Speed limit increase

[Ext User(Sir Lex)]

Council has just increased the speed limit on a stretch of steep hill
near my place (at Smiths Gap for any Canberran/QBN/Bungers residents)
from 70 to a far more reasonable 80. What's going on??

I noticed Josh's post about Gong speed limits being increased too.
What's going on at the RTA???


--

SL.


Take back the web. www.Getfirefox.com

http://www.firefoxflicks.com/flick/?id=20272

Take back your Inbox. www.Getthunderbird.com

[Ext User(Mot Adv-NSW)]

"Sir Lex" <SL@no-spam.com.au> wrote in message
news:44fb7675$1@mail.netspeed.com.au...
> Council has just increased the speed limit on a stretch of steep hill near
> my place (at Smiths Gap for any Canberran/QBN/Bungers residents) from 70
> to a far more reasonable 80. What's going on??
>
> I noticed Josh's post about Gong speed limits being increased too. What's
> going on at the RTA???

Oh, nothing. . . Its a gradual thing top remove too many speed zones.

But am advised again this week a desire to use speed derestriction signs on
a length of road somewhere in NSW NT style, I have suggested the sign be
allowed in our new guidelines, but that we don't post it yet, the idea being
it'll be on the books so to speak.

The only NSW authority able to post speed derestriction signs as of late
2004 is RTA and RTA only, 'authority' for councils to do so has been removed
in the interest of safety, and uniformity of quality of length of road
application.

Some things they slowly get right.

Jeremy.

[Ext User(Athol)]

Mot Adv-NSW <mot.adv@internode.on.net> wrote:

> But am advised again this week a desire to use speed derestriction signs on
> a length of road somewhere in NSW NT style, I have suggested the sign be
> allowed in our new guidelines, but that we don't post it yet, the idea being
> it'll be on the books so to speak.

While you're at it, how about defining the criteria for setting 120 and 130
limits. Or, if you want to rationalise the limit set, define criteria for
120 and 140 and delete 110.

> Some things they slowly get right.

How's the progress on getting "keep left means left, not middle" on the VMS
boards on 3-lane freeway carriageways?

Oh, and getting the start of the 3rd lane northbound on the F3 just north of
Berowra re-marked to have the right lane commence instead of the left lane,
or are you simply going to wait for the 3-lane upgrade to eliminate the start
of the extra lane?

--
Athol
<http://cust.idl.com.au/athol> Linux Registered User # 254000
I'm a Libran Engineer. I don't argue, I discuss.

[Ext User(Mot Adv-NSW)]

"Athol"
> While you're at it, how about defining the criteria for setting 120 and
> 130
> limits. Or, if you want to rationalise the limit set, define criteria for
> 120 and 140 and delete 110.
I'll passs this on, the 'guidelines' are under review again I understand.


>> Some things they slowly get right.
>
> How's the progress on getting "keep left means left, not middle" on the
> VMS
> boards on 3-lane freeway carriageways?

I need to chase this up, and regarding to fog lights and fog warning . .


> Oh, and getting the start of the 3rd lane northbound on the F3 just north
> of
> Berowra re-marked to have the right lane commence instead of the left
> lane,
> or are you simply going to wait for the 3-lane upgrade to eliminate the
> start
> of the extra lane?

They decided just that Athol, it was a Sydney Blacktown 'thing'. Not as
progressive as those nearby us.

Much as you've said before, organisation needs re-org work I guess.

R, J.

> --
> Athol
> <http://cust.idl.com.au/athol> Linux Registered User # 254000
> I'm a Libran Engineer. I don't argue, I discuss.

[Ext User(reg-john)]

"Athol" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:1157352174.543415@idlwebserver.idl.com.au...
> Mot Adv-NSW <mot.adv@internode.on.net> wrote:
>
>> But am advised again this week a desire to use speed derestriction signs
>> on
>> a length of road somewhere in NSW NT style, I have suggested the sign be
>> allowed in our new guidelines, but that we don't post it yet, the idea
>> being
>> it'll be on the books so to speak.
>
> While you're at it, how about defining the criteria for setting 120 and
> 130
> limits. Or, if you want to rationalise the limit set, define criteria for
> 120 and 140 and delete 110.
>
>> Some things they slowly get right.
>
> How's the progress on getting "keep left means left, not middle" on the
> VMS
> boards on 3-lane freeway carriageways?

i tihnk on that stretch of the F3, having cars go into the left lane will
have a negative impact on traffic, for these reasons.

at the moment, most cars avoid this lane and all the trucks stay in it in
general, and it flows well becuase youre getting minimal trucks in the
middle and right lanes. the times ive gone up that road between 4 and 7pm,
from the start to gosford exit, there are periods especially around mt white
where the trucks are travelling at the speed limit in the left lane, and car
drivers are doing 10-20kmh under the limit in the middle and right, fucking
things up royally for everyone. if you shift it into the left lane, you are
going to have a hell of a lot more trucks in the middle and right lanes
simply to pass these imbeciles, which will create havoc. truck drivers get
paid by the km and aint going to sit behind a chump doing 90 in a 110, and
so inevitable.

unfortunately its sorta catch-22, the only solution being as always, better
and intelligent training, testing, and enforcement. will this ever occur?


>
> Oh, and getting the start of the 3rd lane northbound on the F3 just north
> of
> Berowra re-marked to have the right lane commence instead of the left
> lane,
> or are you simply going to wait for the 3-lane upgrade to eliminate the
> start
> of the extra lane?


>
> --
> Athol
> <http://cust.idl.com.au/athol> Linux Registered User # 254000
> I'm a Libran Engineer. I don't argue, I discuss.

[Ext User(Athol)]

Mot Adv-NSW <mot.adv@internode.on.net> wrote:
> "Athol"

>> While you're at it, how about defining the criteria for setting 120 and
>> 130 limits. Or, if you want to rationalise the limit set, define
>> criteria for 120 and 140 and delete 110.

> I'll passs this on, the 'guidelines' are under review again I understand.

To be honest, I don't have a problem with the 10km/h increments. It does
allow some roads to have limits that are a compromise between driver's
desire to go faster and local pressure for a lower limit.

Having said that, there are a lot of urban arterials that are only 60 but
should be 70 or 80.

There are also a lot of arterials that are 50. This should be banned.
I specifically refer to main highways through country towns and to many
through roads in suburbia. I can name quite a few and it's inappropriate.

--
Athol
<http://cust.idl.com.au/athol> Linux Registered User # 254000
I'm a Libran Engineer. I don't argue, I discuss.

[Ext User(Mot Adv-NSW)]

"reg-john" <al@.net.au...


>> How's the progress on getting "keep left means left, not middle" on the
>> VMS
>> boards on 3-lane freeway carriageways?
>
> i tihnk on that stretch of the F3, having cars go into the left lane will
> have a negative impact on traffic, for these reasons.
> At the moment, most cars avoid this lane and all the trucks stay in it in
> general, and it flows well becuase youre getting minimal trucks in the
> middle and right lanes. the times ive gone up that road between 4 and 7pm,
> from the start to gosford exit, there are periods especially around Mt
> White where the trucks are travelling at the speed limit in the left lane,
> and car drivers are doing 10-20kmh under the limit in the middle and
> right, fucking things up royally for everyone. If you shift it into the
> left lane, you are going to have a hell of a lot more trucks in the middle
> and right lanes simply to pass these imbeciles, which will create havoc.
> truck drivers get paid by the km and aint going to sit behind a chump
> doing 90 in a 110, and so inevitable.

What we are doing in bringing the road up to standard with the remainder,
'newer' sections. It should not be havoc if the car drivers keep left, not
middle, and this is where problems arise, I have no problems with trucks
using the middle lane to pass them.

Work begins soon on the missing third lane, so in any case it will be three
lanes between Sydney and Gosford North Interchange.

REM - Only NSW teaches that we use the left lane first before moving into
the middle to overtake, or right as necessary, then back to th left lane.
We spell it out.

ONCE the third lane is complete, we'll need to clamp down on middle laners.

REM - TRUCKS are prohibited from using the right lane as sign marked, they
can only use the left and middle lane.


> unfortunately its sorta catch-22, the only solution being as always,
> better and intelligent training, testing, and enforcement. will this ever
> occur?

Time, time, time and patience I guess.

J.

[Ext User(D Walford)]

Mot Adv-NSW wrote:
> "reg-john" <al@.net.au...
>
>
>>> How's the progress on getting "keep left means left, not middle" on the
>>> VMS
>>> boards on 3-lane freeway carriageways?
>> i tihnk on that stretch of the F3, having cars go into the left lane will
>> have a negative impact on traffic, for these reasons.
>> At the moment, most cars avoid this lane and all the trucks stay in it in
>> general, and it flows well becuase youre getting minimal trucks in the
>> middle and right lanes. the times ive gone up that road between 4 and 7pm,
>> from the start to gosford exit, there are periods especially around Mt
>> White where the trucks are travelling at the speed limit in the left lane,
>> and car drivers are doing 10-20kmh under the limit in the middle and
>> right, fucking things up royally for everyone. If you shift it into the
>> left lane, you are going to have a hell of a lot more trucks in the middle
>> and right lanes simply to pass these imbeciles, which will create havoc.
>> truck drivers get paid by the km and aint going to sit behind a chump
>> doing 90 in a 110, and so inevitable.
>
> What we are doing in bringing the road up to standard with the remainder,
> 'newer' sections. It should not be havoc if the car drivers keep left, not
> middle, and this is where problems arise, I have no problems with trucks
> using the middle lane to pass them.
>
> Work begins soon on the missing third lane, so in any case it will be three
> lanes between Sydney and Gosford North Interchange.
>
> REM - Only NSW teaches that we use the left lane first before moving into
> the middle to overtake, or right as necessary, then back to th left lane.
> We spell it out.
>
> ONCE the third lane is complete, we'll need to clamp down on middle laners.
>
> REM - TRUCKS are prohibited from using the right lane as sign marked, they
> can only use the left and middle lane.

Strange rule, the fastest traffic is not allowed to use the right lane:-)


Daryl

[Ext User(Neil Fisher)]

On 04 Sep 2006 08:46:33 GMT, Athol <me@privacy.net>, after considering
some belly-button fluf, wrote:

[...]

>
>There are also a lot of arterials that are 50. This should be banned.
>I specifically refer to main highways through country towns and to many
>through roads in suburbia. I can name quite a few and it's inappropriate.

Hear, hear! If we are going to "encourage" the use of arterials to
keep people off "back streets" it makes no sense to have the same
speed limits on both roads!

Neil
---
Neil Fisher / Bob Young
Thundercords
personal opinion unless otherwise noted.
Looking for spark plug leads?
Check out http://www.magnecor.com.au