[S] Swedish Motorways • Motorvägar i Sverige

[Euklidisk]

Originally Posted by SmarterChild

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.

Yes, mabye I can use the same argument; if there is no big difference, as you say, why not go from 90 to 100 or 120 km/h? It's all about an acceptable balance.

The fact is that non-divided roads is where people dies. If there is no money bulding motorways or widening to 2+1 roads in near future, then what to do? An interesting consequence of lowering to 80 km/h is that both cars and trucks is allowed to reach the same maximum speed, therefore making many dangerous overtakings unnecessary.

[Euklidisk]

Originally Posted by Chriszwolle

Forbid all traffic, that's even safer

No speed limit whatsoever! Everybody dies anyway!

[SmarterChild]

Originally Posted by Euklidisk

Yes, mabye I can use the same argument; if there is no big difference, as you say, why not go from 90 to 100 or 120 km/h? It's all about an acceptable balance.

The fact is that non-divided roads is where people dies. If there is no money bulding motorways or widening to 2+1 roads in near future, then what to do? An interesting consequence of lowering to 80 km/h is that both cars and trucks is allowed to reach the same maximum speed, therefore making many dangerous overtakings unnecessary.

That's valid on paper, but not in practice as most will probably drive 90 km/h anyway.

Why 90 km/h you ask? Well Swedish roads are among the least deadliest in Europe, so IMO it's obvioulsy an optimal limit for balance between the quality and the relatively low AADT of many many roads, which probably won't be 1+1 in our lifetimes.

That is ofcourse just my opinion, I don't think we're ever gonna agree on this though. :P

[ChrisZwolle]

Originally Posted by Euklidisk

The fact is that non-divided roads is where people dies. If there is no money bulding motorways or widening to 2+1 roads in near future, then what to do? An interesting consequence of lowering to 80 km/h is that both cars and trucks is allowed to reach the same maximum speed, therefore making many dangerous overtakings unnecessary.

You're absolutely right about that, but come see the Netherlands, we have an overall 80 limit, and endless overtaking prohibits. People don't take the continuous center line serious anymore, they used to mark places were overtaking was really dangerous, now they're everywhere, and lost it's original function.

[Euklidisk]

SmarterChild and ChriszWolle, I think we can agree on that these kind of roads is problematic in any case, especially when heavy loaded. So lets hope Sweden and the Netherlands can invest in safer roads, mabye not motorways but some kind och guardrail or at least painted overtaking lanes.

[ChrisZwolle]

I am hoping for 2+1 roads. They are much safer, even without any seperation between directions, because they offer safe overtaking possibilities. The Netherlands has currently only one of those roads, and guess what, it's right next to my city

But i've seen it often in Germany. It's a perfect solution for roads which are not busy enough to require a motorway, but busy enough to require safer overtaking possibilities.

[SmarterChild]

Originally Posted by Euklidisk

SmarterChild and ChriszWolle, I think we can agree on that these kind of roads is problematic in any case, especially when heavy loaded. So lets hope Sweden and the Netherlands can invest in safer roads, mabye not motorways but some kind och guardrail or at least painted overtaking lanes.

I don't agree with that!




Cheers mate

[Jeroen669]

Originally Posted by Euklidisk

An interesting consequence of lowering to 80 km/h is that both cars and trucks is allowed to reach the same maximum speed, therefore making many dangerous overtakings unnecessary.

80km/h isn't the same in a truck as in a car. On roads, let's say, less then 7,5 meters wide 80km/h is a HIGH speed for trucks, while the same road at the same speed can feel (too) slow in a car. You can't prevent overtaking, just because in theory all vehicles would be able to drive the same speed.

[ChrisZwolle]

Besides that, 80 on a truck's speedometer is 90 in a car's speedometer. So if you see a truck speeding with 100km/h it's usually not driving faster than 92/93km/h. That's because trucks have a much smaller deviation on their speedometer. You can check that out with a TomTom or something similar. If i drive 120 on the TomTom, i drive 129 on my speedometer.

People slowing down to 45km/h because of a 50km/h speeding camera are so irritating, you'll only get a ticket above 53/54km/h in reality, which is over 60 on your car's speedometer.

[Euklidisk]

Originally Posted by Jeroen669

80km/h isn't the same in a truck as in a car. On roads, let's say, less then 7,5 meters wide 80km/h is a HIGH speed for trucks, while the same road at the same speed can feel (too) slow in a car. You can't prevent overtaking, just because in theory all vehicles would be able to drive the same speed.

Generally main 90 km/h roads in Sweden is about 9 m or 13 m wide. The latter getting rebuilt to 1+2 in high rate. I'm a driver too so I know about how the speed can fly away, what feels fast in the begining is slow at the end of the trip But should that really influence the speed limit decision? My feeling is that trucks often go too fast on narrow roads. It's sometimes scary when a 2,5 m wide bus with 50 passengers passing a 2,5 m wide 60 ton truck with a distance of 0,5 m :p

[ChrisZwolle]

You need thousands of camera's for that, that's not practical. Dutch main road can be as narrow as 2,75m, with a truck you only have a few centimeters left on both sides (with mirrors).

[Jeroen669]

Originally Posted by Euklidisk

I'm a driver too so I know about how the speed can fly away, what feels fast in the begining is slow at the end of the trip But should that really influence the speed limit decision?

Why not? If you can drive 100-110 on wide straight road safely, wouldn't you feel trapped if the police caught you on driving too fast?

[Euklidisk]

Originally Posted by Jeroen669

Why not? If you can drive 100-110 on wide straight road safely, wouldn't you feel trapped if the police caught you on driving too fast?

Probably If it's safe enough with 100-110 the limit should of course be 100-110. Do you mean like it's different conditions during the day or seasons?

[Euklidisk]

Originally Posted by Chriszwolle

You need thousands of camera's for that, that's not practical. Dutch main road can be as narrow as 2,75m, with a truck you only have a few centimeters left on both sides (with mirrors).

Yes, you are right. I'm not advocating cameras on every small country road, it won't work. It was only my personal reflection. Last year there was a tragic bus accident north of Uppsala. Two busses collided on a "narrow" 90 km/h road. Six people died.

[ChrisZwolle]

One should adapt a lower speed in such road conditions.

Own responsibility. To me that's more important than a massive amount of signs advocating a lower speed limit. A bit like they do it in Germany.

[Euklidisk]

Originally Posted by Chriszwolle

One should adapt a lower speed in such road conditions.

Own responsibility. To me that's more important than a massive amount of signs advocating a lower speed limit. A bit like they do it in Germany.

Yes, own responsibility is important but doesn't always work. An interesting circumstance in this case was (Swedish, from DN):

"Samtidigt påpekar Knut Hawby, avdelningschef vid Vägverket, att de gånger som verket försökt att sätta ned hastigheten på samma väg närmare Uppsala "kom det kraftiga protester". "

Free transplate: When we have tried to lower the speed limit on this road we ran into "strong protests", an road authority department director says.

And this is tragic (Swedish, from DN):

"Vajerräcken på olycksplatsen kunde ha hindrat eller mildrat den allvarliga bussolyckan. Men en ombyggnation, med vajerräcken, är planerad först till 2013."

Free transplate: Guardrail would have prevent or mitigate the accident, but the rebuilding is planned first in year 2013.

[ElviS77]

Well, what we do know is that people aren't particularly rational beings, especially when it comes to driving. First of all, having a 10-kph-interval option may have both positive and negative effects. I think the main issue is to avoid the Norwegian disease of changing the speed limit so many times that the average driver only gets confused. Otherwise, I think it makes sense, particularly in the lower end of the limit scale - 30 to 50 is a really large interval, as is 50 to 70.

In terms of the limits themselves, there is little doubt that limits higher than 80-90 kph on undivided highways in itself is a safety hazard. Swedish research shows that 70 kph is a critical limit in terms of surviving head-on collisions, if you're going faster than that, the deceleration forces are potentially lethal no matter what kind of car you drive.

Then, the only issue becomes what kind of risks are we willing to accept? It is relatively easy to build 2-lane undivided roads that invite you to go 100+ kph (plenty of those in Sweden, even a few in Norway...). But should we be allowed to when we know the risk involved? I honestly think not. 90 is more than high enough. Motorways and divided expressways is a different kettle of fish altogether. 120+ is safe on motorways, and 100+ makes sense on 2+1 or 2+2 roads.

[Euklidisk]

Originally Posted by ElviS77

Then, the only issue becomes what kind of risks are we willing to accept?

I would say it's a matter of public economy. More/worse accidents means expensive health care and sick leave. Death means 10-20 years of education and mabye many years of job experience in the trash. And to that the relatives missing their partner, mother, father, child, brother, sister, friend etc. Higher speed also means higher fuel consumption and wear. But on the other hand higher speed means shorter trips and thus saving time = money. But i generally doubt 90 km/h is more profitable than 80 km/h on these kind of roads, mabye not in northern Sweden. The 90 km/h limit is about politics and fear of fall out with the "public".

[Dan]

I'm personally all for more cameras, even if I hate them myself. They do make things safer so I'm all for them.

[Jeroen669]

Originally Posted by Dan1113

They do make things safer so I'm all for them.

Speeding is rarely the real cause of accidents... Besides, swedish roads are clearly already very safe. You come to a point when you have to accept that traffic is never without risks. You can lower and lower speed limits to, in theory, reduce the results of accidents. But people wil disobey more and more, and people are less able to handle higher speeds, on which the road is designed for.
Safe driving begins with good education and safe roads. I guess neither of them is a real problem in Sweden.