Speed limit decrease on rural roads

[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

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..

past charelville (bout 800kms west of Brisbane yes it is) .

[southee]

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.

[Bully]

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.

dont disagree with you, but no reason to drop it

[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

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

i stand corrected, i should have known i would be wrong thanks ian

[Ian]

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.

Like the copper said on the news tonight, most deaths on these roads were due to people exceeding the speed limit!

He didn't say they were doing 110 and should have been only going 100, he said they were exceeding the limit.

What difference will it make if the same people still speed, nothing! all it does is punish all the rest of us the stayed on or below the limit in the first place, to use your theory, we'd be doing 25kmh every where so the roads are safe from speed!!

[tipper]

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.

sorry southee but i have seen an aftermath, and i still disagree that lowering the limit is the best idea. right now it is lowering it by 10kph. in a few years time it will be another ten. eventually it will take a week to drive to lincoln.

yes most people will still get there, but what about fatigue? i think i read somewhere that being tired is the equivalent of being drunk. if they keep lowering the limit how many will die from fatigue related causes? why not leave the limits where they are and TEACH drivers to recognise when the limit is not the best thing to do. using OWW example, if there is sun glare, back it off. you will not get sun glare on any road all day every day, only at certain times. same thing when it is raining, or poor visibility. instead the government legislates for the lowest common denominator, and the rest of us suffer.

[southee]

Good points .... I can see both sides . I actually think a big cause is impatience .

People getting so frustrated behind the wheel that they make stupid decisions like overtaking when they can wait a bit .

I think we have all seen some idiotic , near death decisions ...

People need to chill out

[tipper]

the problem is that lowering the speed limit will help the end result, fatalities, but doesnt address the root cause of the issue. the fact that most people will hit with less severity at slower speeds will hide the fact that they did something stupid to cause them to hit something in the first place. teach people to avoid making stupid, impatient decisions and the road toll will sort itself out. like i said in a previous post though, it will never happen. it will be too hard, will take too long to implement, will cost too much, and wont have an immediate impact on the road toll, despite the fact that it is the only way to eliminate the problem all together.

what we need in this state is a government with the will to actually do something about the root cause, even if it may mean that they lose power, not one that just talks tough, with little real impact. and i mean that for both "sides"

[mal]

The best way to stop LADS people speeding is to ban them not fine them
A $300 + fine is SFA compared to a loss of licence which pales into insignificance

POINTS WITHIN 12 MONTHS OF FIRST OFFENCE
I would decrease the demerit points for lads below 21 years old from 12 points to 4 points for a loss of their permits
When they get to 21 years old the allowable demerit points should be about 7
When 25 + years old , allow the 12 points

I talk form experience
I used to be a farrrkwit when I was a LAD driver
I drove fast, recklessly, and stupidly
But when I was on 9 points I drove like a norMAL obedient driver

[tipper]

People on their p plates already have a maximum of four points before they lose their licence. And everyone is on their p's till at least 19, and if the pollies get their way it soon will be 21 (and it will also rise to 18 before you can get off your L plates)

And I don't believe that is the answer either. Banning people will just increase the number of people driving without a licence. It will increase the problem.

[CK]

Recognising the merit of both sides of the argument, having grown up in a country town, and having a good mate who had to pull enough injured and dead mates from car accidents over the years - pretty confronting to attend an accident and find its someone you know very well - any move like this can only be positive. It may not seem like a lot, but if it saves one person, it's worth it.

[Bully]

Good points .... I can see both sides . I actually think a big cause is impatience .

People getting so frustrated behind the wheel that they make stupid decisions like overtaking when they can wait a bit .

I think we have all seen some idiotic , near death decisions ...

People need to chill out

good points, dont disagree with you. But there are 2 sides to the story. When someone in front of you is doing 20kms an hours under the speed limit then you and you are doing the correct speed limit, the person in front ONLY speeds up when there is an overtaking lane to keep in front then thats where the problem lies.

Also people sitting in the right hand lane this annoys people and causes crashes.

Both my points of driving under the speed limit and driving in the right hand lane are both against the law, and so is speeding. But theres not enough police to police it

[CK]

People sitting in the right hand lane for extended periods is definitely a major issue, no question there. The Southern Expressway is one of the worst roads in Adelaide for this. A percentage of drivers do it constantly and seem to think its funny to do so. I've had experiences where this has happened for kilometres, so attempt to switch to the left lane to avoid it. Have had drivers that then speed up, and laugh and flip the bird along the way about it - and this is both sexes doing so. If you happen to get back to the right lane, they will then speed up suddenly - up to 20Km'h in doing so, and try to tailgate. Pretty mature sort of stuff - yet it causes accidents on there, with little doubt.

There is little doubt that there is a percentage of drivers on Adelaide roads who are primarily there to stir, cause trouble and be smart alecs - particularly the "switch lanes quickly without indicating, and either hanging one arm over the passenger side headrest, or out the window" sorts - hopefully they don't lose control at any point in those manoeuvres, and causing innocent people harm.

[Pseudo]

Recognising the merit of both sides of the argument, having grown up in a country town, and having a good mate who had to pull enough injured and dead mates from car accidents over the years - pretty confronting to attend an accident and find its someone you know very well - any move like this can only be positive. It may not seem like a lot, but if it saves one person, it's worth it.

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.

[OnSong]

What are the stats with roads that have been reduced from 110km/h to 100km/h?

[CK]

Recognising the merit of both sides of the argument, having grown up in a country town, and having a good mate who had to pull enough injured and dead mates from car accidents over the years - pretty confronting to attend an accident and find its someone you know very well - any move like this can only be positive. It may not seem like a lot, but if it saves one person, it's worth it.

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.

[OnSong]

Let's not forget the national highways will remain 110km/h.

It's very unlikely you will be travelling 500km on a 100km/h road.

[Zelezny Chucks]

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

[Gingernuts]

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

Exactly. All that changes is the amount of their fine on that rare occasion they actually get caught.

[Booney]

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.