Speed limit decrease on rural roads

[FlyingHigh]

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.

Totally agree CK. I didn't do either of these when getting my L's, and within a few years had an accident on a gravel road that could have been a lot worse simply because I didn't know how to identify the road conditions and then handle the situation.
I'd also add driving at night on open roads, overtaking different length vehicles at different speeds, and driving amongst trucks both in city and country environments.
These are the important things when driving. Too much focus is on unimportant things - who gives a f*ck if you can't parallel park?

[Zelezny Chucks]

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.

But his point is your ****** either way! If you want to make a difference in the outcome of a collision at speed you would have to lower the speed dramatically not by a token 10%. How far do you have to go to protect idiots from themselves at the expense of 90% of the law abiding public?

[Psyber]

There are plenty of country roads where I would not even do 100kph let alone 110, so I support the idea in principle.
However we need a simpler and more rational regime as part of the deal.
e.g. CBD and suburban side streets 40kph, main suburban through streets 60kph, multi-lane main roads 80kph, country roads 100kph, highways 120kph.

And there needs to be a simple way of knowing what type of road you are on without having to keep looking for signs behind bushes - Victoria do this better than SA.
e.g. In towns and cities, no white lines on the road 40kph, white lines on roads 60kph, signs saying "80" on the relatively few 80 kph roads.
In the country, 100kph unless signed otherwise, and perhaps a distinctive coloured edge or central line for the higher speed highways.

Spending a lot of time and distance on the wrong side of the road to pass someone doing 5 or 10kph under the speed limit is dangerous too.
So, a realistic tolerance of briefly exceeding the limit while passing would make sense.
In the UK the limit is 70mph (112kph) on main roads but the police ignore up to 82mph (131 kph) under normal conditions.

Before anyone yells "M5!", smoke from a fireworks display caused a localised patch of impaired vision people ran into suddenly there.
(And the M5 is a shocker - too many confusing signs in short distances - the other UK roads I drove on recently were much better.)

Some of you may remember I'm not a fan of reducing road speeds in general, and have admitted I often drive at a speed I think is safe, regardless of the law, on country roads.
That usually means slower on the narrow roads and faster on the highways than the legal limit.
(I never intentionally exceed town and city limits.)

In 50 years I've had a few minor accidents, but never one at a speed over 50 kph - all have been in tight congested situations, mainly in Melbourne..

[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.

...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.

Rubbish - you can get in to trouble at virtually any speed for a variety of reasons - inattention, fatigue, misjudgement, distraction or just plain bad luck.

And when you do get into trouble you will stand a much better chance the slower you're travelling.

[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.

But his point is your ****** either way!

Yep I understand that - if you hit an immovable object at 100kph it will not be much different to hitting it at 110kph.

It is the marginal situations where the difference will be. A microsleep. A moment of inattention. A misjudgement. A fallen tree or a stray animal on the roadup ahead. Your chances of effectively taking evasive action and avoiding or walking away from a collision are much better the slower you are going.

[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.

But his point is your ****** either way!

Yep I understand that - if you hit an immovable object at 100kph it will not be much different to hitting it at 110kph.

It is the marginal situations where the difference will be. A microsleep. A moment of inattention. A misjudgement. A fallen tree or a stray camel on the roadup ahead. Your chances of effectively taking evasive action and avoiding a collision are much better the slower you are going.

Next you'll be wanting it reduced to 90, then 80, etc to make the roads safer, we are a big country, no a huge country, people need to travel very long distances, as alluded to by others, the slower the trip, the longer (in time) the trip, the greater the fatigue.

Roads like the Stuart Hwy we should be looking at the NT example and raising it to 130, freeways should be 120 min, all of the really crappy major roads were already at 100, that's fine, I don't have a problem with that at all, not many places on them I would have travelled over 100 anyway (Main North Rd North of Clare is one that springs to mind).

It is bad enough passing long heavy vehicles travelling under their 100kmh limit now, how is someone supposed to safetly pass a Semi, B Double or Road Train that is travelling at 96KMH, don't tell me wait for a passing lane, most of those roads will still be 110. This will lead to frustration, and far more misjudgement

This is just another Nanny State approach and will have no positive effect on road safety, the [politicians and their advisors need to get out in the real world for a while, not just one short drive down a couple of roads

[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.

Rubbish - you can get in to trouble at virtually any speed for a variety of reasons - inattention, fatigue, misjudgement, distraction or just plain bad luck.

And when you do get into trouble you will stand a much better chance the slower you're travelling.

So now you want the limit reduced to cover driver error, get real, where will that mentality stop, a 50kmh limit across the whole country. How about more education, more testing, refresher courses etc, the speed limit should be set to match the road it applies to, not the dopiest ******* driver that drives down it!!!

[Dirko]

So now you want the limit reduced to cover driver error, get real, where will that mentality stop, a 50kmh limit across the whole country. How about more education, more testing, refresher courses etc, the speed limit should be set to match the road it applies to, not the dopiest ******* driver that drives down it!!!

[Zelezny Chucks]

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.

But his point is your ****** either way!

Yep I understand that - if you hit an immovable object at 100kph it will not be much different to hitting it at 110kph.

It is the marginal situations where the difference will be. A microsleep. A moment of inattention. A misjudgement. A fallen tree or a stray animal on the roadup ahead. Your chances of effectively taking evasive action and avoiding or walking away from a collision are much better the slower you are going.

So if you don't feel confident doing 110 don't do it!? It is the upper limit not an exact speed you need to follow. Good drivers don't drive fatigued so that argument is redundant. People do have microsleeps, moments of innattention or misjudgement but these are all generally characteristics of a BAD DRIVER. Educate them to minimise, I know even the best of us can have misjudgements, these things and it will reduce the road toll.

Surely at some point we will reach a road toll number that is as low as it can be with 22+ million people and god knows how many cars on the road each day accidents will happen and as you have said can happen at any speed.

[Wedgie]

Lowering speed limits means people spend more time on the roads. People spending more time on the roads means more people on the roads at any one time. More people on the roads at any one time means more accidents.

I think they should replace normal cars with big dodgem cars if they want to have a real impact.

[Westsider]

Australian states and territories use two "default" speed limits. These apply automatically in the absence of 'posted' speed restriction signage. The two default speed limits are:
within built-up areas, 50 kilometres per hour (31 mph), except for the Northern Territory which remains at 60 kilometres per hour (37 mph)
outside built-up areas, 100 kilometres per hour (62 mph); two exceptions are Western Australia and the Northern Territory at 110 kilometres per hour (68 mph)

Every talks about driving courses, refreshed courses.

Great in theory.

Then when you have to take time off work, or use up a whole weekend to do the course you will all be back on here complaining that you have to do a driving course. Then you'll get Families SA complaining people don't have enough time for their families because you have to do a driving course.

Over a 600 km/h trip, if you sit on the exact speed limit for whole trip it only add's 33 minutes to the trip.

[smac]

Aren't we only talking about roads within 100km of Adelaide?

Hardly an issue either way. It won't change much in terms of road safety (those kids on YP recently were doing 200+ at one stage according to the facebook status of one of them, who was in the boot of the car at that time) and it won't change much in terms of time at the wheel.

If parents actually gave a crap and spent time with their kids teaching them about 'real life' road safety (like Booney has done) instead of relying on the educators who in reality only teach how to get a car from one place to another then we'd start to address the problem.

[Zelezny Chucks]

I don't think the big issue is added time, if added time meant a reduction in loss of life then I would be all for it. I have a problem with them thinking this is the best course of action to reduce the road toll.

Nothing but a look what we did to reduce road deaths, minimal time an effort spent devising it and "oh we may get some more revenue through increases in fines".

[Pseudo]

Lowering speed limits means people spend more time on the roads. People spending more time on the roads means more people on the roads at any one time. More people on the roads at any one time means more accidents.

I think they should replace normal cars with big dodgem cars if they want to have a real impact.

Me, I'm waiting for my own personal rocketpack....

[Wedgie]

Lowering speed limits means people spend more time on the roads. People spending more time on the roads means more people on the roads at any one time. More people on the roads at any one time means more accidents.

I think they should replace normal cars with big dodgem cars if they want to have a real impact.

Me, I'm waiting for my own personal rocketpack....

Be patient. We'll have flying cars and hoverboards in 2015. More importantly we'll have shoes that tie their own laces which I need now!

[BIG SEXY]

If you saw the aftermath of a fatal collision 1st hand......

...all of you would be saying the slower the better.

Bloody hell you will get to the destination whether it be 110km or 100km....people really need to chill out.

seen more than you i dare say southee (i picked up my first bit of brain and skull at 18) and i can tell you right now i dont want lower limits. i dont think they will lower the toll at all and i dont feel cameras lower the toll either.
i feel if courts started hadning down some decent penalties and kept alot of mung beans off the roads we would see an impact. ive seen people booked 3 x DUI in 12 months, 2 of those obviously no license and all he gets is longer dq and a fine. no license hasnt stopped him driving why would it after the 3rd time. throw him inside for 6 months. if govt was serious about it prison over population wouldne be an issue. cameras wouldnt be put in 50kmh zones, they would be put where the fatal/serious accidents happen.

if you actually look at the studies and not listen to the govt propoganda they dont say travelling over the limit increases your chance of an accident, they say travelling 10k different to the rest of the traffic increases your chances....ie that is 10k over or under


rant over

[Wedgie]

Get the shit cars off the road and there will be 50% less accidents.
Get the shit drivers off the road and there will be 99% less accidents.
Lower speed limits and there might be a 1% improvement.
I know where Id invest my time/money.

[BIG SEXY]

the other thing i believe will happen is trucks overtaking cars who are sitting on the limit. trucks cruise controls are generally set at 103 ish. they arent going to say well this bloke is doing the limit ill slow down. they are going to spend more time on the wrong side of the road. and if the road toll rises im sure any govt will say we made a mistake, this didnt work lets change it back....govts do that all the time dont they....

[BIG SEXY]

Get the shit cars off the road and there will be 50% less accidents.
Get the shit drivers off the road and there will be 99% less accidents.
Lower speed limits and there might be a 1% improvement.
I know where Id invest my time/money.

i concur. the northern express way i had my cruise set at 110 yesterday and would have felt comfortable at 130. good wide flat road no need to be 100 on that sort of road

[am Bays]

FFS how can you hit a tree if you are doing the speed limit 3 km west of Keith? It is a gun-barrel straight bit of road and thiose trees don't move. At 6:30 am in the morning the sun is behind you.