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

    • macrocephalic on 28/08/2017 - 15:27

      This was my argument when the Victorian government wanted to introduce mandatory reflective clothing for motorcyclists "to improve safety". Wearing a helmet in a car also improves safety. I'll wear 5 pieces of reflective clothing when all car passengers are required to wear a helmet.

  • EightImmortals on 26/08/2017 - 08:42
    +7

    Lower speeds=more driver frustration=drivers going faster than the posted limits= $$$$$$$ for the government!

    • [Deactivated] on 26/08/2017 - 12:30
      -2

      Or maybe it is just safer. Maybe the world isn't out to get you and you should just try and integrate with society more?

      • EightImmortals on 26/08/2017 - 14:29
        +3

        Do as I'm told and don't ask questions?
        Yeah that's always worked out for societies, historically speaking.

        "Or maybe it is just safer."

        Or 'maybe' you should do some research and report back as to whether that's true or not? Turns out that lowering the speed limits to a certain degree on certain roads can have some effect on safety but applied in a blanket fashion on state-wide basis actuals has no impact or a negative impact. Feel free to roll with the sheeple if you like but don;t expect the rest of us to. In the meantime I'll continue to drive safely with my eyes on the road and not on the speedo.

        • Scrooge McDuck on 26/08/2017 - 14:48
          +1

          Do as I'm told and don't ask questions?

          We're not too stupid and we're not too bright.

        • [Deactivated] on 26/08/2017 - 14:55
          +2

          Idk dude. As long as you remember; one crash doesnt cause just one hour of inconvenience for you.

          Imagine crashing your comodore in peak hour on the m4 back to blacktown, ready to cash your welfare check. Suddenly there are maybe 5000 people who have to wait an hour. Thats 5000 hours of humanities lost time because you believed you were more of a legend than dick jonson.

          The world isnt against you. You are just poor.

        • EightImmortals on 26/08/2017 - 15:40

          @eggmaster: Making a lot of assumptions there champ. Your biggest assumption is that going faster than a posted speed limit actually causes accidents yet the research shows that is only true about 4% of the time. I never said the world was against me in the first place either. I just claimed lower speed limits are great for government revenue (tax) raising.

          http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/baird-government-r…

          "THE Baird government is on track to collect a staggering $185 million from speed and red light camera fines as the road death toll surges back to levels last recorded in 2010."

          https://www.msn.com/en-au/motoring/ownership/australia%E2%80…

          "Australians spend roughly $1 billion dollars on speeding fines in a single year, Wheels has calculated.

          Derived from state-by-state figures, the headline number indicates the current focus on speeding from road safety experts and police is generating plenty of cash for the state governments, and the tally is set to grow."

          So speed limits are down, death tolls are up but so is revenue from speeding fines.

          Don't let the facts get in the way of good rant though.

          Whatever.

        • [Deactivated] on 26/08/2017 - 16:14
          +1

          @EightImmortals:

          Dude, people cant even do the 50km/h speed limits in the city. we really should reduce all roads by 20km/h. People find driving at current speeds too complex.

          Imo all traffic lighs should be red light speed cameras. It's not about fines. Its about keeping the bogans in line.

          Like we are way too lenient with driving offences. I can be low range speeding, low range drink driving and not wearing a seatbelt and still have a license, how cool is that?

          I can also speed theough a red; hit another car. As long as no one gets hurt. Consequence free. I can be behind the wheel later that day. Maybe pay a tiny shitty excess. How awesome is that?

          Car drivers need to be kept in line dude.

          We should adopt a zero tolerance for traffic offences. One offence and you lose your license for a year.

        • EightImmortals on 26/08/2017 - 16:50
          +2

          @eggmaster:

          Why not go back to horses? Wont have ANY car accidents then?

          "Its about keeping the bogans in line."

          But that's just keeping everyone restricted to the level of the lowest amongst us instead of bringing the lowest up to an acceptable standard. Thank God I don't live in a capital city. :)

        • mbck on 26/08/2017 - 17:57

          @EightImmortals:

          Where's the research on that 4%?

          My research shows that going faster increase fatalities and accidents by 73%. let me find that again.

        • [Deactivated] on 26/08/2017 - 18:06

          @EightImmortals:

          What is wrong with driving mindfully and slow?

          People aren't supet duper racecat drivers. Else they would be wearing helmets :)

          You are a civilian in a car. Dw bro. Im not going to visit the countryside or welfare towns any time soon.

        • EightImmortals on 26/08/2017 - 18:09
          +1

          @mbck: I'll have to try and find it as it was a while ago. Here's another one to keep you entertained in the meantime, it says 6% and not 4%.

          http://www.carbibles.com/speeding_facts.html

          TRL Report 323 entitled "A new system for recording contributary factors in road accidents" was a joint project between the TRL and the DETR (Department of Environment, Transport and Regions). It was designed to give true figures for the real causes of accidents taken across 8 representative police forces over 6 months in the summer of 1996. They devised a system based on two main categories: what went wrong, and why? Each of those is divided into subcategories such as failures of the driver or rider, failures of pedestrians etc. The report is a fascinating read for someone like me who has a website to maintain, but could be incredibly dull to most people. So to cut to the chase, there's two sections of information we need to look at.
          1. Overall incidence of contributary factors
          This is a categorised list of all the factors in the report which could contribute to but not necessarily cause an accident. I've reproduced the top 5 items from the report here:
          All factors involved in accident Definite factors involved in accident
          Description Number % Number %
          Failure to judge other person's path or speed 623 10.7% 218 10.3%
          Behaviour - carelessness / thoughtlessness / recklessness 513 8.8% 210 10%
          Inattention 465 8% 130 6.2%
          Looked but did not see 436 7.5% 149 7.1%
          Excessive speed 424 7.3% 126 6%
          What this means is that in 7.3% of the accidents, speed was one of many factors, and in only 6% of the accidents was it a definite causal factor.

          Another one here cLaims 3%:
          http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1061808/Speeding-dri…

          "Only 3 per cent of car accidents are caused by speeding drivers, Government figures have revealed.

          Yet there are nearly 7,000 speed cameras across the country which are unable to detect 'careless or reckless' drivers who cause three times as many accidents.

          Critics say the Department for Transport figures demolish the main justification for cameras.

          Anyway, that's it for me for one day. :)

        • EightImmortals on 26/08/2017 - 18:10
          +2

          @eggmaster:

          "What is wrong with driving mindfully and slow?"

          Nothing at all…..as long as you aren't slowing down anyone else. :)

        • [Deactivated] on 26/08/2017 - 18:15
          -1

          @EightImmortals:

          The idea that a perception exists where one driver is slowing another down (say for going 10-20km/h under the limit), suggests one is not driving mindfully at all.

          Even of you speed, most journeys you arrive 5m faster. Is it worth being a traffic hazard for that?

          Imo people who drive wrecklessly should get charged for attemptex manslaughter. Tame the bogans; no one cares if you miss 5 minutes.

        • EightImmortals on 26/08/2017 - 18:33

          @eggmaster: Drivng a few K's over the limit is not driving 'recklessly'. But agree with you for people who do actually drive recklessly.

        • [Deactivated] on 26/08/2017 - 18:37
          -2

          @EightImmortals:

          It is speed limit.

          Should be automatic loss of license for those who lack the intelligence to grasp such a simple concept.

        • dad-bod on 26/08/2017 - 20:39
          +2

          @eggmaster:

          Question for the thoughtless draconians:
          Define "speeding"…

        • Ughhh on 26/08/2017 - 22:29

          @eggmaster:

          Should be automatic loss of license for those who lack the intelligence to grasp such a simple concept.

          Same with People who lack the skills, good judgement and confidence to drive at regular speeds, they are a danger on the road too. Those people don't need to be driving 60kmph aka dangerously super fast by your definition, to kill or hurt anyone.

        • bs0 on 26/08/2017 - 22:52

          @EightImmortals:

          Isn't that data a little bit old? 6 months over 1996. Roads change, rules change, technology changes, reporting changes.

          More recent data, over 12 months in 2016, NSW.
          http://roadsafety.transport.nsw.gov.au/downloads/road-fatali…

          146/ 350 (2015) and 157/384 (2016) fatalities were associated with excessive speed. Much greater than any of the other behaviour factors (none >83, fatigue, alcohol, non-helmet).

          There's a lot of data there, too much for me to go through, so feel free to have a look :)

        • btst7000 on 26/08/2017 - 22:53

          @EightImmortals: Thanks for the detailed, referenced comment. A rare and refreshing site on this website

        • btst7000 on 26/08/2017 - 22:54

          @eggmaster:

          "Even of you speed, most journeys you arrive 5m faster. Is it worth being a traffic hazard for that?"

          5 minutes per journey * 10 journeys per week * 50 weeks per year * 50 years = 2000 hours saved over a lifetime of driving

        • kingmw on 26/08/2017 - 22:57

          @EightImmortals:
          This is a simplistic view of the cause of accidents from a pro-driving website. Even the report states "The
          information is inevitably subjective as it depends upon the
          investigator’s ‘reconstruction’ of the circumstances leading
          up to the accident from the available evidence." Therefore this highlights most people do not tell the truth when they are involved in an accident.

          Furthermore, most accidents are caused by a combination of factors and speed is definitely a confounding factor. For example, careless, reckless behaviour are significantly associated to drivers who speed and weave through traffic and the failure to judges another person's speed is due the fact that they or the other person are not going at the speed limit.

        • [Deactivated] on 26/08/2017 - 23:14
          -2

          @btst7000:

          One crash on a busy motorway could be over 3000 manhours wasted if you delay 1500 people by 2 hours.

          Saved? Are you not alive during that time?

        • bs0 on 26/08/2017 - 23:16

          @btst7000:
          Hey! If i rewrite his comment with modern data can I get the same compliment? :D
          http://roadsafety.transport.nsw.gov.au/downloads/crashstats2…

          ROAD TRAFFIC CASUALTY CRASHES IN NEW SOUTH WALES |Statistical Statement for the year ended 31 December 2015 was a project that reported the severity of injuries from road traffic crashes as identified from hospital records (NSW Police Force, Spinal Cord Injuries Australia, NSW Ministry of Health, Centre for Health Record Linkage and many more were involved). It was designed to include those crashes which conform to the national guidelines for reporting and classifying road vehicle crashes and are based on the following criteria across 12 months in NSW 2015 and was released in July 2016:
          1 The crash was reported to the police
          2 The crash occurred on a road open to the public
          3 The crash involved at least one moving road vehicle
          4 The crash involved at least one person being killed or injured

          The report is a fascinating read for someone like me who likes data and a challenge, but really, I'm just procrastinating from my studies and don't have time to read about 120+ pages. So to cut to the chase, there's two sections of information we need to look at.
          Overall incidence of contributary factors. This is a categorised list of all the factors in the report which could contribute to but not necessarily cause an accident. I've reproduced the top 4 items from the report here:
          Fatigue - 7.6% fatalities,
          Speeding - 16.5% of fatalities
          Alcohol - 4.5%
          So Speeding (16.5%) was the highest contributing factor in confirmed cases and in fact would be even higher due to under reporting

        • btst7000 on 26/08/2017 - 23:29

          @eggmaster: I did state that I would speed when the conditions are appropriate, which precludes exceeding the speed limit in busy locations.

        • btst7000 on 26/08/2017 - 23:31

          @bs0: Well, what's your point? Less than 1/8 fatal crashes ahve speeding as a contributing factor - and our roads are practically the safest they have ever been. Furthermore, speeding is a contextual factor - exceeding the speed limit on the empty highway is very different (and much less reckless) than speeding in a school zone at 8:45am.

        • bs0 on 26/08/2017 - 23:45
          +1

          @btst7000:
          Actually it's less than 1/6, not 1/8.
          I just wanted a compliment for such a detailed, referenced and up to date comment. A rare and refreshing site on this website.

          Beg to differ about the highway comment too, more fatalities occur on country highways (120 fatalities >100km/hr) at high speeds than in metropolitan areas (117 at all speeds).
          same doc: http://roadsafety.transport.nsw.gov.au/downloads/crashstats2…

        • Wallyt99 on 26/08/2017 - 23:53
          +1

          @bs0:
          Sight…. (sorry… but you were lowering the standard 😂😂😂😂)

        • btst7000 on 26/08/2017 - 23:55

          @bs0: Well then, thanks for the detailed, referenced comment. A rare and refreshing site on this website

          As for the country highway crashes, I suspect that they may be due to driver fatigue, poor road conditions and likely, poor vehicles. Most country drivers are in old utes and trucks as opposed to modern sedans and hatchbacks, which can handle far better and offer superior crash protection.

        • bs0 on 27/08/2017 - 00:04

          @btst7000:
          Cheers!
          There were 9 fatalities recorded as equipment failure in 2015 (2 brakes, 6 types, 1 axle/suspension). But yes, you are right it's hard to gauge the conditions of the vehicles involved in crashes as data identifies the type of vehicle but not the condition or make/year.
          Someone could argue that a large number of crashes occur during holiday times, when more cars are on the roads, in particular holidaymakers (unlikely to have poor vehicles?).

        • EightImmortals on 27/08/2017 - 07:06
          -1

          @bs0: "associated with" is not the same as "caused by". The report I posted was about speeding as the CAUSE of accidents. It makes sense that accidents would different outcomes based on the speed the vehicles were travelling. After having spent around 20 years driving on all kind of roads every day for work I have no argument with the amount of bad drivers out there. I was simply stating that lowering the speed limits is more of a revenue raiser that doing anything to reduce the road toll. As one report I read stated that reducing limits is only effective on 'some' roads in particular circumstances and blanket speed reductions are more of a nuisance than anything else. Also reports out here that show that people who dive UNDER the speed limit are the cause of more accidents than those who speed. :) Anyway, pointless conversation as we don't get a say in it anyway.

        • [Deactivated] on 27/08/2017 - 08:51

          @Ughhh:

          I agree.

          We should be more hasty at taking peoples license away for any road violation.

        • Daabido on 27/08/2017 - 09:36

          @btst7000: Kids should be lined up outside their class by 8:45.

        • Scrooge McDuck on 28/08/2017 - 01:42
          +2

          @eggmaster:

          Should be automatic loss of license for those who lack the intelligence to grasp such a simple concept.

          That's a big call from someone who can't even spell licence.

        • bobbified on 28/08/2017 - 14:40

          @bs0:

          more fatalities occur on country highways (120 fatalities >100km/hr) at high speeds than in metropolitan areas (117 at all speeds).

          Is it possible that driver fatigue and boredom that results in crashes causing death? A large number of crashes on country highways are single-car accidents.

          At speeds of 100km/h or so, I'd argue that someone isn't really going to die any worse had they been travelling at, say, 120 or 130km/h.

        • bobbified on 28/08/2017 - 14:51

          @bs0:

          Speeding (16.5%) was the highest contributing factor

          The term "speeding" is often used to describe a contributing a factor in accidents. The definition of "speeding" refers "going too fast for the conditions" regardless of whether the speed was above or below the speed limit.

          Without "speed", we would not be going anywhere - so as long as we're moving, then speed is going to be a factor in every accident.

          What they should be doing is assessing whether the accident would've occurred if the set speed limit was lower. If it would've occurred anyway (for example if a driver was completely distracted), then that accident should not have an impact on the speed limit for that section.

        • bs0 on 28/08/2017 - 16:12
          +1

          @bobbified:
          Sure, definitions are really really important for stats and reports, so that people are on the same page.
          That's why for the report, speeding was characterised as " excessive speed for the prevailing conditions". In particular:
          - The vehicle’s controller (driver or rider) was charged with a speeding offence
          - the vehicle was described by police as travelling at excessive speed
          - the stated speed of the vehicle was in excess of that permitted for the vehicle controller’s licence class or the vehicle weight
          - the stated speed of the vehicle was in excess of the speed limit.
          - The vehicle was performing a manoeuvre characteristic of excessive speed

          Also attempts were made to improve the accuracy of recording excessive speeding for the report:
          Commencing 1 January 2010 the criteria for determining whether a crash can be considered to have involved speeding was improved to assess whether or not the vehicle was travelling in excess of that permitted, based on licence class or vehicle weight
          They also acknowledge that excessive speeding can not always be determined. I would think that suggests it could be under reported.

          If you would like an example of poor definition use, and misdirection, I would refer you to the article that Eightimortals cites earlier.
          That website, carbibles, refers to a report title TRL 323, and claims speeding contributes only a small amount to crashes. Not saying that the data from TRL 323 is wrong, but the Interesting thing about the report is that it was looking at the causes of crashes. Or at least, it's primary objective was to look at different ways to collect and interpret road crash data - this is even in the title "A new system for recording contributory factors in road accidents". So really, Carbibles is misleading the debate with an irrelevant article.

          Ignoring this, other things to consider specifically about the data presented from TRL 323 and recycled by the carbibles article;
          - it's old data from the late 90's and there's so much more data, why not refer to those?
          - it has a limited operational time - 6months
          - small collecting team - only 8 of the metropolitan police forces. In Britain for that matter (UK is huge guys).

          In terms of driver fatigue and boredom on highways, yep I would say that's possible too (as mentioned in my post before).

        • bobbified on 28/08/2017 - 17:07

          @bs0:

          haha.. you've got a lot of good info there and thanks for posting it!

          To be honest, I don't think a lot of the stats on these studies are incorrect. What annoys me is how they're presented and twisted to suit the user's own agenda - ie, politicians!

          For example, the definition of "speeding" used in the studies is nothing close to being the same as the definition of "speeding" on the television ads. Yet, the results of studies with the much broader definition is quoted. The general public are led to believe that anything over the speed limit (which is what the common understanding of the definition of "speeding" is) will instantly cause many accidents and death - the truth is very far from that.

        • bs0 on 28/08/2017 - 18:29
          +1

          @bobbified:
          Ye, lots of misleading information here on Ozb. People refering to articles they never link, and people deliberately misinterpreting information.

      • dealman on 28/08/2017 - 07:18

        The world isn't out to get you

        PS. In case you didn't know the government is.

  • pegaxs on 26/08/2017 - 08:54
    +5

    When the revenue from fines drop off on certain roads because people start doing the right thing, the only thing left to do is to drop that areas speed limit. This has a two fold effect. It frustrates drivers, causing them to make their own mind up about what speed the road "should" be because the old speed is what it has "always" been, and the second effect it has is confusion. It's 80, it's 90' it's 70, it's 90 again. Creating confusion makes it hard to know what the speed limit is. Even something as simple as 80km/h on a 4 lane freeway creates confusion. Looks and feels like a freeway, but isn't.

    A lot of speed limits are there to confuse and frustrate drivers into making errors that ultimately turn into revenue.

    And yes, NSW is the worst. I thought Vic was until I moved back to NSW…

    • oscargamer on 26/08/2017 - 09:56
      +3

      "A lot of speed limits are there to confuse and frustrate drivers into making errors that ultimately turn into revenue"

      That's hilarious

      well done

      10/10

      • Scrooge McDuck on 26/08/2017 - 14:56
        +1

        The new series of speed limit signs are expected to look like this:

        -sqrt(3600)exp(iπ)

    • lordra on 26/08/2017 - 21:19

      I agree 100%. I hate how much and quickly the numbers keep changing all the time. The LCD is a 2k car, not the sports bike that can top off 60kmph in first gear. England has 3 speed limits. Wish we could do the same too.

      • oscargamer on 26/08/2017 - 22:11
        +2

        England does not have 3 speed limits. 20 30 40 50 60 70. That's 6…..i think

    • blitz on 27/08/2017 - 11:17

      This has a two fold effect. It frustrates drivers, causing them to make their own mind up about what speed the road "should" be because the old speed is what it has "always" been, and the second effect it has is confusion.

      Isn't the first effect the same as the second effect?

  • field1985 on 26/08/2017 - 21:11
    +4

    This video gives a good explanation of what causes traffic, and why building extra lanes or increasing speed limits doesn't neccessarily increase traffic flow. https://youtu.be/N4PW66_g6XA?t=10s

    Basically as the time-cost of driving decreases (increase in speed limit), more people will choose to drive, creating more traffic, which then decreases the speed again.

    There are plenty of ways to improve traffic flow/travel time. Increasing speed limits is not one of them.

    • lordra on 26/08/2017 - 21:21

      Yea, I've seen that one. The traffic snake is something we should do away with by introducing autonomous cars; pipe dream, but oh well.

      • ozkiwi75 on 27/08/2017 - 00:30

        Some road authorities are currently looking at the required changes to their infrastructure as a result of the impending arrival of autonomous vehicles. No joke. But keep in mind that road authorities move very slowly.

  • DiscoJango on 26/08/2017 - 22:42
    +2

    speed limits… i only adhere to them if theres cameras around, otherwise its my way.

  • bs0 on 26/08/2017 - 23:54
    +4

    Eh sorry for shitty formatting, just posting journal articles so people and OP can read and decide themselves.

    Siskind, V., Steinhardt, D., Sheehan, M., O’Connor, T., & Hanks, H. (2011). Risk factors for fatal crashes in rural Australia. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 43(3), 1082-1088.
    Chicago
    "After controlling for human factors, vehicle and road conditions made a minimal contribution to the seriousness of the crash outcome. Targeted interventions to prevent fatalities on rural and remote roads should focus on reducing speed and drink driving and promoting seatbelt wearing."

    A campaign to slow down speeding truckies has turned in some big results - a massive reduction in speeding, fewer accidents and, crucially, a drop in fatalities. [online]. Ten 5pm News (TEN NETWORK); Time: 17:00; Broadcast Date: Friday, 28th March 2014; Duration: 1 min., 43 sec.
    "A campaign to slow down speeding truckies has turned in some big results - a massive reduction in speeding, fewer accidents and, crucially, a drop in fatalities."

    Jama, H. H., Grzebieta, R. H., Friswell, R., & McIntosh, A. S. (2011). Characteristics of fatal motorcycle crashes into roadside safety barriers in Australia and New Zealand. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 43(3), 652-660.
    Chicago
    "The effect of speed limits on motor vehicle accidents, casualties, and fatalities for the period 1990 to 1998 indicates that with the introduction of radar system and speed cameras in 1994, speeding declined significantly. Also, monitoring radar systems and video cameras reduced traffic accidents, casualties, and fatalities. Urban speed limits vary narrowly between 48 and 60 km/h and rural speed limits ranged between 70 and 140 km/h. In conclusion, motor vehicle crashes are a major cause of mortality and morbidity in the United Arab Emirates. Simple measures such as the strict imposition of speed limits and the wearing of seat belts will be effective in reducing this substantial wastage of life and national resources."

    Identification of Risk Factors Associated with Motorcycle-Related Fatalities in Ohio
    Deogratias Eustace, P.E., M.ASCE; Vamsi Krishna Indupuru; and Peter Hovey
    "The results show that risk factors for fatality/severe injury significantly increase when the following circumstances apply: the motorcyclist is a female, being the motorcycle rider, use of excessive speeding, use of alcohol and/or drugs, riding without a helmet, being involved in a single-vehicle crash or at a nonintersection location, crashing on horizontal curves or on graded segments, and on major roadways. To reduce the number of fatal crashes, this study indicates that the dangers of excessive speed and operating a motorcycle while intoxicated must be fully stressed to the public and both require an elevated enforcement. The enactment of an Ohio universal helmet law is particularly recommended."

    Wilde, G. J. (1982). The theory of risk homeostasis: implications for safety and health. Risk analysis, 2(4), 209-225.
    "The results show that the average driver saves 26 s/day or 2 min/week by speeding. More importantly, the cost of these time savings is one fatality for every 24,450 h saved by the population on 100 km/h roads in dry conditions and one injury for every 2458 h saved on the same roads. "

    Brubacher, J. R., Chan, H., Brasher, P., Erdelyi, S., Desapriya, E., Asbridge, M., … & Pike, I. (2014). Reduction in fatalities, ambulance calls, and hospital admissions for road trauma after implementation of new traffic laws. American journal of public health, 104(10), e89-e97.
    "We evaluated the public health benefits of traffic laws targeting speeding and drunk drivers. In the 2 years after implementation of the new laws, significant decreases occurred in fatal crashes."

  • ozkiwi75 on 27/08/2017 - 00:23
    +9

    So funny reading all the comments. Seems like anyone who drives thinks they've got a degree in road design and traffic engineering. LOL

    The variable speed limits during congested periods are actually purely there to keep the traffic moving and reduce accidents (particularly rear enders). To answer your question, YES there are many idiots out there who don't drive to the conditions or obey the road rules correctly (I've read thousands of police crash reports before and you would not believe the muppets out there).

    Traffic modelling (and measured evidence) shows that treatments such as variable speed limits and ramp metering assist with prolonging the onset of traffic flow breakdown. The difficulty is in the road authority applying it correctly. Not relevant to this thread, but the variable speed signs are also useful in reducing speeds during incidents or traffic management (eg. when lane closures are needed during roadworks).

    Also as a side note, there are very stringent engineering design codes for determining road alignments and permanent speeds. This is how the road speed is chosen during road design (very roughly):

    1) the speeds are chosen to match road hierarchy at planning stage (eg. 100 km/h for motorways - usually determined by the road authority).
    2) there is a direct relationship between the posted speed and the road geometry (ie. the curves, crests, sags and sight distances).
    3) there are environmental factors to consider (eg. is there a large no. of intersections, side roads, driveways and parking spots).
    4) post construction, when there are safety issues raised through analysing historical crash data, consideration is given to reducing the speed (but it's actually quite rare to drop the speed as an initial treatment).

    Source: I've designed roads in QLD, NSW and VIC… so may be I'm to blame? :-)

    • dad-bod on 27/08/2017 - 08:11
      -2

      So…going along swimmingly at 70km/hr then boom! everyone is suddenly braking down to 40km/hr just to keep under the variable limit…way less chance of a rear ending aaay

      • ozkiwi75 on 27/08/2017 - 11:52
        +3

        Again, my first paragraph above proves itself again. Yes, I know you're probably being sarcastic, but it doesn't initially comes across that way.

        Comfortable deceleration rates are based off a set of National design standard documents called Austroads, which most, if not all road authorities have adopted. This document states that a comfortable deceleration rate is in the order of -2.5 m/s2. This equates to about 60 m of travelled distance when dropping from 70 km/h to 40 km/h.

        60 m is well within the sight distance to the posted variable speed sign to comfortably reduce speed (even accounting for reaction time on top of that). Like I said before, you can't prevent or design for muppets on the road, in this case from suddenly breaking due to inattentiveness.

    • crfnx on 27/08/2017 - 11:51
      +1

      Good post.
      It is much more about keeping the flow going by reducing traffic waves.

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_wave

    • blitz on 27/08/2017 - 19:57
      +1

      I think you should do an AMA. I think that would be fascinating!

  • [Deactivated] on 27/08/2017 - 01:24
    +1

    is that why there is 3 speed changes within 500 metres down the road to keep the traffic flowing, between keeping an eye on the rest of the dills on the road and the speed signs and watching my speedo I have no time to watch the road..

    yes its all designed to keep me safe I am sure ? money baby money and degree's in common sense you cant have both so pick one and yes the prize goes out to our saintly liberal grubberment how smart they are. they know how to make money but they failed the what was that now I cant remember :) something about common ??

    anyway Sieg Heil hier fuhrer

    Source: I have driven on the motocross tracks op's roads for 35 years and through the grace of some higher power I can share my story.

    my goal when driving is to 1. Identify dangerous drivers , they come in many forms, to slow, to erratic, to drunk, to stoned, to distracted, …time on the road gives this 6th sense, 2. get safely where I am going which is also number 1. lastly is not to get fined and I put that last because I would rather pay a fine and use my common sense than blindly follow some rule that if followed on certain occasions would see me hurt or worse.

    so my goal is to look after me at all costs

    PS I have all my points and my last fine was 10 years ago and through that grace have never been in accident that required police or insurance companys, and I hope I can continue to use my gile to navigate the shit fight out there.

  • utopia on 27/08/2017 - 07:56
    +1

    Speed limits on public roads too slow for you? Go build and maintain your own instead of leeching off the public

    • dad-bod on 27/08/2017 - 08:07

      Utopia….hmmm

    • Scrooge McDuck on 28/08/2017 - 01:52
      +1

      If only…

    • bobbified on 28/08/2017 - 13:52
      +2

      More like, if you can't drive safely at a reasonable speed and require super slow limits to "feel" safe, then you shouldn't be on the road at all.

    • Ahbal on 28/08/2017 - 20:01
      +1

      oh I would love to. Even if I had the $ govt would not allow it. So I am stuck with absurdly low speed due to the minority of incompetent drivers who should not even be driving in the first place.

  • neyo on 27/08/2017 - 08:21

    Op calling everyone troll when really he's the troll.

    • dad-bod on 27/08/2017 - 08:22

      Hi!

  • DiscoJango on 27/08/2017 - 09:36

    adelaide is like this, frustratingly low speed limits, 60 on what should essentially be an 80-100kpg main highway, however they easily have half the traffic vic does.

  • soaringphoenix on 27/08/2017 - 11:22
    -4

    The problem isn't the speed limit, it's the fact that most drivers in Australia are pottering around in underpowered 4cyl vehicles and are so petrol conscious that they ease away from the lights at a glacial pace, rather than accelerating quickly to speed. If people learnt not to be so afraid of the accelerator, traffic would flow far more freely.

    • kingmw on 27/08/2017 - 16:26
      +1

      And waste more petrol to arrive at the next set of lights with everyone else?? I don't see any advantage to this at all but go ahead and burn your own money.

    • DiscoJango on 27/08/2017 - 18:17

      ah, your one of those people who hard accelerate towards a red light. good job!

  • HarmonicMelody on 27/08/2017 - 13:54
    +3

    Why are traffic infringement related forum posts so stupid?

  • Ahbal on 27/08/2017 - 15:27
    +4

    Ive said this many times. If drivers cannot handle the previous speeds and end up crashing, then quite frankly they should not be driving. 90 on the M4 is an absolute joke.

  • Sinful on 27/08/2017 - 21:54

    I don't like Ozbargain posts anymore, most of them are just filled with pure hate.

  • Jamie007 on 28/08/2017 - 01:10
    +2

    I agree completely, we know that fatigue is one of the biggest causes of fatalities on the road, yet they are forcing drivers to spend longer and longer on the roads. I live in a country area, practically everyone living here commutes an hour or more out of town every day for work. In each direction there's nothing but long country roads. They all used to be 100 zones. Over the years one by one they've dropped their speed limits so now every road is a maximum of 80. And I can feel the extra fatigue when I'm driving home from work, the extra travel time plus the extra boredom of low speeds makes me feel tireder and more easily distracted whilst driving then I ever did before. It's also brought out the worst behaviour in some drivers as many ignore the new lowered limits and overtake those who stick to the limits. I see more dangerous overtaking than I ever did before.

  • centrelink on 28/08/2017 - 02:11

    I think we should just ban cars. ANYONE WITH ME?

  • frostman on 28/08/2017 - 08:32
    +3

    I think the authorities think that most humans are too stupid to actually drive at a safe speed

    The truth is whether our speed limits are 120km/h on the motor way or 90km/h, or whether the Syd Eastern Dist is 60km/h or 80km/h it doesn't matter when Australia is swamped by absolutely shit drivers. Drivers inherently lacking the basic necessity of judging distance, speed and being able to control the vehicle in a manner that won't result in the rest of the drivers around them trying to escape their trail of stupidity.

    • Braking whilst going uphill
    • Abrupt stopping
    • Stopping and then thinking about using the indicator
    • The sheer absence of using rear view mirror or even acknowledging that someone is behind you
    • Unnecessary slow driving
    • Misunderstanding that the right lane on motorways is for overtaking not driving 50km/h under the limit

    There is a large stereotype around these drivers and unfortunately it's true, so no matter what the speed limit is, the above will always happen and cause accidents. The 2nd group of idiot drivers causing accidents are drunk & drug-abusing fools, followed by hoons that race/speed and lose control.

  • bobbified on 28/08/2017 - 12:15
    +1

    Funny that no-one's raised the concept of the 85th percentile speed that's used around the world to set speed limits.

    For anyone that doesn't know what it is, it's the speed at which 85% of people would travel at or below if there were no speed limits set. (Here's a more detailed explanation: https://www.lincoln.ne.gov/city/pworks/engine/traffic/regula…)

    The theory behind the 85th percentile rules is, that as a policy, most citizens should be deemed reasonable and prudent, and limits must be practical to enforce.

    I saw a table before that had the NSW speed cameras alongside the speed limit and what the 85th percentile speed for that section of road was. 90% or so of the cameras were set with a speed that's at least 10km/h lower than the 85th percentile speed. This means that most people would have to artificially slow down at those points and if traffic was to flow freely, at least 15% of drivers would get booked for "speeding".

  • OzzyOzbourne on 28/08/2017 - 12:20

    It's all based on the assumption that as people can't drive safely, they're going to crash, so best crash at a lower speed. Additionally, it generates enormous income.

    The right thing to do would obviously be to teach people how to drive properly, but that's never going to happen.

  • bargainswarrior03 on 28/08/2017 - 12:43

    Not sure if trolling

  • zerocents on 28/08/2017 - 13:04

    I'd rather get home later or miss my exit than cause an accident. I've learned after driving here for 3 years there's usually no way to get anywhere faster other than leaving earlier/later and clever mapping. Peak hour slows it all down regardless of the speed limit.

    Either go get a degree in traffic engineering and actively try make a difference, or download some podcasts, relax and plan differently.

    • bobbified on 28/08/2017 - 13:50

      I'd rather get home later or miss my exit than cause an accident

      Agreed - it all comes down to planning so that there's no rush in getting anywhere.

      no way to get anywhere faster other than leaving earlier/later and clever mapping

      In my early years when we were still feeling invincible, I and a few mates drove down from Sydney to Melbourne in 5 hours. (Would I do it again? No - but admittedly more because I'm more likely to get busted and lose my licence).

  • lordezekiel on 28/08/2017 - 17:06
    +1

    If the main reason for speed limits is to lessen the chance of accidents as most people seem to be stating, why don't they just choose a maximum speed limit of say 20km for the entire country so that virtually no one could possibly be killed?

    What percentage chance of someone being killed is acceptable?

    Obviously all who enter the roadways (except uneducated infants) are doing so with the knowledge they risk their life to some extent every single time they do so.

    • dad-bod on 28/08/2017 - 17:54

      Thank you…finally someone who actually gets the point of the post.
      Hence my question about how this risk may change (versus effect on traffic flow) at various speed limits for various types of road.
      Hard to have a simple non-toxic discussion on ozb these days…

    • Ahbal on 28/08/2017 - 19:57
      +2

      I entirely agree with you. I strongly believe that anyone who is unable to drive 110/120 kmh on a freeway/motorway/highway should not be allowed to drive. Anyone who does not instinctively know to slow down in heavy traffic, again should not be allowed to drive. Punishing drivers with ability by forcing them to drive slow (again 90kmh on a highway!!! WTF!!!?) due to a minority of incompetent drivers is absurd and will in turn have the opposite effect. We are breeding a culture where it is acceptable to be incompetent as those with ability will be forced to operate at the level of the incompetent (i.e this example), in order to keep the incompetent "safe" and not "offended". This goes beyond road rules, it is everywhere these days. I am dead set sick of it.

      Darwinism will bite back as it always does though, and I am looking forward to that.

      • cameldownunder on 05/09/2017 - 22:10

        @Ahbal: There was another Topic about "why do drivers drive slower then the limit".
        In your case the "drivers "with ability" will wonder why other drivers are driving so slow.
        My guess is you have never been on an Autobahn in Germany, where there is no speed limit.
        This is what happens: you enter the Autobahn, get stuck behind a truck travelling at 100 kmh, you check it's ok to take over, you pull out, just in front of that Mercedes that was coming at 240kmh, and you almost cause an accident, the the Merc is tailgating you.
        You have to consider it is mixed traffic: Trucks, Cars with trailers and people who are less in a rush than you. And then a few that think they are skilled drivers ( I thought so too in my younger days ), but in fact they have just been lucky so far, so yes, Darwinism will bite back, at you, when your luck runs out.

        • Ahbal on 06/09/2017 - 10:19

          You cant be serious? A skilled driver in that example will let the fast Merc pass first (rather than have it forced to tailgate…)….no skilled driver overtakes while a car going faster than them is in the lane they are overtaking into…

          To read that you put this into luck rather than skill is disgusting. You are literally embodying the attitude my post was referring to. When you see skilled drivers survive you call it luck? Wow.

        • cameldownunder on 06/09/2017 - 10:59

          @Ahbal: You take over a truck who was going at 100 kmh, the Merc is doing 240 kmh, the speed difference is 140 kmh.
          Relative to you, the Merc is doing 33 m/s, it's very hard to tell the speed looking at the rear mirror. So you look back, see a car 200m away, you look forward, all good, accelerate to take over, move out: 4 seconds, the Merg is not 120m close, the Merc must now reduce its speed by 120 kmh ( assuming your car is now at 120kmh ) within 80m. None of you have done something wrong, it's just the enormous speed difference which caused such a precarious situation. In my example the skill driver would NOT see the speed of the Merc.

          I don't know your age, but I've been there, thinking I am a skilled driver, but I was also very lucky. So the fact that i did not have a major accident, in hindsight, had more to do with luck than with skills.

          I don't commute to work with the car, but when I drive, I see a lot of "Skilled" drivers, zig zagging from one lane to another, accelerating like madman, to then hit the brakes just a few meters after, thinking their are in a race in Monaco.

          Your definition of "skilled" is what? being able to drive at the maximum speed limit all the time, unaware of the conditions? get from A to B, 5 minutes faster then 'unskilled" drivers? Being able to brake in time to avoid a critical situation they put themselves, and others into?

          You might be a "skilled" driver, but what if someone makes a move you don't expect? sure it's going to be his fault, but what good is this if your car is wrecked, you and your passenger injured ( if you are lucky ) and maybe all passenger of the other car dead?

        • Ahbal on 06/09/2017 - 12:30
          +1

          @cameldownunder:

          Hold on, there is a clear misunderstanding here. By skilled driver I do not mean going everywhere speeding. I mean skilled by being able to drive, say, 120/110kmh (whatever is is, depends) on a freeway without making mistakes or being an idiot. Hence my response to OP. Zig zagging through traffic takes "skill" yes but it is stupid. I also stated right in the above post, this:

          "Anyone who does not instinctively know to slow down in heavy traffic, again should not be allowed to drive."

          Not sure where you got the idea of speeding and zigzagging through traffic as I never condoned such behaviour. All im saying is…that if you cannot drive on a freeway at 110kmh, get off the bloody road. It is that simple. Reducing the limit on such long roads will induce driver fatigue…

        • Ughhh on 07/09/2017 - 01:24
          +1

          @cameldownunder:

          Your definition of "skilled driver" is definately wrong. You haven't described a skilled driver at all.

          A skilled driver would have good judgement in terms of speed, distance, tracking cars, traffic conditions ect. and would not have pulled Infront of the Merc.

        • cameldownunder on 07/09/2017 - 10:09

          @Ahbal: Agree. What I [ erroneously ] did read between the lines, was that your "Skilled" drivers were the ones driving at the limit [all the time ]

          But the problem of mixed traffic remains: even if most drivers are capable of Driving 120kmh, and even 140kmh on good, 3 lanes, built motorways, there still will be Trailers, trucks and buses limited to 100kmh. Yes the difference is now only 40kmh.

          I would love good built motorways ( that excludes most Australian one's ) that are completely fenced, safe rails on both sides, and illuminated at night. A 130kmh would then be appropriate.

        • Ahbal on 07/09/2017 - 10:48
          +1

          @cameldownunder:

          Yes I understand your point, and agree to an extent. Mixed traffic is a good point, yet I am not asking for roads at 140kmh. I am saying for them to stick to their original limits. The system at fault here is giving out licenses too easily, rather than speed limits being the issue. Sticking to the normal 110/120kmh limit works perfectly fine for mixed traffic, I do not want it to be raised, just to be kept as is. The world should not change to keep bad drivers safe, bad drivers should change to keep themselves and others safe.

          However, I think we can both agree dropping the speed limit on the M4 to 90 is…absurd. I believe 110 is perfectly fine for the Australian motorways (the ones ive been on anyway). Ill stand by my original point, that if drivers cannot drive at 110kmh on a motorway (obviously not in heavy traffic, just in general) then they should not be on the road.

        • cameldownunder on 07/09/2017 - 15:57

          @Ahbal: Agree. I wish to include drivers that do 3 point turns in school zones, turn left or right without looking out for pedestrians, park in no stopping areas, use mobile phones while driving.
          "The system at fault here is giving out licenses too easily"
          From what I see on the road: YES.
          Guess I agree with you. Apologies for the misunderstanding

        • Ahbal on 07/09/2017 - 17:03

          @cameldownunder:

          No problem, and I agree with your additional points for sure. Another issue is L platers "forging" their hours. Now, almost all my friends forged their hours. Some even did less than 30 "legit" hours and forged the rest….This is proof that the licence test is far too easy.

        • Drifter on 07/09/2017 - 20:47

          @cameldownunder:

          You take over a truck

          You've been watching too many Fast and Furious movies.

  • Stevecro on 28/08/2017 - 21:13

    Because remember 'speed kills!' so we are told. If that's the case, why not reduce all speed limits on all roads to 40km/h. Surely that would result in less deaths from 'speeding'…

    • Ahbal on 28/08/2017 - 23:23

      It wouldn't. Because bad drivers who show their incompetence and crash at 60/80/90 etc will do the same at 40. If speed was such a bad thing, we would be hearing horror stories every week about crashes on the autobahn. But we don't, because the drivers over there are apparently really good! The laws aren't the problem, the drivers are.

    • SimpleLeverage on 28/08/2017 - 23:50

      From an different point of view - an interesting fact I've read about is that seat belts actually do not save lives. Research taken when seat belts became mandatory found that drivers were likely to drive more recklessly (as they felt safer), which actually resulted in more pedestrian fatalities (rather than driver fatalities) - thus total fatalities actually remained about the same.

      This beckons the question - driving at slower speeds could perhaps actually increase fatalities if drivers zone out? That doesn't seem fair for pedestrians?

      Now let's combine this with the concept of Tullock's spike, where it has been postulated that a sharp spike installed on the steering wheel will make people drive more safely from the fear of being impaled. If we also take away the driver's safety belt (further increasing the driver's risks) and having minimum speed limits - perhaps drivers would drive with more mindfulness and alertness that would make our roads safer whilst driving faster!

  • Stevecro on 29/08/2017 - 08:30
    -1

    Well that's what I meant, if speed kills as is constantly hammered down our throats, then why don't we reduce all speed limits to 40km/h, this includes major highways and freeways. Surely saving 1 life and slowing down the entire country to a crawl will do the job! Yes I agree there is such thing as driving too fast for road conditions etc, but the majority of our general roads 50/60/70/80 km/h zones are 10 - 20 km/h too slow. This is why the majority of people speed or have at some point in their driving life. The fact that most people have or are speeding on average 10 - 15 km/h over the speed limits shows that the speed limits are way too slow for road conditions.

  • fedupwithjunk on 29/08/2017 - 20:20

    I'd love to live in a world where we have no need for laws, [this article gave me some hope that things might improve] (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1028740/Accident-fre…)

    I felt frustrated driving from Sydney to the Gold Coast and being limited to 80kmh most of the way on empty roads!

    Everybody (even the idiots) realise that crashing at 150kmh is more dangerous than crashing at 50kmh - that is not the problem. The problem is that most idiots do not realise they are idiots.

    Some drivers are irresponsible, some incapable and some just enjoy being irritating. Everybody makes mistakes and should take this into account - those that don't should disappear.

  • Suspect420 on 05/09/2017 - 08:28

    Ok so as an engineer i will highlight the issue.

    Parramatta Rd Sydney is currently 60km/h. When was the last time you were able to achieve this speed? Never. So of it was set to 30km/h or 160km/h it wouldnt change the amount of traffic which are a result of bottle necks and a lack of synchronizing between the traffic controllers SCATS.

    Fix rds. Fix driver behavior. Speed limits fix themselves

    • cameldownunder on 05/09/2017 - 09:21

      As a fellow Engineer, with a Master in Science, I disagree. Fix the public transport, educate people, reduce traffic.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join