Lower the speed limit for trucks

Submitted: Wednesday, Feb 05, 2014 at 16:11
ThreadID: 106096 Views:4129 Replies:22 FollowUps:106
This Thread has been Archived
We recently travelled around 1,500 km in three weeks over Christmas and noticed a significant improvement in overall traffic behavior. We only saw two examples of the opposite that are worth reporting.

The first was a car towing a caravan at 70 kph in a 110 zone. He made no attempt to make it easy for the long queue behind him. Most didn’t try to past.

The second was a truck that pulled onto the highway in front of me and then struggled to get up the slight rise in the highway. I eventually got past on an overtaking lane. With the help of gravity, he got up some speed and sat right on my tail at 97 kph for ages before pulling out to overtake. He needed about five times further than he could see so of course, I waited until he was past the point of no return and slowed down. There was traffic coming in the opposite direction and there would have been an accident of some sort.

Reflecting on both quite common episodes and looking at the stats, I believe there is an urgent need to separate trucks from cars. Its unlikely that building a whole new network of roads will be possible.

I know this won’t make me popular, but I think the speed limit for trucks should be reduced. I’ll start by suggesting it should be 20 kph lower than the applicable speed limit.

Why?

There are more fatalities in the heavy vehicle industry than any other.

Heavy vehicles are over represented in fatal accidents given their numbers and km travelled.

Speed is a factor in both the cause (breaking distance argument) and severity of accidents.

Slowing trucks down will make them easier to pass and they will have less reason to pass others.

I am sure there are lots of economic reasons not to have lower speed limits for trucks, but I just think we have to do something.

Each day in Australia, 4 people are killed and 90 are injured in vehicle accidents. We should very upset by this but instead we seem to be happy that the road toll is trending downwards.

Just my opinion.

Skull
Back Expand Un-Read 2 Moderator

Reply By: prado 01 - Wednesday, Feb 05, 2014 at 16:16

Wednesday, Feb 05, 2014 at 16:16
Presuming you were in a 110km doing 97kph zone then you are the pest causing the problems.
Cheers
AnswerID: 525789

Follow Up By: AlbyNSW - Thursday, Feb 06, 2014 at 21:05

Thursday, Feb 06, 2014 at 21:05
Yes I was thinking along similar lines before I read this post. I see a lot of similarities between what Skulldug was doing to the truck and what the caravaner was doing to everyone else.
If someone wants to go faster than your travelling regardless of the speed, let them go through. If they are breaking the law let the cops deal with that.
People need to be mindful that truckies are at work when on the road, have tight schedules to keep and trying to earn a $ in a very competitive environment. They are not moseying along checking out the scenery and enjoying their holiday vacation like we probably are. Cut them some slack to be able to go about their business
1
FollowupID: 807956

Reply By: get outmore - Wednesday, Feb 05, 2014 at 16:24

Wednesday, Feb 05, 2014 at 16:24
Id actually like to see the limit for them brought into line with LVs 110

the reason being contrary to popular belief in my experience truckies dont speed and do sit on 100kph or thereabouts

this means on popular truck routes you can find yourself continually overtaking trucks which can be hazardous especially for those of us driving normally aspirated diesels

on the flip side it would mean more trucks overtaking vehicles doing under the limit which as youve seen can also be hazardous......

I dunno moybe more rail?
AnswerID: 525791

Follow Up By: Shaker - Wednesday, Feb 05, 2014 at 16:47

Wednesday, Feb 05, 2014 at 16:47
.... maybe more rail?

Good idea, wonder who's idea it was to take the trains off the rails & put them on the roads?

0
FollowupID: 807828

Follow Up By: Allan B (Member, SunCoast) - Wednesday, Feb 05, 2014 at 19:55

Wednesday, Feb 05, 2014 at 19:55
It was because the Government-operated railways were so damn inefficient. By the time something got delivered it was out of date!

The have improved marginally but still too slow, especially for perishables. Even putting the trailers up on flatcars can take hours of queuing.

It should be quite possible for them to operate as efficiently as the trucking industry. Perhaps that industry should be running the rail service.

Cheers
Allan

Member
My Profile  My Blog  My Position  Send Message

2
FollowupID: 807839

Follow Up By: Member - johnat - Thursday, Feb 06, 2014 at 20:04

Thursday, Feb 06, 2014 at 20:04
Actually, it was a cost shifting exercise by the State Government, nothing to do with efficiency!
Maintaining rail is TOTALLY a state government cost. Roads, however, the costs can be shifted to Local Government, with a pittance in grants to "help" them.

It should be even more efficient if the rail were to be two tracks everywhere, and the old, abandoned tracks resurected. Then, with the addition of dolly wheels, EVERY truck could take advantage of the gentle gradients throughout the network (a massive saving in fuel consumption) and could leave the rails to do "local" deliveries at destination.

Just needs a massive injection of funds into duplicating the rail network - AND removing the bloody big coal trains altogether, unless they build their OWN tracks (they are private companies, after all, getting a free ride on public infrastructure! and making a bloody big mess of the landscape as well!)
0
FollowupID: 807943

Follow Up By: AlbyNSW - Thursday, Feb 06, 2014 at 20:49

Thursday, Feb 06, 2014 at 20:49
The problem with rail is that you still need to load it on a truck and deliver goods to train freighting point , wait for train to go to destination and then load it again onto another truck for delivery to final destination.
You are then paying for 3 freighting movements and most likely a much longer delivery time as opposed to a single overnight truck delivery and potentially dealing with a govt run organisation
0
FollowupID: 807953

Follow Up By: Allan B (Member, SunCoast) - Thursday, Feb 06, 2014 at 22:07

Thursday, Feb 06, 2014 at 22:07
Alby, that issue needs an innovative approach that the rail administration has no experience or skill at. The efforts so far have been to load standard trailers onto standard flatcars using standard platform facilities. It needs a totally fresh approach.

Present freight handling by road entails collection from consignors using multiple small vehicles to a freight depot, sorting and allocating to interstate trucks then the reverse operation at the interstate truck terminal. That is also "3 freighting operations". A similar activity could take place at a rail centre using specialised containers maybe similar to what the airlines use. There are lots of possibilities limited only by one's ingenuity.

Certainly there would be set-up costs but that investment would be recouped by the relief on the highway system. In any case, it would be a more responsible system for society and the environment.
Cheers
Allan

Member
My Profile  My Blog  My Position  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 807963

Follow Up By: AlbyNSW - Thursday, Feb 06, 2014 at 22:36

Thursday, Feb 06, 2014 at 22:36
Yes agree Alan but you would still have the basic activities of picking up small consignments in the courier trucks with both methods, I was referring to after that point when you are moving container loads interstate
For the rail system to work you would probably need to privatise it and have one of the big guys run it but dought anyone will want to head down that path in a hurry as there would be a lot of hurdles to deal with
0
FollowupID: 807968

Reply By: Member - John - Wednesday, Feb 05, 2014 at 16:28

Wednesday, Feb 05, 2014 at 16:28
And ban them from the outside lane in two or more lanes, unless passing.
John and Jan

Lifetime Member
My Profile  My Position  Send Message

AnswerID: 525793

Follow Up By: Kumunara (NT) - Wednesday, Feb 05, 2014 at 16:47

Wednesday, Feb 05, 2014 at 16:47
John

For your information

Australia Road Rule 130—Keeping to the left on a multi-lane road

(1) This rule applies to a driver driving on a multi-lane road if:
(a) the speed-limit applying to the driver for the length of road where the driver is driving is over 80 kilometres per hour; or
(b) a keep left unless overtaking sign applies to the length of road where the driver is driving.

(2) The driver must not drive in the right lane unless:
(a) the driver is turning right, or making a U-turn from the centre of the road, and is giving a right change of direction signal; or
(b) the driver is overtaking; or
(c) a left lane must turn left sign or left traffic lane arrows apply to any other lane and the driver is not turning left; or
(d) the driver is required to drive in the right lane under rule 159; or
(e) the driver is avoiding an obstruction; or
(f) the traffic in each other lane is congested; or
(g) the traffic in every lane is congested; or
(h) the right lane is a special purpose lane in which the driver, under another provision of the Australian Road Rules , is permitted to drive; or
(i) there are only 2 marked lanes and the left lane is a slow vehicle turn out lane.





Life's great and it just keeps getting better

Member
My Profile  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 807827

Follow Up By: mikehzz - Wednesday, Feb 05, 2014 at 19:58

Wednesday, Feb 05, 2014 at 19:58
It's the most under policed rule in the book and I reckon it's one of the most important because of the consequences. I also believe that overtaking on the inside should be almost a hanging offence. It is against the law just about everywhere else in the world. If you hire a car overseas and say you are Australian, they make a point of saying you CANNOT overtake cars on the inside and will get booked if you do plus you will really upset other drivers. I've had the riot act read to me on that one a few times...it makes you a little embarrassed to say you're an Aussie. :-)
2
FollowupID: 807841

Follow Up By: Member - Scott M (NSW) - Wednesday, Feb 05, 2014 at 23:45

Wednesday, Feb 05, 2014 at 23:45
I'm told on European Motorways / Autobahns it's illegal for heavy vehicles to overtake. Essentially once you're in your slot in the slow lane - you stay there.

Mind you pulling out at low speeds on the Autobahns would probably cause an accident.
0
FollowupID: 807869

Follow Up By: mikehzz - Thursday, Feb 06, 2014 at 08:49

Thursday, Feb 06, 2014 at 08:49
Not strictly true. An Elefantenrennen (elephant race as it is known) is illegal. It means that the overtaking vehicle does not have a sufficient speed differential to overtake safely. I'm told that the rules are you must be able to go at least 20kph faster than the vehicle you are overtaking to be considered safe. Even though the autobahns may have unlimited speed, they are some of the most regulated roads around with many unmarked Police cars. You can even get booked for impolite driving for goodness sake. :-) Most trucks are running in the 80-90kph range and those behind them can't get enough speed up to risk overtaking. There are also many sections signposted where trucks are prohibited from certain lanes. Cheers
0
FollowupID: 807878

Reply By: Kumunara (NT) - Wednesday, Feb 05, 2014 at 16:33

Wednesday, Feb 05, 2014 at 16:33
Skull

Your post will get a lot of comments and discussion. Posts of this nature always do.

I do not think that lowering the speed limits for trucks is not the answer. Trucks are generally not the problem in the NT. They can be difficult to pass because of the length (road trains) but if you talk to them on the UHF they are generally very considerate and courteous and will help you pass.

The biggest problem we have is caravans sitting at unreasonably slow speeds. I have been stuck in the long line behind a caravan driver doing 50 km/h, who refused to have consideration for other road users. Often they are driven by people who spend all their time driving in the city and have limited experience in driving on highways. It is frustrating getting stuck behind someone like this but we do have to try and exercise patience.

If all traffic is travelling at approximately the same speed there is less overtaking and that is safer. There are new overtaking lanes being constructed on the Stuart Highway and they also help.

You also point out that you were overtaken when you were travelling at 97 km/h. Trucks are speed limited at just over 100 km/h. If you had upped your speed slightly there would not have been any reason for the truck to overtake you.

Life's great and it just keeps getting better

Member
My Profile  Send Message

AnswerID: 525794

Follow Up By: Member - john y - Wednesday, Feb 05, 2014 at 16:58

Wednesday, Feb 05, 2014 at 16:58
trucks limited to 100 kph? Not so on the Newell Highway when we travelled it in September.It was like driving in a cannonball road race.The attitude of some truckies to other road users and the language over the UHF was disgusting.I might add that I was towing a caravan at the speed limit. On most other trips I have had a healthy respect for the truckies and drove accordingly and in the main they have reciprocated,this however was very sadly missing especially around Dubbo.Regards john y
I will go anywhere as long as it's forward

Member
My Profile  My Position  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 807829

Follow Up By: Kumunara (NT) - Wednesday, Feb 05, 2014 at 17:11

Wednesday, Feb 05, 2014 at 17:11
John

I guess we are lucky in the NT with our road train drivers. You get the occasional cowboy like the ones you have described but they are few are far between.

By law trucks have to be limited. It is not exactly 100 as most are from the USA and the speed is limited to mph not km/h. I can't remember exactly what it is in km/h but it is just over 100 km/h. Some remove the speed limiter or overcome it.
Life's great and it just keeps getting better

Member
My Profile  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 807830

Follow Up By: veight - Wednesday, Feb 05, 2014 at 20:08

Wednesday, Feb 05, 2014 at 20:08
Hi John (Kumunara)
Where are the new overtaking lanes being built ?
I travel to Darwin -> Yulara 4 times a year & there is no overtaking lanes south of Katherine from memory. But last trip there was a fair bit of road works from Darwin to Katherine.

Cheers Matthew
Darwin NT
0
FollowupID: 807842

Follow Up By: Member - PhilD_NT - Wednesday, Feb 05, 2014 at 22:28

Wednesday, Feb 05, 2014 at 22:28
The whole Stuart Hwy from Katherine to Pimba is already one big passing lane. It's on the other side of the road. Rarely have I been held up for very long, and even more rarely has any truck driver caused me any anxiety, right back to the narrow bitumen and southern dirt section of the mid 70's.

Phil
1
FollowupID: 807857

Follow Up By: The Bantam - Wednesday, Feb 05, 2014 at 22:51

Wednesday, Feb 05, 2014 at 22:51
It is a legal requirement of the road rules and the Australian Design Rules that all "heavy vehicles" ( that is trucks and busses over a certain size) are speed limited to 100Kmh.

Like all things there is a a tolerance and a variation.

In QLD if a speed limited vehicle is booked for speeding over ( from memory) 110Kmh, it earns an automatic machinery inspection.

Under chain of responsibility legesaltion, anybody in the chain knowing that a " speed limited vehicle" is not in fact speed limited, thay can be prosecuted, and held responsible and liable for consequesnces if there is an accident.

One bloke I worked for was realy bleep , when he put one of his prime movers in to the dealer for some sort of engine computer problem.
before hand it was not speed limited.....he was informed and given no option the vehicle was reprogramed before it was returned.

However, the speed limiter even if functioning correctly does not work unless the vehicle is in gear.
If the vehicle is in angel gear, it will go as fast as gravity and friction will let it.

Cheers
0
FollowupID: 807862

Follow Up By: get outmore - Thursday, Feb 06, 2014 at 00:01

Thursday, Feb 06, 2014 at 00:01
sorry i just dont see truckies speeding these days

sure it used to happen

alot of it is a truck will go maybe 103 the averadge cars speedo is out by 5-10kph

so according to these people the trucks doing 110kph pluss
I do plenty of middle of the night driving on remote highways and i still dont see them speeding

urban myth in most but the all the most exceptional circumstances
1
FollowupID: 807871

Follow Up By: Kumunara (NT) - Thursday, Feb 06, 2014 at 10:00

Thursday, Feb 06, 2014 at 10:00
Matthew

The overtaking lanes I am referring to are between Katherine and Darwin. Traffic is getting heavier. A new mine has opened at Ngukurr and there is an increase in road trains.
Life's great and it just keeps getting better

Member
My Profile  Send Message

1
FollowupID: 807894

Follow Up By: Member - PhilD_NT - Thursday, Feb 06, 2014 at 11:45

Thursday, Feb 06, 2014 at 11:45
Passing lanes, Darwin to Katherine, what luxury. Every time I drive that road I remember back to the good old days of the 1.5 lane black top that existed back in the mid 70's (most of the way from Darwin to the Alice actually) and how we drove it with all the road-trains that you had to overtake with wheels in the dirt or they came at you from around the blind corners. Mostly it was the Buff's, wild pigs, donkey's (some with only 2 legs) and Wallabies that were the real dangers. How we did it with no accidents is a mystery compared with how often people complain about todays roads being supposedly so dangerous. Some of the complainers need to drive the "Scenic route" from Adelaide River township to Hayes Ck or the similar section much further South via Churchills Head to realise how well off we are these days and how little they really have to complain about if it takes them a bit longer to get anywhere.

I remember talking to a Road-train driver who was doing a regular Adelaide to Darwin run back when there was still only dirt from Pimba to the NT border. His particular run that week was Adelaide-Darwin-Alice-Darwin-Adelaide. I have the greatest respect for those who do that line of work and the boredom potential of those long distances and how much more dangerous it would be if they had to do it at this preposterous 80kph speed.

Phil
2
FollowupID: 807898

Follow Up By: Kumunara (NT) - Thursday, Feb 06, 2014 at 13:01

Thursday, Feb 06, 2014 at 13:01
Phil

I can remember driving from Pt. Augusta to Katherine in the 70s.
South of the NT border was corrugations that were enough to kill any vehicle. Broke the rear springs on my landcruiser one trip. There was no talk of speed limits on that road. I can remember on occasions I would be doing under 40km/h the road was that rough.

As for the truckies they were continuously doing trips on that road. A lot of wear and tear on them and on the trucks.

When you hit the bitumen at the border and got off the corrugations it was great. I could sit on 80 km/h in the old 40 series cruiser.

When they made it all blacktop from Pt. Augusta to Darwin it opened up the NT to tourist. I was amazed at the numbers of caravans on the road. The number of tourist that visit Katherine each year now are in the hundreds of thousands.

There are still a lot of 1.5 blacktop roads in the NT and a lot more dirt roads and the road trains still use them.
Life's great and it just keeps getting better

Member
My Profile  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 807902

Follow Up By: Member - PhilD_NT - Thursday, Feb 06, 2014 at 14:53

Thursday, Feb 06, 2014 at 14:53
On my last solo trip, Darwin-Adelaide-Darwin, I was speaking to someone down at Aileron that lived in Alice when the dirt started at the Drive-In Theatre and can only imagine how rough it was then. I travelled over it a number of times in the late 70's to early 80's and it was being graded more often. For about a week afterwards you were driving through deep soft material with the rocks graded back on to it, then it became compacted and was suitable for even normal cars and finally the corrugations reappeared. Overtaking a road-train though was a danger I avoided and just followed them some distance back and watched the rocks etc flying everywhere and the trailer wheels getting airborne. It's those rocks on the road that bent a rim (steel) on my then 4x4 but a hammer dealt with that. Ever since then I've had an aversion to alloy rims, even though my current 4x4 and the van came with them.

Over the last 5 or so years I've done 6 return trips to Adelaide and apart from the general mayhem that goes on between Pt Augusta and Pt Wakefield I've only had one instance where a Road-train has held me up for any length of time. He was holding up a number of cars North of Tennant Ck but when I finally got the front of the queue I found that he was actually going very slow due to towing a broken down small car. He had awoken in the morning at his rest stop to find the tourists there and after failing to get them going he decided to tow them to the next populated place. I found out about it at Dunmarra when I spoke to him as he arrived some time later. He was surely one truckie worth keeping on the good side of with his friendly attitude.

As to my comment of Pt Augusta to Pt Wakefield, while trucks were there and therefore "involved" they were by no means the instigators of the issues I saw. The passing ability of car drivers in general who will in no way exceed the posted limit when passing and take up a whole length of passing lanes and frustrate those behind them or accelerate in the left lane and limit the number who can pass them is abysmal. I also saw many instances of using the opposite passing lane in cases where they aren't allowed to use them because of oncoming traffic.
0
FollowupID: 807916

Follow Up By: fisherPete - Friday, Feb 07, 2014 at 13:04

Friday, Feb 07, 2014 at 13:04
I think you will find most heavy vehicles are limited to 100ks by GPS , our Isuzu 900 is limited but will go to 105 on the speedo which would be 100.
Cheers Pete
0
FollowupID: 808005

Reply By: Member - Oldbaz. NSW. - Wednesday, Feb 05, 2014 at 16:48

Wednesday, Feb 05, 2014 at 16:48
G'day Skull, I'm sure your post will elicit many & varied responses. I shall watch it with interest. I live close to & travel frequently on the 4 lane divided Hume in NSW,
& truck accidents are common. So too are deaths sadly. Many of the fatalaties are
single truck accidents at high speed..& my take on it is.."driver asleep on Cruise Control". I'm not sure a 20 kph drop in speed will make much difference to such cases. A couple of recent deaths have been rear end shunts at night, & I suggest the
same issues are involved. This, of course is a workload /technology issue & I don't wish to divert from your speed limit theory....cheers...oldbaz.
AnswerID: 525795

Follow Up By: fisherPete - Friday, Feb 07, 2014 at 13:08

Friday, Feb 07, 2014 at 13:08
Spot on Baz,I was really lucky , as I had a little shut eye and luckily went to the left and the bumps on the road edge jolted me awake. I was very wide awake after this. It was about 4pm and had a hard day then got asked to run a hilux to Lithgow. I will be very wary of cruise in future.
Cheers Pete
0
FollowupID: 808006

Reply By: Member - petza - Wednesday, Feb 05, 2014 at 16:53

Wednesday, Feb 05, 2014 at 16:53
Just my two cents worth, just looked it up again to double check before I said anything but over in the land of the long white cloud the speed limit for trucks is 90 and the same goes for light vehicles towing trailers, how many follow this is another story I would say.
Pete
AnswerID: 525796

Follow Up By: Dave(NSW) - Wednesday, Feb 05, 2014 at 21:01

Wednesday, Feb 05, 2014 at 21:01
Pete,
That was the speed limit here for trucks a long time ago, But there was a lot of complaints about car drivers being held up on single lane roads and also that's when they brought in the 110 limit on free ways. They also believed the 20 k difference in speed on the free ways was dangerous.
Cheers Dave
GU RULES!!

Lifetime Member
My Profile  My Blog  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 807849

Reply By: scandal - Wednesday, Feb 05, 2014 at 17:09

Wednesday, Feb 05, 2014 at 17:09
Firstly, you have publicly attacked the caravan driver for doing 70 (their choice for that speed), would 80kph be much different?? that's what speed you want trucks to do.
That truck was aiming for 100 ks since the moment he turned out in front of you, up hill is difficult without momentum, you said yourself with the help of gravity he got up to speed and sat behind you for ages, WOW that must've been some down hill!!, once he/she passed what happened then?
1500 ks in 3 weeks, at what ever speed you choose, the equivalent of a day and a half for a typical interstate driver, yet slap every truck with an 80kph speed limit for convenience for you when it come to overtake, YEAH RIGHT, good idea, many you said many wouldn't even overtake a van at 70, what are they gunna do with a B double or even a triple road train at 80?
I might come to your place of work, have no idea on how or what you even do, make some sort of long lasting idiotic suggestions, based on some loose statistics I might have read some where (with out any sort of reference),add some "how many lives lost" dialogue, then suggest you to do the same level of work but at 80% speed, then walk out feeling like I've made the world a better place, giving my self back slaps.
If you haven't worked it out yet, yes I am a truck driver, I'm no longer doing interstate, I'm definitely not going to be draw into, the truck verse cars/caravans/motorcycles/cyclist debate, complete waste of my time, I do however have a clear understanding of both the work environment and the holiday environment being in the exact same place and that is the highway, there will never be a happy medium.

Shane
AnswerID: 525797

Follow Up By: Skulldug - Wednesday, Feb 05, 2014 at 19:51

Wednesday, Feb 05, 2014 at 19:51
Scandal,

I didn't pubicly attack anyone. He is anonymous. I could post the video but won't.

I'm not trying to start a car vs truck debate. I'm posting with a suggestion that is more constructive than "give way to the biggest".

I don't disagree with the rest of your post minus the idiotic line.

It's a dilemma ok and needs fixing.

Skull
0
FollowupID: 807838

Follow Up By: scandal - Wednesday, Feb 05, 2014 at 20:15

Wednesday, Feb 05, 2014 at 20:15
Skulldog, the way I'm reading your post is caravans going 70 is too slow, but trucks should be made to do 80 because that's fast enough for them, not much difference I can see
Truck drivers do not have anywhere near the protection of car drivers in the event of a roll over, or collision with another truck, how many cars do you see on their roofs with virtually no crumbling, occupants unscratched, trucks don't have anywhere near the same protection, the Euro stuff has a degree of rollover protection, but still only works if the truck and its load has parted company, I am high-lighting this as an example of the different dynamics between a car crash and a truck crash, hence the reflections in the statistics.
Making trucks go slow will solve nothing, if anything it will lead to more dangerous overtaking maneuvers, more fatigue, more agro on the roads.
I'm glad you have stated your opinion, others will share your thoughts, others will not, this is my opinion,
Shane
3
FollowupID: 807843

Follow Up By: Road Warrior - Wednesday, Feb 05, 2014 at 22:30

Wednesday, Feb 05, 2014 at 22:30
Doing 70km/h in a 110 zone is not a matter of choice, the law (in Western Australia at least) makes it an offence to do greater than 20km/h under the posted limit on freeways and highways unless traffic congestion causes you to drive that slow or there is a problem with your vehicle, and rightly so

A recent weekend quickie up to Jurien, I didnt come across any carvanners or trucks going significantly slower than the posted limit, I did come across a number of muppets in single cars that for some reason didnt want to, or were too scared to, drive at the posted limit, causing everyone else (caravaners and truckies included) to clog up behind them. Why? Who knows. Pity you never see any coppers around when you want them
0
FollowupID: 807858

Follow Up By: Dennis Ellery - Wednesday, Feb 05, 2014 at 23:22

Wednesday, Feb 05, 2014 at 23:22
There are many special rules for freeways in WA.
ie no bikes, tractors, oversize loads, pedestrians etc

From WA’s Drive Safe Handbook
Clause 3.12.3 Appropriate speeds for freeway driving.
You are required to travel at a speed that is no more than 20 km/h below the posted speed limit (unless
traffic, weather or visibility conditions prevent you from doing so).

There is no mention of this applying to highways.
0
FollowupID: 807867

Follow Up By: pop2jocem - Thursday, Feb 06, 2014 at 19:15

Thursday, Feb 06, 2014 at 19:15
Now now Dennis, not fair letting facts get in the way of a good story.

Amazing that many still don't get that the posted speed limit is just that, a maximum speed for optimum conditions, not a target that has to be attained regardless of weather, road conditions, traffic, whatever and God forbid that anyone regardless of reasons unknown should get in the way.
I mean surely that peanut in the other vehicle should realize that my needs exceed his/hers.
0
FollowupID: 807938

Follow Up By: Shaker - Thursday, Feb 06, 2014 at 19:47

Thursday, Feb 06, 2014 at 19:47
I'm sure that some of the intolerant drivers that have vented their spleens here about getting held up, tow campers or vans that prevent them from achieving the maximum posted speed limit when they are on long hills! So should they & trucks that have the same problem be tarred with same brush as the other towing vehicles that they are bitching about?

0
FollowupID: 807939

Reply By: Member-George (WA) - Wednesday, Feb 05, 2014 at 17:40

Wednesday, Feb 05, 2014 at 17:40
I have travelled right around Australia on gravel and bitumen roads. Towing a 22ft caravan, generally at around 90kph on bitumen and anything from 10 to 60kph on gravel. However, I must speak up in favour of the truck drivers on both bitumen and gravel roads. I carry a UHF radio in the car and whenever I see a truck or road train catching up with me in the distance, I get him on UHF and ask him if he wants to pass me and if he wants me to slow down or pull over for him (after all he has some 35-50 tonnes behind him) I have never had a negative response from truckies and most appreciate the call. I also do the same when I start to get a line of traffic (cars) behind me, I just pull over, where I can, and let them all pass. This way I conserve my fuel consumption (90 kph) and keep the peace with other road users. I must admit that sometimes I do turn the UHF radio down or off, some of the chit chat language between truckies is a bit foul, mainly towards populated areas. Just my 2 bobs worth, Cheers
AnswerID: 525799

Follow Up By: Dennis Ellery - Wednesday, Feb 05, 2014 at 18:30

Wednesday, Feb 05, 2014 at 18:30
Hi George my thoughts exactly.
With a 24 foot van, I limit myself to 90kph and always talk to the truckies on channel 40 – they always appreciate the assistance.
In my experience the truckies aren’t a problem – it’s others, the impatient, who won’t wait for a passing lane or a clear safe stretch to pass.
0
FollowupID: 807835

Follow Up By: Member-George (WA) - Wednesday, Feb 05, 2014 at 19:10

Wednesday, Feb 05, 2014 at 19:10
Yes, right on, it's impatient drivers that cause accidents. Not the speed limits
2
FollowupID: 807836

Follow Up By: Member - Jack - Wednesday, Feb 05, 2014 at 20:19

Wednesday, Feb 05, 2014 at 20:19
Hi George.
I also agree. I do the same thing and ALL the truckies appreciate the courtesy. I travel at 90kph 'cos my old bus won't go much faster, especially when I tow the trailer.

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

Member
My Profile  My Position  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 807845

Follow Up By: AlbyNSW - Wednesday, Feb 05, 2014 at 20:54

Wednesday, Feb 05, 2014 at 20:54
Caravan towers are a much bigger issue than truckies, on the whole truckies are much better to share the road with, they are professional drivers and are more predictable than van towers who's experience is unknown
Where possible having all vehicles maintaining the speed limit is safer than having frustrated drivers taking crazy risks to get past slow drivers
2
FollowupID: 807847

Follow Up By: Dennis Ellery - Wednesday, Feb 05, 2014 at 22:43

Wednesday, Feb 05, 2014 at 22:43
The speed limit is the maximum not the minimum.
The onus is on the following vehicle to pass only when it’s safe to do so.
If a driver can’t control their frustration behind a caravan at 90ks - it makes you wonder how they handle cyclists, farm machinery, oversized loads, or single lane traffic through the mountains.
Those that take crazy risks should have their licenses taken from them, for their own safety as well as everybody else’s.
0
FollowupID: 807859

Follow Up By: AlbyNSW - Thursday, Feb 06, 2014 at 06:33

Thursday, Feb 06, 2014 at 06:33
I agree with you Dennis but not all slower drivers are as courteous and road aware as you, some just potter along oblivious to the mayhem that is going on behind them and you then see impatient people doing crazy dangerous manoeuvres to get through the backlog. Wrong I know but that means little once there is an accident with third party innocent victims.
Everyone should drive at a speed that they feel comfortable with in their circumstances but should also be mindful of what is going on around them and the speed the other drivers would like to be maintaining, that is courteous common sense and in the majority of cases truckies do a good job of that
3
FollowupID: 807873

Follow Up By: gbc - Thursday, Feb 06, 2014 at 06:43

Thursday, Feb 06, 2014 at 06:43
A proper 90 kph is a wet dream for half the ones we get stuck behind unfortunately. Vans should be like wide loads - banned at Christmas and Easter unless they do the posted limit.
0
FollowupID: 807874

Follow Up By: Dennis Ellery - Thursday, Feb 06, 2014 at 12:45

Thursday, Feb 06, 2014 at 12:45
Hi gbc - it’s not all about you, you know.
Of course if it frustrates you so much – why not stay home at Xmas and Easter and chill out.
0
FollowupID: 807901

Follow Up By: gbc - Thursday, Feb 06, 2014 at 19:12

Thursday, Feb 06, 2014 at 19:12
Sorry, I take a more European view about getting the most efficiency out of a service for the most people. If wide loads are off the roads at that time for the sake of road efficiency then so should ones that can't even travel at the same rate as wide loads as far as I am concerned. Maybe one day I'll derive joy from holding up traffic like some here obviously do but for the time being I get off whenever I can to help my fellow motorist out because I understand it's not all about me if I am travelling below the limit. Feel free to take another cheap shot.
0
FollowupID: 807937

Follow Up By: Member - johnat - Thursday, Feb 06, 2014 at 20:23

Thursday, Feb 06, 2014 at 20:23
"some of the chit chat language between truckies is a bit foul, mainly towards populated areas."
and then there are the wanchor kiddies who think it is "rooly growed up" to carry on like pork chops after school is out! Around town, I turn the CB off because these id10ts (that's ID 10 T errors) abound and, having been a teacher I cannot help but tell them what I think - it ain't always pretty!
0
FollowupID: 807947

Reply By: Hairy (NT) - Wednesday, Feb 05, 2014 at 20:35

Wednesday, Feb 05, 2014 at 20:35
Bored hey? Doing a bit of fishing?
AnswerID: 525810

Follow Up By: Skulldug - Wednesday, Feb 05, 2014 at 20:59

Wednesday, Feb 05, 2014 at 20:59
Hi Hairy,

Just solving problems, not making them. Caught any sharks lately?
0
FollowupID: 807848

Follow Up By: Hairy (NT) - Wednesday, Feb 05, 2014 at 21:41

Wednesday, Feb 05, 2014 at 21:41
We could always cull annoying slow drivers! LOL
0
FollowupID: 807854

Follow Up By: AlbyNSW - Wednesday, Feb 05, 2014 at 21:44

Wednesday, Feb 05, 2014 at 21:44
Are they endangered or dangerous ? LOL
0
FollowupID: 807855

Reply By: Bob Y. - Qld - Wednesday, Feb 05, 2014 at 22:21

Wednesday, Feb 05, 2014 at 22:21
Skull,

Think your heart's in the right place, but don't think lowering truck's limit by 20 clicks will do much, except make for heaps of unhappy truckies, and lots more impatient car drivers.

Trucks need plenty of inertia to ascend hills and "slight rises". At 80 kms, every B double, and B triple(they're coming to a highway near you soon!), will be "towing" a line of traffic up every rise. As for old mate overtaking you @ 97 clicks, if you weren't going to do 100, then it would have been common courtesy, to back off as soon as he pulled out to pass. For him, the lower speed would make a big difference to his arrival time, over say 600-800 kms.

Not to sure where you picked your first 2 statements? Would have thought the pastoral and mining industries would have higher fatalities? And the second one, Skull, for the kilometres and trucks on road, would have thought truck fatalities would be well below national level. Trucks, as a group, are doing millions of clicks every year, whereas Joe Public might be lucky to average 20K kms/year.

In Qld, road trains are limited to 90 clicks, and other configurations, 100 km. In NT, limit is 100. Can tell you now, if one had to drive a road train @ 80 km/h from Dubbo to Darwin, then there'd be drivers dying of boredom, before they even got to Charleville.

As for the Hume, Newell and Bruce highways, it's a jungle out there. Recent 4Corners program highlighted some real problems. Often the overworked truckie is the one to get shafted, while the hierarchy seem to slip under the radar, and keep trading.

Some driver's attitudes, both heavy and light vehicles, will have to change before there's harmony on the highways,

Bob.

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

Lifetime Member
My Profile  My Blog  My Position  Send Message

AnswerID: 525814

Reply By: Member - Mark (Tamworth NSW) - Wednesday, Feb 05, 2014 at 22:38

Wednesday, Feb 05, 2014 at 22:38
Skull
You list a number of claims under your Why line
Do you have the stats to back those claims up?
I hear lots of conflicting stories of accidents caused by heavy vehicles per distance travelled where trucks are over or under represented. I don't know who to believe unless I see the reference.

As stated 1500km in 3 weeks is hardly a great deal of driving, I've averaged 800km per week for 20+ years and driving "is not part of my job"

Over the Xmas period I agree it's horribly frustrating, the worst problem by far are people who don't regularly drive on highways being on highways, or people on holidays with their "brain on holidays when driving".
Limiting trucks to 80 or 90 might work well for you on multi lane highways or exceptionally quiet rural roads, but would only INCREASE the number of over taking manoeuvres required by motorists on most rural highways.
Could you imagine being stuck in a Congo line behind a single truck doing 80 with the half dozen caravans which would quickly accumulate behind it on the something like the Newell Highway? The caravans would never over take the truck

In the case of the truck tailgating you at 97, had you thought of just pulling off the road and letting him go, clearly he wanted to travel faster then you (albeit only by 3km/hr)?

I find professional truck drivers the least of my worries on the open road
AnswerID: 525815

Follow Up By: Danny & June - Wednesday, Feb 05, 2014 at 23:37

Wednesday, Feb 05, 2014 at 23:37
hi all
I am trying to learn computers STILL
After a truck passes ytou at wotever speed.
Have you tried to keep up.
You cant.
Let him go be happy and sensible.
Let him go. Thanks .
Danny.
0
FollowupID: 807868

Reply By: The Bantam - Wednesday, Feb 05, 2014 at 23:25

Wednesday, Feb 05, 2014 at 23:25
Reducing the speed limit for trucks further than it already is will be pointess and unhelpfull.

Not so long ago, NSW had a blanket speed restriction on all pasenger vehicles towing trailers of any size of 80Kmh.

This was recognised as rediculous and unhelpfull and common sence prevailed....but it took national harmonisation of road rules to do it.

One of the biggest traffic hazards, and it applies to all types of traffic situations is having vehicles of significantly differeing speeds interacting.

It matters little if it is a suburban roundabout or an open highway....good road design and traffic planning relies on having as many vehicles as possible traveling that road moving at a range of similar speeds.

Introduce any vehicle to that road...any road ..... that travels at a significantly differing speed and you introduce a hazard.


There is also an issue with trucks and inerta, road design and hills.
most highway roads are designed within certain maximum gradients.

So if you have a resposible truckie running at or around the 100KMH speed limit, he/she will crest most highway hills in top gear with only modest speed reduction.

Once you reduce the speed that vehicle travels at, the truck will have insufficent inertia and be in the wrong rev range to carry over those hills in top gear.

Once the truckie starts down shifting and not carrying speed over the hill, the vehicle speed will drop further.
The result is the truckie dragging over the hill and even less speed going over that hill and requiring betwen 8 and 12 gear shifts to do it.

So the truck that may at a 100Kmh nominal speed crest a maximum spec highway hill at 90KMH.....if restricted to a cruise speed of 80KMh may crest that hill at 60Kmh.

So as well as introducing a basic speed diference of 20Kmh, there will be a hill crest difference of as much as 40Kmh.

So a car traveling light and fast over a road with some twists and crest may be closing on an unseen truck at 40Kmh over a crest.

Now another real situation.
Not long ago I was traveling south Brisbane- tweed....I encountered the 2 lane each way (minimum)section of highway backed up and crawling for mile after mile...I was stuck in this 20Kmh stop start highway traffic or around an hour.....the cause a crane traveling in the left had lane..AND pulling off into the hard sholder where he could..doing 70 to 80Kmh......I heard the reason on Chn 40 and I saw said crane pull of the exit myself

No we do not need to be reducing the speed limit for trucks.

Other issues are other issues and reducing the speed of the trucks will not solve them.

cheers
AnswerID: 525817

Follow Up By: fisherPete - Friday, Feb 07, 2014 at 20:12

Friday, Feb 07, 2014 at 20:12
Most common since reply I have seen, thank you.
cheers Pete
0
FollowupID: 808046

Reply By: Member - Burnt Damper - Wednesday, Feb 05, 2014 at 23:35

Wednesday, Feb 05, 2014 at 23:35
Skull,
You just don't seem to get it old fella!
Have a look at what people have posted here and learn from it.
I put a article on this forum last year about the road trains using the Arnhem Highway it the northern teritory and how cars were pulling out of the Adelaide River Jumping Crocodiles area in front of myself and others. You criticised that statement saying that we should do this and that and should be going slower and whatever. I really do think you should have a good hard look at what you are saying and to whom you are pointing the finger at!
Maybe you should try and stick to a field you know more about.
What sort of person would sit on 97kph with a truck up his arse and then have the indecency to record it on video.
I presume you know that most speedos show a speed lower than what they are actually doing.
200,000km per year a lot of truckies do, compare that with the average car at 20,00km.
Feel free to criticise me again but look in the mirror first.
AnswerID: 525819

Follow Up By: Skulldug - Thursday, Feb 06, 2014 at 08:01

Thursday, Feb 06, 2014 at 08:01
Burnt Damper,

I remember your post and there were robust comments from both of us.

The problem I had with your post was that there were a lot of people saying that little vehicles had to give way to bigger ones up the chain. It's this culture that gets people killed.

If you are doing any dangerous activity, including driving trucks, you have a responsibility to analyse each task, identify the risks and do something to prevent them from being realised.

If your rig takes 200 m to stop, you should be able to see far enough ahead to stop in that distance, particularly where there is a known risk like a busy intersection.

So why does the trucking industry not do this?

I don't know, but I can tell you what the research says. Fatigue, drugs, arrival targets, financial pressures, desire to get home and culture.

Skull
0
FollowupID: 807875

Reply By: Bazooka - Thursday, Feb 06, 2014 at 00:12

Thursday, Feb 06, 2014 at 00:12
100kph seems a reasonable compromise in most circumstances to me. Can't say I'd be happy to get stuck behind a semi travelling a country road or two lane highway at 80. I haven't read any reports into heavy vehicle crashes but ignoring the rare cowboy effect, anecdotally it seems fatigue and drugs (and possibly vehicle road worthiness) are bigger issues.
AnswerID: 525820

Reply By: Iza B - Thursday, Feb 06, 2014 at 06:51

Thursday, Feb 06, 2014 at 06:51
Having trucks limited to 90 KPH would solve a lot of problems; cars towing vans too. It is much easier, and safer, to overtake a vehicle doing 90 in a 100/110 zone. Better, divided, multilane roads would be the best solution to slow vehicles holding up those who want to travel faster. A 90k limit on trucks might also prompt trucking companies to rethink how they treat their drivers.

Iza
AnswerID: 525824

Follow Up By: Dave(NSW) - Thursday, Feb 06, 2014 at 09:07

Thursday, Feb 06, 2014 at 09:07
Trucks used to have a 90klm limit in NSW but it caused a lot of problems so the Government lifted it to 100k.
GU RULES!!

Lifetime Member
My Profile  My Blog  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 807881

Follow Up By: Bazooka - Thursday, Feb 06, 2014 at 13:03

Thursday, Feb 06, 2014 at 13:03
Can't see how a lower speed limit would help truck drivers or owner/drivers Iza. In some areas of the trucking business there's clearly a lot of pressure applied in regard to delivery and the $$$ paid. It gets an airing every now and then after a nasty accident involving innocent third parties. It 'seems' intuitive that this would increase if speeds were dropped - meaning more hours in the saddle for drivers and increased pressure.
0
FollowupID: 807903

Follow Up By: AlbyNSW - Thursday, Feb 06, 2014 at 14:48

Thursday, Feb 06, 2014 at 14:48
Slowing trucks down will make it necessary for everyone else to have to overtake more often, can't see how that helps anyone
2
FollowupID: 807914

Follow Up By: Dave(NSW) - Thursday, Feb 06, 2014 at 16:49

Thursday, Feb 06, 2014 at 16:49
slowing trucks down will also put more trucks on the road, Instead of a truck doing 3 trips a week Syd/Melb it will only manage 2 so the companies will put more trucks on that run to get the loads delivered.
GU RULES!!

Lifetime Member
My Profile  My Blog  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 807926

Reply By: Skulldug - Thursday, Feb 06, 2014 at 07:41

Thursday, Feb 06, 2014 at 07:41
Bob, Mark,

The stats are out there but I took mine from the Australian Transport Council "National Road Safety Strategy 2011 - 2020."

To quote them, heavy vehicles make up 3 per cent of vehicles on the road but account for 8 percent of the km travelled. They are involved in 18 per cent of fatal accidents.

In regard to the heavy vehicle industry being the most dangerous, this is very widely reported. Berces A "improving road safety by improving truck visibility" is one.

The same paper says that 74 per cent of heavy vehicle collisions occur in the 90 km or higher speed zones. I didn't use this as it is overseas data but assuming it translates to Australia, lowering the limit looks very attractive.

Skull
AnswerID: 525826

Follow Up By: Dave(NSW) - Thursday, Feb 06, 2014 at 09:14

Thursday, Feb 06, 2014 at 09:14
Shouldn't you be more worried about what's involved in the other 82% of accidents.
GU RULES!!

Lifetime Member
My Profile  My Blog  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 807883

Follow Up By: Member - PhilD_NT - Thursday, Feb 06, 2014 at 10:24

Thursday, Feb 06, 2014 at 10:24
I just hate it when people turn out, or quote, statistics that (insert topic that you wish to prove a point) that have the word "involved" in it. A car pulls out from a side road in front of a truck or pulls in to the lane ahead of a truck at traffic lights and in neither case can the truck stop in time and a crash, possibly fatal, happens and in both instances there is a truck "involved". The truth though is that in both possibilities the truck driver didn't CAUSE the accident but the statistics can be misused to validate whatever argument that the end user wishes to use to justify their point of view. This also is used by way too many people in their arguments over speed and its relationship to accidents.
1
FollowupID: 807895

Follow Up By: SDG - Thursday, Feb 06, 2014 at 10:27

Thursday, Feb 06, 2014 at 10:27
Sure, they might be involved in 18 percent of fatalities.
How many are the trucks fault? Probably find a good amount is from car drivers. Cutting back in to early, overtaking at wrong time, general nervousness at being near a truck, etc
0
FollowupID: 807896

Follow Up By: Member - Mark (Tamworth NSW) - Thursday, Feb 06, 2014 at 13:35

Thursday, Feb 06, 2014 at 13:35
Skull, thanks for your references they are important.
There is something wrong with those basic statistics (not saying you are misquoting in any way though)
IF trucks are 3% of vehicles on the road and they represent 8% of km travelled, that means trucks do some think like 8/3 of the average 20 000km a car travels each year = 53 000km.
Sorry, that's baloney, large trucks easily do three times that or 150 000km pa. Trucks would have to represent more like 20% of distance travelled.

No argument with the associated with 18% of fatalities, that's simple to measure and I accept you are not blaming truck drivers for the over representation in the fatalities.

I still maintain that reducing the speed limit for trucks will only INCREASE the number of overtaking manoeuvres and as a result of the congo lines which develop those overtaking manoeuvres will be more dangerous as people will risk overtaking more cars.
I'm guessing you live in a major city, imagine limiting truck speeds in major cities to 40km/hr and I think you will get the picture.
1
FollowupID: 807905

Follow Up By: Member - johnat - Thursday, Feb 06, 2014 at 20:40

Thursday, Feb 06, 2014 at 20:40
I, too, get cranky with the "involved" argument in crash investigations ... The favourite of mine is "speed may have been a factor" - Well, DUH!! If there had been no speed there'd have been no crash! If everyone is stationary, there is NO speed, and no accidents!

Trucks may well do way more than 150K clicks a year, but the driver may not do that many (in some cases at least!). There have been a couple of truck accidents in the past coule days. One was apparently a truck trying to assist another whose brakes had failed, but they BOTH ended up over the side and both badly injured (if not killed - the news reports are patchy to say the least!). Thunderbolt's Way if anyone cares.

Reducing the limit will have zero effect, other than to increase the frustration levels of the majority of drivers (you know, the ones in a car without a van attached) and hence the potential for these same drivers to attempt an overtake maneuver where there's not enough visibility/room/power.

Safety is best when the ENTIRE traffic column is flowing at the same speed. No conflict!
1
FollowupID: 807951

Follow Up By: Bob Y. - Qld - Thursday, Feb 06, 2014 at 21:28

Thursday, Feb 06, 2014 at 21:28
Thanks for the stats, Skull, though one seems to have been discredited already.

Just on the annual distance travelled by trucks, I'd suggest any truck only doing 150K clicks/year, would only be a hobby truck, or doing local work, and not fit our criteria here. Know of 2 trucks owned by my employer that are only just over 2 year old, and both have over 700K clicks on them.

For example, one of these trucks will leave Toowoomba @ 7pm, and travel to Darwin, and return to Toowoomba, about 96 hrs later. In that time it will be driven by 6 drivers. If there's no mechanical dramas evident, then it might leave on the same trip, 27 hrs after returning. Just in case anyone does the maths, and thinks the drivers are over hours, the unloading/loading takes 3 - 6 hours in Darwin.

All trucks are speed limited to 89 - 90 clicks, whether pulling a quad, triple or B triple. Rarely pull singles, except Christmas Day or Boxing Day :-))

Bob.

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

Lifetime Member
My Profile  My Blog  My Position  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 807958

Follow Up By: SDG - Thursday, Feb 06, 2014 at 22:16

Thursday, Feb 06, 2014 at 22:16
My old man had the run between Melbourne and Brisbane 3/4 times a week. He was lucky though. He slept while load was taken off, new one put on. Plenty of k's in those trips.
0
FollowupID: 807964

Follow Up By: Skulldug - Saturday, Feb 08, 2014 at 08:35

Saturday, Feb 08, 2014 at 08:35
Bob,

I'm not sure I would accept Johnat's sums over the figures I quoted. Forums are a powerful communication media but not a credible source of data.
0
FollowupID: 808071

Reply By: BarryMcKenzie - Thursday, Feb 06, 2014 at 13:36

Thursday, Feb 06, 2014 at 13:36
Can anyone let me know where the switch is on many a Grey Nomad vehicle that suddenly switches the vehicle from a 90kmh (at best) towing speed on a single lane each way road to a 110kmh towing speed when said vehicle is driving on an overtaking lane?
And why isn't this switch left in the ON mode at all times?
Apologies to any GN's that don't have this switch........

Barry.
AnswerID: 525843

Follow Up By: BarryMcKenzie - Thursday, Feb 06, 2014 at 13:41

Thursday, Feb 06, 2014 at 13:41
And by the way Skulldog, am not sure if 1500 kms over a period of 3 weeks at Christmas is really a broad enough scope of driving distance or exposure to base any observations regarding traffic behaviour, trucks or speed limits........
0
FollowupID: 807906

Follow Up By: Bazooka - Thursday, Feb 06, 2014 at 15:46

Thursday, Feb 06, 2014 at 15:46
You can't have been having many good adventures lately Barry :-). Personally in most cases I'd rather be following a nomad pulling a van at 90kph on our narrow 2 lane roads than have him (usually) fanging along at 100. BUT I agree they should be courteous when ot lanes come along and let traffic behind them go before overtaking anything themselves (within reason of course). I guess if you haven't learned road courtesy by that age then you probably never will?
0
FollowupID: 807921

Follow Up By: Dennis Ellery - Thursday, Feb 06, 2014 at 16:11

Thursday, Feb 06, 2014 at 16:11
It’s simple Baza.
That switch can only be used sparingly, to produce an adrenalin rush, to keeps us awake until our next granny nap.
0
FollowupID: 807923

Reply By: Member - Phil G (SA) - Thursday, Feb 06, 2014 at 16:24

Thursday, Feb 06, 2014 at 16:24
How many drivers know how accurate their speedo is?
I'd suggest 99% of truckies do. Maybe 5-10% of car drivers do.
My wife's Tiguan underreads by 8% (all VWs have this much error) - so when a truck is up your clacker at 97kph on the speedo, you might only be doing 90 kph!

I have never driven a truck, but I have huge respect for truckies and their skills. Most truckies signal to me when it's safe for me to overtake...its nice to do the same for them - they won't trust your signal but at least you've indicated that you're aware and not just daydreaming. And if they are pulling out to overtake, I slow down until they are clear and a quick flash of the headlights to let them know they are past.

It would be good if someone published a book of good highway etiquette.

Anyway, this thread makes a change from cars vs cyclists vs pedestrians......etc
AnswerID: 525859

Follow Up By: Shaker - Thursday, Feb 06, 2014 at 17:04

Thursday, Feb 06, 2014 at 17:04
Having been caught out twice, I would NEVER trust a trucks signal that overtaking is safe, unless I have a clear view myself!

0
FollowupID: 807927

Follow Up By: Member - Phil G (SA) - Thursday, Feb 06, 2014 at 17:08

Thursday, Feb 06, 2014 at 17:08
Yeah, I wouldn't either, but its a nice signal to say you should have a look to see if you think it is safe.
0
FollowupID: 807929

Follow Up By: Skulldug - Thursday, Feb 06, 2014 at 19:54

Thursday, Feb 06, 2014 at 19:54
Phil,

I have a GPS on the windscreen. As far as I am aware, the speed it shows is accurate. I don't even look at the speedo anymore.

Shaker, I agree. The truck could be turning right?

Skull
0
FollowupID: 807942

Follow Up By: Hairy (NT) - Thursday, Feb 06, 2014 at 20:32

Thursday, Feb 06, 2014 at 20:32
"I don't even look at the speedo anymore."
Or anywhere else buy the sounds......Hahahahahaha LOL
0
FollowupID: 807949

Follow Up By: Member - johnat - Thursday, Feb 06, 2014 at 20:47

Thursday, Feb 06, 2014 at 20:47
"Having been caught out twice, I would NEVER trust a trucks signal that overtaking is safe, unless I have a clear view myself!"
So, when you get the signal, give them a call on the UHF and check how far they can see, and assess whether you can make it past ... Oh, wait ... you don't have a UHF? FFS!
0
FollowupID: 807952

Follow Up By: Skulldug - Thursday, Feb 06, 2014 at 20:52

Thursday, Feb 06, 2014 at 20:52
Hello again Hairy,

I "buy" my sounds from iTunes and get my laughs by...... well you know how.

Anyway, it's a serious topic especially if you have seen the results.
0
FollowupID: 807954

Follow Up By: Hairy (NT) - Thursday, Feb 06, 2014 at 21:42

Thursday, Feb 06, 2014 at 21:42
????????????
0
FollowupID: 807960

Follow Up By: Shaker - Thursday, Feb 06, 2014 at 23:23

Thursday, Feb 06, 2014 at 23:23
So, Member - johnat, you are not only a smartarse but a psychic as well, seeing as you know what I have, or don't have installed in my vehicle!
Yes, I have a UHF, usually turned off, owing to the bogan element filling the airwaves with foul language & incessant inane chatter.
On two occasions I believe that I was "advised" to overtake into the path of oncoming traffic, now that I know that drug use is not unheard of in the trucking industry, there is no way that I would accept the "advice" to overtake.
BTW, my brother drives interstate transport.


0
FollowupID: 807972

Follow Up By: Member - johnat - Friday, Feb 07, 2014 at 21:42

Friday, Feb 07, 2014 at 21:42
Shaker,
Short of a sense of humour too, by the look of that response.
Lighten up, breathe deeply, you might get the joke!

What's the point of a UHF if it is off, might as well use a semaphore flag ;)

My UHF is off most of the time when just driving around town. But NOT when towing the van, as THAT is when it is most useful. It serves dual purpose, in that it keeps me abreast of the road conditions (including "hazards" ahead) and keeps my mind on the task of driving safely.
0
FollowupID: 808054

Follow Up By: Skulldug - Saturday, Feb 08, 2014 at 21:54

Saturday, Feb 08, 2014 at 21:54
Hairy,

Sorry. I meant to say especially if you have seen the results of a head-on.
Skull
0
FollowupID: 808138

Follow Up By: Hairy (NT) - Sunday, Feb 09, 2014 at 12:18

Sunday, Feb 09, 2014 at 12:18
Gday Skull,

You talk about "solving problems" and say you have a genuine concern for safety but you made the choice of over taking him knowing that once he got up to speed he would then have to overtake you to keep to his time schedule??????
I don't think you need to be Einstein to realise 99% of trucks will sit on the maximum speed allowed because of time constraints do you?
So assuming you realise this, you still overtook him, got in front and deliberately sat on a speed less than the maximum limit CAUSING him to overtake?
Anyone who sits on 97kmh , or whatever you were doing is obviously not in a hurry , so why couldn't you have waited a couple of minutes for him to get up to speed and avoid the whole situation? Or did you just want to be a pain in the arse????

Unless I've read something wrong, it sounds to me that you should be the one speed limited or taken out of the equation, not every truck driver in the country??????
Or like I asked earlier........are you bored and just fishing for an argument?? LOL

Cheers
0
FollowupID: 808173

Follow Up By: Skulldug - Sunday, Feb 09, 2014 at 13:02

Sunday, Feb 09, 2014 at 13:02
Hairy,

The truck came out onto a 100 kph highway just in front of me. I had to break hard. It took him several km to get up to 60. The only reason he busted his gut to tailgate me was because he was resentful that someone towing a caravan dared to pass him. So what was his problem? As I said before, drugs, time, money or just a dim witted cowboy with a bad temper in an industry where it's far too common.

Do you really thing a decent person would allow someone to put his family at serious risk and not do something about it? You got that one wrong.

If you don't agree the trucking industry has a bad culture, read some of the comments on this forum.

Like it or not, there are lots of people who won't accept being bullied on the road.

Skull

0
FollowupID: 808178

Follow Up By: Shaker - Sunday, Feb 09, 2014 at 13:05

Sunday, Feb 09, 2014 at 13:05
Hairy (NT), So what if the truck was going up a long hill in the slow lane at 50kph, should he have still stayed behind him?
0
FollowupID: 808179

Follow Up By: Hairy (NT) - Sunday, Feb 09, 2014 at 13:54

Sunday, Feb 09, 2014 at 13:54
If your not in a hurry and know he's only going to overtake you up further because your not prepared to sit on the speed limit .....yes.
Pull over and have a leak or something???

Sounds like Skull was pissed because the truck pulled out so he passed him knowing he would hold him up and the truck was in turn pissed at Skull for his actions.
So one stupid act deserves another?
Hardly a good reason to slow down every truck in the country is it?
0
FollowupID: 808181

Reply By: Slow one - Friday, Feb 07, 2014 at 08:12

Friday, Feb 07, 2014 at 08:12
Maybe all should have a look at this.

Skull,
I don't believe you would let that truck sit out there for so long before you slowed to let him pass.

Roadtrain incident out of Dalby
AnswerID: 525900

Follow Up By: Skulldug - Friday, Feb 07, 2014 at 08:20

Friday, Feb 07, 2014 at 08:20
Slow one,

It's the safest way. If you break too early, it's worse for everyone.

Skull
0
FollowupID: 807982

Follow Up By: Slow one - Friday, Feb 07, 2014 at 08:25

Friday, Feb 07, 2014 at 08:25
Skull,
Maybe I read the post the wrong way. I just got the impression that you just left him hanging out there on his limiter, because you were angry.
0
FollowupID: 807983

Follow Up By: Skulldug - Friday, Feb 07, 2014 at 20:32

Friday, Feb 07, 2014 at 20:32
Thanks Slow one,

My OP was about saving lives not risking them. Not popular it seems.

A bit like criticising smoking 40 years ago I guess.

Skull
0
FollowupID: 808048

Follow Up By: AlbyNSW - Saturday, Feb 08, 2014 at 09:26

Saturday, Feb 08, 2014 at 09:26
Skull dug I think everyone is in favour of saving lives they just don't necessarily agree with your solution.
I think you are reading too much into the statistics you have used in your OP. Any incident that a truck is involved in is likely to have a worse outcome than a lighter car. The same can be said about plane and motorcycle crashes having a higher mortality rate but you can't draw direct comparisons
The safest scenario is for everyone to travel without having to perform high risk manoeuvres like overtaking. Your suggestion would increase overtaking and would also entice van and boat towers to start overtaking trucks as well because they usually prefer to travel at 90kph and the trucks will be only doing 80kph.
Can you imagine how ugly those scenarios could be?

I am all for safety but think your proposal will have a negative effect
2
FollowupID: 808073

Follow Up By: Skulldug - Saturday, Feb 08, 2014 at 21:21

Saturday, Feb 08, 2014 at 21:21
Thanks Alby,

You are stating the obvious. Everyone wants to save lives but not all are willing to do anything about it.

Most truckies are skilled and decent folk but they are under pressure. It would be nice to see them just having to drive for a living and not have to put up with the bull crap they have to live with.

Don't think I'm being soft. Some are rednecks.

I could have posted on any number of sites that would have bashed the truckies but I didn't. I posted here.

Skull
1
FollowupID: 808125

Follow Up By: Hairy (NT) - Sunday, Feb 09, 2014 at 12:46

Sunday, Feb 09, 2014 at 12:46
"Everyone wants to save lives but not all are willing to do anything about it"
Like not waiting a couple of minutes for them to get up to speed , hey? LOL

"It would be nice to see them just having to drive for a living and not have to put up with the bull crap they have to live with."
Crap like people overtaking them before they get up to cruising speed and then slowing down to be a pain in the arse.

People like that must really shit them hey Skull....LOL


0
FollowupID: 808175

Follow Up By: Skulldug - Sunday, Feb 09, 2014 at 16:34

Sunday, Feb 09, 2014 at 16:34
Hairy,

In case you haven't noticed, there is a growing lobby working on the bad side of the trucking industry. Your post is a great example of why. At least the truckie I encountered wasn't dumb enough to keep coming back for more like you do.

If it's the law, it's the law. Tailgating is illegal. You seem to be an active proponent of it.

Keep digging yourself a deeper hole on a public website. I'll happily quote you. All I need is for you to say you are a truckie. That would be perfect.

0
FollowupID: 808194

Follow Up By: Hairy (NT) - Sunday, Feb 09, 2014 at 17:00

Sunday, Feb 09, 2014 at 17:00
Hahahaha........that's your opinion!
0
FollowupID: 808195

Follow Up By: Member - Rosss - Sunday, Feb 09, 2014 at 17:24

Sunday, Feb 09, 2014 at 17:24
I'm not scared to say I have driven trucks for the last 25 years, there are far more idiots in cars than there are cowboys in trucks, And also I'm proud to say in all those years I have not swallowed 1 pill, so that proves not all truckies are drugged as well. In those years I have dragged the trailer over a couple of bonnets and I wasn't the one who got the tickets. Have a bex and a lay down skull, you'll be right.
4
FollowupID: 808200

Follow Up By: Shaker - Saturday, Feb 15, 2014 at 08:14

Saturday, Feb 15, 2014 at 08:14
Yes, the trucking industry is fine, only 1 in 3 are unroadworthy & 1 in 12 drivers test positive for drugs.
Not to mention fudged log books & the fact that they they represent 3% of vehicles on the road, but are involved in 18% of fatal accidents.
Nothing to worry about at all.
0
FollowupID: 808703

Follow Up By: AlbyNSW - Saturday, Feb 15, 2014 at 09:33

Saturday, Feb 15, 2014 at 09:33
Shaker, not disputing your statistics but how they are represented can be misleading
Trucks representing 3% for example, 3% of what? Registered vehicles or hours of road use compared to other vehicles?
And again the statistic of 18% of fatal accidents , you expect that to be high just like it would be with planes and motorbikes so does not really mean anything apart from a figure to be manipulated for the purpose of supporting a point of view. I bet the % of cars involved in accidents is much higher than trucks, it is just when you include "fatal" that the numbers swing.
The same argument could be used for air travel to argue statistically that they have a might higher death rate when involved in an incident but statistically using other criteria it is one of the safest modes of travel.

These sort of debates need to be rational and realistic without distorted statistics clouding the truth
0
FollowupID: 808706

Follow Up By: Shaker - Saturday, Feb 15, 2014 at 09:46

Saturday, Feb 15, 2014 at 09:46
Using the airline argument, maybe trucking companies should be run like Qantas, who up to this date have never killed anybody!
The scary thing is that the trucking company, that had 33% of their trucks put off the road for being unroadworthy, were fuel carriers.

0
FollowupID: 808709

Follow Up By: AlbyNSW - Saturday, Feb 15, 2014 at 10:03

Saturday, Feb 15, 2014 at 10:03
Yes I heard that on the news this morning, a disgraceful situation and the authorities should deal with these companies harshly. Transport pricing needs to be kept at a level where fleets and drivers can operate within the law and the business remain viable
Just the same, the way these trucks are maintained by their corporate owners is not a reflection on the company drivers and lowering the speed limit is not a solution to keeping substandard trucks on the road.

0
FollowupID: 808712

Follow Up By: Skulldug - Saturday, Feb 15, 2014 at 20:15

Saturday, Feb 15, 2014 at 20:15
Alby,

The figures are straightforward. Trucks are involved in more fatal accidents than they should be given the number of vehicles on the road and taking into account the km they travel.

I'd say the main reason for this is their mass and therefore their stopping distance. Being tailgated by a motorbike is less of a problem than having a heavy vehicle six feet behind you at speed.

Getting rid of the rogue operators and redneck drivers will be a start but it won't alter the stopping distance it takes to stop the mass they are driving. Only lowering their speed will do that.

Skull


0
FollowupID: 808729

Follow Up By: Member - Rosss - Saturday, Feb 15, 2014 at 20:27

Saturday, Feb 15, 2014 at 20:27
Skull; you really don't understand trucks, in a truck the driver can leave twice the needed stopping distance between him and the one in front, but Guess what, there will be the required amount of cars to fill that space all trying to get in there, and then Guess What, the truck still has no stopping distance, problem can be easily fixed, squash all the idiot car drivers so they won't do it again, so have you got a solution to fix that little problem, I think not.
0
FollowupID: 808730

Follow Up By: AlbyNSW - Saturday, Feb 15, 2014 at 20:31

Saturday, Feb 15, 2014 at 20:31
Skull so those statistics are based on distances travelled and time on the road is that correct?
Or are you ignoring the disproportionate amount of time the general public uses their vehicle compared to a truck and just telling half the story with those figures?

Which is it?
0
FollowupID: 808731

Follow Up By: Skulldug - Saturday, Feb 15, 2014 at 21:05

Saturday, Feb 15, 2014 at 21:05
Alby,

I'm not trying to distort any figures. I looked for the best source available. They are saying that per km travelled, trucks are involved in more accidents than other vehicle types. They do 8 per cent of km travelled but are involved in 18 per cent of fatals. The argument that other vehicles cause the accidents is not valid as the same method of calculating accidents for trucks as any other type of vehicle.

I've given the source of the figures and am happy to explain or defend the analysis.

This thread has been a little heated but it surely is a problem that needs to be fixed. 80 km might seem extreme but how else do we do it? Having all vehicles travel at the same speed would only work if they were capable. I don't think they are.

0
FollowupID: 808733

Follow Up By: AlbyNSW - Saturday, Feb 15, 2014 at 21:16

Saturday, Feb 15, 2014 at 21:16
By default there will be more fatalities when a truck is involved in an accident whether it is there fault or not. What are the statistics for accidents car V truck drivers

Do you really think that truck drivers ( professionals ) are not as competent a driver as the general public?

For the record I have never driven a truck and have no involvement in the industry. I just think that they are being unfairly targeted, from my experience I have come across far more idiot and irresponsible car drivers than truck drivers but your statistics will still show that the truck drivers are worse because fatalities are much more likely as a result which is a misrepresentation of reality.

1
FollowupID: 808734

Follow Up By: Slow one - Saturday, Feb 15, 2014 at 22:43

Saturday, Feb 15, 2014 at 22:43
Shaker,
Mcaleese who were a very respected heavy haul company bought out Cootes. They then went onto the public stock market.

When this happens in my view is. First the new CEO or manager has to prove they can turn value for their stockholders and also make themselves look good to get their bonus. I have seen this a few times.

Management cost cutting. We don't need to do anywhere near the maintenance as we have sorta new gear. Cut, cut, cut until they then find out that the horse has bolted. This normally takes about 12 to 18 months to show up. In the mean time the head dudes have their bonus dollars in the pocket, stock prices are great, but who cares the fleet is suffering big time.

Then the crap hits the fan and the industry is bought into ill repute by a few people chasing the dollar.



0
FollowupID: 808737

Follow Up By: Shaker - Saturday, Feb 15, 2014 at 23:37

Saturday, Feb 15, 2014 at 23:37
That may, or may not be the case, but it doesn't make it ok, or help the families of the people that may be killed as a result.
It also doesn't explain why one in twelve truck drivers tested positive for being under the influence of illicit drugs.
0
FollowupID: 808740

Follow Up By: Off-track - Sunday, Feb 16, 2014 at 00:30

Sunday, Feb 16, 2014 at 00:30
That stat Skull means sweet FA without other data to provide relevance. Try this one on for starters;

Accident rates

You might notice the bit about cars being at fault just a 'bit' more than trucks. So while yes trucks are involved with a high proportion of accidents the stats would seem to convey that car drivers are not driving safely around them.

So to answer the original question would lowering the truck speed limit equal less accidents involving trucks, I fail to see how it would. Even more car drivers will be held up behind trucks and will frustratedly make overtaking judgement errors. Those that swerve into the opposite lane and into a truck would still be just as dead at 80 than 100.

Will speed reduction reduce fatigue? How could it?

Will speed reduction reduce illicit drugs? How could it?

The answer goes much much deeper than the driver him/herself.

1
FollowupID: 808741

Follow Up By: Off-track - Sunday, Feb 16, 2014 at 00:34

Sunday, Feb 16, 2014 at 00:34
Another quick one;

2013 MAIR
0
FollowupID: 808742

Follow Up By: Dave(NSW) - Sunday, Feb 16, 2014 at 01:53

Sunday, Feb 16, 2014 at 01:53
Off-track,
I live on the Mid Nth Coast and can tell you that the accident in your first link about Urunga was caused by a drunk driver who was doing burn outs around the town till he lost control and hit the B double taking out the steering and that's why it went through the house. As you say the truck was involved but completely blameless.
Cheers Dave
GU RULES!!

Lifetime Member
My Profile  My Blog  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 808743

Follow Up By: Dave(NSW) - Sunday, Feb 16, 2014 at 02:09

Sunday, Feb 16, 2014 at 02:09
Sculldug,
" This thread has been a little heated but it surely is a problem that needs to be fixed. 80 km might seem extreme but how else do we do it? Having all vehicles travel at the same speed would only work if they were capable. I don't think they are."

You don't seem to think that trucks can travel at the same speed, Take the limiters off them and I guarantee if one overtakes you, you wont see it again.
GU RULES!!

Lifetime Member
My Profile  My Blog  Send Message

1
FollowupID: 808744

Follow Up By: Hairy (NT) - Sunday, Feb 16, 2014 at 14:16

Sunday, Feb 16, 2014 at 14:16
Skulldug?

"In case you haven't noticed, there is a growing lobby working on the bad side of the trucking industry"
Your personal opinion doesn't prove a "growing lobby" in my eyes?

" At least the truckie I encountered wasn't dumb enough to keep coming back for more like you do."
More what?????? Have I broken some rule by not agreeing with your comments or something?

"Keep digging yourself a deeper hole on a public website. I'll happily quote you. All I need is for you to say you are a truckie. That would be perfect."
Hang on......I wasn't the one who deliberately overtook a truck and slowed down?????

And no, I'm not a truckie.....Id do operate heavy machinery for a living and occasionally trucks, but not a full time truckie....sorry about that.

This is how I read it...........Over 1500km you came across 1 truck that overtook you because you were deliberately holding him up. Because of this you suggest all trucks should have their speed further restricted? Didn't get too much support there did you?

With your argument for speed restrictions growing weaker, you then start to quote all sorts of stats that , In my eyes are completely irrelevant and have nothing to do with your original argument.
I think you just tried to get a big truckie bashing thread going to kill some time and didn't receive the support you were looking for?

The fact of the matter is for whatever reason you came to be behind the truck, if you just showed a bit of patience and common sense and waited for the truck to get up to speed he would not have needed to overtake you and the whole issue could have been avoided......You chose to pass him to give him the shits and are know looking for sympathy and support??????

Im not sure if truckie forums exist but if they do Id bet my left knacker that he would be telling the story from a completely different perspective.
But then again......if every truckie got on the internet and bleated about about every idiot he came across in 1500km he would never get there......LOL

Anyway its been a good laugh...........make sure you report back on your next act of stupidity......it would certainly improve rating's.

Bwahahahahaha!!!!!

Cheers
0
FollowupID: 808797

Follow Up By: Skulldug - Sunday, Feb 16, 2014 at 16:53

Sunday, Feb 16, 2014 at 16:53
Off track,

You have to be kidding! I cited a national report that all state governments have signed up to. You have quoted a newspaper article about a goon driver.
0
FollowupID: 808811

Follow Up By: Aussi Traveller - Sunday, Feb 16, 2014 at 18:09

Sunday, Feb 16, 2014 at 18:09
"The first was a car towing a caravan at 70 kph in a 110 zone. He made no attempt to make it easy for the long queue behind him. Most didn’t try to past."

Did you know for a fact that this person was doing this to just piss everyone off, perhaps he had some troubles and was just trying to get somewhere to get the problem solved, or perhaps trying to find a safe place to get off the road and let people pass, I doubt people doing 70 in a 110 zone are doing it on purpose.

"The second was a truck that pulled onto the highway in front of me and then struggled to get up the slight rise in the highway. I eventually got past on an overtaking lane. With the help of gravity, he got up some speed and sat right on my tail at 97 kph for ages before pulling out to overtake. He needed about five times further than he could see so of course, I waited until he was past the point of no return and slowed down. There was traffic coming in the opposite direction and there would have been an accident of some sort."

As you don't mention that you didn't take evasive action, I can only assume that he had plenty of time to manuover out onto the highway, at this point his only problem is getting up to speed, no big deal and certainly not illegal, the only problem I have is that you are doing 97 in a 110 zone and leaving the trucky out to dry while he is overtaking you, you may quote statistics above, but you were damned lucky you didn't become one with you being at fault, by your own admission, you had no right to stop this truck from going passed it seem that you decided to make him earn his spot on the road, and that is a F%^&en dumb game to play with a 140 tonne truck.

So lets sum this up you want trucks to be limited to 80, yet you get pissed off that you couldn't pass a car doing 70, you don't like trucks overtaking you so it is ok to leave them out to dry on the wrong side of the road.

Lets not forget that it is already hard enough for truckies to keep to tight time lines, without being fatigued, now you want to make it worse.

As for those statistics, well what was that famous quote.
" There are lies, damned lies and statistics.
0
FollowupID: 808826

Follow Up By: Skulldug - Sunday, Feb 16, 2014 at 19:35

Sunday, Feb 16, 2014 at 19:35
So now it's famous quotes? Ok...

"There are none so blind as those who will not see" Haywood 1546.

"You can duck and you can weave but you can't escape a b-double doing 105 kph." Skulldug 7:05 pm
0
FollowupID: 808838

Follow Up By: Aussi Traveller - Sunday, Feb 16, 2014 at 19:51

Sunday, Feb 16, 2014 at 19:51
"You can duck and you can weave but you can't escape a b-double doing 105 kph."

Yep Sculldug you are right, especially if you have some twit that wont let you pass them safely.
0
FollowupID: 808840

Follow Up By: Off-track - Sunday, Feb 16, 2014 at 20:54

Sunday, Feb 16, 2014 at 20:54
Oh dear!

Skull, if you read the article you might have picked up the referencing to statistics by NTI.

So I am pretty sure the relevance of a newspaper quoting statistics is no less than say you doing the same on an internet forum. Agree mate?
0
FollowupID: 808849

Reply By: fisherPete - Friday, Feb 07, 2014 at 20:35

Friday, Feb 07, 2014 at 20:35
Well congrats Skull,at least you have liven up the forum. I don't agree as nothing worse then trying to pass a semi sitting on 80 if you are towing a boat or light /med trailer. Interesting when theirs and accident its the truckies are the first ones to stop.
Cheers Pete
AnswerID: 525946

Reply By: Les PK Ranger - Saturday, Feb 15, 2014 at 09:19

Saturday, Feb 15, 2014 at 09:19
Having recently driven the Dukes Hwy to Melbourne for the first time in many years, I was surprised how much safer it is now, with all the overtaking lanes almost all the way along the most notorious sections.

This is what we need on all our hwys, along with the ok to drive 10km faster than the posted limit when overtaking at these points.

I feel there are 3 main factors are the cause of most issues on our highways, fatigue, excessive speed, and impatience.
In a lot of cases inconsideration and road rage of some drivers on the roads plays a part in causing impatience and, . . . well rage ! This seems to result in risks being taken by some at times.
This will be an issue with both truck and general drivers on the roads.

Trucks should be driving the same speed as they are set now, most will do 105 if they can anyway.
I believe if they can do the limit, let them, and 105 is close enough to 110.

Needs to be more enforcement of current laws to combat the excessive speeders and impatient acts on the roads, not changes or new ones that won't be enforced enough too.

Of course if GOVCO lowered speed limits for trucks to 80, you can bet they'd be out there enforcing that !! Caa-chiinnngg !
AnswerID: 526497

Reply By: Member - evaredy - Saturday, Feb 15, 2014 at 15:10

Saturday, Feb 15, 2014 at 15:10
Wow this is a long thread with a lot of different views.

The way I see it, everyone has a right to use the roads, we are all equal. Consideration and tolerance is the key in my opinion.

Be Considerate
Truckies and couriers etc are working and can be on very tight schedules and as such consideration should be given to them, most of us who travel these highways are on holidays and have plenty of time.
The guy driving truck in front of you may be going as fast as he can and he will no doubt let you pass when he feels there is enough room and it's safe to do so. The person towing the van in front of you may not be all that experienced so give them some room.

Be a bit more tolerant
If you are being held up by a truck or van just chill, it's not the end of the world. it will only be for a short time, you will either be able to pass at some stage further along the road. If you can't then pull over and have a cuppa or look at the scenery, Give them enough time to get ahead of you.

Graeme
AnswerID: 526516

Follow Up By: Slow one - Saturday, Feb 15, 2014 at 22:15

Saturday, Feb 15, 2014 at 22:15
Everyone have a look at the hours worked and the distance travelled.

On certain runs many operators will do 6000 to 6500k in a 6 day week. That is fact and legal.

So if everyone wants to be safer, we have to pay more for freight.

The drivers hours were extended if they do a fatigue management course and live within the guidelines. Has it worked, I say no.

We all screw up driving at times, but when we are tired we screw up much more. Those screw ups can cause havoc.







1
FollowupID: 808736

Sponsored Links

Popular Products (13)