Northern Territory, 1 January 2007, No more (//)

[Full Noise]

Originally Posted by TE50 027

I lived in the NT for a few years and regularly made the Darwin-Adelaide run. To overtake roadtrains (which have 4 trailers and are up to 60m long)

Four trailers? Unless the vehicle was an A - B triple configuration. Generally they use three trailer combinations. 60 metres would be pushing the friendship. The maximum allowable is 53.5. It’s all in this document.

http://www.ipe.nt.gov.au/whatwedo/mv...elines-oov.pdf

Originally Posted by TE50 027

I Once saw a Barina overtake one of them. She was doing about 125-130kmh, truck about 100kmh. I decided to hang back once I saw how much the last trailer was starting to sway over the road due to the Barina upsetting airflow down the side of the truck. All up took her almost 15 seconds to overtake. IMO, it's a damn sight safer getting past the trucks quicker.

I don’t think that the Barina could take any credit for upsetting the airflow of a 115 tonne road train. This would be like a passenger upsetting the downward force of a 747 by passing wind. I dare say that this was caused by the driver trying to give the Barina a little more room and having to deal with the whip effect caused by a sudden movement of the steering wheel.

[weenie]

Taipan, what diff ratio are you running to clock the speedo under 4000rpm???? i know my xd would run to around 190 in second at 6000rpm & 200 at around 4500rpm with the 277.1 diff. fmx auto

[MO]

Originally Posted by Full Noise

Four trailers? Unless the vehicle was an A - B triple configuration. Generally they use three trailer combinations. 60 metres would be pushing the friendship. The maximum allowable is 53.5. It’s all in this document.

http://www.ipe.nt.gov.au/whatwedo/mv...elines-oov.pdf


I don’t think that the Barina could take any credit for upsetting the airflow of a 115 tonne road train. This would be like a passenger upsetting the downward force of a 747 by passing wind. I dare say that this was caused by the driver trying to give the Barina a little more room and having to deal with the whip effect caused by a sudden movement of the steering wheel.

You beat me..the only place I have seen more than 3 trailers is around Cloncurry and they are mine trucks with five or six trailers..which would be just over the triple length.

As for the barina...hahahaha..one must always be aware of the snake..it only takes a minor deviance of road or driver to get the snake.

[TE50 027]

Originally Posted by Full Noise

Four trailers? Unless the vehicle was an A - B triple configuration. Generally they use three trailer combinations. 60 metres would be pushing the friendship. The maximum allowable is 53.5. It’s all in this document.

Not trying to start an argument, but this was going back a few years. Got a photo somewhere of the back of one we saw at Three Ways. Had 'Long Vehicle - Up to 57m' sign on the back. Looked great next to our truck with my Leopard Tank on the back.

[MO]

Originally Posted by TE50 027

Not trying to start an argument, but this was going back a few years. Got a photo somewhere of the back of one we saw at Three Ways. Had 'Long Vehicle - Up to 57m' sign on the back. Looked great next to our truck with my Leopard Tank on the back.

Hate to burst your bubble but unless it was a special haul..it did'nt happen..lived in the Territory for sixteen years.

[TE50 027]

Originally Posted by MO

Hate to burst your bubble but unless it was a special haul..it did'nt happen..lived in the Territory for sixteen years.

No idea as to the reason for it, just took the photo coz it looked impressive. Will try and hunt it down now and scan it.

[TwistedEL]

I have certainly seen quads on WA roads, however you normally see doubles or triples.

[cheap]

We drove from Darwin to Brisbane (and back) in 2003. We were not interested in sight-seeing and just needed to get to Brisbane in a reasonable time. All the locals said I needed to get to Mt Isa on the first day. Darwin to Camooweal (just on the Queensland border) is about 1600 km's. The plan was to try and maintain a 130km/h average speed, I also included rests, driver swaps and fuels stops. Bottom line we fell behind schedule and inorder to make it to Mt Isa (and our hotel reservation) we had to increased our speed to +160km/h.

Anyone who has driven in the NT know's how BIG the place is, knows how LITTLE traffic there is, knows how GOOD the Stuart highway is.

With the 130km limit, it is now impossible or illegal to drie from Darwin to Mt Isa in a reasonable timeframe, the risks to driver fatigue have increased significantly and there will be more accidents. A bad move.

[Keepleft]

Originally Posted by cheap

With the 130km limit, it is now impossible or illegal to drie from Darwin to Mt Isa in a reasonable timeframe, the risks to driver fatigue have increased significantly and there will be more accidents. A bad move.

I had predicted a fall in the total number of NT killed year 2007 and 2008 (leading to the next NT election, BECAUSE of the new measures targetted at drink driving, red light runners etc, NOT because of the (//) removal.

But - that such a reduction would have been put down by NT GovCo to the 'new speed-limit'.

However, at this point 4 more have died this year than for the same period last.

The 130km/h zones should be removed and replaced with (//). Speed limits on good rural highways and intercity freeways often result in bunching-up and tailgating, even if they are set relatively high, such as the NT 130km/h, but here, the 'problem' is more pronounced.

On such road networks - a speed limit for passenger cars is stupid, dangerous and just plain dumb. We must target THE INDIVIDUAL for driving like a fool, REGARDLESS of the speed she or he drives - at point of operation.

It is 'not that bright' to raise a limit and in doing so encourage already "speed limit conditioned" drivers to sit at the new higher limit, effectively without much behavioural adjustment as this changes with experience and exposure 'to it'.

Under (//) - 130km/h can be RECOMMENDED, that would be safer, smarter.

You derestrict a GOOD "length of road", leaving side roads and tracks subject to the rural default.

IN TURN, a 110km/h rural default or one of 100km/h is still too high having regard for the road quality that it serves.

Honestly, 80km/h would be far better. REMEMBER, we then post higher speed limits within these defaults - IF the length of road is safe enough in audit terms.

This is HOW IT SHOULD BE DONE, a blanket - one speed limit fits all is simply NOT good speed management, and does stuff all for national productivity or quality of life.

If anyone is booked for exceeding the DEFAULT RURAL speed limit in NT when they have passed a dererstriction sign, I'd like to here from them.

To date, NT advise they have removed all of them from key routes???

Under International law and Australian Standard 1742.4 of 1999 the derestriction sign IS NOT to be used to signal a speed limit.

[new2ford]

Originally Posted by Keepleft

We must target THE INDIVIDUAL for driving like a fool, REGARDLESS of the speed she or he drives - at point of operation.

The heart of the road safety issue. Do we have to wait until cows fly for this to happen?

Or will it not earn enough revenue for state coffers or enable pollies to get on soapboxes at election time?

[Outbackjack]

As of today, eight deaths on NT roads compared to one for the same period last year. And guess what? None on the open highways. Just thought that I would put this out again. These stats go a long way to prove that it is not speed that is the big bogey man when it comes to road trauma.

[Keepleft]

Originally Posted by Outbackjack

As of today, eight deaths on NT roads compared to one for the same period last year. And guess what? None on the open highways. Just thought that I would put this out again. These stats go a long way to prove that it is not speed that is the big bogey man when it comes to road trauma.

RIGHT, now 'some people' will claim therefore that (//) has had NO effect on that increase, but in reality it does impact.

How so?? By the dumbing-down of responsibility in on-road behaviour that you now see reflected in all speed and geographical zones owing the removal of (//) which instills in ALL road users much greater personal responsibility. People will feel they don't need to give a stuff anymore, and with the low expectations ofd standard that a speed limit instills, such attitude will play into end-toll statistics in all zones. Even allowing for an the aboration of statistics, it is not a good result for NT and I am to date, quite ashamed of NT GovCo.

I'd admit though, that even I'd have expected, hoped, for a reduction in built-up areas to a small degree, owing the championed actions against drunk drivers and red lights. Next year's toll per kilometre will be interesting.

Its dumb, its stupid and should not have happened.

Remember too, a single event crash in NT involving a larger portion of persons and death can skew a result easily. That doesn't mean the highways are any less safe than years past.

[new2ford]

After determining that speed is not a major issue in cause of highway accidents the Czech Republic is moving to increase its motorway speed limit to 160 kph. And that is a small densely populated country.

[MO]

Originally Posted by Outbackjack

As of today, eight deaths on NT roads compared to one for the same period last year. And guess what? None on the open highways. Just thought that I would put this out again. These stats go a long way to prove that it is not speed that is the big bogey man when it comes to road trauma.

Gee.I did'nt see that coming.....much..bring on the change!

[Keepleft]

Originally Posted by new2ford

After determining that speed is not a major issue in cause of highway accidents the Czech Republic is moving to increase its motorway speed limit to 160 kph. And that is a small densely populated country.

Funny that, you can add Hungary at 150km/h. China is 120km/h. UAE at 160km/h etc and so on.

Those countries do have the vehicle standards designed as a 'whole of approach' to high speed allowances. We do have some way to go here.

I note ADR52 recently tightened up, now leaning to a more mandatory nature than previous optional. The smaller numerical crash-causes are being targetted for preventative measures.

This for us will improve with time,a nd that will mean greater driver responsibility and onus, patience.

[Outbackjack]

It would seem that pressure is starting to make the NT ALP sweat and make some "exceptions" to the 130l limit.

http://keepntlimitfree.org/Portals/k...%20Testing.jpg

[GasoLane]

Originally Posted by Outbackjack

It would seem that pressure is starting to make the NT ALP sweat and make some "exceptions" to the 130l limit.

http://keepntlimitfree.org/Portals/k...%20Testing.jpg

Sounds a bit Suss.

I remember reading a car magazine, before the NT speed limits came in, where a Motor magazine journo went out there with Ford and was amazed that Workcover prohibited Ford's testers from driving over 130kmh.

I would have thought that car manufacturers wouldn't let their test babies out to contractors.

Could it be a media beat up? ASIC doesn't list a company called "Test track"

[Resurrection]

The government responsible for this idiotic decision are about to be voted out of power. Will the new government revert to the (//) policy?

[Outbackjack]

Originally Posted by Resurrection

The government responsible for this idiotic decision are about to be voted out of power. Will the new government revert to the (//) policy?

That has been the policy of the new Government (as of tonight) since 2007. Lets just hope that they are good to their word.

[Kryton]

................