News & Discussion: Roads & Traffic

[Goodsy]

I've been out during the day but I think Revs points pretty much sum up everything I had to say.

On the whole overtaking on the left (or undertaking as I've heard it called), I'm pretty certain it's illegal, but I'm not sure if that just goes for single lane roads (ie using the shoulder on the dukes highway to go around someone) or it includes multi-laned roads. But on both directions of the southern expressway today, ive been stuck in the RIGHT hand lane, behind cars going under the speed limit, and have had to go around them on the left. When there was no reason they couldn't just be sitting I the left/middle lanes..

Single lane - illegal unless the car in front is turning right.

Multiple lane - change to left lane, travel at speed limit, overtake on the left, change to right lane. Each manoeuvre is perfectly legal.

I suppose if I wanted to raise my blood pressure, I could dawdle along behind a crawler. But since I can overtake on the left, why waste the mental effort? Point is, why get upset when its dead simple to go round them?

The point I was making was that there's people who will jump into the right hand lane while the left hand lane(or lanes) have slow moving traffic and will instead of over taking them or at least doing the speed limit will rather match the well below the speed limit speed the other lanes are going at.

It's like one idiot monkey does something and the next idiot monkey copies him.

It's the same with trucks. Nearly every day I see multiple idiots who will change lane next to a truck and match the trucks slow speed.

The most frustrating thing about it all is that they are doing 50, sometimes dropping to 40-45, while driving past multiple speed limit signs!

You also have to consider that not everyone's speedometer is correct. Using a GPS speedo on my iphone shows that my excels speedo is accurate but my Tritons speedo is 10km fast so it would show me doing 80 when really I was only doing 70.

[neoballmon]

Yeah my falcons have both been about 5km/h fast so I automatically allow for this. But if someone is doing 90 by my speedo on the expressway, that would mean they're really doing 85 and noones speedo is out by 15km/h.

An article on the topic which explains while your Triton is within legislation (and very similar to the Nissan Patrol mentioned), it is a very rare case, and all other cars tested are 0-6km over-reading.

http://www.drive.com.au/motor-news/how- ... ztmh4.html

[pushbutton]

The speed limit is the MAXIMUM speed you are allowed to drive at, but only if it's safe to do so.

It is not the minimum speed!

The best advice I can think of for all drivers is allow ample time to get where you're going. Take a deep breath, relax, and above all always remember it's about SAFETY, not speed.

Far better to be late but with yourself, your family, and your car in one piece!

[Llessur2002]

Not really sure what this obsession with always getting to the speed limit is - like it's some sort of macho target and only if we reach it will our willies get bigger. I get stuck behind people on Tapleys Hill Road doing 70 or 75 - doesn't bother me. I just accept it, sit back at a safe distance and don't get worked up about it. Generally we'll all get stuck at exactly the same set of traffic lights a few kms down the road anyway so what's the point?

It's not the 1950's anymore where we call all whiz round in our mint green FJ Holdens on brand new empty roads. It's the 2010's. Millions more people own cars and as a result driving's become really slow and rubbish. It's only going to get more slow and rubbish as time goes by so why fight the inevitable? Let's just sit back and enjoy the ride (so to speak).

The sooner we collectively accept that driving's not a pleasurable pastime for aristocrats any more and it's just another crap and tedious part of our crap and tedious modern lives then perhaps people will stop driving like tits - sitting a metre behind the car in front frantically trying to get past them just to be able to sit a metre behind the car in front of that one.

If you can't maintain your vehicle at the speed limit or within a few kmh of it, then get off the bloody road and hand in your license.

Driving might be a tedious part of your crappy modern life, but for me, and others, it's a pleasurable thing, and for many people, it's their livelihood.

The sooner people like you not only realize, but fully comprehend that the better off we will all be.

Reading your post, I get the impression you are the sort of person that doesn't see any issue with cutting off trucks.
Completely inconsiderate of other road users.

Like I said, get off the road if you can't do the speed limit or close to it.
And no, 10kmh below the signed speed limit is not close enough. At the very least if you are going to be 70 in an 80 zone, stick to the left hand or far left hand lane and get out of the way of people who actually are considerate of others around them and can maintain their vehicles speed at the legal limit for that road.

Sorry rev but you've misread my comments again. At no point did I say I regularly drove beneath the speed limit. When it's safe to do so and I've got a clear passage then I'll do the limit like most sensible drivers.

But, if I can't do the limit for whatever reason then I don't let it stress me or cause me to drive like an idiot just to prove a point. I just accept that's the situation I'm in at that particular moment and I adjust my driving style accordingly. I pull back, leave an adequate stopping distance between myself and the car in front and wait for the situation to change.

Too many Adelaide drivers (and, if we're making assumptions then based on your post I get the impression you may well fit into this category, apologies if I'm wrong) don't accept the situation and will drive in very close proximity to the car in front - either in an attempt to intimidate them into driving faster/moving over, or in sheer ignorance of the required safe stopping distance at the speed they are travelling.

Using Tapleys Hill Road as an example - pretty much every time I travel along it I see cars bunched up within a couple of meters of each other's rear bumpers doing 75-80km/h. I can't believe the sheer pig-ignorant stupidity of these drivers that they seem to be letting their annoyance with 'not being able to reach the speed limit' put themselves and others in danger. People have, and will continue to, lose their lives on Tapleys Hill Road. And for what? To save 2 minutes on their trip to Harbour Town? To desperately get to that job to fix the plumbing in Mrs Smith's kitchen? Pathetic.

My old man was a firey back in the UK for over 20 years. He's pulled countless people, ex-people and bits of people out of smashed up cars. I've heard his stories. On some levels I'd rather not have done, on other levels I'm glad I have. Holding the hands of young kids bleeding out inside mangled cars whilst their family weeps at the side of the road, decapitated people, burnt alive people, crushed people, people with fence posts sticking through their torsos, people who've been literally sliced in half because they've gone under the back of a truck. There are many more. Absolutely nothing you might need to get to so quickly either professionally or recreationally is worth the risk of inflicting that sort of damage on yourself or some other innocent road user. Even if it is "getting that oh so important contract".

So yes, let's stick to the road rules. Let's keep left unless overtaking when the limit's 80km/h or over. Fully agree with that. I also agree (and have posted a couple of times before) that the efficiency of traffic control at intersections leaves a lot to be desired. Sorting this out, in my opinion, would be one of the single-most effective ways of improving traffic flow around metropolitan Adelaide. But I also think we need to stamp out the 'I'm the king of the road so f*ck off out of my way' attitude that seems to be so prevalent when you hand an Adelaidian the keys to a V8 and tell him the speed target, ahem limit, is 80km/h.

On a lighter note, I remember back when I was a kid back in the motherland, public information adverts always on the telly. Perhaps we should have more of these in Adelaide? These two are oldies (one from the 80s, one from the 90s) but the message is still utterly relevant and seemingly lost on a lot of drivers, at least on Tapleys Hill Road:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f481xKNN8YQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSGyZxRLnx4

[monotonehell]

And in a lateral coincidence, this was just published...

West Australian motorists are being urged to slow down in the wake of 13 deaths on the state's roads in the first three weeks of the year.
The state's Road Safety Commissioner, Kim Papalia, described the figure as shocking and said it was his understanding most of those deaths were avoidable.
"Very scarily, 11 of those 13 deaths have occurred in regional WA. That is a startling statistic," Mr Papalia said.
The latest fatality occurred overnight when a car rolled near Cue in the Mid-West and the driver was thrown from the car. The death pushed WA's 2016 road toll to 13. This compares to seven deaths at the same time last year.
Mr Papalia said the risk would be heightened this weekend as people headed out of the city for the Australia Day period.
"Which will mean more cars on the road, more people frustrated, more people potentially exceeding the speed limit," he said. "From the crash stats last year we know that in over a third of the deaths, speed was a factor."
A total of 161 people died on WA roads in 2015, although the figure was down from previous years.
"We have to recognise it was a good year, but we can't celebrate the fact that 161 people still died on our roads," Mr Papalia said. "If you slow down, if you take your time and plan your trip, you are less likely to be involved in a crash and the consequence of the crash is going to be less serious."
Five of the 11 deaths on country roads this year have occurred this week. In addition to the latest fatality, a man and woman in their 70s were killed on Monday in a crash on Albany Highway near Narrikup, and two people died in the South-West on Wednesday when two cars collided at an intersection of Bussell Highway near Busselton.

The WA Road Safety Council said it was looking at new ways to encourage safe driving.
"We're looking at what occurred last year and what has occurred at the start of this year. It's inherent that we need to respond, we need to do something," Mr Papalia said. "We're looking at how we can better focus our attention on those people who are more likely to be at risk on the roads or present a risk on the roads."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-22/w ... atenews_wa

[Waewick]

at which point in time do we acknowledge that people are likely to always die in road crashes.

[Llessur2002]

at which point in time do we acknowledge that people are likely to always die in road crashes.

True - but people's driving styles are able to vastly affect the likelihood of having a crash in the first place and, should such a crash occur, speed will often determine the likelihood of it being a fatal crash.

In fact, one area where I'll hold my hand up and admit I routinely drive below the speed limit is in residential backstreets - especially when there are parked cars and kids could run out into the road. The difference in pedestrian fatality rates between 40km/h and 50km/h has always shocked me:



From http://roadsafety.transport.nsw.gov.au/ ... atalities/

This is why I'm fully in favour of 40km/h zones in residential areas - I think Unley already is, Charles Sturt and Prospect are set to follow - and hopefully many more.

[Waewick]

where did they get those stats from?

[Llessur2002]

Not sure, but they're pretty widely banded around in the UK too...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cvja-PA5Egc

Edit: Here's something from the Centre for Automotive Safety Research right here in Adelaide:

http://casr.adelaide.edu.au/pedspeed/PEDSPEED.PDF

Which, in summary, states:

The study found that a reduction of 5 km/h in vehicle travelling speeds in the Adelaide area could be expected to result in a reduction of 30% of the incidence of fatal pedestrian collisions. Under this scenario 10% of the collisions would have been avoided altogether.

Interestingly, it suggests that the greatest reduction in reducing pedestrian fatalities would come from a reduction in speed limits from 60km/h to 50km/h on arterial roads. It also confirms that lower speed limits have only a limited impact on travelling times - which are dictated mainly by intersections.

Any consideration of reduced travelling speeds should include an assessment of the costs, as well as the benefits which, as this study has shown, can reasonably be expected to be very large in terms of reduced economic losses from death and injury. Savings would also accrue from reduced fuel consumption and reduced property damage. A reduction in the speed limit on arterial roads would increase travel times but the increase would be considerably less than a simple calculation of distance and maximum travel speed would indicate. This is because urban traffic flow in a city such as Adelaide is regulated mainly by traffic signals and the time spent stationary at a signal is unlikely to change, assuming that computer control of linked signals is adjusted to allow for the lower maximum travelling speed. The task of drivers trying to cross arterial roads would be made much easier, and therefore safer, by a reduction in travelling speeds on those roads and the severity of any resulting collision would be greatly reduced.Even a small reduction in travelling speeds on arterial roads can be expected to result in a large increase in the safety of all road users, not only pedestrians, and an improvement in the amenity of many, including some motorists, while also resulting in some decrease in mobility when measured in terms of travelling time.

[Waewick]

I'm not asking you to do my research (ok maybe I am)

I wonder how many pedestrian falatities there are in SA? ...edit found a site

http://www.dpti.sa.gov.au/__data/assets ... trians.pdf

so we had 15 in 2013

so a 5kms drop in speeds may save the lives of 6 people - being 1.5 avoided collisions and 4.5 just hurt

I wonder what the level of hurt is? I mean if you don't kill them but make them a permanant vegetable is that worth it? (yes that is a dodgy question but I'm just curious)

still for apparently no change in average speed or travel time you'd think you'd do it.

EDIT -

Over the last five years (2009-2013), 1 in every 8 road deaths in South Australia was a
pedestrian. In addition to fatalities, there are on average 87 pedestrians seriously
injured and 262 who received minor injuries on South Australian roads each year.

So the numbers would be much greater I assume? if there were 364 deaths/injuries then a drop would save 36 incidents assuming these incidents happen where the driving conditions change.

[rev]

at which point in time do we acknowledge that people are likely to always die in road crashes.

True - but people's driving styles are able to vastly affect the likelihood of having a crash in the first place and, should such a crash occur, speed will often determine the likelihood of it being a fatal crash.

In fact, one area where I'll hold my hand up and admit I routinely drive below the speed limit is in residential backstreets - especially when there are parked cars and kids could run out into the road. The difference in pedestrian fatality rates between 40km/h and 50km/h has always shocked me:



From http://roadsafety.transport.nsw.gov.au/ ... atalities/

This is why I'm fully in favour of 40km/h zones in residential areas - I think Unley already is, Charles Sturt and Prospect are set to follow - and hopefully many more.

That's just silly.
So if at 40kmh only 25% of pedestrians will die, why don't we just slow cars down to walking pace?


As usual stupid solutions when the real solution is better driver training better maintained vehicles on our roads through legislation and better road infrastructure.

But they all cost a lot of money and time.

Much easier to get some signs made up with smaller numbers and then whack speed cameras in those areas to rake in extra revenue.

[OlympusAnt]

Rather than cutting speed, fix the damn roads!

[monotonehell]

That's just silly.
So if at 40kmh only 25% of pedestrians will die, why don't we just slow cars down to walking pace?

As usual stupid solutions when the real solution is better driver training better maintained vehicles on our roads through legislation and better road infrastructure.

But they all cost a lot of money and time.

Much easier to get some signs made up with smaller numbers and then whack speed cameras in those areas to rake in extra revenue.

Rev, I have to pick you up on this.

...the real solution is better driver training better maintained vehicles on our roads through legislation and better road infrastructure.

This is true with a reduction in speed limits or not.

But.

So if at 40kmh only 25% of pedestrians will die, why don't we just slow cars down to walking pace?

That is just hyperbole. Not an argument against the premise.

The premise is that in situations where a collision with a pedestrian occurs, either because someone wasn't looking where they were going (driver or pedestrian) the extra energy impacted between 40, 50 and 60kph is the difference between injury and fatality. Since in suburban driving conditions travelling the extra 10kph doesn't really get you were you're going more quickly (or at the most negligibly more quickly) then why are speed limits set at the higher speed.

It's not silly. It's based on research and observation.

[Llessur2002]

So the results of Charles Sturt's consultation on reducing the speed limit on suburban streets to 40km/h are in:

Response rate: 20.3%
In favour: 60%
Not in favour: 34%
Don't mind either way: 6%

According to the information sheet sent out to residents, a report will be presented at the next Council Asset Management Services meeting on 15 Feb. Following the meeting, if Council votes to pursue a 40km/h area then an application will be presented to DPTI.

Not sure what the chances of this going through are - I thought there had to be a 66% favorable response from a response rate of 30% - but hopefully this will proceed anyway.

[Maximus]

So if at 40kmh only 25% of pedestrians will die, why don't we just slow cars down to walking pace?

That is just hyperbole. Not an argument against the premise.

The premise is that in situations where a collision with a pedestrian occurs, either because someone wasn't looking where they were going (driver or pedestrian) the extra energy impacted between 40, 50 and 60kph is the difference between injury and fatality. Since in suburban driving conditions travelling the extra 10kph doesn't really get you were you're going more quickly (or at the most negligibly more quickly) then why are speed limits set at the higher speed.

It's not silly. It's based on research and observation.

Yes, it's hyperbole (Rev's usual MO, for which I love him! ), but hyperbole is exaggeration to make a point -- and the point is still made. If you accept the research is correct, then the logical question is at what speed do 0% of pedestrians die? Whatever the answer, if the speed limit is not set in accordance with that answer, then there is an implicit acceptance that some pedestrians will continue to die.

In other words, there is a risk/reward balance going on: the risk of pedestrians dying versus the reward of driving a car at a certain speed to get from A to B in a certain amount of time. Everyone's opinion on the acceptable balance of that risk/reward will differ. Yes, it may be true that we can reduce the risk side of the equation without materially affecting the reward side, but that doesn't change the fact that if you drive at 40kph, you are accepting the risk that a pedestrian will have a 25% chance of dying if you hit them.

Of course, that's only half the story. What those stats don't tell you is the risk of the collision happening in the first place. And on that, despite what governments and the media will tell you, the 'science' is far from settled.