Cuts urged in speed limits

[Pipeliner]

I don't have a problem with someone doing 90 in a 110 zone if that is the speed he/she are comfortable at - I do have a problem with such people not allowing faster motorists to overtake when it is safe to do so.  I would also have a problem with people who feel safe at 90kph being forced to drive at 110.  Many vehicles legally on the roads (e.g. tractors, backhoes) are incapable of getting anywhere near the posted speed limit anyway.

On a recent trip from Brisbane to Adelaide I did the first half at 100 and the second half at 80 (to check relative fuel consumption).  At 80 I didn't get queues building up behind me because I moved over to let them pass when it was safe to do so.

[dazzler]

We really need some violin music for this thread. 

[Kit_e_kat9]

I think instead of stuffing around with the speed limits, we should not have cars that can break the highest speed limit in Australia - currently 110??

People are going to kill / maim themselves and others with vehicles no matter what speed they are doing.

I'd suggest mandatory testing with each licence renewal and defensive driving courses for those with an accident history or learning AND those that have never done one before.  That will help make our roads safer.

They might also try actually making the road safer by spending more on upkeep thus leaving mechanical failure and stupidity as the final straw.

Kit_e

[krisandkev]

I think instead of stuffing around with the speed limits, we should not have cars that can break the highest speed limit in Australia - currently 110??

People are going to kill / maim themselves and others with vehicles no matter what speed they are doing.

I'd suggest mandatory testing with each licence renewal and defensive driving courses for those with an accident history or learning AND those that have never done one before.  That will help make our roads safer.

They might also try actually making the road safer by spending more on upkeep thus leaving mechanical failure and stupidity as the final straw.

Kit_e

I think you will find the highest speed limit is 130.    I am not sure about mandatory testing with each licence renewal, but a defensive driving course should be mandatory for all drivers. Maybe that should come in immediately for all new licence holders.  Kevin

[Boxhead 71]

"speed was a factor in the accident". well of course it was, assuming the vehicle(s) where in motion at the time.
Road signs advising to "slow down". But I'm already driving safely and within the limit.
Campaigns such as this one proposing to reduce the road toll by reducing the speed limit. But why stop there? If a reduction of 10km/h reduces the road toll by 5% and "surely it's worth it to save lives" then the same logic says simply keep reducing it until the road toll is zero.

The problem with speed limits and the anti speeding message is that it promotes the notion that there is a magical safe speed. Any half sensible driver knows that the maximum safe speed on any stretch of road will vary according to many factors; weather, daylight, traffic, performance and condition of vehicle, skill of driver, etc. Many times this safe speed may be actually below the limit, but many times it is well above it. I would rather see better training to ensure drivers have the skills to make this assessment rather than simply demonize all those who "speed". There will always be lunatics who drive beyond their skills or the conditions. Perhaps we'd do better by educating and rehabilitating them than by using them as a revenue source.
[/quote]

Well said, Brucer.

[SteveandViv]

I think instead of stuffing around with the speed limits, we should not have cars that can break the highest speed limit in Australia - currently 110??

People are going to kill / maim themselves and others with vehicles no matter what speed they are doing.

I'd suggest mandatory testing with each licence renewal and defensive driving courses for those with an accident history or learning AND those that have never done one before.  That will help make our roads safer.

They might also try actually making the road safer by spending more on upkeep thus leaving mechanical failure and stupidity as the final straw.

Kit_e

Kit_e. In the NT the highest is 130. And you would need to have a power to speed ratio so you can over take. There are far to many dangers in limiting a car that way, IMO and while I realize you should no break the speed limit to over take you may need to in a danger situation, can't see that working.

[Pipeliner]

Accidents are not caused by speed, accidents are caused by:

• Driving beyond the capability of the driver,
• Driving beyond the capability of the car,
• Driving beyond the capability of the road
• Mechanical failure
• Mental attitude of the driver
• Loss of attention (distraction)

All the speed of the vehicle does is determine the severity of the outcome.  Surely it is better to concentrate on the driver training which can prevent accidents rather than the speed which determines the cost of the outcome of the accident.

When my father started driving there was no such thing as a driving test - but there were also considerably fewer cars on the road in the 1930's and they didn't go very fast (Dad had an Austin 7).  When I started driving in the 1960's I had to pass a test, the roads were better, there were many more cars on the road, and even my Morris Minor was capable of 100kph if pushed.

Nowadays there are a huge number of cars on the roads and all are capable of speeds in excess of 100kph.  Except for a few major highways the road conditions haven't improved significantly - and most importantly the quality of driver training hasn't improved either.  We expect young drivers to be able to cope with 2010's conditions having received 1960's training.  I personally think that the driving training and test should be upgraded to reflect the current conditions on our roads.  Include skid pan training and test, don't allow a driver on dirt roads unless he has passed a competency test, etc.

[Bird]

I reckon we should double all speed limits.

[nbd73]

Pipeliner, very good points. What is the use of L plate drivers needing 100hrs of supervised driving if the supervisor(s) is/are poor drivers themselves? Even if some if that 100 is with a driving instructor its still debatable whether it makes that much difference. People who are going to be competent will be so after way less, and there is no amount of supervision that will save those doomed to be hopeless. Remember the old system: 6 weeks on L's, then P's for 12months and then you're away. Are new young drivers any bettet under the current system?

[dazzler]

Accidents are not caused by speed, accidents are caused by:

• Driving beyond the capability of the driver,
• Driving beyond the capability of the car,
• Driving beyond the capability of the road
• Mechanical failure
• Mental attitude of the driver
• Loss of attention (distraction)

All the speed of the vehicle does is determine the severity of the outcome.  Surely it is better to concentrate on the driver training which can prevent accidents rather than the speed which determines the cost of the outcome of the accident.

Seeing as you posted a list I take it you were an accident investigator or similar?  How many years did you do it?

[shanegtr]

IMHO reducing the speed limits on country roads wouldnt work. From my time in the Pilbara most people seem to struggle doing 110, 130km/h+ is the norm. But then again if you have a 90km/h limit and people still speed but roughly 20km/h then hey presto you have everyone doing 110km/h like you wanted in the first place

And I agree driver training would be the best way forward. I've watched a few of the crash investigation programs and I estimate 90%+ of the accidents are caused by driver error. I think a simple way to get extra training would be to force all P platers to do a defensive driver course before they come off their "P's" You dont do the course you dont get off your P's

[Bunyip]

And I agree driver training would be the best way forward. I've watched a few of the crash investigation programs and I estimate 90%+ of the accidents are caused by driver error. I think a simple way to get extra training would be to force all P platers to do a defensive driver course before they come off their "P's" You dont do the course you dont get off your P's

I tried to get my son a defensive driving course before he got off his L plates, once they are on their P's with their own car you lose leverage.

All the courses I looked at said no L platers.

Bunyip

[nbd73]

I tried to get my son a defensive driving course before he got off his L plates, once they are on their P's with their own car you lose leverage.

All the courses I looked at said no L platers.

Bunyip

What was his reason for not doing it? And why would anyone (esp inexperienced people) not want to be a better driver? Is he suggesting he does not need it? I did one, admittedly after I had my licence for a couple of years, and its the best thing I've ever done as far as driving goes.

[Bunyip]

What was his reason for not doing it? And why would anyone (esp inexperienced people) not want to be a better driver? Is he suggesting he does not need it? I did one, admittedly after I had my licence for a couple of years, and its the best thing I've ever done as far as driving goes.

He was too busy with his social life to waste the time. He is 20 and bullet proof.

The other son will happily do it once he has his P plates. We have two VERY different boys aged 2 years apart.

Bunyip

[nbd73]

He was too busy with his social life to waste the time. He is 20 and bullet proof.

The other son will happily do it once he has his P plates. We have two VERY different boys aged 2 years apart.

Bunyip

Thats tough for you I imagine. The problem with older son's attitude is that his ability (or inability) to drive affects more than just his own ego. If he was resisting reading lessons or something well that's fine but when other people's lives are at stake that is a pretty selfish attitude. Best of luck with your other child, maybe older brother will have a change of heart and do it then...

[Pipeliner]

Seeing as you posted a list I take it you were an accident investigator or similar?  How many years did you do it?

You take it incorrectly.  I have never been an accident investigator, just an intelligent individual with 50 years of driving experience.  And I know that every accident and near miss that I've had has been the consequence of one of the items in the list.

[dazzler]

As  a previous accident investigator conducting actual investigations I found that speed, even a relatively small amount over the posted limit, is a causational factor in many collisions. 

The three factors are inattention/attitude, excessive speed and alcohol.  (I once posted that a senior serious crash investigator reckoned that in virtually EVERY fatal accident he found a combination of the two and always one of them).

Mechanical failure is almost non existent to the extent as to be statistically irrelevant.

Actual driver ability, other than observation and anticipation skills, tends to be irrelevant as by the time avoidance can be taken the vehicles are in extremis anyway.

Now this is the time to que the "police tick box marked 'speed' "argument which is another load of BS.  Come on, dont let me down fellas.