Suggest you read my post again and see if you can work out what i said , as i think what you read is not what i wrote ,!!!!! ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by bacicat
Printable View
Suggest you read my post again and see if you can work out what i said , as i think what you read is not what i wrote ,!!!!! ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by bacicat
That's another load of BS in this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fatso
Going along the Hume highway it is possible to sit on the same speed for 3 or 4 hours. Obviously people change down and accelerate for hills and what not.
It's intolerable watching idiots drive along varying their speed, especially when they overtake you and slow down again, causing a leap frog game for the whole drive! Until you get jack of it and set cruise at 125...
I've read it five times and it still sounds like you're one of the leap froggers I mentioned above...Quote:
Originally Posted by Fatso
Quite some years ago, back in the days we had speed derestriction signs (that was quite some time ago), the government of the day upped the speed limit on some selected freeways (the Hume and Western spring to mind) to 110km/h. This was initially put in as a trial. What they found is the number of traffic related incidents on those sections of road increased. The government then pulled the pin on the increased speed limits and dropped it back to 100km/h. The amount of incidents dropped.
Another thing that happened in Vic, Trucks, learner drivers and probationary drivers were restricted to 80km/h. What did we used to call "P" platers, mobile chicanes. As the amount of traffic on the roads increased over the years, they found the disparity between the trucks, learners, etc., and the other drivers was causing road incidents. The solution was to remove the 80km/h speed restriction.
Today, not all drivers and cars on our roads have the capability or the desire to drive at a sustained speed of 100km/h. If you increase the speed limit to 130km/h on selected roads only a minority of people would be driving at that speed. There will be a disparity of speed between many drivers and, what has been proven in the past, this causes accidents.
It's worth noting, these accidents will occur at 130km/h rather than 100km/h.
The proof is in. You drop the speed limit, you drop the amount of accidents. That is why the Victorian government dropped the speed limit in built up areas from 60km/h to 50km/h.
I don't pussy foot around when I get on the freeways and highways but to increase the speed limit from 100km/h to 130km/h is silly.
I agree it is silly, unless drivers are educated better. There's so many people that potter along in the right lane. If people knew what they were doing there would be no issue. Speed doesn't kill, incompetence does.
Will
As others have done, I've re read your post many times. My comments stand based on my comprehension of your post. If you wish to elaborate and clarify what you mean, it may make more sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fatso
I'm obviously not the only one to take it as I have. I can't see any other interpretation based on the few words you have written.
That goes against all the research from around the world on speed on freeway style roads which show that with certain parameters accident/death rates do not increase with increasing speed. Certainly the death rate per accident rate did increase because the chances of dying in a 200kph crash is greater than it is at 100kph and more than 50kph.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick_Marsh
The actually accident rate of high speed roads around the world is far less than slower roads - even the accident rate the NT on the Stuart Highway when there was no speed limit has not decreased when the restriction was removed though there were relatively high speed crashes - despite the wildlife and road conditions. Most deaths were of pedestrians asleep on the road and utes rolling with 10 unrestrained locals in the back.
Yes the speed vs accident rate may be relevant in built up areas but the evidence is that on freeway style roads that there is no correlation of speed limit and accidents.
Garry
Speeds on suburban roads bear no correlation to speeds on open roads / freeways.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick_Marsh
Statistics garnered from one do not bear relevance to the other.
Just typed from what has occurred. I don't contribute to any government statistic and reports and I certainly don't make any descisions relating to speed limit changes.Quote:
Originally Posted by garrycol
I suggest you read your post, Garry, and edit where appropriate. I didn't reasise no speed limit was a restriction or have I got it wrong and the 130km/h speed linit has been removed and there is currently no speed limit.
Had an interesting experience today. Driving along the freeway at the speed limit and I was passed by a hilux travelling at about 130km/h. By the way the fridge and barby were rocking in the back, I doubt the load was properly secured.
If the speed limit on that road was 130km/h, I reckon he would have been passing me at 150km/h.
Some people will speed no matter what limit has been set.
So you are taking over from Ron :)
You know what I meant. :angel:
If the load on the vehicle you mentioned was not tied down it at 130kph it would not have been tied at 13kph and it would not have been tied down at 150kph because a Hilux won't go that fast. ;)