Newell Highway speed limit reduction.

Submitted: Monday, Dec 07, 2009 at 10:49
ThreadID: 74236 Views:5835 Replies:10 FollowUps:6
This Thread has been Archived
G'day, I just received an email from a mate in NSW which included this letter to the editor. I thought it may be of interest to others on here.


RTA 'cruels the Newell'

Narrabri Shire Councillor Peter Etheridge has angrily accused the Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA) of 'cruelling the Newell' with its plan to cut the highway speed limit to 100kmh.Chairman of the Shire's Roads and Traffic Committee, Cr. Etheridge represented Narrabri Shire at the Friday meeting of the Newell Highway Taskforce meeting in Parkes.

"It was a passionate meeting," he said.

"There were over 40 people there, from Councils along the length of the Newell, and they were all very hostile to the plans of the RTA to drop the speed limit from 110 to 100 kilometres per hour without any consultation.

"This move will paralise the transport sector. We will be back to the 1950s.
We may as well drive bullock drays.

"The RTA is spending $1 million to change the road signs back to 100 kilometre per hour - are they going to use the increased speeding fines to pay for the new signs?"

The meeting was attended by the Director of the RTA Road Safety Unit, Dr Soames Job, who was roundly criticised by meeting participants for the RTA move.

"Narrabri Shire council, like the NRMA, is hostile because no consultation whatsoever was held" said Cr. Etheridge. "It was claimed information had been made public - but the information was buried on page 32 of a booklet 'Guidelines on Newell Highway Safety.'

Cr. Etheridge said the decision was driven by factors other than safety as a priority.

"Ten days ago when the Mayor Cr. Faber and I were at the Local Government Association Roads conference no one knew of the sudden introduction of the speed limit change.

"The head of the trucking association, was asked and he knew of no such proposed change.

"There has been no consultation.

"They are making trucks and cars drive along at the same speed , so they can't overtake, and there is then no need to build overtaking lanes.

"But there will be more driver frustration when the road trains, which account for 60 percent of the traffic on a large part of the Newell, are travelling at 90 kilometres per hour" said Cr. Etheridge.

"The Councils in the south pulled Dr. Job's figures to bits and said it was their belief the graphs and figures weren't correct.

"They said 'you have no right to do this' and we agree.

"Obviously the Minister and the government have been ill advised by the bureaucrats.

"Our fatalities keep dropping and the driving is getting better.

"I asked Dr Job 'why not drop it to 90 kmh' and he responded because 'the government wouldn't let me.'

The meeting resolved to ask the Minister to delay the implementation of the lower speed limit for at least three months so the matter can be discussed further, and called on the Premier to ensure this happens.

(Letter to the Editor)

New limit means driver frustration and return to 'open season' for fines

Enough of this nonsense.

I refer to the RTA decision to reduce the speed limit on the Newell Highway to 100 kmh.

They have been rightly accused of not consulting with stakeholders and appropriate bodies.

Irrespective, may I suggest it is necessary to understand the big picture - all that glitters is not gold.

Certainly not with the RTA when one looks outside the smoke screen.

To understand their intent, it is desirable to examine in depth what they are really seeking to achieve and impose on the highway users.

What should be known is what the RTA is not telling us and what few suspect as the reason for the new speed limit.

Strangely, I argue it is not about road safety based on supportive history, but rather it is about money.

That's right. The mighty dollar.

They represent a crucial income revenue stream for a hapless and near destitute government.

Now to some sobering facts.

For many years the RTA has financially supported the operation of Highway Patrol personnel and vehicles in this state to the tune of tens of millions of dollars.

The Newell Highway of some 1100 kilometres has such officers and vehicles in all principal centres located there on.

The current speed limit of 110 kmh is one which has satisfied the needs of motorists despite the isolation, long distances and boring nature of the highway.

One has a perception at least of 'getting there'.

Long distance drivers have become much smarter.

They are very aware of mobile radar, are more patient, are not impressed with the punitive penalty notices which hurt the pocket and they respect the status and retention of their license.

Overall, revenue has surely fallen dramatically from the halcyon days of some years past.

I estimate an increase of not less than 10 per cent in revenue would ensure from 'speed' breaches which many placate the RTA and address the paucity of revenue.

It is said the RTA is taking the speed restriction decision due to the belief that fatigue is a principal factor in road fatalities and accidents.

I totally resist that argument.

Currently some 417 deaths have occurred in this state of which 11 people or
2.65 per cent have died on this highway.

We have not been told the principal cause factors although the RTA claim fatigue as a factor.

I seriously doubt that and would forever argue otherwise.

Fatigue over many years has been held to be the lesser of the other factors, i.e. speed, no seatbelts, simple negligence and of course most importantly and dominantly, blood alcohol.

Even in the unlikely event of some persuasive argument being made respecting the terrors of fatigue, are we then so gullible as to accept that the panacea is to reduce the speed limit whereby motorists spend even longer periods.

That is a failed argument.

May I refer to the comments by the Deputy Commissioner of Police in the media on November 17 in respect of the fact that this current year some
94 more deaths have occurred beyond the total of 321 for 2008.

He said "the vast majority of deaths involve locals in their own locality who are affected by alcohol."

Thank you Mr. Commissioner.

Now, we are getting somewhere like identifying what many engaged in road safety have long known, that is the chief casual factor for the majority of road deaths involves people in or near their own locality, mostly young males who have a presence of excess blood alcohol.

That, then, is who mostly die on our roads, it is where they die and it is why they die.

Some 30 years ago, the Parliament of this State legislated the introduction of Random Breath Testing.

At that time some 1,250 road deaths had occurred in the one year.

Other preceding years exceeded 1,000 deaths.

Those figures were a national disgrace and a blight on our society of those times.

We had carnage on our roads of 3.5 daily.

Compare that to today (1.3) and last year (0.8) daily.

All that despite the continuing increase in drivers and vehicles.

Little wonder RBT legislation and its enforcement caused a dramatic culture change, all for the better, from the dreaded and deadly mix of 'booze' and driving which, in my view, has resulted in a saving today of not less than 15,000 lives and most likely 18,000 during the past 30 years in this State alone.

Consider then, those cold figures and that of the life saving or rather loss which resulted from the 1991 increase of speed on the Newell from 100 kph to 110 kph.

I would argue that variation has had little or no adverse impact.

Now I hear rumblings from the Chief Safety Officer of the RTA respecting the apparent favourable change experienced since the speeds on the Great Western Highway were apparently limited.

Any of you with knowledge of that highway, the very nature and location of it in higher country and set amongst large centres would know that apart from its comparably short length with the Newell, any analogy is like chalk and cheese.

Further, the same officer is said to have put forward certain European studies on the impact of speed on highways.

Really, that is a long bow.

I applaud the role of the RTA along with the police respecting road safety measures and initiatives generally.

Last year's figures were sensational, however due to many factors, may not be repeated.

I am convinced we are about to return to the 'open season' enjoyed by the Highway Patrol when the limit was 100 kph.

The daily figures for 'speed' in those days were startling.

The real answer to all this of course is zero tolerance of alcohol for drivers, all drivers.

Other changes require change to the ludicrous liquor licensing laws of this State including restricting dramatically the hours of operation of premises and increasing the age of legal consumption.

I urge all Councils situated on the Newell to continue to lobby the Minister.

We are already grossly over regulated in this country and this change takes us back to the days when drivers were frustrated and often contravened the speed limit.

It will happen again.

Warren Bull,
Narrabri.

--
Ian Dunnet
Managing Editor
North Western Courier
60 Maitland Street, PO Box 70
Narrabri NSW 2390
Phone 02 6792 1011; Fax 02 6792 4931
Email ian@nwcourier.com.au; editorial@nwcourier.com.au

Back Expand Un-Read 0 Moderator

Reply By: Willem - Monday, Dec 07, 2009 at 11:02

Monday, Dec 07, 2009 at 11:02
Bill

I didn't read all of it because...........................

The Newell is already 100kmh between Gilgandra and Coonabarabran

Anyway you will be safe as that overweight blunderbus of yours could scarcely reach that speed....LOL

Cheers

AnswerID: 394051

Follow Up By: Member - A J- Monday, Dec 07, 2009 at 11:17

Monday, Dec 07, 2009 at 11:17
Willem - last time I drove the highway between Gilgandra and Coonabarabran the speed limit leaving Gilgandra is was 110 Kms until the Warkton Plateau where the Gilgandra shire finishes and then the speed limit is reduced to 100kms.


A J
0
FollowupID: 662255

Follow Up By: Willem - Monday, Dec 07, 2009 at 11:28

Monday, Dec 07, 2009 at 11:28
AJ

Well what happened to me this year leavinmg Gilgadra in the morning was that I got stuck inbetween a convoy of trucks all sitting on a 100. Eventually I was able to overtake up a hill and up and around the bend was the sign Do You Know What SpeedYou Are Doing? I said Yes 110 and then I saw the sign 100. Nowhere else had I seen a sign after leaving Gilgandra. So there!!!...................I assumed that it was 100 all the way. In the scheme of things does it matter?
0
FollowupID: 662259

Reply By: Wilk0 - Monday, Dec 07, 2009 at 11:55

Monday, Dec 07, 2009 at 11:55
Hi all,

Its been 100km/h since Dec 1st.

Itll either raise revenue (due to frustrated drivers(or clowns) speeding) or it will cause accidents due to people driving a couple of hours more to get from Melb to Brissy in one day.

I'm not saying driving that distance in one day is advisable (some can do it though) But a lot of people do it.

Cheers Wilko

AnswerID: 394058

Reply By: Sir Kev & Darkie - Monday, Dec 07, 2009 at 12:08

Monday, Dec 07, 2009 at 12:08
I reckon they should change all 110km/h zones to 130km/h so they are the same as the NT.
That way there will be less issues including speeding fines when trying to overtake the speed restricted vehicles.

Cheers Kev
Russell Coight:
He was presented with a difficult decision: push on into the stretching deserts, or return home to his wife.

Lifetime Member
My Profile  My Blog  Send Message

AnswerID: 394060

Follow Up By: Hairs & Fysh (NSW) - Monday, Dec 07, 2009 at 16:24

Monday, Dec 07, 2009 at 16:24
Your a Thinking Man Kev, and I like your thinking.
Hmmm.

0
FollowupID: 662298

Follow Up By: Sir Kev & Darkie - Monday, Dec 07, 2009 at 16:27

Monday, Dec 07, 2009 at 16:27
Stuff the revenue, let me overtake safely and legally.

Although there will be some Navara and Pajero owners out there that will rejoice at the 100km limit as they now have a chance at travelling somewhere near the posted speed limit ;)


Cheers Kev
Russell Coight:
He was presented with a difficult decision: push on into the stretching deserts, or return home to his wife.

Lifetime Member
My Profile  My Blog  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 662299

Follow Up By: Member - Oldplodder (QLD) - Monday, Dec 07, 2009 at 17:23

Monday, Dec 07, 2009 at 17:23
Careful there Kev,

Have seen pajeros go faster than 100km/hr, and not down hill either. :o)
0
FollowupID: 662310

Reply By: Member - Jack - Monday, Dec 07, 2009 at 12:46

Monday, Dec 07, 2009 at 12:46
Does it matter??? You just drive to the posted speed limit, no matter what it is. There are heaps of places where the speed limit could be revised, both up and down.

Difficult to see how changing signs can cost $1mill. The installers must be well paid.

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

Member
My Profile  My Position  Send Message

AnswerID: 394062

Reply By: Gramps - Monday, Dec 07, 2009 at 16:54

Monday, Dec 07, 2009 at 16:54
Hmmm ... Newell Hwy about 1100km. At 110km/hr 10hrs, at 100km/hr 11hrs. 1hour difference - BIG BLOODY DEAL.

Trucks are, of course, limited to 100km/hr because that's what the signs on their rear ends state.

What a kefuffle about absolutely nothing.

Regards
AnswerID: 394085

Reply By: sdtash - Monday, Dec 07, 2009 at 17:09

Monday, Dec 07, 2009 at 17:09
Get behind a couple of roadtrains and you soon find out how long it can take to overtake them. if only our roads could make giant leaps in designs as do our vehicles.
AnswerID: 394088

Reply By: Member - Mike DID - Monday, Dec 07, 2009 at 17:20

Monday, Dec 07, 2009 at 17:20
""I asked Dr Job 'why not drop it to 90 kmh' and he responded because 'the government wouldn't let me.' "

Which explains beautifully why lawmakers make stupid laws that don't have a negative impact on themselves - BECAUSE THEY CAN - it's all they're paid to do !
AnswerID: 394089

Reply By: DIO - Monday, Dec 07, 2009 at 18:41

Monday, Dec 07, 2009 at 18:41
If by reducing the speed limit it results in a reduction of collision related injuries and even deaths then that must be a good thing for all. By reducing the speed limit from 110 km/ph to 100 km/ph would add only 6 minutes to a 100 km journey. Is that such a bad thing. As for heavy vehicles, then they like all other motorists will just have to drive according to conditions. Nothing new about that either. Increased regulation is generally as a result of a lack or regard for or compliance of such regulations. Too many motorists are still driving with excess blood alcohol levels, disregarding speed limits, unroadworthy and often overloaded vehicles, non compliance with double lines, failing to indicate when overtaking (changing lanes) etc. No wonder authorities are forever increasing Police Patrols, speed cameras etc etc. There has to be a message there - somewhere !
AnswerID: 394096

Reply By: Bob of KAOS - Monday, Dec 07, 2009 at 20:48

Monday, Dec 07, 2009 at 20:48
In 1975 a mate and I drove from Melbourne to Brisbane and back for a wedding.

We went in his TR3a. Before we could leave we have to rebuild the motor. It was a wet sleeved tractor motor common to Vanguards and Triumphs.

It took longer than we thought and we finally got away from Melbourne in the early hours of the morning. On the way up we drove at a sedate speed between 50 and 60 mph to 'run it in'.

The trip home was a different matter. If anyone remembers the TR3 it is not for its creature comforts. You sit with your bum about 3cm off the bitumen in a chariot like 2 seater with flapping roof and side curtains that scoop insects onto your face. The steering wheel is huge, because it needs to be. But above all, it went like a scalded cat, and with the overdrive switch flicked, could cruise at 100 mph all day.

Which we did on our trip from Brissy to Melb down the Newell Hwy. In fact the trip took us 12 and a half hours. And that included being delayed by half an hour waiting for a very slow burger.

The towns along the Newell were about 130 km apart and our objective was to reach each one as much under the hours as we could.

Now that the Newell has become a 'toll road' I'd rather fly.
AnswerID: 394114

Follow Up By: MrBitchi (QLD) - Wednesday, Dec 09, 2009 at 14:49

Wednesday, Dec 09, 2009 at 14:49
LOL that's pretty good. My best was 15hrs ;-)
0
FollowupID: 662626

Reply By: OzTroopy - Wednesday, Dec 09, 2009 at 14:31

Wednesday, Dec 09, 2009 at 14:31
Another typical example of an inexperienced, unsuitable for the job, "qualified" individual imposing their own agenda - or the state governments - on others.

The Newell Hwy which I use frequently, due to nescessity - is one of the most boring stretches of road in the country ....... 130kph isnt fast enough ....on some stretches ...

Boredom and Fatigue .... guarranteed at 100kph.

Its not the matter of a 100kph limit that concerns me ... its the fact I can no longer fluctuate the vehicle speed between 90 & 110 to suit the conditions or traffic .... Now I will be stuck behind transport vehicles which restrict vision and will need a gazillion miles of clear road to pass them safely.

From now on I will be only be doing 100kph .... simply because I cant maintain 100 as an average now that 110 is not available.

Amazing how one day you can be a safe driver .... and the next ... a criminal - simply with a stroke of a govt pen .... what a bloody game they play.

Oh wellllll .... Alternatively .... I guess I can always set the computer to 100 .... and get bored silly, fall asleep and run off the road and die ..... Then some wise accident investigator can come along and falsely chalk up another statistic to "speeding"

Pffftttttt.
AnswerID: 394373

Sponsored Links

Popular Products (9)