Ridiculous(ly Low) Speed Limits NSW

Ldad-bod on 25/08/2017 - 20:55
Last edited 25/08/2017 - 21:58

Hi ozbargain community

I have a crazy theory…that perhaps…just perhaps a large part of the traffic woes in this fine nanny state of ours are due to ridiculously low speed limits.

Examples:
Eastern distributor southbound 80km/hr dropped to 60km/hr in peak hour.
Harbour bridge just before entering city 70km/hr drops down to 40km/hr.
M4 motorway (4 lane freaken highway!!!) 90km/hr - like c'mon this should be the auto freaking bahn.

I think the authorities think that most humans are too stupid to actually drive at a safe speed if not given a ridiculously low speed limit to obey.
What I find is that most people tend to drive waaay below the speed limit. e.g. in moderate traffic the average speed in the harbour tunnel is 60km/hr when the speed limit is 80km/hr.

If someone can show me some statistics or literature to show that there is a significant hazard reduction to these ridiculous speed limits and weigh that up against the massive costs that traffic has on our society then I'm all ears…

Please post examples of ridiculously low speed limits in Sydney that you have come across peoples…

Automotive

Comments

  • altomic on 25/08/2017 - 21:12
    +44

    You have no idea how traffic management works. Research it and then come back here.

      • blitz on 26/08/2017 - 08:11
        +12

        why don't you post your "research"?

        It's not our job to refute your ideas, the onus is on you to support them. Go to Google Scholar and find research to support the (silly IMO) idea that raising speed limits on suburban roads contributes to fewer accidents and fatalities.

        • smartazz104 on 27/08/2017 - 17:47
          +4

          @dad-bod: It's a discussion but when someone disagrees with your opinion you go on the defensive; now in addition to doing any research relating to traffic management it appears you also need to look up the definition of "discussion".

      • altomic on 26/08/2017 - 08:24
        +1

        https://research.qut.edu.au/carrsq/

        • altomic on 26/08/2017 - 09:00
          +44

          @dad-bod:

          sorry for that.

          you were half way there. you were asking the question but just needed to tap it in to google

          why do we have variable speed limits at peak hour?

          speeds are reduced in peak hours due to a variety of factors.

          Let's, at this point, just consider the the variable of driver reaction time

          think of 10 cars driving in a row at 80km/h and each one is separated by 2 car lengths.

          car 1 decides they are going slightly too fast so they tap their brakes. and it begins..

          car 2 reacts to the car in front , though with a slight delay due to human reaction time and hits their brakes - but slightly harder than the car in front because they don't know why car 1 has - a danger ahead? speed camera? whatever. there will be a delay. that car will have to slow more than the car in front. which then impacts the car behind them because ..

          car 3 reacts to the car in front , though with a slight delay due to human reaction time and hits their brakes - but slightly harder than the car in front because they don't know why car 1 has - a danger ahead? speed camera? whatever. there will be a delay. that car will have to slow more than the car in front. which then impacts the car behind them because ..

          etc, etc.

          so each car hits their brakes harder than the car in front. meaning they will slow down more. so, like a ripple effect, the end car will slow down the most as it will have braked for the longest period.

          and then the cars have to accelerate back to the speed limit and its the similar effect i.e. there is a delay due to human reaction time in pushing the accelerator. so whilst car 1 starts to speed up and "take off", it takes a second for car 2 to hit the accelerator and "take off", etc etc

          so the last car which has slowed down the most will have to accelerate the most to get back to the speed limit.

          and then car 1 hits its brakes again.

          and this is assuming all drivers have similar reaction times. it's 5pm friday and driver 3 and has been at 3 hour power lunch with the boys, driver 5 has just finished a double shift and hasn't slept in 22 hours, driver 6 has a car car full of screaming kids and is as sick as (profanity) of their screaming, driver 7 is 92 years and is just doing his annual trip to the shops and "drivers are tooo damn fast these days" , etc

          if you watch the start of a grandprix (or any similar car race) you'll view that sort of effect. - well, the "delay acceleration". no car is going to accelerate at the same speed as the car in front. they don't take off all together. there is a delay between cars starting off. (car 1 is off and running and the last car is still sitting there)

          now if you also consider the variable of individual vehicle performance.

          again 10 cars. car 2 is a 1986 hyundai excel - POS, car 3 is high performance sports car it can accelerate extremely fast and can slow down nearly as fast, car 5 is a 45 seater bus, car 8 is heavy rigid truck fully loaded with steel beams. etc

          how quickly they can accelerate and decelerate will also impact on movements

          maybe if the cars were all computer controlled and identical in performance then they could almost accelerate and decelerate at nearly the same speeds and there would be less lag due to driver reaction time and vehicle performance

          that's a very basic outline but it mainly covers the major points

          QUT hosts a major research body for road safety in Aus. this is a good place to learn about driver behaviour - https://research.qut.edu.au/carrsq/

          here is a link for a PhD thesis that covers, in far more depth, what i have written

          TL:DR - different drivers have different reaction times to stopping and starting, cars have different stopping and starting performance- these impact upon traffic.

        • altomic on 26/08/2017 - 09:24
          +9

          @altomic: **But to what degree do incremental changes in speed limit affect this risk versus effect on traffic flow and hence economical costs to society…that is the question.*

          there are so many factors to consider.

          it's not just the road and people driving along it.

          it's the cars entering and exiting the road. it's the vehicle/drivers that are less than those around them and cause problems.

          it's the vehicle that breaks down and needs recovering

          it's the fact that peak hour is the "peak" time for vehicles on the road

          it's the sun rising or setting that is shinning directly in the drivers eyes that forces them to slow down.

          it's the idiot texting and driving erratically

          it's that large pot hole that everyone know about and subsequent slows down for

          it's the cost of building an extra harbour bridge or tunnel just to manage the traffic for that "peak" time.

          it's the (profanity) driver who drives up the back of the car infront, refuses to let any one "in" to merge and makes that other driver pause for a longer period than necessary, which then delays the person behind them, etc, etc.

          it's the morons who drive up the emergency lane but then have to stop -due to a broken down car in the emergency lane- and then merge in to proper traffic from a dead start which causes all the cars -which are driving at the proper speed for the conditions- to slow down and then the ripple effect starts. So the impatient driver is the cause of the slow traffic.

          it's the sum total of all these things that helps create clogged roads

          and lack of public transport infrastructure

        • dad-bod on 26/08/2017 - 09:26
          -5

          @altomic:

          Thanks. I respect that you've taken the time to post your actual thoughts and links to back up. All of what you've said makes sense however I still cannot find any studies directly evaluating impact of incremental changes in speed limits on different road types in different settings to hazard risk versus traffic flow in real world terms.

        • Scrooge McDuck on 26/08/2017 - 14:09
          +1

          @dad-bod:

          Fair comment. As impressive as those two walls of text appear, they don't actually address your question.

        • Scrooge McDuck on 26/08/2017 - 14:11
          +2

          @altomic:

          think of 10 cars driving in a row at 80km/h and each one is separated by 2 car lengths.

          Argument invalid: 1 in 10 cars is a Camry driven at 20 km/h below the traffic speed and with a gap 3 times longer than average.

        • Scrooge McDuck on 26/08/2017 - 14:15
          +3

          @dad-bod:

          But to what degree do incremental changes in speed limit affect this risk versus effect on traffic flow and hence economical costs to society

          In a similar vein, I often wonder whether there is net societal value to holding up people to the tune of tens of thousands of person-hours to investigate a crash scene.

        • Wallyt99 on 26/08/2017 - 23:46

          @altomic: Interesting post. Consider also that a car travelling 60kmh requires less stopping distance than one at 80kmh. Ergo for every linear km - there are x% more road users on a roadway at a given time. Would be interesting to see the actual volume of cars moved in an hour through a freeway assuming safe stopping distance was maintained. Any math nerds here?

        • Wallyt99 on 27/08/2017 - 00:02

          @Wallyt99: I ran some quick numbers. Throughput is greater in volume of cars at 60 than at 80.

        • Blunglefortness on 27/08/2017 - 10:39
          +2

          @Scrooge McDuck: If people are driving 2 car lengths away from the car in front @ 80km/h, I'm not surprised they're reducing the speed limit.

          Recommended distance is 2 seconds, which at 80km/h is 44 metres. 2 car lengths is around 20% of that.

        • cameldownunder on 27/08/2017 - 20:07
          -1

          @Wallyt99: full amount of points for you. You got the reason why. Mathematical details are not that relevant.

        • Scrooge McDuck on 28/08/2017 - 01:01
          +2

          @Wallyt99:

          Interesting post. Consider also that a car travelling 60kmh requires less stopping distance than one at 80kmh. Ergo for every linear km - there are x% more road users on a roadway at a given time. Would be interesting to see the actual volume of cars moved in an hour through a freeway assuming safe stopping distance was maintained. Any math nerds here?

          You don't need to be a "math nerd" to calculate that. If the cars are 2 seconds apart then the flow rate of cars is 1 car per lane every 2 seconds or 1800 cars per lane per hour1.

          Of course, the journey takes 33 1/3 % longer at 60 km/h than 80 km/h.

          1. Assuming the gap is measured between the fronts of each car, otherwise the variable length of each car should be considered but becomes less significant with increasing speed. ↩

        • Scrooge McDuck on 28/08/2017 - 01:03

          @Wallyt99:

          I ran some quick numbers. Throughput is greater in volume of cars at 60 than at 80.

          How did you arrive at that?

          If the time gap is the same, the throughput is the same.

        • Scrooge McDuck on 28/08/2017 - 01:05

          @cameldownunder:

          full amount of points for you. You got the reason why. Mathematical details are not that relevant.

          lawl! People of OzBargain! 😏

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yptXkLglKkA&t=22

        • Wallyt99 on 28/08/2017 - 10:51
          +1

          @Scrooge McDuck:

          I looked at actual safe stopping distances on a govt website - and then worked out how many cars can fit in a given km of roadway at one time.

          Then I multiplied that by the km/h to see the cumulative distance those said cars could travel. The larger number of cars travelling at 60kmh cumulatively travelled a greater distance. I.e greater throughput for a given section of road.

        • macrocephalic on 28/08/2017 - 13:42

          @altomic: I think the biggest problem is people not leaving a sufficient gap to the car in front. Most of the problems you've listed are reduced or negated by leaving a sufficient gap.

        • Scrooge McDuck on 28/08/2017 - 17:27

          @Wallyt99:

          I looked at actual safe stopping distances on a govt website - and then worked out how many cars can fit in a given km of roadway at one time.

          Then I multiplied that by the km/h to see the cumulative distance those said cars could travel. The larger number of cars travelling at 60kmh cumulatively travelled a greater distance. I.e greater throughput for a given section of road.

          You have calculated a quantity which isn't relevant to the physical problem.

          The relevant factors to traffic on a section of road are transit time and flow rate (throughput) which is measured in vehicles passing per unit of time.

        • cameldownunder on 28/08/2017 - 18:22

          @Scrooge McDuck: You might be goos in correcting spelling and Syntax, but at math, you , well, it's not your strength …
          Assumption: to stop from 50km/h to 0 takes 2 seconds,
          the deceleration follows the rule V ( speed ) = acceleration * time. this gives you a deceleration of 25m/s
          with 25m/s deceleration you need S ( space ) = 1/2 * deceleration * t^2 = 50 meters of space

          If you increase the speed to 80km/h, the space needed to stop is now 80m / 25m/s = 3.2 seconds
          the space to decelerate from 80km/h is 1/2 * deceleration * t^2 = 125 meters. More than DOUBLE what it is at 50 km/h

          If the cars want to be at safe distance, travelling at 80 km/h requires them to be at 120 metres of distance instead of 50.

          travelling at 50 km/h, the car takes 3.5 seconds to travel the safe space of 50 m
          travelling at 80 km/h, the car takes 6.75 seconds to travel the safe space of 125 m

          in a queue travelling 50km/h you have a car passing every 3.5 seconds, while at 80km/h you get one car passing at 6.75 seconds
          Assuming they all keep their safe distance.

        • Scrooge McDuck on 28/08/2017 - 22:49

          @cameldownunder:

          You've completely overlooked the fact that a car in front will take time and space to come to a stop itself. A car behind only needs an additional buffer to allow for the reaction time of the driver and a safety margin.

          The 2 second rule is a widely recommended safety standard (sometimes increased to 3 seconds in modern times).

        • Wallyt99 on 29/08/2017 - 08:06

          @Scrooge McDuck:

          Yes because you can always guarantre that the car in front of you wont come to a immediate and catastrophic stop. Im sure that when calculating flow rate governments are far nore likely to use your '2 second rule' rather than their actual published safe stopping distances. Time you gave up on this one. Youve been shown to be wrong.

        • Scrooge McDuck on 29/08/2017 - 10:11

          @Wallyt99:

          Don't be a weasel Wally, I could've ridiculed you for your errors.

          The first step to solving a mathematical problem is determining what that problem is. I'm afraid you didn't get that part right.

        • cameldownunder on 30/08/2017 - 10:43
          -1

          @Scrooge McDuck: I'll remind you of that when you just overtook a 40T truck and need to step hard on the brakes.
          "A car behind only needs an additional buffer to allow for the reaction time of the driver and a safety margin."
          What is it now? Only reaction time, or only a safety margin?
          Your assumption is that the car in front has the time to brake. But what if he slams into a car in front of him, and you didn's see it coming.
          All of a sudden your space to brake has been significantly reduced.
          This is one of the major reason why there are mass collision in Germany.
          I made an assumption of 2 seconds, to calculate the difference between 50kmh and 80kmh, you need to read the responses better.

        • Scrooge McDuck on 30/08/2017 - 12:40

          @cameldownunder:

          What is it now? Only reaction time, or only a safety margin?

          Neither, it's both added together. Only that buffer is needed, not a full stopping distance.

          Your assumption is that the car in front has the time to brake. But what if he slams into a car in front of him, and you didn's see it coming.

          Drivers should be aware of the traffic around them and take reasonable precautions to drive safely and defensively. But it isn't practical nor possible to prepare for all adverse events which may occur.

          I made an assumption of 2 seconds, to calculate the difference between 50kmh and 80kmh, you need to read the responses better.

          I first referred to the 2 second rule here, before your comment. So take your own advice.

          You can read more about the 2 second rule here:
          http://lmgtfy.com/?q=2+second+rule

        • cameldownunder on 30/08/2017 - 12:52

          @Scrooge McDuck: Now I understand, it is only a combination [Oxymoron]
          The 2 second rule is working because the faster you go the bigger the distance gets, not linearly, but by a factor of t^2 ( square ), same distance you need to stop.
          "But it isn't practical nor possible to prepare for all adverse events which may occur."
          If you can stop your car in the free, clear space ahead of you, you can avoid 99% accidents, Flying pigs excluded.
          If a Kid comes running out on the road behind a car, well, that is another exception.

          Of course if you don't care of what is happening behind you, or beside you, or incoming traffic ( I mean, you have the right of way ), it is more likely you will be involved in an accident.

          Not everyone needs Google, some remember the stuff they teached us in school.

        • Scrooge McDuck on 30/08/2017 - 13:03

          @cameldownunder:

          The 2 second rule is working because the faster you go the bigger the distance gets, not linearly, but by a factor of t^2 ( square ),

          No, the gap distance does increase linearly with speed:

          distance = speed * time(constant)

          Who were you saying was bad at maths? Reminder:

          @cameldownunder:

          You might be goos in correcting spelling and Syntax, but at math, you , well, it's not your strength …

           

          some remember the stuff they teached us in school.

          Some need more than what they were taught in school.

        • cameldownunder on 30/08/2017 - 13:08

          @Scrooge McDuck:
          Speed = Acceleration * Time
          Space = speed * time
          Space = ( acceleration * time ) * time
          Q.E.D
          P.S. Time is NEVER a constant.

          "Some need more than what they were taught in school."
          LOL Can't believe you fell for it :-)

        • Scrooge McDuck on 30/08/2017 - 13:41

          @cameldownunder:

          Speed = Acceleration * Time
          Space = speed * time
          Space = ( acceleration * time ) * time

          The 2 second rule refers to a safety gap not a stopping distance.

          LOL Can't believe you fell for it :-)

          Are you suggesting you made that error intentionally? 🙄

        • cameldownunder on 30/08/2017 - 14:00

          @Scrooge McDuck: "Are you suggesting you made that error intentionally? 🙄"
          Yes. To push your buttons.

          The rules of Speed and distance do not refer to any scenarios, those are basic physical rules.

      • mbck on 26/08/2017 - 11:13

        Dang the research doesn't support my argument. #FAKERESEARCH

        are you trump?

        • dad-bod on 26/08/2017 - 11:53
          -4

          I doubt you've even looked at the links posted.
          I don't see good research to support either argument.
          Thanks for another useless troll comment.

        • mbck on 26/08/2017 - 17:53
          +1

          @dad-bod:

          lol first of all the link you showed is not research. It's a news article.

          Second of all, the article you posted is basically a confirmation of human emotion; namely frustration causing accidents. The issue is not speed limit, but education on how to be respectful and responsible while driving.

          "We've all felt the frustration of being behind slow drivers and annoyance at aggressive drivers weaving through traffic". You don't blame the speed limit for that. You blame the person being frustrated. When she/he says no, do you get frustrated and change the rule so you can do whatever you want? You educate the public and get them to understand why they need to speed up or slow down. You educate them so that they DON'T get frustrated and aggressive.

          "it's not only direct safety on highways professor boyles believes will be improved. He adds that important speed limits like school zones and those in the cbd would be respected more if highway speed limits had more credibility"
          Lol, what a joke, where's the evidence people will respect this? This is theory. The most likely hypothesis is people speeding even more because things are so lax (look at those self service counters at safeway/coles…yeah.
          You educate people on why they need to slow down or speed up. You educate people so that they DON'T get frustrated and aggressive.

          "Relations with police will also improve, he believes, saying, rather than having to reflexively bake when seeing a police car, or worrying about selective enforcement of speed laws when everybody is travelling over the speed limit, rational speed limits mean that average drivers can simply go about their business"
          Instead of blaming on speed limit, why don't you actually NOT speed in the first place, which makes you paranoid and do the above? This is blaming attitude; very non-constructive. Once you start to blame, then it doesn't stop. You need to look at yourself first before you blame. If you stay within your speed limit, you are not going to be worried/frustrated/aggressive. AND everyone is safe.

          Holy crap I can quote so many more from that 'research' and it's silly.

          If you think just having an autobahn here and expect nothing bad to happen, then I'm glad you're not in charge of the roads.

          No one will probably be able to change your mind as you'll reply back with "I still don't have any figures….", but stay safe on the road mate

        • dad-bod on 26/08/2017 - 17:57
          -2

          @mbck:

          The news article has a link to a published article. Note I used this as one example and gave the caveat that there will be two sides to the story…
          Again you miss the entire point. Won't waste any more breath on stupidity…

        • mbck on 26/08/2017 - 17:58

          @dad-bod:

          perfect comeback..personal attacks. lol yeah you've made your point mate

          Never had a speeding fine here. So I want to thank you for funding our government coffers with your money, without which some vital services may be cut off. Much appreciated.

          ps you can have the last reply, I know your 'type'

        • dad-bod on 26/08/2017 - 18:01
          -1

          @mbck:

          Nothing personal about my statement. And…you've made no point.

          Love how you assume I've had a speeding fine. Just lol

          ps good

      • [Deactivated] on 28/08/2017 - 09:31

        been here less than a month and calling someone else a troll? gtfo

    • Blitzfx on 28/08/2017 - 00:59
      +5

      You have no idea how traffic management works. Research it and then come back here.

      Even though OP has the wrong attitude, is misinformed / ignorant of the statistics & data out there and has some bad ideas, it's people like you who give knee jerk replies with nothing of substance that make things worse when trying to convince the public and select individuals. Similar to telling a kid not to stick a fork in the mains power socket without explaining why. They aren't going to be convinced to listen to your advice and instead be even more curious as to why you gave such a warning and stick their fork in there to find out.
      Only after being called out do you go put in >10 seconds of effort in a comment reply, providing statistics and information.

      Shutting down OP like that just entrenches their confirmation bias because you showed nothing to back up your argument, essentially sending a message that they're right, you're wrong. Unless of course your objective here is to enable OP here to perpetuate incorrect ideas.

      You can't seriously have expected OP to have done their own research or have the initiative to be educated on this matter after reading the opening statements and realising how wrong it was. In fact, I'm willing to bet they'll leave this place worse off than before having being slapped with empty, denigrating replies such as yours. This can only serve to reinforce the misinformation they've conjured up in their own mind or heard elsewhere, and given their attempt at presenting their anecdotal evidence as a solid point, demonstrate to everyone else that they are a prime example of the illusory truth effect. You can only expect this to be exacerbated in a discussion surrounding the topic in question, full of replies such as your first.

      With OP not realising the true effects of lower road speeds and less accidents vs higher speeds and increased accidents, both outcomes clearly not being equally salient in OP's mind, telling them they don't know how it all works without explanation and insinuating you do, adds nothing to the discussion.

  • Euphemistic on 25/08/2017 - 21:14
    +16

    I'd say that the speed limits are low to prevent crashes. If the limit is 80, but you can only go 60 due to traffic, why not make the limit 60 so that you don't get people trying to weave their way through heavy traffic becuase 'I'm supposed to be going 80'.

    Over the years we have been 'trained' to limits that are too high in many cases. We are conditioned to drive at the ousted limit whatever the condition, and that is often too fast. I like to drive fast. But I think we need to start lowering the limits now that traffic volumes are much higher.

    I see plenty of speed limits at 70 or 80 for a short section that only seem to make people think they are going to slow when they get out the other end back to the 60 zone.

    • Mrbean007 on 25/08/2017 - 21:24
      +2

      Because when you make it 60 the idiots drop down to 40 sydney traffic is the worst glad i live around the corner from work

  • xoom on 25/08/2017 - 21:36
    +5

    I think the authorities think that humans are too stupid to actually drive at a safe speed if not given a ridiculously low speed limit to obey.

    If you can guarantee that every car on the road adheres to strict roadworthy condition. For example bald tires that could result in erratic driving at speeds then i may even support you. Secondly. Have you seen how some people drive these days? You wonder how they ever get their license. And you want those guys driving even faster?

    The speed limits more often than not is to account for the lowest common denominator. Believe it or not, not all drivers license holders are qualified to go all formula 1 or rally driver on public roads let alone actual race tracks.

    • Cheeper on 26/08/2017 - 01:37

      Too many cars and not enough roads cause a lot of frustration also. It will only get worse… the only solution is to leave earlier and learn to relax. Getting irate will not do anything.

      • Euphemistic on 26/08/2017 - 06:53
        +1

        And too many terrible drivers. If everyone was a fantastic driver we would not need to spend billions on making roads safer.

    • pingMarky on 28/08/2017 - 16:28

      Not lowest common denominator, more like managemnt of the weakest component within the four pillars of the safe system: people, cars, environment and speed.

  • sp3ctr41 on 25/08/2017 - 22:03
    +5

    One thing which I always really questioned is the speed limit on heavy vehicles vs cars. A B-Double travelling at 80km/h is significantly more difficult to control, has more energy, and takes much longer to brake than a tiny Yaris travelling at the same speed. Even though both are doing the 'speed limit'. Surely if its safe for heavy vehicles to be going that fast then it is also safe for a car to be going much faster.

    Anyway, without a doubt one of the biggest contributors to traffic is our response time to react to the cars moving in front of us. It's not instant. Perhaps people can be trained to all push the gas simultaneously when the lights turn green.

    • Cheeper on 26/08/2017 - 01:39

      or maybe those big heavy trucks that take longer to stop need to travel slower… called driving to conditions.
      Simultaneos take offs?? LOL.. need to get people off their phone for a start with that idea.

      • sp3ctr41 on 26/08/2017 - 06:54
        +2

        So what's the point of the speed limits then? If trucks are driving to conditions, so can cars, which can be much higher than the speed limit if the road, weather and car are in good condition. In the case of trucks you just stated that the speed limit is useless and they should travel up to whatever feels right, assuming the target speed limit is too high. The same logic should be applied to all vehicles.

        The only point in the speed limit is speed uniformity, which gets made redundant by big heavy trucks anyway.

        And yes, I suspect too many people don't even have the proper reflexes to react to the myriad of crash situations this creates. A shame.

        • Scrooge McDuck on 26/08/2017 - 14:24

          The only point in the speed limit is speed uniformity,

          It also helps drivers who aren't familiar with the particular road during quiet times, to adopt an appropriate speed for any hazards which may be ahead.

    • Euphemistic on 26/08/2017 - 06:54

      But if there is a difference in what speeds are applicable to different vehicles it leads to drivers thinking they are being 'held up' by slower vehicles and leads to stupid overtaking moves.

      • sp3ctr41 on 26/08/2017 - 06:57

        Except it already happens. People overtake slow accelerating buses and trucks anyway. Having a higher limit won't change that. This could especially show difference if on highways, heavy vehciles stick to one lane while cars use the rest.

        • Euphemistic on 26/08/2017 - 07:03

          So making different limits will just make that worse.

          If you want special limits of highways, you'd have to start building an extra land on every single one. Don't know if you've ever driven in the country, most roads are only single lane and people pull stupid overtaking moves to get around trucks all the time, imagine if that happen in the city with much more traffic. Chaos.

        • sp3ctr41 on 26/08/2017 - 07:12

          @Euphemistic:

          The trade off for better traffic flow is worth it. You can't make rules for idiot's on roads,they are going to do stupid things regardless. I have indeed driven on country roads. Some dirt roads/pave roads should definately have a low speed limit for reducing maintanence costs. As for it happening in the city, it does happen in the city. Have you seen paramatta road these days? Trucks carrying spoils from the M4 project are doing half the speed limit and its not really causing issues (other than the fact they are sometimes occupying more than one lane).

          What I'm suggesting is a complete change of mentality. Rather than enforcing a speed limit everyone should be going at. Set a higher limit (for road conditions and curves) but only do it if weather and vehicle performance permits.

  • Almost Banned on 25/08/2017 - 23:16
    +10

    Strangely our road design is getting better.
    Our cars are getting better.
    And yet our speed limits are getting lower - despite steadily decreasing road fatality rates.
    Explain that.

    • Tech5 on 26/08/2017 - 01:20
      +7

      "Speed limits are getting lower"
      "decreasing road fatality rates"

      Hmmmm…

      • Cheeper on 26/08/2017 - 01:44

        blaircam is right.. i did not believe that fatality rates are becomming less but it is true..
        1970 was the worst… 29 dead per 100,000. 2014 4 dead per 100,000.
        Source.. http://roadsafety.transport.nsw.gov.au/statistics/fatalitytr…

        • Tech5 on 26/08/2017 - 01:44
          +7

          Was just pointing out that there is a possibility that those two statements are related. So he just explained it to himself. I dont know either way, just pointing it out. Shit stirring

        • Almost Banned on 26/08/2017 - 09:46
          +5

          @zhuang281: The reduction in fatalities does not appear to correlate to the reduction in speed limits.
          The reduction in fatalities seems pretty steady over decades. The reduction in speed limits is irregular and punctuated.
          I should also point out that the fatality rate is per 100,000 population so it takes into account growth in numbers.

        • Scrooge McDuck on 26/08/2017 - 14:27
          +1

          What is the cost on society from the dysgenic effect of all these poor drivers surviving!? 🤔

        • Almost Banned on 26/08/2017 - 14:37

          @Scrooge McDuck:
          Homer: My name's Homer Simpson, I'd like to sign up for something.
          Mrs. Blumenstein: Well, we have an opening on the debate team.
          Homer: Debate, like, arguing?
          Mrs. Blumenstein: Yes.
          Homer: I'll take THAT, you DING POT! Just warming up, Mrs. Blumenstein.
          Mrs. Blumenstein: This year's topic is "Resolved: The national speed limit should be lowered to 55 miles per hour."
          Homer: 55? That's ridiculous! Sure, it'll save a few lives, but millions will be late!

        • mbck on 26/08/2017 - 17:54
          +1

          @blaircam:

          It's probably due to the increase safety of newer cars….but if you've been to an ABI unit…I'd rather be dead than 'alive'. So yes reduction in speed limit does help not just fatalities, but severe injuries.

        • kingmw on 26/08/2017 - 22:34

          Combination of improvements in car safety technology and lower speed limits results in less fatalities. However this does not mean you won't get injured, just less likely to die and be a statistic.

      • dealman on 28/08/2017 - 07:08

        Hmm.

        Correlation is not equal to causation.

        PS. For anyone more interested in this I'd highly recommend the book "Traffic".

        • Tech5 on 28/08/2017 - 14:19

          Never said it was. Read my second comment

    • Cheeper on 26/08/2017 - 01:47

      Blaircam: Something you overlooked.. roads are far more crowded and it seems there are a lot more incapable and inattentive drivers. Good roads and better cars can only achieve so much.

    • Euphemistic on 26/08/2017 - 07:00
      +7

      our cars are getting better.

      But for every improvement in our cars drivers are also getting more lazy. Automatic means you don't need to think about what the engine is doing, traction control means you don't need to think about how far to push the loud pedal, warning beepers mean you don't need to look, 'entertainment systems' make you distracted and now we are getting to autonomous braking and driving half the time you don't need to concentrate. Drivers are getting worse becuase they don't need to concentrate much.

      Speed limits are reducing because of traffic volumes. Ever noticed on the freeway that when there are a bunch of cars around the speed drops? It's not just becuase cars a driving slower, but because people are having to change lanes etc. But out on your own you can drive at the posted limit easily. More traffic, more interaction, less speed.

      • Peace Maker on 26/08/2017 - 08:11
        +2

        100%. Drivers aren't engaged when they are behind the wheel. Especially at the end of a working day. People are tired, hop in their nice comfortable climate controlled box and start to switch off mentally or just day dream.

        • Scrooge McDuck on 26/08/2017 - 14:32
          +4

          or amplify and reflect their stress/frustration/rage sitting in gridlock.

          Public transport improvements in Sydney and other capitals are long overdue.

    • altomic on 26/08/2017 - 12:15
      +3

      I loved driving around europe 2 years ago. autobahn for the win. drivers are relatively very disciplined. i.e. they drive for speed, I didn't see any road rage. unlike australia's "that (profanity) (profanity) just cut me off, I'm gonna tail gate that (profanity) with my high beams on. how (profanity) dare he disrespect me, I'll show that (profanity)"

      I'd like to see strict 140km/h speed limit on the Hume from outside Melb to just before Wodonga, then after Albury to….not really sure (I never go past Woomargama)

      140 max

      trucks stick to the left
      slow cars stick to the left.
      cars doing <130 in the right lane must move to the left (if safe) to allow cars doing >130 but <140 to pass on the right

      a new act (or addition to the the current road rules) to regulate driver behaviour/road rules on the Hume (and any other road with high speed limits) that has very strict penalties for speeding, for driving unroadworthy vehicles, for dangerous driving, etc.

      • Scrooge McDuck on 26/08/2017 - 14:36

        I'd like to see strict 140km/h speed limit on the Hume from outside Melb to just before Wodonga, then after Albury to….not really sure (I never go past Woomargama)

        Campbelltown…

        On second thoughts, you don't want to slow down for Campbelltown.

        • [Deactivated] on 26/08/2017 - 18:07

          What is a strict limit?

          That you loose your license indefinately if you surpass it and drive dangerously?

        • Scrooge McDuck on 26/08/2017 - 18:44

          @eggmaster:

          I guess that'd be a natural consequence of driving too fast while not gripping it firmly.

        • dad-bod on 27/08/2017 - 08:04

          @Scrooge McDuck:

          Lol this is gold. He'll be scratching is head at this reply.

      • kingmw on 26/08/2017 - 22:41

        Problem with this is that fatigue is one of the biggest killers on long highways and going at higher speeds will probably result in higher rates of fatalities. Safety technology are only designed for 64km/hr to instant stop, only luck can save you at speeds >100km/hr.

        • IamEzza on 28/08/2017 - 02:12
          +2

          Higher speeds mean you get to your destination quicker though so less time at the wheel getting fatigued. Also driving faster tends to keep you more awake.

      • vovka on 27/08/2017 - 01:06

        Don't forget the kangaroos. Hitting it at 140km/h might end up very badly.
        Must admit penalties must be toughen. Fines for lane jumping tripled.

        • BartholemewH on 27/08/2017 - 10:16

          I'm not saying that people hit kangaroos at this sort of speed and write 100km/h on their insurance claim form, but I am implying it.

        • kingmw on 28/08/2017 - 07:46

          @BartholemewH: Might not be writing much after that accident…

      • bobbified on 28/08/2017 - 14:30

        This is way too logical for our governments.

    • hedonistic on 28/08/2017 - 01:22

      if you drive a good car you should be able to drive faster - top gear

      true.

    • pingMarky on 28/08/2017 - 16:31

      maybe your observations are todo with newer speed limits being introduced i.e school zones

    • Euphemistic on 30/08/2017 - 13:52

      Hasn't the road toll started to increase in the last few years?

      • Almost Banned on 30/08/2017 - 15:02

        Well, not really.
        There has been a very small upswing off a very low base.
        If you listened to the media you would think it was at record highs.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_i…

        • Euphemistic on 30/08/2017 - 15:16

          But from a low in 2014 it rose in 2015 and again in 2016. The last 12 months to end July is 1235, still greater than 2014, so it's not looking like dropping back.

          The per capita results are similar, with the 2015 and 2016 worse than 2014.

        • Almost Banned on 30/08/2017 - 16:35

          @Euphemistic: Yes, I agreed with you.
          After hitting a very low figure two years ago it is up slightly - but if you chart it out it is pretty consistent with past patterns of steady decline with occasional small upswings. As to whether the current upswing is a trend, only time will tell.
          See https://files.ozbargain.com.au/upload/77066/51807/road_death…

        • Euphemistic on 31/08/2017 - 09:22

          @blaircam: Yes. The current path is a bad one, but hopefully it can be turned around. I think that driver distraction (phones mostly) and increasing traffic volumes are big factors in the current increase. I also looked at some of the world stats, and whilst we are not the best by a fair margin we are still a long way ahead of some other developed countries (namely the US)

  • [Deactivated] on 26/08/2017 - 08:07

    I think drivers should wear helmets.

    Maybe we can pertition state government.

    Everyone is smashing into eachother, yet still want to go faster; like your fav race-car driver, or your best mate at the nats.

    Racecar drivers wear helmets, so why not drivers of public road motor vehicles.

    (I am the dude happily driving 5km/h under the speed limit… its a speed limit. I have never had a fine in my life. How good is that? I don't have to go on ozbargain complaining about being fined)

    • altomic on 26/08/2017 - 12:18

      helmets - modern cars have airbags unless you have takata airbags.

      I agree sticking under the limit - dependent on the road:.

      urban areas, slow.
      main road stick to the limits.
      highway - stick to the speed limit or move to the left.

    • btst7000 on 26/08/2017 - 22:49
      +2

      "I am the dude happily driving 5km/h under the speed limit… its a speed limit. I have never had a fine in my life. How good is that? I don't have to go on ozbargain complaining about being fined"

      I speed literally everywhere it's safe to do so (ie highways with low traffic and good driving conditions, country roads with good visibility etc) and I've never had a fine either - but I've also saved hundreds of hours over my driving career. :)

      • decr on 27/08/2017 - 09:07
        +2

        That's the problem. Doing 110km/h on a good quality highway road with good conditions, hardly no-one else on the road in a car that was designed for the autobahn makes you feel like you could walk faster.

      • Scrooge McDuck on 28/08/2017 - 01:30

        I speed literally everywhere it's safe to do so (ie highways with low traffic and good driving conditions, country roads with good visibility etc) and I've never had a fine either - but I've also saved hundreds of hours over my driving career. :)

        That's because you're probably an alert driver.

        AFAIK all fixed speed cameras are signposted, as are the mobile ones. It's the hidden HWP cars you need a 6th sense for.

        • btst7000 on 28/08/2017 - 02:59
          +1

          6th sense… or waze

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join