80Km/H Limit On Undivided Roads

[Stazza_Brendan]

From looking at location of alot of Members on here, Most seem to live in larger cities with great road networks (even though they dont think so). When I bought my XR6T ute in January I drove it from Brisbane to Mackay (1007km from where ute was to home). Brisbane to Gympie the roads were excellent, But soon as you get 10 minutes north of Gympie it all turns to sh*t. Single lane, little or no shouler, potholes, poor patch work. This goes all the way up to Cairns. There are some newer decent sections but these are few and and far between. overall the highway north of Gympie is pathetic.

No way would I like to drive to Rockhampton or Townsville from Mackay at 80km/h.

[tab]

I agree to a certain extent but it's not as biased towards metro areas as it used to be...the road surfaces tend to be very ordinary everywhere except for motorways these days. Not for one minute suggesting that regional roads are getting better, just that everything else is progressively getting worse.

In regards to the Bruce highway around Gympie, they are actually extending the motorway from Cooroy to north of Gympie, which they had to do (re-align) for the Mary River dam but are apparently still doing it anyway. Probably due to be open by 2030.

Until then you're better-off taking the Mary Valley highway, adds about 20km to the trip, road is fairly ordinary in places and can be treacherous in the wet, yet the speed limit along there is still 100km/h and normally not much traffic. The most ironic part is it's used as a bypass when the Bruce is closed after accidents, bypass is in worse condition yet has a higher speed limit. Fcken brainiacs.

[dashturbo]

craginmackay, to answer you personal question I have done plenty of long distance driving on poor roads, but I fail to see the relevance when I'm explaining the reasoning for decision making (not my own).

you don't have to argue crumple zones. if I hit a tree at 160km and stop, or I hit a tree at 160kph and the tree and my car end up doing 80kph in the direction of the impact they are different.

think about it.

80kph to a stop (tree or car)

is different to

160kph to a stop

Making roads safe, so no accidents occur would be everyones preference, but I think closing all roads that are not separated would be worse than lowering the speed limits on dangerous roads.

I don't honestly care, I would rather be on your side so I didn't feel inclined to explain all this crap.

[Craig.]

craginmackay, to answer you personal question I have done plenty of long distance driving on poor roads, but I fail to see the relevance when I'm explaining the reasoning for decision making (not my own).

The relevance comes back to the point where if you had done a few 1000+klm trips on single lane hwys in remote areas of the country in you time, you would know what a poor decision making them 80kph zones is. You have said you thought it is a good idea to make anything that isn't an undivided multi lane road 80. I am saying that if you had to use them then you wouldn't support this. that's all. Nothing personal meant by it mate. Just making my point that you live in a small state with a very well serviced road network compared to the rest of the country, so you probably haven't experienced the roads which I have to drive on a daily basis. If you did, you would get my point.

you don't have to argue crumple zones. if I hit a tree at 160km and stop, or I hit a tree at 160kph and the tree and my car end up doing 80kph in the direction of the impact they are different.

think about it.

80kph to a stop (tree or car)

is different to

160kph to a stop

Same result though. Permanent, life changing injuries would be a best case scenario. Death at worst. Surviving a crash isn't neccesarily the best scenario if you end up a vegetable. Better to just make the roads safer and then increase the speed limits if anything so that people can get off the roads before fatigue gets it's chance.

Making roads safe, so no accidents occur would be everyones preference, but I think closing all roads that are not separated would be worse than lowering the speed limits on dangerous roads.

No one wants roads that aren't seperated by a barrier closed down. It would literally close the country down. If we closed all of the non undivided lanes down there would be no road network in the vast majority of the country. These roads bring you your food, fuel,etc remember.

I don't honestly care, I would rather be on your side so I didn't feel inclined to explain all this crap.

You obviously do or you wouldn't even bother with a reply. No need to explain it. I worked it out all on my own a long time ago.

[seduced]

There is a well-known stretch West of toowoomba where plenty of people have died from head-on collisions. This road is 100km/h, undivided, no shoulder, potholed, truck filled, sun-blinded, heavily used piece of road. Trucks would slow the flow down to 80km.h or so, people would become impatient as there are only 2 small overtaing lanes, so they would pull-out and overtake, misjudge the distance and kill themselves along with anyone else they hit. Police report it as a result of speeding... because at the time of overtaking, they were moving at 130km/h in a desperate attempt to get pass a road train plus cars....

After many deaths, the government stepped in. Instead of improving the road for the heavy traffic, I.e four lane divided highway, they simply reduced the speed limit to 90km/h and increased police radars. The problem is now worse than ever, because the limit is 90, the drive feels 4 times longer and the amount of risky overtaking has increased. No-one overtakes in the overtaking sections because the cops sit there picking anyone who dares go over 90 to get past 4 trucks....

The road is now super-dangerous. What is my rego paying for?

If undivided roads are changed to 80km/h, the entire west queensland will be 80km/h.... The deaths will increase 100 fold based on people falling asleep. People already fall asleep and teh limit is 110...

This is the worst suggestion for safety someone has ever had.

Edited 12/04/10 10:28 PM by seduced

[nang3]

^^^ I can just so imagine the RTA/govt etc sitting down and coming to that conclusion as well... cheapest result with possibly of increased revenue = win:win !!!!

road deaths? what road deaths??

[dashturbo]

The relevance comes back to the point where if you had done a few 1000+klm trips on single lane hwys in remote areas of the country in you time, you would know what a poor decision making them 80kph zones is. You have said you thought it is a good idea to make anything that isn't an undivided multi lane road 80. I am saying that if you had to use them then you wouldn't support this. that's all. Nothing personal meant by it mate. Just making my point that you live in a small state with a very well serviced road network compared to the rest of the country, so you probably haven't experienced the roads which I have to drive on a daily basis. If you did, you would get my point.

That is a personal comment, "if you had to use them then you wouldn't support this".

So your country roads should have a higher speed limit than my country roads because your state is bigger, and your roads are more dangerous, not because you can survive an accident at that speed?

Same result though. Permanent, life changing injuries would be a best case scenario. Death at worst. Surviving a crash isn't neccesarily the best scenario if you end up a vegetable. Better to just make the roads safer and then increase the speed limits if anything so that people can get off the roads before fatigue gets it's chance.

Different result, that is the point, reducing the number of permanent life changing injuries is possible in an 80km/h crash.

No one wants roads that aren't seperated by a barrier closed down. It would literally close the country down. If we closed all of the non undivided lanes down there would be no road network in the vast majority of the country. These roads bring you your food, fuel,etc remember.

That is what I'm saying, I'm aware that roads are required, that is why we should lower the speed limits, rather than stop using roads while attempting to get our road system upgraded.

You obviously do or you wouldn't even bother with a reply. No need to explain it. I worked it out all on my own a long time ago.

Well done, the problem I have is a hate of misinformation, not my positioning on the topic. I work with this stuff at work constantly.

There is a well-known stretch West of toowoomba where plenty of people have died from head-on collisions. This road is 100km/h, undivided, no shoulder, potholed, truck filled, sun-blinded, heavily used piece of road. Trucks would slow the flow down to 80km.h or so, people would become impatient as there are only 2 small overtaing lanes, so they would pull-out and overtake, misjudge the distance and kill themselves along with anyone else they hit. Police report it as a result of speeding... because at the time of overtaking, they were moving at 130km/h in a desperate attempt to get pass a road train plus cars....

So trucks do 80km/h on this stretch, meaning any important transport times wouldn't be changed, and they don't fall asleep. 130kph is speeding.

After many deaths, the government stepped in. Instead of improving the road for the heavy traffic, I.e four lane divided highway, they simply reduced the speed limit to 90km/h and increased police radars. The problem is now worse than ever, because the limit is 90, the drive feels 4 times longer and the amount of risky overtaking has increased. No-one overtakes in the overtaking sections because the cops sit there picking anyone who dares go over 90 to get past 4 trucks....

The road is now super-dangerous. What is my rego paying for?

have fatalities or serious injuries increased? if No-one overtakes how are head-on's now occuring? obviously the money is not made available for that upgrade, you can feel free to become a road safety advocate and try to get it fixed by government. But what do you propose in the short term?

If undivided roads are changed to 80km/h, the entire west queensland will be 80km/h.... The deaths will increase 100 fold based on people falling asleep. People already fall asleep and teh limit is 110...

This is the worst suggestion for safety someone has ever had.

well people are falling asleep at 110, we need to work out how to stop people driving when they are tired, not how to make driving more exciting by increasing the risk.

[seduced]

Narrow minded responses Dash. Re-read my post.

Unless you have driven on these stretches, you have no idea what you are talking about and therefore cannot make judgments from your computer chair. That stretch near toowoomba has been named one of the most dangerous stretches in Queensland. Do you think lowering the speed limit again and again is going to improve that road? How slow shall we drive before its safe? Do you know that the afternoon sun blinds all those driving home from work, and the morning sun blinds them driving to work? A four-lane divided road would reduce the risk of a head-on almost completely. Lowering the speed limit does not. Accidents are still happening. People are still dying. Speed is not the problem here.

How come studies in America have shown deaths increase on highways when the limit is reduced, and decreased when increased to 'risky' speeds? If you want proof, go look it up yourself. What is riskier? Handling a car at 110km/h while alert or 80km/h while asleep? Your answer is that everyone should not drive tired and stick to 80 to reduce the injuries in an impact. How about just reducing the chance of an impact? What is better? More accidents at slower speeds, or less accidents at higher speeds?

If you knew what it is like to travel ALONE on a straight stretch of road, in the middel of nowhere, 2 hours before you even see another car, 4 hours before you come across a sleepy town, you would definatley would no endorse an 80km/h limit.

A real solution would be: Outback QLD: A limit set at 140km/h on outback roads, slow your car to 100km/h when passing a car coming in the other direction. Blanket rules for the entire nation do not work.

Edited 13/04/10 06:57 AM by seduced

[GOLDIE]

Seduced I agree know this road it is a disgrace.

The trucks have trouble staying in there lane it is that rough.

And know with all the mining and gas extraction going on there it is only going to get worse.

And add to that queensland rail have cut services out that adding more trucks.

The lowerd speed limit has made things worse as the trucks find it hard to maintain the spped on the hilly sections so the cars take risks to got around them.

Stuff the lower limits TO ALL THE POLLIES AND BEAN COUNTERS THAT RUN THIS COUNTRY TIME YOU GOT OUT OF YOUR A/C OFFICES AND TOOK IN THE REAL STATE OF OUR ROADS.

There is a strecth of road near ipswich in southeast queensland that has had waring signs about the shoulder falling away for more than 5 years ever time the shoulder gets worse they put the giude posts closer to the lanes and repaint the lines.

It is now nearly to norrow for trucks.

This is the real probelm poor roads and no driver education

FIX THIS YOU FIX THE PROBLEM.

Ian

[BensXR6T]

It's not that travelling at 110 increases your awareness, it's the fact that you spend less time on the road as compared with travelling at 80 .... this extra time to complete the journey is what will cause fatigue, and in turn possibly more accidents.

Travel from Brisbane to Cairnes at 80km/hr and you will have more then one whole extra day travel time, and that's only basing it on an average of 80 as compared to average of 100, alot of the hwy is 110 north of Gympie ..... tell me how an extra 25 hours on the road is safer???

Also, our living expenses will also increase as trucking companies will not be able to move produce around the country in the same amount of time.

It's a half arsed attempt at trying to resolve a problem the doesn't really exist ... the problems are the roads, not the speed!! Give us more overtaking lanes and wider shoulders and the accidents will reduce.

With more overtaking lanes, there will be less people overtaking into on coming traffic, with a wider shoulder, there is somewhere to retreat to if a miss in judgement has happened, yeah sure, gonna cost millions to do it, but how much are peoples lives worth?

Speed cameras are just a deterrent and don't really reduce that amount of speeding that happens on the roads...if they actually worked, then there would be no fines being issued ... yeah and fair enough, stick to the limit and you won't get booked, but really, if you're on an open road, dead straight for as far as the eye can see and no one else in sight ... are you gonna do 80?? I think not.