I have had many an argument with friends and coworkers regarding the speed limits here in Australia, but now I'd like to know how the thrifty members of OzBargain feel about this controversial topic.
Do you feel speed limits are adequate for 2018? Do you feel they are too fast? Do you feel they are too slow? Vote below!
Ps- I shall prophylactically say, there is no need for personal attacks in the comments. Pixels on a computer screen won't change a made up mind on the matter.
Australian roads & DRIVERS need to be improve before speed limit increase
.
Safety features of the vehicle being driven certainly must be factored in also.
That just means the bad drivers stop dying and instead get back into a new car.
Good/bad, I vote bad. I'm a natural selection advocate.
Safety features of the Fleet of vehicles need to be factored..
No use having different rules for different vehicles.
@StoneSin:I get what you mean but the analogy doesn't make sense. If I murder you that just means I'm stronger?
So if someone else's bad driving runs you off the road you deserve to die? I think you just demonstrated why those limits won't be increasing any time soon.
@syousef: Nope. But if they died when they ran off the road, we'd have less innocent people dying. Not hard to keep up here mate, it's a simple concept.
So your idea to prevent deaths on the road is to have lots more fatal accidents. And you think telling me it's not hard to keep up makes you intellectually superior? Really? I mean I could look up the stats and do the math to show you just how daft your idea is, but it's a lot of effort and I suspect it would be lost on you.
Whenever I see a comment like yours I sincerely hope it's a troll. Because the alternative is a lack of understanding that is both dangerous and depressing.
They've improved hugely, e.g. you can now drive from Sydney to Melbourne with no traffic lights. A corresponding increase in limits is well overdue.
There's been quite a few deaths recently for head on collisions. Traffic lights had nothing to do with it, as it was just a road. Drivers can't seem to stick to their lanes, it seems - and cars still aren't "advanced enough" to present deaths - let alone injuries.
100km in head on is 200km per hour.
No, it's not. The forces don't multiply that way.
Source? I've got an engineering degree and I would have thought that they do.
Two cars travelling at 100 km/h in head on collision is the same as one car travelling at 200 km/h hitting a stationary car.
According to law of conservation of momentum, it would be the equivalent provided both cars have the same mass. And 200km/hr car is hitting a stationary car.
That's addition, not muiltiplication
@dinna89:
Two cars of the same mass colliding at 100 kmh each (200 kmh relative speed) is similar to each car hitting a concrete wall at 100 kmh due to cars' crumple zone, passive safety etc.
@dinna89: Where did you get your degree and what kind of engineering? I really hope it was not mechanical or civil engineering where you should understand forces etc…
Two equal cars colliding head on at 100km/h is the same effect (to each car) as one car hitting an immovable wall at 100km/h.
@dinna89: it's only 200 added up, but the effect on the car is 100, of course assuming everything is equal in this scenario
Go check out the Myth busters video. 200km into a wall is very destructive.
Correct.
It's twice the force, but that force is distributed over twice the cars, so 100km/h head on is the same as 100km/h in to a brick wall for each car, not 200km/h.
Mythbusters crashed a car in to a wall at 50mph (80km/h), then two cars head on at 50mph to test it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8E5dUnLmh4&t=246
The results were identical looking crashes and identical g-forces.
@FireRunner: You are more correct than some of these others! Let the keyboard warrior wars begin!
First some physics before we do some engineering: Kinetic Energy = 0.5 x mass x velocity ^2 where the relative closing velocity in all examples equals 200km/hr for conservation of momentum. Then lets look at modern car impact engineering…
Two equally sized 1 tonne walls each travelling at 100km/hr toward each other will have the same impact energy to dissipate as one wall travelling at 200km/hr approaching a stationary wall, again each being 1 tonne. But without crumple zones, airbags, engine deflection under the car, etc the kinetic energy will be converted very very quickly (Delta Force over Delta Time).
Substitute equally sized 1 tonne cars for 1 tonne walls and the same applies, but cars have crumple zones, airbags, engine deflection under the car etc to pre-dissipate the impact energy decelerating the velocities ahead of when the drivers make impact (Delta Force over Delta Time). Two cars with crumple zones and airbags will double the impact energy absorption before driver impact, unlike walls.
Substitute 1 car at 100km/hr for one travelling at 200km/hr and the other car at 100km/hr for one being stationary. The result will be the same in pre-dissipation of impact energy ahead of driver impact energy.
Substitute one of the 2 x 1 tonne cars each travelling at 100km/hr for a 1 tonne wall and you have lost half the impact absorption capability of the system. The car will be relatively worse off.
Substitute the 2 objects for a 1 tonne car and a 40 tonne B-double and the car will look mostly like it hit a wall at 200km/hr because the system mass being assessed is 41 tonnes not 2 tonnes, the mass differential doing all that extra damage.
troll
@warsch:
That would be a mighty big coincidence that 100km/h + 100km/h - (crumple zone and passive safety etc) *2 = 1/2 velocity * mass(brick wall - car)
I would say that is an enormous generalisation, and two cars colliding at 100km/h each would be far closer to an impact with a stationary car at 200km/h than with a brick wall at 100km/hr.
True, but it's not the same as 200 kmh into a concrete wall, though.
Pretty sure either way you'll be dead.
I wouldn't be so sure. ANCAP 7 stars ones would provide adequate safety features that you'd come out of it alive. Good crumple zone + very rigid cabin structure (preferably monocoque) + peel off seat belt + multistage airbags etc. So long as the net force on you is less than 10G, you'd come out if it OK.
yeah dunno where the wall came from. 200km/hr into the same position of the same car except stationary.
If only there was some way to separate the carriageways to avoid head-on collisions!
Your point? Faster speeds on the autobahn with minimal incidents.
The government could spend money to improve road conditions.
OR
The government could reduce speed limits because of bad road conditions and rake in money from fines.
Which do you think the government will do?
recently drove Gold Coast to Brisbane. Speed limit was reduced to 100kmh during com games, now back to 110kmh. Much of this road is suitable for higher speed limits. Mark Skaif said some roads should be 130kmh & this is one of them.
I feel as though they could be increased on certain roads such as some Motorways.
Certainly not on city/suburban roads. Sometimes I feel doing the speed limit on those roads people are still flying past it's just ridiculous.
There's no point in increasing speed limits, we'll still all be stuck behind that arrogant *&^% who wants to sit in the right hand lane accelerating at a rate similar to a 1903 model T taking off in 3rd gear.
Before we bother with anything else, let's teach people to be considerate/mindful of others and to use the roads effectively.
But that's never going to happen.
Model Ts are pretty zippy. I got to ride in one at Greenfield Village in Detroit.
Model T's only had 2 gears.
The model T's I used to ride at wonderland had no gears! They were electric and we'll ahead of the times
Good to see you're proud of pointlessly aggravating someone else, says a lot about your personality.
Regardless of what you think of your self doing this, you're a cowardly bully.
respectful person.
Really? THAT'S how you show respect for others?
You have a twisted view on respect. That is intentional disrespect, can't you see that?
@StoneSin: If someone wants to get past me or go faster than me, I don't pretend to know why, or pretend to be a law enforcer. I move out of their way and let them move on. That's being a respectful person.
What you're doing is being a bully hiding behind your car. Keep it up, someone with less to live for may just return some "respect" to you.
I love aggravating people who break the law, that's great.
I love creating a more dangerous driving environment by annoying those who break the law. Because it's more important to annoy those who break the law, the additional danger I create is irrelevant.
FTFY.
Oh, this is a "they're disrespecting me, so I'll disrespect them affair is it?".. Difference is you're intentionally disrespecting them. You're not interested in law or being respectful. You like the power of annoying others and you use this situation as a way of justifying it. It's an outlet for your own frustration. Stop pretending to yourself that you're being a good person, you're not.
If you're doing this based on "enforcing the law" then, note the law about keeping left, make sure you don't "break the law" your self in your "law enforcing" behaviour.
Let police do their job. You're being a vigilante.
Unfortunate that you're so dearly attached to speeding, but it makes me happier to know that my regulation of my own speed and common sense is making you upset.
Attached to speeding? No.
Assuming that I speed because I can recognise poor behaviour of others. This is the same presumptuous behaviour you seem to be attached to.
I also argue for respect and fair rights for people of different sexual preferences than I. Does that mean that I also choose their sexual orientation?
FYI: I've not negged any of your posts - every view should be put out there for discussion.
That's noted. I don't break the law, I just enjoy watching those that do and subsequently can't. :)
Failing to keep left on a carriageway of 80kmh or more or if you you see a keep-left sign is "breaking the law" unless you're overtaking or turning right.
Your description of your behaviour clearly sits in the "failing to keep left" category.
Nope. Just driving on the road following the rules, sorry!
No, by your OWN admission, you're being a vigilante, You explicitly explained how and why you're doing it. You can't hide behind "just following the rules", sorry. You stated clearly you do it for enjoyment "I love … It's my favourite". If you were "following the rules" you'd be keeping left and not obstructing traffic. You're making a conscious decision not to.
I love overtaking people who are doing 100 in 110, and sitting in the right lane for a while, while the person behind me doing 120 gets angry. It's my favourite.
Is not following the law, it's at best your attempt at enforcing a law. There's a subtle difference there. The law you're supposed to follow. It's the police's job to enforce it, not yours. Mostly because they know HOW to enforce it, you just make things worse with your sanctimonious vigilante attitude.
I don't care about imaginary numbers.
Great for you, noted.
That's right! Good you know the law on keeping left, now you just need to stop speeding. Good boy!
You should stop assuming what I do. You're good at that.
Nope. Overtaking a car on their right is called 'overtaking'. It's not rocket science buddy. You don't need to break the law to do so.
"and sitting in the right lane for a while, while the person behind me doing 120 gets angry"
The overtaking is perfectly fine, it's what you did after that which is breaking the law (and you did so for enjoyment of antagonising someone else - it had nothing to do with the law, you believe that because you keep telling your self that).
I overtake other people for enjoyment??? huh?
No, you "and sitting in the right lane for a while, while the person behind me doing 120 gets angry" for your own enjoyment. You said so yourself, unlike you, I'm discussing what you've said and not a bunch of assumptions.
Overtaking on the right, is following the law. Sorry to upset you! :( You might need to read up on those laws, you seem like the very person who doesn't know the law and insists on driving 10km over the speed limit. Hence why you're getting upset that there are users of the road who can and enjoy limiting your speeding.
Are you able to read and comprehend? When did I say anything about "Overtaking on the right" is not following the law.
It's okay, you clearly have no idea what the law is and have no intention on following it.
An assessment based on your inability to comprehend what you read.
I'm able to acknowledge that the person speeding is at fault AND your behaviour is also unacceptable. Their behaviour does not excuse your bullying behaviour. That's a standard bully mentality, you'll find any way to justify doing it.
It's okay, you clearly have no idea what the law is and have no intention on following it.
You should work on your comprehension skills.
Your logic is no where near sound and you should not be driving since you clearly have no idea how to in a safe manner.
Are you talking to me or yourself? Because you have no idea how I drive, you're assuming a lot, but that's normal for you it seems.
We'll never agree, you think you're awesome for bullying people (regardless of your rationale, you are being a bully, even if you believe the other person deserves it). Whereas I think it's prudent to treat all with respect (even those I don't particularly like). Annoying someone else intentionally is never good form, but keep justifying it to yourself and hide your hideous manners behind "just upholding the law" lie.
If you believe you're not being a bully, then please explain how "I love … It's my favourite" comes about from your actions without it being from your pleasure at someone else's displeasure? You can't because you do it only for your pleasure, you said it a few times yourself.
Just like in this statement:
Hence why you're getting upset that there are users of the road who can and enjoy limiting your speeding.
That's a reflection of your emotions. You enjoy it. You're doing it for pleasure. Ie, a bully.
And again, assuming what I do. You posted boasting about how proud you are and the joy you get from making others angry by how you drive. I addressed that and you're countering with how I speed and behave, yet you have no idea about how I drive or speed.
I think you miss the point that you are intentionally doing something to annoy others. Those who annoy you (by speeding) are unlikely to be doing so to annoy you. They likely have their own reasons (which you pretend to know in advance). I'm not saying that speeding drivers are safe or justified. I am saying your actions are the actions of a bully and is not good form. But you're stuck on the details of the incidents and not the basis for your behaviour.
I don't think you're capable of recognising that your actions are bullying, you're too hung up on what others are doing.
What did I do after? Cause I never wrote what I did after. You should stop assuming what I do. You're good at that. Are you contesting that I didn't overtake in 0s?
WOW, you really do have problems with comprehension.
I'll write it as plainly as I can. After you over took you: "and sitting in the right lane for a while, while the person behind me doing 120 gets angry"
I quoted it for your convenience but you still missed it.
You intentionally "sitting in the right lane for a while" to annoy someone else. Just think about that for a second.
It's hilarious that you write so much, yet stumble over the smallest pieces of logic that is required to make it work.
Oh dear, please try and read what I type, because the irony in your replies is outstanding.
Let's take a different approach.
What do you think obstructing someone who wants to pass you is going to achieve?
Here's what I think you're going to think (my assumptions):
It wont.
It wont.
It wont.
Here's what I think the outcome will be:
A speeding driver who is now more agitated and more "urgent" (in their mind) since you've now slowed them down more and annoyed them somewhat (with your rudeness). They will likely make an even more dangerous manoeuvre (overtake on the wrong side, or similar dangerous manoeuvre) to pass you.
And of course there's you feeling all smug wallowing in your sanctimony.
Is the road safer for you being there? No, it's a hell of a lot more dangerous because you're there saving the world.
You will not stop a driver speeding if they feel the need to. Sure you can annoy them and make the whole situation a whole lot worse. But you can't see that. You'd prefer to spin it into how you believe that I speed and therefore don't have a valid case and that somehow makes annoying others perfectly justified.
So what exactly do you think you achieve buy "sitting in the right lane for a while, while the person behind me doing 120 gets angry" other than making others angry and making the road even more dangerous?
Ha, okay.
So you're now going to pretend this entire time you did not "sitting in the right lane for a while" to annoy the driver intentionally despite boasting about how much you love doing this.
Right.
It's weird how you keep replying while not reading what you're replying to.
@iDroid: Hard to overtake without sitting in the right hand lane for a while, don't you think?
Or are you speeding along so fast that you overtake instantaneously?
@StoneSin: Please, don't act so naive.
You know exactly what you said, what it meant and why you do it.
You put the words in there. You can not go and claim that "and sitting in the right lane for a while, while the person behind me doing 120 gets angry" means anything other than you intentionally sit there for a while to annoy them.
Your original statement was unambiguous and further qualified by expressing how it also effects you emotionally (you love it, it's your favourite). You also later qualified it some more by elaborating how you enjoy being able to slow down speeding drivers. So which is it?
Stop pretending, you've lost all credibility at this point.
Yes. I know exactly what I said, that's why I'm not wasting my time talking to you about what I didn't say. It's not rocket science, please don't make it out like it is.
Stop pretending, you've lost all credibility at this point.
Nope. Credibility remains flawless, no pretending here. You just seem to be a professional misunderstander.
Mate, has noone ever told you, dont argue with stupid people.. they'll bring you down to their level and beat you with experience…
good comment thread tho, you really showed that brick wall whose boss.. lol
@StoneSin:
My dad has this attitude. He is the most arrogant person I have met.
I am not surprised that road rage is such an issue.
You think too highly of yourself. Sitting in the right lane isn't being lawful. You are breaking the law. And all you're doing is aggravating others, increasing the chances of them driving dangerously or road raging - which jeopardises everyone's safety on the road.
What you are doing is not only unethical, but you think you're taking the moral high ground as well. You are literally the definition of a piece of shit.
@ILikeBargenz: No, I don't think too highly of myself and no, I don't break the law.
It's okay if you don't understand, many here didn't.
You are literally the definition of a piece of shit.
Please don't get upset at your own shortcomings and take it out on me.
@Bloo5869: This is hilarious. This reaction is why I posted it in the first place, it's reassuring knowing how far above everyone I am.
@StoneSin: "it's reassuring knowing how far above everyone I am."
That's called "narcissist" lol
Look at how many negative votes you get.
Then stop admiring yourself for once.
@tinx: narcissist? Then I'm a narcissist.
I'd rather be a narcissist than not know how much better off I am.
Look at how many negative votes you get.
??? That's what I just referenced. It's a direct indicator to how much higher I am. :)
@StoneSin: your the type of person I go around and once I'm in front of you will break check you back to checkoslowfuqya
@Suspect420: That's fine by me. It's your life to ruin. If you feel selfish enough to ruin someone else's life in the process, I can't exactly change that. :P
I hope you get a fine for being an idiot.
I wish that were possible, the government would be rich!
Too bad it's neither illegal nor something I am capable of doing.
Too bad it's neither illegal
It is illegal to stick to the right lane if you're not overtaking.
Hence the signs "Keep Left unless overtaking".
It is illegal to stick to the right lane if you're not overtaking.
Hence the signs "Keep Left unless overtaking".
Yes. That's correct. Unsure what that has to do with this discussion though.
User said they were overtaking in the right lane at the speed limit, nothing illegal about that..
@StoneSin:
You were talking about sitting in the right lane for a while.
It's not wise to deliberately try to aggravate another driver.
@stublu:
he was talking about staying in the right lane for a while at 110km/h.
One should move back into the left lane as soon as possible after overtaking.
@bobbified: Yes. Can you define a while?
It's not wise to deliberately try to aggravate another driver.
That's your opinion. I think it is.
you're actually breaking the law by staying in the overtake lane.
so, get the (profanity) out of it since you don't like breaking laws
???
No, I'm overtaking another car. Overtaking is not breaking the law.
If someone runs up my butt while I'm overtaking, that is the best thing to me.
you said in your first post you stay in the overtake lane to block the guy behind doing 120, youre clearly breaking the law and thus should not talk shit
just coz the 120 guy is breaking the law doesn't give you the right to break another law
@asafasr: Sometimes though when you do overtake the car on the left suddenly starts to speed up not really giving a chance to overtake and then the dic#head behind you starts tailgating dangerously close when all you want to do is stay at the speed limit. Now StoneSin is wrong for deliberately trying to block the car behind but lets not act like he is the biggest criminal here and under different circumstances sometimes you get put in that situation.
youre clearly breaking the law and thus should not talk shit
Kind of hard to not stay in the overtaking lane whilst overtaking someone.
Now StoneSin is wrong for deliberately trying to block the car behind
Huh? When did I say it was deliberate? I get to overtake someone AND see someone speeding get stopped. That's the joy! Of course my overtake is deliberate.
"I love overtaking people who are doing 100 in 110, and sitting in the right lane for a while, while the person behind me doing 120 gets angry. It's my favourite."
you have clearly stated in your first reply that you sit in the right lane, stop trying to wriggle your way out of your dislike for people speeding, i dislike right lane hoggers, doesn't give me the right to ram them off the road.
The proper procedure in VIC for overtaking is to overtake and move over to left lane immediately after overtaking.
You're absolutely breaking the law by staying in the right lane after an overtake, it is a offence and police have been pulling people over for it.
I was following a jackass doing 90 until the overtaking lanes, then 110. I couldn't get past him for a couple of overtaking lanes, so I pumped up my speed to get past him on the 3rd opportunity. It took the entire length of the overtaking lane, and there was a guy behind me wanting to go much faster. I felt terrible.
The right thing to do, if I had known, was to let him go first.
You should feel bad for holding somebody else up. It isn't your call to dictate the speed of someone behind you.
You should feel bad for holding somebody else up. It isn't your call to dictate the speed of someone behind you.
I don't feel bad at all for holding someone up and stopping them breaking the law. I feel fantastic.
The right thing to do, if I had known, was to let him go first.
No. The right thing to do is to overtake when you want to and not care about anyone risking the lives of others on the road by speeding.
Firstly … well done, what you do is illegal, therefore you are a criminal!
Secondly, I've found on average a car speedo will generally show 7% less than the actual speed calc'd by a GPS when cruising. So 100km/h = 93, 110 = 102.3, 120 = 111.6.
So based on this, you like infuriating drivers, making them angry and more aggressive. So basically you make them "much more dangerous to everyone else on the road" … because they want to go 1.6km/h faster that the legal limit. which is something ive never heard of anyone being booked for … heard of plenty (nowhere near enough though) being booked for what you do!
Firstly, well done, you can't read.
Secondly, yes… they designed speedos to be irrelevant.
I'm infuriating drivers who break the law and it's wonderful! :)
Australian roads need to be improve before speed limit increase.