130km/h limit

[durtyharry]

Originally Posted by GT Falcon

NTSB for one have data showing reduced road toll, when speed limits on the highways were increased from 55mph to 70mph.

So you want to follow the lead by the NTSB?, why not read their report on fatigue: http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/1999/SR9901.pdf

Did you see one solitary reference that listed that going faster was a solution to the problem?

Here’s part of what they did say:
Establish within 2 years scientifically based hours-of-service regulations
that set limits on hours of service, provide predictable work and rest
schedules, and consider circadian rhythms and human sleep and rest
requirements. At a minimum, and as recommended by the National
Transportation Safety Board in 1995, the revised regulations should also
(a) require sufficient rest provisions to enable drivers to obtain at least 8
continuous hours of sleep after driving for 10 hours or being on duty for 15
hours, and (b) eliminate 49 CFR 395.1 paragraph (h), which allows drivers
with sleeper berth equipment to cumulate the 8 hours of off-duty time in
two separate periods. (H-99-19) (Supersedes H-95-1 and H-95-2)

Where in the states have speed limits gone from 55mph to 70mph, Im fairly sure all limits went from 55mph back to 65mph after the ‘oil crisis’.

And then there is this: http://www.iihs.org/externaldata/srdata/docs/sr2409.pdf
It says the opposite!

One also has to remember that just because a speed limit has changed, doesnt mean that the speed people travel at on the road has changed. Many weak regimes, just raise the speed limit to legalise what people are already doing. If the majority were already doing the newer higher limit, then raising the limit may in fact reduce overall accident rates by bringing the speed differential down due to the minority of law abiding citizens being now closer to the average speed.

Originally Posted by GT Falcon

I'm not going to bother digging up the stats for you, not worth my effort

which adds great weight to your claims.

Originally Posted by GT Falcon

It's proven your attention level and alertness is hightened when you travel at a faster speed. You have evidence to the contrary - good for you.

http://www.psychology.nottingham.ac..../Beilinson.pdf



The effects of higher speeds can not be compensated. The magnitude of speed does not affect reaction time to a considerable extent. A study (Törnros 1995) found no significant difference in drivers' reactiontimes while driving at speed 70, 90 or 110 km/h. Increase in alertness may apply for a short time but not for a longer time.
Id of thought this was well known? Its not going to matter whether you are doing 100km/h or 140km/h the mind will fatigue at the same rate.

There is no motoring authority anywhere that says that increasing speed limits is a solution to driver fatigue(no, opinions expressed in internet motoring forums/groups dont count!)

Originally Posted by GT Falcon

I comfortably travel 1000-1300km in a 12 hour stint travelling in outback WA.

12 hours driving in one day, and what motoring body will tell you that isnt putting yourself in a fatigue situation?

and here what is said by: http://www.transfund.govt.nz/factsheets/24.html
Take breaks and have a nap
Schedule a break at least once every two hours, and whenever you begin to feel sleepy. During a break get out of your vehicle and have a walk, or some form of exercise, to increase alertness. If you're feeling sleepy, have a nap.
If you realise you need a nap, don't wait. Find the first safe place and pull over. Try to avoid napping in the driver's seat, and try not to nap for longer than 40 minutes. Naps up to 40 minutes can be very refreshing, but naps longer than 40 minutes can leave you feeling groggy and disoriented for up to 10 to 15 minutes after you wake up. (This is called sleep inertia.)

I notice your habits dont fall within that, but mine do, who is being the dangerous one here?
The mere fact that you think driving 12hour stints is safe is probably indicative of the many others out there in the community, and why indeed we have so many fatigue related incidents.

Originally Posted by GT Falcon

It worries me I have to share the road with folk like you who think that a rest every 2 hours is required. Perhaps you should consider handing in your drivers license and walk. Good exercise and will almost eliminate fatigue

Better watch out for me taking a dangerous rest break every 2 hours or so.

As the real dirty harry says: “a man’s gotta know his limitations”, and not find them out “by accident” as you and much of the community seem hell bent on doing.

And as Homer Simpson says:

“How is education supposed to make me feel smarter? Besides, every time I learn something new, it pushes some old stuff out of my brain."

"What about those red balls they have on car aerials so you can spot your car in a park. I think all cars should have them!

“the faster I drive the safer it will be”

[Romulus]

Love your essays durtyharry, but who you trying to re-educate? We aren't in NZ, I don't need a fact sheet to tell me when to take a break. 15 minute break every 4 hours does me fine. Interesting to note you have very limited ability in your driving skills, hence your requirement for a break every 2 hours. I again reassert my opinion that I would rather not have to share the road with users like you.

As I suggested before perhaps stick to walking, leave the driving to those more capable than yourself.

[durtyharry]

Originally Posted by GT Falcon

Love your essays durtyharry, but who you trying to re-educate? We aren't in NZ, I don't need a fact sheet to tell me when to take a break. 15 minute break every 4 hours does me fine.

You do set yourself up when you dont bother researching the facts.

So have we now confirmed that what you said there are stats to support is utter lies and simply your just your personal opinion, it would appear so.

By the way, TAC campaign here in Aus says the same re fatigue
:http://www.tacsafety.com.au/jsp/cont...ll&pageID=1551

Whom I trying to re educate, no-one, just pointing out the correct info, choose to ignore it at your own peril, but please refrain from spreading your misinformation.

[turbo_man]

i find that i need a 10-20 min break ever 2 hours but i if i do take a break then the most i can go is another 2 hours before i need a break of a few hours (im fairly new to driving) as if i drive even longer i start to drift all over the lane and run over white lines i think this will improve over time as i get more experience but atm i get fatigued very quickly compared to some of you guys

[GasoLane]

Originally Posted by durtyharry

I drive the victorian leg of the hume regularly and there are several curves, rises and dips which would scare the ...... out of me at 130km/h

Uh, where exactly?

[durtyharry]

Originally Posted by GasOLane

Uh, where exactly?

Tallarook, Northwood, Seymour area near a couple of the service centres in taht region

[GasoLane]

Originally Posted by durtyharry

Tallarook, Northwood, Seymour area near a couple of the service centres in taht region

Oh dear. If they bother you, you do drive slow don't you

[Romulus]

Originally Posted by durtyharry

You do set yourself up when you dont bother researching the facts.

Wrong. I've seen plenty of data to show fact contrary to what you believe. However, unlike you, I can't be bothered attempting to shove my opinion, based on selective facts, down everyone's throat.

Driving at 110-125km/h in outback WA allows for good distance covered in a day during the summer months. Allowing for around 14hours of daylight, and 12 hours of driving time, one can easily cover a comfortable 1000-1200kms distance. Driving at night time is dangerous due to wildlife.

Every 4 to 5 years the subject of increasing speed limits in country roads from 110km/h to 130km/h is raised by the rural members of parlaiment. They present facts showing increasing the speed limit will reduce fatalities on country roads, particularly single vehicle accidents where fatique is a contributing factor. Unfortunately it's our city drivers who are not capable of driving sustained moderate speeds at reasonable lengths of time who do not like the idea of increased speed limits.

Shame really, as it would be one way to lower the road toll.

[Romulus]

Originally Posted by durtyharry

No, it would be a better idea to have the drivers exceeding the limit pulled down to a slower speed, just because the majority disobeys the law doesnt make it safe.
In fact here in Melbourne, the Beach Rd suffered from the very same problem 30+ years ago. My estimate was that average speeds were in the reigon 75-80km/h when the speed limit was posted at 60km/h. Certainly driving at 60km/h was stressful, aggressive tailgaters etc, and it was easier to go with the flow.
The accident rate for this road was high. In recent years due to cameras, radar etc, the average speed has come way down to where we see the average speed being ~63km/h, the speed most think they can get away with. Correspondingly this area now has one of the lowest accident rates in the metropolitan, panel beating suddenly wasnt the business to be in.

Yeah, no shyte the accident rate was high. The speed limit wasn't set to the 85th percentile as it should had. Rather, it has been arbitrarily set at a low limit going against the natural traffic flow. Enforcement only forces people to slow down, it doesn't encourage safer driving conditions though. Eventually people will slow down, as the monetary and demerit penalties dictate drivers will slow down.

[durtyharry]

Originally Posted by GT Falcon

However, unlike you, I can't be bothered attempting to shove my opinion, based on selective facts, down everyone's throat..

At least I use facts.

Originally Posted by GT Falcon

. Driving at night time is dangerous due to wildlife.

True, so you are putting a case for no night time driving?

Originally Posted by GT Falcon

Driving at 110-125km/h in outback WA allows for good distance covered in a day during the summer months. Allowing for around 14hours of daylight, and 12 hours of driving time, one can easily cover a comfortable 1000-1200kms distance. .

Im sure travelling at 200km/h will allow for even greater coverage, so people can knock off 2000km in a day, or 300km/h, 3000km in a day etc. You dont see a problem?

People need to adjust how far they travel in a day according to how long they can safely sit behind the wheel at a safe speed, not just do 1200km in one day because that is the distance from A to B in their proposed journey.

That is possibly the message that needs to be passed on, as possibly there are many more that think as you do.

Originally Posted by GT Falcon

Every 4 to 5 years the subject of increasing speed limits in country roads from 110km/h to 130km/h is raised by the rural members of parlaiment. They present facts showing increasing the speed limit will reduce fatalities on country roads, particularly single vehicle accidents where fatique is a contributing factor. Unfortunately it's our city drivers who are not capable of driving sustained moderate speeds at reasonable lengths of time who do not like the idea of increased speed limits.
.

They present facts? no they dont have any.
unfortunately all that typically happens is that opposition ministers(big noting themselves) with just their personal opinions(probably just having got a speeding ticket) get up there and pass on some whingeing from someone in their electorate?

At the end of the day the motions die down as the professionals who work for the government in the area of road safety are consulted and the fallacy of "speeding reduces fatigue" is put to rest for another 3-4 years.

Again, perhaps due some research, the last time the WA parliament increased the speed limit on rural roads, there was a corresponding rise in the accident and fatality rate on country roads.

[durtyharry]

Originally Posted by GT Falcon

Yeah, no shyte the accident rate was high. The speed limit wasn't set to the 85th percentile as it should had. Rather, it has been arbitrarily set at a low limit going against the natural traffic flow. Enforcement only forces people to slow down, it doesn't encourage safer driving conditions though. Eventually people will slow down, as the monetary and demerit penalties dictate drivers will slow down.

Im guessing you dont even know the road involved, it is not a road that should ever have a posted limit above 60km/h.

I have talked about the fallacy of the appropriateness of setting speed limits at th 85th percentile, I wont waste everyone's time doing it again.

Originally Posted by GT Falcon

Enforcement only forces people to slow down, it doesn't encourage safer driving conditions though. Eventually people will slow down, as the monetary and demerit penalties dictate drivers will slow down.

The average flow of traffic slowing down is creating a safer driving environment, if we have to use financial incentives to get through to those who are impervious to education, so be it.

For the sanity of everyone, I wont respond to anything else you may say on the forum, as has been shown in other threads(such as your ignorance on the effects of the gases emitted from volcanoes), you either misintepret the facts or just invent facts to suit.

[DRU842]

Selective use of research funded by the very bodies deriving benefit; i.e. higher income from penalties or not spending on vital infrastructure, our roads & highways defies belief. The ongoing use of fatigue studies to justify reducing the speed limit is flawed.
We need improved driver education / licensing, enforcement of the laws we have (issuing a fine through the post 3 months after the event is NOT enforcement) and improved spending on highways & roads.

[GrimmReaper09]

I completely agree. People are gunna speed and I think the speed limit is ridiculous but having completely incompetent people behind the wheel at those speeds IS scary :S

I'm almost always around 130 on the open road. You need to be doing at least that to feel like ur getting anywhere....especially during the day. Try going across the nullabor at 110 during the day........BORING AS ************.

As u say.....if ur gunna speed....do it. No one stopping u.......except maybe the bastard cop hiding in the bushes. **********.

[Romulus]

Originally Posted by durtyharry

I have talked about the fallacy of the appropriateness of setting speed limits at th 85th percentile, I wont waste everyone's time doing it again.

Your inference is incorrect. Let's talk about this falacy:

85th percentile rule

Traffic engineers may rely on the 85th percentile rule to establish speed limits. The speed limit should be set to the speed that separates the bottom 85% of vehicle speeds from the top 15%. The 85th percentile is greater than a speed that is one standard deviation (SD) above the mean of a normal distribution.

The theory is that traffic laws that reflect the behavior of the majority of motorists may have better compliance than laws that arbitrarily criminalize the majority of motorists and encourage violations. The latter kinds of laws lack public support and often fail to bring about desirable changes in driving behavior. An example is United States's old 55 mph (88 km/h) speed limit that was removed in part because of notoriously low compliance.

Most U.S. jurisdictions report using the 85th percentile speed as the basis for their speed limits, so the 85th-percentile speed and speed limits should be closely matched. However, a review of available speed studies demonstrates that the posted speed limit is almost always set well below the 85th-percentile speed by as much as 8 to 12 mph (13 to 19 km/h).[19] Some reasons for this include:

* Political or bureaucratic resistance to higher limits.
* Statutes that restrict jurisdictions from posting higher limits.

Another case for using the 85th percentile based on findings from the UK, Canada and US. Read the Review and Analysis of Posted Speed Limits and Speed Limit Setting Practices in British Columbia. It advised increased speed limits to reduce fatalities on roads where increased speed limits would reflect the speed limit driven based on 85% of road users.

And I'll sum up the argument for speed limits based on the 85th percentile with this submission to the House of Representatives.

Clearly your argument against the 85th percentile is baseless and totally ill informed. I wouldn't ordinarily waste my time digging up research but your lies need to be countered.

[Romulus]

Originally Posted by DRU842

Selective use of research funded by the very bodies deriving benefit; i.e. higher income from penalties or not spending on vital infrastructure, our roads & highways defies belief. The ongoing use of fatigue studies to justify reducing the speed limit is flawed.
We need improved driver education / licensing, enforcement of the laws we have (issuing a fine through the post 3 months after the event is NOT enforcement) and improved spending on highways & roads.

Exactly. The governments and legislators are very selective as to what data set they use to determine speed limits. The 85th percentile rule for determining speed limits is always ignored, usually the 50-60th Percentile is used.

One has to ask themselves; if so many people are caught speeding (of which the state and federal government reap billions of dollars in fines enforcement revenue) doesn't that indicate there is something fundementally wrong with our approach to speed limits, and for that matter the approach to road safety?

Any logical person would say yes.

[Keepleft]

Originally Posted by xbgs351

Not for one second, but the roads that would be considered for 130 km/h are light years better than 30 years ago. Look at the Hume Freeway in Victoria for instance.

The Victorian leg of the Hume freeway (it is not to freeway specification), therefore is *NOT* suited to a 130km/h speed-limit; in part
* It has some 21 remaining "INTERSECTIONS" as opposed to a freeway's "grade-separated INTERCHANGE" design, (ie left hand entry and exits). (This length has both designs).
* It lacks median barrier
* It has wide open median "U-Turn bays".

If we gatelock the U-Turn bays, construct full grade separated interchanges, install full length median barrier, THEN the road could be posted with a limit higher than 100-110km/h.

NSW Hume is the same, allmost, except we do have full freeway lengths which I'd post 130km/h with 100-120km/h elsewhere. Our NSW median U-Turn bays are being fitted with restricting barrier and yellow bollards to help prevent idiots from doing U turns at them. The Snowy Mountain Intercnage needs a re-design before the limit would be raised at that location, here, we have a north median location exit, dumb and dangerous.

We would use the START FREEWAY/END FREEWAY signs at designated 130km/h lengths. (IF we raise the limit, see ATSB report in the next post I make).

Originally Posted by GT Falcon

Every 4 to 5 years the subject of increasing speed limits in country roads from 110km/h to 130km/h is raised by the rural members of parlaiment. They present facts showing increasing the speed limit will reduce fatalities on country roads, particularly single vehicle accidents where fatique is a contributing factor. Unfortunately it's our city drivers who are not capable of driving sustained moderate speeds at reasonable lengths of time who do not like the idea of increased speed limits.

SAFER to simply post speed derestriction signs (//) on those high-standard two lane rural highways, than posting a speed limit showing 110-130km/h.

Speed limits lead to "speed-limit conditioning"; some people will 'expect' to do it all_time_time (=tailgating and aggro), and will then do it- come what may (weather, car, and traffic conditions).

Posting (//) speed derestriction will not give you a numerical figure at which to drive, but imposes in totality - 'drive to conditions'. Something a speed-limit, particularly on highways will *never* achieve.

[Keepleft]

ATSB report "CR-216" studies a 130km/h implementation for parts of National Route 1. Trucks would be restricted to 100km/h.

Read carefully. This report:-) is one reason why we in NSW are setting about improving on existing AUSROAD standards in relation to our motorway class infrustructure; basically full-length median barrier, and U-Turn bay treatments to help prevent idiots doing U-Turns. What slows a 130km/h implementation down is of course funding for the improvements required. Patience needed.

Crash example we seek to avoid through engineering BEFORE raising the limit:- (leaving driver ed component diuscussion out for a moment)
http://www.nbntv.com.au/index.php/20...ms-young-life/

Legislative: I expect to see NSW tighten the existing penalties for doing illegal U-Turns,- specifically for the motorway category offence.

Vests (1 or 2) and triangles (1) in cars/van and 4WD category.

Rural freeways
An increase in the speed limit to 130 km/h on rural freeways would save each car 8.4 minutes and each truck 13.8 minutes per 100 km, but would increase the number of fatal crashes by 2.8 per year per 100 km of freeway. Casualty crash costs would increase by 89%, vehicle operating costs would increase by 7% and time costs would decrease by 17%. There would be a net cost increase of $2.35 million per year per 100 km of road, provided it is appropriate to value leisure travel time savings and to value the road trauma increases by the ‘human capital’ approach. If the leisure time savings are not valued, then the net impact would be an economic cost of $7.6 million per year per 100 km of freeway. If road trauma is valued by society’s ‘willingness to pay’ to prevent it, the net cost would be $10.5 million per year per 100 km. Since these alternative valuations of leisure travel time and road trauma are central to the estimated economic output of the increased speed limit on rural freeways, the implications of their choice in making policy decisions needs to be considered carefully.

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. If the increased speed limit under good conditions was no more than 120 km/h, the increase in road trauma would be minimal. This variable speed limit system would still result, however, in an increase in fatal crashes of 0.2 per year per 100 km of freeway, due to the increase in speed limit for 80% of the traffic, albeit during safer daytime conditions. This system would increase casualty crash costs by 7%, increase vehicle operating costs by 1% and reduce time costs by 4%.

Link:-
http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/roa...l_Speed_2.aspx

[GT290]

Originally Posted by durtyharry

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

Yeah well there is another life I actually need to live also which takes up most of my time. Sorry for not responding but in reading it I see it is your perspective and not a question to me requiring me to respond. Since you are so eager to get a response from me, here it is.
I don't rubbish anything except foolish and ignorant road users. The law is the law but its time to make some changes in certain areas. The wipe off Five you speak of is quite right and I am not againts these speed limits or aids to a problem in and around built up areas. I am against the implimentation of speed cameras in any form in back streets when a speed hump will do the job so much more efectivley. I am against speed cameras place on long hall roads for the purpose of saving lives, its crap and we all know it. Lets not confuse country driving with city driving Long hauls are tiresome and do require you to take regular breaks but it still does take its toll when driving at a slower speed than if you were to kick the brain into gear and have to compute things quicker. How many people fall asleep at the movies, at the lunch room table reading the paper or in that all time riviting managment or safety meeting. almost every one does become fatigued at some point. this is where the brain is less active or not as focused.
I think we all know full well how it all works. Its all been said and should now be acted on.

In the cities, as far as I am concerned as long as you have people with ********** attitudes you will always have ********** drivers. It continues to get worse on the freeway and not better. Bumber to bumber lane heading off and will not let middle lane in. saw it on the way home today, just down right ignorant and selfish. I put it out there that we have the worst attitudes in the western world.

I wish to edit in that my words used that have been sencored were not of the Father Uncle Cusin King vocabulary but rather much lighter and one I have used before with out censorship. Must be the new Australian censorship laws taking effect on our civil liberties. Sorry to the forum for my miss use of the queens english...lol

[durtyharry]

Originally Posted by GT290

I am against speed cameras place on long hall roads for the purpose of saving lives, its crap and we all know it. Lets not confuse country driving with city driving Long hauls are tiresome and do require you to take regular breaks but it still does take its toll when driving at a slower speed than if you were to kick the brain into gear and have to compute things quicker.

So driving for 2 hours at 110km/h is more taxing than driving for 2hours at 130km/h?

Brain needs to kick into a higher gear? Unfortunately the research shows that any increase in alertness(supposedly created by reaching speeds of terror) is shortlived and the mind resorts back to the same level only to achieve a reduced level of safety that comes with the increase in speed due to the 40% increased reaction distance, stopping distances and reduced road holding ability that comes with a speed increase form 110 to 130km/h.

I see you have no particular response to the fact that your message of the 85th percentile is not one presented by any respectable road safety authority, (just like the links GT Falcon supplies above as some type of evidence), but just internet motoring forums giving themselves swish names/websites that believe speed is their right/

As for having to put speed humps in streets to slow traffic down? and who should pay for them, everyone, just to slow down the idiots?

Why not just have the threat of cameras everywhere and we can save the trouble of building them. There would be no need for them if people did 40-50km/h in the streets where they are meant to. Who wants a frigging speed bump outside their house where people are constantly braking, accelerating and thumping over them keeping you awake at night.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by durtyharry

So driving for 2 hours at 110km/h is more taxing than driving for 2hours at 130km/h?

Brain needs to kick into a higher gear? Unfortunately the research shows that any increase in alertness(supposedly created by reaching speeds of terror) is shortlived and the mind resorts back to the same level only to achieve a reduced level of safety that comes with the increase in speed due to the 40% increased reaction distance, stopping distances and reduced road holding ability that comes with a speed increase form 110 to 130km/h.

I have sat back and watched this for a while just to see if there was actually any substance.

So what are your PERSONAL experiences in traveling long distances in Australia at 110km/h, 130 km/h, 160km/h, 200km/h and above.

Have you actually ever done any of this?

Where have you driven and how many actual road kilometres have you personally done?

Long distance is a bit more than Geelong to Melbourne, you do realise there are cattle stations bigger than Victoria don't you?

All I see in your constant ramblings is a frightened little boy who is afraid of the open road and driving in general. Your diatribes reek with angst, fear and an innate hatred of motoring enthusiasts.

You regurgitate selective "theoretical studies" to support your paranoid position all taken from reports created by groups with similar agenda to yourself.

Several members on here ARE road safety researchers, civil engineers, driver trainers, professional drivers, police, paramedics and many other professions that deal with and understand the subject. Some have tried to inject a bit of reality although, like me, most have just watched as yet another fanatical keyboard warrior spews their social engineering dogma.
Others have been playing with you trying to see just how far they can wind you up.

I suspect you see yourself as an evangelist and missionary of the church of Harold Scruby et al.

You have no credibility whatsoever........

[xtremerus]

Agree, Flappist. I am one that has been watching too.

[durtyharry]

Originally Posted by flappist

I have sat back and watched this for a while just to see if there was actually any substance.

So what are your PERSONAL experiences in traveling long distances in Australia at 110km/h, 130 km/h, 160km/h, 200km/h and above.

Have you actually ever done any of this?

........

So we have another troll with no specific info on the matter, unable to respond to any of the points Ive made on an intellectual level, just hurling around personal insults, and somehow coming to the conclusion that "personal opinion" outweighs facts and knowledge and statistics accumulated by our road traffic investigators and authorities.

Whether person A or B has enjoyed doing speeds of 160km/h+ without incident for 12 hour stints is largely irrelevant to the question of whether it is a good idea for the population to do the same on a large scale.

The stats, no they arent selective, show that with increases in speed comes an increased risk to incidents.

So while each person's level of coming to grief may not seem high, the collective rise in number of bodies passing through the mortuaries is not one that the overall public or indeed our government finds acceptable.
Hence the need to actually put regs on what the public does.

[chevypower]

when i was 15 my mum and I were driving to Melbourne from Broken Hill. Long straight road, sun was going down. We were sitting on 100 or 110 - whatever the limit was. It was BOOOOOORRRRRIINNNNGGGG, making us both sleepy. As my mum was driving, she was dozing off and her foot went further on to the accelerator. I was fortunate enough to have the competence to grab the steering wheel and wake her up. If the Australian governments had it their way, as a 15 year old, I wouldn't have been able to prevent an accident, and the car would have impacted a tree or fence or oncoming car or truck at 160-180km/h, we would have both died in the crash, and the crash would have been blamed on speed.
I am all for 130km/h on certain roads in Australia, with a 10km/h tolerance for safe overtaking. If the roads are not safe enough for that, then make them wider and safer.

[GasoLane]

Originally Posted by durtyharry

So driving for 2 hours at 110km/h is more taxing than driving for 2hours at 130km/h?

It certainly is.-see last paragraph-

Originally Posted by durtyharry

Unfortunately the research shows that any increase in alertness(supposedly created by reaching speeds of terror) is shortlived

This depends on your definition of 'shortlived'.

I've driven the whole length of the Hume for the over 37 years. Before HP cars had radar and when the Hume only had dual lanes for about 10% of the trip.

I was also a member of (what was known in the trade as) the 'Dollar Forty Club'. Not a real club as such, just a name given to Trucks and Drivers who used exceed 140kmh.

110kmh was our Average speed between Chullora (Syd) and Footscray (Melb). I never needed any 'assistance' staying awake as sheer concentration kept me awake all night.

During my 37 years driving interstate I've been involved in 4 accidents.
(The first was my fault, 36 years ago, there's a moral there somewhere.)

For the last 7 years I only drive occasionally drive between the Vic border and Melb. I refuse to drive the Hume full time anymore as it's so mind numbingly boring that I find myself getting drowsy after a couple of hours!

[xbgs351]

Originally Posted by durtyharry

Fatigue is controlled by taking adequate rest and controlling the number of hours you spend at the wheel in a given day, fatigued is not relieved by going faster. The consequences of being fatigued and going faster are even worse.

But by dropping the speed limit aren't you effectively making suitable rest stops further away from each other and extending the number of hours you are spending at the wheel in a given day?

Originally Posted by durtyharry

While it is a moot point:There is no truth that people spend less time at the wheel if you increase the limit. All that happens is people calculate they can drive further in the same time they normally do and dont vary how much rest they get at all. ie decide to do melb to brisbane in 2 long days rather than 3

Where did you come up with this 'fact'? All of the rural driving that I ever do is to a destination. If the speed limit is lower it just takes longer for me to get there, which funny enough means that I'm more tired.

Originally Posted by durtyharry

Somepeople believe you should be able to go from syd to mel in one day?
If you have a relief driver, fine, otherwise, restrict your driving to 8 hours for the day with rests every 2hours. If you have to stop somewhere overnight, so be it.

Plenty of people drive from Sydney to Melbourne in a day. It is a 870km drive by the way.

[xbgs351]

Originally Posted by Keepleft

NSW Hume is the same, allmost, except we do have full freeway lengths which I'd post 130km/h with 100-120km/h elsewhere. Our NSW median U-Turn bays are being fitted with restricting barrier and yellow bollards to help prevent idiots from doing U turns at them. The Snowy Mountain Intercnage needs a re-design before the limit would be raised at that location, here, we have a north median location exit, dumb and dangerous.

That Snowy Mountain interchange isn't crash hot is it?

Any reason the new Burley Griffin Way intersection wasn't done as an overpass?

[Badcooky]

What about a referendum on speed limits?

[Fev]

Originally Posted by xbgs351

That Snowy Mountain interchange isn't crash hot is it?

Any reason the new Burley Griffin Way intersection wasn't done as an overpass?

Spent the budget on flying officials overseas to do road reports and testing.

[mik]

fully agree with you Gasolane, Hume hwy = better than stillnox.
.

[turbo_man]

the simple fact is if speed by itself really did kill then how come the autobahns in germany and highways in europe arent one big demolition derby? the reason is training and the reason our incompetent government wont make it compulsory in schools or something like the USA is because it would cost too much according to them apparently saving lives isnt a good enough reason.
instead we have parents who are sometimes terrible drivers teaching more terrible drivers in an endless cycle.