RAC rejects call for lower speed limits

[Spock]

Nice to see the RAC drawing a reasonable line on speed limits for a change. Normally, they follow the 'safety nazi' line - as you'd expect of an organisation whose bread and butter members are old farts.

RAC rejects call for lower speed limits - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

[Scoundrel]

Yeah saw that, there was an article in this morning's paper about it too.

[Rebecca]

I had a chat with Rhys Curiel (ex raod racer and Supermoto/motard racer from Bunbury) once about speed/road safety etc.

And I thought he said he works for a company that does submissions on why speeding is not to blame for most accidents?? It is very possible I heard wrong, but does anyone know anything about this??

[sathid]

Common sense printed in a media publication

:o

[Tenchi]

First butter, now this? I can't believe anything anymore.

[Eukanuba]

With near autobahn like conditions on the freeway, why do people need to do 100km/h ?

It would be safe to even permit speeds of 130 or so... where could the problem be, on straight road ?

And maybe limit speeds to 110 - when weather is bad, with the use of a pelican light system ?

I know, I'd support something like that..

[Taylor]

People already come over the Warwick hill down towards Hepburn Ave and don't notice traffic stopped, breaking far too hard.

Variable speeds on the freeway would be handy.

[Spock]

With near autobahn like conditions on the freeway, why do people need to do 100km/h ?

It would be safe to even permit speeds of 130 or so... where could the problem be, on straight road ?

The reaction to such a suggestion by the authorities would be

[Eukanuba]

Yeah, I'm not talking about hills and bends etc..

but a road, i.e. like the freeways.. where visibility is good, and straight - with a visible distance of over 1km.. wouldn't this be a good suggestion ?

Obviously - where the weather is poor etc.. people would reduce their speed to suit, and in a perfect world.. cagers wouldn't hog the right hand lane.. ( that really annoys me when they do that.. )

[Spock]

Yeah, I'm not talking about hills and bends etc..

but a road, i.e. like the freeways.. where visibility is good, and straight - with a visible distance of over 1km.. wouldn't this be a good suggestion ?

Yeah, but they would argue "what if a mother was pushing a pram across the road and you couldn't stop in time?"

Or that old chestnut, "what if you had a blowout?"

^_^

[Barfridge]

The freeways here are shittily designed. Having an entrance and exit with 1km of each other on the same side of the road is madness. That's where all the congestion is: people entering and trying to move right while others are trying to move left to exit.

[Taylor]

haha, a blowout. I take it you've seen driving with one or both wrists rested on top of the steering wheel?

[Eukanuba]

Way I see it, if you're on a bike.. and you get a blowout.. if you're doing 100 or 130, you're still gonna eat bitumen..

Ride fast so atleast you'll be closer to home when it happens

[Spock]

Way I see it, if you're on a bike.. and you get a blowout.. if you're doing 100 or 130, you're still gonna eat bitumen..

According to the road safety people every 5kph DOUBLES your chance of being killed - supposedly. So at 130kph you are 64x as likely to be killed than at 100kph - apparently.

Now, I'm not saying I believe this crap but I'm just trying to get across how these people think and argue.

[sathid]

The problem on the freeway, is the tools who decide that even though you are doing 120km/h, they NEED to be less than one car length behind you.

And the tards that decide they will sit at 100km/h in the right lane, just slightly in front of the car in the left lane (who is also doing 100km/h), but not leave enough room for others to get past...


If they were to raise speed limits, I think they would need to address the stupid things people do.