boots

So please explain "Single" vehicle crashes on highways and freeways?
The major cause ,that all Police,Road Traffic,Governments etc won't tell you is-FATIGUE.
Driving a 2011 car on a 2011 engineered road at 1967 speed causes drowsiness,fatigue and cars running off the road.
But fatigued people don't raise revenue.
Get from Melbourne to Sydney at 150 KPH on a designed motorway and car designed for this speed and people won't drop off due to boredom and be killed.

Rambi

I've heard this point a couple of times (although for 130kph) and I wonder if there is any science behind it or if it is a self-sustaining myth. I know the theory is that the faster speed keeps you awake but I reckon you would get as used to 130 or 150 as you would 110. From my experience in France I would say that fatigue certainly still happens at 130.

That said, I can't see any reason why some of the major freeways couldn't be 130. The 110 is a pain in the arris as it looks too similar to 100.

From experience, soft verges seem to cause quite a few single vehicle crashes but I can see that may be a symptom of fatigue.

mikelincs

No, the person behind was travelling too fast, rules of the road say that you should drive with sufficient space between the cars so that you can stop if the person in front slams on the brakes.

chris955

Exactly right, the extremely outdated obsession with speed seems to be achieving nothing as far as road safety goes. I have driven on roads where speed isn't seen as the worst of all evils and incredibly they are less dangerous than our goat tracks.

moneypenny20

What's that got to do with my comment? I was stating a fact. I wasn't saying it was right or wrong, just fact.

Rambi

Why not raise the freeway speed limit to 200?

moneypenny20

Someone will then whinge that they were clocked at 210 and are the safest driver in the world and the police are evil for fining him.

Rambi

It's only 6.2 mph over the limit. Clearly it's just revenue raising.

chris955

The majority of Aussie drivers aren't safe at 100 I can't imagine what the roads would be like at 200.

Loch Lomond

I'm going to have to dig through my archived files for this, but a few years ago I was forwarded an electronic copy (probably available on t'internet) of a federal gov't report showing that speeding convictions ( and hence fines) had reduced over a 5 year period. Co-incidently a large number of speed limits were reduced on roads in WA after that report was issued, I'm not sure about other states.
Food for thought.

Rambi

Putting the jingo aside, what limit would you set it at and why?

chris955

Well the problem is I really feel the standard of driving here would be the issue. I have driven past cops on motorways in the UK at 90mph, with the flow of traffic and the cops don't even give you a sideways glance as long as the conditions are good, there seems to be a commonsense approach whereas here by and large the approach is you are over the limit so you will get a fine. I dont think anyone really argues it is all about revenue, 3 or 4 over the limit does not make a driver unsafe and a menace on the road.
I think it just needs a more commonsense approach as we see elsewhere.

Rambi

Like in the US?

If it's common sense to drive over the limit why not just raise the limit. At what point do you stop raising the limit?

chris955

I'm not sure exactly what it is like in the US but they dont seem as anal about it from what I have seen.
I didn't say it is commonsense to drive over the limit, I said the Police should take a commonsense approach to speeding.

Rambi

When I was in the US they were very anal about speeding in both California and Virginia. Obviously there could be state differences like there are here. I get the impression that the other states are not as low tolerance as Vic.

So what is the common sense approach to speeding?