Tasmanian speed limits to reduce to 90kmph

[TUF_302]

Oh FFS!!!, Worst idea ever made by the tas gov, bunch of kents!!

[DayTE]

On this website there is a email address for "consultation"

I'm just about to make my submission.

http://www.rstf.tas.gov.au/events/sa...s_consultation

[cjf]

What we need is a national motorists union.
I believe everyone who drives on Australian roads should be able to have a say in our road rules.
Then we could fight these type of ridiculous rules that the state government departments keep coming up with . State Departments of transport would have a hard time fighting a Aussie wide motorist body who could also negotiate registration and insurance for their members.

[jason71]

What a crock of S***.

Our cars are safer than 20 years ago. I'm sick of this bull***t.

If we keep listening to this we will believe it.

"And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed—if all records told the same tale—then the lie passed into history and became truth. 'Who controls the past' ran the Party slogan, 'controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.'"
- George Orwell, 1984, Book 1, Chapter 3

[sgt_doofey]

Originally Posted by RSAC web site

Why do you want to change things?

Speed is the most critical contributing factor in the event of a crash. In a crash, the human body can withstand only a certain amount of force before it is seriously or fatally injured.

Fair enough that speed is a critical contribution factor in the event of a crash. We can't deny that. The faster the speed the crash occurs at, the worse the damage to the car and it's occupants will be. Newton's Laws of Physics at work.
The real question that should be addressed by politicians is what is the most critical contributing factor that causes a crash? Prevent that, and speed has no meaning in the equation.

Maybe the governments should reduce all speed limits down to 20km/h? That way, when we fall asleep and drive off the road in to a tree, all that will happen is that the nudge we get from the tree will wake us back up again.

[lamborghinifan]

Well i thought for the sake of a couple of minutes i could voice my concern. if we have any real issues with this, stop whinging and actually do something about it. Here's my response.


To Whom it May Concern,
I write in response to the proposals outlined on the website about a lowered default speed limit. I Don't believe enough thought has been taken in this approach, and this "solution" is a short term
poor response to what are real issues that are being ignored.I believe driver training and road quality are fundamentally the bigger than just a blanket "speed kills"
approach which is not true. I believe many other things kill before speed is even a factor. I have travelled Tasmania extensively and have even been involved in two seperate traffic incidents.
Neither at which a lowered speed limit would have made any difference whatsoever. If the first person had had a drivers license, he may have been more skilled and not run up the rear of my car
as I stopped for a red traffic signal. In the second incident, the other vehicle, at fault, fled the scene with an uninsured, unregistered vehicle. Both issues which could easily have been avoided had the
concerned drivers not been on the road.
We live in a country that is too large to justify such a lowered default speed limit. More education on driving within you and your vehicled limits would be money better spent, although perhaps harder to show on a spreadsheet.
Below I respond to several official quotes.

"The Council is investigating these changes because expert advice indicates that lower speeds will lessen the number of serious crashes. On average we could expect to save 4 lives and 13 serious injuries every year on Tasmanian roads,"

I would be interested to see this "expert advice" open to the public, not in abbreviated form but the whole report.

"Speed is the most contributing factor to injury in the event of a crash, the forces that are exerted on the human body at impact are closely related to the speed.

This can be offset by the increased likelihood of crash due to fatigue.

"International and national research shows that a reduction of 1 km/h in speed can lead to a 2-3% reduction in casualty crashes (which is where people are either injured or killed).

I would like to see the statistics on this and what speed ranges the largest difference in injury severity occurred. I would agree that a large difference will occur at 50-60 km/h for example, but a crash into a solid object at 90-100 km/h will make very little difference to injury rates as injury will occur at both speeds. This is due to the fact that even at 90 km/h, it far exceeds the crash protection mechanisms of even the safest modern car.

Again, is this at the 90-100 km/h range or is this a statistic found at lower speeds and what roads were those statistics found on, urban, rural or combination?

Mr Gledhill said that a high proportion of casualty crashes in Tasmania occurred on rural roads.

As they do in all states due to increased speed and fatigue primarily. A 10 km/h reduction in speed may save a life or two in a crash but it may cause 20 more crashes. This phenomena has been experienced in the NT since they dropped the rural speed limit in 2006, they have seen an increase in the rural road toll (one of few states to increase).

"From 2005 to 2009, 45% of fatalities and 41% of serious injuries in Tasmania occurred on rural roads," he said

Again, in line with all other states.

"The benefits of reduced rural speed limits have already been experienced first-hand in Tasmania.

"Results from Australia's first rural safer speeds demonstrations, in the Kingborough and Tasman Municipalities, have shown that reduced limits have had a positive and substantial impact upon the local community.

What were the reductions and how far were people traveling. A reduction in local speed limits will not induce the fatigue issues a statewide reduction will so this evidence is flawed.

"For both sealed and gravel roads, over 80% of those surveyed either considered the new reduced limits to be appropriate or preferred further reductions.

Who was surveyed and what were the demographics of the survey group?

"Slower speeds would add very little to travel times. "

"Research has shown that, if travelling at 90 km/h instead of 100 km/h, the increase in travel time on average is about 6%," he said.

Which equates to a 6% increase in fatigue and therefore fatigue related crashes, the offset of those few lives saved commences.

"That means if your journey was supposed to take an hour, it would only take an extra three and a half minutes.

And statistically you are more likely to crash within 5 mins from your place of residence, will that figure now be 8.5 mins?

"There is also the added benefit of significant savings in terms of vehicle operating costs and greenhouse emissions. Fuel consumption increases significantly at speeds over 90 km/h. For example, travelling at 100km/h uses 10% more fuel than travelling at 90km/h.

A very broad unsubstantiated claim, this depends on the car. My large falcon utility, and SUV actually use more fuel at 80kph because they do not get into top gear, and are not working at the cruising speeds motor companies have spent millions of dollars developing them to run most efficiently at.

"Driving at lower speeds will also reduce wear and tear on tyres and brakes, which will save you money on maintaining your vehicle.

Clutching at straws here, with that speed reduction the saving here would be miniscule and not noteworthy.
Driving is not usually an excercise of saving money.

I trust you have a clear picture of my skepticism on the proposed changes.
Regards

[Rockape]

I think the reason they are doing this is they know that the lower they set the speed limits the more people will speed. And that means more money for the Govenment.

[ST]

This is the best idea Tasmania has had since legalised crime:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3cwJC6BM1w

But seriously, this will end up affecting much more than Tasmania if other state governments take notice (which they will). I like the 'statistics' they use to prove how beneficial it will be.

[peachey80]

Obsolute crock of $h!t.
The ironic thing about this is the day after this was floated about, we had a multiple fatality on the road that they propose not to change the speed limit FFS !!
The midland hwy should be multi carrige way, the amount of head on's we see is unreal, and the amount of traffic it gets these days warrent it. Instead of this revenue raising idea for your dohnuts, spend some of our tax money on making the road safer !

[DayTE]

Here is the email address. I hope a few letters have gone off.

saferspeeds@dier.tas.gov.au

[BFYOOT]

I agree with gecko on the fatigue issue. The road I travel each day changed from 90 and 100k/h down to prediminantly 80 the entire way for the same "reducing fatality" reason. I have found that the fatigue levels driving at this slower speed is so much greater than the 100k speeds due to the reduced concentration needed. The fuel usage is also greater because of the rev range the car sits in (80k revs too low for top gear, too high for lower gear), and even moreso gives the younger generation false confidence in driving. With a lack of 100k driving experience, the newer "sit and steer" generations aren't gaining the insight and experience in the mechanics and physics of driving a car moving at the higher speed. My prediction.....initial drop in fatalities, followed by a dramatic increase in the future years as the driving abilities reduce.
Good luck Tex and Tassie.

[ThaFlash]

does anyone know what the driving population of tassie is?

how important is population for revenue raising?

do they have the resources to police this?

fixed speed cameras etc...

[Keepleft]

The KISS trial outcome is studied by particular roads agency staffers in all states, and academia.
http://www.rstf.tas.gov.au/events/sa...s_consultation

The ultimate goal is to change ARR 25's existing 100km/h 'rural default' to 90km/h. For national harmonisation. (90km/h is the Euro rural default btw).

This trial outcome will in part determine if 'they' then make additional ARR draft for 80km/h - for unsealed application.

Long responses, such as those here - will be duly ignored and likely at most receive *your states* form letter response. Such matters are discussed in academia with complicit GovCo staffers; "outcome" is already decided upon, even when 'holding a public forum' for example.

I personally don't care about the rural default change, BUT I keep telling them we should NOT have removed speed derestriction (//) in NSW, with its old "PRIMA FACIE" 80km/h attachment.

Remember, this rural default change will still mean INDIVIDUAL lengths of road can still carry higher posted speed limits than say a default 90km/h, - where the road standard is sufficient to AUSROADS specification for highways.

NSW Parliament reinforces its authority to enact any speed-limit or derestriction it may desire for a length of road, despite ATC 'contract' done by Labor, or as otherwise 'managed' by the NSW Speed Zoning Guidelines. NSW state law will be supreme over any Commonwealth imposed speed restriction.

[OZQUAD44]

Gents applying logic to this argument is not going to work. Clearly the local government only have a limited understanding of logic. Clearly demonstrated by their simplistic approach to this issue.

The only way to address this issue is to send a letter to your local member advising them that you will vote for their opposition come the next election if this garbage is allowed to proceed.

I would suggest that someone from down Tassie way find the email address's for these elected people and posts them on here so like minded taswiegens can cast their displeasure towards this inane scheme.

[Keepleft]

Thing is, it's just a change to the rural "default" speed limit, as said, you could get in theory, high quality roads posted @ 100-130km/h etc.

The proposed limit/s only apply to roads not currently posted with a speedlimit
sign. The proposal does not reduce current sign posted limits.

I can't see voting mum n pops getting too upset.

[BENT_8]

So its not all doom and gloom Keepleft.

And honestly, the whole bloody island only measures 350km at its widest/longest points.
Whilst im not familiar with the place, just how fatigued could you get driving around a postage stamp?

Comparing this to the reduced speed limits in NT is also worthless as your talking greater distances at reduced speed there which would obviously induce fatigue.

Its proberbly the best place in the country to trial it.

[GTP owner]

Originally Posted by BENT_8

So its not all doom and gloom Keepleft.

And honestly, the whole bloody island only measures 350km at its widest/longest points.
Whilst im not familiar with the place, just how fatigued could you get driving around a postage stamp?

Comparing this to the reduced speed limits in NT is also worthless as your talking greater distances at reduced speed there which would obviously induce fatigue.

Its proberbly the best place in the country to trial it.

They are using the wedge principle. Start in one small council, then move to another, then the state. Yours will be on the list in time.

And although the state is only 350 km in width, try getting across from one side to the other in less than 6 hours! Fatigue is an issue. We have ice, moss, snow, unmarked off-camber corners, then big long boring straights in between where you lose concentration because you are stuck at some stupidly slow speed. That is why the bass hwy and the midland hwy have many head-on collisions each year.People stop concentrating due to the low limits.

So to suggest it is all ok because its NIMBY...more fool you.

[F6T]

Originally Posted by Keepleft

The ultimate goal is to change ARR 25's existing 100km/h 'rural default' to 90km/h. For national harmonisation. (90km/h is the Euro rural default btw).

This trial outcome will in part determine if 'they' then make additional ARR draft for 80km/h - for unsealed application.

Long responses, such as those here - will be duly ignored and likely at most receive *your states* form letter response. Such matters are discussed in academia with complicit GovCo staffers; "outcome" is already decided upon, even when 'holding a public forum' for example.

I have a horrible feeling that you are right about that.

[tex]

RACT chief executive

Harvey Lennon and Opposition infrastructure spokesman Rene Hidding called on the State Government yesterday to release details of which roads would be affected by the planned speed limit cut.

However, the plan was backed by an interstate industry expert who said that, without improvements to roads, reducing speeds was the only way to save lives.

Mr Lennon said the proposed reductions would have social and economic impacts on Tasmanians.

"If you increase the time for freight travel, then it is not the freight companies that will wear the cost of the trucks being on the road longer every day. Tasmanians will wear that freight cost," he said.

"In terms of social impact, people travelling on these roads to work will add a few minutes extra every day and over a week, a month, a year it adds up to a bit less time with families."

Mr Lennon said a blanket speed limit reduction to 90km/h on rural roads was a one-size-fits-all measure that would unfairly punish a large number of drivers instead of targeting a minority who broke the rules.

Mr Hidding said his office had been contacted by dozens of people concerned the reduction might involve regularly used roads.

"The Government must not use this speed limit reduction plan in order to avoid spending money on roads which were promised funding," he said.

"With dodgy rural roads, crumbling highways and a lack of a decent road maintenance program, the State Government could be doing a lot more to counter the road toll."

University of New South Wales Injury Risk Management Research Centre head of road safety Professor Raphael Grzebieta supported the proposal yesterday.

"If you don't have proper infrastructure, then you need to look at reducing the speed," he said.

"If people are happy to wear people driving on the road and being maimed and injured then don't touch the speed limit.

"The bottom line is you are trading off lives for speed."

Prof Grzebieta said fixing roads certainly helped to reduce crashes but if the Government did not have enough money to fix the roads it was left with very little choice.

"If you haven't got the money to fix the roads then you have to cut back speeds." he said.

Mr Lennon said the RACT was concerned that the speed limits would be used as a substitute to fixing road infrastructure.

Keepleft, that is not the way this story was run on the ABC news earlier in the week!

The ABC report posted a map of Tasmania, and the ONLY roads not proposed for reduction in speed limit was the Midland Highway, the Bass highway. Every other roadway in tasmania would have a 90kmph default speed limit, 80kmph for non sealed roads.

That's what was reported.

I might add, MOST roads in Tasmania are rural in any case!

[Polyal]

Originally Posted by GTP owner

They are using the wedge principle. Start in one small council, then move to another, then the state. Yours will be on the list in time.

And although the state is only 350 km in width, try getting across from one side to the other in less than 6 hours! Fatigue is an issue. We have ice, moss, snow, unmarked off-camber corners, then big long boring straights in between where you lose concentration because you are stuck at some stupidly slow speed. That is why the bass hwy and the midland hwy have many head-on collisions each year.People stop concentrating due to the low limits.

So to suggest it is all ok because its NIMBY...more fool you.

What gets me the most, and I did live there for 2 years, is that the main highway is a joke. IIRC thats where most fatalities occur, other than over exuberant tourists in the twisties.

Seriously, it would be interesting to know the % of traffic flow along there compared to the other areas in which they are targeting, where the deaths occur. AFAIK its all about the $$ as to why nothing has been done. It would cost a shed load but surely sooner or later it must be addressed.

[BENT_8]

Originally Posted by GTP owner

And although the state is only 350 km in width, try getting across from one side to the other in less than 6 hours! Fatigue is an issue. We have ice, moss, snow, unmarked off-camber corners, then big long boring straights in between where you lose concentration because you are stuck at some stupidly slow speed. That is why the bass hwy and the midland hwy have many head-on collisions each year.People stop concentrating due to the low limits.

So to suggest it is all ok because its NIMBY...more fool you.

You would be fatigued anywhere if you spent 6hrs behind the wheel, even Gecko on his cross NT drag race in the good ol days...

Moss, snow, ice and off camber corners you say, even more reason to lower limits i'd have thought.

Would you say it is the fault of the speed limit when an accident happens at 90km as a result of fatigue, or the driver who for whatever reason failed to recognise their state of fatigue and tried to go that extra few kms...

As for my area, well they recently dropped our rural limits to 100, now this has impacted significantly on me as the trip to the inlaws, some 170k's away, now takes an extra 7 minutes

[Director]

Tas state govt is suffering from inertia, cant make a decision, recession pending, poor cabinet ability and leadership.
The only policy they can adopt is one which will reap huge revenue and boost treasury coffers plus pay for the extra 10 mp's they want, good luck Tex, pushing ***** up hill mate.
Im in hobart and happy to help.

[GTP owner]

Originally Posted by BENT_8

You would be fatigued anywhere if you spent 6hrs behind the wheel, even Gecko on his cross NT drag race in the good ol days...

Moss, snow, ice and off camber corners you say, even more reason to lower limits i'd have thought.

No, it means that you cannot put an advisory speed limit on every corner, and for all contingencies. if you did that, then the road to queenstown would all be 40km/h due to the snow and ice risk. The speed limit is a maximum, not a goal. You have to learn how to drive to the conditions. Dumbing people down further by reducing the limits makes them feel even more secure in their ignorance and adds to the problem when they do come across black ice.

Last year I was driving over the hill to hobart. The road is a 100km/h road and will be reduced to 90. There was black and visible ice on it on one particular morning, I was doing about 40 to 50km/h though most of it, as I figured a crash at that speed would be survivable. The two young girls who we behind me we happy to go a lot faster - maybe 80. They slid head on into a car and killed the passenger. The lower limit would not have saved them. Using your logic, the limit should be 50? 40? Is this where we are heading on our roads?

[tex]

Ok, here's the appropriate contact details for objections to be lodged.

The ministers office (the minister responsible for Infrastructure amongst other things);

david.obyrne@dpac.tas.gov.au

The department responsible for collating submissions, and the proposal as it stands right now;

saferspeeds@dier.tas.gov.au


The proposal as it stands right now(various other information also available on this site);
http://www.rstf.tas.gov.au/events/sa...s_consultation

As I have said, public submissions close in around 6 weeks time, if you're inclined to act, please do so NOW.

Please do your best to make your submission, direct, courteous, and professional. The persons collating the submissions are not the ones making the decisions! DO NOT shoot the messenger! Remain courteous, or risk having your submission deleted before it is considered.

Please spread the word about what is transpiring down here. Provide these email addresses to all parties that are in a position to help, any / all associations, motoring groups, enthusiast clubs you may be a member of, or linked to - should be encouraged to lodge INDIVIDUAL submissions.

The more submissions we are able to generate, the better, the louder our voices will be heard.

As I have said when I first posted - don't be fooled into assuming this only going to effect Tasmania. It is not, and believe me when I say that other state governments are watching this develop very closely indeed. What happens down here WILL happen elsewhere.

I will post the email addresses elsewhere in the forum to gain maximum exposure.

Speak up now, or allow this to be bulldozed through legislation.

[tex]

My apologies for the mix up, below is the correct email address to the minister;

djob@dpac.tas.gov.au

[Keepleft]

Originally Posted by tex

RACT chief executive

Keepleft, that is not the way this story was run on the ABC news earlier in the week!

The ABC report posted a map of Tasmania, and the ONLY roads not proposed for reduction in speed limit was the Midland Highway, the Bass highway. Every other roadway in tasmania would have a 90kmph default speed limit, 80kmph for non sealed roads.

That's what was reported.

I might add, MOST roads in Tasmania are rural in any case!

In which case All other rural roads will have their existing speed limit signs, where installed, REMOVED, in order for the rural default to apply!

Should save dollars on speed sign purchase & install, replacement.

When leaving an urban area, people will see more use of the END Speed Limit sign. EG; END 50/60/70. This sign is not the speed derestriction sign.

[tex]

Yes Keepleft, the rsult is the same!

100 kmph will become 90.

Your point above does not in any way what-so-ever make the proposal any less significant!

Most of Tasmanias roadways are rural.

[aussie muscle]

A default limit is stupid, each road should be given a limit based on key factors such as quality, congestion, width (and width of shoulder), distance between towns, curves/twistyness, etc.

without improvements to roads, reducing speeds was the only way to save lives.

so, they don't have to spend any money on the roads, because when they get really bad, they can just reduce the speed limit. works for them!!

[Brazen]

Yeah it needs to be made political, department policies are developed by people who are promoted or hired on the basis of their own anti-speeding agendas, they are not going to change their mind.

I personally would like to see more scrutiny of 'expert advice' pretty ridiculous you can have universitys given $250,000 by state government to study 'road safety', then the next day the university says 'speed cameras are good'.

[Brazen]

Originally Posted by aussie muscle

so, they don't have to spend any money on the roads, because when they get really bad, they can just reduce the speed limit. works for them!!

What a load of crap, I hate these comments that the roads are SOOO bad we have to reduce limits. The roads are kept to standards and are constantly being improved. None of the reports have studied the conditions of the roads, they are basically making up facts to support their arguments.