Open Road Speed Limits? Time for a change?

[The Fence]

My only question is and has been all along why the hurry...?

Im comfortable with the current limits and dont wish to share the roads with crazy speeding drivers with little or nil experience at higher speeds.

Doubt Im the only one as the poll shows.

Rather the laid back than the rush. Just my opinion.

 

[Ideo]

Bayview. Good post.

I am all for more stringent controls in built up areas, and lower speed limits in certain areas. Let's face it. Doing 60 down a suburban street where kids are playing is more dangerous than doing 120 down a freeway. Particularly to other users.

The mantra should not be speed kills. It should be inappropriate speed kills. There are times when the speed limit is artificially low, often done in order to discourage road users from using a road (the Old Pacific Highway from the Hawkesbury River to Somersby is a prime example of this). However, there are other times when the speed limit can be far too high - e.g. I drove back along the Lakes Way on Sunday night from Forster. It was a bit damp in places, dark and bumpy. 100 was not safe, so I nudged my speed down a bit.

But, that would involve teaching kids to drive properly, and to judge conditions for themselves.

 

[The Fence]

Yes agree bayview, good post.

Anyone been on the F3 in fog...?

Feared for life many a morning commuting to the Nth Shore from Central Coast with drivers passing in thick fog. Simply madness.

 

[gottabespotless]

I've got another confession. Not only am I happy to travel at 110kph, I also take the odd detour into towns that have been bypassed. Recently bypassed towns are always interesting. At first they are defiant and pretend nothing has happened, then the next visit there are lots of 'for sale' signs up and shops closed, then later some towns find a second life and kick on.

I am reminded of 'Radiator Springs' in the classic kids movie, 'Cars' .

 

[Risky Business]

My vote was to keep things the same.

Cars may be safer but you still share the road with dumbasses, and I don't want them to have an excuse to go even faster.

If people want to go faster, I'd suggest they choose another method of travel.

 

[Strannik]

Ok that's Europe, this is Australya mate.

Why the hurry for the sake of a few minutes but far far more risk...?

because it's not few minutes, it's over an hour. 70 minutes to be exact.

 

[Strannik]

i'd go for 130, possibly 150

most people already do 130 on highways without any problems anyway.

speed limit of 110+ 10% that you are allowed for various tolerances, plus another 9km/h for when you stop watching the speedo - voila, you are going 130

on the long drives it saves quite a bit of time, and allows you to drive same distances with less fatigue. people who have done long interstate trips will understand.

 

[The Fence]

because it's not few minutes, it's over an hour. 70 minutes to be exact.

What are you talking about to be exact?

150klms/hr is a ridiculous speed to be doing in Australian conditions ATM.

Stop being silly.

I've driven the length and breadth of this country, so I fully understand the roads and how fast they can safely be traversed. Safely for all and sundry.

 

[Strannik]

i'm talking about the stunt in the original post. they saved 70 minutes by driving 130 on the open road when going between melbourne and sydney

there is no such thing as "australian conditions". the roads are different everywhere. some are safe to do 150, some aren't safe to do even 60.

 

[The Fence]

Exactly. So raising the limits is off limits.

 

[Strannik]

not sure why you say that.
the limits should be adjusted to reflect the conditions of the road, not what some dodgy politicians think they should be

 

[HiEquity]

Homer Simpson on reducing the national speed limit:

"Sure, it will save a few lives, but millions will be late!"

A few points:
- The vast majority of Australian rural roads are single lane
- Kangaroos are everywhere outside the capitals, particularly at night when there is less traffic to keep them away
- I don't believe heavy vehicles should have their speed limits increased and increasing the limit for light vehicles only will cause issues due to the speed mismatch

But the main problem for me is that we don't differentiate between day and night speed limits and I'm not keen on higher speeds at night due to the roos so for that reason it's a vote for the status quo.

 

[BayView]

Homer Simpson on reducing the national speed limit:

"Sure, it will save a few lives, but millions will be late!"

A few points:
- The vast majority of Australian rural roads are single lane
- Kangaroos are everywhere outside the capitals, particularly at night when there is less traffic to keep them away
- I don't believe heavy vehicles should have their speed limits increased and increasing the limit for light vehicles only will cause issues due to the speed mismatch

But the main problem for me is that we don't differentiate between day and night speed limits and I'm not keen on higher speeds at night due to the roos so for that reason it's a vote for the status quo.

no-one says you have to go as fast as the speed limits allow though.

It comes back to driver education, and/or common sense...don't drive at night (kangaroos), or drive fast at night (kangaroos), slow down in rain, slow down in fog, slow down when roads aren't good, etc.

No matter what you do, you can't legisate for idiots.

 

[Aaron Sice]

i say - make speed limits 150kph.

then make licensing renewals every 2 years, and only after SUCCESSFUL completion of a high speed driver training course, complete with energency slides at 100kph in the wet, how to avoid a rollover when your car puts two wheels in the dirt, how to pass an oncoming truck at 80kph on a single lane gravel shoulder road and how to accurately gauge a full "stomp on the brake pedal as hard as you can without locking up the front wheels" braking test from 150kph.

you could create a whole new industry.

if you dont pass, your govt mandated speed limiter (just like immobilisers) on your vehicle remains at 110kph.

 

[AlmostBob]

- The vast majority of Australian rural roads are single lane
- Kangaroos are everywhere outside the capitals, particularly at night when there is less traffic to keep them away
- I don't believe heavy vehicles should have their speed limits increased and increasing the limit for light vehicles only will cause issues due to the speed mismatch

But the main problem for me is that we don't differentiate between day and night speed limits and I'm not keen on higher speeds at night due to the roos so for that reason it's a vote for the status quo.

snipped, abit
I totally agree with all
sick to, other people's death, of taking a front end loader and chains out to lift some car off the occupants,
the speed limit is 130 and they are going to do 130
a 1400kilo bullock hits a hard when it rams a car at 130 in the dark
once was too many
the ambos couldnt wait for a tow truck,
there must be heaps more, the 4cyl hatchback involved was obliterated

people who pass a road train,
with another one oncoming,
and dont read the signs on the truck that say,
"I am F__ing huge 53m long you need a shi_load to pass"

and 130 costs a lot of fuel, minimum charge $100, for a roadhouse person to take a jerrycan of fuel out to your vehicle, when find you cant make the last 10km. "But I always get 900 in Sydney" and its 580 between where they fueled, and where they ran out

 

[HiEquity]

....
sick to, other people's death, .....

This is the problem with this subject. Some of us have very close experience with it and that will always colour our perceptions of what we believe to be important.

I can remember back in the day having a very similar discussion with a lovely young 21yo lady from the country who thought speed limits were too low. She grew up on the farm and had heaps of sideways driver education with her brothers - she knew how to drive. It was only a year or two after our discussion on her way to work at 6am that she veered off a completely straight road with no-one around and hit the only tree near the road for miles. Probably trying to avoid a roo but we will never know the actual reason. Going by what the tree did to her car and herself (she is no longer with us...), sticking to the speed limit could well have saved her. But we will never know. The trail of wrecked lives she left behind in her close family continues to this day, about 15 years after the event.

If it saves someone or anyone, I'm happy to take a bit longer, relax, enjoy the drive and get there in one piece. I believe my own safety and that of my family is enhanced through the enforcement of sensible speed limits on people who think their driving is fantastic. Better driver education, advanced driver training and testing, regular vehicle checks, more RBTs, etc etc are all of course great ideas to reduce an unacceptable road toll but so are sensible speed limits. The only cost for them is being late...

 

[Ausprop]

If it saves someone or anyone,

this line gets rolled out in every debate... it is $100m but if it saves just one life, it's 10kms but if it saves just one life, just a tiny injection and if it saves just one life...

trouble is, life does have a price. I can virtually eliminate the road toll. Cut the speed limit to 5kms. there you go, and if it saves just one life it will all be worth it - when shall we start?

 

[Ausprop]

our driver licencing qualifications are scary - advanced driver training should be a minimum standard as part of getting a licence

 

[Strannik]

found this site with some interesting statistics:

http://statistics.infrastructure.go...bguest/Road Deaths by State and Territory.txd

you can spin the table in multiple ways

couple of observations i found interesting

number of fatal crashes in the areas with posted limit of 50 is the same as with 110.

number of fatal crashes where the posted limit is 80 and below is roughly the same as those above 80.

so speed limit might not be such a big factor after all (although it doesn't say what the actual driving speed was at the time of crash)
would be interesting if the data could also take into account what percentage of the roads have each speed limit

some people say that sticking to the speed limits may save lives, i'm of the opinion that driving to the road conditions saves more lives every year, than speed limits ever did.

 

[HiEquity]

this line gets rolled out in every debate... it is $100m but if it saves just one life, it's 10kms but if it saves just one life, just a tiny injection and if it saves just one life...

trouble is, life does have a price. I can virtually eliminate the road toll. Cut the speed limit to 5kms. there you go, and if it saves just one life it will all be worth it - when shall we start?

It's a fair point Ausprop. I guess my thinking behind saying it is that the current road toll is too high rather than acceptably low and I'm not at all convinced that raising the speed limit will reduce it, quite the reverse in fact.

But yes, you have to stop somewhere and it does come down to how much you value human life at the end of the day and yes, driver training is a glaring problem in this context and should be worked on regardless of the speed limit.