Prev: I aint old by choice
Next: Skaife makes a valid point applicable to all of Oz ( now tell mewhy the govco wont block it)
From: Lindsay on 13 Jun 2010 19:47
"John_H" <john4721(a)inbox.com> wrote in message
> Lindsay wrote:
>>"D Walford" <dwalford(a)internode.on.net> wrote in message
>>> They should make sense but convincing the Govt and the police that their
>>> tactics on road safety have failed and that they should try something
>>> different is never going to be easy.
>>It will never happen, not here in Victoria anyway. The govt here is too
>>reliant on the back pocket or purse of the motorist. And poker machines.
>>Govt will NEVER admit it is wrong.
> So long as the majority goes along with it then the Government's got
> it right (no government gives a hoot about facts... politics is all
> about perception)! Nor is there any shortage of alternative taxing
> Only when you've managed to convince the majority that the Government
> is wrong will it be! To which end Skaife's effort ought be
> commended... even if some of what he says is wrong! :)
I havent even read his story yet, although there is a few articles about it
in todays Herald Sunk. All I know is 100 on Geelong rd is way too
slow, but 140kmh is way too fast! I'de be happy with some middle ground,
say 120kmh on Geelong rd, but 110kmh is enough for the Princess Hwy
between Warrigal and Traralgon esp eastbound, *maybe* 120kmh
westbound as the road seems to be in better condition...
I'll have to read his article. I wanna see WHY he suddenly pops
up with this idea.. probably lack of publicity. :)
From: hippo on 13 Jun 2010 20:06
D Walford wrote:
> On 13/06/2010 1:34 PM, Athol wrote:
> > http://fat.ly/m8d2o
> > Apparently there'll be a TV program on it at 6:30pm today on channel 7.
> I agree with most of what he said in the article, the 3 freeways he
> mentioned would be suitable for at least 130kph which is probably their
> design speed.
> Inner city freeways like the Monash and Tullamarine wouldn't be suitable
> for those speeds so should stay at 100kph.
> His main comment was about improving driver standards which no one can
> deny does need to happen.
Then again, the design of the F3 in NSW was 100MPH in the 60s and
apparently it's no longer even safe at 100Km/H in places. Bloody physics!
Posted at www.usenet.com.au
From: atec7 7 ""atec77" on 13 Jun 2010 21:37
Trevor Wilson wrote:
> "Athol" <athol_SPIT_SPAM(a)idl.net.au> wrote in message
>> Apparently there'll be a TV program on it at 6:30pm today on channel 7.
> **He made some valid points, but, IMO, he left out a few important ones:
> * He failed to impress on the viewers just how tough it is to obtain a
> driver's license in Germany.
Not relevant a and he suggested tightening obtaining here by doing as
many of us suggested years ago
> * He failed to push for strict power/weight ratios for young drivers.
doesn't work and not relevant
> * He failed to mention that the German road network is supported by a
> population of 82 million people and a land area of 349,000 sq km.
> Australia's land area is more than 7 MILLION sq km.
irrelevant when it;s only 3 roads in Vic so stop trying to build a
strawman , you still suck at it
> * He failed to mention that Germany has a stunning public transport system.
> Australia does not.
no point in attacking you r on this irrelevant point as you are to
stupid to understand twevy
From: D Walford on 13 Jun 2010 21:59
On 14/06/2010 10:37 AM, Toby wrote:
>> Wet roads don't automatically preclude ordinary-ish drivers from safely
>> proceeding at 140 or so. Maybe our rain has Teflon added?
> You don't need PTFE, or even common-or-garden oil for that matter - at 140
> Km/Hr, IMO most light cars WILL aquaplane if the drainage characteristics
> of the road aren't up to the jobbie.
> ie, if water pools to any significant degree, all bets are off.
> And you know damm well whatever stupid arbitrary limit gets plastered up on
> a piece of track the fuckwits out there WILL decide that's the speed for
> them, no matter what.
That problem is easy to solve, the speed limit reverts to 100kph when
its raining, to prevent arguments over whether or not its wet enough to
drop the limit they could install variable speed limit signs which we
already have on many roads in Vic.
IMO the issue of poor lane discipline needs to be addressed before the
limits could be safely increased.
The limits could be raised in steps over a couple of years to get people
used to the idea, immediately raise to 110kph on the 3 roads mentioned
(Hume is mostly 110 anyway) then 12mths later increase by another 10kph.
From: D Walford on 13 Jun 2010 22:06
On 14/06/2010 10:06 AM, hippo wrote:
> D Walford wrote:
>> On 13/06/2010 1:34 PM, Athol wrote:
>>> Apparently there'll be a TV program on it at 6:30pm today on channel 7.
>> I agree with most of what he said in the article, the 3 freeways he
>> mentioned would be suitable for at least 130kph which is probably their
>> design speed.
>> Inner city freeways like the Monash and Tullamarine wouldn't be suitable
>> for those speeds so should stay at 100kph.
>> His main comment was about improving driver standards which no one can
>> deny does need to happen.
> Then again, the design of the F3 in NSW was 100MPH in the 60s and
> apparently it's no longer even safe at 100Km/H in places. Bloody physics!
IMO the problem with speed limits in general is too many drivers drive
to the limit instead of to the conditions, set the limit at 140kph and
you could bet your house on some imbecile driving at that speed in thick
fog because "that's the speed limit".
Unfortunately Govt's set limits to cater for those imbeciles so people
with a bit of common sense have to put up with the lowest common