Police slam 130km/h Hume Hwy stunt By WHEELS Magazine - Page 2

Brazen · 17-09-2013, 10:33 AM

In Europe they have the trucks speed limited to 90 so the speed differential is quite large. I remember being in Italy having an old nonna driving me to the hotel sitting on 160kmh in a VW Transporter van.

110 is painfully slow for such a vast country like Australia. 130 for cars, 100 for trucks. I think that is appropriate.

poppa smurf · 17-09-2013, 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wretched

Those unknowns will be there whether you're traveling at 50km/h or 130km/h.
The difference is how much more the driver is paying attention.
The proposed speed is not significantly more than the current speed limit and is only proposed for roads deemed suitable for these speeds.

If these hazards are preventing us from moving to this new limit then should we not further reduce the speed limit? 110km/h is still a high risk.
Are we the only country that suffers these hazards?

If the driver does not feel comfortable driving at 130km/h; like any other road he/she can reduce it to something they are more comfortable traveling at.

but the fact stands......the higher the speed, the greater the risk.

you wont die at 50 KPH unless there are other large contributing factors.

if the majority of traffic is moving at 130 KPH then it doesn't take a brain surgeon to realise the folks who are not comfortable at 130 and are driving at 100 (because thats where they feel comfortable) are going to be a moving hazard, do we banish these drivers off freeways?

then what about Mum and Dad with the caravan sitting on 85 - 90......where do we go with all these folks barreling alongside by side at 130.

bugger the children I say "think about us grandparents."

the unknown at 100 is far less dangerous than the same unknown at 130.

the speed would be fine but the drivers will be the problem.

MAD · 17-09-2013, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by poppa smurf

you wont die at 50 KPH unless there are other large contributing factors.

If you're inside the car.....

SS_01 · 17-09-2013, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by poppa smurf

ah! yes the old "speed is innocent".

reminds me of the feller jumping off a 40 story building, got past the 10th floor at terminal velocity and was asked if he was okay, " so far, so good".

however he had a problem when he reached the bottom, a factor he didn't consider when he took the leap so far above and therein lies the problem.

speed will not kill but the unknown will, slow traffic, kangaroo, rabbit, fog, pothole, blowout, the idiot factor.

far less room for a mistake at higher speed, that is a fact.

I wonder how many other morons are going to emulate this fool and try their luck.

I agree with some of your points, unknown factors are always a problem, however, if the limit is raised to 130, everyone will be doing the same, and you will still have the same amount of people that are currently on our roads doing 10km/h under or 10km/h over. As a driver, it is your responsibility to be aware of the conditions at all time, and be able to adjust accordingly.

However, animals are very unpredictable, but, whether you are travelling at 130km/h or 100km/h, its not going to make much difference when you hit them, or if you try to avoid them, this is why electronic stability control was introduced, and made mandatory in vehicles of today.

Food for thought:

If the traffic is flowing 25km/h above the posted limit, and 1 person is travelling on the speed limit, who is more dangerous?

mcnews · 17-09-2013, 10:42 AM

Just the cretins that have no respect for people travelling faster by hogging right hand lanes would be the major problem. 130 is nothing in reality, just people are dumbed down by the media/police machine to the speeding is evil crap that they dish out. And the mindless masses just swallow it...

Brazen · 17-09-2013, 10:43 AM

At least we don't have to deal with hitting 800kg elk and moose like in Europe and North America

Esteven8 · 17-09-2013, 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by poppa smurf

I agree the speed is fine, given all factors are conducive to achieve and safely maintain it.
I'm afraid I have attended too many fatalities where a relatively small increase in speed made the difference of the folks coming home in a box and simply having a stay in hospital.

we travel the NT roads twice a year and regularly sit on 130 Kph, we haven't died yet but at those speeds it wouldn't take much for things to go very pear shape, very quickly.

personally I don't think most drivers are up to the challenge.

we still have fatalities regularly on perfectly good highways zoned at 100 KPH arising from one simple mistake.

roads need to be improved, driver training needs to be undertaken at a younger age before we consider raising the speed limit.

This, and especially the last line sums up my feelings on this topic perfectly. The amount of driver training required to gain your license in this country is utterly woeful. IMO defensive driving courses and skidpan training to ensure new drivers have at least SOME experience of how to recover when things do go wrong needs to be made compulsory.

mcnews · 17-09-2013, 10:50 AM

Mate, next door neighbor hit one of these outside my gate last week..... Samba deer are in big numbers around the ranges above Melbourne. The big ones must be half a ton. These shots are from a trailcam on my place a while ago.

SS_01 · 17-09-2013, 10:51 AM

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=21e_1379033844

Have a look at this^^^

Also, Agreed with what some have said, we do need better driver education, but you will never get it, cause the government isn't actually interested in saving lives.

WPR1 · 17-09-2013, 10:52 AM

In modern day cars 130kmh is not a big deal, as they say people will concentrate more. Go back 20 years and look at the cars we were allowed to travel 110kmh in, as I said 130kmh in modern cars is nothing.

Wretched · 17-09-2013, 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by poppa smurf

but the fact stands......the higher the speed, the greater the risk.

you wont die at 50 KPH unless there are other large contributing factors.

if the majority of traffic is moving at 130 KPH then it doesn't take a brain surgeon to realise the folks who are not comfortable at 130 and are driving at 100 (because thats where they feel comfortable) are going to be a moving hazard, do we banish these drivers off freeways?

then what about Mum and Dad with the caravan sitting on 85 - 90......where do we go with all these folks barreling alongside by side at 130.

bugger the children I say "think about us grandparents."

the unknown at 100 is far less dangerous than the same unknown at 130.

the speed would be fine but the drivers will be the problem.

All the above can be applied to current FWY and HWY speeds which are only 20km/h slower than the proposed 130km/h. Same risks.

Like I said in my first post the biggest problem preventing this from happening and the main cause of death in AU is driver attitude. The sooner that changes the better.

Europe, US, Canada, etc all have similar if not higher risks but still have higher speed limits yet they can cope. hmmm.

leighm · 17-09-2013, 10:58 AM

This spiel about how unsafe it is because of speed differences between cars at 130 and 90, 100, 110 is ridiculous.

If it were such a massive danger then current speed restrictions on L and P plate drivers would be abolished as it is simply too unsafe for there to be a speed difference between vehicles. It is obviously considered safe for L plate drivers to drive 30 below the speed limit on the Hume. If the speed is raised to 130, then limit L drivers to 100 on those roads, same speed difference and the L plate driver is learning at a safe speed limit still. I did my Ls in Victoria wwhere I was able to do 100 on any 100 road. I stuck to the left lane and stayed out of people's way.

On the Hume, people generally show courtesy and stick to the left lane. It is on the highways in built up areas where retarded drivers feel the need to defend their territory like the Monash, Eastlink, Tulla freeway, M4, M5 etc. The Hume people seem to take a more relaxed view of driving as there is such a distance to travel and no need to try to gain an extra 2 seconds becuase over 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, hours it makes no difference. My experience on the Hume is almost always one in which drivers are courteous and move to the left.

The remark by Duncan Gay that it would not meet public acceptance is a load of rubbish, I ask him whom did you ask from the public that has this view?

BadMax · 17-09-2013, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by poppa smurf

but the fact stands......the higher the speed, the greater the risk.

Can you please point me toward the facts you are referring to? I'm very keen to read them.

Out of interest, have you travelled on any roads in Europe?
You seem to have a very simplistic view on the subject.

Esteven8 · 17-09-2013, 11:00 AM

It's not the cars that are the problem..

For example, a 19yr old with a full license heads out on his first road trip out of the city. First time up to 130kph, feeling nice and confident.. then he hits some gravel/oil/whatever on the road and looses control. Given the **** poor level of experience required currently, the extra 20kph could be the difference between a hospital stay, or being hosed off the asphalt by emergency crews...

Improve the roads, improve the training and attitudes of drivers.. THEN look at upping the limit.

jd dad · 17-09-2013, 11:03 AM

On full double lane freeways like the Hume why not 130? The article will have already achieved its aim ie it has got people talking about the subject.

MAD · 17-09-2013, 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Esteven8

It's not the cars that are the problem..

For example, a 19yr old with a full license heads out on his first road trip out of the city. First time up to 130kph, feeling nice and confident.. then he hits some gravel/oil/whatever on the road and looses control. Given the **** poor level of experience required currently, the extra 20kph could be the difference between a hospital stay, or being hosed off the asphalt by emergency crews...

Improve the roads, improve the training and attitudes of drivers.. THEN look at upping the limit.

We're not talking about country back roads with no shoulders. The Hume is the example.

BadMax · 17-09-2013, 11:06 AM

The speed difference between 110 and 130kph in an accident is close to irrelevant. There is very low likely hood you'll walk away from either. In fact, you're treading a fine line in any accident of 80kph.

leighm · 17-09-2013, 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Esteven8

It's not the cars that are the problem..

For example, a 19yr old with a full license heads out on his first road trip out of the city. First time up to 130kph, feeling nice and confident.. then he hits some gravel/oil/whatever on the road and looses control. Given the **** poor level of experience required currently, the extra 20kph could be the difference between a hospital stay, or being hosed off the asphalt by emergency crews...

Improve the roads, improve the training and attitudes of drivers.. THEN look at upping the limit.

What is wrong with the Hume? Is there a report on the viability of the Hume to raise the limit to 130 which would point us in the direction that the road is not up to the speed limit of 130?

It's all about taxes, that's all this is. Keep the masses below the natural limit of the road to earn a quid.

Esteven8 · 17-09-2013, 11:17 AM

Don't get me wrong. I'm all for an increased limit, a country this size needs it.
My concerns mainly lie with the lack of proper driver training being provided currently. Kids are given their full license with absolutely no idea of what to do when things go wrong at 80kph let alone 130. I'm aware it's probably a completely different argument, but I think in this respect Australia isn't ready for this yet.

**kypez** · 17-09-2013, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Esteven8

It's not the cars that are the problem..

For example, a 19yr old with a full license heads out on his first road trip out of the city. First time up to 130kph, feeling nice and confident.. then he hits some gravel/oil/whatever on the road and looses control. Given the **** poor level of experience required currently, the extra 20kph could be the difference between a hospital stay, or being hosed off the asphalt by emergency crews...

Improve the roads, improve the training and attitudes of drivers.. THEN look at upping the limit.

Most states you cant get your full license till you're 20 (1 year/120 hours of L's, then 3 years of P's, so 4 years of driving before you hit 130) at minimum these days. Car hits gravel/oil/etc, most modern cars have stability control these days anyway which will correct for that situation mentioned.

Traffic is an issue in some places but a lot of places can handle 130...

poppa smurf · 17-09-2013, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SS_01

I agree with some of your points, unknown factors are always a problem, however, if the limit is raised to 130, everyone will be doing the same, and you will still have the same amount of people that are currently on our roads doing 10km/h under or 10km/h over. As a driver, it is your responsibility to be aware of the conditions at all time, and be able to adjust accordingly.

However, animals are very unpredictable, but, whether you are travelling at 130km/h or 100km/h, its not going to make much difference when you hit them, or if you try to avoid them, this is why electronic stability control was introduced, and made mandatory in vehicles of today.

Food for thought:

If the traffic is flowing 25km/h above the posted limit, and 1 person is travelling on the speed limit, who is more dangerous?

once again I agree, slower driver = danger, however faster driver = danger as well, depends on circumstances....

swerving at 100 KPH may be able to be done, 130 increases the problems, then what about road freight, they will still be only allowed 100 KPH, what is to be done with these increasing mobile road blocks.

folks will follow a heavy vehicle for many miles before passing, then some will simply sit alongside. this I know from being behind the wheel of that heavy vehicle

yes i have driven in Europe, yes I have a "simplistic" view, over 40 years of driving all manner of vehicles, off road and on, under all manner of conditions gives one that view.

I have also seen many accidents and been involved in working out the causes.

but my personal thoughts are these

until roads are improved and most drivers are capable of this speed safely then I don't see it being achieved.

Franco Cozzo · 17-09-2013, 11:27 AM

Between Sunbury and Bendigo could be 130km/h easily for the Calder, its wide, multiple lanes and in good condition.

You'd really have to enforce that slow cars in the left lane only and police it, or book people for going too much under 130 if the weather is fine and someone wants to sit under the limit in the right lane.

I reckon the worst people for travelling stupidly slow is horse owners, they're always doing around 70 in 100 zones, and drive close to the line in the middle so you can't overtake, or won't pull into those little turn off lanes to let you pass. They always have cars capable of pulling their trailer and horse at 100km/h easily as well, I think they just feel like being assholes sometimes.

Or they pull out in front of you and slowly accelerate up to the speed limit, that is the number one thing that gets on my nerves.

Theres nothing more aggrivating than being caught behind a horse trailer doing 30km/h under the limit between Sunbury and Lancefield, that road has only a few safe spots to overtake in its entire stretch.

Grey nomads probably have an excuse with their 3000kg+ caravan that glides through the air like the Eureka Tower rather than the horse owner with their one or two horses in their trailer.

**Full Noise** · 17-09-2013, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BABenny

Bad move by Wheels in my opinion. I support the higher speed limit but deliberately breaking the law and risking other drivers lives to support the theory is not a wise decision.

Hypocrite much? Why don’t you sell your big GT and buy a Yaris then? Risking other driver’s lives, blah blah. How about swallowing a cup of cement and hardening the **** up? How dare they risk my life by driving a perfectly safe car with an experienced driver at a safe speed for the road and conditions, even though I wasn’t actually on the Hume that night. This is an outrage. Won’t someone think of the children?

Just for the record, 25 to 30 years ago, just about everyone travelled at $120 - $130 on that road, many travelled a lot faster and pretty much all of it was single lane back then.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BadMax

Police are only slamming the article as they drove from Melbourne to Sydney floating the law and didn't get picked up once. I see it as egg on their face not Wheels.

Got it in one. That muppet, John Hartley and his southern sidekick, Neville Taylor only have the shytes because it looks bad for them. Some bloke from another country who wouldn’t be familiar with all of the sneaky little hiding spots did the obvious thing by slowing down for the cameras and showed them up for being the revenue driven, incompetent, doughnut eaters that they really are. How sad.

Quote:

Originally Posted by in_xcess

Irresponsible to promote these speeds... main dilemma is the poor driver training in Aust.

I thank the Army for teaching me to drive safely and on how to handle many types of vehicles. Our young drivers today know ***** about driving so to pull stunts like this sends the wrong message to them.

130kmh is fine when advanced driver training is compulsory for all and ipsative driver assessment every 5 years is legislated - that's when you'll see the road toll drop.

I’ll give a bit of advice, free of charge. I wouldn’t go shouting from the rooftops that the Army taught you how to drive. Over the last 25 or so years, I’ve seen first hand what the Army turns out in the way of drivers, so if you really want to save yourself from embarrassment, I wouldn’t mention it. Put simply, most of the people who I’ve seen who were trained by the Army, I wouldn’t trust to wheel a shopping trolley through a Woolworth’s carpark.

Syndrome · 17-09-2013, 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by poppa smurf

but the fact stands......the higher the speed, the greater the risk.

True. Therefore if we were serious about eliminating risk, we should all be driving at maximum 20 km/h.

Fireblade · 17-09-2013, 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Syndrome

True. Therefore if we were serious about eliminating risk, we should all be driving at maximum 20 km/h.

Or we could walk and eliminate the risk even further.

**Full Noise** · 17-09-2013, 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Syndrome

True. Therefore if we were serious about eliminating risk, we should all be driving at maximum 20 km/h.

With someone standing in front of our car waving a red flag.

galaxy xr8 · 17-09-2013, 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MAD

The new sections of the Calder including all the bypasses to Bendigo could easily have a limit of 130km/h.

Yes and No, you couldn't have a speed limit of 130 on the Calder with Black ice as frequent as it is around some sections and with all the Black spots that the public has been calling for yr's to be fixed like the Calder Alt at Ravenswood for one, alot of work would still need to be done before speeds were allowed to be increased.

Having so many different speed's along a small section of hwy would be a breading ground for Revenue as it speaks, alot like going from one side of Bendigo to the other not to long ago, there were 40klm , 50klm, 60 klm sections on the one road, this caused so much grief that they have since scrapped the 50klm in some part's to make it all 60klm now unless 40klm at school times.

But I see what your saying it would be good to have a faster speed on what seems to be a good hwy but I still think alot need's to be done before that can happen.