the government is contemplating putting 120km/h speedlimiters in cars...should we??personally i think no.....

It's legal to do any 'safe' speed on some Aussie roads (eg NT)
So you can legally do 200 kmph if you can show it wasnt reckless.

At 120 you can still do a lot of damage.
I would like to see the stats on how many accidents occur above 120kmph, surely there are better investments for safety. Eg mandatory front and side airbags on new cars.

What about accidents, someone's dying on the back seat and you are 150 kms from the local hospital?

I dont think high speed accidents above 120 k's would be that big a problem on our roads, compared to reckless driving at lower speeds and drink driving.

But I can see some good reasons for bringing it in.

no cause we have limitless roads for a start. some people like to legally take their cars to the race track no fun in that if every one can only do 100kph people will find away around it and its a safety issue. what happens if your overtaking a road train and suddenly see a car on the horizon and your 4/5th of the way along and your not going to make it if you stay on 120kph but if you speed up to 140 you'll make it easy and how are you going to get back and in behind the road train other wise? (this is just the first example i could think of and yes i do realise that road trains pull to the right to allow you to overtake on the left but you get the idea i was trying to portray damnit)

what would be the point??? I would still be able to do at least 80kph over the speed limit in some areas.... Its not the speed thats the problem. Its the nut behind the wheel...

Woody

No way, that's ridiculous.

What they should look into is banning those little lunch box cars (Daewoo Matiz etc.). I'd hate to see what happens if one of those hits a Road Train at 100kmh.

The VU~Z commodore utes are speed limited to slightly under/over 210KM/H (People report between 203-250), all you need to do is get someone with the right software (EFI Live, HP Tuners ect) to change the speed limiter field in the BCM.

Failing that, if you want to drive fast .. order your new car in the NT(as they couldnt limit a new car to 120KM/H there) and have a ball driving it back.


Even still, I dont believe they could do it for safety.. What happens if your over-taking and you run out of road, next to a road train and theres another car comming towards you .. You speeding up to pass the truck in time could save your life. *Just an example*

oh yeah theres no doubt that witin literally hours of a car being released with it, some nred will get in and fcuk the limiter off

I'd love to see the difference between a head on at 120 and a head on at 150. The blood might splatter a little more?

couldn't see it looking real good for ANY car hitting a Road Train at 100km/h mate!!

There are times when it is safer to exceed the speed limit by a small amount .

i think they need to spend more money on continuational driving training, safe driving courses and make it harder to get your licence.

Rhyso

one of my mates mum hit a road train at about 130kph over taking it with the whole family in ther car on a family holiday. the road train didnt even stop for nearly 700 meters.

I am against such a low speed limit, limiting cars to not go faster than 200, sure, not a problem - if you want to take it on the track - there is still a lot of head room... but this is really not the point...

Stopping people from doing stupid things is a hard task and simple stop gap measures like speed limiting cars is not the answer.

personally I think it is unsafe to go slowly when you are overtaking... get it over and done with as fast as safely possible!

They will have to be more creative in either
a) Making people safer drivers (eg having to sit a drivers test every 5 years, for example)
b) Making cars safer for the times something bad goes wrong (and something bad will inevitably go wrong, given the number of stupid people there are!)
c) Making the roads safer (more lanes, more clearance on the side of country roads, more traffic slowdown points in suburbia - though, these can be rather fun to drive through in themselves!)
d) Remove hazards from the road... eg making better use of the railway system in WA to get the Road Trains/trucks off the roads...

There are plenty of ways to make the road safer, some are stupid - others would cost lots to implement. Let's pray and hope that stupid ideas do not come into effect

BAN low performance drivers, NOT high performance cars!!!

- Stooge007 out

This term is thrown around a lot. I completely agree with it, but how do you determine if someone is a low performance driver?

As for ongoing driver tests. I think once you know how to drive, you'll pass. I could drive like a complete maniac all the time, but when it comes time for my test, drive like a saint.

it's all driver attitude. You'd need to change the attitude of the drivers that think they are gods on teh road. If you can think of a way to do that, that's the answer.

Limiting speeds will not help.

low performance driver =

* repeated speeding offences (not just being done say once a year, as everyone has on off day)

* anyone that's had a DUI conviction (seriously, they're risking their own lives as well as many others)

* anyone who has written off more than 1 car and brags about doing so

* anyone that's ever lost their license, from accumulating too many demerit points or otherwise

in MY opinion, the above represent low performance drivers. this list is not exhaustive, and could span many pages.

- Stooge007 out

I think they should also make all drivers wear helmets and we should all be wrapped in cotton wool, or toilet paper - the hypoallergenic stuff of course.
And while we're at it, we should ban steps, because people trip over steps. Gutters too.
Maybe instead of running the F1 next year, the government could subsidise the cost and installation of our own personal bubbles to live in. Bubbles Audio Australia has a nice ring to it, but then that would be detremental to ones hearing, so each bubble would be fitted with an SPL meter linked tot he EPA.

Those who voted yes, what good is voting if you don't give your reasons?

NO no and more no.

repeat offenders should be given electric shocks from something hidden in their cars when they speed. it would use gps to determine where they r and the speed limit and if the car goes over it then it will shock them through the seat or something. and if they keep doing it the current gets bigger and bigger. and if they went to the track they would have to have someone from the rta there to disconnect and reconnect it and they would have to pay for the person to be there for the whole day.

True, but at least then *everyone* will know *all* the laws of the road...

The number of people I see that cannot use a round-a-bout properly *aarrgghh*

This in itself would make people at least a little more self concious about their driving.

Ok, Since were onto the topic of speeding making someone a 'low performance driver'.

I dont generally speed anywhere but the open road, From say Kalgoorlie to Perth (700km trip). Does that make me a 'low performance driver' because i speed on the open road?
I havent had an accident since i've had my licence. I've also lost my licence(For 'excessive speeding' in Victoria while on holiday), So i guess im a "low performance driver". Even though i dont speed anywhere but open road and I dont have accidents.
I'm forced to ensure i stick to every speed limit and drive 100% legal while i'm around town, As i drive a modified car and the police enjoy pulling me (and every other modded car owner in this town) over for a chat every few days.

I see a low performance driver, as someone who:
* Fails to indicate
* Cant stay in their own lane
* Weave in and out of traffic changing lanes every 50 meters to pass another car.
* Speed in school zones and 50km/h residential streets
* People who dont observe signs/traffic laws..

Indicating on round-a-bouts... that still craps me.

if they put it in its not going to take very long for somebody with some programing knowlage to turn it off.
(i voted yes to eaven it up a bit).

round abouts are a nightmare. the number of times i've seen and in one case been in the car with an old person who has stopped in the middle of the round about to give way to the left is phenimenal! i cna't wait for the day my nanna turns 80 gets her licence taken off her

Rhyso

. .
.

LMAO at ppl rocking up to car club cruises with racing helmets

cyberpunky, limit is 0.05, not 0.08......

maybe he's an oldie ;P

According to stooges recomendations i am a low performance driver too.

Well Rob has been in the car with me - am I ?

lol maybe

alright, maybe my classification is a bit (a lot?) off

- Stooge007 out

2 Main things for me which I hate are:
- Speeding in RESIDENTIAL or LOCAL TRAFFIC AREAS.
- DUI.

Yeah. old dickhead who was once a mate of mine just spent 2 months bragging about his new, turbo, 4wd, skyline r32.

He got done for d.u.i a few weeks ago. Lost his licence etc.

Nobody has any sympathy. I'm considering offering to buy the car off him

hahahaha do it i dare ya

Would just like to point out that 110 is the MAXIMUM speed limit you can drive in QLD, we have signs that say "drive to conditions", which means you drive at any speed desired/considered safe up to 110kph.

I have noticed that a freeway speed of more than 7-10kph over will get you a speed camera fine, a mobile patrol will speed check you make sure you can see them and generally move on (unless the speed increases of course).

Also, FYI most speedos from the factory have a tolerance of around 4% of actual speed (eg, speedo reads 100 actual speed 96 etc)... I usually set the cruise control to 105 in a 100 zone and 115 in a 110 zone, passed many cameras and still no fines (and just for a bit more useless facts, if you see an AUSPOST truck and its going the same way you are follow it, they have a pretty good sytem on board that lets them sit on the speed limit to the dot, mate is a auspost truckie and when he's doing 100 he'll slowly pull away when my car says 100).

Anyways, whats the point of speeding, those who continue to do it have no respect for law abiding drivers and generally push insurance premiums up for the majority. Alot of accidents are put down as speed being a contributing factor to the damage/injury but it doesn't say the driver was speeding as 9/10 times when this is listed they weren't. The only good thing to come out of speeding is the revenue raised makes better roads and parks etc (or so they say)..

Because on a long open stretch of road 110kph is a ridiculously low speed.

midol, hope you never are first at the seen of a fatal accident mate (i was when a bloke exited the motor way and continued around 120 to catch a green light, old bloke didn't see the red light and killed his wife), 110kmh is plenty quick no matter where you are. Long open roads exist into all of our cities these days, no excuses for pushing the limit.

not sure where i sit in this arguement, atm i can justify cars having power, but cant see the logic to cars getting up to 120-130+

Most AU motorways aren't built to carry high speeds, if they were all mulit-lane and concrete divided, bordered with high fences around them to stop wildlife then perhaps the speed limits would be increased.

I put yes so if I get busted speeding in a 100 zone, I'll be fined less and prolly won't lose my license.

yeah but you can still be on the limiter in a 40 zone.......

hrmmm done the maths one day on a situation like this.. its posted somewhere on these forums


limiting your speed to say 120, is actually a danger to peoples lives when considering country driving, and is why you'll find most of the truckies that do outback treks take the 100km/h limiters outa their trucks


work it out... how long you'll be on the wrong side of the road to pass a truck doing 5 or 10km/h under the speed limit -

say its a 110 speed limit... they are doing 105 - you can only do 120 max.... youll be on the wrong side of the road to pass a single trailer semi for quite some time... hope your bloody good at judging distances

15km/h diff in speed = 250m a minute difference

tuck is say 30m + 20 m by the time u pull out n pull back in without cutting people off.... 50m

ur on the wrong side for 12 seconds...

now consider the speed of oncoming cars - 110, your doing 120... 230km/h impact if you were to hit, or 750m MINIMUM distance between you and the other car (assuming you clip them as u pull back in) for you to be able to complete the overtaking manouver

so, in that situation is it really safe to put such limiters in place?

my answer is clearly no


oh... and dont forget if you have a road train, youd have to double that...

maths may be out.. its late... but you all get the picture!

Sorry to disagree, but most AU motorways/freeways are build for speeds a fair bit higher than the legal limit. A good example is the Hume FWY between Melbourne and Wodonga. When it was fully finished (i.e. No stops for 300 km's) it was tested to be safe up to 130km/h. And this was done around 12-13 years ago. Official reports have estimated that car standards from the last 5 years would be able to push that to 140km/h even with current road condition.

EDIT: Of course these are supposed to be safe speeds in good conditions.

It doesn't really matter if the maths is out or not, because there's one underlying flaw in your logic that pulls the entire process down. No one is ever obligated to overtake. At no time is anyone ever required for any reason to overtake as soon as they come within a certain distance of the vehicle in front of them.

Because no one ever forces you onto the wrong side of the road, I think it's ridiculous to think someone of any sense would even try to overtake a semi-trailer doing 105 on a road if there was the possibility of collision.

I'm not necessarily arguing for speed limiters, but this argument against them just isn't good at all.

I was referring to country roads/desert roads.

The logic of having them that fast is for the drag strips.


Another thing that suprises me is breaking distances, people are always quick to say it takes 30m to break at 60kph or whatever (including cops and the tv in this) but they never mention what car, whether the breaks were standard or what not. I swear I read an article where a performance car could stop as quick going 100 as a normal family car could at 60. I am not saying this to say speeding is fine, just saying it is a bit troublesome.

Just a thought Midol.... How long have you been driving for?
Cos everyone on the roads drive performance cars with upgraded brakes, suspension and tyres don't they?
We also all travel to the middle of the desert and drag race too.

Anyway, to try and be sensible for a second...

I agree with limiting speed to 120kmph. When do you ever need to drive faster than that... seriously. When? On an open road where you might drive at 130kmph, you wouldn't arrive at your destination much later than if you were driving at 120. Depends on how far, etc, but it would be such a negligible difference.
And how often are you in a situation where it would even be applicable? The vast majority of Australian citizens would drive on a road that permits over 120kmph how often? How often have YOU legally driven over 120kmph on a public road? If you're answer is barely ever, why is there so much debate over something that would barely effect anyone?

However, I would also like to add that I agree wholeheartedly with everyone who has suggested bad drivers cause more problems than speed. Limiting speed won't solve all the problems. I don't know what it's like in other states, but here in Vic, it is SO EASY to get your license now, it's scares me.

I vote yes to speed limiters. 120kmph is never NECESSARY on a public road. Its a rare luxury that wouldn't effect us if we didn't have it, and may save some lives by minimising room for error from fatigue, idiots, and the like.

You dont do much/any country driving do you.

When theres a limited stretch for overtaking, and some tosspots doing 80 in a 100 zone, single lane, you want to get by them as fast as possible.

Or what happens if you overtake him at the legal speed of 100kph, and all of a sudden a speeding vehicle appears around the next blind corner. you've got to tuck back into the lane. But the aforementioned TOSSER has decided he doesnt want to go slow anymore, and starts speeding up.

I'd floor it. f*** the law. If the family/friends were on the line...and its a fact every country driver has to face at least once.

Yeah, let's use your example here then, and for the sake of its purpose, even go so far as to say that scenario is even a common problem...

How would a 120kmph speed limiter be a problem? You just said he was doing 80 when you pulled out to pass him, then he sped up (cos he's a tosser). So while you were trying to pass him he went from 80 to what, 110? I seriously doubt it.

I get the scenario that you're using as an example, and I too would floor it, regardless of what the signs say! But a 120 kmph speed limiter wouldn't effect anything in that case. You'd floor it, get to 115-120 tops, and fly past him! Remember, when you pulled out, he was doing 80, sped up, say even up to 100? If he was doing more than that, you'd pull in behind him wouldn't you?

what about a medical emergency?
Again, for country drivers...but not *only*.

What if your being chased by bogans with bats, guns, etc. It's happened to a fair few people i know.

As far as i'm concerned, if your not smart enough to limit your own speed, you shouldn't be f***ing driving. A car is a deadly weapon, and a piece of heavy machinery. Its not idiot proof, and it never will be.

Speed limiting is NOT the answer. Its a knee-jerk, band-aid solution that doesnt allow for all the variables, and can easily be circumvented by coasting in neutral, for instance, downhill. which is even more dangerous.

Someone with the attitude that doing over 120kph in a 100 zone is fine, and does it regularly, probably wouldnt have a problem with an idiotic suggestion like that.

I agree, speed limiting is not the answer (see my first post)
I still fail to see where going over 120kmph is ever necessary unless you're driving an emergencey vehicle.



Okaaaaaayyyyy...... Yeah, I think I've had enough of this debate, but thanks for the super-intelligent arguement mate!