daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > Infrastructure and Mobility Forums > Highways & Autobahns

Highways & Autobahns All about automobility



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old March 19th, 2009, 05:39 PM   #661
Verso
Islander
 
Verso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ljubljana
Posts: 22,086
Likes (Received): 4749

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robosteve View Post
Hahaha, maybe that small text says "unless signed otherwise" or something? It's too blurry to read it.
Oh maybe, I didn't think of that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by superalbanian View Post
Its something I would love to do before the end of me.
'before the end of me'
Verso no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old March 21st, 2009, 06:56 AM   #662
invincible
Lurker
 
invincible's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 3,804
Likes (Received): 523

image hosted on flickr
invincible no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 21st, 2009, 10:13 AM   #663
Muttie
Registered User
 
Muttie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Rotterdam - Nador - Tangier
Posts: 4,085
Likes (Received): 1347

Quote:
Originally Posted by invincible View Post
Madness, doesnt seem to be a very safe speed....
Muttie no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 21st, 2009, 02:57 PM   #664
ElviS77
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 564
Likes (Received): 54

Quote:
Originally Posted by Muttie View Post
Madness, doesnt seem to be a very safe speed....
Agreed. That's just insane. Hopefully, the AADT is close to zero.
ElviS77 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 21st, 2009, 06:01 PM   #665
ChrisZwolle
Road user
 
ChrisZwolle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Zwolle
Posts: 43,568
Likes (Received): 19354

100 would be okay for that road (judging from the picture).
ChrisZwolle está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old March 21st, 2009, 07:59 PM   #666
Jeroen669
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 787
Likes (Received): 13

Quote:
Originally Posted by Muttie View Post
Madness, doesnt seem to be a very safe speed....
Just one picture doesn't say too much whether the limit is safe or not. And even if it's not: you're not obligated to drive that speed, you need to adjust your speed to the road conditions...
Jeroen669 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 22nd, 2009, 05:02 PM   #667
ElviS77
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 564
Likes (Received): 54

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeroen669 View Post
Just one picture doesn't say too much whether the limit is safe or not. And even if it's not: you're not obligated to drive that speed, you need to adjust your speed to the road conditions...
Sure, but on a undivided road, a limit above 70 kph is really questionable, safety-wise. It's a question of simple physics. Still, I know that 70 as an absolute limit is out of the question, and not even something I'd like to see. 80 is fine, 90 ok in certain areas, and I'm even willing to accept the sensibility of 100 kph zones on particularly good and safe roads. The road on the picture, however, though wide and straight, seems to have both a junction and exits, which are very good reasons for a lower limit.
ElviS77 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 22nd, 2009, 07:27 PM   #668
Verso
Islander
 
Verso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ljubljana
Posts: 22,086
Likes (Received): 4749

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElviS77 View Post
Sure, but on a undivided road, a limit above 70 kph is really questionable, safety-wise.
You realize that 70 km/h is incredibly slow, if the road is good? Speed limit on Hungarian M70, f.e., is 110 km/h, but I drove 130-140 km/h, and it was totally safe. Why would I crash?
Verso no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 22nd, 2009, 08:30 PM   #669
ZZ-II
I love Skyscrapers
 
ZZ-II's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Near Ingolstadt in Bavaria
Posts: 33,526
Likes (Received): 6555

, 70km/h....

look at this road ( it isn't that bad as it looks, it's only zoomed ):

[IMG]http://i43.************/21bko5i.jpg[/IMG]

and on this pic taken by my buddy:

[IMG]http://i44.************/2f066fc.jpg[/IMG]

top speed arround 160km/h, and save....
ZZ-II no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 22nd, 2009, 08:57 PM   #670
ElviS77
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 564
Likes (Received): 54

Quote:
Originally Posted by Verso View Post
You realize that 70 km/h is incredibly slow, if the road is good? Speed limit on Hungarian M70, f.e., is 110 km/h, but I drove 130-140 km/h, and it was totally safe. Why would I crash?
Yes, why would you...? Why, in fact, does anyone crash, and why are high-speed, quality 2-lane undivided highways/expressways especially prone to serious incidents? The answer is very simple. Speed, in various guises:

First, because 70 kph is about as fast you can go if you want to survive a head-on in a modern car. Second, because you're travelling about 30 metres every second at 100 kph, and thus, even if you're equipped with formula one-drivers' reflexes, you will have gone 10 or 15 metres even before your body will consider the possibility of braking. Third, because breaking length increases four times when speed doubles.

This is, of course, not much of a problem as long as nothing out of the ordinary happens. But since driving is infinitely complicated, sometimes these things happen. For all sorts of reasons: a drunk-driver veering across the road, a pick-up which has an explosive puncture, an 18-year old not experienced enough to realise the hazards of aquaplaning, an irate Audi driver overtaking recklessly, a deer in the roadway, debris which has fallen off a trailer blocking one lane, a tired driver falling asleep at the wheel, a slow-moving heavily laden lorry... Plus many other more or less dramatic events. We, the super drivers of Skyscrapercity don't make these, of course, but nonetheless, they happen all the time, everywhere, and we may be forced to deal with them.

And that's where speed plays its most dramatic part. If you're just about able to stop for an obstruction, a child running into the road or a deer whilst doing 50 kph, you'd be plowing through doing between 35 and 40 if you'd started out at 60. This is simple physics, and the faster you go, the more profound this effect becomes. Another piece of simple physics is the sentripetal forces, which makes any car more difficult to steer and control the faster you go and any emergency maneuovre equally more difficult to execute.

As I said, I know that 70 is exceptionally slow, and thus, not even the safety-conscious people of the Norwegian road administration has proposed such a limit. But I do believe that if you're going to singpost an undivided road with a higher speed than 80 or 90, make sure the AADT is really, really low. Unless you're out to promote serious road accidents, that is...
ElviS77 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 22nd, 2009, 09:00 PM   #671
ElviS77
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 564
Likes (Received): 54

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZZ-II View Post
, 70km/h....

look at this road ( it isn't that bad as it looks, it's only zoomed ):

[IMG]http://i43.************/21bko5i.jpg[/IMG]

and on this pic taken by my buddy:

[IMG]http://i44.************/2f066fc.jpg[/IMG]

top speed arround 160km/h, and save....
And if the guy in the car coming in the other direction had a heart attack, you'd both be dead. If you'd both done 70 or thereabouts, at least you'd live. Again, I'm absolutely not in favour of imposing a general 70 kph limit, but the more responses I read, the more sense it makes...
ElviS77 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 22nd, 2009, 09:12 PM   #672
Jeroen669
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 787
Likes (Received): 13

@ElviS77: there are so many other things that have so much more influence on road safety than just speed. Number of (at-level) junctions, number of lanes, size of the lanes, trees, etc.

I also think you underestimate the UNsafety of too low speed limits. People who are driving too slow drive often less actively than someone who drives a reasonable speed. You'll get much easier distracted doing 70km/h on a road like on the pictures above...
Jeroen669 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 22nd, 2009, 10:46 PM   #673
ElviS77
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 564
Likes (Received): 54

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeroen669 View Post
@ElviS77: there are so many other things that have so much more influence on road safety than just speed. Number of (at-level) junctions, number of lanes, size of the lanes, trees, etc.
True. But as long as we're talking about roads with two-way traffic and no central divider, the be-all, end-all measuring stick of safety is head-on crashes. And you won't survive those at more than 70, no matter what kind of car you're driving. That's my main point. I'm also saying that the faster you go, the more difficult it is to avoid incidents and consequences of any mishap are more serious. You can make reasonably safe 2-lane roads with a 80 or 90 limit (but you still accept that fatalities will occur), any higher than that is only safe-ish with very low traffic volumes. These are scientific facts, not arguments.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeroen669 View Post
I also think you underestimate the UNsafety of too low speed limits. People who are driving too slow drive often less actively than someone who drives a reasonable speed. You'll get much easier distracted doing 70km/h on a road like on the pictures above...
It's remotely possible you're right, but you won't kill the ones you hit, at least. And again, the science is simple. Even if you're a bit less focused, the fact that you have more time to deal with any incident with a car that responds faster and is far easier to handle, will 99 times out of a 100 make up for any lapse in concentration. The belief in increased driver competence at speed never ceases to amaze me... A short anecdote: A friend of a friend of mine ended up in a ditch with his fancy car. Luckily, it was proper Norwegian winter conditions, and both the car and the man survived reasonably unscathed. His excuse? "I was in complete control all the way... until I suddenly was off." Your arguments mirror his.

Again: I don't think 70 is realistic, even though the Swedish "Zero Killed Vision" project state that to make the vision happen, no undivided road should have a higher limit. At the same time, they advocate for more central barriers or motorways. I support this wholeheartedly. Safer roads are essential, but unfortunately, drivers' attitudes are part of the problem. Everyone wants the government to fund and build roads, but when they want to impose laws and controls, the very same people get ticked off. Quite amazing, really, particularly when you compare with the same public's attitude to rail or air safety. There, noone accepts a single mistake, and even the sub-1000 annual air crash fatalities worldwide (few of which occur in developed countries) are considered too many. The same goes for rail. On the roads, any attempt to reduce fatalities which is also seen as limiting driver freedom is frowned upon (even seat belts have been a problem...). The result? 250 dead each year... in Norway alone. Put the Scandinavian countries together, and you "outclass" global air travel.

As I've said before, I think we need to accept certain restrictions. Not just because of safety concerns, but in order to avoid harsher legislation which will remove all driver freedom. The technology is there.
ElviS77 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 23rd, 2009, 01:23 AM   #674
Verso
Islander
 
Verso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ljubljana
Posts: 22,086
Likes (Received): 4749

2×70 = 140 km/h. If two cars crash frontally, you're dead by 140 km/h. 70 km/h is way too slow for the road I posted. Minimum should be 100 km/h.

(sorry, I'm not into long posts )
Verso no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 23rd, 2009, 07:46 AM   #675
deranged
okay then
 
deranged's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 6,415
Likes (Received): 167

Quote:
Originally Posted by Verso View Post
(sorry, I'm not into long posts )
In that case, you won't like what's coming...

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElviS77 View Post
First, because 70 kph is about as fast you can go if you want to survive a head-on in a modern car.
Really? I would have thought it would be lower than that. Or do you mean that 70km/h is as fast as you can go if you want a sufficient reaction time to reduce the effects of a head-on collision?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElviS77 View Post
Second, because you're travelling about 30 metres every second at 100 kph, and thus, even if you're equipped with formula one-drivers' reflexes, you will have gone 10 or 15 metres even before your body will consider the possibility of braking. Third, because breaking length increases four times when speed doubles.
I know.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElviS77 View Post
And that's where speed plays its most dramatic part. If you're just about able to stop for an obstruction, a child running into the road or a deer whilst doing 50 kph, you'd be plowing through doing between 35 and 40 if you'd started out at 60. This is simple physics, and the faster you go, the more profound this effect becomes. Another piece of simple physics is the sentripetal forces, which makes any car more difficult to steer and control the faster you go and any emergency maneuovre equally more difficult to execute.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElviS77 View Post
This is, of course, not much of a problem as long as nothing out of the ordinary happens. But since driving is infinitely complicated, sometimes these things happen. For all sorts of reasons: a drunk-driver veering across the road, a pick-up which has an explosive puncture, an 18-year old not experienced enough to realise the hazards of aquaplaning, an irate Audi driver overtaking recklessly, a deer in the roadway, debris which has fallen off a trailer blocking one lane, (...) a slow-moving heavily laden lorry... Plus many other more or less dramatic events. We, the super drivers of Skyscrapercity don't make these, of course, but nonetheless, they happen all the time, everywhere, and we may be forced to deal with them.
This does not support your point. You will be more effectively able to react to these incidents at 40km/h than at 70km/h, and you will be more effectively able to react to these incidents at 100km/h than at 130km/h. Setting speed limits is not about minimising fatalities (for which 0km/h is the end goal), it is a tradeoff between safety and transportation efficiency. I know that you realise this, given that you do not support a 70km/h speed limit but instead believe "80 is fine, 90 ok in certain areas", but it doesn't justify why you believe that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElviS77 View Post
a tired driver falling asleep at the wheel
Why do you think many of them became fatigued and/or fell asleep? Gee, it wouldn't have anything to do with the artificially low speed limit and 50% longer journey time (at 70), would it...

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElviS77 View Post
But I do believe that if you're going to singpost an undivided road with a higher speed than 80 or 90, make sure the AADT is really, really low.
That's just hyperbole.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElviS77 View Post
Unless you're out to promote serious road accidents, that is...
I'm not out to promote serious road accidents - why, just the other day, I was driving at 230km/h on the wrong side of a residential street with a BAC of 0.19 while talking on my mobile phone and trying to shave in the rear-view mirror. But the car had a bumper sticker which read "back off", so I was doing my bit to promote safety by discouraging tailgating.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElviS77 View Post
True. But as long as we're talking about roads with two-way traffic and no central divider, the be-all, end-all measuring stick of safety is head-on crashes. And you won't survive those at more than 70, no matter what kind of car you're driving. That's my main point. I'm also saying that the faster you go, the more difficult it is to avoid incidents and consequences of any mishap are more serious.
That's only necessarily true when inattention and fatigue are held constant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElviS77 View Post
You can make reasonably safe 2-lane roads with a 80 or 90 limit (but you still accept that fatalities will occur), any higher than that is only safe-ish with very low traffic volumes. These are scientific facts, not arguments.
But if that's the case, you have to back them up.

Anyway, since we're talking about 70km/h again:

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElviS77 View Post
It's remotely possible you're right,
"Remotely possible" indeed...

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElviS77 View Post
but you won't kill the ones you hit, at least.
If you're more likely to be distracted at 70km/h than at 100km/h:
(1) Your reaction time will be worse than an alert driver at 70km/h;
(2) You are more likely to brake from 100km/h;
(3) If you encounter an extraordinary event (such as a deer or a veering drink-driver), your reaction time on average may be worse than at 100km/h, given that you are more likely to be distracted.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElviS77 View Post
And again, the science is simple. Even if you're a bit less focused,
"Bit less focused"? We're talking about 70 vs 100 here, not 90 vs 100.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElviS77 View Post
the fact that you have more time to deal with any incident with a car that responds faster and is far easier to handle,
So why not a speed limit of 40km/h?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElviS77 View Post
will 99 times out of a 100 make up for any lapse in concentration.
More hyperbole.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElviS77 View Post
The belief in increased driver competence at speed never ceases to amaze me... A short anecdote: A friend of a friend of mine ended up in a ditch with his fancy car. Luckily, it was proper Norwegian winter conditions, and both the car and the man survived reasonably unscathed. His excuse? "I was in complete control all the way... until I suddenly was off."
So?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElviS77 View Post
Safer roads are essential, but unfortunately, drivers' attitudes are part of the problem. Everyone wants the government to fund and build roads, but when they want to impose laws and controls, the very same people get ticked off.
Depends on whether the laws and controls are reasonable and justified.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElviS77 View Post
Quite amazing, really, particularly when you compare with the same public's attitude to rail or air safety. There, noone accepts a single mistake, and even the sub-1000 annual air crash fatalities worldwide (few of which occur in developed countries) are considered too many. The same goes for rail.
Irrelevant. You're comparing apples with oranges.

(In any case, most people realise that mistakes can happen. But more importantly, in rail and air travel those "single mistakes" can often each be responsible for dozens or hundreds of deaths.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElviS77 View Post
On the roads, any attempt to reduce fatalities which is also seen as limiting driver freedom is frowned upon (even seat belts have been a problem...). The result? 250 dead each year... in Norway alone.
I don't know about the Norwegian situation, but this doesn't look like a rational argument.

Last edited by deranged; March 23rd, 2009 at 11:21 AM.
deranged no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 23rd, 2009, 01:03 PM   #676
ElviS77
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 564
Likes (Received): 54

Quote:
Originally Posted by Verso View Post
2×70 = 140 km/h. If two cars crash frontally, you're dead by 140 km/h. 70 km/h is way too slow for the road I posted. Minimum should be 100 km/h.

(sorry, I'm not into long posts )
Actually, no. According to Swedish research, the energy involved in a 70 kph head-on collision is survivable... just. Which would be the short answer.
ElviS77 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 23rd, 2009, 01:36 PM   #677
ElviS77
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 564
Likes (Received): 54

Quote:
Originally Posted by deranged View Post
Really? I would have thought it would be lower than that. Or do you mean that 70km/h is as fast as you can go if you want a sufficient reaction time to reduce the effects of a head-on collision?
See above.

Quote:
Originally Posted by deranged View Post
This does not support your point. You will be more effectively able to react to these incidents at 40km/h than at 70km/h, and you will be more effectively able to react to these incidents at 100km/h than at 130km/h. Setting speed limits is not about minimising fatalities (for which 0km/h is the end goal), it is a tradeoff between safety and transportation efficiency. I know that you realise this, given that you do not support a 70km/h speed limit but instead believe "80 is fine, 90 ok in certain areas", but it doesn't justify why you believe that.
Speed limits are most certainly a trade-off, but if the aim is zero dead, they shouldn't and can't be. The reason why I accept 80-100 kph limits is simple: 70 won't happen. Double standards perhaps, but since 80 is far safer than 110, I'll take that any day.

Quote:
Originally Posted by deranged View Post
Why do you think many of them became fatigued and/or fell asleep? Gee, it wouldn't have anything to do with the artificially low speed limit and 50% longer journey time (at 70), would it...
Lower limits does not justify not making responsible choices regarding your own driving. BTW, a Norwegian study showed that virtually everyone who fell asleep whilst driving did so on short trips or quite early on.

Quote:
Originally Posted by deranged View Post
I'm not out to promote serious road accidents - why, just the other day, I was driving at 230km/h on the wrong side of a residential street with a BAC of 0.19 while talking on my mobile phone and trying to shave in the rear-view mirror. But the car had a bumper sticker which read "back off", so I was doing my bit to promote safety by discouraging tailgating.
Well, your position is one that in reality accepts thousands of dead each year, so the consequence is just that. Even when not doing as stated above.

Quote:
Originally Posted by deranged View Post
If you're more likely to be distracted at 70km/h than at 100km/h:
(1) Your reaction time will be worse than an alert driver at 70km/h;
(2) You are more likely to brake from 100km/h;
(3) If you encounter an extraordinary event (such as a deer or a veering drink-driver), your reaction time on average may be worse than at 100km/h, given that you are more likely to be distracted.
In most cases, no. There is no difference, that's why a 70 kph road where drivers obey the limit (because of police presence, speed cameras, attitude etc) is far safer than a similar road with 100 kph. Accident rates dropped by 15% on Norwegian roads where the limit was reduced from 80 to 70 (about 10% of the road network, I believe).

Quote:
Originally Posted by deranged View Post
So why not a speed limit of 40km/h?
Because 70 is survivable. But of course, a 40-50 rural limit, with 30 in towns and walking speed in residential areas with GPS tracking systems is the only way to avoid serious injuries. As of now, not realistic, and hopefully both drivers and authorities make choices so that it never will be either.

Quote:
Originally Posted by deranged View Post
More hyperbole.
I prefer arguments to mediocre literary critique.

Quote:
Originally Posted by deranged View Post
Depends on whether the laws and controls are reasonable and justified.
What better justification can you get than saving lives?

Quote:
Originally Posted by deranged View Post
Irrelevant. You're comparing apples with oranges.
The same apples and oranges people are very fond of comparing regarding i.e. effective transport systems and environmental issues. So an irrelevant comparison when it comes to safety? I think not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by deranged View Post
(In any case, most people realise that mistakes can happen. But more importantly, in rail and air travel those "single mistakes" can often each be responsible for dozens or hundreds of deaths.)
Yes. But neither governments nor the public accept air or rail crashes. The stated objective is no dead, and people found responsible for negligence when a crash happens are likely to face criminal charges. And, as I said already: Yes, a single plain crash may claim 100+ lives... which is about the same as roads in Germany kill in a week. Globally, air travel takes about 800 lives a year. Roads kill hundreds of thousands. And why? Because too many people accept it as an unavoidable consequence of individual mobility.

Quote:
Originally Posted by deranged View Post
I don't know about the Norwegian situation, but this doesn't look like a rational argument.
Why not? If you don't feel like debating, fair enough, but then I can't really see the point of commenting my arguments.
ElviS77 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 23rd, 2009, 02:15 PM   #678
54°26′S 3°24′E
Registered User
 
54°26′S 3°24′E's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 811
Likes (Received): 155

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElviS77 View Post
Actually, no. According to Swedish research, the energy involved in a 70 kph head-on collision is survivable... just. Which would be the short answer.
Although this in theory probably is true (if, and only if, the two vehicles in question have similar weight), there are a few other issues that in my opinion makes the wiseness of 70 km/h limits questionable.

1. Some people actually (think) they obey the 70 km/h rule. That is, they assure that they speedometer always is below the posted limits which usually means that their real speed is at least 10 % below. Other people (in my experience most) don't think that the new limits do make any sense, and drive more or less as before. Hence, the speed differences between vehicles, and amount of reckless passing, in my experience have increased in zones with 70 km/h. As far as I remember the average speed decrease was only 3-4 km/h after the new limits were introduced.

2. Unfortunately, it is also my experience that some people due to the new limits lose confindence to the speed limit system altogether, and starts to drive correspondingly faster on other roads as well. Hence the possible safety gain on high traffic 70 km/h roads may be eaten up by higher speed at other roads. This may explain why the accident rates in Norway has not developed as positively as in many other countries lately (although they are still on a very low level). It is quite strange to observe that the speed on for instance Norwegian and (northern) Italian motorways are quite similar, although the speed limit in Italy is 30 km/h higher (and the fines in Norway are extremely high, and the licence is lost already at 35 km/h (if I remember right) above the posted speed limit)

3. If my memory serves me right, I also I read somewhere that the Norwegian road authorities admitted that the accident rate actually was higher after reducing the speed, although they maintained that the number of fatalities decreased.

4. Also low speed limits have a cost, in terms of a less efficient society/economy. Although its effect is more indirect than road fatalities, it is not neccessarily less serious. A less effective economy means less welfare, and for instance makes it more difficult to maintain good health care. This is a factor that is seldom discussed publicly.

Having said that, I think Elvis77 was one of the most sensible participants in the debate above. I have not been in NT, but 130 km/h across a hilltop does not look very smart, although the AADT up there is usually really, really low. In NSW, at least, I found it more puzzling that they actually had 70 km/h on some urban Sydney streets, with parked cars, driveways, and sidewalks, wheras their motorway speed limits were comparably quite low (110 km/h).
__________________
Norway needs a new transport infrastructure network, let's start now!
54°26′S 3°24′E no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 23rd, 2009, 03:16 PM   #679
deranged
okay then
 
deranged's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 6,415
Likes (Received): 167

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElviS77 View Post
See above.
Ok.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElviS77 View Post
The reason why I accept 80-100 kph limits is simple: 70 won't happen. Double standards perhaps, but since 80 is far safer than 110, I'll take that any day.
I see.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElviS77 View Post
Lower limits does not justify not making responsible choices regarding your own driving.
I know, but speed limits can influence attitudes towards driving and driving behaviour.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElviS77 View Post
BTW, a Norwegian study showed that virtually everyone who fell asleep whilst driving did so on short trips or quite early on.
Ok, but the point is not only about falling asleep, it's also about fatigue and alertness.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElviS77 View Post
Well, your position is one that in reality accepts thousands of dead each year, so the consequence is just that.
Can you demonstrate that having very few 100km/h zones will save thousands of lives each year?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElviS77 View Post
In most cases, no. There is no difference, that's why a 70 kph road where drivers obey the limit (because of police presence, speed cameras, attitude etc) is far safer than a similar road with 100 kph. Accident rates dropped by 15% on Norwegian roads where the limit was reduced from 80 to 70 (about 10% of the road network, I believe).
But that is the difference between 70 and 80. You can't extrapolate that to the difference between 70 and 100 and assume everything else to be constant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElviS77 View Post
I prefer arguments to mediocre literary critique.
Still doesn't change the fact that it was hyperbole, not a serious argument.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElviS77 View Post
What better justification can you get than saving lives?
You've already made it clear by supporting 80-90km/h that a promise of "saving lives" is not a justification for all and sundry, whatever the costs. As I said, if the laws are reasonable and justified, there is no problem.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElviS77 View Post
The same apples and oranges people are very fond of comparing regarding i.e. effective transport systems and environmental issues. So an irrelevant comparison when it comes to safety? I think not.
But who cares whether apples and oranges comparisons are made elsewhere? It's not as though escalators are comparable...

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElviS77 View Post
Yes. But neither governments nor the public accept air or rail crashes. The stated objective is no dead, and people found responsible for negligence when a crash happens are likely to face criminal charges. And, as I said already: Yes, a single plain crash may claim 100+ lives... which is about the same as roads in Germany kill in a week.
Yes, but as I said, I'm talking about the consequence of each mistake, hence the different acceptance and penalties.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElviS77 View Post
Globally, air travel takes about 800 lives a year. Roads kill hundreds of thousands. And why? Because too many people accept it as an unavoidable consequence of individual mobility.
Yes, to an extent, that's true.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElviS77 View Post
Why not? If you don't feel like debating, fair enough, but then I can't really see the point of commenting my arguments.
Because it read like a vague generalisation. If you elaborate upon it, then fair enough.

Last edited by deranged; March 23rd, 2009 at 03:24 PM.
deranged no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 23rd, 2009, 04:06 PM   #680
ElviS77
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 564
Likes (Received): 54

Quote:
Originally Posted by 54°26′S 3°24′E View Post
Although this in theory probably is true (if, and only if, the two vehicles in question have similar weight), there are a few other issues that in my opinion makes the wiseness of 70 km/h limits questionable.).
Yes, it is a theoretical issue, but I think a theoretical study concerning how to get no road fatalities is long overdue.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 54°26′S 3°24′E View Post
1. Some people actually (think) they obey the 70 km/h rule. That is, they assure that they speedometer always is below the posted limits which usually means that their real speed is at least 10 % below. Other people (in my experience most) don't think that the new limits do make any sense, and drive more or less as before. Hence, the speed differences between vehicles, and amount of reckless passing, in my experience have increased in zones with 70 km/h. As far as I remember the average speed decrease was only 3-4 km/h after the new limits were introduced.
Again, I don't think a 70 kph limit everywhere there isn't a central barrier is realistic, at least not yet, and it's just as important with alert drivers in 70 zones as anywhere else.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 54°26′S 3°24′E View Post
2. Unfortunately, it is also my experience that some people due to the new limits lose confindence to the speed limit system altogether, and starts to drive correspondingly faster on other roads as well. Hence the possible safety gain on high traffic 70 km/h roads may be eaten up by higher speed at other roads. This may explain why the accident rates in Norway has not developed as positively as in many other countries lately (although they are still on a very low level). It is quite strange to observe that the speed on for instance Norwegian and (northern) Italian motorways are quite similar, although the speed limit in Italy is 30 km/h higher (and the fines in Norway are extremely high, and the licence is lost already at 35 km/h (if I remember right) above the posted speed limit)).
41 above on motorways. Interestingly enough, the 30-year trend of reduced road deaths has come to an end in many countries with low fatality rates. Many explanations have been proposed, the most common is related to the perceived and real safety of modern cars. People drive faster because the cars are safer but also easier to drive at higher speeds.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 54°26′S 3°24′E View Post
3. If my memory serves me right, I also I read somewhere that the Norwegian road authorities admitted that the accident rate actually was higher after reducing the speed, although they maintained that the number of fatalities decreased.)
I do believe that was related to the 90 to 80 reduction, not the 80 to 70. But I might be very wrong... Besides, my main point concerns "zero dead", and holds still.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 54°26′S 3°24′E View Post
4. Also low speed limits have a cost, in terms of a less efficient society/economy. Although its effect is more indirect than road fatalities, it is not neccessarily less serious. A less effective economy means less welfare, and for instance makes it more difficult to maintain good health care. This is a factor that is seldom discussed publicly.)
Certainly, and that's one of the reasons for maintaining higher limits, even when politicians and public alike know fatalities will occur as a result. The main problem, though, is the fact that the regular driver never thinks anything can happen to him or her. That makes us reluctant to accept any government interference in our freedom to move, even when it's very sensible (seatbelt laws, for instance). The tide may be turning, because in the security-craze that's been with us since 11 Sep, 2001, virtually anything goes... We may very soon face far stricter laws than simply reduced speed limits and a speed camera or two.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 54°26′S 3°24′E View Post
Having said that, I think Elvis77 was one of the most sensible participants in the debate above. I have not been in NT, but 130 km/h across a hilltop does not look very smart, although the AADT up there is usually really, really low. In NSW, at least, I found it more puzzling that they actually had 70 km/h on some urban Sydney streets, with parked cars, driveways, and sidewalks, wheras their motorway speed limits were comparably quite low (110 km/h).
Yes, I think it's important that limits actually reflect road safety. Denmark has one of the better systems, I think, 50 urban, 80 rural, 130 on motorways.
ElviS77 no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 03:58 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

tech management by Sysprosium