[S] Swedish Motorways • Motorvägar i Sverige

[ChrisZwolle]

Yeah, those are better for driving in the right gear.

[SmarterChild]

Originally Posted by Euklidisk

In my opinion they should also lower the non-divided 90 km/h roads to 80 km/h, but that's mabye politically impossible

Well maybe some of the narrower ones but IMO otherwise that's just silly really... 90 km/h is working fine, besides we live in a large country and distances are long.

I do hope 14m wide roads get a higher limit though.

[Euklidisk]

Originally Posted by Verso

Odd speed limits are much better, believe me. 130 km/h instead of 120; 110 instead of 100; 90 instead of 80; 70 instead of 60 and so on.

...or like 110 instead of 120, 90 instead of 100, 70 instead of 80, 50 instead of 60 and so on?

[ChrisZwolle]

No, +10 km/h

Perfectly feasibly, Sweden is a quiet country, traffic-wise. Lower speed limits only attracts more speed violations. I can see that in the Netherlands, where the speed limits are generally one road-classification too low. Nobody sticks to the limit, unless there is speed enforcement.

[Euklidisk]

Originally Posted by SmarterChild

Well maybe some of the narrower ones but IMO otherwise that's just silly really... 90 km/h is working fine, besides we live in a large country and distances are long.

Why is it silly? Non-divided high speed roads is killers. The current situation with 90 km/h on both divided and non-divided is absurd. In northern Sweden 110 km/h is allowed on really bad roads!

We have to adress the problem insted of allow too high speeds on unsafe roads. More guardrails to the people!

[Euklidisk]

Originally Posted by Chriszwolle

No, +10 km/h

Perfectly feasibly, Sweden is a quiet country, traffic-wise. Lower speed limits only attracts more speed violations. I can see that in the Netherlands, where the speed limits are generally one road-classification too low. Nobody sticks to the limit, unless there is speed enforcement.

So why not 140, 120, 100, 80...? Higher speeds is not an argument against even speed limits.

[ChrisZwolle]

Originally Posted by Euklidisk

Why is it silly? Non-divided high speed roads is killers. The current situation with 90 km/h on both divided and non-divided is absurd. In northern Sweden 110 km/h is allowed on really bad roads!

We have to adress the problem insted of allow too high speeds on unsafe roads. More guardrails to the people!

Well, Sweden is still one of the safest countries to travel in, even with the harsh road conditions which can pop up during the winter.

[Euklidisk]

Originally Posted by Chriszwolle

Well, Sweden is still one of the safest countries to travel in, even with the harsh road conditions which can pop up during the winter.

True, Sweden - and the Netherlands - in world class, but it's a relative comparison and best isn't always good.

[SmarterChild]

Originally Posted by Euklidisk

Why is it silly? Non-divided high speed roads is killers. The current situation with 90 km/h on both divided and non-divided is absurd. In northern Sweden 110 km/h is allowed on really bad roads!

We have to adress the problem insted of allow too high speeds on unsafe roads. More guardrails to the people!

I don't think 90 km/h can qualify as a "high speed road"... but lowering the speed to 80 km/h is just unnecessary because;

1. The consequences of a collision in 90 km/h isn't very different than one in 80 km/h.

2. Money will be wasted on changing signs.

3. The people who are used to the road will continue driving 90 km/h anyway as they know it's safe to do so.

4. Long distance travellers will be frustrated at an unnecessarily low speed limit and make bold overtakings which will result in more accidents.

5. People will start disobeying the speed limits elsewhere aswell.

I agree that having 90 km/h on both divided and non-divided is absurd, on 2+1 roads 100-110 km/h is more appropriate.

I also agree that we need more guardrails. Safer roads with guardrails and grade separated junctions is is what should be prioritized as opposed to wasting money on speed cameras, new signs and whatnot.

However aslong as the infrastructure budget continues to be neglected, I doubt we will see much change in road conditions and I don't think lowering the general speed limits will be a popular move outside the larger cities as it will be seen as a subsitute for better roads (which is exactly what it is).

[Verso]

Originally Posted by Euklidisk

...or like 110 instead of 120, 90 instead of 100, 70 instead of 80, 50 instead of 60 and so on?

Originally Posted by Euklidisk

So why not 140, 120, 100, 80...? Higher speeds is not an argument against even speed limits.

Theoretically yes, but in reality it's a bit different. I wouldn't mind speed limit 140 km/h on motorways (although very few countries allow that), but it's different with other roads. IMO 100 km/h is too low for 4-lane expressways (without hard shoulders or in urban areas), so 110 km/h is better, whereas 120 km/h sounds too much to me. 100 km/h is good on 2-lane expressways, especially those without hard shoulders. On those with hard shoulders 110 km/h would be just fine. However, on most other 2-lane roads 100 km/h is too much, but 80 km/h feels incredibly slow. If a road is somewhat winding (but not too much) or is a major road through a village with just a few houses here and there, 80 km/h would be too much and 60 km/h too little. Through real cities and towns 50 km/h is usually better than 60.

[Euklidisk]

Originally Posted by SmarterChild

1. The consequences of a collision in 90 km/h isn't very different than one in 80 km/h.

No, it may be the difference between life and death.

Originally Posted by SmarterChild

2. Money will be wasted on changing signs.

...and life will be saved.

Originally Posted by SmarterChild

3. The people who are used to the road will continue driving 90 km/h anyway as they know it's safe to do so.

Some "know" 110, 130 or 150 km/h is safe But you have probably right about peoples habits. What about information campaigns, presence of the police and mabye more cameras?

Originally Posted by SmarterChild

4. Long distance travellers will be frustrated at an unnecessarily low speed limit and make bold overtakings which will result in more accidents.

Mabye they shouldn't have a driver's license?

Originally Posted by SmarterChild

5. People will start disobeying the speed limits elsewhere aswell.

I have heard the same argument against higher speed limits.

Originally Posted by SmarterChild

I also agree that we need more guardrails. Safer roads with guardrails and grade separated junctions is is what should be prioritized as opposed to wasting money on speed cameras, new signs and whatnot.

I'm surprised how calm and how all crazy overtakings disappear on these camera roads. They make a difference. Until we have better standard this is what we can do.

[Rebasepoiss]

Originally Posted by SmarterChild

2. Money will be wasted on changing signs.

Heck, we here in Estonia change signs twice a year. In May from 90 to 100/110 and in September/October the opposite. That's on major routes, though, because smaller routes have 90km/h all year round.

[Euklidisk]

Originally Posted by Verso

Theoretically yes, but in reality it's a bit different. I wouldn't mind speed limit 140 km/h on motorways (although very few countries allow that), but it's different with other roads. IMO 100 km/h is too low for 4-lane expressways (without hard shoulders or in urban areas), so 110 km/h is better, whereas 120 km/h sounds too much to me. 100 km/h is good on 2-lane expressways, especially those without hard shoulders. On those with hard shoulders 110 km/h would be just fine. However, on most other 2-lane roads 100 km/h is too much, but 80 km/h feels incredibly slow. If a road is somewhat winding (but not too much) or is a major road through a village with just a few houses here and there, 80 km/h would be too much and 60 km/h too little. Through real cities and towns 50 km/h is usually better than 60.

In the city core i think 40 km/h is the best limit. 50 km/h is often too high and 30 km/h too low if there isn't special conditions. On separated suburban roads 50 km/h is sometimes too low, and 60 km/h would be better. This is from my Swedish experience

I generally have no problems with speeds 90-130 km/h on safe roads - Meaning Motorways or guardrail roads. It's when mixed with pedestrians/bicycles in the city or non-divided country/express roads where people mostly dies.

[SmarterChild]

Originally Posted by Euklidisk

No, it may be the difference between life and death.



...and life will be saved.



Some "know" 110, 130 or 150 km/h is safe But you have probably right about peoples habits. What about information campaigns, presence of the police and mabye more cameras?



Mabye they shouldn't have a driver's license?



I have heard the same argument against higher speed limits.



I'm surprised how calm and how all crazy overtakings disappear on these camera roads. They make a difference. Until we have better standard this is what we can do.

Im sure the possibility of lowering the speed limit to 80 km/h wouldn't have slipped by the authorities had the impact of it been that great.

Luckily though, Vägverket seems more keen to focus on road -capacity and -condition improvements in it's long term goals rather than wasting money and time on trifles such as marginally lowering the speed limits.

[Verso]

Originally Posted by Euklidisk

In the city core i think 40 km/h is the best limit. 50 km/h is often too high and 30 km/h too low if there isn't special conditions. On separated suburban roads 50 km/h is sometimes too low, and 60 km/h would be better. This is from my Swedish experience

I generally have no problems with speeds 90-130 km/h on safe roads - Meaning Motorways or guardrail roads. It's when mixed with pedestrians/bicycles in the city or non-divided country/express roads where people mostly dies.

I respect your opinion, I just remember when we still had almost exclusively even tens (60/80/100/120 km/h) and very rarely odd tens (50/70/90/110 (130 km/h didn't exist at all)). I didn't like it at all. They mostly raised speed limits for 10 km/h, they just lowered the limit in urban areas from 60 to 50 km/h, except on most 4-lane roads, where it can be up to 70 km/h, if the road is good enough.

[Euklidisk]

Originally Posted by SmarterChild

Im sure the possibility of lowering the speed limit to 80 km/h wouldn't have slipped by the authorities had the impact of it been that great.

Luckily though, Vägverket seems more keen to focus on road -capacity and -condition improvements in it's long term goals rather than wasting money and time on trifles such as marginally lowering the speed limits.

No this is not tifle. The chance of surviving an accident is rapidly decreasing with the speed.

[Dan]

Yay for new speed limits! I wish more stretches were getting 120 though...

[SmarterChild]

Originally Posted by Euklidisk

No this is not tifle. The chance of surviving an accident is rapidly decreasing with the speed.

Indeed, but the chances of survivng a two car collision is already slim at 70 km/h, so maybe we should lower the speed limit to 50 km/h to save more lives.

[ChrisZwolle]

Forbid all traffic, that's even safer

[SmarterChild]

Originally Posted by Chriszwolle

Forbid all traffic, that's even safer

Bikes über alles!