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.

N/A | National No Speed Limit Day

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' at netrider.net.au started by MV, Jun 3, 2011.

  1. Sorry, it doesn't actually exist, this is a theoretical exercise ;)

    Say we abolished speed limits everywhere, for a whole day. Nice thought isn't it?

    What to you think would happen?

    Specifically, would the road toll be higher, lower, or the same for day?
    (I know one day is very limited in terms of statistical data, but go with me on this one)

    My theory:

    Nothing would change.

    85% of drivers would drive within their comfort zone, there would be a few "hoons" who would go out for top speed runs, a few people would stay indoors & blabber about the children, but net result?



    No change.

    Thoughts?
     
     Top
  2. Every day is "no speed limit" day.
     
     Top
  3. My mate actually had that idea. But it was to cull the poor drivers. Idiots would go out and kill themselves and inteligent people would stay at home and let it happen!
     
     Top
  4. He's forgetting about the 85th percentile rule.
     
     Top
  5. but the 25% would end up killin themselfs
     
     Top
  6. Oh dear - I think your mate was talking about you, Fa1c0n...
     
     Top
  7. For a day? Sure, likely higher accidents for that day.

    But if the limits were removed permanently or increased substantially (as has been done as experiments overseas) its been shown people don't change their habits, they tend to stick to what is comfortable to them (regardless of what the limit is).
     
     Top
  8. Maybe, maybe not.


    Exactly. One day is a statistical blip, so it's not exactly precise, but I suspect you're probably right.
     
     Top
  9. We've talked a lot about the situation in the US where a highway speed limit was found unconstitutional so it was open ended. Serious crashes and fatalities dropped... until the the legislators and dogooders fixed up the legislation reinstating the limit... guess what happened to the crash and fatality rate?

    Flux and I have linked to the web pages at various times on NR.
     
     Top
  10. I think your right. 85% would ride/driver within their comfort zone. Of the remaining 25% some would go and do some top speed runs (put's hand up in honesty), there would also be some who rode/drove well below the flow of traffic while thinking of the children and poor kittens that will no doubt be slaughtered.
     
     Top
  11. :? 100% - 85% = 15%
     
     Top
  12. Just thinking that... :)

    It would be a great exercise, but there is no way in hell it will ever happen.
     
     Top
  13. 110% is far better than 100%, 10% better in fact.

    I think it would be a terrible exercise, too many idiots would go awesome, lets drive well above our capabilities for the day, kill themselves and then every beige wearer would be able to say how awesome speed limits are because this is what happened on no speed limit day.
     
     Top
  14. There would be a spike in incidents. Very few people on our roads are used to driving/riding at high speeds (or with other road users doing so), and many would lack the roadcraft to deal with it.

    Safely going fast requires more than moving your wrist/foot, and those requirements extend beyond the individual. Conditions are important (poorly maintained gravel road in a hail storm at 200km/h, anyone? :p), and so are the capabilities of the people around you.
     
     Top
  15. While your argument is sound and based solely on peer reviewed studies, smileedude (love the name, by the way), judging by the amount of people appearing before the courts for high range speeding offences, the speed limit hardly serves as an impetus to that very group you imagine would use this theoretical day for their 'carnage'. It's function, in these circumstances, is as punishment moreso than deterrence.

    In other words, risk taking behaviour is barely affected by potential consequences, thus adding or removes rules pertaining to what is/is not considered safe conduct is unlikely to have any dramatic effect on the behaviour of the individuals you claim would be the first off the cliff if such a theoretical day were to occur.

    Cum hoc ergo propter hoc.
     
     Top
  16. You'd get a one day drop in fatalities/crashes as everyone displayed additional caution because they knew it was coming.

    Don't believe me? Check out what happened when Sweden changed to driving on the right.
     
     Top
  17. Good, you noticed my obvious mistake.

    I do that at work too, that way I know if people have read the report..

    Well, that's my excuse and I'm sticking to it.
     
     Top
  18. That made me lol. Excuse my ignorance.
     
     Top
  19. Convincing argument.
    But there could also be a secondary population of 'would=be' speedsters (not necessarily risk-seekers) who are currently only deterred by fear of prosecution. Lacking skill and seizing the limited opportunity to overstep their abilities.
    A better trial would need to be longer term and/or limited geographic range.

    You could possibly compare the crash rates of Isle of Man residents versus visitors to get some idea.
     
     Top
  20. I got back from europe a few weeks back - driving in germany on the autobahn got up to 200kph at one stretch. No one drove like an idiot over there, even though there we obvious differences in speed - some were comfortable at 120, others faster, but everyone shared the road nicely.

    Even the trucks - there are sign-posted areas where they are required to stay in the slower lane (right lane over there).
     
     Top