NationStates Jolt Archive

As some of you might know, I am from the land of speed limits - Australia.
We have thousands of kilometres of highways (multi-lane), which are of excellent surface quality, and a speed limit of 110km/h. It's utterly ridiculous.
Granted, the highway between Adelaide and Darwin is unlimited, but that's hardly where most people drive each day.

So thinking about how I'm going to keep avoiding the cameras, I thought: This could be a good topic for a rant.

So to all the libertarians and anarchists, to all the conservatives and fascists: Are speed limits necessary?

It is fact of life that limits are set without anyone ever actually looking at the road. They are set on maps, according to certain criteria. So here where I live, one ends up with 3km of a straight road, and a limit of 80km/h.
Yet these limits are enforced rigidly, mainly to generate revenue for the police.

So do you think a road network could work where there are no limits at all? People would go as fast as they felt comfortable with, and that's it?

Why not?

110 km/h is like 65ish mph, right?

Most of the speed limits in America are 70...but I've done a good job of memorizing where and when the cops are out...


Here's my take on speed limits. Sometimes they are important, other times not.

For instance, if the road is good quality, and there is very little traffic, you should be able to drive as fast as you feel comfortable with. If the traffic is light, any crash should simply involve you rolling into the median or something...and that's you hurting yourself, your own fault...

However, when traffic is heavier, such as during peak times and so forth, it is important for traffic to flow smoothly. Even if it is above or below the speed limit, so long as everyone is going around the same speed so that safe travel is possible...

And lastly:
http://i14-9.thefacebook.com/pics/4/0/n20600429_3704.jpg

I know the quality isn't that great...but when you consider ARKANSAS highways...which tend to not run straight too much...and that speed...not to mention, very cheap camera...

115ish mph. I'm not sure what that is in km/h, but I'm pretty sure 60mph is 100 km/h.

(You forgot the "other" option)

(You forgot the "other" option)
What could possibly fit under the "other" option? I thought I covered every conceivable view.

What could possibly fit under the "other" option? I thought I covered every conceivable view.
Rule of thumb, you NEVER can cover EVERY conceivable view.

And as for what fits under the other option, the fluid system I explained above where limits are used during peak times when traffic is moderately heavy (and worse) and the essentially limitless system during dead times (like in the middle of the night, etc)

On many Autobahn routes there's still no speed limits, and to my knowledge, accident figutes are no higher than they are on other routes.

So is the only merit of the limits to keep traffic flowing and to prevent traffic jams?

In certain places, such as cities, tight country backroads (too many have been killed by some moron who thinks his Vauxhall Nova is a Impreza round my area for me to say otherwise), suburbs etc should have them.

Open wide roads and motorways, maybe, but in the UK they are far to congested for them to be practical.

Yea, in cities and places with multiple roads, speed limits should be in place and strictly enforced.

However, on interstates, highways, etc, etc. limits should only be enforced in high traffic situations, especially when the highway goes near or through a city.

If it makes sense and is practical I'd like to see a combination of the first and last poll options.

I mean, no limits but penalties proportional to the speed.

I just got back from travelling on one of those 110 km/h highways you speak of, and nobody follows the limit anyway, so who cares? :p

For instance, if the road is good quality, and there is very little traffic, you should be able to drive as fast as you feel comfortable with. If the traffic is light, any crash should simply involve you rolling into the median or something...and that's you hurting yourself, your own fault...

Skippy, Skippy, Skippy the bush kangaroo,
Skippy, Skippy your windshield she will fly through...

Same with moose.

1 Tonne moose, tall spindly legs vs family car = carnage

I mean, no limits but penalties proportional to the speed.
How would that work?
You get a penalty regardless of speed, only $5 for 30km/h and $100 for 80km/h?

Just be lucky you don't live in Queensland, you could pretty much die going at 70 km/h, seeing as they've got such great roads there because of their competent government....

Just be lucky you don't live in Queensland....
:D
Guess what...

110 km/h is like 65ish mph, right?

115ish mph. I'm not sure what that is in km/h, but I'm pretty sure 60mph is 100 km/h.

(You forgot the "other" option)

The first value is just under 70mph and the second value is just under 185km/h.

Rule of thumb for converting miles to kilometers: multiply by 1.6. It's close enough that the difference between an exact change isn't noticable for casual use.

As some of you might know, I am from the land of speed limits - Australia.
We have thousands of kilometres of highways (multi-lane), which are of excellent surface quality, and a speed limit of 110km/h. It's utterly ridiculous.
Granted, the highway between Adelaide and Darwin is unlimited, but that's hardly where most people drive each day.

So thinking about how I'm going to keep avoiding the cameras, I thought: This could be a good topic for a rant.

So to all the libertarians and anarchists, to all the conservatives and fascists: Are speed limits necessary?

It is fact of life that limits are set without anyone ever actually looking at the road. They are set on maps, according to certain criteria. So here where I live, one ends up with 3km of a straight road, and a limit of 80km/h.
Yet these limits are enforced rigidly, mainly to generate revenue for the police.

So do you think a road network could work where there are no limits at all? People would go as fast as they felt comfortable with, and that's it?

Why not?


There are two main purposes for speed-limits: 1. to tell everyone what the average speed is supposed to be, so's they're all moving at roughly the same velocity... and 2) as a revenue generation source for State, County, and Local authorities.

People will ALWAYS try to drive faster than they are comfortable with. Especially young men, as they tend to think they are better drivers than they actually are. Many an accident is caused by a boy racer driving above the speed limit and smashing into something when they lose control of their 1.1 litre Vauxhall Nova.

If nothing else, speed limits should be more strictly enforced. The potential for fatalities, completely regardless of however slight you may think it is, simply isn't worth you saving an extra ten minutes on your journey.

People will ALWAYS try to drive faster than they are comfortable with. Especially young men, as they tend to think they are better drivers than they actually are. Many an accident is caused by a boy racer driving above the speed limit and smashing into something when they lose control of their 1.1 litre Vauxhall Nova.

If nothing else, speed limits should be more strictly enforced. The potential for fatalities, completely regardless of however slight you may think it is, simply isn't worth you saving an extra ten minutes on your journey.

They should go one way or the other, either clamp down on anyone speeding with some sort of on board computer system (bit like fifth element style) however the punishments (at least in the UK) would have to be relaxed. This would prevent the - oh theres no police around, or the speed up slow down for the cameras.

Or, allow a less strict approach - continue with the speed limits, ie 30 mph in Britain, but take into account road conditions, congestion etc before fining. For example someone going at 28mph in a busy well populated street is as deserving as getting a ticket as someone going 50mph on a straight empty, well lit, road (when the limit is currently 30mph).

Oh and theres no questioning the fact motorways should be 80 mph, the AA, police etc etc. want the speed limit increased as it is shown to be safer to drive at 80 than 70, mainly due to the fact everyone is driving at 80.

This coupled with the fact that motorways limits were 70, 10 years ago; now car saftey, breaking, steering, etc etc are far better than they were. (a sort of inflation on car speed).

However on the other hand there seem to be more idiots on the road.
In fact people not signalling - escpecially on round-a-bouts is possibly what annoys me most. Next time someone doesn't signal and then turns right... Grrrr.
And theres nothing that can be done! You can't toot your horn or flash your lights as they are idiots - idiots I tell you, they won't even realise what they have done!

It's good as it is. Coming from Germany you probably know what I mean (Autobahn :D) but in the last 10 years they've introduced new speed limits to residential areas, dropping "top speed" to 30km/h.
What stayed the same: 50km/h for the rest of the city, 100km/h for outer city limits.
Not every stretch of Autobahn is without speed limits, though. Usually they set it to 120km/h on the parts where I drive around. Or nothing. Which is great when there's no traffic (and how likely is that around here? 03:00 maybe... I love flooring it at night :D)
Well, anyway - way too many people are stupid drivers so, yes, I'm actually in favor of speed limits.

Vroom, vroom!

Vroom, vroom!
At the end of the season Mercedes feeling that their reputation was taking a beating by the upstart Auto Union team and its brash driver decided to undertake an attempt to regain the land speed record from Auto Union. The attempt would take place on the Frankfurt-Darmstadt-Heidelberg autobahn.

Rosemeyer in describing his record setting run stated that "... at about 240 mph the joints in the concrete road surface are felt like blows, setting up a corresponding resonance through the car, but this disappears at a greater speed. Passing under bridges the driver receives a terrific blow to the chest, because the car is pushing air aside, which is trapped by the bridge. When you go under a bridge, for a split second the engine noise completely disappears and then returns like a thunderclap when you are through.

They set the date of their attempt for the end of January prior to the Berlin Automobile Show. Auto Union could not ignore the publicity that Mercedes would gain from this feat and decided to be prepared just in case. On January 27, 1938 Alfred Neubauer checked with the weather bureau at the Frankfurt Airport and learned that the conditions would be ideal the next morning but that the wind would pick-up after 9:00 a.m. At eight Caracciola was off and the record at 268 mph belonged to the three pointed star. "I was unnerved," Caracciola would say. "The road seemed like a narrow white band, the bridges like tiny black holes ahead. It was a matter of threading the car through them..." Rosemeyer was one of the first to congratulate Caracciola and said, "My turn now." Caracciola, aware of the prediction for strong winds sought to warn his young rival but was assured by Rosemeyer that he was one of the "lucky ones." Just before noon Rosemeyer entered the closed cockpit special and rocketed down the Autobahn. Traveling at over 270 mph a crosswind caught his car and caused the Auto Union to somersault flinging Rosemeyer to his death. Neubauer, Caracciola and von Brauchitsch, his Mercedes rivals, sat silently for a long time, "unmoving like statues," in Caracciola's words. Record breaking was over for now. "Bernd literally did not know fear", Rudolf Caracciola said of his great rival, "and sometimes that is not good. We actually feared for him in every race. Somehow I never thought a long life was on the cards for him. He was bound to get it sooner or later..."
http://www.ddavid.com/formula1/rose_bio.htm