Cars & Transportation 130km/h Speed Limit

[JuddsABlue]

After reading this thread I took note of the condition of my freeway when driving over the weekend, I did about 110 and was bouncing around considerably with lots of wavey/up and down sections of the road

The lean in some of the lanes were quite extreme as well

I'd be shocked if that freeway was fine for 130ks for all/majority of cars. There would be 50+ year olds bouncing into the walls or losing control every single day

The people who want quicker freeways who perceive themselves as good drivers need to understand theyre in the minority. For every person who thinks they can drive 130ks down the freeway every day, there are 20 people who couldnt

Then we would have a freeway with cars travelling at 90ks and 140ks which is incredibly dangerous

 

[Speck]

Don't have it apply for trucks is an obvious part of it then.
1. Only on highways with the bends, banks etc. to accommodate it.
2. Cars (and perhaps buses), not trucks.
3. Trade off of the increased speed is drivers must have a 0 blood alcohol limit if going over 110.
4. Drivers under 25 must stick to 110.

The last two removes most of the hoon element. Leaving it as faster travel times between major cities / towns. Given the way every politician in Sydney runs for the hills to hide when second airport sites are suggested, it should be put to them as a way to put off making that decision.

You're getting way too complicated now.

130kph on good freeways would be fine but it isn't going to happen.

 

[Messenger]

It will reduce the revenue from speeding fines which is the real reason it will never happen

Good grief. It will increase the number of shit drivers who think they are the second coming of Peter Brock exiting just the way he did - wrapped around a tree.

It will never happen because most drivers aren't good enough to control a vehicle at that speed for sustained periods.

 

[Meow]

Having worked in this area before as a road safety engineer, I can tell you that country freeways will not be increased to 130 km/h with the specifications most of them are currently built to. You may not realise it, but most rural freeways in Australia aren't built and designed to the standards of European/American highways (the costs involved in upgrading them all to these specifications would be astronomically high). I can go into further detail as to why but it becomes a little complicated from there.

The good news is that I know of 3 country freeways in Victoria with current speed limits of 100 km/h (1 existing, 2 under construction) that will probably be increased to 110 km/h in the next 12 months or so.

 

[tandino]

Having worked in this area before as a road safety engineer, I can tell you that country freeways will not be increased to 130 km/h with the specifications most of them are currently built to. You may not realise it, but most rural freeways in Australia aren't built and designed to the standards of European/American highways (the costs involved in upgrading them all to these specifications would be astronomically high). I can go into further detail as to why but it becomes a little complicated from there.

All fair enough when you are talking about goat tracks out to shit creek. But what about on a freeway like the Hume?

Are we talking about things such as at grade intersections, or things harder to overcome?

 

[Syphoncom]

I was only recently on the Hume and thought it was actually a little average (cameras everywhere too). Would be nice to think an extra few kms per hour heading up north would save a considerable amount of time. Having said that, it's only in comparison to the newer Eastlink I've driven on down towards Portsea - that thing is a dream. Driving at 100kms/h on that seems like such a waste.

 

[Meow]

All fair enough when you are talking about goat tracks out to shit creek. But what about on a freeway like the Hume?

Are we talking about things such as at grade intersections, or things harder to overcome?

At-grade intersections are probably the biggest obstacle to a higher speed limit on country highways. Freeways in most other countries/jurisdictions are not permitted to have these, whereas in Australia this isn't the case (the term for roads with no at-grade intersections is 'controlled access'). Removing these and building interchanges instead would be much more expensive than you might think.

Driving past an intersection at 130 km/h might not be a problem for you, but it can be a pretty big problem for a driver who has to cross 4 lanes of traffic travelling at this speed.

Off the top of head, some other problems typically not found on European/American highways include:

• The type of bitumen used on most country highways is only suited to carrying traffic travelling at 110 km/h. Delving into this any further requires a lot of complicated and technical explanation.
• Numerous driveways + private entrances backing onto the freeway itself (refer back to what I said about intersections).
• No median barriers and inadequate spacing between carriageways.
• Shoulders being too narrow.
• Too much roadside shrubbery/trees.
• Cycling access being permitted on some freeways.

 

[Jackfrost]

Cue the reaction from f-wit politicians, cops, mothers and so on that simply ignore the real reason why people die in motor accidents.

… and what is that if not the speed of impact?

 

[PP34]

… and what is that if not the speed of impact?

Speed obviously causes the death but something else normally causes one to speed.

 

[Syphoncom]

… and what is that if not the speed of impact?

How quickly you stop.

 

[The Passenger]

i'm not overly comfortable with the majority of drivers given the green light (pun intended) to crank it up to 130. there are some blokes going around whose eyes would go around like poker machine reels if they saw 130 on the speed limit sign and would see it as an invitation to hit 150-160 and beyond.

there are too many poor drivers out there, and cars in terrible condition, for that sort of stuff.

it's another case where the minority ruin it for the majority, but it's one of the rare times where i am willing to cop it. why are people in such a hurry anyway?

that whole wheels magazine thing, the guy cut 70 minutes out of a 450 minute journey, roughly 15%... hardly seems worth it to me.

 

[Jackfrost]

How quickly you stop.

If you hit a huge tree you are going to stop in the same amount of time, it is your impact speed that determines level of trauma.
An extra 20km/h is going to equate to higher stopping distances, decreased reaction times and increased impact speeds hence increased level of road trauma. It has been proven on roads in Australia where the speed limit was increased and road trauma increased and the limit was then decreased again and road trauma was decreased.
The the comment above about the Northern Territory having 130km/h limits I'd suggest you take a look at the National crash data where you'll see the NT is up there with some if the world's worst countries.
I've got no problems with 130km/h highways that are designed for those speeds but we don't have these in Australia and certainly don't have the funds to retrofit existing highways so people can save a little bit of time when there is a dire need to fix up existing death trap roads and build new highways such as the Perth to Darwin Highway and by-pass highways that also decrease travel times and keep heavy and high speed traffic out of small towns and cities.

 

[little graham]

Most city drivers are lunatics on the open road.

 

[HugeJohnson]

Half the people on the road can't drive at 50, let alone 130.

 

[shurg123]

Yeah, set the limit to 130 and people will be doing 140-150.

Yeah, I generally do 120-125 km/h anyway (only 3 demerit points and half a days work fine IF caught, which has happened twice in 11 years of driving, never on the freeway), increasing the limit to 130 should only happen if everyone who currently has a license is re-tested far more thoroughly and provided with some sort of defensive/advanced driver training. Retesting should occur ever 2-3 years as well.

Wipe off 5 is a good campaign when it comes to inner city driving, but people seem to equate speed with death.

The hilarious thing about this campaign is the sample space they used, they took less than 100 accidents over a given stretch of road and had a look at what (estimated) speed each of the drivers had been travelling at prior to the accident. Then they compared the number of accidents for each speed with the total number of cars that were detected travelling in that same speed bracket and came up with the 'every 5 km/h over doubles your risk' rubbish. So travelling at 60 km/h in a 60 zone results in a 0.0001% chance of an accident. Travelling at 65 km/h means a 0.0002% chance. 70 km/h = 0.0004% chance etc. Doubling such a low probability many times over still results in a very low probability.

 

[Rustin Cohle]

Half the people on the road can't drive at 50, let alone 130.

That's kind of the point. If you were going to increase the speed limit as suggested in the OP you would also overhaul the licencing system to better educate drivers when learning to drive. Making the tests far more strict and thorough would be a good start.

 

[theboxmike]

Cue the reaction from f-wit politicians, cops, mothers and so on that simply ignore the real reason why people die in motor accidents.

Hit the nail on the head. **** I hate those winging ****.

 

[theboxmike]

After reading this thread I took note of the condition of my freeway when driving over the weekend, I did about 110 and was bouncing around considerably with lots of wavey/up and down sections of the road

The lean in some of the lanes were quite extreme as well

I'd be shocked if that freeway was fine for 130ks for all/majority of cars. There would be 50+ year olds bouncing into the walls or losing control every single day

The people who want quicker freeways who perceive themselves as good drivers need to understand theyre in the minority. For every person who thinks they can drive 130ks down the freeway every day, there are 20 people who couldnt

Then we would have a freeway with cars travelling at 90ks and 140ks which is incredibly dangerous

Then they shouldn't have there license.

 

[Gibbsy]

Then they shouldn't have there license.

Why not? There's nowhere in established Australia where you have to know how to drive 130km/h so why does it matter whether people can or not?

Pretty rash statement

 

[theboxmike]

Why not? There's nowhere in established Australia where you have to know how to drive 130km/h so why does it matter whether people can or not?

Pretty rash statement

I know there is no legal requirement but it's pretty easy to maintain control at 130 clicks. If you can't handle something simple like that then IMO you shouldn't have your license.

It's like those flogs who drive at 99 km/h in the right lane on the freeway because it's "Safe" oblivious to anything and anyone around them.

 

[JuddsABlue]

Then they shouldn't have there license.

Maybe they shouldnt, although from my memory the course doesnt cover driving at those speeds, but regardless thats how it is, and we live in a world where we deal with the reality of situations and not what people think they should be

Why dont people who want faster highways instead focus their energy on increasing the standards of driving so we have less accidents and smoother freeways because people can travel comfortably at 100/110km an hour

 

[theboxmike]

Why dont people who want faster highways instead focus their energy on increasing the standards of driving so we have less accidents and smoother freeways because people can travel comfortably at 100/110km an hour

Probably a very good idea!

 

[DrKrieger]

Why not? There's nowhere in established Australia where you have to know how to drive 130km/h so why does it matter whether people can or not?

Pretty rash statement

Image courtesy most of the roads in the NT.

Half the cars on the road sit around 120-130 already, its not some impossible barrier that you need test pilot reflexes to break through. The nt only recently got 130, it was lowered from unlimited in the name of safety. This change led to an increase in the road toll.

Its not really a case of apples and oranges either, the roads in question are just as good or better than many territory roads, cars are built to go faster too.

If this means that drivers may need to now *shock horror* learn how to control a car instead of park one and do a u turn, then bring it on. The current system is a joke, as is the attitude "advanced driver training makes young drivers think theyre indestructible" which so many roads authorities seem to follow.

Speed is not the be all and end all in road safety (i would argue it may affect the severity of an accident, but the actual cause is rarely speed but instead distraction, poor skills etc)

 

[Schauermann]

I find it really strange that in countries like Australia or the US there are those strict speed limits. In those countries are quite a few very straight, long and pretty empty roads, were you could practicly half your travel time when going at 200 instead 100. Here in Germany you are allowed to drive as fast as you want on parts of most highways, but you hardly have any space do actually do it...

 

[Gibbsy]

DrKrieger I should have said suburban Australia rather than established Australia, I think you know the point I was trying to make though