Speed Limits KILL

[Tommo]

I did a search and surprisingly didn't find anything about this, unless I didn't use the right terms. For the unknowing, recently the NT (Northern Territory) in Australia brought in speed limits of 130km/h, decreasing from what was an unlimited speed limit. However, from this article:

http://www.ntnews.com.au/article/2007/10/18/2376_ntnews.html

"...The tragic death of the father takes the Territory road toll to 39, compared to 36 at the same time last year."

Deaths have increased with the 130km/h speed limit compared with the same time last year where there were no speed limits. Discuss.

 

[Viper007Bond]

A change of 3 is within statistical probability or whatever. It's not enough of a change to prove one way or the other.

 

[otispunkmeyer]

so they increased nearly 10% in one year?

ok thats maybe quite noticable, but i wouldnt start saying that its the speed limits fault after just one year. there could be any number of things like simply having more people in the area and using that road. more people = greater chance of hitting one.

it could just be one of those years, coincidence.... ie it just so happened more people died this year and it would of happened irrespective of any changes.

as much as i like to go fast, speed limits are there for a reason, they do make sense. i'd say give this at least 3 years before you come back and say the speed limit has clearly made things worse.

 

[Dsemaj]

I read something really interesting about this in Motor, or Wheels I think it was. Apparently, the high road toll had nothing at all to do with the unrestricted highways. (Now this'll be very wrong, but i'll try and remember it best as I can) In the NT, about half the people in cars drive without seatbelts, and hundreds of people just drive through red lights in built up areas. Actually, I think it also said that the majority of accidents happened in built up areas. Also, another shocking statistic, it was about 1 in 50 or so people drive under the influence!

The speed limits on the highways is just a quick fix to please the public and the media, when it wasn't even the problem in the first place. Clearly some proper driver education and police presence and discipline is needed in the Northern Territory.

 

[SL65]

I don't think this proves that speed limits kill, but but rather, speed limits are not necessarily the answer to reducing road fatalities.

I read an interesting article on the Fifth Gear website...something to do with the government wanting to impose a slower speed limit in residential areas or something. Anyways, the some bloke called Paul said:

"We don't need more regulation; we don't need more speed management. We need better drivers through education, information and improved road safety culture."

I know that quote concerns speed limits in the city as opposed to out on the open road, but it can still be applied to the situation in the NT.
I'd have to agree with this Paul 'fella on that one.

 

[Interrobang]

[...]"...The tragic death of the father takes the Territory road toll to 39, compared to 36 at the same time last year."

Deaths have increased with the 130km/h speed limit compared with the same time last year where there were no speed limits. Discuss.

... just comparing two Years does not provide enough data for valid Conclusions. When you have 10 Years speed-limit and compare them to the 10 Years before it and are able to calculate for example the rise of traffic or the dropping quality of the roads out of the equation, only then can you come to such conclusions. 39 to 36, that?s more a statistical Joke* than proof ...


* of course every death is one too many. Don?t get me wrong there ...

 

[Viper007Bond]

so they increased nearly 10% in one year?

A rise of 10 to 11 is an increase of 10% too and quite different from a raise of 10% of a million.

Again, it's all relative!

 

[Tommo]

Certainly we'll have to wait until there is more data available to make a valid jodgement, which unfortunately can only be achieved by waiting to see how many people die in the coming years. But all the same it is interesting how significantly reducing the speed of which the cars can travel (going on the average car which will probably be driven at ~200km/h give or take) doesn't seem to have changed the overall outcome.

 

[eddysdaman]

Speed limits mean you spend a lot of time starring at your dash rather than the road.

I'm with JC on this, speed limits kill.

 

[watto]

Two year's of statistics is not enough to make this a reliable trend. In the Top Gear Magazine (Sept. 2007) where they drive an F6 Tornado Ute from Adelaide to Darwin, they interview a local who sums up the introduction of the 130km/h limit quite nicely.

Norm Maclean says: "The people who live in the Territory are aware of the dangers. We drive to suit the conditions, so that means 130kmh is about as fast as we want to go, even in broad daylight. But turning us into criminals for going faster than that isn't right."

This is true, it's the first out-of-town limit in the NT for 96 years. They coped for that long so why did Clare Martin have to change all that? Bill Thomas, the author of the driving review writes:

'It smacks of revenue-raising and do-gooder political idiocy'

The big problem the NT has is not speeding, it's drink driving and generally bad driver habits. Get your act together Clare Martin and stop fucking around with a sacred right and start acting to combat bad driving behaviour in the first place.

http://www.ntnews.com.au/article/2007/10/18/2376_ntnews.html

By the way, the cause of the accident is yet to be determined. Could have been alcohol or fatigue, not speeding/speed-limiting.

 

[Magnet]

I was in the NT about a month ago, and I got to travel down the Stuart Highway. I was in a Nissan X-Trail, and I was comfortable travelling at around 130-140 km/h.

I think that's what a lot of people tend to forget; unlimited speed limits do not automatically mean Drive Flat-Out. They mean drive to within the conditions. The only dangers arose when tourists would sit in their hire car doing 210km/h, and freak out when they approached a caravan.

As people have said, a lot of the previous deaths stem from lack of seatbelts, drink-driving and other. I saw plenty of clapped-out Falcons with 6 people in there doing 90km/h weaving from side to side; slower than the speed limit, but not bloody safe.

Also, don't forget the statistics cover the ENTIRE NT, and only one real road (Stuart Highway) used to be limitless.

 

[Ottobon]

I don't think this proves that speed limits kill, but but rather, speed limits are not necessarily the answer to reducing road fatalities.

I completely agree with you. Actually i have no idea how people can look at the fairly excellent fatality rate in Germany and say that speed kills.

I think the bigger question is really, do motorway speeds actually save lives? I know it sounds daft at first, but i don't really think they do. What they actually do is cause congestion, and that in itself is a huge precursor to fatal accidents, if nothing else it still wastes peoples lives, even if not through death. Michigan has a rather healthy regard to speed and i know we also actually have some of the safer highways in the country, compared to say Ohio, which loathes anything car related yet seems to kill just as many people per capita.


Personally i think the solution would be to have a hard to get Graduate license that came with a special "blue plate" (first thing that came to mind), this would give such drivers the ability to go whatever speed in none residential and none construction areas, but any accidents or even tiny traffic offenses would result in complete loss of blue plate for at least a year. As well, if you had such blue-plates you could then be extra strict with none blue-platers. My whole logic is based off the knowledge that some people are actually careful enough drivers that they will practically never crash if given they ability to fully concentrate on driving (something that is hard to do when everything is moving so sloowwwlly) these people simply won't overdue it in the first place for starters. This Should be common sense really.

as much as i like to go fast, speed limits are there for a reason, they do make sense.

no there not, and no they don't. Speed limits as we know them are one of the most belligerent and repressive things governments actually enforce. I completely agree that their should be restrictions and harsh rules related to transport, speed just shouldn't be one of them.

 

[watto]

Also, don't forget the statistics cover the ENTIRE NT, and only one real road (Stuart Highway) used to be limitless.

I was of the belief that any road outside a built up area was limitless. Now there is a limit of 110kmh-130kmh depending on the road.

 

[KaJuN]

It's so irritating to see governments constantly blaming speed for the lack of safety on the roads. The only reason they do it is because it's easier for them to enforce speed than it is to enforce things that actually lead to crashes: doing stupid things behind the wheel. Nobody has ever died from doing 100mph. It's when they swerve back and forth, take corners too fast, don't pay attention, etc. that they get into accidents. Driver training and/or retesting is another thing that I think would make a huge difference, but it seems the government can't be bothered with doing anything about it.

 

[asthenia]

It's not just about the likelihood of an accident, but how bad it would be. If you're going 180 in a Civic and you hit an animal, or a tire blows out, you haven't got a chance. At 110 or 120, things might be different.

I'm not saying I agree with the speed limit, but going fast on the Stuart isn't the same as going flat out on the Autobahn, which is several lanes wide and fenced off. No kangaroos on the outskirts of Munich, you know?

 

[beeetle]

Personally I think speed limits should be variable, changing from time to time depend on conditions and traffic.

I think freeway speed limits at 100km/hr is just too slow, and if u live in Victoria, the tolerance of 3km/hr is a joke, even on the freeway

One thing, if you drive fast, you just gotta pay more attention to conditions and control the car.

 

[zenkidori]

the same thing happened in montana. the federal government pressured them into posting limits and the number of accidents went up.

if it isn't broken don't fucking fix it.

 

[Top Geek]

^ I went through Montana when there were no speed limits. That was awesome. Stupid, spineless politicians

I think freeway speed limits at 100km/hr is just too slow

Absolutely (here too -- Southern Manitoba). Sorry, but if, when you look down a highway, you can see the curvature of the Earth before you can see any curvature in the road, the speed limit needs to be at least 150 KM/h.

 

[zenkidori]

the montana governor wasn't really spineless, the feds were about to take all his highway funding and shit away. basically they were dicking them over for representing their state well.

 

[KaJuN]

That's exactly how the federal government enforces the ridiculous drinking age; withholding highways funds from any state that doesn't set it at 21. If that isn't blackmail I don't know what is.