130km/h limit

[GasoLane]

Originally Posted by Fev

Spent the budget on flying officials overseas to do road reports and testing.

NO! thats the worst thing you could do.

Pollies end up so confused and hung over from all the 'meetings' they get confused.

ie: Quite a few years ago a Federal transport minister went to Europe and Seppoland to look at Truck weights and speeds.

At that time Seppoland had the fastest speeds (100 kmh) and lowest weights (40 tonne). Whereas Europe had the highest weights (50 tonne) and lowest speeds (90 kmh)

What did the learned minister come home with?....

He recommended 90kmh and 40 tonne!!. :

[GT290]

Its never going to be a perfect world and personal opinion is always going to have its place on here regardless of any statistic. I was asked to respond to some ones post regarding the 85th percentile. I know F all about it. Its just that the article in its entirety was from the UK and it showed an honest take on things as aposed to the seemingly biosed studies put across and fed down our throats here. I see a difference in the policing style in the UK as aposed to here and the way inwhich revenue for their roads is raised in comparrison to here which leads us to why things are done so differently and it would seem Australia needs to make motorist pay in any way possible.
I am not an expert but I can tell you I have driven many thousands of Klms around this big country and I have seen many different situations, incidents and accidents from trucks rolling over, cars flipping on a long peice of straight road some of them the miind just boggles as to how it was even possible. I have been involved in some close ones my self. One example was New Castle down to sydney passing a semi who was following another and decided to over take the truck in front of him while I was executing my manouver. I was about behind his cab. Pushed my off the road. My years of skilled driving experiance payed off and I managed to just miss a colvert and brake to get back on the road. there was a whitness following me.
I consider my self very good at driving and do not use phones radios' or watch a movie or play with my GPS. I concentrate and taqke it seriously, I hardly even talk to my passenger.

[GT290]

Originally Posted by turbo_man

the simple fact is if speed by itself really did kill then how come the autobahns in germany and highways in europe arent one big demolition derby? the reason is training and the reason our incompetent government wont make it compulsory in schools or something like the USA is because it would cost too much according to them apparently saving lives isnt a good enough reason.
instead we have parents who are sometimes terrible drivers teaching more terrible drivers in an endless cycle.

Exactly, its all about attitude. Its a learnt skill and people need it to be shoveled down there throats a lot more and a lot younger. I see driving instructers simply as a licence to print money...no not all of them but how can some people driving on our roads be deemed competant is beyond me.
I am no expert on UK driving long term but I would say one month driving around over there gives you some idea. It only takes half an hour back here to realise the worst.
I would just like to see a more commen sence aproach and a more productive line of thinking for the money our pollies are throwing around on studies and ideas.

I see the government rolled back on its privacy laws where you have to place you full name and address when ever you post anything political. I seems there was enough people oposing it publicly that they back peddled. Now why can not motorist do the same for some of the things government are or are not doing on our roads. Power to the people I say. It dose not stop with your vote each election you know.

[durtyharry]

Originally Posted by xbgs351

Where did you come up with this 'fact'? All of the rural driving that I ever do is to a destination. If the speed limit is lower it just takes longer for me to get there, which funny enough means that I'm more tired.
.

The message about fatigue is to limit your driving to a set number of hours and observe proper rest breaks.

If your destination cant be reached in the suggested time at the wheel in one day, either dont go or allow a stop over somewhere.

Going faster and putting the rest of the public at risk is not the solution

[GT290]

Originally Posted by GT Falcon

Exactly. The governments and legislators are very selective as to what data set they use to determine speed limits. The 85th percentile rule for determining speed limits is always ignored, usually the 50-60th Percentile is used.

One has to ask themselves; if so many people are caught speeding (of which the state and federal government reap billions of dollars in fines enforcement revenue) doesn't that indicate there is something fundementally wrong with our approach to speed limits, and for that matter the approach to road safety?

Any logical person would say yes.

Thats a big yes from me

[GT290]

Originally Posted by Keepleft

The Victorian leg of the Hume freeway (it is not to freeway specification), therefore is *NOT* suited to a 130km/h speed-limit; in part
* It has some 21 remaining "INTERSECTIONS" as opposed to a freeway's "grade-separated INTERCHANGE" design, (ie left hand entry and exits). (This length has both designs).
* It lacks median barrier
* It has wide open median "U-Turn bays".

If we gatelock the U-Turn bays, construct full grade separated interchanges, install full length median barrier, THEN the road could be posted with a limit higher than 100-110km/h.

NSW Hume is the same, allmost, except we do have full freeway lengths which I'd post 130km/h with 100-120km/h elsewhere. Our NSW median U-Turn bays are being fitted with restricting barrier and yellow bollards to help prevent idiots from doing U turns at them. The Snowy Mountain Intercnage needs a re-design before the limit would be raised at that location, here, we have a north median location exit, dumb and dangerous.

We would use the START FREEWAY/END FREEWAY signs at designated 130km/h lengths. (IF we raise the limit, see ATSB report in the next post I make).



SAFER to simply post speed derestriction signs (//) on those high-standard two lane rural highways, than posting a speed limit showing 110-130km/h.

Speed limits lead to "speed-limit conditioning"; some people will 'expect' to do it all_time_time (=tailgating and aggro), and will then do it- come what may (weather, car, and traffic conditions).

Posting (//) speed derestriction will not give you a numerical figure at which to drive, but imposes in totality - 'drive to conditions'. Something a speed-limit, particularly on highways will *never* achieve.

Keep Left I have to agree with your comments regarding road quality. I must say the highway from London all the way up to Glasgow is in much better shape and built better. Its got all of what you say ours needs. We need enough lanes aswell to cope so that our trucks can stay out of the way of cars for the most. Its really impressive driving over there and its also actually very enjoyable and relaxing even at 80 MPH probably because the police are not going to book you for it.
I think the revenue collected needs to be better accounted for. where is it going. don't say road safety or I will flip. haha You know what a I mean

[Romulus]

Well, I've recently done a couple of trips from Perth to Port Hedland, Port Hedland to Meekatharra, back to Port Hedland, down to Karratha etc. Reasonable distance trips.

Driving at a speed of 2 to 3 km per minute (you do the math : ) one is able to cover good distance during day light hours without fatique setting in.

I'm all for a 130km/h speed limit in outback Australia.

[superpursuit83]

I think 120 is a great cruising speed. And easy to do the maths on a trip.

When I drove the ute over there I was BORED doing 100km/h and was not concentrating at all. Even 110kph keeps you half awake.

[burnz]

Originally Posted by GasOLane

It certainly is.-see last paragraph-

This depends on your definition of 'shortlived'.

I've driven the whole length of the Hume for the over 37 years. Before HP cars had radar and when the Hume only had dual lanes for about 10% of the trip.

I was also a member of (what was known in the trade as) the 'Dollar Forty Club'. Not a real club as such, just a name given to Trucks and Drivers who used exceed 140kmh.

110kmh was our Average speed between Chullora (Syd) and Footscray (Melb). I never needed any 'assistance' staying awake as sheer concentration kept me awake all night.

During my 37 years driving interstate I've been involved in 4 accidents.
(The first was my fault, 36 years ago, there's a moral there somewhere.)

For the last 7 years I only drive occasionally drive between the Vic border and Melb. I refuse to drive the Hume full time anymore as it's so mind numbingly boring that I find myself getting drowsy after a couple of hours!

i assume you were driving for tympats or lakeline unless you work western company clealand freight line.

ha ha the old days of seasamy street, the express way only went to campbelltown then onto camden.

[Burnout]

Originally Posted by burnz

i assume you were driving for tympats or lakeline unless you work western company clealand freight line.

ha ha the old days of seasamy street, the express way only went to campbelltown then onto camden.

Must have sounded like 'the train' coming....

[spvd02]

I think the main problem with raising the speed limit so high is our crap roads. On WA roads sometimes you just don't know what's gonna hit you, road surface wise, so I wouldn't like to be doing 130km/h when something pops up on the road that I cannot avoid.

Apparently fuel economy heads South pretty quickly too, when you look at figures higher than 100km/h. So in the interest of safety and fuel economy, I would say 110km/h is just fine. It might feel slow, but it's not.

[cosmo20btt]

Originally Posted by spvd02

I think the main problem with raising the speed limit so high is our crap roads. On WA roads sometimes you just don't know what's gonna hit you, road surface wise, so I wouldn't like to be doing 130km/h when something pops up on the road that I cannot avoid.

Apparently fuel economy heads South pretty quickly too, when you look at figures higher than 100km/h. So in the interest of safety and fuel economy, I would say 110km/h is just fine. It might feel slow, but it's not.

Not all cars are cheap to drive at under 110k's, Some become very frugle when moving at faster speeds.

[Brazen]

Originally Posted by spvd02

I think the main problem with raising the speed limit so high is our crap roads. On WA roads sometimes you just don't know what's gonna hit you, road surface wise, so I wouldn't like to be doing 130km/h when something pops up on the road that I cannot avoid.

Noone is advocating a blanket 130kmh limit, it would be on roads appropriate for the limit, e.g. modern divided freeways or rural single lane undivided highways with low traffic volume.

And where are all these horrendously bad highways people keep talking about? Im on rural highways all the time and I cant even remember the last time when the road surface concerned me.

[Romulus]

Originally Posted by spvd02

I think the main problem with raising the speed limit so high is our crap roads. On WA roads sometimes you just don't know what's gonna hit you, road surface wise, so I wouldn't like to be doing 130km/h when something pops up on the road that I cannot avoid.

Apparently fuel economy heads South pretty quickly too, when you look at figures higher than 100km/h. So in the interest of safety and fuel economy, I would say 110km/h is just fine. It might feel slow, but it's not.

I don't think so.....perhaps if you were talking of speeds between 100-120mph I would agree with you. However, most floodways are clearly indicated, as are cattle grids. Driving at 130-150km/h doesn't pose much of a problem during daylight hours. Most wildlife is resting sans the odd goat or cattle which rarely stray onto the open road.

I most definately would not advocate the average 'city slicker' to do any speed above the posted speed limit for their first 1/2 dozen trips on any unfarmiliar road. Likewise I would not advise night time driving here in the wild west; your vehicle will come out worse for wear when confronted by the straying cow or kangaroo.

Fuel economy is irrelevant for me; I couldn't care less if I averaged 15-20l/100kms, so long as my journey time is reduced.

[glavas]

thats bull. ive noticed i get better Fuel economy doing 120ish then doing 100. and everyone knows(well me at least) if your getting less then 14 L per 100km your getting good economy

[4.0i_SiX]

Alot of the time I think idiot drivers or idiotic behaviour is caused by sheer frustration behind the wheel. The limits are too bloody slow in most area where I live. 70kph along a nearly dead straight, dual lane road is annoying as hell!!!

[Yellow_Festiva]

Originally Posted by glavas

thats bull. ive noticed i get better Fuel economy doing 120ish then doing 100. and everyone knows(well me at least) if your getting less then 14 L per 100km your getting good economy

Pretty broad / general statement there don't you think?

I have found the opposite, maintaining a lower average speed consumes less over a set distance than if you maintained a higher average speed.

I have read about (as well as experienced myself) an increase in consumption of 20-30% when doing 110-115 compared to when you do 85-90km/hr.

Agree that under certain circumstances the limit should be raised, perhaps on 3 lane roads where staggered limits can be applied (ie right lane is 130, centre is 115 and left is 100km/hr).

But... we have a lot of drivers who cannot even follow the keep left unless overtaking rule..

The limiting / deciding factor for higher limits does not rely in the inadequacies of the modern cars (which are almost all capable of 130-140km/h) but in the limitations in ability of the person behind the wheel.

[GasoLane]

Originally Posted by burnz

i assume you were driving for tympats or lakeline unless you work western company clealand freight line.

ha ha the old days of seasamy street, the express way only went to campbelltown then onto camden.

None of the above

The Overnighters (Wards Express), Blue Ribbon and a few private owner's.

[Kamshaaft]

Originally Posted by Yellow_Festiva

Pretty broad / general statement there don't you think?

I have found the opposite, maintaining a lower average speed consumes less over a set distance than if you maintained a higher average speed.

Of course this is true. Any results otherwise are purely due to other variables i.e. Gearing ratios (which are directly connected to engine rpm, and thus how much fuel you use in one cycle), which sometimes happen to increase efficiency at a certain speed more than the air resistance increases. Holden and Ford tend to gear their newer cars to be most efficient about highway cruising speed. It is important to be aware of this, as You can't thwart physics!

Air resistance on a motor vehicle is about the strongest hinderance to it's progress forwards, and air resistance goes up by the SQUARE.*
You will burn more fuel at 130km/h than 100km/h, even if you had another gear to change up into to sit at the same rpm in both cases (and thus eliminate any effects of varied rpm - which does make a big difference - as anyone who's throttled a gutless 2.0L cylinder just to get it around town and seen the fuel needle plummet on par with a 5.0L cruising can attest to).

The worse you car's Cd (drag coefficient - that is, how aerodynamic it is), or more downforce you have dialed in if you happen to have a racing car, the more you will notice it. In an '84 LTD for example, it will be pretty damn clear.


Related note, Air resistance and gearing are extremely important in having a vehicle efficiently make use of it's limited or limitless power.


*Air resistance is velocity squared, to simplify it by leaving out one part, this means that at 130km/h there is over 60% EXTRA drag than there is at 100km/h.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by Kamshaaft

Of course this is true. Any results otherwise are purely due to other variables (i.e. Gearing ratios, which sometimes happen to increase efficiency at a certain speed more than the air resistance increases) (most likely rpm at 130km/h vs rpm at 100km/h). You can't thwart physics!

Air resistance on a motor vehicle is about the strongest hinderance to it's progress forwards, and air resistance goes up by the SQUARE.*

You will burn more fuel at 130km/h than 100km/h, even if you had another gear to change up into to sit at the same rpm in both cases (and thus eliminate any effects of varied rpm - which does make a big difference - as anyone who's throttled a gutless 2.0L cylinder just to get it around town and seen the fuel needle plummet on par with a 5.0L cruising can attest to).

The worse you car's Cd (drag coefficient - that is, how aerodynamic it is), or more downforce you have dialed in if you happen to have a racing car, the more you will notice it. In an '84 LTD for example, it will be pretty damn clear.


Related note, Air resistance and gearing are extremely important in having a vehicle efficiently make use of it's limited or limitless power.


*Air resistance is velocity squared, to simplify it by leaving out one part. This means that at 130km/h there is over 60% EXTRA drag than there is at 100km/h.

A simple explanation of a VERY complex concept. If your car was a sphere and not near anything else e.g. THE ROAD then what you say is true.

But cars are not spheres and they tend to not work all that well when not actually on the road so it is "sort of" true.

The interaction of the surfaces of the car with the road varies turbulence in a very non-linear way as speed increases and most cars are actually designed to have be most efficient in a particular speed range which with a large percentage of vehicles is NOT 100km/h.

It is the same with light aircraft, there is a "sweet spot" where it is most fuel efficient, faster or slower will use more fuel and running out of fuel in an aircraft is not a lot of fun......

[Kamshaaft]

Originally Posted by flappist

A simple explanation of a VERY complex concept. If your car was a sphere and not near anything else e.g. THE ROAD then what you say is true.

But cars are not spheres and they tend to not work all that well when not actually on the road so it is "sort of" true.

The interaction of the surfaces of the car with the road varies turbulence in a very non-linear way as speed increases and most cars are actually designed to have be most efficient in a particular speed range which with a large percentage of vehicles is NOT 100km/h.

It is the same with light aircraft, there is a "sweet spot" where it is most fuel efficient, faster or slower will use more fuel and running out of fuel in an aircraft is not a lot of fun......

This would be very pertinant if your average car is wind tunneled. But it isn't.

It's becoming more common an investment now that life cycles for a model are growing, but your average car (especially anything domestic) is not, let alone brand new. There are still plenty of car out there from the 90s, and even 80s.

[castellan]

A 202 HQ kingswood will use more fuel at 140 km/h
Then a 308 HQ at 140 km/h
A 202 will use more fuel at a 100 km/h towing a trailer, then a 308 will.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by Kamshaaft

This would be very pertinant if your average car is wind tunneled. But it isn't.

It's becoming more common an investment now that life cycles for a model are growing, but your average car (especially anything domestic) is not, let alone brand new. There are still plenty of car out there from the 90s, and even 80s.

ARE YOU KIDDING?

In the era when 0.1 l/100km is veiwed as more important than a cure for cancer and the average bubble car can exceed 200km/h do you really believe that the legal and marketing groups of any motor vehicle manufacturer would allow a car to be built that had NOT been wind tunnel tested?

EDIT:

Before you reply to this please google "wind tunnel holden" and "wind tunnel Falcon" and read the articles on the wind tunnel testing of AUs and VNs and Astras etc. let alone current models.

[Kamshaaft]

Flappist, that's not in dispute.

I am not kidding, but I don't think you understand what I said - The average car isn't wind tunneled. By that I of course am referring to wind tunnel designed/tunded to the extent that they have their 'sweet spot' of Cd at a particular range of speed highly refined (as you said), as opposed to just sat in a wind tunnel for for the claim..

...which refers back to your post. Wind tunnel benchmarking is one thing, this is another. For benchmarking, most (but still not even all) all cars on our roads have been there - but properly wind tunneled? ala Nissan GTR, Bugatti Veyron, Mazda RX-7, Renault Espace van and with substantially more compromise the Vl Walkinshaw, VE commodore, FG Falcon, Au Falcon etc? Call me out of touch, but I'm saying that they wouldn't be the majority that have spent most of their gestation in the wind tunnel as part of their R&D.

And sure mate, it's been around forever, but just because something's old technology (or would 'new technology' be more correct here?) doesn't mean it's involved in the vast majority.


What you said is worth anyone nothing, anyhow. But perhaps I misinterpreted you, and that is not what you said.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by Kamshaaft

Flappist, that's not in dispute.

I am not kidding, but I don't think you understand what I said - The average car isn't wind tunneled. By that I of course am referring to wind tunnel designed/tunded to the extent that they have their 'sweet spot' of Cd at a particular range of speed highly refined (as you said), as opposed to just sat in a wind tunnel for for the claim..

...which refers back to your post. Wind tunnel benchmarking is one thing, this is another. For benchmarking, most (but still not even all) all cars on our roads have been there - but properly wind tunneled? ala Nissan GTR, Bugatti Veyron, Mazda RX-7, Renault Espace van and with substantially more compromise the Vl Walkinshaw, VE commodore, FG Falcon, Au Falcon etc? Call me out of touch, but I'm saying that they wouldn't be the majority that have spent most of their gestation in the wind tunnel as part of their R&D.

And sure mate, it's been around forever, but just because something's old technology (or would 'new technology' be more correct here?) doesn't mean it's involved in the vast majority.


What you said is worth anyone nothing, anyhow. But perhaps I misinterpreted you, and that is not what you said.

OK to make it simple:

You said that wind resistance ALWAYS rises to the square of the velocity.

I said, this is not 100 percent true as there are complex surfaces involved.

You said this does not apply to "ordinary cars".

I replied with information on reports of actual tests on "ordinary cars".

As I have had quite a few interactions with engineers that design and test motor vehicles in Australia (including Ford/FPV) and in fact had a father who for many years was the head engineer of a motor vehicle manufacturer in Australia and I am a pilot so have had quite a bit of training in the effect of airflow and practical aerodynamics, my information does not come from school text books.

Now tell me that all of us are wrong and you are right.........

[Kamshaaft]

Can't do that Flappist. Instead I offer you I'll tell you that I see know what you're saying, and but perhaps my knowledge and my engineering textbooks as well as my other resources & statistics (as a hobby) are somewhat outdated, or perhaps you're theorhetically correct except for a few holes - Or maybe a little bit of both with a lean to the former as I've made concessions to say what I said so simply.

P.S. I was born a white man, flappist, does that mean I'm any better at scrabble?

[aussie muscle]

Originally Posted by GT290

Keep Left I have to agree with your comments regarding road quality. I must say the highway from London all the way up to Glasgow is in much better shape and built better.

to be fair tho, UK has more people than australia but only the area of victoria. so it's a lot easier for them to have good roads. (imagine if you put the entire country's money for roads exclusively into victoria!!)

[flappist]

Originally Posted by aussie muscle

to be fair tho, UK has more people than australia but only the area of victoria. so it's a lot easier for them to have good roads. (imagine if you put the entire country's money for roads exclusively into victoria!!)

Well we DO put almost the entire country's speed cameras there.....

[Brazen]

Well I sent letters to the Minister of Transport, local member, opposition leader and Premier advocating for higher limits on rural roads. I explained the benefits for fatigue, restlessness, inattention, frustration and travel times. What have you slackers done....?

[MO]

Originally Posted by Kamshaaft

Can't do that Flappist. Instead I offer you I'll tell you that I see know what you're saying, and but perhaps my knowledge and my engineering textbooks as well as my other resources & statistics (as a hobby) are somewhat outdated, or perhaps you're theorhetically correct except for a few holes - Or maybe a little bit of both with a lean to the former as I've made concessions to say what I said so simply.

P.S. I was born a white man, flappist, does that mean I'm any better at scrabble?

Are you for real? I think your tired time for bed for you.