Welcome to the Zombie Zone - statewide 90kmh rural limit in NSW?

Brazen · 14-12-2009, 03:31 PM

http://www.caradvice.com.au/50781/ns...d-limit-90kmh/

The article states that the NRMAs regional director has been shocked to find out that the RTA may have a hidden agenda to reduce the NSW state limit to 90kmh on rural undivided roads (most are rated at 100kmh to 110kmh).

I feel when people drive on rural roads at speeds well below the conditons they 'zone out'. They pay less attention to the road, they are more complacent and careless and more likely to make a mistake. As well as get more fatigued as the boredom and travel time get too much.

Having done a fair bit of OS travel, I feel that Aussie roads due to their incredibly low speed limits are some of the most fatigue and distraction inducing roads on the planet. Trundling along for hours at 90kmh in outback Australia is just ridiculous.

In Italy last year I was often travelling at 170kmh and getting overtaken by VW Transporter vans. At speeds like that I was aware, comfortable, awake and safe and not stressed or frustrated by having to constantly monitor speed. Australia with its incredible distances and low rural traffic density should I think consider increasing some road limits to 130kmh.

As usual, Australians will just cop any reduction on speed limits on the chin...

flappist · 14-12-2009, 03:39 PM

Well QLD definitely has a "90k fairy" somewhere in Main Roads.

We are getting 90k zones all over the place even on brand new 4 lane freeways with no on or off ramps, "offical U turn" points and physical separation between opposite lanes.

AndrewR_AUII · 14-12-2009, 03:42 PM

Great.
Makes the Yearly trip to Bathurst harder. Not so much the trip there, but the one home.

Normally, leave on Tuesday Morning and drive through to West Wyalong where we stay overnight.
The return trip on the Monday is a straight-through run from Bathurst to Adelaide. By the time we pack up camp site normally leave about 7:30, get in to Adelaide about 9:30pm. This is going to add (by calculation) an extra 40 minutes... which makes getting home about 10:15.

Even with 3 drivers, this is getting to be a concern.

Brazen · 14-12-2009, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AndrewR_AUII

Great.
Makes the Yearly trip to Bathurst harder. Not so much the trip there, but the one home.

Normally, leave on Tuesday Morning and drive through to West Wyalong where we stay overnight.
The return trip on the Monday is a straight-through run from Bathurst to Adelaide. By the time we pack up camp site normally leave about 7:30, get in to Adelaide about 9:30pm. This is going to add (by calculation) an extra 40 minutes... which makes getting home about 10:15.

Even with 3 drivers, this is getting to be a concern.

My biggest worry is not so much the extra travel time - even though in your case it is considerable, Im concerned at those low travel speeds people just wont be concentrating as much as they should, or they will become complacent or fatigued. Its just idiocy.

flappist · 14-12-2009, 03:53 PM

You have an election soon, contact the opposition and see what their policy is on the subject.
If they have a suitable policy then do what you can to help them implement it.

RTA may need an enema and the people who have filled it full of poo over the years are not going to empty it are they........

Brazen · 14-12-2009, 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flappist

You have an election soon, contact the opposition and see what their policy is on the subject.
If they have a suitable policy then do what you can to help them implement it.

RTA may need an enema and the people who have filled it full of poo over the years are not going to empty it are they........

Well the Liberals were very opposed to Newell Hwy going from 110kmh to 100kmh, I can imagine what they would say to the idea of limits going down to 90kmh.

UNR8D · 14-12-2009, 04:08 PM

some people need removal from the gene pool... HOW the HELL can he say that adding an hour to a trip will not add to fatigue? DR brainless idiot.. you add time to travel, you increase the time your on the road for, thus increasing the window for you to fall asleep at the absurd 100km/h... I really REALLY hope we can get these moron's put in their place.

flappist · 14-12-2009, 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brazen

Well the Liberals were very opposed to Newell Hwy going from 110kmh to 100kmh, I can imagine what they would say to the idea of limits going down to 90kmh.

Well contact your local one and see what they think.

If lots of people contact them they may make it a part of their election strategy.

It does not hurt to ask.

Also contact your local member and make a complaint. The incumbent governement probably want to stay in power and "Sarah Palin" might see an "RTA enema" as a way of showing "new leadership and ideas".

Win/Win every way you look at it really......

geckoGT · 14-12-2009, 04:22 PM

I have to agree here and say that this is a move in the wrong direction.

Speed limits are a compromise between the ability of the lowest skilled driver being able to control the vehicle, react to hazards and provide safety to other road users in areas such as intersections, driveways etc. The issue with speed limits that are too low and increase travel time too much is it will actually increase driver fatigue, boredom and complacency.

For example, a car is traveling on a predominately straight section of country road with only the odd gentle bend that is safe to negotiate at 110 km/h and therefore there are no speed advisory signs suggesting lesser speeds. There are no cross roads or driveways, the road condition is good and there is a reasonable shoulder on either side of the road. The road has one lane each way and therefore is now zoned 90 km/h. A average skilled motorist is traveling at 89 km/h and has been for the last 1 hr 50 mins since his last stop, as part of his trip from Melbourne to Sydney and has been traveling for the last 6 hrs. As a result of his accumulated fatigue which he has been attempting to manage as government road safety advice suggests, and the boredom of driving straight roads at speeds that do not even require him to think about the bends he has negotiated so far, he has pretty much zoned out. The motorist approaches a bend, doesn't give it a second thought (he is off in la la land). He does not notice that this is actually a reducing radius corner or that there was an advisory sign suggesting a corner speed of 70 km/h and finds himself too fast for the bend, forcing him to drift into the oncoming lane. I will leave the potential result up to your imagination, I do not need imagination as I have seen the result many times, not pretty.

Now lets change the scenario a little. He is now doing the same trip, same breaks, same road conditions. the only difference is that the speed limit is 130 km/h in areas where there is straight road with no intersections or driveways etc, 80 or 90 where there are intersections etc depending on hazards and 60 or 50 through towns. Due to the higher speed limit there are more frequent corner speed advisory signs with road users slowing for some corners. Due to the decreased travel time and increased sensory input and concentration required, the road users are more involved in the drive and concentrating more so therefore less likely to zone out through boredom. In the same corner that the motorist in the last scenario went too fast through, this motorist sees the advisory sign, washes off some speed prior to the corner and negotiates it safely.

Personally I have done a lot of interstate driving with two trips from Brisbane to Melbourne, numerous Brisbane to Canberra, two Sydney to Perth, numerous Karratha to Perth and Karratha to Brisbane through NT (there is more than this but you get the idea). The trip from Karratha to Brisbane was a great example of my point. Driving through the WA section in 110 zones on all highways, with good roads, driver fatigue was there but not too bad and I was able to cover approximately 1500 km in a day driving during daylight hours. In the NT (at this time it was de restricted speed limits), traveling at speeds of 160-180, sometimes up to 200 on straight sections, I was able to cover nearly 2000 km in a single day during daylight hours. In the QLD section with 100 km/h limits, crap roads and multiple road work zones, I was only able to cover 1000 km in a day.

I found on this trip that through WA fatigue was an issue, as was boredom but it was manageable. Through the NT, due to the much higher speeds I was able to drive for approximately 1-1 1/2 hrs (covering 200 km) and then take a break. Due to the higher speeds and the fact that I would have to watch for corner speed signs and slow down for bends, I was much more alert and boredom was not an issue. When I got to my hotel that night, I was not fatigued at all when compared to the WA section, a great day behind the wheel. Through the QLD section, the fatigue was terrible, I would drive 2 hrs between breaks, often only covering 100-150 km in each section and on numerous times I had to pull over and have a break as I was starting to get too tired. I got caught out at night due to road work delays and by the time I stopped I was absolutely hammered. The next day was worse due to the accumulated fatigue of the previous day, worst day driving I have ever had. Imagine if I had to do that trip at 90 km/h. During this trip I became a strong advocate for increasing the national speed limit to 130 km/h in appropriate areas.

Lets face it, the modern car, including your little buzz boxes can safely sit on 130. Even a well maintained old car such as a XY falcon or HT Holden can sit on 130 safely on straight roads. I will not address poorly maintained cars as I believe that is a separate issue and not something that should be addressed by lowering speed limits.

Anyway, that is my view.

mrbaxr6t · 14-12-2009, 04:41 PM

gecko - I do agree with what you are saying above, but I must add that an accident at a lower speed is going to result in a more favorable outcome for the people involved, two vehicles have a partial headon (drivers' side to drivers' side) which last time I was looking at the stats is the most common form of accident, now both cars doing 90 kmh - partial headon crash is 180 kmh this is alot but its alot less than two vehicles travelling at 130 kmh having the same accident equates to 260kmh this is a monster collision.

I hate to say it but I can see this saving lives if used properly for example :

lets say a stretch of road exists where the speedlimit is 110kmh and it through design of intersecting roads or blind corners is the result of many fatal accidents year in year out, then this stretch of road is unsafe, and lets face it we all know the unsafe intersections in our home area. reducing the speedlimit to 90kmh whilst may not prevent the accidents will reduce the fatalities.

but a one size 90 kmh everywhere speedlimit statewide approach is not a very intelligent move for the reasons others have commented on so I won't go into those

sgt_doofey · 14-12-2009, 04:48 PM

170km/h in Italy? How did you manage that when the limit over there is 130km/h? Did you have run ins with the Carabinieri?
Living here in the Barossa where they have just reduced all the rural road limits down from 100km/h to 80km/h, I know what it's like. Thankfully, the main roads are still 90km/h and 100km/h. But being such a small area like the Barossa it doesn't really have an effect on traveling times. Being across the state, that is something that I'd be against.

Brazen · 14-12-2009, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrbaxr6t

gecko - I do agree with what you are saying above, but I must add that an accident at a lower speed is going to result in a more favorable outcome for the people involved, two vehicles have a partial headon (drivers' side to drivers' side) which last time I was looking at the stats is the most common form of accident, now both cars doing 90 kmh - partial headon crash is 180 kmh this is alot but its alot less than two vehicles travelling at 130 kmh having the same accident equates to 260kmh this is a monster collision.
:

The day robots are driving cars, then looking at accidents in pure physics might be appropriate. However one thing rarely addressed and certainly not addressed in Australia are the human elements to an accident.

In your collision example you have two cars hitting head-on.. Can I ask why they are hitting head on? Is it because one driver is fatigued, is it because one is distracted, is it because one is not paying attention...?

Travelling at a high speed appropriate to the condtions may decrease the levels of fatigue, inattention, and distraction. So whereas in your example two cars have colided both doing 90kmh - in my example both cars at 130kmh would have not colided as they are aware, attentive and awake.

mrbaxr6t · 14-12-2009, 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brazen

Travelling at a high speed appropriate to the condtions may decrease the levels of fatigue, inattention, and distraction. So whereas in your example two cars have colided both doing 90kmh - in my example both cars at 130kmh would have not colided as they are aware, attentive and awake.

you mean to tell me that cars will crash at 90 kmh due to fatigue, inattention, and distraction and at 130 kmh they will not? One cannot guarantee that people won't become complacent or used to traveling at 130kmh and when they crash it will be fatal at 90kmh their chances of survival are much greater.

you can bee as alert and as attentive as you like behind the wheel but when some idiot is not and they hit you i choose them hitting me at a lower speed thanks

ALSO you mentioned the conditions - as I said above road conditions exist where at 110kmh people are suffering fatalities - reducing the limit based on conditions and crash data is intelligent and logical and reduces the speeds of those that are unfamiliar with an area

Franco Cozzo · 14-12-2009, 04:57 PM

Wouldn't you be dead anyway if you had a head on crash at 90km/h? Pretty sure at that point you'd be screwed or a vegetable for the rest of your life.

Brazen · 14-12-2009, 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sgt_doofey

170km/h in Italy? How did you manage that when the limit over there is 130km/h? Did you have run ins with the Carabinieri?
Living here in the Barossa where they have just reduced all the rural road limits down from 100km/h to 80km/h, I know what it's like. Thankfully, the main roads are still 90km/h and 100km/h. But being such a small area like the Barossa it doesn't really have an effect on traveling times. Being across the state, that is something that I'd be against.

On one of the Autostradas on our way to Firenze the limit was 130, but I was often the slowest sitting on 160-170. Some of the larger autostradas have limits of 150, so the travelling speed would be higher again. Didnt have any issues with the Carabinieri as I was keeping up with the traffic flow. Loved driving through Italy just an amazing and enjoyable expierence.

Jack91 · 14-12-2009, 05:04 PM

This is already in tassie, dont think its enforced (thankfully like most other speed limits here), but Ive noticed theyve taken down 99% of the 100 or 110 signs and replaced them with END 60 or whatever youve just come out of, I think this is so that in years to come they can just say ok all highways 80 now without having to change many signs. The 90km/h rural limit is definately in place here already though along with ALL streets 50km/h unless signposted otherwise.

geckoGT · 14-12-2009, 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrbaxr6t

gecko - I do agree with what you are saying above, but I must add that an accident at a lower speed is going to result in a more favorable outcome for the people involved, two vehicles have a partial headon (drivers' side to drivers' side) which last time I was looking at the stats is the most common form of accident, now both cars doing 90 kmh - partial headon crash is 180 kmh this is alot but its alot less than two vehicles travelling at 130 kmh having the same accident equates to 260kmh this is a monster collision.

I hate to say it but I can see this saving lives if used properly for example :

lets say a stretch of road exists where the speedlimit is 110kmh and it through design of intersecting roads or blind corners is the result of many fatal accidents year in year out, then this stretch of road is unsafe, and lets face it we all know the unsafe intersections in our home area. reducing the speedlimit to 90kmh whilst may not prevent the accidents will reduce the fatalities.

but a one size 90 kmh everywhere speedlimit statewide approach is not a very intelligent move for the reasons others have commented on so I won't go into those

Looking at the pure physics of a crash without looking at contributing factors as you suggest. The forces applied to the occupants of the cars and the fact that no car is required to withstand results in no appreciable increase in chances of survival of occupants in a 180 km/h impact compared to a 260 km/h impact, both will result in deaths.

I know this as I have been to crashes involving impacts greater than 150 km/h and each one involved deaths, I know, I pronounced them dead.

Example, late model Audi A4 lost control on a bend at less than 160 km/h on a road in Brisbane, bounced over a median strip and hit a stationary power pole and then a fence. Therefore the impact was less than 160 km/h (car moving, pole not). The result was all occupants critically injured, one ejected and killed, car torn in two.

Another example, car loses control at approximately 120 km/h and hits a large tree (120 km/h impact). Result was massive deformation of the vehicle, passenger seat broke, passenger now in back seat with massive abdominal injuries and went to ICU. Driver dead on arrival of ambulance and not in the same shape she used to be.

Last one. Two cars, one over takes the other on a bend in a 70 zone, overtaking car estimated to be doing 100-120 km/h, impact with another car traveling at 70 km/h coming the other way (170-190 km/h offset head on). Result, in over taking car there were two occupants, one dead and one with abdominal injuries, bilateral fractured femurs and pelvic fracture. The other car had two occupants, one with abdominal injuries, the other had abdominal injuries and a fractured pelvis.

I have more but I am sure you get the point.

My point is we are better avoiding the accident rather than trying to make the impact survivable. The only way to make a head on collision survivable is to decrease impact speed below 70 km/h (approximately the speed which cars are crash tested too), which means we now have to drive country roads at 35 km/h.

By the way, it seems you missed my point where I said I am an advocate of a 130 km/h speed limit, only in places where road conditions make this safe.

Wally · 14-12-2009, 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sgt_doofey

170km/h in Italy? How did you manage that when the limit over there is 130km/h? Did you have run ins with the Carabinieri?
Living here in the Barossa where they have just reduced all the rural road limits down from 100km/h to 80km/h, I know what it's like. Thankfully, the main roads are still 90km/h and 100km/h. But being such a small area like the Barossa it doesn't really have an effect on traveling times. Being across the state, that is something that I'd be against.

Just to annoy you some more, for many of the country lanes in Britain I drive on, the limit was 70 mph, just like their freeways.

aussie muscle · 14-12-2009, 05:24 PM

it's cheaper to reduce the speed limit than to fix the bloody roads!! Lame. hopefully it'll come up as an issue in the next election. i guess these "intellectuals" never have to actually drive anywhere, otherwise they'd be more sympathetic.

geckoGT · 14-12-2009, 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aussie muscle

it's cheaper to reduce the speed limit than to fix the bloody roads!! Lame. hopefully it'll come up as an issue in the next election. i guess these "intellectuals" never have to actually drive anywhere, otherwise they'd be more sympathetic.

Well said.

There is the real reason, much cheaper to drop the speed limit and allow the road to deteriorate but still handle a 90 km/h speed limit than to fix the surface, widen the shoulder and make it safe for 130 km/h

Wally · 14-12-2009, 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flappist

Well QLD definitely has a "90k fairy" somewhere in Main Roads.

We are getting 90k zones all over the place even on brand new 4 lane freeways with no on or off ramps, "offical U turn" points and physical separation between opposite lanes.

I reckon one of those fairies is the member for Moggil who wants to reduce the western freeway limit to 80kph after the billions of dollars has been spent on making it and the Ipswich road capable of more than 110kph.

Keepleft · 14-12-2009, 06:28 PM

I have no problem with the RURAL DEFAULT being 90km/h. It *should* be 80km/h.

One simply needs to understand how exactly that particular limit applies, and to what class_in_'quality' of road. Think 'State forrest roads' and similar quality, not highways.

Other roads meeting highway standard can, and will be SIGNposted limits of 100/110km/h, and in the future 120 & 130km/h.

NSW reintroduces AERIAL SPEED PATROLS, see thread here:-
http://www.fordforums.com.au/showthr...=1#post2970375

geckoGT · 14-12-2009, 06:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keepleft

I have no problem with the RURAL DEFAULT being 90km/h.

One simply needs to understand how exactly, that particular limit applies, or is applied, and to what class in 'quality' of road.

Other roads meeting highway standard can be SIGNposted limits of 100/110km/h and in the future 120 & 130km/h.

The wording of the article suggesting a move to a "statewide limit" of 90 km/h suggests there will no longer be areas of 100 or 110 km/h where road condition permits. Example of this wording is the "statewide speed limit" in WA is 110 km/h, no roads allow greater speed than this.

I have no opposition to roads being marked 90 zones if their condition only allows this speed to afford road user safety in the specific area. I do oppose a statewide limit of 90, many roads do safely allow higher speed than this and see the benefit of lower speed from the perspective of vehicle control, hazard detection/reaction and vehicle impact kinematics being adversely offset by increases in complacency, boredom and fatigue eventuating from less driver involvement and increases in travel time.

Franco Cozzo · 14-12-2009, 06:43 PM

Even on my rural road, 100km/h speed limit, thats pushing it though because the road has lots of potholes and some huge ones and they don't get fixed often, last TWO times, they just chucked stones on the road and reduced the speed limit for about 2ks to 60km/h, a day later all the stones had been flung onto the side of the road, and it took them 2 or 3 weeks to put the speed limit back.

I say fix the roads before we decrease speed limits, wait, that makes sense though.

geckoGT · 14-12-2009, 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrbaxr6t

but I must add that an accident at a lower speed is going to result in a more favorable outcome for the people involved, two vehicles have a partial headon (drivers' side to drivers' side) which last time I was looking at the stats is the most common form of accident,

By the way, what stats do you refer to as to my knowledge and in all the study I have done the most common injuries in Road traffic crashes come from nose to tail and lateral impacts, head ons are rare (although more devastating when they occur).

Keepleft · 14-12-2009, 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by geckoGT

The wording of the article suggesting a move to a "statewide limit" of 90 km/h suggests there will no longer be areas of 100 or 110 km/h where road condition permits. Example of this wording is the "statewide speed limit" in WA is 110 km/h, no roads allow greater speed than this.

The article is wrong then. 100 and 110km/h SIGNPOSTED zones will remain. Per above, once certain works are carried out to dual carriageway roads (years), we WILL see limits higher than 110km/h.

Brazen · 14-12-2009, 06:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keepleft

The article is wrong then. 100 and 110km/h SIGNPOSTED zones will remain. Per above, once certain works are carried out to dual carriageway roads (years), we WILL see limits higher than 110km/h.

But, if roads are not signposted at the moment (ie they are on the current rural default) they would then become 90 kmh zones.

The RTA would then be picking and choosing which roads they could be bothered with getting around to signposting at a higher limit. I just cant see the point of reducing the rural default unless the aim was to enforce a lower travel speed on rural NSW roads.

Keepleft · 14-12-2009, 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brazen

But, if roads are not signposted at the moment (ie they are on the current rural default) they would then become 90 kmh zones.

If the road does not bear a speed limit sign (R4-1 series), OR contains an END speed-limit sign (R4-12) then yes.
End speed-limit sign:-
http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/cgi-bin/in...ow&id=r4/r4-12

Quote:

The RTA would then be picking and choosing which roads they could be bothered with getting around to signposting at a higher limit.

Bother? Think budget, if the road is capable of carrying a signposted speed-limit, then application can be made for it to be so.

Quote:

I just cant see the point of reducing the rural default unless the aim was to enforce a lower travel speed on rural NSW roads.

Sure, on those roads not suited to a speed-limit higher than the rural default. Remember that our speed derestriction allowance,- up to July 1978,- carried with it a PRIMA FACIE 80km/h (maximum recommended).

Reality is, large portions of the state road network simply do NOT meet current AUSROADS safety and performance criteria for 'highways'.

The Newell Highway was reduced in posted speed from 110km/h back to 100km/h, in small part to mirror VIC and QLD practice, and reflecting on the roads inability to adequately meet current highway criteria for 110km/h zones.

See a Pdf on the Newell matter at RTA website.

Personally, I'd have simply derestricted the road again. But that sign has been removed from Australian Standards, effective 2009.

What we need to do in big part, is to complain like hell to get more road funding:-)

mik · 14-12-2009, 09:36 PM

its blatantly obviouse as a melbourne boy anyway, the roads just are`nt getting resurfaced as often if at all, now and again you see the council boys filling in a pothole with hot mix a few shovels pat it down a bit move onto the next one( a few months later it stuffed again), once upon a time, for small crappy sections of road they would have the power saw out and cut the bad section out add more stones, wacker them down then add hot mix, wacker them down to do a half decent repair, are we wondering where all the money goes now that once went to do the job properly......i am.

xtremerus · 14-12-2009, 10:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keepleft

Reality is, large portions of the state road network simply do NOT meet current AUSROADS safety and performance criteria for 'highways'.

The Newell Highway was reduced in posted speed from 110km/h back to 100km/h, in small part to mirror VIC and QLD practice, and reflecting on the roads inability to adequately meet current highway criteria for 110km/h zones.

That 'Criteria' word is the cop out for bureaucrats/politician to justify looking like they are doing something, so they still can have a job. Just change the criteria of the 'criteria' to justify the agenda that the govt. directs. Or is it the other way around, un-elected public servants, directing policy to idiot politicians to keep their job. Just buck passing responsibility, so that no ONE person is every responsible for any contentious issue being implemented. Politicians just say we are just responding to reports/inquiries/surveys etc. So where is all this BS coming from, and WHO is responsible for this directive in the change of speed limits???