NT Speed Limit

Submitted: Friday, Jan 31, 2014 at 12:05
ThreadID: 106025 Views:2936 Replies:23 FollowUps:73
This Thread has been Archived
I see that a 200 Km length of the Stuart Hwy in NT will have no speed limit from
tomorrow. I have no particular thoughts one way or the other. I suppose it gives
those chaps with 200kph jobbies the opportunity to see if it can be done in an hour.
I find I cant come up with any other practical reason for it. Obviously public pressure
for reasons unknown to me has prevailed. But it is a Trial, & no doubt will be dropped
at the first sign of safety infringements. One sure hopes a multiple fatality is not the
trigger. Hmmm, I do sound like an old fart, don't I ?. Cant hide it...:)))
cheers....oldbaz.
Back Expand Un-Read 1 Moderator

Reply By: Honky - Friday, Jan 31, 2014 at 12:13

Friday, Jan 31, 2014 at 12:13
More people have been killed in the last 6 years since the reduction in speed limit than when it was open limits.
The only reason the NT government reduce the speed limit was due to Federal Government blackmail not statistics

Honky
AnswerID: 525476

Follow Up By: TTTSA - Friday, Jan 31, 2014 at 12:18

Friday, Jan 31, 2014 at 12:18
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.
0
FollowupID: 807397

Follow Up By: Kumunara (NT) - Friday, Jan 31, 2014 at 14:40

Friday, Jan 31, 2014 at 14:40
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.
Life's great and it just keeps getting better

Member
My Profile  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 807413

Follow Up By: Batt's - Saturday, Feb 01, 2014 at 22:05

Saturday, Feb 01, 2014 at 22:05
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.
0
FollowupID: 807514

Follow Up By: Kumunara (NT) - Sunday, Feb 02, 2014 at 00:06

Sunday, Feb 02, 2014 at 00:06
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
Life's great and it just keeps getting better

Member
My Profile  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 807522

Follow Up By: garrycol - Sunday, Feb 02, 2014 at 12:08

Sunday, Feb 02, 2014 at 12:08
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
0
FollowupID: 807560

Follow Up By: Allan B (Member, SunCoast) - Sunday, Feb 02, 2014 at 12:18

Sunday, Feb 02, 2014 at 12:18
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!
Cheers
Allan

Member
My Profile  My Blog  My Position  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 807563

Follow Up By: Kumunara (NT) - Sunday, Feb 02, 2014 at 12:45

Sunday, Feb 02, 2014 at 12:45
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.
Life's great and it just keeps getting better

Member
My Profile  Send Message

1
FollowupID: 807569

Follow Up By: Batt's - Sunday, Feb 02, 2014 at 23:42

Sunday, Feb 02, 2014 at 23:42
Thanks for taking the time to do the research & source the correct info Kumunara
0
FollowupID: 807623

Follow Up By: Bazooka - Monday, Feb 03, 2014 at 00:11

Monday, Feb 03, 2014 at 00:11
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?
0
FollowupID: 807624

Reply By: TTTSA - Friday, Jan 31, 2014 at 12:16

Friday, Jan 31, 2014 at 12:16
You sound pretty sensible to me oldbaz. Who is experienced at travelling at 300kmh if you wish too. I don't want to be on the same stretch of road as some inexperienced driver at any speed over about 130kmh. Keep those speeds for the racetrack, not the general roads.
AnswerID: 525477

Follow Up By: Member - Michael P (QLD) - Friday, Jan 31, 2014 at 12:28

Friday, Jan 31, 2014 at 12:28
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.
0
FollowupID: 807399

Follow Up By: TTTSA - Friday, Jan 31, 2014 at 13:55

Friday, Jan 31, 2014 at 13:55
And? What of it?
2
FollowupID: 807409

Reply By: garrycol - Friday, Jan 31, 2014 at 12:29

Friday, Jan 31, 2014 at 12:29
Statistics all over the world show that speed does not kill - contrary to what police and others tell us. If it were true the Stuart when it was fully unlimited a few years back would have had an exceptionally high death toll when the opposite was the case - likewise the same with overseas autobahns etc. When the speed limit was not on the Stuart previously there were few accidents related to high speeds, most deaths were locals having a sleep on the road and getting run over or utes overloaded with locals in the back tipping over at relatively low speeds compared to the speed limit.

Where speed kills is where it is excessive for the conditions at the time - 60kph can be excessive as can 200kph if the conditions do not allow.

In my view many speed limits in open road conditions are too low but fine in others. Some speed limits should be higher, some lower just make them relevant to the environment.

Garry
AnswerID: 525482

Follow Up By: Member - Oldbaz. NSW. - Friday, Jan 31, 2014 at 12:44

Friday, Jan 31, 2014 at 12:44
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.
0
FollowupID: 807400

Follow Up By: Idler Chris - Friday, Jan 31, 2014 at 13:05

Friday, Jan 31, 2014 at 13:05
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.
What other people think of me is none of my business.
Do unto others what you would have them do unto you.

Lifetime Member
My Profile  My Blog  My Position  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 807402

Follow Up By: bks - Friday, Jan 31, 2014 at 13:22

Friday, Jan 31, 2014 at 13:22
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.
0
FollowupID: 807403

Follow Up By: Charlie B2 - Friday, Jan 31, 2014 at 13:27

Friday, Jan 31, 2014 at 13:27
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
0
FollowupID: 807405

Follow Up By: garrycol - Friday, Jan 31, 2014 at 17:38

Friday, Jan 31, 2014 at 17:38
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.
0
FollowupID: 807433

Follow Up By: get outmore - Sunday, Feb 02, 2014 at 04:46

Sunday, Feb 02, 2014 at 04:46
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
1
FollowupID: 807529

Follow Up By: Idler Chris - Sunday, Feb 02, 2014 at 10:05

Sunday, Feb 02, 2014 at 10:05
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.
What other people think of me is none of my business.
Do unto others what you would have them do unto you.

Lifetime Member
My Profile  My Blog  My Position  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 807544

Follow Up By: Allan B (Member, SunCoast) - Sunday, Feb 02, 2014 at 10:09

Sunday, Feb 02, 2014 at 10:09
Yeah Chris, but I don't want to be one of those "facts".
Cheers
Allan

Member
My Profile  My Blog  My Position  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 807547

Follow Up By: TTTSA - Sunday, Feb 02, 2014 at 12:00

Sunday, Feb 02, 2014 at 12:00
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
0
FollowupID: 807558

Follow Up By: garrycol - Sunday, Feb 02, 2014 at 12:11

Sunday, Feb 02, 2014 at 12:11
Yep there are real facts and Get Out More Facts and the two will never meet.
1
FollowupID: 807561

Follow Up By: Idler Chris - Sunday, Feb 02, 2014 at 12:26

Sunday, Feb 02, 2014 at 12:26
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.
What other people think of me is none of my business.
Do unto others what you would have them do unto you.

Lifetime Member
My Profile  My Blog  My Position  Send Message

1
FollowupID: 807565

Follow Up By: get outmore - Sunday, Feb 02, 2014 at 16:12

Sunday, Feb 02, 2014 at 16:12
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
0
FollowupID: 807585

Follow Up By: garrycol - Sunday, Feb 02, 2014 at 17:16

Sunday, Feb 02, 2014 at 17:16
La la la la la la la
0
FollowupID: 807592

Follow Up By: Idler Chris - Sunday, Feb 02, 2014 at 18:03

Sunday, Feb 02, 2014 at 18:03
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.
What other people think of me is none of my business.
Do unto others what you would have them do unto you.

Lifetime Member
My Profile  My Blog  My Position  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 807599

Follow Up By: get outmore - Monday, Feb 03, 2014 at 03:08

Monday, Feb 03, 2014 at 03:08
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
0
FollowupID: 807626

Follow Up By: Idler Chris - Monday, Feb 03, 2014 at 09:53

Monday, Feb 03, 2014 at 09:53
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.
What other people think of me is none of my business.
Do unto others what you would have them do unto you.

Lifetime Member
My Profile  My Blog  My Position  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 807637

Follow Up By: Tjukayirla Roadhouse - Monday, Feb 03, 2014 at 16:59

Monday, Feb 03, 2014 at 16:59
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

0
FollowupID: 807667

Follow Up By: get outmore - Monday, Feb 03, 2014 at 17:12

Monday, Feb 03, 2014 at 17:12
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"
0
FollowupID: 807670

Reply By: Skulldug - Friday, Jan 31, 2014 at 13:49

Friday, Jan 31, 2014 at 13:49
At least when you hit a roo at 200 kph it will come in through the windscreen and straight out through the back window.

On a more serious note, if everyone drives to the conditions, the limitations of their vehicles and their skill/fatigue levels etc, it shouldn't make any difference.

I'm not hopeful this will happen though. Where I live, there is often fog in the colder months. I can't believe how often people drive into it at 100 kph when visibility is 20 m.

Skull

AnswerID: 525487

Reply By: Member - Rob D (NSW) - Friday, Jan 31, 2014 at 13:53

Friday, Jan 31, 2014 at 13:53
Firstly: Kinetic energy equates to one half the mass times the velocity squared so the same vehicle travelling at 200kph has four times the kinetic energy as it would if it were travelling at 100kph. This energy would be dissipated on impact.

Secondly: Statistics proves that the average Australian has one breast and one testicle.

I am sure that this will help.

If you relax at a faster pace you can get more relaxation in for a given time.
Regards Rob

Lifetime Member
My Profile  My Blog  Send Message

AnswerID: 525489

Follow Up By: mikehzz - Friday, Jan 31, 2014 at 16:25

Friday, Jan 31, 2014 at 16:25
Do man boobs mean you are above average?
1
FollowupID: 807425

Reply By: Honky - Friday, Jan 31, 2014 at 14:05

Friday, Jan 31, 2014 at 14:05
In NSW there arw signs everywhere that say 8 out of 10 road deaths are on bends.
Not many bends on the stuart so there is 80% of the accidents gone already.
On a recent overseas trip I was talking to an American Doctor abut Autobaurns and hte speed they travel them on. He said that the US would like to further increase the speed limits but most of their roads were designed for the 55 mph limit and the on ramps are to short to get up to speed. He said that the Australian on ramps on highways are very long compared to the US.

Honky
AnswerID: 525490

Follow Up By: Batt's - Monday, Feb 03, 2014 at 18:49

Monday, Feb 03, 2014 at 18:49
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
0
FollowupID: 807685

Follow Up By: Shaker - Monday, Feb 03, 2014 at 19:28

Monday, Feb 03, 2014 at 19:28
The slip ramps may be long, but drivers have about as much idea of merging laws as they have on roundabout laws!
0
FollowupID: 807688

Reply By: pop2jocem - Friday, Jan 31, 2014 at 14:14

Friday, Jan 31, 2014 at 14:14
Be good for all the "experienced" young fellas that have got this brand new licence and a warmed over V8 ute that they are just itching to try out. Don't have to be too worried about speeding tickets.

Cheers
Pop
AnswerID: 525492

Reply By: Kumunara (NT) - Friday, Jan 31, 2014 at 14:46

Friday, Jan 31, 2014 at 14:46
Oldbaz

The CLP made a promise during the last election that they would remove the speed limit. It was a stupid promise so now they have put in the trial to try and make it look like they are going to keep their election promise.

Another promise they made was to remove the banned drinkers register. Well they did that. Since then alcohol related assaults have increased by 55% and alcohol related Domestic Violence has increased by 70% since they removed it.

Given their track record the CLP are probably stupid enought to remove the speed limit as well.
Life's great and it just keeps getting better

Member
My Profile  Send Message

AnswerID: 525497

Reply By: Member Andys Adventures - Friday, Jan 31, 2014 at 14:46

Friday, Jan 31, 2014 at 14:46
In all the times I have travelled the Stuart Hwy it seems to me that there are only a few car doing the limit 130kph most doing between 100kph and 120kph. So by making a section of the Stuart Hwy unrestricted there won't be many cars doing over 120kph in my opinion.
cheers Andy
AnswerID: 525498

Follow Up By: Member - Laurie K (WA) - Sunday, Feb 02, 2014 at 01:13

Sunday, Feb 02, 2014 at 01:13
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
0
FollowupID: 807525

Reply By: SDG - Friday, Jan 31, 2014 at 15:41

Friday, Jan 31, 2014 at 15:41
I tried the speed early last year when I went there. I could virtually watch the fuel guage going down.
Would try it on the bike, but i most likely would get half way, and run out of fuel
AnswerID: 525502

Follow Up By: Member - Fab72 (Paradise SA) - Sunday, Feb 02, 2014 at 09:19

Sunday, Feb 02, 2014 at 09:19
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.
0
FollowupID: 807536

Reply By: Rod W - Friday, Jan 31, 2014 at 15:42

Friday, Jan 31, 2014 at 15:42
I lived in the top end in the 70s and 80s when the speed was unlimited on the open road between towns. I remember overtaking/cruising past a cop car at a 130ks per hour with not drama on the old Stuart highway between Katherine and Darwin.
AnswerID: 525504

Follow Up By: Kumunara (NT) - Friday, Jan 31, 2014 at 15:59

Friday, Jan 31, 2014 at 15:59
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.
Life's great and it just keeps getting better

Member
My Profile  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 807421

Reply By: OzTroopy - Friday, Jan 31, 2014 at 17:22

Friday, Jan 31, 2014 at 17:22
Posted by Oldbaz.NSW.

I see that a 200 Km length of the Stuart Hwy in NT will have no speed limit from
tomorrow ............



I'm so glad I read the post properly before I jumped in with all my thoughts ... on speed limits and safe driving.

.... coz the post from Oldbaz simply translates into .... On a short section of the Stuart Hwy ... The NT is, REVERTING BACK TO, pre 2007 speed limits.


.... to which the obvious response is ........ MEHHH ....
AnswerID: 525517

Reply By: Member - Jack - Friday, Jan 31, 2014 at 17:58

Friday, Jan 31, 2014 at 17:58
The speed limits were dropped because of (1) Federal Government blackmail related to highway funding (I hope the Territorians have spent it all now) and also (2) due to the agitation of our dear friend Harold Scruby, who lobbied the NT government to drop the limit. He is, if course, the self appointed custodian of us all as the President of the NSW Pedestrian Council. I don't see a lot of pedestrians on the Stuart, so I could not help but wonder why they took any notice of him.
But, I digress. Anything that represents a defeat for Scruby is a good thing in my book. Bring on the 'speed limit free' zone, although I will probably still stick to my 100-110kph along the Stuart.

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

Member
My Profile  My Position  Send Message

AnswerID: 525519

Follow Up By: Skulldug - Friday, Jan 31, 2014 at 21:57

Friday, Jan 31, 2014 at 21:57
Jack,

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

Skull
0
FollowupID: 807450

Follow Up By: mikehzz - Friday, Jan 31, 2014 at 22:31

Friday, Jan 31, 2014 at 22:31
That crash happened in 1994 during the Cannonball Run. Fourteen odd years to react is a bit of a slow burn? :-)
0
FollowupID: 807451

Follow Up By: Skulldug - Saturday, Feb 01, 2014 at 10:44

Saturday, Feb 01, 2014 at 10:44
Mike,

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

Skull
0
FollowupID: 807467

Reply By: Bazooka - Saturday, Feb 01, 2014 at 00:18

Saturday, Feb 01, 2014 at 00:18
Good to see a couple of old favourite threads back.

There's many detailed studies and empirical evidence which suggest this statement (from a German report) is likely to be more reliable than some of the free running anecdotes above. Pretty obvious why I think - the effect of a tiny mistake can be amplified greatly by high speed.

"the relationship between speed and road accidents has been studied extensively and is very clear: the higher the speed, the greater the probability of a crash and the severity of the crashes."

There are undoubtedly exceptions but that's the general conclusion of a lot of reports. My guess is that it's all a conspiracy of Harold Scruby clones worldwide in cahoots with greedy governments intent on ripping off poor motorists. Nothing at all to do with safety.
AnswerID: 525543

Follow Up By: The Explorer - Sunday, Feb 02, 2014 at 13:27

Sunday, Feb 02, 2014 at 13:27
...I got it :)

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

Cheers
Greg
I sent one final shout after him to stick to the track, to which he replied “All right,” That was the last ever seen of Gibson - E Giles 23 April 1874

Lifetime Member
My Profile  My Blog  My Position  Send Message
Moderator

0
FollowupID: 807574

Follow Up By: Bazooka - Sunday, Feb 02, 2014 at 14:24

Sunday, Feb 02, 2014 at 14:24
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.
0
FollowupID: 807578

Follow Up By: Shaker - Sunday, Feb 02, 2014 at 17:37

Sunday, Feb 02, 2014 at 17:37
Thank you, common sense at last!
I have never heard if stationary vehicle killing anybody!
0
FollowupID: 807597

Reply By: Life Member - Dunworkin (WA) - Saturday, Feb 01, 2014 at 00:31

Saturday, Feb 01, 2014 at 00:31
Hi Oldbaz, I'm with you on this one, it scares me enough worrying about who is coming around the next corner or over the next hill on the wrong side of the road at the restricted speeds let alone at 200.......but then it probably wouldn't matter what speed it was, the end result would be the same........ geez, I must be getting old too....lol


Simba, our much missed baby.

Lifetime Member
My Profile  Send Message

AnswerID: 525544

Follow Up By: bibtracker - Saturday, Feb 01, 2014 at 00:50

Saturday, Feb 01, 2014 at 00:50
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
0
FollowupID: 807455

Reply By: Hairy (NT) - Saturday, Feb 01, 2014 at 03:11

Saturday, Feb 01, 2014 at 03:11
I have must of missed something......did the new law say you have to speed????
AnswerID: 525547

Follow Up By: Ozrover - Saturday, Feb 01, 2014 at 10:32

Saturday, Feb 01, 2014 at 10:32
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.






2
FollowupID: 807466

Follow Up By: Skulldug - Sunday, Feb 02, 2014 at 16:18

Sunday, Feb 02, 2014 at 16:18
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
0
FollowupID: 807586

Follow Up By: Hairy (NT) - Sunday, Feb 02, 2014 at 17:22

Sunday, Feb 02, 2014 at 17:22
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
1
FollowupID: 807594

Reply By: Member - Oldbaz. NSW. - Saturday, Feb 01, 2014 at 10:34

Saturday, Feb 01, 2014 at 10:34
Thanks for your responses..it certainly poses some interesting questions..
Can I ask two more ?
Does any other developed country allow unlimited speeds on undivided roads?
I don't know the answer. Another thought that occurred to me is that an oncoming car
doing 250 kph, under heat haze conditions, would only be visible for several seconds
before it reached you. Would you overtake anything under such a scenario ?
.. cheers....oldbaz.
AnswerID: 525568

Follow Up By: Slow one - Saturday, Feb 01, 2014 at 10:45

Saturday, Feb 01, 2014 at 10:45
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.
0
FollowupID: 807468

Follow Up By: mikehzz - Saturday, Feb 01, 2014 at 13:42

Saturday, Feb 01, 2014 at 13:42
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.
0
FollowupID: 807477

Follow Up By: Allan B (Member, SunCoast) - Saturday, Feb 01, 2014 at 13:53

Saturday, Feb 01, 2014 at 13:53
Slow one, if you have a head-on at +200km/h you are unlikely to be in a position to prove anything.
Cheers
Allan

Member
My Profile  My Blog  My Position  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 807479

Follow Up By: Slow one - Saturday, Feb 01, 2014 at 16:29

Saturday, Feb 01, 2014 at 16:29
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.



0
FollowupID: 807491

Follow Up By: Allan B (Member, SunCoast) - Saturday, Feb 01, 2014 at 16:55

Saturday, Feb 01, 2014 at 16:55
Quite so Slow one. So what was your point?
Cheers
Allan

Member
My Profile  My Blog  My Position  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 807495

Follow Up By: Slow one - Saturday, Feb 01, 2014 at 20:22

Saturday, Feb 01, 2014 at 20:22
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.
0
FollowupID: 807502

Follow Up By: Hairy (NT) - Monday, Feb 03, 2014 at 00:41

Monday, Feb 03, 2014 at 00:41
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
3
FollowupID: 807625

Follow Up By: Ozrover - Monday, Feb 03, 2014 at 09:34

Monday, Feb 03, 2014 at 09:34
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!

0
FollowupID: 807636

Follow Up By: get outmore - Monday, Feb 03, 2014 at 20:28

Monday, Feb 03, 2014 at 20:28
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
0
FollowupID: 807692

Follow Up By: Hairy (NT) - Monday, Feb 03, 2014 at 20:44

Monday, Feb 03, 2014 at 20:44
"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.........
0
FollowupID: 807694

Follow Up By: Skulldug - Monday, Feb 03, 2014 at 22:02

Monday, Feb 03, 2014 at 22:02
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
0
FollowupID: 807702

Reply By: Member - Rick P (NT) - Saturday, Feb 01, 2014 at 11:15

Saturday, Feb 01, 2014 at 11:15
We have lived in Darwin since 1976 and in that time would hate to think how many times we travelled up & down the Stuart Highway during the unlimited speed limits days and rarely did we see anyone going at excessive speed. The cost of fuel would probably have something to do with that as well and watching your fuel gauge drop in front of you when the next servo could be 200km away. Lets see what the experts say after the 12 months trial.
Safe travels
Rick P
AnswerID: 525571

Reply By: Allan B (Member, SunCoast) - Saturday, Feb 01, 2014 at 12:22

Saturday, Feb 01, 2014 at 12:22
Consider this............

You are in the process of overtaking a car/caravan, road train, or whatever at perhaps 120km/h. It could take you maybe 25 seconds to overtake.

An oncoming vehicle doing 200km/h was 2 kilometres away when you started the overtake manoeuvre. Beyond your distant vision.
The closing speed is 320km/h. He will reach you in 22 seconds.

Do statistics or anything else really matter to you in that instant when your vehicles meet?
Cheers
Allan

Member
My Profile  My Blog  My Position  Send Message

AnswerID: 525572

Follow Up By: Aussi Traveller - Saturday, Feb 01, 2014 at 14:21

Saturday, Feb 01, 2014 at 14:21
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.
0
FollowupID: 807481

Follow Up By: Allan B (Member, SunCoast) - Saturday, Feb 01, 2014 at 15:26

Saturday, Feb 01, 2014 at 15:26
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.
Cheers
Allan

Member
My Profile  My Blog  My Position  Send Message

3
FollowupID: 807485

Follow Up By: Aussi Traveller - Saturday, Feb 01, 2014 at 16:11

Saturday, Feb 01, 2014 at 16:11
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
0
FollowupID: 807487

Follow Up By: Aussi Traveller - Saturday, Feb 01, 2014 at 16:18

Saturday, Feb 01, 2014 at 16:18
I should point out that my wife is very capable at driving both on an off road, in fact extremely capable.
0
FollowupID: 807489

Follow Up By: Shaker - Saturday, Feb 01, 2014 at 16:40

Saturday, Feb 01, 2014 at 16:40
& 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!

3
FollowupID: 807492

Follow Up By: Allan B (Member, SunCoast) - Saturday, Feb 01, 2014 at 16:52

Saturday, Feb 01, 2014 at 16:52
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.
Cheers
Allan

Member
My Profile  My Blog  My Position  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 807494

Follow Up By: Skulldug - Saturday, Feb 01, 2014 at 21:48

Saturday, Feb 01, 2014 at 21:48
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
2
FollowupID: 807512

Follow Up By: get outmore - Monday, Feb 03, 2014 at 17:03

Monday, Feb 03, 2014 at 17:03
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
1
FollowupID: 807668

Follow Up By: Tjukayirla Roadhouse - Tuesday, Feb 04, 2014 at 15:00

Tuesday, Feb 04, 2014 at 15:00
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
0
FollowupID: 807744

Reply By: Member - Royce - Saturday, Feb 01, 2014 at 12:56

Saturday, Feb 01, 2014 at 12:56
Having driven the Stuart several times when it was unlimited speed, I can tell you that very few people actually drive all that fast. Maybe around 130 or so, but most are driving for the distance and least stress and checking the fuel gauge. The road surface and conditions are the best guide as to the best speed. The last time I travelled down, I sat the cruise control on about 120 for a good bit of the way until I thought the better of how much fuel I was chewing and how a fifteen minute difference at the end of an afternoon's drive really wasn't worth chasing. In theory speed limits on the Stuart are good to limit the d%ckhead young blokes...but you know it won't. Elsewhere in Australia there are a few more roads like the Nullabor that could handle the speed, but the roos would be bad. Let's see what happens.
AnswerID: 525574

Follow Up By: Allan B (Member, SunCoast) - Saturday, Feb 01, 2014 at 13:40

Saturday, Feb 01, 2014 at 13:40
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?
Cheers
Allan

Member
My Profile  My Blog  My Position  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 807476

Follow Up By: Member - Terry W3 - Sunday, Feb 02, 2014 at 02:11

Sunday, Feb 02, 2014 at 02:11
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
0
FollowupID: 807528

Reply By: Member - Jack - Saturday, Feb 01, 2014 at 13:32

Saturday, Feb 01, 2014 at 13:32
On another note. They may as well drop the speed limit because I have not seen any police patrols in the times I have travelled the Stuart. Who's going to go there, stand in the heat with a hairdryer and pull over a few speeding motorists. The cost of Police patrols in that area would be horriific.

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

Member
My Profile  My Position  Send Message

AnswerID: 525577

Follow Up By: Allan B (Member, SunCoast) - Saturday, Feb 01, 2014 at 13:47

Saturday, Feb 01, 2014 at 13:47
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
Cheers
Allan

Member
My Profile  My Blog  My Position  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 807478

Follow Up By: Member - Fab72 (Paradise SA) - Sunday, Feb 02, 2014 at 09:28

Sunday, Feb 02, 2014 at 09:28
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.
2
FollowupID: 807537

Follow Up By: Allan B (Member, SunCoast) - Sunday, Feb 02, 2014 at 09:39

Sunday, Feb 02, 2014 at 09:39
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
Cheers
Allan

Member
My Profile  My Blog  My Position  Send Message

1
FollowupID: 807538

Follow Up By: Member - Fab72 (Paradise SA) - Sunday, Feb 02, 2014 at 09:59

Sunday, Feb 02, 2014 at 09:59
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.
0
FollowupID: 807541

Follow Up By: Allan B (Member, SunCoast) - Sunday, Feb 02, 2014 at 10:05

Sunday, Feb 02, 2014 at 10:05
Err, no thanks Fab......... I'm not into "lashing"! LOL
Cheers
Allan

Member
My Profile  My Blog  My Position  Send Message

1
FollowupID: 807543

Reply By: Shaker - Monday, Feb 03, 2014 at 08:08

Monday, Feb 03, 2014 at 08:08
Maybe some of you people that have got your heads firmly in the sand & think speed doesn't kill, would also be happy to see NT raise the Blood Alcohol Content at the same time?
AnswerID: 525677

Follow Up By: mikehzz - Monday, Feb 03, 2014 at 19:22

Monday, Feb 03, 2014 at 19:22
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.
0
FollowupID: 807687

Reply By: Idler Chris - Wednesday, Feb 05, 2014 at 19:44

Wednesday, Feb 05, 2014 at 19:44
Your post on the speed limits in the NT has elicited 95 responses and over 1900 views and kept many members amused for hours. Thanks
What other people think of me is none of my business.
Do unto others what you would have them do unto you.

Lifetime Member
My Profile  My Blog  My Position  Send Message

AnswerID: 525808

Sponsored Links

Popular Products (13)