UK motorways to be 80mph (130km/h) 2013

[GasoLane]

Oh dear, I can remember when that was first released!!

(there's not a lot I can remember from that era either)

[fangq]

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.

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.

I've driven open and Euro roads. One of the design problems with respect to higher speeds in QLD are the on ramps. There are enough dramas at the moment with dodos merging at 70ish into 100/110 km/hr zones. As for the dodos on the highway who don't know there is a merge lane on their left, that is another issue . IMO, it would take some very targeted driver education to get all drivers up to speed, before we increase speed.

Steve

[Cabbage]

Having driven the Freeway between Melbourne and Sydney a number of times over the last 15 years and with the recent roadworks making it a dual carriage way each way, this section of freeway could easily cope with a higher speed limit. I haven't driven the Sydney to Brisbane section of the Freeway as much but if it was of similar standard ideally it would be a higher speed limit as well. My experience is during the times I have driven Sydney to Melbourne, its the fatigue that is the issue not the condition of the road or speed in itself. A higher speed limit would mean less time on the road and less fatigue.

[aussie muscle]

Add to that the mythbusters experiments found test subjects making more mistakes fatigued than with a 0.07 alcohol content (california is 0.08). we all know how bad it is to drink and drive, yet driving fatigued is worse.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by fangq

I've driven open and Euro roads. One of the design problems with respect to higher speeds in QLD are the on ramps. There are enough dramas at the moment with dodos merging at 70ish into 100/110 km/hr zones. As for the dodos on the highway who don't know there is a merge lane on their left, that is another issue . IMO, it would take some very targeted driver education to get all drivers up to speed, before we increase speed.

Steve

And that is the catch 22. How can you educate drivers on 130km/h driving without a 130km/h road?

[V8XTasy]

The fact is most people already drive at 130 or faster in the UK on the freeways and highways, yet fatalities there are half what they are in Australia, where we spend most of our time doing 80-100 or less. In the UK too, many roads are older, more narrow, more bendy, there are less traffic light controlled junctions and there's 70 million people squashed into an area the size of Victoria. Yet in the UK, I could happily drive 'fast' for several hours and never feel like I was close to an accident. In Australia however, driving 'slow', I would say I have to avoid having 3-4 accidents for every 1/2 hour of driving.
Baring in mind I've always thought the standard of driving in the UK was bad, but here it is really bad and that's the reason for so many accidents at such low speed limits. Add to this is the type of cars driven here, especially by young people and you have a recipe for disaster.
Until people learn how to drive properly (and it will take generations of new, correctly trained, drivers to get to that stage), then there will be lots of accidents at any speed. So quite rightly, if you are going to crash, which you will due to the poor level of driving, then it's best to crash at a low speed. It won't reduce the accidents, but will reduce the fatalities which I think is what the authorities are getting at. Although better driving would reduce both accidents and deaths and allow for higher speeds, but that's too difficult for governments and authorities to comprehend and it costs money rather than raising money. So strict enforcement of crazy low speed limits is the go.

[Xlsedandelivery]

It's time for an increase in limits on our Hwys.
We have had 100kph limits since a time when most cars on the road had king pins, drum brakes and no seat belts and were being driven on Hwy's that resemble today's country roads. We are now driving cars that have ABS, stability control, traction control, air bags etc on fairly good multi lane divided Hwy's

[Ben73]

If they think people are too thick to choose a safe speed, then maybe they should use these signs on Freeways. I have only ever seen them In Sydney.
130 when not much is around. Then drop it down during rain and heavy traffic.

[GasoLane]

Originally Posted by Ben73

If they think people are too thick to choose a safe speed, then maybe they should use these signs on Freeways. I have only ever seen them In Sydney.
130 when not much is around. Then drop it down during rain and heavy traffic.

That looks like a Brisneyland road, but variable speed signs have been in Vic for a few years as well.

[prydey]

Originally Posted by GasOLane

That looks like a Brisneyland road, but variable speed signs have been in Vic for a few years as well.

obviously old technology as we even have a couple in adelaide

having recently spent some time in brissie, and travelled up and down the pacific/logan/gateway motorways, i don't think the road condition matters too much when speed limits are being decided. its the people that use the roads they have to consider.

speed limit is 110 or 100 on the motorways and you get people doing anything from 70 to 120+. i'm a massive user of cruise control but found it virtually impossible up there for the most part.

if speeds get upped to 130, there will always be those that push the boundaries and make it 140 or more. the slow people will still be slow, so the disparity in speed will be huge. thats a big safety issue right there.

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by GasOLane

That looks like a Brisneyland road, but variable speed signs have been in Vic for a few years as well.

Have you been on the Monash freeway? They completely resurfaced and repainted a good 5km stretch of it, its 4 lanes either direction and then they reduced the speed limit from 100km/h to 80, .

[XR6TCraig]

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

Freddy, Freddy, Freddy! You're workng on the premise that speed is the main cause of accidents on our highways. You have been brainwashed if that is the case!

[XR6TCraig]

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. 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.

While you put up a compelling arguement regarding reaction times at the higher speed vs lower speed, you have failed to mention one pretty important thing.

Your reaction time at 100 vs 130kph is the same if you are fatigued and in the middle of a micro sleep!

I personally would love to see the Bruce improved like many of the Hwys further south with bypasses around all of the towns and cities and then the limits raised to make the whole state more accessible. I dont want these improvements because I am an ethusiast, but because I live in a relatively isolated area and a speed limit increase would mean that I could get more access to the rest of the state much quicker and easier.

As an example I do the Mackay/ Sunny Coast run 4 times a year with my wife and 2 kids ( both under 3), with a trailer in tow carrying my track bike. It is a painful, tiring journey with the road in its current state and speed limits. Actually its that painful that I often throw the wife and kids on the plane and drive on my own. Its usually about 12 hours with stops with the kids. Thats far too long to sit in a car with two kids under 3.

Even on my own I would prefer to drive for 9 hours max, because after that I and up quite fatigued. It takes me about 10.5 on my own now. It would be less than 8 with a bypasses around all of the towns and a 130 limit all the way.

[XRDeeze]

eventually it'd get boring driving at 130km/hr

[Bam]

Originally Posted by turbodewd

Without a doubt the roads between Melbourne-Canberra-Sydney are very good in parts and would easily support 120kmh. I mean cars are far far safer than 30 years ago when the speed limits were the same.

Wind the clock back another 10 years (40 years ago) and we had no speed limits on country roads. We were happily driving around in XA Falcons back then with no ABS, no airbags, poorer tyres and poorer suspension. 140 km/h was a good touring speed, ie. a good balance between trip times and fuel consumption. It was just under the speed when the secondaries stayed open in a Falcon V8 carby.

Aussies are a weak bunch of bast ards that allowed the nanny state lobbyists to gradually wrap us in cotton wool over the years. We basically don't understand that a certain percentage of motorist are going to die, and that's life. No ANZAC guts left here. Just weakness.

Fortunately, there are still no speed limits in the air (except supersonic over populated areas) or at sea.

[wrongwaynorris]

[QUOTE=SSVPom][/B]

Incorrect matey - as I and many other forum member here can testify with first hand experience, Australian drivers are not the most courteous and considerate, and in fact are probably some of the worst in the developed world. This is really only due to poor training, poor under developed arterial road networks, some key missing road rules on freeways (keeping left unless overtaking) and the fear of getting caught in a speedtrap at any given moment !

Add in to the mix the higher proportion of older cars on the roads without current safety features, and the fact a 17 yr old can jump legally behind the wheel of a 200bhp RWD sedan and do burnouts and drifts (commonly into trees with 5 mates in the car) and you have the current situation here right now - Chaos !

[/QU

Here here , Australians are easily the worst drivers in the world mainly due to attitude . Australians tend to think ( and governments back them up by handing out licences to people who patently have zero ability behind the wheel ) that driving is a god given right not a privelege to be earnt . Increasing the speed limits from 110 to 130 will have ZERO effect as these morons are equally inept at 5 kph . And good luck to anyone getting Australians to use anything but the fast lane , 90% of my overtaking on freeways is done on the left as these ********* simply refuse point blank to A - move over , B - speed up to the speed limit , C - not sit level pegging with someone in the middle lane for kilometre after kilometre after kilometre doing variously between 10 and 30 kilometres per hour under the speed limit .

[wrongwaynorris]

Originally Posted by Craiginmackay

Freddy, Freddy, Freddy! You're workng on the premise that speed is the main cause of accidents on our highways. You have been brainwashed if that is the case!

So true . Have had this argument so many times . If speed killed then Germany would have an annual road toll in the hundreds of thousands if not millions . I feel 1,000,000 % safer driving on a German Autobahn at 210 KPH than here at 110 on a freeway because those around you over there can actually drive and dont have the horrendous attitude problems Australians have .

[MWTB]

Honestly, with the number of ridiculously limited roads, I don't see this happening any time soon, if ever. As much as I would love it, it just doesn't seem plausible to me.

As mentioned before, the NT unlimited highways underwent a rise of fatalities after the limit was restricted due to fatigue because drivers were driving for longer and suffering more driver fatigue, leading to accidents. I'm awful at math so this is the part where I would give you the time saved traveling a journey over a large distance by traveling at 130km/k as opposed to 100km/h.

That said, there are some pretty crazy roads currently at 100km/h that really should not be, as highlighted in earlier posts. There is a road some eastern Melbourne residing members may be familiar with that I believe has a speed limit of 80km/h called Old Emerald road in Emerald. This road looks like one of those roads you'd see on that Most Dangerous Highways show. Its 1.5 cars wide, surfaced with gravel and pot holes and has a cliff face on one side and a massive drop on the other. Then we see roads like Warrandyte road going from Ringwood to Warrandyte, nice and wide and long with long easy curves with a limit of 60km/h.

At this point it really does seem like speed limits are just given a random number that someone decides upon due to location. Old Emerald road, massively treacherous and almost undriveable, yet remote and in the middle of nowhere so its 80 km/h, yet perfectly paved and safe Warrandyte road is 60 because its in Ringwood/Warrandyte and in a suburb where children might be, regardless of the semi-remote location of this particular road.

Putting low limits on roads that really should be higher, in my opinion, would cause more accidents than it saves due to people naturally feeling safe and slowly creeping up speed without meaning to, then checking their speedo and realising they're speeding. I know I often spend more time looking at the speedo in areas like this out of fear of getting a speeding fine.

In a day where cars come standard with ABS, disc brakes, air bags and all the other features the government wants us to have, I think it's ridiculous to have speed limits identical to, or LOWER than those 30 or 40 years ago where cars had drum brakes, no traction control/abs/etc, and wearing seatbelts was not a requirement.

Not to mention the condition of roads like Eastlink/the eastern freeway are impeccable and 100km/h feels incredibly slow. The Hume is another road that I believe could easily be 130km/h or more, apart from through towns obviously. I myself have traveled this speed and higher when coming back from playing gigs interstate and just wanting to get home (and before anyone chastises me for admitting to speeding; shut up, you cannot honestly say you have never exceeded the limit before so I don't want to hear it).

tl;dr I'd love a 130km/h limit on major highways, but I do feel that things are going to get worse a long time before those in power consider making them better.

[wrongwaynorris]

Every Australian should have their licenses revoked over the next ten years and be forced to actually pass a real driving test . At the end of it it would be an absolute miracle if 30% of people who currently hold a license would still have one . The other 70 % would be welcome to learn to drive and more aptly LOSE their attitude and try again .

[prydey]

Originally Posted by wrongwaynorris

Every Australian should have their licenses revoked over the next ten years and be forced to actually pass a real driving test . At the end of it it would be an absolute miracle if 30% of people who currently hold a license would still have one . The other 70 % would be welcome to learn to drive and more aptly LOSE their attitude and try again .

what sort of test did you undertake to get your licence?

[kyro_02]

Wonder when we'll see 130km/h limits.. would be good to do something legally by the books sometime in the future..

once the ringroad in vic is finished, if speeds are still 100km/h max, i'll go nuts

princess fwy is safe for 140km/h for most imo.. actually i could sit on 200+ all the way up from laverton to geelong

again, i must be dreaming, they'll never make me do it legally.. :(

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by flappist

And that is the catch 22. How can you educate drivers on 130km/h driving without a 130km/h road?

Remember all those years ago, the head spin and hullabaloo in Queensland when
Main Roads / QDOT decided to trial 110 kph between Caboolture and the Caloundra turn off (?)
Jeez, anyone would thought the apocalypse was about to fall the way people were
predicting mass carnage on that road.....golly gee, the world didn't end and apart from
road accidents expected with 100 kph, nothing was really untoward.

people's comfort zones or mind sets with entrenched ideas.......gotta love them..

[WPR1]

130 kph makes sense and will probably lower our road toll because people will be more alert. Bring it on!

[aussie muscle]

Originally Posted by Ben73

If they think people are too thick to choose a safe speed

Sadly, i think you are right

[chamb0]

Originally Posted by Bam

Wind the clock back another 10 years (40 years ago) and we had no speed limits on country roads. We were happily driving around in XA Falcons back then with no ABS, no airbags, poorer tyres and poorer suspension [...] Aussies are a weak bunch of bast ards that allowed the nanny state lobbyists to gradually wrap us in cotton wool over the years. We basically don't understand that a certain percentage of motorist are going to die, and that's life. No ANZAC guts left here. Just weakness.

Ah yes, invoke the ANZACs to make whatever point you like. Try hard enough and you can make the reference fit anything eh... Those glorious, good old days 40 years ago when just sitting behind the wheel of a non-ABS car was an act of Digger courage and fortitude which earned you the Military Cross and battle honours. The soft,weak ABS-driving airbag-equipped people these days who grieve for family, friends and children who have died on the roads just need to man up, get some ANZAC guts about them and stop being so un-Australian... Seriously though, whatever your thoughts on speed limits and car safety, what has our military heritage got to do with it?

As it happens I'm compiling a collection of ridiculous, irrelevant, self-serving and vacuous references to ANZACs that I've come across. It's one of my pet hates as it cheapens our history. Congratulations, you made the cut.

[XRDeeze]

^ LOL. Good reply Sir.

[Uncle_Ken]

Re: UK motorways to be 80mph (130km/h) 2013

Will no one asked me. I would make it FORD drivers can do any speed they like

UK

*.N.B.* Note my sign off (UK)

[prydey]

Originally Posted by Uncle_Ken

I would make it FORD drivers can do any speed they like

many of them do already

[Keepleft]

Originally Posted by kypez

On topic on the road surfaces, after driving the whole drive (6229 kms all up), when I got back onto the Hume at Wagga, it was amazing how much smoother the road was compared to the 130kms/hr limited Stuart Hwy! I felt like I was floating on air!

NT CLP who will reintroduce speed derestriction (//) to replace some 130km/h zones, have been complaining about the lack of maintenance on those highways since derestriction was removed 1 Jan 2007. At a time of economic concern domestically (taxable income in AUS 12 billion less than a year or three ago I read somewhere) and worldwide, they will have a lousy time obtaining funds.

I think we could have 130 limit on the Hume and other such roads when away from the built up areas. For example, in Sydney, when you get past Campbelltown maybe we could have a 130 zone till 10 kms out of major towns or cities where it traffic can be expected to increase and thus reduce to a "safer" 110?!

The NSW 'Hume' comprises duplicated lengths and full freeway class roads. The duplicated and some newer pavement sections are not to freeway class in that they have 'intersections', as opposed to newer freeway lengths that have the desired grade separation 'interchanges'.

Can't, or shouldn't raise the limit till we install GATELOCK at the U-Turn bays (we are doing this on the F3, and the project will take another 3-4 years), and install additional median barrier to restrict cross-over crash potential.

I expect we'll see 120 zones for non freeway though dual carriageway status roads, and hopefully 130km/h on full feeway lengths.

Roads mob would not be in favour of a 130km/h limit runing say 14 kilometres before having to drop to 120km/h for the lesser specification run, I'd expect therefore, for the Hume, for a decade or two - you'd get a 120km/h limit until intersections are removed, median barrier issues addressed, gatelock at the U-Turn bays installed.

Mittagong three-lane section will need to be 'fixed' as the left emergency shoulder is NOT to national standard for a length, its 1.6m wide and should be 2.5 to 3.0 metres. A fatal of note happened, see here:-
http://www.sarahgroup.org/the-crash/
(See 'Media Coverage' tab for some video links).

Whilst the family don't seem to be into litigation, I'd argue they could proceed to action on the basis of state negligence; proportional blame outcome.

I recall some 29 fatals where a car has stopped on a freeway emergency stopping lane in the last ten years only to be collected; BTRE circa 1996 put the cost to society of one road death at some 2 million dollars.

This is the young lady that died in the crash, a tribute from her family and friends, and of the passing of the towie who tried to assist:-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJHetxEj3Ko

[Keepleft]

I guess in final preparation for 80mph, an upgrade to UK penalties:-

Motorists caught middle-lane hogging, tailgating or using the wrong lane on a round-about could soon be handed a £90 spot fine and three penalty points.

Middle-lane hogging is in relation to three-laned motorway stretches. Might do that here:-) See full story.....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz1xr19bWmu