130km/h limit

[jpd80]

In my experience, a lot of drivers believe the highway speed should be 120 kph
but with zero tolerance above that. Maybe state governments should look at
the whole highway speed limit system and do more 90/110 kph studies.

[SSVPom]

100km/h over here feels painfully slow compared to the 130-140km/h you can stilll drive in the UK, average speed cameras permitting...

However the Australian freeway and A-road network is nowhere near as developed as Europe when it comes to intersections / median barriers / hard shoulder barriers / run off areas, the cars are generally older over here and driver behaviour lags seriously too. Don't believe me ? Well you've probably never been over there to see for yourself !

[SSVPom]

[QUOTE=MAD]But if the average speed of cars was 80mph even when the limit was 65mph, wouldnt it be safer if everyone was traveling the same speed and having less collisions?

Anyway speed is not the ultimate end. Driving to conditions is the most important thing on the roads. As mentioned above, it might be legal to travel at 100kmh on the Monash in a hail storm, doesnt mean it's safe.[/QUOTE]

Exactly !

[durtyharry]

Originally Posted by MAD

But if the average speed of cars was 80mph even when the limit was 65mph, wouldnt it be safer if everyone was traveling the same speed and having less collisions?
.

Didn't I cover this earlier?
Sure there are statistics that show not travelling at the same speed as the rest of the traffic increases risk of accidents(up to what speed this has been proved I dont know), but the higher the average speed that the flow maintains, the higher the overall accident rate will be, that is known.

It will be safer if everyone travels at 65mph rather than 80mph.

[Ghiadude]

Statistics dont show that the roads in australia poorly maintained
Statistics dont show that people arent taught to drive properly
Statistics dont show that cars have advanced
Statistics cant do what common sense does - Tells us that if the road is maintained properly and the car is well engineered and the driver is properly trained and drives to the conditions there wont be accidents.

"Accidents" happen because people take risks, dont maintain their vehicles and the government fails in its basic duty to build and maintain the road network. Speed limits are just a number really.

[kezzer]

Originally Posted by durtyharry

It will be safer if everyone travels at 65mph rather than 80mph.

Assuming they don't fall asleep

[Keepleft]

Originally Posted by Copie

Ah the might wire rope, also known as a cheese cutter, you dont not ever want to hit that on a bike, you will literally lose a leg.

No evidence of that effect here, but NZ had an MC rider come off his bike that either impacted directly, or after an initial impact with another object, - had his head taken off. Illegal, high triple digit speeds.

That said, can show you nasty W-Beam coronial pics too. And Jersey- isn't as 'safe' for MC's as ye might think.

Horses for courses, wire-rope systems (2 brands in use) are used generally down the median strips.

No system is failsafe, but this system is proven on our road network.

Reference to the US State would be Texas (also Utah) which run an 80Mph (129km/h) limit on some of its interstates; a problem I see is they didn't make the change with a Euro-experienced wholesome-approach, ie; mandatory vehicle equipment - triangle, vest, first aid kit, and 'standards'- mandatory rear fog (SAE J1319) to help offset rain and dustorm and fog crashes.
ftp://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-...008/2008_2.pdf
ftp://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-...008/2008_5.pdf


Utah trials an 80mph interstate limit:-
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1...276163,00.html

[xbgs351]

Originally Posted by durtyharry

Please understand: That study or any other like it does not support that higher limits are in fact safer, all it highlights is that speed differential in itself is a collision factor.

I fully understand that those studies look at speed differentials as opposed to outright speeds. If you look at what you wrote; "if they compared the accident rate when the 65mph limit was actually maintained by motorists with those that travel at 80mph+, but those stats werent supplied.", than speed differential would have been the thing to look at as those drivers maintaining 65 mph would have been driving significantly slower than the majority of vehicles.

Originally Posted by durtyharry

All other things being equal, put the trough of the U at a slower speed(say 65mph, which is what would happen if the limit was enforced and maintained in Utah) and there will be less accidents

The thing is all other things aren't equal. One obvious example is that a freeway with a 130 km/h speed limit would attract people away from other B & C class roads. For instance with the recent speed limit reduction on the Newell that when I have the option I am now preferentially choosing to drive on C class roads.

If you look at Victoria and the Wipe Off 5 campaign, it is immediatly obvious that the idea of dropping speed limits and tolerances in city and urban areas has had a substantial affect. What most don't see is that when you look at the rural statistics, the Wipe Off 5 campaign has been a complete and utter failure.

[MAD]

Originally Posted by durtyharry

Didn't I cover this earlier?
Sure there are statistics that show not travelling at the same speed as the rest of the traffic increases risk of accidents(up to what speed this has been proved I dont know), but the higher the average speed that the flow maintains, the higher the overall accident rate will be, that is known.

It will be safer if everyone travels at 65mph rather than 80mph.

I'd like to see the stats that show faster = more crashes. Not doubting, I'd just like to see them.

Having the limit set at 65mph causes a speed differential because most drive at 80mph. Would it not be better to move the speed limit up so that those 'law abiding' citizens, that travel at the speed limit, are no longer travelling with a speed difference to the average flow?

[russellw]

Back to the future.

Until the 1970's we only had prima facie speed limits and when absolute limits were introduced some were set at 70 mph (120 km/h) but then reduced to the levels they are at now.

When the 70 mph limit was set in 1974:

...the Australian vehicle fleet predominantly consisted of cross ply tyred, drum braked and live rear axle vehicles

...the badly misnamed Highway One was a complete goat track and mostly single lane in both directions

...airbags, ABS, ESP and even seat belts were either unheard of or standard fitment in a tiny percentage of the vehicle fleet.

We've come a long way since then.

The Victorian average fatality rate per 100,000 vehicles in 1974 was about 5.0 (Reference) - it had been about 8.5 during the 1960's. After the introduction of absolute spped limits the rate stayed flat through to the late 70's when it started the decline that has pretty much continued ever since to the point where we are now slightly under 1.0.

Based on that data, it is debatable whether the reduction has been impacted more by the speed avoidance measures or the active and passive safety features that have become more prevalent throughout the vehicle fleet.

Likewise the rate has been in decline per 100 million kilometres travelled - from 3.5 in the early 70's to around 0.8 as at the end of 2006.

It is interesting to note that the number of actual incidents has remained fairly consistent since 1975 - this despite the fact that the size of the vehicle fleet and the total kilometres travelled have more than doubled in the same time which would point toward the improvements in accident avoidance technology as well as improvments in road infrastructure having halved the effective rate.

There are probably certain section of some major highways that could have potential for an increase to 120-130 km/h but while ever we have the number of median crossings we do and the appaling lane disciplines that we do, I can't see it having a happy outcome. It's bad enough having someone slow in the RH lane of the Hume to take a crossing exit when you are doing 110 km/h - the situation is only exacerbated at 130 km/h and I simply don't have enough confidence in the general driving standards to consider it an acceptable risk.

One of the great ironies in this country has always been the simple fact that wherever we have built a new, modern highway to replace an old road the fatality rate for that stretch of road has increased. Think Maltby bypass, Southern Expressway etc. As I don't think we can pin the blame for these increases on road or vehicle design / safety, the only conclusion a reasonable person can draw is that the human element is the root cause.

... and you can't fix that with legislation.

Cheers
Russ

[xbgs351]

Originally Posted by durtyharry

Would help if you quoted all of what I said!, the "that much" I referred to was 40%.
Of course if you have info proving that the stopping and turning potential of cars has improved 40%(what is needed for a change from 110 to 130), then let's see it.
Perhaps look up the stopping dist for a 80 falcon from 100km/h compared to one of today, then look up the coefficient of friction between the average road and a family car tyre of 30 years ago and today and tell me if there is a 40% difference

Stopping distance for a 80's Falcon from 80 km/h is typically 0 to 10% more than a modern Falcon, but you have to be pretty naive to think that the only way of avoiding a crash is to come to a complete stop.

Cornering is not as simple as just the coefficient of friction for tyres, with so many other variables playing important roles such as suspension geometry and shock absorbers for instance. Even if we were to focus just on the coefficient of friction, you can't directly compare the coefficient of friction for a tyre from the 80's with a modern tyre, because the coefficient of friction varies with the vertical load placed on it, which in turn varies with things such as car weight, track width, centre of gravity height, spring rates, sway bar rates, cornering speed etc. Also the traditional physics model of friction does not apply all that well to tyres. This is evident when one compares grip levels with tyre widths. The standard model says tyre width should make no difference, but it is well known that wider tyres have more grip. Of course modern cars have wider tyre than those from the 80's....

You may get a better idea of modern cars cornering abilities in comparison to older cars from looking up the G-force results from American car magazines. I'm guessing a 10% improvement, but it is only a guess. Not that it really matters, because as long as the radius of the corner is a minimum of 18% greater than they were in the 80's it doesn't matter. Back in the 80's the majority of these roads had far far tighter turns than the same stretches of roads have now.

Besides, the biggest cause of accidents on rural roads (around 50%) is cars running off straight sections of roads and not being able to negotiate a straight piece of road has very little to do with coefficients of friction.

[xbgs351]

Originally Posted by Ghiadude

Statistics dont show that the roads in australia poorly maintained
Statistics dont show that people arent taught to drive properly
Statistics dont show that cars have advanced
Statistics cant do what common sense does - Tells us that if the road is maintained properly and the car is well engineered and the driver is properly trained and drives to the conditions there wont be accidents.

"Accidents" happen because people take risks, dont maintain their vehicles and the government fails in its basic duty to build and maintain the road network. Speed limits are just a number really.

Statistics don't help aid my comprehension of your post.

[SB076]

In Vic I beleive speed limits are going the other way - I can think of several instances where limits have gone down, but none where limits have been increased. We cant even do 100k's everywhere on the M1 (there appears be be more and more 80ls zones) - I would say our chances of seeing speed limits increased are very low. I personally think that with a country the size of Australia with poor public transport our limits (provided the roads are up to it) should be increased. However I also beleive licensing should be more difficult.

[RedHotGT]

I thought that this thread was going to be 130km/h limit - as in speed limiting cars - much like we do with trucks and 100km/h.

In a sense, I agree with the above posts about raising the speed limit on major artery highways, but 100km/h in the more metro sections of the highways/freeways...

Though I can't understand why we can't actually 'SPEED LIMIT' vehicles to 130km/h anyways? There is no logical reason why a road car needs to go over the maximum posted speed limit, possibly as outlined previous posts with passing trucks (maybe a 10km/h tollerance)...

Sure - plenty of accidents (most I would assume) actually happen under 120km/h... the ones that hit the headlines are the high-speed high-casualty cases (Mill Park) and they stick in your mind...

Speed limited vehicles will not stop drink drivers, and will not stop people doing 120km/h in a 60 zone... but it might take away some of the temptation for younger drivers to push limits...

Just an idea... ??

[Keepleft]

The BIG crashes involving crazies and the dumb are usually high-end tripple digit type, 160 -200km/h+ plus.

Favourite obstacles impacted are power poles, trees etc in these single vehicle events.

With Australia's posted maximum currently set at 130km/h, a speed-limiter set at 130km/h won't work, (overtaking). We could adopt same perhaps at the 150-180km/h range.

This discussion in any case plays into the 'ITS' (GPS based) systems RTA etc are trialling. Down the track we'll see something, and perhaps the vehicle being limited to each roads given speed limit, per the NSW RTA trial.

If we (NSW) do get a 120-130km/h posted limit for certain roads, it'd be the exception rather than the rule.

Folk might like to listen to that French MP3 on page 1.

[xbgs351]

There are two sets of speed limits in France, one for dry weather, the other for wet. If it's less than two years since you passed your test, the lower wet weather limits apply at all times.

Dry Weather Limits:

Built-Up Areas: 50 kph
Outside Built-Up Areas: 90 kph
Dual Carriageways and Non-Toll Motorways: 110 kph
Toll Motorways: 130kph

Wet Weather Limits:
Built-Up Areas: 50 kph
Outside Built-Up Areas: 80kph
Dual Carriageways and Non-Toll Motorways: 100 kph
Toll Motorways: 110 kph

How much simpler is that. No matter where you are driving you will automatically know what the speed limit is.

[durtyharry]

Originally Posted by xbgs351

If you look at what you wrote; "if they compared the accident rate when the 65mph limit was actually maintained by motorists with those that travel at 80mph+, but those stats werent supplied.", than speed differential would have been the thing to look at as those drivers maintaining 65 mph would have been driving significantly slower than the majority of vehicles..

some ambigous communication here, “if the 65mph limit was maintained by motorists”, I meant the majority of them, you have interpreted it as a minority.

[durtyharry]

Originally Posted by MAD

I'd like to see the stats that show faster = more crashes. Not doubting, I'd just like to see them.

Having the limit set at 65mph causes a speed differential because most drive at 80mph. Would it not be better to move the speed limit up so that those 'law abiding' citizens, that travel at the speed limit, are no longer travelling with a speed difference to the average flow?

No, it would be a better idea to have the drivers exceeding the limit pulled down to a slower speed, just because the majority disobeys the law doesnt make it safe.
In fact here in Melbourne, the Beach Rd suffered from the very same problem 30+ years ago. My estimate was that average speeds were in the reigon 75-80km/h when the speed limit was posted at 60km/h. Certainly driving at 60km/h was stressful, aggressive tailgaters etc, and it was easier to go with the flow.
The accident rate for this road was high. In recent years due to cameras, radar etc, the average speed has come way down to where we see the average speed being ~63km/h, the speed most think they can get away with. Correspondingly this area now has one of the lowest accident rates in the metropolitan, panel beating suddenly wasnt the business to be in.

[US kills Falcon]

Interstate roads which are dual carriage ways (such as the Hume Highway) should have a 130km/hr speed limit.

[durtyharry]

Originally Posted by xbgs351

Stopping distance for a 80's Falcon from 80 km/h is typically 0 to 10% more than a modern Falcon, but you have to be pretty naive to think that the only way of avoiding a crash is to come to a complete stop.

Certainly stopping dist is not the only criterion for good car handling, but it is a very relevant one to avoiding a collision and indicative of other areas of performance of the car and can be measured easily.

Originally Posted by xbgs351

Also the traditional physics model of friction does not apply all that well to tyres. This is evident when one compares grip levels with tyre widths. The standard model says tyre width should make no difference, but it is well known that wider tyres have more grip. Of course modern cars have wider tyre than those from the 80's..

The laws of physics copes perfectly well with the issue of wider tyres, a smaller contact patch means the the same adhesive force goes through a smaller patch, which increases the chance of the layers of rubber separating and forming a layer of rubber ball bearings between the tyre and road(skidding).

Correct me if Im wrong the contact patch difference for a xd Falcon with 205/70/14s isnt a whole lot different from the 215/60/16 inch tyre of the stock falcon today, the % difference probably representing the difference in mass between the two vehicles.

Yes, I understand that the suspension design can make the contact area flatter and more uniform on all four tyres, but a 40% increase in grip, no way. Perhaps you can show me how the cornering acceleration has increased by near this amount with the standard family size tyre compared to today and 30 years ago, we are not comparing sticky racing rubber that an enthusiast may buy.

Originally Posted by xbgs351

Back in the 80's the majority of these roads had far far tighter turns than the same stretches of roads have now.

you really believe Australian roads have all been remade in the last 30 years?

Originally Posted by xbgs351

Besides, the biggest cause of accidents on rural roads (around 50%) is cars running off straight sections of roads and not being able to negotiate a straight piece of road has very little to do with coefficients of friction.

did you read the report Keep Left provided for the Newell, here is a very relevant bit:
Most fatal accidents occur on roads with curves of radius 200m to 600m, its on page 14 http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/roadsafety...ety_review.pdf, it might be relevant how well cars go around corners, or how they react when one wheel hits the gravel when someone isnt quite concentrating when a slight curve in the road occurs and they arent able to snap the car back on track accurately enough.
Certainly I know what speed Id rather people were doing when they get one wheel in the gravel.

How about researching the facts(even reading them), rather than just making it up as you go.

[xbgs351]

Originally Posted by durtyharry

some ambigous communication here, “if the 65mph limit was maintained by motorists”, I meant the majority of them, you have interpreted it as a minority.

Righto.

[xbgs351]

Originally Posted by durtyharry

The laws of physics copes perfectly well with the issue of wider tyres, a smaller contact patch means the the same adhesive force goes through a smaller patch, which increases the chance of the layers of rubber separating and forming a layer of rubber ball bearings between the tyre and road(skidding).

You better brush up on your physics because you are wrong.

The bog standard equation for friction is:
Fr = μN

where,
Fr = frictional force
μ = coefficent of friction
N = normal force

Contact patch has no influence on this equation. Coefficient of friction is nondimensionalised to allow you not to have to consider contact areas.


If you are looking at the difference in contact patch sizes for different width tyres, you will soon run into this problem:
P= F/A

where,
P = pressure
F = force
A = area

Thus for a given tyre pressure and car weight, the contact area will be the same regardless of the tyre width.

Originally Posted by durtyharry

Correct me if Im wrong the contact patch difference for a xd Falcon with 205/70/14s isnt a whole lot different from the 215/60/16 inch tyre of the stock falcon today, the % difference probably representing the difference in mass between the two vehicles.

Contact patch depends on weight. An XD would have had the equivelent of a 185 width tyre. A 215 tyre is 16% wider.

Originally Posted by durtyharry

Yes, I understand that the suspension design can make the contact area flatter and more uniform on all four tyres, but a 40% increase in grip, no way. Perhaps you can show me how the cornering acceleration has increased by near this amount with the standard family size tyre compared to today and 30 years ago, we are not comparing sticky racing rubber that an enthusiast may buy.

Look at what I wrote about G-force tests in American magazines.

Originally Posted by durtyharry

you really believe Australian roads have all been remade in the last 30 years?

Not for one second, but the roads that would be considered for 130 km/h are light years better than 30 years ago. Look at the Hume Freeway in Victoria for instance.

Originally Posted by durtyharry

did you read the report Keep Left provided for the Newell, here is a very relevant bit:
Most fatal accidents occur on roads with curves of radius 200m to 600m, its on page 14 http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/roadsafety...ety_review.pdf, it might be relevant how well cars go around corners, or how they react when one wheel hits the gravel when someone isnt quite concentrating when a slight curve in the road occurs and they arent able to snap the car back on track accurately enough.
Certainly I know what speed Id rather people were doing when they get one wheel in the gravel.

I had read it before he even posted it.

Originally Posted by durtyharry

How about researching the facts(even reading them), rather than just making it up as you go.

My facts were obtained from the TAC Crash Database for the year 2009 in rural Victoria. I excluded pedestrians, bicyclists & unknowns. 62 out of 131 fatalities were classed as "Run off a straight road". 26 fataliies were classified as "Run off road on a curve".

[220]

Originally Posted by Outback

So would you rather hit a wombat or Roo at 110 or 130kms that's why our freeway speed will always be 110, they don't have animals that can write off a car walking across there motorways in Europe.

No they have deer in the rest of the world they are a little bit bigger and tend to come through the windscreen instead of bouncing off or going under and yes I have hit both roos and wombats.

Edit: hadn't read to the end of the post but the comment still stands most other countries have just as big a problem with wildlife as ours.
Remember Merc's trouble with the moose evasion test.

[Brazen]

Originally Posted by 220

No they have deer in the rest of the world they are a little bit bigger and tend to come through the windscreen instead of bouncing off or going under and yes I have hit both roos and wombats.

Edit: hadn't read to the end of the post but the comment still stands most other countries have just as big a problem with wildlife as ours.
Remember Merc's trouble with the moose evasion test.

They have massive moose in Canada, make a kangaroo seem like a rabbit. Doesnt stop them sitting on 140

[Copie]

It will not ever happen on the East side of this country, if anything we are more likely to see it decrease.

[durtyharry]

Originally Posted by xbgs351

You better brush up on your physics because you are wrong.

The bog standard equation for friction is:
Fr = μN

Did I say otherwise?

Originally Posted by xbgs351

If you are looking at the difference in contact patch sizes for different width tyres, you will soon run into this problem:
P= F/A

where,
P = pressure
F = force
A = area

Thus for a given tyre pressure and car weight, the contact area will be the same regardless of the tyre width.

Fair enough, what i wrote was not clear in this regard. I was responding to what happens when a car is cornering, the action of wider tyres and their corresponding sidewall and tread surface design allows more rubber to stay in more uniform contact with the road.
Not that this is a big deal, but you have equated the pressure inside the tyre with the pressure calculated by the weight/contact area with the road surface, the two are not the same(similar yes), unless you think treat the tyres as giant rubber non elastic balloons.

Originally Posted by xbgs351

Contact patch depends on weight. An XD would have had the equivelent of a 185 width tyre. A 215 tyre is 16% wider.
Look at what I wrote about G-force tests in American magazines.

What did you write?? did you have a comparison of tyres for family cars from 30 years ago(such as fitted to the xd, which was a er7814, 205/70/14 I believe) to the 216/60/16.

Originally Posted by xbgs351

Not for one second, but the roads that would be considered for 130 km/h are light years better than 30 years ago. Look at the Hume Freeway in Victoria for instance.

do you know for a fact that this road has been designed for 130km/h and the curves, dips are suitable? You are a road engineer?. I drive the victorian leg of the hume regularly and there are several curves, rises and dips which would scare the ...... out of me at 130km/h
One thing I could guarantee is that the road surface/structure has not been engineered with the thought of heavy vehicles doing those sort of speeds, would have doubled/tripled the cost of making the road. Given how dangerous speed differential is: Do you support a 30km/h speed differential between heavy vehicles and cars on freeways?

Originally Posted by xbgs351

I had read it before he even posted it.
".

So why did you disregard what was written in it?
You can argue pedantics at the difference between how many cars fail to make corners according to the TAC versus the Newell stats, facts are that cars not making it around slight bends accounts for many deaths, but you say to hell with that?

[xbgs351]

Originally Posted by durtyharry

Did I say otherwise?

And like I said μ is non-dimensional and hence width and area doesn't come into it.

Originally Posted by durtyharry

Fair enough, what i wrote was not clear in this regard. I was responding to what happens when a car is cornering, the action of wider tyres and their corresponding sidewall and tread surface design allows more rubber to stay in more uniform contact with the road.
Not that this is a big deal, but you have equated the pressure inside the tyre with the pressure calculated by the weight/contact area with the road surface, the two are not the same(similar yes), unless you think treat the tyres as giant rubber non elastic balloons.

Well spotted. The patch pressure will be different to the tyre pressure, but you will still see a similar pressure vs contact area behaviour when you vary tread width. If you were to double the tread width of a tyre, you will see the tread contact length get a lot shorter. You will still see some increase in the tread contact area, but it won’t be anywhere near double.

Originally Posted by durtyharry

What did you write?? did you have a comparison of tyres for family cars from 30 years ago(such as fitted to the xd, which was a er7814, 205/70/14 I believe) to the 216/60/16.

Sorry, I was looking at an acceptable replacement tyres list and I chose the first one listed. On closer inspection I think the old tyres are closer to 195 in width. Didn't the EA Falcons/VN commodores have 195 width tyres?

Originally Posted by durtyharry

do you know for a fact that this road has been designed for 130km/h and the curves, dips are suitable? You are a road engineer?. I drive the victorian leg of the hume regularly and there are several curves, rises and dips which would scare the ...... out of me at 130km/h

No I’m not a road engineer. Are you? Not that you need to be to know that doing 130 km/h on that road would be a doddle. Before the Wipe Off 5 campaign 120 km/h was the typical cruising speed for most people on that road and that wasn’t even slightly challenging when it came to corners, rises and dips.

Originally Posted by durtyharry

One thing I could guarantee is that the road surface/structure has not been engineered with the thought of heavy vehicles doing those sort of speeds, would have doubled/tripled the cost of making the road. Given how dangerous speed differential is: Do you support a 30km/h speed differential between heavy vehicles and cars on freeways?

Well Finland manages to have the second lowest road toll with Motorway speed limits of 120 km/h for cars and only 80 km/h for trucks. Germany has the third lowest with Motorway speed limits of 130 km/h (recommended) for cars and only 80/100 km/h for trucks. Switzerland is the fourth lowest and has the same limits as Finland. Denmark has the fifth lowest with Motorway speed limits of 110 or 130 km/h for cars and only 80 km/h for trucks.

Originally Posted by durtyharry

So why did you disregard what was written in it?
You can argue pedantics at the difference between how many cars fail to make corners according to the TAC versus the Newell stats, facts are that cars not making it around slight bends accounts for many deaths, but you say to hell with that?

The data on page 14 was not collected on the Newell Highway. Browsing through the Newell statistics it looks like they are very similar to those of the TAC, with around two to three times as many people running off the road on straight sections of road compared to bends.

Did you see the bit about the Coonabarrabran to Narrabri section of road? It is the most or second most dangerous section of the Newell Hwy and it has no Priority 1 curves at all. On that section of highway ten times as many people veered off the road on straight sections compared to bends.

Did you read the bit about fatigue? “Fatigue is the major factor amongst casualties on the Newell Highway with around 26% of casualties in 2007 involving fatigue”. The report then goes on to effectively remove 9% of all rest stops in one foul swoop when it said “the speed limit will be reduced to a consistent 100 km/h”. The RTA then proceeded to implement the speed reduction and deliberately ignored its own “code of conduct” that required “consultation with stakeholders” before a final decision was made.

[Romulus]

Originally Posted by xbgs351

Did you read the bit about fatigue? “Fatigue is the major factor amongst casualties on the Newell Highway with around 26% of casualties in 2007 involving fatigue”. The report then goes on to effectively remove 9% of all rest stops in one foul swoop when it said “the speed limit will be reduced to a consistent 100 km/h”. The RTA then proceeded to implement the speed reduction and deliberately ignored its own “code of conduct” that required “consultation with stakeholders” before a final decision was made.

That is absolutely astounding. There's plenty of evidence to conclude increasing the speed limit reduces fatigue, and it also reduces the time spent on the road exposing you to other risks. It is also fact the road fatality reduces where fatigue is a factor. And no, it's doesn't increase the fatality rate where 'speed/excessive speed' is a factor.

[durtyharry]

Originally Posted by GT Falcon

That is absolutely astounding. There's plenty of evidence to conclude increasing the speed limit reduces fatigue, and it also reduces the time spent on the road exposing you to other risks. It is also fact the road fatality reduces where fatigue is a factor. And no, it's doesn't increase the fatality rate where 'speed/excessive speed' is a factor.

Where is the evidence that says increasing speed limits reduces fatigue, there is absolutely none.

There is only confused logic on the part of people that think to go at the speed they feel like is a right.

Fatigue is controlled by taking adequate rest and controlling the number of hours you spend at the wheel in a given day, fatigued is not relieved by going faster. The consequences of being fatigued and going faster are even worse.

While it is a moot point:There is no truth that people spend less time at the wheel if you increase the limit. All that happens is people calculate they can drive further in the same time they normally do and dont vary how much rest they get at all. ie decide to do melb to brisbane in 2 long days rather than 3


Somepeople believe you should be able to go from syd to mel in one day?
If you have a relief driver, fine, otherwise, restrict your driving to 8 hours for the day with rests every 2hours. If you have to stop somewhere overnight, so be it.

[Romulus]

Originally Posted by durtyharry

Where is the evidence that says increasing speed limits reduces fatigue, there is absolutely none.

There is only confused logic on the part of people that think to go at the speed they feel like is a right.

Fatigue is controlled by taking adequate rest and controlling the number of hours you spend at the wheel in a given day, fatigued is not relieved by going faster. The consequences of being fatigued and going faster are even worse.

While it is a moot point:There is no truth that people spend less time at the wheel if you increase the limit. All that happens is people calculate they can drive further in the same time they normally do and dont vary how much rest they get at all. ie decide to do melb to brisbane in 2 long days rather than 3


Somepeople believe you should be able to go from syd to mel in one day?
If you have a relief driver, fine, otherwise, restrict your driving to 8 hours for the day with rests every 2hours. If you have to stop somewhere overnight, so be it.

NTSB for one have data showing reduced road toll, when speed limits on the highways were increased from 55mph to 70mph. Italy is another country where increased speed limits reduced fatalities on the road. I'm not going to bother digging up the stats for you, not worth my effort. It's proven your attention level and alertness is hightened when you travel at a faster speed. You have evidence to the contrary - good for you.

I comfortably travel 1000-1300km in a 12 hour stint travelling in outback WA. It worries me I have to share the road with folk like you who think that a rest every 2 hours is required. Perhaps you should consider handing in your drivers license and walk. Good exercise and will almost eliminate fatigue