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.

GOR Speed Limit Reduction Reaps Benefits

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' started by mjt57, Jul 29, 2005.

  1. In today's Online Age.


    I'm wondering how accurate the figures are. For example, they cite a 2 month period. However, how many people have travelled on that road in the two corresponding periods?

    It's generally flawed to compare figures on a year by year basis like this. There are too many things that can skew them. Weather, economy, just plain bad luck, etc..

    Besides, how much of the road is it possible to do 100 km/h along it anyway? If it's only a small section or sections, then doesn't this sort of invalidate what they're saying?
  2. Lies, damn lies and statistics.
    Of course they are going to say that, that's the reason why they reduced the limit to 80 to start with. Think they're going to come out and say, "Sorry, peoples, we were wrong."?????
  3. Road works at GOR?
    Increased enforcement of the existing limits?

    I love how the government always assumes their policies have worked when the toll goes down - but when it rises, they stay very silent.
  4. and how come with more and more powerful cars on the road in the US now, there are fewer people killed per capita than there was with the infamous Double-Nickel (55 mph speed limit)???
    Blind freddy could give 20 answers to that question, but not one government bureaucrat!
  5. They wouldn't be trumpeting this "success" if they haven't got plans to extend the concept to yet more roads. Watch it spread like a plague.
  6. Using the same logic as the government, I am claiming that the collapse of one of the 'Twelve Apostles' has resulted in fewer deaths on the GOR.
  7. Same stats stuff was used to justify the "Safety Cameras" on the Western Ring Road.

    When they were forced to turn them off a fatal accident occured and instantly claims were made along the lines of "see, we turn off the cameras............."

    As a local who lives near and regularly drives on the WRR the reason it had such a high fatality rate early on was cars forcing trucks off the road and into the path of oncoming traffic (instant fatal accident).

    Conveniently they installed the cameras at the same time as they finished putting up the Wire Rope Barriers and ignoring the fact that regular users now braked at the camera locations and then sped back up to cruising speed they claimed the cameras had cut the accident toll, not the WRB's which now prevent traffic crossing the median.

    Before someone hijacks this thread into an anti WRB one, I would've rather seen a concrete wall installed but in most spots the WRB's are far enough away from the traffic lanes to hopefully not get hit by a sliding rider but in a couple of spots it's a little bit too close for comfort.

    The same can be said for the freeway to Geelong, the WRB's prevent vehicle head on's but people are still hitting fixed objects which cant be stopped without moving all the road side furniture (trees, signs, power poles) 100m away from the road side.
  8. It may have. I've been travelling the Princes Highway regularly to Doveton from out in Gippsland. Where there used to be 110 km/h limit near Drouin, it's been dropped back to 100 km/h. Around Pakenham where it used to be 100 km/h it's now 90 km/h, and 70 km/h near Officer where it was 90 km/h.

    My daughter works in Pakenham and commutes daily from Narre Warren Sth. She says that all this has done is to bunch the traffic up, people driving up each other's arses, rather than having the traffic flowing under faster limits.

    I have to wonder, though, the people that make these decisions, do they use the roads regularly? Certainly the politicians don't. Witness Bracks obscene waste of taxpayer funds when he had a function to attend in Geelong. He flew there and had his chauffer drive the limo down. Claims that he had a busy schedule, hence the use of the aircraft.

    If these people were forced to commute just like the rest of us in our crappy Commodores, Falcons and so on, and putting up with the endless roadworks, congest traffic, etc. perhaps then they'd appreciate why we ride, and the benefits of bikes (other than pushbikes) over cars and even public transport.
  9. Define "benefit"
    Who has benefitted?
    Why have they benefitted?
    Would the "benefit" have happened without the change in speed limits.
    My tip is the only ones who have benefitted have been the consultants who have been hired to do the study with the brief that they are to find that the reduction from 100 to 80 has been a benefit!

    As always, the devil is in the details.
  10. The only benefit is the extra revenue they will easily collect from speeding fines.

    I don't know how they can tell society that the speeds that have been doing for the last 20 years along that road are now 'retrospectively unsafe'. I honestly don't know how it could stand up in court - eg "your honor since 1984, 200* people have died on this road.. In the same period, 150 million* trips were made on the road at 110kmh without experiencing loss off life. Would the prosecution please demonstrate how the defendant travelling at this speed is now unacceptable"

  11. From where I live in "Snorbans" at morning peak it was easier to drive down Taylor's & Sinclairs Road (Ted's Cafe) if I was heading towards Ballarat.

    Was beautiful, occasionally rough, 100km/h gravel roads, until a passenger was killed in an unroadworthy 4x4 being driven way too fast. Limit dropped to 80km/h. Now both roads are sealed and still in the middle of nowhere and still have an 80km/h limit, why :-k

    Same with a lot of the roads between Werribee, Laverton, Deer Park & Melton.