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).

[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

[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?

[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 :-)

[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 .

[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?

[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.

[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".

[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.

[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.......

[fmc351]

Originally Posted by flappist

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.......

Like that rise in limit to 110 you mentioned. Id hate to be inflammatory so I wont make any statements but ...

Originally Posted by flappist

...
And you really are contradicting yourself ...

[flappist]

Originally Posted by fmc351

Like that rise in limit to 110 you mentioned. Id hate to be inflammatory so I wont make any statements but ...

Yes and there was a huge amount of kicking and screaming at the time which required direct ministerial action to override.

[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.....

[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.

[XRDeeze]

We should have Autobahns like they do in most European countries and open zones like in the NT as mentioned.

[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.

[Auslandau]

Poor England ..... there's going to tears! It is a well know fact that driving over 110kph cars blow up ..... just ask a few here!

PS: They must be importing those special cars from the NT where they don't burn until 131kph

[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!

[Silver Ghia]

Having spent quite a bit of time in the UK driving on the motorways, they are far different to the highways here. In addition UK drivers actually keep to the left unless overtaking, and they are not allowed to overtake on the left of another vehicle. Also lorries (trucks) and cars with trailers and caravans are limited to lower speeds (60mph), so they are in the left lanes only.
Travelling on the motorways at 70mph seems slow due to the expanse of the motorway. Most of the time travelling at 70mph you are amongst the slowest vehicles on the motorway and most are passing. Makes sense to up it to 80mph, since thats what they are generally travelling anyway, unless theres a traffic jam, and then they are real jams.
Road markings are also far superior to what they are here. Plenty of warnings and 'Get in Lane' signs, and drivers actually obey them, unlike here where they push in at the last second.
So there should not be any comparison with UK motorways speeds to what they should do here, unless driver habits, road rules and quality of highways dramatically change. Can't see that happening soon.

[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

[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.

[Ben73]

I don't think Australian highways should have a 130km/h limit.... some freeways on the other hand.......

[Ben73]

90 zone. It is a reasonable speed for this road. Some potholes and bumps. Few bends with recommended speeds 70-80.




90 zone. Nice, well surfaced mulitlaned road. No pot holes, no bumps, fence on both side and in middle, fence ranging from small wire fence up to large wall.
Varies from 2-3 lanes. Few slight bends.

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?

[Ford_The_Win]

I agree that highways need to improve before increasing the speed limit. Travelling on the Sunraysia Hwy last weekend, what a shocker of a road that is, full of potholes, bumps and dips. There is about 50km of highway that follows property boundaries, meaning almost 90 degree corners.

Freeways though...there's no reason the Hume couldn't be 120 or 130.