Why would you bother with a fast car in Vic?

[fmc351]

Originally Posted by Matt47569

common sense never prevails

And the post you quoted was no exception. Its a misrepresentation of reality, borne of a need to justify ranting against speed limits.


There are more laws on the books than speeding. Laws need to be workable, enforceable. How many cars constitutes too many? How many mm's of rain is too wet? How long after rain is it then safe to drive at the posted limit?

How the hell do you work a speed limit, that isnt a limit?


In the scenario mentioned, if an accident eventuated, there could be something like driving in a manner unsafe for the conditions. Its much more workable than a speed limit where a police officer needs a rain-gauge, and a traffic counter to enforce it.

Or are we now saying that even in a city, there should be no speed limits? How about suburban streets?

The laws reflect society, the same society that provides those roads, it is everyones road, not just yours. Everyone from the Nanna in her Corolla, to the guy on his bicycle, to the Dr in his Ferrari. They all pay for it, they all should be able to use it. You couldnt afford 1km of road on your own.

Get over it you skirt wearing sooks, have a tissue and wipe your tears.

[fmc351]

Originally Posted by Rev28K

How about someone thinking that all there was to safe driving was sticking to a limit? Come to a life and death situation where you have to brake heavily, watch for escape routes, keep your head-up, recover from the swerve, etc, etc.

I shudder when I think about the first time drivers try this is when they HAVE to do it.

Speed makes a difference to the outcome but so does equipment, training, instruction, etc. Focussing on speed alone is myopic and in my opinion criminally and morally negligent.

Truer words have never been spoken.

However, dismissing it is no better.

Yeah, its just a few km's over
Its just a bit bald
The wheels just a bit wobbly
Im just a bit drunk

Yeah, and youre all a little bit pregnant too.

[chevypower]

I agree with the OP's question - "what is the point of having a fast car in Vic?" But I also think you shouldn't be surprised if the limit is 100, and you go 140 that you would get a fine. I mean, that's just taking the risk and getting caught. I think Australia needs to move up to the super highway of highways. If the broadband internet (called a super highway) was on par with the road highways, then you would be getting dialup speeds. 120-130 shouldn't be an issue. If it is, then the government is not building roads that are safe enough, and that should be an election issue.

[LTDHO]

Originally Posted by p5.2drsedan

Sorry no excuse for speeding! Think about families of people killed by speeding drivers or the emergency crews that have to wash the blood off the road or the cops that have to do that hoorid visit to the deceased's family. all because someone didn't think about the outcome of thier action.

So as long as you don't speed, you will never be involved in a fatality, right?

Don't get me wrong, I dealt with these types of incidences for over 10 years.

Have a good look at road deaths, then you might start seeing the truth and not the propaganda.

If you truely believe speed kills, well sorry to hear that. I'll let you go back to your rock.

[302 XC]

LTDHO,
Your quote above in red regarding road death toll

Although YES its an increase and we MUST try to curb this

But seriously what is the increase death % compared to the population increase

Anyway dont get me started on this BS covered rubbish
More cops on the beat ,less idiots less problems

With my reference to whats acceptable tow rigs,
Rav 4s pulling 20 odd foot caravan is not an idea tow combo
Theres reference on this forum regarding a magna pulling a tandem trailer with a falcon sedan on the trailer ,
again not ideal tow rig
Now put this combos on the open highway ,youll not only have 30 cars behind but many many more especially trying to climb hills

Yes we have indicated speed signs,and as mentioned common sense does prevail
Doin 60 in a built up area with heavy rain with limited visibility,well would you still do 60 ???

But back to the OP
140 in a 100 zone,wether anyone thinks it right or wrong
Its wrong in any state
Yes id safely say most on here have sped ,but when ya caught well theres noone to blame but yourself

[Grobbo]

See this is why I like baby V8's. Not too much grunt but all the sound. Then you can savour the noise for longer before you're over the limit.

Fingers crossed for an N/A Coyote XR8!

[fmc351]

Originally Posted by chevypower

I agree with the OP's question - "what is the point of having a fast car in Vic?" But I also think you shouldn't be surprised if the limit is 100, and you go 140 that you would get a fine. I mean, that's just taking the risk and getting caught. I think Australia needs to move up to the super highway of highways. If the broadband internet (called a super highway) was on par with the road highways, then you would be getting dialup speeds. 120-130 shouldn't be an issue. If it is, then the government is not building roads that are safe enough, and that should be an election issue.

Many roads, freeways in particular could easily handle higher speeds based on surface conditions. One problem is u-turn facilities for emergency vehicles. Some changes would be necessary, but are not out of the question logistically.

The biggest problem we face in obtaining faster speed limits, is the flat out reluctance to observe, and idiotic arguments about, the limits today. If the limit was increased from 110 to 130, those who sit on 130 today would simply do 150. No matter what the limit was, the idiots would ruin it for the rest of us.

Its like children who cant live with limits, and then demand to be able to do more despite their flagrant bad behaviour. Then ***** and moan when they get a clip under the ears.

When you drive on a freeway at 110, or even 115 (5 over most state limits), and are being passed regularly enough like youre standing still, it becomes apparent to most motorists that the dangers of higher limits would only make the problems worse. Add the imbecile 'hoons' who take great pride in making sure everyone sees and hears them coming, or create rolling roadblocks on freeways along the Gold Coast for example in order for a couple of tools to drag race on the freeway in a scene reminiscent of Too Fast Too Furious, and its no wonder most Aussie motorists feel no sympathy, or have little inclination to reason that higher speeds can be as safe as the current limits, at least on the better freeways. They know, the tools will just take advantage of that in the same way, only the base speeds would be much higher.

You can bet the average poster on here, would still expect there to be a reasonable tolerance for speedo error with a revised limit of 130, or to stop them needing to eagle eye the speedo (meaning something along the lines of 140 would be let off). If they cant manage to safely monitor the speedo at 110, what chance have they at 130? Halfwits, egged on by other halfwits, have no idea how the very arguments they present, actually defeat their end goal.

Make it an election issue all you like, the vast majority of the public dont want higher limits. The idiots have ruined any chance we had of demonstrating that higher speeds can be achieved safely. Making something an election issue very much depends on numbers for support.

[Grobbo]

Originally Posted by fmc351

Many roads, freeways in particular could easily handle higher speeds based on surface conditions. One problem is u-turn facilities for emergency vehicles. Some changes would be necessary, but are not out of the question logistically.

The biggest problem we face in obtaining faster speed limits, is the flat out reluctance to observe, and idiotic arguments about, the limits today. If the limit was increased from 110 to 130, those who sit on 130 today would simply do 150. No matter what the limit was, the idiots would ruin it for the rest of us.

Its like children who cant live with limits, and then demand to be able to do more despite their flagrant bad behaviour. Then ***** and moan when they get a clip under the ears.

When you drive on a freeway at 110, or even 115 (5 over most state limits), and are being passed regularly enough like youre standing still, it becomes apparent to most motorists that the dangers of higher limits would only make the problems worse. Add the imbecile 'hoons' who take great pride in making sure everyone sees and hears them coming, or create rolling roadblocks on freeways along the Gold Coast for example in order for a couple of tools to drag race on the freeway in a scene reminiscent of Too Fast Too Furious, and its no wonder most Aussie motorists feel no sympathy, or have little inclination to reason that higher speeds can be as safe as the current limits, at least on the better freeways. They know, the tools will just take advantage of that in the same way, only the base speeds would be much higher.

You can bet the average poster on here, would still expect there to be a reasonable tolerance for speedo error with a revised limit of 130, or to stop them needing to eagle eye the speedo (meaning something along the lines of 140 would be let off). If they cant manage to safely monitor the speedo at 110, what chance have they at 130? Halfwits, egged on by other halfwits, have no idea how the very arguments they present, actually defeat their end goal.

Make it an election issue all you like, the vast majority of the public dont want higher limits. The idiots have ruined any chance we had of demonstrating that higher speeds can be achieved safely. Making something an election issue very much depends on numbers for support.

We kindof assume all our cars are modern and capable of doing 130 safely, but if you actually look around, many of them aren't.

To be frank my AU has a mystery vibration that starts at 110 and gets progressively louder the faster you go - pretty sure a lot of AU's do the same thing actually. It's only really the latest cars that you could truly trust to do 130 safely - and even then some of the little sh*tters wouldn't be up to it.

The only possible answer is a special speed licence - where if you have a suitable car and a clean licence and do a driver training course, you can go a little bit faster in certain conditions. But even that sounds pretty ridiculous.

There is no easy answer, the only way to enjoy your car on the road for more than a few seconds is to take it to the twisties I reckon. Just sucks for us city folk!

[Brazen]

Originally Posted by fmc351

Many roads, freeways in particular could easily handle higher speeds based on surface conditions. One problem is u-turn facilities for emergency vehicles. Some changes would be necessary, but are not out of the question logistically.

The biggest problem we face in obtaining faster speed limits, is the flat out reluctance to observe, and idiotic arguments about, the limits today. If the limit was increased from 110 to 130, those who sit on 130 today would simply do 150. No matter what the limit was, the idiots would ruin it for the rest of us.

Its like children who cant live with limits, and then demand to be able to do more despite their flagrant bad behaviour. Then ***** and moan when they get a clip under the ears.

When you drive on a freeway at 110, or even 115 (5 over most state limits), and are being passed regularly enough like youre standing still, it becomes apparent to most motorists that the dangers of higher limits would only make the problems worse. Add the imbecile 'hoons' who take great pride in making sure everyone sees and hears them coming, or create rolling roadblocks on freeways along the Gold Coast for example in order for a couple of tools to drag race on the freeway in a scene reminiscent of Too Fast Too Furious, and its no wonder most Aussie motorists feel no sympathy, or have little inclination to reason that higher speeds can be as safe as the current limits, at least on the better freeways. They know, the tools will just take advantage of that in the same way, only the base speeds would be much higher.

You can bet the average poster on here, would still expect there to be a reasonable tolerance for speedo error with a revised limit of 130, or to stop them needing to eagle eye the speedo (meaning something along the lines of 140 would be let off). If they cant manage to safely monitor the speedo at 110, what chance have they at 130? Halfwits, egged on by other halfwits, have no idea how the very arguments they present, actually defeat their end goal.

Make it an election issue all you like, the vast majority of the public dont want higher limits. The idiots have ruined any chance we had of demonstrating that higher speeds can be achieved safely. Making something an election issue very much depends on numbers for support.

Rubbish, the reason why people exceed speed limits is because the limits are too low for the conditions. You really expect everyone to travel at 20kmh across the Hay Plains at 20kmh if that is the limit? Understand that people will always exceed the speed limit if they feel its too low, its nothing about being childish, its about thinking and driving to the conditions at hand.

You make the speed limits appropriate and you will have less people exceeding them. When we design roads at work, it never ceases to amaze me how low the beurecrats set the limits.

Recently I was working on an upgrade to an 80kmh road which I assumed would result in a 90 or 100 kmh limit. Instead it was reduced to 60kmh as a guardrail installed to stop people falling down a ditch was within a certain distance of the road. They can overule the criteria if there are circumstances in which the structure will have no negative impact on safety (like this guardrail) but the government officials dont even visit the site as its too far from their office, so the limit is stuck at 60. The guardrail is perfectly angled to prevent a sudden stop, the surface is dead straight and upgraded, its a rural road with no driveways. There is no way in hell people will obey that 60kmh limit. But accordingly they are supposed to sit there, fall asleep from boredom at 60kmh otherwise they are acting like children.

Working in road design has made me incredibly jaded about the speed limits set by many state governments.

[Grobbo]

Originally Posted by Brazen

Rubbish, the reason why people exceed speed limits is because the limits are too low for the conditions. You really expect everyone to travel at 20kmh across the Hay Plains at 20kmh if that is the limit? Understand that people will always exceed the speed limit if they feel its too low, its nothing about being childish, its about thinking and driving to the conditions at hand.

You make the speed limits appropriate and you will have less people exceeding them. When we design roads at work, it never ceases to amaze me how low the beurecrats set the limits.

Recently I was working on an upgrade to an 80kmh road which I assumed would result in a 90 or 100 kmh limit. Instead it was reduced to 60kmh as a guardrail installed to stop people falling down a ditch was within a certain distance of the road. They can overule the criteria if there are circumstances in which the structure will have no negative impact on safety (like this guardrail) but the government officials dont even visit the site as its too far from their office, so the limit is stuck at 60. The guardrail is perfectly angled to prevent a sudden stop, the surface is dead straight and upgraded, its a rural road with no driveways. There is no way in hell people will obey that 60kmh limit. But accordingly they are supposed to sit there, fall asleep from boredom at 60kmh otherwise they are acting like children.

Working in road design has made me incredibly jaded about the speed limits set by many state governments.

Wow that's interesting.

We live in a world where the wrong people often hold all the power!

One thing I will say is, compared to New Zealand, at least we get to go 60 in arterial residential areas - it's actually heaps faster than 50 which is the usual limit in NZ - in fact it is 20% faster.

Also, 110 feels fantastic compared the the max of 100 everywhere in NZ... (even if my car does start to vibrate)

My pet hate is non existant road works. Burnley Tunnel is a prime offender, the signs will close down a lane and drop you to 60, and there is no evidence, not so much as a road cone, of any roadworks whatsoever

[XB GS 351 Coupe]

What a waste of a thread, and it easily manages to bring out the pea brains with arguments that make no sense what so ever.

1) Having to monitor speedo at 110km/hr is dangerous and considered a risk factor and a danger caused by speed cameras - FAIL

****if you are unable to monitor your speed at 110km/hr and unable to maintain it at the speed limit (whatever it might be) without it distracting you too much to drive safely you probably should not be driving a car on a public road - Those that used that argument please proceed to you closest motor registry and hand your drivers license in for your safety and the safer of other road users****

2) People unable to stay awake at the legal speed limit suggesting they may fall asleep and as such would be safer going faster - FAIL

****please if you can not stay awake at the speed limit you should not be on the road, may be get some sleep, or take more frequent rest brakes, as your reaction time and ability to respond to changing traffic conditions would be greatly reduced and you should get off the road, rather than think about driving even faster in your tired state****

3) Speed is not dangerous - EPIC FAIL

***** Walk into a brick wall at very slow walking speed head first, now run into the same brick wall as fast as you can.....still think its not dangerous, travel at 20km/hr and have a 5 year old run out in front of your car 50 meters ahead, now have the five year old do the same thing while driving at 140km/hr. *****

4) I am a better driver so I should be able to drive faster - FAIL

****What makes you better??? Check your rims, do they have gutter rash?? Check your bumpers, do they have scrapes and scratches??? If yes and they were not caused by someone else, may be you are not such a great driver if you do not even have enough car control to not hit stationary objects at walking pace while parking or reversing your vehicle. Have you ever been involved in an accident?? What about race car drivers should the be able to drive around suburbia at 300km/hr?? Please if you are so good learn to control your car enough to drive within the rules.

It it really quite simple if you do not like the fine don't do the offence, I have been booked in the past, the last time was overtaking a truck in my XR8, but guess what I was in breach of the road rules when I did it, I was ****ed off and not happy about it, but it was me driving, me pressing the accelerator and me making the decision, so I only have myself to blame, NOT the cop doing the job we pay him to do, NOT the road planners, NOT the politicians NOT the truckie, NOT anyone buy me was to blame for MY actions.

If anyone has trouble sticking the the road rules it does NOT make you a better driver, or a tough guy or a hero of some sort because you think you are a better driver than mister average (how do you know you are a better driver anyway??? old granny going 60 in a 100 zone believes she is a better driver as well, as she has never had an accident in 60 years of driving).

A good driver will be able to drive safely,within the road rules we are given to abide by, if you are unable to do so for whatever reason you deserve to be fined and hopefully taken off the road by the police who get payed by us to enforce the rules.

[Grobbo]

Originally Posted by XB GS 351 Coupe

What a waste of a thread, and it easily manages to bring out the pea brains with arguments that make no sense what so ever.

1) Having to monitor speedo at 110km/hr is dangerous and considered a risk factor and a danger caused by speed cameras - FAIL

****if you are unable to monitor your speed at 110km/hr and unable to maintain it at the speed limit (whatever it might be) without it distracting you too much to drive safely you probably should not be driving a car on a public road - Those that used that argument please proceed to you closest motor registry and hand your drivers license in for your safety and the safer of other road users****

2) People unable to stay awake at the legal speed limit suggesting they may fall asleep and as such would be safer going faster - FAIL

****please if you can not stay awake at the speed limit you should not be on the road, may be get some sleep, or take more frequent rest brakes, as your reaction time and ability to respond to changing traffic conditions would be greatly reduced and you should get off the road, rather than think about driving even faster in your tired state****

3) Speed is not dangerous - EPIC FAIL

***** Walk into a brick wall at very slow walking speed head first, now run into the same brick wall as fast as you can.....still think its not dangerous, travel at 20km/hr and have a 5 year old run out in front of your car 50 meters ahead, now have the five year old do the same thing while driving at 140km/hr. *****

4) I am a better driver so I should be able to drive faster - FAIL

****What makes you better??? Check your rims, do they have gutter rash?? Check your bumpers, do they have scrapes and scratches??? If yes and they were not caused by someone else, may be you are not such a great driver if you do not even have enough car control to not hit stationary objects at walking pace while parking or reversing your vehicle. Have you ever been involved in an accident?? What about race car drivers should the be able to drive around suburbia at 300km/hr?? Please if you are so good learn to control your car enough to drive within the rules.

It it really quite simple if you do not like the fine don't do the offence, I have been booked in the past, the last time was overtaking a truck in my XR8, but guess what I was in breach of the road rules when I did it, I was ****ed off and not happy about it, but it was me driving, me pressing the accelerator and me making the decision, so I only have myself to blame, NOT the cop doing the job we pay him to do, NOT the road planners, NOT the politicians NOT the truckie, NOT anyone buy me was to blame for MY actions.

If anyone has trouble sticking the the road rules it does NOT make you a better driver, or a tough guy or a hero of some sort because you think you are a better driver than mister average (how do you know you are a better driver anyway??? old granny going 60 in a 100 zone believes she is a better driver as well, as she has never had an accident in 60 years of driving).

A good driver will be able to drive safely,within the road rules we are given to abide by, if you are unable to do so for whatever reason you deserve to be fined and hopefully taken off the road by the police who get payed by us to enforce the rules.

Sigh, another brainwashing victim...

[XB GS 351 Coupe]

Originally Posted by Brazen

Rubbish, the reason why people exceed speed limits is because the limits are too low for the conditions.

So what training have they done to be able to know what is safe for the conditions??? Just a poor excuse for speeding and NOT being able to drive properly as required by the law and conditions of your drivers license.

[XB GS 351 Coupe]

Originally Posted by Grobbo

Sigh, another brainwashing victim...

Mate you should be out there fixing your Au that sounds like it has some serious safety issues My XB is 34 years old and even at 200km/per hour not a single vibration, age of vehicle is not an excuse for poor maintenance mate

Steady enough to be driven with one hand while taking the photo on a track day a while back....

[Grobbo]

Originally Posted by XB GS 351 Coupe

Mate you should be out there fixing your Au that sounds like it has some serious safety issues My XB is 34 years old and even at 200km/per hour not a single vibration, age of vehicle is not an excuse for poor maintenance mate

Steady enough to be driven with one hand while taking the photo on a track day a while back....

Hmm I would venture driving with one hand at 200 - even on a track is a bit dodge but hey, let's not start.

I've spent sh*tloads trying to get rid of the vibration, new clutch, engine bolts, drive shaft - it's not a lack of maintenance! The mechanic reckons it's a common issue on older non IRS Falcons - just thank the lord you got a good one...

[XB GS 351 Coupe]

Slightly off topic, but I had to balance the tail shaft twice, as the first mob could not get it right, may be get a second opinion mate, could be dodgy tyres as well as some just won't balance.

[Grobbo]

Originally Posted by XB GS 351 Coupe

Slightly off topic, but I had to balance the tail shaft twice, as the first mob could not get it right, may be get a second opinion mate, could be dodgy tyres as well as some just won't balance.

OK thanks good idea. Have tried new tyres but it seems to be gear/throttle sensitive - ie comes on earlier when caning in 3rd...

In the mean time its a great speed limit reminder!

[MexicanBatman]

i dont speed...

i occasionally take off briskly, but even that is illegal something about excessive acceleration, not excessive to me but may be so if your used to your mums auto daihatsu sirion

[FgNewbie]

Originally Posted by XB GS 351 Coupe

Mate you should be out there fixing your Au that sounds like it has some serious safety issues My XB is 34 years old and even at 200km/per hour not a single vibration, age of vehicle is not an excuse for poor maintenance mate

Steady enough to be driven with one hand while taking the photo on a track day a while back....

I won't ask what you normally do with the other hand

[jimmyxr6t04]

We all know that speeding can have terrible consequences. I don't think people here are suggesting that 80km/h in a 50 zone is ok. It's 50 for a reason, it's built up, has side streets and multiple hazards.

130 or 140km/h on a 3 lane freeway in a 110 zone is a completely different matter though, especially if the roads are relatively clear and the weather good. But for the brain washed, it's evil and all should die.

Speeding is bad mmmkay.

Of course it's bad when taken out of context. The Germans seem to manage speed ok, and whilst i agree that they've been educated better then us, there's no time like the present to start!

As for arguments that people will sit on 150km/h if it was a 130 zone, that might be true, but then again maybe they won't? Perhaps the authorities will increase the fines? Say you get done doing 150km/h in a 130 zone, you could cop a $1500 fine, as there really isn't an excuse to hit those speeds if the limit is already 130 or 140...

To those that are angels and don't speed what so ever, i have this to say. Please keep left unless over taking, it'll do all the evil people a big favour! They won't have to speed as fast to get past you!

[fmc351]

Originally Posted by Brazen

Rubbish, the reason why people exceed speed limits is because the limits are too low for the conditions. You really expect everyone to travel at 20kmh across the Hay Plains at 20kmh if that is the limit? Understand that people will always exceed the speed limit if they feel its too low, its nothing about being childish, its about thinking and driving to the conditions at hand.

You make the speed limits appropriate and you will have less people exceeding them. When we design roads at work, it never ceases to amaze me how low the beurecrats set the limits.

Recently I was working on an upgrade to an 80kmh road which I assumed would result in a 90 or 100 kmh limit. Instead it was reduced to 60kmh as a guardrail installed to stop people falling down a ditch was within a certain distance of the road. They can overule the criteria if there are circumstances in which the structure will have no negative impact on safety (like this guardrail) but the government officials dont even visit the site as its too far from their office, so the limit is stuck at 60. The guardrail is perfectly angled to prevent a sudden stop, the surface is dead straight and upgraded, its a rural road with no driveways. There is no way in hell people will obey that 60kmh limit. But accordingly they are supposed to sit there, fall asleep from boredom at 60kmh otherwise they are acting like children.

Working in road design has made me incredibly jaded about the speed limits set by many state governments.

What has long distance driving got to do with the Freeway between Gold Coast and Brissie? It is less than 100 kms. What is the excuse on that freeway? There is always an excuse. Some reasons to raise the limit have merit, others are simply excuses. The point is not that there are places where higher speeds could actually make it safer (that is the goal and I agree with that, but it is not the point of the posts), the point is people cant stick to a limit, no matter what it is, or where it is, and MOST IMPORTANTLY THAT DOES NOT MAKE JOE PUBLIC WELCOME HIGHER SPEED LIMITS.

If you set a 10pm curfew for your 14 yr old to be back from the neighbours, and they come home with a police escort around midnight, you'd have to be an idiot if you extend the curfew to suit the time they now choose, let alone anything that involved the police presence. They havent earned respect, but they have earned a serious kick up the ***. But if they came home at the right time, cause no trouble, sooner or later you will see they are responsible and can be trusted to make their own decisions. You may even realise they have something to say on the issue, that is interesting and makes sense. A discussion with those who can make change just might follow, and people are genuinely listening.

But play the rebel, climb out the window, and well in my house, they'd be seriously hurting.

Yes yes, we arent children, and Govco arent our parents. True, but they are the law makers, and we are subject to laws so the comparison is apt.

Is the limit across the Hay Plains 20km/h?

Note: Ive never said the limits are perfect, or even appropriate. I have said those who want higher limits, many on here, only have themselves to blame for the limits we have. Other than that, Ive said if you get caught, suck it up, pay the fine and stop crying like a little girl.

Id love a speed limit of 130. I'd happily do 200+ in certain conditions. Unfortunately, its unlikely to ever happen because halfwits dont understand the problem they face. They simply keep spouting excuses for failing to obey existing laws. Demonstrating they dont care what the law says, which also says that any higher limits wont be obeyed either. Why would it? they dont care what the law says and do as they please. And thus turning the bulk of the voting public off what they say. Yet most seem to not understand this.

If you think a limit of 130 will magically be obeyed, youre fooling yourself. It will still need to be enforced, you will still need to stare endlessly at the speedo apparently, and apparently posters here have stated how dangerous that is, what chance is there they can maintain 130 any safer?

Oh wait, there shouldnt be any cameras, and a tolerance of 10% will still be needed. So doing 143 will become more likely, and nonpunishable. Oh yeah, theres some good incentive for Joe Public.

oh wait, we will need to raise the limit again so more can 'obey' it again. And round we go.

Originally Posted by Joe Public

Yeah, like I cant see that coming. Bugger ya's leave it where it is ya hoon.

Capisce?

[sarrge2001]

Originally Posted by fmc351

.......The biggest problem we face in obtaining faster speed limits, is the flat out reluctance to observe, and idiotic arguments about, the limits today. If the limit was increased from 110 to 130, those who sit on 130 today would simply do 150. No matter what the limit was, the idiots would ruin it for the rest of us..........

Disagree. In the NT, with a limit of 130, most people are comfortable with a speed of between 110 and 130. On the stretch between Pt Augusta and the NT border, with a limit of 110, people still sat on between 110 and 130.

The only different is the speed limit. On the SA side there is a trail of dead kittens and Grandmothers from the drivers doing 120 but on the NT side it's all rose petals.

Originally Posted by XB GS 351 Coupe

1) Having to monitor speedo at 110km/hr is dangerous and considered a risk factor and a danger caused by speed cameras - FAIL ..........

I think the point people make about watching the speedo is that at 100kmh it is relatively easy to stray to 103 and risk a fine. Therefore this requires more monitoring of your speedo and less time watching the road

Originally Posted by XB GS 351 Coupe

2) People unable to stay awake at the legal speed limit suggesting they may fall asleep and as such would be safer going faster - FAIL..........

The point isn't staying awake at the speed limit, it's the extra time involved in travelling distance in this country. Case in point - Darwin to Tennant Creek (1000km) at 100kmh will take approximately (for the sake of simplicity) 10 hours. At 130kmh (the speed limit) the same trip will take 7 hours and 40 minutes.

Surely the extra 2 hours will add significantly to the possibility of fatigue for the driver. Yes, there are ways to combat this but one viewpoint is that increasing speed limits will REDUCE fatigue on long distance trips.

Originally Posted by XB GS 351 Coupe

3) Speed is not dangerous - EPIC FAIL..........

Actually, speed unsuitable to the conditions is what is unsafe. Speed itself is not inherantly dangerous.


I'm not even going to enter an opinion about the suitability of taking a photograph with one hand on the wheel at 200km/h, track day or not.

[fmc351]

Originally Posted by jimmyxr6t04

As for arguments that people will sit on 150km/h if it was a 130 zone, that might be true, but then again maybe they won't? Perhaps the authorities will increase the fines? Say you get done doing 150km/h in a 130 zone, you could cop a $1500 fine, as there really isn't an excuse to hit those speeds if the limit is already 130 or 140...

If the current limit was 80, you could say the same about increasing it to 110. It doesnt take a lot of effort to predict the outcome. It used to be 100, they raised it to 110. People didnt stick to it, thats why we're here now wanting more, complaining about cameras and stupid limits.

How does 130 become some magical figure that is just so compelling to suddenly obey?

Originally Posted by jimmyxr6t04

To those that are angels and don't speed what so ever, i have this to say. Please keep left unless over taking, it'll do all the evil people a big favour! They won't have to speed as fast to get past you!

Well done for encouraging that speed limiter and sat tracking device every car must have in response to the "Get out of my I want to go faster and Ill never stop attitude".

Youre like 10 pounds of stupid, in a five pound bag.

[fmc351]

Originally Posted by sarrge2001

Disagree. In the NT, with a limit of 130, most people are comfortable with a speed of between 110 and 130. On the stretch between Pt Augusta and the NT border, with a limit of 110, people still sat on between 110 and 130.

The only different is the speed limit. On the SA side there is a trail of dead kittens and Grandmothers from the drivers doing 120 but on the NT side it's all rose petals.

Now convince the voting public. I already think a speed limit of 130 on a number of Freeways wouldnt result in carnage.

Believe me, I want it. I just know damn well, that the attitudes displayed here, will ***** it for all of us. The public must want it. And they just dont, not in the Eastern states.

They are terrified by the "bwarpbbbble" of a blow off valve at 30km/h in a 50 zone.

[tranquilized]

fmc351, I get what your saying, but I think you may be overlooking Brazen's point.

For rules and laws to be obeyed, they must first be respected. Its accepted human psychology. If your 14 year old was heading out at 6pm and you set the curfew at 7pm, I bet it wouldn't be obeyed - its completely unreasonable. Set it at 9pm, it would have much higher likelihood of being observed.

As with some speed limits - some (not all) are simply unreasonable. Of these, most are too low, some are too high. In instances where limits are plainly too low, drivers will continue to drive at a safe and reasonable speed, which may happen to be above the limit.

I agree with the assumption that if limits were raised less people would speed.

[LTDHO]

Originally Posted by 302 XC

LTDHO,
Your quote above in red regarding road death toll

Although YES its an increase and we MUST try to curb this

I haven't updated my signature since September.

Doesn't matter how safe you make cars or how many speed cameras there are, people do not care or think when driving and assume it will not happen to them. Watch other drivers and you will see what I mean.

Do you blame the oven when you burn yourself on a pie?
Do you blame your clock when you sleep in?

To all the drivers out there, 'responsibility' try it sometime.

[ST]

Originally Posted by fmc351

Note: Ive never said the limits are perfect, or even appropriate. I have said those who want higher limits, many on here, only have themselves to blame for the limits we have.

I don't understand this point at all. How is somebody who would like the speed limits raised responsible (or "to blame") for the current speed limits?

[Grobbo]

Originally Posted by sarrge2001

Disagree. In the NT, with a limit of 130, most people are comfortable with a speed of between 110 and 130. On the stretch between Pt Augusta and the NT border, with a limit of 110, people still sat on between 110 and 130.

The only different is the speed limit. On the SA side there is a trail of dead kittens and Grandmothers from the drivers doing 120 but on the NT side it's all rose petals.



I think the point people make about watching the speedo is that at 100kmh it is relatively easy to stray to 103 and risk a fine. Therefore this requires more monitoring of your speedo and less time watching the road



The point isn't staying awake at the speed limit, it's the extra time involved in travelling distance in this country. Case in point - Darwin to Tennant Creek (1000km) at 100kmh will take approximately (for the sake of simplicity) 10 hours. At 130kmh (the speed limit) the same trip will take 7 hours and 40 minutes.

Surely the extra 2 hours will add significantly to the possibility of fatigue for the driver. Yes, there are ways to combat this but one viewpoint is that increasing speed limits will REDUCE fatigue on long distance trips.



Actually, speed unsuitable to the conditions is what is unsafe. Speed itself is not inherantly dangerous.


I'm not even going to enter an opinion about the suitability of taking a photograph with one hand on the wheel at 200km/h, track day or not.

Nice. Agreed!

[GreenR]

Agreed that maximum speed limit should be raised to either 120km/h or 130km/h on suitable freeways/highways. Many other countries have this limit so I don't see why we can't.

As for the argument if it was raised others would still travel above the limit. I know I wouldn't due the hole that would burn through my wallet at the servo.

[fmc351]

Originally Posted by tranquilized

fmc351, I get what your saying, but I think you may be overlooking Brazen's point.

For rules and laws to be obeyed, they must first be respected. Its accepted human psychology. If your 14 year old was heading out at 6pm and you set the curfew at 7pm, I bet it wouldn't be obeyed - its completely unreasonable. Set it at 9pm, it would have much higher likelihood of being observed.

As with some speed limits - some (not all) are simply unreasonable. Of these, most are too low, some are too high. In instances where limits are plainly too low, drivers will continue to drive at a safe and reasonable speed, which may happen to be above the limit.

I agree with the assumption that if limits were raised less people would speed.

The point isnt lost on me, but there are limits to it too. It would be much easier to comply with any law, if we lowered the bar. We could solve all crimes by eliminating the laws that make the acts illegal.

I have a 15 yr old. If I set the curfew for 15 minutes after he leaves, he comes back home and asks to stay longer. Im open to negotiation, Im not open to disobedience. If he stuffs up, there is no negotiation until next time, simple. If he stays longer, Ill go get him and next time he asks, its no. If he comes home and asks, then often the answer is yes.

Governments need to say things the public want to hear, and to a certain extent, deliver. The public (note, a majority for simplicity) have to want a higher speed limit for Governments to act on it. No-one else can act on it.

As for most will drive at a safe speed despite the limit being too low, tell that to road workers. For every example of reasonable judgment, there are many others with **** poor judgment. Im often overtaken in roadworks, even when they are clearly working there. There is no reasoning with them that slowing to 40 for 1km or so only adds about 1 minute to the journey. But no, that one minute is far too intrusive, they need to risk the lives of roadworkers instead, thats much fairer. If they will do it there, what hope do we have that they will be reasonable elsewhere.

Sorry mate, Im not referring to reasonable people who can make decent judgment calls. Im talking about the knobs who all of us are associated with. If we distanced ourselves, we might get a voice. We sound the same when we say things like, why obey a speed limit thats too low. Or its the Govcos fault for trying to catch us. We tar ourselves with the same brush, no need for the public to do it.

The public dont like cameras that ping you incorrectly, but they really dont care if you got done and were speeding even if it was 6 over in a 70 zone.

Who do we want to convince, the converted? Or the people that make the decisions, the public, then government.