Police slam 130km/h Hume Hwy stunt By WHEELS Magazine

[Trevor 57]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

Going faster forces you to concentrate more, and cutting down a trips length in time is even better.

going fast forces you to concentrate more, and studies have shown that high concentration levels increase fatigue levels dramatically.

[new2ford]

Originally Posted by Brazen

The road comparison is also a furphy, the roads in Europe are not made with magic fairy dust. They are built to the same international standards as here in Australia. Except in Europe the ice, snow, thaw and snow chains destroys the road surface and with the economic climate in Europe there is very few dollars with maintenance. Some modern Australian highways are what some European countries can only dream of. We are a world beater in construction, design and maintenance.

The driver training criticisms that are continually spouted is so overrated its not funny. Studies show its experience that matters - Australians drive significantly each year, we travel annual distances Europeans can only dream about. You judge a pilot by flight hours - not by their training course they did 20 years ago.

You've corrected the bit about roads, that's good, but it's not true that Australians drive greater distances. One, there's a lot of driving in European cities in spite of the excellent public transport.

Two, Australians are very urbanised with great distances between cities. They tend to stick to the cities and their immediate surrounds until the annual hols, then they do a big distance. In Europe the cities and the vacation attractions are denser and joined by fast roads. Not only the annual hols, but a long weekend will see anybody crossing a couple of countries to get to a ski resort or beach. There's a huge lot of country and international driving there.

And some of the lesser roads aren't too great compared to Australian roads. Try setting the GPS to "shortest route" and you'll find out all about European roads away from the motorways. I'm still convinced I drove along a drain at one point, I'm sure it can't have been a road though the GPS said it was!

[Road Games]

Originally Posted by Trevor 57

going fast forces you to concentrate more, and studies have shown that high concentration levels increase fatigue levels dramatically.

Really?

And where are the links to these studies Trev ??

When i drive fast i put my foot on the dash and take a hand off the wheel to scratch myself....

I would definately be LESS fatigued not looking out for Lidar

[Bulletime]

One thing that I think hasn't been noted in this discussion is this... We all know that the government is completely hooked on the revenue, so much so that it's why there's so much propaganda... Well surely like all systems that change they would have to look at other revenue streams. Sure complain or whatever but if that money is budgeted for and used then it'll need replacing. I can see straight away that proper enforcement of keep left is one, but then there's maybe others. $50 more on your rego who cares they'll work it out they won't go without their money.

There's a motorway somewhere in the US that got the go ahead for a premium paid fast lane where there was a higher toll and drivers could go 140 or something like that. If they ever did the user pays system for kms for tax then they could use your speed to determine the rate.

Like I said I don't care, there's a million ways they take money from us so they can just increase some or make new ones.

Also the driving to the conditions, I've spent a lot of time doing long 7-8 hr drives to see family, about 6-10 a year, and I've had to do 80 in torrential rain in 110 zones quite a few times, also heavy holiday traffic makes it harder to maintain 110. People obviously just need to use (un)common sense.

[EVLKNEVL]

Originally Posted by Bulletime

One thing that I think hasn't been noted in this discussion is this... We all know that the government is completely hooked on the revenue, so much so that it's why there's so much propaganda... Well surely like all systems that change they would have to look at other revenue streams. Sure complain or whatever but if that money is budgeted for and used then it'll need replacing. I can see straight away that proper enforcement of keep left is one, but then there's maybe others. $50 more on your rego who cares they'll work it out they won't go without their money.

There's a motorway somewhere in the US that got the go ahead for a premium paid fast lane where there was a higher toll and drivers could go 140 or something like that. If they ever did the user pays system for kms for tax then they could use your speed to determine the rate.

Like I said I don't care, there's a million ways they take money from us so they can just increase some or make new ones.

Also the driving to the conditions, I've spent a lot of time doing long 7-8 hr drives to see family, about 6-10 a year, and I've had to do 80 in torrential rain in 110 zones quite a few times, also heavy holiday traffic makes it harder to maintain 110. People obviously just need to use (un)common sense.

I would presume that point hasn't been previously raised in this thread because this is focused on the speed limits themselves and not their method of enforcement.

Since you have brought it up though, I'll offer my thoughts; The government should not be collecting 'tax' from motorists in an illegitimate fashion. If they want to charge extra for driving faster in the US so be it, but here they are doing it under the guise of road safety and that is blatantly wrong. To convince the motoring public that the cameras and fines are there to improve road safety while truthfully they are a mechanism to funnel revenue predominantly from ordinary drivers who drift over the limit by a few kms, and then failing to properly address many other more serious safety issues, is dishonest and despicable. People continue to die on our roads and the government has a responsibility to curb that as effectively as is possible. Instead they take money from motorists via speed cameras because they can.

I'm dubious about the notion of raising highway limits to 130 only because I can see those sections of road being consequently littered with speed traps. One way or another, the motorist will be penalised.

[FNQracing]

Both Wheels and the NSW/Vic police need to mature a bit and chill. The stunt was hardly dangerous yet Wheels went about it the wrong way. All they've done is ****ed off the people who they need to get onboard with. Wheels are after nothing than a bit of publicity. Don't think for a nano second Wheels actually give hoot about road safety, otherwise they'd be taking a completely different approach and lobbying with politicians and aligning with motoring organisations like NRMA and RAC.

Its got their name in the papers which is all they wanted. No go buy them magazines.

[FNQracing]

Although I'd love a 130 limit on major highways, all that will happen is that it will mean you'll catch the slower traffic much faster, and with limited overtaking areas, you'll be stuck behind a convoy of snails. I don't see it happening with our somewhat unique condition of so many gawd damned trucks on the highways.

In my own experiences, when I "speed" on the highway, I just catch the trucks and caravans faster and end up getting frustrated sooner, rather than kicking back a little going with the flow. Raising the limit in restricted areas only, means in all reality, the trip time between major sections won't change diddly squat.

[b0son]

Originally Posted by Bulletime

$50 more on your rego who cares they'll work it out they won't go without their money.

I'd happily pay more rego for realistic freeway limits.

[MAD]

Just getting the gov to allocate all earnings from road infringements back in to the road system would go a long way to changing the view, and culture, of speed cameras.

We would like it more, and the gov would have less focus on it if they can't use it to buy wine for lodge parties.

[satria]

Originally Posted by FNQracing

Although I'd love a 130 limit on major highways, all that will happen is that it will mean you'll catch the slower traffic much faster, and with limited overtaking areas, you'll be stuck behind a convoy of snails. I don't see it happening with our somewhat unique condition of so many gawd damned trucks on the highways.

In my own experiences, when I "speed" on the highway, I just catch the trucks and caravans faster and end up getting frustrated sooner, rather than kicking back a little going with the flow. Raising the limit in restricted areas only, means in all reality, the trip time between major sections won't change diddly squat.

At least you could overtake them all more safely without the possibility of losing your lisence.

[cro142]

Here's a thought:

The link between road safety management, speed cameras and revenue raising is very easy to test.

Have a 5 year moratorium on speeding fines. For the next 5 years let's let the points system do it's job of policing "speedsters". You get caught speeding you lose your points.

I think we would very quickly see a government attitude developing that wound back the huge investment in speed management if there was no revenue incentive.

Let's test once and for if speed policing is about revenue raising, or not!!

[EVLKNEVL]

^ this.

[DJL351]

I've not seen this video linked anywhere.....

Speeding Kills - Your Pocketbook

[MAD]

I saw an article today that Utah is raising some hwy limits to 80 MPH because it found the number of accidents decreased with the higher speed.

[csv8]

MAD.. never convince our revenue cops of that !!! I drove Vegas to Salt Lake City at 80mph, fantastic !!!

[MAD]

It's been on my mind since I mentioned it earlier, and the more I think about it the more I really think a campaign to force the earnings out of consolidated revenue and in to the road system could be a real chance.

Many more people will get behind it, even those that still think cameras save lives.
The gov would have a hard time arguing against it too.

It might not sound like much to begin with, but the culture changes that would follow would be huge!
Not to mention the fantastic road upgrades we could get.

[trentski]

I drove from Las Vegas to Los Angeles at 90mph (145kmh) for long stretches just loping along with traffic quite comfortably in a Dodge Caliber. Everyone going slower kept to the outside lane, was quite a good system, should be adopted here.

Bet they are out in force on the Hume at the moment

[Full Noise]

Originally Posted by DJL351

I've not seen this video linked anywhere.....

Speeding Kills - Your Pocketbook

How hard did you look?

Originally posted here.

http://www.fordforums.com.au/showthread.php?t=11404742

Then here. Post 69 of this thread.

http://www.fordforums.com.au/showpos...9&postcount=69

Then reposted here.

http://www.fordforums.com.au/showthread.php?t=11404877

Pointed out as a repost by noosacuda, post 102 of this thread.

http://www.fordforums.com.au/showpos...&postcount=102

And now here.

[Bundy]

Originally Posted by Auslandau

Yes. Driving a track for a period of time is taxing on the mind and body ....... but in a totally different way than driving the Hume at 110k;s. Yawning, turning the music up and down, winding windows up and down, pulling over for a walk, changing bum positions. Cant say I do any of that on a race track. Knackered at the end of the day for sure but feel totally different to a 6 hour drive! Don't think I have nodded off at the track either come to think of it!

I would definitely state that driving on a track would be an example why increasing speeds is very necessary to combat fatigue ...... 100%

So every road needs to become a racetrack !!! and on that bombshell - Good Night

[RedHotGT]

I think that the risk from a long term perspective in the governments eyes - is where does the increase in speed stop?

The Calder was changed from 100km/h to 110km/h (sensible IMHO - but anyway)
Once the Hume was 100km/h, and was increased to 110km/h (also sensible)
If the Hume was changed from 110km/h to 130km/h what is the next step?
5-10 years from now - there will be a push to make the limit 140km/h or 150km/h?

Perhaps that is what they are fearful of - the unknown in the future?

It is without doubt that modern cars today (post 2000) are very well equipped with safety features, way more stable and capable, and easier to drive than cars built prior... And most speed limits are based upon very old studies...

I sometimes wonder if there is more research to be done on the road toll and road trauma - if it is actually as big of an issue that the Government/Police say it is...

Do they study the drivers that are involved in accidents? As in:
How many drivers killed in road accidents have had previous traffic infringements or speeding fines?
Were the licensed at all?
When did they pass their driving test? (IE: how long have they been driving?)
What kind of cars were they driving?
What speed zone were they in at the time of the accident?
How long had they been driving for (that journey) when the accident happened? (ie: 5 minutes, 2 hours)
What were the weather conditions?
What time of day?

ALL of these things could be boiled down into a much more accurate 'profile' of a fatality (and/or major accident).

The powers that be spend so much time, effort, and money, on telling us that SPEED and FATIGUE kill... and Drink Driving is a massive increase in risk - all true no doubt...

But there are so many determining factors in a fatal (or major) incident, like the questions i've asked above, that seem to be unreported or ignored.

If SPEED was the biggest determining factor in fatal (and major) accidents - then wouldn't the push be to decrease the speed limit?
If ALCOHOL was the biggest determining factor in fatal (and major) accidents - then would the push be to decrease the legal BAC to .00?
If FATIGUE was the biggest determining factor in fatal (and major) accidents - then wouldn't the push be to decrease long stretch driving behavior?

I just won't cop that speeding fines and safety (haha) cameras are the best answer tackling poor driving behavior and drivers that break the law...

If there was any other law that was being broken as commonly as speeding, there would be uproar. Imagine petty theft was as common as speeding, or assault? I bet there would be a massive change in laws, in enforcement, and in public perception of that particular offence....

And if it wasn't all about the revenue raised - then there would be other strategies involved.

Well, there is my rant.... take it for what it is... Nothing will change...

[cro142]

As a scientist in a completely different field, I am sure that there is valid data from the investigation of crashes buried away somewhere, that will provide some explanation for the real reasons for crashes.

Unfortunately we have governments who are so addicted to speeding fine revenue that they simply do not want to engage with a scientific approach to managing road safety.

If the real facts saw the light of day, and revenue was not an issue, I am sure that our police would not be tasked with catching "honest" people who drift a few km over the limit.

Similarly, highway speed limits could be increased a bit without increasing the crash rate.

[Keepleft]

Originally Posted by cro142

Similarly, highway speed limits could be increased a bit without increasing the crash rate.

A motorway 130kmh limit would be closer to a real - 85th percentile speed, that will of itself reduce crash rates as traffic divorces itself from one another.

NSW and QLD ministers remain serious about the possibility.

QLD news re speed from TEN QLD News the 19th Sept:-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGy5rdpuo1w

RACQ chap needs to understand that one does not increase a limit to save time so much, but rather to free-up traffic conditions, via improved throughput and safety (re that divorcing of traffic). The 110kmh motorway limit is flawed and arguably results in a higher crash rate than could otherwise be.

[prydey]

Originally Posted by Keepleft

RACQ chap needs to understand that one does not increase a limit to save time so much,

there are a few arguments that don't really stack up like that.

i'm all in favour of increased limits on certain roads, but to me, when you start adding arguments like reduced fatigue etc, it detracts more than it adds.

the argument should be limited to the fact that some roads are easily capable of the higher limits, and cars these days are safer and more capable than they have ever been.

other arguments don't add a lot of credibility to the whole thing.

[b0son]

Originally Posted by prydey

i'm all in favour of increased limits on certain roads, but to me, when you start adding arguments like reduced fatigue etc, it detracts more than it adds.

unavoidable when the first response to talk of raising limits is talk of impending carnage

[Keepleft]

Originally Posted by prydey

there are a few arguments that don't really stack up like that.

i'm all in favour of increased limits on certain roads, but to me, when you start adding arguments like reduced fatigue etc, it detracts more than it adds.

Yup, the fatigue ratio bewteen a 110kmh and 130kmh or derestricted motorway would work out about the same.

The difference in a 'positive saving' sense would be the total distance covered (say 110kmh vs 130kmh trip) on a long haul, where you could stop sooner (to rest, or stay for the night/or day) than the car at 110kmh, AND the small time saved means less exposure - to all that can impact a driver (animals, other traffic, MP's, etc) on a typical journey.

A limit set just high of a true 85th percentile would be the safest option. It truely - for most drivers (who will be at the 85th in any case), then becomes "a limit", rather than a 'target' - to sit on an 'wander' about at often come what may!

Agree fully, - re the proposed roads as compelling reason alone as to why_we_raise, as well.

Motorway category:- the median located U-Turn bays need to receive gatelock or have barrier deterence installation first; and full route length median barrier, - to reduce likelihood of cross-over/head-on crashes.

In theory, we'd have a reduce crash rate (and insurance repair saving) and medical outcome (a positive), but larger impacts (single vehicle/others) - for *when* they do occur.

[my_gxl]

In my experience of driving through the NT before its limit was introduced, I believe you actually paid more attention and were less fatigued (mostly due to less boredom) at 140km/h.

[K_Man]

I think first what needs to be done is a review of the licencing system to stop people getting them out of their box of rice bubbles in the morning. I'm a truck driver, and day in day out I am sick of seeing useless halfwits with their heads up their bums causing havoc on the road. In particular mr FIGJAM whose mission it is to be on pole at the next set of lights, carving up anyone who gets in his way, and is happy to sit at 10-15 over the limit because 'its not over by much'. That will put them at 145 on the hume. Not to mention those with a bowl of cereal on their laps on the way to work, or a newspaper on the steering wheel.

I have no dramas sitting at 130 if surrounded by car enthusiasts who know what their cars can do, but I refuse to share the roads at 130 with people who quite clearly do not understand the first thing about car control, other than 'it has esp and airbags, that will save me'.

When they start teaching people that they have to respect the fact that they are in charge of 1.5 tonnes+ of steel and need to be able to control them responsibly, them Im all for it. Until then, the speed limits are too high as it is. I would lose my job on the spot if I drove the bloody yard forklift let alone my truck like some of these idiots.

[prydey]

Originally Posted by Keepleft

on a long haul, where you could stop sooner (to rest, or stay for the night/or day)

i would hazard a guess that rather than pull up early, many would just drive for longer.

Originally Posted by K_Man

I think first what needs to be done is a review of the licencing system to stop people getting them out of their box of rice bubbles in the morning. .

and how did you get your licence? what is different today compared to when you got yours?

i believe there is more training now than ever before. people always use this argument, but there is no basis to it. normally people that bring this up had very little training themselves, but tend to forget that little fact.

it isn't the fault of the licencing system, if people get their licence and then proceed to forget 90% of what they learned in order to pass.

i'm pretty sure when you get your licence, they don't teach you how to be mr FIGJAM (as you put it) or to eat cereal off your lap, so not sure why the system gets blamed for those things.

[K_Man]

Originally Posted by prydey

and how did you get your licence? what is different today compared to when you got yours?

i believe there is more training now than ever before. people always use this argument, but there is no basis to it. normally people that bring this up had very little training themselves, but tend to forget that little fact.

it isn't the fault of the licencing system, if people get their licence and then proceed to forget 90% of what they learned in order to pass.

i'm pretty sure when you get your licence, they don't teach you how to be mr FIGJAM (as you put it) or to eat cereal off your lap, so not sure why the system gets blamed for those things.

As far as having very little training, I have had the same amount as most people out there. Does that make my opinion any less valid?

I'm not going to pretend I know everything there is to know about being behind the wheel, I can safely say that over 99% of the population are in the same boat, where I believe the system fails is not adequately preparing people for the dangers involved in driving a car, and I personally learnt many valuable lessons only after I was out on my own.

My point is that having a licence is a privelage, not a right like so many people think it is. Make it harder to earn. Drum it into people a bit harder that their actions could kill someone. Seeing pics of fatalities when I was doing casual work at the MFB and having a couple of fender benders made me wake up pretty quick. I was way too cocky on my Ps, and I am happy to admit that now.

If I had to resit a test I gladly would. Driving is my life (and my crust earner) and it kills me that so many people just dont care about what they are doing.

Like I said, I am all for the limit to be raised, I just think the bar for driver skill has to be raised at some point too.

[prydey]

Originally Posted by K_Man

and I personally learnt many valuable lessons only after I was out on my own.

thats called experience, and its the same for everyone. you can't 'teach' or 'learn' experience.

the system is fine in my opinion. kids can't even learn bad habits off parents anymore as i believe it is mandatory to have a minimum number of lessons with a qualified instructor.

the reason you see so much poor driving behaviour is because for years now the authorities have focused too heavily on only 1 area - namely enforcing speed limits. this has created the lazy attitude toward most other rules. if people get picked up now for failing to indicate, right lane hogging, driving without due care etc, they think they are hard done by and being targeted.