NSW - Newell highway 110km/h limit reduced> 100km/h
Mot Adv
"Will the new speed limit substantially increase travel times on the Newell
Highway?
Travel time is determined by several factors apart from speed. The speed
limit reduction is expected to increase travel time for motorists by around
35 mins only on the entire 1060km length of the highway. Travel time
increases for shorter trips would generally be minor. For example, from
Tocumwal to Jerilderie the travel time would only increase by less than 3
minutes and to continue to Narrandera would add 5 minutes.
Heavy vehicles are already limited to 100 km/h or 90 km/h so the reduction
in the speed limit will not impact on delivery targets or freight costs.
Do reduced speed limits increase fatigue related crashes?
There is no evidence that reducing the speed limit increases fatigue related
crashes. In fact travelling at higher speeds requires more concentration
which induces fatigue. It can be shown that the chance of a fatigue related
crash is greater in 110 km/h speed limited roads than 100 km/h roads.
Regardless of the behavioural factors causing the crash (speed, fatigue,
alcohol) speed adds to the severity of the crash."
http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/rulesregulations/2009_newellspeedlimit.html?hhid=newell
JP
mot.adv
Sylvia Else
> It can be shown that the chance of a fatigue related
> crash is greater in 110 km/h speed limited roads than 100 km/h roads.
I'd like to see the analysis on which that conclusion is based. If there
is a greater chance per kilometer, is that because the higher speed
induces greater fatigue, or is it because journeys involving 110km/h
roads tend to be longer.
Sylvia.
Sylvia Else
limits. Higher travel speeds and death tolls follow increases in speed
limits."
The corollary of the first sentence would have to be that higher travel
speeds and death tolls *usually* follow increases in speed limits.
Otherwise you'd have the possibility that lowering a speed limit didn't
affect the death tolls, but then putting it back to what it was before
increased the death tolls. That is, a temporary reduction in the speed
limit causes a longterm increase in the death toll.
Sylvia.
John_H
And....
"Heavy vehicles are already limited to 100 km/h or 90 km/h. A more
uniform speed limit for all motorists will reduce the need to
overtake."
One of the consequences of vigorously policed open road speed limits
is the formation of convoys under light traffic conditions (because
drivers fear being booked if they exceed the posted limit when
overtaking). A typical convoy sees long lines of traffic form behind
the slowest moving vehicles, usually with a minimal gap between them.
The inherent dangers ought be obvious... aside from the increased
stress levels akin to driving in city traffic, albeit at higher
speeds. The distance between convoys is frequently several kms.
That's certainly been the trend on Q on roads that weren't previously
policed as vigorously as they are now.
Surely it's much better to have a uniform spread of traffic than a
series of convoys travelling at uniform speed!
--
John H
hippo
Which may not be too far from the truth. The introduction of double
demerit points in NSW preceded one of the highest Christmas period road
tolls for several years. The UK has consistently been at or near the top
of the list for low traffic fataliites for over half a century, with
Australia also in the top half dozen. Since speed cameras started
proliferating in the UK like Melbourne cafes, this has changed and Britain
is now in danger of leaving the 'top ten safest.'
The report whose link I've posted is now six years old and rather long,
but I would feel more comfortable if I could believe that the majority of
our state and federal roads legislators and managers had read &/or
understood it!
Speed Traps: Saving Lives or Raising Revenue? - Author, Alan Buckingham
"Dr Alan Buckingham is a Senior Lecturer in Sociology at Bath Spa
University College, England. The author is indebted to Paul Smith of Safe
Speed (www.safespeed.org.uk) for much of the analysis on which this
article is based, and Caspar Conde for the collection and analysis of
Australian data."
--
Posted at www.usenet.com.au
Albm&ctd
mot...@internode.on.net says...
> http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/rulesregulations/2009_newellspeedlimit.html?hhid=newell
>
"The state road toll is up 28 per cent on last year."
The result of one bad idea after another.
Why don't they admit failure.. and top themselves?
Al
--
I don't take sides.
It's more fun to insult everyone.
http://kwakakid.cjb.net/insult.html
Jeßus
mot...@internode.on.net said...
<snip>
:In fact travelling at higher speeds requires more concentration
:which induces fatigue.
What crap, the opposite is true - at least it is for me.
It is the relative lesser need to concentrate at slower speeds that
fatigues me over long distances.
:It can be shown that the chance of a fatigue related
:crash is greater in 110 km/h speed limited roads than 100 km/h roads.
I find that very hard to believe.
Sylvia Else
I've asked the RTA for a citation of the research on which that claim is
based. How long do you think I'll have to wait?
The document contains at least one other dubious claim:
"If two motorists, one travelling at 110km/h the other at 100km/h brake
at the same time, the vehicle travelling at 110km/h would still be
moving at 54km/h when the vehicle travelling at 100 km/h would have come
to a complete stop."
That seems improbable. I think what they mean to say is that if two such
motorists start breaking at the same point, then the faster one will
still be going at 54km/h at the point where the slower one will
eventually stop.
I have to wonder how much this consideration matters anyway. How many
accidents relate to unexpected stationary obstacles on the road?
Elsewhere the researcher making the fatique claim observes that a large
proportion of accidents relate to people taking bends at excessive
speed, leading to them crossing onto the wrong side of the road. This
looks like a problem of inexperience with high speed driving - a problem
that lower speed limits can only make worse.
Sylvia.
PhilD
"Je�us" <no...@all.org> wrote in message
news:MPG.2576ee3ec...@news.x-privat.org...
I just love the term "fatigue related" and it's equally overused companion's
"speed or alcohol related" that get trotted out to justify whatever
statistics the relevant authorities are trying to prove. There was a death
not far from here a couple of weeks ago with the only witness being a
pedestrian nearby to the actual accident. Within hours the Police and
relatives were claiming fatigue as the cause seemingly just because it
happened around 4:30am. This was despite the number of intersections,
traffic lights and finally a roundabout just 100M before the accident point
that were all successfully negotiated. If the only occupant is dead and no
one has said that he confessed to the witness why it happened, how the hell
would anyone be able to claim fatigue as the cause.
PhilD
hippo
Maybe the poor soul just got tired of all the traffic lights,
intersections and roundabouts?
--
Posted at www.usenet.com.au
Jeßus
am9obmhAc2hvYWwubmV0LmF1@REGISTERED_USER_usenet.com.au said...
<snip>
:
:Maybe the poor soul just got tired of all the traffic lights,
:intersections and roundabouts?
He'd be snoring in about 10 seconds in Noosa (roundabouts).
Jeßus
replytonew...@aussient.com.au said...
:
:"Je�us" <no...@all.org> wrote in message
I can't understand how any of these 'authorities' can actually accept
that sort of reasoning. In fact, I'm sure many don't. It just seems all
very manipulative and dishonest to me. Can they really be that stupid?
A bit like the signs I saw when driving down the Hume in Vic informing
me of the 'safety cameras'... or the other ones telling me that slowing
down will help stop me from having an accident - or words to that
effect.
Albm&ctd
crash.