Calls for 80k on highways.

[mik]

Mark Webber got it right i think, our new number plate logo " Victoria the place to be....NANNYED"

[MAD]

Originally Posted by scoupedy

when does this stop??? i heard that that the survivability of an accident at 0kmph is almost 100%

It'll stop at 5km/h. You only get a bruised leg from that.

[Keepleft]

The answer to the officers proposition would be quite simple of course; vis

1. Adopt ARR 25's 'rural default' as 80km/h instead of its current 100km/h; then

2. Re-post SPEED DERESTRICTION signs (//) on SELECT HIGHWAYS, but as with the old NSW practice up to July 1978:- ascribe to it in law - an 80km/h PRIMA FACIE maximum.

That would mean the primary speed-limit on a (//) length of road is 80km/h, but that you can/could LEGALLY exceed that, - only IF it is safe to do so under the prevailing conditions. (Some legislative and insurance issues to deal with, but this action is doable).

L, P1 and P2 holders remain to their license condition imposed speed maximums, if used.

It would also mean unsigned rural roads, forest roads and the like would automatically carry an 80km/h absolute maximum. (Unless otherwise signed by use of a numerical speed restriction sign, or speed derestriction sign.

Really is the answer.

Derestriction signage, despite its removal this year from Australian Standards, could be used by a STATE GOVERNMENT nonetheless.

Freeway class roads will not go to 120-130km/h yet, until the medians are fully divided and the U-Turn bays GATELOCKED. Guaranteed.

[TURBOTAXI]

To quote Homer Simpson...."millions will be late!".

[XR6Runner]

Originally Posted by JC

Moral of the story - if you have a head on, make sure you're in the bigger (heavier) car.

No, moral of the story is, crash into something that isn't moving into you. As in, swerve left and hit a tree or sign post head on. Its better than hitting a moving object.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by XR6Runner

No, moral of the story is, crash into something that isn't moving into you. As in, swerve left and hit a tree or sign post head on. Its better than hitting a moving object.

Another totally WRONG idea.

If you cannot MISS everything hit something soft.....

[bingoTE50]

What a crock...fix the goddamn roads up you clowns . I could drive a 1200 vw safely at 100 kmh twenty five years ago,now your telling me my GT is unsafe at 100kmh ,a car that is speed limited too 250kmh , what absolute tossers.
What is wrong with these people.Bad driving or errors in judgement are the main cause of crashes,all human traits you cannot eliminate. Even a simple eye and reflex test would help the problem, dare I say a yearly competance test.

[XR6Runner]

Originally Posted by flappist

Another totally WRONG idea.

If you cannot MISS everything hit something soft.....

So just to get things straight from you, you would rather hit oncoming traffic, then something not moving on your left?

Is that why at driver training courses they tell you to go against your 'will' and to swerve to the left 'off the road' instead of hitting on coming traffic?

[flappist]

Originally Posted by XR6Runner

So just to get things straight from you, you would rather hit oncoming traffic, then something not moving on your left?

Is that why at driver training courses they tell you to go against your 'will' and to swerve to the left 'off the road' instead of hitting on coming traffic?

There is very little difference in hitting a single similar vehicle coming towards you at the same speed as you as hitting a solid object.

I suspect the reason that you are taught that is that you would be taking the accident off the road and therefore reducing the number of people exposed to danger.

I would rather hit an oncoming soft thing than a concrete wall. Two people hurt is better than one person dead ESPECIALLY if the dead one is ME.

Remember they ALSO teach you that exceeding the speed limit is ALWAYS extremely dangerous.

Not everyone teaches you the ACTUAL truth........

[XR6Runner]

Originally Posted by flappist

There is very little difference in hitting a single similar vehicle coming towards you at the same speed as you as hitting a solid object.

I suspect the reason that you are taught that is that you would be taking the accident off the road and therefore reducing the number of people exposed to danger.

I would rather hit an oncoming soft thing than a concrete wall. Two people hurt is better than one person dead ESPECIALLY if the dead one is ME.

Remember they ALSO teach you that exceeding the speed limit is ALWAYS extremely dangerous.

Not everyone teaches you the ACTUAL truth........

True, I do agree with what you say. But you didn't answer my question.

EDIT: In a real world scenario, Would you rather hit oncoming traffic, or something that isn't moving? (In your own personal view)

[mrbaxr6t]

I think state and federal speed camera revenue is down, a reduced speed limit will catch the unaware and bolster revenue.

resisting the urge to spear off into a rant that will implode the swear filter

[flappist]

Originally Posted by XR6Runner

True, I do agree with what you say. But you didn't answer my question.

EDIT: In a real world scenario, Would you rather hit oncoming traffic, or something that isn't moving? (In your own personal view)

If I had time to assess the situation I would choose which ever would cause the least damage and if possible miss everything. There is no single right answer to every situation.

I have been in this sort of situation (potential head on/red light runner/load falling off truck/cattle run onto road/road washed out/rock slide to mention a few) a number of times over the last 33 years of driving and have managed miss everything almost every time.
In well over a million kilometres of driving I am still alive so I can't be doing too bad.

[XR6Runner]

Originally Posted by flappist

If I had time to assess the situation I would choose which ever would cause the least damage and if possible miss everything. There is no single right answer to every situation.

I have been in this sort of situation (potential head on/red light runner/load falling off truck/cattle run onto road/road washed out/rock slide to mention a few) a number of times over the last 33 years of driving and have managed miss everything almost every time.
In well over a million kilometres of driving I am still alive so I can't be doing too bad.

Mate, you sound like a proper driver! Good thing DSC came in to try put the 'average joe' back into safety. Otherwise it would leave you dodging and weaving bad drivers!

Respect for you!

[Deaks]

Im not going to bamboozle you with facts about physics, as i dont really know any. But what i can tell you about, is hitting a moving object at speed.

I had a motorbike accident when i was 17, i was going 70kph and the numskull was going 90kph. Unfortunately he was in a car, and i wasn't. He over took around a corner, straight into me. Now according to the crash lab police findings, the cumulative speed was 160kph. The only thing that saved me was the car that i hit was quite small (Holden Nova hatch), if it had of been a 4wd i would have been like a bug on the front of a truck.

I sort of understand the logic to everyone's arguments, but if that had of been a parked 4wd and i hit it at 70kph, there's a chance i could have survived, but there is no way in hell anyone would survive colliding with a moving 4wd even at 70kph both ways.

Oh and i think the clown who sprouted the garbage about the 80kph limit either doesnt drive, or lives in Toorak where 80kph would seem bloody quick.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by Deaks

Im not going to bamboozle you with facts about physics, as i dont really know any. But what i can tell you about, is hitting a moving object at speed.

I had a motorbike accident when i was 17, i was going 70kph and the numskull was going 90kph. Unfortunately he was in a car, and i wasn't. He over took around a corner, straight into me. Now according to the crash lab police findings, the cumulative speed was 160kph. The only thing that saved me was the car that i hit was quite small (Holden Nova hatch), if it had of been a 4wd i would have been like a bug on the front of a truck.

I sort of understand the logic to everyone's arguments, but if that had of been a parked 4wd and i hit it at 70kph, there's a chance i could have survived, but there is no way in hell anyone would survive colliding with a moving 4wd even at 70kph both ways.

Oh and i think the clown who sprouted the garbage about the 80kph limit either doesnt drive, or lives in Toorak where 80kph would seem bloody quick.

This is where the confusion comes from.

You had a much smaller mass than the moving vehicle therefore it would have pushed you backwards causing more damage.

If you were both the same mass it is the same as hitting a stationary unmovable object.

If you had a greater mass you would have pushed it back.

The kinetic energy is the difference between the speed you were doing and the speed you ended up at squared times your mass divided by two.

It gets more complex as there is braking and increased friction involved and if the speeds are different then that changes everything as well but the concept that two vehicles hitting head on at 100km/h is equal to one vehicle hitting a wall at 200km/h is COMPLETELY WRONG.

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by XR6Runner

So just to get things straight from you, you would rather hit oncoming traffic, then something not moving on your left?

Is that why at driver training courses they tell you to go against your 'will' and to swerve to the left 'off the road' instead of hitting on coming traffic?

I've got a choice out my way, hit the on coming car at 100km/h or throw it into a 100 year old + tree.

I'm gonna bet I have a better chance of surviving a head on with another car, than a big *** tree. Then again, I'd rather be dead than be a complete vegetable the rest of my life.

[EDManual]

My response is to this :

Most of the time there is no one to hit on most country roads, so it is basically a divided highway as long as there is no one driving past in the opposite direction.

Now, I used to speed heaps (tens of thousands of km well over)...er... anyway I would always slow down when a car was approaching or I was passing another car to a more normal speed like 120ish.

Perhaps on country roads they could make some complicated rule where you had to slow down when there are on coming cars? but then speed up again to whatever you like. Would suit me actually!

[flappist]

Originally Posted by EDManual

My response is to this :

Most of the time there is no one to hit on most country roads, so it is basically a divided highway as long as there is no one driving past in the opposite direction.

Now, I used to speed heaps (tens of thousands of km well over)...er... anyway I would always slow down when a car was approaching or I was passing another car to a more normal speed like 120ish.

Perhaps on country roads they could make some complicated rule where you had to slow down when there are on coming cars? but then speed up again to whatever you like. Would suit me actually!

That was the rule in NT up to 2007. If you were silly and/or dangerous you were charged. It worked well for the best part of 100 years until "experts" from Victoria convinced the new government (same one as Victoria) to lower the speed limits.

Nett result: Huge increase in road deaths (which is probably why you never hear of it on the news)

[351henryv8]

see the James May Speed Cameras thread. Slow driving, makes for slow frustrated trips, that IMO leads to snoozy lazy drivers who sit 5km below the speed limit often blocking the right lane. We need the police to get slow idiots like these off the road just as much as the fast accelerating doof doof idiots who come up beside you and back off so you get to hear the blow off valve from their higly modified turbo piece of rice, and they have not got the guts to stick with you on the highway, the just dissapear in my rear view mirror.

[chevypower]

Lesson learned. Don't be the oncoming car toward Flappist I agree with the point, but I would hate for someone to steer head-on in to me, for something I didn't do.

[Scott]

Here's my 2c...

Two identical cars hit each other - the incident is just as though one crashed into a mirror. Exact same speed (100km/h), exact same trajectory, exact same sameness.

This 200km/h closing speed is equivalent to one car hitting a solid object at 100km/h.

Why?

Because as the two collide, the bumper on Car A depresses at the exact same speed, and with the exact same effort as Car B - repeat for every part of the car/s. The impact is halved (against hitting something immovable) as the energy has two identical places to go to.

Hit the solid object at 100km/h and it does not give - all the energy is imparted on the car however the closing speed was half - therefore it will represent the same outcome.

Hit the solid object at 200km/h and we'll wipe you off the wall when the dust settles. As it happens, this would be the equivalent of two identical cars hitting with a closing speed of 400km/h.

Relevance to the topic is "don't hit stuff, even at 80km/h or you'll have a crap day".

[bernadette86]

“At the weekend a driver was adjusting the radio and all of a sudden (they go) into the oncoming traffic and we have a fatal outcome, just like that.”

well you should pay attention.

reminds me of the ad of creepers if he was doing 5kph less (one with silver el falcon) he wouldnt have hit her. mean while a youngish girl is walking down footpath textingh and also having earphones in her ears.
its not the creepers fault yes he was doing the wrong thing by speeding, but she walked out in front of the car, MAYBE SHE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SMART ENOUGH TO LOOK WHERE SHE WAS WALKING AND SHE WOULD HAVE BEEN FINE!!!!!!
that ad truely annoyed the hell out of me.

[mik]

no doubt this rule will get in, after all ............ the Australian standard is set by 90 year old pensioner`s driving mustard colored 1973 Toyota corona`s with worn out steering box`s and bald tyres and can`t possibly stay on their side of the road, so of course 80 kph would be a safe speed ............Hmmmm maybe not ..... lets make it 50 kph for good measure : : :

[aussie muscle]

Originally Posted by XR6Runner

Is that why at driver training courses they tell you to go against your 'will' and to swerve to the left 'off the road' instead of hitting on coming traffic?

They teach that rule because if the oncoming driver 'drifts' off course and realises he's in the wrong lane, his instinct is to get back immediately into his own lane. if you swerve to the right, chances are you'll both end up on the same piece of road.