Lower speed limits could be actually endangering lives....

[Diesel]

Have often thought this myself about speed limits being set for the lower common denominator (least capable drivers)....


A short, but interesting read....


http://motorbikewriter.com/how-increased-speed-makes-us-safer/?ct=t(Newsletter_25_08_15)


Cheers, Diesel

[Nigel]

Totally totally agree......................great article.....Thanks Diesel......................................................

[Brock]

I agree Diesel, thats why we stress ride to your ability on group rides.

Some of us cant ride fast on narrow windy roads, others can. It comes down to being comfortable in/on the vehicle and the personal ability to interpret road/weather conditions and drive to them.

Over the years on long drives, I find that I concentrate better when at speed  (110 ish)

[Shaun]

There is a similar theory in education on this. The article speaks about area of best performance being a tension between boredom and anxiety. In education, we refer to this optimum area being an area of "flow".



It isn't unique to education, but in class, I know that to fully engage a student, you have to set the task at a point just above their comfort level. Any lower and they don't feel it is worth their attention or need, and any higher and they feel that the aim is inaccessible and they become discouraged. Get it right though, and they become immersed and get into the "flow" of their work, being very productive and engaged.

Translating this to a driving context, the argument would then proceed as the best level of "flow" occurring when a rider is just outside their comfort zone. Cruising at a so called comfortable speed will produce symptoms of boredom, such as apathy and inattention.

Given that this threshold would vary for different people, it seems a prudent solution to apply a "lowest common denominator" approach to speed limits, as much as it may irritate those with a higher threshold. If speed limits are higher, it may prompt people with lower thresholds to rise above their comfort zone (either due to pressure from other drivers, or from foolishness), at at high speeds, energetically the stakes are higher in the event of a mishap.

I can see the arguments on both sides, at any rate. :)

[STroppy]

My "Happy Speed" is 120 supplemented with an occasional burst of speed . . No not the white powder stuff!

But I agree everyone should ride for themselves and not try to keep up with anyone . . Be comfortable with your speed which will vary according to the road, the weather, the sun, the temp, the bike, yr tyres, time of day, where you are, where our buddies in Blue are, keep your emotions in check, don't think of Marc M and a whole host of other factors . . In other words, Ride to your ability and the conditions . . . Most of all enjoy, don't endanger others, don't kill yourself . . I need you to be around so I can annoy you . .

Go suck some eggs . . .   

[atoyot]

This is a little bit like the idea that if you travel at 280ks through an intersection, you are safer than at 60, as you are within the intersection for a much shorter space of time. Never mind other traffic, but take that further, if everyone sat on 280ks, there's even a lesser chance of crashing!

I had an 18 wheeler pass me at 160 once, just after I'd turned onto the road he was on, but half a k up the road. Prior to overtaking me, I did notice his lights getting closer, so sped up to about 130 to get myself ahead, but wham, bugger double yellows, he just kept the foot planted.

I guess that's my problem with the idea; in my experience, most people tend to think that they are better drivers/riders than they are, myself included as I ran up the arse of a car a few years ago. Having said that, I can push pretty hard through corners when I wish, and I can wind on the throttle when I wish as well, but my situational awareness tends to override that a lot more these days, even on my more sports minded bikes in the past.

Lastly, I tend to be tempered by the risk of getting caught. The chances have probably dropped over the years, but I'm more concerned with the cost and loss of points/licence, not to mention the cost of insurance etc. Must be getting old.....

[STroppy]

No matter what the speed limit is set at, there will always be some who say it is way too high and some who say it is way too low, I have seen some extremely bad decision making when ever I have strictly adhered to the speed limit and it seems 90% of other road users think I am going way too slow

Others pick a speed like 70kph and set their cruise on that and travel thru all zones at 70 . . School, 110 zones doesn't matter . . Others cannot go around a corner at even the advisory speed . . Others can do it at 3+ times that.

Speed limits are not THE speed you HAVE to travel at . . And no matter what the limit is you will always get a number of recacitrant road users . .

Better driver/rider training, better general education, culling . . . Would all go a long way to having safer roads . .

Better still don't allow anyone apart from Police and emergency services use any of them!

[atoyot]

Absolutely, Terry! 100% with you on that! Natural selection will take care of some of them, but there are always those who fluke it and survive.

It's also too easy to generalise of driver/rider behaviour, but I find that adventure bike riders are over-represented when someone does something stupid. Coming back from Phillip Is a while ago, I had one overtake me in an active 40k school zone over unbroken lines, probably doing about 80+ k's  Note to self, adventure bike riders are all dickheads! Nah, dickheads are spread throughout all road users, all levels of society, and I guess we've just got to learn how to survive with them on the roads.

I just tend to hope they only kill themselves and no innocent person these days, and preferably when I'm not around.

One of my pet hates though is when people can travel at high speed on straights, but as soon as their a corner in front of them, they tippy toes around it at half the advisory limit. Particularly in the wet. Mind you, those 95k advisory signs always were hard to do the double it plus 10!

[atoyot]

Another thing that annoys me is how the authorities are hell bent on fixing the roads so no one will get killed. They wreck all the decent bits of corners on roads, straighten them out, yet people still wipe themselves out. It's just a plot to wreck all the good bits of road left!

Maybe the articles author is on the right track. Some people probably do concentrate more when conditions are tough. Take wet slippery roads; I concentrate more in those conditions, but I can still get it wrong. Then there are some that couldn't concentrate on anything more than their phone, their bad day, getting home to a feed, etc etc.

Appropriate speed doesn't often kill, but inappropriate speed often does! Most of the time, we get it right, but get it wrong and it can might be the only one we ever do get wrong.

   There I go again...back to the shed to fix wifey's car.

[Diesel]

We were discussing a while back about rural speeds and limits and how research has shown that the lines of a) time spent in the car; and b) fatigue converge eventually. (Different rates for different folks). But the gist of the research showed that in many cases - injurious accidents and fatalities who be markedly lower in this instance if rural speed limits returned to the old 110 or even 120km/h limits - merely because you have been at high levels of alertness for less time, and would be home (in theory) before fatigue had its ugly way with you.

It never advocated 150km/h and over - just an incremental percentage gain. Ever heard the statistic of most accidents occurring within 5kms of home?

Sounds like it has some substance from this angle. Particularly with new cars with lane change alerts, blind spot alerts, ABS, great radial tires, traction control, high performance disc brakes, and infrastructure at which to take a break (such as McDonald's, cafes, truck stops) all over the countryside now.

[WendyL]

I'm definitely much more alert at 140 than 110.  With out 130 speed limits, I usually sit around 120-125 (bike gets too thirsty any faster than that) but if I'm getting tired, I'll pull over, have a dose of caffeine in the form of a coffee, then bump the speed up to the 135-140 mark.

[atoyot]

I'm definitely much more alert at 140 than 110.  With out 130 speed limits, I usually sit around 120-125 (bike gets too thirsty any faster than that) but if I'm getting tired, I'll pull over, have a dose of caffeine in the form of a coffee, then bump the speed up to the 135-140 mark.

  You lucky Territorians!

Now if there was a higher limit for motorcycles only, that would suit me as I think it's safer to be slightly faster than the general traffic. I guess a bit like lane filtering, in that it separates bikes from the traffic, but tell me I'm dreaming. It would never happen for just bikes, as there'd be too many pissed off ignorant drivers that'd hate that. Just like so many who block filtering bikes, and get the craps with you because you get ahead of them.

[STroppy]

It never advocated 150km/h and over - just an incremental percentage gain. Ever heard the statistic of most accidents occurring within 5kms of home?

That's why I am gunna move to the other side of town . . Too many accidents occurring within 5ks of my place!    . 

[Shaun]

It never advocated 150km/h and over - just an incremental percentage gain. Ever heard the statistic of most accidents occurring within 5kms of home?

That's why I am gunna move to the other side of town . . Too many accidents occurring within 5ks of my place!    . 

Heh. :)

One of the arguments against the notion of upping speed limits as a response to the increase in car safety technology (better tyres, suspension, ABS, TCS, etc) is simply that not all cars on the road have them to the same degree, or at all. Some of those gorgeous cars (and bikes) you see rolling around that we all admire so much do not have these at all (my head still turns when a well done Kingswood, Fairlaine stationwagon or 1950's Triumph rolls by). As a result, speed limits can't be set on the assumption that cars are overall safer, even if they might be on average.

What we do know for sure is that, at least in most places, roads are better, more thought out, wider, dual carriage, etc, with safety features built in such as reflective components, ripple lines, absorbent crash barriers and the like. This means that even an older "more dangerous" car/bike stands a better chance of either not getting into an accident or such an accident being less critical.

I am not sure that there is any evidence that people are driving any better, even with the increased technology in vehicles, and I am sorry to say I suspect that overall average driving ability and behaviour is probably if anything on the decline. I only need to look into the cages when at lights to see around a quarter of people tapping on their phones or with earphones in to hazard a guess at their overall attention to the task of driving. Given this, it still seems prudent to apply a downward pressure on speed limits to save the lowest common denominator from themselves.

[STroppy]

Or we can make it harder and more expensive to obtain a licence . . User pays for much better training then is currently given . . Problem with straighter faster roads is many drivers don't have the skills to actually drive around a corner (sometimes just a bend) in the road . . .

How low do we go . . 70 all over? Some are not even capable of that!

Shaun, I'm dam sure you are right about people not driving better . . Much worse in my experience . . But then they aren't getting terribly great whole of life training from home or schools and of course that flows into the way they drive . . And then they don't really get much driver training before they are handed a licence . .

It seems strange that in a country as vast as Australia we have lower speed limits then many smaller countries . . . Surely there is a case for better roads, higher speed limits, better driver training to enable those who wish to, move around and enjoy this vast country by road . .

Many Grey Nomads need additional training for towing their homes around our great country . . Too many are ill equiped, skill wise, to tow a caravan safely . .

I have to say I avoid the major highways like the plague because they are so boring to ride/drive at the current speed limits . . I stress for me . .

[atoyot]

I have to admit that I'd like to see speed limits go a bit higher, then I wouldn't have to worry about the risk of being booked if I was sitting a bit above the posted limit in some situations where I feel safer, however, if I'm being honest with myself, I'm really just being selfish in my motivation for an increase. 

Maybe there is some merit in the idea about levels of concentration, but I suspect that it will never be proven that it relates to drivers being better drivers with perhaps a flowon to a lower road toll. I just can't see anyone getting it through the layers of administratum and legislature, given the overall increase in regulation to "protect us from ourselves".

Having said that, has anyone here ever just ridden any distance without exceeding the limit, only to have everyone including little old ladies on pushbikes overtaking you, often dangerously? Stroppy has, and I have, and I'm sure many of us have and probably do. I suspect that one of the reasons that this happens is that the limits don't seem to be enforced as much these days as they were in the past, and when they see someone getting away with speeding, they do it as well, with no thought as to whether they have the skills to do it. However, if the limits were increased slightly, that would mean that I could travel at a slightly higher speed, but so would everyone else, and most would probably still exceed that limit; well, maybe not old ladies on pushbikes......

My young bloke is in the process of getting his licence, and I've just installed front and rear facing camera's in his ute, simply to record the many occasions where impatient idiots do something stupid because they don't like the fact that he's only doing 90ks. These idiots are breeding, as we can hardly go anywhere these days without having someone doing something stupid and dangerous to get past him. At least now, there will be video evidence if anything actually happens, and unfortunately, this is another aspect of society that is coming more and more to the forefront; more and more people will not accept responsibility for their own actions. It is hard to get good driving habits in his head when most expereinced drivers he see set bad examples of driving, courtesy, and self preservation.

And what about the new smart watches! How many more distractions can people surround themselves with when they should be concentrating on doing one thing: Driving!

Interesting subject and discussion this one. I think that there is a lot of common sense thought in the article and the opinions expressed here, but I just can't see the idea getting traction with politicians and those with the power to change them.

[Diesel]

Good words Andrew and plenty of wisdom re the cams on son's ute.

NT has just/and still are going through testing of unrestricted road speed limits. They have seen the many hundreds of kms and realised that with good roads and reasonable visibility, a reasonable speed for these roads is 130km/h. This supports all the contributors to this thread's opinions of distance divided by higher speeds can equal safety.

The NT Govt have actually removed speed limits on a 200 or 300km stretch up to Barrow Creek and are keeping data on its effectiveness. There is certainly room for review around the rest of the country where you see BRILLIANT stretches of super freeway with a limit of 100 - or even 90 km/h AND other stretches of goat track with the same limits!

[atoyot]

Good words Andrew and plenty of wisdom re the cams on son's ute.

NT has just/and still are going through testing of unrestricted road speed limits. They have seen the many hundreds of kms and realised that with good roads and reasonable visibility, a reasonable speed for these roads is 130km/h. This supports all the contributors to this thread's opinions of distance divided by higher speeds can equal safety.

The NT Govt have actually removed speed limits on a 200 or 300km stretch up to Barrow Creek and are keeping data on its effectiveness. There is certainly room for review around the rest of the country where you see BRILLIANT stretches of super freeway with a limit of 100 - or even 90 km/h AND other stretches of goat track with the same limits!

Maybe some people can actually concentrate more on goat tracks than multilane hways, as there are plenty of people still wiping themselves out on the Hume. I know our local council are trialling a new system of driver awareness; they strategically place potholes on the road to keep people awake, and just lately, the cunning buggers are camouflaging the potholes with some material that is the same colour of the road......a shovel of hotmix.

[STroppy]

The reality is speed limits will probably not change in NSW, QLD, VIC or SA because those states rely heavily on the revenue that their speed cameras bring in, so if they increase speed limits, less people will be booked for speeding, less revenue. They will need to raise revenue from other sources . .

So the current situation means that in Australia probably around a million or more people currently get booked by speed cameras for speeding each year and the number is growing not falling each year . . . So if that is the case accidents should also be increasing, shouldn't they?  And we have a bloody lot of people who will die very soon from speeding . . If speed kills . . . Well the drug probably does . . Not into drugs myself . . But if speed kills . . There would be a lot of ambos, firies, policemen, plane passengers, not to mention all those people being fined each year . . Laying around dead . .

[atoyot]

Nah, it's the sudden stop that kills!

[STroppy]

Eggsakly

[alans1100]

Some good points both for against speed limits so far.

The reality is speed limits will probably not change in NSW, QLD, VIC or SA because those states rely heavily on the revenue that their speed cameras bring in,

About two years ago in SA they reduced most 110 k/h roads within 100 km of the Adelaide back to 100 k/h. One day a road was deemed safe at 110 and the next day it wasn't safe over a 100 with no change in traffic conditions, decline in road standards or any other variables that could be considered except maybe revenue.

[Biggles]

So the current situation means that in Australia probably around a million or more people currently get booked by speed cameras for speeding each year and the number is growing not falling each year . . . So if that is the case accidents should also be increasing, shouldn't they? 

But they're not.  Despite more cars on the road, more mobile phone users and more drugged drivers, the road toll is declining.

[STroppy]

But they're not.  Despite more cars on the road, more mobile phone users and more drugged drivers, the road toll is declining.

My point exactly . . Most of the Polly speak on speed limits is BS . .

[atoyot]

So the current situation means that in Australia probably around a million or more people currently get booked by speed cameras for speeding each year and the number is growing not falling each year . . . So if that is the case accidents should also be increasing, shouldn't they? 

But they're not.  Despite more cars on the road, more mobile phone users and more drugged drivers, the road toll is declining.

I'm sure that a large part of the reduction in the road toll is due to tech advances in both primary and secondary safety, but I'd be interested to know what the stats are for accidents and road deaths as opposed to accidents and serious injuries and incapacitation and how the correlation has changed over time. Surely secondary safety measures will have helped there, but I think that the area that needs more work is preventing accidents or near misses in the first place.

The $64000 question is would the road toll decline if speed limits were increased slightly. What would be the impact on rider deaths or accidents? The other thing too is that the police don't attend accidents like they did in the past, so maybe there are more accidents that don't make it into the stats, particularly when there are no injuries, so maybe increases in both primary and secondary safety gadgets are pushing more accidents out of the "fatal" category into injuries or even out of the stats altogether. Dunno, but it would be interesting to get a picture of the real situation, as opposed to stats that can be manipulated.

Just another thought, airbags have had a huge impact on driver deaths over the years, but does that then make rider deaths that much more inproportionate?