130km/h limit

[Gaz]

Originally Posted by mrbaxr6t

I support the idea but tbh I get stuck behind some jerk on onramps every other day they trundle down the onramp hitting the highway at 80kmh creating chaos as all the cars struggle for space both the ones backed up behind the jerk and the ones on the highway - please oh please why do people do this somebody please tell me.

Doesn't help when the speed limit change is just before the merge point, technically you can't go 100 before that point, car with decent power - no problem, foot down and doin 100, going by the law a gutless pos they need to accelerate to 100 and then merge. make the on ramp speed 100 so cars can be doing the limit when they merge.

[AWD Chaser]

Originally Posted by MAD

If people were taught to understand limits during early driving stages, then they would realise that it is a 'limit' and if they dont feel their car is up to it, they dont have to travel that fast.... just keep left you bastards!

The average age of a car, in 2007, was 9.7yrs. So today that would be a 2000 model. All the good features were well and truly making their way into cars then.

Quoting from my other thread - RTA Stats (http://www.fordforums.com.au/showthread.php?t=11283493)

44% of vehicles are more then 10 yrs old

There are more then 700000 vehicles without airbags

This is just NSW only...

[GT290]

Originally Posted by Ugly

if drivers moved to the centre lane when approching an on ramp that will give the cars entering the freeway room to merge, in stead i see here in qld drivers trying to stop merging traffic from entering.
like they might lose there spot in the trafic. :

Simply keeping a respectable distence between cars to allow merging would more than sufice. Changing lanes to let trafic in can hamper others also and should be kept to a minimum. You hit it on the head with the last part of your post which is what I am talking about.

[GT290]

Originally Posted by MAD

There was mention, in a thread recently, of a state in the US that lifted the limit to 130 and found they had less speeders and they were exceeding the limit by less. Everyone is comfortable with 130.
The good old 85th percentile in action.
Yes, you will get some that set their cruise to 10 over just as they do now and the occasional idiot at 30+ over the limit, but they would've done that regardless.

Here's the link that was provided. (http://www.autoblog.com/2009/10/27/r...ked-out-to-le/)

I have posted a similar file from the UK which says the same thing on another thread too. Its true and proven.

[GT290]

Originally Posted by Kia Chaser

Quoting from my other thread - RTA Stats (http://www.fordforums.com.au/showthread.php?t=11283493)


This is just NSW only...

I think in the UK the Government had some kind of buy out of all pre (a certain date) to reduce the amount of older cars that did not pass a certain criteria. Some one from over that way on here may care to elaberate on that.

[GT290]

Originally Posted by Gaz

Doesn't help when the speed limit change is just before the merge point, technically you can't go 100 before that point, car with decent power - no problem, foot down and doin 100, going by the law a gutless pos they need to accelerate to 100 and then merge. make the on ramp speed 100 so cars can be doing the limit when they merge.

Really it dosn't matter wether you can get to the speed 100 per cent but certainly by the time you get to the free way point you should be then in a position to be on the increase given the freeway traffic allow you to merge. You do however, see more often than not break lights. People having to break hard while merging?

[Thornie]

Originally Posted by timothyds

the 110 limit was introduced back when cars still has drum breaks and leaf springs, modern cars can go much faster with safety and this is a big land iv got things to do so the faster the better on the hwy. i do over 1000km per week mostly on the hume where its 2 lanes each way 130 is a great idea. its 2010 not 1975 cars are made to do this speed

unfortunelty most of the roads in AUS are still 1975 quality.

[barra265t]

Originally Posted by Outback

So would you rather hit a wombat or Roo at 110 or 130kms that's why our freeway speed will always be 110, they don't have animals that can write off a car walking across there motorways in Europe.

at 130kmh, wouldnt you have avoided the wombat/roo because you would have reached the location where the impact would have occured if you had beem travelling at 110kmh : .

[GT290]

Originally Posted by barra265t

at 130kmh, wouldnt you have avoided the wombat/roo because you would have reached the location where the impact would have occured if you had beem travelling at 110kmh : .

I like your thinking lol

[Keepleft]

We won't raise freeway class road speed limit to 130km/h (has full interchange design), NOR will we do the same for median divided highways such as long lengths of the Hume (has more deadly 'intersections' and some full interchanges) here in NSW, until the medians are fully divided with barrier (to prevent cross-over crashes), AND the U-Turn bays are gatelocked (trial on F3 Wharoonga if folk wish to see), or updated with the more widespread semi-lock setups comprising wire-rope and yellow bollards.

Done of course to prevent idiots doing U-Turns on freeways.

One thats done, I'd expect within reason we will see some lengths (inter city)get 120 and even 130km/h. Needs money first.

On the vehicle standards front for NSW, in addition - will require triangle, vest, first aid kit, even a mandatory rear fog (review) as a "whole of situation approach program".

[The G6ET Spot]

Originally Posted by Keepleft

One thats done, I'd expect within reason we will see some lengths (inter city)get 120 and even 130km/h. Needs money first.

And there lies the problem in NSW. With the bozo's running this state there is no money.

[Keepleft]

Originally Posted by RAPID XR8

And there lies the problem in NSW. With the bozo's running this state there is no money.

Yah, but note the increasing lengths of median barrier, year by year, bit by bit on the F3:-) We have good progessive RTA staff for the region north of Hawkesbury.

[barra265t]

I know this is probably impossible and unworkable in real life.. But if major interstate highways were somehow operated along the lines of how aviation travel is regulated, wouldnt accidents between/among vehicles be minimized or avoided? After all, isnt the point of automotive travel going from point a to point b.. If somehow we could get vehicles as far apart as possible, and eliminate congestion, a lot of accidents could be avoided (except single vehicle accidents perhaps).

If lets say we have a 3 lane highway, and restrict the traffic to one car per lane. Entry to the highway is restricted to one car per lane via a traffic light. The lights will only go green (vehicle gets clearance to 'take off') when the car in front has covered x amount of kms.

A similar idea is the 'one vehicle per lane' used on highway onramps, which i reckon is a genious idea. Got one near my place that has worked wonders since it was introduced. Near misses, accidents and congestion have been practically eliminated. Bottleneck is eliminated, and getting from point a to point b with minimal fuss.

[fangq]

Originally Posted by GT290

You maybe right in a very few cases but if you take a second to reflect and tell me how many people do you actually see on the free way traveling with an adiquate spacing between then and the car in front of them allowing on ramp traffic to blend in and then extending that distance to compensate the on ramp traffic. 99% of the time I would have to say no and so would you. I have been on plenty on ranps that accomodate the speed, its just hard to maintain it when some barsterd closes up and don't let you in.

I was referring to the engineering of roads, whilst your comment refers more to the driving ability / training of motorists. Having said that, I do agree that a lot of drivers have no idea of safe distance between vehicles and are pretty hopeless re the etiquette of merging. I have driven a lot in Italy and Switzerland, and the drivers there take a bit more responsibility re traffic flow.

Steve

[aussie muscle]

Originally Posted by durtyharry

Cars, tyres and roads have not improved that much in 30 years,

gee, when was the last time you drive an old car? :

i'd certainly prefer a much higher speed limit, yet no pollie i've ever seen has taken it to the polls... given the number of people ticketed for speeding, are we all a bunch of hypocrites?

[Keepleft]

Today Tonight Network 7, 21 Jan 10, just had a a bit of a stab at Sam Newman who's called for an increase in some speed limits (freeway et al) of 10km/h. Cited Geelong.

TT drag up the father of a young fella killed by a car in the city, he says the call in light of recent events is out of order etc.

Drag up an academic who pretty much states same.

Hopeless really.

[xbgs351]

Originally Posted by Keepleft

Today Tonight Network 7, 21 Jan 10, just had a a bit of a stab at Sam Newman who's called for an increase in some speed limits (freeway et al) of 10km/h. Cited Geelong.

TT drag up the father of a young fella killed by a car in the city, he says the call in light of recent events is out of order etc.

Drag up an academic who pretty much states same.

Hopeless really.

Twenty years the Geelong Rd looked nothing like the multi-lane billiard table it is now. Back then you used to have to sit on 120 km/h during commuting times just to keep up with the traffic. Apparently the traffic used to flow faster than that before then.

[Copie]

Ah the might wire rope, also known as a cheese cutter, you dont not ever want to hit that on a bike, you will literally lose a leg.

[gtfpv]

i went to the cricket twenty 20 at the anz stadium the other night , which KFC was a main sponsor , every 5 minutes over the PA warnings were issued about slowing down when driving home because they didnt want anyone killed. all this while they are serving P I S S at the bar. they even had a live interview of 2 seperate people in the audience pledgeing to slow down on the roads on the big screen , i really really was MORTIFIED AND DISCUSTED by this . what did that have to do with cricket and KFC ?
26500 SPECTATORS WERE THERE .
with this crap going on i cant see speed limits going up , but rather going down , in order to decrease engine power size of cars and to get bonuses for a minor few idiot selfish fat cats.

[just_pazz]

After the way the media ripped into Sammy Newman yesterday.... we'll never see speed limits raised in this country. Never unfortunetly.... as the media tends to reflect the general opinion of the populace.

[burnz]

http://www.caradvice.com.au/6756/spe...-its-official/

[cosmo20btt]

Originally Posted by burnz

http://www.caradvice.com.au/6756/spe...-its-official/

This is what I was aiming at in a previous post, good find

[bladexr8]

Speed can be measured and fines applied.

Other factors such as driver skill and fatigue can't be so easily measured or fined.

Government solution is a propaganda campaign more based around raising revenue than actually saving lives.

From memory the road toll in NT actually got worse when speed limits were introduced (not sure of this is still the case).

Go figure.

[durtyharry]

Originally Posted by MAD

There was mention, in a thread recently, of a state in the US that lifted the limit to 130 and found they had less speeders and they were exceeding the limit by less. Everyone is comfortable with 130.
The good old 85th percentile in action.
Yes, you will get some that set their cruise to 10 over just as they do now and the occasional idiot at 30+ over the limit, but they would've done that regardless.

Here's the link that was provided. (http://www.autoblog.com/2009/10/27/r...ked-out-to-le/)

Surprise, surprise, increase the limit and less people will be exceeding it, that will be good?
So by the same logic if we raise the limit to 300km/h and even less people exceed it, that will be even better. Safety levels are not increased by issuing less infringements, its by reducing collisions and their severity.

The link siting the Utah experience does not show increasing the speed limit increases safety, in fact it had no change. Therefore one can conlude that going 30km/h faster is just as safe? no. The median speed of their traffic barely changed, all that happened is they legalised what the majority of drivers were doing.

What would be interesting? if they compared the accident rate when the 65mph limit was actually maintained by motorists with those that travel at 80mph+, but those stats werent supplied.

[durtyharry]

Originally Posted by GT290

I have posted a similar file from the UK which says the same thing on another thread too. Its true and proven.

What is true and proven, we should travel at the speed of the 85th percentile?

Here was where I responded to that claim, and importantly where you made no response: http://www.fordforums.com.au/showpos...2&postcount=43

[durtyharry]

Originally Posted by aussie muscle

Originally Posted by durtyharry
Cars, tyres and roads have not improved that much in 30 years, gee, when was the last time you drive an old car? :

i'd certainly prefer a much higher speed limit, yet no pollie i've ever seen has taken it to the polls... given the number of people ticketed for speeding, are we all a bunch of hypocrites?

Would help if you quoted all of what I said!, the "that much" I referred to was 40%.
Of course if you have info proving that the stopping and turning potential of cars has improved 40%(what is needed for a change from 110 to 130), then let's see it.
Perhaps look up the stopping dist for a 80 falcon from 100km/h compared to one of today, then look up the coefficient of friction between the average road and a family car tyre of 30 years ago and today and tell me if there is a 40% difference

[cant]

Far too many people just cant drive !!!!!!!!!!!!

Half the rest are jelous that you might get in front of them ............

So that just leaves you and I ----------------

There are good arguements on either side, but you have to allow for the Nuff Nuffs and New licence holders !!!!!!!

Then the Gov would never consider an additional "HIGH SPEED" licence test with different number plates for suitable equiped cars and fines for unqualified drivers ( more revenue ! )

There are places where High Speed could be permitted, the old NT open speed limit comes to mind ( next corner 180 klm ).

if you were taught to drive properly you were told to "DRIVE AS THE CONDITIONS PERMIT", 110Klm in a hailstorm might be legal, but seriously ????????

When you go to court for speeding the police always state that "the roadway was dry/wet, clear/restricted vision, in good/bad condition and always well signposted.............

Some one pinch me, im dreaming again :

[xbgs351]

Originally Posted by durtyharry

The link siting the Utah experience does not show increasing the speed limit increases safety, in fact it had no change. Therefore one can conlude that going 30km/h faster is just as safe? no. The median speed of their traffic barely changed, all that happened is they legalised what the majority of drivers were doing.

What would be interesting? if they compared the accident rate when the 65mph limit was actually maintained by motorists with those that travel at 80mph+, but those stats werent supplied.

The majority of speed versus accident/fatality risk studies show a U curve, with the trough of the U pretty much centred on the average speed. On the road in Utah, according to the study of West & Dunn (1971), someone traveling at 65 mph compared to the average of around 80 mph would be expected to have six times the risk of having an accident compared to those travelling at the average speed.

[durtyharry]

Originally Posted by xbgs351

The majority of speed versus accident/fatality risk studies show a U curve, with the trough of the U pretty much centred on the average speed. On the road in Utah, according to the study of West & Dunn (1971), someone traveling at 65 mph compared to the average of around 80 mph would be expected to have six times the risk of having an accident compared to those travelling at the average speed.

Please understand: That study or any other like it does not support that higher limits are in fact safer, all it highlights is that speed differential in itself is a collision factor.

All other things being equal, put the trough of the U at a slower speed(say 65mph, which is what would happen if the limit was enforced and maintained in Utah) and there will be less accidents

[MAD]

Originally Posted by durtyharry

Please understand: That study or any other like it does not support that higher limits are in fact safer, all it highlights is that speed differential in itself is a collision factor.

All other things being equal, put the trough of the U at a slower speed(say 65mph, which is what would happen if the limit was enforced and maintained in Utah) and there will be less accidents

But if the average speed of cars was 80mph even when the limit was 65mph, wouldnt it be safer if everyone was traveling the same speed and having less collisions?

Anyway speed is not the ultimate end. Driving to conditions is the most important thing on the roads. As mentioned above, it might be legal to travel at 100kmh on the Monash in a hail storm, doesnt mean it's safe.