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] Speed limits to be reduced to 90 and 50 ???

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' at netrider.net.au started by Dougz, Jun 30, 2009.

  1. I am THIS frikking close to leaving Victoria. Seriously.

    All this anti-speed bullshit has to stop! Check out these comments and typical hysteria from this article in today's AGE

    Enough is enough. This madness has to stop sometime surely? At this rate we may as well walk everywhere and just ban motor vehicles altogether.

    I know that these are just suggestions, but it wouldn't surprise me if this isn't already in the pipeline to happen in the near future. The other problem is that the beige brainwashed community will jump on this bandwagon too. If they do reduce the suburban limit to 50 , are they going to start shortening traffic light times also? fcuk me if it won't take 3 x days to get from one side of the city to another :roll:

    God help us :(

  2. Man that sucks.
    Speed limits them selves are an issue, you get in to your head that you have to be dead on this speed so you continually check your speedo.

    10 kmh isn't going to do anything, if people are speeding they already don't care about the actually posted limit and will continue to speed.

    I remember stories from my father about when he started driving how the speed limits were more of a recommendation and if you were seen to be driving safely at that speed then the cops didn't bother you.

    I think it's more driver attitude and more importantly lack of skill that is the issue.

    Personally I think they should enforce a rule like you have to do a advanced / defensive driving course before you can get your open licence, and instead of just punishing bad drivers why not give incentives for good ones.
    No fine / at fault crash in a year and you $20 off the cost of your rego.
  3. But imagine how much kesh they'll make!
  4. those kents.
  5. And when it's at 90 and 50, what next? 80 and 40? Geez, if people are still crashing at 80, perhaps it should be 70?
  6. They have obviously beaten the larger populance into submission with regards the current speed limits, so in order to increase or maintain the same level of revenue, they have to lower the limit.

    I don't mean to high jack, but we have been experiencing similar in Auckland. Everytime I go out for a spin, it seems more roads have been limited to 80km/h from a previous 100km/h.

    It plain and utter bullshit! As you have said, why don't we just park our bikes and cars and buy a frikkn horse, that way we will satisfy the eviron-mentalists and the control-freaks.

    How did we ever manage te get were we are today as the West? Would NZ and Oz even exist as it does now, if the early settlers were cut of the same cloth as the current PC types? I suspect they wouldn't made it off the pier due to H&S concerns and limitations.
  7. Dougz, what's it like in Toronto? When I was in Vancouver a while back, I noticed, in relation to Auckland, hardly any patrol cars on the motorway. I asked my friend about this and he replied that the cops where more concerned about crime, as opposed to speeding, etc. - imagine that!
  8. The more Brumby cracks down on Victorian motorists the more he seems to get cheered on for doing so. :( I've heard rumours the Victorian government wants to build a specialist court just to hear traffic cases and specific jails just to house Victorian motorists. Will this be our future in a few years time? I can’t see any party or organisation campaigning against it. The main motoring body that has some political influence is the RACV and they approval of all this.
  9. Because it's run by geriatrics for geriatrics.
  10. The the Animal Rights activists will start to pipe up :LOL:
  11. And the environmentalists. All that methane will surely increase global temperatures.
  12. Actually, there was an 'expert' on radio last week calling for limits of 60 (open road) and 30 (urban)! Seriously.
  13. It truly is scary that we live in a society where ALL risk is to be removed. Just getting out of bed in the morning carries risk. The trick is convincing people that this is an essential part of living.

    What we should be doing is trying to eliminate risk generated by people being careless or negligent. I for one don't want to be killed by a someone changing a CD or using their phone. I also don't want to be taken out by someone doing 180 in a 80 zone, but that's a lot different to legislating down to the lowest common denominator.

    I used to work with a guy who was a (personal) risk taker. He was one of the first people to hang glide and did crazy other risky stuff. At the time I thought he was nuts, but the older I get and the more risk averse that society becomes, the more I really feel he had a point.
  14. Interestingly enough we are fighting a few things in this instance (well, most in reality) and they are:
    - Statistics
    - Boys Club (sorry girls, no offence)
    - Education

    Here is why.

    The Government is driven by statistics and probability. Stats show the result of an "action" taken and these results are written as factual without analysis of any mitigating circumstances

    Boys Club
    Government is just that - mates with power. Consider parliment like an angry mob. it takes just one person to arc up about something and receive a little backing and what we then have is a snow-ball effect. Experts (supposed experts) come from out of the woodwork and want to have their say hoping to have their name in lights - human nature really

    Unfortunately, we live in a society controlled by Stats and Who you know rather than the actuality of what we know. The professor for instance, what do we know about this person - http://www.monash.edu.au/muarc/about/staff/cameron.html - Well guess what Max Cameron is a specialist in - Statistics...... Funnily enough, I never knew that when I started writing this thread......... :)

    So, what am I getting at..... Simple, remove the stats, the boys club and educate the decision makers through experience. If remove all these factors (as does the government and research experts remove mitigating circumstances) we will be able to truly determine what the greatest need of this control is........ And, what do people think the governments greatest desire is..... Here it comes..... its not our safety, it is revenue...... Plain and simple..........

    This is my opinion.
  15. And then the injury rate will go up even more...

    Horseriding has a risk of injury higher than motorcycle riding
    Motorcycle serious incident rate 1 per 7000 hours
    Horse riding 1 per 350 hr
    Firth et al, Risk of Sports Injury, 1985

    (US figures - Australian figures are much better for both)

    If you don't like this idea - write to the Age and say what you think.


    But get it right it's one person's opinion - it's not a government proposal

    Interesting piece on speeding in Victoria Here - especially the rebuttal - most especially the comments about MUARC!
  16. If they are talking about reducing the speed limits again then I'd say that the majority of people are finally travelling at (or very close to) the current limits and the speed camera revenue is at risk...

    Lower the limits and people will take a few years to get used to the lower limits and tend to 'speed' bumping the camera revenue.

    With budget problems I wouldn't be surprised if it's mostly from that angle...
  17. No matter what we call them "beige brainwashed community", "Idiots" or whatever, it looks that they're the majority of people out there. If it wasn't that most people believe in "Speed Kill Campaign", we wouldn't be in this situation.
    The fact is, we as riders have a greater tendency to accept the risk in our life and I personally enjoy it but it sounds to me that we're just a small minority in our society and the majority are just trying to eliminate the whole risky things (read all the fun) out there.

  18. This must be the same sort of "expert" who was telling me the signage in my traffic control plans was not up to standard (when it was) and that his opinion (his opinion now, not as prescribed in standards/regulations) was... (some shite that was geometrically impossible to implement).

    Seriously, the roads are made for speeds higher than 100 and 60 and unless there's a real reason why they should be reduced then the opinions of the beige brigade should be dismissed.

    As for 60 on open roads, that would result in people falling asleep. 30 on suburban roads would cause a lot more pollution than at the current speed limit. These idiots want people to walk everywhere. If they truly believe in the rubbish they say then they should lead by example. I bet the don't/won't.

  19. The problem is that a lot of people believe so-called "experts" and these "experts" sometimes start sprouting rubbish because they know there's enough people out there who won't question it. I've seen self-appointed experts shown up as being all talk before. Unless there's a lot of common sense that goes into making a decision/change then I won't be one who blindly accepts it.

    I pointed out on another thread a couple of weeks ago what these speed limit reductions are really about. To sum it up:

    - some (note I wrote some, not all) road safety "experts" are trying to justify their existence by recommending the imposition of stricter standards
    - if the stricter standards are to be implemented then either more sight distance, more safety barriers etc need to be installed
    - this costs money
    - the councils and road authorities don't have the money to suddenly go on such a large campaign
    - they look at how what's currently in existence can be maintained
    - funnily enough, what's currently in existence is fine..... with a speed limit that is 10 km/h lower
    - the speed limit reduction option is chosen because it costs the least and (the biggest factor) reduces the risk of litigation

    How do the "experts" get their way? They say that they suggested a change in the name of safety. Someone has a crash. Their lawyer finds out that a higher standard was advised but not implemented. The council or road authority is deemed to have money so they are forced to pay even if the motorist was at fault because if the higher standard was implemented then the crash victim may have been able to get out of it unhurt even though they were doing the wrong thing. That's how this sort of rubbish gets imposed on the community.

    EDIT: I just read what Skuffy wrote and I missed a huge additional point. Revenue. If there's the possibility of increasing revenue then it will be considered (and implemented if they deem it won't annoy the community too much on the whole).
  20. Stuff the experts!

    We're seeing this all over. There are numerous roads around Sydney where the speeds have been reduced from 80 to 70, from 60 to 50 etc. At first I thought they were doing so because they were too cheap to maintain the roads properly and some may be in this category. However I see roads in good condition, even straight with excellent visibility being reduced.

    heh, the powers that be are doing what they do best .. exercising their power. Anyone heard of Powerpaths? Yes, its a relatively new term (couple of years old now) that describes the application of the concept of borderline psychopathic tendencies to those whose focus is power.