130 km/h Interstate Speed Limits

[Keepleft]

I've got a safety triangle in my Statesman, I think it cam from the factory. Never used it though, just a handy place to keep the locknut adapter for my wheels.
They're pretty pointless as far a I can see, whats a plastic triangle gonna do that Hazard lights can't?

The older Statesman had a triangle made to the low class Australian Standard (bears red reflector 'dots', later version had UNECE compliant type).

They are not pointless, think about it a moment, think 'application'. The Euroes have them, and of late have mandated them throughout that market, they didn't do it without reason. India and China ditto - they are in their cars too, not without reason. See that French GovCo ad.
Hazard lights don't always work; they are sometimes knocked-out. Hazards can't be seen around bends and curves, over crests or hills, in heavy fog say 100 - 200m back when on a high-speed road, and so on. We don't all have straight roads, and some only view the immediate area in front of the car.

I daresay that TVR's attitude to your response is not just a personal attitudinal issue with you but a refelction on the wider JC community. We get it you want everyone to buy safety triangles. You don't have to bring the bloody triangles into every topic, you are known as 'Triangle Man' here you have made your point so when you keep preaching the same crap all the time even when its off topic don't expect a positive response.

I don't sell them (just in case), just the road safety message! My advocacy of the item comes from real-world on scene experience, when hazards were not 'enough'. My advocacy of them is not an attack on ones lifestyle or mortgage, and promotion, on my part, rests soley with my Sig. Sometimes folk raise that - 'to target'. Its not 'off-topic' either, because, as I've highlighted earlier - they, and vests along with first aid kit will, in time, form part of the mandatory gear required on-board all NEW market vehicles.

Your women won't want the speed limits raised 'cos babies will die' is offensive.

Sure, and note my in-brackets comment. It is in jest. But anyhow, what say we raise the issue of 130km/h speed limits on say Essential Baby forum, guess what the majority response is.

Attitude needs to change in Australia before the real public supports >110km/h.

 

[Turd Ferguson]

I took the safety triangle out of my Statesman.

 

[monkeys437]

I took the safety triangle out of my Statesman.

Rebel......

 

[MasterOfReality]

Returned from a jaunt across Europe 2 weeks ago, in which we drove around northern Italy and into Slovenia.

130km/hr speed limits are fine, but if drivers can't drive for ****, then its useless.

The one thing I noticed the most is almost 100% of drivers ducked back into the right lane after overtaking so as not to hold up anybody else.

Can't say the same about drivers here keepting left unless overtaking.....

 

[Bravotwozero]

Can't say the same about drivers here keepting left unless overtaking.....

So I guess KeepLeft has been vindicated then. Thanks for posting KeepLeft, very informative information.

 

[DAKSTER]

That, in addition to the fact that Europeans are required by law to keep their cars in tip top condition, hence why most of them drive newish cars. I see old shitters getting around Bundaberg that would be scary enough to drive at 100 km/h, let alone at 130+. (keep in mind that we have no mandatory annual inspections here in QLD, you can pretty much let your car go as far as you want until you get pulled up and defected)

Thats another thing to back the NT case for higher limits. A roadworthy is required annually, no exceptions. Cars are in better condition.

 

[Blair_355]

End of the day, #### what they said on top gear, they're calling an xr6 an xr8. Douchebags.

 

[Shorty33]

Dakster: in NT, there are a couple of exceptions. Older cars are inspected annually. New cars, less often.
I just looked at the rego for my 2010 Commodore: first inspection is in 2013.
LPG is an annual inspection, separate from the RWC process.
It's all a bit of a distraction. Victoria has no inspections, except on change of owner, and has the most improved road safety data over the last 40 years, which suggests to me that inspections are irrelevant to road safety, and therefore ought to be discontinued.

 

[DAKSTER]

I stand corrected. I'm shocked that the rules have regressed. It certainly used to be the case that every car required inspection every year. A backwards step in my view.

Dont know about the Victorian statistics, but you will never see me agree that vehicle inspections are irrelevant to road safety. The condition of the cars on the road MUST have some effect on road safety, I will never believe that it doesnt.

Discontinuing safety inspections would be a very bad idea IMO, and the states that dont do them regularly should.

If you think Vic has great statistics, try inspections for a few years and watch them improve even more, thats all I can say.

 

[Turd Ferguson]

I stand corrected. I'm shocked that the rules have regressed. It certainly used to be the case that every car required inspection every year. A backwards step in my view.

Dont know about the Victorian statistics, but you will never see me agree that vehicle inspections are irrelevant to road safety. The condition of the cars on the road MUST have some effect on road safety, I will never believe that it doesnt.

Discontinuing safety inspections would be a very bad idea IMO, and the states that dont do them regularly should.

If you think Vic has great statistics, try inspections for a few years and watch them improve even more, thats all I can say.

I agree, In N.S.W when you buy a brand new car you have a 3 or 5 year period where you dont need inspection, then a RWC every year afterwards.