Do you think Australian Speed Limits Are to slow?
EG
100KM/H On Au Freeways 70MPH/113KM/H On UK Motorways
All of these limits will be for Metropolitan Freeway
Could change because of variable speed limits on most metro freeways
Are The Speed Limits of Australian Freeways Absurd?
CrazyBargainCatcher on 11/05/2019 - 22:29
Last edited 12/05/2019 - 08:14
Last edited 12/05/2019 - 08:14
Poll Options
- 7Should Become 80-90KM/H
- 82Stay At 100KM/H
- 440Increase To 110-120KM/h
- 288Increase To 130+KM/H
- 24Should Be No Speed Limit
Comments
Over the next decade most new cars are going to be built with driver assistive technologies like autopilot - which are especially effective in well regulated environments like freeways.
Let the software figure out the safe speed based on the local conditions and the speed limits could essentially be removed altogether.
Would still need to deal with older cars on the freeways (still with speed limits) but maybe a special lane for the self/assisted driving cars.
Past month to Newcastle pretty much 3x a week, hardly saw anyone going under speed limit. I was on cruise set 110km/h in first lane and majority overtook my vehicle.
I recently did some driving in Japan. Rented a Porsche and went into the mountain roads, which are practically intended for spirited drivers. There are privately owned sections (eg Hakone Skyline) that require a $4 toll and you get to cruise around practically empty, very smooth and flawless roads, with amazing views. Awesome drive. Plus they all go fast on the freeways too
Speed limits in Australia are pathetic: highways with 3 lanes, straight, can be 100km/hr. With a normal car it's hard to drive that slow and people inevitably end up driving faster than the limits.
Even more pathetic are speed cameras and limits in urban areas: you end up spending more time looking at your dashboard than at the road.Exactly right
I'd love for them to be increased.
But don't think they should, due to the stupidity of motorists.
Over the last 20 years people have gone from bad to worse - driving is noticeably poorer.
Lots of instances of people road raging, cutting over multiple lanes, stopping on the freeway and trying to force they way in rather than waiting in the slower queue or going too slow on a freeway entrance causing them to stop.
You unfortunately need to cater for the lowest common denominator and that is quite low as it currently stands.
You unfortunately need to cater for the lowest common denominator and that is quite low as it currently stands.
Why should everyone suffer for the idiocy of a few? Perhaps we should remove them from the roads.
Unfortunately it's not just a few.
When I moved from Texas to here, it did bother me for a bit. In some places, the legal speed limit was 90 mph on the interstates there and I do miss that at times. I had a car with a 2.5L v6 (Lexus IS 250) which was perfect for those roads (Not the fastest but could speed up if needed) though you had folks with their Camaros, Mustang GT's, Corvettes, Challengers etc zipping past you. All of us had radar detectors sticking on the hood (legal there). :)
My honest thoughts are that perhaps the speed limits could be extended a little on our highways to say, 120 or 130 kmh here…
But overall, no complaints. I think the roads are safer here and drive a little Hyundai Elantra now. I would really struggle here with a faster car though.With all the carnage we have on the roads there's a good argument for slower speeds
Maybe people should chill out a bit and enjoy the trip
Speed doesn't kill
Its lack of experience.
You like half the Australian population are brainwashed by our revenue raisers
Speed doesn't kill
Its lack of experience.
The problem is it will just be people with lack of experience doing things at faster speeds.
LOL at speed doesn't kill but I guess its the sudden stop that kills you
Of course speed kills, so do a lot of other things. Doesn't mean we should speed limits more lax, people will still abuse the law.
Say limits we're increased to 120km/h, then the speedsters will drive 150km/h+ and for the most part, that just isn't safe
You need to understand that setting a speed limit isn't a matter of just changing it.
The road needs to be maintained and built to allow faster speed limits. The faster you travel, the better the road needs to be because the faster you travel the more your car will be affected by the imperfections on the road. So can't just have every road be 110km/h+ just because the road is wide enough. Of course, you also need to consider the kind of traffic conditions you're expecting
We have a lot of roads and a small population.
Besides, we have plenty of 110km/h road here (at least in nsw)… A whopping 3km/h lower than uk's max apparently
In Victoria most of our freeways are 100 some of them are 80 eg burke road to city
A lot are 80. Which go to 100 and back to80 again
A lot? Has to be 90%+!
Coming from Europe and ridden motorcycles around the world the big shock about Australia is how hard it is to cover distance despite the size of Australia, especially NSW, going anywhere even a 50-100km distance is extremely slow and in the hours range.
I did a 10,000km motorbike trip around the red center and right up in to North Queensland and Northern Territory on mostly unsealed roads. I was calculating my days riding / distance on doing 100km/h, that was pretty reliable, covered huge distances picking the most remote, unsealed, smallest roads possible from the Hema 4x4 maps.
When I got back to NSW I had about 300km to get home, I estimated that a lot slower at 4-5 hours, took a good 7hrs+!
Anytime I go on a serious bike ride now I’ll head straight out of NSW as it’s horrible for travelling or get a plane ticket overseas.
I don't think it's a useful exercise to compare our roads to those of overseas. Most of our freeways/highways are in average condition, and can have animals popping out randomly. Compared to the US Interstates, they're more dangerous to drive on and deserve a lower speed limit.
No animals popping out on the western ring road in Melbourne…. They're all sat in the driver's seat!
I drive on the Eastern freeway everyday and the amount of tailgaters, slow mergers, people hogging the right hand lane doing exactly 100km/h leads me to think that we are not ready to go beyond 100km/h. Having said that, the Eastern freeway can happily accommodate 110-120km/h, but I don't think Aus drivers have the skill or proper mentality to drive faster (hoons, drink drivers, people with no concept of speed or braking distance etc.)
I drive on all of Melbourne's freeways very regularly, the Eastern Fwy is by far the one which can accomodate the most high speeds - very straight and only very gentle bends, very good inclines around the bends, wide lanes, wide shoulders, big median strip…etc. But I agree with what you've said - it's very unfortunate.
What about the quality of the road surface
If you'd have driven in Germany for example, you'd know Australia's roads are shlt
I think a lot of the Australian driver mentality can be attributed to the nanny state that Australia is. Everyone cares more about a legalistic regulation than substantial safety.
110-120KM/h seems alright, my small car would struggle at 130+ :(
Is this your uni assignment?
Design speed is 130 - set the limit to that, including fixing whatever problem has caused the design to become non-compliant (probably nothing, just nanny-stating)
I'd love for the speed limit to be increased, but would much prefer existing drivers to be better educated on how to drive properly, and also to keep to the left unless overtaking!
You've got a problem with 100 or 110? I've got a problem with immense stretches of road that are down to 40 with only a small section of that ever having workmen working at any given time (and not out of business hours). Sydney M1 is a joke at the moment. I've seen the same on the Hume. Several year projects with speed reductions for the length of the project on the entire stretch of road, even when the road and shoulder are unaffected. Then we all complain about holiday traffic jams.
Drove a 110kmh highway yesterday in thick fog. 30-40m visibility only at its worst and maybe max 100m. Drove at 100kmh to give myself enough time to react to hazards, it was pretty early in the morning so the traffic was light but there was still merging trucks i couldn't see up ahead i had to avoid, etc.
I noticed a couple of Commodore and ute drivers going past at 110 or higher, probably more like 120kmh…
now take that section of road to 130kmh speed limit.
Said commodore and ute drivers now do 140kmh, leaving even less time to react. Yes there's an education issue here around driving to the conditions, but bad driving will always be around.
Also slowing from 130 to 40kmh for the new flashing blue & red light emergency vehicle laws will be stupendously insane
Plus I really don't want to see what 70yo+ drivers do on a 130kmh speed limit road, it aint gonna be pretty
I doubt the powers that be will want the blood on their hands from making this decision in the name of "getting places faster". Just chill out and enjoy the drive
You’ll find most people drive to the conditions.
In Germany ect I was cruising at 180+ (got as high as 270) but when it rained or fog. I slowed right down to match the conditions.
Very easy to drive, staying alert which is what we miss here.
We are just drones making sure we don’t go 1kmh over the speed limit
I hate how everywhere I go now is going from 60 -> 50 on main roads.
Freeways still stuck on 80kmh
It’s pretty bad.
Makes me really hate driving in Australia
I have driven in over 20 countries, and Australia is my least favourite driving country.
I feel over-regulation of driving contributes to the stupid and aggressive driving mindset in Australia.
You mustn't have driven anywhere in Asia, nor Africa and plenty of European countries (or even in parts of the US).
There are plenty of countries far worse when it comes to driving. Australia is a cake walk if you've had any real experience.
I've driven in Asia and Europe not Africa.
It's not difficult to drive in Australia at all, but long drives here suck. Australia is bloody boring to drive in. I fall asleep with the ridiculously low speed limits.
What is not normally considered but equally important when determining speed limits is the stopping/braking distance from 130kmh to 0kmh or 130kmh to say 80kmh, in the event if a slow car infront or sudden stop.
It takes a much longer distance and time to slow a car down at 130kmh.
Compared to braking at 100kmh you may have missed an accident but at 130kmh braking you would cause an accident or enter into an existing accident.Obviously all cars have different braking distances due to weight, brakes and tyres but there would be a calculation based on an average sized car and wet road conditions aswell.
This is the same situation where school zones were introduced at 40kmh. It was determined you could come to a complete stop and not hit a kid or may not seriously cause injury, compared to stopping at 60kmh.
It's not all about going faster, it's also about what distance a car could stop at a certain speed and which type of road and location.
You could raise fwys to 200kmh but if it takes 50m to stop then it's not safe at all.
You can be a skilled driver but if your standard car cannot stop within a safe distance then raising the speed isn't a solution.
The speed limit in AU is abominal, mainly due to the fact that we have a significant number of idiot drivers.
- drive way to slow
- drive erratically (stop randomly, turn then indicate)
- drive wayyy too fast (drugs/alcohol/[add drug])
- born with shit driving skills (no hope of recourse)
Reducing the limit is the only way the Government can save lives which is a shame because on major freeways, e.g SYD - MELB, they limit should be 120-130 which is perfect
I had that problem the other day, I was cruising and almost home and someone is going a bit slower than me so I go to pass and then he instantly decided to match my speed, I increase a little and then he increases again so I fall back and all of a sudden he wants to zoom off into the distance. If I didn't try to overtake him then he would have stayed at his original speed.
This year year there has been an increase in deaths on the road so obviously we need more speed cameras and fines. Last year the road toll was reduced from the previous year so obviously speed cameras and fines were working so well that they were increased that year.
I don’t think a speee camera is the result of less deaths
Blame it on those who drive too fast and too slow with little regard for safety. We see it everyday.
Especially those who believes being able to drive fast is a skill and those who drive exceptionally slow as safe.
It's not just speed limits. Australia's whole culture of health and safety regulations is over-reactive and disproportionate. You can't legislate idiots out of existence. Idiots will always be idiots. The approach in Australia is to punish the remaining 99% for the actions of the 1%.
Road fatalities have decreased by around 4 per 100,000 over the two decades and that has been with significant improvements in car safety and roads. So what evidence is there that the reduction of speed limits/non-upgrade of speed limits over the past two decades has made any difference at all (except in terms of govt revenue)?
The approach in Australia is to punish the remaining 99% for the actions of the 1%.
Amen brother
What absolute BS. Look at the analysis of the experts, I have provided links previously. Give me the health and safety culture and live people, than ignore it and dead people. How many of your immediate family are you wlling to give up?
What part are you saying is BS?
That you can't legislate idiots out of existence?
That Australia's whole culture of health and safety regulations is over-reactive and disproportionate?I've lived in 6 different countries and driven in around 20 different countries. Australia's regulatory framework is the most oppressive. And it makes the population over-reactive, disproportionate and sensitive.
"How many of your immediate family are you wlling to give up?"
Yeah because every Australian gave up half their immediate family to the road toll before the ridiculous over-regulation in the past few decades. And because every other person the world over gives up half of their immediate family because they don't have Australian road regulations.
Typical response from someone who lives in a nanny state.
Look at the fact that the death toll on the Victorian roads has dropped to a quarter it was in the ‘70s. That is a lot of people still alive due to the nanny state. I’ve lost a brother to a road accident, I don’t wish that experience on anyone, but I do still have mu other siblings.It can happen to you so which family member are you willing to lose? Improving work site conditions to save lives A-ok by me, highlighting domestic violence is unacceptable, go for it. Throwing people out of the MCG for brawling and banning them, great idea. Personally I don’t think trying to improve people’s lives is being in a nanny state, however, there are certainly countries in the world who care very little for their citizens, you could try living there. I call BS on the nanny state and a big tick on saving, and improving, people’s lives.
@try2bhelpful: No doubt the road toll has dropped in all of Australia by 75% over the past 50 years (not that it was ever huge on a per-capita basis by global standards), but how do you attribute that entirely to legislative change to speed limits. I call bs on that. How about safer cars, more people familiar with driving and cars on the roads through better driver education or better roads and signs? Show me your data that shows speed limit decreases are the sole or even the primary reason for this difference.
The way you write it's as if you're the only person in the world who has lost a family member to an unfortunate tragedy. Of course, it's tragic. But I have actually lived in other countries, and lost family members in tragic circumstances too - including road deaths. And guess what, many times people weren't following the actual rules. Sad things happen in life. And there are idiots or people who make poor choices under pressure. You think you can legislate all that out of your life?Speed limits aren't the only over-regulated part of Australian life. Traffic lights where they're not needed - and certainly at times that they're not needed. Ridiculous amounts of stupid workplace safety regulations - that often don't even make the workplace safer and give non-imaginative and non-productive idiots jobs that are a drag on the economy.
Brawling is a criminal act. So is domestic violence. How is that even relevant? Stick to the point. But while we're on the topic - how about the fact the vast majority of women who died from domestic violence, and who killed their partners in self-defence in Australia in the past few decades already had domestic violence orders in place against their partners??
(https://www.abc.net.au/triplej/programs/hack/challenging-the…). WOW - the regulations really helped them there didn't it!In fact, I'm glad you brought up the point about domestic violence - have a look at the definition of it in the Domestic Violence Acts in each State - here's the Victorian example:
For the purposes of this Act, family violence is— (a) behaviour by a person towards a family member of that person if that behaviour— (i) is physically or sexually abusive; or (ii) is emotionally or psychologically abusive; or (iii) is economically abusive; or (iv) is threatening; or (v) is coercive; or (vi) in any other way controls or dominates the family member and causes that family member to feel fear for the safety or wellbeing of that family member or another person;…
That definition could include anything from a glare all the way to murder! It's so stupidly ridiculous to define it so broadly because now the DV and family courts are inundated with all sorts of allegations (mostly minor and many false) which result in civil orders that are not worth used toilet paper, just so that people gain an advantage in divorce or parenting battles, instead of doing the job of really protecting victims of violence. Great example of wonderful regulation buddy!
Your thinking is clearly as cloudy headed as your nanny state government wants it to be.
@kreagh: You were talking about Nanny state, and a lot of the legislation that dropped the road tolls were ones where people whined about the Nanny state. Speeding laws, drink driving laws, seat belt laws, motorbike helmet laws etc. - all “nanny” state intervention.
I still call BS on nanny state, it is a lazy statement. I thought I had, effectively, covered the statistics on speeding with all my links above, you want to show me all the studies, from reputable organisations, that show speeding doesn’t contribute to increased deaths?
Domestic violence was not even policed as a crime until relatively recently. “It is only a domestic so why should the “nanny” state get involved”. I don’t see anyone getting a DV order simply from a glare, where there is no previous history of violent behaviour, but more than happy for the links to prove it as I couldn’t find any. Please provide this in your next post. Give me statistics on the frivolous cases vs non frivolous ones, this is a popular trope by men’s groups but it is not borne out by Government studies. The studies show “frivolous orders” are very much the minority.
Look at the stats on how the Nanny state saves lives and stop your woolly thinking. I’ve given you plenty of links to prove it for speeding.
@try2bhelpful: Again you're making up stuff along the way. Frivolous vs non-frivolous? If it's frivolous the DVO is not given. If it meets the legislative definition, it is given. Provide me your government studies first which show that the "minority" of DV orders are "frivolous" - because I certainly did not use that word. Vexatious and frivolous cases are thrown out of court. But a case cannot be thrown out of court when it meets the legislated definition which I provided you.
Further, you're not aware of this are you, but DVO cases are heard in closed courts i.e. there is no public reporting, so I have no idea where you got your statistics from - I speak from working in the area myself. I happen to be a lawyer. But yes please show me where you got your DVO statistics from - I'd be very interested.
You're probably also not familiar with the burden of proof required for DVO matters. Have a look at it in the legislation of your particular State or Territory - actually any State or Territory - since they are mostly harmonised. It's not a 'beyond reasonable doubt' burden of proof.
Have a chat with almost any legal professional who works in family law, and see how little a DVO matters these days in Family Court. They are par for course for almost any divorce and parenting proceeding. A temporary DVO can be taken out privately (as opposed to Police protection orders) against the other person in any Australian State or Territory without the other person present, without the presentation of any evidence other than a statement from the person seeking to be protected under the order. And when it comes to the mention, most lawyers advise their client to consent without admissions, because usually the legal battle is in the Family Court and the DVO doesn't matter as much. So most DVOs are put in place without any evidence brought forward, and with the other party making no admissions and not even contesting them. So you can say what you like about what is 'frivolous' or is not 'frivolous' but that has next to zero meaning in the context of DVOs. And if you have trouble believing me, please go ahead and talk to almost any family lawyer - other than a men's rights one - of which there are very few - and ask them what their advice would be to a client where a DVO has been applied for against their client in the context of a parenting or divorce matter. And it's a matter of public record that DV and family courts are overburdened - a few newspaper articles will give you that information - or try applying for a matter yourself in the family courts and see the 3 month wait for just a mention!
"Domestic violence was not even policed as a crime until relatively recently." What a load of stinking crap. Do you think that assault, murder, rape etc was not criminalised until relatively recently? And what the hell is "relatively recently"? And who said you even need the Police for a DVO to be obtained? You couldn't even be bothered to look at the legislative definition that I provided you for domestic violence. So, I certainly am not going to be your gopher and pull up stats to prove the strawman you've presented for what I said. Hint: I never said speeding does not contribute to the road toll.
The Nanny State argument is an argument of extent. There are aspects I agree with the regulatory framework in Australia and aspects I don't where I think they go too far. And by and large, in Australia, if the government gets half a whiff they'll legislate the crap out of it if they can - and as to whether that is as a result of the wishes of the electorate, or whether it influences the population to be over-sensitive and process-orientated sheep is a relative historical and cultural argument that I don't wish to engage in.
@try2bhelpful: Actually, here's the evidence section for you from the Qld Domestic Violence Act - because your knowledge of this area is sketchy at best
145 Evidence
(1) In a proceeding under this Act, a court—
(a) is not bound by the rules of evidence, or any practices or procedures applying to courts of record; and
(b) may inform itself in any way it considers appropriate.
(2) Despite subsection (1), the Evidence Act 1977, part 2, division 2A applies to a proceeding under this Act.
(3) If the court is to be satisfied of a matter, the court need only be satisfied of the matter on the balance of probabilities.
(4) To remove any doubt, it is declared that the court need not have the personal evidence of the aggrieved before making a
domestic violence order.As you can see clearly, rules of evidence and even court practice and procedure don't need to be adhered to, balance of probabilities is the burden of proof and guess what - the aggrieved does not need to provide any personal evidence - at all - for a DVO to be given.
See s.65 in the Victorian Act, s.67 in the NSW Act etc etc
@kreagh: I looked at a study on DV from the NSW government that said only a minority of the DV accusations were frivolous.
However, as you said yourself, this is a “Nanny state” side issue to the current issue of “nanny state” speeding laws. My original statement was “highlighting DV is unacceptable is A-ok with me” which you haven’t repudiated. You seem to have got obsessed with the side issue because you can’t substantiate the original point.
I’ve shown my statistics showing a co-relation between speed and increased death toll. You have given me no reputable study showing that is not the case. I’ve shown the road toll, just in Victoria, has dropped to a quarter, which means thousands of people still alive that wouldn’t be if the “nanny state” laws I highlighted hadn’t been brought in and policed. This death toll includes a substantial number of collateral victims.
Even using the term “nanny state” is emotive and ill defined trope beloved of right wing organisations. A substantial decrease in the death toll is a worthwhile aim and if, given a vote where the increase in the road toll vs death rate was highlighted, I’m sure the majority of Australians would leave the speed limits as they currently are.
@try2bhelpful: You are just arguing for the sake of arguing - creating strawmen out of my position and then triumphantly defeating it.
You particularly seem to want to attribute more meaning to the term 'Nanny State' than I certainly would. For clarity, here is my understanding of the term Nanny State based on the Oxford Dictionary definition of the term:
"Nanny state is a conservative term of British origin that conveys a view that a government or its policies are overprotective or interfering unduly with personal choice. The term "nanny state" likens government to the role that a nanny has in child rearing."
What is your point here? Do you want me to change my opinion about the Australian government? The term 'Nanny State' is a relatively defined term based on people's view of personal choice and the level of regulation globally. I've had the good fortune of living in several other countries, and in my view the Australian government regulatory culture is overprotective and interfering unduly with personal choice. And that is my relative view having lived in more than one nation. Have you lived anywhere other than Australia? If not, what is your reference point to say whether Australia is, relatively speaking, a Nanny State?
Now to your strawmen, before I respond to you any further, point out to me where I have stated:
- That there is no link between speeding and the death toll.
- That highlighting DV is not ok
My point is about the regulation of those issues. I have no problem with education and awareness. My entire response about DV and the road toll is about regulation. You seem to want to veer between regulation and education when it suits you. And let me remind you, you were the one who sidetracked onto "highlighting" DV when we were discussing whether the Australian government is overprotective in relation to speed limits - and now you say I'm sidetracking? I took it as a good example of a terribly regulated system in Australia that I am very familiar with.
I pointed out to you very clearly why DV regulation currently causes many problems. I work in the area and I am familiar with it. In contrast, you have some vague "study on DV from the NSW government that said only a minority of the DV accusations were frivolous", when I have clearly shown you why a DV accusation that becomes a DVO can never actually be "frivolous" because it simply needs to meet the broad legislative definition of what is DV, often without the requirement to prove it through evidence, and therefore why the term "frivolous" has no meaning in relation to DVOs granted by a Court.
You wish to sidetrack to the "Nanny State" comment which seems to inflame you and perhaps because you realised you have no clue when it comes to domestic violence regulation in Australia. Well, then leave aside my view of the Nanny State and respond substantively to my other points.
au freeways and motorways are just as slow as your internet connections. I think 120 should be the limit
I think there should be a special license that you get that allows you to go 130 on certain roads that are 110 now. To get this extra license you would have to undergo extra training and you would be given a special sticker or coloured number plate. In the USA the standard speed is about 130 km/h on many roads. Another consideration is that since you are traveling faster that you get home quicker so less time on the road could mean less risks.
Good luck going even at 100km/h during peak time.. yet I see people trying to go 130km/h+, weaving in and out like an absolute idiot slamming their brakes into almost stationary traffic.
Hence why we're stuck on 100km/h - IDIOTS.