Police admit low speed limits are often unsafe

55 is unsafe

 

don't they clock the fastest car over the course of some period of time, and set the speed limit based on that? sure seems like it anyway.

for some reason, around here, when they increase the speed limit in an area right before a set of lights, or a sharp corner, instead of right after. so you're going along 30 or 35, and the speed goes unto 35 or 40 and you hammer the throttle, only to have a red light around the bend.

 

It's actually the Variance in speed that is unsafe. Example: Having a 40/70 posted min/max speed limit. If the state had 50/60 min/max limits, then cars would be closer in speed, and accidents would cause minimal damage (only 10 mph difference between vehicles when they hit).

Of course the state knows if they are too onerous with their speed laws, then there will be a backlash from the voters.

 

I am concerned at how you deal with frustration. I fear you practice what a collegue of mine next door practices (see video). Please don't run red lights or stop on the freeway. You will have more to worry about than wet rags if you continue. I don't understand this thread. Earlier you were entering a highway ramp at a very low speed, but now you don't condone it? Conflicted?

I am fear for your well being.

[media]

 

i am also fear.

if you're on a 40/70, the best think to do is 40 in the left lane.

 

I just obey whatever the speed sign says. If it say 40/70 I do that, and if it says 50/60 for the min/max then I will obey that too. I am fear your cops.

 

who gets deported these days? who's gonna clean the bathroom's?

 

there's an exception to every rule...

 

There's an excellent article on this in yesterday's Sydney Morning Herald:

Should we have higher speed limits?

And yet, a controversial derestricted speed limit trial on Northern Territory highways hasn’t amounted to a single fatality or serious injury in the seven months since being opened, Fairfax Media can reveal. The Northern Territory government is now considering extending the trial, such is its provisional success.

“Since February 1 there have been no deaths or serious injuries on the 200km stretch whatsoever. There have been two infringement notices for people who have driven through a work zone at ridiculous speeds and there was a rollover of an unregistered car that was later attributed to drink driving and not speed.

....


“On all accounts, Territory motorists have been responsible and obeyed the road rules since the trial began.”

Open speed limits were abolished by the former Territory Labor Government in 2006 and replaced by a maximum limit of 130km/h. More people died on Territory roads (307) in the six years after the change than in the six years before (292) when speed limits were not restricted.​

But on the other hand....

Lyngcoln pointed to a Victorian case study where accident rates increased with raised speed limits.

“In 1987, VicRoads raised the speed limit from 100km/h to 110km/h on the rural and outer Melbourne freeway network, and the casualty crash rate increased by 24.6 percent,” he said.

“When the 100km/h speed limit was reintroduced 12 months later, the casualty crash rate decreased by 19.3 percent. These results are consistent with national and international experience.”​

Conditions in Victoria - which is smaller than England and has 6 million people - and the Northern Territory - which is the size of Britain, France, Germany, Belgium, Holland, Luxembourg and Denmark, and has 200,000 people - are very different, and I think this may explain the difference in results. The roads in the NT are so long and straight and empty that staying down to 130km/h (80ish mph) will cause you to fall asleep, crash and die. No limit is a better idea there.

But urban Australian drivers are terrible at highway driving, even with a 110km/h limit, so I think Victoria and New South Wales do need a limit, at least within three or four hours' drive of Sydney and Melbourne. The limit should be higher than 110 - maybe 120 or 130 - but it shouldn't be derestricted anywhere where a lot of urban people drive.

 

fair enough, but what's more important, fiery automobile deaths and dismemberment, or climate change?

 

I think that's definitely an issue, and it is likely to lead to lower speed limits, until we have renewable energy driving our cars.

 

Depends.

If a real, live traffic engineer sets the speed limit, he/she measures the average speed of free-flowing traffic, and sets the speed limit to the 85th percentile speed, rounded to the nearest 5mph increment. Due consideration is given to hazards in the area that might make a lower limit safer.

If a politician sets the speed limit, all bets are off.

 

I see the issue by far to be concerned about is distracted driving. This thread may have been a reaction to the thread - being pulled over for going the minimum speed limit...a bait designed for senseless argument. Besides, not many do it. I see far more drivers go over the limit in the Dallas area.

Back to distracted driving, I am suprized not to see an accident from someone pivoting into an exit - pivoting! Sometimes they will go across several lanes to exit. Then there is the driver that does not respond to the obvious because they are on the phone. Many traffic jams are the result of people driving zombie, then when an accident occurs not being alert enough to give time to go around it. That and senseless rubbernecking.

Another factor is many just don't plan their trip. Result is they miss turns and attempt to compensate with aggressive driving. Of course, some drive aggressively anyway....sort of back to topic, if a pack of cars is going 65 and some yahoo plows thru at 85, they nice personume no unexpected moves as they race thru...that's how accidents happen. A variation is in D/FW people that enter/exit HOV lanes in non-designated areas.

 

^ the list goes on.

People using the shoulder as a passing lane!

 

Gaper delay causes me to lose all hope for humanity.