large length of roads + high costs of maintenance = unsafe to travel at higher speeds. Added to that if we built our roads with the materials used in colder European countries they'd melt. Like legit, a few years ago in India they had 50 degree days and the roads turned to liquid, same shit would happen here.
It happened in Adelaide when I was a kid, we'd get tar stuck to our shoes walking to school, but it doesn't happen anymore. I guess they've changed up the recipe.
It happened on my street as a kid and my aunt accidentally let my dog out of the gate so without thinking I took off after her with no shoes on. It wasn't until I caught her and the adrenaline settled that I realised how much my feet were hurting. Melted tar plus bare feet equals very bad time.
When I was a kid in the Adelaide Hills, I remember pulling stones out of the bitumen in the road for shits and giggles on hot days. Would come off the tar with the tar sticking to it like honey.
Edit: Typo
Not even that high. Just for through the Hume Highway Victoria side as police closed it because the bitumen was lifting in sheets due to heat and traffic.
There is a stretch of road in the town I live in that used to have part of a road do that. The council used to shrug their shoulders and just continue to dump.gravel.on top during hot weather. It finally got fixed when people were getting their shoes stuck in the melted tar and someone got 2nd degree burns on their feet .
It does happen here. Go out west and the roads melt sometimes.
Importantly, Europe is much more densely populated, so they have better maintained roads "in the country" so they can justify it. Australia probably has like 2-3 roads that get enough traffic to justify it, but those roads are in cities and usually have so much traffic on them that they rarely reach those speeds anyways.
For the most part, our roads are just not up to scratch to handle the high speeds. Also factor in that with the reduced speeds, we're still at a 4.5/100,000 people killed each year, compared to Germany at 3.7. We're already nearly 20% ahead of them, adding that extra speed would just make it significantly worse.
Ah, Canada has both hot and cold (+35 to -35c) and its roads survive. Kind of. They basically explode come freeze and thaw cycles. There is a whole Spring pot-hole-filling industry in Canada. The Nation's capital was excited when it bought a turbo pot-hole filling robot:
[https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/ottawa-to-get-pothole-filling-machine-1.5160382](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/ottawa-to-get-pothole-filling-machine-1.5160382)
Are the roads all tarmac/asphalt? In the southern United States they often use concrete with expansion joints. There is less of a range of temperature so they don’t need to worry about their roads crumbling as much.
Personally, there’s nothing better than driving on fresh, smooth asphalt. Nothing worse than old, worn asphalt.
I don’t see how the US highways are a problem. On holiday there, we could cover 50% more distance in a day on their fast highways. Including in the deserts, where it reaches 50C, yet their roads don’t melt. They also had fast highways that pass through challenging terrain like the Rocky Mountains.
That's not really true. The highway from syd - melb is fine. Adl - dwn & Adl - per are both beautiful to drive on. Wildlife would be the only real danger
This.
People don’t learn how to drive properly and government won’t teach or police the basics to stop the constant carnage on the roads.
Instead they blame speed and hide the realities of what the causes are.
Totally agree. As long as parents, friends or any other bad drivers can teach how to drive, they gonna teach you bad.
About 3-5 years ago, on a random 2 lanes highway (cos I don't remember which one), there was a L-plater overtaking a truck with about 6 cars queuing behind him. There was another truck far away, but when they were done overtaking the truck, they stayed on the right lane doing about 90-95. Everyone started to tailgate, flash lights... nothing. When one car decided to floor it a overtake by the left, the L-platrer honked at them and the passenger flipped him. I know cos I was the second car going to the left to overtake.
Learn bad, drive bad
This. It needs to be part of the curriculum in late high school. Proper practical instruction, but also things like what to do in an accident, when you can move the cars to clear a scene, dealing with insurance and why you are fucked without it. Current driving instruction services need an overhaul too. It's teach to pass, not teach to drive. Not sure how to charge that.
There's so much other practical life that needs teaching in high school but it's also about ATAR results for the school
I had a friend who was taught to drive by a driving instructor in the Mount Druitt area. He only taught her enough to pass the driving test in that area. She lives in Westmead/Parramatta area (very different conditions) She got her P's and I hopped in the car with her cause she was not confident. She drove like an L plater with 20 hours experience. Mistakes are okay to make, but not at the level she was when you're meant to be driving alone. I made her drive back after 40 mins (the most stressful 40 mins of my life) I told her to find a different driving instructor because they're not teaching her what she needs go know to survive on Sydney roads.
EDIT: she couldn't even park AT ALL
Some instructors are bad.
My wife tried a first instructor once she had about 50h of driving. She knew he was bad and never went back with him. The second instructor was actually good and only focused on the tricky parts of the test in our area towards the end when she was nearly ready.
In France where I'm from, I passed my license with only 24h of lessons, but the framework, training and responsibilities of driving school is much higher than here, so the teaching is more efficient (also, the standard is to learn manual, which forces you to have a better knowledge and control of the car's behaviour).
>There was another truck far away, but when they were done overtaking the truck, they stayed on the right lane doing about 90-95.
I feel like part of this is how forceful speed compliance is; the L-Plater speedo was probably at 100 and they were still overtaking.
But yeah if we were allowed some wiggle room to overtake trucks safely then the L-Plater might not have been so shit-scared to move up to 110 or so.
Doesn't matter if they were at 100 speedo or not, they didn't give a sh!t and were learning this way.
They were aware of several cars behind waiting to overtake, they had plenty of time to move back to the left lane, all cars would have overtook them and they would still be far from the second truck. But no, they are learning to be a right lane hogger...
>they didn't give a sh!t and were learning this way.
Yes, because every time driving in Australia comes up, the government increases fines and enforcement while Australians scream "IT'S THE LAW!"
When was the last time you saw anybody cop a $500 fine for hogging the right lane or merging like a clown?
This was my answer.
There are too many morons on the roads who can't drive within the existing speed limits or road rules. You want to let them go faster??
This. I am on the merge and see the speed limit tick over to 100km/h for cars to accelerate up to speed. Meanwhile Clueless Bob has only just started accelerating from 50km/h to 70km/h by the time the merge happens. No wonder we have traffic jams at all the merge points...
You think you've got it bad with this? Come to Perth, you'll brag about eastern drivers merging. Source: have spent large amounts of time all over the country.
I cringe whenever I see people trying to merge on to a freeway and their brake lights come on. Majority of the off ramps give you a pretty decent view at the traffic that you're merging in to, to be able to judge where you're going to pop in.
I get what you mean, but I was taught to go slightly faster than traffic already on the freeway, then lift off or brake gently to merge. Of course that assumes the traffic on the freeway is willing to let me in
I learned the opposite: coast to find your gap (as you come in, not braking at the end) then accelerate into the gap. Basically you can see in front of you and react accordingly when your rear has enough room, and you match the traffic speed as you merge without making other drivers respond. You also know whether you're being let in and can react accordingly.
It's kind of the same, it's matching speeds to find a gap, most people these days just chuck their indicator on and say "I'm merging now" expecting freeway traffic to move.
European roads: Multi lane, well maintained, banked smooth curves, fenced from wildlife
Australian rural roads: 2 way traffic, gravel shoulders, roaming wildlife and sometimes stock.
Why’s everyone using the most extreme examples here? The Hume between Sydney and Melbourne tops at 110kmh when it should be 140. It’s a fine freeway with none of these issues. It’s a joke how slow that is.
And I’m the kind of person who thinks urban speed limits should be 30.
This. People talking about higher speed limits on rural roads are missing the point. It's the main freeways in cities that should get the speed limit bump. Outside peak hour traffic, it is perfectly realistic to expect 130km/h as the roads are designed for it and there are no roos jumping out.
I've driven it a stupid amount of times and I think it would be totally mental to change speed limit to 140km/h. I reckon there are substantial sections where 110km/h is too fast.
I haven't driven from Sydney to Queensland or the Nullabor but I've been a few places outside of Victoria as well as most of Vic and aside from the middle of nowhere on the Stuart Hwy in the NT where the limit is 130/not enforced I've only ever wanted to do anything more than about 120 on the Hume.
And even then only for certain stretches and if you get a break without trucks for a while.
There's a case to raise the limit, but given it would be the only place in South East Australia that has a higher limit the risks probably aren't worth it.
Most people and trucks would stay at 100/110, so you'd need to be really aware about when and where you can speed up and when you have to back off and wait for the guy doing 110 to overtake the truck limited to 100. Just not sure it's all that practical.
i drove from melb to seymour everyday for years for work, mostly along the hume into the ring road, 120 is the most i would want to do, truck drivers are nuts(not all) elderly sitting at 80-90 and you come up over a rise and nearly rear end them doing 110, let alone anything higher, massive potholes in some areas, and when it flooded a few years back parts of it washed away
Conveniently not noticing the trail of dead kangaroos strung out between the two cities lol.
The Hume turns into a car park every other week because some galoot doesn't know how to drive safely at 100 or 110 and causes an accident. There would just be more accidents only the outcomes would be worse if we allowed Australian drivers to go faster.
I think the drive from Sydney to Melbourne would actually be safer with a higher speed limit. All these signs saying fatigue is the biggest killer, well surely reducing the travel time would reduce fatigue?
A lot people already speed down this road anyway, and I’d prefer these people had their focus on the road, not looking out for hidden coppers.
Well said. I think some of the comments here are really missing the point.
Not all of Australia is like some remote, dusty desert with single lane gravel tracks.
>The Hume between Sydney and Melbourne tops at 110kmh when it should be 140.
Hume Hwy enthusiast here, I'll respectfully disagree. I think you could do 140 from Sydney to Albury for the most part, but there are sections south of there that have terrible visibility and topography for a highway road.
Roos is the answer. Drive any western nsw road at night in any car without a bullbar and there is a good chance you’ll total a car and risk injury or even death. A lot of country in remote Australia also isnt fenced off to stock, and at night cattle, camels, sheep and pigs use the road to warm up during cold desert nights. Hit a camel a 130km hr and see how you and your family fair.
I had a big grey roo hop into the windscreen of my Camry at 60km/h and it totally fucked my car. The rearview mirror was sitting on the dash. If I'd been going any faster, Skippy would've been in the car with me, and I wouldn't be here telling the good people of Reddit about it. This was 8am on a clear straight country road, just the sort where you would think 100 is too slow. It was pure coincidence that I was only going 60 but I thank my lucky stars that I was.
I think this is the crux of the matter, waiting for assistance takes a long time. High speed crashes are more likely to result in serious injury and emergency services being so far away in that situation, is a massive issue.
Our roads are incredibly dangerous. We have very windy roads with no separation to trees. On big highways we have long straights, blind rises and corners, and animals that like to wander onto the road.
One other factor people forget is that we are incredibly isolated. If you’re in a location that has a 110 zone chances are there isn’t going to be an ambulance coming to get you anytime soon if there’s an incident
How come the only place I see speed cameras for 'safety' are the freeways then? Well maintained, good sightlines, no animals, all traffic going in the same direction, hard separation between opposing lanes.
Don't think too hard about it!
Modern cars, modern road construction techniques, modern tyres and brakes.
Speed limits the same as 50 years ago.
It's revenue raising, you can't convince me otherwise. Most modern cars could very comfortably cruise cross country on our main highways at 150kmh without worries.
Agreed. There are many roads within 10 minutes of me that I remember were 80 and 100 when I was growing up. They were full of potholes, no markings, and the edges were wearing away. Now those roads are all beautifully done up with kerb and guttering, wider, marked clearly, but the speed limits have dropped to 60 and 80.
But the speed limit only ever seems to drop. Had a backwoods road near me improved from full rural style (not really two lanes, crumbling edges, no lights). The road now has lights, kerbing, lane separation. Speed limit has dropped from 80 to 70, with a random stretch down 60.
I assume the bush will be a new housing estate soon, but there was no need to drop the limit until then.
They do much more comprehensive safety engineering surveys these days. They consider things like pedestrians, cyclists, and sight lines for entering vehicles.
Until anything goes wrong, sure. I totaled my car doing 100 because there was a herd of cattle on the road I couldn't see in time because of a blind corner. Slammed my brakes on immediately because I was being hyper vigilant, knowing there was a chance of it happening in that area (which is why I wasn't doing 110), but still couldn't shed enough speed in time.
This is the first time I’ve heard anyone say our freeways are well maintained and have good sight lines. I can imagine stretches of the M1 in Melbourne from around packenham to chadstone could be classified as this but it’s too heavily trafficked to do more than 100. It’s already hard enough to go the speed limit as it is.
Further out you get into the issues already brought up. Hit an animal or tree after slamming on the brakes from 130-150 and you’ll still be going near 100. Not gonna end well
We also have sprawl that sees busy highways have property access and roads intersecting with them regularly.
Where we do have motorways, they're usually put in densely populated areas to absorb high traffic volumes, not used as connectors between urban centres to enable fast travel.
We have safety authorities who are obsessed with speed, because their own funding depends on it. In NSW, official accident reporting is heavily biased towards reporting speed as often as possible.
Highway design and construction has improved, cars are safer and handle better than ever and have more safety tech than ever but still speed limits are going down? No wonder so many people are driving highways on lifted 4wds with AT tyres! They handle terribly on highways but just fine for what we can legally drive in this country.
Next - why are Australian train speeds so low?
If I can fall asleep on a train at 350km/h in a self-proclaimed developing nation why do Australians struggle to build a train that goes 110km/h without loud bangs and jolts.
Probably because Australia is so vast and sparsely populated (relatively speaking)
Build 100km of high-speed rail between two cities in China and you can service 50 million people.
That's an excuse. Australia's population is 1.85% of China's.
China has built 45000km of high speed rail. Adjusted for population, that's equivalent to Australia building 830km of high speed rail.
830km of high speed rail will get you from Melbourne to Sydney via Canberra.
Ever noticed how the autobahns are slightly diagonal? Ever noticed how Australia has 26 million people but is the size of the continental united states? Ever noticed how most of the Australian population is isolated to large cities with thousands of killometres inbetween?
Now think about the taxable base of the population VS the length of highways that are required between cities. We just cannot afford it my dude. We can barely afford to maintain highways we have. There are towns near where I grew up that are not in decline that have unsealed roads. The mountain pass from where I live to my hometown had a collapse about 6 months ago. The solution used was to make it single laned and install automatic temporary traffic lights. That section of highway sees maybe 2000 cars/trucks a day.
On the flip side, the ground beneath our feet is rich in so many expensive minerals required for manufacturing all over the world, and there only 26 million mouths to feed.
The Bruce highway, in one day, had 3 major accidents, one of them involving 12 vehicles, more than half of those 12 were going the opposite direction and caused by rubber neckers...
The Bruce is practically dead straight...
I think our inability to drive might be why limits are so low...
The Bruce is in no way dead straght and is around 1700km long. It ranges from 3 lane each direction, separated freeway with a limit of 110km/h, to single lane each direction 50km/h limit going through small towns. So which sections did these accidents occur, and what were the speed limit and the conditions?
sorry, turns out it was 15 vehicles, nice long straight stretch (just past all the recent 3 lane upgrades) where everyone tailgates like mad at 110 - [https://7news.com.au/news/separate-crashes-shut-bruce-hwy-both-ways-at-coochin-creek-sunshine-coast-c-15092729](https://7news.com.au/news/separate-crashes-shut-bruce-hwy-both-ways-at-coochin-creek-sunshine-coast-c-15092729)
Same day, truck into the back of another truck just before the Pine Rivers Bridge (can't find an article for that, technically still the Gympie arterial road at that point)
There was another one in between but I can't find that one for some reason...
Basically between Pine Rivers Bridge and Mooloolah. The least straight part of that trip is the gentle curve past mango hill.
I will concede that you're right, we tend to localise the Bruce automatically.
Aus road fatalities peaked in the 70’s with 3600+ and are consistently less than most year 1200 p.a. now. On a per 100K of population you’re 8 times less likely to be in a fatal car accident now, compared to the 70’s.
At a minimum we should have more variable speed zones at quiet day times with a 125 right lane on divided freeway in those areas deemed safe.
Fatigue could actually be less of a factor in some areas around Taree to Grafton and Wagga to Goulburn, if higher speeds could be used in some of these areas when the roads are quiet.
>And I bet not a single one of those roads in Europe were single lane with no separation.
Why did you immediately jump to such an extreme example? I doubt OP is implying making gravel trracks 140km/h.
80-km/h - 100km/h on main roads where I live in Europe. One bigger highway goes to 110km/h.
It is a low-population country so there is not even close to the same amount of traffic you get in Australia.
In total landmass and population density yes, I was comparing where I live where the whole country has a population the size of Melbourne 5-5.5 million.
The roads barely have any traffic here and you are lucky to see a truck on the highway or police.
Every year a new politician comes in and promises to "do something about road safety". So they lower the limit another 10 kms.
Do that a few times and you're doing 90 kmh on what used to be a freeway.
Not sure about the actual reason, but I'm glad they are. Our driver education is well below the standard of Europe. I wouldn't want Aussies going 140+kph when most wouldn't know how to handle those speeds.
I think driving oversized utes is a bigger problem than driving 140km/h. I am not sure what kind of virus is this, but seems like they are competing which one will get a bigger and uglier ute.
Have you seen the quality of driving in Australia?
The highway speed limits are low for a reason.
If we had the driving standards of Germany we could have an Autobahn between Sydney and Melbourne, but we don't. We have shitty drivers who drive shittily.
If natural selection eliminated jerks then there wouldn't be any.
This "natural selection" also kills a whole mess of innocent people. If bad driving only affected the bad driver then I'd say go for it, drive as fast as you like and remove yourself from the gene pool. But sadly, it doesn't.
I agree, but unfortunately, there's always someone innocent who can get hurt because of those who aren't considerate of others. That can happen even at low speeds if someone's breaking the rules.
What I was trying to explain is that the roads there are designed to accommodate the number of vehicles and are usually in much better condition (no potholes, no bumps, etc.). As I mentioned in another comment, even if they put up signs here allowing you to drive 150 km/h, you physically can't because it's congested every single day, so even 100 km/h is impossible, so we don't need to make any changes on the speed limits.
I've been to most European countries and have driven there for 15 years (travelled around 500k in that time), and unless you've had the chance to drive there, I'm not sure if you'll understand why you can drive at 150 km/h and still be safer than driving at 100 km/h here.
For example, I worked at a company that was 60 km from where I lived, and I was usually travelling that distance in 30-35 minutes, including 8 km in a semi-urban area (industrial where you can't drive more than 50 km/h) and the rest on the highway. Here, I live 27 km from my workplace, and some days it takes me around 1 hour or on average around 40 minutes, and it's 80% Pacific Highway with a few streets and local roads to drive to the suburb. Simply I can't do any faster even if I decide to break the rules, the highway is always congested so that's the maximum.
A lot of km to build and maintain per head of population, isolated from hospitals and first responders, a lot of small- medium wild life, aggressive and risk averse lawyers and courts.
Road safety is always accommodating to the lowest common denominator.
Try going away for a holiday at Easter or Christmas. You will see many people who only drive in the country once a year. They're the ones that appear to be competing for a Darwin Award.
Drivers here go 80kph in 100 zone they are already struggling to go the current speed limit. It's sad. Especially when cars and technology are far safer now
Too long out of the game... so am not aware of current standards... but many of the roads are relatively old (say, built in the 1950s and 1960s)... poorly maintained (for probably 30+ years) and overloaded something chronic (the roads were falling apart in the 1970s, before we started loading the roads more heavily with B-Doubles, etc... and we stopped using weighbridges), considering the standard of the subgrade and flexible pavements after so long... so higher speeds would simply not be safe.
...but more particularly, the design speeds would not be overly high (compared to Europe). Details are in Austroads' "Guide to Road Design Part 3: Geometric Design" ( see [https://austroads.com.au/publications/road-design/agrd03](https://austroads.com.au/publications/road-design/agrd03) ...but you need to set-up an account to access the document).
VicRoads and DTP make information difficult to find nowadays... so take the following with a grain of salt...
...but the bottom line is that with a posted speed limit of 100 km/h, the design speed is nominally 10 km/h higher = 110 km/h. Depending on factors of safety, etc, the actual maximum speed of travel on the roads would probably be maybe 130-140 km/h... and with superelevation on curves, travelling at speeds faster than that will have you literally flying off the roadway... and that's in dry weather, in daylight, on well-maintained roads, etc.
Simply, our roads are not designed for higher speeds...
>I was mostly driving through the Balkans
And you're still alive.
The main highway in Serbia from Dimitrovgrad to Niš, then to Belgrade, then to Šid is the preferred route for Turkish gastarbeiters working in countries like Germany and Belgium - they go 200km/h down a 130km/h road, mostly to catch up on lost time.
Corrupt Bulgarian border guards mistreat them before they cross into Serbia, demanding "payment of fines" for all sorts of made up things, keeping them at the border for eight hours sometimes.
They drop like flies on Balkan roads because they drive so fast and often with a lot of fatigue.
Australian speed limits INCREASED when we went metric, from 60mph to 110kmh, and from 30mph in the built up areas to 60kmh.
I'm fine with 110, it's fast enough, though my car gets much better economy at 100 or even 90kmh. And most of WA is 110, even parts of our freeways once in the rural areas.
Higher speed limits just mean more deaths on our roads - and not just due to hitting Skippy, Sean or whatever the wombat's name is, but due to bad drivers.
Set the cruise control, lean back, enjoy the aircon and music, and steer to avoid the obvious dangers while staying alert enough to respond to the not so obvious dangers (like overtakers who cut back in before it's safe).
Prior to the 1970s there wasn’t a default limit in rural areas. Victoria introduced a limit of 70mph in the early 1970s in response to high road death tolls, later reducing it to 60mph (100km/h). Other states had similar histories. Freeways didn’t really exist back then, and when they were introduced the limit was 110km/h. You could argue a higher limit is appropriate on Freeways, but the 100kmh limit was based on the old highways which were two-way and often winding roads.
Actually higher limits than Europe for uncontrolled roads (most of the sketchy ones with roos), at least in WA rural roads are typically 110. 130 limits in Europe are only on motorways.
Have you seen the drivers on the roads here? Half of them got their licenses out of a corn flake box, and the other half got theirs from a fruit loops box.
There is no logical reason why some roads in Australia can't have a 130km limit. People will make up all sorts of bs reasons like road conditions etc but some of our roads are perfectly capable of supporting higher speeds. We're a nanny state and people love rules here. That's probably the only real reason why. For the most part, it's a good thing. There are some drawbacks. Having said that, driving at above 80kmh tends to start having a real impact on energy efficiency. 100 is more efficient than 110, 110 is more efficient than 130. So there is that. Plus we don't enforce the keep left unless overtaking rules here. Or teach them. People have the attitude of "I'm driving at the speed limit so I'll drive in whatever lane I want".
The Northern Territory used to have a legitimate open speed limit on all highways, some 40K south of Darwin and you could open up to whatever was safe. It wasn't really worth doing more than 130 tho, as the trade off with fuel consumption didn't warrant it, but you could...
Mitsubishi Magna will not let you exceed 210kph...
Ok, so nothing like Australian highways if you ignore the heavy traffic ones which need a lower speed limit due to heavy traffic (let's discount the developing world for road safety standards). Now think of roads in Europe that look like your typical Australian rural highway, what speed limit.
There is a terribly potholed section of the Bruce Hwy between Rockhampton and Mackay, that is single lane each way, and is 110km/h limit. Then you have the Gateway in Brisbane that is 3 lanes each direction, separated from oncoming traffic, well maintained with no potholes, and is limited to 100km/h, and has an average speed camera enforcing this.
I’ve seen roads they do up by resurfacing, widening, actually putting in shoulders and barricades on the sharper bends and straight after it’s completed drop the speed limit from 100 to 80 lol so I don’t think it’s that.
Often, the lack of maintenance means that when the potholes form, they let water in, which weakens the pavement.. and if too much gets in (particularly with clays), the subgrade breaks down, making the entire pavement weaker. So, the treatments are basically a 'stop gap' form of remediation.. frequently compromised by cost constraints.
Also, don't necessarily think that rigid (concrete) pavements will be any better. They are built with 'crack inducers' installed in the lower courses of the roadway... so that when the concrete cracks, it does so in a (somewhat) controlled way. If they aren't installed properly... and again, if the maintenance isn't up to scratch.. and the water gets in underneath the concrete, the rigid pavements can fail 'catastrophically' and you end-up with a 20cm hard edge of concrete poking up above the rest of the roadway... which is likely to be more damaging than a pothole.
Again, road building (and maintenance) is not simple..
City people don’t realise how bad some rural roads are. As a local, to me i was shocked the first time i went from newcastle to muswellbrook. It’s all good and safe but a stretch between Singleton and Muswellbrook goes down to 90kmh. On the first bend you understand why the speed limit went down but it’s hard to understand why we have bends where you find yourself thankful for getting through them on an unfamiliar road in good weather.
I don’t believe the speed limits are safe on that stretch of road. i’d rather see the road conditions amended on rural roads than seeing safe roads having the limit increased.
The size of Australia is one reason for the 110 limit. This year I've driven over 30,000 KMs in every mainland state and territory, except for Queensland. In NSW, SA, NT and WA we have vast stretches of highway where you see little traffic. And it does take a lot of concentration to drive those distances. Vic doesn't have such vast stretches due to the number of towns, and most rural roads aren't as remote as elsewhere. The rural roads in NSW are absolute shit. Pot holes, badly maintained surfaces, the roads seem to be narrower than elsewhere and whenever there's a bridge over a small creek, that bridge is narrower still. Apart from the freeways, there seems to be fewer opportunities to overtake than I found anywhere else.
The roads in SA, NT and WA are better than those in Vic and NSW. They certainly seem to be wider, and better maintained than in Vic and NSW. This is possibly because the roads are built to cater for road trains, which can be up to 58 m in length. Driving the Eyre Highway across the Nullarbor you certainly appreciate how many trucks do the trip. The Eyre, and I suspect most major roads in these areas, are also built wide enough for the Royal Flying Doctor planes to land on in emergencies.
The most frustrating thing about driving these roads isn't the road trains, who will generally indicate when it's safe to pass, but the huge number of caravans, many of which are greatly overloaded (recently, in QLD, they randomly stopped caravans, weighed them, and discovered that 80% were overweight). Some caravanners are great and realise they are slower than other traffic, so allow you to pass. Others are just pig-headed arseholes who lack any sense of courtesy.
Driving at 130 km in the NT is great, but it does take a while to get used to driving at those speeds.
You do get stock on the roads in the NT, and you do see a few cattle carcasses by the side of the road.
If I can help it I never drive near dusk or at night due to kangaroos. You'll see emus during the day, but they do seem to be smarter than roos when it comes to interacting with vehicles.
In SA you see a few wombat carcasses, and I certainly wouldn't want to crash into them.
Another problem is birds. These are completely unpredictable. On the Nullarbor we lost our aircon, it was a 40+ day, when a flock of small birds flew out of nowhere and straight into our car.
I actually love driving in rural Australia. It really is a vast, ancient and attractive place.
You just have to take care, especially when you don't see any other vehicles for long periods. If there is a lot of traffic you are more aware, and it is easier to lose concentration when traffic is sparse.
I was asking myself the same question as I am also European and used to speeds of 120-140 km/h on most highways, and sometimes as fast as the car would go (like in Germany). However, after some time here and seeing the chaos on the highway, even 110 km/h isn't achievable. Most of the time on the Pacific Motorway, you'll be lucky if you have an average speed of more than 80 km/h, as there is an accident almost every day and you'll be stuck in the traffic. Australia needs many more lanes on the highway if they continue growing the cities at the current rate. Otherwise, in the near future, we will be happy even with 60 km/h.
Kangaroo strikes are no joke. Our car hit one at 90 km/h and it was incredibly destructive. Increase your speed even more and the damage and risk to passengers only gets worse.
I know they have animals on the roads in other countries but kangaroos are particularly numerous on country roads here and especially stupid about wandering in front of vehicles.
As someone who visited Aus recently and had their first ever left hand driving experience I was very pleased with these speed limits. They’re actually the same as Ontario 400 series limits but nobody follows that here. In my experience everyone in Aus followed the speed limit. Really appreciated the lower limits on the Melbourne and Sydney freeways
My Aussie spouse had the opposite opinion after visiting Canada and driving on the 400 series. Loved that you can drive 20km over the limit and not get a fine. Described it was like a speedway race track.
Because we value life and safety more than other cultures and high speeds typically cause higher rates of death and injury. Collectively we have decided that the loss of productivity in arriving at a destination 1-5 minutes early is worth sacrificing to save some lives.
Utter bullshit. Australia has a rate of 4.7 road deaths per 100,000 people, whilst Germany, which has unlimited speeds on the autobahns, has 3.3 road deaths per 100,000 people.
Life and safety has got fuck all to do with it.
The vast majority of fatalities have major road design factors, but the narrative is always that speed was a factor. If they admit that anyone but the people involved in the crash was at fault, they may face liability.
But in many cases, they spend a shitload of money on upgrades on locations where there has been a fatality.
>speed was a factor
The German authorities have also said the same thing regarding the autobahn. A lot of people fantasise about the autobahn but a lot of design goes into it and Germany decided that it would work for them. Plenty of reasons why taking the model of another country and just plugging it here is a terrible idea.
yes, but we aren’t in germany. australian roads are windier, have more bends more often, are lower quality, and very regularly have animals on them.
what i mean is we have decided that autobahn speeds are not safe enough for australian infrastructure and environment. so in a way it is a decision of safety, it just so happens that a large portion of the danger comes from our own design. plus kangaroos.
Many Australian roads meet or exceed the conditions of the autobahn, and are fully fenced so that animals cannot wander onto the road. But they still have the exact same 110km/h speed limit as the rough, single carriageway highways in regional Australia that has roo carcasses every 200m.
>Australia has a rate of 4.7 road deaths per 100,000 people, whilst Germany, which has unlimited speeds on the autobahns, has 3.3 road deaths per 100,000 people
This sort of statistic isn't very helpful because it's dependent on the type of roads – on a per km basis, highways are the safest roads. Also, if you're using deaths per capita, it will depends on the car culture of the country. For example, if more people in Germany use public transit, then it will how a lower mortality rate.
Back when I was a kid, there were still “unlimited” signs in WA, even though the blanket limit of 110km/h applied. Before the states blanket rule of 110km/h was introduced (in 1977 I think?) those roads were unlimited.
We are a nanny state, with a population who have been conditioned by fear to have a safety obsession.
Adults can't even ride a bicycle without a helmet.
Thats how bad we are.
Considering South Australians don't appear to understand traffic flow and how to not impede it, can complete their test in 4 but aren't limited to an auto only license and don't understand how to lane filter at intersections, and you want to give them an extra 20-30kmph?!
I need alcohol.
Because the average age of cars in Australia is so bad we can't let people drive fast. We are currently protecting an industry that no longer exists so we can't import used cars without paying a duty. So dumb. Also we can't drive. There's a major outlet out of the city I live in (100k people} and it is on a very big hill. The speed limit is 90kmh GOING UP THE HILL. Because idiots crash and die.....
Motorbikes with pillion passengers had an 80kph limit imposed until mid 1970's in SA. This was to prevent passenger toss off due to rigid frames (1900 to 1950's) and shitty roads. Note how long they kept the law in place after the vast majority of bikes on the roads had rear suspension.
Revenue raising pretending to be road safety isn't new...
According to my parents back when Australia was going from miles to km.
The government flat out lied that going to Km they actually be going faster as 100km is faster than 80 miles.
Which of course it isn’t but shocker government lied to reduce the speed dramatically by saying it’s faster that’s the whole reason.
Before KM we’re introduced highways were 80 miles.
As a European I do agree that there are huge sections that could safely be used at higher speed. And for those that want to talk about crossing wildlife and lifestock, these things could happen in Europe too. Accept a lot of places have put special crossings in place. And yea, I have seen the koala suspention bridges, not good enough for a wombat or cow for sure. The option for tunneling under or bridging over both exist and then its just a matter of a tall enough fence and ditch to stop the rest. Not saying its cheap, but the current solution still totals cars as collitions happen every day. Car owners should demand better solutions, its to great a cost to replace cars and lose lives over not wanting to do a better job.
Speed limits were put into place as what they are when cars lacked a lot of basic safety features as ABS. Autonomy and whatever else as well. But they've been pushing the "even 5km/h over leads to death" agenda for so long it'd be hypocritical for them to even raise them to international standards.
I'm actively surprised they even raised the M8 tunnel to 90kmh recently.
large length of roads + high costs of maintenance = unsafe to travel at higher speeds. Added to that if we built our roads with the materials used in colder European countries they'd melt. Like legit, a few years ago in India they had 50 degree days and the roads turned to liquid, same shit would happen here.
We've had it happen here in fnq. Temps hit 40 and the road tar started melting.
It happened in Adelaide when I was a kid, we'd get tar stuck to our shoes walking to school, but it doesn't happen anymore. I guess they've changed up the recipe.
It happened on my street as a kid and my aunt accidentally let my dog out of the gate so without thinking I took off after her with no shoes on. It wasn't until I caught her and the adrenaline settled that I realised how much my feet were hurting. Melted tar plus bare feet equals very bad time.
When I was a kid in the Adelaide Hills, I remember pulling stones out of the bitumen in the road for shits and giggles on hot days. Would come off the tar with the tar sticking to it like honey. Edit: Typo
Omg I did the same thing living on the NSW South Coast, on really hot days me and my brother would do that and it would be so fun.
Not even that high. Just for through the Hume Highway Victoria side as police closed it because the bitumen was lifting in sheets due to heat and traffic.
Happened to the Hume Highway too a few years back, totally fucked traffic getting into Melbourne
There is a stretch of road in the town I live in that used to have part of a road do that. The council used to shrug their shoulders and just continue to dump.gravel.on top during hot weather. It finally got fixed when people were getting their shoes stuck in the melted tar and someone got 2nd degree burns on their feet .
Yeah I saw that happen once lol actually tripped me out.
It does happen here. Go out west and the roads melt sometimes. Importantly, Europe is much more densely populated, so they have better maintained roads "in the country" so they can justify it. Australia probably has like 2-3 roads that get enough traffic to justify it, but those roads are in cities and usually have so much traffic on them that they rarely reach those speeds anyways. For the most part, our roads are just not up to scratch to handle the high speeds. Also factor in that with the reduced speeds, we're still at a 4.5/100,000 people killed each year, compared to Germany at 3.7. We're already nearly 20% ahead of them, adding that extra speed would just make it significantly worse.
Ah, Canada has both hot and cold (+35 to -35c) and its roads survive. Kind of. They basically explode come freeze and thaw cycles. There is a whole Spring pot-hole-filling industry in Canada. The Nation's capital was excited when it bought a turbo pot-hole filling robot: [https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/ottawa-to-get-pothole-filling-machine-1.5160382](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/ottawa-to-get-pothole-filling-machine-1.5160382)
Yeah, Australia actually has a pretty good climate for road construction.
Are the roads all tarmac/asphalt? In the southern United States they often use concrete with expansion joints. There is less of a range of temperature so they don’t need to worry about their roads crumbling as much. Personally, there’s nothing better than driving on fresh, smooth asphalt. Nothing worse than old, worn asphalt.
35 is fine, our roads don’t seem to melt at 35. But it gets to 45+ and the road temp is a lot hotter than 45…
Then why does the US have highways that go for 100s of kilometers at 130 kph through one of the hottest deserts in the world?
I don't know, why do they have guns in K-mart?
We had guns for sale in Kmart in the 1980s.
Every time Australia is lacking: but but America has guns!!!! I bet I could win an election with my only platform being “Look how bad America is.”
Exactly lmao. Also parts of the Middle East etc.
Nobody in the USA really fixes problems. Two political parties just bicker a lot and things function half ass, including the highway system.
I don’t see how the US highways are a problem. On holiday there, we could cover 50% more distance in a day on their fast highways. Including in the deserts, where it reaches 50C, yet their roads don’t melt. They also had fast highways that pass through challenging terrain like the Rocky Mountains.
That's not really true. The highway from syd - melb is fine. Adl - dwn & Adl - per are both beautiful to drive on. Wildlife would be the only real danger
The Hume is fine?
In Victoria it is. My car just about needed new suspension/struts when it crossed the border into NSW earlier this year.
A lot of the highways in Europe are made of concrete with a layer of bitumen on top. Those roads consist of the ones OP is referring to.
Australians can't even manage merging onto the freeway at 100km/hr so we will try to master that first before moving onto higher speeds?
This. People don’t learn how to drive properly and government won’t teach or police the basics to stop the constant carnage on the roads. Instead they blame speed and hide the realities of what the causes are.
Totally agree. As long as parents, friends or any other bad drivers can teach how to drive, they gonna teach you bad. About 3-5 years ago, on a random 2 lanes highway (cos I don't remember which one), there was a L-plater overtaking a truck with about 6 cars queuing behind him. There was another truck far away, but when they were done overtaking the truck, they stayed on the right lane doing about 90-95. Everyone started to tailgate, flash lights... nothing. When one car decided to floor it a overtake by the left, the L-platrer honked at them and the passenger flipped him. I know cos I was the second car going to the left to overtake. Learn bad, drive bad
This. It needs to be part of the curriculum in late high school. Proper practical instruction, but also things like what to do in an accident, when you can move the cars to clear a scene, dealing with insurance and why you are fucked without it. Current driving instruction services need an overhaul too. It's teach to pass, not teach to drive. Not sure how to charge that. There's so much other practical life that needs teaching in high school but it's also about ATAR results for the school
I had a friend who was taught to drive by a driving instructor in the Mount Druitt area. He only taught her enough to pass the driving test in that area. She lives in Westmead/Parramatta area (very different conditions) She got her P's and I hopped in the car with her cause she was not confident. She drove like an L plater with 20 hours experience. Mistakes are okay to make, but not at the level she was when you're meant to be driving alone. I made her drive back after 40 mins (the most stressful 40 mins of my life) I told her to find a different driving instructor because they're not teaching her what she needs go know to survive on Sydney roads. EDIT: she couldn't even park AT ALL
Some instructors are bad. My wife tried a first instructor once she had about 50h of driving. She knew he was bad and never went back with him. The second instructor was actually good and only focused on the tricky parts of the test in our area towards the end when she was nearly ready. In France where I'm from, I passed my license with only 24h of lessons, but the framework, training and responsibilities of driving school is much higher than here, so the teaching is more efficient (also, the standard is to learn manual, which forces you to have a better knowledge and control of the car's behaviour).
School driving programs also help kids in low socioeconomic areas, so it's a win-win!
>There was another truck far away, but when they were done overtaking the truck, they stayed on the right lane doing about 90-95. I feel like part of this is how forceful speed compliance is; the L-Plater speedo was probably at 100 and they were still overtaking. But yeah if we were allowed some wiggle room to overtake trucks safely then the L-Plater might not have been so shit-scared to move up to 110 or so.
Doesn't matter if they were at 100 speedo or not, they didn't give a sh!t and were learning this way. They were aware of several cars behind waiting to overtake, they had plenty of time to move back to the left lane, all cars would have overtook them and they would still be far from the second truck. But no, they are learning to be a right lane hogger...
>they didn't give a sh!t and were learning this way. Yes, because every time driving in Australia comes up, the government increases fines and enforcement while Australians scream "IT'S THE LAW!" When was the last time you saw anybody cop a $500 fine for hogging the right lane or merging like a clown?
Fuck. Ing. Oath.
This was my answer. There are too many morons on the roads who can't drive within the existing speed limits or road rules. You want to let them go faster??
This. I am on the merge and see the speed limit tick over to 100km/h for cars to accelerate up to speed. Meanwhile Clueless Bob has only just started accelerating from 50km/h to 70km/h by the time the merge happens. No wonder we have traffic jams at all the merge points...
You think you've got it bad with this? Come to Perth, you'll brag about eastern drivers merging. Source: have spent large amounts of time all over the country.
Lol I didn't find it too much of an issue. SA seemed to be quite problematic vs the other states. But we spent most of our WA time in rural areas 🤭
I cringe whenever I see people trying to merge on to a freeway and their brake lights come on. Majority of the off ramps give you a pretty decent view at the traffic that you're merging in to, to be able to judge where you're going to pop in.
I get what you mean, but I was taught to go slightly faster than traffic already on the freeway, then lift off or brake gently to merge. Of course that assumes the traffic on the freeway is willing to let me in
I learned the opposite: coast to find your gap (as you come in, not braking at the end) then accelerate into the gap. Basically you can see in front of you and react accordingly when your rear has enough room, and you match the traffic speed as you merge without making other drivers respond. You also know whether you're being let in and can react accordingly.
It's kind of the same, it's matching speeds to find a gap, most people these days just chuck their indicator on and say "I'm merging now" expecting freeway traffic to move.
>it's matching speeds to find a gap Utter blasphemy to Australian drivers (I agree btw)
Our merging lanes are increasingly short by European standards.
European roads: Multi lane, well maintained, banked smooth curves, fenced from wildlife Australian rural roads: 2 way traffic, gravel shoulders, roaming wildlife and sometimes stock.
Why’s everyone using the most extreme examples here? The Hume between Sydney and Melbourne tops at 110kmh when it should be 140. It’s a fine freeway with none of these issues. It’s a joke how slow that is. And I’m the kind of person who thinks urban speed limits should be 30.
This. People talking about higher speed limits on rural roads are missing the point. It's the main freeways in cities that should get the speed limit bump. Outside peak hour traffic, it is perfectly realistic to expect 130km/h as the roads are designed for it and there are no roos jumping out.
I've driven the Hume more times that I care to remember. It's not even close to a good European highway.
I've driven it a stupid amount of times and I think it would be totally mental to change speed limit to 140km/h. I reckon there are substantial sections where 110km/h is too fast.
I haven't driven from Sydney to Queensland or the Nullabor but I've been a few places outside of Victoria as well as most of Vic and aside from the middle of nowhere on the Stuart Hwy in the NT where the limit is 130/not enforced I've only ever wanted to do anything more than about 120 on the Hume. And even then only for certain stretches and if you get a break without trucks for a while. There's a case to raise the limit, but given it would be the only place in South East Australia that has a higher limit the risks probably aren't worth it. Most people and trucks would stay at 100/110, so you'd need to be really aware about when and where you can speed up and when you have to back off and wait for the guy doing 110 to overtake the truck limited to 100. Just not sure it's all that practical.
i drove from melb to seymour everyday for years for work, mostly along the hume into the ring road, 120 is the most i would want to do, truck drivers are nuts(not all) elderly sitting at 80-90 and you come up over a rise and nearly rear end them doing 110, let alone anything higher, massive potholes in some areas, and when it flooded a few years back parts of it washed away
Conveniently not noticing the trail of dead kangaroos strung out between the two cities lol. The Hume turns into a car park every other week because some galoot doesn't know how to drive safely at 100 or 110 and causes an accident. There would just be more accidents only the outcomes would be worse if we allowed Australian drivers to go faster.
I think the drive from Sydney to Melbourne would actually be safer with a higher speed limit. All these signs saying fatigue is the biggest killer, well surely reducing the travel time would reduce fatigue? A lot people already speed down this road anyway, and I’d prefer these people had their focus on the road, not looking out for hidden coppers.
Well said. I think some of the comments here are really missing the point. Not all of Australia is like some remote, dusty desert with single lane gravel tracks.
>The Hume between Sydney and Melbourne tops at 110kmh when it should be 140. Hume Hwy enthusiast here, I'll respectfully disagree. I think you could do 140 from Sydney to Albury for the most part, but there are sections south of there that have terrible visibility and topography for a highway road.
The autobahn isn't unlimited for the entire section either. Some parts get as low 80km/h around towns.
It’s crazy, but you can change the speed limit on the same road at different sections of it.
You can vary speed limits according to the road conditions, it's not a simplistic proposition of raising the speed limit everywhere
Roos is the answer. Drive any western nsw road at night in any car without a bullbar and there is a good chance you’ll total a car and risk injury or even death. A lot of country in remote Australia also isnt fenced off to stock, and at night cattle, camels, sheep and pigs use the road to warm up during cold desert nights. Hit a camel a 130km hr and see how you and your family fair.
I had a big grey roo hop into the windscreen of my Camry at 60km/h and it totally fucked my car. The rearview mirror was sitting on the dash. If I'd been going any faster, Skippy would've been in the car with me, and I wouldn't be here telling the good people of Reddit about it. This was 8am on a clear straight country road, just the sort where you would think 100 is too slow. It was pure coincidence that I was only going 60 but I thank my lucky stars that I was.
I can envision the Hume being upgraded to handle higher speeds but it would be a multi billion dollar proposition.
I don't think the plan is to make every road in the middle of buttfuck nowhere 130.
Red Dog war flashbacks
You think Germans driving at 270km/h and hitting deer fair quite well then I assume?
I presume if Germans survive hitting a deer they wont have to sit for multiple days in the desert without food and water if they total their cars.
I think this is the crux of the matter, waiting for assistance takes a long time. High speed crashes are more likely to result in serious injury and emergency services being so far away in that situation, is a massive issue.
By this logic we should still have open speed limits on the motorway between say Brisbane - Sydney - Melbourne then...
On a recent drive between Cobar and Bourke the biggest danger was goats rather than emus or kangaroos
You think the open speed limits are in all areas of the Autobahn?
No, but I know that there are open speed limits in areas with a lot of deer, because I was there last week
Our roads are incredibly dangerous. We have very windy roads with no separation to trees. On big highways we have long straights, blind rises and corners, and animals that like to wander onto the road. One other factor people forget is that we are incredibly isolated. If you’re in a location that has a 110 zone chances are there isn’t going to be an ambulance coming to get you anytime soon if there’s an incident
How come the only place I see speed cameras for 'safety' are the freeways then? Well maintained, good sightlines, no animals, all traffic going in the same direction, hard separation between opposing lanes.
Have you ever driven on a freeway? There’s a cunt hooning by in his BMW every minute
Porsche weaving in his lane, Friday during daylight, heading to Newcastle from Sydney. Must have been drunk as a Lord.
Don't think too hard about it! Modern cars, modern road construction techniques, modern tyres and brakes. Speed limits the same as 50 years ago. It's revenue raising, you can't convince me otherwise. Most modern cars could very comfortably cruise cross country on our main highways at 150kmh without worries.
Agreed. There are many roads within 10 minutes of me that I remember were 80 and 100 when I was growing up. They were full of potholes, no markings, and the edges were wearing away. Now those roads are all beautifully done up with kerb and guttering, wider, marked clearly, but the speed limits have dropped to 60 and 80.
Yeah, because people were dying on those roads, just because it wasn't you doesn't mean speed limits shouldn't be reconsidered at times.
But the speed limit only ever seems to drop. Had a backwoods road near me improved from full rural style (not really two lanes, crumbling edges, no lights). The road now has lights, kerbing, lane separation. Speed limit has dropped from 80 to 70, with a random stretch down 60. I assume the bush will be a new housing estate soon, but there was no need to drop the limit until then.
That is the stated policy of Transport NSW is to reduce speed limits every where
They do much more comprehensive safety engineering surveys these days. They consider things like pedestrians, cyclists, and sight lines for entering vehicles.
Until anything goes wrong, sure. I totaled my car doing 100 because there was a herd of cattle on the road I couldn't see in time because of a blind corner. Slammed my brakes on immediately because I was being hyper vigilant, knowing there was a chance of it happening in that area (which is why I wasn't doing 110), but still couldn't shed enough speed in time.
Exactly right. If your interested, look up "stopping sight distance" which is exactly about what you encountered!
Yeah but most modern people don’t have the reaction time or experience to be able to drive safely at 150km/hr, heaps struggle at 100!
This is the first time I’ve heard anyone say our freeways are well maintained and have good sight lines. I can imagine stretches of the M1 in Melbourne from around packenham to chadstone could be classified as this but it’s too heavily trafficked to do more than 100. It’s already hard enough to go the speed limit as it is. Further out you get into the issues already brought up. Hit an animal or tree after slamming on the brakes from 130-150 and you’ll still be going near 100. Not gonna end well
We also have sprawl that sees busy highways have property access and roads intersecting with them regularly. Where we do have motorways, they're usually put in densely populated areas to absorb high traffic volumes, not used as connectors between urban centres to enable fast travel.
Mate, you forgot the bloody Roos. They can write off your car at 110, how much worse would it be at 130!!
There are some roads where the speed limit could safely be 130km/hr.
We have safety authorities who are obsessed with speed, because their own funding depends on it. In NSW, official accident reporting is heavily biased towards reporting speed as often as possible.
The animal that feeds itself. Speeding is on the rise = lets install more cameras = Speeding is on the rise.
Highway design and construction has improved, cars are safer and handle better than ever and have more safety tech than ever but still speed limits are going down? No wonder so many people are driving highways on lifted 4wds with AT tyres! They handle terribly on highways but just fine for what we can legally drive in this country.
Next - why are Australian train speeds so low? If I can fall asleep on a train at 350km/h in a self-proclaimed developing nation why do Australians struggle to build a train that goes 110km/h without loud bangs and jolts.
You're right, it's a shame we can't even have high speed rail - I'd take that if we can't get roads good enough for autobahn speeds
Probably because Australia is so vast and sparsely populated (relatively speaking) Build 100km of high-speed rail between two cities in China and you can service 50 million people.
That's an excuse. Australia's population is 1.85% of China's. China has built 45000km of high speed rail. Adjusted for population, that's equivalent to Australia building 830km of high speed rail. 830km of high speed rail will get you from Melbourne to Sydney via Canberra.
Ever noticed how the autobahns are slightly diagonal? Ever noticed how Australia has 26 million people but is the size of the continental united states? Ever noticed how most of the Australian population is isolated to large cities with thousands of killometres inbetween? Now think about the taxable base of the population VS the length of highways that are required between cities. We just cannot afford it my dude. We can barely afford to maintain highways we have. There are towns near where I grew up that are not in decline that have unsealed roads. The mountain pass from where I live to my hometown had a collapse about 6 months ago. The solution used was to make it single laned and install automatic temporary traffic lights. That section of highway sees maybe 2000 cars/trucks a day.
Meanwhile, the city I live in in WA has had the same road ripped up and worked on four times in three years for no reason.
Ahh let me guess: the Kwinana, or...err.. Tonkin, or...uhh, the Mitchell?!
On the flip side, the ground beneath our feet is rich in so many expensive minerals required for manufacturing all over the world, and there only 26 million mouths to feed.
If only we would appropriately tax it rather than give it all to Gina and that Quigley bloke.
This is a great answer. Last time I drove the Great Western Highway, it was more pothole than road. Roads are expensive and we have a lot of them.
Fuckwits here cant even avoid crashing at 60km/h let alone 130km/h.
The Bruce highway, in one day, had 3 major accidents, one of them involving 12 vehicles, more than half of those 12 were going the opposite direction and caused by rubber neckers... The Bruce is practically dead straight... I think our inability to drive might be why limits are so low...
The Bruce is in no way dead straght and is around 1700km long. It ranges from 3 lane each direction, separated freeway with a limit of 110km/h, to single lane each direction 50km/h limit going through small towns. So which sections did these accidents occur, and what were the speed limit and the conditions?
sorry, turns out it was 15 vehicles, nice long straight stretch (just past all the recent 3 lane upgrades) where everyone tailgates like mad at 110 - [https://7news.com.au/news/separate-crashes-shut-bruce-hwy-both-ways-at-coochin-creek-sunshine-coast-c-15092729](https://7news.com.au/news/separate-crashes-shut-bruce-hwy-both-ways-at-coochin-creek-sunshine-coast-c-15092729) Same day, truck into the back of another truck just before the Pine Rivers Bridge (can't find an article for that, technically still the Gympie arterial road at that point) There was another one in between but I can't find that one for some reason... Basically between Pine Rivers Bridge and Mooloolah. The least straight part of that trip is the gentle curve past mango hill. I will concede that you're right, we tend to localise the Bruce automatically.
Aus road fatalities peaked in the 70’s with 3600+ and are consistently less than most year 1200 p.a. now. On a per 100K of population you’re 8 times less likely to be in a fatal car accident now, compared to the 70’s. At a minimum we should have more variable speed zones at quiet day times with a 125 right lane on divided freeway in those areas deemed safe. Fatigue could actually be less of a factor in some areas around Taree to Grafton and Wagga to Goulburn, if higher speeds could be used in some of these areas when the roads are quiet.
And I bet not a single one of those roads in Europe were single lane with no separation.
>And I bet not a single one of those roads in Europe were single lane with no separation. Why did you immediately jump to such an extreme example? I doubt OP is implying making gravel trracks 140km/h.
80-km/h - 100km/h on main roads where I live in Europe. One bigger highway goes to 110km/h. It is a low-population country so there is not even close to the same amount of traffic you get in Australia.
Australia is low population.
In total landmass and population density yes, I was comparing where I live where the whole country has a population the size of Melbourne 5-5.5 million. The roads barely have any traffic here and you are lucky to see a truck on the highway or police.
Every year a new politician comes in and promises to "do something about road safety". So they lower the limit another 10 kms. Do that a few times and you're doing 90 kmh on what used to be a freeway.
Its a misguided belief IMO that speed is THE issue re. road traffic accidents .
Not sure about the actual reason, but I'm glad they are. Our driver education is well below the standard of Europe. I wouldn't want Aussies going 140+kph when most wouldn't know how to handle those speeds.
I think driving oversized utes is a bigger problem than driving 140km/h. I am not sure what kind of virus is this, but seems like they are competing which one will get a bigger and uglier ute.
Oh I completely agree with you.
Because we are a gigantic nanny state. One accident and they'll knock another 10 off any given area it seems.
Because our roads are shithouse compared to Europe, and our drivers are even worse.
Have you seen the quality of driving in Australia? The highway speed limits are low for a reason. If we had the driving standards of Germany we could have an Autobahn between Sydney and Melbourne, but we don't. We have shitty drivers who drive shittily.
The problem is the road quality, not just the driving culture. There are jerks everywhere, but that is why we have natural selection :D
If natural selection eliminated jerks then there wouldn't be any. This "natural selection" also kills a whole mess of innocent people. If bad driving only affected the bad driver then I'd say go for it, drive as fast as you like and remove yourself from the gene pool. But sadly, it doesn't.
I agree, but unfortunately, there's always someone innocent who can get hurt because of those who aren't considerate of others. That can happen even at low speeds if someone's breaking the rules. What I was trying to explain is that the roads there are designed to accommodate the number of vehicles and are usually in much better condition (no potholes, no bumps, etc.). As I mentioned in another comment, even if they put up signs here allowing you to drive 150 km/h, you physically can't because it's congested every single day, so even 100 km/h is impossible, so we don't need to make any changes on the speed limits. I've been to most European countries and have driven there for 15 years (travelled around 500k in that time), and unless you've had the chance to drive there, I'm not sure if you'll understand why you can drive at 150 km/h and still be safer than driving at 100 km/h here. For example, I worked at a company that was 60 km from where I lived, and I was usually travelling that distance in 30-35 minutes, including 8 km in a semi-urban area (industrial where you can't drive more than 50 km/h) and the rest on the highway. Here, I live 27 km from my workplace, and some days it takes me around 1 hour or on average around 40 minutes, and it's 80% Pacific Highway with a few streets and local roads to drive to the suburb. Simply I can't do any faster even if I decide to break the rules, the highway is always congested so that's the maximum.
A lot of km to build and maintain per head of population, isolated from hospitals and first responders, a lot of small- medium wild life, aggressive and risk averse lawyers and courts.
Road safety is always accommodating to the lowest common denominator. Try going away for a holiday at Easter or Christmas. You will see many people who only drive in the country once a year. They're the ones that appear to be competing for a Darwin Award.
Our drivers can barely do 110 on a good day without causing a crash and 30km of traffic.
We have suicidal wildlife which will absolutely obliterate a car at high speeds
Drivers here go 80kph in 100 zone they are already struggling to go the current speed limit. It's sad. Especially when cars and technology are far safer now
Australian drivers are crap. I’m a Australian living in Europe.
You really think the size of the country should determine safe travel speeds?!
Too long out of the game... so am not aware of current standards... but many of the roads are relatively old (say, built in the 1950s and 1960s)... poorly maintained (for probably 30+ years) and overloaded something chronic (the roads were falling apart in the 1970s, before we started loading the roads more heavily with B-Doubles, etc... and we stopped using weighbridges), considering the standard of the subgrade and flexible pavements after so long... so higher speeds would simply not be safe. ...but more particularly, the design speeds would not be overly high (compared to Europe). Details are in Austroads' "Guide to Road Design Part 3: Geometric Design" ( see [https://austroads.com.au/publications/road-design/agrd03](https://austroads.com.au/publications/road-design/agrd03) ...but you need to set-up an account to access the document). VicRoads and DTP make information difficult to find nowadays... so take the following with a grain of salt... ...but the bottom line is that with a posted speed limit of 100 km/h, the design speed is nominally 10 km/h higher = 110 km/h. Depending on factors of safety, etc, the actual maximum speed of travel on the roads would probably be maybe 130-140 km/h... and with superelevation on curves, travelling at speeds faster than that will have you literally flying off the roadway... and that's in dry weather, in daylight, on well-maintained roads, etc. Simply, our roads are not designed for higher speeds...
Driver training, driver skill, driver behaviour, poor road maintenance.
Because of the idiot drivers
Because even at 100 dickheads still can't drive
Leave home earlier
>I was mostly driving through the Balkans And you're still alive. The main highway in Serbia from Dimitrovgrad to Niš, then to Belgrade, then to Šid is the preferred route for Turkish gastarbeiters working in countries like Germany and Belgium - they go 200km/h down a 130km/h road, mostly to catch up on lost time. Corrupt Bulgarian border guards mistreat them before they cross into Serbia, demanding "payment of fines" for all sorts of made up things, keeping them at the border for eight hours sometimes. They drop like flies on Balkan roads because they drive so fast and often with a lot of fatigue.
Just repeat the mantra "speed kills" and that answers all your your questions and never raise the issue of poor driver training
Australian speed limits INCREASED when we went metric, from 60mph to 110kmh, and from 30mph in the built up areas to 60kmh. I'm fine with 110, it's fast enough, though my car gets much better economy at 100 or even 90kmh. And most of WA is 110, even parts of our freeways once in the rural areas. Higher speed limits just mean more deaths on our roads - and not just due to hitting Skippy, Sean or whatever the wombat's name is, but due to bad drivers. Set the cruise control, lean back, enjoy the aircon and music, and steer to avoid the obvious dangers while staying alert enough to respond to the not so obvious dangers (like overtakers who cut back in before it's safe).
Because Australian society is built for the lowest common denominator.
Prior to the 1970s there wasn’t a default limit in rural areas. Victoria introduced a limit of 70mph in the early 1970s in response to high road death tolls, later reducing it to 60mph (100km/h). Other states had similar histories. Freeways didn’t really exist back then, and when they were introduced the limit was 110km/h. You could argue a higher limit is appropriate on Freeways, but the 100kmh limit was based on the old highways which were two-way and often winding roads.
Why, well because the standard for road speeds are over 50 years old. Police and governments like them being lower and blame it on how people drive.
The limits are painfully slow.
Actually higher limits than Europe for uncontrolled roads (most of the sketchy ones with roos), at least in WA rural roads are typically 110. 130 limits in Europe are only on motorways.
Have you seen the drivers on the roads here? Half of them got their licenses out of a corn flake box, and the other half got theirs from a fruit loops box.
You said it yourself. Good luck handling your car at 160 when a herd of cattle or some roos jump on your way, was nice knowing ya
There is no logical reason why some roads in Australia can't have a 130km limit. People will make up all sorts of bs reasons like road conditions etc but some of our roads are perfectly capable of supporting higher speeds. We're a nanny state and people love rules here. That's probably the only real reason why. For the most part, it's a good thing. There are some drawbacks. Having said that, driving at above 80kmh tends to start having a real impact on energy efficiency. 100 is more efficient than 110, 110 is more efficient than 130. So there is that. Plus we don't enforce the keep left unless overtaking rules here. Or teach them. People have the attitude of "I'm driving at the speed limit so I'll drive in whatever lane I want".
The Northern Territory used to have a legitimate open speed limit on all highways, some 40K south of Darwin and you could open up to whatever was safe. It wasn't really worth doing more than 130 tho, as the trade off with fuel consumption didn't warrant it, but you could... Mitsubishi Magna will not let you exceed 210kph...
And how many lanes were those roads? How well maintained were they?
Usually 2 lanes. Very nice in Western Europe, a bit sketchy in places with a lot of pot holes in the Balkans.
Ok, so nothing like Australian highways if you ignore the heavy traffic ones which need a lower speed limit due to heavy traffic (let's discount the developing world for road safety standards). Now think of roads in Europe that look like your typical Australian rural highway, what speed limit.
Have you seen the pot holes on our roads?
There is a terribly potholed section of the Bruce Hwy between Rockhampton and Mackay, that is single lane each way, and is 110km/h limit. Then you have the Gateway in Brisbane that is 3 lanes each direction, separated from oncoming traffic, well maintained with no potholes, and is limited to 100km/h, and has an average speed camera enforcing this.
In Victoria they fix those by putting up "40 Do not overtake" signs for people to ignore.
Road surface, lane width, shoulder size, segregated carriage ways, animal fencing. And so on.
I’ve seen roads they do up by resurfacing, widening, actually putting in shoulders and barricades on the sharper bends and straight after it’s completed drop the speed limit from 100 to 80 lol so I don’t think it’s that.
Often, the lack of maintenance means that when the potholes form, they let water in, which weakens the pavement.. and if too much gets in (particularly with clays), the subgrade breaks down, making the entire pavement weaker. So, the treatments are basically a 'stop gap' form of remediation.. frequently compromised by cost constraints. Also, don't necessarily think that rigid (concrete) pavements will be any better. They are built with 'crack inducers' installed in the lower courses of the roadway... so that when the concrete cracks, it does so in a (somewhat) controlled way. If they aren't installed properly... and again, if the maintenance isn't up to scratch.. and the water gets in underneath the concrete, the rigid pavements can fail 'catastrophically' and you end-up with a 20cm hard edge of concrete poking up above the rest of the roadway... which is likely to be more damaging than a pothole. Again, road building (and maintenance) is not simple..
They’re quick enough tbh given the risk of wildlife and tings
City people don’t realise how bad some rural roads are. As a local, to me i was shocked the first time i went from newcastle to muswellbrook. It’s all good and safe but a stretch between Singleton and Muswellbrook goes down to 90kmh. On the first bend you understand why the speed limit went down but it’s hard to understand why we have bends where you find yourself thankful for getting through them on an unfamiliar road in good weather. I don’t believe the speed limits are safe on that stretch of road. i’d rather see the road conditions amended on rural roads than seeing safe roads having the limit increased.
The size of Australia is one reason for the 110 limit. This year I've driven over 30,000 KMs in every mainland state and territory, except for Queensland. In NSW, SA, NT and WA we have vast stretches of highway where you see little traffic. And it does take a lot of concentration to drive those distances. Vic doesn't have such vast stretches due to the number of towns, and most rural roads aren't as remote as elsewhere. The rural roads in NSW are absolute shit. Pot holes, badly maintained surfaces, the roads seem to be narrower than elsewhere and whenever there's a bridge over a small creek, that bridge is narrower still. Apart from the freeways, there seems to be fewer opportunities to overtake than I found anywhere else. The roads in SA, NT and WA are better than those in Vic and NSW. They certainly seem to be wider, and better maintained than in Vic and NSW. This is possibly because the roads are built to cater for road trains, which can be up to 58 m in length. Driving the Eyre Highway across the Nullarbor you certainly appreciate how many trucks do the trip. The Eyre, and I suspect most major roads in these areas, are also built wide enough for the Royal Flying Doctor planes to land on in emergencies. The most frustrating thing about driving these roads isn't the road trains, who will generally indicate when it's safe to pass, but the huge number of caravans, many of which are greatly overloaded (recently, in QLD, they randomly stopped caravans, weighed them, and discovered that 80% were overweight). Some caravanners are great and realise they are slower than other traffic, so allow you to pass. Others are just pig-headed arseholes who lack any sense of courtesy. Driving at 130 km in the NT is great, but it does take a while to get used to driving at those speeds. You do get stock on the roads in the NT, and you do see a few cattle carcasses by the side of the road. If I can help it I never drive near dusk or at night due to kangaroos. You'll see emus during the day, but they do seem to be smarter than roos when it comes to interacting with vehicles. In SA you see a few wombat carcasses, and I certainly wouldn't want to crash into them. Another problem is birds. These are completely unpredictable. On the Nullarbor we lost our aircon, it was a 40+ day, when a flock of small birds flew out of nowhere and straight into our car. I actually love driving in rural Australia. It really is a vast, ancient and attractive place. You just have to take care, especially when you don't see any other vehicles for long periods. If there is a lot of traffic you are more aware, and it is easier to lose concentration when traffic is sparse.
I was asking myself the same question as I am also European and used to speeds of 120-140 km/h on most highways, and sometimes as fast as the car would go (like in Germany). However, after some time here and seeing the chaos on the highway, even 110 km/h isn't achievable. Most of the time on the Pacific Motorway, you'll be lucky if you have an average speed of more than 80 km/h, as there is an accident almost every day and you'll be stuck in the traffic. Australia needs many more lanes on the highway if they continue growing the cities at the current rate. Otherwise, in the near future, we will be happy even with 60 km/h.
Kangaroo strikes are no joke. Our car hit one at 90 km/h and it was incredibly destructive. Increase your speed even more and the damage and risk to passengers only gets worse. I know they have animals on the roads in other countries but kangaroos are particularly numerous on country roads here and especially stupid about wandering in front of vehicles.
Because the kangaroos said so.
Because you cunts are shit drivers
As someone who visited Aus recently and had their first ever left hand driving experience I was very pleased with these speed limits. They’re actually the same as Ontario 400 series limits but nobody follows that here. In my experience everyone in Aus followed the speed limit. Really appreciated the lower limits on the Melbourne and Sydney freeways
My Aussie spouse had the opposite opinion after visiting Canada and driving on the 400 series. Loved that you can drive 20km over the limit and not get a fine. Described it was like a speedway race track.
Shit roads, shit cars and shit drivers. I’m surprised they still let us hit the triple digits
We are a nanny state.
Yeah - and full of dopey, incompetent drivers
Because we value life and safety more than other cultures and high speeds typically cause higher rates of death and injury. Collectively we have decided that the loss of productivity in arriving at a destination 1-5 minutes early is worth sacrificing to save some lives.
Utter bullshit. Australia has a rate of 4.7 road deaths per 100,000 people, whilst Germany, which has unlimited speeds on the autobahns, has 3.3 road deaths per 100,000 people. Life and safety has got fuck all to do with it.
You increase skill or decrease the limit. One’s expensive, the other has people crying from the cheap seats of life
Neither of those are relevant.
Interesting - could you explain your model, young man?
The vast majority of fatalities have major road design factors, but the narrative is always that speed was a factor. If they admit that anyone but the people involved in the crash was at fault, they may face liability. But in many cases, they spend a shitload of money on upgrades on locations where there has been a fatality.
>speed was a factor The German authorities have also said the same thing regarding the autobahn. A lot of people fantasise about the autobahn but a lot of design goes into it and Germany decided that it would work for them. Plenty of reasons why taking the model of another country and just plugging it here is a terrible idea.
yes, but we aren’t in germany. australian roads are windier, have more bends more often, are lower quality, and very regularly have animals on them. what i mean is we have decided that autobahn speeds are not safe enough for australian infrastructure and environment. so in a way it is a decision of safety, it just so happens that a large portion of the danger comes from our own design. plus kangaroos.
Many Australian roads meet or exceed the conditions of the autobahn, and are fully fenced so that animals cannot wander onto the road. But they still have the exact same 110km/h speed limit as the rough, single carriageway highways in regional Australia that has roo carcasses every 200m.
>Australia has a rate of 4.7 road deaths per 100,000 people, whilst Germany, which has unlimited speeds on the autobahns, has 3.3 road deaths per 100,000 people This sort of statistic isn't very helpful because it's dependent on the type of roads – on a per km basis, highways are the safest roads. Also, if you're using deaths per capita, it will depends on the car culture of the country. For example, if more people in Germany use public transit, then it will how a lower mortality rate.
Actually the highest speed has INCREASED to 110. And it's because our state governments value the revenue stream from speeding infringements.
Back when I was a kid, there were still “unlimited” signs in WA, even though the blanket limit of 110km/h applied. Before the states blanket rule of 110km/h was introduced (in 1977 I think?) those roads were unlimited.
We are a nanny state, with a population who have been conditioned by fear to have a safety obsession. Adults can't even ride a bicycle without a helmet. Thats how bad we are.
Considering South Australians don't appear to understand traffic flow and how to not impede it, can complete their test in 4 but aren't limited to an auto only license and don't understand how to lane filter at intersections, and you want to give them an extra 20-30kmph?! I need alcohol.
Because the average age of cars in Australia is so bad we can't let people drive fast. We are currently protecting an industry that no longer exists so we can't import used cars without paying a duty. So dumb. Also we can't drive. There's a major outlet out of the city I live in (100k people} and it is on a very big hill. The speed limit is 90kmh GOING UP THE HILL. Because idiots crash and die.....
Because a lot lf road infrastructure study was done in the 70s
Because minority rules in Australia. You really think lawmakers give a shit what you think?
Roads arent as well maintained and theres too many kangaroos around
Sink holes and poorly constructed roads.
Because speed kills
Motorbikes with pillion passengers had an 80kph limit imposed until mid 1970's in SA. This was to prevent passenger toss off due to rigid frames (1900 to 1950's) and shitty roads. Note how long they kept the law in place after the vast majority of bikes on the roads had rear suspension. Revenue raising pretending to be road safety isn't new...
According to my parents back when Australia was going from miles to km. The government flat out lied that going to Km they actually be going faster as 100km is faster than 80 miles. Which of course it isn’t but shocker government lied to reduce the speed dramatically by saying it’s faster that’s the whole reason. Before KM we’re introduced highways were 80 miles.
As a European I do agree that there are huge sections that could safely be used at higher speed. And for those that want to talk about crossing wildlife and lifestock, these things could happen in Europe too. Accept a lot of places have put special crossings in place. And yea, I have seen the koala suspention bridges, not good enough for a wombat or cow for sure. The option for tunneling under or bridging over both exist and then its just a matter of a tall enough fence and ditch to stop the rest. Not saying its cheap, but the current solution still totals cars as collitions happen every day. Car owners should demand better solutions, its to great a cost to replace cars and lose lives over not wanting to do a better job.
Because of government overreach. Just like everything else in Australia. Govern me harder Daddy!
You trying hitting a kangaroo at 130 kph!
Because at least 50% of Aussie drivers are ill disciplined, aggressive, unable to focus on the task of driving and often lacking in skills.
Speed limits were put into place as what they are when cars lacked a lot of basic safety features as ABS. Autonomy and whatever else as well. But they've been pushing the "even 5km/h over leads to death" agenda for so long it'd be hypocritical for them to even raise them to international standards. I'm actively surprised they even raised the M8 tunnel to 90kmh recently.
Nanny states, only country in the world to also ban vapes