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.
Couldn't agree more, came across a learner driver, in a driver instructor car, driving in the right lane while the left hand lane was clear as far as the eye could see. If they're being taught like that we've no chance!
What is the motivation to increase speed limits generally? Is it just to arrive sooner?
Reduce commute hours? The frustration of driving on an empty 6 lane highway at night knowing you could safely be driving faster? Just off the top of my head…
I guess the question is "how much faster"?
On your empty 6 lane highway, let's say the limit is 80km/hr, and your average commute is 30 mins. So it's a 40km trip.
If we ramped that up to 110km, that same trip would be 21.8 minutes.
So you get home a little over 8 mins earlier.
Is this the type of benefit you were hoping for?
Time is money
An hour a day total (there and back), x 300 odd days a year worked = 82 hours a year; seems worthwhile for night shift workers, to me.
@chartparker: "Speed has never killed anyone" do you also think going faster only to stop at another traffic light means your getting to your destination faster?
You haven't factored in that at 110km/hr the traffic might flow, whereas at 80k/h it might get choked and everyone ends up going 0-20km/hr.
Have you not seen the congestion caused where speed limits are reduced?
Might want to try the math on that one again.
That means to leave home at 6.30am every day and not leaving work till 7pm.
Tried that maths on that, Jimbo. I can’t arrive at work sooner by leaving earlier. Still takes me the same amount of time.
The only thing I achieved by leaving earlier was arriving earlier…
But I agree with the thought behind it. When I lived in Melbourne, if I left for work at 6am, I would be there at 6:30. If I left at 7am, I would be there at 8:30. Problem is, while 30 mins travel beat out 1.5hrs, I wasn’t prepared to sit around in front of work, waiting for them to open up for over 2 hours.
Living closer is another solution.
On my route, leaving earlier just resulted in being further to the front of the same traffic jam.
Getting to work faster by leaving earlier would require working a different shift.
I think for motorways a slightly higher limit would save lives. If you are driving a long distance then reducing the time driving reduces fatigue and your chance of losing concentration and having an accident - would driving 120kn/hr on the Hume highway really be more dangerous than 110km/hr?
It's also easier to focus when you feel like you are travelling at a reasonable speed. If you drove on a motorway at 40kmhr there would likely be more accidents as complacency crept in.
For me, it's to help remind me I am human and not tortoise
LOLed at this one
Fuel Efficiency - ~80km/h is generally best efficiency for most cars. 40km/h is not.
Reduced frustration would be my main motivation. Frustration almost always leads to bad decisions being made.
Also, not having a frustratingly low speed limit means you can pay more attention to the road.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-10-26/speed-enforcement-detr…
Driver fatigue is known to be a killer on the roads. The argument for increasing the speed limit on motorways is that this will reduce travel times and reduce driver fatigue. You can also assume that if vehicles are travelling faster, trips will be completed sooner and therefore reduce traffic, at least on motorways. I'm not saying that this is better/worse, however there have been studies completed overseas looking into this. The flip side is will vehicles travelling at a faster speed reduce the number of accidents overall. "Speed Kills" has been drilled into everyone that is is now difficult to change the publics view that "well, actually it's safer to have the speed limit on motorways set to 140km (where possible)
Speed doesn't kill, people kill.
Guns don't kill people, people kill people? :o
Technically it's holes in bodies that kill people. The gun rarely touches a dead person.
The bullets are the real killers.
Blame the car, not the person? :0
I blame gravity.
It's the slowing down really really quickly that does it.
I've never seen a gun get a jail sentence…
"speed has never killed anyone, suddenly becoming stationary thats what gets you"
No speed limit increases until people learn how to handle our current ones.
There's a reason the Germans have unlimited speed on the autobahn, they know how to respect each other's driving at any speed. Not so much the case here.
It's abso-(profanity)-lutely amazing how bad Aus drivers are.
Watch some Russian dashcam videos and you'll see we're far from the worst. That doesn't mean we can't be far better then we are, but on objective statistics we're actually doing okay.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-r…
Road fatalities per 1 billion kms:
Australia 5.2
Canada 6.2
Germany 4.9
New Zealand 8.7
USA 7.1
South Korea 15.6
Per 100k vehicles the differences are enormous. For example, Thailand's death rate is over 10 times higher than ours.
I don't care who's worse.
Shit tastes worse than dirt. Apples aren't oranges.
How do you know shit tastes worse?
How do you know apples aren't oranges if the oranges aren't apples?
You will find asian countries have a lot more fatalities also due to the fact that they have a lot more motorbikes on the road as well as not really following the road rules so i think a lot of those fatalities will be connected to the motorbikes especially when they have multiple people on them all the time.
Pretty much everywhere in Australia is further away than anywhere in most other countries. - Statistics and averages averaged, lacking detail. 2018 -
I doubt Australian's are better drivers overall. Australian clock up the 1billion kilometer's quicker and each individual contributes more kilometers by covering more km per capita than most other countries.
Spending more time getting places = more fatigue = more likely to drive to the mates or pub and get drunk = more risk-taking, etc. + Speed Increase
At the same time, we get a fairly orderly peak hour slow crawl because the transport system is vast and lots of centralized work zones.
When looking at the cause of fatalities in only NSW and WA have greater than 1/3 of deaths caused primarily by speeding <- other causes are probably present such as DUI, Inattention, Fatigue. It is easy to speed when sub-optimal.
There are so many problems with driving standards and road/transport quality that increasing the speed limit may not make ANY difference in terms of accidents/crashes. Given the amount of DUI and it's high level of tolerance: "She'll be right mate, be there in no time now the speed limits increased! I've only had a few.." More risk.
Obviously, any increase must be on a case by case basis.
It is also worth noting that most cars used on Australian roads are not designed to do higher speeds than 100-120kmh. Some car/commercial tyres are only rated slightly above current highway speeds.
Also the autobahns are far straighter, longer roads of superior quality that those in Australia.
Germany roads are longer and straighter than Australian? No, not really.
It doesn't matter how long and straight a road is when you're using it wrong.
Long stretches of straight roads are actually more dangerous.
Speed is unlimited on certain autobahns because the traffic density is lower enough to allow it. It is nothing to do with driver skills
Not their skills, their respect.
Traffic density is lower because the increased speed allows drivers to spend less time on the road. :P
Yet Polish drivers are allowed to cross the border and drive the same Autobahns.
also the germans know how to stick to one lane unless overtaking
it's a huge problem in the US as well where old people insist on driving slowly in the right lane
I don't ever experience that and I drive on the motorways at 110km frequently.
The only people who drive in the right hand lane are people going over the speed limit, overtaking or emergency vehicles.
Do you mean left lane ?
For us left, for them right. The more you know.
Anecdotally, I don't find speeding to be our biggest problem. I don't know if it's because people are on their phones or something, but many drivers generally don't seem to be paying much attention. My car commute is only 20 minutes, but there's a specific intersection where people pull out on me going straight (with a green light) at least 2-3 times a week.
Wheres the option in the poll to reduce speed limits? Most ozbargin members would be keen on this as driving faster uses more fuel.
Saves fuel up to a certain point, after that you're burning more fuel to fight exponentially increasing air resistance.
https://www.environment.gov.au/settlements/transport/fuelgui…
'Fuel consumption increases significantly over about 90 km/h. At 110 km/h your car uses up to 25 per cent more fuel than it would cruising at 90 km/h.'
Time is also money. You can argue driving slower means you save petrol but the extra spent on the road may actually not be worth it. Factoring in if you drive 5 days a week on the same route, that's time wasted.
In addition, the longer you're on the road, the longer you're exposing yourself to hazards on the road.
Yep, and pisses everyone off when doing 90 in a 110 zone
Apparently an hour is worth $3 around here… so gl with that.
Having high speed limits doesn’t preclude driving more slowly. The opposite is not true…
If we increase the speed limits, people may actually achieve the current ones.
This, this, this. Ugh, so over people driving in the right lane, doing 50 in a 70 zone. Queue speeding up and swerving in front of them.
In a 70 km/h zone, there is no requirement to keep to the left lane of a multi-lane road, unless there is a sign instructing you to.
Source: http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/sa/conso…
Also, you may overtake in the left lane (to the left of the vehicle in the right lane) if it is safe to do so.
Source: http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/sa/conso…
Grandma, is that you? Get off the internet. :-)
Surely a troll…..
There is a real problem with the low speeds on good freeways or wide arterial roads. I now avoid at all cost interstate trips, my current one is Adelaide to Melbourne … but flying is the best option to avoid speeding? fines and the greatest turn off is the mind numbing slow long distance drive.
I find 100 - 110 is just that bit too slow, 120 is a sweet spot, keeps the mind alert and the extra fuel is not too much!. IF there was better training and possibly some improved roads then 130 would be an even better pace, but there is little chance of that happening - think of the deminished fines that could be imposed!!.
The authorities constantly quote accident statistics for justify making speed limits slower on highways. They fail to mention that many of those accidents are caused by people full of alcohol &/or drugs who won't be taking any notice of the speed limit no matter how slow they make it. Its the people obeying the law that are lumbered with those mind numbing slower highway speeds.
you forgot people using their phone while driving. 3/4 of the time I see a huge gap in peak hour traffic, it's because the driver causing the gap is looking at their phone.
Without having any statistics or evidence to base this on - I believe there would be a high correlation between people who use their phones and traffic speed.
When people are stuck in traffic, they get bored, their attention gets taken off from the road and they'll put it elsewhere (ie pick up the phone and scroll through facebook or something)
See how many people who feel comfortable using their phones in peak hour traffic, feel comfortable scrolling through their facebook feed doing 140km/h on a motorway or driving through twisty roads.
The speed limit is too low -
Insert abitrary number it should be at.
Make argument that includes the word safety.
Make rhetoric about caring for safety.
Insert dramatic analogy.
Throw in a few false equivocacy for safe measure.
Depends on your vehicle .
Depends on your driving skills (or lack thereof)
Depends if you're are intoxicated (not necessarily over the limit, but even 1 beer does affect your driving to some extent) .
Depends on weather conditions.
Not offering a solution to how to gauge all of these and implement varying speed limits .
But obviously, someone with poor driving skills, who has 0.045 alcohol in system, driving an old beater with crappy tyres and with no abs/traction control etc, in pooring rain and fog where you can hardly see… should be driving slower , then say a professional driver who maybe should drive faster, who has extensive defensive driving skills, is driving 100% sober, has no history of road offenses ever in 30 years of driving, is driving a vehicle with every safety feature possible, including collision avoidance systems, in daylight with dry road, good vision of road ahead etc.
Maybe we should put speed limiters in cars of dangerous drivers, and allow drivers with an excellent history of good driving, and who complete defensive driving training, to drive a bit faster. Providing they have 0% alcohol in system, and a vehicle with every possible safety feature .
Collision avoidance systems, if you need them you shouldn't be driving. My collision avoidance systems are called eyes.
Speed limiters are a joke if they reduce engine power they are dangerious. The type on trucks are very easy to manipulate.
The type on trucks are very easy to manipulate.
As a triuck driver, I would dispute that. I would not have the foggiest on how to adjust it. But a few weeks ago, the brother got pulled up and his truck run over with a fine tooth comb. He copped an official warning because his truck was capable of 103km/h, all because of one parameter setting in the vehicles ECU. It was something like a near $2000 fine had the inspectors wanted to pursue it. Luckily the rest of the truck is well kept.
So, unless you are coasting downhill in angel gear, there is no way the average truck driver could manipulate the speed limiter on their truck, and even if they did, with the regularity that trucks get pulled over to be inspected, it is not worth the huge fine if they have been found to be manipulating vehicle settings.
Everyone makes mistakes. Collision avoidance systems and ABS should be mandatory IMO.
I think before any changes to speed they need to ban the use of overseas drivers licences for all people staying in the country for greater than 3 months. Our laws are so relaxed, if you immigrate here and have an overseas licence, they just let you drive - no tests, learner licence or provisional. Then you see the stuff that happens on Sydney roads, its crazy.
How do you know such things are caused by migrants?
Why act so political? He brings up a very good point. Someone who has had their license overseas for 1 month (some places don’t have learners/p plates) basically have the same driving rights as a fully unrestricted driver in Australia. Migrants or not, this is unfair and not safe. Regulations need to be put in place.
I say all this even though I think the rms is cash cow….
You cannot be implying that bad Sydney drivers are all migrants?
Judging by the apparent lack of knowledge on road rules going by comments on the many 'who's at fault' threads it worries me that allowing 50% here to drive faster is asking for trouble. 110 is just fine.
Don’t know why you got downvoted, but you are spot on the money…
There was a statistic released no long ago, that the police, after combing their records, estimate that 1 in 6 drivers is driver under the influence of either alcohol or drugs… so, add that to your group that don’t know the road rules…
source? 1 in 6 dui seems pretty unlikely
They don’t necessarily need to make the speed limit higher. A reasonably solution would be enforcing a minimum speed limit penalty (e.g maximum of 10km/h under, and possibly enforcing adequate acceleration from a stationary start).
Speeding doesn’t cause accidents, per se. It’s speed differential which includes speeding, as well as people driving too slow. The difference is that if someone is speeding on a multi lane road, they can only speed up until they reach a car in front and perhaps change lanes (which often isn’t possible during busier times). If they can’t, then they must slow down to match the car in front.
Conversely, a slow driver slows down an entire lane (with each car behind usually going slower than the other whilst they gauge the speed of the lane), which is worsened as drivers change lanes to get around the inconsiderate driver plodding along, and end up forcing people in that new lane to slow down in order to prevent a collision whilst they accelerate up to the speed limit. This can compound if a driver sitting in a lane receiving a slow merger decides to change lanes to avoid the slow (but accelerating) driver, thus extending the spread of the slow driver to a third (or fourth) lane.
Instead of one “bad egg” resulting in one person with a speed differential until they must match other cars, as is the case with speeding driver, one “bad egg” slow driver causes dozens of varying speed differentials and only exacerbates as lane changes occur.
Realistically, there’s a real issue with calling something a “speed limit” when, in reality, the safest road conditions would be achieved by labelling and treating it as a “recommended speed”. Currently, people who seem to have no idea about how collisions work will drive 20km/h or more under the speed limit and run with the line “it’s a speed limit so being under is fine” which is far from the truth. If someone is either lacking the confidence or the ability to drive to our already intentionally low speed limits (since they’re designed to accommodate for older cars and lesser able drivers) then they need to get off the road. The sad thing is that these people are almost never involved in an accident, but cause many around them.
But this is all wishful thinking. Just like how it’s too hard to educate the public on proper nutrition, so we just say “stop eating fat, sugar, and junk food” (when in reality it’s more than possible to eat this and remain healthy), the government opts to simply say “speed kills” rather than education surrounding the link between any speed differential and collisions.
why so.many downvotes? this person is right. Studied this at uni.
"Blah blah argument for speed increases because speed differentials cause accidents."
No. The speed differential from a slower person is much less of a problem to a motorway. People can assess and move on. The speed of a faster person is more likely to lose control and affect others.
Speeding doesn’t cause accidents, per se. It’s speed differential which includes speeding, as well as people driving too slow.
People driving too slow get into accidents because people are bad drivers.
People driving too fast, no matter how good a driver they are, they're essentially putting everyone into the dangerous zone of "too slow for me", which you mentioned.
1 person under dangerous odds, versus everyone under dangerous odds is why speeding is much, much worse.
How is one speeding driver more dangerous than one slow driver and it's knock on effects? NB- This is a genuine question; I'm not being facetious. Take the below examples.
Scenario: Three lane highway (lanes A, B, C, limit 80km/h) where the front cars in each lane are travelling at exactly 80km/h, each car in line with the others.
Speeding driver travelling in any given lane (B for this example) at above 80km/h => The driver can travel over 80km/h only until they reach the front cars. Given that cars cannot drive through other cars, and this is not a monster truck rally where they can drive over the top, then the car must slow down to the matches 80km/h speed of the leading car once they have caught up. There is nothing they can do to get around it; therefore, there is one car with a speed differential which changes to zero cars in a short amount of time.
Slow driver travelling in any given lane (A for this example) at below 80km/h => The driver travelling slowly causes each and every car behind them to slow down accordingly. Now, instead of having lanes A, B, and C all travelling at 80km/h, we have lane A travelling at (for example) 60km/h whilst lanes B and C are travelling at 80km/h. Some drivers in lane A will remain as they do not mind being slowed down, but others either cannot afford to be slowed down (time limits) or choose not to be, and therefore change lanes. Once they have changed lanes, we now have lanes A and B containing drivers travelling 60km/h, and only lane C travelling at 80km/h. Looking at lane B, we have drivers from lane A who have recently changed, and merging at 60km/h - they will be accelerating to reach 80km/h, but on a busy road, they will likely be travelling slowly such that driver behind them must slow down. Given that braking on roads has a chain effect such that the severity of braking in a chain of cars increases with each car that brakes, a car that is some 6 cars back may need to brake down to a speed as low as 40km/h (or less; this is dependent on the ability of drivers in front to gauge speed, and not panic/slam brakes) in order to prevent collisions. Drivers in lane B will now likely change to lane C, and thus the process continues.
In this example, but one slow driver has spread a speed differential across a three lane highway.
Now, granted, these are simulated examples. On a highway where the front cars are not travelling in line with each other, there will be an opportunity for a speeding driver to change lanes which increases the risk of a collision, since lane changes are one of the key reasons why speed differential is implicated with car crashes. In addition, changing lanes at high speed is more difficult than changing lanes at a lower speed, since reaction times are decreased. However, the fact remains that we have one driver changing lanes in a difficult scenario (high speed) versus multiple drivers changing lanes at a lower difficulty (low speed). I daresay that as soon as three or four cars are changing lanes in any given 'herd' of cars, then you've crossed the threshold of danger of one speeding driver changing lanes. And this is before delving into arguments regarding speeding drivers paying more attention to the road, by necessity, than a slow driver who may well be 'day-dreaming'. This is an argument that I see floated somewhat often; whilst I see the logic, it does not necessitate that a slow driver is 'day dreaming', since they may be paying full attention but merely not confident enough to drive at the posted speed limit (which brings about other risks with lower skilled or nervous drivers, but thats another discussion) so I choose not to support this contention as it is lacking evidence.
How is one speeding driver more dangerous than one slow driver and it's knock on effects?
The effects of 1 slow person in a group of 15 means that now 14 people have to navigate a slower user.
The effects of 14 slow people in a group of 15 means that the faster one has to weave between the slower cars. Essentially creating an instance where the "slower differential" is duplicated by however many cars are not speeding in relevant positions.
I don't know about you, but it's much easier for me to dodge someone doing 80 on 100 than for someone doing 120 to dodge 19 cars doing 100.
It's just simple common sense.
@StoneSin: Almost there. But the world is not dominated by common sense and good nature. Driving well below the speed limit is a big problem, as is speeding. Obviously, speeding is the worse case. But amongst those 14 people being held up is someone who is going to become that speeding person you try and dodge as they overtake a number of other cars. Even sensible and law-abiding people can get frustrated and may try and overtake when otherwise they would not have had to if the traffic was flowing within the speed limits at the speed limit.
Overtaking is always a higher risk maneuver than driving at the speed limit. Again; inexperienced people may feel pressured or frustration gets the better of the human-emotion system, and take a risk and do something they are not experienced or comfortable with: such as overtake one or more slow moving vehicles.
Common sense is to asses the driving conditions and one's own capabilities. If a person is not comfortable driving at the speed limit in ideal conditions then they need to get training or avoid those roads. Or be conscientious and aware enough to pull over at a safe place and let the traffic flow past.
Obviously, people who "speed" and DUI or other intentionally reckless/dangerous driving have no common sense and no decancy, these people are criminal and should face stiffer penalties. Such as intent to injure or kill(murder) and other very serious charges to suit.
A reasonably solution would be enforcing a minimum speed limit penalty (e.g maximum of 10km/h under
So my heavily-laden van with marginal tyres and wheel alignment driving through a brutal rain storm isn't allowed to decrease speed below 100? Yeah, that's a great idea.
People must be allowed to reduce speed when conditions warrant it.
(Also, I spent 20 minutes doing an average of 10km/h in a 70 zone this morning, so did 500 other cars, hope you've got a lot of blank pages in your ticket book)
I agree in general principle that driving excessivley slowly for no reason is dangerous and problematic for traffic flow, but honestly I can't remember the last time I saw anyone doing it. Meanwhile I see a minor nose to tail crash in slow moving traffic about once a fortnight (forward collision avoidance systems please!).
My post was very brief and superficial; of course different rules would need to apply in different conditions (e.g the wet, as you alluded to) and for different class vehicles (for example, anything with a weighted carrying load, like a work van full of tools, up to a big semi-trailer, should be afforded different limits in order to facilitate creating a sufficient space between themselves and the car in front to account for their extended braking distance secondary to inertia).
This is why in Victoria some freeways have right-lanes that trucks aren't allowed on.
Not sure if it has helped, since there's always someone sitting in that lane doing 80 anyway…
Some of the motorway speed limits are a joke. Most of these limits were set at a time when some cars didn't even have seatbelts!. Car safety tech has come a long way since then but the speed limits have remained the same, doesn't make much sense.
I think more variable speed limits on motorways is what we need. When there is too much traffic, lower speed limits encourages smoother merging and less stop-start. When the road is empty, speed limits could increase by 20-30km/h.
This! There have been numerous studies into this and it really shits me when people drive up each others arse because they have to hit that magical number in heavy peak traffic.
My morning commute is 80km/hr yet in heavy peak traffic times average speed over the trip is around 40. If everyone just cruised smoothly, left appropriate distances between each others cars and cruised at 60-80, the average speed of the trip would be faster. Instead people don't know how to drive in heavy traffic and need to floor it until they hit 80km/hr then one merge happens and everyone's speed drops down to 10-20km/hr and you get phantom traffic jams.
Good example of this is Citylink - they reduced the speed limit from 100 to 80 (20% reduction). My commute is faster than when it was 100km/hr.
I definitely agree though that variable speed limits are the best option and in off peak times it should be back up to 100-120.
If people just stayed in their lanes. Most traffic snarls start when people start chopping and changing lanes. They don’t realise that they are not getting there faster, but at just adding to the congestion.
I like to just sit in my lane and wave at the lane changing idiots as I creep past them after their 10th lane swap got them nowhere…
i saw a bike nearly got hit by the car behind, he was doing 60km/h in a 100 zone and sat in the farthest right lane for a long time