Thread: On the subject of speeding......

Of course, we all think we are correct.lol.

But seriously. I think I see what your saying. However, our roads aren't designed for higher speeds and lots of people can't cope with them.

In saying that I think many of our roads need to have their speeds revised.

Persona;;y I think your argument perspective is to simple. There is more to it then less accidents because we travel faster and are on the road for less time.

Xav

The way i see it is: The faster you go, the faster you crash. Doesn't matter how many cars are on the road.
I can understand what your saying though.

Andy.

Originally Posted by EchiDna

............. but it aint in Oz - everu tom dick and harry would rather change lanes aggressively, cut in front of trucks and jump on the brakes etc to exit - this is the big problem on highways...
.....

I must admit to being a bit bemused by this - by far the majority of major highways in Australia do not have lanes to change! Most major highways in this country are two lane with occasional passing lanes if you are lucky.

Having said that, I have to agree with the sentiment - the most frightened I have been in the County was when another driver passed me (I was doing the speed limit) - and then jammed his brakes on to turn into his gate - with a car coming the other way I hit the anchors - and locked the back wheels (no load); and nearly lost it, and nearly hit the car coming the other way.

D-fender - the problem with speed limits is mainly that they are inconsistent, and often set far lower than is safe for the road in good conditions. Partly as a result of that, there are many areas where if you travel at the speed limit, everyone passes you, which since most roads are only two lane, does not add to safety. An additional factor is that with long distances the norm in Australia, there is a good case for arguing that a 10% increase in speed represents a lesser risk of accident than a 10% increase in travel time.

On your other factor - as I have pointed out in other threads, there is good statistical evidence that alcohol is the major factor in fatal accidents, and probably non-fatal ones as well. In comparison, there is relatively little evidence supporting speed (in the absence of drugs or alcohol) as a causative factor in accidents, although there is no questioning the simple physical fact that if you have an accident the severity of it will go up as the square of the speed.

And the other point, as I have also mentioned before, is that the current rate of road deaths in Australia is the lowest it has ever been on a vehicle/kilometre basis, and despite strenuous efforts in the last ten years or more, the rate of improvement continues to flatten out. And the death rate has for years been higher than the suicide rate, even without accounting for the probability that an unknown proportion of road deaths are really suicide.

Finally, I would point out that no accident has a single cause, although often there is a major cause. This is very well documented in aviation accident investigations.

John

Originally Posted by crump

so if I upgrade my brakes and decrease my reaction time (chopsticks and fly will do) and drive at 1000km/h (10 times the speed limit) I am 100% (nil) times less likely to have an accident? How do I go about strapping 2 Veyrons together?? seriously though, I'm on your side, speed limits need revision.

I'd love to see that happen in a Defender.


may be in the next edition of Top gear oz...

Originally Posted by Wilbur

Come on folks,

It was a serious suggestion, and I was hoping for some serious discussion like we usually get on this forum.

I believe I am correct - does anyone want to argue against that using logic rather than crude emotional terms?

Lower speed limits can mean more boredom. More boredom = more accidents.

Read (a long time ago - can't tell you where...) that a section of dull straight highway in the US improved its accident stats by raising the speed limit. People were nodding off doing 55 for so long.

Sadly to say , it was speed that killed Brocky , not the road , tree , conditions .

Originally Posted by Wilbur

Come on folks,

It was a serious suggestion, and I was hoping for some serious discussion like we usually get on this forum.

I believe I am correct - does anyone want to argue against that using logic rather than crude emotional terms?

If you existed in a vacume you may be right, however lifes not like that. Further to this. the higher above 60 you go then you will exponentially increase your risk of fatal consequences. While also taking away your reaction time. I simply dont care about being on the road for 10% less time. It only takes one high speed prang and your paste. Is your life worth being on the road 10% less of the time? I would suggest you google 'fatal accident' and go to images and browse around for a while. I drive like every other person is out to kill me.

Originally Posted by spudboy

Lower speed limits can mean more boredom. More boredom = more accidents.

Read (a long time ago - can't tell you where...) that a section of dull straight highway in the US improved its accident stats by raising the speed limit. People were nodding off doing 55 for so long.

Hitler’s autobahn engineers knew of this problem before the second world war.

Only the very first were built with long straight sections, they were then ( and now ) built with long sweeping curves for the very reason WE now build our motorways the same way.