NSW Opposition to review speed limits/cameras to curb 'Blatent Revenue Raising'

[mik]

Originally Posted by Papa Smurf

I don't believe there is a Government out there that would relinquish the control over making money from the greatest Cash Cow since Petrol pricing and oil parity pricing.

Don't get your hopes up that ANY politician would scrap these little electronic gold makers.

totally agree Papa Smurf, i`ll believe it when i see it.

[phillyc]

Originally Posted by flappist

Do not give up hope. Things are happening in the background.

The next election will have a few surprises.........

Yeah, i hope your right. Andrew Stoner, the opposition MP for Roads, has been pretty vocal about the CTP Greenslips which have punished the bike riders, plus about the total focus on speed for a couple of years now. I do think he has been a good opposition member. How that translates into Government member, i don't know. But, i'm hopng for the best.

There does seem to be a push from some quarters to raise the open road limits to 130kmh. That sort of speed is a sensible speed which requires attention. Most modern cars are comfortable at these sorts of speeds. Unfortunately, most drivers aren't...

How about a '130' or 'A' plate on your vehicle? This states you have done some advanced and/or defensive driving course. Sure, it could be rorted. But, just as easily, they could still go after you / flag you down and check your bonafides.

I know that there was plenty of roads which could've been easily cruised at 130kmh when i do the drive up to Mackay which is a 3800km round trip. There was still some that wouldn't / shouldn't too. My average speed works out to be about ~85kmh x ~45hrs. Overall, it would've saved an easy 3-4 hrs each way.

For rural areas (National Party demographic), 130km zones / limits could really shorten travel times and aid in tourism too.

[mik]

Originally Posted by sudszy

Perhaps he knows about how much more it costs to build a road that can survive 40 tonne trucks thundering along then at 110km/h rather than 80km/h? You've heard that road damage is proportional to the axle weight^4 and I believe its also dependent on the speed^2.

Billions is spent on road maintenance in this country that wouldnt be necessary if we kept the speed of trucks lower.

actually if you work it out 40 ton spread out over 22 tyres that have a much larger tyre footprint than a motor car its almost the same weight on each tyre contact patch as a motor car if the truck is loaded to weight capacity, if you look at 68 tons (B double)spread out over the 34 tyres its almost the same, now if you take into account the huge tax $$$ that the trucking industry pays out to gov co, your mystical billions worth of (allegedly)unpaid damage figure looks like a pretty flimsy figure.

[prydey]

Originally Posted by mik

now if you take into account the huge tax $$$ that the trucking industry pays out to gov co, your mystical billions worth of (allegedly)unpaid damage figure looks like a pretty flimsy figure.

exactly, i think many would die of shock if they new how much it cost to register a b double.

i knew my comments would probably bring out the 'anti truck' brigade, but its not what i was getting at. if cars can do 110 as opposed to 100, its enough of a speed differentiation that you don't bother them and they don't bother you.

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by prydey

exactly, i think many would die of shock if they new how much it cost to register a b double.

Enough people can't believe the price to register a prime mover. Then you got the insurance (which is funny when people moan about insurance for a car).

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by mik

actually if you work it out 40 ton spread out over 22 tyres that have a much larger tyre footprint than a motor car its almost the same weight on each tyre contact patch as a motor car if the truck is loaded to weight capacity, if you look at 68 tons (B double)spread out over the 34 tyres its almost the same, now if you take into account the huge tax $$$ that the trucking industry pays out to gov co, your mystical billions worth of (allegedly)unpaid damage figure looks like a pretty flimsy figure.

For goodness sake, do some research, road damage/load is proportional to the AXLE LOAD^4, you'll find that data everywhere.
Your idea that it is the actual weight of the truck/contact area is school boy simplistic, a standard road pushbike weight/contact area ratio(its called pressure) easily exceeds that of a what is caused by a truck tyre.

Huge tax payed by the trucking industry? pardon?, isnt it us who pays for goods transported by goods on trucks and is us who is paying for the damage to the roads and/or the the extra cost that is needed to build roads that can handle high speed/high mass trucks in the first place.

[TheInterceptor]

Part of me says vote for o farrel then part of me says c r o c k.

Out of curiosity, how much does a prime mover cost to rego/insure?

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by TheInterceptor

Part of me says vote for o farrel then part of me says c r o c k.

Out of curiosity, how much does a prime mover cost to rego/insure?

Few years ago (in Vic) a prime mover and 45ft trailer you were looking at the 12k mark. Federal interstate rego's cost more.

[prydey]

Originally Posted by TheInterceptor

Out of curiosity, how much does a prime mover cost to rego/insure?

give or take

At present it costs $7582 to register a prime mover, $1386 to register a trailer and a staggering $6372 to register the B-double-specific A-trailer. Combined that’s more than $15,300 per B-double.

[Brazen]

You want trucks limited to 80 in a country as big as Australia?? Bloody hell. Hope you like paying more for your fruit and veg, and milk and clothes.. and building supplies. You are increasing travelling times by over 20%, which will mean that more trucks have to be bought to carry loads, more drivers have to be employed and each delivery costs more man hours.

Plus there are the safety aspects of fatigue and inattention, which people dont talk about once you start dropping speed limits...


I actually think speed limiting trucks was one of the dumbest moves anyway, ever seen a truck speed limited to 100 overtake another truck..? It takes kilometres almost as it slowly creeps past the slower truck, its needlessly dangerous.

No matter the amount of rego they pay, the truckies are paying their fair share in the job they do in keeping this country moving.

[TheInterceptor]

Wow thanks vztrt and prydey.

[Brazen]

Originally Posted by TheInterceptor

Part of me says vote for o farrel then part of me says c r o c k.

Certainly whoever you vote for is your business. But Im a little dismayed at some reactions. For so long on this forum and as drivers we have been asking for a fairer go in relation to speed limits and enforcement. Finally, when someone steps up with a fully-outlined plan and policy we dismiss it because we have been so used to the crap that we have been putting up with.

The vote is such an important way to voice your concerns and agreements or disagreements with policies. When a party announces a policy before an election, and they win, they have been given a mandate to implement that policy. Likewise, if they dont implement, they can be held to account as they are going against that mandate.

As an aside, these policies are real, I have been talking to people about this in the last couple of months and there is a big push to make changes to the way NSW sets and enforces limits. Whether you agree with this or not is entirely up to you and is one of the beautiful things of democracy. But the plan is real and is to be implemented all within a year of the election if they win.

It would be great if the momentum behind these policies would encourage the current government to come forward with ideas of their own. It would be an interesting (and long overdue) look at how limits are set and enforced in NSW. It may even encourage the current government if they are returned to power, to implement these ideas if they see enough support for them.

Cheers.

[Cooper69S]

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

A reduction of 20kmh over a 1000km journey means an extra 2.5hrs on average to a truckies trip.

I'd bet a lot of people who try to say that lowering speed limits doesn't add much time to your trip don't think at all about the huge numbers of truckies traversing the country every day and how much extra time lowering speed limits by that much would cost them.

I had a similar issue before Christmas - drove Perth to Adelaide - hadn't done it before. had one relative strongly recommending to drive at no more than 100kmh, but I had to explain that it would add hours to our trip and only save maybe $10-15 a day compared to doing 115. out in the middle of the nullabor, trucks seem to outnumber cars 2 to 1 at least. Pretty sure none of them would be too happy with doing that drive at 80kmh, but thankfully I don't think anyone over here has suggested it.

My theory on speed limits is drive as fast as you're legally allowed (conditions permitting), plus a couple extra for good measure... especially on wide open highways

[Ben73]

Originally Posted by Brazen

You want trucks limited to 80 in a country as big as Australia?? Bloody hell. Hope you like paying more for your fruit and veg, and milk and clothes.. and building supplies. You are increasing travelling times by over 20%, which will mean that more trucks have to be bought to carry loads, more drivers have to be employed and each delivery costs more man hours.

Plus there are the safety aspects of fatigue and inattention, which people dont talk about once you start dropping speed limits...


I actually think speed limiting trucks was one of the dumbest moves anyway, ever seen a truck speed limited to 100 overtake another truck..? It takes kilometres almost as it slowly creeps past the slower truck, its needlessly dangerous.

No matter the amount of rego they pay, the truckies are paying their fair share in the job they do in keeping this country moving.

I agree, Lowering the limit is not a great idea.

What needs to be done is make the railways bigger and better and carry more stuff on them.
In certain locations, freight trains can do 115km/h though the middle of a small country town. No truck could ever do that legally since the road traffic is normally only doing 60km/h.

Plus it's safer, drivers cannot be distracted and run off into the bushes. If a driver falls asleep the train will wake the driver up or stop itself.

Plus 1 train is equivalent to 50, 60, 70 semitrailers?
I don't know. How much weight can a truck carry?

Of course this is long distance. Trucks would still be needed.

But this is about cameras, I reckon it's probably a promise they wont keep. I doubt much will change.

[aussie muscle]

Originally Posted by GTP owner

If you go from one side of Sandy Bay in Tas up to the southern outlet during school hours you go through 8 speed changes in 4km. Works out to around every 500metres. Pretty easy to get confused on which speed zone you are in, "but ignorance is no excuse" the coppers will tell you when they take their tax...

From listening to the radio interviews, the minister seemed to be suggesting that they would improve those areas to be more driver friendly, getting rid of the "8 speed zones per 500m" that the RTA seem to like.

[DBourne]

They'll review it, go "****** ME! that is making us a lot of money" and then keep them there

[mik]

Originally Posted by Ben73

I agree, Lowering the limit is not a great idea.

What needs to be done is make the railways bigger and better and carry more stuff on them.
In certain locations, freight trains can do 115km/h though the middle of a small country town. No truck could ever do that legally since the road traffic is normally only doing 60km/h.

Plus it's safer, drivers cannot be distracted and run off into the bushes. If a driver falls asleep the train will wake the driver up or stop itself.

Plus 1 train is equivalent to 50, 60, 70 semitrailers?
I don't know. How much weight can a truck carry?

Of course this is long distance. Trucks would still be needed.

But this is about cameras, I reckon it's probably a promise they wont keep. I doubt much will change.

, freight trains are already huge, how long do you want to get held up at railway crossings? huge freight trains are also speed limited in some area`s, huge freight trains have difficulty on small gradients and bends, freight trains need double handling, its a well and long proven fact that trucks are the most efficient method of moving freight door to door.

[fmc351]

Originally Posted by Brazen

Certainly whoever you vote for is your business. But Im a little dismayed at some reactions. For so long on this forum and as drivers we have been asking for a fairer go in relation to speed limits and enforcement. Finally, when someone steps up with a fully-outlined plan and policy we dismiss it because we have been so used to the crap that we have been putting up with.

The vote is such an important way to voice your concerns and agreements or disagreements with policies. When a party announces a policy before an election, and they win, they have been given a mandate to implement that policy. Likewise, if they dont implement, they can be held to account as they are going against that mandate.

As an aside, these policies are real, I have been talking to people about this in the last couple of months and there is a big push to make changes to the way NSW sets and enforces limits. Whether you agree with this or not is entirely up to you and is one of the beautiful things of democracy. But the plan is real and is to be implemented all within a year of the election if they win.

It would be great if the momentum behind these policies would encourage the current government to come forward with ideas of their own. It would be an interesting (and long overdue) look at how limits are set and enforced in NSW. It may even encourage the current government if they are returned to power, to implement these ideas if they see enough support for them.

Cheers.

No GST ever
No Carbon Tax

Both sides have a poor record, and those two examples arent ancient history.

For what its worth, IMO if you want the speed limits raised, and even 130 considered, with a proper use of an effective measure to deal with speed like cameras, then vote for them. In NSW it actually has a chance of coming to fruition. Personally, I wouldnt be holding my breath that anything much will change, nothing significant anyway. But, NSW has limited numbers of the revenue raisers, so maybe they actually will. But I doubt that it has any carry over effect for other eastern states. They are already far to reliant on the revenue, and the idea they would also give up so much revenue is more than likely wishful thinking.

Originally Posted by mik

, freight trains are already huge, how long do you want to get held up at railway crossings? huge freight trains are also speed limited in some area`s, huge freight trains have difficulty on small gradients and bends, freight trains need double handling, its a well and long proven fact that trucks are the most efficient method of moving freight door to door.

Rail crossing, maybe twice on a long trip, even for for 10 minutes at a time. Compared to stuck behind a stream of trucks until an overtaking lane, and then only to come upon another stream of trucks. Again, and again, and again.

Ill take the rail crossing thanks.

A better rail network would still need trucks to get it to the rail, and from the rail anyway. Theres merit to the thought, but Im not sure many truckies would like it, and cant say Id blame them. Winners and losers.

[EgoFG]

Originally Posted by fmc351

No GST ever
No Carbon Tax

not sure this is relevant to the thread, but at least Howard took the GST to the polls and let the nation decide.

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by mik

, freight trains are already huge, how long do you want to get held up at railway crossings? huge freight trains are also speed limited in some area`s, huge freight trains have difficulty on small gradients and bends, freight trains need double handling, its a well and long proven fact that trucks are the most efficient method of moving freight door to door.

Most efficient/ how so?
about 1/10 of the fuel to transport by rail! cost of maintaining a rail line = insignificant to road crews fixing up potholes everywhere.

or do you measure it by how long it takes to get there and how much the bottom line is?

Trains dont go up hills or around corners well, that's why we dont have hills or bends on train lines!


The bottom line is sure to change with a carbon tax, that's what the tax is there for, to move us to a way of doing things that produces less co2.

1000s of trucks going up and down the hume 24/7 between melb and syd is a gigantic waste of OUR money and source of unnecessary co2, but its been allowed to continue because some pollie and transport operator got into bed and made a deal to make rail uncompetitive.

Shift all trucks doing the melb to syd of the hume, make it rail, (double handling,yep I know) they'll find a way of doing it better at the endpoints when they have to.

[mik]

Originally Posted by sudszy

Most efficient/ how so?
about 1/10 of the fuel to transport by rail! cost of maintaining a rail line = insignificant to road crews fixing up potholes everywhere.

or do you measure it by how long it takes to get there and how much the bottom line is?

Trains dont go up hills or around corners well, that's why we dont have hills or bends on train lines!


The bottom line is sure to change with a carbon tax, that's what the tax is there for, to move us to a way of doing things that produces less co2.

1000s of trucks going up and down the hume 24/7 between melb and syd is a gigantic waste of OUR money and source of unnecessary co2, but its been allowed to continue because some pollie and transport operator got into bed and made a deal to make rail uncompetitive.

Shift all trucks doing the melb to syd of the hume, make it rail, (double handling,yep I know) they'll find a way of doing it better at the endpoints when they have to.

there are`nt any hills or bends in railways .........ha ha .............if you believe that, your shovel ain`t big enuf for what your shoveling , do yourself a favour and check how many hills and bends there are on the way to sydney.........on the railway line, better still talk to railway driver, while your there ask him whats involved in maintaining freight cars and loco`s and rail line signals, points etc ,etc, there`s a reason why all our raliway infrastructure is crap , thats because it does`nt get maintained as it should, because its too expensive.
as for the double handling , is jeanie going to blink her eyes send it by magic carpet, there`s no way around it you can`t cover 7,692,024 kilometers with trains.

[mik]

Originally Posted by fmc351

No GST ever
No Carbon Tax

Both sides have a poor record, and those two examples arent ancient history.

For what its worth, IMO if you want the speed limits raised, and even 130 considered, with a proper use of an effective measure to deal with speed like cameras, then vote for them. In NSW it actually has a chance of coming to fruition. Personally, I wouldnt be holding my breath that anything much will change, nothing significant anyway. But, NSW has limited numbers of the revenue raisers, so maybe they actually will. But I doubt that it has any carry over effect for other eastern states. They are already far to reliant on the revenue, and the idea they would also give up so much revenue is more than likely wishful thinking.


Rail crossing, maybe twice on a long trip, even for for 10 minutes at a time. Compared to stuck behind a stream of trucks until an overtaking lane, and then only to come upon another stream of trucks. Again, and again, and again.

Ill take the rail crossing thanks.

A better rail network would still need trucks to get it to the rail, and from the rail anyway. Theres merit to the thought, but Im not sure many truckies would like it, and cant say Id blame them. Winners and losers.

on occasion you get held up momentarily with a truck, but generally they get out of the way quick , they are behind the 8 ball constantly complying with log books so they can`t afford to to stuff around , of course this happens with cars too, ever been held up for 20k`s by motorist sitting on 80 k`s who speeds up to 100 on the overtakeing lane then resumes slow speed again, of course this would be aleviated by more overtakeing lanes in trouble spots.

[phillyc]

Any chance this might get back to the thread?

[fmc351]

Originally Posted by mik

on occasion you get held up momentarily with a truck, but generally they get out of the way quick , they are behind the 8 ball constantly complying with log books so they can`t afford to to stuff around , of course this happens with cars too, ever been held up for 20k`s by motorist sitting on 80 k`s who speeds up to 100 on the overtakeing lane then resumes slow speed again, of course this would be aleviated by more overtakeing lanes in trouble spots.

I wasnt blaming the truckie. A long time ago, I used to drive them. And no, they dont generally get out of the way, sometimes they do. You often see one slower truck holding up not only cars, but other trucks. And they want to go around too, as they would. Youd never get anywhere if you were constantly waiting for the cars that will only pass a truck doing 95, at 100. By the time they get to the next overtaking lane if they did wait it out to let cars pass, there would be more cars to wait for. So, they just go now, and I dont blame them for doing so.

Not to mention some trucks are much better uphill than others. Being in one of the better trucks would motivate a driver to pull around so as not to have to creep up the hill behind some turtle. Its funny how many car drivers seem to be aware of this, so they pull out a tad earlier than the lane opening in order to prevent the truck from moving into the lane. As in cars start overtaking 20 or more metres before the lane begins.

[SteveJH]

Don't think i've ever seen a truck doing much more then a crawl up the moonbies. Thankyou overtaking lane......

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by mik

there are`nt any hills or bends in railways .........ha ha .............if you believe that, your shovel ain`t big enuf for what your shoveling , do yourself a favour and check how many hills and bends there are on the way to sydney..........

Obviously the train makes it around the SMALL bends and hills that are on the route!,

Perhaps let me rephrase my statement so you can worry about something more important in life:

They dont lay train tracks on hills or bends that the train wont be able get through, just like they dont lay roads on hills that are too steep

[UNR8D]

Originally Posted by sudszy

Obviously the train makes it around the SMALL bends and hills that are on the route!,

Perhaps let me rephrase my statement so you can worry about something more important in life:

They don't lay train tracks on hills or bends that the train wont be able get through, just like they don't lay roads on hills that are too steep

Please do explain how trains do delivery's to each woolworths/coles/aldi... better again explain how they deliver to small towns that 'do exist' outside of Sydney/Melbourne (funny life doesn't revolve around major towns/city's all of the time), trucks although large and heavy are a necessary part of life, how you can argue that point and believe trains are the great resolve to transport issues has not an ounce of thought process in it.

OT: QLD opposition *ARE YOU LISTENING*

[mik]

for you Sudzy ;)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBvfJ...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xaAhN7L40wY

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by UNR8D

Please do explain how trains do delivery's to each woolworths/coles/aldi... better again explain how they deliver to small towns that 'do exist' outside of Sydney/Melbourne (funny life doesn't revolve around major towns/city's all of the time), trucks although large and heavy are a necessary part of life, how you can argue that point and believe trains are the great resolve to transport issues has not an ounce of thought process in it.

OT: QLD opposition *ARE YOU LISTENING*

I see mik, is this just a revenge attack for being exposed for your ridiculous post:http://www.fordforums.com.au/showpos...6&postcount=36
where according to your logic bicycles should cause more damage to roads than trucks?

Now you have built yourself a strawman to attack me, I mentioned getting trucks of the hume that are just doing the melb to syd trip, nothing about running railways past every woolworths outlet.

[sudszy]

my mistake ^, I have responded in part to the wrong person.