TAS, KINGSBOROUGH - Rural default speed limit changes, trial.

[Keepleft]

Note: Information.

21 August 2007

The existing 100km/h Tasmanian rural default speed limit is set to be lowered to 90km/h (Asphalt) AND 80km/h (Gravel) for the KINGBOROUGH area - as a 'trial'.

I would expect other AUS jurisdictions to follow with time to an advocated 80km/h. I have some concern with having TWO rural defaults, as a road worthy of a speed higher than 80km/h can be so posted easily enough without upsetting the treasury balance!!

The reasoning being that old pre 1979 rural speed-zoning practice, typically of 80km/h was indeed 'safer', than was made with later with greater use of both 100km/h signposted, AND the 100km/h rural default adoptions. With a rural default, we really are talking about the worse of the worse.

The 100km/h criteria was chosen back then to reduce road user 'concern' at speed derestriction/prima-facie allowance removal.

So, to a degree its back to the future, except that the new 'limit' (in this TAS example 'limits') is an absolute, and not prima facie per se!

The return to an 80km/h "rural default" for gravel roads and 90km/h for asphalt rural roads, will give greater credibility to existing posted speed-limited lengths of rural road over time, AND can mean higher posted speed limit allowances (than 100-110km/h) for certain high-standard road lengths, or if the jurisdiction decides, speed derestriction on some lengths.

In effect, the trade off for higher posted speed limits, OR for speed derestriction, EACH for specific "lengths of road", *must first* see a reduction in the existing rural defaults.

My view is that it is appropriate to only have a single rural default speed limit, for cost effectiveness and safety, etc.

The 'worse lengths' of default speed-limited rural roads around Australia will be signposted using the "R4-12 : End Speed-Limit" sign. (Not the speed derestriction). The sign signals that the rural default applies, BUT that the road ahead has recognised quality and safety issues. This sign might sometimes carry the additional warning vis; "RURAL ROAD-DRIVE TO CONDITIONS" Use of this sign will be the exception more than the rule.

http://www.news.com.au/mercury/story...5-3462,00.html

[tex]

I was only thinking the other day that I hadn't seen anything from keepleft.

I live in in Kingborough, and knew nothing about this ! I must have been asleep.

80 for gravel, 90 on tar seems pretty simple to me, BUT, then again I don't like the idea I speed cams being set up in these areas. Christ, the other day I did 800km return, same hwys and counted 4 mobile spd scams, plus the fixed one and those I didn't spot, dug in like ticks on a dogs bum.

What happened to common sense and derestricted rural roads ? How many fatalities on Kingborough rural roads? How many could have been prevented from a reduction in spd limit by 20 / 10 kmph ?

Ching ching go the kerb side cash registers.

[Keepleft]

Originally Posted by tex

What happened to common sense and derestricted rural roads ? How many fatalities on Kingborough rural roads? How many could have been prevented from a reduction in spd limit by 20 / 10 kmph ?

With derestriction, unlike past application of this, where the derestriction applied to virtually all rural roads - except those bearing speed-limit signs; by adopting a 'cautious rural default', a 'fall-back' speed that a driver can rely on, the road authority could then post speed derestriction along a length of road in the same manner as a speed-limit sign applies now, rather than the blanket geographical rural road network!

In the German manner if you will. I personally can live with a conservative rural default 80km/h, because I know the road agencies would then be more comfortable allowing higher speeds - on its safest lengths, that at current.

This way, we'd keep the derestriction allowance only for the safest lengths of 'highway' as proposed, example- those with good delinneation, sight distance, camber, surface etc, AND I'd suggest we could also see posted speed limits 120 -130km/h for similar highway stretches, perhaps done by VMS typically.

But only if the default, for the roads leading off these higher quality lengths,- have reduced maximums.

Whilst you can do 100km/h on some crappy roads for a length of it, it is not necessarily a consistent appropriate speed on evidence they argue, citing that 80km/h had been 85th percentile made back in the 70's, its just that we also made that 'prima facie' (derestricted) in some states and NT.

Don't rule out geographical prima-facie like allowances again either for some states, you never know. Whatever happens, signage interpretation/design will remain uniform, nationally/worldwide.

Patience I guess, improvement literally take years here in AUS.

[xbgs351]

My view is that we already have one rural default of 100km/h and that we should stick with it nationwide to avoid any confusion. I suspect this trial will experience considerable confusion.

Besides what's the point? Speed limits on gravel and quiet country roads are hardly ever policed and speeding isn't much of an issue anyway. Drop the speed limit by 10 or 20km/h and you will probably find a significant percentage of the traffic will then be exceeding the speed limit. 80 km/h may have been the 85th percentile 30 years ago, but that was a long time ago and cars have undergone many improvements over that period. What will the authorities do in response to a sudden increase in speeding caused by dropping the default speed limits? Will they turn a blind eye, or will they divert police resources away from other more heavily trafficked roads. I know I drive at around 100km/h on most quiet country roads and dirt roads and in many cases it's a safer alternative to driving on the better roads, which are often far too busy. Why should this behavior become illegal? Sure I may have to reduce my speed for some corners, but this is no different to any major with bends.

I can't really see these speed limits being reserved for the 'worse of the worse' roads. Councils are that cash strapped that they are lucky to grade a gravel road once very two years, so the idea that they will have the resources and motivation to sign post all but the 'worse of the worse' roads is farcical.

Lowering the default speed limits may also prove helpful to the anti-speed propaganda merchants, as accidents which occur at now legal speeds will be able to be blamed on speeding, thus making speeding more statistically dangerous.

As for trying to link the drop in default speed limits to the possible increase in speed limits, I for one can't see any. What bearing does the speed limit on a road leading off a major road have on the major roads speed limit? With the scenario as it now stands we are being asked to accept lower speed limits on gravel roads and back bitumen roads, and in exchange we will only see the small possibility of increased speed limits on major roads. It reminds me of buying Lotto tickets. You will lose $10, but you maybe, just maybe might win the jackpot.

[Rock ape]

I have never seen a speed limit go up. We will have a 50kmh Australia wide limit soon.

[dirt 01]

dirt roads change that often!

Some you can do 50, some 150+ no problems. saying 80 is the limit implies that is what you should do, and thats wrong.

[T3man]

Keepleft> I like your theory. And I would vote for you if you stood for election on that platform. Unfortunately though, in the real world of money hungry governments targeting the easy prey, the motorist, for additional revenue I just can't see it happening.

What we are more likely to see is the exact scenario enunciated by xbgs351; any small decrease in the "road toll" after these lower limits are introduced will see an even bigger outcry from the socially correct pedestrian council and the like for even lower limits. And less and less areas of higher limit roads because they don't come up to standard.

BAGTp001> Funny you should say that. If we had all private motor vehicles limited to 40km/h (and all cars speed limited) the road toll could be reduced to virtually zero. If the government was truly serious about the road toll this is what they'd do. At the same time they would implement a fast, safe rail and road public transport system across the nation so motor vehicles were not the prime means of fast, convenient travel. Yeah, I can see this happening just as clearly as Keepleft's "ideal" - NOT.

[Outbackjack]

My only concern of a 80k limit on some dirt roads is that sometimes you can't get above the corrugations until about 85kph..... It all depends on the road condition.

[Bill M]

[QUOTE=Keepleft] AND I'd suggest we could also see posted speed limits 120 -130km/h for similar highway stretches, perhaps done by VMS typically.

Not in Victoria under the present regime you wont! Nice thought though.
Keep up the useful info.
cheers
Bill.

[Keepleft]

Originally Posted by dirt 01

dirt roads change that often!

Some you can do 50, some 150+ no problems. saying 80 is the limit implies that is what you should do, and thats wrong.

It a 'default' limit, it is a fall back position that applies to all roads NOT fixed with a speed limit sign.

AS1742.4 of 1999 (signage/zoning) and state and territory adoptions thereof, means 'posted speed limit signs' are applied to roads of higher quality, than for example - some state forrest, national park roads etc - where typically the rural default applies.

In future, those posted limits will, on good lengths meeting quality and safety criteria, be higher than 80km/h. Sometimes a road will be posted lower than the rural default, such as a state forrest road in the Watagan Mountains here in NSW which bears a 40km/h sign that comes to mind. It is narrow with no barrier and sheer drops in part, and pedestrian activity!

Think you'll get the idea. 'Zoning'.

Unlike the past, I know we won't go for recent NT style "geographical" based derestriction/prima facie, BUT some places, such as NSW would or could use derestriction on some road lengths, without negatively impacting safety. Turn off such a derestricted road and the default for the given area would apply automatically, naturally, OR a posted speed limit might, OR another derestriction,- IF such as sign was fixed on the new road.

The only reason why NSW adopted 100km/h as a rural default (and this includes most states from 74' to 79) - was soley for political reasons vis; back then, speed derestriction was, "prima facie" and that worked in NSW like this, - the rural limit was 80km/h, BUT you could exceed that legally, IF in your opinion it was safe to do so.

However, if you came unstuck, crashed, committed other offences and whatnot - you were effectively found guilty when going before the courts, for exceeding the 80km/h you see, and would then have a dog of a time defending your actions. Not ideal under our legal system of innocence before guilt.

It was decided, that because folk would complain at having their 'right' to go about at speed on rural roads of all quality, removed - that 100km/h would be a way of quashing some of that backlash, as a trade off for folk who'd drive the highways at speeds ranging 100 - 240km/h. Most folk in clear conditions were found to be at 110 - 140km/h in NSW.

THE answer to the guilt thing is to NOT have a 'recommended limit' whatsoever. Indeed the UN Convention that governs the speed derestriction sign, reads; "Sign C,17a - END OF ALL LOCAL PROHIBITIONS IMPOSED ON MOVING VEHICLES", hardly 'recommended maximum 80km/h'!

AND so AS1742.4 of 1999 does not have have such a recommendation attached. Here, its meaning is in harmonisation with the Convention, 'to signal that 'no speed limit applies to the road beyond the sign'.

That said, under speed derestriction on a length of road, L, P1 and P2 drivers remain speed restricted owing legislated 'license category' imposed speed limits. Heavy vehicles too remain speed restricted owing AR-Rule 25, -the 'vehicle category' rural limit!

Currently, it is 'not appropriate' that you come off a rural default crappy 100km/h road onto a key highway and remain limited to 100km/h. The move to 80km/h is to bring greater compliance with POSTED speed limit signs, and therefore a greater appreciation of them.

The move in some jurisdications to limits of 120-130 etc will be the exception rather than the rule. I'd expect certain national routes to allow that. In NSW certain remote highways could go higher or derestricted, some existing lower quality 110km/h lengths will be dropped.

Timeframe here about 1-3 years.

The 130km/h talk arises from an ATSB national productivity report a few years ago.

I have resisted an RTA persons idea of a legislated western NSW geographically based derestriction (a la old NT), in favour of a per length of road application of same, 'linnear' posting a la Germany application.

Another had submitted 120km/h for the F3 north of Gosford Interchange, refused because in part of the behaviour of some souls who do U-Turns on the F3.

I guess I am fundamentally opposed to speed limits higher than 110km/h, but would for safety reasons prefer to derestrict, to avoid 'speed-limit conditioning' behaviours such as tailgating, carelessness, frustration, rage offence behaviours, and poor vehicle care etc and so on. Derestriction *really* makes *you* totally responsible for ALL your on-road actions AND for vehicle upkeep. Something a speed-limit *can never, ever do*.

A posted 130kmk/h allowance really is political, but for many, yes, better than being restricted to 100 -110km/h, it'd be safer to derestrict these lengths.

[GT-E]

I bet if there was no speed limits, most people would just drive to the conditions and be better drivers. they would spend less time looking at their speedo and more looking further up the road.
I can never see it happening as speed limits are only limits on what they can book you at.

[schmidty]

What a load of bullshize.

People have enough trouble as it is keeping up with the rediculous amount of different speed zones as it is.


HOW ABOUT SPENDING THE MONEY ON BETTER ROADS INSTEAD OF A ZILLION NEW BLOODY SIGNS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Also if anyone wants to do me a favour and add to the list of people pushing for an upgrade to the princess hwy o' death go to www.fixitnow.com.au

[Outbackjack]

When the NT had roads that carried a (//) sign, most people travelled at between 100 and 140 kph. The obvious exception to this was people driving late model cars and high performance cars. It is quite amazing how well cars travelling at such a large variance of speeds separated themselves with no kind of tail gateing or road rage situations. If I was cruising at 200 and my neighbour wanted to pass me in his lambo doing 300, which happened once, there was no issues at all...... other than I got jealous

[Keepleft]

schmidty writes: -What a load of bullshize.

People have enough trouble as it is keeping up with the rediculous amount of different speed zones as it is.

We are talking about the rural default, not the numerous amount of posted speed zones. True that rural posted 80km/h signs could be removed, saving the cost of those.

The issue of twenty thousand speed zones per kilometre is more recognised in built-up areas, not so much out on the rural roads. Signposting of speed limits or derestriction here will only apply to higher standard roads. Recommended curve/bend 'recommendations', delinneation arrows etc remain as needed.

Much the urban 'zoning' you see arises from advocacy from local residents or 'action groups' under the 'local amenity' agenda, arising from green and left activists basically.

In NSW, our previous Roads Minister, Costa - had a Country Road Summit,- basically the wash-up was to reduce, owing complaints, the number of speed zones with the general idea of removing posted 70 and 90km/h signage, - to fall back to the old tried and tested 60 (though 50) 80 and 100km/h! To date, and its been three or so years now, NSW has merely reduced the number Or length of posted 90km/h zones and some 70km/h zones increased to 80km/h. Yet some RTA offices do their own thing and continue to post the 70 and 90! A clear issue here.

It seems some folk 'like' the 70 and 90km/h allowance. I don't care eitherway personally, and for some roads 90km/h is fine.

I'm not comfortable with school zone speed limits (40) applying to 60-80km/h main roads when the school is fully fenced, AND has a walkover bridge. This sort of thing/application happens becuase of 'Standards'-being presumed or used as 'requirement'. Here, we need greater flexibility.

HOW ABOUT SPENDING THE MONEY ON BETTER ROADS INSTEAD OF A ZILLION NEW BLOODY SIGNS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

A zillion signs offset will buy you mebbe a kilometre of guardrail:-)

Also if anyone wants to do me a favour and add to the list of people pushing for an upgrade to the princess hwy o' death go to www.fixitnow.com.au

Similar advocacy and efforts being made for the NSW coastal run too. Some new works made but much more needs to be done. Seriously, I'd give it another 20 - 30 years till its dual carriageway along the coastal route, and thats being straight up. It'd be great to have that achived NOW. Bit by bit is how it'll be done.

Seems governments really do not fully finance roads anymore, and under federal Labour that won't change.