Finally somebody makes some sense ....

[Sharkie]

When the government as usual wants to cut speed limits because road deaths are up .... somebody (the NRMA no less) has stood up and said that they should do exactly the opposite .....

http://www.smh.com.au/national/kill-your-limits-not-the-speed-groups-say-20091029-hnqq.html

To me this is a no brainer .... shows how narrow minded and stupid the government is ....

[brad]

While i have nothing against higher speed limits, I doubt Australian drivers have the ability or discipline to use them properly.

Until we learn "Keep Left Unless Overtaking" and "No Overtaking On The Left" then it won't work.

In addition, all these so-called "professional truck drivers" need to keep out of the fast lane.

I drive the M5 every work day & people can't even maintain 100kmh in the 110 zone.

I just came back from the UK and did ~2000km of driving. It was common to be sitting on 90mph (145kmh) and while the road was no better than any Australian motorway it felt much safer because the drivers had a bit of discipline & courtesy.

Australia also needs to learn how to design roundabouts & slip roads (and learn how to merge).

edit: don't know my left from my right

[team_v]

I think that there should be a reccomended speed limit system (like the yellow signs on mountian corners and the like) so you can drive to how you feel you are comforatable with.

However for this to work, we need stricter licensing protocols and proper driver training so that it can be integrated effectively and not increase the amount of stupid people doing stupid things in their cars.

There is also the problem that people have absolutley no idea about driving on the road any more (no indication, changing lanes in an intersection, running red lights etc) and it is almost impossible to drive around somehwere and not have some idiot almost run into you.

[Arctra]

Brad, I agree with you on the need for better disciplined driving in Australia, as I think it is terrible. But I would suggest some of the ill discipline is as a result of frustration because of slow speeds... specifically the overtaking in the left lane and aggressive tailgating. With aggression and frustration comes a degradation of courtesy as well, which we see all too often as well.

I am staggered that with modern vehicles that are capable of higher safe speeds, with better safety features, on better quality roads than 2 decades ago, have speed limits that are equal to or lower than those of 2 decades ago. That's not progress! That's not even stagnation... it's regression!

I have done several long distance trips in NSW and in the regional areas I was staggered to see speed limits of only 100km/h on long, straight, open roads where you can see for miles and can see that there are no dangers on the side of the road. You can easily do 140km/h on some of those roads quite safely. This mentality of "slower is safer" really needs to be broken as it's more myth than fact now IMO. The cynic in me says the primary reason speed limits are being reduced is to raise revenue through speeding fines, and not for safety purposes.

[team_v]

I have done several long distance trips in NSW and in the regional areas I was staggered to see speed limits of only 100km/h on long, straight, open roads where you can see for miles and can see that there are no dangers on the side of the road. You can easily do 140km/h on some of those roads quite safely. This mentality of "slower is safer" really needs to be broken as it's more myth than fact now IMO. The cynic in me says the primary reason speed limits are being reduced is to raise revenue through speeding fines, and not for safety purposes.

Not trying to start an argument here but this is how i see it.

If you fall asleep or hit a roo/tree/emu at 100km/h you have a better chance of surviving than if you do at 140km/h.
These long, regional roads have the ability to make you tired and there is many unforseen dangers that are only found when a fatality occurs.

Whilst in most cases you could drive over the speed limit and still be safe, it is the stupid few who ruin it for the many of us that can drive safely at a speed over the recomended limit.

That is why i proposed proper driver training earlier, i.e. track days and the like so you can tell the limit of your skill and find out the limits of your car.

[bensl]

Brad, I agree with you on the need for better disciplined driving in Australia, as I think it is terrible. But I would suggest some of the ill discipline is as a result of frustration because of slow speeds... specifically the overtaking in the left lane and aggressive tailgating. With aggression and frustration comes a degradation of courtesy as well, which we see all too often as well.

I am staggered that with modern vehicles that are capable of higher safe speeds, with better safety features, on better quality roads than 2 decades ago, have speed limits that are equal to or lower than those of 2 decades ago. That's not progress! That's not even stagnation... it's regression!

I have done several long distance trips in NSW and in the regional areas I was staggered to see speed limits of only 100km/h on long, straight, open roads where you can see for miles and can see that there are no dangers on the side of the road. You can easily do 140km/h on some of those roads quite safely. This mentality of "slower is safer" really needs to be broken as it's more myth than fact now IMO. The cynic in me says the primary reason speed limits are being reduced is to raise revenue through speeding fines, and not for safety purposes.

I agree 100%.

[brad]

If you fall asleep or hit a roo/tree/emu at 100km/h you have a better chance of surviving than if you do at 140km/h.
These long, regional roads have the ability to make you tired and there is many unforseen dangers that are only found when a fatality occurs.

I think you get tired because you are going slow (I do).

When traffic is heavy/slow I go into cruise mode & tend to get tired because i'm on "autopilot" but when i have to cover some ground or have some technicaly difficult road to cover I sit straighter in my seat, concentrate better & stay much more alert. I'm not talking theory - I've had to follow my wife's uncle from Graz to Vienna (~200km) sitting on 140-180kmh in heavy rain; also a fast dash from Graz to Zurich at 140kmh-180kmh and at those speeds you stay awake.

But I would suggest some of the ill discipline is as a result of frustration because of slow speeds... specifically the overtaking in the left lane and aggressive tailgating. With aggression and frustration comes a degradation of courtesy as well, which we see all too often as well.

Yes, you're absolutely correct.

I came home & resolved to be more courteous & have more patience but only this morning there was a silly old bugger on the M5 that was dawdling along at 90kmh in the 110 zone. The road was clear for 400m in front of him & there was nothing in the left lane. I gave him some time to move over, eventually flashed my lights (no response) and in the end slipped around the LHS.

[Arctra]

Not trying to start an argument here but this is how i see it.

If you fall asleep or hit a roo/tree/emu at 100km/h you have a better chance of surviving than if you do at 140km/h.
These long, regional roads have the ability to make you tired and there is many unforseen dangers that are only found when a fatality occurs.

Whilst in most cases you could drive over the speed limit and still be safe, it is the stupid few who ruin it for the many of us that can drive safely at a speed over the recomended limit.

That is why i proposed proper driver training earlier, i.e. track days and the like so you can tell the limit of your skill and find out the limits of your car.

I 100% agree with the improved driver training. And I don't think you're being argumentative at all... I may be though

If you fall asleep when driving, then frankly, you deserve what's coming to you, no matter what speed you're traveling. Taking your logic (which is sound logic, I agree) you can gradually erode the speed limit until it's not safe to travel faster than 40km/h or lower if you are that incompetent a driver, so lets just make the speed limit that slow. I know I'm exaggerating, but it's a case of asking where you draw the line. If you keep catering for the lowest common denominator all the time you end up regressing. No matter how hard you try there will always be idiots on the road that don't know how to drive... or think they're better drivers than they are. So the bar needs to be raised if we're going to get anywhere.

What really needs to be done is a study to work out what the cost to the Australian community is of keeping, decreasing, or increasing the speed limits. The cost is going to be in labour hours, fuel, vehicle wear and tear, road wear and tear, human lives, mental anguish from being forced to drive faster/slower than what your comfortable with, etc. I think the NRMA's approach of justifying increasing the speed limit to reduce travel time is a clever and indisputable method of justifying the increase. Just as much effort needs to go into debunking justifications for decreasing the limits, and debunking myths about speeding.

As for the suggestion about "recommended speeds" goes, I like it, although there needs to be some credibility to the suggestions otherwise the public will just disregard them. Case in point, my girlfriend often jokes that I interpret the suggested speed signs as meaning "go at least that fast, or around 10km/h faster". The signs are so ridiculously conservative IMO that they are nearly pointless. I contrast this to driving in NZ's South Island where if the sign says the bend is a 15km/h bend, what they mean is "good luck to you if you try going around this corner faster than 15km/h" . I've heard that in NZ what they do is get a rear wheel drive vehicle with a ball bearing in a cupped rail sitting on the dash. The roads authority will go around the corner at progressively faster speeds until the ball bearing reaches a certain point (so I guess we're measuring G forces here) and that is the speed set for the corner.

[GoLfMan]

About time a greater authority piped up and bucked the "less speed the better" trend.

in the NT, after they restricted the previously de-restricted roads, road tolls increased!!!

110km/h on the Hume is ludicrous. Its a newly re surfaced wide road that could easily harbour 130-150km/h without people getting themselves into trouble. I nearly fall asleep because 110 is SOO SLOOWWWW on a wide open straight road

[gareth_oau]

whilst our authorities continue to teach us such "advanced" driver training as a 40kph "emergency" (and i use the term loosely) braking exercise, plus a parallel parking and a u-turn, its no wonder we cant drive.

We need to upgrade the basic driver training to something somewhat more advanced (but not necessarily performance), and until our advanced driver training becomes compulsory, then we willl always have crap drivers on our roads

[noone]

I'm just sick of new multi lane roads with low limits.

A section of a Toll road in Sydney (M2) was reduced from 90 to 70.

Its 3 lane, no entry or exit points for at least 1km...

residential 50's make sense.

too Many zones are 60 rather than 70 or 80 near where I live.

[Manaz]

If you fall asleep when driving, then frankly, you deserve what's coming to you, no matter what speed you're traveling.

The car full of people travelling in the other direction that you hit with a closing speed of 200km/h or higher don't deserve it though because you fell asleep...

Innocent people die as a result of this, and that's the largest reason it needs to be fixed. Years ago, a car full of guys pulled over on the side of the M4 to have a break because they were tired and knew it wasn't safe to continue. They pulled right over out of the way, and should have been safe - except for the driver of a truck who fell asleep and ploughed into their parked car, killing them all.

Hardly fair is it...

I'm just sick of new multi lane roads with low limits.

A section of a Toll road in Sydney (M2) was reduced from 90 to 70.

Its 3 lane, no entry or exit points for at least 1km...

residential 50's make sense.

too Many zones are 60 rather than 70 or 80 near where I live.

The M2 was designed from the start to be 100km/h each direction. It wasn't until years after it opened that they upped the limit to this figure. Not sure why.

The 70km/h bit is because they're channelling three lanes of traffic through a section of tunnel designed for only two lanes. The idea being that when an accident occurs, the damage and danger to life will be lower.

The people who built the M2 offered to make it three lanes in each direction from the start, for a paltry amount of extra money, but the NSW state government (and before anyone spouts "bloody Labor!", it was actually a Liberal government at the time) said no. And now we suffer for that shortsightedness...

[Arctra]

The car full of people travelling in the other direction that you hit with a closing speed of 200km/h or higher don't deserve it though because you fell asleep...

Innocent people die as a result of this, and that's the largest reason it needs to be fixed. Years ago, a car full of guys pulled over on the side of the M4 to have a break because they were tired and knew it wasn't safe to continue. They pulled right over out of the way, and should have been safe - except for the driver of a truck who fell asleep and ploughed into their parked car, killing them all.

Hardly fair is it...

You're right, it isn't fair. Of course, even if you decreased the speed limit to 80km/h, the closing speed would be 160km/h and I'd be willing the wager the outcome would be very similar. Decreasing the speed limit to compensate for idiot drivers isn't going to make them any less idiotic. In a small percentage of cases, decreasing the speed limit may save a life or two, but if the cause of the accident isn't primarily speed, then trying to address the problem by decreasing speed is like using antiseptic ointment to treat a broken arm. Of all the deaths quoted, how many are caused primarily due to speed, and of those how many would fatalities been avoided by decreasing the speed? Just looking at raw fatality figures in isolation is pointless.

There are many things wrong with the way the people drive, and I don't think anyone disputes that something needs to be done about it. Unfortunately, the action required to prevent casualties from sleeping/drunk/drugged/distracted/etc drivers are all too difficult compared with the easy blanket "solution" of decreasing speed limits.

[JustCruisn]

A good discussion on a great topic.

I work along side Gavin Goeldner. He has had a busy day today fielding interviews for the radio etc.

[Sharkie]

Agree with most here .... general driving skills in Australia are poor .... this is something we will need to work on regardless of what happens to the speed limits ....

Found some more stuff ...... some conflicting research out of the US ....

1 study claims a whopping 0.64% increase in accidents with raised speed limits ......

Many others like this http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/29/2941.asp say there has been no change .... in fact people who speed has decreased by 20% !!!!!

I believe speed limits on the open road can be safely increased to 120km/h at least with no additional loss of lives ..... classic example as said here .... NT introduced speed limits and had a dramatic increase in fatalities ...... just proves pollies have NO F***ing clue .....

Time to stop being so politically correct for a change ... I say shoot the care bears and get on with it ...... as someone on here said ... "time to harden up Australia" ...

EDIT. is there a petition or something I can sign to make it happen ... sigh ....

And some more fuel for the fire ...

http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/sl-irrel.html