NT Unlimited Speed Trial

Submitted: Friday, Oct 18, 2013 at 11:28
ThreadID: 104772 Views:3014 Replies:24 FollowUps:67
This Thread has been Archived
What is this - have our polys let a glimmer of common sense escape from the
politically correct over reactions we are used to.

Despite opposition the minister is sticking to his guns as per the link below on a 200km section of outback highway.

At first some might think that higher approach speeds to slower touring vehicles
might be an issue - but rather the stats tend to show that overall we are better off.

Apart from no deadly accidents there appears to be no logical reason why our laws should not match those in some other countrys on roads of a significantly lower standard than this one.
I remind myself that of the taxi driver that apologized to me for doing only about 180kmh on the way to Frankfurt airport - not because of the drizzle , but because his merc taxi badly needed a tune up.

Here in Victoria an obsession with people going 2 kmh over a limit by authorites seems to be causing more harm than good and despite this the thought of another government even holding a trial seems to be causing quite a stir.




http://news.drive.com.au/drive/motor-news/outback-open-speed-limits-met-with-opposition-20131017-2vnwr.html
Robin Miller

Member
My Profile  Send Message

Back Expand Un-Read 1 Moderator

Reply By: Shaver - Friday, Oct 18, 2013 at 11:51

Friday, Oct 18, 2013 at 11:51
As you know Robin it is all about revenue. I can remember doing 115mph between Hay & West Wyalong in NSW years ago in my Valiant VIP 318 V8 & it seemed like you were crawling & they had De Restriction signs then. There was flat land both sides even if you left the road. Now you have good roads governed to 100kph & super roads like on my recent trip from QLD to Sydney governed in places from 110kph to 60kph because some idiot forgot to pull the sign down. Or maybe it was left for the Speed Camera's ! I feel sorry for you poor buggers in Vic with all the camera's that are forced on you, but having said that I learnt the other day that they have installed a hidden speed camera in a guard rail some where near Cairns. Makes you wonder what's around the corner !
AnswerID: 519909

Follow Up By: Robin Miller - Friday, Oct 18, 2013 at 13:42

Friday, Oct 18, 2013 at 13:42
I try hard not be be cynical and think its just about revenue - but as the evidence builds for higher speeed limits in some places its just hard not to be cynical Shaver.
Robin Miller

Member
My Profile  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 800226

Follow Up By: get outmore - Friday, Oct 18, 2013 at 19:47

Friday, Oct 18, 2013 at 19:47
shaver, I would suggest you check out the road fatality stats from those years despite there being far fewer cars on the road.

maybe revenue comes into it but before speed limmits the road toll was appalling

and you mention revenue

now would this be some of the same revenue which now gives us roads that are far superior to the 70s ?

less than 1/2 the people die on our roads than when you were doing 115mph in your Valiant despite there being over twice as many cars
It might hurt you to know the stats dont lie and somethings actually been done that actually has worked extremely well
0
FollowupID: 800266

Follow Up By: get outmore - Friday, Oct 18, 2013 at 20:00

Friday, Oct 18, 2013 at 20:00
sorry about the crappy MS paint but it sort of tells the real story


0
FollowupID: 800270

Follow Up By: Robin Miller - Friday, Oct 18, 2013 at 20:55

Friday, Oct 18, 2013 at 20:55
Thats the problem with not considering the whole senario and putting a ring around only those that actually die on the road Getoutmore.

One gets lead into a false self supporting belief if all the consequences are not taken into account no matter what the subject.
Robin Miller

Member
My Profile  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 800275

Follow Up By: olcoolone - Friday, Oct 18, 2013 at 21:24

Friday, Oct 18, 2013 at 21:24
Suppose vehicle design and better medical help/care would have not had anything to do with the lowering road toll?????
0
FollowupID: 800282

Follow Up By: Lyn W3 - Friday, Oct 18, 2013 at 22:54

Friday, Oct 18, 2013 at 22:54
How about the development of improved seat belt design over the years.

0
FollowupID: 800286

Follow Up By: Shaver - Saturday, Oct 19, 2013 at 11:35

Saturday, Oct 19, 2013 at 11:35
Get Outmore.

Having had a HC Licence & Bike Licence for 50 years without a prang you know where you can stick your Stat's ! Your not a mate of Scruby are you ?
0
FollowupID: 800304

Follow Up By: get outmore - Saturday, Oct 19, 2013 at 11:57

Saturday, Oct 19, 2013 at 11:57
no im not a mate of scrubbys. but I am a realist

since 1970 the number of cars on the roads have doubled and the number of deaths have halved. really not sure why you would disagree with that

yes I know thats not the whole story. safer cars help of course they do.

but then so did RBTs speed limmits, better roads etc etc

it seems alot of you are in denial.
0
FollowupID: 800307

Follow Up By: Shaver - Saturday, Oct 19, 2013 at 12:47

Saturday, Oct 19, 2013 at 12:47
Get Outmore

I don't wish to get into a slanging match with you, but it pays to think back abit. Years ago more risks were taken when overtaking heavy vehicles for instance because they lacked the power on the straight & on hills. This is not the case today as most rigs easily cope with this scenario with more HP & better braking. The average car of today makes the car of yesterday a dinasoar, it corners well & brakes well & has the power to get you out of nasty situations & has so many inbuilt safety features (such as airbags) that will save most people in a accident. I have been involved with vehicles all my life, including Heavy Salvage, & have seen avoidable accidents had that vehicle had more power. As some have previously said it is this modern combination that goes to improve the Statistic's. A little off topic but having served in Vietnam I can assure you there would have been a lot more deaths had it not been for the Huey's at the time to get blokes quickly to a hospital. Statistics cover alot of ground, it's like Climate Change you either believe it or you don't.
0
FollowupID: 800310

Follow Up By: get outmore - Saturday, Oct 19, 2013 at 19:27

Saturday, Oct 19, 2013 at 19:27
good point years ago the trucks were only semi trailors, b doubles were unheard of and road trains were only on selected roads. Now all are common on pretty much every road increasing the length of the rigs
so while our vehicles are faster thats been compensated for by longer rigs we now need to overtake.
I have said yes cars now are alot safer - however airbags and pretensioned seatbelts are only of any use in an accident.

I have said theres no question that speed lmmits alone are not the cause for lower death rates on our roads

but they are just a part of a range of things which have worked and are working.

and besides - be carefull what you wish for. You might think your perfectly safe at whatever speed you consider safe but its not all about you.

do you really want you and your family sharing the roads with every cashed up bogan just off his Ps and young lady "with attitude" or 80 year old farmer joe driving as fast as they please because they too reckon its safe?

plenty of people reckon they can drink drive quite safely - perhaps drop the RBTs? after all more people have accidents sober than drunk

0
FollowupID: 800348

Follow Up By: Member - PJR (NSW) - Sunday, Oct 20, 2013 at 07:41

Sunday, Oct 20, 2013 at 07:41
The worst part shaker was cruising along back in the 70's at 110 to 130 in the open and then slowing to 35 in towns. You felt like you could crawl faster. That was MPH not kiddy clicks.

I got booked once (and only time) in Vic for doing 103KPH in a 100KPH zone. I had just overtaken a truck.

Phil
0
FollowupID: 800374

Reply By: Herbal - Friday, Oct 18, 2013 at 12:03

Friday, Oct 18, 2013 at 12:03
I am not sure if you are for a trial or against it :)

I didn't even know that they now have speed limits, until I heard about this trial. So I don't know when speed limits were introduced... But It used to be no limit. You could go as fast as you could, but you did have to "appear" to be in control.

If 'the track' is still anything like it was last time I saw it...Then there really is no need for speed limits. Except for the towns of course :)
AnswerID: 519913

Follow Up By: Robin Miller - Friday, Oct 18, 2013 at 13:46

Friday, Oct 18, 2013 at 13:46
Let there be no doubt Herbal - I'm all for this trial which is a bit of a con actually as they are actually finishing the lower speed "Trial" begun in 2007 , and base reason for this step is because nothing changed.

The tracks a pretty good wide clear bitumen road these days which is already 130kph whose speed limit is massively ignored anyway.
Robin Miller

Member
My Profile  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 800227

Reply By: Member - Chris_K - Friday, Oct 18, 2013 at 12:11

Friday, Oct 18, 2013 at 12:11
"Politicians" and "Common Sense" - a few words that you don't hear together very often...good on them - hope the trial works and they roll out trials on some of the better roads throughout Oz. I doubt it though.
AnswerID: 519914

Follow Up By: Robin Miller - Friday, Oct 18, 2013 at 13:52

Friday, Oct 18, 2013 at 13:52
We are not far from a new freeway built as good as you can get on Vic mornington bleep ula which can cope with 130kph but which is limited to 100kph Chris.

It cost a lot of money.

Nearby is a regional hospital in chronic need of funds - and some are still trying to figure out why there is no money to spend on the hospital.
Robin Miller

Member
My Profile  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 800228

Follow Up By: Member - Chris_K - Friday, Oct 18, 2013 at 15:35

Friday, Oct 18, 2013 at 15:35
Hi Robin - yeah sometimes you do wonder where the priorities are for governments...but then again, we elect them!

In terms of the unlimited speed debate, the major problem for governments is catering for the lowest common denominator. As people here have pointed out - some people just should not have drivers licenses - and giving them the ability to drive at 200kph is probably downright dangerous. Case in point - how many times have you been driving behind someone towing at 90kph - only for them to speed up on the overtaking lane to 100kph? Then you need to do 110-120 to overtake...I'll bet they reckon that they are "safe drivers...never had an accident". Yet totally unaware of the situation unfolding around them.

I'd also wager that everyone has an overrated opinion of their driving ability (myself included) - yet I'd be happy to drive with Craig Lowndes or Frosty at 200kph in a well maintained vehicle - than someone else. Perhaps governments should have special licenses and special training for people to drive up to 200kph on certain roads...we could give them "F" plates for "Fast" (like "P" plates).

I go away now.... :)
0
FollowupID: 800235

Reply By: Top End Az - Friday, Oct 18, 2013 at 13:19

Friday, Oct 18, 2013 at 13:19
Yes, it is refreshing to have a government with a different outlook to the authorities in other states. I don't see any need for pinging motorists going 2kph over the limit. I would rather motorists are watching the road, not putting all their attention on their speedo. At least here in the NT there is a level of tolerance (usually 7-8kph) if you are going over and the coppers are pragmatic in their approach to law enforcement (eg they realise you may have to go over the limit whilst over taking slower vehicles). And money would be better spent on Black spots than policeman hiding up in trees with speed cameras.

It was interesting to see the Pedestrian Council come out with guns blazing over the announcement. The location of the speed limit trial is 200km north of Alice Springs. I am left wondering as to what pedestrians in particular were they referring to ....
AnswerID: 519917

Follow Up By: Shaver - Friday, Oct 18, 2013 at 14:38

Friday, Oct 18, 2013 at 14:38
Perhaps they could install a Pedestrian Crossing somewhere in the De-Restricted Zone for Harold Scruby to try his luck !
0
FollowupID: 800233

Reply By: Ron N - Friday, Oct 18, 2013 at 13:30

Friday, Oct 18, 2013 at 13:30
It's not high speed that's the issue - it's the disparity in speeds between road users who are required to travel at much lower speeds (caravanners and trucks) - and those who want to "floor it" to get to Point B in the shortest possible time.

Then there's the additional skill set needed to travel at very high speeds. At extremely high speeds, things happen one helluva lot faster than at slow speeds.
I know this, because when I was young and silly, I had a hot V8 Holden that would do 240 kmh, and I constantly drove it to the engines limit and frightened the living beejesus out of myself numerous times - such as when a bend on a gravel road that wasn't sharp at 100kmh, became a VERY sharp bend at 180kmh!
I survived (probably more because of good luck and lonely roads in my favour) and became pretty adept at vehicle handling at high speed.

There's a lot of people with driving licences out there now, who can't keep control of their vehicle and keep it upright at 90-100kmh - let alone 150 or 160kmh.

I feel that anyone who wants to drive above 110kmh should undergo additional training and have a high speed endorsement added to their licence.

The problems start when someone with a slow-speed rural mentality pulls out onto the highway without looking - or worse, they seriously misjudge the speed of oncoming traffic.
Then you have the situation of someone pulling out onto the hwy from a side road, only looking one way - and someone doing 160kmh is doing an overtaking manouvre right at that point, and they're on the wrong side of the road. A head-on is the result, and I've seen this happen numerous times.

I was travelling West of Kimba a few years ago with an overwidth load and coming down a long gradient at about 80kmh, when I saw this bloke in an old Nissan Patrol station wagon, driving out along a farm road to my left, on top of the next hill, about 2kms away.

He was coming out of a paddock and entered the hwy, turning towards me. He never even looked as he pulled out onto the Eyre Hwy - and he pulled out, right in front of a couple of young blokes in an empty Mitsubishi 8 ton truck, who must have been doing 115kmh, pedal to the metal.
I didn't know Mitsubishi trucks could go so fast, this bloke was obviously knocking off from work.

The bloke in the truck just panicked and locked up everything. The truck started skidding with huge clouds of blue smoke, and it got closer and closer to the Nissans back window, as the Nissan gradually picked up speed.

I was sure the truck was going to ram the Nissan - but no, the Nissan steadily picked up speed as the truck slowed down, and it came up to within about 2 metres of the Nissans back window!
The truck then came to a sliding, broadsiding halt, with the front wheels in the roadside drain - and the bloke in the Nissan steadily roared past me, blissfully unaware of anything happening behind him!!

I stopped to check on the blokes in the Mitsubishi, and they were O.K., apart from shot nerves. I measured their skidmark after they got going again - it was 145 metres in length!!

You could well imagine the scenario if the blokes in the Mitsubishi truck were in a car instead, doing 160kmh.
Unless everyone using the high-speed section of hwy is brought up to speed, then the scene is set for an increase in the number of accidents.
AnswerID: 519920

Follow Up By: Robin Miller - Friday, Oct 18, 2013 at 14:16

Friday, Oct 18, 2013 at 14:16
I have no problem with accepting the incidents you have outlined Ron , but the evidence appears to be in - there were no deaths on that road before and after so there must be other factors at work to consider.

Perhaps the saftey factor of being more alert at higher speeds on other reasons we don't understand fully counteract the bad incidents.

We all will have personnal incidents on both sides of these issues what I call for always is to get better at getting the real story inculding the unitended consequences.

The lesson we need to go with is that in the worlds worst terrorist incident 9/11 in New York - less people apparently died than caused by the publics knee jerk reactions, increased security and that put people off flying and lead to more driving and road deaths.



Robin Miller

Member
My Profile  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 800230

Follow Up By: Member - Scott M (NSW) - Friday, Oct 18, 2013 at 17:19

Friday, Oct 18, 2013 at 17:19
oh boy, I'm probably going to cop it for this....

One of the reasons quoted at the time for the restricted 130 kph trial was a statistic from the Territory of the high number of single vehicle accidents involving multiple person injuries or fatalities.

Now my humble experience of driving in the NT (or WA for that matter), I've seen most of the overloaded vehicles with unrestrained occupants on back roads, usually without a windscreen and involving let's say alcohol impaired drivers.

Reducing the speed limit on the Stuart Hwy is not going to stop that problem. I would humbly submit if the road legislators genuinely want to cut down the number of road fatalities in the NT, they start with that particular demographic.....

My 2 cents worth.....
0
FollowupID: 800242

Follow Up By: Herbal - Friday, Oct 18, 2013 at 17:24

Friday, Oct 18, 2013 at 17:24
I do not dispute what you say Ron... But things change...

When you were a young-un you had a V8 holden capable of 240kph.... My 1998 model Magna V6 has a "recommended" top RUN IN speed of 195kph...That is it's run in speed, not it's capable top speed.

For example... the old SLR 5000 which most of us will know... was a 5 litre V8 Holden Torana from the 70's. Stock standard produced around 220 horse power...My 3 litre '98 V6 Magna produces about 200 ponies... Not much more than half the size with almost equal power... Todays cars are something else again...The humble RAV4 V6 puts out about 350 gee gee's...almost twice the horse power of my Magna with the same size engine.

It is not just engines and capable speeds and power that has changed. Everything has changed. The brakes, suspension, seat belts etc, etc in my Magna are just nothing like the SLR... Would I feel safe at 240kph in an SLR 5000? No Way !! Would I feel safe at 240kph in my Magna? Yep, sure would...

We are talking about these sorts of speeds in cars made and designed to do those speeds...On roads made and designed for those speeds...The track (the Stuart HWY) is very wide, very flat, very straight.

I travelled the track towing a large boat and my top speed was 80kph...slow but a fantastic way to do it :) I never had a problem. Even the triple road trains had more than enough room to go past me...and we always talked on the CB as we approached from either way.

Sure at the end of the day, the only thing that makes any vehicle safe is the nut holding the steering wheel. But in this case we are talking about a road built for speed...in a place where you can drive for hours without seeing another vehicle.
0
FollowupID: 800243

Follow Up By: Herbal - Friday, Oct 18, 2013 at 17:42

Friday, Oct 18, 2013 at 17:42
Just in case ya do cop it Scott... I got ya back...

I will second what you say...

I don't know the stats...But I would say grog plays a big part. I would admit that I have driven drunk in the NT... 600km from the nearest town, 40c in the shade. You can't see the road for the heat shimmer...sure I have downed a few coldies along the way...

But I think you might mean yahooing :)

A gut full of grog with some mates in the back spurring you on, on some dirt track in the middle of nowhere, is trouble...

I wonder if the stats say how many deaths are Defence Members ?
0
FollowupID: 800245

Follow Up By: Ron N - Friday, Oct 18, 2013 at 21:17

Friday, Oct 18, 2013 at 21:17
Herbal - Yep, gotta agree - modern cars with excellent handling, braking, safety features, airbags, strengthened crush-resistant cabins, etc, etc - are WAAAY in front of our old 308 HQ Holdens and Toranas.

However .... it's a shame we haven't had a similar increase in the abilities of the nut behind the wheel, in the same time frame! [:-)
0
FollowupID: 800278

Follow Up By: Member - Scott M (NSW) - Friday, Oct 18, 2013 at 21:17

Friday, Oct 18, 2013 at 21:17
You're right Herbal, however I was also thinking of a group of fellow Australians of a certain hue......
0
FollowupID: 800279

Follow Up By: Member - Scott M (NSW) - Friday, Oct 18, 2013 at 21:20

Friday, Oct 18, 2013 at 21:20
Actually Phil G nailed it perfectly further down this thread...
0
FollowupID: 800280

Reply By: Member - Jack - Friday, Oct 18, 2013 at 13:47

Friday, Oct 18, 2013 at 13:47
Just wait now for Scruby to launch is usual predictable tirade about how all speeding motorists will be killed and those that are left will explode into a ball of flame, or be devoured by semi trailer driving beasts.

Jack
The hurrieder I go, the behinder I get. (Lewis Carroll-Alice In Wonderland)

Member
My Profile  My Position  Send Message

AnswerID: 519921

Follow Up By: garrycol - Friday, Oct 18, 2013 at 13:54

Friday, Oct 18, 2013 at 13:54
It will be interesting to see if the Federal government allows this trial to come to fruition.

Remember the Territories only rule and make legislation at the pleasure of the Federal Government who can overrule any Territory legislation at any time.

Garry
0
FollowupID: 800229

Follow Up By: Robin Miller - Friday, Oct 18, 2013 at 18:02

Friday, Oct 18, 2013 at 18:02
Yes Garry , forgot about that , with the trial not starting to next year there is ample time for a scare campaign and have the proposal stopped.

Guess we are going to have to start lobbying again.

Hold on , the new accidental senator is from the car party , and Tony may need his vote - good chance we will get a trial except the new senators don't get a seat to mid next year.
Robin Miller

Member
My Profile  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 800249

Reply By: allein m - Friday, Oct 18, 2013 at 15:37

Friday, Oct 18, 2013 at 15:37
is that the section that Peter Marco Falconio was killed.

I was reading about this on line and they say there were no fatal accidents in the past

I have not been out that way so i have no way of judging what are the roads like out that way is it safe to travel and over 110 ?

.
AnswerID: 519923

Follow Up By: Robin Miller - Friday, Oct 18, 2013 at 18:08

Friday, Oct 18, 2013 at 18:08
I don't know Allein , probably be hard to find 200km of road in Aust which hasn't seen a death like that.

I have told the story before of my brother in law who was comissioned to do 300kmh for 5 minutes for a commercial and thats the area they chose.
Robin Miller

Member
My Profile  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 800250

Follow Up By: Member - PJR (NSW) - Sunday, Oct 20, 2013 at 19:20

Sunday, Oct 20, 2013 at 19:20
Allein

The section of the Stuart Highway being used is a wide bituminised section covering 200 Kms section from just north of Alice Springs to Barrow Creek. It is quite straight with long sweeping corners. A good choice. Better than just a plain straight section.
0
FollowupID: 800444

Follow Up By: allein m - Sunday, Oct 20, 2013 at 21:10

Sunday, Oct 20, 2013 at 21:10
PJR thank you
0
FollowupID: 800455

Reply By: Lyn W3 - Friday, Oct 18, 2013 at 16:53

Friday, Oct 18, 2013 at 16:53
I read an interesting article somewhere a few weeks ago on the causes of young people basically not being able to "comprehend" driving. The article pointed out that when the baby boomers grew up (which I am part of) everyone grew up with their tricycles etc riding round and round the veranda and we soon learned how to do three point turns, space perception and the consequences of landing in the rose bushes. Kids also rode their bikes everywhere and gained a a good knowledge of road rules.
The local boys in blue were also part of the community they lived in, now they are basically despised in a lot of places as revenue collectors.
AnswerID: 519930

Follow Up By: Robin Miller - Friday, Oct 18, 2013 at 18:17

Friday, Oct 18, 2013 at 18:17
Thats a common theme all right Lyn , so much of our modern society has become over-protective to the point that we now understand that appropriately exposing Kids to colds etc enables them build up resistance and as per your case knowledge and experience in various situations so that the nett result is that they are better preparded.

Reminds me of when I had to use a chain saw for the first time - I'd only recently aquired it , didn't know what I was doing, but I was caught with no option but to remove a fallen tree.

I'm still sweating over that fast learning curve just thinking about it.

Driving should be a practical class at schools for at least 2 years.
Robin Miller

Member
My Profile  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 800252

Follow Up By: get outmore - Friday, Oct 18, 2013 at 20:14

Friday, Oct 18, 2013 at 20:14
I always laugh when i see the old fogeys (ie people my age ) saying young people need to do more driver ed

I cant comprehend this thinking - maybe it would be handy but compare them to us

I could get my Ls after turning 16 years and 1 second. i needed only hold them for 2 weeks before I could go for my test.
1 parralel park and a trip round the block with the copper next thing I had my Ps

hold them for 1 year and way I went

in comparrison the requirements these days are very much more excessive

I dont even know the specifics but if your interested heres a ling to the WA requiremnts http://www.transport.wa.gov.au/licensing/20621.asp
- kind of puts it into perspective doesnt it?



0
FollowupID: 800271

Reply By: The Landy - Friday, Oct 18, 2013 at 17:26

Friday, Oct 18, 2013 at 17:26
No matter what side of the fence you sit on, a casual glance of this issue would tend to gloss over many of the issues that we are confronted with when determining that the speed limit on certain roads should either be abolished or increased substantially.

Whilst improvements in road “technology and construction” might lend itself to faster speeds, should it be the only consideration?

Are there other environmental factors that need to be taken into account, for example at night, if it is raining, more than normal traffic flow at a particular time. And that is before we consider the person in the driver’s seat, are they capable to handle a vehicle at high speed, is the car suitable for purpose, and are tyres correctly inflated and brakes functioning properly.

The argument that driver’s are potentially more alert when travelling at higher speeds may have some merit, but ultimately, if something goes wrong no amount of alertness will compensate for the affect of speed nor will it change the laws of physics.

To me, it appears the relationship between speed and road accidents has been studied ad nauseam and the verdict tends to point to a higher instance of accidents as the speed goes up.

Something that doesn’t seem to figure heavily in the debate on removing speed restrictions is the effect of an increase in speed differentials between vehicles. It has been demonstrated that higher speed differentials lead to an increase in the probability of accidents occurring. Removing the speed limit will definitely change the average speed differential between vehicles travelling on our roads, and motorways.

There is also a body of evidence that demonstrates that, on average, a small reduction in the mean speed of vehicles leads to a two-fold percentage reduction in injuries from accidents, and a four-fold decrease in fatal accidents. And this is the reason speed limits have been reduced in residential areas and around schools.

There will be those that say it is to enhance revenue raising opportunity, but the studies that arrive at these conclusions are almost unchallengeable...

But here is the thing, we don’t travel in a “bubble” when on the road, so whilst anyone individual may be capable and mature to handle a higher speed, and be driving a well maintained vehicle – the person coming the opposite way may not be, your life in someone else’s hands. Sure, it is already, but why increase the potential risk?

This isn’t as simple, or easy as erecting a speed sign that says “no limit”.

AnswerID: 519931

Follow Up By: Herbal - Friday, Oct 18, 2013 at 17:57

Friday, Oct 18, 2013 at 17:57
I do not dis-agree with you Landy... In fact I do mostly agree with what you say...

But this is about the "track"...The Stuart HWY through the NT...

It aint like any other road...as they say...you never never know if you never never go.
0
FollowupID: 800247

Follow Up By: Robin Miller - Friday, Oct 18, 2013 at 18:47

Friday, Oct 18, 2013 at 18:47
Well I agree there are studies that show small trends as per your post Landy , but they do once again fail to take into account all the consequences.

Reminds me of the Wipe off 5 campaign

Somewhere I saw figures on this with a potential death saving of 22 but without answering the question of how many extra deaths were caused by increased exposure to exhaust fumes as people spent more time in traffic.
Recently studies have shown the total cost of conjestion in Vic to be around 3.7 billion annualy, a staggering amount, however the data wasn't broken down enough to provide an answer to my question.

But lets assume conjestion dead is 23 and Wipe of 5 saving was 22.

Would we dump the Wipe off 5 campaign ? - or are some type of deaths more acceptable because they do not fall within the domain of dept XYZ

So long as we don't include all reasonable consequences in our investigations we will not truly progress - and quite frankly this is just where some of our bureaucrats leave us while the cash rolls in.







Robin Miller

Member
My Profile  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 800255

Follow Up By: Herbal - Friday, Oct 18, 2013 at 19:05

Friday, Oct 18, 2013 at 19:05
Don't quote me...even though I am very quotable :)...

I think you will find that the average yearly deaths just in Sydney caused by car related pollution is 1,400.

0
FollowupID: 800259

Follow Up By: The Landy - Friday, Oct 18, 2013 at 19:23

Friday, Oct 18, 2013 at 19:23
Hi Robin

I tend to find that assuming anything is fraught with danger and all too often ends up with one arriving at an incorrect conclusion, hence my tendency to rely on peer reviewed studies.

And I'm surprised that with an engineering background that you would assume anything...

There is no doubt of a correlation, with a high beta, demonstrating the relationship between an increase in speed and the probability of an increase in accidents, and there are many well founded studies that conclude this.

However, I will leave you to demonstrate how well correlated the relationship between a drop in speed by 5-kilometres per hour, and the increase in time spent exposed to exhaust fumes as a consequence, leads to a potential increase in deaths due to this exposure.

And let’s be clear, I’m not suggesting this trial should not go ahead, but as I said previously, this isn’t as simple as erecting a speed sign indicating “no limit”.
0
FollowupID: 800262

Follow Up By: Robin Miller - Friday, Oct 18, 2013 at 21:15

Friday, Oct 18, 2013 at 21:15
Its because a correlation between speed and an increase in acidents is only a subset of the total problem Landy.

To be real you have to look at the final result not a subset.

The highest quality research has shown this in cases like the 9/11 attacks I reffered to.

Our data is not sufficent to conclusively prove the wipe of 5 example I use, so we either do nothing and walk away with second prize or be brave enough to extrapolate from what we have and seek an honest answer.

My assumption above is not used to prove a point , its to provide an illustration from which I ask a question which remains unanswered.

My question remains , if there are 2 process and one leads to more deaths than the other which process would we choose.

The one that leads to less deaths - or the one that is polically correct ?

( I hope I haven't got that headache going again)







Robin Miller

Member
My Profile  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 800277

Follow Up By: Bazooka - Friday, Oct 18, 2013 at 23:47

Friday, Oct 18, 2013 at 23:47
An "interesting" assumption you appear to have made Robin is that going faster (than the speed limit) would therefore lead to less exposure to air pollution. It's one possible outcome but given the many parameters involved - traffic, the probable increase in pollutants from cars accellerating between traffic lights etc - I somehow doubt it would be significant in practice primarily due to city design limitations. You can put in ring roads, freeways and tollways which reduce congestion/pollution but in doing so you encourage private car use over public transport - a far more efficient and less polluting transport alternative. But I think the pollution thing is really a red herring in your argument.

The answer to your question lies in economics. Accidents, serious injury and death have significant immediate impacts on societies and lives. As Baz has indicated many studies have shown, in simple terms correlations, between excessive speed and accidents. Pollution on the other hand is a slow burn and in most cases just one factor in an earlier than expected demise.
0
FollowupID: 800289

Follow Up By: Robin Miller - Sunday, Oct 20, 2013 at 07:54

Sunday, Oct 20, 2013 at 07:54
The 3.7 billion approximate cost was total cost of conjestion which included slower driving times and health costs across Melbourne Bazooka , it wasn't an assumption.
Robin Miller

Member
My Profile  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 800376

Follow Up By: Bazooka - Sunday, Oct 20, 2013 at 12:38

Sunday, Oct 20, 2013 at 12:38
The assumption lies in your premise that somehow increasing speed limits might/would reduce congestion and reduce vehicle-related pollution Robin. There's little doubt about the value of reducing congestion from both a productivity perspective and as an aid to pollution reduction but I've seen nothing that suggests raising speed limits might contribute significantly to either. If you have any models which show how this would work I'd be very interested in reading about them. The congestion/pollution issue is being covered on many fronts as you'd know. Apart from the obvious mandated vehicle design changes, in some countries they have taxes to discourage travel in peak periods, in others they actually limit the numbers of cars on the road.
0
FollowupID: 800407

Follow Up By: Robin Miller - Sunday, Oct 20, 2013 at 13:23

Sunday, Oct 20, 2013 at 13:23
No assumption as the links below show Bazooka - however it is a fair question and if I had claimed something a little different you might be right to question it.

For example there's a sweet spot in vehicle speed in city which is situation dependant and is between about 56-88kmh.

If we all did/could drive at 100kmh in city then we would quickly bankup traffic at the lights and burn more total fuel while gridlocked.

I did not claim that transit times are the only or even best way to reduce pollution , but I would have thought it general knowledge that it is a factor and has a cost.



----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Vehicle fuel consumption increases approximately 30% under heavily congestion."

From ->

I.D. Greenwood and C.R. Bennett, “The Effects of Traffic Congestion on Fuel Consumption,” Road & Transport Research,




"Increased fuel consumption and air pollution costs represent about 17% the total external cost of congestion."


From ->

Olof Johansson, “Optimal Road Pricing: Simultaneous Treatment of Time Losses, Increased Fuel
Consumption, and Emissions,” Transportation Research D, Vol. 2, No. 2, June 1997, pp. 77-87.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robin Miller

Member
My Profile  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 800412

Reply By: Allan B (Member, SunCoast) - Friday, Oct 18, 2013 at 18:01

Friday, Oct 18, 2013 at 18:01
A simple question.............

Why does anyone need to travel on a public road at an unlimited speed of greater than say, 130kph?

Cheers
Allan

Member
My Profile  My Blog  My Position  Send Message

AnswerID: 519932

Follow Up By: Herbal - Friday, Oct 18, 2013 at 18:10

Friday, Oct 18, 2013 at 18:10
I know it's rude to answer a question with a question, so please forgive me :)

Have you ever looked down the "track" and thought 'it's only 500km to town...?
0
FollowupID: 800251

Follow Up By: Robin Miller - Friday, Oct 18, 2013 at 18:28

Friday, Oct 18, 2013 at 18:28
Why did you choose 130 Allan ?

Why not 80
Why not 150

In other words, why should we be artifically restrained from doing anything that doesn't harm others without good reason.

Determining the realistic harm point is however a valid exercise ,
Maybe we could have a trial.



Robin Miller

Member
My Profile  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 800253

Follow Up By: Allan B (Member, SunCoast) - Friday, Oct 18, 2013 at 18:34

Friday, Oct 18, 2013 at 18:34
Herbal, Robin,

Are you going to offer an answer or only a further question?

I chose a nominal 130 as that was a speed limit for some time.
Cheers
Allan

Member
My Profile  My Blog  My Position  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 800254

Follow Up By: Herbal - Friday, Oct 18, 2013 at 18:51

Friday, Oct 18, 2013 at 18:51
Allan...mate...

We are talking about the Track...It could be a 500 or 600 or 400 km trip to the next town...Or if you live there on the Track 'to town'.

I can see now... ring ring (sat phone of course) hello! Hi hunny could you pick up some milk on the way home...Of course pettles, I am only half way I will turn around and get some, anything else...Oh yes hunny, a loaf of bread and maybe one of those frozen pizza for dinner...No prob pettles...Oh by the way your mother is on the phone for you, I will chat with her till you get here...Oh thanks pettles, tell Mum I will be there soon, it's only 9 or 10 days if I stick to the speed limit...

There ya go...I think I answered without asking a question or did I ?

Damn !! :)
0
FollowupID: 800256

Follow Up By: Robin Miller - Friday, Oct 18, 2013 at 19:48

Friday, Oct 18, 2013 at 19:48
I choose its long time safe speed Allan , which was no-limit.

But I wouldn't choose that for most roads - this one is particularly suitable for the mission.

The bottom line of my thinking is that I believe its good for society as a whole to cater in part for everyone whether they like to play in mudholes , walk thru pristine widerness , or check out there cars top speed.
Robin Miller

Member
My Profile  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 800267

Reply By: Member - Phil G (SA) - Friday, Oct 18, 2013 at 19:23

Friday, Oct 18, 2013 at 19:23
The stats about road deaths in the NT over the past 10 years are in this simple 2 page summary:
LINK HERE

Some snippets:
"Road fatalities in the Northern Territory are highly variable and unpredictable."

"The Territory has a significantly greater proportion of Indigenous people who are
over-represented in NT crash statistics and live predominantly in our remote
areas. The Territory also has a younger population and a large geographical area
with a vast road network which includes a significant length of unsealed road. Too
often, alcohol and speed are a factor."

"Over the last 10 years (2003-2012) 494 people have died on Territory roads and
5215 people were seriously injured (treated and taken to hospital).
On average, over the last 10 years:
- 49 people died each year (almost one person per week); and
- 522 people were seriously injured each year, requiring hospitalisation.
Of the 494 crash fatalities on NT roads:
- 356 (72%) were occupants of vehicles
- 99 (20%) were pedestrians, and of those pedestrians 81 (82%) were Indigenous;
and
- Of the 81 Indigenous pedestrian deaths 43 (53%) occurred in a rural area with 38
(47%) in an urban area.
- 34 (7%) were motorcyclists
- 5 were cyclists;
....
Casual and compounding factors sourced from the Department of Transport
Vehicle Accident Database state:
(Note: each fatality could have more than one factor)
- 44% were alcohol related;
- 47% of the drivers and passengers killed were not wearing a seatbelt;
- 23% were known to be speed related (Note: vehicle speed influences all crashes);
- 5% were known to be fatigue related (Note: this factor is difficult to conclude.)
....
In addition of the 439 fatal crashes:
- 250 (57%) were either single vehicle run off road or overturned;
- 96 (22%) were hit pedestrian crashes;
- 159 (32%) of the fatalities involved and unlicensed driver;
- Drivers under the age of 25 are overrepresented in our crash statistics; (Drivers
aged 16-24 make up 15% of licensed drivers and 14% of the population but are 33%
of driver fatalities);
- Indigenous people are over represented in our fatality statistics (Indigenous people
represent 29% of the NT population but are 50% of our fatalities).
- Males are also over represented. (Males represent around 50% percent of
population but 70% of fatalities).



AnswerID: 519936

Follow Up By: Member - Phil G (SA) - Friday, Oct 18, 2013 at 19:28

Friday, Oct 18, 2013 at 19:28
So I tend to agree with Robin that a simple change of speed limit on a known safe 200km stretch of road won't make any difference. The problem in Australia is that we don't have too many similar stretches of "safe" roads.

Too many undulations, bends, kangaroos, cows, idiots, caravanners, B-doubles and triples, trees etc etc to make higher speed limits more common. As for me I won't tow over 100kph (Germany has a 80kph towing limit) but happy to sit on the speedlimit elsewhere. I'm never in that much of a hurry.
2
FollowupID: 800264

Follow Up By: Robin Miller - Friday, Oct 18, 2013 at 19:54

Friday, Oct 18, 2013 at 19:54
Thanks for that Phil

Gee you have to wonder at that biggest single stat - 47% of killed didn't have a seat belt on !

I think we now know what policing ought to target.
Robin Miller

Member
My Profile  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 800268

Follow Up By: Member - Phil G (SA) - Friday, Oct 18, 2013 at 20:33

Friday, Oct 18, 2013 at 20:33
I think the police in all States do a great job....but its really hard to target "stupidity".

When it comes to road toll, huge improvements have been made over the years, but I think we've reached the point where spending huge amounts of money won't do much any more. But for every fatality there's another 10 injured - these are the stats we should now be targeting.

The speed cameras are a separate issue - that's the State Governments looking for easy dollars, and sadly, I think Victoria is pretty bad when it comes to petty fines - they usually have those cameras just over the SA border and with zero tolerance in the tunnels etc.... But with a cruise control, we can avoid these money raising fines.
0
FollowupID: 800273

Follow Up By: Member - Scott M (NSW) - Friday, Oct 18, 2013 at 21:24

Friday, Oct 18, 2013 at 21:24
Thanks for the post Phil - exactly what I was trying to allude to furhter up.


"The Territory has a significantly greater proportion of Indigenous people who are over-represented in NT crash statistics and live predominantly in our remote areas. The Territory also has a younger population and a large geographical area with a vast road network which includes a significant length of unsealed road. Too often, alcohol and speed are a factor."

- 44% were alcohol related;
- 47% of the drivers and passengers killed were not wearing a seatbelt;
- 250 (57%) were either single vehicle run off road or overturned;
- 159 (32%) of the fatalities involved and unlicensed driver;

Not implying all of these are indigenous, however from personal experience I've seen enough to scare me...
0
FollowupID: 800283

Follow Up By: Member - Phil G (SA) - Friday, Oct 18, 2013 at 21:39

Friday, Oct 18, 2013 at 21:39
I don't like to point the finger, but over the 10 years, half the fatalities were indigenous - which means that the other half were not. Death rate is 4 times that of the other states, so the white fellas are doing pretty bad too.

Pedestrian deaths was the worst stat for indigenous people - 81 of the 494 fatalities were indigenous pedestrians. Perhaps Mr Scruby could head west from his plush residence on the shores of Sydney Harbour and help address the problem with NT pedestrian deaths. Don't think 4wds and bullbars had much to do with it.
0
FollowupID: 800284

Reply By: Member - Jack - Friday, Oct 18, 2013 at 19:56

Friday, Oct 18, 2013 at 19:56
I am of the belief (possibly mistaken) that on the Stuart Highway there were NO speed limits until Scruby (he of the NSW Pedestrian Council - not a National body) decided to stick his bib in and went to the NT Government with a story of forthcoming holocaust, swarms of killer bees and other pestilence, and persuaded them to adopt speed limits. So it seems they are simply reverting to the old system they had.

I also remember that as a result of no speed limits, a leg of the Sydney to London Marathon was run there (many years ago). It did result in one fatality, but I cannot remember if it was in the NT or somewhere in NSW. The memory fades ... and fades ... and ffffff ... where was I?????

Jack
The hurrieder I go, the behinder I get. (Lewis Carroll-Alice In Wonderland)

Member
My Profile  My Position  Send Message

AnswerID: 519937

Follow Up By: Member - Phil G (SA) - Friday, Oct 18, 2013 at 21:48

Friday, Oct 18, 2013 at 21:48
Gday Jack,
Let me jog your memory!
That was the 1968 London to Sydney Marathon. The fatality was Bianchi driving a Citroen who had a head-on with a spectator car (a mini) while he was leading the race near Nowra with only 150km to go.

It was an awesome race that I followed as an 11 year old - my father drove us down to Nowra to watch the cars. We were nearby when the Bianchi crash happened and saw his vehicle get towed past. Very very sad.

Andrew Cowan won the race in a Hillman Hunter - he was an incredible driver.
0
FollowupID: 800285

Follow Up By: garrycol - Saturday, Oct 19, 2013 at 09:23

Saturday, Oct 19, 2013 at 09:23
I thought he was talking about a Cannonball run down the Stuart in 1994 - was in a Ferrari F40 - read the text in the following link.

Cannonball Run Memorial
0
FollowupID: 800296

Follow Up By: Member - Phil G (SA) - Saturday, Oct 19, 2013 at 09:29

Saturday, Oct 19, 2013 at 09:29
The Cannonball run certainly didn't help the speed limit cause, and is a bit more relevant but Jack did mention "Sydney to London Marathon".
0
FollowupID: 800297

Follow Up By: get outmore - Saturday, Oct 19, 2013 at 22:27

Saturday, Oct 19, 2013 at 22:27
The first cannonball run was run in 1984. From melbourne to perth.
My memory is sketchy but it decended into a farce with cops catching up with it at the wa border and the race continuing to perth at the speed limmit. The promoter ran for the hills and no awards or prizes took place.
Everyone in town was waiting for the local baker to go through in his 350 hq ute who was leading but ended up getting towed in after snapping the timing chain sometime after ironknob
0
FollowupID: 800362

Reply By: olcoolone - Friday, Oct 18, 2013 at 21:22

Friday, Oct 18, 2013 at 21:22
Speed..... what a good topic.

Here is some information from the.....

ROAD TRAFFIC CRASHES IN NEW SOUTH WALES
Statistical Statement for the year ended 31 December 2010

Page 33 Table 15b : Crashes, speeding involvement, degree of crash

Crashes involving Speed
Fatals 146 - Injuries 3127 - No injuries 3852 Total 7125

Crashes not involving speed or cause unknown
Fatals 219 - Injuries 15844 - No injuries 19111 Total 35174

About 20% of accidents involve speed.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ROAD TRAFFIC CRASHES IN NEW SOUTH WALES
Statistical Statement for the year ended 31 December 2011

Page 33 Table 15b : Crashes, speeding involvement, degree of crash

Crashes involving Speed
Fatals 137 - Injuries 3393 - No injuries 7396 Total 7396

Crashes not involving speed or cause unknown
Fatals 199 - Injuries 16512 - No injuries 35557 Total 35557

About 20% of accidents involve speed.

Makes good reading-
http://roadsafety.transport.nsw.gov.au/downloads/crashstats2010.pdf
http://roadsafety.transport.nsw.gov.au/downloads/crashstats2011.pdf

So why so much enforcement on speed when it contributes so little and they always harp on the unseen costs of speed....... seems more people die or are injured when no speed is involved, different to what they preach??????

Statistical Statement don't lie!

AnswerID: 519943

Follow Up By: Allan B (Member, SunCoast) - Friday, Oct 18, 2013 at 23:37

Friday, Oct 18, 2013 at 23:37
Olcoolone tells us that "About 20% of accidents involve speed."

From the above quoted statistics it can be determined that in the 2010 year the Fatals represented 2.05% of Total Crashes involving speed whilst the Fatals represented only 0.62% of crashes not involving speed.
The figures for the 2011 year were 1.85% and 0.56% respectively.

On those statistics it can be seen that fatality is likely to be 3.3 times greater in an accident involving speed. So maybe it is a very good thing that only "20% of accidents involve speed".



Cheers
Allan

Member
My Profile  My Blog  My Position  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 800288

Follow Up By: Bazooka - Saturday, Oct 19, 2013 at 00:01

Saturday, Oct 19, 2013 at 00:01
Lol - stats don't lie but they are meaningless without context and detailed examination. I seem to have interpreted those stats somewhat differently to you Olcoolone. They say to me that "excessive speed" is a major factor in road accidents, not that it "contributes so little". The fact that it may not be the number one factor in collisions/injuries/deaths on the road doesn't diminish its significance.
1
FollowupID: 800290

Reply By: Robin Miller - Friday, Oct 18, 2013 at 21:24

Friday, Oct 18, 2013 at 21:24
Hi Guys

This is a fun but thought provoking post and while its only been going a few hours I hope it has made us all think beyond the obvious.

I'm off to the bush for a heavy 24 hours while everyone else is distracted with the bike GP and won't be able to reply till saturday evening (winch dependant).

Robin


Robin Miller

Member
My Profile  Send Message

AnswerID: 519944

Reply By: DBN05 (tas) - Friday, Oct 18, 2013 at 23:42

Friday, Oct 18, 2013 at 23:42
Hi All'

do not have time to read all posts BUT it was not that long ago that there was NO SPEED limit in NT and as I have just left the NT I can say you do have to do over that limit to pass road trains ( and before I am shouted down I went to school in Darwin and started my first job there 1959 to the mid 60st) and have been back few time since . The speed is not the problem but the loose nuts behind the wheel and that goes for all the states. The reason I did not have time to read all post is after free camping for 4 or 5 days no power to keep BEER cold and i'm told I DO NEED a shower have only put pute on and i'm still dying for a cold one.

My two pence, my thoughts.

DNB05 ( Harvey ) Tas
I NEVER get lost, but don't i see a lot of NEW places.

Member
My Profile  My Position  Send Message

AnswerID: 519950

Reply By: Member - Oldbaz. NSW. - Saturday, Oct 19, 2013 at 12:04

Saturday, Oct 19, 2013 at 12:04
Well, I'm confused...plenty of statistics presented, mostly confusing. Do any stats refer
solely to the Stuart Hwy. How about some stats on traffic type ? eg number of Road
Trains per 24 Hrs..no of caravanners/towers..no of single cars etc.
My last trip from Alice to Uluru T/O ,in June, seems to indicate many more road train
& towers than single cars.
Why isn't 130 kph fast enough ?. Oops, forgot the bread & 200k back to the shop
to get it ???. For heavens sake !!!!. Will it save lives ? Seems questionable. What
is the result of those that decide to tow the big van at 200kph..just because they can..
This unlimited idea seems to have appeal to those that want somewhere to test their
car, & perhaps their driving skill, at speeds double the usual, & think an outback hwy
is the place they should be allowed to do it. The argument that a modern car with a skilled driver can safely do this may be true ,in controlled circumstances, but to compare the skills & respect shown on European Autobahns to the skills demonstrated by the average Aussie driver is laughable. Cars in Europe rarely even share the same
lane as trucks..let alone anything the size of a roadtrain.
I don't find enough hard evidence to support this move from this post..yet.. but
remain willing to be convinced..cheers....oldbaz.
AnswerID: 519966

Follow Up By: SDG - Saturday, Oct 19, 2013 at 17:20

Saturday, Oct 19, 2013 at 17:20
And yet when I went up the Stuart earlier this year, I only saw one road train for the entire stretch. I'm guessing more travel at night which I did not.
0
FollowupID: 800338

Reply By: Member - Broodie H3 - Saturday, Oct 19, 2013 at 12:47

Saturday, Oct 19, 2013 at 12:47
Hi All
Just my two bobs worth when was the last time we hit a roo or a camel at two hundred k's an hour........................messy out come. Besides when I was a copper in the territory back in the seventies there weren't too many high speed accidents then because most vehicles could not do or maintain those speeds for long, because for one you either ran out of fuel or blew your motor up from overheating, let them do the trail and see where it takes us. as I said just my two bobs worth
Broodie H3
Have car will travel

Lifetime Member
My Profile  My Position  Send Message

AnswerID: 519971

Follow Up By: Robin Miller - Sunday, Oct 20, 2013 at 08:28

Sunday, Oct 20, 2013 at 08:28
Actually Broodie , fear of hitting a roo does more to slow me down than anything else and it slows me down way below the existing limits at certain times.

I suspect that the existing bullbars 4wd use might cause an even bigger problem at speed because of interesting little technical fact which is that a glancing blow say on the outside edge delivers a twisting force (sharp impluse) which is greater than car system defences can cater for.

Never got round to proving this , but a division of a place I worked for made big bars for cattle trucks and truckies would regularly hit steers full on and reported this effect.
They were quite specific in trying to hit steers headon at max speed which essentially caused them no damage and they didn't stop , just continued driving.
Robin Miller

Member
My Profile  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 800382

Reply By: SDG - Saturday, Oct 19, 2013 at 17:25

Saturday, Oct 19, 2013 at 17:25
Just out of curiosity, How many of the people here actually travel this stretch of road at high speed? By this i'm refering to before the limit was put in. Since the limit, how many travelled at that?
When I was there earlier this year, I was comfortable just sitting on 115-120.
AnswerID: 519986

Follow Up By: Allan B (Member, SunCoast) - Saturday, Oct 19, 2013 at 17:41

Saturday, Oct 19, 2013 at 17:41
I drive a naturally aspirated 1HZ diesel Troopy.
Does that answer your question? LOL
Cheers
Allan

Member
My Profile  My Blog  My Position  Send Message

1
FollowupID: 800340

Follow Up By: Member - Scott M (NSW) - Saturday, Oct 19, 2013 at 21:05

Saturday, Oct 19, 2013 at 21:05
Allan B - I'll raise you a naturally aspirated 2H HJ47 tray - top speed is around 100 kph.
1
FollowupID: 800357

Follow Up By: get outmore - Saturday, Oct 19, 2013 at 22:35

Saturday, Oct 19, 2013 at 22:35
Ill never forget crossing into the nt and seeing the no speed limmit sighn. Out of the novelty I put the hammer down on my 2h powered cruiser camper........ a couple of minutes later it had gone from 90 to just over 100.....
0
FollowupID: 800364

Follow Up By: Robin Miller - Sunday, Oct 20, 2013 at 08:07

Sunday, Oct 20, 2013 at 08:07
I'm more likely to sit on 95kph also SDG but my manual 4800 Patrol does 200kph there but it takes a long run up, my new auto Patrol, well I don't know yet because last year the speed limit was 130khp.

Actually I think this one is limited to 180 kph but I don't acually know
its one thing I hope to find out, but after doing one test run I suspect I will be back at 95 again while everyone passes me.
Robin Miller

Member
My Profile  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 800378

Follow Up By: Member -Toonfish - Wednesday, Oct 30, 2013 at 19:02

Wednesday, Oct 30, 2013 at 19:02
I drive the stuart hwy daily either in the cruiser or my sporty commodore .
Bring it on like the old days and as others say see where it ends up.
makes for a quicker trip but to keep high sppeds and concentration up requires a fair amount of effort along with newer car distractions like phone ,radio ,uhf pherhaps dvd players in the rear and what not.

I wonder if manafacturerswill again speed and endurance test on that stretch which actually isnt very far.
2013/14 around oz adventure bound

Lifetime Member
My Profile  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 801137

Reply By: Bongo (NT) - Saturday, Oct 19, 2013 at 18:43

Saturday, Oct 19, 2013 at 18:43
Some interesting snippets from the today's NTNews:

"In July, the Stuart Highway was named as one of the worst roads in Australia in a report released by the Australian Automobile Association."

AANT quoting a report: ""only 6 lives have been lost and 62 seriously injured" on that stretch of road now subject to this open speed trial."

"More than 90% of the road the for the open speed trial is rated 3 stars or less."

The AANT have their reasons for opposing a return to open speeds at www.aant.com.au/reducespeed

I live in Darwin and when we moved up to this tropical paradise I made a promise to my wife to visit SA at least once a year. I have towed a trailer or camper along the Stuart Highway at least once a year for 11 years. We average 1000kms per day, sit on about 110kpH. In these 11 years we would be lucky to be overtaken by about 3 vehicles a day. There is no need for faster than 130kpH. And lots of the road, including the stretch in question, is unsafe to even travel at the current 130kpH. According to the media police will still be booking people they believe to be travelling at an unsafe speed.

I wonder if the Commonwealth will withhold road funding to try and pressure the Territory's CLP government to review its decision.
AnswerID: 519990

Follow Up By: Robin Miller - Sunday, Oct 20, 2013 at 08:15

Sunday, Oct 20, 2013 at 08:15
You left the next few words off the snippet you cut out Bongo which said there were no speed related deaths as per the ministers statement.

"
6 lives have been lost and 62 seriously injured” and “none of those killed or injured were the result of speed” on the stretch of road now subject to the trial "


Robin Miller

Member
My Profile  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 800380

Reply By: Member - blackbird1937 - Saturday, Oct 19, 2013 at 20:50

Saturday, Oct 19, 2013 at 20:50
Hi. When I was iN NT in 05 and 06 on my Blackbird M/bike I was told many accidents were tourists in small vans trying to fly down the roads. I actually saw them driving flat out rocking and rolling in the wind. I know I will get many blasts on this thread but I averaged 180 kms per hour between fuel stops. I am probably older than nearly all on this site but still ride a Honda Blackbird and think 800 to 1000 kms is a normal days riding in daylight. My father used to ride 0ver 500 kms a day on dirt roads in the late 20s early 30s, so with the bikes, cars and the roads we have today if anyone think it is too far they are very weak.
AnswerID: 520002

Reply By: Hairy (NT) - Sunday, Oct 20, 2013 at 12:11

Sunday, Oct 20, 2013 at 12:11
Gday,
I spent most my life in Alice. Both before speed limits and after and I can assure you the only difference a speed limit meant to most locals was something else to watch out for.
Locals have a good idea of bad areas for cattle and roos etc and drive accordingly. Ive hit two roos in twenty years over thousands of kilometres and caused no damage to my vehicle at all.
The only people who actually sped up because of the no-limit were tourists because it was a novelty.

Great move I reckon.......I wish they would bring it in in WA
AnswerID: 520045

Reply By: Member - blackbird1937 - Sunday, Oct 20, 2013 at 14:00

Sunday, Oct 20, 2013 at 14:00
When I ride a bike on a trip it is for a purpose not just a novelty. It was the Top End m/bike rally at Darwin in o6 one weekend, Broken Hill rally the next weekend, with a trip out to Ayer's Rock for a climb and to see the sunset also sunrise near The Olgas in between. Travelling on my own I have met many wonderful people at the fuel stops that you would not meet at all with a big group. I have found that I concentrate more at a higher speed than I do at 100 kms per hr. I have also ridden on different race tracks like Phillip Is, Sandown, Calder, Winton Vic, also Isle Of Man, so it is no novelty to me riding at 250 kms per hr. I am no new chum to riding as I was in a sidecar in 1937 with my mother riding the m/bike and have ridden m/bikes for 60 years when you were not given a bikie you had to purchase it yourself. We can all make mistakes but it is the nut behind the wheel or the handle bars that you have to educate.
AnswerID: 520054

Follow Up By: Robin Miller - Sunday, Oct 20, 2013 at 14:44

Sunday, Oct 20, 2013 at 14:44
Hi Blackbird - there is still time to make the grand prix down our way today - well maybe not, and certainly not on my DRZ400.

You might be interested in the road saftey adds they have made for race, the focus is unusal and I like it.

Add goes sometinhg like this , 84 % of bike accidnets are caused by a driver turning in front of a bike - but 100% of the consequent deaths are to the bike rider. (graphic video support of course)

P.S. When did you go round Winton - was part of winning team there in 1968 - but then Muzbry says I'm a young'un.


Robin Miller

Member
My Profile  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 800422

Follow Up By: Allan B (Member, SunCoast) - Sunday, Oct 20, 2013 at 18:55

Sunday, Oct 20, 2013 at 18:55
...."84 % of bike accidnets are caused by a driver turning in front of a bike"....

Probably because the poor motorist did not even see the bike approaching at "250 kms per hour".
Cheers
Allan

Member
My Profile  My Blog  My Position  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 800438

Follow Up By: Robin Miller - Sunday, Oct 20, 2013 at 19:04

Sunday, Oct 20, 2013 at 19:04
Actually Allan - the add includes the words that the accidents "are the fault of the driver"
Robin Miller

Member
My Profile  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 800442

Follow Up By: Allan B (Member, SunCoast) - Sunday, Oct 20, 2013 at 19:14

Sunday, Oct 20, 2013 at 19:14
Not surprisingly Robin, you missed my point completely.

Any fool riding a motorbike on a public road at "250 kms per hour" can expect to meet the unexpected.

For a number of reasons it is a folly to entertain having vehicles sharing a road at grossly differential speeds.

If you wish to drive at racetrack speeds then do so on a raceway.

Cheers
Allan

Member
My Profile  My Blog  My Position  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 800443

Follow Up By: Robin Miller - Sunday, Oct 20, 2013 at 20:25

Sunday, Oct 20, 2013 at 20:25
Hi Allan

Actually I thought I got the point - I didn't mean to leave out the at fault statement it just wasn't relevant to my reply which was to Blackbird.

But the statement actually supports that it wasn't excessive speed difference but rather driver lack of attention - and the sponsor of the add was given as the Blackburn/Maurice legal firm - known for chasing civil rights here in Melb.

Robin Miller

Member
My Profile  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 800452

Reply By: Member - blackbird1937 - Sunday, Oct 20, 2013 at 19:55

Sunday, Oct 20, 2013 at 19:55
Hi, We were down at the Womens Pioneer Museum in Alice Springs just now and the volunteer lady was telling us that some time back a bloke towing a caravan tried to round up a road train on the double lines just North of town. He is now a statistic.
AnswerID: 520068

Reply By: Robin Miller - Monday, Oct 21, 2013 at 12:46

Monday, Oct 21, 2013 at 12:46
Just reviewing this thread and up came an RACV regional roads survey which enabled me to put my views in.

These things are often a pain but its a little thing we can do to help get the message about inapropriately low speed limits in some places.

So take the time to fill it out if it comes to you (probably only RACV members).
Robin Miller

Member
My Profile  Send Message

AnswerID: 520097

Sponsored Links

Popular Products (13)