Welcome to the Zombie Zone - statewide 90kmh rural limit in NSW?

[mik]

Originally Posted by sgt_doofey

Yes, agreed, but with the volume of traffic over there, you'd regularly see cars going from 130-150km/h down to zero very quickly due to some unforeseen traffic condition, or sometimes for no real apparent reason.
Having said that, due to population numbers and the vastness of this great land we call home, you'd be hard pressed to find similar traffic scenarios here at that speed out on the open road.

sounds like the tulla freeway/western ring road except for the high speed bit .

[BENT_8]

Originally Posted by flappist

Well I do not drive in Adelaide very much but I have heard there has been at least a couple of accidents there so I think the the speed limit in Adelaide should be dropped to 10km/h for safety reasons.

That will make it ok for bad drivers and those with unroadworthy vehicles to run into each as much as they like without too much damage.

The only people who will be affected badly by this will be normal Adelaide people (now there is a concept ) and it is only a small city with everything close together so why should the rest of Australia care.

If it just saves ONE life.......

I think your onto something here, but its really just a big country town _2:

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by BENT_8

It was mentioned that driving through the NT with unrestricted speed limits allowed for and extra 500km in a 15hr day, do you honestly expect people to believe that you were as attentive in the 15th hour at 170k's as in the 1st or 5th...please.

As I was the driver to which you refer, I will address this. For as start, I did not drive for 15 hrs straight at that speed, never said I did. Additionally the way it worked out, traveling for 1.5 hrs and then have a break of 30 mins is not that taxing. So to answer your question, yes I was a lot more attentive at the end of the day, maybe not as attentive as in the first hour, but still more than I was on other days when I was traveling at much slower speeds towards the end of the day. I certainly felt better at the end of the day than I did through QLD where my average speed was a lot lower. Like I said, my fatigue that I suffered was much worse in QLD, simple fact.

I thought I explained that very clearly but perhaps not. Now of course I can only comment on my experience but there have been other similar posts from people with similar experience so obviously I am not alone. Either that or I am a complete liar and so are others :

Now, obviously, I have never said the speed limit should be raised to what it was in 2004 in the NT when I completed that drive. I just used that example to illustrate a point, not as a suggestion of what should be considered a solution.

if you drive on australian roads you should be able to do 20/30/40/50/70/80/90/100/110 where applicable, if you hold a licance that enables you to drive on all of those roads, you should be able to do so last time I checked licances didnt just give you an area in which to drive.

yes you should be able to do 130 on national highways, the newell is a great example of this and no I am far from an arm chair moron when it comes to driving, I have owned a limo doing over 3000ks a week and just come back from doing 7000k's in 7 days through QLD NSW and VIC.

doing 130 you are alot more alert then you are at 110 and certainly more alert than brain numbing 90.

if you feel comfortable then drive 5 hours straight, I do... some cant so you stop ever 1/2 hours... not the point, point is 130 is safe in certain conditions on certain roads

Absolutely.

I believe the answer is not to lower speed limits to keep the incompetent drivers alive, an incompetent driver can kill people at 50 km/h too. The answer is to improve driver education and skills. The other answer is to improve the licensing system so that drivers prove their competence and knowledge more often. I suggest a system where drivers must sit a road law test and practical test every 5 years. That way we know they have kept abreast of road law changes and maintain skills.

Lets be clear here, a car is a lethal weapon with potential to cause harm to others. why is it I hop into my car hoping the people in control of the other weapons on the road know what they are doing and are competent in the safe operation of these vehicles? Any person against the idea of spending a few hours every 5 years to prove your ability, considering they did it once before to get the license, is probably scared they will not pass and should not be driving anyway.

I dare say that 15hrs would be sharing the drive.

The drive across the NT from Karratha WA to Brisbane was solo.

C'mon man, dont tell me you've never come up on a 'L' plater in rural areas doing 80 in a hundred zone, or some old fuddy on a Sunday drive, hell where did the term 'Sunday driver' come from.
Fact is there are alot of paying road users who arent comfortable doing 110 never mind 130.
Then i guess for your arguments sake you've never come up on one of these people and complained that the speed limit is X and their slowing you down.
We've all been there.
Quite often it is frustrated drivers behind these slow road users that make rash overtaking decisions and get themselves killed, especially in holiday periods with vans/boats etc.

As has been covered, a higher speed limit is likely to result in less frustration and greater ease of passing someone doing 80. For example, you have a straight section of road, broken white lines and good conditions. The car in front is doing 80, you are in a 90 zone (as this is the state max). A legal speed differential of 10 km/h requires a lot of road to get past safely. Now make the speed limit 130, a speed differential of 40 makes passing a lot easier and safer requiring less distance to do so.

Then we must consider the clowns driving borderline unroadworthy cars or cars with retreads. Admittedly both these situations are not ideal, but not everyone can afford the latest car or $150 tyres.
How would you feel if some peanut does 130k towards you, blows a retread and ploughs head on into you all because the limit is 130 so he feels he can do it.

Why must we consider unroadworthy cars, they should not be on the road. Lets use the NSW method of pink slip roadworthy inspections and make it a national standard. That way a car must be inspected and deemed road worthy by a licensed examiner before rego is issued. I am all for that and would love to see it come in regardless of any increase statewide speed limits.

By the way, in regards to tyres, this is an extract from the QLD laws on vehicle modifications.

The speed rating of all tyres must be:
-a speed of at least:
for an off-road passenger vehicle – 140km/h
for another car (sedan, station wagon etc.)
up to nine adult seating positions or a car
derivative – 180km/h
for another motor vehicle – 120km/h
-the vehicle’s top speed, if lower.

Load ratings of tyres must be at least equal to those
specified by the manufacturer on the tyre placard fitted
to vehicles made after 1972. For other vehicles, the load
rating of a tyre must be capable of carrying the part of
the vehicle’s gross mass carried by the tyre.

Therefore, passenger cars may not have retreads as they do not provide a suitable speed rating. Additionally all passenger cars and 4wd according to this regulation must have tyres that are in good condition and capable of speeds greater than 130 km/h (unless the car is not capable of that speed). I am sure most states have regulations regarding tyres similar to these.

So I fail to see your point as his illegal tyres would be rejected at his roadworthy inspection as mentioned earlier. Again, why do we have to lower speeds to account for illegal actions such as unroadworthy vehicle, lets get rid of the unroadworthy vehicles.

I've been travelling around this country for years, never had a speeding ticket in rural areas and never felt the need to go faster to stay awake, Perhaps your attention span needs to be addressed, many people were born before the days of Attention Deficit disorder diagnosis, u may be one of them.

Geez, I am so glad you finally came up with a diagnosis for me. I thought my attention span was pretty good, must have just lucked upon my qualifications, not a result of my study. Maybe I am just smart enough to recognise factors inducing fatigue and have put a little more thought into solutions. Why do you think employment involving repetitive processes attract more work place accidents than employment that requires more mental activity, perhaps boredom, complacency and inattention?

As i said before, i oppose dropping limits to 90, but i also oppose lifting them too.

That is your right to have your view and your opinion is valued.

[Bud Bud]

Originally Posted by mrbaxr6t

I still am not seeing how one can assume that at 130 kmh people will be more attentive

No problem, but I urge you to at least try these conditions legally at some piont in your life before you pass total judgment. Remember nobody is advocating an open limit of 130 kph everywhere, just on roads that are already designed for it. I think the Adelaide to Tailem Bend freeway is rated at 140 kph for example so if you really want to look at it objectively, the freeway was built and opened in the early 70's when XA's HQ's and VH's were king of the roads.

Originally Posted by mrbaxr6t

also - the reason for the reduction is because the lower skilled drivers amongst us are crashing/injuring/dying on the roads

Originally Posted by mrbaxr6t

The driving standards of countries with open limit roads or higher limits have much better driver education than us here in Australia.

You are right and I really have a problem with this. When did we become a third would country? Why do we not spend enough on roads and education in this country? Why is it that the quick fix is to just lower limits more?

I have always maintained the view that drivers education should be part of our high school curriculum. I know that most people on this forum cannot possibly identify with teens getting a full licence at the age of 16 (including some people from S.A. that had to go through their P's since 1981 before a full licence was earned) but because you are still in learn mode, for me, this is probably the second most significant reason (upon reflection I didn't know it then though) that defined my attitude towards safe driving that at least until now has helped me remain accident free in 30 years.

I might add that I went to a high school with an agricultural back round and was driving tractors on the school grounds at the age of 13 after completing a "licence", which was taught as a subject. This is the time of age to fix this not from a cold start at 18 imho.

I still think that continuing to lower speed limits in a country the size of Australia is a recipe for disaster for us all. They way I see it, by continuing to lower speed limits they will always be able to budget on increased revenue but more importantly it lets someone of the hook by not having to maintain roads at a suitable standard for higher speeds, because all they need to do is lower speed limits as roads decay instead of maintaining them. Easy, save money on road maintenance and new infrastructure while ever increasing revenue. Win win!

The question everybody should be asking is, how low can they really go?

[MAD]

Originally Posted by Bud Bud

No problem, but I urge you to at least try these conditions legally at some piont in your life before you pass total judgment. Remember nobody is advocating an open limit of 130 kph everywhere, just on roads that are already designed for it. I think the Adelaide to Tailem Bend freeway is rated at 140 kph for example so if you really want to look at it objectively, the freeway was built and opened in the early 70's when XA's HQ's and VH's were king of the roads.

I've heard a similar thing about the Hume Hwy in VIC.
It was designed for 150km/h at 200m visibility. Dont know how true it is, but it wouldnt surprise me as some of those sections have wide lanes, warnings and huge run off before anything remotely hard to hit.

[castellan]

When i have been a passenger in a car.
I have noticed some people can not see jack! young or old, and the main problem is
'they can not judge the speed of a car coming
' either sitting at an intersection or on the open road.
That eye test they have when people get a licence is a joke!
I remember standing behind a nog that was being tested once. i could read the made in Taiwan with out the light on and what they made him read was 3 lines up from the bottom.

[Bud Bud]

Originally Posted by MAD

I've heard a similar thing about the Hume Hwy in VIC.
It was designed for 150km/h at 200m visibility. Dont know how true it is, but it wouldnt surprise me as some of those sections have wide lanes, warnings and huge run off before anything remotely hard to hit.

Mad I have driven the Calder from the Tullamarine intersection to Sunbury many times over the years and I can still remember the dangerous dogs breakfast it replaced in the 90's.

What a magnificent piece of road infrastructure it is today! But is just me or has this road too succumbed to the greed of the Vic Gov revenue raisers by reducing speed limits in many sections of this road now as well?

[flappist]

Originally Posted by mrbaxr6t

the statistics of which I speak were given to us all in high school as part of the curriculum so yes the data is somewhat antiquated (from the mid 90's) and the point to it all I believe was to show us that speed coupled with headons is deadly because of the addition of both vehicles' speeds.

I still am not seeing how one can assume that at 130 kmh people will be more attentive - maybe at first but people will given time become accustomed to traveling at this speed and begin to exhibit the behavior that the powers that be use to make the argument for a reduction - if we all were able to drive properly at 100/110 then maybe the limits would be increased, given that the roads can be safely traveled at 120/130 or more which alot cannot be driven at that speed due to poor maintenance and the like.

also - the reason for the reduction is because the lower skilled drivers amongst us are crashing/injuring/dying on the roads - want higher speed limits first we must drastically improve driver education. The driving standards of countries with open limit roads or higher limits have much better driver education than us here in Australia. Better driver education will not happen despite the fact that it will make the roads safer it costs alot of money.

Government sponsored propaganda to push agenda?

How unusual....

When I was at school I was taught that non white races were inferior and were to be treated as such.

Ever heard of the "white Australia policy"?

Not so popular lately.......

Brain washing young people into believing a warped policy is not new; Osama Bin Laden, Pol Pot, Hitler, Lenin, Kings and Pontifs and Emporors.

The enforced speed problem is simple and I will attempt to explain it to you.

Human beings, like all animals, move with a natural rythm that is the least fatiguing to them.
The rythm changes with mood, health, vitalaity and a thousand other influences.

Using walking as an example. Sometimes you walk fast other times you daudle about.
When you want to walk quickly and forced to move slowly by obsticles you get stressed.
When you want to walk slow but are being pushed along by others you get stressed.
You do not have a good time and tend to get angry and tired.
You will bump into more things, miss destinations and ignore all around you.

The same is true for everything including driving.

Sometimes you just wander along at 80 other times you feel much better at 100 or 120 or 140 or 160.

When you are driving in your "sweet spot" you are paying the most attention and stressing the least.

If you are forced to drive at a speed that is not good for you, whether that be higher or lower you get stressed, inattentive and angry.

This is the human condition, we are all like it after millions of years of evolution and no amount of wishing and social engineering by do gooder "experts" is going to change it.

We live in a faster and faster world were we can process information much more quickly and accurately than our forebears yet there is still the dogma that a "mile a minute" as was set in the early part of the last century is as fast as we can possibly go safely.

Do you use SMS instead of write letters?
Channel surf on your TV instead of listening to a radio play?
Buy your premixed tins and bottles instead of making drinks?
Eat at Maccas et al. instead of making your own hamburgers?

SMS causes cancer, channel surfing causes epilepsy, premix causes alchoholism, maccas causes obesity.

It has to be true, it was on TV and several "experts" have said it is true.

[BENT_8]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

Why must we consider unroadworthy cars, they should not be on the road. Lets use the NSW method of pink slip roadworthy inspections and make it a national standard. That way a car must be inspected and deemed road worthy by a licensed examiner before rego is issued. I am all for that and would love to see it come in regardless of any increase statewide speed limits.

By the way, in regards to tyres, this is an extract from the QLD laws on vehicle modifications.



Therefore, passenger cars may not have retreads as they do not provide a suitable speed rating. Additionally all passenger cars and 4wd according to this regulation must have tyres that are in good condition and capable of speeds greater than 130 km/h (unless the car is not capable of that speed). I am sure most states have regulations regarding tyres similar to these.

So I fail to see your point as his illegal tyres would be rejected at his roadworthy inspection as mentioned earlier. Again, why do we have to lower speeds to account for illegal actions such as unroadworthy vehicle, lets get rid of the unroadworthy vehicles.




That is your right to have your view and your opinion is valued.

Having spent a bit of time in NSW i fail to see how regular inspections removes all unroadworthy vehicles from the road.
I have known of plenty of inspections passed when the vehicle is far from road worthy...depends who you know.

As for tyres, why quote QLD laws when referring to NSW inspections.
A simple check of NSW vehicle mods found this

Retreaded tyres
NSW legislation requires that all retreaded tyres fitted to vehicles must comply with the provisions of Australian
Standard AS 1973 (1976, 1985 or 1993). Tyres retreaded after November 1999 must comply with the provisions
of Australian Standard AS 1973 (1993).
The standard requires among other things that the identity of the retreader, the words “RETREAD/REMOULD”,
“MAX. SPEED/SPEED LIMITED” and the tyres speed limit are permanently and legibly moulded on retreaded
passenger car tyres. The retreader identity may be provided either by the name, registered trademark or other
means, such as a code number assigned by the Motor Traders Association of NSW.
Speed limits for retreaded passenger car tyres are: - 110 km/h for winter tread tyres
- 120 km/h for cross ply tyres
- 140 km/h for radial ply tyres

If tyres fitted do not comply they simply ask for a sticker on the windscreen in the drivers view to warn of the underrated tyres.

I guess the QLD laws suited your arguement...

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by BENT_8

Speed limits for retreaded passenger car tyres are: - 110 km/h for winter tread tyres
- 120 km/h for cross ply tyres
- 140 km/h for radial ply tyres

If tyres fitted do not comply they simply ask for a sticker on the windscreen in the drivers view to warn of the underrated tyres.

I guess the QLD laws suited your arguement...

Actually yours does too.

You are not allowed to fit cross ply tyres to a car that was fitted with radials from factory, not many cars around that had cross ply from factory. So therefore the cars limited to 120 do not really matter, if they are on the road it is up to the operator to keep to the limits of their vehicle. Surely this is acceptable, I hope so because if we have to lower the speed limit to that of the slowest car's capability that may venture out on our roads, what is the top speed of a model T?

Radial retreads having to comply with a speed rating can still do 140 so no problems there.

It was not a case of QLD law suiting my argument, as I said I assume most state laws are pretty similar, it turns out in this area they are. Believe it or not I do have better things to do than research material for some garbage argument that is going around in circles. It seems that some believe that we must all travel in big plastic bubbles at 40k/h because some out there may not have ever had a license, never service their car or consider the council rubbish tip as the local tyre retailer. Some believe the answer is to improve road conditions, improve vehicle inspection and registration processes and improve driver education and competency maintenance processes. The government believes the first option is better as it is cheaper to erect signs, send out cops to enforce the speed limits and site cameras, plus it brings in revenue, too cool.

By the way, I lived in NSW for 6 years, not just a bit of time and I have noticed general car condition in NSW is much better than in QLD where there are no roadworthy inspections as long as you keep the rego current, do not sell the car or attract the attention of the police. But what would I know, I have only lived >5yrs in 3 different states?

Now my biggest question, do you really have to attack me again?

[castellan]

FLAPPIST
I never was taught at school that non white races were inferior and definitely not the etc nonsense of treating any one as such : .

But was informed that English culture was was a step in the right direction of a fruitful future. and this was the point of the white Australia policy. Aussies did not want to be dragged back into the dark ages. and that is why they attacked Hitler.

And back in them days, all Australian people were considered as being backward and inferior, and living in a backward country. by the Europeans and yanks. all through out history, all country's have pointed out that another country was inferior to there own.

Evolution is nonsense. people have not evolved at all in the last 2000 years + that is just another load of brain washing.

[Bad Bird]

Evolution is both a Fact and a Theory.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by castellan

FLAPPIST
I never was taught at school that non white races were inferior and definitely not the etc nonsense of treating any one as such : .

But was informed that English culture was was a step in the right direction of a fruitful future. and this was the point of the white Australia policy. Aussies did not want to be dragged back into the dark ages. and that is why they attacked Hitler.

And back in them days, all Australian people were considered as being backward and inferior, and living in a backward country. by the Europeans and yanks. all through out history, all country's have pointed out that another country was inferior to there own.

Evolution is nonsense. people have not evolved at all in the last 2000 years + that is just another load of brain washing.

Such an eloquent and well structured argument. Your evidence is overwhelming.

Demonstrating how a person who would appear not to have evolved nor comprehended while attending school would reply in a forum is a master stroke.

Bravo to you Sir.

[Bad Bird]

Originally Posted by castellan

But was informed that English culture was was a step in the right direction of a fruitful future. and this was the point of the white Australia policy. Aussies did not want to be dragged back into the dark ages. and that is why they attacked Hitler.

"... what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."

[castellan]

So a people evolved from apes. did they.
The TV educated.
flappist. so people went out of there way to do wrong and bad things to the abo's. you want to learn the true history boy. not just the ALP nonsence.

[gunner]

Originally Posted by MAD

I've heard a similar thing about the Hume Hwy in VIC.
It was designed for 150km/h at 200m visibility. Dont know how true it is, but it wouldnt surprise me as some of those sections have wide lanes, warnings and huge run off before anything remotely hard to hit.

I don't believe the highway was designed for 150 km/h, but I do believe it was designed for 130 km/h. How do I know this? Because all modern highways in Australia are designed to Austroads standards and these assume a speed of 130 km/h.

So why aren't we travelling at 130 km/h? Because the vast majority of the highways do not meet these standards. The recently completed sections (all NSW based, sorry) such as Albury stage 1 & 2, Coolac (Hume Hwy) Bonville deviation, Karuah to Buladelah (Pacific Hwy) are designed for the higher speeds but because the preceding 200 kms is not, then the RTA has decided that until large stretches of highway are safe for 130 km/h then no section will be sign posted 130 km/h.

So in summary yes modern highways are designed for 130 km/h and one day we will travel at these speeds, but only when the vast majority is built to this standard.

Disclaimer: This is all NSW (RTA) based but I assume it applies to other states too. Also the vast majority of non-major highways don't comply in any way to Austroads standards, hence the 90 km/h limit is probably ****-covering.

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by Bud Bud

Mad I have driven the Calder from the Tullamarine intersection to Sunbury many times over the years and I can still remember the dangerous dogs breakfast it replaced in the 90's.

What a magnificent piece of road infrastructure it is today! But is just me or has this road too succumbed to the greed of the Vic Gov revenue raisers by reducing speed limits in many sections of this road now as well?

Is that the re-done section that is rated 80km/h for some reason? Why they have 80km/h on there is a mystery to me.

[castellan]

flappist. states that he at school was taught that non white races were inferior and were to be treated as such. RUBBISH!

The white aus policy was not Nazi stuff. ya fools!

All countries have through out history have always stated that there country was better then the other! true or false

All Aussie people looked up to England for a better way of life and future. fact.

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by castellan

flappist. states that he at school was taught that non white races were inferior and were to be treated as such. RUBBISH!

The white aus policy was not Nazi stuff. ya fools!

All countries have through out history have always stated that there country was better then the other! true or false

All Aussie people looked up to England for a better way of life and future. fact.

Pretty sure back in the 50s Aboriginals werent even counted as population, could have been earlier.

[fg_nitro]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

Well said.

There is the real reason, much cheaper to drop the speed limit and allow the road to deteriorate but still handle a 90 km/h speed limit than to fix the surface, widen the shoulder and make it safe for 130 km/h

Well they should drop road tax and fuel excise at the same time. What are they doing with the cash if they are not fixing the roads..... Instaling more speed cameras.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by castellan

flappist. states that he at school was taught that non white races were inferior and were to be treated as such. RUBBISH!

The white aus policy was not Nazi stuff. ya fools!

All countries have through out history have always stated that there country was better then the other! true or false

All Aussie people looked up to England for a better way of life and future. fact.

And the relevance to the topic is?

The answer there is nil, let it go.

[ILLaViTaR]

It's been scientifically proven (by the RTA) that the human brain and adrenaline backs off when cruising at comfortable speeds.

Slower speeds are more dangerous.

[Kaan]

The best one is Germany. In their freeways (autobahn they call it) there is no speed limit on the very left lane. Mostly you see Lamborghini, Ferrari, Porsche, etc in that lane. My brother is in Germany. I went to visit him couple of years ago and we were on the autobahn and a Porsche which we didn't even see where he came from, went pass us doing about 280 kmh. My brother was doing about 180 kmh. I love the European rules. No one sits at the overtaking lane when he is not overtaking. In Victoria there is a lot of idiots that love to sit on the right lane all the time. I personally think that those people should be shot out:

[outback_ute]

Originally Posted by XCPWSF

Is that the re-done section that is rated 80km/h for some reason? Why they have 80km/h on there is a mystery to me.

It is rated 100km/h inbound and 80km/h outbound due to the exits to Taylors Lakes that turn across the outbound side of the road. Makes sense really due to the high traffic levels and general lack of driver skills, but really needs some proper overpasses and on/off ramps built. I wonder how long that will take, and why they didn't do it when they had the chance to get the property developers to contribute to the cost!

gunner I generally agree but have read that they would need to remove all turning/crossing opportunities in the median before they could raise the speed limit. Even in the 'new' sections of the Hume Hwy there are plenty of non-grade-separated intersections. I've also seen quite a few crests through the hills around Yass and some other areas (eg just south of the service/rest area near Seymour) where you would be lucky to be able to see 200m ahead.

I'm strongly against lowering the default limit though - I'd imagine unsealed and single-lane bitumen roads will have the lower limit but are quite often perfectly safe for a single car to drive at 100km/h, which is adequate given the traffic levels. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of smaller two-lane bitumen roads also cop the lower limit, even though plenty of people have to drive significant distances on them on a regular basis.

Why should we have such a time-stealing measure imposed - what is the benefit that would be derived? Is there any comparable situation around the world?