Why 130km/h makes sense for the Hume Highway

[svo supporter]

Originally Posted by castellan

OK classing competent is just that by proving your self capable.

Shocks that are not bugged or below a standard of being a joke.

Tyres yes some so called cheap are not that bad, but i had in mind the old 14 -5 inch wheels 195 etc type i bought this for the wife's car as we are getting a new car and i thought why get good ones as most people would not care less. boy it's a shocker to drive now bloody dangerous, criminal in fact i would say. before i had confidence in it's ability.

I think you are just being silly with the insurance quote and just trying to play games with nonsense.

Where have I mentioned anything about my driving abilities and me being a suitable canditate being able to drive at this speed limit, should it be introduced???

One Gov't deparments idea of a competant driver differs from the next. So there is no chance in hell of having this as part of a competance based area.

I have a car here, which were fitted with 6 inch rims, from the factory and 195/75X14 (Classics) tyres fitted. I found it rather unnerving driving the car at 100KPH on the open road, with this size fitted. I then put on some el-cheapo 215/65X14 Simex and the car was transformed. It felt alot more stable on the open road at 100 KPH.

So again, tyre pricing has no bearing on quality, nor as a basis towards speed limits.

As for playing nonsense games. No. Just pointing out how your ideas are full of holes and no way could it be used as a base. There are way to many variables. And that's without trying to figure out how Gov't depts work.

[BlueFG2]

Don't you guys listen to the government? anyone who goes over 105kmph (wipe off 5 fellas) is a danger to society and needs to be taught a lesson.

[sk8xr8]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

I thought as soon as you go over 110 you instantly die?

You do, and it also spontaneously kills dozens of baby seal and makes baby jesus cry...

[burnz]

Originally Posted by castellan

I think it's more like we can not increase the speed limits to 130 because of and it's not a theory it's a fact.
I am all for 130km/h but there is a lot of no hoppers out their, have you driven in the smart state QLD. we don't have yearly roadworthy and the amount of s box cars on the roads is a joke.

NSW does have thats the difference..

[GreenR]

Originally Posted by Big Trev

The bit from Benalla to Seymour has sections that shouldn't be above 110km/h, around Euroa and Violet Town

Actually yeah your probably right.

Well from Melbourne up until around just after Broadford I think can be raised. There are a few sections from there, past Seymour onto Benalla that should maybe stay at the same limit (quite a few hills and lots of trees on the side of the road). But after Benalla it's all open road continuing past Wangaratta all the way to Albury/Wodonga and that section could definitely be raised.

[outback_ute]

ILLaViTaR that is a great comparison between the Calder & Princes Freeways, going through the section near Yallourn/Moe is nearly interesting at the speed limit thanks to a few bends etc. Likewise plarazza I agree with you & Trev on that section of Hume.

Keepleft, I hear you re the 2-lane road thing, but there is a lot more traffic volume now. Mind you even with 3 lanes we would need to have decent lane discipline...

I have to say I don't think that u-turn bay treatment would stop some of the idiots from having a go. Would I have seen any of these on the Hume earlier this year? I would say run the wire rope barriers a bit further and have a chain between two posts, padlocked each end with a common key carried by emergency service crews. Yes it would take time to drop the chain when needed but surely not enough to significantly increase response times.

Brazen I would agree that cars, tyres and roads have come a long way, but with a lot of drivers being taught how to pass the test rather than have a proper range of driving skills I'm not so sure that licencing has kept pace. The example I give is compare getting a forklift licence to a car - one you write some notes in a practice log, answer some easy questions & bumble around a course you have probably practiced many times (most instructors know the normal test routes) and are let loose on the road where literally anything can happen, the other you need to do a day or two course, just to drive in a fairly controlled environment.

[GreenR]

Originally Posted by outback_ute

I have to say I don't think that u-turn bay treatment would stop some of the idiots from having a go. Would I have seen any of these on the Hume earlier this year? I would say run the wire rope barriers a bit further and have a chain between two posts, padlocked each end with a common key carried by emergency service crews.

I'm lost as to why a few of us have a problem with the U turns? I used to work at a Maccas on the highway and used the emergency u turn to come back around to go to my Maccas. Then they put that illegal sign up and starting booking people. From then on I had to travel another 10 minutes to the next turn off only to have to come back again.

There was clear line of sight at the U turn for incoming traffic and there was never an accident. I think making those U turns only for emergency was annoying and unnecessary. The cops sat there booking everyone and making some profit for themselves as they knew all the people who needed to go to work at Maccas used it. And then they would come in and order food!

[Trevor 57]

Just throwing this is for discussion.

As many know I have been a post licence driver trainer since 1987 and I am firmly of the belief based on my experience that most drivers are currently driving above thier level.

With so much going on both inside the car and outside the car most drivers cannot maintain the concentration to be able to maintain high levels of concentration required to do higher speed levels

We as humans can only so much, we obviously believe we can do more, but in reality we are very limited.

This is not the case for all people, but certainly the higher percentage, you only have to sit on a road an watch their behaviour to work this out. That is whay some race car drivers are succesful and some aren't, most aren't able to operate at such a high level.

If people were all good drivers then we wouldn't have crashes, injuries and fatalities.

Please remember for someone to be involved in a car crash they have broken some law, whether it be a man made law or a natural law (centrifugal force, Newtons Laws, etc)

If cars were safer, if the majority of drivers were able operate at higher levels and of course if the roads and road infrastructure were good enough then why not increase the limit, but it is all about risk managment, and I reckon they have it about right right now, although for the majority of road users it would be too much to ask of them, they think they are OK, but in fact they are a walking disaster.

This is why my opinions and 'keepleft's' will always be opposed.

[prydey]

Originally Posted by Big Trev

This is why my opinions and 'keepleft's' will always be opposed.

not at all.

i also find the argument that higher limits will help combat fatigue a flawed argument.

and with technology advancing and touchscreens and the like becoming more common in cars, it could have a negative impact on the drivers concentration level. it could create a headache for the lawmakers. mobile devices are illegal but fiddling with your touchscreen settings isn't. its not quite the same as buttons as you can generally 'feel' your way around without taking eyes off the road.

if people want to campaign, maybe just campaign to keep the existing limits in place.

[Jim Goose]

Originally Posted by prydey

not at all.

i also find the argument that higher limits will help combat fatigue a flawed argument.

and with technology advancing and touchscreens and the like becoming more common in cars, it could have a negative impact on the drivers concentration level. it could create a headache for the lawmakers. mobile devices are illegal but fiddling with your touchscreen settings isn't. its not quite the same as buttons as you can generally 'feel' your way around without taking eyes off the road.

if people want to campaign, maybe just campaign to keep the existing limits in place.

I would agree that its a flawed arguement, most drivers who drive tired now, will just keep driving tired at the higher speed limit in order to "get there" no matter what the cost.

The other issue really is the poor driver attitude and lack of driving skills we see on a continual basis.

I agree some freeways can be made higher then 100/110 (as long as the road meets certain requirements), but i dunno what can be done about the drivers on them.

My short drive to work (8km) takes me from a 50kmh suburban street right to an 80kmh dual lane road. That short trip I will see/ or be subjected to, tailgating, failure to stop at stop signs, failure to stop at a red light, speeding(well in excess of speed limit), talking on mobiles (and texting), being cut off....

Maybe it should be mandatory that drivers do defensive driving course and a freeway component in order to get a higher speed limit put on your licence?

[Trevor 57]

I have spoken to a Senior Policeman with in Victoria Police and he told me that if they (the Police) can prove that drivers were 'distracted' regardless of what they are doing then they (the Police) would take action.

Studies from the USA have proven that talking handsfree is just as dangerous as having the phone to your ear for example.

The majority of people/drivers really struggle to function where high levels of concentration are required, hence rear enders in traffic, etc, etc, etc.

[Trevor 57]

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

Maybe it should be mandatory that drivers do defensive driving course and a freeway component in order to get a higher speed limit put on your licence?

As I have stated above I have worked as a "defensive" driver trainer, and as I have stated many times in this forum, you can take a horse to water, but you can't force them to drink.

People know what is right and wrong and they know the reasons for the right and wrong, but we are born risk takers and we will continue to take risks.

There is no doubt that good quality post-licence training (non race track type) has fantastic benefits, but only if people want to change.

It is has been proven by many multi-national companies that 'race-track' style 'defensive driving' programs actually increase many peoples risk taking behaviour.

The best driver training occurs in real traffic conditions in the persons normal car.

Interestingly Worksafe Victoria are now focussing on company car drivers for 'training'. Guide to safe work related driving

[prydey]

Originally Posted by Big Trev

It is has been proven by many multi-national companies that 'race-track' style 'defensive driving' programs actually increase many peoples risk taking behaviour.

agree again, but as this is mainly an enthusiast based forum, these suggestions aren't very popular.

i've never been too concerned about being popular

[flappist]

Originally Posted by prydey

not at all.

i also find the argument that higher limits will help combat fatigue a flawed argument.

and with technology advancing and touchscreens and the like becoming more common in cars, it could have a negative impact on the drivers concentration level. it could create a headache for the lawmakers. mobile devices are illegal but fiddling with your touchscreen settings isn't. its not quite the same as buttons as you can generally 'feel' your way around without taking eyes off the road.

if people want to campaign, maybe just campaign to keep the existing limits in place.

So in a scenario where you wish to travel from point A to point B, 400km apart with freeway all the way.

Limit 100, 4hrs.
Limit 130, 3hrs 7min
Open, 2-3hrs

You are saying that your are less fatigued driving 4 hours at a speed you do not wish to than 2-3 hrs at a speed that feels more natural to you?

If you reply please include examples of your personal experience travelling long distances at various speeds on open roads in Australia, not track work or "government statistics".

All human beings do tend to do everything at a rate that is most comfortable to them at the time.
When you are walking, if you are forced to go slower or faster than you would like you tend to get stressed and fatigued more quickly.
The same is true with driving. Sometimes you drive slow, other times faster depending on a million different outside and internal influences.

The problem with the (100), (110) and even (130) is that we have a whole generation of institutionalised "sheep" who do not understand that it is a maximum limit not "the speed you must do" and there is quite a bit of road rage when someone "blocks the road" by going slower on a section of road with double lines thereby extending your "uncomfortable drive".

What I have found in (//) zones and western QLD (which is still relatively open despite the signs) is that the stress, tailgating and kamikaze overtaking seldom happens as you can't pass until you can pass and when you do you are off again as fast as you like so there is no hurry.

The adage "More speed, less haste" has been around for a long time.....it has merit.

[Jim Goose]

Originally Posted by Big Trev

As I have stated above I have worked as a "defensive" driver trainer, and as I have stated many times in this forum, you can take a horse to water, but you can't force them to drink.

People know what is right and wrong and they know the reasons for the right and wrong, but we are born risk takers and we will continue to take risks.

There is no doubt that good quality post-licence training (non race track type) has fantastic benefits, but only if people want to change.

It is has been proven by many multi-national companies that 'race-track' style 'defensive driving' programs actually increase many peoples risk taking behaviour.

The best driver training occurs in real traffic conditions in the persons normal car.

well you are correct there, like I said peoples attitude needs to change, but i cant see that happening anytime soon.
As an example a few years ago i bumped into an old school "aqquaintance" (hadnt seen him since 1989). He had missing teeth and slurred speach.
He told me he had been involved in a serious car accident a few years ago and was in a coma, nearly died etc....
Now he was working as a delivery driver for a part shop and i would occasionally see him driving around and noticed that his driving was aggressive, tail gated people, talked on mobile and sped everywhere. (Each time i saw him his driving was truely woeful).
Seemingly a near death experience in a motor vehicle accident didnt make him a cautious driver.

Those of us who want to better ourselves will no doubt do well in a defensive driver course and have some fun in the process, those that dont want to be better drivers simply wont care.

[FreddyDUZ747]

Simple,allow more time in journey for rest breaks so you fellas that have to do 110kmh/r and suffer fatigue still get their on time.

Life is one big race for some reason these days.what happens if it went to 130 and you then aqquired fattigue at these speeds,150kmh/r anyone?

[FreddyDUZ747]

The four hour journey with an added thirty minute rest break will see me more refreshed than driving three hours and ten minutes straight.Just got to manage your time accordingly.

[prydey]

Originally Posted by flappist

So in a scenario where you wish to travel from point A to point B, 400km apart with freeway all the way.

Limit 100, 4hrs.
Limit 130, 3hrs 7min
Open, 2-3hrs

You are saying that your are less fatigued driving 4 hours at a speed you do not wish to than 2-3 hrs at a speed that feels more natural to you?

If you reply please include examples of your personal experience travelling long distances at various speeds on open roads in Australia, not track work or "government statistics".

you always create 'specific' scenarios to suit the arguments you try to make.

there are certain parts of the country that are separated by long distances with very little in between, but when these discussions arise, people aren't referring to these highways and you know that as well as i do.

i travel adelaide - brisbane and back at least once every year with the family. fatigue is something that you manage regardless of travel speed. to claim that higher speeds will help is misleading. if you are travelling all day, instead of stopping earlier because you are further up the road at a given time, most are likely to just keep driving the same amount of time and just cover more distance. fatigue is mainly time related, not distance related.

like i said, personally i find it a flawed argument. there may be scenarios out there that will give it some merit, but overall, i don't buy it.

[Trevor 57]

I have said before, it will take an exceptional driver to maintain the concentration and to fight off fatigue that is required at extended high levels of speed. Most drivers just mentally and physically aren't able to do it.

It has been proven that extended periods of high level concentration produces high levels of fatigue and this applies to office workers as well as drivers.

People will always loose concentration after extended periods, it is only natural, we need to give our high level of concentration a break.

BTW, I have also worked as a truck driver, driving semi's and B-Doubles for extended periods and I own a race car so I know all about those driving tasks as well.

I might get Gas-o-Lane and Full Noise to comment on their observations of their interactions with car drivers on our National highways

EDIT: Posted at the same time as prydey and it seems we agree.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by prydey

you always create 'specific' scenarios to suit the arguments you try to make.

there are certain parts of the country that are separated by long distances with very little in between, but when these discussions arise, people aren't referring to these highways and you know that as well as i do.

i travel adelaide - brisbane and back at least once every year with the family. fatigue is something that you manage regardless of travel speed. to claim that higher speeds will help is misleading. if you are travelling all day, instead of stopping earlier because you are further up the road at a given time, most are likely to just keep driving the same amount of time and just cover more distance. fatigue is mainly time related, not distance related.

like i said, personally i find it a flawed argument. there may be scenarios out there that will give it some merit, but overall, i don't buy it.

So what you are saying is that trying to make one rule fit all situations is a mistake?

If so then I agree.

You have, however, contradicted yourself when you say that fatigue is time related not distance and then imply the higher speeds will not help.

The usual scenarion is not to drive until you fall asleep regardless of distance, it is to travel between two fixed points.

Adelaide to Brisbane once a year is not a common scenario. On this trip are there sections that could be faster? Have you ever driven similar distances at higher speeds?

The biggest problem is that almost everyone sees their own situation and does not consider others. Those who live is a city and do not drive much or spend time in heavy traffic near school zones are not conscious of 300-400km each way trips done several times a month or even a week in regional areas where you may see 20 other vehicles.

One simple point I have yet to hear the "anti higher limit" brigade debunk is:
Why are speed limits being raised all over most of the developed world except here?

[prydey]

Originally Posted by flappist

So what you are saying is that trying to make one rule fit all situations is a mistake?

If so then I agree.

You have, however, contradicted yourself when you say that fatigue is time related not distance and then imply the higher speeds will not help.

The usual scenarion is not to drive until you fall asleep regardless of distance, it is to travel between two fixed points.

i am guilty of looking at things based on my personal experience, correct. do you have proof that higher speeds reduce fatigue? higher speeds could cause fatigue to set in sooner due to higher levels of concentration.

Originally Posted by flappist

Adelaide to Brisbane once a year is not a common scenario. On this trip are there sections that could be faster?

the road for the most part is a bit of a joke as far as national highways go. 100/110 is ample.

Originally Posted by flappist

One simple point I have yet to hear the "anti higher limit" brigade debunk is:
Why are speed limits being raised all over most of the developed world except here?

i think keepleft has put forward quite a few reasons why. many of them have to do with the way roads are designed etc. lane widths, access points, breaks in medians etc.

many euro countries have much stricter laws on cars as well. roadworthy laws in australia are a joke.

you have said yourself though, that people tend to be sheep. if you put a 130 speed sign on the side of the road, a large percentage of people will just do that speed.

Originally Posted by flappist

Those who live is a city and do not drive much or spend time in heavy traffic near school zones are not conscious of 300-400km each way trips done several times a month or even a week in regional areas where you may see 20 other vehicles.

most people that put forward the 'higher speed limit' argument are city dwellers though.

[Brazen]

130 kmh is not even that fast.

I was driven faster than that in Vietnam in a clapped out Isuzu Rodeo thing.

[Trevor 57]

Originally Posted by flappist

One simple point I have yet to hear the "anti higher limit" brigade debunk is:
Why are speed limits being raised all over most of the developed world except here?

I will happily de-bunk it

The rest of the developed world has a number of things:
* a higher death rate than ours (in some cases)
* a higher standard of driver licencing
* driver attitudes are generally higher than Australians
* a generally higher standard of vehicle standards
* less greater distances


Australia is unique, so comparing it to the world is a waste of time

[Trevor 57]

oh, and the policy of Australian roads authorities is generally to not 'force' driver training, they see it as anti-competitive

[Brazen]

I will happily debunk the debunker

Originally Posted by Big Trev

I will happily de-bunk it

The rest of the world has a number of things:
* a higher death rate than ours Na, ours is quite high with km travelled
* a higher standard of driver licencing A common misconception, Australia is much higher than say places like Japan, Canada, New Zealand etc
* driver attitudes are generally higher than Australians A huge misconception, Ive heard of Germans bitching about righ-hand lane hogs and people who dont use their indicators in Germany
* a generally higher standard of vehicle standards Our fleet is much better than you get elsewhere in the world who either drive 3 cylinder Fiat hatchbacks or clapped out Skodas
* less greater distances We have a bigger issue with fatigue

Australia is unique, so comparing it to the world is a waste of time

Our roads are pretty good too as we dont have the snow/ice thaw problems as well drivers dont use studded tyres and snow chains on our freeways

[Trevor 57]

Our fleet consists of mostly imported models

We agree on the fatigue issue

Licencing standards are much higher through Europe which is where the pro-fast people like to quote.

There is less opportunity to do consistent higher speeds in NZ, Japan and Canada.

I have been to NZ many many times, their licencing system is shyte.

Bitching does not 'prove' bad attidue, bad attitude is generally reflected in statistics.

[prydey]

i think you could probably put forward a case for bringing back // or higher limits for parts of north queensland, northern territory and a fair part of western australia. many of these roads have long distances between towns and very low volume of traffic.

places like the hume, where traffic volume is huge.. i can't see it ever happening. as mentioned many times on here, its not that the road couldn't handle it, its the vehicles and the drivers.

[Trevor 57]

Originally Posted by prydey

its not that the road couldn't handle it, its the vehicles and the drivers.

I agree with all of that except the vehicles part, generally most cars are in pretty good condition.

Interestingly and slightly off topic, Victroria does not have mandatory annual road-worthies - why? Victorian statistic prove that less that 1% of all fatal and near fatal accidents involve an unroadworthy vehicle

Sure there are unroadworthy vehicles on the road, but they are hardly represented in fatal and near fatal accident data.

Statistics do not support the introduction of mandatory roadworthies, don't worry the likes of VACC and RACV are pushing for them, and they are taking the "road safety" line, but we all know it is just a way of increasing income for their members businesses.

Fortunately succesive Victoria Governments have seen logic over emotion on this subject.

[Jim Goose]

Just to keep on the theme of... time vs speed...

6hrs of flying at 100knots in a little cessna is just a tiresome as flying 6hrs at 260knots in a Kingair..... Fatigue mostly consists staying awake too long doing the same boring repetitive thing (ie: driving in a straight line/ flying in a straight line).

The arguement that "you get there sooner" thereby your less tired is rubbish.

An example is a trip of 1200km, which normally would take (allowing for traffic, pit stops etc) 13/14hrs at 100kmh. Now normally most normal sane people would say stuff it and pull over somewhere for the night as 13hrs is too much. Now say the speed limit is 130kmh.... makes the trip 10hrs.
Some people may get the feeling they could "push on a little more" and do 10hrs... but in reality they are extremely over tired come the end of 8hrs.

The big "look at me im a hero i just drove non-stop 10hrs" is quite common and frequently these people will say they stayed awake with nodose, plenty of coke (drink)/ red bull or some other rubbish stimulant.

I would bet that most of the drivers who speed now, will simply keep speeding if a higher limit was in place, thinking that an extra 20kmh or so "will get me there quicker" as most drivers seem to be in a hurry to go nowhere....

But as i said, on certain freeways meeting certain conditions in order to keep traffic flowing well 130kmh limits is probably a good thing.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

Just to keep on the theme of... time vs speed...

6hrs of flying at 100knots in a little cessna is just a tiresome as flying 6hrs at 260knots in a Kingair..... Fatigue mostly consists staying awake too long doing the same boring repetitive thing (ie: driving in a straight line/ flying in a straight line).

The arguement that "you get there sooner" thereby your less tired is rubbish.

Apart from there not being any 100kt Cessnas that will fly for 6 hours.....

600Nm @ 100kt = 6hrs.
600Nm @ 260kt = 2.3hrs.

This is why duty is worked on hours and not distance.

If you have actually been trained as a commercial pilot as you have inferred on several occasions you have been trained in fatigue management and duty so therefore know how it all works.

Strange that you disagree with the methodology used both by the RAAF and CASA.

If you are not sure where to check this you can jump out of your truck and ask one of the guys with the wings on their shirts......