NT SPEED DERESTRICTION UNDER SERIOUS THREAT!

Can someone please put that in plain english???

Sounds like posted limits on open roads could become the norm in the NT as is the rest of Aus. The rest of Aus has happily used them as a method to raise revenue for years.

Regards

Greg

If we ever get the 110kph limit here I believe the road toll will rise dramatically. Fatigue kills now and it will be worse.

I know the other side of the coin is speed and single vehicle rollovers, especially on the dirt, HOWEVER will a tin sign that says 110kph stop that. I THINK NOT.

Conversely Mr and Ms average who follow the 110kph limit if their car or rig is uitable for that speedof course, will have their trip times increased and hence the fatigue factor is dramatically increased. I know from personal experience that fatigue is the silent killer and we're driving on the same roads, so increased risk.

Arguements both ways but I still believe 110kph not generally warranted on long country roads, UNLESS conditions ie road width etc dictate otherwise as has been introduced on the road to Uluru due to high fatalities, once agin single vehicle rollovers and tourists are high in the numbers.

Another 2 cents worth.

Barry

If they do put a speed limit on NT roads i hope it's only a recommended limit similar to the ones on Germany's autobahn. They recommend 130kmh but really there's no limit. If it's safe for a congested European freeway then surely it's safe for an outback highway.

When i was in Alice couple of years ago i saw a brand new Corvette with Vic plates. I'm sure he was testing out the top speed on the drive up. Better doing it here than on Vic country roads.

It won't impair me too much as the top speed on my fourby is only 120 kmh anyway. But i don't see the point in changing speed limits. How boring would a trip be even in a new Commodore plodding at 110 when 150 is a safe speed?

Got to say that I am in 2 minds about this , I don't think there is any relevants to Autobahns as most vehicles are doing a high speed or seperated by several lanes .In Aus the roads we are talking about mostly single lane , OK I agree that in some cases 150 Ks may be safe but when you come across the likes of Willem doing his 85 to 100 (legally his choice of speed) no problems with that, Now we have a speed diferential of 50 to 75Ks In my opinion that is where things start to go wrong ,
If we had multi lane Autobahns Willem would be in the left lane and the Fangio's would be several lanes away on the right. It is a big country and I don't think I will see "Autobahns" in the Territory in my lifetime.

Cheers Dave L.

I can remember plodding along at about 95kph in an old 47 troopy years ago on the Stuart, mate was about a k behind doing the same speed.
Suddenly the CB squarked "Faaarrkkk! look out for something coming up behind, bloody flying, couldn't even see what type of car it was!!"
I missed seeing it too, just a black blur as it shot past, but my 5 year old son in the back seat piped up "black Porsche".
Funnily enough a few days later saw a black Porsche in Katherine at a servo, asked the guy if it had been him that woke us up, he laughed and said yes it was, sitting at 250K + at the time.
He also reckoned that he had to stop at every roadhouse for fuel as it drank it like it was free at those speeds.

The great thing about travelling at those speeds is that you don't need to bother about reaction time. Just carry straight on your intended path.

You either hit something or you don't.
Your reactions are irrelevant and any attempt at manoeuvres are pointless.

So, if the troupie you are passing wanders over the line, there is only a nano-second of potential impact time - not a worry!

Ken

My apologies for the lousy formatting in my initial post.

NT government and its various roads Ministers have been under sustained pressure from the feds and so called 'safety advocates' to 'conform' for many years. Now, with Harold Scruby on board - the whinging about NT's evil allowance has risen to an hysterical scream. To date, the NT MP's have courageously resisted the moves to introduce a speed limit as being primarily 'uneccessary'.

Over the years, each state roads transport agencies key public servants have gotten together in person - at forums, meetings and conventions to work hard on national uniformity, particularly in 'road rules', perhaps all well and good.

It is accepted, certainly 'desired' by such folk that the two 'default' speed limits be harmonised. They have achieved that with the 50km/h implementation.

Now, the effort is on to create a uniform default speed limit. This would see WA and NT come in line with the rest of the nation, BUT I know some key speed managers desire a 90km/h rural default. I personally couldn't care too much about that, because the Australian Standards allow each jurisdiction to post higher speed limits on lengths of roads within the 'default' zones.

My concern with NT is that whilst they can adopt a rural default, that they NOT then attempt to apply that 'default' on lengths of road bearing a speed de-restriction sign.

My initial post shows you the UN meaning of the sign, now even AS1742.4 of 1999 REFLECTS that interpretation. This is what AS1742.4 of 1999 has to say about the speed derestriction sign, where it is catalogued as an "R4-2";

"The speed derestricton sign shall be used where permitted by State or Territory regulations, at the end of a linear speed zone or a general urban speed limit to indicate that no speed limit applies to the road beyond the sign".

At the creation of that 1999 standard, the road agencies got together with MONASH and created a NEW road traffic sign, its called in the AS 1742 of 1999 an "END speed limit" sign, catalogued R4-12. Used to signal 'rural defaults', its meaning;

"The END speed limit sign shall be used at the start point of a section of road not covered by the general rural speed limit where it is not practicable or desirable to indicate the speed limit applying beyond the point by means of a Speed Restriction (R4-1) sign. This would be the case where the speed value of the alignment beyond the start point is substantially lower than the general rural speed limit, or there is a hazard such as a busy intersection or railway level crossing just beyond the start of the limit and it is not appropriate to extend a lower speed limit into this area".

The sign contains the word 'END' and a number in a circle, which is the ceasing speed limit.

** We teach in each state driver handbook about this newish sign.

An International version exists, it looks the exact SAME as the speed derestriction sign, EXCEPT that within the circle is stamped the numerical speed limit that ceases. Not used here in AUS because it then has the same meaning as its sister sign the speed derestriction.

DES,

He gets 'funding' that is for certain. He is involved with the change the flag mob - AUSFLAG, The Pedestrian Council ( www.walk.com.au ) etc and so on. He had a conflict years ago with Ruxton:-) A 'cause' man he is.

Not all bad - he actually supports raising the speed limit from 10km/h to 20km/h in 'Shared Traffic Zones', but that they be re-named 'pedestrian zones'! There is small hope!

He is correct in his nagging campaign against parents dropping off kids at schools 'illegally', surprised though some mother hasn't thrown make-up at him! He is the new-breed of *in your face* self righteous inquisitor. . .

Anyhow, unless good people take a few minutes out to make contact with their local MP's on this issue, these 'determined' and politicised individuals will take away our rights and abilities bit by bit.

MP's you see come and go - and are under 'constant pressure' by parliamentary agency liason staff, who are great at loading on the paper work, AND are 'career' staff. Therfore, most AUS MP's I'd argue - know not all that goes on in the world of manipulation and control, indeed much important detail is kept from MP's I'd suggest.

Found that out when I personally checked on a letter 'answered' by a Minister, only to find on determined investigation it was a 'staffer' who made a technical mistake in his response. So it goes . . .

After reading the ABC report in the initial post, I find it strange that it was not mentioned that the accident they talk about happened in the suburbs of Darwin. A dual lane divided road with an 80 kph restriction. Judging by the skid marks and the reports, these guys were flying. I am still trying to work out what is the connection between an accident in the city and the de-restriction zone in the outback of the NT

Site Link

Tony

I have a theory - and I've got absolutely no evidence to support it - that governments will inevitably enact legislation to further limit speed in the NT and other places. Why? I think our ever-increasing propensity to litigate is starting to frighten a lot of people including governments. Say some goose ends up in a wheel chair or nursing home for life after a 200kph prang - who are they going to blame......yep certainly not themselves especially if they have an ambulance chasing lawyer in tow. Sue the government for not heeding all the research and imposing restrictions on roads they may (or may not) be suitable for such high speeds...then Joe Taxpayer can pick up the care bill for 40 or so years.... bleep that would only be $7M or $8M. Hell didn't you guys know that it was the governments responsibility to protect us from ourselves :-)

Last night on the good old SBS the show "TOP GEAR" had some very interesting specs on speed restrictions and speed cameras ; yes I know its a pommy show and pommy stats: turns out that places with multiple speed zones and speed camera zones have had an increase of up to 24% of vehicle related injuries and fatalities , explanation for same was suggested that people now spend TOO much time looking at the speedo rather than the road and conditions.