Law breakers

[sparra_gump]

I was driving a fair distance for the first time today since my car was fixed and noticed something that i thought i should ask everyones opinion on.

If speeding is so dangerous and a crime at the same time, why is it that i only ever see people breaking their speed limit but wont break the law on when they can overtake someone (i.e. double lines/broken lines).

I mean to me speeding (at least here in the country where our roads are really crappy) is more dangerous than overtaking on an unbroken line?.

This isnt really interesting but today i seen like an 80 year old couple doing 150km/h and slowed down until they could overtake the next person when there were broken lines again.


SG.

[holden#1]

i think theres a lot of people who tend to make the judgment that there are some sections of highways etc where the speed limit is 110kph, but they think due to the conditions it would be safe to travel a little faster.

Whereas, usually theres an unbroken line due to a blind corner etc, i.e, its almost suicidal to overtake in this scnenario, its not necessarily suicidal to travel 10kph over the speed limit.

example: Bruce higway north of Brisbane (4lane section 110kph) was engineered to be travelled at 160kph, the only reason it is not signposted as such is for uniformity reasons etc.

I do not condone speeding. Just trying to explain how some people rationalise.

[Keepleft]

[quote=holden#1]i think theres a lot of people who tend to make the judgment that there are some sections of highways etc where the speed limit is 110kph, but they think due to the conditions it would be safe to travel a little faster.

Whereas, usually theres an unbroken line due to a blind corner etc, i.e, its almost suicidal to overtake in this scnenario, its not necessarily suicidal to travel 10kph over the speed limit.

example: Bruce higway north of Brisbane (4lane section 110kph) was engineered to be travelled at 160kph, the only reason it is not signposted as such is for uniformity reasons etc.

Umm, no - A design speed criteria exceeding 110km/h means that there SHOULD be NO median "U-Turn bays", and NO "Intersections", such as that stretch has. "Interchanges" however, yes.

Roads hoping to have a higher limit, must first target those two issues AND thirdly, be FULLY divided in the median with barrier.

Thats said, yes, the road can take higher speeds, but 'potential' for trouble, which would otherwise be not exist IF the engineering changes were made, means it will, OR SHOULD remain speed restricted <110km/h. Sections, if they exist, with stone mastic asphalt must be attended, an issue of negligence here.

Only a fool would raise a limit until these three items are rectified. YEARS AND YEARS and $$$.

On the other hand, a remote high-standard two-lane highway *could* take a higher speed limit, but in my view derestriction would be safer. Why? To reduce the incidence of bunching-up (the 'marriage factor) owing the speed limit conditioning effect, (Divorce is better). And that 'independence' offered by derestriction reduces 'dependency' and is less stressful.

POSTED speed limits OR speed DERESTRICTION is purely a matter for the STATE and NOT for other jurisdictions to influence or decide.

I do tend to argue for national unifornity of the two DEFAULT speed limits however.

That said, UNIFORMITY discussion in this topical field primarily relates to 'speed signage' (It's placement, design, intent, applicable length, number of signs etc and so on) under AS1742.4 of 1999.