This must be a mistake...

[Outbackjack]

Does this articulate what is constantly being said on these forums or what!!???

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599...007146,00.html

I'm sort of speechless..............

Is it a misprint?? I'm going to go for a little lie down... :

[Casper]

The men in black suits would have already made him write the retraction and sent him to a quiet "holiday resort" by now.

[Mechan1k]

I can't believe the Road Toll Authority (love that name) let that one get through ... he must have caught them napping.

One thing I can't understand is this morning the M2 in Sydney's NW ... opened an extra lane on the Motorway ... and dropped the speed limit from 100km/h to 60km/h (in some spots) .... ummmmm WTF.

I have more chance of dying from fatigue after a nightshift driving home trying to stay at 60km/h ... than driving at 100km/h and concentrating ... I am surprised I didn't sideswipe the wall of the tunnel this morning from sheer boredom.

Surely they could have used variable electronic speed signs to change the limits when traffic does change in volume ... but Sunday morning ... I was the only vehicle on the M2 at 7am near North Ryde ... and having to do 60km/h was deadly.

[MO]

Gee thats something I did'nt know ...not...one day ppl will wake up and revolt.

Brian you have way too much time on your hands...lol

I now await ...KEEPLEFT and his input.

[The Monty]

Wow. Nice article. Wonder if hes sacked yet. I have a feeling he got a speeding fine this morning.

[XRchic]

Perfectly said.

[Fev]

dead right.. and why did labour win Again!!!!! WHYYYYYYYYY

[Outbackjack]

Originally Posted by MO

Gee thats something I did'nt know ...not...one day ppl will wake up and revolt.

Brian you have way too much time on your hands...lol

I now await ...KEEPLEFT and his input.

Yeah, its called night shift. And its going to be a REALLY quiet night.

[Mechan1k]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Join the club ... 13 hours was bad enough last night ... hee hee

[TwistedEL]

I wonder how long that will remain available so let's just copy & paste it while it is still there

AS heretical statements go it won't get you burned at the stake, but challenging the received wisdom on road speed limits is a bit like begging to differ with the Spanish Inquisition.

The prevailing orthodoxy brooks no dissent.

Speed, you are instructed to believe, kills. As little as 5km/h over the limit is as evil as 15km/h over - and must be punished with uniform severity.

That ever more young people are being killed in cars is not to be blamed on the complete absence of education and on-road training.

The fact a P-Plater can drive a car that's been rusting for longer than they have been alive - but not several dozen models rated as five-star safe because they have turbo or supercharging - is not a factor.

Nor are road surfaces and conditions that would embarrass a Third World nation.

The Earth is flat, the sun revolves around us and the NSW Road Traffic Authority is a seamless, efficient organisation that in no way deserves the derisive moniker Road Toll Authority (ie: it's responsible for raising tolls of both sorts).

This spirit of doublespeak allows the RTA to maintain that speed is the greatest single factor in road fatalities.

What this blighted bureaucracy does not care to dwell upon is that alcohol was a factor in more than 30 per cent of these deaths. It seems not to matter a further 20 per cent of the departed were not wearing a seatbelt. Nor even that more than 10 per cent of them were unlicensed.

For a government to admit the fatalness of any factor other than speed would be to acknowledge its disinterest in making us safer drivers and our roads safer places on which to drive.

Crucially, it also means admitting what everyone who owns and runs a car in this state of disrepair knows only too well - the road infringement regime is about raising revenue.

A few years ago, even a government as venal as this one became concerned it was being seen to act as avidly as vampires on haemophiliacs.

It reduced the financial slug of speeding, but increased demerit points. Given that two-thirds of the almost 600,000 infringements the RTA issues in a year are for low-level speeding, the stream of revenue has remained steady.

What did change, however, was that perfectly responsible citizens whose eyes strayed from their speedometer for a moment could loose a quarter of their licence in one go. Or half of it on a holiday weekend.

No one is going to argue with the speed limit as applied to school zones and business districts.

Not on the open road, though, where highway patrol numbers have continued to radically decline.

To go on pretending that the road toll can be attributed only to kilometres per hour is as deadly to the truth as it is to all who use the roads.

[vztrt]

Well there was some interesting facts in that article, good to see someone actually decide to try and tell people that there's more to being a good driver than staying under the speed limit.
One thing that bothers me is why people still drive on public roads without seat belts!!

[Ruger]

Damn thats about the smartest thing a journalist has ever said! he should really lose his job and live in the real world with the rest of the people! Something is seriously wrong with him - his lie bone must be broke.

[Tiapan]

yeah but he could have stressed the education factor a bit more! my girlfriend is learning to drive and her instructor called her a 'good driver' the worst possible thing to say...now she is big headed and wont listen to me,

i asked her what she would do if the accelerator pedal stuck down (happens often with faulty crusie control wires..or commodores) and she said rip on the handbrake!!!

i also asked her what to do in a spin....answer was to get on the brakes!!! i asked her to demonstraight an emergancy stop and she almost rolled the car....and some dichead now tells her she is ready to drive!

[jimmy_c]

This is the problem mate. But why fix a problem when you can sell fear and death. Then make money off it.

Then you have jerks likes old mate Harrold who must own shares in the Speed Camera and Radar Company.

[desGT]

Hopefully this, other such articles and the efforts of some individuals (incl on this forum) and groups continues to swell until the truth (revenue raising) is reversed and common sense on speeding prevails.

120, 160 ... is NOT dangerous in all circumstances.

[Bud Bud]

I love this bit!

"Quote What did change, however, was that perfectly responsible citizens whose eyes strayed from their speedometer for a moment could loose a quarter of their licence in one go. Or half of it on a holiday weekend." unquote."

Or worse, not looking out side of the car enough because they are too busy staring at the speedo as they drive! (I see a lot of small Asians with this affliction)

This has been my biggest bug bearer of all. The only thing that the Government has really managed to accomplish from their draconian measures and confusing speed zones is a nation of speedo watches rather than to more importantly teach people to cast their eyes outside where they belong.

I know because I now find my self spending more (too much) time looking inside checking the speedo these days than I did 20 years ago.

The all mighty dollar wins again. Shame on you State and Federal Governments of Australia.

[Ringo]

Ohhhhhhh don't get me started !!!!!1

To late.....

I live in Victoria so my comments are Victoria centered.

Why is that one of the newest, straightest, safest bist of 4/5 lane freeway to Geelong has speed cameras on it? Safety?

Why is that we have a bunch of bright red/yellow highway pursuit cars that are that bright colour 'to raise the profile of the police on our roads' as part of a road safety campaign yet all speed camera cars are undercover?

If this state is all about road safety then why hasn't it got off the topic of Speed Kills, or 'if your drink n drive you are idiot'? (both highly successful campaigns mind you)

Ringo's Suggestions:
Education campagin about intersections. Run an education campagin about the proper use of round-abouts !

Introduce annual roadworthy laws like NSW do to get the crapheaps off our roads and not in the hands of P Platers!

I've lost count of the amount of cars I have seen with bald tyres on the roads...and these are not old cars, these are nice semi new vehicles that are an accident waiting to happen.

Compulsory license retesting every 10 years regardless of age. Perhaps a retest to get off your P's?

License testing ONLY in english? How is it that a non-english speaking person takes the test in a different language?.....I will never understand how this is seen as sensible.

My 75 year old grandfather in law still drives a little. He got a speeding fine for 65 in a 60 zone. The danger for him is not speeding, its just plain driving. His driving days are numbered and the family are taking action on this (no comments required on my family here) - compulsory retesting would have probably got him off the road a while ago.

The point is that if the Govt want to harp on about 'road safety to save lives' then they need to take the blinkers off and look beyond drink drivers and speeders because there are plenty of people who do neither yet pose a danger to themselves and others.

Road safety 'best practice' goes beyond promotion of offenses that incur a fine.

[Ringo]

Forgot one thing....how it that the Government create and enforce a law when the ADR requirements for speedos do not cater for the level of accuracy required?

[Allen]

Cruising to work this morning, I was sitting behind a crewman doing 90km/h in a 100km/h zone... Just before we came upto a hidden speed camera, he slams his brakes on and drops to about 60km/h...

People are so scared of revenue rasing, that they put themselves and other is risk for no reason!

"Cameras cut crashes" Say the roadside signs... I tend to disagree after this morning... I had to jump on my brakes to avoid the crewman... naturally the truck that was tailgating me had to slam his brakes on and so forth...

When will the government wake up to their own hypocrisy? Never... there is too much money involved...

[GXL078]

Originally Posted by Fev

dead right.. and why did labour win Again!!!!! WHYYYYYYYYY

because the other guy is a nerdy nob

[Tommo224]

oh man.. bout time an article like this came along.. hopefully more people will come out with things like this now, and make even more people aware and such..

the laws and everything they are bringing up are just getting so rediculous!

the 1 passenger law.. they want to cut road toll? well i suppose if someone is going to crash and die on the road, 2 is better than 4.. but at the same time, they are putting more people on the road when really it isnt so necessary..

say you and your mates go to a party, 5 of you, and you are cool with being a designated driver.. instead of being able to safely cart your mates home, atleast 2 of you have to drive and one stay there or not go, because you cant have more than 1 passenger in your vehicle.. so instead of one car load being driven by a responsible driver, there are 2 cars..

now say you have a big group of mates all going to a party, how many more cars will there need to be driving home from this party (or event, say a concert? or something?) instead of half, to a third, to maybe a quarter of the amount that could be accomodated..

i see the reasonings, the narrow view of how this could "help" or appear like they are infact doing something, but really, it just inconveins those who do obey the law..

what if my family needed me to drive them somewhere because they couldnt? or i needed to take my 3 siblings somewhere? or my grandparents to the airport? oh whoops! i got a fine because grandma AND grandpa are in the car..... even if they used their diggression and let me off the fine with just a warning, its still such a pain being pulled up over something so stupid..

[BLDNUT01]

the 1 passenger law.. they want to cut road toll? well i suppose if someone is going to crash and die on the road, 2 is better than 4.. but at the same time, they are putting more people on the road when really it isnt so necessary..

say you and your mates go to a party, 5 of you, and you are cool with being a designated driver.. instead of being able to safely cart your mates home, atleast 2 of you have to drive and one stay there or not go, because you cant have more than 1 passenger in your vehicle.. so instead of one car load being driven by a responsible driver, there are 2 cars..

thats for more cash, more cars= more money
but that was a great artical so true about the rusty old cars i guess its easier to fine people than educate

[Keepleft]

In NSW, as with most jurisdictions, the AG's department 'predicts' fines revenue:-) And expectations really need to be 'met'.

Rem, that here in NSW we install at the roadside at all FIXED speed camera locations, 3 x warning signs on approach, the higher the limit, the bigger the dimension sign.

The signs help us catch 'inattentive' drivers, who it is argued would be dangerous at most any speed, using the 'speed-limit' as the means of doing so:-)

Expect soon, Harold to begin his campaign to remove these warning signs.

FIXED speed camera's are NOT the same as the VIC style point to point cameras RTA will be installing to the Pacific Highway upgraded sections. So only 'generic' signs will be posted for these newies.

Some legal enforceability-at-court issues could remain with the 'point to point camera systems' that Vic has yet to discover.

On future NSW speed allowances: A few months prior to the election, I set about to get an understanding from the ALP if they'd tolerate speed derestriction once again on some remote NSW key routes. They didn't say no to that, and I am pretty confident that the NSW Libs will feel the same. Political parties don't want to be seen as 'setting speed-limits', since they have have passed parliamentary law leaving that responsibility with RTA.

So, at this point RTA will very soon (this week in fact) set about discussions with Councils to remove remaining speed derestriction signs, which Councils have been posting on some pretty poor road surfaces. The 'authority' for Councils to use derestriction signs in NSW was recinded back in 2004-5 in the then Speed Zoning Gudelines. (This Guideline is again under an update to improve the lot of the NSW road user).

As a replacement for those signs, RTA will allow Councils the use of "END speed limit" signs, example - (END 80). These signs serve to invoke 'caution' in a driver becuase they are used when the road-ahead has soft-edges, poor camber, hidden driveways, rail-crossings etc, and the speed-limit that applies with them IS the current default speed limit of 100km/h. RTA are right now working on RE-SIZING these signs for easier install/application.

My personal view is the rural default should be 80km/h as it once was as a 'prima facie'. REM better roads *will* attract higher speed limits within these areas.

I firmly against attaching a 'recommended speed limit' with (//) owing pre 1979 identified legal issues. Basically, if you were exceeding 80km/h and were picked up by HWP for say speed dangerous, or any other offence above 80km/h, the courts found you automatically 'guilty'. That of course had legal problems. So NO suggested limit will be made for (//), AND BECUASE we want folk to drive at a safe speed based on their own survival instints, road conditions, weather, car and driver well being etc.

In around 4-5 years or so the speed derestriction signs will again appear on remote NSW highways meeting high-standards, for the first time since July 1979. I am suggesting so based on 'proposed lengths' having passed a road safety audit, 'wide shoulder', sight distance, that sort of thing. Again, they *must* be removed by Councils first from bad roads, that is vital to ensure appropriate implementation in the years ahead.

The use of derestriction in NSW will reduce nervous tension in road users and will reflect improve on-road behaviour to one another. I expect no negative impact on the overall road network.

Under derestriction in NSW, L platers, red P1's and green P2 drivers will remain speed-limited in (//) zones by "License Conditions". You can expect the existing penalties for not displaying the plates correctly or at all to increase. We don't wan't inexperienced drivers taking chances.

AS1742.4 of 1999 has the R4-2 (//) as applying no particular speed limit on the road beyond the sign, and the governing UN Convention represents the sign as: "End of all local prohibitions imposed on moving vehicles".

FREEWAYS/MOTORWAYS/ and The Hume and Pacific Highway: These will remain limited. A few things need to be done befofer the authority can justify a raise allowances, and these have been discussed here and in most other forums, they relate to the necessity of additional median barriers, U-Turn gates, removal of 'intersections in favour of interchanges, and vehicle equipment standards all come into play. Long term stuff sadly.

Current behaviour at the median 'Emergency Services Only' U-Turn bays, is a key reason why limits will not go up on motorways. Certainly police HWP opinion and my own view.

A problem with the ARR's with these, is that we effectively allow U-Turns where a "NO U-Turn" sign is missing not placed, YET international law (Convention) prohibits ALL U-Turns on motorway class roads. We need to adjust ARR's.

Another reason, is the urgent requirement to once again PROHIBIT cyclists, tractors and pedestrians from motorway class roads once again. Those of you who are old like me, will recall we once had signs prohibiting these from motorway class roads. Over the last 26 years the signs were removed owing militant cycle advocacy to use all roads. A year or so ago a senior NSW traffic Commander told me they had them removed because the signs had 'no legislative backing'.

I reminded him that the signs arrived via the UN Traffic Conventions. Something he said be left for the lawyers:-) The signs WILL and MUST return. It *will* be done - as it is a Commonwealth contracting requirement.

TYRES and (//). NT advised they had concerns with the "National Vehicle Standars", these standards apply after the new-market ADR process. Under our EU/UN sourced ADR on the matter, a vehicle must be fitted with a tyre bearing a speed rating meeting or exceed the cars top speed performance.

Under NVS for the second hand market however, a car can be fitted with a tyre bearing a speed rating LESS than the cars (trucks) top speed potential. An issue of concern with NT at the time. Something we might need to look at or consider.

[Rev28K]

Keep Left you were mentioning NSW roads specifically. The Northern Territory has recently gone from // to a 130 limit.

Because a lot of their roads don’t comply with u-turn requirements, etc does that mean that the chance of // returning to the territory is bugger all until the roads are upgraded at huge cost to these standards.

[Keepleft]

Originally Posted by Rev28K

Keep Left you were mentioning NSW roads specifically. The Northern Territory has recently gone from // to a 130 limit.

Because a lot of their roads don’t comply with u-turn requirements, etc does that mean that the chance of // returning to the territory is bugger all until the roads are upgraded at huge cost to these standards.

Unrelated. In fact these ARE the roads that NSW will apply (//) provided they pass road safety audits and have wide shoulders etc.

No U-Turn issue applies to freeway category. Great roads and safer, BUT the median U-Turn bays are shown to be abused daily and we have had major problems when folk collide when turning in front of oncoming vehicles doing 110km/h or greater. SO IF we raise the limit to 120-130km/h THIS ISSUE will counfound the existing problem. It must be addressed. AS must the lack of median barrier, again if we raise limits the crossover rate will increase where existing vehicles end up just sitting off the right 0,5 metre shoulder, they will enter the opposing lanes right hand lane. NOT because of an increase in crashes, (fewer) but 'momentum' of the existing rate.

RTA need to implement a cost-effective gate system on these before raising allowances, OR REMOVE THE BAYS just like Europe. THAT will UPSET the emergencu services, but again, Europe survives somehow.

The removal of (//) from NT's key highways was a bcakward step. But even I wasn't comfortable with an open allowance applying the NT's worse of the worse. Here a lowly default must apply, afterall, its these roads where your hard pressed to do 100km/h in any case if you follow.

THAT R4-12 END speed limit sign, - applied to the worse rural roads (forrestry etc) IS a form of derestriction, BUT ONLY up the the jurisdictions rural default. POSTED when the authority does not have the confidence to post a traditional speed limit sign, or would wish to otherwise leave the road unsigned hence defaulted to the rural default, WHERE use of the sign can then signal to a road user that it has IDENTIFIED hazards ahead, to INVOKE CAUTION. When you see the sign, you can be sure something is up ahead.

NT is different from a state, the move the 110/130km/h is very much political compared to NSW. So IF CLP reinstate (//) on NT's key highways, BUT NOT to its poorest rural roads, support them.

[Tiapan]

Originally Posted by Ringo

Ohhhhhhh don't get me started !!!!!1

To late.....

I live in Victoria so my comments are Victoria centered.

Why is that one of the newest, straightest, safest bist of 4/5 lane freeway to Geelong has speed cameras on it? Safety?

Why is that we have a bunch of bright red/yellow highway pursuit cars that are that bright colour 'to raise the profile of the police on our roads' as part of a road safety campaign yet all speed camera cars are undercover?

If this state is all about road safety then why hasn't it got off the topic of Speed Kills, or 'if your drink n drive you are idiot'? (both highly successful campaigns mind you)

Ringo's Suggestions:
Education campagin about intersections. Run an education campagin about the proper use of round-abouts !

Introduce annual roadworthy laws like NSW do to get the crapheaps off our roads and not in the hands of P Platers!

I've lost count of the amount of cars I have seen with bald tyres on the roads...and these are not old cars, these are nice semi new vehicles that are an accident waiting to happen.

Compulsory license retesting every 10 years regardless of age. Perhaps a retest to get off your P's?

License testing ONLY in english? How is it that a non-english speaking person takes the test in a different language?.....I will never understand how this is seen as sensible.

My 75 year old grandfather in law still drives a little. He got a speeding fine for 65 in a 60 zone. The danger for him is not speeding, its just plain driving. His driving days are numbered and the family are taking action on this (no comments required on my family here) - compulsory retesting would have probably got him off the road a while ago.

The point is that if the Govt want to harp on about 'road safety to save lives' then they need to take the blinkers off and look beyond drink drivers and speeders because there are plenty of people who do neither yet pose a danger to themselves and others.

Road safety 'best practice' goes beyond promotion of offenses that incur a fine.

Backing you 100% there

[MO]

Took a while but finally ...Keepleft got here....onya sport.

[TwistedEL]

Originally Posted by Keepleft

RTA need to implement a cost-effective gate system on these before raising allowances, OR REMOVE THE BAYS just like Europe. THAT will UPSET the emergencu services, but again, Europe survives somehow.

They could either use a gate system involving the same technologies used in eTags or a camera system - like a red light camera
Given the option any government would surely go for the camera option as it would generate revenue and cost less to install and maintain

[HLC]

finally someone gets it right.

[El_Poochino]

Just gonna say this. If speed kills, the Autobahn would be a deathtrap and closed years ago. If speed kills how come the Autobahn is one of the safest roads in the world?