Mark Scaife calls for 140km/h limit on VIC freeways
in [Aussie Drivers]
|
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: st3ph3nm on 13 Jun 2010 22:41 On Jun 14, 12:06 pm, D Walford <dwalf...(a)internode.on.net> wrote: > On 14/06/2010 10:06 AM, hippo wrote: > > > > > 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. > > >> Daryl > > > 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". The main reason for this is that in general, our freeway speed limits are set too low. If we actually set them to the design speed of the road, you'd find people sitting at a "comfortable" pace, which in most cases (in fact, 85% of drivers) would be the design speed of the road in question - in our case, usually 130kph for multi lane freeways. > 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 > denominator problem. And rake the money in as people pass the "road safety cameras" safely. That said, we would also need to drastically improve lane discipline on our freeways to be able to increase the speed limits safely. I can't get over how many people just sit in the middle lane of three doing 10 or 14 km/h below the speed limit. Cheers, Steve
From: Toby on 13 Jun 2010 22:45 On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 19:41:27 -0700 (PDT), st3ph3nm wrote: > That said, we would also need to drastically improve lane discipline > on our freeways to be able to increase the speed limits safely. I > can't get over how many people just sit in the middle lane of three > doing 10 or 14 km/h below the speed limit. As you're probably guess at the first reason of the two for that caper, I'll tell you the second - they're the jerks who don't know or won't learn how to merge. Because of that they sit one lane out to avoid what they KNOW are the fuckwits turning up at the wrong speed and the wrong place in the left lane. The truck drivers clog up the freeways in these parts for precisely the same reason - but in their case it's also to avoid prangs they don't get a hell of a lot of choice about if they're in that left lane - cause they simply can't get out of it without causing chaos - or worse - due the afore-mentioned jerks. -- Toby Caveat Lector
From: John_H on 13 Jun 2010 22:50 D Walford wrote: > >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". That's only because the propaganda fosters that line of thought... eg "every k over is a killer" (and, by implication, you're dead safe if you don't). >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 >denominator problem. Government "strategy" has been to demonise speeding, along with everything else it seeks to control. It's what characterises the nanny state! The really sad part is that it's probably irreversible... anytime in the foreseeable future at least. Once the majority of the flock accepts it the rest don't have a choice! -- John H
From: Toby on 13 Jun 2010 23:01 On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 12:50:22 +1000, John_H wrote: > That's only because the propaganda fosters that line of thought... eg > "every k over is a killer" (and, by implication, you're dead safe if > you don't) Yup - two premise logical arguments aren't. a GovCo favourite and always a fraud. In fact I'd go so far as to suggest that ALL GovCo behaviour is quite obviously on this basis. eg. If you're not for us you're agin us. And If it's not raining, it is. Note: The third and necessary premise is always associated with that most disgusting and derided practice of 'fence sitting' as opposed to fence jumping - the origin of most all politicians. -- Toby. Caveat Lector
From: D Walford on 13 Jun 2010 23:35
On 14/06/2010 12:50 PM, John_H wrote: > The really sad part is that it's probably irreversible... anytime in > the foreseeable future at least. Once the majority of the flock > accepts it the rest don't have a choice! > Yep and most likely Skaife will be character assassinated by Govco and the Police for daring to suggest that they don't know what they are doing. Daryl |