The M1 in the rain..WTH- GC to Brisbane

[stevo68]

G'day All,

Was going to write this up the other day but forgot, and notice I used WTH as opposed to "What the Fred" :D. Anyhoo, and someone on here might know why, but on the main stretch of highway, predominately the 110k zone, why on earth have they used that...what I can only describe as some sort of pale/concrete material as opposed to tar. Now the reason that I ask is that the other day and today, spent much of the trip, hands firmly gripped on the steering wheel and keeping a good distance from cars in front. Why? Well for those unfamiliar, in the teeming rain, you cannot see an F'ing thing. You may as well be driving blindfolded, the visibility is that bad.

Then, same rain, you hit a tar section and you can see quite clearly. I'm surprised there isn't more accidents. And whilst I am at it, frikin QLD drivers as soon as they hit the rain, jam on the breaks, great fun at 110k's an hr. The other day I thought there must have been an accident...but noooooo, it was a section of highway getting a bit of a downpour. Last not least are the moron's who do not turn on their lights in those conditions, one today almost had a black D3 up the jatzy......no lights on, like roger me silly :eek:. Ahhhh feel much better now, though would be interested in why they would use that sort of material when it is quite clearly hazardous in that type of weather,

Regards

Stevo

[Utemad]

I think they use the concrete looking stuff in the flood prone areas.

[hodgo]

The answer is very simple COST over along peroid of time its very looooow maintance.

Hodgo

[stevo68]

I think they use the concrete looking stuff in the flood prone areas. Maybe in some area's but this is a whole stretch of road at least 40-50km's and hardly prone to flooding. Sounds like cost maybe the answer...but at what cost as it is seriously dangerous, it creates a haze/glare, cars virtually disappear from sight. Whereas when you hit the 100km zone, bitumen all the way, thanks for the feedback,

Regards

Stevo

[djhampson]

I find the new smooth tarmac they have been using in the last few years can be extremely reflective in the rain.

It seems ok on slopes because the water can drain away but a section near us that has 4 sets of lights in 1km when the water pools up become a pretty picture of red green and yellow. The white lines just dissapear :o.

I know concrete is popular in the US for highways because it requires far less maintenance and thus far less lane closures for annual maintenance. It also handles snow much better. So knowing the intelligence displayed from QLD Main Roads - that would have been a deciding factor :cool:.

[LandyAndy]

Concreate is all the go in the US.
Maybe they are trialing it here as it would be cost effective maintence wise till concreat cancer moves in.
There is a good reason "tar" as you put it gives better visability.The blue metal in the surface gives you drainage.Hotmix is worse as its finer.We use 7mm stone on the first coat then re-top with 10mm stone on shire roads.Of heavy haulage roads its 10mm stone then 14mm stone.
There is a new surface being trialed that is basically crumbed tyres,offers good drainage and very good grip.Quite expensive but surely better than the tyres going to landfill.
Andrew

[UncleHo]

G'day Folks :)

Ask Sunshine Coast motorists what they think of "Stonemastic" in the wet, there have been a overly large number of fatalities on that stuff in the wet.

cheers

[djhampson]

G'day Folks :)

Ask Sunshine Coast motorists what they think of "Stonemastic" in the wet, there have been a overly large number of fatalities on that stuff in the wet.

cheers

Thats the same stuff that I was talking about. Its nice and quite but when its wet its very reflective.

[stevo68]

Concreate is all the go in the US.
Maybe they are trialing it here as it would be cost effective maintence wise till concreat cancer moves in.
There is a good reason "tar" as you put it gives better visability.The blue metal in the surface gives you drainage.Hotmix is worse as its finer.We use 7mm stone on the first coat then re-top with 10mm stone on shire roads.Of heavy haulage roads its 10mm stone then 14mm stone.
There is a new surface being trialed that is basically crumbed tyres,offers good drainage and very good grip.Quite expensive but surely better than the tyres going to landfill.
AndrewThanks mate, I was trying to remember who would know that kind of stuff. Overall can't see then changing it and yes it is the same up the Sunshine coast as well, thats what I am talking about. Its actually quite nerve racking moreso when you have the kids in the car, and despite all the safety designs the D3 has, braking at 110k aint pleasant,

Regards

Stevo

[inside]

I think at the end of the day a D3 is 2.7 tonnes, no matter what they do to it safety wise it will always be 2.7 tonnes. Braking will always take longer and evasive maneuvers will not be as agile.

Plus it is my opinion the majority of QLD drivers have trouble in the dry let alone the wet. Driving is something the general QLDer does not put much pride in.

[WhiteD3]

I always thought the idea of using concrete was where the land may be at risk of subsiding. ie the stretch between Reedy Crk and Palm Beach due to much of it being reclaimed swamp. A huge amount of the M1 is on filled landed and so is at risk over time of subsidence.

Whatever the reason, I agree on the visibility problem re line markers in the rain. Surely there's some solution they could employee.

I will say though, that IMHO the M1 between Beenleigh and Nerang is the best bit of road I've driven on.

[UncleHo]

G'day Stevo68 :)

Yeah! that's freaky stuff, we have it on a round-a-bout just up the road at Ningi on the way to Bribie, they have put a decomposed granite skin on it now, as it was averaging 3 cars a week in the scrub, and it is real spooky getting the 2a sideways at 25kph in the wet :eek: got to be fun after the first few times :D opposite lock on bitumen at 25kph in a 2a on bar treads:cool:

BUT that stuff is a REAL problem as you will have seen on the 6.00pm news regularly

cheers

[LandyAndy]

Concreate may well be the way to go,there is no reason normal bitumen can be laid upon it.
You would have all seen big wheeltracks wearing into hwys by roadtrains.The vibration/weight of the trucks draws the water to the surface creating a pavement failure.A re-inforced concreate base would stop this.
If anybody has noted roadworks you will always see a Vibrating roller working in tandem with a rubber tyred roller.The vibe packs it down and draws the water up,the multi tyre pushes the dirt and moisture down.You remove the vibe roller as you fill the last of the dirt in.
Andrew

[BigJon]

Driving is something the general QLDer does not put much pride in.

I think you could quite safely say that driving is something that most people don't put much pride in.
I have driven all over most of Australia and I have seen woeful driving "skills" in every State and Territory!
I have never been to Tasmania, but I am sure our southern members can tell us that drivers there are hopeless too!

[solmanic]

Concreate is all the go in the US.


The US interstate system is designed to take mass troop movements and tracked vehicles - a concept borne out of the cold war.

Concrete generally requires less maintenance, can be laid faster, flatter and takes heavier loads without deteriorating. Although when it cracks up - it ALL needs replacing.

There was much hoop-lah about the Newcastle freeway years ago when it was extended north from Gosford. The concrete pavement was hailed as the greatest thing in road engineering since whenever... until the surface cracked up a few years later and had to be largely replaced.

They now mix small specks of black aggregate into the concrete to fix the wet weather visibility issue but I don't know why our M1 didn't receive this treatment.

[solmanic]

Concreate may well be the way to go,there is no reason normal bitumen can be laid upon it.

The bitumen just cracks-up and peels off the top. Too thin if its just laid on its own and not able to bond properly to the substrate - although you are right - you would think someone might have sorted out a system like that which works by now.

[stevo68]

I will say though, that IMHO the M1 between Beenleigh and Nerang is the best bit of road I've driven on. In the dry...for sure, its a great stretch. In the rain...can produce some brown undy moments :o. You could also tell the European cars and maybe some other cars as they had bright red rear lights, so at least you could see the lights, if not the car itself. I always keep a decent space between me and the car in front for exactly the fact that the D3 is 2.7 tonne, and try to even more in that inclement weather. Also thanks for the "technical side" as this has bugged me for ages,

Regards

Stevo

[87County]

I think at the end of the day a D3 is 2.7 tonnes, no matter what they do to it safety wise it will always be 2.7 tonnes. Braking will always take longer and evasive maneuvers will not be as agile.

Plus it is my opinion the majority of QLD drivers have trouble in the dry let alone the wet. Driving is something the general QLDer does not put much pride in.

I always thought that "driving to the conditions" was a recommended procedure..... IAW, if this takes a reduction of 20km/hr or 60km/hr to achieve sufficient visabilty/stopping distance then just do it.

[UncleHo]

G'day Stevo68 :)

Aah! the "Rear Fog Collision Lights" so loved by the trendy little bimbos in their Hyundai Exels:( looks so cute shinning brightly on a clear night :mad: so everybody can see ME and when it rains I just switch it off:(

I have fitted a Defender one to the back of the 2a:D as it helps in the wet on the Bruce Highway particulary,as the 2a doesn't travell at 110kph.

Also fitted the matching Reversing light,with beeper for safety, and to guard against elderly folk with suicidal tendencies that shuffle behind the truck in an effort to have their partners kept for life by your 3rd party payout;)

cheers

[Redback]

I think at the end of the day a D3 is 2.7 tonnes, no matter what they do to it safety wise it will always be 2.7 tonnes. Braking will always take longer and evasive maneuvers will not be as agile.

Plus it is my opinion the majority of QLD drivers have trouble in the dry let alone the wet. Driving is something the general QLDer does not put much pride in.

Mate take a little drive down too Victoria, then you might appreciate the drivers in QLD:wallbash:

Baz.

[BMKal]

I thought that maybe they used concrete in the East because they don't have the good grader operators that we have in the West. :tease::tease:

And Qld drivers definitely aren't the only ones to hit the brakes when it rains. It's been raining for three days here in Kalgoorlie - still raining this morning. You should see them here. Well OK - it does only rain here like this once or twice a year and maybe some of them aren't used to it. But seriously, some of them should just stay at home and curl up with a good book when it rains. And turning the lights on - maybe about one in ten if you're lucky.

Good thing we don't have freeways and heavy traffic up this way.

[Lotz-A-Landies]

Concreate may well be the way to go,there is no reason normal bitumen can be laid upon it....
... Andrew
Andrew

When they first did the Hornsby bypass part of the F3 north of Sydney, it was the concrete with the horizontal groove style, (which plays havoc with motorcycles), but the big complaint was from neighbours to the road and the noise of the semi-trailer tyres. The Greiner (Lib) Government soon had bitumen hotmix laid on top of the concrete base.

The hotmix over concrete still has less maintenance than hotmix over compacted road-base,because of the very stable nature of the concrete.

Diana

BTW: I thought that concrete cancer was the result of the "fast drying" concrete additives in the 1960's and 1970's - the nature of the drying left tiny channels through the structure where moisture could enter and attack the steel reinforcing? If you don't use those fast drying additives you don't have the same problem with the concrete cancer.

[cjc_td5]

Concrete pavements have high initial cost but low ongoing maintenance costs. That said, when they eventually do fail, they are very high cost to rectify as you have to replace the whole slab. They are usually only used for very high traffic roads where the cost/benefit can be justified.

Water sitting on the pavement can be reduced by making the crossfall a bit steeper or cutting lateral grooves into the concrete. Grooves increase the noise though so are no good near residential areas.

You can put a bitumen surface (asphalt etc) onto concrete, you just have to be VERY careful how you bond it to the concrete. Usually the bigger problem is any cracking in the concrete will refect straight through the asphalt to the surface.

To significantly reduce vehicle spray when wet, you can get asphalt surfaces that are porus, the water basically flows through the asphalt mat (usually about 50mm thick) and runs off the road to the side "though" the asphalt. There is no water left sitting on-top of the asphalt to cause vehicle spray. It is very expensive but is used on motorways wher traffic vol is high.

Different colour linemarking (ie yellow) can also be used to make them more obvious when the pavement colour is light (ie concrete or some granite seals). Main problem is that the colour pigment in the paint ups the cost by at least 30%.

I would not have though concrete cancer would be a risk with concrete pavements. There is very little steel reinforcement used (if any) and there is generally a huge cover thickness, so water penetration to the steel to cause corrosion is generally not an issue.

[solmanic]

I think the interesting thing is that over in Germany, the majority of autobahns are smooth, smooth bitumen (not even the typical cross-grooves to shed water). I don't recall having any trouble travelling on them in excess of 160kph in the wet or even in snow (with winter tyres of course).

The only concrete autobahns are in the far east where they were laid by the soviets to run tanks on. They are now nearly all replaced with new bitumen too.

http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/6283/070305potsdam001rg7.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/9039/070305potsdam002rn5.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[Bigbjorn]

Concreate is all the go in the US.

Andrew

Eisenhower built the US interstate highway network on the defence budget. Concrete was used so they could run their main battle tanks on the highways without transporters when/if the Russians, Chinese, Cubans, Vietnamese, whateverese invaded.

[Sprint]

Mate take a little drive down too Victoria, then you might appreciate the drivers in QLD:wallbash:
which explains everything given the number of victorians in Queensland!

[RobHay]

G'day All,

Was going to write this up the other day but forgot, and notice I used WTH as opposed to "What the Fred" :D. Anyhoo, and someone on here might know why, but on the main stretch of highway, predominately the 110k zone, why on earth have they used that...what I can only describe as some sort of pale/concrete material as opposed to tar. Now the reason that I ask is that the other day and today, spent much of the trip, hands firmly gripped on the steering wheel and keeping a good distance from cars in front. Why? Well for those unfamiliar, in the teeming rain, you cannot see an F'ing thing. You may as well be driving blindfolded, the visibility is that bad.

Then, same rain, you hit a tar section and you can see quite clearly. I'm surprised there isn't more accidents. And whilst I am at it, frikin QLD drivers as soon as they hit the rain, jam on the breaks, great fun at 110k's an hr. The other day I thought there must have been an accident...but noooooo, it was a section of highway getting a bit of a downpour. Last not least are the moron's who do not turn on their lights in those conditions, one today almost had a black D3 up the jatzy......no lights on, like roger me silly :eek:. Ahhhh feel much better now, though would be interested in why they would use that sort of material when it is quite clearly hazardous in that type of weather,

Regards

Stevo



.....and the question is........Why were you doing 110 klm when "cannot see an F'ing thing. You may as well be driving blindfolded, the visibility is that bad. ":nazilock:;)

[LandyAndy]

I dont really understand why concreate is so special for a tank to run on.
Roadtrains weigh in much heavier,and present a huge increase of weight per m2 over the tyres compared to tracks.
We have roadtrains running on most of our shire gravel roads,they hold up pretty well.Battle Tanks would do no damage at all!!!!
I dont wear the concreate for tanks idea,they are still building them that way.
Then,roadtrains are an Aussie thing.18 wheelers are the US norm.
I suspect its an employment issue.
The US pay real low for blue collar workers,and they have lots and lots of them.Our last Works Supervisor(tosser that he was) spent some time in the US in the road building game.He said that we get double what the US worker gets for the same job and they have to work their ass off for it!!!
Same for road transport,run semi trailers,pay them peanuts,no need for multiple trailers.
It would be real interesting to find the wage equivelent of jobs Aust/US.
We may discover the US is a hidden 3rd world country!!!
Andrew

[solmanic]

I dont really understand why concreate is so special for a tank to run on.
Roadtrains weigh in much heavier,and present a huge increase of weight per m2 over the tyres compared to tracks.

It's because of the tracks. Concrete is much harder than bitumen - even though both may be able to handle the same gross weight, the metal tracks will just cut up the bitumen surface and fling it about.

Also road trains have nice, soft pneumatic tyres... lots of them, so the weight is spread over a much larger area. It's the weight per axle that's the killer.

[Bigbjorn]

I dont really understand why concreate is so special for a tank to run on.
Roadtrains weigh in much heavier,and present a huge increase of weight per m2 over the tyres compared to tracks.
We have roadtrains running on most of our shire gravel roads,they hold up pretty well.Battle Tanks would do no damage at all!!!!
I dont wear the concreate for tanks idea,they are still building them that way.
Then,roadtrains are an Aussie thing.18 wheelers are the US norm.
I suspect its an employment issue.
The US pay real low for blue collar workers,and they have lots and lots of them.Our last Works Supervisor(tosser that he was) spent some time in the US in the road building game.He said that we get double what the US worker gets for the same job and they have to work their ass off for it!!!
Same for road transport,run semi trailers,pay them peanuts,no need for multiple trailers.
It would be real interesting to find the wage equivelent of jobs Aust/US.
We may discover the US is a hidden 3rd world country!!!
Andrew

Andrew, multi-trailer combinations are common in the USA. Not all states allow them. Regulations vary widely from state to state. You mainly see doubles, short triples, long triples, and dromedaries in the western states. Some very strange looking, to our eyes, rigs are in use over there such as the Michigan steel haulers which are short semi-trailer rigs with many axles to achieve a low pavement loading. Gross weight allowed for these is in excess of 70 tons. Tri-drive tippers with flotation tyres on the steer axle and 500horsepower, with super low ratio crawler gears for getting up steep ramps in deep excavations. 6 x 6 and 10 x 6, & 10 x 8 transit mixers with a one man offset cab and the mixer bowl alongside the driver discharging over the front. Same as here, line haul owner drivers don't make much. Union drivers (Teamsters) make good money. Non-union don't.

[tombraider]

I think at the end of the day a D3 is 2.7 tonnes, no matter what they do to it safety wise it will always be 2.7 tonnes. Braking will always take longer and evasive maneuvers will not be as agile.

Plus it is my opinion the majority of QLD drivers have trouble in the dry let alone the wet. Driving is something the general QLDer does not put much pride in.

Whats with this obsession with 2.7 tonnes???

Everyone quotes this figure and its WRONG....

Weights (kg)

Item
V6
TDV6
V8
Total TARE
2345 min
2353 min
2395 min
2372 max
2432 max
2440 max
Gross vehicle weight
3180 min
3180 min
3180 min
3230 max
3230 max
3230 max


They arent ever heavier than 2440 max....

Unless loaded, but then a D2 or Defender easily get that heavy.

[Lotz-A-Landies]

Whats with this obsession with 2.7 tonnes???

Everyone quotes this figure and its WRONG....

Weights (kg)
Total TARE
2345 min

2440 max

[/FONT]
They arent ever heavier than 2440 max....

Unless loaded, but then a D2 or Defender easily get that heavy.
But Tare is calculated with only 5 gallons of fuel and without a driver.

Have 80 litres of fuel a driver and 1 or 2 passengers, a picnic hamper and you are just about spot on 2.7 tonnes on road.

Diana

[tombraider]

But Tare is calculated with only 5 gallons of fuel and without a driver.

Have 80 litres of fuel a driver and 1 or 2 passengers, a picnic hamper and you are just about spot on 2.7 tonnes on road.

Diana

Discovery Series II TD5

weight: 2225kg (unladen), GVM: 2750kg - 2880kg,

2225 + 80kg (fuel) + 3 persons @ 75kg avg + picnic hamper.... 2550kg....

With Smaller Brakes :D

Add to that a long range tank, bullbar, winch, roof rack, draw system, dual battery etc... and a D2 is sitting +350kg

Or at 2900kg and then its OVER GVM and hence Illegal....

Add camping gear (150kg), Fridge 30kg, Food/Water, Recovery gear, extra fuel in the long range tank (+70kg) etc... And your well over 3.2t

At least the D3 has brakes to suit and a GVM closer to what we just got to!

So its not so bad really....

[drivesafe]

Hi Stevo, the M1 is probably one of the safest motorways in Australia.

The entire 8 lane section is concrete and probably one of the most expensive sections of road in Oz.

Concrete is, as pointed out in earlier post in this thread, is used in high traffic density areas and is the most expensive form of road surface.

The problem is that we still try to do it on the cheap, laying it only 8 to 10 inches thick while the Europeans lay it 22 inches thick.

At a 22 inch thickness, it is heaps dearer but lasts much MUCH longer before needing to be replaced.

The advantages of tarring over the concrete, as in most European countries is usually based more on whether conditions than anything else.

Because huge amounts of salt is used during snow seasons, dark tar responds better, with the salt, to melt ice build-up than light coloured concrete does.

Here in Oz, tar is usually only use as a noise deterrent but there are a few places where special forms of hi tech tar surfaces are place to increase safety.

A little trivia, Hitler built the worlds first modern concrete motor ways ( Autobahns ) as a means of creating work during the latter stages of the great depression in the late 1930’s.

Eisenhower actually built the the Interstate Highway system in the USA after seeing how well it worked in Germany during and after W.W.II.

Last but not least, I’m with RobHay on this one, you are actually supposed to drive to road and whether conditions.

If it’s raining so hard you can’t see, SLOW DOWN and if you didn’t and had an accident, I thick you will find that the law will come down on you, not the vehicle in front of you.

The only place I know of where it is actually an offence to slow down in adverse whether conditions is in California, not here in Australia.

Cheers

[drivesafe]

Heres another bit of useless info.

How many Gold Coasters have noticed how they are doing up the local roads on the west side of the M1 between Mudgeeraba and Nerang.

They actually joined up three separate sections of road at Worongary and are building 4 lanes from Worongary to Mudgeeraba.

All looks good but it’s all being done so this section of LOCAL road can be used as the north bound lanes of the M1 while they carry out upgrading of the M1.

I’m sure as hell glad I don’t have to travel to Brisbane every day because this section of road is going to be an even bigger nightmare than it is now.

Cheers

[Bigbjorn]

Last but not least, I’m with RobHay on this one, you are actually supposed to drive to road and whether conditions.



Yes, indeed, There are no dangerous roads, only dangerous drivers. A famous GP driver said about the Nurburgring, that the track is not dangerous, only the drivers who try to lap it too fast.

[Tank]

G'day All,

Was going to write this up the other day but forgot, and notice I used WTH as opposed to "What the Fred" :D. Anyhoo, and someone on here might know why, but on the main stretch of highway, predominately the 110k zone, why on earth have they used that...what I can only describe as some sort of pale/concrete material as opposed to tar. Now the reason that I ask is that the other day and today, spent much of the trip, hands firmly gripped on the steering wheel and keeping a good distance from cars in front. Why? Well for those unfamiliar, in the teeming rain, you cannot see an F'ing thing. You may as well be driving blindfolded, the visibility is that bad.

Then, same rain, you hit a tar section and you can see quite clearly. I'm surprised there isn't more accidents. And whilst I am at it, frikin QLD drivers as soon as they hit the rain, jam on the breaks, great fun at 110k's an hr. The other day I thought there must have been an accident...but noooooo, it was a section of highway getting a bit of a downpour. Last not least are the moron's who do not turn on their lights in those conditions, one today almost had a black D3 up the jatzy......no lights on, like roger me silly :eek:. Ahhhh feel much better now, though would be interested in why they would use that sort of material when it is quite clearly hazardous in that type of weather,

Regards

Stevo
Quote: "frikin QLD drivers as soon as they hit the rain, jam on the breaks, great fun at 110k's an hr."
That's OK, in Sydney they speed up when it rains and becomes dangerous, Regards Frank.

[stevo68]

Ok, firstly for the fuddy duddies :p, and I do get your point, though perhaps need to read my initial post a little more carefully, albeit I could have been clearer. Yes I do slow down, I do drive to the conditions, even then it is bloody perilous. If you noted, I did say that I kept a good distance from the vehicle in front, so if I needed to brake suddenly, I had a good distance to do so.

Secondly in relation to braking at 110km an hr, again should have clarified...one can be driving along, doesn't matter whether visibility is clear or not, might not even be raining on the stretch you are on...but generally you can see rain ahead, up here they literally hit the anchors. I've never come across that before anywhere else I have driven.

Lastly, I do not dispute whether it is a great stretch of highway.....in the dry. In the wet it is a terrible stretch of highway and hence the point of the thread. Same weather on tarred sections...not a problem, visibility is fine. Same weather on the concrete section whether doing 110 or 60kms and hr, visibility is shocking. Was interested to know why and have learnt a lot, so thanks to all for that,

Regards

Stevo

[VladTepes]

That concrete is very noisy - nearby residents have been complaining about it for ages.

[Tank]

Ok, firstly for the fuddy duddies :p, and I do get your point, though perhaps need to read my initial post a little more carefully, albeit I could have been clearer. Yes I do slow down, I do drive to the conditions, even then it is bloody perilous. If you noted, I did say that I kept a good distance from the vehicle in front, so if I needed to brake suddenly, I had a good distance to do so.

Secondly in relation to braking at 110km an hr, again should have clarified...one can be driving along, doesn't matter whether visibility is clear or not, might not even be raining on the stretch you are on...but generally you can see rain ahead, up here they literally hit the anchors. I've never come across that before anywhere else I have driven.

Lastly, I do not dispute whether it is a great stretch of highway.....in the dry. In the wet it is a terrible stretch of highway and hence the point of the thread. Same weather on tarred sections...not a problem, visibility is fine. Same weather on the concrete section whether doing 110 or 60kms and hr, visibility is shocking. Was interested to know why and have learnt a lot, so thanks to all for that,

Regards

Stevo
Stevo, wasn't having a shot mate, just pointing out that when it starts raining in Sydney chaos follows, I think that they think it is a signal to commit mayhem and murder, the number of accidents is unbelievable, and then you see the news and they say the rain has caused X number of accidents. It's not that the idgits that had the crashes had anything to do with it, it was the rain, it just took over my car and there was nothing I could do. I wonder if these clowns have ever heard of that rare commodity nowdays called Commonsense. Trouble is in Sydney if you slow down to a safe speed these idiots will run over you, best to get off the road and let them commit Hari-Kari, Regards Frank.

[BigJon]

Hence why I always refer to crashes, not accidents when talking about that sort of thing.

To my mind, the term accident implies that it was no ones fault, whereas crash means blame can be placed where it belongs.

I have heard that some Police Forces now have Major Crash Investigation Units, rather than Major Accident Investigation Units, for that very reason.

[Jamo]

Tombraider's right. You need to compare like with like when quoting weight figures. It's no sense quoting the tare of a D2 against the loaded weight of a D3.

And there's a reason that Stevo's V8 D3 can only take 18" rims and above - the brakes are too big! Add DSC into the equation and I'll bet the D3 is a better braking vehicle than it's predecessors.

[VladTepes]

Brakes are for shirtlifters Stevo - get a series truck and be a real man !!!! ROFL

[B92 8NW]

Brakes are for shirtlifters Stevo - get a series truck and be a real man !!!! ROFL

My Series doesn't have functioning brakes until the fourth or fifth pump - I'd rather ermm "lift the shirt" than drive in rain at 110 km/h any day of the week:o:o.







:D

[Jamo]

I must qualify my post above by stating that I only read back as far as Tombraider's last post.

(In the true spirit of AULRO I neither read this entire thread before making comment, nor did I necessarily read any post with the intention of understanding what the poster was trying to say;) )

[Bigbjorn]

My Series doesn't have functioning brakes until the fourth or fifth pump - I'd rather ermm "lift the shirt" than drive in rain at 110 km/h any day of the week:o:o.




:D

Oh, Dear. Another one out of the closet. Soon Land Rovers will have the same reputation as Toyota Celicas.

[p38arover]

Oh, Dear. Another one out of the closet. Soon Land Rovers will have the same reputation as Toyota Celicas.

I didn't know Celicas had a reputation.

[Bigbjorn]

I didn't know Celicas had a reputation.

In the motor trade we used to say they were a "dressers" car. Window dressers, hairdressers, cross dressers.

[stevo68]

Ok wasnt the worst day but here is an example for those that havent experienced what it is like, in all pictures the downpour was the same:

Concrete Section

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2008/02/59.jpg

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2008/02/60.jpg

Bitumen Section

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2008/02/61.jpg

One hell of a difference as you can see and that was only in a reasonable downpour,

regards

Stevo

[hodgo]

I experenced the problem for myself about midday yesterday just reached 110 ks after crossing the logan bridge and the heavens opened up and droped buckets on us, traffic went from 110 to about 20 ks in about 100 mts them crawled as one could not see two feet youself and the lane makings were invisable.

Cliff

[stevo68]

I experenced the problem for myself about midday yesterday just reached 110 ks after crossing the logan bridge and the heavens opened up and droped buckets on us, traffic went from 110 to about 20 ks in about 100 mts them crawled as one could not see two feet youself and the lane makings were invisable.

Cliff
Those pics were around 2.30ish yesterday heading up to Brissie,

Regards

Stevo

[tombraider]

When the wife and I were in Noosa we were stunned...

The rain started and the cars stopped :eek:

Couldnt understand why people wouldnt drive in the rain....
Its only rain....

Try living with fog for years, you get used to driving with limited visibility.

[Reads90]

The answer is very simple COST over along peroid of time its very looooow maintance.

Hodgo


I was told (in the Uk ) that a tramac motorway (6 lanes , 3 each way) 1 mile long , cost the same as 10 miles of concrete motorway (6 lanes , 3 each way)

[Reads90]

When the wife and I were in Noosa we were stunned...

The rain started and the cars stopped :eek:

Couldnt understand why people wouldnt drive in the rain....
Its only rain....

Try living with fog for years, you get used to driving with limited visibility.


I know the feeling , drives me mad, Maybe because i am a pom and used to rain. Gods knows what they would do if they came across black ice. Now that is fun and certain wakes you up on the way to work on a cold morning :D:D

[stevo68]

When the wife and I were in Noosa we were stunned...

The rain started and the cars stopped :eek:

Couldnt understand why people wouldnt drive in the rain....
Its only rain....

Try living with fog for years, you get used to driving with limited visibility.
__________________ Mate, common occurance as per my initial post. The day I wrote that, exactly that happened, slow down for sure, but yank on the breaks...WTF....I thought there had been a car accident or something....nope just rain,

Regards

Stevo

[solmanic]

Just a piece of advice for general freeway driving - if I come up to a stationary or slow moving column of traffic, I just punch the hazard lights for a couple of flashes to let the cars behind know that I'm not just braking to slow dow a little bit, but a LOT.

This is common practice in Europe and you will probably NEVER have to worry about being rear-ended again. Even if they have not seen anybody do this before, people instinctively brake harder when they see the hazards go on the car in front.

Incidentally, some cars with LED tail-lights now have progressive brakelights which flash like hazards when a lot of brake force is applied (a bit like F1 cars).

[Reads90]

Just a piece of advice for general freeway driving - if I come up to a stationary or slow moving column of traffic, I just punch the hazard lights for a couple of flashes to let the cars behind know that I'm not just braking to slow dow a little bit, but a LOT.

This is common practice in Europe and you will probably NEVER have to worry about being rear-ended again. Even if they have not seen anybody do this before, people instinctively brake harder when they see the hazards go on the car in front.

Incidentally, some cars with LED tail-lights now have progressive brakelights which flash like hazards when a lot of brake force is applied (a bit like F1 cars).

I had a Pug 406 which when you hit the brakes hard the hazard lights came on automatically

[JohnE]

Hey Stevo,
funny I read this after coming down yesterday from Noosa rained nearly all the way, the M1, 110kmph section was wet and I slowed down for the conditions, then you wouldn;t read about it another one of my pet hates decided i wasn;t going fast enough so he sat on my bumper and and started tooting and flicking his headlights, so what did I do, had to accelerate away because i didn;t feel safe, so much for a 3 second gap, where do you go when there is traffic everywhere???
I love digital cameras ( this photo is going to the local gendarmes)

funny he backed off after the flash on the camera I think.


https://www.aulro.com/afvb/


john

[solmanic]

so he sat on my bumper and and started tooting and flicking his headlights,

Looking at that photo - you ARE NOT IN THE LEFT LANE (one of MY pet hates) so it's no wonder the truck driver was getting agitated. Australians just don't seem to understand how multi-lane freeway driving should work. We drive like Americans where it's everyman for themselves, pick a lane and if you want to get past just change to another - left or right.

The proper method for freeway driving is EVERYONE should start in the left lane (not the second to left or middle lanes - the LEFT lane). Then overtaking is ONLY done to the right. If you want to overtake the car in front and someone is already coming up behind you in the next lane - put your indicator on and they should then pull right into the next lane to let you pull out.

This goes on in a cascading fashion so only the fastest traffic is using the far right lane and the majority of traffic is in the left and middle (or second to left on the M1) lanes.

No excuse for dangerous driving on the truck driver's part however.

[BigJon]

As far as I am aware, in a mulit lane road like that one appears to be (not just two lanes, but three or more) you can use any of the "left" lanes whenever you want. You aren't bound to use the far left lane.

That is certainly the case on the freeway heading up through the hills out of Adelaide (three lanes each way).

[stevo68]

ooking at that photo - you ARE NOT IN THE LEFT LANE (one of MY pet hates) so it's no wonder the truck driver was getting agitated. Australians just don't seem to understand how multi-lane freeway driving should work. We drive like Americans where it's everyman for themselves, pick a lane and if you want to get past just change to another - left or right.

The proper method for freeway driving is EVERYONE should start in the left lane (not the second to left or middle lanes - the LEFT lane). Then overtaking is ONLY done to the right. If you want to overtake the car in front and someone is already coming up behind you in the next lane - put your indicator on and they should then pull right into the next lane to let you pull out.

This goes on in a cascading fashion so only the fastest traffic is using the far right lane and the majority of traffic is in the left and middle (or second to left on the M1) lanes.

No excuse for dangerous driving on the truck driver's part however. Have to disagree :p, the far right lane is the "speedy" lane, that is where it ticks me off, the other lanes can dawdle along, which they tend to do. In the picture JohnE is at least 2 or 3 lanes over. Im generally in the far right lane or the lane next to it, never see the other 2 :D. I drive the M1 a hell of a lot and you rarely see overtaking in the two farthest left lanes, only the 2 right ones. Truck driver was an AHOLE,

Regards

Stevo

[solmanic]

As far as I am aware, in a mulit lane road like that one appears to be (not just two lanes, but three or more) you can use any of the "left" lanes whenever you want. You aren't bound to use the far left lane.

That is certainly the case on the freeway heading up through the hills out of Adelaide (three lanes each way).

This is the crux of our problem in Australia. People think that any lane other than the right lane is OK to sit in. The system doesn't work if the ONLY lane available for overtaking is the far right one.

You need to stay as far left as possible so all lanes to the right of you are available for overtaking. Otherwise you get the current situation where people get p!ssed off and overtake to both the left and right of a slower car in a middle lane - then the two same cars re-merge left & right and there is a collision or near miss.

Stevo - I don't know what M1 you're talking about, but people often pass up the far left hand lane because no-one bothers to drive there.

Generally everyone is afraid that if they stick to the far left lane they will be boxed in by traffic to their right. If people were more switched-on and knew to merge right if a car in front, in the left lane puts their indicator on (as is common practice in the UK & Europe) then we would not have this problem.

As far as I'm concerned, there has been bugger-all education about how the system should work. We need a campaign like the ones they run from time to time regarding round-abouts (not that they work all that well either).


BTW - Yes - truck driver was an AHOLe - he could have overtaken.

[stevo68]

This is the crux of our problem in Australia. People think that any lane other than the right lane is OK to sit in. The system doesn't work if the ONLY lane available for overtaking is the far right one.

You need to stay as far left as possible so all lanes to the right of you are available for overtaking. Otherwise you get the current situation where people get p!ssed off and overtake to both the left and right of a slower car in a middle lane - then the two same cars re-merge left & right and there is a collision or near miss.

Stevo - I don't know what M1 you're talking about, but people ALWAYS pass up the far left hand lane because no-one bothers to drive there.

Generally everyone is afraid that if they stick to the far left lane they will be boxed in by traffic to their right. If people were more switched-on and knew to merge right if a car in front, in the left lane puts their indicator on (as is common practice in the UK & Europe) then we would not have this problem.

As far as I'm concerned, there has been bugger-all education about how the system should work. We need a campaign like the ones they run from time to time regarding round-abouts (not that they work all that well either).
Mate would be the M1 in the title of the thread :p, look like I dont disagree with the theory, but its not how it works...out there. If people are likely to overtake they are generally in the 1 or 2nd lane ( ie right lanes). If they are happy to sit at speed or slower they are in the last 2 lanes. Only problem I ever have is if they are in the far right lane and not moving over, however most when they see a black D3 coming up behind them move over anyway :D,

Regards

Stevo

[solmanic]

My theory is and always has been that if you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem. So I do my bit and keep to the far left lane. If everyone on this forum did the same thing then who knows, it could catch on.

I don't generally have any trouble overtaking to the right either in the Defender :D. If some numnuts is not letting me move across and I can see that they have a clear lane to their right - I just sart pulling out and they usually get the message and merge right themselves (occasionally with a bit of fuss - but meh!)

[BigJon]

This is the crux of our problem in Australia. People think that any lane other than the right lane is OK to sit in. The system doesn't work if the ONLY lane available for overtaking is the far right one.
.

With regard to the road through the Adelaide Hills (I am very familiar with it, not so the M1 you are talking about), trucks and buses tend to populate the far left lane, tavelling at a very slow speed (it is a steep hill).

If you use the left lane it is very easy to get stuck behind slow moving traffic, then have little opportunity to change lanes to pass (no one will let you in and the speed difference can be as high as 80 kph).

The road is also quite winding with blind corners, so it can be difficult to plan ahead.

When using that piece of road even I tend to use the centre lane rather than the far left for that exact reason, and I am certainly more courteous than the average road user.

On that multi lane road using the centre lane while not overtaking is 100% legal. Even the signage states "Use left lanes when not overtaking" (note: lanes, not lane). Sitting in the right hand lane while not overtaking is still illegal, not that it prevents people (morons) from doing so.

[Grizzly_Adams]

On that multi lane road using the centre lane while not overtaking is 100% legal. Even the signage states "Use left lanes when not overtaking" (note: lanes, not lane).

Yes but what really annoys me (I'm one of the ones like solmaniac who always try to stick to the left-most lane) is when there is absolutely nothing for miles yet people insist on sitting in and dawdling along in the middle lanes like they're scared of being in the left lane for some reason...

[BigJon]

Yes but what really annoys me .

Give me the power to change that which I can and the ability to accept that which I can't :D:cool:.

Driving standards in Australia are very low (I think there have been threads on this topic before). It is probably easier to just say "Bugger it, they are bad drivers" and move on than to get annoyed about it.

Mind you, I see plenty of driving here that annoys the hell out of me, so "do as I say, not as I do". :p

[tombraider]

Funny isnt it...

Picking on the truck driver, who was above the spray and wanting to proceed at the speed limit so he got a little close... Then signalled his intention by flashing lights (acceptable practice)...

To which YOU got shirty about.....

As opposed to the big 4wd in front of him travelling below the speed limit and failing to yield left....

Congratulations, go to the cops.... When he states HIS story you'll most likely be book under the offence "Impeding the flow of traffic"....

This law doesnt require that you be doing the speed limit either...


15 years ago a friend and I were charged with impeding the flow of traffic on the SE Freeway... We were driving side by side at 140km/h and a Porsche trying to get past couldnt...

The police pulled all 3 of us up and he was booked for dangerous driving and both of us got the above 'impede flow of traffic' fine.



Or the 4wd that sits under the 3 second gap to a car....

Which leads into the stupidity of concentrating on taking a photograph in poor road conditions to try and send to Mr Plod.:(

For interest sake, who here gets close to the vehicle in front when doing an open road overtaking move? Well guess what! Its illegal...

SA Cops have a new laser gun which targets 2 vehicles in the same direction. It reads the gap v speed and if the rear vehicles too close then your gone :eek:

[tombraider]

Hey Stevo,
funny I read this after coming down yesterday from Noosa rained nearly all the way, the M1, 110kmph section was wet and I slowed down for the conditions, then you wouldn;t read about it another one of my pet hates decided i wasn;t going fast enough so he sat on my bumper and and started tooting and flicking his headlights, so what did I do, had to accelerate away because i didn;t feel safe, so much for a 3 second gap, where do you go when there is traffic everywhere???
I love digital cameras ( this photo is going to the local gendarmes)

funny he backed off after the flash on the camera I think.


http://i178.photobucket.com/albums/w248/JohnE_1/IMGP0278.jpg


john

You goose.... Concentrating on taking a photo at speed....

Oh, and accelerating off claiming you felt unsafe when Your LEFT LANE appears very clear...

If YOU wanted to slow down, why didnt you yield left? :mad:

[solmanic]

Yeahhh - it's a flame war!!! Bring it on - I can feel some more bannings on the way :twisted:


Oh - and in relation to Bigjon's post, in some areas (F3 north of Sydney springs to mind) there are specific signs that designate the left-most lane on 3-lane freeways as the "slow vehicle lane". This further re-enforces peoples' own inferiority complexes about being labelled a "slow vehicle" if they use that lane. In any case, they are usually only on hills where heavy vehicles are known to have trouble maintaining the speed limit so of course you can only sit in the centre lane because you are effectively overtaking the whole time - perfectly reasonable.

I don't get bothered by cars in the centre lanes if it is obvious that they are consistently passing cars in the left lane.

[JohnE]

interesting, everyone is an expert when they were not there!!!

1. wife took the photo,
2. speed limit was 110 , i was doing 110 even though it was raining!
3. i started of in the left lane . lane 1
ended up in lane 2,as there was an off ramp

and for you traffic experts if you were ever in the cops and i was for 26 years don't try and lecture me on safe driving techniques or truckies versions of how they should be driving.

enough said


john

[tombraider]

interesting, everyone is an expert when they were not there!!!

1. wife took the photo,
2. speed limit was 110 , i was doing 110 even though it was raining!
3. i started of in the left lane . lane 1
ended up in lane 2,as there was an off ramp

and for you traffic experts if you were ever in the cops and i was for 26 years don't try and lecture me on safe driving techniques or truckies versions of how they should be driving.

enough said


john

1.. My apologies, I assumed you had taken it :(
2.. You stated that you slowed down... So if you were doing 110 then you were speeding prior???
3.. In the pic there are at least 2 lanes showing on the right... If one is a turn off then OK, that leaves another...

And over the years I have known many police officers... Most of them up here are mates of mine... It has nothing to do with it...

Your photo shows nothing proof... Like a speed camera photo it is a moment caught in time.

You can't prove from that photo that you didnt cut him off, that he wasnt braking, that he hadnt changed lanes to avoid a slow vehicle out of frame etc...

If you were doing 110km/h then he was falling back, the highest limiters I've seen top at 108km/h... And they are few and far between! Most are 102-104km/h

So unless he's a rogue driver, has a bypassed speed limiter etc... then something just doesnt add up here....

These are just observations, not personal attacks... They are attacking the situation NOT the person.

[paulthepilot_5]

Being a Series landy driver, i tend to always be in the left lane. I generally won't drive above 90 and will usually cruise along at 80. It really bloody annoys me the number of people that sit on your ass trying to get you to speed up instead of keeping their distance and waiting a few seconds to be able to get in the next lane and overtake. :mad:

Another pet hate i have is people that can't match their speed with the rest of the traffic when merging onto a motorway.

[paulthepilot_5]

1.. My apologies, I assumed you had taken it :(
2.. You stated that you slowed down... So if you were doing 110 then you were speeding prior???
3.. In the pic there are at least 2 lanes showing on the right... If one is a turn off then OK, that leaves another...

And over the years I have known many police officers... Most of them up here are mates of mine... It has nothing to do with it...

Your photo shows nothing proof... Like a speed camera photo it is a moment caught in time.

You can't prove from that photo that you didnt cut him off, that he wasnt braking, that he hadnt changed lanes to avoid a slow vehicle out of frame etc...

If you were doing 110km/h then he was falling back, the highest limiters I've seen top at 108km/h... And they are few and far between! Most are 102-104km/h

So unless he's a rogue driver, has a bypassed speed limiter etc... then something just doesnt add up here....

These are just observations, not personal attacks... They are attacking the situation NOT the person.

I dare say there must be a lot of these rogue truckies out there. I can say i have seen a fair share trucks doing speeds greater than that. :eek:

[stevo68]

nteresting, everyone is an expert when they were not there!!!

1. wife took the photo,
2. speed limit was 110 , i was doing 110 even though it was raining!
3. i started of in the left lane . lane 1
ended up in lane 2,as there was an off ramp

and for you traffic experts if you were ever in the cops and i was for 26 years don't try and lecture me on safe driving techniques or truckies versions of how they should be driving.

enough said


john Well said mate, to many times people jump to assumptions without getting the facts, just like after my initial post, some did :p. Aside from anything else this is about the concrete used on the highway, anyone want to critique my photo's???????????:p:twisted:,

Regards

Stevo

[paulthepilot_5]

Well said mate, to many times people jump to assumptions without getting the facts, just like after my initial post, some did :p. Aside from anything else this is about the concrete used on the highway, anyone want to critique my photo's???????????:p:twisted:,

Regards

Stevo

I have to say the first two photos were really hazy, you can't even see the cars in front. :angel::p:wasntme: