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 23rd, 2009, 04:24 PM   #681
ElviS77
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 564
Likes (Received): 54

Quote:
Originally Posted by deranged View Post
I know, but speed limits can influence attitudes towards driving and driving behaviour.
Yes. Your point being?

Quote:
Originally Posted by deranged View Post
Ok, but the point is not only about falling asleep, it's also about fatigue and alertness.
The argument that people doing 100/110/120 are more alert than those doing 60/70/80 is very old and very popular among speed enthusiasts. There isn't a single study which supports this claim, though. It is merely an opinion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by deranged View Post
Can you demonstrate that having very few 100km/h zones will save thousands of lives each year?
As a start: Compare Dutch and German accident rates, for instance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by deranged View Post
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.
No, the advantage will most likely increase expotentially, given that the limits are observed, police precense remain constant and the road is maintained the same way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by deranged View Post
Still doesn't change the fact that it was hyperbole, not a serious argument..
Either comment on the argument or leave it alone.

Quote:
Originally Posted by deranged View Post
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..
Huh?

Quote:
Originally Posted by deranged View Post
But who cares whether apples and oranges comparisons are made elsewhere? It's not as though escalators are comparable...
Sure they are, in certain ways. But not as comparable as road, rail and air transport. And, once more, my main concern in this thread is how to make roads safer and to start thinking differently regarding road fatalities. They aren't necessarily just a tragic, but unavoidable, consequence of individual mobility.

Quote:
Originally Posted by deranged View Post
Yes, but as I said, I'm talking about the consequence of each mistake, hence the different acceptance and penalties.
Your point, regarding my point, being?

Quote:
Originally Posted by deranged View Post
Yes, to an extent, that's true.
Which I think is an approach worth changing. And you can rest assured, the worst alternative to high, unregulated speed limits isn't lower limits, safer road construction and a greater police precence...

Quote:
Originally Posted by deranged View Post
Because it read like a vague generalisation. If you elaborate upon it, then fair enough.
Again, either evaluate and comment on the argument or leave it alone. According to you, "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" is hyperbole. Which it isn't. It's my actual opinion, like it or not. Furthermore, "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." is apparently also hyperbole. It may be so, but why not comment on the content? Finally, "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" is apparently not a rational argument. Why not? Both points I've made are factual, both deal with traffic safety. Feel free to dismiss my points, but try to avoid the simplest rhetoric, at least...

Last edited by ElviS77; March 23rd, 2009 at 04:32 PM.
ElviS77 no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old March 23rd, 2009, 06:46 PM   #682
Verso
Islander
 
Verso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ljubljana
Posts: 22,087
Likes (Received): 4749

ElviS77, have you driven on a straight, wide road like the one I posted? Even better, imagine there are hard- instead of soft shoulders, and tell me what speed limit you'd sign there.
Verso no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 23rd, 2009, 07:05 PM   #683
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
The argument that people doing 100/110/120 are more alert than those doing 60/70/80 is very old and very popular among speed enthusiasts. There isn't a single study which supports this claim, though. It is merely an opinion.
I can't comment on that without examining the studies that have been conducted into the topic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElviS77 View Post
And you can rest assured, the worst alternative to high, unregulated speed limits isn't lower limits, safer road construction and a greater police precence... (...) No, the advantage will most likely increase expotentially, given that the limits are observed, police precense remain constant and the road is maintained the same way.
Depends on the above.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElviS77 View Post
Huh?
Even you have indicated that "saving lives" is not to be achieved whatever the cost.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElviS77 View Post
Your point, regarding my point, being?
Your "comparison with the same public's attitude to rail or air safety."

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElviS77 View Post
Either comment on the argument or leave it alone. (...) Furthermore, "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." is apparently also hyperbole. It may be so, but why not comment on the content?
Because you made this 99% claim without any support.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElviS77 View Post
Finally, "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" is apparently not a rational argument. Why not? Both points I've made are factual, both deal with traffic safety.
You have not listed the attempts that failed, the reasons for their failure, their predicted outcomes, etc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElviS77 View Post
Again, either evaluate and comment on the argument or leave it alone. According to you, "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" is hyperbole. (...) Feel free to dismiss my points, but try to avoid the simplest rhetoric, at least...
Some of your points were made without justification, which is why dismissing those equates to rhetoric.

Last edited by deranged; March 23rd, 2009 at 07:13 PM.
deranged no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 23rd, 2009, 07:19 PM   #684
Jeroen669
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 787
Likes (Received): 13

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. 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.
What I mean to say is: there are so many things to improve traffic safety without making people dumb. Most people have had a decent driving education, so they know the limits of the road and the limits of the car. Saying 80-90 km/h is always a good limit on 2-lane roads doesn't make sense. No road is the same, no car is the same, and even the weather conditions are (of course) not always the same. There will never be a perfect limit. But do you need to base limits on bad driving conditions...?
Jeroen669 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 23rd, 2009, 07:23 PM   #685
ChrisZwolle
Road user
 
ChrisZwolle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Zwolle
Posts: 43,573
Likes (Received): 19366

The Dutch driver is not to think himself, that's done for him, by signs, markings and speed limits in every situation that's different from straight-out driving....

Give people back their responsibility! Make a believeable speed limit and road layout...
ChrisZwolle está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old March 23rd, 2009, 08:45 PM   #686
ElviS77
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 564
Likes (Received): 54

Quote:
Originally Posted by deranged View Post
I can't comment on that without examining the studies that have been conducted into the topic.
Then I can't see why you introduced the argument in the first place...

Quote:
Originally Posted by deranged View Post
Even you have indicated that "saving lives" is not to be achieved whatever the cost.
Again, huh??? I have said that I don't think a global 70 kph zone is realistic or even desirable at the moment, but that doesn't mean I don't believe in working towards such goals. The "Zero Killed Vision", which I support, requires more than just 70 kph undivided roads, but that's an important part of it. Given time, maybe in a decade or two, such ideas will be part of road traffic policy in many countries.

Quote:
Originally Posted by deranged View Post
You have not listed the attempts that failed, the reasons for their failure, their predicted outcomes, etc.
What failed attempts? What reasons? What predictions? In short, what..? My claim is that the average driver historically hasn't been all that keen on traffic safety measures. Do you disagree, and if so, on what grounds?
ElviS77 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 23rd, 2009, 08:55 PM   #687
ElviS77
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 564
Likes (Received): 54

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeroen669 View Post
What I mean to say is: there are so many things to improve traffic safety without making people dumb.
I'm not out to make people dumb, I'm stating facts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeroen669 View Post
Most people have had a decent driving education, so they know the limits of the road and the limits of the car.
Yes and no. I have not said that it's impossible for a driver to control a car on a 2-lane road at 100-120 kph. What I have said and repeated is that if we're interested in NO road fatalities and not just fewer, 70 kph on undivided roads is necessary. Still, it's not the only measure we need to introduce to achieve such a goal, but since this thread is about speed limits, I think I'll start a new one about road safety...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeroen669 View Post
Saying 80-90 km/h is always a good limit on 2-lane roads doesn't make sense. No road is the same, no car is the same, and even the weather conditions are (of course) not always the same. There will never be a perfect limit. But do you need to base limits on bad driving conditions...?
I've never talked about bad or worst-case driving conditions. I've talked about survivability, and that's very different from what feels safe.
ElviS77 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 23rd, 2009, 09:02 PM   #688
ElviS77
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 564
Likes (Received): 54

Quote:
Originally Posted by Verso View Post
ElviS77, have you driven on a straight, wide road like the one I posted? Even better, imagine there are hard- instead of soft shoulders, and tell me what speed limit you'd sign there.
Since I'm from the country of quality 2-lane roads wherever there really should have been a motorway and in a few other places, the answer is yes, many times... They used to be 90 all over the place, now they're mostly 80. The former is ok, the latter too low.
ElviS77 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 23rd, 2009, 10:11 PM   #689
Verso
Islander
 
Verso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ljubljana
Posts: 22,087
Likes (Received): 4749

So what do you really want, 70 km/h, or 90, or what?
Verso no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 23rd, 2009, 11:20 PM   #690
ElviS77
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 564
Likes (Received): 54

Quote:
Originally Posted by Verso View Post
So what do you really want, 70 km/h, or 90, or what?
Here goes, yet again:
1. 70 kph should be a future ideal for undivided highways.
2. That future would have many more divided highways and motorways (with higher speed limits) dealing with the bulk of traffic.
3. Today, neither are within the bounds of reality.
4. Even in the current climate, I believe 90 kph is a reasonable max limit on most undivided highways.
5. In rare cases, quiet rural highways could reasonably get 100 kph.

OK?
ElviS77 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 23rd, 2009, 11:40 PM   #691
Robosteve
Registered User
 
Robosteve's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 376
Likes (Received): 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElviS77 View Post
Here goes, yet again:
4. Even in the current climate, I believe 90 kph is a reasonable max limit on most undivided highways.
5. In rare cases, quiet rural highways could reasonably get 100 kph.
This might work in some European countries with high population density, but the vast majority of long-distance highways in Australia are undivided 1+1 roads with at-grade junctions. Even 110 km/h (the maximum limit throughout most of the country) gets extremely boring at times on these roads. If you were to reduce all these limits to 90 or 100, not only would most people continue to drive 110 anyway, but for those who did stick to the new limits you would massively increase journey times in rural areas (keep in mind that in rural Australia, adjacent towns on highways are sometimes separated by a hundred kilometres or more), resulting in exceptional driver fatigue problems.
Robosteve no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 24th, 2009, 12:28 AM   #692
He Named Thor
Just kidding.
 
He Named Thor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Beautiful Sheboygan, WI
Posts: 673
Likes (Received): 50

Anyway...

In Wisconsin,

Divided Motorways (no cross traffic): 65mph (105km/h)
Divided Motorways (cross traffic and/or urban): 55mph (88km/h)
Non-Divided Roadways (Rural): 55mph (88km/h)

Obviously speed limits can vary.
He Named Thor no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 24th, 2009, 12:33 AM   #693
Timon91
Error
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: just outside Germany
Posts: 5,783
Likes (Received): 46

In Alaska you can drive up to 65 mph on some non-divided main roads. But that's a little different story I guess
__________________
My Flickr account.
Some of my photoseries: Northern Ireland, Prague, Boston, Alaska part 1, 2, 3, Smoggy Moscow, Warsaw, Wrocław, Kiev, Donetsk, Odessa and Chişinău.
Timon91 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 24th, 2009, 04:16 AM   #694
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
Then I can't see why you introduced the argument in the first place...
Once again, because you made a claim without providing support. If you backed up some of your claims, there wouldn't be a problem.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElviS77 View Post
Again, huh??? I have said that I don't think a global 70 kph zone is realistic or even desirable at the moment, but that doesn't mean I don't believe in working towards such goals. The "Zero Killed Vision", which I support, requires more than just 70 kph undivided roads, but that's an important part of it. Given time, maybe in a decade or two, such ideas will be part of road traffic policy in many countries.
Others have already addressed this in the safety thread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElviS77 View Post
What failed attempts? What reasons? What predictions? In short, what..? My claim is that the average driver historically hasn't been all that keen on traffic safety measures. Do you disagree, and if so, on what grounds?
I am referring to your following comment.

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.

Last edited by deranged; March 24th, 2009 at 04:23 AM.
deranged no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 24th, 2009, 11:23 PM   #695
ElviS77
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 564
Likes (Received): 54

Quote:
Originally Posted by deranged View Post
I am referring to your following comment.
Since I'm NOT deranged, I realised this... And please, either comment on the content or leave it alone.
ElviS77 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 24th, 2009, 11:29 PM   #696
Cacodemon
BANNED
 
Cacodemon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6
Likes (Received): 0

in Victoria, Australia

freeways: 100km/h (some are even 80km/h )
divided highways, rural: 110km/h
single lane highways: 100km/h
urban arterial roads: 70-80km/h
residential streets: 50-60km/h
Cacodemon no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 24th, 2009, 11:35 PM   #697
ElviS77
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 564
Likes (Received): 54

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robosteve View Post
This might work in some European countries with high population density, but the vast majority of long-distance highways in Australia are undivided 1+1 roads with at-grade junctions. Even 110 km/h (the maximum limit throughout most of the country) gets extremely boring at times on these roads. If you were to reduce all these limits to 90 or 100, not only would most people continue to drive 110 anyway, but for those who did stick to the new limits you would massively increase journey times in rural areas (keep in mind that in rural Australia, adjacent towns on highways are sometimes separated by a hundred kilometres or more), resulting in exceptional driver fatigue problems.
Well, driving 500 kms at 110 kph takes about 4.5 hours. At 100 kph, 5 hours, at 90 kph, 5.5 hours. Not that much of a time difference, and given the fact that driving faster requires more concentration, I seriously doubt any real changes. That said, there are some regions of the world (like rural Australia, Canada or northern Sweden)where roads are reasonably quality and so quiet, head-on collisions are exceptionally rare. Thus, higher speed limits makes sense. Still, I'm reluctant to accept higher limits than 100 kph, not least since drivers tend to go a bit over the limit anyway. I also believe that central guardrails might be introduced on main roads in Australia - the Swedes have such systems in place on rural roads with at-grade junctions.
ElviS77 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 25th, 2009, 12:10 AM   #698
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

54°26′S 3°24′E

Actually, in some places in NSW at least used to be 120 km/h in some rural roads, and as we have seen, 130 km/h on rural highways in NT. (The default rural speed limit in NSW at least used to be 100 km/h). I don't really think Sweden compares with interior Australia. Interior/desert Australia is mostly very flat, with little vegetation, and tiny towns with just one gasoline pump that are hundreds km apart. The main highways are still fairly well kept. Hence, driving at 120-130 at daytime should not be any more dangerous than a similar speed at a European motorway, as long as you slow down every time you see another vehicle. (It can be an hour or more in between....). However, there is still this rule about reckless driving, and driving at 130 at dusk or dawn, with plenty of moving wildlife, would certainly be dangerous, at least for the poor Kanga...
__________________
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 25th, 2009, 12:19 AM   #699
ElviS77
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 564
Likes (Received): 54

Quote:
Originally Posted by 54°26′S 3°24′E View Post
Actually, in some places in NSW at least used to be 120 km/h in some rural roads, and as we have seen, 130 km/h on rural highways in NT. (The default rural speed limit in NSW at least used to be 100 km/h). I don't really think Sweden compares with interior Australia. Interior/desert Australia is mostly very flat, with little vegetation, and tiny towns with just one gasoline pump that are hundreds km apart. The main highways are still fairly well kept. Hence, driving at 120-130 at daytime should not be any more dangerous than a similar speed at a European motorway, as long as you slow down every time you see another vehicle. (It can be an hour or more in between....). However, there is still this rule about reckless driving, and driving at 130 at dusk or dawn, with plenty of moving wildlife, would certainly be dangerous, at least for the poor Kanga...
I've never been to Australia, and I certainly don't know all that much about AADT figures. Still, I guess they've got a number of rural 2-lane roads with comparable traffic volumes to northern Swedish roads. And, as you know, the Swedes are very fond of their central guardrails - and they work.
ElviS77 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 25th, 2009, 12:35 AM   #700
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

They certainly have a few roads that compare with Northern Sweden or Norway in terms of AADT, but not with 120 or 130 km/h. However, these rather "normal" country roads unfortunately are much more similar to the Norwegian than Swedish counterparts, and building rails will be expensive. In my opinion, 100 km/h is a bit too much on these roads, the number of rotting road kills (mostly kangaroos) is appalling in many places.....
__________________
Norway needs a new transport infrastructure network, let's start now!
54°26′S 3°24′E 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 11:41 AM.


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