I absolutely disagree. We MUST all be under the same rules. That’s the purpose of speed limits. How on earth can you advocate exceeding the speed limit without doing away with the speed limit?? It sounds awfully like you have no respect for the law. While you may advocate driving as fast as one is comfortable with, you have got to be completely overstepping the mark in saying that drivers should be allowed to exceed the speed limit if they think it is safe to do so.

Again, after your comments on this, I ask, how can I not assume that you do in fact want to abolish speed limits?

You seem to be confusing two very different things – an opinion that speed limits are set too low a lot of the time, which may have some merit, and an opinion that we should be allowed to do whatever speed we feel comfortable with regardless of speed limits, which has absolutely no merit at all.

Please don’t accuse me of misrepresenting your comments. I am doing my best to interpret them at face value and address them accordingly.

Pericles makes a very good point. If everyone is driving at about the same speed, it is relatively safe, even if it is fast. But when you have vehicles travelling at all different speeds, you have a considerably increased risk. If you then increase the maximum allowable speed by a lot while not forcing the slower drivers to drive a lot faster, you have a dangerous situation.

Again, there is lot of merit in having all vehicles doing about the same speed, and I therefore strongly disagree with you M3RBMW regarding your desire for vehicles to be able to drive on the same roads at very different speeds.

If this is what you think I said, Ludwig, I'm losing my touch.

>>Pericles makes a very good point. If everyone is driving at about the same speed, it is relatively safe<<

On the Autobahn, there are usually three lanes travelling at vastly different speeds. Overtaking is accomplished only after a very careful evaluation of i) your own speed ii) the speed of the car you are overtaking and iii) the distance and speed of any traffic in the lane you will be using to overtake. When "everyone is driving at about the same speed" there are far fewer overtaking manoeuvres, and the disciplines involved get little exercise.

>>A speed of 140 –150kmh is ridiculous, even on the best roads. It is ridiculous because it would be too fast for many drivers who would not drive safely at such a speed, but would do it anyway if they could. 110 or perhaps 120 is as fast as we should be allowed to drive.<<

This is simply saying that we should legislate against the capable majority in order to protect the ineptitude of the few. People who cannot drive safely at 150kph are not obliged to do so simply because the sign says they can. On the Autobahn you do not see people driving as fast as their cars will go, simply because they are allowed to. Having been trusted with the choice of speed, rather than having a speed imposed upon them, they choose to drive within their capabilities.

I know we are heading closer to your world of "protect everyone from the possibility they may be stupid" every day, but just bear in mind what I said before about the logic of the speed limit.

"If there are fewer accidents at 50kph than 60, and fewer again at 40, and so on down to zero accidents at zero kph, then it can be argued that any speed limit over zero kph is recklessly endangering the population."

And where there is no logic, you will inevitably find that common sense disappears, leaving prejudice and vested interests to fight it out.

Well Pericles, you do surprise me.

Your message was crystal clear –

“The slow lane was normally for those people who pottered along at 100-120kph, of course, and to meet a coal-burning Trabi doing its best at 50kph was very disruptive.”

Vehicles doing very different speeds on the same road cause problems!

On the autobahn, “When ‘everyone is driving at about the same speed’ there are far fewer overtaking manoeuvres….”

Exactly. And that has got to be whole lot safer than a lot of overtaking manoeuvres, doesn’t it?

“Overtaking is accomplished only after a very careful evaluation of i) your own speed ii) the speed of the car you are overtaking and iii) the distance and speed of any traffic in the lane you will be using to overtake.”

Yes! And can you assert that every driver has got the skills to do all of those things all of the time in a safe manner? Of course not. The less overtaking manoeuvres the better. And the more constant the speed for all vehicles, the less the need for overtaking. A small portion of drivers only need to get it a little bit wrong a little bit of the time for there to be a very significant safety issue.

“On the Autobahn you do not see people driving as fast as their cars will go, simply because they are allowed to. Having been trusted with the choice of speed, rather than having a speed imposed upon them, they choose to drive within their capabilities.”

They choose to drive within what they feel are their capabilities. While they feel capable to drive at that speed, and probably are in ideal circumstances, how capable are they of handling hazardous situations?

The autobahn is very different to single-lane Australian highways.

Australian drivers are pathetically poorly trained or qualified to drive. How do you think they would stack up on our highways if we suddenly lifted the speed limit to 150?

Please spare us the silly stuff about zero kmh being the safest speed. Of course there is balance between an efficient speed and safety

OK I see your problem - you are assuming that I am in favour of increasing the speed limit on single-lane highways. Which I am not, I am only pointing out that speed, per se, has little relevance to road safety.

The quality of the road is a factor, which I did point out in an earlier post.

And I agree with you completely that the skill of the driver is all important. If all you do is potter along at 70, you will never be in a position to know how to control your car in an emergency. Apart from anything else, the last thing you expect at 70 is an emergency. Which is probably why so many people get wiped out through accidents that "aren't their fault" - they were complacently buzzing away, listening to a Whitney Houston track and chatting to the kids in the back.

But you will also have to admit the logic, if not the practicality, of the zero speed, zero accident argument. Because it is this argument that shows up the people who decide on the limit and the fines as being the hypocrites they are.

Ludwig,

I agree 100% with you on one point. Australian driver education is nothing short of pathetic.

This is precisely the reason I advocate the gradual increase in speed limits. What I did not add was that as well as increasing speed limits a whole raft of other issues should be addressed, including driver education.

I advocate a huge increase in the police presence on our roads with a strong emphasis on genuinely poor driving rather than exceeding an arbitrary speed limit.

You seem to think that differing speeds is dangerous and yet some of the safest roads (deaths per billion kilometres travelled) are the German Autobahns. The Northern Territory has an incredibly low road toll and yet the SINGLE lane road from central Australia to Darwin does not have a speed limit (from the border).

Why is it that on a road that in every respect is 100% identical, it suddenly becomes dangerous to exceed 100kph once you cross an invisible line? or suddenly becomes safe to drive in excess of 100kph?

Speed limits should be about setting an appropriate limit for average conditions and should be treated as such. When conditions are worse than average we are expected to slow down, but cannot be booked for staying at the limit, so why shouldn't we be able to go a little faster when conditions are better than average?

Simple answer really.... Revenue

Pericles, speed is a very significant factor in road safety, in combination with other things, most notably driver-skills.

There is a strong correlation between those who speed and those who don’t fully understand or appreciate the risks, as I have said. Those who do understand these things are far less inclined to put themselves under added risk in the first place. Hence, they are far less inclined to speed.

Those who are most inclined to speed are young males with next to no understanding of the risks.

Driver-skills, and a training regime to make sure they have those skills, comprise a huge part of the road-safety issue.

Yes the quality of the roads is a factor in determining speed limits, and accidents. But top-quality highways are prone to similar accident rates, compared to the number of vehicles, as many unsealed backroads. Again, driver-training and skills are all-important, in being able to judge the right sort of driving for the conditions. The conditions, eg road quality, are secondary.

“If all you do is potter along at 70, you will never be in a position to know how to control your car in an emergency. Apart from anything else, the last thing you expect at 70 is an emergency. Which is probably why so many people get wiped out through accidents that "aren't their fault" - they were complacently buzzing away, listening to a Whitney Houston track and chatting to the kids in the back.”

If you “potter” along at a sensible reserved speed, you have MUCH less chance of finding yourself in an emergency. Obviously, if you are out there driving close to your limit, in such a manner that you feel you need to be tuned right in to your driving, then you are likely to be putting yourself at a considerably increased risk. If you are going at a reserved speed and you do encounter an emergency situation, you have more time to react and more ability to avoid the crunch than if you are hooting along. This seems like really basic eminently sensible logic to me.