Open Speed Limit Highway in NT???

[FG50T]

Had a chat to a NT copper in Katherine last year and he said even they were against the speed limits and try not to give the goverment satisfaction by booking people for speeding.

[prydey]

Originally Posted by Big Trev

A well known fact for you GenX, in 1970 over 1000 people died on the roads in Victoria alone, last year we had just under 300, I think the whole of Australia was just over 1000.

You can prattle on about "liberties you were priviledged to have", but now that you have read what I just posted above you my want to think about your comment. 1000 Victorians dead in 1 year compared to 300 now, yeah we sure have gone backwards -

And yes even our licencing standards have improved, it is not all vehicle design and enforcement. Ask your poor old Baby Boomer parents about how they got their licence.

i think this was exactly the point being made. most people who push for better licencing, got their licence in a far more lax system. clearly things have improved (car safety included) so why continually push for better licencing when clearly it hasn't gone backwards.

i think there are a couple of people in this thread, from both sides of the fence, that are basing their arguments on the minority, not the majority.

[calais]

Originally Posted by Big Trev

A well known fact for you GenX, in 1970 over 1000 people died on the roads in Victoria alone, last year we had just under 300, I think the whole of Australia was just over 1000.

You can prattle on about "liberties you were priviledged to have", but now that you have read what I just posted above you my want to think about your comment. 1000 Victorians dead in 1 year compared to 300 now, yeah we sure have gone backwards -

And yes even our licencing standards have improved, it is not all vehicle design and enforcement. Ask your poor old Baby Boomer parents about how they got their licence.

I think, just to be sure. I will "prattle on".

I am well aware of the statistics, and I don't believe for one minute the fatality reductions justify the 'nanny state' which has been constructed by those that now lead our society (the baby boomers).

Such fatality and injury reductions have come about due to a range of factors. Improved vehicle safety standards, compulsory seatbelts, tyre technology, suspension, road standards, driver training (what little there is), and last but not least a global trend towards safer vehicles.

The point which I was making which may not have been clear to you, was that I detest the idea that I somehow require government intervention at lower and more and more menial levels of my daily activities. In this day and age, it seems more and more prevalent to introduce policies which have no effect other than to increase the amount of control the government wishes to exert over it's subordinate population. (I use that term deliberately) Speed limits are just the tip of the iceberg in that regard.

As for thinking about my comment, I don't post here on a whim, let alone waste my time on subjects which will end up a soapboxing contest.

You have your opinion, I have mine. Both justified.

In Northern Territory, we may well see quite a speed limit renaissance where the current speed kills mantra may well just be disproven. I for one, can't wait to see it.

[new2ford]

Originally Posted by Big Trev

And yes even our licencing standards have improved, it is not all vehicle design and enforcement. Ask your poor old Baby Boomer parents about how they got their licence.

Driver training has a small long-term input to driving skills. Most of it boils down to personality, levels of awareness of life around you and consideration for others. This cuts across generations and age groups.

I know where you're coming from and respect what you're saying but artificially low speed limits on safe open roads are not the answer. I suspect they may actually have a role in causing casualties but in the present political climate nobody's going to fund Monash University to research that!

[flappist]

Originally Posted by Big Trev

A well known fact for you GenX, in 1970 over 1000 people died on the roads in Victoria alone, last year we had just under 300, I think the whole of Australia was just over 1000.

You can prattle on about "liberties you were priviledged to have", but now that you have read what I just posted above you my want to think about your comment. 1000 Victorians dead in 1 year compared to 300 now, yeah we sure have gone backwards -

And yes even our licencing standards have improved, it is not all vehicle design and enforcement. Ask your poor old Baby Boomer parents about how they got their licence.

You bring this up every time and every time you refuse to acknowledge that safer car design is the MAJOR reason why the road toll has dropped.

Victoria was 100km/h in 1970 when these 1000 died. NSW and NT did not.

In 2006 (most recent year) NT was totally unlimited with a BAC of 0.08 and no fixed speed cameras and recorded a road toll of 46.
In the same year Victoria was 100/110 with a BAC of 0.05 and more than half the speed cameras in Australia recorded an road toll 335

In fact when the open zones were closed the road toll rose by 33%.

http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/roa...Stats_2007.pdf

So are Victorians just hopeless drivers or should we increase the speed limits and BAC levels so as to match NT which would cut the road toll by 80%?

Or is the use of random statistics without context to push an agenda in the vane hope the readers will believe your misguided dogma just rude.........

[new2ford]

Originally Posted by flappist

In fact when the open zones were closed the road toll rose by 33%.

http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/roa...Stats_2007.pdf

Some of the bar charts in that suggest that the majority of fatalities occur at or below the speed limit. Inappropriate speed in the circumstances is a killer even though it's within the posted speed limit. But of course the dogma is that anything over the posted limit is deadly, regardless of circumstances.

[vfavictory]

The faster you drive the more you concentrate. It doesn't sound much but you pay attention more when driving a 130 compared with 100km/h. When you pay attention more your less likely to feel tired and fall asleep.

[prydey]

Originally Posted by vfavictory

The faster you drive the more you concentrate. It doesn't sound much but you pay attention more when driving a 130 compared with 100km/h. When you pay attention more your less likely to feel tired and fall asleep.

it doesn't matter what you are involved in, whether it be driving or playing chess, higher concentration levels will fatigue you quicker.

[Trevor 57]

Originally Posted by flappist

You bring this up every time and every time you refuse to acknowledge that safer car design is the MAJOR reason why the road toll has dropped.

Maybe you should take to time to go back and read my post, I think you just made yourself look a little silly

Originally Posted by flappist

Victoria was 100km/h in 1970 when these 1000 died. NSW and NT did not.

I got my car licence in 1975 at 18, they had not long before introduced speed limits, in fact one could argue that speed limits reduced deaths

Victoria got its first in 1971, then the road deaths started to decrease - just saying

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limits_in_Australia

An absolute speed limit of 70 miles per hour (113 km/h) was introduced to Victoria in 1971. This was subsequently reduced to 60 miles per hour (97 km/h) in late 1973. South Australia introduced an absolute speed limit of 60 mph in 1974.

You need to check your facts before you argue with a baby boomer, particularly one who remembers, why do I remember, because my father was a rural policeman and we lived at the police station!

Originally Posted by flappist

In fact when the open zones were closed the road toll rose by 33%.

for the first year if you are talking about N.T.

[vfavictory]

Originally Posted by prydey

it doesn't matter what you are involved in, whether it be driving or playing chess, higher concentration levels will fatigue you quicker.

I disagree, not whilst you are driving. I've travelling up and down the Stuart Hwy for years, both on the open speed limits and now with the 130km/h limit.

As i said before, you stay more allert whilst travelling faster. The fatigue comes at the end of the trip when you stop the car and get out and you finnally switch off.

But on any long haul if you do happen to feel tired, swap drivers or just pull over and have a snooze.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by prydey

it doesn't matter what you are involved in, whether it be driving or playing chess, higher concentration levels will fatigue you quicker.

Really?

So you don't tend to feel tired when you are bored.......

[Trevor 57]

Sure do

and when concentrating at high level. I own and drive a race car at speeds in excess of 240 km/h in 6 hour events, I understand the difference.

One of the big concerns from a road safety perspective of having high speeds on non-freeway / motorway type roads is closing speeds, you have gran and pa cruising along legally at 80km/h then you have Outbackjack cruising along at 200km/h+, crests a hill then there is gran and pa and whoomph fair into the rear end goes Outbackjack - oops!!!!

[flappist]

Originally Posted by Big Trev

Sure do

and when concentrating at high level. I own and drive a race car at speeds in excess of 240 km/h in 6 hour events, I understand the difference.

One of the big concerns from a road safety perspective of having high speeds on non-freeway / motorway type roads is closing speeds, you have gran and pa cruising along legally at 80km/h then you have Outbackjack cruising along at 200km/h+, crests a hill then there is gran and pa and whoomph fair into the rear end goes Outbackjack - oops!!!!

And how is this different from someone driving at 100km/h in a 100 zone in fog?

Whenever I travel ANYWHERE I always drive at a speed that allows me to stop within visibility. If there is a nasty crest anywhere I will start to back off as I approach prsition the foot above the stop pedal and if I cannot see far enough ahead will slow accordingly.

In NT when I personally drove at 200 km/h++ I always had at least 300m visibility or I slowed down. Also when ever I overtook I always slowed down to 30-40km/h faster than the other vehicle just in case they did something silly or there was a surprise waiting in front of them.

I suspect that most experienced drivers who drive at speed do likewise.
And why do we/they do this?
We have learned by doing.
Not by books or academic theory or any other substitute for rubber on tar.

Unfortunately the "speed kills"/"every k over"/"watch your speedo" dogma that has be rammed down the throats of young drivers for the past couple of decades has actually done a major disservice to road safety as far to many are afraid to make a decission and will do what the sign says in all conditions. This includes, and I have seen this several times personally, doing 100 in fog with less than 100m visibility because it is a 100 ZONE. It is safe, the sign said so.

Country people who visit a major city for the first time are almost always overwhelmed by the huge number of vehicles going in all directions not particularly quickly but seemingly with no logic.

The skills required to drive in 60km/h heavy traffic are vastly different to those of driving 180km/h in remote areas and applying the wrong skillset will alway lead to tragedy.

The way you learn to drive in a city is by driving in a city. Some people are so afraid of driving in a city that they will not do it themselves and think that all city people should take the train. Others just drive in the city and learn how to do it.

Some prang, some die.....everyone dies eventually.

In the same way people who have been bashed around the head every time they even dreamt about doing 111 km/h often find it uncomfortable to NOT do 110. This is the joy of (//) they can do what they LIK. The problem is that they cannot do what they are TOLD and to some not being told what to do is terrifying.

The major cause of fatigue is doing something you are not used to at a rate at which you are not comfortable. That rate can be faster or slower.
The MOST fatiguing drives I do are when the caravan armada are are travelling.
Lines of mostly southerners sitting up each others bums to save petrol by slipstreaming doing 70-90 km/h on the straights and down to 40km/h on the hills and corners and turning a 1 hour trip into a 2.5 hour marathon.

I have already planned a trip to Ayres Rock later this year and will take pics and do a little write up when I get back.

[Outbackjack]

Originally Posted by Big Trev

One of the big concerns from a road safety perspective of having high speeds on non-freeway / motorway type roads is closing speeds, you have gran and pa cruising along legally at 80km/h then you have Outbackjack cruising along at 200km/h+, crests a hill then there is gran and pa and whoomph fair into the rear end goes Outbackjack - oops!!!!

And there is another fantasy. If you had ever driven up here you would know how flat and open the roads are. The chances of this scenario happening are zero. There are some hills and corners north of Katherine, but there is no way you could do high speeds through that section.

[Trevor 57]

BUT OJ, I have driven through all the sections you talk about, as recent as May this year.

There are bends and crests, this is no fantasy, you talk about the main highway, but what other roads will alledgedly have a no-restrictions

[Full Noise]

Originally Posted by XRDeeze

man this thread is deep

You’ve got that right.

I don’t have time to write a long detailed post but this dumbing down of everything we do these days has to eventually stop.

I’m sick to *&$#ing death of “so called” experts telling me how I must drive and how to live my life, when I can sleep, work and when I can take a crap.

I may as well be in jail.

[Outbackjack]

Originally Posted by Big Trev

BUT OJ, I have driven through all the sections you talk about, as recent as May this year.

There are bends and crests, this is no fantasy, you talk about the main highway, but what other roads will alledgedly have a no-restrictions

If you have driven out here, then why do you make up stories? As far as I know the majority of Katherine to Kulgera will be de restricted. Sections between Katherine and Darwin (the hilly twisty bits) will remain at 130. The barkly will almost be all derestricted. The Victoria hiway, god bless it, will be a patch work of 130 and derestriction.

The CLP's policy on speed limits says it will apply speed limits on an evidence base policy. This will take into account accident history etc. I would suspect that the Barkly hiway will remain at 130 until it has had the last ten yearsof neglect reapired.

We might see some mules up here again. I miss being over taken by a Lamboerrariorsche while I am cruising at 160. The sound of those things gives me chills!!!

[Outbackjack]

Originally Posted by Big Trev

Maybe you should take to time to go back and read my post, I think you just made yourself look a little silly


I got my car licence in 1975 at 18, they had not long before introduced speed limits, in fact one could argue that speed limits reduced deaths

Victoria got its first in 1971, then the road deaths started to decrease - just saying

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limits_in_Australia
You need to check your facts before you argue with a baby boomer, particularly one who remembers, why do I remember, because my father was a rural policeman and we lived at the police station!



for the first year if you are talking about N.T.

I would argue that seat belts, intolerance for drunks, car design had more do do with these figures than speed limits. The true test of road safety is the number of accidents. The road toll can go down when the rate of accidents stays the same. ie accidents are becoming more survivable. But the powers that be wont publish those figure's. There is a $$ driven agenda to be maintained.

[flappist]

Is the Lasseter 110 or 130 now OBJ?

[Outbackjack]

Originally Posted by flappist

Is the Lasseter 110 or 130 now OBJ?

110kph. Probably just as well. It's not as wide as the other main hiways and it cuts through quite a few sand dunes that cut down visability. But I think that there are quite a few sections that could sustain 130kph quite safely.

[Trevor 57]

Originally Posted by Outbackjack

I would argue that seat belts, intolerance for drunks, car design had more do do with these figures than speed limits. The true test of road safety is the number of accidents. The road toll can go down when the rate of accidents stays the same. ie accidents are becoming more survivable. But the powers that be wont publish those figure's. There is a $$ driven agenda to be maintained.

so you are conceding this point to me then -

[Outbackjack]

Originally Posted by Big Trev

so you are conceding this point to me then -

I can't see where I argued it with you???

[new2ford]

Originally Posted by flappist

Unfortunately the "speed kills"/"every k over"/"watch your speedo" dogma that has be rammed down the throats of young drivers for the past couple of decades has actually done a major disservice to road safety as far to many are afraid to make a decission and will do what the sign says in all conditions. This includes, and I have seen this several times personally, doing 100 in fog with less than 100m visibility because it is a 100 ZONE. It is safe, the sign said so.

Exactly.

[prydey]

Originally Posted by flappist

Really?

So you don't tend to feel tired when you are bored.......

Originally Posted by vfavictory

The fatigue comes at the end of the trip when you stop the car and get out and you finnally switch off.

this is what i was getting at. higher levels of concentration exert more on your body.

i'm not against derestriction. i was just making a point in isolation.

[new2ford]

You're driving 400 km tomorrow including a majority length of motorway or outback highway.
You need a rest break every two hours.
(You possibly have an arrival deadline but we won't let that influence things.)

Under Australian speed limits you cover 150 km in the first 2 hours. The concentration demands aren't very high so you feel a bit bored and concentration wanders; you even feel a bit dozy. After the rest break you get to 320 km after the next 2 hours. You should take a rest break but you think, what the heck it's only another 80 km ...... at this speed it should take ....

Under 130 km/h or derestricted limit you cover 220 km in the first 2 hours. Your concentration is higher and you remain focussed through the journey leg. Your second leg will only take a max of 2 hours and you reach your destination and rest again. Your concentration was still good and it's now all over, no more driving.

But what's your concentration like for more than 2 hours at a hypnotic low speed?

A hypothetical, though I drive under both scenarios every week in two different continents. I've driven hundreds of thousands of ks for 40 years on 3 continents so not exactly inexperienced, but I'll confess - only in the first scenario (in Australia) have I had two microsleeps, both on journeys of less than 2 hours and both at low speeds, fortunately on empty roads. Boredom and highway hypnosis basically.

I'd like to see some research on this even though the results might be uncomfortable for some dogmas.

[TheInterceptor]

Ill be covering roughly 4000kms in one leg next year (out of roughly 9 - 10,000kms), alone, on green P's legally limited to a rediculous 100.
Ill be covering a total of at least 8000kms solo on that trip.

I should probably go make my will now....

[Trevor 57]

and what experience does a green P Plater have to do in excess of 200km/h?

Destriction works for everyone - shakes head

[prydey]

Originally Posted by Big Trev

and what experience does a green P Plater have to do in excess of 200km/h?

Destriction works for everyone - shakes head

not everyone sees derestriction as 'what will my car do, redline in top gear', but if you put a sign up with number in a circle, MOST people will assume that is the speed they must do.

[Trevor 57]

Laws are in place to protect the majority from the minority - fact, so get over it!

[2011G6E]

Yep...road deaths went up by about 50% in the first year after they brought in the 130 limit.

One theory was that before when there was no limit, you drove to the conditions and at a speed you felt comfortable with...and for a lot of people, they might feel "comfortable" at 100 or 110 as they drove in other states. Now put a sign up saying "130" and they think they "must" do 130 or that it's perfectly OK to do 130 at any time of the day or night, rail hail or shine, and will drive outside thier comfort zone...but it must be safe because the government put up a sign saying it was OK...