Whyyyyy?

[deeman12]

The fastest we can drive on our roads is 110km. Why dont we take steps towards making all cars driven on australian roads have a limit of 110km. There will probably be a number of rude comments saying you cant, you cant. Im intrested why a change like that cant happen.

 

[Aussie Assault]

The fastest we can drive on our roads is 110km. Why dont we take steps towards making all cars driven on australian roads have a limit of 110km. There will probably be a number of rude comments saying you cant, you cant. Im intrested why a change like that cant happen.

Theres no limit on some of the NT roads.

 

[deeman12]

Theres no limit on some of the NT roads.

But the highest ive seen on a speed sign is 110km, maybe the government needs to take longer strides to securing our safety.

 

[BomberFletch31]

What if you're trying to overtake a semi-trailer doing 105km/h, and you're speed limited to 110km/h? Imagine how long you'll be spending on the wrong side of the road and therefore at high risk of a head-on collision.

There was a column in Wheels magazine in May by Michael Stahl, that touches on this issue. The gist of it is this: why do people begrudge motoring companies for seeking engineering excellence - for that's what it is to build a car that's faster, handles better and performs better than the previous model? Yet, excellence in every other field is applauded. I want to quote a few excerpts from the article:

You probably already know that aerodynamic drag increases as the square of velocity, meaning an ever more delicate formula of power and aero sophistication ... while retaining driveability, comfort and accommodation.

...

I never really understood how this pursuit of automotive excellence so utterly fails to be of interest to most people. These same people thrill to news of a plane that will fly to London in eight hours. They pray, as I do, for a 320km/h rail service to link Australia's major cities. They want to know where, when, how and how fast.

But where cars are concerned, they scratch their chins and nod when this week's instant expert, of the type that collects a $30K handout each year to maintain the beige outrage, declares that it is impossible to justify any car being able to go faster than 110km/h.

At least, I never used to understand it. Until recently, when I seem to have been caught in a truly Olympian barrage of sports bores, meaningless scores and statistics, obscure athletic pursuits and a weekly who's-who of groin strain fame.

What does it matter how fast man can run or swim? If something's only 100 metres away, even I can get there within minutes. And if something's 42.195km away, who the hell goes on foot?

- From Wheels magazine, May 2007, page 38.

 

[BomberFletch31]

But the highest ive seen on a speed sign is 110km, maybe the government needs to take longer strides to securing our safety.

While speed has a certain correlation to safety, speed in itself does not necessarily equal unsafe. It is the impact of a collision after losing control that causes injuries and death, speed, if controlled, is not in itself unsafe. If it were, then everyone who has ever flown in a plane at 900km/h would be dead. As would racing drivers, who drive cars at approximately 300km/h.

The problem is the idiots on our roads. Anyone who behaves like an idiot will lose control of their car, no matter what speeds they are doing. It is far too easy to obtain a driver's licence in Australia, and while that remains the case, our road toll will continue to rise as more inexperienced youth go out and show off their lack of skill. I think that the way to solve this problem is to mandate compulsory advanced driver's training for every learner before they get their Ps. That way, young drivers will at least be armed with some skill when faced with a situation where they could lose control of their car.

Training is the answer. Restrictions and curfews are not only draconian, they are impractical and unfair, and are only a band-aid solution to the actual problem: lack of driver training, and poor roads.

 

[deeman12]

While speed has a certain correlation to safety, speed in itself does not necessarily equal unsafe. It is the impact of a collision after losing control that causes injuries and death, speed, if controlled, is not in itself unsafe. If it were, then everyone who has ever flown in a plane at 900km/h would be dead. As would racing drivers, who drive cars at approximately 300km/h.

The problem is the idiots on our roads. Anyone who behaves like an idiot will lose control of their car, no matter what speeds they are doing. It is far too easy to obtain a driver's licence in Australia, and while that remains the case, our road toll will continue to rise as more inexperienced youth go out and show off their lack of skill. I think that the way to solve this problem is to mandate compulsory advanced driver's training for every learner before they get their Ps. That way, young drivers will at least be armed with some skill when faced with a situation where they could lose control of their car.

Training is the answer. Restrictions and curfews are not only draconian, they are impractical and unfair, and are only a band-aid solution to the actual problem: lack of driver training, and poor roads.

With a racing driver, their aim is to go fast in order to win a race, and they have a track to do it in. Also a plane cant really collide with other planes. Another thing, i always hear ******s speeding and making that stupid turbo noise really loudly, innocent people lose their lives because of diks like that. I dunno, it just seems dumb that cars can go 150 km/h when the most they should be able to drive is 110km on freeway.

 

[deeman12]

What if you're trying to overtake a semi-trailer doing 105km/h, and you're speed limited to 110km/h? Imagine how long you'll be spending on the wrong side of the road and therefore at high risk of a head-on collision.

There was a column in Wheels magazine in May by Michael Stahl, that touches on this issue. The gist of it is this: why do people begrudge motoring companies for seeking engineering excellence - for that's what it is to build a car that's faster, handles better and performs better than the previous model? Yet, excellence in every other field is applauded. I want to quote a few excerpts from the article:



- From Wheels magazine, May 2007, page 38.

Thats a good speed, whats the point of overtaking.

 

[Heisenberg_]

Thats a good speed, whats the point of overtaking.

Because a lot of people don't like being behind trucks, pretty simple really

 

[deeman12]

Because a lot of people don't like being behind trucks, pretty simple really

So pull to the side for a few seconds until the truck pisses of, its a small price to pay if it could save your life.

 

[patsmith]

Let's all just walk...

 

[BomberFletch31]

With a racing driver, their aim is to go fast in order to win a race, and they have a track to do it in.

That is exactly my point: speed in itself does not kill, if it is controlled. Racing drivers have had extensive training in order that they are capable of driving fast without losing control of the vehicle.

Driver training in Australia is inadequate in that it does not equip potential drivers with the skills necessary to drive and maintain control of the vehicle, but merely how to operate it. It does not teach drivers what to do in an emergency situation, how to correct oversteer, understeer, emergency braking procedures etc etc.

Another thing, i always hear ******s speeding and making that stupid turbo noise really loudly, innocent people lose their lives because of diks like that.

This is another problem: driver attitude. The only way to correct this is through education campaigns. In addition to advanced driver training, I believe that before a prospective driver can get their licence, they should also be made to sit through a road safety / road trauma seminar, where they are shown the effects of behaving like idiots on the roads - that not only will their pride and joy become a piece of scrap metal, but also that they could be confined to a wheelchair, or worse.

The problem has nothing to do with car manufacturers - they are striving to achieve automotive excellence by producing cars that perform well, are comfortable and most importantly, safe. These days it is virtually impossible to buy a car without an airbag - in fact, most cars have more than two airbags. Car manufacturers have gone a long way in the past decade with regards to occupant and pedestrian safety. It is the idiots that get behind the wheel that causes problems for the rest of us responsible road users.

Also a plane cant really collide with other planes.

Yes, it can. Have you never heard of a plane crash?

I dunno, it just seems dumb that cars can go 150 km/h when the most they should be able to drive is 110km on freeway.

I don't agree. Australia has one of the lowest speed limits in the world. Look at the Autobahns in Germany, for instance, where cars can travel in excess of 200km/h. It is ridiculous that Australia has such low speed limits which are, needlessly, rigourously enforced. Such measures would see a lot of drivers watching their speed instead of watching where they're going.

Thats a good speed, whats the point of overtaking.

No, it's not a good speed, especially when you're travelling vast distances. There has been talk, in WA, at least, to increase our state speed limit from 110km/h to 130km/h, and I'm fully supportive of that, given the vast amount of straight country roads that we have over here (since we have no mountains to negotiate). Driving long distances at low speeds is definitely a good cure for insomnia - it is dead boring, and driver attention could waver.

Speed in itself does NOT kill, it is the impact with a solid object after losing control that does the damage. If everyone can drive safely at high speeds, we wouldn't have this problem. It is the idiots who think they are invincible and get behind the wheel that causes problems for the rest of us.

 

[deeman12]

It doesnt matter how much education you get, you can still make a mistake and have a accident. IMO accidents are always going to happen, so you might aswell try to make sure that there is less damage.

 

[BomberFletch31]

It doesnt matter how much education you get, you can still make a mistake and have a accident. IMO accidents are always going to happen, so you might aswell try to make sure that there is less damage.

Yes, accidents will always happen, mistakes will always be made. But there is risk involved in everything we do, no matter what it is - you could get hit by a bus crossing the road, you could drown in the swimming pool. I know, let's ban pedestrians from crossing the road, let's ban all backyard swimming pools ...

There is always a degree of accepted risk. When you drive on the roads, there is a risk that you may not return home alive. But that's a risk that people take in order to travel places.

 

[BomberGal]

It doesnt matter how much education you get, you can still make a mistake and have a accident. IMO accidents are always going to happen, so you might aswell try to make sure that there is less damage.

So, experienced drivers will still be OK over 110kmh on open country roads. If you are behind a truck doing 105 and the limit is 110, you are perfectly entitled to overtake. It's also annoying to be stuck behind a truck, and it can be very distracting. Pulling over until it is out of sight is not only likely to take some time, but if you are travelling faster than the truck, you will probably catch it again.

Unless an experienced driver is doing something stupid like 200kmh, then their accidents are probably less likely due to speed alone and more likely due to fatigue, conditions, other drivers, unfamiliar roads, overfamiliary, etc. Stopping cars from going over 110 is not going to stop these accidents, as all of these can happen well below 110.

Also, what happens in an emergency situation?

Of course we need better driver education, and longer mandatory hours for learners (both things being implemented), but stopping cars from going over a certain speed probably isn't going to prevent all that many deaths.

 

[Heisenberg_]

So pull to the side for a few seconds until the truck pisses of, its a small price to pay if it could save your life.

Whats the point of that, you will catch the ****ing thing again anyway, whats the big deal with passing the truck anyway?
That is really the dumbest suggestion I have seen in a while

Come back and give you're opinion when you can actually drive a car, then you will understand much better, 105 is not fast on a highway, its slow going and very boring on a long stretch of road, and in many cases is very dangerous due to driver fatigue, thats why the speed limit should be increased on some highways.

 

[raikkonen]

Raise the driving age. 16 is way too young to be able to get your L's. Bring it up to 18, into line with the legal drinking, smoking, marriage, voting age etc.

I dont like being behind trucks for the pure reason that when they slow down, they take a long time to get back up to speed. A car however, could be 2km further down the road by the time a truck could get from 0-100kmph. One cannot see past trucks either, a safety issue in my mind. And if you are too close to them, they cannot see you either. It is safer for cars to be infront of trucks, unless there is a need to brake suddenly and then you are screwed...

 

[BomberGal]

Raise the driving age. 16 is way too young to be able to get your L's. Bring it up to 18, into line with the legal drinking, smoking, marriage, voting age etc.

The problem with raising it to 18 is that a lot of people move out then, finish school, etc. If they want to go out and get a job, and need to drive to work, they won't be able to. Or if they've had to move out of home, then they will not have their parents around to teach them to drive. And while you're 16 you're still in school, which provides good opportunities for schools to teach driver education and provide driving courses.

I think 16 is OK for learner's, but there really needs to be a stronger emphasis on lots of practise before getting your Ps. And making it necessary to spend at least two years on your Ls - which I think they're doing now.

 

[Perrin]

Speed limiting cars to 110 km/hr could cost more lives than it would save. Most drivers always get impatient behind slower moving vehicles (It's irrational I know) and will try their hardest to get past. Much safer to break the law and overtake as quick as possible than stay on the other side of the rode sitting on the speed limit. Having said that I can't see why any cars need to travel faster than say 140 km/hr.

 

[deeman12]

Yeh i know what you mean, but the fact remains that the most we should be driving on the roads are 110km. Just because you get restless it doesnt mean that you can go over the speed limit by 30 km.

 

[carntheroos4eva]

It is worth your money to take public transport.

 

[chickens_law]

I wonder if tractors can go that fast on country roads?

 

[TuskenRaider]

Come back and give you're opinion when you can actually drive a car, then you will understand much better, 105 is not fast on a highway, its slow going and very boring on a long stretch of road, and in many cases is very dangerous due to driver fatigue, thats why the speed limit should be increased on some highways.

Very good point. Speed laws are almost arbitrary, in that it is ridiculous to say that 110kph is a safe speed on a dry, clear day on the Hume Freeway, yet still safe on a wet, foggy day on the same road. Drivers have to drive to the conditions of the day. On a dry day on the Hume Freeway 130kph would be far safer than driving at 100kph on with heavy rain pouring down.

I know you can't have different speed limits for different weather conditions but hopefully you get my point.