80Km/H Limit On Undivided Roads

[Iconic Bionic]

They've been doing that in NSW for quite a while, and installing the cable crash barrier thingos in between opposing lanes on corners etc. which is a brilliant idea.

Personally I reckon 80km/h isn't far enough. Drop it to 15km/h and that will remove all fatalities from head-on collisions. Who's with me???

The cable barriers are fantastic for cars as they catch them, however deadly for motor bike riders as they just get shredded and give them no chance to survive. Not that well thought out.

And the 80kph all over will do wonders for this states new mobile speed cameras where to be shortly shafted with.

I.B.

[rockafellqeinstien]

I think we should ban cars/truck/bikes altogether. We will save thousands of lives a year. Even one life saved makes it worth while.

Then we will have to start slowing those pedestrians down which will require all citizens to be registered with viewable registration markings so speed camera's can fine those fast walkers not to mention those hoons that run everywhere.

back to reality.

Back in the 80's we had crap roads (think pacific hwy or putty rd) that had 100kmph limits and even crapper cars (less grip/safty/technology(abs & stabiulity control etc).

now those same roads which are in much better condition have limits of 60-80kph and cars are unbelivably better and there really hasnt been a huge drop per capita in road deaths that you would expect. why??? pretty easy - driver skills.

hows this for a rta slogan:

No driver skills, Kills.

[dashturbo]

"Multiple vehicle" doesn't necessarily mean head-on though does it. Surely they would have given out some hard facts to back up the brainiac plan?

your right I should never have said "head on".

The point is we can make cars to protect people in some 80km/h crashes, people don't die because they had a multiple vehicle crash and the speed they were doing had nothing to do with it.

They die because they hit hard things in their car, because the car stopped too quickly and they struck a hard part of their interior. Some people think that a large number of deaths can be prevented by lower the speed limit on dangerous roads..

If you honestly don't think speed has anything to do with it, then speed, and then when you get a speeding fine, contest it, you might have to go to the supreme court but you will win the case if speed it proven to be completely irrelevant.

If you can't win that case you should be upset with the court system, as it can't interpret the truth, if that is the discussion?

tell you what, tell me why the max speed limit should be set at 110km/h on an undivided country road? why not 130? and why not 70? or not at all? 80km/h was selected as the maximum speed people can survive a common crash.

The cable barriers are fantastic for cars as they catch them, however deadly for motor bike riders as they just get shredded and give them no chance to survive. Not that well thought out.

And the 80kph all over will do wonders for this states new mobile speed cameras where to be shortly shafted with.

I.B.

cable barriers are fantastic for motorbike riders too.. the uprights are weaker than other barriers as they are designed to break off..not like the concrete or steel.

Think about it, cable barriers are only placed where a vehicle or rider would be flung into oncoming traffic or solid roadside objects..

besides every case that has been brought forward hit the barrier at a speed that would have killed them with any other type of barrier (or if they hit a tree or oncoming car), these barriers have saved motorcyclist's lives, and your right some times they have lost limbs or fingers.

If you can work out how to build a safety barrier that is better, feel free to patent it and sell it, you will make zillions.

Otherwise perhaps accept that it is simply the best of a bad situation, not the worst on a good situation.

Edited 01/04/10 01:22 AM by dashturbo

[tab]

Not at all, travelling at a speed beyond your capabilities or conditions is certainly dangerous. I certainly do not dispute that. However absolutely none of the dribble that any of these supposed learned people come out with has anything to do with that.

Speed cameras/radars book people for travelling beyond the statutory limit. That achieves absolutely nothing in regards to what actually causes the most 'speed related' accidents.

I've posted stats elsewhere showing exactly the breakdown of causes of fatalities (for Qld...assume other states are similar), speeding is from memory number ten on the list. If these wankers were actually serious they'd do something about the other nine causes ahead of speed, instead all they do is roll out more cameras and keep dropping the speed limit.

There has to come a time that we all wakeup to what's going on rather than just lapping up the propaganda that is politically and financially convenient for government ministers and their cronies.

[dashturbo]

I don't understand how they can pretend speed can be given a number that it attributed to crashes, if they were stationary, no crash, at 10kmh, maybe a few would die, etc.. likelyhood of death/injury goes up exponetially with speed.

It pisses me off too that speed it used as a scape goat. But it is the easiest to monitor and is a direct factor in every crash. If you think there is a better approach go out and sell it, because the people implementing these things are going on the advice of best people they can get, if there is a better approach don't tell me, tell Vicroads, tell you local member, write to the state government, journo's papers etc.

Don't get upset that you may be slightly inconvenienced by driving slower, research and point out a method that can get results without frustrating you, that is what everyone wants, particularly TAC, Vicroads, Victoria Police and our Politicians.

I speed, but I don't kid myself that its not stupid or dangerous, and I use all my will to stop myself, or make it as safe as possible.

I hate doing 80km/h on an undivided highway, but I think that it should be 80, and it would save lives.

[Guest XR09]

The trouble is how do you stop someone from being human?

How do we protect ourselves from ourselves?

Wonder how well we wiped ourselves out on horse back, when we only had horses.

Even with an 80k limit, head on's will be bad. But totally agree it will reduce the road toll, but at what cost?

Some how we have to make roads profitable, because if there's a buck in it we will get the decent roads.

[Ace]

so basically you are willing to wait/pay 20% more for everything because 90% of australian roads are undivided - and the stupid thing is if you run off the road alseep at 80kph and hit a tree you are still gonna be pretty messed up - if australian motorists are allowed to do 100kph why arent vehicles made to withstand a head on at this speed??? - think about that - personally I think that the audible lines are the best invention since sliced bread - they soon wake you up if you happen to wander on to one of them - maybe they should just make them mandatory on all roads - also the cause of the headon whether at 80 or 100 is not speed it is a lapse in concentration by one or both the drivers involved

Edited 01/04/10 05:46 AM by Ace

[Craig.]

Australia wide, multiple vehicle crashes in 100 or 110 zones killed 595 citizens in 2009.

Add single run off road crashes and it becomes 1306.

These statistics would not change a hell of a lot with a reduction in speed. In fact they may increase due to more fatigue related accidents meaning people falling asleep and running off the road into a tree.

Our bodies aren't designed to come to a sudden stop at 110,100 or 80kph, so at any of those speeds the inertia created by the sudden stop as you hit an oncoming car or a 100 year old gum tree will turn your internal organs into something that looks a little bit like sausage mince.

The only safe speed for the human body to come to a sudden stop is less than 25kph. Is this what we should be enforcing?

Or we could do the obvious and eliminate single carriage way roads as highways and replace these with dual carriage way roads with barriers to prevent head ons and from drifting off the road and into trees. Isn't this a more possitive step than making everyone drive around at a snails pace? Oh hang on, that might cost a bit! Wouldn't you rather see your income tax spent on something like this though, rather than some of the frivilous crap that it is spent on at the moment?

Edited 01/04/10 06:55 AM by craiginmackay

[BensXR6T]

The thing that is always forgotten though is speed limits don't stop people from speeding .... take the recent fatals that have happened in the last couple of months .... in residential areas with idiots behind the wheels.

If the authorities were really serious about reducing high speeds on public roads, they would spend more money on marked patrol cars instead of blowing thousands of $$ on cameras etc.

Think about it, in the presence of a marked police car, do you play up? No! Solution: use a low budget marked car to increase the KNOWN presence of officers.

How many Hyundai Getz can be purchased for the price of one high performance unmarked car with a mobile speed camera installed?

But we know this will never happen, cos the revenue raised from speed cameras is more important then actually tackling the problem, even though it's a proven fact that drivers do not speed in the presence of marked cars and are more alert of what's around them!!

Edited 01/04/10 11:59 AM by BensXR6T

[dashturbo]

Our bodies aren't designed to come to a sudden stop at 110,100 or 80kph, so at any of those speeds the inertia created by the sudden stop as you hit an oncoming car or a 100 year old gum tree will turn your internal organs into something that looks a little bit like sausage mince.

The only safe speed for the human body to come to a sudden stop is less than 25kph. Is this what we should be enforcing?

Or we could do the obvious and eliminate single carriage way roads as highways and replace these with dual carriage way roads with barriers to prevent head ons and from drifting off the road and into trees. Isn't this a more possitive step than making everyone drive around at a snails pace? Oh hang on, that might cost a bit! Wouldn't you rather see your income tax spent on something like this though, rather than some of the frivilous crap that it is spent on at the moment?

I disagree that a head on at 80km/h is unsurvivable and that the 20km/h drop makes no difference, It is possible to survive an 80km/h head on which is similar to a big tree, if your in a safe car. However it is near impossible if your doing 100 km/h.

You would survive a 65km/h head on crash almost every time in a modern car that rates above 3 stars on the ANCAP program. not 25km/h

It wont save everyone's life. But it will save law abiding citizens lives, not the people that do 200km/h with 8 people in the car with no license.

The idea is that more roads get divided, that is what is being done, but the undivided ones, the ones people are dying on, they should be 80 km/h