Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

Are VicRoads incompetent, or do they just not give a shit about efficiency and traffic flow?

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' at netrider.net.au started by grue, Dec 9, 2010.

  1. Honestly, I swear it's almost like they intentionally use timed lights when they should be using sensors, and they let the trams go earlier than the cars even at intersections when there's no gain in doing so.

    If anyone from VicRoads is reading this: THere is no reason that a person on a major road such as St Kilda Road should ever ever ever leave one light when it turns green, and have the next one turn red before he gets there, unless that person is pushing his car.

    Furthermore, the new red arrow for right turn at St Kilda Junction going onto northbound SKR and Punt Rd is nice because people probably won't turn in front of trams… but why did you idiots not put in a green arrow to show that it's a sometimes-protected turn? If the opposite-direction traffic doesn't have a green light, we should have a green arrow to know it's safe to go. IDIOTS.
  2. In my job I deal with several government departments on a regular basis and Vic-Roads are easily the most annoying and least efficient of the several I deal with.

    On that basis I'm going with 'incompetent' :)
  3. I used to think it was incompetence but in many cases it's not, it's planned. Ex Vicroads CEO said so.

    Trams are given priority partly to make them quicker, but also partly to disadvantage cars as much as possible (and make the trams more attractive to use). This is on record.

    Creating congestion will reduce climate change, didn't you know?
  4. That 3 second head start means nothing. I could out-accelerate those godforsaken peasant carts on a skateboard with both legs in a cast. Plus they put all the stops too close together, which makes 'em even LESS attractive because you spend more time stopped than moving. Protip: You don't need a stop every block.
  5. You think you're shitty now Grue, just wait till they introduce a congestion tax ;)
  6. Hope they enjoy losing a taxpayer.
  7. You do realise that the two options you give aren't mutually exclusive, don't you?:wink:

  8. I think there is argument for a third option, and that they are deliberately creating traffic snarls to slow down traffic.

    If speed kills, then you can't kill anything if you're not moving.

    i think that's the real reason we get booked for filtering, just because we're moving. They don't like that, there's just no fine for it yet.
  9. Touché.
  10. When I develop the power to kill with my mind, (à la Scanners), I'm gonna put that notion right into the grave.
  11. The results of Grue doing what he does best...


    We have the same sort of mentatily here in NSW (minus the trams and the hook-turns). I swear that traffic lights are used as a deterrent to use the road. Mind you the mindless idiots who do use the road anyway are actually a more effective deterrent. ;)

    Fun Ha!
  12. Bwahahahaha.....
  13. It's getting tho the point where we have no choice but to push hard for formal legalisation of filtering.
    For decades the plod have been mostly willing to approach it on a discretion level, but the the top brass are increasingly taking that option away.
    If ever there was a time to get it changed, it's now. Working cops won't have to waste time of meaningless rubbish, the government can win a few friends without looking like fools.
    The legislation is already partly in place, just needs a few tweaks.
  14. at least you HAVE traffic flow in Victoria; in Sydney it took less time to cross the city in a horse and buggy than it does now.....

    but I thionk the same mentailty applies; near where I live there is a part of the Princes Highway, which, when I moved down here 10 years ago, had one major round-about and one set of lights.

    It now has three sets of lights, one in place because a drunken git on his way home from the pub lay down on the road for a kip and got killed. Obviously that sort of incident DEMANDS a set of traffic lights to protect pedestrians......
  15. You're not far off the mark.

    I recently learned one of my very good friends is a Transport Engineer for a local Melbourne council & we have been having some very lengthy & often heated discussions, mainly about Vision Zero (or Arrive Alive as Vicroads call it) & splitting.

    A lot of roads are at capacity at various times during the day: This is not a bad thing from their point of view, it is in fact good, as the average speed drops, & people are less likely to die.

    This is also the reason we will have a hard time getting splitting legalised.

    Yes, it frees up traffic flow, yes, it more efficient, yes it is safer for us, no, they don't like it.

    (We should still push for it, don't get me wrong!)

  16. So since he's a good friend of yours, it would be uncouth of me to wish for bad things upon him, right? :-s
  17. All we need is a model that the majority of riders can get behind and support and we'll push for it. And if we carry the votes we'll push hard.

    Give me a vote winner and i'll give you legislation.

    Mate thanks for that. My post was purposefully done in a tongue in cheek kind of way, because if i had of posted it as serious business i would of gotten shouted down for not providing evidence.

    You sir get play of the day =D>

  18. Yes Grue, very uncouth. Don't hate the player bro....

    (you and I should catch up and have a chat mate)
  19. :angel:

    I'll wish ill upon the employer, then :angel:
  20. =D>