70 & 90 zones may be a thing of the past says RTA

[geckoGT]

The topic here is the potential for changes to posted speed limits, let's stick to it.

[Keepleft]

Originally Posted by Ben73

So apparently there was a fatal crash recently on a road that has multiple speed limits near nelsons bay. I heard on the news this morning in response to this incident the RTA is thinking of getting rid of 70 & 90 limits.

Nothing to do with this crash, the move to 'rationalise' speed limits in NSW was one pushed by the new government when in opposition. They are seeing things through.

Its been tried before, Costa (LAB) tried to do much the same thing; be rid of 70 and 90km/h zones.

Things move on and RTA basically doesn't exist, the organisation is going through a major shake-up that will take another few months.

The speed reviews for NSW roads, some of which are finalised recently (Eg Newell back up to 110km/h - after it was dropped to 100km/h in 2009), are on the web.

Originally Posted by JC

Should just make it all 100, and let natural selection run it's course. OK, too harsh? Seriously though, people need to drive to the conditions, not just the posted speed limit.

DRIVE TO CONDITIONS = NOT APPROPRIATELY POSSIBLE with a "speed-limit". Much more achievable with (//), and only (//).

OR with the END speed-limit sign; example END 60 (if the rural dirt road can't manage 90-100km/h 'safely') This is a form of (//) but only to the rural default.

[Ben73]

Originally Posted by Keepleft

DRIVE TO CONDITIONS = NOT APPROPRIATELY POSSIBLE with a "speed-limit". Much more achievable with (//), and only (//).

OR with the END speed-limit sign; example END 60 (if the rural dirt road can't manage 90-100km/h 'safely') This is a form of (//) but only to the rural default.

I like the (//) signs. I came across one last week. First time in years I have seen one. I did 105 on the tar straights, but slowed down to 40 for a dirt bend on a crest it's not hard to figure out.

I noticed at work some guys set the cruise control right on the speed limit. Then expect to drive that speed the whole way. They enter corners with it on then have to suddenly brake when they realize they are going to quick for the corner.

Some people think they need to do the speed limit the whole time no matter what.

[new2ford]

Originally Posted by Ben73

I noticed at work some guys set the cruise control right on the speed limit. Then expect to drive that speed the whole way. They enter corners with it on then have to suddenly brake when they realize they are going to quick for the corner.

Some people think they need to do the speed limit the whole time no matter what.

Nothing wrong with keeping the speed advisory signs (on bends), used in NSW, going.

[Ben73]

The advisory signs are good, but many roads I drive on don't have them.

[KiwiKilda]

The Facts about speed are apparent and proven regardless of
road condition the faster you go the bigger the mess.
<>
The law of science physics and averages apply to everyone regardless
of road condition and driving school

As an example:
The law regarding 40km limits around schools in Australia
are really sound

As a comparision in NZ
we had 4 near missus and one kid hot on a local school
crossing

We campaigned for that crossing to be improved
the council ignored us and all they said they would do
is improve signage?

I assure you they will have done nothing

Force = m x a.
Mass x Accelleration

Reducing speed saves lives increases the chances of death and serious injury.

Like everything laws are for the obedience of the stupid and the guidance
of the wise

Slowing down will not kill you?

This link is worth looking at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limit

<>
Australia 110 km/h to 100 km/h Injury crashes declined by 19%
<>
Australia 100 km/h to 110 km/h Injury crashes increased by 25%
<>

Australia's Northern Territory had no blanket speed limits outside major towns until January 2007 when a general rural speed limit of 110 km/h (68 mph) was introduced; four major highway have higher 130 km/h (81 mph) zones.[36] The per-capita fatality rate in 2006 was the highest in the OECD and twice the Australian average.[37] In 2009, the opposition party unsuccessfully sought the removal of the 130 km/h limits on three out of the four highways where it applied, arguing that total fatalities in the Northern Territory had increased significantly during the first two years of the speed limit. In argument against the motion, the government provided more detailed statistics showing a reduction in fatalities along the highways where 130 km/h limits were introduced.[38][39][40]

[flappist]

Originally Posted by KiwiKilda

The Facts about speed are apparent and proven regardless of
road condition the faster you go the bigger the mess.
<>
The law of science physics and averages apply to everyone regardless
of road condition and driving school

As an example:
The law regarding 40km limits around schools in Australia
are really sound

As a comparision in NZ
we had 4 near missus and one kid hot on a local school
crossing

We campaigned for that crossing to be improved
the council ignored us and all they said they would do
is improve signage?

I assure you they will have done nothing

Force = m x a.
Mass x Accelleration

Reducing speed saves lives increases the chances of death and serious injury.

Like everything laws are for the obedience of the stupid and the guidance
of the wise

Slowing down will not kill you?

This link is worth looking at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limit

<>
Australia 110 km/h to 100 km/h Injury crashes declined by 19%
<>
Australia 100 km/h to 110 km/h Injury crashes increased by 25%
<>

Australia's Northern Territory had no blanket speed limits outside major towns until January 2007 when a general rural speed limit of 110 km/h (68 mph) was introduced; four major highway have higher 130 km/h (81 mph) zones.[36] The per-capita fatality rate in 2006 was the highest in the OECD and twice the Australian average.[37] In 2009, the opposition party unsuccessfully sought the removal of the 130 km/h limits on three out of the four highways where it applied, arguing that total fatalities in the Northern Territory had increased significantly during the first two years of the speed limit. In argument against the motion, the government provided more detailed statistics showing a reduction in fatalities along the highways where 130 km/h limits were introduced.[38][39][40]

Such simple and straight forward logic coming from someone who lives in a country the size of a cattle station and a really long drive is 4 or 5 hours.

The faster you go the bigger the mess......well how about the faster you go the shorter the time and less fatigued you are so maybe instead of crashing at a lower speed you don't crash at all?

Come over here and drive from Alice Springs to Darwin or Brisbane to Tennant Ck or Adelaide to Perth, you know, the sort of things that AUSTRALIANS do on a regular basis and show us all how safe it is at 100km/h......

[Uncle Niceguy]

i think a lot has to do with the constantly changing speed limits but also the fact that australia is one of the easiest places in the world to get a driving licence for example in germany your hours have to be done by qualified driving instructors not just a portion by them and the rest by your parents. making cars safer will also help but bringing in lesser speed limit variations will be the first step in the right direction.

cheers brendan

[CANFRY]

Originally Posted by eb-fairmont

i think a lot has to do with the constantly changing speed limits but also the fact that australia is one of the easiest places in the world to get a driving licence for example in germany your hours have to be done by qualified driving instructors not just a portion by them and the rest by your parents. making cars safer will also help but bringing in lesser speed limit variations will be the first step in the right direction.

cheers brendan

Also ive heard in germany in your licence test you have to be able to do a stop in a certain amount of time in the wet doing 200km before you pass.

[sudszy]

Perhaps this is off topic, but since a mod has started the ball rolling...

Originally Posted by flappist

Such simple and straight forward logic coming from someone who lives in a country the size of a cattle station and a really long drive is 4 or 5 hours

4 or 5 hours at the wheel is plenty of time for fatigue to set in. Interestingly the motorists that are bullying the government in England to legalise the current motorway behaviour are claiming the fatigue aspect as well, without the apparent need for having to drive 1500km+ in a day

Originally Posted by flappist

The faster you go the bigger the mess......well how about the faster you go the shorter the time and less fatigued you are so maybe instead of crashing at a lower speed you don't crash at all?

Have you ever seen a recommendation from any road safety expert that increasing speed is the answer to fatigue. Education drivers about fatigue and their limitations and changing their attitude to hours behind the wheel is the way for it to be managed. Some are already not respecting the issue of fatigue travelling at100km/h, do we really want the same behavour at 130km/h?

Originally Posted by flappist

Come over here and drive from Alice Springs to Darwin or Brisbane to Tennant Ck or Adelaide to Perth, you know, the sort of things that AUSTRALIANS do on a regular basis and show us all how safe it is at 100km/h......

I personally don’t know any Australians that have done these journeys, neverlone on a regular basis, sheltered world I live in. Perhaps there is a good argument for 130km/h limits on divided 6 lane roads with well designed exit and entrance facilities, but that is not the roads were are talking about.

Splitting long journeys into manageable intervals is the way to avoid fatigue. But obviously something that doesnt fit in to the plans of the "I have to be there/ want it now society"

Higher speed limits aren't going to reduce the time people spend at the wheel. For every person that may reduce the time of the journey due to higher speed being allowed, another takes on a journey that was not possible before in the same time at the lower limit, its just human nature. The fatigue problem hasn’t been solved at all, just the consequences of fatigue made worse.

[prydey]

road safety experts? the ones who get their paychecks from the govt? not many 'experts' bite the hand that feeds them.

changing the newell back to 100 was meant to be for our own safety. now its back to 110. so which expert was wrong? also, apparently in the months that it was 100, if you were caught doing 110, then you were apparently more than 4 times at risk, but now you can do 110 all day safely! its these sort of things that really dent the credibility of all the experts.

eliminating certain speed zones is a good thing if a certain stretch of road has multiple speed zones in a given stretch, but otherwise, i see no problem with having many different speed zones, as there are many different types of roads. there are certain stretches of road here in sa that are 70, but if they decided to get rid of 70 zones, they wouldn't zone it 80 so it reverts back to 60. to me, keeping 70 is fine.

you never know what sort of agenda the experts have. we've seen recently that another hot topic at the moment was reviewed by 2 committees and both came back with polar opposite results.

[prydey]

Originally Posted by sudszy

Higher speed limits aren't going to reduce the time people spend at the wheel. For every person that may reduce the time of the journey due to higher speed being allowed, another takes on a journey that was not possible before in the same time at the lower limit, its just human nature. The fatigue problem hasn’t been solved at all, just the consequences of fatigue made worse.

i drive to brissie (from adelaide) with the family every year, and i actually think using the fatigue argument to justify higher speeds has more holes in it than swiss cheese.

on that sort of journey, i reckon any time i saved would be lost having to make an extra stop for fuel.

some very main highways may be able to support 130 but even then it would only be for small sections and there wouldn't be that many highways that would suit.

[jpd80]

I'm curious as to how a future system would work, from my experience in Qld crash zones here have been reduced from 100 kph to 90 kph.
The reason being to force more compliance at lower speed but what really caused the crashes in the first place?
1) ignoring the posted speed limit in the first place
2) dangerous passing manouvers
3) Fatigue or alcohol impairment.

It's such a snhame that the majority of drivers suffer because a few miscreants
do the wrong thing and wind up injuring them selves or dead, taking others with them.

If RTA was serious, they would review crash investigations and find the
true root cause instead of treating the perceived symptom.

[DJM83]

Originally Posted by jpd80

I'm curious as to how a future system would work, from my experience in Qld crash zones here have been reduced from 100 kph to 90 kph.
The reason being to force more compliance at lower speed but what really caused the crashes in the first place?
1) ignoring the posted speed limit in the first place
2) dangerous passing manouvers
3) Fatigue or alcohol impairment.

It's such a snhame that the majority of drivers suffer because a few miscreants
do the wrong thing and wind up injuring them selves or dead, taking others with them.

If RTA was serious, they would review crash investigations and find the
true root cause instead of treating the perceived symptom.

One of these seems appropriate. Typical solution these days

[prydey]

Originally Posted by jpd80

If RTA was serious, they would review crash investigations and find the
true root cause instead of treating the perceived symptom.

not just the rta. speed would be written down as a contributing factor in nearly every road accident. bit hard to crash if the car isn't moving.

when accidents are reviewed, speed would pop up every time and look as though its the major cause, when in fact it is often not a factor at all.

the crashes where speed is the major contributing factor are normally the ones where the speed is well and truly exceeded. i'd be very surprised if drifting a few km's over the limit has ever resulted in a fatality, with the primary cause being that slight bit of extra speed.

its all guess work anyway. unless they are standing there with a speed gun at the time of the accident, they can't possibly know the speed of the cars down to the last km. with abs these days, they can't even measure skid marks.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by sudszy

Perhaps this is off topic, but since a mod has started the ball rolling...



4 or 5 hours at the wheel is plenty of time for fatigue to set in. Interestingly the motorists that are bullying the government in England to legalise the current motorway behaviour are claiming the fatigue aspect as well, without the apparent need for having to drive 1500km+ in a day



Have you ever seen a recommendation from any road safety expert that increasing speed is the answer to fatigue. Education drivers about fatigue and their limitations and changing their attitude to hours behind the wheel is the way for it to be managed. Some are already not respecting the issue of fatigue travelling at100km/h, do we really want the same behavour at 130km/h?



I personally don’t know any Australians that have done these journeys, neverlone on a regular basis, sheltered world I live in. Perhaps there is a good argument for 130km/h limits on divided 6 lane roads with well designed exit and entrance facilities, but that is not the roads were are talking about.

Splitting long journeys into manageable intervals is the way to avoid fatigue. But obviously something that doesnt fit in to the plans of the "I have to be there/ want it now society"

Higher speed limits aren't going to reduce the time people spend at the wheel. For every person that may reduce the time of the journey due to higher speed being allowed, another takes on a journey that was not possible before in the same time at the lower limit, its just human nature. The fatigue problem hasn’t been solved at all, just the consequences of fatigue made worse.

Which really says it all.

By your own admission you have never driven in most of Australia, you do not have direct contact with any people who have ever driven in most of Australia, you have no idea what conditions are like even to to availability of accommodation in regional areas yet you constantly push your agenda based on what, papers written by other people with the same experience as you, the ramblings of internet keyboard warriors who also have the same amount of experience as you and Government propaganda that changes its position every 5 minutes depending on the view of the popular media.

Maybe you should get out and see the real Australia, you may actually learn something.......

[DJM83]

Originally Posted by flappist

Which really says it all.

By your own admission you have never driven in most of Australia, you do not have direct contact with any people who have ever driven in most of Australia, you have no idea what conditions are like even to to availability of accommodation in regional areas yet you constantly push your agenda based on what, papers written by other people with the same experience as you, the ramblings of internet keyboard warriors who also have the same amount of experience as you and Government propaganda that changes its position every 5 minutes depending on the view of the popular media.

Maybe you should get out and see the real Australia, you may actually learn something.......

But then he would have nothing to crap on about, creating arguments and adding nothing to the forum.

[prydey]

Originally Posted by DJM83

But then he would have nothing to crap on about, creating arguments and adding nothing to the forum.

i think his sort are so used to dealing with sheep and pulling the wool, that when they come up against people that aren't so easily fooled, they get easily upset. we don't play by the rules and just soak up everything govco tells us is true and correct etc.

[Keepleft]

2003 ATSB report CR 216 - on 130km/h speed limits in the Aussie context:-
http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/roa...l_Speed_2.aspx
(Report doesn't take into account upcoming vehicle safety measures and equipment).

However, the analysis does indicate that the negative economic impacts of the increased speed limit on rural freeways could be overcome, and even made positive, if trucks were limited on such roads to 100 km/h. A further alternative would be a variable speed limit system, whereby the speed limit is reduced to 100 km/h for cars and light commercial vehicles under adverse road conditions (such as at night or other adverse condition approximately doubling the crash risk for about 20% of the traffic), and is fixed at 100 km/h for trucks at all times.

Adverse conditions - 100km/h is too fast for such!
CIR 216 REPORT in Pdf:-
http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/roa...al_Speed_2.pdf


Someone mentioned Germany, the 200km/h 'stopping in wet' is not part of the D (Learner) test. One must typically demonstrate 'safe driving' (observation, signals, lane discipline) @ 130km/h on autobahnen. Etc. Hamburg Driving Schools (note prices).
http://www.driving-school-hamburg.de...tartseite.html

German Theory test, in English, choose the license category required:-
http://www.fahrerlaubnis.tuev-dekra....os.php?lang=GB
You can DOWNLOAD or sit the demo online.

[jpd80]

The scariest moment I ever had was watching an oncoming semi slowly drifting across in front of me
with me having nowhere to go due to armco railing on my left. Luckily, the guy woke up looked up and pulled
the wheel back to his side, the wheel nuts nearly grazed the door handle on my side...

Gives one an appreciation for life and how speeding is not always a contributing factor to accidents..

[DRU842]

I have found these two site useful:

http://www.roadsense.com.au/facts.html

http://www.aussiemotorists.com/index...id=40&Itemid=1

[Ben73]

Originally Posted by KiwiKilda

The Facts about speed are apparent and proven regardless of
road condition the faster you go the bigger the mess.
<>
The law of science physics and averages apply to everyone regardless
of road condition and driving school

]

So you think road conditions should not affect a speed limit?

Why do you think we can do 110 on a freeway and 40 outside a school? Because out the front of a school it is reasonably likely something will end up in your path. On a freeway it is very unlikely.

On a good freeway there are very few bumps or potholes. But on an old country road there are often holes everywhere. Therefore a lower speed is needed to control the sudden movements from crap road conditions.

Road and environment conditions play a major part in the speed we can travel reasonably safe.

So your view of the faster you go the bigger the mess may be somewhat true, but it is not that simple in the real world.

[Brazen]

Originally Posted by KiwiKilda

<>
Australia 110 km/h to 100 km/h Injury crashes declined by 19%
<>
Australia 100 km/h to 110 km/h Injury crashes increased by 25%
<>

Huh? Australia does not have a single road rules body, each individual state sets the speed limit and all of Australia has 100kmh and 110 kmh zones still, some changed over a myriad of times over a myriad years, so I have no idea where this stat comes from, but seeing the source is Wikipedia its probably a load of crap.

The biggest affect of fatatities appear to economic releated, in the 90s when economic prosperity was returning to Australia, record high airline fares and record cheap petrol, more and more Australian families where hitting the road as people were employed and now had more money and vacation time to spend longer and further on the road. Some of the major arterial highways in rural areas have maintenance costs factoring about 50% less passenger traffic than 10 to 20 years ago. Even the GFC saw a big decrease in rural traffic on some major highways.

Ironically there has never been a better time to increase speed limits as in many cases, air travel has removed the timid or less expirenced driver from the road as they now take their $49 fare from Melbourne to Sydney, decreasing the amount of vehicles and leaving more locals or expirenced drivers on these roads.

With today's record high petrol prices, record low airfares, vehicles which are 4 to 7 times more likely to save your life than a car built in the last two decades and the dramatic increase in a vehicle's ability to avoid a crash. The statistics you quote mean that its very hard to determine if a speed limit change on a rural road has such an affect as there is a multiple of variables. When statistics are so easily misinterpreted you then look at anectodal evidence... people are less fatigued, concentrate more and get less frustrated the faster they travel. That saves lives.

[Sizey]

Originally Posted by ltd

Can't see it. The Road Tax Authority will simpy make 70 60km/h, and 90 80km/h, then put up cameras to watch the behaviour of those who detest having one by one our freedoms restricted.
Welcome to George Orwells 1984, Govco is here to help just ask them.

I am in SA and if there are that many changes between 70 and 90 and the RTA changes to 60 and 80 would there then not be just as many speed limit changes?

Just at ten km's slower. More $$$$$$$$$ I say. IMO make it blanket 80 for that particular road in question. We used to have similar things here in SA. All of the roads with just a 70 zone became 60 the whole way through. A 90 sign is a rarety over here and even 80 zones are getting phased out.

I say that give it 10 years, 100 will be the fastest allowable in Australia, 80 zones won't exist, main roads will begin to become 50, side streets will be 40 and All CBD's will be 40 with restricted access!

I would like to know though (For all of you in the eastern states) what the limits are on toll roads. If the road is privately owned must they still abide by government set limits or do the private companies make a fair and equitable limit? Is the government allowed to patrol these roads or is it up to the private company to hand out speeding fines? (as you can see by my questions SA doesn't have any)

[Sizey]

Originally Posted by Ben73

Why do you think we can do 110 on a freeway and 40 outside a school? Because out the front of a school it is reasonably likely something will end up in your path. On a freeway it is very unlikely.

Good post. I agree with your overall point. Point of interest though SA has 25km/h limits past schools.

[2011G6E]

This all avoids the uncomfortable medical fact that in any impact with a "solid almost immoveable object" (tree, bridge pilon, big fence post, etc) at a speed of 80kph or above, it is considered "basically unsurviveable".
You can have all the airbags in the world, all the crumple zones, all the pre-tensioner seat belts, but the simple fact is that the poor squishy human body can't withstand a decelleration like that in one big hit. The G forces are just too much.

Occasionally there's the "miracle survival story", of someone getting out of a 100km impact head on with another car or hitting a big gum tree, but they are miniscule statistical numbers. Too many people drive like that little sign that says "airbag" in the center of the wheel means they are completely and totally immune from a crash, and that if they stick to 100kph, they will be absolutely safe and will never have an accident.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by Sizey

I would like to know though (For all of you in the eastern states) what the limits are on toll roads. If the road is privately owned must they still abide by government set limits or do the private companies make a fair and equitable limit? Is the government allowed to patrol these roads or is it up to the private company to hand out speeding fines? (as you can see by my questions SA doesn't have any)

They are covered and policed under state road law.

I think the issue that keeps popping up here is some that are against increasing speed limits think those that are for it are suggesting we increase them everywhere without other changes made.

Having been around here for about 7 years now I have seen this topic a million times, often active in it myself because road safety is something I both care about and have to deal with on a daily basis as part of my job.

My belief is those that are for an increase in speed limit do not think it should just be widely applied without other factors managed. Yes there are some country roads that could not allow a limit of 130, many of them you are brave to do the 100 limit. For those that are correctly designed that could take 130, why not. Cars today, even down to the little budget buzz boxes are safely capable of that speed. Driver training, well that is not an incurable problem. Road structure, improve it, perhaps a good place to spend some of that speed camera revenue.

I feel that I am in a good position with a good experience base to have an opinion on this. Not only do I clean up the result of road trauma, I also regularly exceed the posted speed limit in vehicles that are theoretically less capable than the average sedan (legally and within reason to a prescribed level). I have also driven across Australia a number of times and have done 1500km trips more times than I can count. One thing I can say, the difference in fatigue between driving in a state that has a lot of 80-100 zones (QLD/NT border to Brisbane) is a lot more tiring than driving in a state that has mainly 110 zones (Karratha to the WA/NT border). Driving in the NT without speed limits, well that was a piece of cake compared to both of them.

By the way, yes the time saved might be negated by an extra fuel stop or two, but that time refueling is time you are not driving and hence actually reducing fatigue as well. Think of it as forced fatigue breaks.

Think of it this way, 1000 km @ 80 km/h (I have done this in a Army Unimog) = 12.5 hrs of driving not including time for breaks. As I have said, I have done it and the fatigue was over the top. The same distance at 100 km/h = 10 hrs + time for breaks, considerably better but remember the human nature is they want to get there, the longer the travel time the more they will push the legs out and the less rest breaks taken. Now do that 1000 km at 130 km/h and it now takes 7.7 hrs plus breaks, the advantage here is the lesser travel times allows for longer breaks.

So lets play with some figures on my example of the 1000 km trip, a good distance as it is approximately Melbourne to Sydney or Sydney to Brisbane. Lets for the sake of the game assume all roads are more than adequate for either a posted speed of 100 or 130 as applicable. Lets also use the recommended break every 2 hours of travel time, each break of 15 mins.

With a posted speed limit of 100 km/h, that is 10 hrs of travel time + 4 15 min rest stops, so 11 hrs of travel. Most people don't even work a 11 hr day, not something the average person is used to.

Now do the same trip with a posted limit of 130 km/h, that is 7.7 hrs of driving and 3 15 min rest breaks, totaling about 8.5 hrs. That is a pretty normal working day for most and something that is both more familiar and more manageable. Personally I think blind Freddy could see that the increased speed of travel even using the same break schedule reduces the potential for fatigue.

Now before some here say "but do we really want people that exceed the speed limit at 100 now doing that at 130"? The answer is no we don't. How is this for an idea? In the road upgrade put in speed cameras, point to point cameras and increase the number of police units that operate in the area. Also make it a legal obligation to conduct the appropriate rest stops, you have the point to point cameras to enforce it. Then double the fine and demerit points for any speed violation in a 130 zone, hit the bad people harder. That way we can all spend less time traveling, get there less tired and have safer roads in the process.

Now I am going to cut my way out of my happy fairytail bubble and come back to the reality so happily pushed by the state governments of Australia and their fan club.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

This all avoids the uncomfortable medical fact that in any impact with a "solid almost immoveable object" (tree, bridge pilon, big fence post, etc) at a speed of 80kph or above, it is considered "basically unsurviveable".
You can have all the airbags in the world, all the crumple zones, all the pre-tensioner seat belts, but the simple fact is that the poor squishy human body can't withstand a decelleration like that in one big hit. The G forces are just too much.

Occasionally there's the "miracle survival story", of someone getting out of a 100km impact head on with another car or hitting a big gum tree, but they are miniscule statistical numbers. Too many people drive like that little sign that says "airbag" in the center of the wheel means they are completely and totally immune from a crash, and that if they stick to 100kph, they will be absolutely safe and will never have an accident.

That is all good in theory but not that simple in reality. The simple fact is that head on collisions in 100+ multi lane highways with barriers are very rare, these are the type of roads that most people suggesting an increase over the present 100.

By your theory, the national max speed limit should be below 70 because that is the speed that there is reliable evidence that a head on crash with an immovable object has good survivability rates.

You also don't seem to factor fatigue into your beliefs, a national speed limit of 80 would have disastrous consequences in terms of fatigue, perhaps causing more crashes. Personally I would prefer to not be in a crash at all rather than be in a survivable one.

[2011G6E]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

That is all good in theory but not that simple in reality. The simple fact is that head on collisions in 100+ multi lane highways with barriers are very rare, these are the type of roads that most people suggesting an increase over the present 100.

By your theory, the national max speed limit should be below 70 because that is the speed that there is reliable evidence that a head on crash with an immovable object has good survivability rates.

You also don't seem to factor fatigue into your beliefs, a national speed limit of 80 would have disastrous consequences in terms of fatigue, perhaps causing more crashes. Personally I would prefer to not be in a crash at all rather than be in a survivable one.

Oh I'm completely with you...I suppose looking at it again that I looked like I was saying that speed limits should be lowered...sorry.
I was trying to point out that people get all panicky about raising speed limits by even a small margin as it is "dangerous" in crashes, when the speed they are already travelling at is lethal anyway. Some people don't like to confront the fact that 100 to 110kph is already quite sufficient to render you nicely Brown Bread if things goes tits-up, and an extra 10kph will not really make much of a difference one way or another...but it might make people concentrate a little more on thier driving...

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

Oh I'm completely with you...I suppose looking at it again that I looked like I was saying that speed limits should be lowered...sorry.
I was trying to point out that people get all panicky about raising speed limits by even a small margin as it is "dangerous" in crashes, when the speed they are already travelling at is lethal anyway. Some people don't like to confront the fact that 100 to 110kph is already quite sufficient to render you nicely Brown Bread if things goes tits-up, and an extra 10kph will not really make much of a difference one way or another...but it might make people concentrate a little more on thier driving...

Your opinion is shared by a well known motoring journalist:
Without repeating myself, here is why I disagree: http://www.fordforums.com.au/showpos...29&postcount=5,