Brumby's round table on road safety
in [Aussie Drivers]
|
From: John_H on 5 Jun 2010 23:46 Toby wrote: >On Sun, 06 Jun 2010 12:12:33 +1000, John_H wrote: >> Toby wrote: >>> >>>Pretty soon, the 90 Highway zones won't be posted either. >> >> In that case the default becomes 100 (WA & NT excepted). > >Nope - it'll be 90. Like I said. >Soon. >Place your bets. Hmmm. The seppos tried it in 1973, modified it in 1987 and repealed it in 1995! But that's in the land of the free. :) -- John H
From: PhilD on 6 Jun 2010 00:30 "Toby" <me(a)privacy.net> wrote in message news:1gkg8hudetmmv$.132512k2wh569.dlg(a)40tude.net... > On Sun, 06 Jun 2010 12:12:33 +1000, John_H wrote: > >> Toby wrote: >>>On Sat, 05 Jun 2010 18:32:46 +1000, John_H wrote: >>> >>>> By far the most common posted limit in Qld towns and cities. As was >>>> the case in NSW last time I was there. >> >> (60 that is.) >> >>>Yeah - well, the 50 zones aren't posted. It's the default. >> >> It's the default for built up areas in all states (NT still retains 60 >> AFAIK) Nope, we've had it done here as well. >> which saves sign posting every residential street. Hasn't been done very intelligently though, While placement of some signage is technically compliant it isn't best positioned sometimes. >> Does anyone >> have a problem with that? >> >>>Pretty soon, the 90 Highway zones won't be posted either. >> >> In that case the default becomes 100 (WA & NT excepted). > > Nope - it'll be 90. Like I said. > Soon. > Place your bets. > > -- > > Toby
From: Toby on 6 Jun 2010 01:15 On Fri, 04 Jun 2010 09:13:24 +1000, John_H wrote: > PHATRS wrote: >> >>I am adamant that the increase in the road toll is due to ever >>increasing levels of nannying in this state. People think they don't >>have to do anything other than drive under the limit to drive safely, >>and also there seems to be increasing level of "it won't happen to me". >> >>Or is it just that I'm getting old and more aware of the world around me >>and it's always been like this? >> >>Ben > > It was some other Ben who once said.... "They who can give up > essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither > liberty nor safety." (Benjamin Franklin) > > Pretty well sums it up I would've though.... And we're now way too > far down the road to change any of it! :( > > Which of the following did you NOT agree with.... :) > > 1) The ban on fireworks (the earliest example I can remember). > 2) Compulsory wearing of seatbelts (to protect idiots from themselves > thereby ensuring they outnumber the rest of us). > 3) Gun control (to ensure that cops and crims were the only ones who > have 'em). > 4) 0.05% BAC (to prevent us socialising in pubs and planning an > insurrection). > 5) The crackdown on speeding (to ensure the state coffers are > maintained so we can be kept in check while the noose is tightened > further). > 6) The Rudd Government (that empts the coffers quicker than ever > before). Not too shappy a list at all, Man could I add some, though:-) -- Toby
From: hippo on 7 Jun 2010 18:51 Athol wrote: > > D Walford <dwalford(a)internode.on.net> wrote: > > > 50 is reasonable in residential areas and so far around here at least > > that's all it applies to with busier roads remaining at 60. > > Unfortunately, far too many main roads around here are now 50 zones, and > some even have "high pedestrian activity" 40 zones. > > The Pacific Highway through the middle of Belmont has a permanent 50 > limit, plus some 40 school zones. > > It's been announced that the highway through Charlestown will not only > be dropped to either 50 or 40 soon, but it will also be reduced from 6 > lanes to 5 immediately and to 4 in a couple of years... > > > The "default" part is the bit that bothers me, many roads that are > > currently 100 zones should have lower limits but many others should be > > higher, IMO blanket limits don't work. > > Precisely. Every road needs its speed limit set based on its design, > condition and crash history. I'd like to see 120 and 130 limits used > too... > Berry to Kiama on the Princes Hwy is a good case in point. Most of Berry to Broughton Creek has a 90 limit, then it changes to 80 through to the Kiama bends, haivng been dropped from 100 for 'safety reasons' after some regrettable fatalities that seem variously to have involved either inattention, inappropriate overtaking, or travelling above the posted limit. Problem is, the stretch from Berry to Broughton is an older part of the road that had a design speed of 40MPH, while the bit with the lower limit is more recent and the design speed was 100km/H. Silly! -- Posted at www.usenet.com.au
From: D Walford on 7 Jun 2010 20:19
On 8/06/2010 8:51 AM, hippo wrote: > Athol wrote: >> >> D Walford<dwalford(a)internode.on.net> wrote: >> >>> 50 is reasonable in residential areas and so far around here at least >>> that's all it applies to with busier roads remaining at 60. >> >> Unfortunately, far too many main roads around here are now 50 zones, and >> some even have "high pedestrian activity" 40 zones. >> >> The Pacific Highway through the middle of Belmont has a permanent 50 >> limit, plus some 40 school zones. >> >> It's been announced that the highway through Charlestown will not only >> be dropped to either 50 or 40 soon, but it will also be reduced from 6 >> lanes to 5 immediately and to 4 in a couple of years... >> >>> The "default" part is the bit that bothers me, many roads that are >>> currently 100 zones should have lower limits but many others should be >>> higher, IMO blanket limits don't work. >> >> Precisely. Every road needs its speed limit set based on its design, >> condition and crash history. I'd like to see 120 and 130 limits used >> too... >> > > Berry to Kiama on the Princes Hwy is a good case in point. Most of Berry > to Broughton Creek has a 90 limit, then it changes to 80 through to the > Kiama bends, haivng been dropped from 100 for 'safety reasons' after some > regrettable fatalities that seem variously to have involved either > inattention, inappropriate overtaking, or travelling above the posted > limit. Problem is, the stretch from Berry to Broughton is an older part of > the road that had a design speed of 40MPH, while the bit with the lower > limit is more recent and the design speed was 100km/H. Silly! > That's a perfect example of the lack of common sense when setting speed limits, sometimes I wonder if the people responsible for such rubbish have drivers licences and ever get out of their office. Daryl |