Genuine Question, Are We behind The World in Our Speed Limits?

Where I live in NSW, most roads speed limits are 50km/h, and the fastest I can go on the highway is 110km/h. I went for a drive with a co-worker in a brand new 2021 car. It got to the 110 speed limit ridiculously fast, and was barely even trying to do it.

Around town the car was damn near falling asleep doing 50. Do you think speed limits might be increased one day, maybe not in towns but 110 seems pretty low on the highway. Although we do need to account for roos. I saw some cop cars in BMW's worth $150k, that can reach 100km/h in 3.9 seconds.

Just couldn't help but think this today. I did some looking and 130 seems more common around the world. Some say we could even go to 150


  • +6

    I wouldn't mind up to 130 on decent freeways and such but around town 50-60 is more than enough on most roads. 50 on many suburban streets can also be too much.

  • +34

    Cars are geting faster, but pedestrians and cyclists aren't getting any better at taking damage.

    • +16

      Most people also driver SUVs which hit people higher up, right around their internal organs, making the likelihood of severe injury much higher.

    • Username cheeecccks out! :)

    • More pedestrian underpasses or overpasses. More segregated cycling lanes with barriers. Then increase speed limits to reduce congestion. Our speed limits are low. Though speed limits aren’t always the problem because many people are not concentrating and don’t drive at the speed limits all the time anyway.

      • +2

        I genuinely believe that our built up area speeds are similar to those across most countries. The only possible improvement would be on highways.

      • +8

        1960 called, it wants its urban planning back.

        Pedestrians should not be pushed to the fringes of cities. Cities are for people, not cars.

        Increasing speed limits and reducing barriers to cars does not reduce congestion. Building new, faster, bigger roads does not reduce congestion. Induced demand means that up to a (basically limitless) point, all you do is encourage more people to drive until the traffic returns to equilibrium.

        Equilibrium in this instance = so slow that some people start using public or active transport instead of driving (i.e., congested).

        • +3

          Yup so much damage done over the years by the car lobby. Europe is unwinding it and like it or not Australia will too, its just running behind as usual due to lack of political will.

          • +3

            @mctubster: Totally. It's very depressing.

            The only solution to traffic congestion is effective and well-funded public and active transport systems. We've known this for decades.

    • Some cars actually have pedestrian airbags. Saw one on a recent DCA video.

  • +3

    eh any driving speed beats walking idm what ever the limit is tbh

    • Sure, but higher limit speeds beat lower limit speeds.

      If you have a long commute, you could save 1/2 an hour each day with a higher limit.

      That's 45x5x0.5= 120 hrs a year!

      Which is about an extra week of your life, each year.


      Now, if car safety standards have improved exponentially, why should speed limits not increase?

      • Let's say you have a 1h commute and your speed is 110kmh. To save half an hour like you said your speed should be 220kmh. With a speed increase of 20km (130km what people are talking about) you would save around 9 minutes.

        To save 30 minutes on a jump from 110 to 130 (what people want around here) your commute should be 3.75hours or close to 400km long. I do not believe most people have such a big commute.

        Also these are with the consideration that you only drive on the highway all the time, the percentage that you would win would be even smaller if you take into consideration the "last mile".

  • +2

    I feel like our highways could definitely cope with more speed, 130-150 km/h would be reasonable.
    With modern radar systems and electronic stability control cars could easily handle it.

    • +6

      I feel like our highways could definitely cope with more speed, 130-150 km/h would be reasonable.

      A lot of country "highways" don't even have physical separation of traffic flowing in opposite directions. A painted line offers very little help if a vehicle drifts into oncoming traffic. The outcome is bad enough at current speeds without adding an additional 20kph to each vehicle.

      • +6

        Not to mention wandering wildlife. In France, the autoroutes have separated single lanes and fencing everywhere to prevent wildlife entering the road.

        Over here, anything can cross at any time. No way I'd drive at the same speeds here.

      • A car doesn’t drift by itself if you have your hands on the wheel and are safe to drive.

        • +3

          A car doesn’t drift by itself

          Correct, but there are a large number of such accidents on our roads every year, so my point stands.
          Without separation of high speed traffic moving in opposing directions, current speeds are risky enough, without a limit increase.

  • +8

    I saw some cop cars in BMW's worth $150k, that can reach 100km/h in 3.9 seconds.

    Cops need to be faster than most other things on the road.

    Speed limits don't have anything to do with how fast we can build cars, nor should they, it's about safety. There's no good reason for people to die on the roads at all, being 10 minutes earlier to your destination or getting your rocks off putting your foot down isn't worth lives. The US has lax laws compared to Australia, they also have triple per capita the number of fatalities on the road as we have.

    One day we'll have automated cars so road rules don't have to be written for the lowest common denominator car/driver, but until then the current laws make sense. There's not a good reason to increase the speed limit and many reasons not to.

    • +4

      Definitely agree that safety is the overriding priority rather than efficiency/speed.

      For most drivers outside of rural areas higher speed limits wouldn't even save you 10 minutes on your trip (which is actually a lot). It would only save seconds rather than minutes. Doubling the speed limit doesn't help if you still need to slow down and stop at the same number of intersections.

      When we get to full automation we may be able to uncap speed limits but only on motorways. Streets that humans use to cross, walk along or cycle along need to be safe and attractive for humans. Not cars. Having hundreds of Teslas zooming past you at 150kph is not conducive to a safe urban environment regardless of how good automation becomes.

      • Definitely agree on in only being motorways and not city streets. I suspect that once people don't have to focus on driving they'll care a lot less about the speed their car is going. So long as I know how long it will take to get there - and traffic jams should be a thing of the past with fully automated cars - I don't care if I travel at 40km/h the whole way. Much like taking a train now, I know it takes 20 minutes from where I am to where I want to go, that's enough info for me.

        Even on long journeys we have planes and, hopefully eventually in this country, high speed rail. I'd have to do 300km/h to make it as easy to drive from Melbourne to Sydney.

  • +4

    are we behind the world in our speed limits ?

    On freeways/motorways, absolutely.

    Do you think speed limits might be increased oneday

    Not gonna happen, too many vested interests in keeping it low.

  • +5

    Can look at it as glass half empty or half full.

    Although technology has advanced, human reaction time has not.

    • -2

      human reaction time has not.

      Neither has average human intelligence especially in the western part of Sydney.

      • +1

        especially in the western part of Sydney.

        Lol WTF. What do you mean by that exactly? Unless I misunderstood what you're insinuating and you're referring to yourself?

        • -3

          Nah I'm too smart for my intelligence to have decreased.

  • +11

    Very flawed logic there. Where I live it went from 60km/h to 50 km/h and now 40 km/h. I won't be surprised it will eventually go down to 30km/h. Nope, the cars didn't reduce in speed/acceleration by half during that time. I actually think some cars are too powerful and thus dangerous for an average person to use.

  • Just put on the active cruise control, put on some good music, and chill out.

  • +4

    Speed limits are based around the distance required to stop in an emergency. i.e. pedestrian child runs out on to the road or granny tootles out of drive way without giving way. I've had both of these happen and had very little time to stop. I had no other option but to slam on the brakes so every kph mattered.

    • +4

      i haven't seen any kids run out on the motorways yet.

    • +1

      Then why are school zones on main roads 40km/h but side streets 50km/h? Less kids but more damage if I do hit one at 50.

  • +12

    God please no. We have terrible drivers here. People constantly sitting in the right hand land. Oblivious drivers everywhere, no situational awareness. No sense of sharing the roads at all. People will overtake you just so they get to the red light faster, speed up when overtaking, just all around terrible driving culture.

    • +1

      I would want to get to the lights faster if I know it's going to be one lane ahead instead of two. There are many other reasons why people want to overtake. I would definitely overtake a car if it's going at variable speed. You can't predict what they are going to do.

    • Those people should move into a slow lane.

    • Yes, just watch Dash Cams Australia on Youtube to see how many bad drivers are out there. Add more speed and its going to get more dangerous.

    • Need compulsory advanced driver training.

      Would also like to see more regular testing for seniors. Should also have a seniors plate similar to learners and provisional and maybe ones for people caught speeding and using mobiles.

  • +1

    In general it’s not about how fast a car is, but how quick a driver can make it stop or avoid and incident.

    Maybe we could increase the speed limit on freeways, but 100 is plenty fast enough for most crappy country highways. More than 110 also start to get into rapidly increasing fuel consumption. Maybe not such and issue with EVs but we should be trying to cut our fossil fuel usage.

    Many places are lowering urban speed limits for reduced fuel consumption and noise and increased safety, especially for pedestrians and cyclists. Don’t be surprised if 30 becomes normal in busy urban areas, 40 in suburban streets and 50 on all but major roads.

    • Yeah fuel economy / time + distance is best on my car at about 115km to 120. It drops off above that.

      • +1

        drag coefficient exponentially grows after 70kph.

        The sweet spot is actually closer to 80-90kph

  • +2

    NT used to have open speed limits, then got rid of them, then trialed them again. Pretty sure there are no open limits anymore. There are some sections that are 130km/h though.

    Click on "Speed limits outside built up areas"

    In current year, political will seems to prefer caution over freedom, even if in some cases higher speeds might be statistically safer. Also, there is no way that governments are going to give up on that fine revenue.

  • +3

    It needs to be sufficiently fast that we can get to where we need to be, but frustratingly slow enough that makes people want to speed so they can fine people for exceeding the limits…

    Speed limits are mostly there to cover the lowest common denominator when it comes to veritable monkeys controlling 2 tonne death machines. A classic case of “this is why we can’t have nice things…”

  • +6

    Come to Western Sydney and South-west Sydney then you'll realise why the governments wants speed limits capped at 50 and 110 km/h. Sometimes I fear for my life when I drive in South-west sydney and it's not always the (profanity) in the Hiluxes and decked out Ford Monster Trucks (Ranger). There are young ladies, usually of a certain persuasion, in turbocharged cars driving like it's Nascar.
    Trust me, people in Sydney can't be trusted to follow the law. Our punishments are so soft that people will continue to break the law as long as there is a financial way to get out of court/jail

    • agree 100% and i know who you're referring to

    • +1

      Bang on.

      First 27 years of my life was spent in the heart of SW Sydney. All that felt normal until now I've lived in the lower North Shore for a while now and go back most weekends to visit my parents. Everyone wants to race as if they're in the Fast and Furious and others driving as well as Stevie Wonder does.

  • +5

    In this country certain elements will not be satisfied until all vehicles travel at the same speed as pedestrians.
    They want you to believe that motor vehicle deaths have been increasing, but the fact is they have steadily decreased.

  • +1

    high performance car, low performance people

    the view is that the state is not interested in teaching anything but the basics and teaching more means a population that ends up being overconfident and meaning more accidents

    i can sympathise with that as theyre in a no win situation

    there is no fix no answer no way forward except whatever the hell this current situation is

  • +3

    The opposite is happening. I know a lot of roads and streets where the speed limits have been decreased (from 60 to 50 and 50 to 40). Some streets in the CBD had their slip lanes blocked off and now motorists have to wait for a green arrow to turn left. Some streets that had two lanes had their left lane turned into car parks. The population is increasing but the roads are getting slower and sh!ttier by the day.

  • What causes frustration is that pedestrians and cyclists are being prioritised over car drivers and the reasons why are not transparently explained.

    We keep hearing the need to reduce road tolls as an absolute number. But if the population keeps increasing, is that really an appropriate measure?

    • -1

      I agree with you, and slowing cars down to a very fast sprint is making me wonder why even have cars.
      Government should just make us all use public transport for free, and get rid of every single car haha

    • +4

      Why shouldn’t pedestrians and cyclists be prioritised over cars? Why should where you live be a pleasant place to walk and cycle instead of having cars and trucks driving through at 60km/h.

      Our whole road system is messed up because it wasn’t built to cope with cars driving through towns. It was built for slow moving traffic such as pedestrians, cyclists and horse and cart.

      If we had built properly to suit cars there’d be major roads linking everywhere wheee would could travel safely and quickly and only slow traffic streets where our businesses, cafes and other places are.

      Through traffic is the problem. People who don’t want to stop in the Main Street, but that just want to get through there as quick as possible. Our local shopping area has 10-20 shops opposite the lake including cafes. It’s great to dine there outside, except there is 4 lanes of traffic passing though creating noise and fumes even at 40km/h as they slow and speed up for traffic lights and speed humps.

      We should be designing places to live and enjoy not be a thoroughfare for tonnes of sealed up noisy, polluting travel boxes.

      Yes public transport should be cheaper and more available.

    • +1

      The question is why have we structured our society such that people need to use a metal box fueled with combustible gasoline to travel at high speeds in order to live their lives? Outside of suicides the death toll for trains in Sydney is zero. Trams are zero. The death toll for buses is much closer to zero.

      Why shouldn't we be aiming at zero for our roads? How many of your friends and family would you say it is acceptable to have die in car accidents in the name of efficiency?

      • The question is why have we structured our society such that people need to use a metal box fueled with combustible gasoline to travel at high speeds in order to live their lives?

        What would you suggest? We can travel longer distances on horseback or camels and we'd still have people getting killed. The closest way to get near-zero would be to walk. And I say near-zero because people would still trip over, hit their head and die.

        Trams are zero

        There are indeed non-suicidal deaths by trams hitting pedestrians.

        • +1

          What would you suggest?

          That we set up a society that is not inherently based on property speculation, highway construction and repair, and urban sprawl into greenfields development? We have some of the highest rates of car use in the world, and some of the lowest rates of active transport uptake. That's because of how we have chosen to lay out our cities. We can change that.

  • +1

    130 kmh in the NT was great, only drove when the sun was out though.

    • How was fuel consumption at that speed?

      Totally understand avoiding driving at night. Too many roadside hoppers.

      • It depends on the car. Some will quite happily cruise at low RPM/fuel economy well above 130km/h. Roos are only really an issue at dawn and dusk. They're much less of a problem at night. It depends on the road though. They're definitely more active in some areas than others.

        • Lets say I've done a fairly constant a tad above 110km/h and its still under 10/100km. This a Commode V8 w/ 6 spd manual. At sub 10/100 I dont care about econ.

          • @tonyjzx: I used to do a lot of highway commuting before speed cameras and police vans were set up every other kilometre. I found cars are most efficient at 80kph and 120kph. NT speed limit is based on getting people somewhere faster rather than fatigue kicking in and creating a bigger risk. Flip side is their roads are built a lot better than a lot of eastern sea board roads were, and much less congested.

  • +4

    The Speed limit is not designed so that you can test out how fast a new car will go….. I my speedo goes to 200kph, there is no way I will ever be able to go that fast without the ute falling apart though!

    The 50 KPH speed limit is set because it is the speed that is considered survivable for a pedestrian who gets hit by you while driving. The survivability decreases exponentially as the speed increases so that is why we have to drive slower…. I do agree that 60 KPH is a much better slow speed option but the laws are there for a reason.

    On the road it is the same story, if the roads are good enough then the speed could potentially be increased but most of the world does not drive at 130KPH (unless I am mistaken), most of the world has limits between 100-110KPH.

    • +3

      The 50 KPH speed limit is set because it is the speed that is considered survivable for a pedestrian who gets hit by you while driving.

      The 50km/h was set because everyone was up in arms about driving any slower than 60 in suburban streets where their kids should be safe to ride bikes and play. It should have been set at 40.

      When it was initially set at 60 there were far fewer cars and car windows were always open so you had more connection with the outside world. Now we are sealed up inside a box which creates a real disconnect from other people on the side of the road.

      Driving faster is all about ‘me’ the driver. Driving slower in urban areas is about making it more pleasant for people outside the vehicle (where we should be)

      • +1

        And if we make things more pleasant and convenient for people outside the vehicle, you get less people driving and that makes things better for those that do need to drive by lowering congestion.

      • Some history: urban speed limits were 30 miles per hour (48kph) until the 1960s when they were raised to 35 miles per hour (56kph); with metric conversion in 1974, 35mph limits were raised to 60kph. So between the 1960s and 1974, urban limits went up 25%. A limit of 50kph today is still a bit more than the 1960s urban limit.

  • It’s not speed that’s a problem, it’s tailgating. Many pickup n truck coming right to rear bumper at 100km/h! That’s why so many accidents.
    In city, many unnecessary roundabouts, intentional bottle necks, grow trees to almost middle of road, fluctuating speeds in less than 100m; all poor road planning.

  • -3

    SPEED LIMIT CARS at 125kmphr!

    …. When it comes to electric bicycles they have this ridiculous limit so that you can't even ride up a hill without helping pedal in low gear, virtually useless in Tasmania. Forget having extra weight on the bicycle.

    And go get your little licence and you can drive 2 tons of steel in a vehicle that can go 150 easy, … crazy!

    MY SUGGESTION.. Bring in speed limiters on cars, with a matching bumper sticker so other people know. Maybe just limited to 125km.

    Opt for a speed limited car and you reduce insurance premium and registration cost by 5%, an incentive! Or if you are a repeat offender you may be restricted to only drive speed limited cars.

    I know my 125 example is not going to be a huge difference, but it will stop some accidents from happening each year!

    Add an additional 5% saving for drivers who have completed a road safety licence refresher course or advanced driving certificate in the past five years!

    Vote 1 Wally!

    • +2

      Sorry made. Too many Wally’s in parliament already.

  • +2

    Speed limits are trending down, not up. This is because society is hell bent on protecting the stupid, lowering average IQ and destroying the gene pool. The same brigade that puts warnings like "may contain nuts" on packets of peanuts and believe cyclists should have right of way over cars and be able to use the road when a bicycle lane is less than 50 metres away. Survival of the stupid is the order of the day.

  • +1

    Speed limits tend to range in the 100-120 range in most places around the world and contrary to your view speed limits above that are the rarity. Their are many more places below that range than there are above it.

  • On a freeway, totally agree with raising the speed limit. Cars have evolved over the decades but our top speeds haven't.
    I heard an interview on this topic a few years ago on ABC Radio. He was saying basically if 2 cars had a head on each travelling at 80km/h, or you hit a tree, your chances of survival are VERY slim so was arguing for lower speed limits. If you're going to die crashing at 110, but the vast majority of us do that safely everyday, why not have the benefit of a higher speed limit because the negative outcome can't get any worse, but the positive outcome of shorter travel time is a definite improvement.
    Single occupant accident on high speed country roads can be a way to avoid the stigma of suicide, which a reduced speed limit is not going to prevent.
    At high speed engine power is not your concern, it's brakes, traction, suspension and steering. All of which are much better and safer in a modern car than a 50 year old Kingswood.
    A big concern you'd have travelling that speed on a freeway would be inattentive slower drivers changing lanes unsafely.

    • +1

      Pretty sure someone trying to commit suicide in a car isn't going to be worried about getting a speeding ticket, there's no way to prevent that.

      This is why there are split highways, barriers and ditches around freeways. It's actually very difficult to have a head on or hit a tree while going 110km/h on a road in Australia for that reason.

      The two lane roads with 100km/h speed limits are actually really dangerous though and probably should have lower speed limits. It's much easier to have a head on or hit a tree on those roads, yet it's almost the same speed limit. There's a very obvious argument there for lowering it because the risks are definitely much higher yet the benefits small.

      Plus, cars have brakes. If you see a car drift into your lane or you are heading at something, you're going to hit the brakes. The final speed you hit that tree or car is going to be lower than the speed limit, in a normal car braking lowers your speed by about 15km/h per second of braking. If you start at a slower speed, it also increases the amount of time you have to react then slow down.

      Simple example, travelling at 80km/h, you take a second to react, slam on the brakes and hit two second later. You hit it at 50km/h. Distance travelled is 58m. At 100km/h you take a second to react, slam on the brakes but hit just over a second later travelling at over 82km/h. Same distance of 58m, but in the first second of not reacting you travel 28m, in the 2nd second of applied braking you get down to 85km/h but you have travelled another 26m. That last 4m doesn't give much more slowing time (roughly .2 of a second) to drop off a little more speed. 20km/h slower starting speed, 32km/h difference is speed at point of impact. Reality is 1 second is a quick reaction too, it's usually longer (which makes the difference even more pronounced).

      A head on, if both vehicles brake, drops even further in speed from instantly fatal to potentially no one being hurt. If two cars get a second reaction time and a second of braking from 100km/h to get them down to 80km/h in a head on, from 80km/h they're going to get down to 45km/h. Almost half the speed, that goes from a fireball to potentially survivable.

      One other thing, our road fatality rates have dropped from 4,000 a year in 1970 to around 1,000 now. That kingswood was never safe and instead of increasing speed limits we've instead saved lives. Worth it.

  • +3

    In a lot of cities around the world in built up areas roads are actually being closed for cars and use is for bicycles only.

    You can can thank Australia's backwards politicians who love the fossil fuel industry for not doing this in our urban areas.

    Hell the LNP loves the fossil fuel industry so much they believe electric cars will 'end the weekend'. This is what Michaeila Cash actually said regarding electric vehicles.

  • +1

    Speed limits should be set for the conditions and road, not following some plan. I don't see why our freeways and some HWY's should go to 120 or 130, easily, or increased by 10-20 from what they are, especially if turning lanes are everywhere and there are no driveways or padestrial access to the road, slower isn't always safer. Slower speeds lead to more traffic, congestion and distractions and frustration, all leading causes of accidents, speed isn't as strongly correlated. That being said, school zones should be 40 or even lower, and I'm where pedestrians are present, speeds should be lowered even, 60 is too fast when you have people trying to cross or kids running along sidewalks. Speeds limits to the conditions, which is the opposite that we have here.

  • +1

    It is less about the cars, it is more about the quality of the roads.

    If you are on an autobahn in Europe, then sure, high speed.

    But we don't have that style of road here, Australia is a different country with different road qualities to Europe.

    • We do have some roads that are just as good, dual lane, separated by dividers with full turning lanes and no lights…..anndddd your stuck at 100 or even 80 or 90 at some weird points, with sneaky speed cameras everywhere, the cops cashing in on brocken Road systems. Should be 120+ in good conditions. Obviously schools and other pedestrian areas should be kept the same or even lowered, but where the road allows, the speed should be adjusted accordingly.

    • Australian roads are significantly better condition and generally newer than European roads… Unless you are talking about unpaved roads

    • You reckon the Hume Freeway between Melbourne and Sydney isn't that quality of road? It is.

      • +1

        Its not even about bad roads. Even if we spent a trillion and had the best roads we'd stilll be cooked.

        1,500 people die every year… fixing roads does what? Save 250 people?

        You need a total approach and then it comes down to how much money can you spend on a problem that can absorb billions of dollars.

        The police are also to blame with their "Towards Zero" nonsense.

        Garbage poltiicans, garbage police, hopeless population.

        WIth that I mean 1,500 people is as about as good as you can get.

  • +3

    Yes we are falling behind. European cities are dropping speed limits to 30 km/h in urban areas and we're still running at 50 or 40! We have to catch up to them!

    • +1

      The slower they drive the easier we can catch up to them.

    • And they raise speed limits to infinity, should we catch up there as well?

  • +2

    We are behind. 50kph is too fast.

  • +1

    Aus is tricky because it’s not just the speed limits, it’s how tightly they’re enforced. Other places (eg Japan, UK, US in my experience) might have the same limits on paper but you don’t get done for hundreds the moment you’re 3kmh over the limit.

  • 110 is fast enough on single carriage roads, motorways could be 120 though

    50 does feel very slow once you are used to 60, which is the limit most of the time in Perth.

  • Just move to NT. No speed limits on the Stuart Highway in the outback. Porche topped out their car at 350 kmph a while ago

  • +1

    We are definitely leading the world in fines though.

  • +5

    It sounds like your justification is that it's not 'fun' enough to drive this slow, and modern cars can easily go faster.
    1. Honestly, driving on a highway at 150 feels basically the same as driving at 110, and doesn't even save that much time. If you want to do 'fun' driving, go to a track, not on a public road.
    2. Sure, modern cars can go faster, but have we also got better at driving, and do we have better roads? Debatable. The number of crashes on my local highway in an 80kph zone, particularly on rainy days is crazy.

    Could some roads take faster speeds? Probably, but what's the point? Most of the time on our roads, you'll be stuck in traffic anyway and not able to reach 110 anyway…
    Even if I travel 100km at an average speed of 130 vs 110, I'm saving less than 10 minutes.

    • -1

      …doesn't even save that much time.

      If you do the 900km or so stretch between Sydney and Melbourne at 150km/h, you'll arrive more than 2 hours earlier than someone driving at 110km/h. That's a significantly less amount of time spent on the road.

    • Modern cars go much faster, are safer, better brakes, crumple zones have cup holders etc.. Thats the modern car…

      Some modern roads are better, although Vicroads seem to have invested heavily in "ROUGH SURFACE" signs… cheaper than fixing that road….

      But drivers are no better than 50 yrs ago, and neither are what people are taught when learning. Some of the basic shit you see "L" platers not being shown, or gettin away with by their accompanying driver is horrendous. These errors stick with many drivers for life.

      What ever happened to the 3 second rule? Next time on a freeway have a good look at how close cars are to each other.. many are less than 1 car length apart.


  • +6

    What does the acceleration of the car have to do with the speed limit?

    you know what doesn't change, no matter how fast the car is? human reaction time. Can't believe this has to be said…

    • What does the acceleration of the car have to do with the speed limit?

      The difference is in the time it takes to get to the speed limit 😜

  • All these major highways should be 120 - 130 kph.

    All country roads should be 90.

    All trucks should be capped at 90.

  • The average steering wheel attendant has the intelligence of a peanut. I agree speeds are too low, but until we fix the root cause (waaay too lax and easy driver testing, plus no mandatory retesting!!! Are a few major problems), we simply will keep having more and more restrictions piled on us.

  • A lot of people lack the skills to drive safely at high speeds. What's worrying is that many of these people are also the ones overestimate their capabilities.

  • Yes, anyone who says different hasn't driven on european roads.

    Go drive on the autobahn if you disagree. Safely doing 200km/h+ is so nice.

    • +1

      Try driving even 20km/h through the alleys of Napoli though.

      Why make such a sweeping statement? Same question to the OP. Some roads could probably be faster, some roads could definitely be slower. The state govts aren't gonna get out their measuring tape and traffic engineers and urban planners and scope out which 100m sections could be a bit faster and which could be a bit slower.

      Blanket rules are much easier to make and much easier to enforce. We 'suffer' through that averaging exercise by sometimes feeling like the limit is too slow and sometimes that it's too fast.

      • It doesn't need to be ridiculous checking every 100m of windy road, just start with some very long straight sections of existing highways.

        Simple example - Hume Highway - why isn't the speed limit higher? It's straight for a large portion of it. We could upgrade the road a bit and increase the limit safely to 160km/h+.

  • +6

    Have you seen the way people drive here?
    Little formal driver training
    Don't even need 3rd party insurance
    No regular road worthy checks (in Vic) meaning dangerous crap heaps on the road
    No common sense
    No lane disciple
    Drive like they can do whatever they want if there's the remotest chance of getting away with whatever carnage they cause by lying about what happened
    Truck drivers who drive like killing people is a normal part of driving a truck
    People driving ever bigger and bigger cars wrapped in bull bars so they can drive however they want
    No idea how to use roundabout, change lanes, merge etcetc.
    Traffic lights which have to filter every direction because of the utter inability to safely turn left or right without it being controlled
    Speed limits of 40kph through freeway roadworks and past emergency vehicles because of the inability to drive in a straight line without crashing
    Inability to drive past a crash on the other side of the road without slowing down to sticky beak and then cause another crash….. The list goes on 🙄

    • +2

      Best post yet - close the internet.

  • +1

    wtf are we talking about here.

    50kmh is a reasonable inner city/town speed limit… why is it being compared to 110kmh or 150kmh? There are no highways in Australia that impose a 50kmh speed?

Login or Join to leave a comment