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] Spurs: Speed Camera Political Debate [B360/C511/C513]

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' started by fekkinell, Feb 2, 2010.

  1. Not surprised that the Reefton has been dropped to 80. The last four times I have been up there I have seen bikes down. I don't mean a little bit down either... I mean flashing lights and helicopters down.

    Last time was in the car and my girlfriend was in tears because she thought the poor bugger was dead.

    With so many people chucking their bikes down the road, I'm not at all surprised they've cracked down. :(

    - Healesville, Victoria
    - Narbethong, Victoria

    - Reefton, Victoria
    - Cambarville, Victoria

    - Cambarville, Victoria
    - Marysville, Victoria
  2. Re: Reefton Spur

    The problem isn't that, but whether making it 80 will change anything. The Reefton is a challenging road at 100. It will still be challenging at 80, but I'd guess (with no facts to support this) that those that crashed when the limit was 100 will crash when it is 80, either because they lacked the experience to ride it safely at the posted limit, or were already ignoring the speed limit.

    And when people still crash, what to do next? Lower it further? More enforcement?
  3. Re: Reefton Spur

    Hey Cejay. How have you been buddy?

    To your question - GOR was reduced to 80km/h some year ago now and it has reduced the number of accidents and deaths. Proof is in the pudding.

    Not saying it is right, but it does appear to work. Sucks for us though :(
  4. Re: Reefton Spur

    The reason that the deaths reduced on the GOR wasn't that the speed limit was now 80, it was that the number of bikes using the road dropped.

    Of course the reason the number of bikes dropped was that the speed limit was lower, but that reason is 1 reason back from the real reason (which is less bikes on the road and not slower bikes).

    Lower the traffic volume (of bikes) and of course accident numbers decrease... the same will happen along the Reefton as well.

    The error occurs because people assume correlation is the same as causation.
  5. Re: Reefton Spur

    When people left the GOR they probably went to Reefton and crashed there instead. No net gain. This time they'll leave Reefton and crash somewhere else, probably even more remote. Still no net gain.

    But the gummint have backed themselves into a corner. They've spent tens of millions of dollars trying to convince people that lowering speeds is the only way to save lives. They can't just admit they're wrong now. They'll look like incompetent idiots.
  6. Re: Reefton Spur

    Actually, I believe I may be correct.

    The final outcome is what we measure. If there is a reduction is accidents and deaths as a result of 80km/h - then that is the end result. Whether that is due to less bikes or speed is irrelevant. :) Now, I ride this road frequently (living in Geelong I ride it almost every weekend) and I get a feel for the traffic.... Sorry to say, but from my perspective, I still see LOTS of bikes.

    To the argument of "people will move elsewhere". Well, is your argument not the same as the "blind" statements by the statisticians - prove it.

    Anyway, my personal perspective, it has reduced the number of accidents and incidence. All those that frequent the area might also agree the number of bikes does not appear to have changed. Quite often, we comment that there are more bikes.

    So, rather than arguing, I would love to see stats showing bike numbers have decreased on the GOR and gone to the Reefton. ;)

    Love to all and remember, be kind, its only my opinion. :)
  7. Re: Reefton Spur

    I'm doing well, located in FNQ now, missing the roads down there heaps :(

    If the net result, state wide, is no reduction in overall fatalities and serious injury, isn't that the number we should be interested in?
  8. Re: Reefton Spur

    Yup, and that's pretty much what the figures show.
  9. Re: Reefton Spur

    Hey Cejay

    Not quite sure I understand what you are saying - monitor if there is a reduction in fatalities state wide? If that is what you are saying, sure, thats a starting point. However, you need to balance these figures again # of additional motorcyclists on the road today compared to last year and likewise cars...... You also need to look at records for accidents without fatalities - what were they last year and what were they this year.

    ALSO, since we are referring to the GOR - lets look at the motorcycle statistics for the last 10 years - or there abouts. 5 years before the speed introduction and 5 years after.

    Without supporting statistics from us, then we are no different to the politician. HOWEVER, the politician has the publics ear and has a MUCH GREATER chance of pleading his case/opinion. We, however have a small voice - so small that nobody hears

    Whats my point - dont just winge and whine do something about it if it effects you so much. I dont like it, but hey, there are more important things in life - for me anyway. :)

    On more sadder news - 2 fatalities in 1 week on the GOR involving motorcycles :(
  10. Re: Reefton Spur

    It's going to be a 60 zone next week going on past form by the Guv'ment :nopity:
  11. Re: Reefton Spur

    C'mon guys this is about hazardous road report not a debate on fatalities and speed..

    Start another thread. I just want to know if it in good nik or shite
  12. Re: Reefton Spur

    Pnuckle, the Reefton's in good nick. Or it was last weekend (of the 1st Feb). While the 80 kay limit sucks, particularly on the longer straights, what sucks big time is the new law regarding the cont. white line and overtaking.

    To me that makes the Spurs hazardous roads, particularly if there are camoflagued roadside hazards that can have an adverse impact on your wallet.

    I was low on juice when I rode through there so I wasn't "fanging" it (as much as an ancient one can fang a Blackbird). All the same I'd say that for the most part if you can stick to the limit you'd be doing OK.

    It's when you encounter someone in a car or 4WD doing 30 kays under the limit and you can't legally pass, is when it becomes frustrating. And that in itself can engender a hazardous situation.
  13. Re: Reefton Spur

    And by seeing LOTS of bikes you can give us meaningful data to support your view that motorcycle traffic on the GOR hasn't changed?

    I mean to write, you asked someone else to give you the figures to support their claims or assumptions that the bike traffic has moved elsewhere.

    Unless Vicroads has set up traffic counters to measure motorcycle traffic and to do it pre and post 80 kay limit impostes, then we won't really know, will we?

    But, if they've done it (the speed limit reduction) to discourage bike traffic from these regions, then, like in New York with zero tolerance, it just moves the problem elsewhere.

    I was riding in the Yarra Ranges last weekend (see my thread on this elsewhere). Marysville had only a few bikes there at the Bakery. Normally, when I've been there, there have been bikes lined up and down the street with quite a few being encountered on the roads. I saw a handful of them on the road, but saw a few cops.

    Having said that, riding down the Black Spur, (a painful experience), there were quite a few motorcyclists who ignored the no overtaking rule. Granted, where they passed it was safe to do so, and up until November it was also legal. But now, it's both illegal, and because it's illegal, it's now deemed unsafe.

    Of course, if cops do this, then for them it's safe. It's amazing how they can bypass the laws of physics that we mere mortals are stuck with, and for which road rules are based on, isn't it?
  14. Re: Reefton Spur

    Yesterday's report: Pigs all over it. Two radar traps, and some dude pulled me up at the entrance and told me all about it - gawd bless him otherwise I would of gone full tilt.

    According to him they were hiding in the bushes at both ends with radio's doing distance time - over the entire thing!! So if you ventured over 80km/h for too long it would be apparent by your arrival time. Not sure how true that was but I decided not to test it.

    One of the radar/laser traps was after the big straight.
    One was on one of the shortest straights I've ever seen - maybe 20-30meters.
  15. Re: Reefton Spur

    Agree with you on this point. My only answer (during a blitz) when I encounter a moving obstacle is to just pull over and take a break. If I get a couple of minutes gap, then I get going again until the next time I catch 'em.

    Plays havoc with the point-to-point timing tactic, too.

    Did this a coupla weeks ago, pulled over into a patch of gravel... and promptly dropped the b@stard 8-[.
  16. Re: Reefton Spur

    With respect to point to point timing, I find it difficult to believe that anyone could sustain an 80 km/h average or even exceed it along the Reefton Spur, unless they're really, really "good" riders.

    To illustrate this if anyone has a cycle computer on their bike and it's been calibrated with a GPS, then next time you do that road, reset the CC at the start. Then see what the ave. speed is at the top at Cumberland Junction. Or down the bottom if you go the other way.
  17. Re: Reefton Spur

    It would be interesting to see/know how many could, but i think you will find it's probably those that know the road that would be able to do it
  18. Re: Reefton Spur

    Actually, it would be kind of interesting to know (theoretically) what kind of (theoretical) times people could do up there without exceeding 80, or crossing the centre line. Now that would sort the nongenderspecificadults from the juveniles...
  19. Re: Reefton Spur

    You can get a long way over 80 on some of the little straights though........that would push your average up
  20. Re: Reefton Spur

    When it was 100 I know of people who could get close to this average, without exceeding the limit by too much.