1000kms at 130KM/HR and still Alive..

[csv8]

Driving at higher speeds can be done safely, as I learnt this month in northern Australia.

I recently drove and passengered for almost 1000km at speeds of up to 130km/h during Drive's 17,000km around Australia road test.

It was done in the Northern Territory, where many of the main highways are limited to 130km/h, a speed that would earn me a serious fine and potentially lead to a loss of my licence in some states.
Certain roads in the Northern territory have a speed limit of 130km/h.

Certain roads in the Northern territory have a speed limit of 130km/h.

Opponents and some 'experts' will point to the different roads in the Northern Territory.


They're wrong. Some roads in Queensland, South Australia and Western Australia are the same, with the similar hazards, road surfaces and traffic flow.

And the Hume Highway between Sydney and Melbourne is in many parts a safer stretch of road, albeit with more traffic.

Despite being out of step with other states, the Territory's law makers acknowledge the wide open spaces and sometimes long straight stretches that can comfortably be travelled at higher speeds. Prior to 2007 the Territory had some highways with derestricted speed limits; when the 130km/h limits were introduced the road toll actually increased.

Given the vast distances, travelling at higher speeds is a great way to get places - and, contrary to the message we're fed, higher speeds doesn't automatically equate with more funerals.

But even with that limit there are times where you'll need to travel well below the sign-posted speed. At night, for example, the wildlife that chance their lives on the road make it prudent to slow down.

And some sections of road - especially the Victoria Highway in the west of the Territory - have some windy and bumpy sections, meaning 100 or 110km/h is more suitable.

With almost no warning signs on corners on the main freeways it means driving in the Northern Territory relies on that fast diminishing skill of judging the conditions.

It's a skill on the wane in most parts of Australia with many jurisdictions effectively encouraging to drive to a road sign.

It's not helped by the grossly inadequate driver training in Australia.

Teaching young drivers how to park and manoeuvre in tight city streets is not preparing them for the very real dangers of freeway driving and avoiding a crash.

That's a separate discussion altogether.
http://brisbanetimes.drive.com.au/mo...620-2ok2x.html

[b0son]

Yep... that's one thing that's never considered. The higher speed reduces your travelling time (exposure time as the road safety pundits call it). Not to mention that on long interstate trips, you want to complete your trip before dusk to avoid poor visibility, wildlife etc.

[new2ford]

Originally Posted by b0son

Yep... that's one thing that's never considered. The higher speed reduces your travelling time (exposure time as the road safety pundits call it).

I've come from 6 months last year on a regular "milk run" driving between Plzen and Nuremburg, 200 km in about 1 hour 50 mins - back to Australia, driving another "milk run" between Nowra and Sydney, 150 km in 2 hours (if I'm lucky, and that's pushing the speed on the GPS to as near as 100 as much as possible).

The run in Europe: high concentration, relaxing, over quickly, no threat of dozing, no fatigue, higher productivity due to more time at destination.

The run in NSW: concentration slipping due to mind-numbing effect of driving for longer on road clearly capable of (and designed for) 130 at 100, stress of continually watching speed and looking out for lurking HPs, fatigue, boredom (microsleeps twice over the years), less productivity.

Originally Posted by calmeister

Totally agree with the idea of 130kph limits on some roads, I've driven most in Aus, but the law would need to start to show an interest in the Keep Left Unless Overtaking rule.

You might find that once the speed goes up to 130 the right lane hoggers might give up because they don't want to drive at that speed whereas they are comfortable at 100 (95 actually). Having cars closing up on them rapidly will get to them (if they're actually watching their mirror which I admit is questionable).

[MDS69]

Originally Posted by b0son

Yep... that's one thing that's never considered. The higher speed reduces your travelling time (exposure time as the road safety pundits call it). Not to mention that on long interstate trips, you want to complete your trip before dusk to avoid poor visibility, wildlife etc.

Whilst I am all for increased speed limits in the appropriate places 8 hours driving is still 8 hours driving regardless if your doing 110 or 130.

As a side note if you watch the video in the link to the round Australia VF Commodore story further up this page and what generated the discussion in this thread that is a friend of mine walking down the assembly line in Elizabeth. He was one of the four in the car trip.

[malazn mafia]

Originally Posted by MDS69

Whilst I am all for increased speed limits in the appropriate places 8 hours driving is still 8 hours driving regardless if your doing 110 or 130.

8 hours of total travel time with ample breaks and higher speeds, is much more relaxing than 8 hours in the car behind the wheel tottering along at 100-110 kph with semitrailers bearing down on your behind.

[new2ford]

Originally Posted by MDS69

Whilst I am all for increased speed limits in the appropriate places 8 hours driving is still 8 hours driving regardless if your doing 110 or 130.

?? That doesn't make sense.

What if 8 hours driving becomes a safer 6 or 7 over the same distance as a result of averaging a higher speed?

Most people don't drive just for the sake of driving 8 hours.

[joolz]

Originally Posted by MDS69

Whilst I am all for increased speed limits in the appropriate places 8 hours driving is still 8 hours driving regardless if your doing 110 or 130.

Or 8 hours driving at 80 as compared to 100 (100 zone). Now lets see who falls asleep first. Surely speeding wont be a factor in a crash at 80 but but fatigue would be, but speed will always be related to the crash as the car was moving as this speel has been force fed to us for decades now as it makes money for the Gov. An increased limit on good roads is justified but in the end will cost $$ to the Gov and will decrease fatigue related accidents. Oh and less gadgets in cars will also keep eyes on the road...

[bobthebilda]

Originally Posted by b0son

Yep... that's one thing that's never considered. The higher speed reduces your travelling time (exposure time as the road safety pundits call it). Not to mention that on long interstate trips, you want to complete your trip before dusk to avoid poor visibility, wildlife etc.

I think the author took a little too much liberty when analysing the facts. Northern territories road deaths in 2007 was 58 and then did jump to 75 in 2008, but in 2009 it was 31, 2010=50, 2011=45 and 2012=49. If the 2007 figure continued for the next five years, 290 people would have died, instead only 250 people died. Northern territory has the worst record on road deaths per head of population in Australia ( four to five times the national average).

2008 was a statistical blip for northern territory road deaths, it had nothing to do with reduction in speed limits or extra time spent on roads etc.

And if the author was using 2006 figures as the base line, then he failed to take into account that the historical average prior to that was much higher.

[b0son]

Originally Posted by bobthebilda

Northern territory has the worst record on road deaths per head of population in Australia ( four to five times the national average).

NT has a disproportionate amount of alcohol-related deaths, be they drunk drivers, or drunken pedestrians wandering on roads. A significant proportion of drivers/occupants NOT wearing seatbelts only makes matters worse.

Unsurprisingly, most fatalities occur not on open stretches, but in urban areas and remote communities.

[Gothefalcon]

Originally Posted by bobthebilda

I think the author took a little too much liberty when analysing the facts. Northern territories road deaths in 2007 was 58 and then did jump to 75 in 2008, but in 2009 it was 31, 2010=50, 2011=45 and 2012=49. If the 2007 figure continued for the next five years, 290 people would have died, instead only 250 people died. Northern territory has the worst record on road deaths per head of population in Australia ( four to five times the national average).

2008 was a statistical blip for northern territory road deaths, it had nothing to do with reduction in speed limits or extra time spent on roads etc.

And if the author was using 2006 figures as the base line, then he failed to take into account that the historical average prior to that was much higher.

And of these... how many were inside the restricted "town" speed limits, or even people pretending to be speed humps (drunks falling asleep on the road at night and getting run over - It was quite a problem in the N.T.) or an over full 5 seater car with 7 or 8 people in it, falling off the road, rolling, killing most on board ? Vehicles travelling on the open road at speeds over 130Kph actually accounted for very very few of these numbers !

When the question of raising open road speed limits is raised... to be fair, the Govt. needs to confine the "current" statistics to relevant information, if it is to be used as a factor in the decision making process !

[WPR1]

Totally agree with all national highways being increased to 130km/h.

Current cars (any over the last ten years) will do this easy and the additional concentration required at this speed could actually reduce crashes! (It did in Italy)

Let's see if any Politician has the guts to do it.

[badoc]

Surely the major highways need to be in a little better condition for this to be universal?

Sydney to Melbourne via Hume - 130 is fine.

Sydney to Canberra via Hume/Federal - 130 is fine.

Sydney to Brisbane? Please... Most of it should be 80.

[sprint347dave]

Originally Posted by badoc

Surely the major highways need to be in a little better condition for this to be universal?

Sydney to Melbourne via Hume - 130 is fine.

Sydney to Canberra via Hume/Federal - 130 is fine.

Sydney to Brisbane? Please... Most of it should be 80.

when was the last time you drove sydney to brisbane ?,,,

[calmeister]

Totally agree with the idea of 130kph limits on some roads, I've driven most in Aus, but the law would need to start to show an interest in the Keep Left Unless Overtaking rule.

[Vesper Martini]

csV8 are you able to advise what car and what your average fuel consumption was?
apart from curiousity the reason I ask is that I think if the speed limit was increase to 130kph on the Hume (which is a fantastic stretch of road) I believe only a few would actually drive at that speed. just for increased fuel consumption alone.

Whilst I agree that good roads can cope with higher limits, the problem is the variance of speeds cars will be travelling at.
Now we all hate it when sombody does 95kph on the freeway, are you going to get ****ed at sombody because they are only doing 110
Before sombody pipes up and says penalise people for going too slow, just think about some of the other drivers abilities and the cars they might be driving..

[b0son]

Originally Posted by Bevsta007

Now we all hate it when sombody does 95kph on the freeway, are you going to get ****ed at sombody because they are only doing 110

This is where police patrolling the highways, enforcing correct lane discipline, comes in (rather than hiding in the bushes pinging people for 5-10 over).

[joolz]

Originally Posted by b0son

This is where police patrolling the highways, enforcing correct lane discipline, comes in (rather than hiding in the bushes pinging people for 5-10 over).

Ive never seen anyone in Victoria being pulled over for keeping in the right lane since the law was introduced over 10 years ago. However my copper brother in Darwin WILL book you for it.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by Bevsta007

csV8 are you able to advise what car and what your average fuel consumption was?
apart from curiousity the reason I ask is that I think if the speed limit was increase to 130kph on the Hume (which is a fantastic stretch of road) I believe only a few would actually drive at that speed. just for increased fuel consumption alone.

Whilst I agree that good roads can cope with higher limits, the problem is the variance of speeds cars will be travelling at.
Now we all hate it when sombody does 95kph on the freeway, are you going to get ****ed at sombody because they are only doing 110
Before sombody pipes up and says penalise people for going too slow, just think about some of the other drivers abilities and the cars they might be driving..

To some, their time is worth more than saving $5 in fuel.

As far as the speed differences, in other parts of the world slower vehicles stick to the far outside lane in multi lane highways and will pull over to let traffic past should they notice it building up behind them on single lane roads.

It is called common courtesy.

There is not a problem with driving slowly.

There IS a problem with being a rude self centered worm who is on a crucade to save the world by deliberatly blocking and slowing down all the traffic to what they consider is the "appropriate" speed.

[Vesper Martini]

Originally Posted by flappist

To some, their time is worth more than saving $5 in fuel.

As far as the speed differences, in other parts of the world slower vehicles stick to the far outside lane in multi lane highways and will pull over to let traffic past should they notice it building up behind them on single lane roads.

It is called common courtesy.

There is not a problem with driving slowly.

There IS a problem with being a rude self centered worm who is on a crucade to save the world by deliberatly blocking and slowing down all the traffic to what they consider is the "appropriate" speed.

Totally agree, I for one would spend the extra $5 to get thier quicker, not a lot different to paying a freeway toll.

but whether its sombody who wants to save fuel, is uncomfortable doing 130kph or is a self centered worm. there will be that speed variance.
and because of that I recon it will never take off.

[mik]

Originally Posted by Bevsta007

Totally agree, I for one would spend the extra $5 to get thier quicker, not a lot different to paying a freeway toll.

but whether its sombody who wants to save fuel, is uncomfortable doing 130kph or is a self centered worm. there will be that speed variance.
and because of that I recon it will never take off.

Perhaps that could be a new revenue stream for the states, instead of police fining drivers for stupid small speed encroachments, they have the highway patrol pinging dudes sitting in the fast lane unnecessarily causing angst to other drivers and impeding traffic flow.

[BENT_8]

Originally Posted by mik

Perhaps that could be a new revenue stream for the states, instead of police fining drivers for stupid small speed encroachments, they have the highway patrol pinging dudes sitting in the fast lane unnecessarily causing angst to other drivers and impeding traffic flow.

I said the same thing a number of years ago and got flamed for it.
Its not just right lane issues, driving standards in general are dropping by the day, indicators, tailgating, mobile phones, makeup, driving is a second thought to many motorists.
I believe there should be a dedicated branch who do nothing but cruise around and ping people on the spot for traffic infringements, but that would fall under the 'rights erosion' banner and I will wait to get flamed again.

The truth is, all we really want is laws to suit ourselves, and police to book who ever is getting in our way.

[csv8]

Bevasta007..it wasn't me, it was DRIVE on them driving a new VF around Australia in 23 days.
Day 23: 16,500km road test around Australia

Date
June 21, 2013



The Drive team arrives back in Sydney, completing a full circumnavigation of Australia.



The ultimate road test for the Commodore

The Drive team has just completed an epic 17,500 kilometre trek around the country to determine if the locally-made and designed VF Commodore is still up to the task.







Trip computer

Distance travelled to date: 17,515km

Litres used: 1715.53 or $2788.40 worth

Average fuel consumption: 9.8L/100km



The final day of Drive’s loop of Australia was not the most stimulating, but it was certainly the most satisfying.

After 17,515km, Stephen Ottley and I rolled into Sydney shortly after 4pm. Our arrival at Milsons Point in North Sydney capped a whirlwind excursion of Australia covering every state, territory and capital city - and all in 23 days.
http://brisbanetimes.drive.com.au/mo...621-2omhu.html

[Vesper Martini]

Originally Posted by csv8

Bevasta007..it wasn't me, it was DRIVE on them driving a new VF around Australia in 23 days.

sorry, my bad

Originally Posted by csv8

Average fuel consumption: 9.8L/100km

Thats not bad at all, kind of flaws my point, but I guess its new and its a large engine car. anything old, or small is going to be affected more.

[Billydean]

Originally Posted by badoc

Sydney to Brisbane? Please... Most of it should be 80.

Absolutely right, when I lived in NSW I regularly drove between Macksville and Woolgoolga, 130ks would kill people every day of the week. ALL single lane roads should be no more than 80ks.

Originally Posted by sprint347dave

when was the last time you drove sydney to brisbane ?,,,

What does that mean? I did it a lot, the last time a few months ago.

[Gothefalcon]

Originally Posted by Billydean

ALL single lane roads should be no more than 80ks.

Surely you can't be serious ??
I live in Adelaide... You can only drive on dual carriage ways for about an hour, in any given direction, when leaving town... then it becomes single lane roads, until you get within "cooee" of the next major capital (save for a few spots in major regional cities) !
In approximate distances from Adelaide... thats "
Perth 2650K (2300K of single lane)
Darwin 3200K (3000 of single lane)
Brisbane 2200K (2000K of single lane)
Sydney 1400K (900K of single lane)
Melbourne 760K (500K of single lane)
Or what about: Perth - Darwin 4000K (3800K of single lane)

Surely you can't be seriously suggesting that we all be restricted to travelling these vast distances at 80Kph !??

I've travelled all of these roads (some several times) in recent times... and all are more than capable of safely carrying traffic at 110... and only some (through central NSW & Qld) would I question raising the speed limit to 130K ! (until they are upgraded) In particular, the old open limit roads in the N.T. (now restricted to 130K) are well kept, wide, open and safe to travel along at "speed" !

Fatigue is a major killer on our "open roads"... because people get bored and fall asleep at the wheel, travelling along at ridiculously slow national speed limits ! Sure "speed kills".... pretty much any speed, when you're asleep at the wheel !!

D

[Billydean]

Originally Posted by Gothefalcon

Surely you can't be seriously suggesting that we all be restricted to travelling these vast distances at 80Kph !??

Yes I can, deadly serious. I've had a driving licence for almost 50 years. I've driven on every continent except Antarctica. I've driven millions of kilometres, cars, motorbikes, trucks and cranes. I've raced cars, passed advanced driving tests, Metropolitan Police driving assessment, and defensive driving courses. I've never had an accident, and never lost a point from any licence.

Maybe, if you ever gain the experience I've had, and seen the carnage I've seen, you'll change your mind.

Apart from that, I resent my opinion being ridiculed, if you have a long distance to travel, give yourself enough time to get there.

And your guesses of the length of single lane roads between cities does your opinion no favours.

[mik]

most cars could do 130 kph on a nice bit of freeway without too much trouble as long as they are in reasonable nick, stinking hot weather might be testing for some at that speed, also some of the older under powered ones without overdrive would be quite noisy and painful at that speed , but that is ok, that is what the left lane is for.

[csv8]

Bevsta007..Thats not bad at all, kind of flaws my point, but I guess its new and its a large engine car. anything old, or small is going to be affected more.
__________________Thats with 4 journo's and all their gear...

[comagutsa]

we did 1500km in the NT before the speed limit was reduced and we sat on 180km/h and total time for trip was 9.5hours and we lived (did trip 3 or 4 times that year)
we found you were more alert at those speeds than sitting at 110km/h like here in WA

not saying that you could do those speeds here in WA on most roads but 130km/h would be great

[Kable72]

I was addressing the lack of respect, not the lack of police officers. We have no respect for them because they, alot of the time, have 0 idea as they're not getting training but they're getting power. As for the lack of police officers, I wouldn't know. Could be a number of reasons, low pay, low allowances, high work load little pay off etc.

If we're not such a weak bunch, why aren't you a police officer?