Select to expand quoteGorgo said...
Amazing. I have a better car than you, and I am a better driver than you, so I can drive as fast as I like.
My memory of driving on autobahns and autoroutes is trying to pass at 180+ and being mown down with horns and flashing lights by the clowns doing over 200 in the left lane.
Even if it really did work the way it is portrayed, the Hume is only two lanes. Autobahns are at least three.
As for, "I concentrate better at 150 than I do at 110." Really? You can't pay attention to what you're doing for a couple of hours at 100-110 so you want to drive faster? That'll fix it. 
Well obviously you weren't
As you waited till he was up your chuff before you realised , I've lived in 7 different countries
Australian drivers on a whole are wank , roads are up there with a 10 on boring,
Per capita and I've not checked stats, from what I've seen you'd be up there
Ffs for a laugh watch most reverse park,
Just checked,
Australia has a pretty crap road toll compared to many
Plenty of contributions to this
Piss weak drug and drink penalties
Piss weak performance vehicle rules
Poor vehicle maintenance rules( no regulated yearly inspections)
Poor road markings and lack of road sign knowledge, some overtaking markings on the new ocean road are death traps imho
,
Just checked,
Australia has a pretty crap road toll compared to many
Plenty of contributions to this
Piss weak drug and drink penalties
Piss weak performance vehicle rules
Poor vehicle maintenance rules( no regulated yearly inspections)
Piss weak penalties for phone use and lack of govermental back adverts( they'd prefer you got caught and fined, great income )
Poor road markings and lack of road sign knowledge, some overtaking markings on the new ocean road are death traps imho
ill thinking road users especially group travellers, total lack of safe distances between them, Australians are slow adjusters to higher road use
Ride safe
Select to expand quotedecrepit said..
I was blown away by the way, the average euro drive is thinking about overall traffic flow, it's a cooperative effort to make it the best for everybody. The best example is the way the truckies flash their headlights when the truck passing them has sufficient room to pull in front of them. Doesn't he;p the truckies much, but it frees up the overtaking lane for other road users.
Most aussie truckies do this too, I see it all the time.. 
Definitely been to a lot of countries of the world where drivers routinely (& relatively safely) sit on 160ish on the highways.
Select to expand quoteJupiter said..
I want to come in from a different angle, if I may. My question to those who wanted higher speed, I would want to know "What is your hurry ?"
You want to get to the office meeting half an hour sooner ? But I bet you will invariably leave home half an hour later because you know you can make it up on speed alone. In a hurry to meet someone over a cup of coffee ? I would rather start half an hour earlier, and take half an hour longer to get there. I am very certain that the cup of coffee will still be there.
I believe we are compressing our lives into closer intervals, and everyone expects us to do more, sooner, faster, but not necessarily better.
There's no hurry. That's the misconception.
I'm most interested in fatigue and efficiency of travel on long distance freeway driving - such as the Hume Freeway.
The difference between 110km/h and 130km/h on a Melbourne to Sydney trip is that one can safely do it at 130km/h but at 110km/h one should really rest overnight. No amount of 2 hourly rest breaks will ensure you are not fatigued on arrival. Increasing the speed limit to 130km/h would save about two hours of driving, including one less rest stop.
I'm interested in the authorities placing more trust in Australians and an end to treating us like potential murderers.
It's got nothing to do with getting to work. In city freeways and peak hour travel speeds should be reduced in my opinion - to 80 or 90.
It's about appropriate speeds on perfect long distance roads with long straights and huge sweeping bends.
110km/h in my opinion is extremely slow in those roads.
The recent NT unlimited speed trial has demonstrated that speed has zero effect on the cause of fatalities and accidents.
In fact fatalities reduced during the trial period.
Of course, we may need to improve the roads slightly and educate the public so a more cooperative driving culture develops before implementing 130km/h or other limits, but there is NO argument for maintaining a 40 year old speed limit in a modern road with modern cars.
I'm not sure our roads infrastructure can support greater speeds. Maybe it does...
but what I would say is, I agree, the speed kills approach is stupid.
Education should be on driver awareness, merging, watching the traffic flow and not driving like you are in your own box and keeping out the fckn right lane, especially if you are going 5-10 sometimes 15 below the speed limit.
You want an example of the worst drivers in the world, come and drive around Mandurah for a while. Dim Whit juiced up bogans, combined with drivers that are so old sometimes I think I'm in a zombie apocolypse movie.
I dont know know if this is true, but on empirical observation the GREATEST issue I observe is pricks thinking they are legends going 10kmhr below the speed limit, probably thinking they are legends from all the stupid road education videos on speed kills.
It just fcks fcks up the whole flow of traffic and people start doing silly things. But when everyone is just flowing along, doing the speed limit in the left lane and few who tick over a bit in the right lane...things go fine. Get one wanker sitting on 65 in a 80 zone and it all goes to ****.
Kind of like when that one windsurfer joins the lineup in the waves...everyone is second guessing themselves. Will he make that wave? Will he stall, no wait..he's pumping his sail for dear life, yep he's going...nope he's stalled again...but wait he on the plane again...
takes only one of these dinosaurs to mess up a 10 kite population on a wave who were rotating with ease before the neanderthal finally after three hours rigged his gear up...
Select to expand quoteeppo said..
takes only one of these dinosaurs to mess up a 10 kite population on a wave who were rotating with ease before the neanderthal finally after three hours rigged his gear up...
Well thanks a lot Stephen.
I feel like falling asleep at 110. Speed limit in much of Europe is 130, so was sitting on 140 most of the time. Never felt tired and actually got somewhere in a reasonable time. Saw plenty of ambulances, although I think most of them were for Vespa scooters, which looked suicidal to me on the wet cobble stones.
I'd support 120 on freeways. Then we'd just need a few more tickets handed out to those slow drivers sitting in the right hand lane.
Select to expand quotekiteboy dave said..
decrepit said..
The best example is the way the truckies flash their headlights when the truck passing them has sufficient room to pull in front of them. Doesn't help the truckies much, but it frees up the overtaking lane for other road users.
Most aussie truckies do this too, I see it all the time..
Flashing lights = olde schoole stuff......[still works good though]
Radios are much more efficient.
Every truck I drove solo or hot shotted, I/we preferred to use the radio to let the truck in front / behind know what was going on or about to happen.
stephen
Select to expand quoteAdriano said..
I'm most interested in fatigue and efficiency of travel on long distance freeway driving - such as the Hume Freeway.
The difference between 110km/h and 130km/h on a Melbourne to Sydney trip is that one can safely do it at 130km/h but at 110km/h one should really rest overnight. No amount of 2 hourly rest breaks will ensure you are not fatigued on arrival. Increasing the speed limit to 130km/h would save about two hours of driving, including one less rest stop.
That's a bit of a stretch. Melbourne/Sydney is the only stretch of continuous double laned divided road in Australia where any speed calculations show anything like an hour saved. And driving 900 km is a day wasted no matter what. Don't do it, catch a train, catch a plane, send an email.
You could rationalise that the day is not wasted if you take along a podcast of something that will advance mind and soul. But the argument goes that 130 kph is safer because you have to concentrate more. At what speed can't you take in a podcast?
Melbourne to Sydney = say 900km (875km according to Google maps, but 900 makes the maths easier)
900km at 110kmphr = 8 hr 11 minutes
900km at 130kmphr = 6 hr 55 minutes
So best case scenario = 1 hr 16 minutes maximum, not 2 hours.
And that assumes you are doing a constant 110kmphr (or 130kmphr) all the way. A significant portion at each end you would be slower and at 130kphr you would burn significantly more fuel so in 900km nearly all cars would have to stop for fuel at if they were doing 130kph average speed.
So the real world effect is going to be less than 1 hour.
Select to expand quoteeppo said...
I'm not sure our roads infrastructure can support greater speeds. Maybe it does...
but what I would say is, I agree, the speed kills approach is stupid.
Education should be on driver awareness, merging, watching the traffic flow and not driving like you are in your own box and keeping out the fckn right lane, especially if you are going 5-10 sometimes 15 below the speed limit.
You want an example of the worst drivers in the world, come and drive around Mandurah for a while. Dim Whit juiced up bogans, combined with drivers that are so old sometimes I think I'm in a zombie apocolypse movie.
I dont know know if this is true, but on empirical observation the GREATEST issue I observe is pricks thinking they are legends going 10kmhr below the speed limit, probably thinking they are legends from all the stupid road education videos on speed kills.
It just fcks fcks up the whole flow of traffic and people start doing silly things. But when everyone is just flowing along, doing the speed limit in the left lane and few who tick over a bit in the right lane...things go fine. Get one wanker sitting on 65 in a 80 zone and it all goes to ****.
Kind of like when that one windsurfer joins the lineup in the waves...everyone is second guessing themselves. Will he make that wave? Will he stall, no wait..he's pumping his sail for dear life, yep he's going...nope he's stalled again...but wait he on the plane again...
takes only one of these dinosaurs to mess up a 10 kite population on a wave who were rotating with ease before the neanderthal finally after three hours rigged his gear up...
Wow wish we could all be as awesome as you one day!!! Could you like give me lessons?, I have never kited and thought it would be cool, thinking maybe two lessons should be plenty
Select to expand quoteHarrow said..
I feel like falling asleep at 110. Speed limit in much of Europe is 130, so was sitting on 140 most of the time. Never felt tired and actually got somewhere in a reasonable time. Saw plenty of ambulances, although I think most of them were for Vespa scooters, which looked suicidal to me on the wet cobble stones. I'd support 120 on freeways. Then we'd just need a few more tickets handed out to those slow drivers sitting in the right hand lane.
The claim that at 110, you fall asleep. Are you saying that those days when cars would struggle to get up to 100 with a tail wind on a decline, drivers were very likely to sleep driving ? Granted, at 130, you are probably stay alert, I can't argue with that. However, I believe you are operating right at the edge. A slight mistake, and you have little margin of error left at your disposal.
My neighbour was off work for 8 months last year. He suffered 3 fracture vertebrates, a broken elbow, a broken leg, and of course, a fair amount of skin on his ass 
He went off his high power Norton motorbike at 140. His front tyre blew. OK, one can assume that if a tyre, especially the front one blew, it is more than likely he will cop some injuries. But at 140 ? Wouldn't that be worse ? Also, could the higher speed had caused the tyre to blow up ?
Select to expand quoteJupiter said..Granted, at 130, you are probably stay alert, I can't argue with that. However, I believe you are operating right at the edge. A slight mistake, and you have little margin of error left at your disposal.
.....
Nonsense. At the edge of what? Becoming a murderer?
Freeways like the Hume could easily be unlimited speed in certain sections if a lane was added and 140km/h as is.
Select to expand quoteAdriano said..
Nonsense. At the edge of what? Becoming a murderer? Freeways like the Hume could easily be unlimited speed in certain sections if a lane was added and 140km/h as is.
At the edge of what ? Well, I suppose you are aware of this thing called "response time", Adriano ? When you are to compress whatever you are capable of doing, into much shorter time intervals, your need to be sharp, very very sharp. The usual response time of say 0.5 second, is now reduced to 0.3. This is only a guess, mind you. Now unless you are a very sharp driver, you probably are, then it is a piece of cake for you. But what about some not so good drivers ? It is hard enough for them to drive in a straight line 
Imagine F1 racing. Top drivers have rather sharp reflexes with quick computational minds to judge distances and speed. The kind of speed they are doing will be insane for most drivers. Please don't forget all those things you need to do in an emergency. The steering, the throttle, the brakes, the road, then of course, the idiot in front of you 
Bono has a point though Jupiter.
If you are going to argue 130 is too fast then why argue 110 is OK ? Why not argue that the limit should be dropped to 90 or 50, or walking pace ? It is always going to be a balance between "making acceptable progress" and safety.
It was 110kmph limit 40 years ago. Even assuming driver reaction times haven't changed vehicle technology has. Technology is vastly superior in both crash avoidance and protection of occupants in a crash and also in road construction and risk assessment.
I am not sure that I'd suggest there should ever be unlimited speed but perhaps the idea that the "absolute maximum no matter what is 110" needs a review. Road speed limits aren't just random, a lot of work goes into assessing the posted limit, but at the moment that is capped at 110 no matter what the assessment says. If the risk assessment and data shows there is no increased risk between 110 and 120, then why have an arbitrary limit of 110 ?
Roads are assessed, constructed and upgraded to Austroads standards (being an architect Bono is probably well read on the Austroad standards). These define bend radii, sighting distances, cambers, surfacing, drainage, roadside structures offsets etc. etc. etc. But they top out at 110kmph. Why 110kmph ? Because that is what is was 40 years ago ? or because of some sound engineering and safety principals ? Are we saying it is impossible to build an acceptably safe road for 120 kmphr but we can for 110kmphr ?
I could see an argument that the absolute limit is open and not capped at something, and then each road designed and assessed on its individual merits (as it is now). If the assessment is for 140, then OK, let it be 140. If the assessment is 90 then let it be 90. But why cap it based only on some arbitrary random number defined a generation ago ?
Having said that I would still suggest attitudes towards acceptable risks on the roads need to be addressed when you compare it to say, shark attacks or terrorism or other media hot topics at present. The consequences between 110 and 140 are exponentially larger than those between 50 and 110, yet nobody would suggest we make all suburban streets 110.
Select to expand quoteAdriano said..
Freeways like the Hume could easily be unlimited speed in certain sections if a lane was added and 140km/h as is.
Found this physics question on the internet........
For this question we can assume stopping distance is proportional to speed squared. Ignore driver reaction time.
Car #1 driving at 100kph sees a hazard from point A and hits the skids. Car #1 stops at position B. (Just short of the hazard,
(B - A is called the car's stopping distance)
Car #2 driving at 140kph sees the same hazard from the same position and hits the skids.
Q. How fast is car #2 going when it hits the hazard?
choose nearest answer.
1. 0 kph (Same as car #1 )
2. 40 kph
3. 70 kph
4. 100 kph
Q. For extra marks would the collision speed be increased or decreased if we allowed for driver reaction time in the calculation?
My first guess :
If the stopping distances are proportional to speed squared then would it be the difference in their squares ?
So :
SQRT( (140*140)- (100*100)) = 97.8
So I'll go for (4) 100kph.
Including reaction time would make the collision speed increase.
Select to expand quoteIan K said..
Adriano said..
Freeways like the Hume could easily be unlimited speed in certain sections if a lane was added and 140km/h as is.
Found this physics question on the internet........
That line of discussion has nothing to do with re-assessing whether a forty year old speed limit is still appropriate for a virtually new, long and safe freeway like the Hume in 2016.
So what if stopping distance is greater? Naturally it is.
The real question Ian, is whether that distance is manageable and safe in 2016 - not 1976.
In 1976 we didn't have random breath testing, cars had no crumple zones, spewed lead vapour and horrid noxious gases, had no ABS, ESC, traction control, collision avoidance technology, proper road handling or disk brakes or decent freeways.
To argue that the speed limit we applied under those circumstances is still appropriate today is no different to arguing that we should treat bacterial infections with the crude and knee jerk amputation rather than trying antibiotics first.
Full marks Carantoc. The equation you guessed intuitively falls out from the old
Vf^2 - Vi^2 = 2ad
the equation linking initial and final velocities, distance and constant acceleration. (For those of us who remember our yr 12 physics)
www.physicsclassroom.com/class/1DKin/Lesson-6/Kinematic-Equations
I'm not saying what the best speed limit for the Hume would be, just pointing out that a jump to 140kph is ridiculous if you look at the maths. Check out the folks in the queue at the supermarket. Would you even venture onto the Hume if they were piloting cars up and down at 140kph? Not me. Not many Mark Webbers amongst them.
2016 vs. 1976 is not really an argument, look at the road toll in 1976.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_Australia_by_year
They did the maths before making this ad. It's not bull****.
Select to expand quoteIan K said..
.....
I'm not saying what the best speed limit for the Hume would be, just pointing out that a jump to 140kph is ridiculous if you look at the maths. ....
Good, because it's not really your place to say so using stopping distances as an argument.
Additionally, using a suburban example where the limit is 60km/h and pedestrians are about is nonsense in the context of a modern freeway in a rural area.
You also appear to be saying that the entire continent of Europe is wrong when it comes to freeway speed limits and we are right.
Typical Australian parochialism.
One could use your argument and say that 80, or 60 is a "safe" speed for a freeway and we couldn't argue against it - because your argument is based on a single element - rather than looking at the whole picture..
Select to expand quoteAdriano said..
You also appear to be saying that the entire continent of Europe is wrong when it comes to freeway speed limits and we are right.
So you are claiming that the Autobahn is all straight and the Hume bendy and dangerous. OK.
Autobahn. Gee it's so straight isn't it?
Here is the very windey and dangerous Hume Highway.
Gee look at that bend. It must have a 1km radius. Better slow down to 80km/h....and when you get to that 5km long straight you'd better not exceed 110km/h or you might kill someone you murderer!
Undertaking is illegal on a german autobahn, in the UK your not supposed to do it, and similar for the rest europe on motorways and freeways, unlike Australia and the USA.
The Australian and USA style of driving makes these high speeds impossible to do safely, on a multi lane highway IMHO. There would need to rule changes and changes to driving style.
I think there is some scope to increase speed on long boring stretches, without rule changes, there may an improvement to safety as the mind is better occupied with the task it hand. As an example look how the effect of using smartphone's is having on road safety.
Select to expand quoteIan K said..
2016 vs. 1976 is not really an argument, look at the road toll in 1976.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_Australia_by_year
Dunno if it has much bearing on the death rate figures, but I am pretty sure the way the W.A. rates were worked out changed some years ago.
It used to be that if someone died at a later date, as a result of injuries sustained in a vehicle accident - no matter how much later, it was listed as a road related death.
Now - only those who died at the scene of the incident, or shortly afterwards are road related deaths.
I do recall that at the time, both the RAC and local media were not happy with the govt. fiddling with the of figures.
stephen
Figures arnt a deterrent
I lived in France for a while too
They have a week where they stand black human cut outs at the side of the road to indicate where there's been fatalities
Pretty good at getting message across
Living in the Massif Central they were scattered all along the A roads
Select to expand quoteracerX said..
Undertaking is illegal on a german autobahn, in the UK your not supposed to do it, and similar for the rest europe on motorways and freeways, unlike Australia and the USA.
The Australian and USA style of driving makes these high speeds impossible to do safely, on a multi lane highway IMHO. There would need to rule changes and changes to driving style.
I think there is some scope to increase speed on long boring stretches, without rule changes, there may an improvement to safety as the mind is better occupied with the task it hand. As an example look how the effect of using smartphone's is having on road safety.
Thank you for some level headed perspective.
Select to expand quoteIan K said..
...
2016 vs. 1976 is not really an argument, look at the road toll in 1976.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_Australia_by_year
...
In that case maybe we should have a police officer on a horse blowing a whistle in front of every car to warn pedestrians that a car is coming. That was standard practice at the turn of the 20th century.
Ian, clearly a speed limit that was enforced in 1976 should be up for review in 2016 when so much else has changed.
Logically, what has in fact occurred is a de facto speed limit decrease, once all other technology, safety and road rule changes have been taken into account.
Any objective scientific evaluation of the the relative safety on an open freeway in 1976 and 2016 would demonstrate that 110km/h is probably like 80km/h in 1976.
Select to expand quoteAdriano said..
Ian, clearly a speed limit that was enforced in 1976 should be up for review in 2016 when so much else has changed.
The nut behind the wheel hasn't changed.
The formula for kinetic energy hasn't changed
Roads might be better but the nut behind the wheel is now in a top heavy 4wd, which would be lucky to out brake an HZ holden
