NT Speed Limit

Have all these extra deaths been in areas where no speed limit applied? I doubt it. Don't forget that every year there are more cars and more drivers on the road as well.

Honky

No of people killed in the NT is not a good statistic to go by. There are about 50 people who die on NT roads per year. A small number relitively but 50 too many.

Most killed over the past years has been due to, not wearing a seat belt and intoxicated drivers.

The trend in the number of people killed has remained fairly consistent although there was a spike in 2008 when 75 people died. Last year 2013 37 people died, the lowest since 2004.

As TTTSA pointed out to you the number of vehicles on the road has increased each year.

Also since the introduction of the speed limit I haven't noticed traffic slow down. Idiots still pass me at very high rates of speed. Speed limits only work if they are enforced.

While I'm definitely not against the old open speed limits why then are more people are dying as you claim since the speed reduction was introduced and what doe's that tell you ? Maybe there not very good at adjusting there driving habits to suit conditions maybe more regular stops because your on the road a bit longer stay off the phone put your belt on if you want to drive try to follow the rules within reason etc. Maybe they need re-educating seriously if you can't drive safely at 130kph then you definitely in a higher risk category with open speed limits in place. People in the territory are the same as everyone else in the country there's nothing special about them because they had open speed limits once and there are big distances between towns we all have learn to adjust to suit because lots of other areas have reduced speed limits around the country and if we all keep stuffing up and complaining that it's because of the reduced speed limits then they might just say stuff you and make us all drive at 80kph so appreciate what you already have and be grateful for it.

Batt

Honky has got his facts wrong. More have not died on the roads since the introduction than before. It was seven years ago the speed limit was introduced.

The average number of people killed per year since the introduction of the speed limit is 49.

The average before was 57.

Road toll:
2014 - 3
2013 - 37
2012 - 45
2011 - 49
2010 - 50
2009 - 31
2008 - 75
2007 - 57
2006 - 44
2005 - 55
2004 - 35
2003 - 53
2002 - 55
2001 - 50
2000 - 51
1999 - 49
1998 - 69
1997 - 60
1996 - 73
1995 - 61
1994 - 41
1993 - 44
1992 - 54
1991 - 67
1990 - 68
1989 - 61
1988 - 51
1987 - 84
1986 - 71
1985 - 67
1984 - 50
1983 - 48
1982 - 60
1981 - 70

I assume that is NT wide not the unrestricted/130kph sections of the Stuart therefore not relevant to the discussion.

I actually suspect that there is not a lot of difference in the before and after stats on the Stuart and even then they would need breaking down further as there is a significant death rate of pedestrians (sleeping on the road).

Garry

Yes Gary, I have just checked and those figures are NT wide. Not Stuart Highway relevant at all.
I trust it was a mistake and not a mischief!

Garry and Allan

Because of Honky assertion re deaths on NT roads since the introduction of speed limits in January 2007 I did a search and found the statistics. They are relevant to the initial post by Honky.

Yes they are NT wide and not restricted to the Stuart Highway. They are the most relevant statistics I found. I suggest that you do your own research if you want Stuart Highway only statistics.

When the changes were brought in they were NT wide and not restricted to the Stuart Highway. They are therefore relevant in any discussion on road safety / speed limits in the NT.

Thanks for taking the time to do the research & source the correct info Kumunara

Fabulous misuse or misunderstanding of statistics Honky. It's all been argued before on Exploroz. Here are a few factors you may not have considered:

How many vehicles were on the road each year?
How many miles covered or trips taken were there?
Are vehicles safer now?
Are road conditions better?
What are the serious injury rates where speed is a major factor?

And most important of all, how many deaths each year were actually caused primarily by excessive speed?

TTTSA,
There is a 20 something down the road from me that I get nervous when She is on the road at 30 kmh.
Mike.

And? What of it?

G'day Garry, I don't dispute your assertions, but would suggest Overseas Autobahns operate under different conditions to the Stuart.
They are multi lane, there are no roadtrains, trucks are speed & lane
restricted, &, perhaps most importantly...everyone is going in the
same direction. As said I have no real argument against this, but the thought of collisions with impacts around 200kph frightens me.
cheers....oldbaz.

A headon at 60 or 200 the result is likely to be the same. Everyone has an opinion but at the end of the day it is the facts that matter. This is a trial, lets see what happens.

Garry agree with you. In the USA during the oil crisis of the 70's they reduced the speed limit on roads back to 60mph the road toll went up some years later they increased it and the toll went back down.

Oldbaz,

The philosophical argument is fine, but we shouldn't forget that you can have an impact speed of 200kmh when things go pear-shaped with two vehicles each travelling at 100kmh in opposite directions, too!

I'm certainly not going to be travelling at speeds such as those mentioned - the 100 series probably wouldn't do them and I don't need to find out if it will. Besides, how many others will actually be doing those speeds?

There are parts of the Stuart where there's no way any sensible person would travel at anything like the speeds mentioned - others where it would be unlikely to be a major issue. A P-plater with minimum hours may be of concern at any high speed - a competitive racing driver not so much.

OTOH, how long are YOU on the wrong side of a road overtaking a road train at 100kmh as opposed to (say) 160kmh? (No, I haven't done the maths!) Wouldn't the likelihood of an incident increase with an increased length of time in the zone where you are at risk? I do know I used to need (and it WAS a matter of necessity!) at least 2km of clear road before I'd even attempt an overtaking manoeuvre in my old 60 series atmo! And I always felt pretty vulnerable out there all that time, I can assure you! I'd certainly have been going quicker if I could have!

Not trying to fuel the fire, here, so please don't get stuck in too hard, but any driver who's inexperienced at the speed they're travelling at and on the particular road surface they're on will be of concern. The bigger issue for the NT gov't might be the cost of policing limits in remote areas where the accident rate might not warrant the expenditure (yes, I fully appreciate that any death or serious injury is tragic, but they continue to occur at much lower speeds in all States and Territories) and we all have to pay for that.

Regards,

Charlie

Just remember that up to a few years back the entire Stuart highway was basically speed limit free and the road toll was not a major issue.

This is not a trial of something new for this road.

The road toll stats when it was speed restriction free are there for all to see.

bollocks bollocks and more bollocks

obviously most on here are mere children that dont recall the days before ALL of australia had no speedlimmits

guess what kids

australia had the highest rates of road deaths despite there being far less and vastly less powerfull cars on the road

since the introduction of speed limits australias road toll has been in a downward spiral

FACT end of discussion

get outmore sounds like a statistician, by selecting which facts you use you can prove anything. He/she states that cars are "vastly more powerful" since the introduction of speed limits. Does this mean that if we make our cars more powerful again that they will be even safer - I do not think to many would agree with that. Then again the more power you have means you spend less time on the other side of the road in a passing manoeuvre. The real facts are that along with changes in speed limits there have also been changes in road conditions, drink driving laws, seat belts, crumple zones, disc brakes, air bags, and the list goes on. To call others "children" and then put forward an argument which ignores all the relevant facts says about you - well I will leave that to the rest of us children to figure out.
As can be seen by all the posts there is plenty of opinion on this subject and no obvious answer. IMHO I do not think it unreasonable to have a trial and get some facts.

Yeah Chris, but I don't want to be one of those "facts".

Chris, how much of a trial do you want? The figures shown above show that the road toll was higher years ago with an open speed limit.

Peter

Yep there are real facts and Get Out More Facts and the two will never meet.

Allan B you would appear you have already made the judgement that this trial will lead to more deaths and that you do not want to be one of them. Well I do not want to see more fatalities either but until the trial has been done how do we know, I certainly don't. Consider this, we know much of the road toll is caused by people going to sleep at the wheel. The Stuart highway is a long road going through some desolate country, many would say very boring country. Logic would say that that the incidence of falling asleep while driving on this road is going the be higher than most roads. Fortunately there is a lot less traffic and very few trees so should someone fall asleep there chances of survival is much better than on most other roads. We simply do not know how often this happens (although I bet some truckies would have some idea) as if there is no accident there is no record. While it can be said that the faster you drive the more dangerous it is, it can also be said that you have to concentrate more and are less likely to fall asleep. So while if you drive slower it is in most instances safer, it is also more boring which can bring on sleep at the wheel. So which is safer? There is no consensus in this post which is probably why there is a trial. Again I say I do not know the answer because I do not know all the facts, I am interested to see what is the outcome of the trail.
For any car coming the other way if it is to get passed you, its a good idea if the other driver is awake. If they are awake and pass you does it really matter what speed they are doing because they are passed you. Someone doing, say 80, and falls asleep and veers into your path and you have an accident your chance of survival is pretty minimal.
What I am saying is that there are many factors that influence the safety of any particular road and they vary depending on the type of road. On this particular road I would suggest that concentration is greater factor than many other roads. We need to investigate every possibility to make our roads safer and this trial is gathering facts to do just that.

no question theres alot of improvements in many areas which have contributed to a lower toll

but dont forget how many more cars are on the road now than in 1973 i think it was

if anyone disputes the introduction of speed limmits and the enforcement hasnt very significantly improved road safety there in la laland

just one case in point someone mentioned being on the other side of the road for less time with more powerfull cars nowadays

bolocks I say because the length of the trucks we now have to overtake has doubled - only single trailer semis used to be driven on alot of roads

another very significant factor has been the widening of roads and verges with good shoulders

sides of the road used to be very narrow with a 4-6 inch drop off to the dirt - leaving the bitumen very often ended badly if only a wheel dropped off

La la la la la la la

It makes no difference whether a truck is a single trailer, a 53 metre road train, or anything in between it is a simple physical fact that the more power you have under your right foot the quicker you are able to pass and consequently the less time you will be on the wrong side of the road. To say "bolocks" to the statement "just one case in point someone mentioned being on the other side of the road for less time with more powerfull cars nowadays " simply defies any logical reasoning.
I think there must be people who get their kicks by making outrageous posts on this web site and stirring the pot.

sorry the facts dont fit in with your alternate reality

Idler

back in the day trucks only had 1 trailer on most roads

yes most cars had less power but compare that to today where single trailer trucks are almost unknown

sure youve got more power but as i said 2 andn more trailer trucks are still considerabally harder to pass

and then take into account not all cars have the power to make it past these longer trucks

I certainly have been caught out trying to over take a road train with 4 trailers between widgiemoolthatha and coolgardie - had plenty of straight road but the 1hz work vehicle just didnt have the power couldnt get passed it and after about 5km of straight had to pull over to avoid an oncoming vehicle

I grew up in a small town right on highway 1 over 500km from the nearest city

anywhere you wanted to go always involved country highway driving and lots of it

- you might - just might want to concede i possibally have some idea what im talking about

Well get outmore I think you are baiting me but I will bite one more time. I never said that it does not take longer to pass a road train than a normal truck. I said the more power you have the quicker it is to pass. The fact is that turbo diesel vehicles are very common these days and the majority of these could pass a 4 trailer road train safely in a reasonable time. Quite obviously if you drive an old slug you are going to have much greater difficulty in passing a road train than a 18 wheel semi. My point is that I would much rather pass a 53 metre road train in my 6 cylinder TD Landcruiser than an 18 wheeler in in a 1hz.
BTW A four trailer road train is about 53 metres long. I may be wrong, but I believe they travel at 90 max which is 40 seconds per kilometre. If in your example, after about 5 kilometres which is 3 minutes and 20 seconds you have not done an extra 50 odd metres to pass him I would say why would you take the risk, the truck is travelling at near enough to you maximum speed. You say that you have done "lots" of country driving and know what you are talking about. You have admitted that you attempted to pass a truck when you could not see far enough ahead for the time you where going to be on the wrong side of the road. One of the reasons we have a road toll is impatient people passing vehicles when they do not have clear vision and the judgement to know that they can safely pass.
Do you know what you are talking about? I will leave that for others to decide.

anyone would think Mr outmore was a lot older than he really is, with all this talk of the good old days... LOL
and trying to overtake a road train in a 1hz with not enough room.. is not an argument against the NT's trial on removing the speed limit on one section of road.
Good on the NT Gov for not following the nanny states.

Cheers
Al

OK why did I try to overtake?

i was familar with the road and it was a spot we usually used

any one thats driven these vehicles will know they dont all go the same

yes it was doing 90 and i floored it
nothing happened it barely made 100

many of those utes are flat out at 120 and that takes alot of time to get up to

and as for the good old days

yes i can actually remember back a fair way

not just as a driver but kid
i remeber mum asking the copper if he could repeat what exactly the speed limmit was going to be when theyn had a town hall meeting to intruduce the speed limmit

he replied "Mrs XXX dont worry your vw beetle wont do it anyway"

Do man boobs mean you are above average?

I just travelled to Newcastle early january & returned 2 weeks later and must have had my eyes closed because I didn't notice any of these signs

The slip ramps may be long, but drivers have about as much idea of merging laws as they have on roundabout laws!

I agree Andy. We just spent some rime on 130 kph posted roads in NT, and I can't recall anybody travelling anywhere near that speed. Not saying it doesn't happen, but didn't happen where we were.

Cheers
Laurie

SDG....had the same thing happen to me when I was on a manufacturer's test trip. We drained a fuel tank in 3 hours, mind you, we'd covered close to 600kms in that time.

Fab.

Rod


Can't do that now. Roadtrains, Caravans, etc. especially during the dry. The speed limit is 130 km/h which to me is too fast. It is okay though when I am in a hurry to get to Darwin or home.

Jack,

Wasn't the speed limit imposed because a Ferrari in some rally ploughed into a check point killed four people?

Skull

That crash happened in 1994 during the Cannonball Run. Fourteen odd years to react is a bit of a slow burn? :-)

Mike,

You are right. Not even NT time runs that slowly.

Skull

...I got it :)

Gave up on the shark one...cant have a logical discussion where paranoid delusions are introduced as an argument.

Cheers
Greg

Agreed greg. But if old 'Harry' and a few of his mates agree over a few beers then it must be fact, especially when their precious lifestyles might be ever so slightly compromised for the greater good or longer term benefit. It's an imperfect world made more complex by pseudo opinion.

Thank you, common sense at last!
I have never heard if stationary vehicle killing anybody!

Yep, let's drop the limits . . . on condition that all vehicles are fitted with dash cameras focused on the driver's face.
That way we can all enjoy the replays of their expression in the last couple of seconds of their lives when they're doing 150kph and they see a camel wandering out into their lane.

Cheers, Tony

Spot on Hairy,

I travel the section between Alice & Kulgera fairly regularly, I tend to sit on around 110 to 120 km/h, yet I still manage to catch up to & overtake numerous cars/4wds, caravans & the odd roadtrain.

My ute is quite capable of travelling at 150/160 km/h but the fuel burn would be horrendous, my most economical cruising speed would be around 85/90 km/h, but I'd be getting overtaken every couple of minutes by every man & his dog.

In my opinion the unlimited section of the highway has more benefit for car companies testing vehicles than for most sensible travelers.

Hairy ,

You don't have to speed. Somebody else will do it for you. You also don't have to cause an accident because at 100 kph you could still be involved in a 300 kph impact compliments of someone you only saw a couple of seconds before you met them.

Anyway, why don't we give it a trial?

Skull

Having a speed limit doesn't stop people driving too fast?
The trial was having a speed limit not taking the speed limit away.
They introduced a speed limit for a while and didn't seem to make any difference so they are taking it away again........or that's how it should have been worded I reckon.

Cheers

Oldbaz,

I believe you will find that if there is an accident, you have to prove you were driving to the conditions and you were not driving dangerously.

That is the way it was when NT had unlimited speed before.

Mate in Germany where the autobahns are unlimited, if you take any of the secondary non divided roads, the speed limit is usually 80-90 or lower. In France or Italy the motorways are 130 and the non divided roads 80-90 or lower too. Those countries have a bucket load more cars on the road and little villages every 20kms or so that you have to slow down to 30-40 for when you are on the minor roads. Most people there stick to those lower limits as well. The circumstances there are completely different and of little use when comparing to the NT. For instance, you feel safer in Germany doing 150 with cars all around you than you do on a road like the Hume doing 110 with less cars...and that isn't even mentioning the big overly aggressive trucks we have compared to them.

Slow one, if you have a head-on at +200km/h you are unlikely to be in a position to prove anything.

Allan,
If you have a head on at 100 kph you also will be unlikely to be in a position to prove anything.

Last time I looked though, I didn't think they were prosecuting dead people, no matter what caused an accident. I think those people have already lost their licence for life.

Quite so Slow one. So what was your point?

No points just fact. People don't always die.

If you run into another vehicle, hit a bike rider or roll/run off the road and crash. You then have to prove to the police, that you were driving safely. If you side swipe an on coming car due to the sun or heat haze, the coppers will then say you were driving at an unsafe speed due to the conditions.

I was answering oldbaz, I hope he understands the reasoning of the NT authorities. Me, I really couldn't care one way or another.

Gday Oldbaz,
Just to ease your mind, I think anyone other than Craig Lowndes and a few others would be prosecuted with dangerous driving if caught driving at 250kmh..........
And if heat haze is your main concern while driving get some new glasses, drive at night or hand the wheel over to the Mrs....LOL.

People from the NT in general don't have trouble with no speed limits......its not a novelty, and drive to the conditions. Maybe speed limits should only apply to interstate visitors if they cant control the urge to drive like an idiot?

Cheers

LOL...

What Hairy said!

"People from the NT in general don't have trouble with no speed limits......its not a novelty, and drive to the conditions. Maybe speed limits should only apply to interstate visitors if they cant control the urge to drive like an idiot?"

Gold!

so hairy.... please tell me why the vast majority of people killed on NT roads are NT residents ??

that old chestnut is the biggest load of doggy doo invented but keeps getting brought up

Nt people like to blame stupid southerners and dumb tourists for croc atacks but same deal
--- guess what vast majority of people taken by crocs are locals

latest fatality case in point

"please tell me why the vast majority of people killed on NT roads are NT residents "
Because the vast majority of people on NT roads are NT residents ?????? Not rocket science is it?

"Nt people like to blame stupid southerners and dumb tourists for croc atacks but same deal"
As usual people are trying to words in others mouths for the sake of an argument.......I didn't say anything even remotely close to that???? In fact didnt even mention crocs.

Nice try.........

Hairy,

NT people don't have trouble with speed limits? Is that because they can't read or because they wouldn't stick to them anyway? Maybe the signs are so full of bullet holes they want to get home before they get shot. It could be because they are asleep for most of the trip. Let's not forget the possibility that they are on stolen plates so they won't get booked anyway.

Sorry Hairy. I couldn't resist! I love the NT.

:)

Skull

I Disagree with your math Allen, I have overtaken many road trains in my 200 series, this car is more than capable of accelerating and passing a road train in less than 10 seconds, this is After sitting behind it at 100 kph and then accelerating and passing.

My maths are quite valid Aussi Traveller.

Perhaps you are able to overtake in less than 10 seconds but not everyone can achieve that even though they may not be aware of it. I have had a number of drivers start to overtake me and I have needed to "chicken-out" to avoid them causing a collision.

The simple scenario I posed would not be at all unreasonable for many motorists. Permit me to add some detail:

It is not you driving at all, it is your wife who is somewhat more timid. You are bored with sitting behind the caravan and urge her to overtake. She peers up the road and can see nothing coming so with some apprehension begins to overtake. Afraid to floor it, she takes some time in the manoeuvre and suddenly becomes aware of a rapidly approaching vehicle. In a panic she lifts her foot and has nowhere to go. Her last expression to her terrified husband is a scream.
In the meantime, the caravan driver who was not even aware that he was being overtaken hears the almighty sound of the impact and in shock loses control, veers off the road and overturns, killing both himself and his wife. That's a score of six dead. Yes, the bloke intent on demonstrating the size of his, err, engine had his girlfriend alongside him.

But you need not worry, you will be safe in your 200 Series, won't you?
It is always possible to put up an alternate that is outside the proposal, but that does not refute the original proposal, it merely shows that there can be alternate situation. My expression still stands as possible and reasonable.

No need to get testy mate, but the facts are that most people that would travel at speed or attempt to pass vehicle you describe, are probably (A) used to the conditions.
(b) probably have a car capable of passing at speed.
Are there dickheads on the road of corse but there are dickheads every where doing al sorts of things.
If my wife drove in a manner you described I wouldn't let her drive to start with or would I let her obtain a license, by the way Most women reading that scenario would probably like to cut your balls off, just saying.
Phil

I should point out that my wife is very capable at driving both on an off road, in fact extremely capable.

& she would probably remove your testicles if she read that you wouldn't LET her get a licence if she didn't measure up to your requirements!

Now who is "getting testy" Phil? I merely pointed out that even though you and your vehicle may be faster in overtaking, not everyone is. It is frequent that the less equipped, less competent and less assured are the victims of misfortune. That does not demand that they should be marginalised and subjected to unreasonable actions of others.

The scenario I proposed was notional. Why do you assume that they would be "used to the conditions"?
And I made no expression about their "car being capable of passing at speed".

My wife is also very competent at driving, but it is undeniable that women in general are more moderate or conservative behind the wheel.
Anyway, I only introduced the "wife" scenario to make a point which is not obvious to you. I have no idea why you introduced your own wife into the subject, the "wife" I referred to was hypothetical.
And I cannot imagine why any woman would be offended at what I said. If any women are reading this I would be happy for them to comment.

Aussie traveller,

If I wrote replies like you just have, my wife wouldn't let me post. You missed the point of the thread and Allan's very valid argument. It wasn't about you and your toy.

Skull

the whole 'used to conditions"

argument is also Bollocks. city people were alwys blamed for the higher road toll on country roads- not used to conditions

we now know every statistic shows by far and away its country people mostly dying on country roads

Get outmore, I believe you are cherry picking for the point of an argument, and you know that.
Most accidents on the GCR alone are tourists, or govt workers based in the city travelling out here for work.
As for other rural roads, yes, country people die on country roads, because funnily enough, that's where country people drive. I wonder if anyone has broken those stats down to a per capita based idea..
Anyone can say something here and state that it is fact, by cherry picking through stats.
Lets also look at this example, a city based driver wants to overtake a truck on the Stuart hwy, what do they do? automatically sit inches off his rear end and continually duck their nose out to see if it's safe. Would you say that person is used to the conditions, of driving around road trains?
it's not bollocks at all, of course you get used to the conditions. Last rollover I attended here was a young lad from the city doing 120kmh at least and hit a patch of corros on a dead sraight section of road. Would you argue that he maybe wasn't used to the conditions?

Cheers
Al

Royce, In military combat very few bullets find their mark. But does that statistic help you if a bullet makes connection with you?

Sure, with a 130km/h speed limit, some d%heads will still take it up to 200 or so but when there is no limit a few more will try it thus increasing the chances for peril.

Where is the justification for speeds above 130km/h?

Allan, if anyone wants to drive fast they will its proven.
After years of living and working in the Territory( driving road trains), I have only being passed by one that I remember that wasn't driving to conditions.
Really mate its an endless conversation, you don't like the change and every one in the Territory does. When you head up there, turn your lights on and hang on !
Cheers Washo

I have twice been speed-checked and breathalysed on remote stretches of the Stuart Highway in remote sections. Maybe they were en-route to somewhere and took a break. I dunno, perhaps that was the only occasions in the century! LOL

Jack,
As a South Aussie, it's almost common knowledge not to speed 50 kms either side of Coober Pedy and the same around Marla. In fact, most times the only police patrol car near Marla will be parked up by the servo so once it's spotted - away you go!.

I'll generally sit 5 kms over the limit (conditions allowing) on an Adelaide to Darwin trip. I find that 5 kms over on my speedo equates to a true 110 kmp/h by the GPS.

My opinion on this thread...... Leave the NT at 130 kmp/h but increase the SA side to 130 km/h from Pimba on wards. A good compromise I think.
Fab.

I would agree with that Fab...... 130k/h from Pimba to Alice.
Possibly with a signed reduction at any specific risk points, although I can't think of any right now.

Mind you, driving a Troopy, I hardly have a hope of a ticket in even a built-up area! Perhaps I should fit a yellow flashing beacon. LOL

LOL... I hear ya Allan.

A 1.8 petrol non turbo Pajero io with oversized tyres has the same symptoms. Perhaps they'll do a group buy discount on yellow lashing lights.
Fab.

Err, no thanks Fab......... I'm not into "lashing"! LOL

Agreed. Speed is actually the only thing that kills. If cars could only do 5kph then there would barely be a road toll. You could drive drunk or fall asleep at the wheel and run straight into a tree and the air bag probably wouldn't even go off. Try rolling a car at 5kph. :-) The faster you go, the more likely there will be damage to life and limb if anything goes wrong. Alcohol or fatigue just increase the chance of something going wrong. I've legally driven at 200+kph a couple of times...it's too fast and too dangerous for the general public. 130kph is plenty in my view, and that's too fast for many.