Speed limit decrease on rural roads

[Pseudo]

My answer is pretty simple, so there is no chance any powers that be adopt it.

My solution is far simpler, yet there is zero chance that any government anywhere would ever sanction it:

Mount a sharp spike in the middle of every steering wheel, pointing at the driver's chest.

[Pseudo]

Taking that argument to its logical extreme, the speed limit should be progressively lowered to zero, at which point not one life would be lost on the road - it's worth it!

A balance must be struck between safety and practical convenience.

If my maths is correct, reducing a speed limit by 10 km/h for a 500km journey would add 30 minutes to a journey if the driver is going at 100km'h throughout (which doesn't allow for slowing through towns etc) rather than 110km/h. Leave a bit earlier instead.

Why not drive at 90 and leave an hour earlier?

(incidentally - reducing speed from 110 to 100 would add only 27.27 minutes to a 500 km journey, not 30 )

[Squids]

Maybe we should be like Germany and everyone gets a Beamer or Audi......

[Zelezny Chucks]

My answer is pretty simple, so there is no chance any powers that be adopt it.

Make speeding fines huge - 10+k's over the speed limit ( ie 71 in a 60 zone ) make the fine $750.
Drink driving - Make the first offence a huge fine - $1500 minimum.

All money generated from this goes into adding Driver Education courses into school curriculum in years 9 and 10, before kids get in the car, and again in year 12 in a practical sense when they do get to drive.Make part of year 10 speaking to families who have lost loved ones.

As people have stated, people who wish to and chose to speed will do so regardless of the sign posted 50k's back down the highway. Zero tolernace, massive penalties.

Educating kids is by the far the most critical part of reducing the road toll IMO. I have already let my 15 year old drive my car on the back blocks of Port Adelaide next to the new railway bridge on several occasions and at the end of one lesson we drove to his school, Seaton High, to look at the memorial to the young lad who lost his life when drag racing along Frederick Road last year. Might be all fun and games to drive, but look at what can be done. We had a few solemn minutes at the memorial talking about the lad and the dangers of cars. I really think my son took something out of that day. I sure hope so anyway.

Sounds a tad hypocritical IMO, on one hand you say zero tolerance for people breaking the law yet you then willingly let your unlicenced son drive on what I can only assume isn't private property therefore breaking the law?

I get your point on education being critical but where do you draw the line? What if your kid loses control in these back blocks and rolls it? Laws are laws for a reason choose to break them accept the consequences but don't change laws because a small percentage of society chooses to ignore them.

With the numerous different speed limits it isn't hard to see someone accidentally do 10k over, maybe exponential increases for repeat offenders is a better option?

[gossipgirl]

Its not rocket science just dont speed. Increase fines even more but all money from speeding fines should be used to upgrade roads and educate the majority of idiots on the road not to SPEED

[Booney]

Hypocritical? Perhaps, but I believe I am acting in the best interests of my son. Chosing to break the law by driving at excessive speeds is not acting in the best interests of anyone.

The suggestion I put forward is what I think could help to reduce the road toll, the fines for breaking the law are secondary IMO. The critical stage of road safety being education and training.

If you consider what I have done with my son as breaking the law then so be it. Sitting in an automatic in drive with no acceleration for two short stints before gradually hitting a top speed of 20kmph in the next two has given my son an understanding of the way a vehicle responds at slow speed and upon reaching driving age we will obviously increase the speeds. We are in no danger of "rolling the car on these back blocks".

I agree with repeat offenders being stung harder and harder each time they receive speeding fines.

[cripple]

Around north west victoria there is a mix for some reason. Most roads/ hwy's are 100kmh except the Calder after Wycheproof to Mildura and the Mallee Hwy from Ouyen to SA which are 110kmh. Gives me the shits because all roads are virtually the same and it just increases travel time. Did hear Mark Skaife making an argument for higher speed limits not long ago due to the better production values and standards of the modern car.

[Squids]

I found it funny how some lady on the radio said "It will only add one minute to a 20minute trip"....umm err usually when you are on a highway you are driving for a lot longer than 20 minutes love...City people do not understand the country.


Why Port Wakefield road to Wakefield is only 110km/h I have no idea...duel lanes...could easily go to 120kmh but more likely it will go to 90km/h.

[Zelezny Chucks]

I understand what you are trying to do for your son and regardless of our opinion, it is breaking the law.

Last time I checked it is a much larger penalty for driving unlicenced than it is speeding. I agree with teaching kids the basics but that is what their L's are for. Accidents can, and do, happen at low speeds. How many pensioners, or people who aren't as competent in a car get flustered and slam on the accelerator instead of brake?

I know you mean well but to say it couldn't happen is incorrect.

Back on topic, I think it is the lazy way out just to reduce speed limits rather than look at the actual problem, which is maintenance/quality of roads and driver education.

[Booney]

Thanks. Enjoy your day.

[FlyingHigh]

Agree education is definitely an issue, a defensive drivers course should be part of getting a licence.

Floated this idea a while ago on here and got shot down - I don't believe age should be the criteria for getting a licence as this makes it appear as a right rather than a privelege or something earnt. Believe to get a licence you should have needed to prove a certain level of maturity in society, which could, for example be completing Year 11 or a year of work or TAFE if you don't finish Year 11. Many kids turn 16 in Year 10 these days, year 9 if they get held back, surely that is not mature enough.

Believe it was 6-8 years ago the speed limit was made 100kph unless designated 110, which applies to dirt roads too.

Don't believe this is too bad an idea, provided the main highways remain at 110. Travelling at 100-105 on, say, Highway 1 will create just as many accidents through boredom or impatience or fatigue, but many roads on the YP and lower north aren't of as good quality. Reducing the speed limit to 80 in the Hills has been a good move too IMO.

[tipper]

Agree education is definitely an issue, a defensive drivers course should be part of getting a licence.

Floated this idea a while ago on here and got shot down - I don't believe age should be the criteria for getting a licence as this makes it appear as a right rather than a privelege or something earnt. Believe to get a licence you should have needed to prove a certain level of maturity in society, which could, for example be completing Year 11 or a year of work or TAFE if you don't finish Year 11. Many kids turn 16 in Year 10 these days, year 9 if they get held back, surely that is not mature enough.

Believe it was 6-8 years ago the speed limit was made 100kph unless designated 110, which applies to dirt roads too.

Don't believe this is too bad an idea, provided the main highways remain at 110. Travelling at 100-105 on, say, Highway 1 will create just as many accidents through boredom or impatience or fatigue, but many roads on the YP and lower north aren't of as good quality. Reducing the speed limit to 80 in the Hills has been a good move too IMO.

so fix the actual problem no the symptom. fix the roads, educate the drivers. lowering the speed limit is not going to solve the problem, just hide it.

i disagree on the hills being lowered to 80 as being a good thing too. now when i drive through there i get stuck behind people doing 60. at least when it was a 100 limit they were doing 80 (still 20k's under but at least it felt like you were moving...)

meanwhile, on a slightly related topic, for those drivers in the hills, the "slow vehicle turnouts" are not just for trucks. if you are holding up other cars behind you, you are by definition a slow vehicle. use the turnouts and let others past!!!

[FlyingHigh]

Agree with you about the slow vehicle lanes, but having done a lot of driving in the hills, can't agree with you about the speed limit, especially with the often wet roads. Anyway, with every town being 10k's maximum apart, and the amount of cars on the hills roads, there is no real advantage travelling at 100ks coz you won't get too far ahead. There are some roads eg Mt Torrens-Birdwood that are 100.

[tipper]

thats where driver education comes in. the hills roads, on a dry day, in good visibility should be no issue at 100. if you educate drivers that it is not necessary to travel at the speed limit (it is the maximum, not the minimum) at night in the rain it solves the actual root cause. instead we just change the rules to cover the lowest common denominator.

[CK]

It should be compulsory for all young drivers to:

a) Have to attain their licence in a manual car. If they want to then go back to automatic after that, then so be it, but the number of drivers on the road today that can only drive automatics is amazing. If they were in a position, for example, to have to drive someone to hospital in a manual, and they couldn't drive one, the potential for tragedy is huge.

b) Undertake a minimum of five hours practical driving on dirt/gravel roads and wet roads, under controlled conditions (eg. skid pans) etc. Again, too many drivers that can't adapt to these conditions and therefore, have accidents very early on when they encounter them. I learnt to drive in a manual car on gravel roads in the country and it was one of the best things I ever did.

[fish]

What proof have they that hitting a tree at 100kmh is safer then hitting one at 110km? Your ****** either way.

The basic laws of physics mean that a car travelling at 110kph has 10% more momentum than one travelling at 100kph, and about 21% more energy. It is this extra energy that needs to be absorbed in a collision that will result in more damage/injury to car and people at 110kph than 100kph.

[fish]

I found it funny how some lady on the radio said "It will only add one minute to a 20minute trip"....umm err usually when you are on a highway you are driving for a lot longer than 20 minutes love...

Travelling 100km will take you just 5 minutes more at 100kph than it does at 110kph.

[fish]

Let's not forget that people who speed will do so regardless of the limit.

True, but the majority of people will obey the speed limit resulting in safer roads for everyone at the lower speed.

[Ian]

What proof have they that hitting a tree at 100kmh is safer then hitting one at 110km? Your ****** either way.

The basic laws of physics mean that a car travelling at 110kph has 10% more momentum than one travelling at 100kph, and about 21% more energy. It is this extra energy that needs to be absorbed in a collision that will result in more damage/injury to car and people at 110kph than 100kph.

........and what effect will the reduction in limit have on the person travelling at 130 or 150, they are the ones that get in to trouble, not so much the people travelling at 110. Like the copper said last night, most deaths on these roads were due to people exceeding the speed limit!

[redden whites]

Great idea ....totally agree.