Well done, you got into government becuase people in NSW can't even fill out a ballot paper correctly, and you think they should be able to judge a safe speed at which to drive at.

David, this 85th percentile is fine in theory but of course is critical flawed in reality.

It would mean having no speed limit on many thousands of sections of road all around the country for a period of time sufficient to get a sample size of drivers from which the 85% can be determined.

This would make these stretches damn dangerous. Those who want to travel at great speed generally don’t have much tolerance for slower drivers, don’t have much concern about safety or courtesy, will tailgate like crazy and overtake dangerously, and generally make the roads a nightmare for those who put safety first.

It would also give a contorted impression of the 85th percentile, as everyone would know exactly why certain stretches or road suddenly have no speed limit. Many drivers would drive faster than they know they should be, just to do their little bit to bump up the 85th percentile.

What we need is for the authorities to encourage people to report what they think are inappropriate speed limits, so that at least the ones which bother people the most can be critically reassessed.

At present, the public is disempowered. I mean, who thinks that there would be any point in making a complaint, or airing one’s views about speed limit signs, to the police, Main Roads, local councils or state or federal govt reps?

continued

The answer to all of this is to empower the public. There are plenty of people out there who would be only too willing to do their bit. It would only take a tiny percentage of the whole populace to do this to make an enormous difference.

If the authorities are willing to listen to ordinary road-users and to reassess speed limits far and wide as a result of expressed concerns, then Bob’s your uncle, the speed limit problem will be solved!

I did this once a few years ago. I accrued a list of what I thought were inappropriate speed limit signs around Townsville, with photos, and took them to the Dept of Main Roads and the local council. They were both reluctantly receptive, but we did eventually organise a joint meeting and they looked at each of my examples. They even agreed that quite few of them needed to be changed. Well, some of them were so ridiculous that they couldn’t have failed to agree. But….. more than five years later, not a single one of them has changed!

Needless to say; I hold those people in very low regard.

There is a monthly email which the NSW traffic authority publishes to advise of the geographic locations of speed limit changes. Interesting that around 90% of these changes are reductions in speed limits, so it's pretty easy to see where we are heading. Of course many roads have artificially low limits, like the dual lane Hume Highway Sydney to Melbourne which is 110kph. After an hour one feels like getting out and walking beside the car. On the other hand, 90 and 100 speed limits on single lane country roads, with substantial traffic coming in the opposite direction, can and often are, occupied by drivers sitting on 80 - 90. It all comes down to how many lanes are available. A prime example of illegal speeding is on the upward 5km of the three-lane stretch of Mt Ousley Road in the Wollongong area. It is posted at 80, but the vast majority drive at around 100, simply because that feels like the appropriate speed. The Highway Patrol are often active in this stretch, and it would seem to me they can stop and book people at will. The outfits which decide speed limits are probably out of touch with reality.
Cherokee

Or, we could simply bring car manufacturers into line with speed laws.
Why is it legal to sell cars capable of 2 or even 3 times the maximum legal limit?
Car manufacturers demonstrate the same moral rectitude as tobacco companies or indeed drug pushers.
"We don't force anyone to use/abuse our products..."

The existing speed limit are designed for the worst scenario, involving young/inexperienced drivers, but are often unreasonable to others.

Another issue is that speed limits are an important source of funds that are needed to build and repair roads.

The solution is allow mature and experienced drivers to purchase more Kms/h in advance rather than after the fact.

Mature-aged people with significant no-accident history should be able to register for 'E'-plates ('E' for "Expert"), that allows them to drive 20-30 km/h above the speed limit when safe. Passing an advanced driving-course may also be required.

'E'-plates should not apply to heavy vehicles.

The rights of slow drivers must not be compromised and anyone caught tailgating or otherwise pressuring other drivers to go faster, should lose their 'E' license immediately.

What is the reasoning behind reasonable speed limits.
Speed is a gigantic factor of road deaths, which cost billions / year.
On our roads we have unlicenced drivers, drugged drivers drunk drivers, and drivers from 16 to 96 years of age. Your suggestions will go nowhere
it would be looked at as a cult with no respect for the law.

Why can't we have an honest discussion about this subject?

One of the major reasons we need speed limits is so that people can be fined for exceeding them. This creates a significant income stream for the State Government.

No-one wants to pay taxes. No-one wants existing taxes raised, but everyone is always coming up with new things the government should spend money on.

Therefore a significant proportion of state taxes are sin taxes, on speeding, driving whilst intoxicated, gambling etc. Many of these taxes have advocates pushing for abolition of the tax (i.e. speeding), or abolition of the activity (i.e. gambling).

What disappoints me is that none of these advocates ever suggest how the loss in revenue should be made up. I believe that the reason for this is that many advocates make a very pleasant living advocating things that have very little likelihood of happening. They don't want the things to happen, as this would destroy their reason for existence. As a famous European politician said: "We must make demands that cannot be satisfied".

What we really need are more forms of voluntary taxation. Gambling taxes are one form, but we need many more.

I think we can all agree that what we want are heavy taxes that we personally don't have to pay.

I'll go with your voluntary taxation plerdsus. I'll happily pay triple the licensing & registration fees, If I'm allowed to triple the speed limits.

Actually I have never done 300Km/H on land. The number of times when I exceeded 280 Km/H felt quite hairy, particularly when overtaking things trundling along at not much over 150 Km/H.

So I'll settle for a mere doubling of the speed limits for triple fees. Surely that should interest out state treasurers. With such sensible limits, I could return to averaging 75 MPH, [120 Km/H] on my Sydney Brisbane/Melbourne trips, as I did quite legally back in the 60s.

These average speeds were quite normal, in 50s & 60s cars, on 1960s roads, in the days when there were no professional driving instructors. I wonder why the drivers of today are so much less capable than those of the 60s?

The author's blanket statement "The public thinks otherwise." is based on his bald interpretation some unreferenced survey 5 years ago.

Looks like the author's party, the Liberal-Democrats is about as close to the libertarian US Tea Party, a tiny minority of Australians finds acceptable.

See the author's Party website http://www.ldp.org.au/index.php/policies indicating the authors party supports the following Policies:

- "assisted suicide" Is that where the theme of this article - the right to drive at higher speeds - comes from?

- legalised "Cannibis"

- many more Policies

See his Party's http://www.ldp.org.au/index.php/philosophy "Libertarianism" can mean anything a Party claims but is increasingly associated in the US with the Tea Party's Bugger you I'm OK.

and the Tea Party's - lets close down the Government when it spends more than we think, - with small government, lower taxes for the rich, fewer social services for the poor.

Considering the favourable reception for my proposal for voluntary taxation, I thought I would submit for comment a voluntary taxation proposal that could raise $8 billion a year for the NSW government.

The proposal is that the government would offer for sale sex licences, which could be purchased by people aged between 18 and 60 for $2,000 per year.

They would also offer virgin permits to the same group at the same price.

Holders of either could convert to the other instantaneously any number of times.

Holders would decide whether or not they were going to have sex in the year and hold a sex licence or virgins permit as appropriate.

There would be no compulsion at all to purchase either licence.

However, a woman who did not hold a virgins permit could not prosecute a charge of rape, and any man without a sex licence who approaches within 100 metres of any woman would be liable to imprisonment for six months.

@ plantagenet
indicating the authors party supports the following Policies:

- "assisted suicide" Is that where the theme of this article - the right to drive at higher speeds - comes from?

- legalised "Cannibis"

- many more Policies"
- - - -

The above are some of the reason I VOTED for the LDP in NSW.

Current Drug policy in Australia is repugnant.
Assisted Suicide is supported by some 80% of Australians from everything I read It's definitely something I support after seeing my father dribbling from both ends wasted out of his brain pleading to die from an aggressive cancer, while douche bags like you want to see him tortured presumably ?

As to the OP itself, I completely support it. There was Danish study I remember reading where they removed all speed signs and many other "distracting" road signs in urban areas and people slowed down, they drive to the conditions.

As to the taxes post, not all of us want more service for less tax, some of us understand they when we want less tax we also want less service. I support lower taxation BUT I support lower Government spending as well. Perhaps not so many cops enforcing speed limits ? remove 3/4 of them, there's a saving :) Ditch 50% of the military budget, there's a saving. Remove the Upper house from all States (not just QLD), there's a saving... I could go on.

Hi Valley Guy

I respect you picking the LDP - proving at least one person voted for it on purpose.

I came perilously close to losing my licence a few years ago - getting to within one point of the maximum. Yet, on each of the speeding tickets I had received, I was never driving over 50kph. (What a loser!)

Two of the tickets happened within 2 weeks of the introduction of the 40k daily periodic limit in front of schools, when hundreds of police lurked in school environs to trap drivers whose reflexes had not yet adjusted to the change. And, BTW, there was not a single child to be seen on either occasion.

The other two tickets happened on holiday at Byron Bay, where the temporary 30k limit signs at the roundabout roadworks were either stuck behind a row of bulldozers or had fallen over. Unluckily for me, it was a double-demerit Easter weekend.

However, the RTA came within one point of getting another dangerous driver off the road, even if she never drove over 50k!

The ask.com wiki on speed limits is an interesting read.

http://www.ask.com/wiki/Speed_limit?o=2802&qsrc=999&ad=doubleDown&an=apn&ap=ask.com

I have my suspicions that a significant portion of the "Every K over" policing has more to do with revenue raising than road safety but from what I've seen few roads, cars or drivers are built to deal with the speeds a fair number of people would like to drive at.

I also suspect that speed differential would make matters far worse, some doing 100km/h on a road with few lanes while others attempt to do 160km/h creates a significant hazard in itself.

I suspect that the perceived link between assorted fines and government revenue damages many peoples trust in the police and governments impartiality when it comes to setting and policing road rules. Killarney's examples being examples of the sort of nonsense policing that brings the police into disrepute.

R0bert

There is another use of the word 'speed': it is a street name for methamphetamine, a stimulant class drug.

There is a link between speed and the risk of accidents and injuries. The degree of correlation is disputed and there is some evidence that modestly higher speed enforcement would reduce the harm rate, but higher speed use certainly leads to more serious accidents and ultimately more of them.

And yet people still take speed. That raises an interesting question. When the law says one thing and most people have a different view, which should prevail? And perhaps more to the point, who should set the speed limits?

The people who currently set them are anonymous, unaccountable bureaucrats. Perhaps the most powerful people in Australia, they essentially decide how many people should die of drug use. Governments and ministers come and go, but they and their speed limits are always there.

This is massive bureaucratic overreach. It is the public, not bureaucrats, who ought to determine the trade-off between pleasure convenience and drug toll. There is even an internationally recognised method of achieving this, known as the 85th percentile formula. Briefly, it involves the temporary legalisation of speed while usage levels are monitored. At the conclusion of the period a limit is reimposed at or slightly above the level at which 85% of people take speed.

The method is based on the assumption that the large majority of drug users are reasonable and prudent, do not want to overdose, and wish to gain as much pleasure in the shortest possible time.

Evidence shows that those who use speed above limits based on the 85th percentile are far more likely to cause accidents. Enforcement directed at those users thus has a positive impact on public health while enjoying a high level of public support.

If the public becomes concerned about any increase in speed-related deaths or injuries, this can be expressed through periodic retesting of the 85th percentile.

Cheers,

Tony

I wonder why it is illegal to do 110 on a two lane highway where there is no other traffic but it is legal to do 100 on a single lane dirt road that has virtually no signposting?

There is always a risk assessment. That is what is the safest speed that can be legalised without impacting on convenience. So the question is should individuals make that call or governments?

I am having visions of a hoon with a hotted up car making a decision on how safe it might be for anyone travelling by road. While one might argue that such a person would drive unsafely and risk lives despite the speed limit, making the legal limit superfluous, I think that is too simplistic.

Even if this fictional hoon were to drive unsafely 50% of the time but slowing down in built up areas or where there are cameras, due to the risk of being caught his/her potential impact is already reduced.

I don't like speed limits and measures to be used as revenue raisers which is a different issue. No matter the measures applied eg.cameras, radars, all should all have safety at their core.

The system is by no means perfect. Although I admit a small attraction to the idea only because I wonder in an experiment whether the road toll would be different or even reduced. Maybe human beings choose to do the right thing most of the time without the need for governments. In this scenario I must say I am not sure the answer.

Here we have the Liberal Democrats, Australia's Tea Party, supporting public votes on safety laws to avoid speeding fines.

The roads are a shared resource not a private road for "libertarians".

The Greens have similar "win-win" aspirational policies that are unworkable and will never happen.

Do the Liberal Democrats also back the NRMAs long spruiked policy of a public inquiry over high petrol prices?