Police getting tougher on speed tolerance

[FJRider]

The 100 and 50 limits are a historical anomoly. They had no basis in scientific discovery. They were just a way to make it all easy to understand.

Increasingly now speed limits are going to be set to a scientific (the law of physics) standard.

It's just going to take a long time to wean ourselves off the old system.

How would you describe the 110 km/hr limits then .. ??

People still kill themselves inside 50 km/hr speed limit areas (the laws of stupidity).

No matter how hard it will be to kill yourself (or your family) on any road ... some will still find a way. Go figure.

[pete376403]

I doubt if there has ever been a logical reason for speed limits, just a trade of between what seemed about right and what people would tolerate. I read the UK motorway limit of 70Miles per hour was set because that was where Margaret Thatcher felt comfortable driving her Rover.
Another instance I read of (Australian Northern Territory) was where a previous hard 130 km limit was removed and the average speed increased only a little, to where most people felt comfortable, 133 - 139. Also there were no fatalities on this section of road while the speed limit was removed. https://www.webbikeworld.com/nt-rest...pite-evidence/

[SaferRides]

The 100 and 50 limits are a historical anomoly. They had no basis in scientific discovery. They were just a way to make it all easy to understand.

Increasingly now speed limits are going to be set to a scientific (the law of physics) standard.

It's just going to take a long time to wean ourselves off the old system.

Please explain how the new limits are set on a scientific basis.


Sent from my SM-S906E using Tapatalk

[rastuscat]

Please explain how the new limits are set on a scientific basis.


Sent from my SM-S906E using Tapatalk

Survivability. Just as an example, they are taking the speed limits down to 30 kmh in areas of likely conflict between pedestrians and vehicles.

Perhaps you are aware that impact is a product of the kinetic energy of the parties involved, the angle of incidence, and the protection each human is wrapped in (airbags, crumple zones etc).

Changing the kinetic energy is the way things are going. None of us ever expect to crash, so none of us see the need for us individually to slow down.

In fact, we feel like something is being taken from us, it's what upsets us. Like we are having the right to crash at higher speeds taken from us.

Because none of us ever thinks we are going to crash. But if that's the case, why do so many?

[onearmedbandit]

Because none of us ever thinks we are going to crash. But if that's the case, why do so many?

To be fair, that's a generalisation that serves to alienate a lot of people. I can't think off the top of my head of any of my friends or acquaintances who haven't crashed or been in an accident whether they were speeding or not. So I'd argue that most people I know are fully aware that they can crash, but they don't lead their lives with this as a major consideration due to the irregularity and low instance of being involved in a MVA.

Maybe a better way to frame it would be 'most people are aware there is a chance they could be in a crash but don't take the correct precautions to lower that chance'.

[Berries]

Because none of us ever thinks we are going to crash. But if that's the case, why do so many?

Any number is too many right?

You could come at it from the other direction and say that considering the mobiilty that we have and the number of vehicles on the road there are surprisingly few crashes, even more so when you take out the arsehole factor which has been a big feature of recent fatal crashes, at least down south.

[rastuscat]

Any number is too many right?

You could come at it from the other direction and say that considering the mobiilty that we have and the number of vehicles on the road there are surprisingly few crashes, even more so when you take out the arsehole factor which has been a big feature of recent fatal crashes, at least down south.

Thats a really interesting topic. DSI / VKT. Its the number of death and serious injuries per 100 million km traveled. Its been consistently trending down for many years.

The number of deaths has bounced up and down, but relative to the traffic volume its trading down. But we like to count deaths, its an easy metric to understand.

[rastuscat]

For the stat-o-philes.

It's road fatalities relative to vehicle kilometres travelled.

[pete376403]

Why the emphasis on survivability of pedestrians? I don't drive/ride on the footpaths, shouldn't pedestrians stay off the road? Isn't that why there are seperate roads and footpaths? Shouldn't railway speeds be limited for the same reason, to avoid injury to car drivers and pedestrians who cannot stay out of the way of trains? (as for children who run out onto the street, how about charging the parents who failed to look after the child, rather than the driver who had a kid suddenly pop up in their windscreen? ) Question - do parents who back over their kids in the driveway get charged?

[onearmedbandit]

If you were driving according to the law and a child ran out in front of your car I doubt very much you'd be charged with careless use causing death etc. And a quick google shows that some drivers have been charged for running over a child in a driveway, and some haven't.

[rastuscat]

Why the emphasis on survivability of pedestrians? I don't drive/ride on the footpaths, shouldn't pedestrians stay off the road? Isn't that why there are seperate roads and footpaths? Shouldn't railway speeds be limited for the same reason, to avoid injury to car drivers and pedestrians who cannot stay out of the way of trains? (as for children who run out onto the street, how about charging the parents who failed to look after the child, rather than the driver who had a kid suddenly pop up in their windscreen? ) Question - do parents who back over their kids in the driveway get charged?

People make mistakes. Gap selection is more challenging for the young and the old. A 92 year old paid for that with her life in Woodend a month ago, crossing the road.

Its the old conflict between safety and efficiency.

[FJRider]

People make mistakes. Gap selection is more challenging for the young and the old. A 92 year old paid for that with her life in Woodend a month ago, crossing the road.

Its the old conflict between safety and efficiency.

Conflict ... ?? You actually mean that there is not enough pedestrians dying ... in direct relation to the amount of traffic that passes through the town.


I guess that speed reduction through the town (you mentioned would happen) still hasn't happened yet. 92 year olds DO make mistakes.

Go figure.

[FJRider]

For the stat-o-philes.

It's road fatalities relative to vehicle kilometres travelled.

A few thousand MORE vehicles on the road ... and the stats will drop MORE.


Even if more people die on the roads each year.


Regardless of whom was at fault.


And ... regardless of the speeds involved at the time.

[rastuscat]

Conflict ... ?? You actually mean that there is not enough pedestrians dying ... in direct relation to the amount of traffic that passes through the town.


I guess that speed reduction through the town (you mentioned would happen) still hasn't happened yet. 92 year olds DO make mistakes.

Go figure.

The transport system has been focussed on effficiency for many decades. Moving the most traffic most efficiently. Sure, it wasn't always safe for all road users, but hey, efficiency ruled. It's where the attitude that if pedestrians want to live they should stay off the road comes from.

But the attitude at WK is now that safety matters more than efficiency. Lives matter more then freight getting to places as fast as it always has.

In my view, roads are for people, not just vehicles. I recall playing tennis on the road I lived in when I was a kid growing up in the 70s. I rode my bike, played basketball, all the stuff we wish kids would do now instead of playing on playstations.

But we have given kids the view of the world from the back seat of a car, rather from on the seat of a bike. We told kids it wasn't safe to ride bikes when we insisted they wear helmets. We told them it wasn't safe when we drive them to school, instead of letting them learn about neighbourhoods by walking around and riding their bikes. Kids don't learn about gap selection, as we took that need to select gaps away from them, by molly coddling them in the back of cars.

So now the gubbermint is recognising the value of neighbourhoods, by slowing traffic in those neighbourhoods down. And compensating for human errors by trying to make those errors happen at lower speeds.

While we all sit back and rage about how it's an inffringement of our right to drive at speeds that see so many people (motorcyclists too) unnecessarily injured and killed, without us recognising that average speeds matter more than maximum speed. Lower speed limits lead to more consistent flows, rather than people having to frequently brake and accelerate.

Wow, must climb off my soap box. Sorry fellas.

[FJRider]

The transport system has been focussed on effficiency for many decades. Moving the most traffic most efficiently. Sure, it wasn't always safe for all road users, but hey, efficiency ruled. It's where the attitude that if pedestrians want to live they should stay off the road comes from.

But the attitude at WK is now that safety matters more than efficiency. Lives matter more then freight getting to places as fast as it always has.

In my view, roads are for people, not just vehicles. I recall playing tennis on the road I lived in when I was a kid growing up in the 70s. I rode my bike, played basketball, all the stuff we wish kids would do now instead of playing on playstations.

But we have given kids the view of the world from the back seat of a car, rather from on the seat of a bike. We told kids it wasn't safe to ride bikes when we insisted they wear helmets. We told them it wasn't safe when we drive them to school, instead of letting them learn about neighbourhoods by walking around and riding their bikes. Kids don't learn about gap selection, as we took that need to select gaps away from them, by molly coddling them in the back of cars.

So now the gubbermint is recognising the value of neighbourhoods, by slowing traffic in those neighbourhoods down. And compensating for human errors by trying to make those errors happen at lower speeds.

While we all sit back and rage about how it's an inffringement of our right to drive at speeds that see so many people (motorcyclists too) unnecessarily injured and killed, without us recognising that average speeds matter more than maximum speed. Lower speed limits lead to more consistent flows, rather than people having to frequently brake and accelerate.

Wow, must climb off my soap box. Sorry fellas.

I recall when the Government changed the open road speed limit (for cars) from 50 mph to 60mph. For efficiency right .. ?? But that was quite a few years back. Is reducing the speed limits now actually efficient ... or is it life saving .. ??

The Playstation Racing games aren't quite the same as the real cars are on real roads. A few seem to forget that. I played on the roads too ... but there wasn't as much traffic. And the cars often slowed down for you too.

People have the right to die by killing themselves on the road ... if they choose too ... it's just when they kill somebody that didn't WANT/NEED to die that pisses me off.

Riding and driving at a good average speed takes some skill and concentration. And it's an ability lacking in many. So they just sit at the speed limit ... regardless of weather and traffic conditions. And when the do (eventually) prang ... you hear from them .. "I was only doing the speed limit".