Tasmanian speed limits to reduce to 90kmph

[tex]

The objections are being responded to - at least we know they being read!

Minister David O’Byrne has asked that I acknowledge and thank you for your correspondence dated 16 December 2010 in regards to the above.

Dear (tex)

Please be advised that your correspondence will be brought to the Minister’s attention.

Kind Regards.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by lamborghinifan

Well i thought for the sake of a couple of minutes i could voice my concern. if we have any real issues with this, stop whinging and actually do something about it. Here's my response.


To Whom it May Concern,
I write in response to the proposals outlined on the website about a lowered default speed limit. I Don't believe enough thought has been taken in this approach, and this "solution" is a short term
poor response to what are real issues that are being ignored.I believe driver training and road quality are fundamentally the bigger than just a blanket "speed kills"
approach which is not true. I believe many other things kill before speed is even a factor. I have travelled Tasmania extensively and have even been involved in two seperate traffic incidents.
Neither at which a lowered speed limit would have made any difference whatsoever. If the first person had had a drivers license, he may have been more skilled and not run up the rear of my car
as I stopped for a red traffic signal. In the second incident, the other vehicle, at fault, fled the scene with an uninsured, unregistered vehicle. Both issues which could easily have been avoided had the
concerned drivers not been on the road.
We live in a country that is too large to justify such a lowered default speed limit. More education on driving within you and your vehicled limits would be money better spent, although perhaps harder to show on a spreadsheet.
Below I respond to several official quotes.

"The Council is investigating these changes because expert advice indicates that lower speeds will lessen the number of serious crashes. On average we could expect to save 4 lives and 13 serious injuries every year on Tasmanian roads,"

I would be interested to see this "expert advice" open to the public, not in abbreviated form but the whole report.

"Speed is the most contributing factor to injury in the event of a crash, the forces that are exerted on the human body at impact are closely related to the speed.

This can be offset by the increased likelihood of crash due to fatigue.

"International and national research shows that a reduction of 1 km/h in speed can lead to a 2-3% reduction in casualty crashes (which is where people are either injured or killed).

I would like to see the statistics on this and what speed ranges the largest difference in injury severity occurred. I would agree that a large difference will occur at 50-60 km/h for example, but a crash into a solid object at 90-100 km/h will make very little difference to injury rates as injury will occur at both speeds. This is due to the fact that even at 90 km/h, it far exceeds the crash protection mechanisms of even the safest modern car.

Again, is this at the 90-100 km/h range or is this a statistic found at lower speeds and what roads were those statistics found on, urban, rural or combination?

Mr Gledhill said that a high proportion of casualty crashes in Tasmania occurred on rural roads.

As they do in all states due to increased speed and fatigue primarily. A 10 km/h reduction in speed may save a life or two in a crash but it may cause 20 more crashes. This phenomena has been experienced in the NT since they dropped the rural speed limit in 2006, they have seen an increase in the rural road toll (one of few states to increase).

"From 2005 to 2009, 45% of fatalities and 41% of serious injuries in Tasmania occurred on rural roads," he said

Again, in line with all other states.

"The benefits of reduced rural speed limits have already been experienced first-hand in Tasmania.

"Results from Australia's first rural safer speeds demonstrations, in the Kingborough and Tasman Municipalities, have shown that reduced limits have had a positive and substantial impact upon the local community.

What were the reductions and how far were people traveling. A reduction in local speed limits will not induce the fatigue issues a statewide reduction will so this evidence is flawed.

"For both sealed and gravel roads, over 80% of those surveyed either considered the new reduced limits to be appropriate or preferred further reductions.

Who was surveyed and what were the demographics of the survey group?

"Slower speeds would add very little to travel times. "

"Research has shown that, if travelling at 90 km/h instead of 100 km/h, the increase in travel time on average is about 6%," he said.

Which equates to a 6% increase in fatigue and therefore fatigue related crashes, the offset of those few lives saved commences.

"That means if your journey was supposed to take an hour, it would only take an extra three and a half minutes.

And statistically you are more likely to crash within 5 mins from your place of residence, will that figure now be 8.5 mins?

"There is also the added benefit of significant savings in terms of vehicle operating costs and greenhouse emissions. Fuel consumption increases significantly at speeds over 90 km/h. For example, travelling at 100km/h uses 10% more fuel than travelling at 90km/h.

A very broad unsubstantiated claim, this depends on the car. My large falcon utility, and SUV actually use more fuel at 80kph because they do not get into top gear, and are not working at the cruising speeds motor companies have spent millions of dollars developing them to run most efficiently at.

"Driving at lower speeds will also reduce wear and tear on tyres and brakes, which will save you money on maintaining your vehicle.

Clutching at straws here, with that speed reduction the saving here would be miniscule and not noteworthy.
Driving is not usually an excercise of saving money.

I trust you have a clear picture of my skepticism on the proposed changes.
Regards

Some of my points, I was thinking while I was reading your post that it looked awful familiar.

Mate, you are welcome to them, glad I could help out a little.

[Keepleft]

Originally Posted by aussie muscle

A default limit is stupid, each road should be given a limit based on key factors such as quality, congestion, width (and width of shoulder), distance between towns, curves/twistyness, etc.

NSW has over 600 thousand kilometers of road, sorry, but your idea of signposting each was was never realized, never will be, that is why we have "defaults", where only key roads and highways get the personal treatment.

I'll remind that in NSW up to July 1979 we had, effectively, an 80km/h rural default under speed derestrictions prima facie application.

When ALP killed that off we went for 100km/h as an 'absolute', that was a mistake. We have a 100km/h limit as a result on the nations worse roads; park roads etc, insane-dumb! Other jurisdiction experiences are the same.

The rural default/s should be conservative, although prima facie:-)

[flappist]

One problem that is becoming more and more apparent is the inability of many to function without being told exactly what to do at all times.

Having to make decisions and use their own judgment is uncomfortable as then any consequences cannot be blamed on anyone else.

Devolution of the human species......

[muckenoath]

email this guy and vent your frustration,he,s the minister responsable for this,ELECTORATE@DAVIDOBYRNE>NET i am trying to get people to just email ; 100 O.K ,90 NO WAY. as numbers matter to politicians.if anyone in tassie is interested in an organised protest blocking the brooker highway in hobart and the southern outlet in launnie p.m me.

[davessleepin351]

this whole planet sucks, theres not a country left on earth to drive in. Im moving.

[Jack91]

Sent a big letter to them last night (I think emails would probably be ignored)
If everyone does this, we'll beat it. Just sitting there getting angry doesnt do anything.

[Jack91]

Originally Posted by Letter I sent

To Whom It May Concern:

I have read the submission for the reduction in the default rural Tasmanian speed limit and wish to voice my concerns about it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The thing that appalls and disgusts me most about all of these campaigns is the 2 facts that are always overlooked, these being driver fatigue and impatience/anger. Ironically though, these are the 2 biggest factors in all major crashes and deaths on the roads, yet they are they are the only thing that is definate to result from this proposal.

A motorist which has fallen asleep and drifted onto the wrong side of the road will not be saved by a 90km/h speed limit compared to 100km/h. Nor will the 90km/h posted limit save the impatient person that attempts an overtake maneuver in an unsafe location, from a head on collision. I myself have seen many very close calls on the Midlands and Bass Highways due to 80km/h restricted P-platers and impatient motorists overtaking where not safe to do so and nearly causing a head on collision.

It has been proven time and time again, that to an extent, driving faster is safer, as the driver is more alert and is more likely to drive to the conditions. Fatigue will set on early on long trips, and fatalities will be the result. There may not be a dramatic difference in travel times between the 2 speeds, but the levels of fatigue will double.

Fatigue, not speed, is the leading cause of car crashes, proven by Mercedes Benz and backed by The American National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

In 2008, speed related accidents in Tasmania (whereas, speed was a FACTOR, not a cause) accounted for 22.6% of fatalities. While this number sounds high, let’s break it down:

31 people died on the roads in 2008 (drivers, motorcyclists and passengers combined)
So, 8.588 people dead due to speed being a factor is a crash, remembering that NO collisions were caused solely by exceeding speed limits.

My work takes me all around the state and I often travel up to 1000km's per week, and I frequent both the Midlands and Bass Highways. While it is slowly improving, the state of the Midlands Highway is appalling to say the least, with the Bass Highway coming a close second. However, under this new proposal, it is seen fit to drive at 110km/h on the Midlands Highway, yet only 80km/h on dirt roads, most of which are in better condition than the heaviest trafficked road in the state.

The typical driver will not see any cost savings driving at a reduced speed, in fact, they will use more fuel. This is because the driver will become bored, and gradually increase speed without realising, then braking to slow down again, converting kinetic energy to heat, which is then wasted as the brakes cool. If this proposal really is going to be for only bad condition roads, then it’s also unsafe to utilise cruise control to minimise this.

In closing, I am appalled that so many accusations can be made without proof, references, or precedence. I demand that the RSAC provides references to statistics in which they refer, and that these references be made public. I look forward to hearing back.

Sincerely,

I hope those numbers are right or Im gonna look really stupid

[davessleepin351]

they'l get to the dotted line, get bored and throw it away.

Its a shame, its a nice letter.

[Powermonger]

is the "dirt roads" referred to, really mean Bob Browns "playground"??

[new2ford]

Originally Posted by Keepleft

NSW has over 600 thousand kilometers of road, sorry, but your idea of signposting each was was never realized, never will be, that is why we have "defaults", where only key roads and highways get the personal treatment.

I'll remind that in NSW up to July 1979 we had, effectively, an 80km/h rural default under speed derestrictions prima facie application.

When ALP killed that off we went for 100km/h as an 'absolute', that was a mistake. We have a 100km/h limit as a result on the nations worse roads; park roads etc, insane-dumb! Other jurisdiction experiences are the same.

The rural default/s should be conservative, although prima facie:-)

When we discussed this some time back on this forum Keepleft you indicated there was nowadays some issue at law with having a prime facie speed limit (onus of proof?).

When driving in Tasmania several years ago it struck me that it would be more useful for them to put NSW type speed advisory signs on their many bends. Very unsettling going along a 100 kph road and suddenly come on a bend that's obviously only suitable for 60.

Also a special award to the local who, when I was slowing down to check for trains at a level crossing, overtook me on the crossing at something over 100kph.

[Jack91]

So has anyone else sent a letter yet? If not, do it. This isnt just Tasmania, if this comes in, all the other states will be interested. Do something

[Keepleft]

Originally Posted by DAVO_XR

So has anyone else sent a letter yet? If not, do it. This isnt just Tasmania, if this comes in, all the other states will be interested. Do something

Let me put it to you this way, we either drop the rural default, or we WILL NOT get higher "posted" limits on freeway class roads, guaranteed.

I know how these folk think, I know the agenda -well.

We only got "100km/h" when we dropped speed derestriction (1979 NSW. ALP's Wran ) BECAUSE that GovCo day feared electoral backlash by irate motorist's.

"They" COULD have chosen an 80km/h 'absolute' instead - to mirror the prima facie 80km/h 'optional maximum' that applied under derestriction (//).

This limit is meant to apply to the worse of the worse roads; those NOT WORTHY of signposting in cost benefit.

Have a road length that needs or warrants a higher limit than 80-90km/h? Get em to SIGNPOST IT, simple really.

The other states WILL sign up to this, VIC, QLD and NSW initially, we'll see. Probably by way of ARR change, or secondly, by a state "going it alone" IF "they" deem backlash.

[Jack91]

Originally Posted by Keepleft

Let me put it to you this way, we either drop the rural default, or we WILL NOT get higher "posted" limits on freeway class roads, guaranteed.

I know how these folk think, I know the agenda -well.

We only got "100km/h" when we dropped speed derestriction (1979 NSW. ALP's Wran ) BECAUSE that GovCo day feared electoral backlash by irate motorist's.

"They" COULD have chosen an 80km/h 'absolute' instead - to mirror the prima facie 80km/h 'optional maximum' that applied under derestriction (//).

This limit is meant to apply to the worse of the worse roads; those NOT WORTHY of signposting in cost benefit.

Have a road length that needs or warrants a higher limit than 80-90km/h? Get em to SIGNPOST IT, simple really.

The other states WILL sign up to this, VIC, QLD and NSW initially, we'll see. Probably by way of ARR change, or secondly, by a state "going it alone" IF "they" deem backlash.

Speed limits will never go up. Lets fight one battle at a time though. People have been coping with just adjusting their speed to suit the worse of the worst roads. Why inconveniene 200,000 for the 100 who cant think for themselves.
Long roads wont be signposted, theyll be set up with point to point speed cameras.

[The G6ET Spot]

If certain people think that any government will EVER increase freeway speeds then they are living on another planet.

IMO it will never happen.

By the way that the so called experts have stated, they are admitting the speed that is really the factor in the accidents but the condition of the roads. As if the roads were to a reasonable standard then the 100k speed limit wouldn't be a problem.

University of New South Wales Injury Risk Management Research Centre head of road safety Professor Raphael Grzebieta supported the proposal yesterday.

"If you don't have proper infrastructure, then you need to look at reducing the speed," he said.

Maybe this guy should get onto the governments and tell them that if they actually spent money on upgrading roads rather than wasting it then they would actually save more lives than they would lowering the speed limits on sub par roadways

But I guess that it is easier and cheaper to just lower the speed limit than fix the road so it is safe to travel on at the original speed.

[muckenoath]

managed to get a letter published in the local rag about this on monday urging people to act now ,not later.probably won,t do any good ,but worth a try.

[velocityXR6]

I vollie for a tassie firebrigade i must say the accidents i've attended 3 drink drives and 5 crappers that shouldn't have been on the roads in the first so to think that lowering the speed limit to 90 is utter rubbish i don't think that someone on drugs or booze will take any notice, he or she is still going to cause injury or in worst case kill. This new suggestion is only hurting the people how obey and drive to the conditions anyway. more focus should be employed on driver training and awareness well i've had my say anyway.....

[Charliewool]

Only got the end of it on the radio today, but pretty certain I heard this Tassie 90kph limit has been approved?

[FGII-XR6]

nice bit of thread mining there , you dug up a 2 year old gem