• Reducing country speedlimits will increase the road death toll
    19 replies, posted
Here in South Australia, there are proposals to reduce the country speed limit from 110km/h to 100km/h on country roads that are not highways/freeways. This is being done with the intent of reducing road deaths. [I]Completely ignoring any disagreements with the idea of reducing road speeds in the name of lives[/I], as this is not what this thread is about, I pose this question: Could reducing country road speeds in Australia actually cause more deaths? For those of you who don't live in Australia, we're a pretty big country, bigger than the continental United States, and with a population less than 1/10th the size. The city I live in, Adelaide, is 8 hours drive at top speed from the next major city, Melbourne. If you reduce the speed from 110km/h to 100km/h you're adding about an hour more travel time to the trip, if you're going to Sydney it's 2 hours, Brisbane is 2-3 hours, Darwin and Perth are 4-6 hours extra. So what you'll get is people needing to drive for significantly longer times, causing more fatigue and thus more people crashing. Reducing the speeds by 10km/h won't do anything to reduce the chance of death when you do crash because put simply, if you hit a tree at 110km/h, and another person hits the same tree at 100km/h, you're both death, no one survives such speeds. Lets try to avoid a discussion about reducing deaths by reducing the speed limit
[QUOTE=download;40103706]Reducing the speeds by 10km/h won't do anything to reduce the chance of death when you do crash because put simply, if you hit a tree at 110km/h, and another person hits the same tree at 100km/h, you're both death, no one survives such speeds.[/QUOTE] Your stopping distance becomes far less going from 110 to 100km/h (60.5m vs 50m according to the rule of thumb)
I would actually support such a move, given that it's for country roads and not the highways/freeways as you said. I live in New South Wales and what really pisses me off is a freeway I frequent which is very good quality and four lane the speed limit is only 80-90km/h; yet you find country roads in a state of disrepair, surrounded by bush, that are only two lanes and they are also limited to 80-90km/h, and hell between Maitland and Clarence Town there's a bit of country road that goes to 100km/h. Doesn't that just seem ridiculous? I also personally have a reason for wanting the speed limits on country roads to be reduced. On the aforementioned road I hit a kangaroo on Christmas last year. The speed limit at where I hit it was 90km/h, it was two lane and there was no boundary at all between the bush and the road. I didn't have time to brake until I slammed into the poor thing. The result: [thumb]http://i.imgur.com/7R7sD.jpg[/thumb] Maybe if I was going slower there would have been more time to react. And the kangaroo wouldn't have had both of its legs broken. I also suppose I'm lucky with [I]how[/I] I hit the kangaroo. If it was just that little bit ahead of where it was, it could have rolled onto and smashed through the windshield, possibly harming me and my bro who was passenger. I'm just surprised how lucky I got away from that. I still haven't replaced the panel but it's going to cost me a few hundred to do so, I'm glad the suspension didn't collapse but afterwards I was in need of a wheel alignment. There's some damage on the two left-hand doors as well but I'm not going to bother with trying to fix them.
[QUOTE=Maurice;40103766]Your stopping distance becomes far less going from 110 to 100km/h (60.5m vs 50m according to the rule of thumb)[/QUOTE] Doesn't apply when you're spinning out of control or falling asleep at the wheel, probably applies when driving in the city and trying to avoid children trying to cross busy roads [editline]31st March 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Antdawg;40103778]I would actually support such a move, given that it's for country roads and not the highways/freeways as you said. I live in New South Wales and what really pisses me off is a freeway I frequent which is very good quality and four lane the speed limit is only 80-90km/h; yet you find country roads in a state of disrepair, surrounded by bush, that are only two lanes and they are often limited to 80-90km/h, and hell between Maitland and Clarence Town there's a bit of country road that goes to 100km/h. Doesn't that just seem ridiculous? I also personally have a reason for wanting the speed limits on country roads to be reduced. On the aforementioned road I hit a kangaroo on Christmas last year. The speed limit at where I hit it was 90km/h, it was two lane and there was no boundary at all between the bush and the road. I didn't have time to brake until I slammed into the poor thing. The result: [thumb]http://i.imgur.com/7R7sD.jpg[/thumb] Maybe if I was going slower there would have been more time to react. And the kangaroo wouldn't have had both of its legs broken. I also suppose I'm lucky with [I]how[/I] I hit the kangaroo. If it was just that little bit ahead of where it was, it could have rolled onto and smashed through the windshield, possibly harming me and my bro who was passenger. I'm just surprised how lucky I got away from that. I still haven't replaced the panel but it's going to cost me a few hundred to do so. There's some damage on the two left-hand doors as well but I'm not going to bother with trying to fix them.[/QUOTE] If you don't like driving at such speed then drive more slowly And it would seem no one is addressing my original points
[QUOTE=download;40103781]Doesn't apply when you're spinning out of control or falling asleep at the wheel, probably applies when driving in the city and trying to avoid children trying to cross busy roads [editline]31st March 2013[/editline] If you don't like driving at such speed then drive more slowly And it would seem no one is addressing my original points[/QUOTE] In the OP you mention reducing the speeds on the country roads and debating about that, but then you give examples of how long it takes to travel between the major cities, which is a bit silly because they are all connected with highways and freeways. So it's kind of hard for me to address your points with that big contradiction. Also it doesn't matter about what speeds I drive at - and indeed I do drive a bit slower than usual on that road now. What matters is all the other drivers who are unaware of the risks of driving on that road.
[QUOTE=Antdawg;40103808]In the OP you mention reducing the speeds on the country roads and debating about that, but then you give examples of how long it takes to travel between the major cities, which is a bit silly because they are all connected with highways and freeways. So it's kind of hard for me to address your points with that big contradiction.[/QUOTE] I was just using them as an example of great distances in Australia. There are many other places people go that aren't connected by our ailing highway system
[QUOTE=Antdawg;40103778]I would actually support such a move, given that it's for country roads and not the highways/freeways as you said. I live in New South Wales and what really pisses me off is a freeway I frequent which is very good quality and four lane the speed limit is only 80-90km/h; yet you find country roads in a state of disrepair, surrounded by bush, that are only two lanes and they are often limited to 80-90km/h, and hell between Maitland and Clarence Town there's a bit of country road that goes to 100km/h. Doesn't that just seem ridiculous? I also personally have a reason for wanting the speed limits on country roads to be reduced. On the aforementioned road I hit a kangaroo on Christmas last year. The speed limit at where I hit it was 90km/h, it was two lane and there was no boundary at all between the bush and the road. I didn't have time to brake until I slammed into the poor thing. The result: [thumb]http://i.imgur.com/7R7sD.jpg[/thumb] Maybe if I was going slower there would have been more time to react. And the kangaroo wouldn't have had both of its legs broken. I also suppose I'm lucky with [I]how[/I] I hit the kangaroo. If it was just that little bit ahead of where it was, it could have rolled onto and smashed through the windshield, possibly harming me and my bro who was passenger. I'm just surprised how lucky I got away from that. I still haven't replaced the panel but it's going to cost me a few hundred to do so, I'm glad the suspension didn't collapse but afterwards I was in need of a wheel alignment. There's some damage on the two left-hand doors as well but I'm not going to bother with trying to fix them.[/QUOTE] Don't beat yourself up over it. It was the animals fault. We just need to keep crashing into animals(As horrible as it sounds) so that the ones that have learned, or do learn, to avoid the roads/cars survive and bring that unnatural caution about roads and car to the next generations. As we do with our kids.
What evidence do you have to support the argument that a reduction of speed and the associated crash survival increase would be mitigated by the deaths associated with fatigue produced by lengthier driving times?
In regards to the whole travelling across Australia thing, why not have more shaded rest stops along the long roads, enticing oases of cool and relaxation in the desert of eldritch horror that is the outback? That way, there would be more opportunities to restock, refresh and recharge before heading back out into the outback and being in a better state of mind and body to deal with the giant spider-toads. Possibly even opportunities to stop for the night and wait for the morning, if the rest-stops have motels nearby.
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;40104859]What evidence do you have to support the argument that a reduction of speed and the associated crash survival increase would be mitigated by the deaths associated with fatigue produced by lengthier driving times?[/QUOTE] Never claimed I had any to begin with, it's a hypothesis, I could probably find some regarding length of drive and chance of accident though. I'll dig something up tomorrow seeing as it's 2am here [QUOTE=ironman17;40104911]In regards to the whole travelling across Australia thing, why not have more shaded rest stops along the long roads, enticing oases of cool and relaxation in the desert of eldritch horror that is the outback? That way, there would be more opportunities to restock, refresh and recharge before heading back out into the outback and being in a better state of mind and body to deal with the giant spider-toads. Possibly even opportunities to stop for the night and wait for the morning, if the rest-stops have motels nearby.[/QUOTE] Maybe, but I'm pretty sure many people forgo such stops because they want to get to their destinations quickly. I dunno about other states, but here in SA such things are pretty common anyway
Country roads? Why the hell would you go 110Km/h on a country road? That's incredibly dangerous. I would support this move and even go as far as saying 80km/h. For highways and Freeway's I actually don't see the point in a speed limit but country road's can vary radically in quality. For highways it seems that removing limits makes the roads safer. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_autobahns#Safety[/url]
It won't kill you to slow down on a two lane road right next to the bush. Freeways are designed with higher speeds in mind. They're paved differently, there's far more runoff area, there's suitable barriers to keep head-ons to a minimum. They're designed for you to go 70+MPH on them. I honestly don't buy your "They'll be more fatigued" argument, since it's the driver's responsibility and nobody else's to plan their road trip in such a way that they don't get drowsy. If that means you carry an entire set of camping equipment with you because there's no Super 8's in the outback then that's what you're supposed to do. It isn't the council's job to raise speed limits on roads not suitable for those speeds in order to prevent drowsy driving. Oh, and you wanna know something else? Roads like you're describing here in the US are set to a 55MPH speed limit. Just 88KPH according to google's conversion tool. The fact that you're currently doing 70MPH on those roads is absolute insanity. We don't even let our interstates go higher than that, and they're designed from the getgo with high speeds in mind! Only a select few states let interstate traffic go over 110KPH/70MPH, most are 70 and below. [editline]31st March 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Rangergxi;40108764] I would support this move and even go as far as saying 80km/h. [/QUOTE] I think he's referring to the more highway like two-lane roads, which are set to 55MPH/88KPH stateside. If he's referring to the more twisty country roads like what I live on we have it set at just 45MPH. It works fine here, don't see why it wouldn't there.
[QUOTE=download;40103706]Could reducing country road speeds in Australia actually cause more deaths?[/QUOTE] Well, find me empirical evidence to back this up. [editline]31st March 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=download;40106255]Never claimed I had any to begin with, it's a hypothesis[/QUOTE] Generally you should be looking up this sort of thing when you are making the thread, otherwise it's mostly conjecture.
70+ mph on empty straight country roads? I'm not sure the speed limit is really a limit to begin with, maybe more of a suggestion like buckle up, or last fuel stop here, or stay on the road, of course the only analogue I think your describing is like the empty desert roads here in the states where it really doesn't matter because the nearest thing to hit is a mile away [editline]1st April 2013[/editline] sept the desert roads tend to be good not bad and defiantly doesn't have kangaroos , I still don't get your argument other than one arrives an hour later, it would actually be more economical and save gas going slower anyway
A catch-22 is being presented. If speed limits are lowered, then "fatigue" will supposedly cause more deaths, yet at the same time, if one were to be so crazy as to propose increasing speed limits, more deaths would be caused at the same time in part to a lesser reaction time to a life-threatening situation provided a driver doesn't increase the distance between them and the next vehicle. The only compromise to the solution would be road/truck stops like ironman suggested earlier, but those aren't 100% effective. If you're ultimately going to cause more deaths either way by changing the speed limit by 10 km/h, why bother changing it in the first place?
[QUOTE=wickedplayer494;40114525]A catch-22 is being presented. If speed limits are lowered, then "fatigue" will supposedly cause more deaths, yet at the same time, if one were to be so crazy as to propose increasing speed limits, more deaths would be caused at the same time in part to a lesser reaction time to a life-threatening situation provided a driver doesn't increase the distance between them and the next vehicle. The only compromise to the solution would be road/truck stops like ironman suggested earlier, but those aren't 100% effective. If you're ultimately going to cause more deaths either way by changing the speed limit by 10 km/h, why bother changing it in the first place?[/QUOTE] Well normally we need evidence that fatigue does increase by lowering speed limits. If no such thing happens, that argument against reducing speed limits as it will increase fatalities it ultimately wrong.
I know this probably doesn't need double emphasis, but I don't think you'd find the evidence that fatigue etc would increase death rate, especially not between 110 and 100. When I go on road trips I take breaks every x hours, not whenever I get to point x.
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;40108764]Country roads? Why the hell would you go 110Km/h on a country road? That's incredibly dangerous. I would support this move and even go as far as saying 80km/h. For highways and Freeway's I actually don't see the point in a speed limit but country road's can vary radically in quality. For highways it seems that removing limits makes the roads safer. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_autobahns#Safety[/url][/QUOTE] You seem to be assuming that every country road is a death trap. Some are crap, some are better than our highways (probably because no one uses them and thus they haven't worn out). You can't just go and say 110km/h is dangerous. [QUOTE=TestECull;40109539]It won't kill you to slow down on a two lane road right next to the bush. Freeways are designed with higher speeds in mind. They're paved differently, there's far more runoff area, there's suitable barriers to keep head-ons to a minimum. They're designed for you to go 70+MPH on them. I honestly don't buy your "They'll be more fatigued" argument,[I] since it's the driver's responsibility and nobody else's to plan their road trip in such a way that they don't get drowsy[/I]. If that means you carry an entire set of camping equipment with you because there's no Super 8's in the outback then that's what you're supposed to do. It isn't the council's job to raise speed limits on roads not suitable for those speeds in order to prevent drowsy driving.[/quote] That works both ways. I could argue you should drive to the conditions. If the roads are crap then you should be driving more slowly [quote] Oh, and you wanna know something else? Roads like you're describing here in the US are set to a 55MPH speed limit. Just 88KPH according to google's conversion tool. The fact that you're currently doing 70MPH on those roads is absolute insanity. We don't even let our interstates go higher than that, and they're designed from the getgo with high speeds in mind! Only a select few states let interstate traffic go over 110KPH/70MPH, most are 70 and below.[/quote] All I've described them as is country roads. You really can not make comparisons from that [quote] I think he's referring to the more highway like two-lane roads, which are set to 55MPH/88KPH stateside. If he's referring to the more twisty country roads like what I live on we have it set at just 45MPH. It works fine here, don't see why it wouldn't there.[/QUOTE] We have a population 1/10th of the US, and the highest road to population ratio of any country in the world, the fact there only two lanes doesn't really matter as there is pretty much never anyone going the other direction. You might be lucky to pass 30 cars an hour going the other direction on a somewhat major country road. If you crash you're unlikely to crash into someone, where as on a multi-lane freeway you'll probably hit people next to you
[QUOTE=download;40103706]Lets try to avoid a discussion about reducing deaths by reducing the speed limit[/QUOTE] You can't ignore that argument. If you're disallowing discussion on the critical factor regarding why the Government wishes to reduce the speed limit, then what other reasons are there for reducing the speed limit on lower grade roads? The fact is, any research they've done into such roads have shown that by reducing the speed limit and ensuring that the speed limit is adhered to, would result in less casualty (fatalities or serious injuries) accidents. [QUOTE=download;40103706]So what you'll get is people needing to drive for significantly longer times, causing more fatigue and thus more people crashing[/QUOTE] A 130km/h speed limit was introduced in the NT when previously there was none - clearly this resulted in speed decreases of sometimes over 100km/h. Despite this, there have been a reduction in crashes on such roads as a result of fatigue. According to the [URL=http://www.monash.edu.au/miri/research/reports/atsb216.pdf]Monash Accident Research Centre[/url], a reduction of 10km/h on rural undivided roads that are wider, such as the A8 between Adelaide and Melbourne, may reduce trauma costs by over a quarter. [editline]1st April 2013[/editline] The likelihood is, in the next couple of decades that undivided country roads in Australia will be reduced to a default speed limit of around ~80km/h. Tasmania is already planning to trial such a thing in the next few years.
Generally speaking, you'd first need to actually provide some proof of there being a sizeable portion of people that do actually daily commute over those long distances on country roads, or that at least commute as such regularly. If not, then the fatigue argument essentially falls flat, that even if there's a small percentage of people that might get affected, the majority of people will merely get affected with the speed reduction.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.