Welcome to the Zombie Zone - statewide 90kmh rural limit in NSW?

[Bud Bud]

Originally Posted by mrbaxr6t

you mean to tell me that cars will crash at 90 kmh due to fatigue, inattention, and distraction and at 130 kmh they will not? One cannot guarantee that people won't become complacent or used to traveling at 130kmh

mrbaxr6t have you driven on open limit roads like in Europe? Are you commenting from experience or from what you think is right? not having a go but more curious if you have any real experience driving in those conditions.

Brazen you are absolutely right on the money!

[FPV+fteT3]

I do not condone speeding but when you are hustling your car along you are paying a lot more attention to whats going on than when your doing 90 especially on quiet country roads yes they are not highways but there not all goat tracks either seems commonsense is lost in todays world.
Modern vehicles can for the most part cope with higher speeds than cars built 20years ago with all the safety features so why must the speed limits keep dropping?
Here's a news flash country roads have NEVER met any criteria in any way shape or form in regard to highways this is not new. Soon it will be quicker to walk.

[sgt_doofey]

Originally Posted by Bud Bud

mrbaxr6t have you driven on open limit roads like in Europe? Are you commenting from experience or from what you think is right? not having a go but more curious if you have any real experience driving in those conditions.

The only open limit roads in Europe as far as I am aware and have driven on is the German Autobahns. If our roads were of the same quality, then there probably wouldn't be a problem with unrestricted speed limits. We unfortunately have a long way to go. Different driving manners goes a long way too. Over there, everyone gets out of each others way. Makes for a much more pleasant driving experience. Just watch your rear view mirror for the fast traveling cars.
170km/h in a Peugeot 206 1.4L HDi! That was fun! I didn't have the guts to push it up to 200km/h and I don't think the wife would have let me anyway, let alone the car
As for the changes up our way, it was to reduce road fatalities. These were mainly occurring due to tourists driving in the area and not knowing the roads. They'd come across a 4-way intersection which have a stop sign for them, ignore the stop sign and continue through. A car coming from their left or right then t-bones them at 100km/h. There were a few of those. They even changed the surface of the road to patches of coarser bitumen to warn of the upcoming stop sign. Didn't help.

[UNR8D]

im sorry i fail to see how pandering to the minority who are just brain dead moron's when 50,0000 other people can do 100 through the same intersection safely every year...

if you get T boned at 90 your going to die, if you get T boned at 100 YOUR GOING TO DIE... ffs what is with this mentality.

and as for crashes, no head on is exacty BOTH cars doing the speed limit, both and at least 1 would be hard under brakes and possibly swerving to avoid the colision, im yet to see a FULL FRONTAL at speed limit for both cars at point of impact, im yet to hear of one as well.

[Swordsman88]

Originally Posted by UNR8D

im sorry i fail to see how pandering to the minority who are just brain dead moron's when 50,0000 other people can do 100 through the same intersection safely every year...

if you get T boned at 90 your going to die, if you get T boned at 100 YOUR GOING TO DIE... ffs what is with this mentality.

and as for crashes, no head on is exacty BOTH cars doing the speed limit, both and at least 1 would be hard under brakes and possibly swerving to avoid the colision, im yet to see a FULL FRONTAL at speed limit for both cars at point of impact, im yet to hear of one as well.

best to save your fingers the bother of typing UNR8D....this is a battle sane road sense has well and truly lost to the myopic beaurecrats and simpleton public...who are as bad at driving as they are at picking their leaders...

Of course to come out against such stupid rulemaking is to appear a 'hoon' and some sort of serial speeder that ignores all common sense and just does whatever speed he likes. Of course this has nothing to do with it at all...its all about judgement of risk versus reward. Given it has been proven that slower highway (and even somewhat dodgy rural roads meet this criteria) driving on deserted roads leads to greater inatention and single vehicle accidents then higher posted speed limits (whithin reason...) then i'd like to know the supposed justification of this latest law change....

I have here a couple of older 'driver training' handbooks. Just little books that were given to new drivers back in the 60s and then another from the early 80s. The amount of constructive advice in these books that not only would drastically help reduce current road deaths (methods of maintaining concentration, info on stopping distances, how to properly flow a car and correct slides, even maintenenance etc.) is not funny. Equally disturbing is how much of it is now either heavilly frowned upon or ruled as downright illegal!! There is one bit that advises 'where safe to do so' accelerate firmly when overtaking on dual cariageways to minimise the lenght of time and distance on the 'wrong' side of the road. FFS the law now says you CAN'T exceed the speed limit to do this....even by 1km/h....

There was a backlash against mandotary sentencing in america not long ago because it was ruled that it 'removed the judges right of discretion'. This is exactly what the current road 'safety' agenda does. It seeks to propumlgate a driving populace that borders on lemmings, by fostering utter inantention and removing any degree of judgement and personal responsibility. In short, the less thinking you do as a driver the better. How can this be safe?? :

[Swordsman88]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

I have no opposition to roads being marked 90 zones if their condition only allows this speed to afford road user safety in the specific area. I do oppose a statewide limit of 90, many roads do safely allow higher speed than this and see the benefit of lower speed from the perspective of vehicle control, hazard detection/reaction and vehicle impact kinematics being adversely offset by increases in complacency, boredom and fatigue eventuating from less driver involvement and increases in travel time.

Well said gecko. Fact is that based on my experience driving around QLD alot of roads in rural areas have little if no signage at all. Given the default rural limit would become 90, you would have to signs erected noting 100, 110 etc. on the relevant, low use, sufficient quality stretches. It would take years for this to happen if at all. Most regional areas might just not bother.....

End of the day its driver judgement based on road condition, vehicle, driver skill level, weather and traffic. Until proper training of drivers in this and numerous other areas occurs all of this 'posted limit' debate is not worth squat.....

[balthazarr]

Originally Posted by sgt_doofey

The only open limit roads in Europe as far as I am aware and have driven on is the German Autobahns. If our roads were of the same quality, then there probably wouldn't be a problem with unrestricted speed limits. ....

No chance that will ever happen. Saw a doco on the building/construction of the Autobahns... amazing stuff. It would probably bankrupt the country just to upgrade the Hume from Melbourne to Sydney to a similar standard.

While I would love to see higher speed limits, I doubt it will happen any time soon, not in the current political climate at least. Hitting a roo or wombat at 110km/h is bad enough...

As for the fatigue factor... don't underestimate how quickly fatigue sets in the faster you go. At higher speeds, your brain is busy processing things at speeds it was never designed to do, you tend to hold the steering wheel tighter, etc. Look at race drivers, after a 2 hour race, they're wiped out... and they're professional athletes. Remember that public roads need to cater to the lowest common denominator.

[UNR8D]

the lowest common denominator should be catching the bus....

im sorry but if you cant operate a machine your deemed unfit for the job, so you dont get it, if you cant drive a vehicle comfortably at 130kmh on the hume/newell/M1 then you DONT deserve a licance as you dont have the skills required to do the job.

winge all you like, but you should either have the natural ability, or get the training... if you dont do or have either then catch a train/plane/bus.

[Citric GT]

I think its time to get a 4wd. No point in having a grunty car with good handling anymore.

[balthazarr]

Originally Posted by UNR8D

the lowest common denominator should be catching the bus....

im sorry but if you cant operate a machine your deemed unfit for the job, so you dont get it, if you cant drive a vehicle comfortably at 130kmh on the hume/newell/M1 then you DONT deserve a licance as you dont have the skills required to do the job.

I don't disagree, but that doesn't mean it will ever happen. It'd be political suicide.

That and the people that would whinge and complain the loudest about tougher testing/training will probably just end up driving without a licence anyway.

winge all you like, but you should either have the natural ability, or get the training... if you dont do or have either then catch a train/plane/bus.

No whinging mate... I agree.

[BENT_8]

So your saying Joe Bloggs, who lives in a residential area with 50k speed limits needs to do a course to take his once a year trip through country areas so you can have 130k limits...lol
As has been said, the reason for lowering the speed limit is to cover the most inexperienced drivers who have paid their taxes/rego/insurance just like you.

It was mentioned that driving through the NT with unrestricted speed limits allowed for and extra 500km in a 15hr day, do you honestly expect people to believe that you were as attentive in the 15th hour at 170k's as in the 1st or 5th...please.
Travelling at those speeds for that length of time is an accicent looking for a place to happen.
Whilst i dont agree with lowering the limits i do oppose lifting them to suit hardened drivers when the majority are not.

[ltd_on20s]

this will juts get more people to rebel and break the speed limit.

more people rebel
more people lose their license
more fines
more people driving unlicensed
more accidents with unlicesend drivers
more unpaid fines
more courts wedged with unlicensend drivers

and around and around we go.

just ban private wheeled transport.

just goes to show how backwards the "lucky" country has become.

[UNR8D]

Originally Posted by BENT_8

So your saying Joe Bloggs, who lives in a residential area with 50k speed limits needs to do a course to take his once a year trip through country areas so you can have 130k limits...lol
As has been said, the reason for lowering the speed limit is to cover the most inexperienced drivers who have paid their taxes/rego/insurance just like you.

It was mentioned that driving through the NT with unrestricted speed limits allowed for and extra 500km in a 15hr day, do you honestly expect people to believe that you were as attentive in the 15th hour at 170k's as in the 1st or 5th...please.
Travelling at those speeds for that length of time is an accicent looking for a place to happen.
Whilst i dont agree with lowering the limits i do oppose lifting them to suit hardened drivers when the majority are not.

if you drive on australian roads you should be able to do 20/30/40/50/70/80/90/100/110 where applicable, if you hold a licance that enables you to drive on all of those roads, you should be able to do so last time I checked licances didnt just give you an area in which to drive.

yes you should be able to do 130 on national highways, the newell is a great example of this and no I am far from an arm chair moron when it comes to driving, I have owned a limo doing over 3000ks a week and just come back from doing 7000k's in 7 days through QLD NSW and VIC.

doing 130 you are alot more alert then you are at 110 and certainly more alert than brain numbing 90.

if you feel comfortable then drive 5 hours straight, I do... some cant so you stop ever 1/2 hours... not the point, point is 130 is safe in certain conditions on certain roads

[flappist]

Originally Posted by BENT_8

So your saying Joe Bloggs, who lives in a residential area with 50k speed limits needs to do a course to take his once a year trip through country areas so you can have 130k limits...lol
As has been said, the reason for lowering the speed limit is to cover the most inexperienced drivers who have paid their taxes/rego/insurance just like you.

It was mentioned that driving through the NT with unrestricted speed limits allowed for and extra 500km in a 15hr day, do you honestly expect people to believe that you were as attentive in the 15th hour at 170k's as in the 1st or 5th...please.
Travelling at those speeds for that length of time is an accicent looking for a place to happen.
Whilst i dont agree with lowering the limits i do oppose lifting them to suit hardened drivers when the majority are not.

And that is the problem.

There is a mentality that if the speed limit is 100 you MUST DO 100, not 90, not 105, not anything EXCEPT 100.

In a 100 zone when you catch up to a car doing 80 there is a "get out of the road" thought whereas is you are doing 100 and get overtaken there is a "bloody maniac speeder" thought.
You are doing the speed limit and that is the speed EVERYONE MUST DO.

If you are held up by someone going slower there is no way to catch up because you are limited even if the road is perfect and you are the only car for 50 km. If you sneak up over the limit there is extras stress that you may get caught which adds to fatigue.

If an incompetent driver (who really should not be licensed) cannot control a vehicle at 130 then they can drive at 100 or take a bus. Making everything easier for dumb people and the idea that everyone is equal is why Australia is such a mess.

There are many country drivers who cannot handle driving in peak hour multi lane traffic jams, variable lane directions or multi lane traffic lights.
Should all urban roads be made single lane to accomodate them just in case they want to go to the city once a year?

In the old open zones THERE WAS NO SPEED LIMIT.

This meant you can do as fast or as slow as you want to and it may come to a shock to all of you southern city wowers but because it was perfectly legan most people did NOT go 500km/h and most of those who did only did it once or twice (until they worked out how much fuel they were using) or when they were no where near anyone else.

On my trips up to NT some of the things I noticed constantly:

1) When there was a section of road where you could not see to overtake easily and there was a line behind a truck or caravan all of the verhicles werre well spaced rather than up each others bums and no one overtook untill it was very clear.
This does NOT happen in any other place I have driven in Australia (and I have driven in all states and territories.

2) When high speed vehicles approach each other in opposite directions they tend to slow down a bit, I suspect this is to reduce the "wind shock".

3) When cars caught up to me at a great rate of knots they slowed and only overtook me at maybe 20 or 30km/h faster than me before zooming off in the distance.

When there is no limit there is no urgency, you can catch up any lost time if needed.

[MAD]

Originally Posted by BENT_8

It was mentioned that driving through the NT with unrestricted speed limits allowed for and extra 500km in a 15hr day, do you honestly expect people to believe that you were as attentive in the 15th hour at 170k's as in the 1st or 5th...please.

I dare say that 15hrs would be sharing the drive.


I've done a couple of trips to Canberra and quite a few to Kerang.
At the speed limits of either 100 or 110 I reckon I start to feel the onset of fatigue after the about 1.5-2hrs.
On the trips to Canberra (after the border and on good sections of road, not the first stretch after the border, I've seen better roads in national parks) I often slotted behind a 'decoy' and sat on 130-135 and didnt feel any fatigue. Not even after we reached Canberra, because I was then constantly greeted with traffic situations that required my full attention (roundabouts, traffic lights, intersections)

If you constantly have something to do your mind needs to be awake and alert. If you dont need to pay attention you fall asleep.

The saying "mind numbingly boring" is not just a saying.

And a lot of the Hume Hwy, from Melb-Canberra, at the speed limit IS mind numbingly boring.

[UNR8D]

thank you flappist....

[Brazen]

Originally Posted by BENT_8

So your saying Joe Bloggs, who lives in a residential area with 50k speed limits needs to do a course to take his once a year trip through country areas so you can have 130k limits...lol
As has been said, the reason for lowering the speed limit is to cover the most inexperienced drivers who have paid their taxes/rego/insurance just like you.

Its a speed LIMIT, not speed MINIMUM, if Joe Bloggs does not feel comfortable, or his vehicle is towing, etc, he can choose to drive below 130kmh if he feels. Setting rural speed limits only for the city dwellers who do the once a year rural trip is ridiculous. If I live in a rural area or I am a capable driver, I am then forced to drive at this low speed ALL YEAR ROUND, which will cause me to tire, get frustrated, get fatigued, get distracted and not pay enough attention.

I find it a real-cop out this mentality that speed limits have to be set for the extreme lowest common denominator, all this mentality does is fuel the ammunition for zealots who want Australians to drive at low speeds in rural areas.

I reiterate, if limits are set at 130kmh then capable drivers can drive at this speed. If not confident, drivers can drive below the limit (like they can do now) and be swiftly overtaken.

I also feel people underestimate the ability for someone to drive at 130kmh its quite a good speed to sit on, many countries find 130kmh to be the best compromise between the levels of skills and concentration required to move safely.

[aussie muscle]

Originally Posted by FPV+fteT3

Modern vehicles can for the most part cope with higher speeds than cars built 20years ago with all the safety features so why must the speed limits keep dropping?

when i had an old 1986 hyundai, i basically had to follow the yellow recommended curve signs. in a new XR8, i basically do 100 around anything over 65.

the number of people that get fined for speeding should be the defining benchmark as to if the speed limit is high enough. :togo:

[Brazen]

Originally Posted by aussie muscle

the number of people that get fined for speeding should be the defining benchmark as to if the speed limit is high enough. :togo:

California (and many US states) has a law to this effect, the law states that the limit is set to the 85th percentile, basically meaning the limit is set to what on average the traffic flow deems to be appropriate for the road. This is to prevent police or other authorities from lowering limits on some roads and using them as cash cows.

[Bud Bud]

Originally Posted by sgt_doofey

The only open limit roads in Europe as far as I am aware and have driven on is the German Autobahns. If our roads were of the same quality, then there probably wouldn't be a problem with unrestricted speed limits. We unfortunately have a long way to go.

I know what you mean. I drove from Paris to Munich last October and in France the limit was 130 kph and in Germany it was mostly 120 kph. I was fortunate enough to also hop onto the Autobahn and man was that an incredible experience! I easily had Audi and Mercs passing me at over 200 kph at times. I was mostly doing between 130 and 150 kph partly because I had a little Opel diesel T that resembled a Getz and partly because it was plenty fast enough for me at the time. All I can say is that for those of you who think that you become fatigued at a higher speed setting over long distances (600 ks) then you well may well be surprised. You actually feel incredibly alert.

In France the highway (except for the bloody tolls every 20-40 ks) was seemingly almost identical to the freeway leading from Adelaide to Tailem Bend or from Melbourne to Ballarat. In fact there were times that the scenery at about 100ks from Paris took on the same dry grass yellow look that you would see after Mt Barker. If you did not know better you would have thought you were in S.A. The road corners and cambers were incredibly familiar. They were also mainly duel carriageways through this region as well.

After this experience and also driving from LA to Palm Springs and LA to Vegas at around 70-80mph (I know the limit is 55 but nobody does it!), I now know that we have got it so wrong in Australia. In a Country that is the sheer size of Australia that has a mandate of constantly looking at reducing speed limits instead of creating better road infrastructure, is a just a recipe for a disaster. I will also add that since my Euro experience I have also come to the conclusion that 100 kph over 500 or so ks is extremely soul taxing and hypnotic. No wonder people fall a sleep behind the wheel. Have you ever noticed that cars drone bad between 1800 rpm and 2000 rpm if you have a bad exhaust fitted? Have a look at what rev range you sit on when you set a car at 100 kph. You may not have drone but the hum from the resonance is still there.

Originally Posted by sgt_doofey

As for the changes up our way, it was to reduce road fatalities. These were mainly occurring due to tourists driving in the area and not knowing the roads. They'd come across a 4-way intersection which have a stop sign for them, ignore the stop sign and continue through. A car coming from their left or right then t-bones them at 100km/h. There were a few of those. They even changed the surface of the road to patches of coarser bitumen to warn of the upcoming stop sign. Didn't help.

I was also a tourist in Europe then but I still had to obey the road rules there as well. There is absolutly no exuse for ignoring stop signs etc. iether. If you are talking about the corner at the Stuart Hwy, well I do not know why some people have so much trouble there.

Good post.

[Bud Bud]

Originally Posted by Brazen

Its a speed LIMIT, not speed MINIMUM, if Joe Bloggs does not feel comfortable, or his vehicle is towing, etc, he can choose to drive below 130kmh if he feels.

I reiterate, if limits are set at 130kmh then capable drivers can drive at this speed. If not confident, drivers can drive below the limit (like they can do now) and be swiftly overtaken.

I also feel people underestimate the ability for someone to drive at 130kmh its quite a good speed to sit on, many countries find 130kmh to be the best compromise between the levels of skills and concentration required to move safely.

Once again Brazen spot on!

I do not know why some people have such a hard time understanding this rationale.

[sgt_doofey]

Originally Posted by Bud Bud

After this experience and also driving from LA to Palm Springs and LA to Vegas at around 70-80mph (I know the limit is 55 but nobody does it!),

I was driving along the 101 outside San Fransisco back in 2003 when I was over there. I was traveling at about 70 - 75mph in a 65mph zone, keeping up with the rest of traffic on my way to work. Then a cop passed me. I packed my dacks but they just kept on driving!
The only thing I found with driving overseas was when the traffic came to a standstill, it came to a standstill very quickly, so you had to be on your toes should the car in front of you brake suddenly.

If you are talking about the corner at the Stuart Hwy, well I do not know why some people have so much trouble there.

Nope, the back roads between Tanunda and Angaston. Sigersdorf, Stockwell and Light Pass Roads are the offenders.

[MAD]

Originally Posted by sgt_doofey

The only thing I found with driving overseas was when the traffic came to a standstill, it came to a standstill very quickly, so you had to be on your toes should the car in front of you brake suddenly.

You mean its a good idea to travel at a safe distance behind the car in front? Who'd of thought. :nutsycuck

[sgt_doofey]

Originally Posted by MAD

You mean its a good idea to travel at a safe distance behind the car in front? Who'd of thought. :nutsycuck

Yes, agreed, but with the volume of traffic over there, you'd regularly see cars going from 130-150km/h down to zero very quickly due to some unforeseen traffic condition, or sometimes for no real apparent reason.
Having said that, due to population numbers and the vastness of this great land we call home, you'd be hard pressed to find similar traffic scenarios here at that speed out on the open road.

[BENT_8]

Originally Posted by Brazen

Its a speed LIMIT, not speed MINIMUM, if Joe Bloggs does not feel comfortable, or his vehicle is towing, etc, he can choose to drive below 130kmh if he feels. Setting rural speed limits only for the city dwellers who do the once a year rural trip is ridiculous. If I live in a rural area or I am a capable driver, I am then forced to drive at this low speed ALL YEAR ROUND, which will cause me to tire, get frustrated, get fatigued, get distracted and not pay enough attention.

I find it a real-cop out this mentality that speed limits have to be set for the extreme lowest common denominator, all this mentality does is fuel the ammunition for zealots who want Australians to drive at low speeds in rural areas.

I reiterate, if limits are set at 130kmh then capable drivers can drive at this speed. If not confident, drivers can drive below the limit (like they can do now) and be swiftly overtaken.

I also feel people underestimate the ability for someone to drive at 130kmh its quite a good speed to sit on, many countries find 130kmh to be the best compromise between the levels of skills and concentration required to move safely.

C'mon man, dont tell me you've never come up on a 'L' plater in rural areas doing 80 in a hundred zone, or some old fuddy on a Sunday drive, hell where did the term 'Sunday driver' come from.
Fact is there are alot of paying road users who arent comfortable doing 110 never mind 130.
Then i guess for your arguments sake you've never come up on one of these people and complained that the speed limit is X and their slowing you down.
We've all been there.
Quite often it is frustrated drivers behind these slow road users that make rash overtaking decisions and get themselves killed, especially in holiday periods with vans/boats etc.

The 2000k a day driver never mentioned shared driving so one must assume it was a solo effort.

Then we must consider the clowns driving borderline unroadworthy cars or cars with retreads. Admittedly both these situations are not ideal, but not everyone can afford the latest car or $150 tyres.
How would you feel if some peanut does 130k towards you, blows a retread and ploughs head on into you all because the limit is 130 so he feels he can do it.
Might not be smart, but we live in a country where consideration is far from paramount and ALL drivers must be factored in, not just people with your agenda.
I've been travelling around this country for years, never had a speeding ticket in rural areas and never felt the need to go faster to stay awake, Perhaps your attention span needs to be addressed, many people were born before the days of Attention Deficit disorder diagnosis, u may be one of them.

As i said before, i oppose dropping limits to 90, but i also oppose lifting them too.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by BENT_8

C'mon man, dont tell me you've never come up on a 'L' plater in rural areas doing 80 in a hundred zone, or some old fuddy on a Sunday drive, hell where did the term 'Sunday driver' come from.
Fact is there are alot of paying road users who arent comfortable doing 110 never mind 130.
Then i guess for your arguments sake you've never come up on one of these people and complained that the speed limit is X and their slowing you down.
We've all been there.
Quite often it is frustrated drivers behind these slow road users that make rash overtaking decisions and get themselves killed, especially in holiday periods with vans/boats etc.

The 2000k a day driver never mentioned shared driving so one must assume it was a solo effort.

Then we must consider the clowns driving borderline unroadworthy cars or cars with retreads. Admittedly both these situations are not ideal, but not everyone can afford the latest car or $150 tyres.
How would you feel if some peanut does 130k towards you, blows a retread and ploughs head on into you all because the limit is 130 so he feels he can do it.
Might not be smart, but we live in a country where consideration is far from paramount and ALL drivers must be factored in, not just people with your agenda.
I've been travelling around this country for years, never had a speeding ticket in rural areas and never felt the need to go faster to stay awake, Perhaps your attention span needs to be addressed, many people were born before the days of Attention Deficit disorder diagnosis, u may be one of them.

As i said before, i oppose dropping limits to 90, but i also oppose lifting them too.

Well I do not drive in Adelaide very much but I have heard there has been at least a couple of accidents there so I think the the speed limit in Adelaide should be dropped to 10km/h for safety reasons.

That will make it ok for bad drivers and those with unroadworthy vehicles to run into each as much as they like without too much damage.

The only people who will be affected badly by this will be normal Adelaide people (now there is a concept ) and it is only a small city with everything close together so why should the rest of Australia care.

If it just saves ONE life.......

Or am I just being ignorant, myopic, utopian and selfish and not taking into account the real world and situations that do not affect me personally?

[UNR8D]

Originally Posted by BENT_8

C'mon man, dont tell me you've never come up on a 'L' plater in rural areas doing 80 in a hundred zone, or some old fuddy on a Sunday drive, hell where did the term 'Sunday driver' come from.
Fact is there are alot of paying road users who arent comfortable doing 110 never mind 130.
Then i guess for your arguments sake you've never come up on one of these people and complained that the speed limit is X and their slowing you down.
We've all been there.
Quite often it is frustrated drivers behind these slow road users that make rash overtaking decisions and get themselves killed, especially in holiday periods with vans/boats etc.

The 2000k a day driver never mentioned shared driving so one must assume it was a solo effort.

Then we must consider the clowns driving borderline unroadworthy cars or cars with retreads. Admittedly both these situations are not ideal, but not everyone can afford the latest car or $150 tyres.
How would you feel if some peanut does 130k towards you, blows a retread and ploughs head on into you all because the limit is 130 so he feels he can do it.
Might not be smart, but we live in a country where consideration is far from paramount and ALL drivers must be factored in, not just people with your agenda.
I've been travelling around this country for years, never had a speeding ticket in rural areas and never felt the need to go faster to stay awake, Perhaps your attention span needs to be addressed, many people were born before the days of Attention Deficit disorder diagnosis, u may be one of them.

As i said before, i oppose dropping limits to 90, but i also oppose lifting them too.

what if they were doing 112kmh
what if they fell asleep due to la la land 90kmh speed restrictions
what if they were too distracted by the cd they were putting in instead of focusing on the road ahead

WHAT IF PEOPLE USED THIER BRAINS..., DRIVE a roadworthy car or DONT DRIVE, i dont care if you cant afford it, if you cant afford to drive then DONT.

[Brazen]

Originally Posted by BENT_8

C'mon man, dont tell me you've never come up on a 'L' plater in rural areas doing 80 in a hundred zone, or some old fuddy on a Sunday drive, hell where did the term 'Sunday driver' come from.
Fact is there are alot of paying road users who arent comfortable doing 110 never mind 130.
Then i guess for your arguments sake you've never come up on one of these people and complained that the speed limit is X and their slowing you down.
We've all been there.
Quite often it is frustrated drivers behind these slow road users that make rash overtaking decisions and get themselves killed, especially in holiday periods with vans/boats etc.

1. Drivers encounter slower vehicles every day on the road, buses, trucks etc. and the world doesnt end.

2. The 130kmh zones would be on roads appropriate for the speed, so they wont be windy hilly roads, so people would be comfortable at higher speed. So the speed differential between confident and not confident wont be as massive.

3. The 130kmh zones as mentioned above would be on roads relatively straight and flat - ideal for swift and safe overtaking.

4. A very small factor but its a different world nowadays, cheap airfares and expensive petrol mean that generally many people not comfortable with long distance driving simply take planes. Generally the drivers remaining are competent and are being killed by these mind-numbingly low speed limits.

5. At a higher travelling speed, people would be less frustrated, if they encounter a slower driver its not such a big deal as they can wait until safe and move on their way. At 100kmh I feel people are much more tired and frustrated and likely to make stupid overtaking decisions.

[mrbaxr6t]

Originally Posted by Bud Bud

mrbaxr6t have you driven on open limit roads like in Europe? Are you commenting from experience or from what you think is right? not having a go but more curious if you have any real experience driving in those conditions.

the statistics of which I speak were given to us all in high school as part of the curriculum so yes the data is somewhat antiquated (from the mid 90's) and the point to it all I believe was to show us that speed coupled with headons is deadly because of the addition of both vehicles' speeds.

I still am not seeing how one can assume that at 130 kmh people will be more attentive - maybe at first but people will given time become accustomed to traveling at this speed and begin to exhibit the behavior that the powers that be use to make the argument for a reduction - if we all were able to drive properly at 100/110 then maybe the limits would be increased, given that the roads can be safely traveled at 120/130 or more which alot cannot be driven at that speed due to poor maintenance and the like.

also - the reason for the reduction is because the lower skilled drivers amongst us are crashing/injuring/dying on the roads - want higher speed limits first we must drastically improve driver education. The driving standards of countries with open limit roads or higher limits have much better driver education than us here in Australia. Better driver education will not happen despite the fact that it will make the roads safer it costs alot of money.

[UNR8D]

http://www.autoblog.com/2009/10/27/r...ked-out-to-le/