Submitted 3 weeks ago by Zagorath@aussie.zone to australia@aussie.zone
It argued a reduction in the default speed limit from 100km/h to 80km/h on unsignposted roads would save hundreds of lives, billions of dollars and avoid thousands of injuries.
“The risk of being killed on a regional or remote road is 11 times higher compared to a road in a major city,” said the regulatory impact study.
It attracted opposition from farmers, truckers and rural residents who said it would […] rob them of valuable time with their families
FFS.
Their family at home or the one in hell?
People always overestimate how much time they save when driving faster.
If you were travelling 100km at 100km/h it would take you and hour to get to your destination.
At 80km/h it would take you 1h15m.
If you were travelling half that distance you would only be saving 8 minutes.
Y’all want to risk dying to save maybe 8 minutes? It’s not only your driving you need to worry about, it’s other people on the road.
Shouldn’t have taken them years to figure out it was a poor idea but I guess that’s what you get when there’s such a vested interest in demonising speed. I’m quite happy it got kiboshed - it’s a rare case of government actually listening to the people.
It didn’t take them years to figure it out. It took them years of collecting the evidence proving that it’s a good idea. Then 11 days of listening to reactionary morons telling them not to do it was all it took to kill it.
Who’d they ask? Not me.
Kinda like every time they wanted to introduce a speed limit on the Autobahn. Not a lower speed limit, just a speed limit in general.
People don’t want to drive arbitrarily slower. Build roads that are uncomfortable to drive fast on. Counterintuitively making thin roads, without large runoffs can make driving safer because people feel more in danger and thus slow down.
Zagorath@aussie.zone 3 weeks ago
I’ll be honest, I’m more interested in speed limits and road design within cities than I am in rural areas. But this is still a major loss for evidence-based policy. We’re not talking lowering the speed limit on major highways, just on minor, often poorly maintained, rural roads.
Zagorath@aussie.zone 3 weeks ago
The first comment I see when I look at the comments on the article is particularly upsetting:
Why we use trucks for freight as much we do is beyond me. Any route that sees more than 2 road trains per day should be served by rail. And maybe we could improve our passenger rail while we’re at it.
hanrahan@slrpnk.net 3 weeks ago
Tony Abbott had Lindsay Fox “toys” on his prime ministerial book shelves as an examplw.
Why ? becase we keep.voting for politcans who have little interst in rail or oublic tranzport in general.
Even when we do something belated, like the Inland.Rail project, it doesn’t go to the port in Brisbane, nor carries in to port of Gladstone but ends in teucking depot in Brisbane.
As many people were killed by traffic murders on the day of the Boncli shootings as by gun.
TheHolm@aussie.zone 3 weeks ago
Rail is bloody expensive to build and to maintain. Not to mention that you still need trucks to deliver from train station to the destination. Trucks makes much more sense.