Libs say if elected will make Geelong Freeway a 110 zone!

[Walkinshaw]

Mabey when people go to vote, and they vote brax their licence should be decuted 6points and their wallet $700. Would reduce the cost of maintaining the cameras

[XRated]

Originally Posted by XRchic

However, if the tolerances were increased from 3% to 10% (or, as in SA, 10% + 3kmh, apparently), and some speed limits increased on certain roads in Vic (ie Geelong Road to 110 kmh), then surely that would be an improvement since it would reduce the risk of being snapped by the cameras...

Exactly what I'm hoping for. I know cameras won't be axed, but at least a different approach to tolerances.

[Ringo]

The reasoning of putting high tech speed camera's with a 3% tolerance on a dead straight, smooth 4 lane highway which has to be one the safest in Australia is beyond me.

Are speed camera supposed to be placed at known blackspots and other high accident area's ?

[Steve D]

Originally Posted by Smoked

The geelong road would be capable of 100km/h easily. Most roads are designed for 90%, which means if limited to 100 km., tne road is capable of 110.

For a new stretch of road like that, I'm feeling ripped off. Surely these days they should be designing the roads for something more like 150 km/h? Higher speeds work in Europe, and now in some parts of America.

Imagine if a future Government changed the policy to allow, say, 130 km/h for divided freeways, but then couldn't implement it because no freeway was designed for more than 110 km/h?

[Smoked]

Originally Posted by Steve D

For a new stretch of road like that, I'm feeling ripped off. Surely these days they should be designing the roads for something more like 150 km/h? Higher speeds work in Europe, and now in some parts of America.

Imagine if a future Government changed the policy to allow, say, 130 km/h for divided freeways, but then couldn't implement it because no freeway was designed for more than 110 km/h?

Unfortunatly, the current design guidelines for road design dont allow the design for those speeds.

When you consider a spped limit, things like Grades, sight distances, runoff as well as the ability for trucks (our nation relies heavily on these and so our design rules are oriented in this way). The there is other considerations, such as pavement performance at thoses speeds.

[Steve D]

Originally Posted by Smoked

Unfortunatly, the current design guidelines for road design dont allow the design for those speeds.

Exactly! Grrr!

[Keepleft]

Originally Posted by Falcon Freak

Freeways can tolerate speeds up to 130 km/hr during the day in dry conditions. Most of western Europe with these types of roads are speed limited to 130km/hr. 110km/hr is not enough.

FF

Falcon Freak I am not having a shot at you here, but my response is targeted at the suggestion, accepted by many.

For the moment, I could not support raising a speed limit on a freeway/motorway length of road for two primary reasons, in time yes, they are:

1) The median U-Turn bays are downright dangerous even at 100km/h, they need a form of movable fencing to deter casual U turners. Hideous potential and often results in crashes and near misses as people misjudge speed. If I had my way I'd remove them just like in Europe.

2) The lack of median barrier for a full length. Sydney's M7 is an eample of a road that almost fully complies in this regard.

In raising speed limits, and some federal reports seem mildly advocative of this, we should not forget to further tighten up vehicle requirement as 'a whole of answer' approach.

I'll just point out, that there is 'little' difference between a road designed for 110km/h and one designed for 130km/h, the two above issues are part of the differences, delinneation and sight distance are others. The typical cross-sections remain the same.

[robjg33]

Originally Posted by ED Classic

.
Tolls on Scoresby was not neccesary, the Federal Government was contributing 500 million {up front!} for it before Bracks put tolls on it.
All residential Streets down to a crawling 50 kmh, Not just Scool zones which I agree with.
Pensioners Now pay double the Rego they used to. Ok so I dont beleive in having anymore 80 year olds on the road than we need to but there are plenty of good 60 year old drivers and lets face it most of us will be there one day if our parents arent already.
Motorbike Regos Now with the levy..You see it's all money Steve.
.

its an interesting amount of debate for something so simple
dont speed- yes ive had my fair share of tickets

but just on the tolls- what would have happened if they didnt take over the passenger rail which cost oh about $1 billion after the private operators walked away
the pensioner rego only had the discount cut by 1/2 but who put the compulsory insurance onto their rego which is about $146. Libs when doyle was in power
just my thoughts

[xfalconz]

Its easy to say dont speed but getting booked for 4ks over is ridiculous.
If your speedo is a bit out as mentioned before you may think your doing the right thing but get booked!
How about the good freeway that changes from 110 to 90 for no apparant safety reason, it is easy to get frustrated and slow down to say 100 with a police radar ready to catch the so called 'speeding criminals' who do this.
Ive gotta admit when i encounter these ridiculous speed changes where its safe to do so i wont slow down to 90 just for the principal of the matter.
Of course its my own fault if i get caught but when you are in the rhythm of driving 110 slowing to 90 is distracting and annoying.
Like Vic here in NSW i feel its all about revenue not safety the government blatently closes public roads to feed people into their X city tunnel with a toll they benefit from. When people voice their concern they say too bad!
Cant win, vote for the party, just as bad!!

[Redrum]

Originally Posted by Keepleft

Falcon Freak I am not having a shot at you here, but my response is targeted at the suggestion, accepted by many.

For the moment, I could not support raising a speed limit on a freeway/motorway length of road for two primary reasons, in time yes, they are:

1) The median U-Turn bays are downright dangerous even at 100km/h, they need a form of movable fencing to deter casual U turners. Hideous potential and often results in crashes and near misses as people misjudge speed. If I had my way I'd remove them just like in Europe.

2) The lack of median barrier for a full length. Sydney's M7 is an eample of a road that almost fully complies in this regard.

In raising speed limits, and some federal reports seem mildly advocative of this, we should not forget to further tighten up vehicle requirement as 'a whole of answer' approach.

I'll just point out, that there is 'little' difference between a road designed for 110km/h and one designed for 130km/h, the two above issues are part of the differences, delinneation and sight distance are others. The typical cross-sections remain the same.

Keep left, come and have a look at our Geelong Road. It is quite easily a 110kmph road and safely. If any fool wishes to break the law and use the u turn bits, there is no design or rule that will stop them. Just as there is no design or rule that will stop indiots reversing up freeways because they missed their turn off. Quite simply there are too many bloody rules and regulations and I don't think they will make a licking difference.

[xfalconz]

Originally Posted by Redrum

Keep left, come and have a look at our Geelong Road. It is quite easily a 110kmph road and safely. If any fool wishes to break the law and use the u turn bits, there is no design or rule that will stop them. Just as there is no design or rule that will stop indiots reversing up freeways because they missed their turn off. Quite simply there are too many bloody rules and regulations and I don't think they will make a licking difference.

For sure you could easily change those warnings to

Stupid drivers are downright dangerous

The lack of intelligence to drive a car

Dont get me wrong Keepleft, im not taking the p-ss just agreeing any number of factors and people can be dangerous on the best road at even low speeds.

[ED Classic]

Originally Posted by robjg33

its an interesting amount of debate for something so simple
dont speed- yes ive had my fair share of tickets

but just on the tolls- what would have happened if they didnt take over the passenger rail which cost oh about $1 billion after the private operators walked away
the pensioner rego only had the discount cut by 1/2 but who put the compulsory insurance onto their rego which is about $146. Libs when doyle was in power
just my thoughts

What would have happend? Ask Batchelor he's a smart man :baby bott Bracks currently has the biggest surplas in History and the only thing he spends it on is more cameras for more money. Before the election he specifically said NO TOLLS. With such a huge surplass I think he could have kept that promise let alone the 500 mil from the federal gov.

So only half on the Pensioner Rego? Yes its only half thats not much _2: Atleast Compolsury insurance is for a reason and a bloody good one at that which You would understand soon as you say not too speed _2: ! Putting it up for a good reason or just for extra $? Thats the comparison you are making.

Think you mean Jeff.

[ClevlndStemer]

Liberals can sprout all the crap they want, promise this promise that, all I can say is I will promise Doyle I will never vote for him.

[ED Classic]

Gee thats an intelligent contribution

[RG]

The Western Hwy/Fwy is a 110 zone between Rockbank and Ballarat (except at the Bacchus Marsh hills) and that must be one of the most poorly maintained roads in the state. So how is the Geelong road not safe enough to handle 110?

[ClevlndStemer]

Originally Posted by ED Classic

Gee thats an intelligent contribution

why cause you don't agree with it? i have my reasons for not voting doyle but i won't go into it as this is not a political preference thread and they're banned anyway.

[RG]

Guys, probably not a good idea to get into political arguments that are off topic or personal. Remember we have been warned that we risk temporary bans for doing so.

[ED Classic]

Originally Posted by ClevlndStemer

why cause you don't agree with it? i have my reasons for not voting doyle but i won't go into it as this is not a political preference thread and they're banned anyway.

I dont think you have any reasons? Hes never been in power like you said he has so I find it a co incedence that you wont say what your reasons are against him; Thats why!! We all love and hate things; Its why we love and hate things. Its an interesting Avatar you have..Dont speed no fine! You should have gone to the Easternats and seen the Poor people who did the correct thing and bought their hot cars on the back of a trailer or truck so as not to drive them on the road and what did they get? Their transport cars put off the road after they were pulled up for no reason. Not one but many. An absoloute joke and these people are making the effort to get off the street.

Sorry but commumism is not my way of life. Theres a real world to look at through the bigger picture than just thinking you will create an ideal situation on paper. Thats the difference between the two parties.

At no stage is anything here personal that I have wrote.

[ClevlndStemer]

Originally Posted by GreenEL

Guys, probably not a good idea to get into political arguments that are off topic or personal. Remember we have been warned that we risk temporary bans for doing so.

good idea i won't say anymore

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by Polyal

Yeah the libs are so in.....that freeway is the best in Victoria IMO and its only 100. The calder is a bit of a shocker, and the hume is nothing flash.

But who said they slow down for the camera then speed up? I thought they were time dependant not just speed at a point?

That freeway is insane, everone drives so close now, all lanes are full, no flow at all.

The cameras are NOT time dependant. I usually just slow down when I get to the cameras, I know where they all are.

Its a joke the Bracks recons that a 110 limit would result in carnage. How stupid does he think we are. Its probably the safest road in the state. The 100 limit is purely to p*ss people off and speed up to feed the greed cameras.

I can't even remember the last time I saw a marked Traffic duties car in Geelong, its been months since i've seen one. Thats more a deterant to see a marked car driving near you.

[Bucknaked]

With the safetyand quality of our cars, I'm not sure why the speed limit isn't higher. Not on city streets, but on highways. Surely our roads are in better condition now than they have ever been. Whats wrong with doing 120 or 130.

[jabba]

Originally Posted by Bucknaked

With the safetyand quality of our cars, I'm not sure why the speed limit isn't higher. Not on city streets, but on highways. Surely our roads are in better condition now than they have ever been. Whats wrong with doing 120 or 130.

They base the speed limit on a below average driver in a below average car in below average conditions.... Also how much revenue they can get.

[RG]

Originally Posted by jabba

They base the speed limit on a below average driver in a below average car in below average conditions.... Also how much revenue to can get.

True, everything is always designed for the lowest common denominator, the moron with no clue in a p.o.s. Now if better driver training procedures were enforced...

[jabba]

Originally Posted by redfin

Bracksy dropped the leeway from 10% to 3%, and yet no Automotive Manufacturer (that I know of) will guarantee more than 95% accuracy from a speedometer. But it was for road safety, not revenue... Hahahahahahah!!! :

And did you know that the Australian standard for a Speedometer is +/-10%, and the Australian Standard for a Speed measuring device (radar gun/speed camera) is +/- 3%.............