80Km/H Limit On Undivided Roads

[Craig.]

  On 13/04/2010 at 5:37 AM, dashturbo said:

Different result, that is the point, reducing the number of permanent life changing injuries is possible in an 80km/h crash.

Bullsh*t! Unless you are superman, whether you are doing 80 or 100 at the point of impact you will either die, or wish you had due to the injuries you then have to endure. Whats more, there will be more accidents at such a low speed limit on these long isolated roads, because at an inappropriately low speed for the road conditions your mind wanders, your brain isn't on the job and you don't pay the same attention that you would at 110-120kph. Whats more you are out on the road for longer so you have a longer exposure, therefore more fatigue related problems occur. More death and life changing injuries will result, not less!

  On 13/04/2010 at 5:37 AM, dashturbo said:

Well done, the problem I have is a hate of misinformation, not my positioning on the topic. I work with this stuff at work constantly.

Yet you sit here and tell me that the human body will do just fine in an 80kph crash. Talk about misinformation mate! You may live but your legs will be smashed to smitherines under you pedals, your head may be alright depending on whether you have an airbag fitted, if you hit something at an angle because you tried to correct you probably have a broken pelvis, as well as multiple spinal injuries, unless you have side curtain aibags ( currently onlty fitted to a very small % of cars).

  On 13/04/2010 at 5:37 AM, dashturbo said:

But what do you propose in the short term?

Well Kevin Rudd and his Cronies have spent about $40 Billion on pink batts, overpriced upgrades to school libraries and a $900 payments to everyone as part of this stimulus package so that you can buy a chineese LCD TV. Why don't we just spend the next 40 Billion on upgrades to the roads system? The increase in jobs would do a better job of stimulating the economy than giving everyone a once off $900 payment would.

Edited 13/04/10 08:23 AM by craiginmackay

[Guest XR09]

When you think how much of that $900 was pissed up against a wall, or worse shoved down a pokies neck, sheezus. At least I got a nice high priced call girl.

But seriously I think even if they did a referendum on it more than 80% of the population would have said yes to putting it into roads. The trouble is which or whose ?

The cost this 80 will cause is big. There are so few owner drivers now, and they have to keep the thing running 24/7 just to survive now. They will have to suck up part of the cost of this and they cant afford it.

It really is a big problem. And as usual the government won't be able to handle it, so they will privatize it. And then we will really have to pay to play.

Edited 13/04/10 09:36 AM by XR09

[hypnodoc]

Banter, banter, banter.

The ultimate fix will be to put Harold Scruby or that idiot Garrett in charge of the whole thing.

Its been proven over and over again that dropping speed limits doesn't drop the road toll. It has also been shown that increasing them does. The argument will continue to rage for years and more and more draconian laws will come into place and eventually we will all end up on pushbikes, buses, trains, or in those horrid hybrid impersonations of cars

[seduced]

Sadly you are right Doc.

I stick to the limits in built up areas/main roads etc, but get me on a back road where I know there are no police or traffic and I'm gone. No way I'm sticking to a limit that would rather see me asleep than awake. I now tend to take all the backroads to get places. I am much more refreshed when I arrive. If I get caught, then so be it... but while I still can, I will! Soon there wont be a chance.

Edited 13/04/10 10:35 PM by seduced

[nang3]

  On 13/04/2010 at 10:53 AM, hypnodoc said:

Banter, banter, banter.

The ultimate fix will be to put Harold Scruby or that idiot Garrett in charge of the whole thing.

Its been proven over and over again that dropping speed limits doesn't drop the road toll. It has also been shown that increasing them does. The argument will continue to rage for years and more and more draconian laws will come into place and eventually we will all end up on pushbikes, buses, trains, or in those horrid hybrid impersonations of cars

yep sadly so true!! I dont get how the govt can get away with what its doing.. although I can see its logic...

fact: govt needs revenue to survive

fact: speed camera devices bring in a cubic f*ckton of revenue every week

fact: govt needs an excuse to implement more and more cameras - devises Speed Kills Propaganda Campaign

fiction: speed kills

fact: DD and idiotic driving contributes more to accidents than low level ( <15kph over limit) speeding

fact: because there are no cameras to automatically generate revenue through DD and idiotic driving, said campaign is always in the background

fiction: lowering speed limits will reduce accidents

fact: lowering speed limits increases motorists time on the road = more frustration = more temptation to speed = more Revenue.

fact: govt wins.

fact: general population loses

fact: we can't do F*CK ALL ABOUT IT!

[dashturbo]

:argue:

I'm sick of the same old arguments.

good luck convincing the blokes & ladies that build the cars, study the accidents, peel people off the roads and run the country. They are the ones that need convincing. In the meanwhile

[nang3]

yeh I feel sorry for the ambos etc who turn up and see the result of excessive speed OR fatigue, inattention, pure boredom etc that's caused by the mind numbing speed limits too !!

[MICKAJ]

I don't really understand the concept personally. Why apply it only to undivided roads? Why not every road where there are no barriers.

A better idea that wouldn't damage productivity would be to commit serious $$$ to hazard removal or barrier installation. After all there would be just as many run off road crashes than head ons and 80 would be a loss in money.