Open Road Speed Limits? Time for a change?

[Strannik]

Nice. Of course the enforcement of speed limits isn't the only factor (who ever said it is? that's a straw man argument if ever I saw one) but it is clearly one of the factors. Nothing is ever so black and white out in the real world. We need to work on all the factors if we want to continue to make progress on the road toll, which I definitely support.

mate

i'm an IT person.

when people tell me there is a problem, i want to see facts.
for example, when people tell me their system has **** performance, i want to know what **** looks like exactly, in terms of seconds per transactions.

with this whole "speed" business, we haven't seen any facts at all. all we have seen is the mantra "speed kills", "knock 5 down" etc....

so until we see some cold hard facts how speed is related to fatal accidents, i'm sorry but i ain't buying it.

i'm with you for lowering down the death toll, i just don't think speed has got anything to do with it

 

[Ideo]

Sounds terrific in theory.

We are constantly asked by folk to get the cheapest tyres, but ones which will last a million kilometres, stick like shoit to a blanket, stop on a 5cent piece and are as quiet as a mouse

This after inspecting their tyres and seeing wire sticking out the sides or worse, often times.

You would not believe how often someone comes in to enquire about replacing their tyres for the first time on their 3 year old machine. Haven't much of an idea about what the tyres cost at this point.

Often times they are Michelins, or Bridgestone Potenzas etc...top dollar Original Equipment tyres.

Mind you; I don't want to sell the *******s either, because there is no margin in them for me. Anything brandname is *******ised to death. The only person who wins is Mr. Bridgestone and Mr. Michelin.

Their usual response is to die of shock at the price, then we have to look for the cheaper alternative because they don't want to spend the money.

This also happens with yer Beemer, Saab, Audi, Volksy and Merc owners by the way.

And don't start me on trailer owners...trailers are usually about 50 years old, more rust han steel, left out in the elements with perished tyres and used twice a year and they want to spend 5cents on the tyres because "it's only a tailer"....."have you got any retreads or second hand tyres?"

And then want you to race out after the tailer tyre hand grenades on the side of the Freeway and sort them out because their tyres are 40 year old.

Oh yeah, I don't doubt it for a second. It is one thing that I never skimp on. Hell, even when I had a a 3k bucket it had excellent brake pads and rotors and the best tyres I could find. My latest set set me back $1200 for a set of Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymetric 2 tyres. But, if you don't care about what tyres you have, you have no business lecturing and hectoring about road safety. Simple as that.

I'm one of those odd people that believe it is more important to have a good contact point between me and the road than to watch the speedo to make sure I don't go 0.5 over the speed limit.

In my ideal world, your Ling Long, Goodrides, Bluestreak, Triangles and their ilk would be banned. I've seen some shocking stats from them in terms of wet stopping distance in particular.

 

[Strannik]

40% higher? That's acceptable?

Speed is a factor in road deaths- but it's not the only factor.

i'm sorry i must've left my maths glasses somewhere
how is 7.2 40% higher than 5.8?

you are right saying that speed is a factor in road deaths.

but unfortunately, i isn't a major factor in road accidents.

i worked for various insurance companies for a while, and let me tell you majority of accidents are not on the highways. they just happen to be not fatal because of lower speeds. the solution here should be not reducing the speeds though, but teaching people how to drive properly.

because if you end up crippled but alive, i'm sure someone will be happy that the road toll is lower, but it won't be you.

 

[AlmostBob]

i'm sorry i must've left my maths glasses somewhere
how is 7.2 40% higher than 5.8?.

coz he misinterpreted the post he was replying to

difference of 1.4, in the post
was read as a multiplier 1.4 = plus 40%


edit: still a noteable difference as a %

 

[BayView]

My latest set set me back $1200 for a set of Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymetric 2 tyres.

LOL!

A large percentage of my customers start having palpitations when the tyres cost more than $100 bucks a corner.

 

[BayView]

with this whole "speed" business, we haven't seen any facts at all. all we have seen is the mantra "speed kills", "knock 5 down" etc..

I was driving into Melb one time on the Monash Freeway, amongst a million other people, and there was a sign on a crossover bridge up ahead which said "Wipe of 5 and stay alive".....

Not one car ahead of me that I could see, after I spotted the sign, between me and the bridge slowed down at all....

 

[HiEquity]

so until we see some cold hard facts how speed is related to fatal accidents, i'm sorry but i ain't buying it.

i'm with you for lowering down the death toll, i just don't think speed has got anything to do with it

Elsewhere you acknowledge that speed increases the risk of fatality from accidents so even if the risk of accidents wasn't increased with higher speed limits, there would still be more deaths from the same number of accidents. There would also be a similar increase in the number of people disabled from their accidents for the same reason. i.e. E=.5mv^2

But then we have the long established Solomon curve (google it), for which there is more than ample evidence that the risk of accident increases the greater the variability in speed of vehicles on the road. With trucks, caravans, boat trailers, semis, road trains etc etc (ie a large proportion of overall road users, particularly in Australia with our huge reliance on road freight in regional areas at all times of the day and night) all pretty well limited to circa 100km/h by their capability, allowing others to travel at higher speeds would clearly result in more accidents as borne out by the evidence behind the Solomon curve. Particularly given how so many of our roads are single lane highways.

Having said all of that, while I haven't travelled the Hume Hwy I understand it's at least two lane, wide, expansive and with excellent sight lines and coming across a kangaroo would be highly unlikely? In that type of case I can understand angling for a bit of a higher speed limit - there's a section of the South West Hwy south of Perth where I could understand a similar idea. But for the vast majority of open roads in Australia with kangaroos in particular, a higher speed limit doesn't work for me. But as I said first up all this is coloured by personal experience - I have hit too many kangaroos and other wildlife myself and know too many people who have lost their lives on the road to give a completely objective view.

Oh and here's some recent evidence from Australia, FWIW:

http://www.smartfleetaustralia.com.au/news/evidence-shows-nt-speed-limits-save-lives

 

[Strannik]

Elsewhere you acknowledge that speed increases the risk of fatality from accidents so even if the risk of accidents wasn't increased with higher speed limits, there would still be more deaths from the same number of accidents. There would also be a similar increase in the number of people disabled from their accidents for the same reason. i.e. E=.5mv^2

correct. and i still maintain that we are better off teaching people how to drive so they don't have accident at all, rather than decrease the speed limit so they have an accident and stay crippled for the rest of their lives, but we can report that road toll went down.

But then we have the long established Solomon curve (google it), for which there is more than ample evidence that the risk of accident increases the greater the variability in speed of vehicles on the road. With trucks, caravans, boat trailers, semis, road trains etc etc (ie a large proportion of overall road users, particularly in Australia with our huge reliance on road freight in regional areas at all times of the day and night) all pretty well limited to circa 100km/h by their capability, allowing others to travel at higher speeds would clearly result in more accidents as borne out by the evidence behind the Solomon curve. Particularly given how so many of our roads are single lane highways

.

the answer is really simple. you put the the speed limit which mandates the minimum speed on the roads. i.e if you are driving a 100 on 130 road you get a fine same as if you are driving 130 on a 100 road. problem solved.
you can also do it on a per lane basis. just like we have T3 lanes, you can have S130 lanes

Having said all of that, while I haven't travelled the Hume Hwy I understand it's at least two lane, wide, expansive and with excellent sight lines and coming across a kangaroo would be highly unlikely? In that type of case I can understand angling for a bit of a higher speed limit - there's a section of the South West Hwy south of Perth where I could understand a similar idea. But for the vast majority of open roads in Australia with kangaroos in particular, a higher speed limit doesn't work for me. But as I said first up all this is coloured by personal experience - I have hit too many kangaroos and other wildlife myself and know too many people who have lost their lives on the road to give a completely objective view.

Oh and here's some recent evidence from Australia, FWIW:

http://www.smartfleetaustralia.com.au/news/evidence-shows-nt-speed-limits-save-lives

These speed limits may be preventing motorists from dying in high-speed accidents, but apparently the number of crashes occurring at low speeds (below 100km/h) on Territory roads is continuing to rise.

Between 2002 and 2006, 88 low-speed accidents were recorded; between 2008 and 2012, this number had risen dramatically to 137.

so really what happened there is that people started driving slower but they still crash. they just don't die because of it.

like someone said, you can reduce speed limit to 5km/h and everyone will be alive. won't stop the crashes though

 

[geoffw]

coz he misinterpreted the post he was replying to

difference of 1.4, in the post
was read as a multiplier 1.4 = plus 40%

You are right. It's 24% higher in Germany than Australia.

And double the rate of the UK.

Actually the speed limit has gone up. It used to be 100kph. But when the highways became dual lane carriageways it was increased to 110.

 

[Strannik]

does it mean we can expect 130 limit on the roads that have 4 lanes each way?

 

[topcropper]

so until we see some cold hard facts how speed is related to fatal accidents, i'm sorry but i ain't buying it.

i'm with you for lowering down the death toll, i just don't think speed has got anything to do with it

I'm dumbfounded that someone can say they don't see that speed is related to the death toll? It's just all so basic.

As far as I'm concerned, increase the speed limit, and road fatalities will increase as well.

I'm guessing a lot of you "Want to go faster Blokes" are probably young males, and in the group with the highest crash statistics? Am I right???


For what it's worth, I regularly speed. If the speed limit is 110, I sit on 120, which is probably really 115 as my speedo is optimistic. Never been done for speeding in 30 years. However if the speed limit was 130, I'd probably travel at that if not a bit quicker, but I'm sensible enough to realise that my chances of having a crash would be much higher.


See ya's.

 

[VYBerlinaV8]

I'm dumbfounded that someone can say they don't see that speed is related to the death toll? It's just all so basic.

As far as I'm concerned, increase the speed limit, and road fatalities will increase as well.

I'm guessing a lot of you "Want to go faster Blokes" are probably young males, and in the group with the highest crash statistics? Am I right???


For what it's worth, I regularly speed. If the speed limit is 110, I sit on 120, which is probably really 115 as my speedo is optimistic. Never been done for speeding in 30 years. However if the speed limit was 130, I'd probably travel at that if not a bit quicker, but I'm sensible enough to realise that my chances of having a crash would be much higher.


See ya's.

And yet when the NT government decided to change the Stuart Highway speed limit from 'unlimited' to 130km/h, the road toll increased.

There is a definite direct link between speed and accident severity, but I am not convinced there is a definite direct link between speed and number of accidents.

 

[The Fence]

There is a definite direct link between speed and accident severity, but I am not convinced there is a definite direct link between speed and number of accidents.

So, lets have faster speeds and therefore more deaths as a result and blindly ignore the cause of death as it's far more important to go faster.

I too, cannot for the life of me understand how someone can say that speed is not related to the death toll...???

Sure, if a road is well built and with room for overtaking then an increase could be warranted, but these roads are rare in this country along with the skills to handle speed.

I've been on that stretch Ideo talks about that is limited to 90klms to the north of the Hawkesbury and I can tell you when it was at 110klms it was a death trap. It's winding with poor long distance visibility and undulating curves. many a time coommuting to the north shore from the C Coast my life was threatened by idiot drivers either speeding in thick fog, diving in and out of lanes and overtaking on the left most lane, or simply loosing it in the wet.

A good mate of mine nearly lost his life on that very stretch in a pile up that killed 3. It's a notoriously bad stretch of Hwy of accident and death history that is now appropriately speed limited. IMHO.

 

[geoffw]

And yet when the NT government decided to change the Stuart Highway speed limit from 'unlimited' to 130km/h, the road toll increased.

There is a definite direct link between speed and accident severity, but I am not convinced there is a definite direct link between speed and number of accidents.

Not quite right according to evidence already cited

1. When the 130 speed limit was introduced the number of deaths dropped.

2. The number of accidents increased although the number of deaths dropped.

When there is an accident at a higher speed the consequences are likely to be worse. Quoted earlier this thread:

when two cars crash at 60 mph a driver there is a 90% chance of death which falls to 65% at 50 mph

 

[Ideo]

Not quite right according to evidence already cited

1. When the 130 speed limit was introduced the number of deaths dropped.

2. The number of accidents increased although the number of deaths dropped.

When there is an accident at a higher speed the consequences are likely to be worse. Quoted earlier this thread:

The number of deaths on the road in the NT increased in the 6 years from 07 compared to the 6 years prior to 07

http://news.drive.com.au/drive/motor-news/open-speed-limits-for-territory-20130508-2j6zy.html

There are a lot of different factors at play in the NT, and a lot of the issues are to do with drink driving rather than speed.

 

[Ideo]

I've been on that stretch Ideo talks about that is limited to 90klms to the north of the Hawkesbury and I can tell you when it was at 110klms it was a death trap. It's winding with poor long distance visibility and undulating curves. many a time coommuting to the north shore from the C Coast my life was threatened by idiot drivers either speeding in thick fog, diving in and out of lanes and overtaking on the left most lane, or simply loosing it in the wet.

A good mate of mine nearly lost his life on that very stretch in a pile up that killed 3. It's a notoriously bad stretch of Hwy of accident and death history that is now appropriately speed limited. IMHO.

Why is it 90 southbound but 100 northbound?

Overtaking in the far left is perfectly legal as well - and is generally caused by drivers not paying attention and being Middle Lane Morons - lane discipline in this country is simply abysmal. Sit in the middle lane doing 1 under the speed limit, not paying attention and you are a "safe" driver.

I agree regarding fog. But why can't it be a variable speed limit like in the UK. 110 in normal conditions, which is perfectly safe, dropped down to 90 in fog.

I did years of that commute as well. The 90 zone has become a great cash cow. Which is why the police sit at the bottom of Jolls Bridge, rather than the curves above and below, where the accidents actually happen.

 

[MarkB]

A study from the US.

Arguably more relevant to the Australia, than Europe.

The Evolution and Devolution of Speed Limit Law and the Effect on Fatality Rates

Robert O. Yowell
Stephen F. Austin State University
Review of Policy Research, Volume 22, Number 4 (2005), pp. 501 - 518
(c) 2005 by The Policy Studies Organization. All rights reserved

Abstract

The three most recent decades provide an outstanding opportunity to study the changing federalist landscape concerning the regulation of speed on the nation's highways. Speed limits were the province of the states until the 1970s when, in an effort to save energy, the central government nationalized the maximum speed at 55 miles per hour. The national standard remained until the 1980s, when a partial devolution transferred some power to set speed limits back to the individual states. At that time, states could increase the maximum speed to 65 miles per hour on (at fewest) four-lane, controlled access highways in low population density areas. Some states elected to loosen the limits within their borders, while others did not, citing concerns of highway safety as paramount. The 1990s saw the complete devolution of speed limit control to the states, when Congress returned to the states unlimited control. States reacted differently in both of the two latter phases, providing a fruitful landscape for comparative analysis of the effects of the devolution of speed limit control.

The focus of this research is to examine which states raised the speed limits at the two stages of devolution, and what the subsequent effects were. I examine the issue of highway safety as a consequence of speed limit change, comparing states to elucidate differences to determine effects. Analysis of highway deaths per mile driven indicates that the nationalization of the 55 miles per hour contributed to an initial greater decline in the former than had been the trend, but the long-term decreasing trend pattern reemerged following the shock of the change in federal speed limit policy.

Additionally, the speed limit devolution and resulting raising of speed limits in certain states did not lead to a statistically significant rise in fatalities per miles driven. Automobile safety features and enforcement emerge as important factors in increasing highway safety; speed limits are far less important.

 

[The Fence]

Why is it 90 southbound but 100 northbound?

Maybe because it's all downhill southbound? I feel much safer at 90 southbound and can see how just 10klms over at 100 is ok going upthe hill.

Overtaking in the far left is perfectly legal as well - and is generally caused by drivers not paying attention and being Middle Lane Morons - lane discipline in this country is simply abysmal. Sit in the middle lane doing 1 under the speed limit, not paying attention and you are a "safe" driver.

Might be legal but I have been passing traffic in the middle lane and had seeding drivers swoop from out of nowhere along the inside between the slower traffic and dash back out across the middle lane and back into the right lane and watch them do this away up ahead. Is that legal?

I agree regarding fog. But why can't it be a variable speed limit like in the UK. 110 in normal conditions, which is perfectly safe, dropped down to 90 in fog.

Agreed...sort of. Why do people need a sign to tell them to slow down in fog?
I dont agree that 90klms is safe in fog. You have no vision beyond a few metres yet happily cruise along regardless of what my lie ahead ?

I did years of that commute as well. The 90 zone has become a great cash cow. Which is why the police sit at the bottom of Jolls Bridge, rather than the curves above and below, where the accidents actually happen.

Good on em, hope they catch a few more idiots, or at least have the presence to deter speeders and the idiots.

Is it reasonable to say an increase to 130 would see the idiots doing 150+

 

[AlmostBob]

All but 2 of the 130km hit a bullock/roo/camel/truck/pole accidents I have attended in the NT, were plastered beyond being able to stand, there is a culture still of sop till you drop

 

[VYBerlinaV8]

So, lets have faster speeds and therefore more deaths as a result and blindly ignore the cause of death as it's far more important to go faster.

I too, cannot for the life of me understand how someone can say that speed is not related to the death toll...???

Sure, if a road is well built and with room for overtaking then an increase could be warranted, but these roads are rare in this country along with the skills to handle speed.

I've been on that stretch Ideo talks about that is limited to 90klms to the north of the Hawkesbury and I can tell you when it was at 110klms it was a death trap. It's winding with poor long distance visibility and undulating curves. many a time coommuting to the north shore from the C Coast my life was threatened by idiot drivers either speeding in thick fog, diving in and out of lanes and overtaking on the left most lane, or simply loosing it in the wet.

A good mate of mine nearly lost his life on that very stretch in a pile up that killed 3. It's a notoriously bad stretch of Hwy of accident and death history that is now appropriately speed limited. IMHO.

Faster speeds does not necessarily equal more deaths. Other posts here include evidence as to why.

Also, a sensible driver understands how to drive to conditions at an appropriate speed. It should not be assumed that everyone will drive at the speed limit all the time. They don't now, and they won't if it's changed.

No-one here is talking about blanket limit increases, but rather increase of speed limits on appropriate roads to reduce fatigue by reducing travel times.