Think this bloke is in trouble ??

When I passed comment all the photos hadn't loaded only saw the speedo.

Brave isn't the word that comes to mind!

Scenery passes by quickly at those sort of speeds, worse in such a high-performance vehicle...

Cheers.

That could be quite interesting if they try to implement speed limiters on all vehicles, if the limit is less than around 130kph (not taking into account current NT limits). There is a case for limiters being potential safety hazards as they dont allow acceleration to a necessary speed when overtaking if faced with potential collision.

Could be contestable in court if a contributive cause of accident is determined to be the limiter.

And if that was the case it could open up the proverbial can o' worms to those that have been fined for speeding in this scenario and disprove the myth that speed kills.

Off-track,

trucks have been limited for a number of years and since the advent of electronic engines it can be checked to see if the limiter has been played with and readouts are taken by inspectors. I don't particularly want to see them introduced but it may well come with the electronic gadgets in new vehicles, GPS positioned and limited to the posted speed where you are at the time.

Have a good one,
RA.

Yep, all too aware that trucks are limited (even before electronic engines) but a large proportion of them can, lets say, still overtake above 100kph.

It's a conundrum really and I am surprised that it hasnt been contested in court already by a truckie involved in an accident. Maybe it has. If 100% of drivers in Oz were subjected to this then there would be more opportunity for this to happen.

Maybe though the difference is that a truck cannot really accelerate at a rate fast enough to avoid collision if already in the passing manoevre at the designated limit. A car can accelerate quickly to way above the limit if it needs to whilst in a 'committed' overtaking position (eg; almost level to a truck's drive wheels that is pulling 2 or 3 trailers). If that can be proven by someone in an accident, and with the right resources it could, then the whole idea for speed limiters may fall.

Not defending those (probably almost all of us) that often overtake over the limit to reduce time in the wrong lane, as this argument would not apply nor probably hold up in court as it was premeditated.

At the moment there is a risk of losing points versus risk of crashing whilst overtaking. If speed limited at the risk of losing points has been removed...

Who knows.

But the other arguement could be said, is that if you needed to go above the designated speed limit while overtaking a vehicle, you should not have started.

Off-Track

I think you will find that you are slightly, umm.... off-track. The road rules specifically say that you are not allowed to go over the speed limit regardless whether you are overtaking or not. So your idea that the use of limiters should be tested by the courts ludicrous.

To claim that one needs to go over 130km/h to overtake safely would raise a few eyebrows from the judging panel and probably reflect more on your driving common sense than anything else.

R.

And I think that argument is a little simplistic, Rob. If all laws were incontestable there would be very little need for lawyers to 'play the gray'.

I think you also need to read what I said before trying to throw veiled insults, if that is how I am reading this.

I said that there would be little to no excuse for starting the overtaking manoevre above the limit because it was premeditated but in the scenario I gave (pretty rare I know) there is a clear example that accelerating to finish the overtaking is by far safer than braking long enough to allow 2 or 3 trailers to pass by. That is if the truck doesnt also brake!!

That is what lawyers are (should be) paid for.

The law specifically states you cannot kill someone either but there are circumstances when it will carry no sentence.

Right. The idea that VERY RARELY you might need to go over 130km/h is plasuible but I think it is only a once in a lifetime type of event.

1. If the truck is travelling at 100km/h and you at 130 you are already passing it at 8m/s, so it shouldn't take you any more than 4 secs to do it in.

2. If the truck is travelling faster, then you probably don't need to overtake it immediately. A little patiance goes a long way.

3. Our roads are not designed for those speeds. Sightlines and watershedding are just two things I can think of that would cause problems.

4. Excpetions to laws are rare. In your example a wife euthenasing her husband may result in a low penalty, or someone speeding because their passanger is having a heart attack or they are being chased by a crazed gunman. But, high range speeding because, "I just wanted to overtake the truck your honour" is just not going to cut it. It simply means you were overtaking in the wrong place.

100% agree. Couple of fine adjustments though.

Triple trailer road train ~ 52m at 90kph. Car at legal limit of 100kph (so not in NT). Passing at 2.7 m/s which takes ~ 19 sec not including safe separation distance. So almost 30 sec to safely pass is a loooong time on the wrong side of the road. What happens if at the 15sec mark an obstacle appears (oncoming car) and there is now a safer need to accelerate to above the limit to get the last few metres clear instead of waiting maybe another 30 seconds to 'reverse accelerate' to allow the truck to pass?

At the end of the day I guess it really is a moot point until it occurs and someone is willing to pay for the court case and we are only spitballing bush-lawyers...at best.

Rob and Off-track,

you are both right in what you say.

I would not like to see the introduction of limiters but I don't see why vehicles can get to 200k plus with ease. Just look at Kev who I believe is a normal, average (sorry Kev) person, he gets done for the upper end of a speeding fine, he is not a madmen or a hoon just someone who wishes to spend as little time on the wrong side of the road as possible.

If we get speed limiters we will be subjected to lines of traffic, I don't want to think about that, because no one can pass (nine times out of ten I exceed the speed limit when passing). On the open flat roads easy to pass but on many of our roads you would be stuck for many kilometres waiting to overtake. My thinking is to limit the top speed of vehicles on the road, in doing this you would have to gps limit them in lower speed zones, it is no use limiting a vehicle to 140 kph if that vehicle is going to be driven at that speed in a 60 zone.

As for trucks electronics have closed in and there are not many that can exceed 100 kph or wish to, in fact some are looking at dropping there limiters to 95 and 90 kph to conserve tyres and fuel. The speeds vary on the limiters with some sitting on 99 kph and others will sit on up to a dollar 4 or 5.

Have a good one and both agree to disagree

RA.

I should have included that Sir Kev got done for 157kph which was not mentioned in this thread.

Twas a bad day that one LOL

Have now found a few other routes to take between Tara and Chinchilla so I can get around these blokes without exceeding 100km/h :)

The Aurion is not liking the gravel roads though ;)

Kev,

I can remember many, many years ago blowing 5 tyres out of ten carting wheat around that area.

I hope you have got the pull to improve the roads.

Next time they upgrade your car I hope it is a Getz so you can once again become a law abiding citizen.

Have a good one and may your right foot become locked in the up position,

RA.

RA,

I am hoping to get a Pootrol as they can't do anything over 100kph hehehe

Cheers Kev

Kev,
I have it on good advise that a POOtrOOOOL can get to the afore mentioned speed down a bore hole.

I am a genius but my brain gets in the way.

May the gods of Chinchilla be with you,

RA.

Went for a drive with my old man to Brisbane a few years back. He is driving a Kenwoth, B-Double. South of Brisbane there is some hills/mountain ranges. (sorry, don't know the area well enough to name them.) During this part of the trip I noticed the engine was sounding a little weird. One minute you could hear it, the next it was quiet enough to hear the air rushing past you. Not going to tell you what the speed was, needless to say I hung on a little bit tighter. Don't like not being behind the wheel. The speed limiter was functioning, but gravity will over ride it.

Limiters are not the be all to end all.


I can also attest that Patrols will achieve high speeds on a flat, unfortunitly, when you want the speed it is always on a rise, then it is often faster to walk.

SDG,
no they are not the be all and end all, they definitely don't work when driven off a cliff, actually the new Volvo big banger has a coast mode that uses angel gear, if the retarder and engine brake can't hold it they also go into engine protection mode when the engine gets above 2100 revs and start changing up gears.

Have a good one,
RA.

Looks more like an impact flick to me Muzbry. With a loss of power to the instruments, they should return to zero. See how every needle has almost the exact same attitude. I'd suggest that this is probably caused by the forces within the accident more than being an indicator of actual speed. I could be wrong though. Probably a bit unfair to assume speed unless there were some other indicators like a witness. Wonder if fatigue or alcohol were involved?

My 2c worth

Gday
I also noticed that Mick O

Was definitely doing the 160kms the speedo reads.

If you know of the roundabout in Sth Hedland then you will know what i mean, the vehicle was airborne through the brick wall.

Guy was on drugs apparently, high off his head.

Got out and walked away even.

One Thing for sure its not a landrover deefer of my vintage!, The 160km/ dosen't add up,..LOL.


Axle.