to fatigue, then we must consider all solutions. You can't enforce a 2 hour mandatory rest break, but you can reduce a three hour trip to two but upping the speed limit.

Cheers
Stuart

[rat156]

Originally Posted by Lee

I'm not too sure about that one - your kinetic energy increases with the square of your velocity - so that 30kmph increase represents a 69% increase in energy you need to absorb, hopefully not with your skull. Your crumple zones can only absorb so much. Once they are exhausted, you start to crumple.

Be honest guys - going fast makes you feel cool, like Peter Brock etc - who knows?? Remember Mr Brock was a good driver, and how was he killed?

The roads are where the rest of us are taking our kids to swimming lessons etc.

Find another damned race-track.

If you hit a tree side on at those speeds, the result is pretty much the same, if you hit front or rear on you may survive. If you hit a large concrete wall you can walk away (I've done it) even at 140 kmh.

Going fast is good, I have a great car and like to exercise it. But I don't do that on public roads. I'm no Peter Brock, if you read my posts you'd realise that, he died in a tarmac rally stage, hardly applicable to everyday driving as we are discussing here.

I do use racetracks, going out next weekend infact.

Cheers
Stuart

[Hagar (Doug)]

Here we go again, just the usual monthly cry. A couple who think they are great drivers and should be able to drive how ever they like whenever they like.

Think about it everyone, we have on one hand a driver who drives on a race track going round in circles with everyother car going the same way and on the other hand we have an aging gent (meant nicely) with a European sports car and feels he should be able to try it out and work it out where ever and when ever.

Come on you two give it a rest and instead of crying in here why not work to get on one of the many Gov committee's which govern the roads in Australia and see if you can argue your way against trauma surgeons and the like who live there lives putting people back together after coming to grief on our roads.

Good luck.

I did forget one thing, sorry. Your original question " Is talking about speed limits banned yet? " The answer is obviously no, but with all this protracted toing and froinig is is about time it was. The same arguments on both sides are aired month after month. This surely comes under the category of POLITICAL. Come on Mike.
Looking forward to Peter starting the same thread again next month. (His turn)

[Roobi]

well done Hagar, said well.
to rats156 you miss the point completely. Clearly you never will.
By the way, i have never had a speeding fine because i don't speed full stop. It's not difficult to glance at your speedo every now and then to see how your doing, but mostly you should have a feel for the speed your doing. Anyone who drives often will know this. My speedo isn't under or over, I often go under the speed check back from geelong. besides that it's a reasonably new car and It's a drivers responsibility to keep their car in good working order, including the speedometer.

[mithrandir (Andrew)]

I can see this thread is about to be locked. Voices on both sides are deliberately missinterpreting Stuart's original question.

Originally Posted by Roobi

My speedo isn't under or over, I often go under the speed check back from geelong. besides that it's a reasonably new car and It's a drivers responsibility to keep their car in good working order, including the speedometer.

How do you keep your speedo accurate? Is it connected to a calibarated dopler radar so you do not have to worry about tyre size, pressure and wear changing the rolling diameter?

It is only in the last few years that the ADRs were changed to require speedos to not read slow. Since then new vehicles can read fast but not slow.

My 2004 built vehicle always displays lesser speeds than any one of my three GPSs says I'm doing. No doubt I could reduce the tyre pressure until they agreed, but I'm not going to increase the tyre wear and trash the handling for the approximately 2% difference. I can't change the tyres to reduce the rolling diameter because that would make them non-compliant with the tyre placard on the door frame.

If I was pulled over in Vic for 102 in a 100 zone would they accept that my speedo was within tollerance for the ADRs in effect when it was built?

<mode style=rant>
How about those who sit in the right hand lane doing the speed limit according to their 7% fast speedo, and deliberately block people sitting on the real speed limit. The police could probably make more money booking people for failing to keep left than for speeding.
</mode>

[Hagar (Doug)]

Originally Posted by mithrandir

I can see this thread is about to be locked. Voices on both sides are deliberately missinterpreting Stuart's original question.
I don't think there is any missinterpretation of the ongoing bleat.



If I was pulled over in Vic for 102 in a 100 zone would they accept that my speedo was within tollerance for the ADRs in effect when it was built?
Not likely to happen but in any event you could apply for a warning rather than a fine. The overall responsibility for the car and it's ability to do the speed limit is yours anyway.

Cheers

[iceman (Mike)]

100 posts is enough. Well, 97.

I think all has been said and done in this thread, it's only going to escalate from here so I'll close it now.