Speed limit decrease on rural roads

[OnSong]

About 45 roads in rural South Australia will have speed limits reduced from 110km/h to 100km/h.
These roads are all within 100km of Adelaide, although some are on Yorke Peninsula, which will also have a reduced speed limit.
Major highways are exempt.

What do we think?

Justified?

Pain in the arse?

[Gingernuts]

If the coppers actually got out and targeted the youngsters skylarking it would fix the problem. Not to mention the courts penalising them appropriately.

Almost seems to be a right of passage for country lads to roll a car or two.

[tipper]

ok, i dare say that my opinion here is going to get some negative replies, but i think the change sucks big time.

while i dont want to see people die on the road, and a large proportion of deaths are on rural roads, this will only inconvenience the people who use these roads regularly. my perception is (and i will be happy to be corrected) that the majority of rural road deaths are travellers, not locals. people who are driving long distances and not taking appropriate rest breaks etc. by lowering this limit it will impact not those drivers (who will actually be on the road longer for a given trip, and therefore be more fatigued) but the people who have no choice but to drive these roads every day will be much more greatly affected.

meanwhile (slightly OT) is it just me being cynical or is it just a coincidence that the only road safety initiatives introduced by the government also happen to coincide with the opportunity for them to raise more revenue??? "we want to lower the road toll" (buy more speed cameras) "we want to reduce country fatalities" (lower the speed limit to increase the chance of catching people with the speed cameras......)

There has been no sight or sound from either of the major parties that there is an interest in increasing driver training, that would cost either the government too much money (which they dont have) if they were to pay for it, or cost drivers too much money, (and therefore the government votes) if they expected the public to pay for it. it would also not have an immediate impact unless everyone with a licence had to do it (again not going to happen)

also they could introduce mandatory retesting of drivers (say every ten years? or less even) and that may help improve the standard of drivers on the roads, yet it wont happen. Polititians are way too interested in "solutions" that can be introduced quickly, cheaply, and dont cost them votes. in reality they want to be seen to be doing something, wether what they are doing is actually having a positive effect is irrelevant.

cars are safer now than they have ever been, and are getting better all the time. roads are better designed (well, the new ones..) than they have ever been. (there is definately a case for increased maintenance however) they only thing to have not changed is drivers. i got my learners 16 years ago. back then a commodore didnt come standard with IRS, ABS, air bags, traction control, speed alert, in fact most of those werent even an option on the top line model. however the driver test is pretty much exactly the same. 8 give way questions and 42 multiple choice questions. when are our driver testing standards going to be improved like all other areas of driving have been?

sorry for the wall of text, i am just sick of hearing the latest "road safety initiative" that does nothing to address the single biggest factor in any crash on the roads, the driver....

[OnSong]

I wouldn't think you were an orphan with those sentiments Tipper.
I think the gov may have floated this in on the back of the terrible accident at Bute, although Tom Kenyon did mention this could be the case a month or so ago, before the ministry changed.

[Sky Pilot]

Its as weak as piss and anther example of Government stupidity. Whichever mob takes over at the next election they wont repeal it. I believe self interested and seriously biased scientific data was produced to illustrate the road toll would be lowered if we slowed everybody down carte blanche across the board. Lowest common denominator rules yet again. Driving is a skill - just like tennis or golf or studying bio-metrics. You need skills to do it. Some people are really good from the start, others are crap from the start. They are the ones who die and kill other people so they are the ones who should be limited in what they can drive (6-litre V8 ute or a Corolla). We need better training and better testing before handing out licenses.

[Mythical Creature]

Pain in the arse. If you are a shit driver at 110k then you will still be a shit driver at 100k. Unfortunately it won't make a scrap of difference to the road toll which is its supposed intent. I'm all for saving lives as I have lost quite a few mates (2 very very close mates) to accidents but this isn't the answer.

Maybe fixing the roads would have more of an impact but I guess they gotta raise the funds to do that some how. Whats the chance of after they raise enough money to fix the roads through fines that they put the speed back to 110k?

[heater31]

sorry for the wall of text, i am just sick of hearing the latest "road safety initiative" that does nothing to address the single biggest factor in any crash on the roads, the driver....

I have come to the conclusion that you can't legislate for idiots.......they need to be removed from the gene pool. I just hope that they don't take any innocent law abiding road user with them

[Sky Pilot]

Pain in the arse. If you are a shit driver at 110k then you will still be a shit driver at 100k. Unfortunately it won't make a scrap of difference to the road toll which is its supposed intent. I'm all for saving lives as I have lost quite a few mates (2 very very close mates) to accidents but this isn't the answer.

Maybe fixing the roads would have more of an impact but I guess they gotta raise the funds to do that some how. Whats the chance of after they raise enough money to fix the roads through fines that they put the speed back to 110k?

They will never wind it back to 110. This stinks and we are fools to cop it

[tipper]

another argument i dislike is from the "pro" speed camera brigade. "dont speed and you wont get fined". all well and good, and it has been years since i have been booked, however look at this latest change. less people being caught = less revenue = "lets lower the speed limits and catch more people....."

also anyone that tells me that they have never inadvertantly exceeded the speed limit, even by only one or two kays an hour is a liar. it is exceedingly easy to "creep" up a couple of kays accidentally, and that is all it takes to be booked by a camera, the tolerances are that low.

[A Mum]

If the coppers actually got out and targeted the youngsters skylarking it would fix the problem. Not to mention the courts penalising them appropriately.

Almost seems to be a right of passage for country lads to roll a car or two.

Totally agree.

Only just this weekend gone another one of my sons friends only on his Ps decided he'd drive home drunk and/or after drinking.
And yep slammed into a tree doing 100kph.
He's just lucky he's still alive - and lucky it was a tree he hit and not another car.
And that he had no passengers.

The impact of the crash so strong that the drivers side wheel was pushed right up through the floor under his foot pedals.

Got out of it with a few stiches and a couple of scratches.
He's now doing the "I'm sorry I stuffed up thing - I'm an idiot" blah, blah, blah.

I have no idea how we get through to them

Furthermore..
Doesn't help that I know of another 17 year old who got done for speeding not once but twice - this kid IS a ratbag and always has been - one to push the limits all round - but has somehow managed to 'get off' not once, but twice- and he wasn't just over the limit either, he was 'hooning it' so to speak.

As soon as this kid got his licence we all said - he'll either kill himself or someone else.
So how does someone who already has these 'tendancies' get off for speeding twice?

Stupid, stupid, stupid.

[Footy Chick]

What a lot of people don't realise is that the actual legal limit on Australian roads is 100kph.

For states to get federal funding for new roadworks, part of the deal is that they must abide to the 100km limit, this is why the S/E Freeway is 100km and goes back to 110 after the bridge.

True story.

[Bully]

What a lot of people don't realise is that the actual legal limit on Australian roads is 100kph.For states to get federal funding for new roadworks, part of the deal is that they must abide to the 100km limit, this is why the S/E Freeway is 100km and goes back to 110 after the bridge.

True story.

not sure i have heard of that one

unless theres an australia wide rule that the states can choose what limit they want, but i know for a fact Brisbane to Gold coast is 110 also. (in metro area) and open speed limit past charleville also out west

[tipper]

technically road rules are up to the states, however like fc said, the federal government want 100 as the max, so if a state wants fed funding they have to abide by the 100k rule. the only roads interstate you will find that are 110 are freeways i think. if it isnt a freeway it will be 100

[Dirko]

What proof have they that hitting a tree at 100kmh is safer then hitting one at 110km?

Your ****** either way.

[Footy Chick]

technically road rules are up to the states, however like fc said, the federal government want 100 as the max, so if a state wants fed funding they have to abide by the 100k rule. the only roads interstate you will find that are 110 are freeways i think. if it isnt a freeway it will be 100

Thanks Bully, thats what I meant to say

[Bully]

if you were doing 100 instead of 110, they would only have a bruised leg

[Ian]

technically road rules are up to the states, however like fc said, the federal government want 100 as the max, so if a state wants fed funding they have to abide by the 100k rule. the only roads interstate you will find that are 110 are freeways i think. if it isnt a freeway it will be 100

A lot of major highways in NSW and Vic that are not freeways are also 110, not that many years ago you were correct

[Bully]

technically road rules are up to the states, however like fc said, the federal government want 100 as the max, so if a state wants fed funding they have to abide by the 100k rule. the only roads interstate you will find that are 110 are freeways i think. if it isnt a freeway it will be 100

not true here in queensland mate. All road (highways) bar Bris to toowoomba, and Bris to Gympie are 110.

[Footy Chick]

technically road rules are up to the states, however like fc said, the federal government want 100 as the max, so if a state wants fed funding they have to abide by the 100k rule. the only roads interstate you will find that are 110 are freeways i think. if it isnt a freeway it will be 100

Thanks Bully, thats what I meant to say

*edit* except I think you'll find freeways are 100 and everywhere else is 110.

Do QLD still have an unrestricted speed limit? Wow, even the NT is restricted to 130 now I heard..

[once_were_warriors]

Voted Yes.

On selected roads I agree.

Currently 110km/hr means 115- 120Km/hr for most punters

100km/hr will pull em back to 105 - 110km/hr.

Do a lot of travelling for work around SA and some roads are exceptionally bad for sun blindness and vertical alignment at a 100km/hr let alone 110km/hr.

Reducing speed does reduce % chance of death from an accident.