Victoria Considering Different Speed Limits, and Drug Impairment Measures

GG57 on 31/03/2021 - 13:52

The Age is reporting a Victorian cross-party parliamentary inquiry is considering a few options with a view to saving lives on the road.
https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/vehicle-specific…

That might be behind a paywall for some so, summarising the options:
- Different speed limits on some roads, for different vehicle types
- Upgrading the condition of high-traffic country roads
- Lowering speed limits on roads where upgrades are unfeasible
- Increased drug testing
- More research into driver impairment from drug use.

Seems reasonable to me, but the interesting one is the last item. There is, apparently, no data to baseline driver impairment from drug use, as there is for alcohol consumption. So, anyone that tests positive cops the penalty regardless if impaired or not.

I know how OzB forum readers love anything about cars and driving. What are your thoughts on any of the options listed.

Automotive

Comments

  • [Deactivated] on 31/03/2021 - 14:07
    +7
    • Different speed limits on some roads, for different vehicle types

    Higher speed limits for sports car owners yes please!

    • Upgrading the condition of high-traffic country roads

    Yes!

    • Lowering speed limits on roads where upgrades are unfeasible

    No!

    • Increased drug testing

    Much prefer Marijuana legalization

    • More research into driver impairment from drug use.

    You will get that if you legalize Marijuana

    2 steps forward 1 step back it seems.

    • WT on 01/04/2021 - 13:12
      +3

      even if the legalized pot, there is no way they would let you drive stoned

    • N1NJ4W4RR10R on 01/04/2021 - 16:10
      +1

      Lol. #1 will probably just be for cars vs trucks with trucks losing some Ks. They probably won't be increasing speed limits (bar maybe NT style limits for roads that can handle it), certainly not specifically for sports cars.

      Lowering speed limits on degraded roads is probably a good thing. Slow their degradation and tame in the folks who don't know that the speed limit isn't necessarily the safest speed. Although that'll depend on what the state of the "degraded" road is. If it's just to slow degradation rather then actual safety not really nice. And I would hope they get put on a list for upgrades at some point…

      You'd probably want these studies before it's legalised. Otherwise it'll still just be fully barred for drivers anyway - which might as well mean it's still illegal for most.

  • CMH on 31/03/2021 - 14:08
    +1

    More research into driver impairment from drug use.

    How exactly do you test impairment from illegal substances? I mentioned in the other thread that testing illegal substances wouldn't pass any ethics board, so any controlled testing would be out of the question.

    • GG57 on 31/03/2021 - 14:15
      +3

      In Australia, at present, yes.
      But marijuana is legal in some other countries, so the research could be undertaken there (if not already) and used as the basis for initial decisions here.

      • jimbobaus on 31/03/2021 - 14:23
        +2

        I always found it funny.
        In most us states where recreational or medicinal marijuana use is legal.. driving on it is not.

        • GG57 on 31/03/2021 - 14:40
          +2

          There are plenty of studies online; some suggest the problem is that the actual impairment between individuals can vary significantly, and thus they err on the conservative side because they can't test the impairment.

          And yet, a lot of drivers (apparently) drive while impaired by prescription drugs, that likely are not detected.

          • EightImmortals on 31/03/2021 - 15:14
            +14

            @GG57: Yep, a drunk driver will plough straight through a stop sign but a stoned driver will stop…and wait for it to turn green. :)

      • CMH on 31/03/2021 - 14:39
        +1

        Then the next issue is: how can they ban a substance if there is a safe limit for it?

        So until the substance is made legal, there will not be a legal safe level to drive with.

        • dizzle on 31/03/2021 - 15:14

          The research may not be to prove a safe level. A lot of the research would be by people not wanting to legalise it to prove their points.

        • GG57 on 31/03/2021 - 15:27
          +2

          My view is that the test should not be if someone has used a drug, but if they are impaired by it.
          There are legal drugs that impair drivers; some more than others perhaps.

          Testing for use of an illegal drug serves a purpose only if the intention is to identify if an illegal drug has been taken.

          • CMH on 31/03/2021 - 16:14

            @GG57: The problem with this approach then is that the whole system will need an overhaul.

            The whole alcohol limits will need to be overhauled for example, because then we'd need to change to an impairment system: why would it be one system for one substance and another system for another substance?

            Then you'd have the problem of how to objectively test someone's impairment? Drugs can affect many different systems, you'd need a full lab to test everything, not to mention a long time per driver…

            • GG57 on 31/03/2021 - 16:32
              +2

              @CMH: Perhaps the whole system does indeed need an overhaul.
              I'm not qualified, but it appears that the impairment from the detected level of alcohol is generally agreed worldwide, as the vast majority of countries use the same tests, devices, and even mostly around the same levels of detected alcohol as the base.

              There are so many different types of drugs, a lot with likely different reactions and impairments, which apparently can vary by the individual, is a whole different world.

              • CMH on 31/03/2021 - 17:06

                @GG57:

                which apparently can vary by the individual

                This is the problem with your proposed system, and the current system as well. At least with the current system it is objective: you can measure in a lab how much alcohol/drug is in your system.

                Measuring impairment is very subjective. Someone could be very affected by alcohol but not quite staggering drunk, and pass a roadside sobriety test. Would you really want to share the road with such a driver?

                The whole objective/subjective thing is the one biggest reason why I don't see things changing to an impairment system you're suggesting.

                • GG57 on 31/03/2021 - 17:12

                  @CMH: Cool. So how do we keep the roads safe from drivers that are impaired (including alcohol, prescription drugs, etc.)

                • Strahany on 01/04/2021 - 12:48

                  @CMH: You’re right, conflating BAC with impairment is not a perfect system. However, it is based on studies that looked at the amount of impairment caused by a given BAC%, averaged across a large number of people. People who rarely drink will feel more intoxicated than an average drinker, and much more intoxicated than an alcoholic. However, the outliers are considered acceptable, with the only way to guarantee safety being to make it a 0.00 limit.

                  The problem with other drugs is that they have no such data. Well, that’s a lie; data is starting to emerge from other countries, but the problem with drug policies is that making them illegal for personal use also severely restricts it for the purposes of study. As such, governments worldwide have said “drugs are dangerous” without any major evidence and, simultaneously, point to the lack of evidence of safe use without acknowledging that their policies are the reason for said lack of evidence; not because they’re all incredibly dangerous, but because researchers haven’t been given the opportunity to prove it.

                  With time, I’d like to see impairment measures similar to that of alcohol. As it stands, drug driving laws are simply a way to punish people who safely use drugs in their free time (the actual impaired drivers notwithstanding). It’s archaic and goes against all evidence of how to approach drug policy whereby punishment is the worse thing you can do; most people use drugs due to mental health issues, and taking away licenses or jobs for an arbitrary reason is only going to exacerbate their problems and push them towards more use.

        • turbochris on 01/04/2021 - 10:56
          +1

          Medicinal cannabis is already legal in Australia.

          And there is already an impairment based system for alcohol - that is why we have a limit of 0.05% and not zero. A decision has been made that a person under 0.05% is unlikely to be impaired to a sufficient extent to warrant preventing them from driving.

          The current system of testing for cannabis is not related to impairment.

          Imagine if you got pulled over for an RBT, failed and lost your licence because you had one beer a week ago?

          This issue will become more prominent as more connected, elite members of society are pinged for driving with a detectable level of cannabis in their system.

  • FlipCrank on 31/03/2021 - 14:10
    +4

    If the speed limit is 100 for a unsealed/poor condition roads why the hell is the freeway also 100?

    • GG57 on 31/03/2021 - 14:16

      I think they have adopted the opposite argument. That is why some roads are being restricted to 80km/h.

      • stirlo on 31/03/2021 - 15:36
        +4

        Problem is lower speed limits on country roads impact locals who are experienced travelling these roads far more than occasional travellers from Melbourne.

        Also considering the distances involved a 20% speed reduction on a 45 minute trip to the local supermarket has far more impact than a 20% reduction on a 5 minute trip in the city.

        Once again big city governments telling regional people what's best for them without actually living with the changes.

        • netjock on 31/03/2021 - 15:49

          Usually accidents happen because driver is unfamiliar with the roads.

          • stirlo on 31/03/2021 - 15:53
            +2

            @netjock: Yep, locals (who are most familiar with the roads) will bear the brunt of any speed limit reduction.

            They already know where every bump, pothole and danger is on the road and how to safely handle it.

            Changing the limit is a ham fisted way deal with inexperienced drivers while penalising those who use these roads the most.

          • picklewizard on 31/03/2021 - 20:11

            @netjock: No, accidents happen due to complacency. I challenge you to find a reputable source that validates this claim.

            • stirlo on 31/03/2021 - 21:54
              +1

              @picklewizard: netjock didn't say anything about complacency… He said drivers were unfamiliar with the road which certainly is a factor for some accidents.

              I can think of dozens of country roads I drove regularly where I knew to slow down for a rough section or knew that a sharp corner was coming up and adjusted my speed accordingly.

              • Euphemistic on 01/04/2021 - 07:25

                @stirlo: The majority of accidents occur within a few km of home. Unfamiliarity is not a leading cause.

                • stirlo on 01/04/2021 - 08:26
                  +1

                  @Euphemistic:

                  The majority of accidents occur within a few km of home

                  Of course they do, because that’s where everyone does the majority of their driving.

                  Of course if you looked at the stats and saw 90% of your driving occurs within a few km of home but only 70% of accidents do you’d conclude that your chance of an accident is higher away from home than near it.

                  This stat about accidents near home is thrown around by the government to scare sheeple who have no critical thinking skills.

                  • Chandler on 01/04/2021 - 13:32
                    +1

                    @stirlo:

                    The majority of accidents occur within a few km of home

                    Of course they do, because that’s where everyone does the majority of their driving.

                    Also no mention of who was at fault - the "complacent" driver near their home or the "unfamiliar" driver not near their home who slammed into them…

                  • Euphemistic on 01/04/2021 - 22:38

                    @stirlo:

                    This stat about accidents near home is thrown around by the government to scare sheeple who have no critical thinking skills.

                    ?? What conceivable benefit would they get from saying something like that, other than getting drivers to take more care especially on familiar roads. Yeah, it’s all some conspiracy to take away our freedums.

                    More often than not I find those that use terms like ‘sheeple’ tend to be the ones with a relaxed grasp on reality.

                    FamilIarity breed complacency.

        • GG57 on 31/03/2021 - 15:50

          Yes.
          I would guess that 90% of the traffic in regional areas over the coming days will be from metro, some drivers not experienced in regional conditions, and no doubt there will be some unfortunate outcomes.

    • JIMB0 on 31/03/2021 - 18:50
      +1

      Because multi-lane roads confuse some people.

  • pharkurnell on 31/03/2021 - 14:17
    +5

    Different speed limits on some roads, for different vehicle types

    So small trucks 95, cars 100, b-doubles 80, bikes 140

    yea cant see any problems there.

    • GG57 on 31/03/2021 - 14:18
      +1

      Yep.
      And imagine the forum posts on here when someone in a car is stuck behind a truck, with the truck doing the legal limit.

      • netjock on 31/03/2021 - 15:41
        +2

        Bad enough now that people doing the speed limit and apparently people want to go faster.

    • Tekon on 31/03/2021 - 14:23
      +1

      Seems like an exaggeration on speed differences between vehicles. This is Victoria after all! Thinking 10kmh difference maximum honestly.

      Dedicated lanes for different vehicle types may be a possible solution?

      • GG57 on 31/03/2021 - 14:28

        VicRoads wouldn't support it, from my experience.
        I suggested to it an idea that onramps to freeways etc., have a sign providing a live indication of the current / existing speed of vehicles in the left lane, to assist with merging.
        The person that looked at my idea thought I was suggesting a different speed for the left lane of the freeway, and gave me a multi-page response as to why that would be unsafe.

        • Tekon on 31/03/2021 - 14:39
          +2

          Maybe you can instead suggest an unlimited speed far right lane next :P

      • pharkurnell on 31/03/2021 - 14:53

        So one for cars, one for bikes, one for pushys, one for small trucks, one for singles/b-doubles

        Bring it awnnn

        • Tekon on 31/03/2021 - 16:03

          Not sure why you get the urge to hyperbolise everything. Truck-free left lanes are already a feature in some places. Expansion of this could be used to allow for higher speeds for smaller vehicles in their own respective lanes.

          • pharkurnell on 31/03/2021 - 16:05
            +1

            @Tekon: It doesn't work now with only a small limitation on who can travel in lanes.

        • ernest as on 01/04/2021 - 09:06
          +1

          as the saying goes,"what could possibly go wrong"? Remember there is government and bureaucratic involvement here.

  • SlinkyDemille on 31/03/2021 - 14:29

    More variable speed limits based on time of day would be nice. Makes no sense that some wide and long roads are still 50 at 2am in an industrial area.

    • GG57 on 31/03/2021 - 14:34

      I get your point, although not all industries work only one (or two) shifts, all the time.

    • bobbified on 31/03/2021 - 14:58
      +1

      I've never understood why they try to set low speed limits for some of the main roads during peak times. Doesn't the amount of traffic on the roads during those times already regulate the maximum speed that vehicles can travel at?

      • The Hawk on 01/04/2021 - 09:57
        +3

        I find it hilarious when you're driving on major roads with variable speed signs flashing at you that the speed is currently reduced to 80 or 60… while you're barely managing 30.

    • Naigrabzo on 31/03/2021 - 15:47
      +1

      YEESS! I do love it when it's multiple different speeds at different times. They should make it 30 during day, 40 during lunch and 80 at night. 100 for public holidays.

      • GG57 on 31/03/2021 - 15:52
        +1

        What about 40 only during school start / finish hours, but only during school terms?

    • netjock on 31/03/2021 - 15:47
      +2

      Only ever goes down, never up!

      • md333 on 01/04/2021 - 14:09
        +1

        Freeways in WA have gone from 80 to 100. Still can't quite comprehend how the limit goes up from 100 to 110 when you leave the freeway onto a regular highway here, seems the reverse of everywhere else in the world.

  • bobbified on 31/03/2021 - 14:33
    +3

    Lowering speed limits on roads where upgrades are unfeasible

    Then they'll just keep lowering the speed limits - no different to what they alraedy do!

    • GG57 on 31/03/2021 - 14:36

      That seems to be the Catch-22 we are in.
      Lower the speed limit; let the road deteriorate further (because it is now a lower priority); lower the speed limit further; etc.

      • pharkurnell on 31/03/2021 - 14:52

        Everyone drive EV's…
        No fuel tax… Roads deteriorate more as there's no money in the coffers to pay for fixing/upgrades

        The futures so bright.. i gotta wear shades.

  • Naigrabzo on 31/03/2021 - 15:46

    YES! Finally higher speeds for self driving cars. YEEEEEEEEES!

  • bobbified on 31/03/2021 - 15:47
    +1

    More research into driver impairment from drug use.

    Does anyone know the reason why they weren't testing for cocaine in the roadside tests (even though they had the capability to)?

    I remember they only introduced it not that long ago in some states in response to an outcry from the public that they were only testing for "poor man's drugs".

    • Naigrabzo on 31/03/2021 - 15:47

      Dude cocaine makes you go fasta!

      • bobbified on 31/03/2021 - 15:49

        I have a couple of theories as to why they might not have included it, but I'd like to know the real reason if anyone knows it. I think Victoria still doesn't test for it today.

        • GG57 on 31/03/2021 - 15:55
          +3

          I think, but don't actually know, that it is probably related to the high likelihood of false positives that could arise, and the potential litigation that could follow a false positive.

          • CMH on 31/03/2021 - 16:10
            +1

            @GG57: I would think this is the reason. We'd be pulling aside someone who'd have tested positive for having a bagel!

            It is just that the molecule tested for cocaine is quite similar to a lot of other legal substances and even stuff that's found naturally in some seeds.

            • Naigrabzo on 31/03/2021 - 16:13

              @CMH: Maybe false positives. Can they test it on your breath? Didn't realise. They should though. Cocaine makes you go faster.

          • bobbified on 31/03/2021 - 16:16
            +1

            @GG57: I think you're right, but the error rate must be quite huge because the error rate for the THC test seems to be around 10% or so and they're still using those tests!

          • WT on 01/04/2021 - 13:25
            +1

            @GG57: long time ago someone said it was out of your system too fast but according to this https://www.addictioncenter.com/drugs/how-long-do-drugs-stay… it has a usual rate so its probably the false positives

  • netjock on 31/03/2021 - 15:51
    -2

    Vic state gov trying to get into the news. doesn't like like they are doing anything. The got no money for roads so expect speeds to come down.

    • GG57 on 31/03/2021 - 15:56

      It is a multi-party inquiry, so not just Labor.

  • Masterpupil on 31/03/2021 - 15:52
    +2

    All for improving country roads. There are some appalling high traffic roads out there that should dual carriage ways between large country towns/cities.

    Most country people, in my experience, that know their roads are pretty sensible, for example no one drives 100 on dirt roads, even thought there is no posted limit, and technically doing so would be careless or reckless driving, given the conditions of the road by themselves make it so.

    All for increased drug testing and research. It seems that a lot of people in the community are gambling with their licenses given the amount of time that a substance like marijuana remains detectable, then there are others using huge amounts of prescription medication like painkillers and benzodiazepine based medications that probably should not be driving.

    Then there are all these people driving on ICE who are disproportionately likely to be involved in car accidents. More testing would help, but from what I have seen merely losing your license won't stop these people.

    • GG57 on 31/03/2021 - 15:57
      +2

      I'm always surprised by the stats released after a blitz, on how many unlicensed drivers are out and about.

      • bobbified on 31/03/2021 - 16:13
        +1

        how many unlicensed drivers are out and about.

        Given there are so many, I don't see why they don't do a continuous "blitz" on unlicensed/unregistered drivers. They already have the technology mounted on highway cars to make it easy to pick up unregistered vehicles or vehicles who are registered to suspended/unlicensed drivers. It would make sense to prioritise getting suspended drivers off the road rather than issuing fines to those who are a few kms over the speed limit.

        People who fit in the above categories continue to drive with the knowledge that the chances of getting busted are quite low.

      • pharkurnell on 01/04/2021 - 11:01
        +1

        … how many unlicensed drivers are out and about.

        Considering those Highway Patrol/Booze bus shows on TV and have 3-4 per episode - its extremely concerning

    • Naigrabzo on 31/03/2021 - 16:14

      They should legalise drugs though. Not drug-driving however. Just like Alcohol. Make taxes out of it and more taxes when people break the law.

      • GG57 on 31/03/2021 - 16:35
        +1

        There are plenty of drugs that are legalised.
        And some of those impair drivers. But those are not tested for.

        • Naigrabzo on 31/03/2021 - 17:10
          -1

          I was talking about weed, cocaine etc. Get more revenue by legalising and you can control the industry. Better for govt.

          What drugs are legalised but not tested? I didn't realise this and I am annoyed that I am missing out.

  • Euphemistic on 31/03/2021 - 16:43
    +2

    They’re probably looking at impairment for weed. It stays in your system for ages, but the effects wear off a lot quicker. They’re probably getting a lot of court cases with people saying they haven’t smoked for days and still went positive.

    I know that was a big issue with workplace testing.

  • Euphemistic on 31/03/2021 - 17:18

    Speed limits in built up areas are too high, especially in busy areas with lots of pedestrians. Reducing the speed limit would probably not impact average speeds much, due to congestion anyway.

  • Seraphin7 on 31/03/2021 - 19:05
    -3

    The Age is reporting a Victorian cross-party parliamentary inquiry is considering a few options with a view to saving lives on the road raising more revenue to fixed their busted economy after Chairman Dan screwed the pooch. FTFY.

  • [Deactivated] on 31/03/2021 - 20:39
    +1

    Speed limits only ever go down. The next generation will be walking everywhere.

    • Euphemistic on 01/04/2021 - 07:26
      +1

      Think of all the fuel we’ll save.

  • theguru1 on 01/04/2021 - 07:38
    +3
    • Lowering speed limits on roads where upgrades are unfeasible
    • Increased drug testing

    I'd say that VicRoads are already actively doing these.

    Not so much this:
    - Upgrading the condition of high-traffic country roads

    Seems convenient to not fix roads, but to just lower the speed limit so the requirements aren't so high. Good way to raise revenue too as locals get sick of traveling at 80kph on what was 100kph road.

    The Melbourne tourist traffic at the weekend didn't drive at 100kph anyway (often 60/70) but locals have to put up with longer drives due to them.

  • Lawrencep93 on 01/04/2021 - 08:53

    Lower speed limits = distracted bored and fatigued drivers on long straight roads like freeways and highways, need to bring in the 85th percentile rule.
    I do hope the sports car owners get to travel in the right-hand lane at 20-40km/h faster that would be a good improvement, can take my 2 door coupe on the open roads

    • WT on 01/04/2021 - 13:40

      this is kinda true, driving in LA at 90mph while tail gating and being tail gated makes sure you have 100% focus on the road/surroundings

      freaks out a lot of first timers, but after a couple of days they are doing the same thing

  • terrys on 01/04/2021 - 09:35
    +3

    "no data to baseline driver impairment from drug use, "

    Part of the argument against recreational cannabis use is that there is no direct corelation between dectection measurments and degree of impairment. Even being able to meter the dose consumed would still give wide variation between the two variables of interest. Its active ingredients are fat soluble chemicals and they and their products hang around for ~ 3 months afterwards. Even the bits dectectable in the saliva and on the surface of the mouth are there long after the high has passed.

    With alcohol and the water soluble stimulants a blood/breath/saliva test gives a good indication of the degree of impairment, and prescription drug interactions are far better documented than that of something that could be a random weed found in the bush to a carefully fed and nutured hydroponic frankenplant with waldo-controlled horoscope aligned frequency-modified lighting.

  • StickMan on 01/04/2021 - 12:16
    +1

    I live in country QLD, and the main highway1 here is an absolute joke.

    The most basic of traffic factors is: it's single-lane, and overtaking lanes are few and far between.

    If there's one idiot up front going +/-10kmph, and people behind can't overtake easily and without risking their license, then you get a convoy. With a convoy, you are increasing the chances of an accident.

    The solution to most accidents is the availability of quick and easy overtakes.

  • plugmeister on 01/04/2021 - 14:32

    Victoria is the original and best Nanny State, but others are catching up very fast!

    • GG57 on 01/04/2021 - 14:49

      Just a random opinion, or is this related somehow to this forum?

      • plugmeister on 01/04/2021 - 15:39

        Relates to the topic so why so bitter?

        • GG57 on 01/04/2021 - 15:58

          I'm not bitter; I was actually trying to understand how your comment related to this topic.
          There are no outcomes from the inquiry as yet. When there are, some of them may be perceived by some as positive, some may be perceived by some as negative.
          There is nothing about which is the best state etc.

  • OzHunterNSW on 05/04/2021 - 10:06

    All trucks should be 10kph under marked speed, and made to keep to the left.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join