Printable View
I'm just sick of new multi lane roads with low limits.
A section of a Toll road in Sydney (M2) was reduced from 90 to 70.
Its 3 lane, no entry or exit points for at least 1km...
residential 50's make sense.
too Many zones are 60 rather than 70 or 80 near where I live.
The car full of people travelling in the other direction that you hit with a closing speed of 200km/h or higher don't deserve it though because you fell asleep...Quote:
Originally Posted by Arctra
Innocent people die as a result of this, and that's the largest reason it needs to be fixed. Years ago, a car full of guys pulled over on the side of the M4 to have a break because they were tired and knew it wasn't safe to continue. They pulled right over out of the way, and should have been safe - except for the driver of a truck who fell asleep and ploughed into their parked car, killing them all.
Hardly fair is it...
The M2 was designed from the start to be 100km/h each direction. It wasn't until years after it opened that they upped the limit to this figure. Not sure why.Quote:
Originally Posted by noone
The 70km/h bit is because they're channelling three lanes of traffic through a section of tunnel designed for only two lanes. The idea being that when an accident occurs, the damage and danger to life will be lower.
The people who built the M2 offered to make it three lanes in each direction from the start, for a paltry amount of extra money, but the NSW state government (and before anyone spouts "bloody Labor!", it was actually a Liberal government at the time) said no. And now we suffer for that shortsightedness...
You're right, it isn't fair. Of course, even if you decreased the speed limit to 80km/h, the closing speed would be 160km/h and I'd be willing the wager the outcome would be very similar. Decreasing the speed limit to compensate for idiot drivers isn't going to make them any less idiotic. In a small percentage of cases, decreasing the speed limit may save a life or two, but if the cause of the accident isn't primarily speed, then trying to address the problem by decreasing speed is like using antiseptic ointment to treat a broken arm. Of all the deaths quoted, how many are caused primarily due to speed, and of those how many would fatalities been avoided by decreasing the speed? Just looking at raw fatality figures in isolation is pointless.Quote:
Originally Posted by Manaz
There are many things wrong with the way the people drive, and I don't think anyone disputes that something needs to be done about it. Unfortunately, the action required to prevent casualties from sleeping/drunk/drugged/distracted/etc drivers are all too difficult compared with the easy blanket "solution" of decreasing speed limits.
A good discussion on a great topic.
I work along side Gavin Goeldner. He has had a busy day today fielding interviews for the radio etc.
Agree with most here .... general driving skills in Australia are poor .... this is something we will need to work on regardless of what happens to the speed limits ....
Found some more stuff ...... some conflicting research out of the US ....
1 study claims a whopping 0.64% increase in accidents with raised speed limits ...... :eek:
Many others like this http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/29/2941.asp say there has been no change .... in fact people who speed has decreased by 20% !!!!! :eek:
I believe speed limits on the open road can be safely increased to 120km/h at least with no additional loss of lives ..... classic example as said here .... NT introduced speed limits and had a dramatic increase in fatalities ...... just proves pollies have NO F***ing clue .....
Time to stop being so politically correct for a change ... I say shoot the care bears and get on with it ...... as someone on here said ... "time to harden up Australia" ... :bowdown:
EDIT. is there a petition or something I can sign to make it happen ... sigh ....
And some more fuel for the fire ...
http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/sl-irrel.html
I agree with all of this and have been saying for years that the speed limits are too low on the freeways.
140 would be a good cruiseing speed and I reckon there would be less fatigue crashes as you would be in Brisbane 2 hours earlier, parked up and relaxing.
Lets make a petition and send it to all of our MPs, as a VWW lobby group.
I have a solution!!
Make all speed limits 400kph, then I can virtually guarantee that NOBODY would be killed exceeding the speed limit!!:banana:
LOL ... except the poor Veyron driver driving at the speed limit running into a granny in a Camry that without warning turned into the fast lane .... @ 90km/hQuote:
Originally Posted by gareth_oau
Interestingly, looking at some of the "research" out there it quickly becomes clear that the outcome is pretty much what the researcher wants ...
The Green Car Lobby group obviously found a huge increase in fatalities, just as the Australian Pedestrian Council (sic) would ..... :rolleyes: ... idiots ....
In SA they keeps speeds down by not maintaining the roads. Some of them are unusable over the posted limit.
The 60k limit didnt prevent the 5 car chainy, I rode round on my bike on Wednesday. Clowns constantly changing lanes and pulling into imaginary gaps is the cause.
With the std of driving I have seen here, I wonder how there isn't a lot more folk meeting their maker.:frown:
A highway with chicken wire in the central reservation, that's sensible. Always seeing cars that have gone through that.
Combating road deaths is a losing battle IMO. More people on the roads, doing more miles= more deaths.
Gavin
Jeff Kennet back in the 90's wanted to make the Hume un-restricted again, but make it a toll road.
I'd pay that toll so that I could sit on 150 all day and get to Sydney early and fresher