Interesting Topic on to-day to night,increase speed limits on freeways

Submitted: Tuesday, Sep 17, 2013 at 20:14
ThreadID: 104368 Views:3207 Replies:16 FollowUps:69
This Thread has been Archived
What do you reckon??, So many things to consider,...I think it could work , but for vehicles not up to scratch mechanically and lacking in poor foot wear might create a bigger problem., keeping trucks at their current limit and allowing cars at a higher limit might keep them apart making some what a safer environment in some incidents, its a hard one...lol.

Cheers Axle
Back Expand Un-Read 0 Moderator

Reply By: Shaker - Tuesday, Sep 17, 2013 at 20:49

Tuesday, Sep 17, 2013 at 20:49
Imagine whining about slow towing vehicles if they do!
Also there are enough truck accidents now.

AnswerID: 518320

Follow Up By: olcoolone - Tuesday, Sep 17, 2013 at 23:28

Tuesday, Sep 17, 2013 at 23:28
If we all followed that view we would all be walking, NT doesn't seem to have a problem.
0
FollowupID: 798131

Follow Up By: graham B9 - Wednesday, Sep 18, 2013 at 12:12

Wednesday, Sep 18, 2013 at 12:12
The basic problems in Australia is that we must be the worst drivers in the world. OK Russia is worse so Australia is the second worst. Go live in other countries and see how good the drivers are over there. We have this mentality that we are the best at everything and this is not the case.

In the US we drive at 130 all the time on freeways appropiate to that speed. Try driving back into New York city on route 80 on a Sunday afternoon at 130 to 140, just 2 cars distances apart. You have to learn fast and to be considerate of others.

Considerate of others on the road, now there is another thing Australian can learn as well. Can the average Australian handle this speed, not at the moment.
0
FollowupID: 798160

Follow Up By: Ron N - Wednesday, Sep 18, 2013 at 13:28

Wednesday, Sep 18, 2013 at 13:28
Having driven quite a bit in Western Europe and the U.K., I have to agree with you there, Graham.

In the U.K., motorway drivers are very conscious of keeping to the left hand lane, and checking behind them for overtaking vehicles that are doing much higher speeds. Once they overtake, they immediately return to the left lane.
The same happens in Western Europe, with drivers being very alert and keeping to the extreme right. In fact, in places such as Germany, you can be fined if a vehicle behind has to brake because you pulled out - even if it's just light braking.

One really notices the difference when you return to Australia - and you find ignorant people who won't keep left, who sit 10 or 15kmh below the speed limit in the RH lane, and who refuse to return to the LH lane.

And don't get me started on people who never indicate when they change lanes - I watched a bloke in a new Range Rover race up the freeway recently, and he swapped lanes 8 times without ever indicating once.
0
FollowupID: 798169

Follow Up By: AlanTH - Thursday, Sep 19, 2013 at 12:48

Thursday, Sep 19, 2013 at 12:48
Poor old Rangie drivers being picked on again:-) Most drivers in WA don't bother signalling irrespective of what vehicle they're in, could even be an LC200!!!!
"Never ever" I hear you say.
AlanH.
0
FollowupID: 798251

Reply By: Motherhen - Tuesday, Sep 17, 2013 at 21:23

Tuesday, Sep 17, 2013 at 21:23
What speed limits are they talking Axle? On our Freeway in Perth it is 100 kph and everyone rushes past me. Coming up from the south west we travel on roads with 110 limit, then it turns into a freeway and speed limit drops as the road improves. They have now extended the 110 limit to a little further along the freeway - I think as an experiment. It makes sense to do that all at 110. During peak periods, you are lucky if you can get up to 60, so no risk in heavy traffic.

Motherhen
Motherhen

Red desert dreaming

Lifetime Member
My Profile  My Blog  Send Message

AnswerID: 518321

Reply By: Robin Miller - Tuesday, Sep 17, 2013 at 21:34

Tuesday, Sep 17, 2013 at 21:34
The article purports to reccomend 130kph on the basis of saftey and if proven it would be hard not to support it.

They interviewed one person whose argument against was that his family has been the victum of road trama and hence feels the idea is very bad.
(Inherrently this simply assumes speed is the problem - and doesn't include the other variables )

This unfortunately highlights that many base objections to proposals on emotion not facts.

I.E. If the saftey argument was proven then you would be crazy not to support raising the speed limits.




Recent studies (Victoria) have shown the cost of conjestion at 3-4 billion including a component of death by pollution , yet our government promotes a "wipe of 5 stratergy"
which can potentially save approx 20 lives per year.

But see how far you get when you suggest that more will die from the effects of increased conjestion than may be saved by slowing down.

Still , if you die quietly in hospital - at least you won't upset the ability of some to say that the road toll is dropping.






Robin Miller

Member
My Profile  Send Message

AnswerID: 518322

Follow Up By: olcoolone - Tuesday, Sep 17, 2013 at 23:22

Tuesday, Sep 17, 2013 at 23:22
And it was good to see the cheap journalistic skills of the channel Seven reporter shine through when he made the comment about Wheels magazine readership is decreasing and he can't wait to see what their next stupid stunt will be..... he suggested this may of been the reason they did this.

Maybe if he learnt to stick to the story it would've been better, but then again it seemed they had a bit of a vendetta against Wheels or did they (7) do what most low grade media outlets do..... start a debate in society.

The Victorian Government are good at hypothetical scenarios, Last year ACN Australian Motorcycle News had a field day with them regarding their flawed TV ad campaign showing accident involving a motorcyclist who was travelling at 65kph in a 60kph zone, a car ran a stop sign and collided with the motorcyclist, the motorcyclist was in the right...... the ad went on the blame the motorcyclist for the accident...... ACN carried out their own investigation and found that even at 60kph the motorcyclist would of still hit the car, but at 70kph he would have avoided it...... Plus they found the data the Victorian Government was using dated back the data collected in 1974 in the USA..... the ad was pulled and the government agreed it was flawed and incorrect.

One thing everyone has to remember is the motor accident commission and these accident researcher will alway support the hand that feeds them and are only in it to keep their jobs.

As they said in the interview.... why is it safe to travel at 60 and not 63.

All this accident stuff is based on hypotheticals, in real life there are so many variables.

Avoiding accidents come down to 3 things, 1) how good a driver one is and how good their reflexes are, 2) Vehicle type, tyre choice and how good the brakes are, 3) road conditions.

A new Porsche is going to stop a hell of a lot quicker then a EH Holden.
0
FollowupID: 798130

Follow Up By: Penchy - Wednesday, Sep 18, 2013 at 13:21

Wednesday, Sep 18, 2013 at 13:21
wouldn't that also depend on who was driving and the road conditions?
0
FollowupID: 798168

Reply By: mikehzz - Tuesday, Sep 17, 2013 at 22:30

Tuesday, Sep 17, 2013 at 22:30
In Europe it's 130 on the motorways except for Germany with no limit. Trucks are restricted to 90. I think there are too many poor drivers here, otherwise I would be in favour.
AnswerID: 518330

Follow Up By: splits - Tuesday, Sep 17, 2013 at 23:21

Tuesday, Sep 17, 2013 at 23:21
"I think there are too many poor drivers here, otherwise I would be in favour."

I have to agree with you. There is also the problem of speed difference between different cars. The hand book in my Hilux says do not exceed 138 kph. There is no way I would even try to get it up to 130 let alone keep it there for lengthy periods.

This was a problem than plagued the early days of the October race at Bathurst. GTHO Falcons at full speed down the straight coming up behind Toyota Corollas and the like was not a real good idea.

Look up "LeMans accident 1955" on Utube and you will see what can happen when a slow car pulls out to pass another that is slowing down and a faster one comes up behind it.
0
FollowupID: 798129

Follow Up By: Brian Purdue - Wednesday, Sep 18, 2013 at 09:11

Wednesday, Sep 18, 2013 at 09:11
I read the original article to which I totally agree. The quote was about the poor driving skills of so many people. Most people in Australia are taught how to pass the driving test NOT how to DRIVE. They have no perspection of speed and distances. That is the essential difference. We laugh when we read of people going for the tests for the 30th or 40th time.
The only sad times is when there is a "pile-up" caused either by mechanical failure or negligence. Then it is a calamity!
0
FollowupID: 798143

Reply By: DiscoTourer - Tuesday, Sep 17, 2013 at 23:51

Tuesday, Sep 17, 2013 at 23:51
The Northern Territory did not have speed limits on their major highways until mid 2007. They then introduced speed limits and speed limit enforcement. Here are the results.

Year 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Fatalities 55. 53. 35. 55. 44. 57. 75

A 30% increase in road deaths after the introduction of the speed kills policy. That is the only thing that changed. It does not make sense but those are the facts. It was the same in Montana in the USA. The road toll reduced when they had no speed limits and went back up when they re-introduced them.

There are plans to reintroduce no highway speed limits in NT.

Brett.....
AnswerID: 518335

Follow Up By: Candace S. - Wednesday, Sep 18, 2013 at 06:41

Wednesday, Sep 18, 2013 at 06:41
"There are plans to reintroduce no highway speed limits in NT." Not sure how I feel about that (even after reading the stats you posted).

I, personally, wouldn't be driving 130 kph / 80 miles per hour on a road like the one in the first pic below (this is the Victoria Hwy between Katherine and Timber Creek, May 2008).

The road in the second pic is Interstate 10 in west Texas, photographed in Nov. 2008. It was posted with the same speed limit (for cars during the day; lower limits for trucks and night), but as you can see the road is rather different from the Victoria Hwy: Dual carriageways, frontage roads for local traffic, wide shoulders, rumble strips, and long sightlines.





Hopefully the roads currently under consideration for a 130 kph limit look more like the second pic than the first one!
1
FollowupID: 798134

Follow Up By: Member - PJR (NSW) - Wednesday, Sep 18, 2013 at 07:34

Wednesday, Sep 18, 2013 at 07:34
Years ago (1960s to 80s) the Hume Highway was narrower and twistier than the section shown in the first picture. A majority of vehicles travelled at 60 to 70 MPH on that highway. There wasn't any speed limit in the bush in those days and on many occasions we used to do 100MPH plus and with other cars travelling with us. "Other car" drivers were also friendlier then.

What on earth is wrong with the section in the photo. Beats me. We are so lucky with roads like that.

The second road is why we have a fatigue problem.

Before you jump read my next post.

Phil
0
FollowupID: 798137

Follow Up By: mikehzz - Wednesday, Sep 18, 2013 at 08:00

Wednesday, Sep 18, 2013 at 08:00
To be fair Phil, the road toll was a lot higher with less people and cars back then. I remember doing 95 mph on my L plates down the old Hume Hwy at 2 in the morning...all perfectly legal at the time. :-)
0
FollowupID: 798139

Follow Up By: Member - PJR (NSW) - Wednesday, Sep 18, 2013 at 08:47

Wednesday, Sep 18, 2013 at 08:47
I didn't know what the figures were so stayed away from there. Maybe someone can give us a figure as a percentage of the vehicles on the road at both times. Just the number of accidents or injuries isn't any good. I wonder. I know that I didn't actually see as many back then. But that is only my recollection. In fact I can't recall one bad accident at all that I personally came across on the Hume in the 60s-80s. Surely I saw one! Ahhh Methinks that the brain has been sizzled too much with my treatment.

We used to do Liverpool to Balcombe in under 8 hours. Hmmmm. And all legal as there wasn't a speed limit. Dad had me doing 100MPH in the Humber Super Snipe up on Maddens Plains on my "L". That's just above Wollongong. Things were different. If you passed someone at 100 MPH they would wave or even catch up and sit with you for miles just as company. Now you get the royal one finger salute.

Catchya

Phil
0
FollowupID: 798140

Follow Up By: mikehzz - Wednesday, Sep 18, 2013 at 09:10

Wednesday, Sep 18, 2013 at 09:10
Mate, road fatalities peaked in the late 60's to early 70's and have dropped since. Here's a link-

Road statistics 1925-97

I grew up in the Riverina and lost a few school mates to single vehicle collisions with trees. My kids haven't lost any of their friends yet. I do recall that the fear of death in a road accident was greater back when I was a kid.
0
FollowupID: 798142

Follow Up By: Member - PJR (NSW) - Wednesday, Sep 18, 2013 at 09:54

Wednesday, Sep 18, 2013 at 09:54
Interesting statistic from that reference:
"Whereas in 1970 there were 7.96 road fatalities per 10,000 registered vehicles, this rate has decreased to 1.58 in 1997".

Looks like Mike that we were either better drivers or just plain lucky. I would like to say both the above but I think that it may be putting tickets on us.

I also spent a few years each in Culcairn, Holbrook and Albury. I kind of know a "little" about the area.

And you are correct about the fear. We have raised a Gen Y that believes that it is impervious to danger I think. They know drugs kill yet still take them. Luckily not my three boys.

Thanks

Phil
0
FollowupID: 798148

Follow Up By: mikehzz - Wednesday, Sep 18, 2013 at 10:48

Wednesday, Sep 18, 2013 at 10:48
Phil, it might be an evolutionary process...only the good drivers got to breed? :-)
0
FollowupID: 798153

Follow Up By: Member - PJR (NSW) - Wednesday, Sep 18, 2013 at 11:32

Wednesday, Sep 18, 2013 at 11:32
Only those with a certain gene in their chromosomes or whatever it is called, are allowed to breed. You know that twisty thing that we all grow out of.

Ahhh The mind boggles. I'd be stuffed. I don't have any genes left. Only jeans.

No licence. Forever forced to ride a push bike! How about Phil for PM then. And in lycra to boot, fronting up to the GG to get ordained or whatever.

Catchya
0
FollowupID: 798158

Follow Up By: Ron N - Wednesday, Sep 18, 2013 at 12:07

Wednesday, Sep 18, 2013 at 12:07
Candace - There's some extremely large and importance differences between the West Texas Hwy and the Victoria Hwy.

The West Texas Hwy isn't infested with thousands of 'roos, emus, and cattle, that regularly cross the road, day or night - without regard to any oncoming traffic.

Add in the regularly-found discarded truck tyre carcass, the number of road kill carcasses, the large number of triple road trains encountered - plus the NON-DIVIDED hwy lanes on the Victoria - and it's not hard to understand that there's a much wider safety margin on the West Texas Hwy, as compared to the Victoria Hwy
0
FollowupID: 798159

Follow Up By: Pathycop - Wednesday, Sep 18, 2013 at 22:17

Wednesday, Sep 18, 2013 at 22:17
Very interesting how SELECTIVE quoting of stats can be used to sway an argument.

How many people died on NT roads in 2009, 2010 , 2011 etc. ?

2009, 31. Therefore, based on your logic, road deaths dropped by More than 50% in the year following the introduction of speed limits.

Makes the argument seem different when you get ALL the facts.

I know that logic is simplistic. So have a look at the 5 year averages. They tell a better story.

But, good try. Channel 7 style reporting. Report what the masses want, not necessarily the truth.

By the way, I am all for increasing speed limits where it is proven to be safe such as Eastlink.

Graeme
1
FollowupID: 798214

Follow Up By: DiscoTourer - Wednesday, Sep 18, 2013 at 22:45

Wednesday, Sep 18, 2013 at 22:45
The two years after the change in limit.....fatalities increased....they are the facts supplied by ABS.

What happens further in the future is a different story. You need to look at the immediate outcome.

Even the first two years after the change could have been totally different reasons and also possible unrelated to speed.

The facts also are more than 40% of road fatalities in Australia are in speed limits of 100 or greater.

Brett....
1
FollowupID: 798217

Follow Up By: Pathycop - Thursday, Sep 19, 2013 at 02:29

Thursday, Sep 19, 2013 at 02:29
I am very aware of the ABS stats. I am also able to drill those stats down to some detail. Particularly with NT if you look closely at the actual causes of those fatalities you will learn something.

If you are going to quote stats, you need to understand what you are quoting.

You have said that the ONLY reason the road toll increased was because a speed limit was imposed. How did you reach that conclusion?

The stats say that the road toll in 2009 was 31. This is also in a period of lower speed limits and yet your state that this was for totally different reasons and possibly unrelated to speed.

How did you come to that conclusion?

The same stats also show the 5 year average is falling. Is that to do with speed limits?

Yes, 40 % of fatals occur in 100kph zones. Thats a good reason to lower speeds, not increase them dont you think?

I think that it is perfectly possible to increase limits on some roads where the evidence points to the fact that it may be no more dangerous to travel faster. But please dont misinterpret the stats and misrepresent their meaning to try and prove a point unless you fully undersatnd how thiose stats actually work. You can have the opposite effect to what you want to achieve.

Graeme
1
FollowupID: 798222

Follow Up By: DiscoTourer - Thursday, Sep 19, 2013 at 10:17

Thursday, Sep 19, 2013 at 10:17
Agreed...lots of assumptions.

Just quoting stats, and asking why else would the fatal accidents increase when speed goes down. Maybe you can explain, without misrepresentation of the stats, seeing as though you have qualified experience in this area.

Brett...
0
FollowupID: 798237

Follow Up By: Pathycop - Thursday, Sep 19, 2013 at 15:48

Thursday, Sep 19, 2013 at 15:48
Brett. You are the one making claims about stats not me. I know how to manipulate stats to confuse people. It isn't difficult.

Your claim was , speed limits were reduced and more people died as a consequence of that decision and that decision alone.

I would just like to know how you came to that conclusion.

Then, when deaths fell to an all time low in the following years, your claim is that has nothing to do with speed limits being lowered.

I would just like to know how you came to that conclusion.

Your stats, your quotes not mine. I and many others would just like to know how or where you get this conclusion from.

Thanks

Graeme
0
FollowupID: 798269

Follow Up By: SDG - Thursday, Sep 19, 2013 at 17:57

Thursday, Sep 19, 2013 at 17:57
Was on a recent trip i the NT. Saw the 130 sign, and travelled at that speed for a short time to at least say that I did it legally at least once.
Went back to a comfortable 110.
Personally on those roads, I think 130 is a stupid idea.

Also, whats with all; the cars on the side of the road? Every couple of k's there is a burnt out wreck. Crashes, or bored locals?
0
FollowupID: 798285

Follow Up By: Pathycop - Friday, Sep 20, 2013 at 02:12

Friday, Sep 20, 2013 at 02:12
Been having a look at some more of Ocoolones claims re the road toll.

Quote...
It was the same in Montana in the USA. The road toll reduced when they had no speed limits and went back up when they re-introduced them.

This is just wrong and is based on a selected snapshot of the toll in a selected 12 month period on selected roads around the time the limits were introduced.

If you look at the actual crash/fatality stats you will find that the rates have fallen significantly since the introduction of speed limits.
There are 200 thousand more vehicles on the road and 102 thousand more drivers who are driving 2 billion miles more and yet the fatality rate has dropped from 40 per 100 thosand drivers to 27.

Besides, speed is not the issue in Montana. 60% of those killed during the worst years were NOT wearing a seat belt and 50% of those killed were over the legal alcohol limit when they died.

You see, thats how your conspiracy theorists manipulate stats to gain popularist support.

Graeme

1
FollowupID: 798322

Follow Up By: olcoolone - Friday, Sep 20, 2013 at 15:50

Friday, Sep 20, 2013 at 15:50
SDG..... you covered crashes and bored locals..... try aboriginals from the local missions and towns, car breaks down or runs out of fuel and they set it on fire.

And a few who crash.
0
FollowupID: 798355

Follow Up By: Member - PJR (NSW) - Friday, Sep 20, 2013 at 16:38

Friday, Sep 20, 2013 at 16:38
Possible. But I would have to see them before I put any money on it.

Phil

PS: Time for a good break from this one.
0
FollowupID: 798359

Follow Up By: Hairy (NT) - Saturday, Sep 21, 2013 at 11:51

Saturday, Sep 21, 2013 at 11:51
Gday,
Yep.....you can make stats say what ever you want.
There was a post on here years ago when they introduced speed limits in the NT. A lot of people were blaming the road toll on the lack of speed limits and producing all the stats.
I contacted a mate who was involved in the NT Police, Accident investigation and the road Safety Council at the time and made up my own stats with the info I was given.
When you took out all the cases where the deceased was not wearing a seat belt, over the alcohol limit or the accident occurred under 130km, I think from memory there was one accident that would have possibly been avoided by reducing the limit to 130km........doesn't say much for stats I reckon.

Cheers
0
FollowupID: 798415

Follow Up By: Member - PJR (NSW) - Saturday, Sep 21, 2013 at 15:10

Saturday, Sep 21, 2013 at 15:10
And on and on and on and on we go.

Give it a break please.

Phil (sorry Hairy)
0
FollowupID: 798424

Follow Up By: Hairy (NT) - Saturday, Sep 21, 2013 at 15:31

Saturday, Sep 21, 2013 at 15:31
?????????????
0
FollowupID: 798425

Follow Up By: Member - PJR (NSW) - Saturday, Sep 21, 2013 at 15:43

Saturday, Sep 21, 2013 at 15:43
Not having a go at you Hairy. Thats what (sorry hairy) meant.

We are going in circles and circles and I am getting a bit tired of all the emails. Nothing new or resolved. If I could stop them by hitting Unwatch Thread I would but that doesn't work once you have posted and others respond.

Thats all mate. Okay?

Catchya

Phil
0
FollowupID: 798426

Follow Up By: olcoolone - Saturday, Sep 21, 2013 at 22:55

Saturday, Sep 21, 2013 at 22:55
PATHYCOP.......

YOUR QUOTE

"Been having a look at some more of Ocoolones claims re the road toll.

Quote...
It was the same in Montana in the USA. The road toll reduced when they had no speed limits and went back up when they re-introduced them."

END OF QUOTE.

Mate I don't know where you got that from, is it normal to accuse people of something they never said or did?

An apology would be good!

If you're going to start attacking me with stuff I did not say..... go right ahead, it's lowering your credibility just the same as you are try to do to mine.

BTW.... SA road toll stands at 7 more death than this time last year, more speed cameras and more policing is obviously work hey.

1
FollowupID: 798442

Reply By: Ron N - Tuesday, Sep 17, 2013 at 23:57

Tuesday, Sep 17, 2013 at 23:57
There's a good case for increasing the maximum speed limit on fully divided 4 lane and 6 lane hwys - and about 20 reasons for not doing so.

1. Too many people can't keep their vehicle upright on a straight stretch of perfect hwy at 100 kmh, now.
Increasing the speed limit to 130 kmh means these people would just kill more passengers.

2. Too many vehicles get around with tyre pressures that aren't checked for 6 mths - let alone the number of tyres smashed into sharp-edged kerbs and sharp-edged drain covers - thus causing carcass damage, that has the potential to cause blowouts once they wrap their 1988 Bogmobile up to 130 clicks.
How many people have YOU seen driving around with half-flat tyres?? That's an accident waiting to happen at 130 clicks.

3. The biggest single problem with increased speed limits is the speed differences between various types of vehicles. Towing a trailer over 750kgs limits you to 90 clicks in most jurisdictions.
Someone bearing down at 130kmh on a 90kmh trailer-or-caravan hauling car, with 83 yr old grandpop half-asleep at the wheel, is a recipe for disaster - because grandpop is just as likely to swap lanes without looking or indicating.

The number of accidents and near-misses I've seen, because people failed to indicate or even look, as they pulled out to overtake or change lanes, is phenomenal.
I've seen an F100 collect a semi-trailer going sideways, just because one idiot pulled out without looking.

4. A lot of older vehicles are just plain unsafe at 130 clicks, with bumpers held on with duct tape, tailights taped up, one or more lights not working, and aged tyres with dubious speed capabilities.

5. If the authorities want to increase speed limits, they need to do more about grading drivers according to their skills.
"You want to do 130 clicks? - good, then pass this high speed driving test, and we'll give you a high speed rating on your MDL."
How many youngsters understand that things happen one hell of a lot faster when you wrap on the speed??
That bend that wasn't real sharp at 90 clicks is now a VERY sharp bend at 130 clicks!

6. The major reasons for the number of accidents and injuries and fatalities on our highways are: inattention and distraction, lack of vehicle control skills, alcohol and drugs, excessive speed for the conditions, and outright selfishness and arrogance behind the wheel.
If the authorities put more effort into improving these areas of fault, then it would automatically improve the driving skills of half the nation, and they could then safely drive at higher speeds on the better highways.
AnswerID: 518336

Follow Up By: mikehzz - Wednesday, Sep 18, 2013 at 07:07

Wednesday, Sep 18, 2013 at 07:07
You will find in most places with a 130 limit that most people don't do it because it is uncomfortable for both them and the car. Modern cars have to be restrained to 110 as they want to go faster but in my experience you have to really push them to do 130+. Around 120-125 is comfortable and right in the "book me" zone here.
Trucks restricted to 90 happily coexist with cars allowed to do 130 in Europe. The secret is don't go into the fast lane unless you are overtaking. In fact, over there trucks can't even overtake unless there are 3 lanes because it is too dangerous for them to be in the centre lane.
There would need to be a public education program of mammoth proportions to get people to keep left and keep their eyes out before moving to overtake. I don't think truckies would be happy with the European restrictions.
0
FollowupID: 798136

Follow Up By: olcoolone - Wednesday, Sep 18, 2013 at 13:07

Wednesday, Sep 18, 2013 at 13:07
QUOTE [6. The major reasons for the number of accidents and injuries and fatalities on our highways are: inattention and distraction, lack of vehicle control skills, alcohol and drugs, excessive speed for the conditions, and outright selfishness and arrogance behind the wheel]

I can't see anything else 99.9% of accidents are caused by.... Yeap I think you have covered it all, you sound like the Police doing a press conference after an accident......... So why do the government target speeding motorist 10 time more than the other causes.
0
FollowupID: 798164

Follow Up By: Ron N - Wednesday, Sep 18, 2013 at 13:17

Wednesday, Sep 18, 2013 at 13:17
What's the matter, olcoolone? - have you been caught too many times for lead-footing it? - and now you've got a real snout on the authorities catching speeders like you?? LOL

As the comedian says - when you come across a bloke going slower than you, he's a F****** IDIOT!! - but when someone passes you at speed, he's a F****** MANIAC!! LOL
0
FollowupID: 798166

Follow Up By: Member - PJR (NSW) - Wednesday, Sep 18, 2013 at 13:17

Wednesday, Sep 18, 2013 at 13:17
Quote "So why do the government target speeding motorist 10 time more than the other causes."

One does wonder why they do. Maybe because it is the easiest thing to detect and makes headlines. But it does make you think about the big bump at the end when you hit something solid at speed.

Phil
0
FollowupID: 798167

Follow Up By: Member - Scott M (NSW) - Wednesday, Sep 18, 2013 at 16:58

Wednesday, Sep 18, 2013 at 16:58
Quote "So why do the government target speeding motorist 10 time more than the other causes."

Pretty obvious - this one generates revenue - fixing all the other things would cause them to have to spend revenue.

Or maybe I'm getting cynical as I get older..........................
0
FollowupID: 798180

Follow Up By: Member - PJR (NSW) - Wednesday, Sep 18, 2013 at 17:14

Wednesday, Sep 18, 2013 at 17:14
Revenue raising. Come on now. That is rubbish and anyone with half a brain knows it. Do you actually think that every morning the cops are told to go out and raise $15,000 in fines. I think not. There are plenty of good cops who would soon blow the whistle on that one. Now you will tell me that every cop is taught accountancy at training also so that they can keep a running total. Pity Pathycop isn't here as he would tear that one apart with one hand tied behind his back.

This is the usual old boring catch cry from those who get booked all the time.

Phil
0
FollowupID: 798183

Follow Up By: Member - Scott M (NSW) - Wednesday, Sep 18, 2013 at 17:50

Wednesday, Sep 18, 2013 at 17:50
Phil,

So where in my post was I targeting cops? The question was...

"So why do the government target speeding motorist 10 time more than the other causes."

Police are an instrument of government policy. I don't have a beef with Police, just observing a long debated point that the focus of road safety (set by Governments) seems to be very single issue focused on the thing that easily generates revenue.

If you think I'm wrong, when was the last time you heard any arm of the government publicly lay the blame for an accident on poor road conditions.... even when the victim was traveling within posted speed limits???

"Geez this motorist died because we couldn't be arsed spending money on preventative road maintenance..."

0
FollowupID: 798189

Follow Up By: Member - PJR (NSW) - Wednesday, Sep 18, 2013 at 21:58

Wednesday, Sep 18, 2013 at 21:58
You brought up the "revenue" and implying that the fines process is simply one that generates revenue.

I am saying it is NOT out to generate revenue. It is simply a fine for stuffing up. No matter who the policy makers are it is not out to raise revenue. It is trying to stop offenders.

I wonder how many non offenders call it revenue raising. I call it a fine for breaking the law.

So what happens if no one is fined? We pay more taxes. The money for your preventative maintenance will still be raised. That's not a worry to Governments to raise taxes or add another one. Or even temporary levee!

The Kings Highway is quite often blamed for the accidents between here and the Coast. And also the Barton Highway which needs to be duplicated to stop the accidents because the current road is too dangerous. All the time Scott. And especially at election times.

Quote from the "Bay Post" of Wednesday September 18, 2013 about a "long-awaited Roads and Maritime Services review":
"It found curve signs pointing in the wrong direction, poor overtaking provisions, narrow or non-existent shoulders, inadequate safety barriers and unsafe speed limits. It called for road works, more barriers, new overtaking lanes, signs and markings, more police and better enforcement."

It is a bad situation. The road was not meant to carry the amount of traffic that it sees on a weekend in summer and needs heaps of upgrading. Add speeding drivers to the problems identified above and it is deadly. One place where, much to my distaste, the speed limit should be dropped to 80KPH for weekends. And it is not necessarily Canberrans at fault. According to the paper only 29% of the traffic is from the ACT.

Phil
0
FollowupID: 798207

Follow Up By: olcoolone - Wednesday, Sep 18, 2013 at 22:12

Wednesday, Sep 18, 2013 at 22:12
The government has to tread a very thin line regarding speed detection, they have to be showing that they are doing something to reduce people speeding but on the other hand if they do it too well people will not speed and that means no more easy revenue for the government.

They act the same with cigarettes and alcohol....... they have to show to the public that they are trying to reduce consumption...... but like speeding; reduced consumption mean reduced income. They know too well whatever price the put on smokes and grog people will still keep on buying it........ unfortunately it's there young kids and other family members who suffer.

Pokies are another good example.

The Government fully understand the meaning of "killing the golden goose that lay the golden eggs"

For one I have got no issues with real police policing speed but what I do have a issue with is fake police placing speed cameras in spots that are not a high risk area...... funny thing is I have never seen them place speed cameras in high risk areas, maybe they have done a risk assessment and found it too dangerous.

There are government guidelines in place that state what criteria determines minimum and maximum speed zone, the problem is if a piece of road can safely handle vehicles travelling at 80kph according to the guideline it is not uncommon for the state government to lower the speed to 60kph as they know people will travel faster.

I see it every day speeding motorist slowing down for fixed speed cameras and once passed they speed up again.... the same goes for fixed red light cameras and people running red lights at intersection that don't have them.

The thing regarding police having to get quotas, the bright bureaucrat who can up with the idea that Police have to pay their own way and turn a profit to keep their jobs need a police medal....... hammered into his head.

For years there has alway been a quota system and it has been leaked many times to the media and unions,..... something the police and government always seems to deny.... even when original documents have been presented.

Ron I have nothing against speed enforcement if it's for a genuine safety concern but I have a BIG problem when it is used for unethical purposes and to TAX motorists.

The NT was a classic, they had a choice...... lower the speed limit to a fixed speed and get federal funding or keep it at an open speed limit and not get funding....... funny the road toll has increased in the NT since introduction.

Here are some interesting facts from the NT regarding road accidents over the last 10 years.

Police have indicated that: (Note: each fatality could have more than one factor)
- 50% were alcohol related (Note: this figure excludes 2011 - due to outstanding investigations);
- 51% of the drivers and passengers killed were not wearing a seatbelt;
- 21% were known to be speed related (Note: vehicle speed influences all crashes);

If you have a look at the statistics below, it says in 2012 37% of fatal accident involved speed...... but for the previous 10 years it was only on average 21%.

Have a look here -
http://www.transport.nt.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/33104/NT-Road-Crash-Statistical-Summary-2013-revised.pdf

The bad things about statistics is it is very easy to manipulate numbers and data to give a wanted outcome.
- 5% were known to be fatigue related (Note: this factor is difficult to conclude)
0
FollowupID: 798213

Follow Up By: mikehzz - Wednesday, Sep 18, 2013 at 22:26

Wednesday, Sep 18, 2013 at 22:26
I've got no problem with a fixed speed camera making people slow down only where the camera is provided it is warranted. I reckon it's doing its job then. I don't care if the people speed before and after it either. We have a bad corner near us that now has a camera just before it and now no more accidents. It used to be a real blackspot. One of the more intelligent camera placements in my view because it has eliminated what used to be a dangerous situation. It's probably hardly making any cash either because I drive it many times a day and I've never seen it go off. They'll move it to a more lucrative position no doubt. :-)
1
FollowupID: 798215

Follow Up By: Member - Terry W3 - Thursday, Sep 19, 2013 at 00:45

Thursday, Sep 19, 2013 at 00:45
I find it interesting that the Local police have their hiding spots along the Hume and the Pacific hwy when i lived over east.Majority of these hiding spots were at bottoms of hills and at badly signposted speed changes (Gilgandra and a real good money maker).
After growing up in the Territory and enjoying the open speed limits, now days you cant afford to travel any high than 130 kph ! Very long and endless debate, driver skill level needs to change.
0
FollowupID: 798221

Follow Up By: Pathycop - Thursday, Sep 19, 2013 at 05:24

Thursday, Sep 19, 2013 at 05:24
Ocoolone

Im sorry, but your posting are becoming more and more "conspiracy theory" driven and slipping away from the real world.

Some of your claims are just outragous and have no basis in fact at all.

Such as...

For years there has alway been a quota system and it has been leaked many times to the media and unions,..... something the police and government always seems to deny.... even when original documents have been presented.

I am a cop, was a traffic cop for many years. This statement is just utter rubbish. If you can post/point me in the direction of this quota I am suppose to be filling, I will apologise and get out there and do my best to achieve it. But come on.. where do you get this stuff.

Another one..
"funny the road toll has increased in the NT since introduction."

Where and how have you come up with that assumption. And are you really saying the ONLY factor is the lowering of speed limits?

Again, point me to your evidence.

Thats just 2 of your claims that need to be expanded on please.

Again, I am all for increasing speed limits, but come on guys, dont use the popularist type views and opinions to try and prove your arguments . Use real facts. There are some good facts out there to help you. Go find them

Thanks

Graeme




1
FollowupID: 798223

Follow Up By: olcoolone - Thursday, Sep 19, 2013 at 08:24

Thursday, Sep 19, 2013 at 08:24
Graeme, if we didn't all have different views on a subject it would lead to a very boring world, this is what debate is about. conspiracy theory or not.

There are conspiracy theories in everything we do.

Just because one persons view or beliefs don't match yours it doesn't mean it is out of place or incorrect. What's that thing about interpretation.

The problem with fact is there are no real facts on road accidents, the problem is in most documentation they don't provide information on how they gathered data or the criteria behind it.

So if everyone stopped speeding and the fines went down to zero are you trying to tell me the government would be over the moon and they would not have to find extra money to prop up the shortfall.

If you stopped handing out fines for speeding are you saying they would not question you on why..... and if you colleges did the same?

Why is revenue from fines included in forecasted future budgets.

Fines are an income stream and one they are trying to protect.

As for road deaths increasing, yes I will stand by that, in 2003 there were 1600 approximate deaths and in 2012 there were 1300 approximate deaths.

The reason I will stand by my comment is vehicle safety over the last 10-20 years has increased 30 fold, 10 years ago the average car was 2 maybe 3 star safety rating at the best with a large majority being 1-2 star rating and ZERO in some.

I am sure you are well aware of the benefits of star ratings for occupant and pedestrian safety. If someone died in a 2 star rating car, in a 3 star rating car they more then likely would have received bad injuries but survived and in a 4 or 5 walked away.

There are more 3-5 star with a large number being 4-5 star rating cars on the roads, more speed enforcement, more defects, more breatho's and more stringent learner and "P" plate driving conditions, more TV ads and more education....... so why have we theoretically only seen a 20% decrease over the last 10 years in road.

If you applied corrective facts, conspiracy theory or not, the road toll is increasing...... or some are not doing there job properly.

Maybe I analyse stuff a bit different to some but it seems the government takes a big pat on the back for something that is either not in their control or has very little impact.



0
FollowupID: 798229

Follow Up By: Member - PJR (NSW) - Thursday, Sep 19, 2013 at 08:51

Thursday, Sep 19, 2013 at 08:51
Hi Graeme

Yes this thread is being led by a lot of what appear to be "agendas" and a side order of "sensationalism". Like that! I do. Maybe I should write novels. Ha!!!!

Putting all "agendas", "conspiracies" and "pub theories" aside I have a question. I have asked it before but no one has really challenged it or supported it with any believable experience as yet and I would appreciate your thoughts.

When coming home from points west and beyond Broken Hill we take the black dirt way through Menindee, Hilstone and all those little towns in a rough line to Canberra. Absolute maximum 100KPH and a lot of twisty back roads. We have both driven it without a stop and when we get home have not felt tired. Whereas I feel more tired after driving to Sydney for the footy and then driving home again. A much much shorter drive with a three hour break in the middle. The Menindee drive is not on a super highway and you have to actually drive the car. There is plenty to keep one occupied. None, or very little, cruise control. Whereas the Hume is two way cruise control and with the road banking, the car almost drives itself. Boredom gallore.

Okay we cannot tear up the Hume. It is needed as a "super highway", even just to carry the huge traffic load it gets at holiday time.

Wouldn't it be better if we dumped cruise control and raised the limit? Not a lot. Just enough to give the driver more to do.

What are your thoughts on a mobile phone and internet blocking device in the car that turns on when the ignition is on.

If you would prefer a PM please do so to vk1dx@bigpond.net.au.

Phil
0
FollowupID: 798233

Follow Up By: mikehzz - Thursday, Sep 19, 2013 at 09:27

Thursday, Sep 19, 2013 at 09:27
Graeme,

I'm sure there are no "quotas" but if an officer came in at the end of the day with an empty booking sheet then the boss would probably question him about whether he was actually working or not. As a result, knowing human nature, you will find police at the bottom of long gradual gradients looking for an easy tag so it appears they are on duty. What they are doing is legal so their conscience is clear and they have something to show for a days work. Many people question whether in that instance if it is actually saving lives as it appears to be just revenue raising. Cheers.
0
FollowupID: 798235

Follow Up By: Bob Y. - Qld - Thursday, Sep 19, 2013 at 10:56

Thursday, Sep 19, 2013 at 10:56
Longreach police have a pale yellow candy car, that blends in well with the dry Mitchell & Buffel grass, along the Landsborugh h'way between Longreach & Winton. He has caught many speeding vehicles along that stretch.

Some weeks back I was heading west from Winton, when I heard this one way exchange on UHF: "Roadtrain, the radar has you @ 107km/h. Slow down please." No more said, and I passed the candy car a few clicks later.

So no doubt he had his "quota", was just in a good mood or was in a hurry to get back to Longreach??? At 17 clicks over the limit, the truckie was lucky, I'd say.

Bob

Seen it all, Done it all.
Can't remember most of it.

Lifetime Member
My Profile  My Blog  My Position  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 798242

Follow Up By: Member - PJR (NSW) - Thursday, Sep 19, 2013 at 11:16

Thursday, Sep 19, 2013 at 11:16
Bob.

You stated quote: "So no doubt he had his quota" unquote. You are 100% sure of that are you. If he has his "quota" then what the hell is he still doing out there. No quota. Just a myth made up by those who feel hard done by when they got booked. Where is your hard evidence.

Get off the band wagon.

The post was going well until you said that. I was thinking "here is a good cop asking the truck to do the right thing". And then you stuffed it up.

Phil
1
FollowupID: 798243

Follow Up By: Dave(NSW) - Thursday, Sep 19, 2013 at 14:33

Thursday, Sep 19, 2013 at 14:33
Phil,
I think you are 100% right that there is no Quota.
I drove trucks on express freight and interstate for 35 years and know a little bit about being booked LOL.
I have often heard cops give warnings to drivers to slow up a bit over the radios.
They take into account Time of day, amount of traffic around, the amount of speed over your doing and the big thing is your ATTITUDE when pulled over.
Cheers Dave (ex-truckie)
GU RULES!!

Lifetime Member
My Profile  My Blog  Send Message

3
FollowupID: 798261

Follow Up By: Member - PJR (NSW) - Thursday, Sep 19, 2013 at 15:03

Thursday, Sep 19, 2013 at 15:03
Hi Dave

Driving north from Rockingham to Perth late at night around, Medina I think. All I saw was one blue flash. Yep. I was a smidgin over. I did a very quick left and right with the blinkers and slowed down. I will always remember that one. Funny isn't it how a good deed can go such a long way. That was around 1995 when I was over at HMAS Stirling doing a bit of work.

Phil
1
FollowupID: 798264

Follow Up By: Pathycop - Thursday, Sep 19, 2013 at 15:37

Thursday, Sep 19, 2013 at 15:37
Sorry 0coolone, not trying to impose my will on you at all. After all I am only asking you to prove your claims. Fair enough I think?
Without hard facts, evidence etc, you only have opinion and theory.
I want higher limits too. Where it is safe and only when driving standards are improved.

Just a few more issues with your post.

You say there are no real facts with fatals.

How did you decide that.

I have investigated too many fatals for the coronor. I have to deal in facts to determine why someone is dead. We don't just guess.

Your comments about govt revenue areaway off the mark.

I have said in many posts, the govt needs the revenue from fines. They can not balance the budget without it.
But it is the fairest revenue stream of all the taxes we pay. It is 100% voluntary. It's not docked out of your pay without your permission.

I agree the govt is too reliant on that income, but again I challenge you to backup your claim there is a quota system.

Just imagine fine revenue goes down. Now will the govt say, ahwell, never mind, or will they just increase your compulsory taxes such as stamp duty etc. go course they will. Then we all have to pay more to fill that hole not just the law breakers. I know which method I prefer. How about you?

Trust me, there are plenty if cops witha beef about thei employer, same as any occupation. If their we're quotas, that would have been leaked by an unhappy cop by now.

I have NEVER been questioned about not giving out tickets by any if the multitude of bosses I have had in the last 13 years. It just isn't done. If you believe it is, prove it with a document, not hearsay.

Not sure what you are trying to say about road deaths increasing??

Deaths are falling all around the developed world.

Better cars, better education, better enforcement, better roads all have helped reduce deaths. The number of deaths as a % of population, per 100 thousand vehicles and million k,s travelled and are all dropping. So not sure your theory stacks up. Victoria is again on track for its lowest toll ever, touch wood. How can you claim deaths are increasing I will never know.

I do get where you are coming from, but to get the limits increased, we have to be smart about how we quote stats and theory.

How about we say, cars are better, roads are better, attitudes have changed. So why not increase the speed limits to equal that change. The stats support that. Carrying on about revenue raising and quotas does not promote your case. It just bangs on a popularise drum that no one in any position of influence listens to anymore. You need to change tactics.

It can be done, you just need to argue smarter.

Graeme


1
FollowupID: 798267

Follow Up By: Pathycop - Thursday, Sep 19, 2013 at 16:06

Thursday, Sep 19, 2013 at 16:06
Mikehzz

Believe it or not, there is a whole lot more to policing than just writing tickets all day. Have you heard the term Family Violence.? Go research how much police time that takes.

Like any employee of any large company, we have a set of standard performance criteria that we strive to achieve.

One of the criteria is not how many tickets we write.

Professionalism, ethical behaviours, OHS, and self improvement through continuous learning are all right up there. How many people's day we ruin is never a factor in judging an employees performance.

My issue is it is these tired old arguments that put your case for increasing the limits backwards. Those in power dismissed these arguments a long time ago. You need new facts to move forward.

Graeme
0
FollowupID: 798272

Follow Up By: Pathycop - Thursday, Sep 19, 2013 at 16:21

Thursday, Sep 19, 2013 at 16:21
Hi Phil

Just re the lets drive faster because its less boring so therefore it must be safer.

If you write the same sentance another way we end up with..

Lets drive faster so that are senses are heightened due to the increased level of concentration required at higher speeds so that we don't crash and kill ourselves.

Senses are heightened because your brain is saying I have to work harder to process all the information coming in so much faster now I am driving faster. More or less tiring on a 800 k trip?? Yes you can get there a few mins quicker.

I don't think it is better or worse. I think it is risk neutral

Graeme



0
FollowupID: 798275

Follow Up By: Member - PJR (NSW) - Thursday, Sep 19, 2013 at 16:54

Thursday, Sep 19, 2013 at 16:54
Graeme

You are busy boy now, aren't you. Thanks for the response. I have read enough to say that I have had enough of this topic for now.

Bye the way when you have to be on parade in a "few minutes" or do kitchen duty or guard duty for a week or two, then those minutes are very important. Capiche!

We tend to chat and sing and fool around. No!! No circle work mate. It helps to ward off the boredom and monotony of long drives. In fact we totally enjoy the driving. The one out is heaps better than the return to home drive though.

Watch Today - Tonight this evening (19/9/13). The debate has been picked up by the media.

Thanks

Phil
0
FollowupID: 798276

Follow Up By: Bob Y. - Qld - Thursday, Sep 19, 2013 at 17:08

Thursday, Sep 19, 2013 at 17:08
No Phil, read it again, I said: " he had his "quota", was in in a good mood OR in a hurry to get back to Longreach" unquote.

Really just quoting some of the responses that have been on in this thread, that's why the inverted commas on quota.

He wouldn't need any quota on that highway, there's plenty of citizens that regularly receive a ticket through their own actions!

Sorry to spoil your day, Phil. I thought he was being nice too.

Bob.

Seen it all, Done it all.
Can't remember most of it.

Lifetime Member
My Profile  My Blog  My Position  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 798279

Follow Up By: Member - PJR (NSW) - Thursday, Sep 19, 2013 at 17:22

Thursday, Sep 19, 2013 at 17:22
Hi Bob

Amazing what happens when you don't read it properly. I missed that.

My apologies

Phil
0
FollowupID: 798283

Follow Up By: Bob Y. - Qld - Thursday, Sep 19, 2013 at 20:49

Thursday, Sep 19, 2013 at 20:49
No worries, all good Phil.

Bob.

Seen it all, Done it all.
Can't remember most of it.

Lifetime Member
My Profile  My Blog  My Position  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 798311

Reply By: Kev - Member - Wynnum - Wednesday, Sep 18, 2013 at 07:03

Wednesday, Sep 18, 2013 at 07:03
Hi Axle,
I think it's a good idea on motorways with more than two lanes in either direction.
However the 'keep left unless overtaking' rule needs to be enforced. That means keep to the left hand lane, not just out of the right lane. There would have to be a 'no undertaking' rule. Then it would work fine slow vehicles in left lane, quicker in centre lane and faster in the right lane. All overtaking should be done on the the right hand side
Kev
AnswerID: 518341

Reply By: Member - PJR (NSW) - Wednesday, Sep 18, 2013 at 07:44

Wednesday, Sep 18, 2013 at 07:44
Maybe if we raise the speed limit we may then get rid of some of the boredom of travelling these wide and very easy to drive multi-lane highways. All you do now is put the cruise control on and just sit back.

During the footy season I drive to Sydney (300K) nearly every weekend for the footy. Most of the time it is on my own and bloody boring. Sometimes I have actually touched the brakes. 130+ kilometers from Liverpool at 110 KPH and I stopped at Marulan. That was the first touch of the accelerator or brakes since the lights near the Caltex at Liverpool. About all I have done is change the radio station.

Get rid of this boredom and people will actually have to drive and do things and maybe stay alive. I do not think that raising the speed limit will make much of a difference. It may get rid of some boredom but not enough.

Maybe get rid of cruise control would be better and a then a blocker device to inhibit mobile phone and the internet usage in the car may also help.

Phil
AnswerID: 518343

Follow Up By: AlanTH - Wednesday, Sep 18, 2013 at 09:29

Wednesday, Sep 18, 2013 at 09:29
Most drivers seem to be under the influence of something illegal most of the time.
Many pedestrians/cyclists don't have a clue/don't seem to care and as for the speed motorcyclists travel at between lanes in heavy traffic!!!!
It's their life they can do what they like with it I suppose.
I used to love high speed driving but not here in WA, not only am I no longer used to it and have settled down to just drifting along endeavouring not to exceed the limit by the merest fraction, but as I get older I am liking watching all the loonies rushing around with no where to go......where are they going when the road in front is jam packed anyway?
Increased limits? I don't think so as the majority of drivers are unsafe at any speed.
AlanH.
0
FollowupID: 798145

Follow Up By: Member - PJR (NSW) - Wednesday, Sep 18, 2013 at 10:58

Wednesday, Sep 18, 2013 at 10:58
You are correct Alan

And so like a lot of members of this forum. We mellow don't we.

I don't know about your statement; "the majority of drivers are unsafe at any speed". I don't think that is correct. You just ask them. And then duck very quickly.

Once we were taught to drive before we even got an "L". Now all they appear to do is to teach you to pass an exam. Not how to be a safe and responsible driver. Nah. Can't make a living that way.

Phil
0
FollowupID: 798155

Follow Up By: olcoolone - Wednesday, Sep 18, 2013 at 13:02

Wednesday, Sep 18, 2013 at 13:02
Alan..... when you say "Most drivers seem to be under the influence of something illegal most of the time" and "Many pedestrians/cyclists don't have a clue/don't seem to care and as for the speed motorcyclists travel at between lanes in heavy traffic!!!! and "I don't think so as the majority of drivers are unsafe at any speed".

Are you basing these assumptions on your own experience and abilities.

As for motorcyclists traveling between lane...... it's legal if the traffic has stopped...... don't know what you mean by this SPEED thing thou.

I would say Most and Many are few and far between and is a minority..... not a majority.

Phil I have to agree with you.
0
FollowupID: 798163

Follow Up By: Member - PJR (NSW) - Wednesday, Sep 18, 2013 at 13:44

Wednesday, Sep 18, 2013 at 13:44
I think that I know what Alan is talking about.

Bikes going between lanes at speed:
Now that may not be legal if too fast. But what speed is too fast. A bike doing 60KPH two hundred yards away appears to be crawling along. But one doing the same speed only two meters away is flirting with the speed of sound.

Pedestrians:
When was the last time you saw pedestrians stop and wait for the green walk sign. If there is room, the general Mr Public will walk regardless of the lights. Yes. They will stop if cars are coming. But if no cars or room to cross then they will walk.

In the video below at the intersection of Pitt and Park Streets in Sydney note all those walking on the left even though the red pedestrial light is flashing. I think that is a majority walking. I couldn't see even one stopped over the other side. Not one.

I am not hassled by these issues. Just backing up what what Alan has said with a couple of my own observations.

Phil

0
FollowupID: 798170

Follow Up By: Member - PJR (NSW) - Wednesday, Sep 18, 2013 at 14:05

Wednesday, Sep 18, 2013 at 14:05
Alan

Is this what you meant.

Phil

0
FollowupID: 798173

Follow Up By: olcoolone - Wednesday, Sep 18, 2013 at 22:30

Wednesday, Sep 18, 2013 at 22:30
Phil, going between two vehicle whilst one or both are moving at a speed of greater than 10kph is asking for trouble.

I ride bikes on and off road, a current model Suzuki GSXR1000 sportbike and a current model KTM 690 enduroR.

The number of stupid things I see bike rides do never seem to amaze me, over the last 5 6 issues of Australia Motorcycle New they have been having a debate about how the Government wants to introduce compulsory bike riding gear like gloves, boots, jackets and long pants, the uproar from some of these idiots reminds me of the gun lobbyists in the USA talking about their rights to bear arms....... according to some bike riders a cheap helmet is all you need.

Here is a link to the NSW site regarding lane filtering, in NSW it was illegal sort of and most of the other states allow it un certain conditions...... me; I'm not a big fan of it and try not to do it.

http://roadsafety.transport.nsw.gov.au/search_results_iframe.html?cof=FORID%3A10&ie=UTF-8&cx=018123745793417354710%3A4qu-jppvu_k&q=lane+filtering
1
FollowupID: 798216

Follow Up By: AlanTH - Thursday, Sep 19, 2013 at 13:09

Thursday, Sep 19, 2013 at 13:09
I suppose it was a bit rude to suggest that most of our wonderful considerate drivers are unsafe at any speed but yes, it was certainly based on my own observations and experience.
The video of the bike was what I'm talking about and it happens all the time in peak hour on any freeway especially. Given that a large number of cars in Perth do not seem to be equipped with indicators and very few drivers use them properly anyway, I still say they're needlessly and recklessly putting their lives in danger. I'm not worried about it being illegal to lane split, that's up to the cops to police that, but they're a danger to others as well as themselves.
I've got a grandson who drives a big bike and he got knocked off recently, luckily with no lasting damage, but he saw the driver look right into his eyes as he came up behind and she still pulled over on him.
Doesn't matter how careful you try to be here, the idiots in their tin boxes couldn't give a damn unless you're bigger than them.
AlanH.
0
FollowupID: 798254

Follow Up By: olcoolone - Thursday, Sep 19, 2013 at 13:50

Thursday, Sep 19, 2013 at 13:50
Just having a friendly dig at you Alan, I have to agree with you, there are a lot of really bad drivers out there who should not be driving.

The bike riders you have made comment about are bloody idiots and give us sensible bike riders a bad name.... it comes back to a comment I made in another post, bigger vehicles have right of way if in the right or wrong.

And what your grandson encountered is a common occurrence, don't know if it's the hatred some motorist have against bike...... 4x4's and trucks.

The use of indicators really annoy me, I would love fines to increase to $2000 and 9 points for that alone.

There are procedures one has to do when driving that should come as second nature and you should not even think about doing it...... using indicators, paying attention to your surroundings, not tailgating and a few more that should attract big fines...... these three things alone nobody should have an excuse for not doing them..... wonder if the have to think to breath!
0
FollowupID: 798256

Reply By: Member - Oldbaz. NSW. - Wednesday, Sep 18, 2013 at 10:26

Wednesday, Sep 18, 2013 at 10:26
I'm not sure that some bloke driving at 130 kph from Melbourne to Sydney proves
anything about higher speeds being safer. Probably more indicative of the poor
coverage of our overstretched highway police patrols.
I don't see how increasing the speed differential between trucks/vans & those tooling
along at 130 is likely to be a recipe for safety either.
There seems to be a theory that those old farts,like me, towing our vans at 80/90 kph,
are causing safety issues as well. This is surprising, as those with superior driving skills,
that seem to abound on this forum, should be able to apply those skills to keep all
road users safe. When did it become a god given right to be able to sit on the max speed limit at all times & treat all that interfere with distain & derision.
Road Safety in Australia is not a Speed issue..it is an ATTITUDE issue. Until we
curtail this concept that we COMPETE for the road instead of sharing it..there wont be
any significant changes...
Aaaaah..that feels better....cheers....oldbaz.
AnswerID: 518352

Follow Up By: pop2jocem - Wednesday, Sep 18, 2013 at 12:52

Wednesday, Sep 18, 2013 at 12:52
Hi Oldbaz,

Reading the posts on this thread I was trying to compose an appropriate response but I think you have pretty much covered what I had in mind. Particularly the bit about ATTITUDE. Maybe if we could figure a way to modify that a higher speed limit may work.
Oh, yeah, and as has been said teach how to drive not just how to pass a rudimentary test.
Imagine sitting on 130 kph, coming around a bend and finding 7 or 8 hundred kilos of hamburger on the hoof ambling across the road (:=0)

Cheers
Pop
2
FollowupID: 798162

Reply By: Penchy - Wednesday, Sep 18, 2013 at 13:54

Wednesday, Sep 18, 2013 at 13:54
Hi Axle,
Yes I beleive it could work, but not under current conditions. By that I mean we shouldn't just increase the limit and see what happens.
Other people's suggestions on this thread have been quite well thought out, but I suggest we take things a bit further. If people want to travel at 130kph then I think that should be a licence upgrade to do so, like there are classes for vehicles you can drive. A condtion of that upgrade is that the driver should have 0 demerits lost, a high speed driver training completed (similar to the police training, refreshed every 3 years) and be between a certaing age group say 30 - 55. Vehicles should also be resticted to no more that 5 years old to ensure they have the safety standards in place to cope with the extra speed.
Of course these things only cover the driver and occupants, and not other road users. So as another poster mentioned, 130kph sould only be available on certain roads (duel carriage ways only?) and also limited to single vehicles only - no vans/trailers! (booooooooo).
AnswerID: 518360

Follow Up By: veight - Wednesday, Sep 18, 2013 at 21:19

Wednesday, Sep 18, 2013 at 21:19
I frequently travel Darwin - Yulara the majority of the road users appear to travel between 90-115 km/h. The speed limit here in the NT is 130 but it seems to me that only contractors / government cars / people who like to try the speed limit out actually sit on130km/h.
1
FollowupID: 798203

Reply By: Axle - Thursday, Sep 19, 2013 at 12:51

Thursday, Sep 19, 2013 at 12:51
Well Bugger Me!!, Didn't that start something .....A lot of mixed reaction. Whose right and whose wrong ?,still don't know !, ..Just keep a look out for that flashing blue light...lol.

Cheers Axle.
AnswerID: 518425

Reply By: Member - PJR (NSW) - Thursday, Sep 19, 2013 at 13:51

Thursday, Sep 19, 2013 at 13:51
And let's see what Today tonight says. We could have made it easy for them. But as usual the media will try to get headlines out of it not the truth.

May as well watch anyway.

Phil
AnswerID: 518426

Reply By: Echucan Bob - Thursday, Sep 19, 2013 at 14:08

Thursday, Sep 19, 2013 at 14:08
The problem is that we have roads of hugely varying engineering, vehicles of widely varying capability, and drivers of varying experience, skill and attitude. (Not to mention variations in the prevailing conditions)
The frustration for some (including me) is that you can be driving on a highway engineered for 130 kph plus, in a car designed for the autobahn, the driver has completed advanced training and never had a crash, but the speed limit is set for vision impaired, demented octogenarians driving cars with crossply tyres and drum brakes (while they text on their mobile!).
I think we should have roads in cities where these old farts can drive from the nursing home to the doctors surgery etc, but they shouldn't be allowed on highways. There should be a system of differentiating between drivers of varying abilities (at the moment it P plate or not), and cars of varying design (at the moment is trucks limited to 100 or not).
Eg to drive from Sydney to Melbourne at 130 you would need an advanced license (completed a defensive driving course at least), and be in a car rated for high speed (annual inspection etc).
Just yesterday I was stuck behind a P plater who was stuck to the right lane like faecal material to a blanket. He was genuinely affronted as I overtook him on the left.
AnswerID: 518427

Reply By: Pathycop - Thursday, Sep 19, 2013 at 16:31

Thursday, Sep 19, 2013 at 16:31
It is perfectly feasible to increase the speed limits on a handful of our better roads.

In Vic, Eastlink, Peninsula link are good examples. Wide, straight, good surface, excellent on off ramps, safety barriers lighting etc etc.

The only negative is the people driving on those roads.

Impatient, discourteous, non law abiding self centred selfish inconsiderate idiots.

All adjectives taken from posts on this thread.

Do you see the problem??

Graeme
AnswerID: 518430

Follow Up By: Robin Miller - Friday, Sep 20, 2013 at 11:42

Friday, Sep 20, 2013 at 11:42
Hi Pathy

Looking at the slow trends in society of less care towards others in general do you think it reasonable to suggest that a component of these attitudes is cause by police command policy ?
(referring to road component only)

There does seem to me a reasonable correlation between attitudes and the recommended drop in speed fine tolerances.

Its very human behavior that when one group trys to oppress another then the other reacts back.

The absurd idea that driving 2kmh over an arbitary 100kmh limit can trigger a loss of licence which in some cases can cause someone to loose there job simply invites retaliation in some form.

Many years ago it was a requirement to prove things and while the defendant may not have liked the result it was far more accepted than the arbitary punishment we now see.
Robin Miller

Member
My Profile  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 798342

Follow Up By: OzTroopy - Sunday, Sep 22, 2013 at 09:35

Sunday, Sep 22, 2013 at 09:35
Very valid Mr Miller

I'm surprised that the states police services haven't taken, very public action, to avoid being lumbered with those, beaurocratic bullying, tasks assigned to them under the guise of "road safety".





[quote=robin miller]The absurd idea that driving 2kmh over an arbitary 100kmh limit can trigger a loss of licence which in some cases can cause someone to loose there job simply invites retaliation in some form.[/quote]


Exactly
0
FollowupID: 798461

Reply By: OzTroopy - Sunday, Sep 22, 2013 at 10:21

Sunday, Sep 22, 2013 at 10:21
Raising speed limits ??????


Ohhhh bugger that .... Theres way too many damn different speed signs, hidden behind bushes out there now ..



Higher speed limits arent the answer anymore .. IMHO ... especially in todays society where the last generation has been conditioned to drive by signage ... rather than road conditions ...

What is needed tho ... is a return to ... more flexibility in the policing of the 100kph limit ...

Our roads are not some, flat, scaletrix toy car race track ... and the absurdity of of a fixed 100kph speed limit with 2klm allowable variations could only come from, either a transport expert who only drives a desk ... or the tax office.

Bring back the old highway driving days ... of having lots of police cars following you during your journey, at speeds of up to 70mph, overtaking with you at 80mph ... then, overtaking you with a wave ........ as they went off in search of an "actual" dangerous driver.


Went to Sydney recently .... theres only a few places I'd be happy to do 130kph ... Got stuck everywhere behind b-doubles because the overtaking speed, needed to safely get around them on single lane roads, is "illegal'.


Yet ..... the total absence of police vehicles on the 6hr journey each way ... meant I could have let the very capable, 12yo grandkid take a turn at driving ...


ahhhh Australia ... the "clever country" ..
AnswerID: 518575

Reply By: Lyn W3 - Wednesday, Sep 25, 2013 at 08:34

Wednesday, Sep 25, 2013 at 08:34
Interesting development in Qld involving one of their brand of speed radars.

speed cameras questioned to to legality
AnswerID: 518710

Sponsored Links

Popular Products (13)