Thread: 130km/h speed limits

Great thread!

I am a supporter of the 130 kph limits.

I drive back and forward from Sydney to Vic probably 10 times per year, both ways.
10 years ago it was common to do it around 6 hours, now it takes 10 or more. We used to sit on about 120-130 all day (Even when I was on my L's and P's), with very few morons being road captains at 80-100 in the over taking lane. Now I try the drive and it is ridiculous how poor some peoples awareness is on the road, I say get the traffic flowing quicker and they will have to be more aware. Now days it is the best to get in behind the trucks as they push their way through and flash the twits sitting in the right lane puttering.

I drive home from the CBD to western Sydney on the M2 a few days a week, it can be 7 or 8pm and cars are sitting in the over taking lane doing 80, or 90 in the 100 zone. And when the signs go to 70 they stay on the same f&^&*ng speed in the same lane, what on earth is that?

I agree to others, we do need better roads, but more importantly we need a better Licensing system, maybe something like Germany? That would half the current drivers on the road in Sydney.

I reckon the speed limits are about right given the condition of the roads. What is wrong is the militant application of the law! Allowing people to exceed the speed limit (their choice) and then being pragmatic about whether they are doing it safely would go a long way to improving driver "alertness". Not just the driver speeding, but ALL of them.
Your awareness of other traffic around you increases significantly when the vehicles around you are travelling at diffent speeds. And awareness = safety.
Equally, someone doing 80kph in the outside line is more likely to move over when approached by someone doing 130kph, and they will be using their mirrors too.
Setting a speed limit on an interstate road should be like agreeing the average speed and not the maximum, some people go faster and some go slower.
When I lived in the UK, I regularly ran at 150kph plus - since moving to Australia, I now drive at the required speed limit and frequently run over the rumble strips on freeways as it is so boring and I get distracted by other things. It doesn't feel safer to me here... and the stats in that wikpedia link prove that too.

Love the way the Cops and the Governments push speed as the biggest killer on our roads (wouldn't be revenue raising would it?). According to Australian Statistics Bureau "Inattention" is the biggest killer on our roads, with speed accounting for less than 1% (0.80%) of road accident deaths.
These figures were quoted in a popular Australian car Magazine a few years back and not one denial from any Government body/Dept., Regards Frank.

Originally Posted by Graz

The modern vehicle is more than capable of being driven safely at higher speeds on most of the arterial country roads like the Brand.

I would disagree because regional Australian arterial roads are by design (or lack of it) unsafe compare to arterial European roads which tend to be properly engineered. In the UK for instance roads are designed and engineered with drainage, correct camber and crash barriers which help mitigate against speed. Here it is not uncommon to have no crash barriers, off camber corners and trees within a matter of meters from the (soft) road verge all at once. I think that in Australia it would be prohibitively expensive to design and construct so may miles of road for so few journeys.

The top speed on a UK road that is not a dual carriageway with crash barriers separating on coming traffic is ~96 Km/h, by comparison on (most of) the Brand Highway 110 km/h is the current limit. Whilst the low speed limits frustrate me I'd be wary of raising them on such roads. Well designed freeways - different matter. Although, as has been stated, the problem then becomes the level of diving skill (or lack of) prevalent in this county.

Ian.

As pointed out above, we have nothing to be ashamed of with our national road statistics, but a lot of it is the mandatory use of seatbelts and a high proportion of newer cars with better safety systems.

It is true that some motorways could be pushed to higher limits, but even the Hume Highway which is dual carriageway for most of its length from Cambellfield to Casula still has farm gates opening directly onto the highway.

The other thing that is true is that with so few Police available for Highway Patrol, it is easier to point a ladar gun at motorists than pointing a stupidity detector or fatigueoscope at them.

Many years ago I had a friend who was an engineer working for Vic Roads on the Hume Hwy. I can clearly remember him saying the Vic part of the road was designed for 130 km/h.
I agree with raising the speed limit on some roads however driver education on how to use the higher speed roads will never happen. Its easier for governments to just keep a low limit and fine people.

I like number crunching and stats so find these kind of discussions quite interesting

Leaving aside the arguments and assertions of speed that kills / reduced time on the road so less fatigue etc here is one fairly good reason why you'd probably not want to do 130km/h anyway: physics.

I'm not going to say that you shouldn't be allowed to drive at 130km/h but wonder what people would do if they realised that driving at 130km/h requires nearly 65% more energy than driving at 110km/h . That is 65% more fuel, 65% more strain on the drivetrain etc. So, you have to spend more money on fuel and maintenance and more time stopped at servos filling up.

The Wheels magazine say they cut more than 70 minutes off the 800km journey and do it in 6h 23m. So, they knocked 17% off the journey time but increased their fuel cost by 65%.*

Even with a conservative fuel consumption estimate of the car being able to achieve 10l/100km when travelling at 110km/h and petrol being say $1.50 litre, that 70mins saved in travel time cost an extra $77 in fuel.

Would people start to consider the fuel savings of sticking at 110km/h, or time savings if the speed limit was 130km/h? Just asking!

*derived at using Driving Load = av + bv2 + cv3 (where "a" & "b" is the mechanical resistance within the car from the pistons to the tyres and "c" is wind resistance)

These are just theoretical values and a "real world" controlled test would need to be done to check it. Any anecdotal 'evidence' should be ignored (especially if it is coming from someone who wants the speed limit to be changed). I believe that larger, heavier vehicles the fuel usage increase may be less than the 65% as above since most of the inefficiencies in the drivetrain are assisted by the weight and momentum of the vehicle. However, a larger vehicle would have a larger engine and use more fuel to start with so the smaller percentage increase would be on a larger initial fuel consumption figure anyway.

Sam. Ruining fun by using maths and physics since getting a calculator.

Originally Posted by vnx205

I have less of a problem with everyone doing 130 in the fast lane than with one driver deciding to unilaterally demonstrate that 130 is afe.

Agreed that large speed differentials can cause problems but the 20km/hr difference at the centre of this discussion is the same as that caused when P platers limited to 80 or 90 take to the highway. I've read somewhere that its really only differentials of 40+ km/hr that create problems with anticipation.

Mre generally, today I read some of the road policy fact sheets from Swedens 'Safe System' that we appear to have adopted without question and it mentions 'credible speed limits'. In summary, it says that drivers need to know there is a good reason for the speed limit or they will tend to ignore it. I think a good deal of the highways in Australia have this problem: lack of credibility in the speed limit.

If the issue is poor sight lines, then generate advertising about it; similarly for any other road design/safety problem - don't just repeat the mantra 'speed kills' because it dumbs us down and creates dangerous apathy to all factors applying to road safety other than speed.

Add that to the fact that there appears to be little interest in improving road worthiness rates, driver training/licensing or policing the 'keep left' rules and it's little wonder we become cynical and believe that the government is primarily interested in raising revenue.

I really have to wonder if the people generating this policy spend any real time out on the highways or if their primary experience on the road is inner city driving?

Cheers!