UK motorways to be 80mph (130km/h) 2013

[Keepleft]

Up for public consultation in GB, government expects little statistical change.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...d-2362980.html

Vid:-
http://news.sky.com/home/uk-news/article/16079703

The Department of Transport has been reviewing the 70mph speed limit for some time.

From its analysis so far it has concluded that raising the motorway speed limit would generate "significant economic benefits, worth hundreds of millions of pounds per year, particularly from savings of travel time".

A result mirrored in an ATSB report here in Australia.

[Jim Goose]

Its a pity all of Australia's "highways" arent up to a safe standard to travel at those speeds. (though of course most people are already going 130kmh on the Bruce highway).

[flappist]

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

Its a pity all of Australia's "highways" arent up to a safe standard to travel at those speeds. (though of course most people are already going 130kmh on the Bruce highway).

So tell me which highways you have driven on in the last few years? The Bruce around Townsville is nothing like the Bruce in a lot of other areas.

And you really are contradicting yourself when you state that the roads are not at a safe standard for 130km/h yet most people travel at that speed.
If it were not safe then why are there not thousands killed every day?

[StealthAu]

Originally Posted by flappist

So tell me which highways you have driven on in the last few years? The Bruce around Townsville is nothing like the Bruce in a lot of other areas.

And you really are contradicting yourself when you state that the roads are not at a safe standard for 130km/h yet most people travel at that speed.
If it were not safe then why are there not thousands killed every day?

People travelling at 130km/h on a 100km/h road and not being killed doesn't mean it would be safe to increase the speed limit to 130km/h. There are a lot of stupid people out there, if you tell them it is safe to travel at 130km/h then when a car is coming in the other direction and the road is lacking width, will they have enough brains to slow down to a safe passing speed? I'd say not for a lot of people.

As well as the above, what about all the oldies that like to put along at 88km/h on the highway? Without dual lanes it's just a dud idea.

[Jim Goose]

Originally Posted by flappist

So tell me which highways you have driven on in the last few years? The Bruce around Townsville is nothing like the Bruce in a lot of other areas.

And you really are contradicting yourself when you state that the roads are not at a safe standard for 130km/h yet most people travel at that speed.
If it were not safe then why are there not thousands killed every day?

Have driven between Cairns and Brissy a few times over the past 20 odd years. Up until the the 1980s we still had around 12 single lanes bridges between Mackay and Townsville. Been in and around Brissy from the mid 1990s and recently 2009.

Have travelled between Tsv and Mt Isa and in between (first time in the early 90s). Though 2008 was the last time i got past Charters Towers.

In and around Melbourne a few times and only once in Sydney (which wasnt a good experience).

At no point have i stated that thousands of people will die ... thats you who keeps repeating it.

Seeming you dont want to reply to the fact a lot of our roads are sub standard and have been for decades. Whats the point of raising the speed limit to say 130kmh if the freeway is so congested with traffic that it still continues to craw along at 80kmh?

Or what would be the point of increasing it on highways which are below a safe standard? roads which bottom out on creek crossings? are narrow, have soft edges, no over taking lanes for 50km, full of pot holes....

Yes people speed now... and imagine if the speed limit was 130kmh. How many would want to keep going past the speed limit to 160kmh because it isnt fast for them?

Time and time again I get tail gated on a highway even when im going faster then the posted speed limit, yet these idiots are there to within 2m of my bumper at 110kmh because im not speeding fast enough for them.

Thats the attitude im talking about. I would almost guarantee that if you raise it to 130kmh, that these same fools will be tailgating me becuase "its not fast enough".

[aussie muscle]

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

Its a pity all of Australia's "highways" arent up to a safe standard to travel at those speeds. (though of course most people are already going 130kmh on the Bruce highway).

The monaro highway here at bombala is barely drivable at 100!

[FreddyDUZ747]

How can this affect us....their it is,it saves time and money whislt raising the chances of killing or injuring more

All we will get is another campaign from the same people on here promoting higher speeds and the same demoting them.

"Meanwhile the Lib Dems claim there is strong evidence that in road safety terms increasing 20mph zones saves lives"

Their is also strong evidence it kills/injures more.

I swear this forum has the most "raise the speed limit" threads out

[mik]

Originally Posted by FreddyDUZ747

How can this affect us....their it is,it saves time and money whislt raising the chances of killing or injuring more

All we will get is another campaign from the same people on here promoting higher speeds and the same demoting them.

"Meanwhile the Lib Dems claim there is strong evidence that in road safety terms increasing 20mph zones saves lives"

Their is also strong evidence it kills/injures more.

I swear this forum has the most "raise the speed limit" threads out

do you think it`s that much of a risk FreddyDUZ747 ?, if you have a head on or hit a tree at 62 mph or 80 mph do you think there would be much difference in the outcome? i don`t , but you just would`nt travel that speed on our crappier freeways/highways of which there is many anyway.
actually more people might make the trip without incedent instead of falling asleep .

[fmc351]

Originally Posted by mik

do you think it`s that much of a risk FreddyDUZ747 ?, if you have a head on or hit a tree at 62 mph or 80 mph do you think there would be much difference in the outcome? i don`t , but you just would`nt travel that speed on our crappier freeways/highways of which there is many anyway.

I can not believe after all this time, this line of argument still comes out. The response assumes no evasive action. The limit is about reducing impact speed in those situations, its not stating that at 60 mph you wont die if you hit a tree. A better question in relation to speed limits is what speed will you be doing when you hit the object. In other words, how much more distance is required to stop at 80 v 62. See if you notice whatever object at the same point on the road and hit the brakes, at 62 you will stop quicker (wash off speed to a lower impact speed at least) than you would be if you were originally traveling at 80. As an example you might be doing 40 at impact if traveling at 62, compared to impact of say 62 if traveling at 80. I think you have more chance of surviving at 40. Still doesnt guarantee anything, but its clearly an improvement in your chances in that situation, or more importantly in the setting of limits, someone elses chances. Youre not the only one at risk when driving and the rules are not simply set to save your life, they are set to save other peoples lives. The ads might focus on you and your life or loved ones, but the fact is the purpose of the law is far more encompassing. By the same reasoning you would be safer at 50 too, so there has to be a trade off between convenience and harm minimisation. Currently in most states its 100-110km/h.

The question is what is the balance that most Aussie road users are happy with. I think youd be surprised at the result as I dont think it will reflect a motoring enthusiast sites opinion. Most people I know would be in favour, but like me, they like driving and cars, we tend to associate with like minded people. But the general population arent interested and would be more concerned about what other drivers are also doing said higher speeds and what risks that entails to them and their family.

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by fmc351

I can not believe after all this time, this line of argument still comes out. The response assumes no evasive action. The limit is about reducing impact speed in those situations, its not stating that at 60 mph you wont die if you hit a tree. ......

not uncommon amongst motoring journalists/junket receivers either:
http://theage.drive.com.au/motor-new...715-1hgxj.html

[mik]

Originally Posted by fmc351

I can not believe after all this time, this line of argument still comes out. The response assumes no evasive action. The limit is about reducing impact speed in those situations, its not stating that at 60 mph you wont die if you hit a tree. A better question in relation to speed limits is what speed will you be doing when you hit the object. In other words, how much more distance is required to stop at 80 v 62. See if you notice whatever object at the same point on the road and hit the brakes, at 62 you will stop quicker (wash off speed to a lower impact speed at least) than you would be if you were originally traveling at 80. As an example you might be doing 40 at impact if traveling at 62, compared to impact of say 62 if traveling at 80. I think you have more chance of surviving at 40. Still doesnt guarantee anything, but its clearly an improvement in your chances in that situation, or more importantly in the setting of limits, someone elses chances. Youre not the only one at risk when driving and the rules are not simply set to save your life, they are set to save other peoples lives. The ads might focus on you and your life or loved ones, but the fact is the purpose of the law is far more encompassing. By the same reasoning you would be safer at 50 too, so there has to be a trade off between convenience and harm minimisation. Currently in most states its 100-110km/h.

The question is what is the balance that most Aussie road users are happy with. I think youd be surprised at the result as I dont think it will reflect a motoring enthusiast sites opinion. Most people I know would be in favour, but like me, they like driving and cars, we tend to associate with like minded people. But the general population arent interested and would be more concerned about what other drivers are also doing said higher speeds and what risks that entails to them and their family.

well my understanding is common sense says you just would`nt have a 130 kph speed limit in an area that is prone to peak heavy traffic or hard braking, and you mention the word risk. well risk should also be weighed with fatigue taken into account, for which you see plenty of people run off the road from long distance boring journeys traveled at a slow pace , lets face it modern cars most of them could happily sit on 130kph, we are`nt driving 62 model falcons or ek holdens (well most of us are`nt , no disrespect to those that are ).

[fmc351]

Originally Posted by mik

well my understanding is common sense says you just would`nt have a 130 kph speed limit in an area that is prone to peak heavy traffic or hard braking, and you mention the word risk. well risk should also be weighed with fatigue taken into account, for which you see plenty of people run off the road from long distance boring journeys traveled at a slow pace , lets face it modern cars most of them could happily sit on 130kph, we are`nt driving 62 model falcons or ek holdens (well most of us are`nt , no disrespect to those that are ).

Many things contribute to accidents, theres no disputing that. The fact that someone in their 30's could have a stroke, or fall asleep and kill themselves or a passing family does not mean speed isnt relevant or worth pursuing. And Im not saying theyve got it right, I personally think 130 would be a good speed limit on some freeways at least outside peak times, for me anyway. All Im saying is speed management is designed to reduce speed at impact in most situations in the manner I explained. We know 110 will likely kill you if you hit a big gum tree, as you previously stated yourself. A safe speed might be 20km/h, we have 100/110 so Id suggest a balance to some degree is being made between fatigue and safety.

Whether that balance is right is another question. But to answer it youd have to consider who has a right to use roads. Considering all levels of motorist as they have rights too, and pay for the roads.

Originally Posted by Ben73

How should these 2 roads have the same limit?
When picking speed limits in Australia do they just pull random numbers out of their **** or what?

Probably because every now and then, someone pulls up in the narrow strip on the verge to take pictures for internet debates.

[XR6TCraig]

Originally Posted by fmc351

I can not believe after all this time, this line of argument still comes out. The response assumes no evasive action. The limit is about reducing impact speed in those situations, its not stating that at 60 mph you wont die if you hit a tree. A better question in relation to speed limits is what speed will you be doing when you hit the object. In other words, how much more distance is required to stop at 80 v 62. See if you notice whatever object at the same point on the road and hit the brakes, at 62 you will stop quicker (wash off speed to a lower impact speed at least) than you would be if you were originally traveling at 80. As an example you might be doing 40 at impact if traveling at 62, compared to impact of say 62 if traveling at 80. I think you have more chance of surviving at 40. Still doesnt guarantee anything, but its clearly an improvement in your chances in that situation, or more importantly in the setting of limits, someone elses chances. Youre not the only one at risk when driving and the rules are not simply set to save your life, they are set to save other peoples lives. The ads might focus on you and your life or loved ones, but the fact is the purpose of the law is far more encompassing. By the same reasoning you would be safer at 50 too, so there has to be a trade off between convenience and harm minimisation. Currently in most states its 100-110km/h.

The question is what is the balance that most Aussie road users are happy with. I think youd be surprised at the result as I dont think it will reflect a motoring enthusiast sites opinion. Most people I know would be in favour, but like me, they like driving and cars, we tend to associate with like minded people. But the general population arent interested and would be more concerned about what other drivers are also doing said higher speeds and what risks that entails to them and their family.

While you put up a compelling arguement regarding reaction times at the higher speed vs lower speed, you have failed to mention one pretty important thing.

Your reaction time at 100 vs 130kph is the same if you are fatigued and in the middle of a micro sleep!

I personally would love to see the Bruce improved like many of the Hwys further south with bypasses around all of the towns and cities and then the limits raised to make the whole state more accessible. I dont want these improvements because I am an ethusiast, but because I live in a relatively isolated area and a speed limit increase would mean that I could get more access to the rest of the state much quicker and easier.

As an example I do the Mackay/ Sunny Coast run 4 times a year with my wife and 2 kids ( both under 3), with a trailer in tow carrying my track bike. It is a painful, tiring journey with the road in its current state and speed limits. Actually its that painful that I often throw the wife and kids on the plane and drive on my own. Its usually about 12 hours with stops with the kids. Thats far too long to sit in a car with two kids under 3.

Even on my own I would prefer to drive for 9 hours max, because after that I and up quite fatigued. It takes me about 10.5 on my own now. It would be less than 8 with a bypasses around all of the towns and a 130 limit all the way.

[XR6TCraig]

Originally Posted by FreddyDUZ747

How can this affect us....their it is,it saves time and money whislt raising the chances of killing or injuring more

Freddy, Freddy, Freddy! You're workng on the premise that speed is the main cause of accidents on our highways. You have been brainwashed if that is the case!

[wrongwaynorris]

Originally Posted by Craiginmackay

Freddy, Freddy, Freddy! You're workng on the premise that speed is the main cause of accidents on our highways. You have been brainwashed if that is the case!

So true . Have had this argument so many times . If speed killed then Germany would have an annual road toll in the hundreds of thousands if not millions . I feel 1,000,000 % safer driving on a German Autobahn at 210 KPH than here at 110 on a freeway because those around you over there can actually drive and dont have the horrendous attitude problems Australians have .

[EDManual]

It sounds a bit give and take, apparently they may become more strict on the speed limit where many people already do 80mph or 85 where you never get caught in the 70 zone, so if you get caught at 85 in the future you will get caught. for doing over the 80 zone.
Also the Govt will make more money in fuel taxes as more people that arent already speeding now should go faster.

I always drive at 125kmh everywhere in safe 100 zones and my fuel use is 10 litres per hundred, if i do 100 its more like 8. I dont care about fuel though. So the Govt should be happy with me with my extra taxes :-)

[dimka100]

Soon every city in Australia will have a speed limit of 30 and every major highway a speed limit of 60. Also thanks to people like Mayor I’mNotSoCleverMoore there will be more bike lanes than car lanes …

But hey we are living in a lucky country .. .are we not?

[flappist]

So you have never actually driven in the open zones and are basing your opinion on experience on the actions of drivers on one or two roads that are mostly used by tourists.

The most interesting thing I found in NT on the open zones over the years was the complete absense of tailgating.

It was quite surprising to see a line of traffic stuck behind a road train and several caravans all spaced out at more than 50m between vehicles until I realised that if there is no limit you are not under pressure to overtake as soon as possible.

If you know you can't get past until it is clear and when you do get past you can go at what ever speed suits you then what is the rush?

This is one of the problems with the concept of open zones. If you have never experienced it than you make assumptions based on invalid data.

I remember when the 110s were announced back in the 80s the same "it will be carnage" screams appeared from the same people in letters to the editor or current affairs shows.

All freeways built in QLD in the last 30 years are designed for at least 130 with many at 160 and above. The only thing stopping them is the stupid "U turn for emergency vehicles" placed randomly.

A cynical person may suspect the the reason these exist is that there is a small group of public servants in positions of power who are using this loophole to push their own agenda much like the "accidental" removal of the (//) sign from our sign standards.

[Jim Goose]

Originally Posted by flappist

So you have never actually driven in the open zones and are basing your opinion on experience on the actions of drivers on one or two roads that are mostly used by tourists.

Ah so everywhere i go it must be the tourists who are crappy drivers.. now why didnt i think of that... great arguement...

Originally Posted by flappist

If you know you can't get past until it is clear and when you do get past you can go at what ever speed suits you then what is the rush?

What a stupid arguement really.... why do people overtake when clearly its dangerous, like when you have little to no room or when there are cars coming head on? DRIVER ATTITUDE...

Originally Posted by flappist

This is one of the problems with the concept of open zones. If you have never experienced it than you make assumptions based on invalid data.

what data? I havent come forth with any data... only my observations of the rubbish roads we have.. and lack of driving skills... but again you dont want to respond to this and instead go on and on about stuff i havent discussed.

Originally Posted by flappist

I remember when the 110s were announced back in the 80s the same "it will be carnage" screams appeared from the same people in letters to the editor or current affairs shows.

No where did i say anything about this, and if you re-read what i said the area which i have seen with 110kmh limit are of better quality then other 100kmh limited roads.

Originally Posted by flappist

All freeways built in QLD in the last 30 years are designed for at least 130 with many at 160 and above. The only thing stopping them is the stupid "U turn for emergency vehicles" placed randomly.

And your point? Again whats the point of a 130kmh limit if at peak hour your travelling at 80kmh due to congestion?
And again the Bruce Highway is rubbish... when sections are upgraded with real safety in mind then the increase in speed can be justified. But again when will we see GOOD roads everywhere?

[EDManual]

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

And your point? Again whats the point of a 130kmh limit if at peak hour your travelling at 80kmh due to congestion?
And again the Bruce Highway is rubbish... when sections are upgraded with real safety in mind then the increase in speed can be justified. But again when will we see GOOD roads everywhere?

mate : I was just in Germany on Autobahns, heaps of these experience high congestion and slow speeds. But thats not all the time. Why put a low speed limit in cos 10% of the time you cant do a high speed? That makes no sense.

What this thought is of yours is that if there is something to hit, slow down, if nothing to hit, slow down anyway!! yeah right.

[SteveJH]

A fair chunk of the Pacific Highway from Sydney to Brisbane that is currently a 100 zone should be at least a 110. I wouldn't say no to all dual carriageway going to a 130km/h zone.....

[speedy]

Originally Posted by SteveJH

A fair chunk of the Pacific Highway from Sydney to Brisbane that is currently a 100 zone should be at least a 110. I wouldn't say no to all dual carriageway going to a 130km/h zone.....

+1 ... big time

.... and ditto re Hume to Melbourne

[Keepleft]

Originally Posted by SteveJH

A fair chunk of the Pacific Highway from Sydney to Brisbane that is currently a 100 zone should be at least a 110. I wouldn't say no to all dual carriageway going to a 130km/h zone.....

Actually, this is hapening. Speed review finalised over the last month will mean many of the existing 100km/h zones on the divided carriageway upped to 110km/h, starting at Raymond Terrace.

[dimka100]

German autobahn police have publicly said NO to restricting the autobahns with a set speed limit … No offence to Australian police and road safety experts … but somehow I trust the knowledge/science of Germans a hell of a lot more than our local one …

Originally Posted by EDManual

mate : I was just in Germany on Autobahns, heaps of these experience high congestion and slow speeds. But thats not all the time. Why put a low speed limit in cos 10% of the time you cant do a high speed? That makes no sense.

What this thought is of yours is that if there is something to hit, slow down, if nothing to hit, slow down anyway!! yeah right.

[irish2]

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

Again whats the point of a 130kmh limit if at peak hour your travelling at 80kmh due to congestion?
And again the Bruce Highway is rubbish... when sections are upgraded with real safety in mind then the increase in speed can be justified. But again when will we see GOOD roads everywhere?

I spend plenty of time on highways when there is little to no traffic, and spent time at high speed with nothing around me for kilometers. Speed limits are not there for peak hour or we might aswell just set them all to 20km/h and forget about it.

[fangq]

Originally Posted by flappist

So you have never actually driven in the open zones and are basing your opinion on experience on the actions of drivers on one or two roads that are mostly used by tourists.

The most interesting thing I found in NT on the open zones over the years was the complete absense of tailgating.

It was quite surprising to see a line of traffic stuck behind a road train and several caravans all spaced out at more than 50m between vehicles until I realised that if there is no limit you are not under pressure to overtake as soon as possible.

If you know you can't get past until it is clear and when you do get past you can go at what ever speed suits you then what is the rush?

This is one of the problems with the concept of open zones. If you have never experienced it than you make assumptions based on invalid data.

I remember when the 110s were announced back in the 80s the same "it will be carnage" screams appeared from the same people in letters to the editor or current affairs shows.

All freeways built in QLD in the last 30 years are designed for at least 130 with many at 160 and above. The only thing stopping them is the stupid "U turn for emergency vehicles" placed randomly.

A cynical person may suspect the the reason these exist is that there is a small group of public servants in positions of power who are using this loophole to push their own agenda much like the "accidental" removal of the (//) sign from our sign standards.

I've driven open and Euro roads. One of the design problems with respect to higher speeds in QLD are the on ramps. There are enough dramas at the moment with dodos merging at 70ish into 100/110 km/hr zones. As for the dodos on the highway who don't know there is a merge lane on their left, that is another issue . IMO, it would take some very targeted driver education to get all drivers up to speed, before we increase speed.

Steve

[flappist]

Originally Posted by fangq

I've driven open and Euro roads. One of the design problems with respect to higher speeds in QLD are the on ramps. There are enough dramas at the moment with dodos merging at 70ish into 100/110 km/hr zones. As for the dodos on the highway who don't know there is a merge lane on their left, that is another issue . IMO, it would take some very targeted driver education to get all drivers up to speed, before we increase speed.

Steve

And that is the catch 22. How can you educate drivers on 130km/h driving without a 130km/h road?

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by flappist

And that is the catch 22. How can you educate drivers on 130km/h driving without a 130km/h road?

Remember all those years ago, the head spin and hullabaloo in Queensland when
Main Roads / QDOT decided to trial 110 kph between Caboolture and the Caloundra turn off (?)
Jeez, anyone would thought the apocalypse was about to fall the way people were
predicting mass carnage on that road.....golly gee, the world didn't end and apart from
road accidents expected with 100 kph, nothing was really untoward.

people's comfort zones or mind sets with entrenched ideas.......gotta love them..

[EDManual]

Why dont we just block up all the U turn spots?! Make it safer even at the current speed limit. and put gates with locks. Would only take seconds for an ambo to open a gate if needed.

The cops would have less spots to hide too!

[flappist]

Originally Posted by EDManual

Why dont we just block up all the U turn spots?! Make it safer even at the current speed limit. and put gates with locks. Would only take seconds for an ambo to open a gate if needed.

The cops would have less spots to hide too!

Well that would be sensible and logical but would have one MAJOR drawback......

There would be no technical reason to not have 130km/h limits on the road so it would require a "decision" from a senior public servant to have or not to have a 130 limit and you do not get to be a senior public servant with all the perks by being so reckless as to actually make a decision for which you may be held accountable.......