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.

[VIC] New speeds to come near burnley tunnel / west gate

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' started by pro-pilot, Jun 6, 2007.

  1. FFS!!! how does slowing the traffic down for 6.5 k before and (especialy) after improve safety inside the tunel?

    I understand how some slow zone before the entry helps, BUT THEY ALREADY HAVE THAT!!!
  2. Because the gumnuts are exactly that. Gumnuts.

    Listen, they have to do something. As Maude would say 'Think of the children'.

    The tragedy yesterday will result in all sorts of analysis of level crossings and trucks (and no doubt knee jerk reactions), just like the tunnel. And the saddest part is that the media, the traditional source of analysis and questioners of government meekly accept the pathetic excuses of this government and the state funded beauracracies that keep on coming up with these solutions (to problems that they generally created in the first place).
  3. The crazy part about all the traffic / speeding etc. debate is well over-hyped!
    In essesnce (having worked with some transport departments in the past). There are statistical models which determine how many people will be involved in accidents and fatalities each year, including one of large scale events.

    Everytime we get on the road we are taking a risk, and inevitable that risk turns into an incident.

    If the number of incidents / accidents stays within the tolerance margin, then no action is to be taken. Only if there is a consistantly higher than acceptable number, do you as a transport authority take measures to get this back under control.

    I would like to see the data for the burnely tunnel, and see if the government is justified in actually imposing changes that once again, have the effect of increasing driver anxiety and actually causing more problems than solving!

  4. That may be partially justified though - after all yesterday was the third incident involving a truck and a train at a level crossing in the last couple of years (at least the third one I know of). They only just recently charged the one responsible for the accident on the Ballarat-Ararat line and already virtually the same thing has happened again.
    Still the Government does seem to be missing the point though that the problem lies not with the roads, but with drivers using them. The new speed zone does give them a great new opportunity to cash in on the confusion with a few well-placed "safety" cameras though.
  5. It is absolutely crazy that any major road crosses any major train line. Especially one without barriers. But in this instance, it appears that a couple of pieces of wooden barrier would not have stopped a B-double from careering into the side of the train.

    The issue is that humans make mistakes, miss things or just plain stuff up. Luckily, we mostly don't end up killing anyone in the process. No amount of legislation and threats will stop humans from cocking up. All we can do is try to prevent the cock up from resulting in death. Just as barriers won't stop a 40+ tonne truck from crashing into a train, an 80kmh speed limit and 'safety' camera's won't stop someone from doing dumb things in the tunnel. But it will allow the government to deflect blame from itself and pass it back to the victims.

    Do you get the idea that I neither like or trust this government?
  6. Cejay your not implying that the opposition would be any better? Hopefully you just meant Government in general. :grin:
  7. Yeah but what are the alternatives? No way you could ever build overpasses on every rail crossing - not even on all of the major ones. And the crash near Ballarat occured on a seldom used backroad, which the truck wasn't legally allowed to use in the first place. In the case of trucks I don't think it's so much a result of them making simple mistakes that's the big problem - but of being forced to take risks and/or break laws to meet delivery schedules and/or make the most money possible.
  8. This is the problem. We assume that as a truck driver, he must have been doing something wrong. He might just have missed the sign. He might have had a distraction, had glare, whatever.

    As for the other accident in Ballarat, it makes my point perfectly. Humans make mistakes. Be it an error of judgement borne from the desire to make profit or incompetence, we (that's all of us) stuff up from time to time.

    Triway, I don't doubt that a liberal government would react any differently, but Stevie has been in power for 8yrs now. Therefore I refer to his government and not the previous.
  9. I have to disagree with you here cejay.

    What if a driver knows a train is coming and knows there is no boom gates and decides to beat the train to save having to stop at the crossing and miscalculates the speed & distance??

    OK, p1ssy boom gates wont stop 40+ tonnes of truck going through but the physical barrier a boom gate is would discourage people entering the crossing if a train is coming or risk vehicle damage from the boom (let alone being hit by a train).

    Back to the original topic, I actually agree that the speed limit should be 80 from the Bridge to the tunnel as the sheer number of vehicles going through there and the lane changes required to get on or off the Bolte Bridge or off at Montigue Street can be confusing and dangerous.

    I also reckon the Hume should be 80 at Kalkallo with the amount of traffic trying to enter, leave or cross the highway through there.

    (I must be getting old!!)
  10. Anyone who gambles on beating a train when the penalty is likely to be death is missing something upstairs.

    I haven't had the pleasure of the Burnley at peak hour, however the people who do tell me that getting to 80kmh is something they'd love to do.

    Regardless of the speed limit changes, this had nothing to do with the accident in the tunnel. Therefore, this can only be one of two things:

    The government react to popular talkback radio hosts and feel they must do 'something'


    They believed that there was a problem with traffic flow and safety and had this as an idea.

    If it's the former (and I worringly believe it to be the case) then we are governed by pathetic and incompetent career politicians incapable of original thought and who prefer to be led by media shock jocks who represent only those people not at work (generalisation here!) and not the vast majority of people.

    If it's the latter, it's a criminal oversight and incompetence to have delayed changes and then implement them only when there's a serious accident (and given that the response to the accident was within 5 days, I'd be surprised if this was something they just thought up on the fly).
  11. fcuken motherfcuker ****y mc. cocksucker.
  12. Indeed.

    Maybe lawmakers and roads authorities do, maybe they don't, but I'd like to think that some degree of Root Cause Analysis goes into these sorts of things.

    I'm sure they do.

    They must.

    It'd be stupid not to do root cause analysis and try to address the cause of the issue rather than trying to minimise damage from the symptoms, right?
  13. This is a rhetorical question right? Fixing the root cause of a problem costs money and often doesn't have an immediate effect - so there's the danger that if the Government loses an election the other party will be able to claim credit for their efforts. Knee-jerk reactions like lowering speed limits however make the average (ie stupid) voter feel all warm and fuzzy that their Government is doing something immediate to "help" them and so they're less likely to vote for someone else come election time.
  14. This new speed limit on the Westgate is a joke, but here in Vic we should be used to that. I don't see how it can be justified in any way and I'd love to read the analysis that says this lame measure will make the tunnel safer. It probably doesn't exist. More likely a treasury analysis that says making the freeway 80 kph will reap X million extra dollars in fines per year under the guise of 'safety'. The only real question is how long until the cameras are installed. I'll put my money on <3 months. @#$%& Bracks.
  15. I saw this on the way out of the tunnel on monday on the way to ballarat and almost had a truck up my ar5e because i wasnt sure wether to stay on 80 like in the tunnel or go up to 100 like i was able to do on friday before :shock:
  16. You're 100% correct, it wont change anything BUT it will hopefully make the Bolte Bridge junction a lot safe to negotiate in the future so loosing a minute of our life will be a pain each time we go through there but hopefully it will assist traffic flow at peak times.
  17. Maybe true, but this morning again the confusion reigns supreme! As I entered the freeway ramp off King St. There was a big ass LED board that said "Speed Limit 80KPH!", only after that a flashing second message said " from Monday 11 June". Very easy to miss.

    As I entered the freeway section, there was all sorts of dangerous sh*t going on, some doing 80, some 100. But the f***ing trucks were swinging in and out of lanes in frustration!! :shock:

    I am surprised that they have set this up this way! Not surprised if it causes another accident!!
  18. Yeah, inbound from the Westgate Bridge this morning was a bit confusing like that.

    SWEET JESUS 80 KILOMETRES PER HOUR SO YOU BETTER SLOW DOWN!! *flick* (when your calendar finally reaches 11 June in a week or so)

    Not that the eastbound-from-westgate traffic gets over 80kph between the bridge and Kingsway in the mornings, anyway.