speed limits

do you think that it is really neccesary to set general speed limits for urban streets/open road conditions?If you do,do you think your local legislators have got them right?

I think it is necessacery to have the limits in place.

Do I think they have got them right? In some places I would say yes but in others (like the Albany hill) I would say that they are completely wrong. There have been more fatal accidents since they slowed the speed limit down :eek:

Most Australian residential speed limits are too slow. That is because of the massive fund raising effort the NSW government has going on under the guise of 'safety' with speed cameras. Oh, and they're covering their asses for the decades of woeful driver training.

:(:(

I think some are necessary, like school zones and residential areas, but interstate limits are too low!!! I cruise at around 90 whenever I can get away with it but I would never knowingly jeopardize another human life.

I would have to say that I think most speed limits are reasonable. Also, in Pa, the local officials don't determine the speed limits. The state Dept. of Transportation establishes them.

I think the limits are just numbers.


I drive according to conditions ie. Traffic, weather, police density etc.

Yes you do need speed limits, as not everyone has common sense. There will be the people who go 100kmh past a school then.

I believe though speed limits should be set for the roads. Like here in NZ a road is 50 if it has houses or driveways, or 100 if it doesn't. That makes no sense at all. I know of so many roads that are 50kmh, but should really be 70kmh.

Or roads that are a 100, but are too dangerous to drive at that speed. (Think Oteha Valley, tazdev)

sarujin

Speed limits are applicable in residential areas mainly because people dont know the conditions. Highways should be "safe and reasonable" like they had in Montana.

as far as i know the limits set in the states are a result of the fuel crisis. they were imposed to help promote better fuel efficiency. and since then they have helped fund many local government agencies and insurance companies. Hell, an entire division of police came to be from speed limits and speeding tickets (thestate police). and what about insurance companies. They supply local police forces with radar guns and laser guns to help promote 'safer highways and roads'. but while doing this community service they enable cops to hand out more tickets giving the insurance companies reason to raise the rates of the drivers' policies. most accidents are caused by inatentive drivers rather then speeders.

Overall, speedlimits are necessary but are way toolow in most places (many times on purpose, like speed traps where the limit drops from 65mph to 35mph just long enough for a cop to nail you.)

I think speed limits are entirely necessary in order to save people from themselves. My biggest argument with limits is that they are so rarely enforced. Matter of fact, that's what bothers me with traffic laws in general. I would much rather live somewhere with 100% traffic enforcement than the current state of things. Right now risk-taking is almost encouraged because people so rarely get caught. Of course when they DO get caught, they feel the need to gripe about it...if they got caught every time they broke a traffic law I think most people would be much more careful drivers.

Originally posted by boingo82
I think speed limits are entirely necessary in order to save people from themselves.

Say no more, that is absolutley Spot on :)

we have too many bad drivers not to have speed limits

Originally posted by higgimonster
as far as i know the limits set in the states are a result of the fuel crisis. they were imposed to help promote better fuel efficiency.

A true statement,(history lesson - back in the 1970's,the Arab nations tried to screw the West by cutting all exports of oil,much of the world ran short and crude oil prices went through the roof.)but as a by-product of the original reasoning,it was noted that the death rate and the serious injury rate plummetted with the introduction of the fuel-saving measures.This ,of course,is good,and the government of the day decided that the health and well-being of its citizens was worth preserving....and they were saving billions of dollars worth of fuel,thus making the balance of trade look much better.

In the beginning...

The New Zealand Speed Camera office of the New Zealand Police apparently chose to set the tolerance level at the 85th percentile. Ostensibly, this meant that they did a 'speed survey' of a location and chose the trigger point at a speed that 85% of the road users would NOT be photographed ie only the top 15% of road users would be photographed.

The interesting thing was - having spent some time in another incarnation - studying this information was that the 'speed surveys' appear to have understated the tolerance as some of the locations were being triggered so often that > 15% of road users were being picked up. Indeed one of the sites in Lake Road in Takapuna (which was also the first site in New Zealand) was recording offences so quickly that the machine would run out of film in less than a day... No particular reason has been identified but there's lots of them I suspect...

Anyway, there was a philosophical debate about using the 85th percentile. The main reasons for this was that in some case the 85th percentile trigger point was in excess of the posted speed limit in many locations by a lot... anything up to 20km/h and the other reason was that they were relying upon drivers to act in a responsible, rational and sentient way to the potential hazards... (given that speed cameras have to be located on straight roads away from intersections this always has been a stretch in logic... well at least for me...) rather than using the apparently professional opinion of traffic engineers and the police.

Also you could argue that because some road users are constrained at times during the day (ie during heavy traffic) that the 85th percentile could skew results anyway... the road is being used heavily at times where drivers are crawling in traffic which brings the weighted average down etc...

Anyway, the Speed Camera Office then decided just to use a 10km/h tolerance and has been doing great guns ever since... They have argued that the reduction in the road toll is because of this initiative. However, as usual I haven't seen any research which substantiates the causal relationship - ie speed limits reduce fatalities.

In fact, I've seen suggestions that traffic congestion has actually had a more significant effect on accidents/vehicle kilometre ie because you can only do 40km/h you risk of fatality is reduced... which suggests that if we allow the network to deterioate and reduce vehicle speeds by congestion then fatalities will be reduced further... sigh. The other suggestion I've heard is that rising vehicle running costs coupled with an overall reduction in vehicle age due to second-hand imports has reduced kilometres driven + improvements in crash survival is a contributor too...

Australia is proposing to have mobile electronic signs that show your vehicle speed next to a highly visible police car to further reduce speed. Funny thing is, this was trialled TWENTY YEARS AGO in Europe and was abandoned when motorists simply sped up down the road from the radar trap in some case less than metres from the site!

The thing I'm concerned with is not speed but speed differential. Try driving on a road with a campervan doing 50 km/h with cars doing 120km/h without passing lanes...

Finally, it's been argued many times that the reduction in speed from 60mph (100km/h) to 80 km/h in the early 70s in New Zealand during the oil crisis directly reduced fatalities. However, the effect of a doubling in fuel prices, rationing, 'car-less' days had a significant effect on kilometres travelled too..

As usual there is no simple silver bullet.

Driver training, seat belts, air bags, active and passive safety features, roading improvements will also help but it's always hard to quantify the causal relationships...

I wish there was a 'minimum speed limit' that was 2mph less than the actual speed limit. This could help my road rage when old ladies or minivans are in front o fme....

Originally posted by TheSyndicate
I wish there was a 'minimum speed limit' that was 2mph less than the actual speed limit. This could help my road rage when old ladies or minivans are in front o fme....

There is, but they are a rare find!

*Dreams*Days of riding on the Autostrada! :sleep:*Dreams*

I drove in France recently. The autoroute had a speed limit of 130 kmh in the dry and 110 kmh in the wet.

However, 140 kmh put you in the slow lane (along with the semi-trailers), 150 kmh saw you in the middle lane.

Heaven help you if you went out to the fast lane under 160kmh as some guy in a Porsche/Mercedes/BMW/Audi would burn their headlights into the back of your retinas in the rear vision mirror...

Speed cameras are very well sign-posted in advance and lane discipline was incredible... and not a cop in sight...

oh dear oh dear oh dearie dearie dear. Raf found a thread about speed limits. (Takes deep breath and resolutely resolves not to rant too much).

Limits are a waste of time. The argument that we need them to save people from themselves just doesn't fly. If people are stupid enough to drive too fast for conditions, then they'll do that whether or not there is a speed limit, and irrespective of what that posted limit is. Studies (big, and well-designed) in the US showed that drivers' actual road speeds did not vary significantly when posted limits were increased or decreased. However, there was a trend towards a reduced speed differential when limits were raised, as well as a trend towards fewer crashes.

More sensible in my view, would be a system that described in general terms the type of driving condition. i.e. is it a fairly straight smooth wide open road sort of thing, or a tight twisty road, or straight and wide, but crappy uneven surfaces... etc

If you are going to post a number limit, then sensible research has shown that the best speed to post is the 85th or 90th percentile of actual road speed + 5 mph. This is because the risk of a crash is shown to be lowest if you drive between the 30th and 90th percentiles. (btw, the lowest 5% are more at risk than the fastest 5%)

I better end rant now.

nope, one more point: speed limits encourage complacency. What I mean is that idiots believe that because they are driving at or below the posted limit, they are safe, and by implication, don't have to concentrate at all. (Think Volvo drivers). That's bollocks. 1500kg at 50km/hr is something I don't want to get hit by, and plenty of crashes occur at lower speeds.

end rant :p

All very well,moon,but it assumes that all cars are created equal,and that all drivers are equally experienced....

Picture the scene - It's a reasonably fine day towards the end of a dry summer,and you are driving your very first car - let's say,a mark 1 Escort.You passed your driving test a few weeks ago ,and youiv'e bought this splendid vehicle from a 'mate' real cheap.It's still got a couple of months warrant,but it looks really sweet,the mags that he picked up cheap from the wreckers yard are really cool and it's been lowered with a quick flick of the gas axe........

your on the open road somewhere out Taranaki way,bouncing over the potholes,drifting through the corners(you never got taught how to check your tyre pressures)and generally wringing it out,the way that your 'mate' taught you to....It starts to rain.The wiper blades aren't that flash,you can still see between the smeary bits if you hold your head right and that odd thumping noise from the back goes away if you crank the subs up.

What speed will this guy be doing when the oil and rubber that has been building up on the road turns to glass in the rain?could he handle a blowout if his over-inflated tyre hits one pothole too many?Does he know that the mags came off a wreck,and that one of them is badly cracked around the stud holes?will the badly-modified suspension keep him in a straight line if he has to hit the brakes?Does he know enough about the hazards to spot them before he kills himself,or someone else?

Sure,a collision at 50kmh will do a lot of damage,but the survivability rate of accidents is not a straight ratio .If you were to draw a graph of%likelihood of death against speed,the line would curve upwards sharply at about 90 km/h.For younger U.S. members,that equates to about 55 mph....During the 1970's oil crisis,the U.S. government imposed a blanket speed limit of 55mph in order to ensure that fuel consumption was optimised for the length of the crisis.The road fatality statistics plummeted,and the speed limit was retained as a safety measure.

Speed + inexperience or mechanical failure or rain = increased risk of death.Control the speed,you can positively influence the outcome.

Driver education,and roading quality,and vehicle inspection all need to be vastly improved before any raising of speed limits in New Zealand can realistically be considered.

But the guy in your example isn't going to drive slower just because there's a low speed limit.

1. Driver training needs to be improved - well, actually it needs to exist for a start, then we can look at improving it.

2. Roads need to be improved.

3. Car safety/performance standards need to be rational and properly monitored. For example, you can get a warrant with four completely different tyres on the car, as long they all have >2 mm of tread. Now that's not safe. And there are lots of bizarre things like that which will contribute to making cars less safe.

That said however, the studies I referred to before (remember: a trend towards fewer crashes when posted limits were increased, because the speed differential was reduced) were done in the real world, not the utopia we would have if my points above were introduced.

Oh, add to those a number 4: a functioning public transport system, which would reduce the volume of traffic on the roads.

While I was flying down the road yesterday (only 10 km over), I noticed a cop with a radar gun sitting on top of a bridge.

The cop pulled me over, walked up to the car and asked me, "What's the hurry?"

I replied, "I'm late for work."

"Oh yeah," said the cop, "what do you do?"

I responded, "I'm a rectum stretcher."

The cop said "What...? A rectum stretcher?!? And what does a rectum stretcher do?"

I said, "Well, I start with one finger, then I work my way up to two fingers, then three, then four, then my whole hand, then I work until I can get both hands in there and then I slowly stretch it until it's about 6
foot wide."

The cop asked me, "What the hell do you do with a 6 foot arsehole?"

I simply replied, "You give him a radar gun and park him on top of a bridge..."

The ticket -- $95 dollars. The look on his face, PRICELESS

OMG that's hilarious! :hehehe: :hehehe: :hehehe:

Originally posted by taranaki
During the 1970's oil crisis,the U.S. government imposed a blanket speed limit of 55mph in order to ensure that fuel consumption was optimised for the length of the crisis.The road fatality statistics plummeted,and the speed limit was retained as a safety measure..

That's an oft-quoted statistic, but as they say, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics. What is not generally mentioned, is that the amount of traffic on the roads declined sharply at the same time. Funnily enough, fewer cars on the road = fewer crashes. Later, when the blanket 55mph limit was repealed, some states increased their limits. Their road deaths did not increase. In fact, one or two (if I remember correctly) demonstrated a decrease in road deaths with the raised limit.

The speed limits are usefull, but in some cases : in the towns, or dangerous areas. Do we need it on the Highways : there are not in Germany for example) But not too slow. I went in the USA, and it's very very slow. Here, the speed limits are a little bit higher (85 on the highway e.g) but there are less radars and there is a tolerance (about 15%). So you can drive untill 100mph without having a fine.
As I said, in Germany it's better, there are not speed limits on many highqays's parts. And in Italy it just passed to 95mph.
I spoke about the highways because I think it's the only place where we can speak in general : it's straight line, and there are not danger to drive fast when there are not too many cars.
In the other cases, there are too many situations so we need speed limits, but surely not so low, overall in the USA (because we're on an american forum, isn't it ?) ;)

And don't say speed is killing people, it's not actually true. Alcohol, marijuana, drugs, etc. are, and, of course, if you're drinving fast being drunk, or under drugs, it's dangerous.

That's my opinion about speed limits ! ;)

Originally posted by Stefanel1


And don't say speed is killing people, it's not actually true. Alcohol, marijuana, drugs, etc. are, and, of course, if you're drinving fast being drunk, or under drugs, it's dangerous.

That's my opinion about speed limits ! ;)



Well not neccasarily- if you are new to driving and you are going 250kph in a Merc CLK55 AMG and something leaps out in front of you- What do you do???? It's a matter of being able to control a car at speed- something they are taught in Germany.....Hence the Autobahn.....
:)

Of course. I'm agree with you.
The "secret" is that we have to adapt our speed to the environment.

Originally posted by replicant_008
While I was flying down the road yesterday (only 10 km over), I noticed a cop with a radar gun sitting on top of a bridge.

The cop pulled me over, walked up to the car and asked me, "What's the hurry?"

I replied, "I'm late for work." "Oh yeah," said the cop, "what do you do?"

I responded, "I'm a rectum stretcher." The cop said "What...? A rectum stretcher?!? And what does a rectum stretcher do?"

I said, "Well, I start with one finger, then I work my way up to two fingers, then three, then four, then my whole hand, then I work until I can get both hands in there and then I slowly stretch it until it's about 6
foot wide."

The cop asked me, "What the hell do you do with a 6 foot arsehole?"

I simply replied, "You give him a radar gun and park him on top of a bridge..."

The ticket -- $95 dollars. The look on his face, PRICELESS

Shit Mr. T. I missed this for a couple months. Thats one I completely for got about :D :D

Originally posted by YogsVR4


Shit Mr. T. I missed this for a couple months. Thats one I completely for got about :D :D

Who?what?where?

yup,it's a one of them,but too obvious.:D

Speed limitis are a vain attempt to protect us from stupid people.Too bad the stupid don't genrally abide by the rules.


oh,and speed cameras are a way of screwing more funds out of people who don't watch where they are going.

Speed limits.............nah, I don't agree with them really, anyone with common-sense should know you don't round a blind corner at 220 km/h or drive downa wet Urban street at 160 kph. drive to suit the conditions, and you also don't want to break teh speed limits here, the Polizia are right assholes, of course every Saturday and Sunday morning I get up at 5:30 have a high speed blast around Genoa, while the cops and traffic is out, then head back to bed :D :D


and if you don't have common sense sell your car at once and don't think about TOUCHING another steering wheel until you get some:mad:

I'm agree with Jimmy.
Are you still living in Italy ? Did you sell the 607 (what motor ?) or is it in NZ ? And are you satisfacted with your 156 ??!

Originally posted by Stefanel1
I'm agree with Jimmy.
Are you still living in Italy ? Did you sell the 607 (what motor ?) or is it in NZ ? And are you satisfacted with your 156 ??!


hey stephanel....:)

Yes, but I moved from Turin------>Genoa a few weeks back.

I sold my 6O7 V6 SE (The only 6O7 on sale in New Zealand) for almost as much as I bought it for, I am very happy with the way it held it's value :). Also my 156 is excellent, I am still trying to find something I don't like about it :D

It's really a nice car. I like the 607 :)