Crash investigation results and that 30 car pile-up in NSW

[Shane]

"Mot Adv-NSW" <mot.adv@gotalk.net.au> wrote in message
news:2u5eimF25fnhrU1@uni-berlin.de...
>
> "Jacko" <jacko6777@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> news:uGXed.37883$5O5.4643@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
>
> Mmmmm,
>
> Truck is unregistered and uninsured, had dodgy mechanicals... more later..

As BenOne alluded to, that's obviously the governments fault.

[Shane]

"athol" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:2u6ba7F27cq94U1@uni-berlin.de...
> Dale Jones <dale-google@monsya.net> wrote:
>
<snip>

> Actually, the statistics from overseas where freeway limits are
> actively being raised show that the increased limits actually drop
> the crash _rate_, so crashes become less inevitable...

In some places. Other places the rates increased. Of the ones that indicated
a decrease in crashes, there were some very suspect results being bandied
about that included some of the *highway* data including parts of the road
that weren't *highway* at all or even part of the original experiement.
I'll try and dig up a couple of those reports to show you what I mean.
<snip>

>> Jeremy, I think you'll have to face facts, most drivers aren't that
>> good at driving. I think simple approaches just don't work. You need
>> to understand 'why' people are doing what they are doing, and its not
>> because the speed limit is too low. In the same vein, dropping speed
>> limits is not going to help too much either.
>
> A small increase in speed limit can effect a noticable improvement
> in driver behaviour once they adjust to the new limit. I'd even go
> so far as to say that I would support limit raising in steps of 10
> or 20 rather than just jumping. I agree with Jeremy's suggestion
> that the maximum posted limit should be about 130, with derestriction
> being the next step.

I don't. Not across the board anyway. When motorist can show enough maturity
to drive safely at the limits in place now, then I'd suggest the authorities
might listen to your call. I also don't beleive it's all about training
either............it's only P platers *some* of the time.
>
> Hence, I'd like to see the existing 110 zones go up to 120 for say
> 6 months, then 130 for 6 months then derestriction. I know that
> there would be an issue with the cost of signs but I believe that it
> would be a safer way of implementing raised limits. It also allows
> for gathering of hard data on the improvement in safety that occurs
> with each increase.

There is no real evidence available to suggest that this experiment would be
successful. The argument thrown around in here about the limits being too
low which is causing crashes is a crock. The only crashes I seem to
investigate that indicate a speed differential being the sole reason is
where a car runs up the arse of a slow moving truck etc........higher limits
aren't going to reduce these crashes at all. I believe they will only make
the chances of survival less than they already are now.

>
>> I am amazed at how many people will sit close behind my car when I'm
>> over the speed limit. Yet when I move over left (while keeping exactly
>> the same speed) to let them pass, they either sit at the same speed,
>> move behind me, or slow down. (Yes some do overtake.... and then slow
>> down!) When they really piss me off, I slow down to 20ks below the
>> limit, and some still sit there. Go figure.
>
> I've seen all of those behaviours and more. They're not likely to
> improve without being forced to do so by licence retesting &/or by
> being booked for it.



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

[Bernd Felsche]

athol <me@privacy.net> writes:

>Dale Jones <dale-google@monsya.net> wrote:

>> Jeremy, I think you'll have to face facts, most drivers aren't that
>> good at driving. I think simple approaches just don't work. You need
>> to understand 'why' people are doing what they are doing, and its not
>> because the speed limit is too low. In the same vein, dropping speed
>> limits is not going to help too much either.

>A small increase in speed limit can effect a noticable improvement
>in driver behaviour once they adjust to the new limit. I'd even go
>so far as to say that I would support limit raising in steps of 10
>or 20 rather than just jumping. I agree with Jeremy's suggestion
>that the maximum posted limit should be about 130, with derestriction
>being the next step.

>Hence, I'd like to see the existing 110 zones go up to 120 for say
>6 months, then 130 for 6 months then derestriction. I know that
>there would be an issue with the cost of signs but I believe that it
>would be a safer way of implementing raised limits. It also allows
>for gathering of hard data on the improvement in safety that occurs
>with each increase.

You should wait rather longer if you want statistically-meaningful
data; in particular allowing for regression-to-mean effects.
BTRE describes this phenomenon in it's notes on the black spot
programme:
http://www.btre.gov.au/docs/r104/htm/chapter5.htm

Failing to allow for regression-to-mean is characteristic of the
evidence used to "substantiate" claims made by the speed camera
crowd that they produce a 30% to 50% reduction in crashes in the
area. Turns out that you usually get the same "benefit" by placing
garden gnomes in those locations.
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | I'm a .signature virus!
X against HTML mail | Copy me into your ~/.signature
/ \ and postings | to help me spread!

[BenOne©]

Shane wrote:

> "BenOne©" <nosp@m.thanks.mate> wrote in message
> news:bekhlc.gmu.ln@192.168.11.2...
>
>>Shane wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"BenOne©" <nosp@m.thanks.mate> wrote in message
>>>news:417C2BF0.7050603@m.thanks.mate...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Hi all,
>>>>
>>>>After seeing the big 30 car smash in NSW on the news I was wondering how
>>>>I could find out more about the results of the investigation that will no
>>>>doubt be undertaken.
>>>>
>>>>The road looked like a freeway, so I suspect it had a speed limit of 80
>>>>or more. I don't know what caused the crash - there was some mention of a
>>>>semi-trailer - but I can't see how anything but tailgating is to blame.
>>>>If that's the case, then it's more proof that the government is really
>>>>****ing up road safety by focusing solely on speeding in their road
>>>>safety campaigns. The endless loss of life single minded government
>>>>policy that isn't achieving anything positive almost brings me to tears!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzz
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>--
>>>>Ben Thomas
>>>>Opinions, conclusions, and other information in this message that do not
>>>>relate to the official business of my firm shall be understood as neither
>>>>given nor endorsed by it.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Why do you bother?
>
>
>
> I was thinking exactly the same thing. All you do is whinge. You complain
> about anything the authorities do, and do it without knowing what you're
> talking about.

What else have I complained about? If you're going to tell me I don't know what
I'm talking about, then point out where I'm wrong. I don't think I've ever seen
you attempt that. All you do is say you're the expert and we should all shut up.

I complain about the ONE of the things the authorities claim to do about road
safety - the emphasis on exceeding the speed limit. The only other things the
government seem to focus on is drink driving and texting/talking on the mobile
phone while driving. I applaud their efforts but I don't think the penalties are
harsh enough.

The number of people I saw driving without headlights on this morning was
apalling. It was raining a lot and the clouds were so thick that the street
lights had come back on. Do we see any goverment ads to encourage people to use
their headlights when visibility is bad?

How about the fact that there are always more accidents when it rains. I drive
in peak hour traffic, and it always takes me a lot longer to get to work when
it's wet because the traffic is forced to go a lot slower and rarely manages to
get up to the speed limit. So people are having lots of crashes below the limit,
and all the government does is tell us to slow down. Don't you think there might
be some other aspect of people's driving that could be to blame, like tailgating
less or being more careful when changing lanes?

> Do you believe that perhaps it's YOU that's taken this
> *dumbing down* business too far? You seem to believe that any strategy the
> authorities take is measured only by revenue.

I have not mentioned revenue, so why raise it?

> Both myself and Spook have
> posted many times before what *really* goes on and how most highway patrol
> operate. If you chose to ignore information right from the coal-face and
> continue to dream up conspiracies all the time then that's your business.
> But, IMO it's gets a little tedious reading one post after another when all
> it contains is complaints without evidence to support your argument. Go find
> out the cause of the crash before you come to your stupid conclusions that
> any authority caused it. Perhaps it was a guy just like you that decided
> he'd do whatever speed he felt like doing and caused the crash when it all
> got too hot to handle?

People always do whatever speed they feel like doing. Often it's too fast for
the conditions but under the limit. Many young people don't know how to drive to
the conditions because they are not taught how. All the government does is tell
them not to drink and drive, not to SMS or hold their phone while driving, and
not to exceed the limit. Yet many crashes are occurring below the limit.



> Imagine if I posted that kind of argument straight
> away without knowing the facts? You just did exactly that! "but I can't see
> how anything but tailgating is to blame. If that's the case, then it's more
> proof that the government is really ****ing up road safety by focusing
> solely on speeding in their road safety campaigns. The endless loss of life
> single minded government policy that isn't achieving anything positive
> almost brings me to tears!"
> Boring.

I also asked how I could find out more about the accident and what the real
cause is, so that if my assertion that tailgating was to blame was wrong, then I
could be better educated.

Here's your chance but I sincerely doubt you'll take it. Instead you'll just
tell me to shut up,.


--
Ben Thomas
Opinions, conclusions, and other information in this message that do not
relate to the official business of my firm shall be understood as neither
given nor endorsed by it.

[BenOne©]

Dale Jones wrote:
>
> In these situations, I've learnt to chill out and drop to a lower
> speed, in this case 100km/h, where I don't need to overtake as often,
> and therefore avoid the gooses in the RH lane. I really am quite fond
> of living and can live without any extra stress. 30 minutes late over
> 3 hours, who cares?

Is that daily, for years? You should care.
--
Ben Thomas
Opinions, conclusions, and other information in this message that do not
relate to the official business of my firm shall be understood as neither
given nor endorsed by it.

[BenOne©]

Shane wrote:

> "Mot Adv-NSW" <mot.adv@gotalk.net.au> wrote in message
> news:2u5eimF25fnhrU1@uni-berlin.de...
>
>>"Jacko" <jacko6777@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
>>news:uGXed.37883$5O5.4643@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
>>Mmmmm,
>>
>>Truck is unregistered and uninsured, had dodgy mechanicals... more later..
>
>
> As BenOne alluded to, that's obviously the governments fault.
>
>

I don't believe I did. It was certainly not intentional.

My original post was posted in anger. I am sick and tired of seeing people
having accidents, particularly large ones. There's got to be a way to change
peoples attitudes or skill levels, and it seems to me the government not
addressing the real issues.

I could be wrong though.

--
Ben Thomas
Opinions, conclusions, and other information in this message that do not
relate to the official business of my firm shall be understood as neither
given nor endorsed by it.

[BenOne©]

Shane wrote:


> There is no real evidence available to suggest that this experiment would be
> successful. The argument thrown around in here about the limits being too
> low which is causing crashes is a crock. The only crashes I seem to
> investigate that indicate a speed differential being the sole reason is
> where a car runs up the arse of a slow moving truck etc........higher limits
> aren't going to reduce these crashes at all. I believe they will only make
> the chances of survival less than they already are now.


I agree. People are still going to be underskilled and/or have the wrong
attitude and cause accidents.


--
Ben Thomas
Opinions, conclusions, and other information in this message that do not
relate to the official business of my firm shall be understood as neither
given nor endorsed by it.

[Shane]

"Jacko" <jacko6777@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:uGXed.37883$5O5.4643@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> "BenOne©" <nosp@m.thanks.mate> wrote in message
> news:417C2BF0.7050603@m.thanks.mate...
>> After seeing the big 30 car smash in NSW on the news I was wondering how
>> I
> could
>> find out more about the results of the investigation that will no doubt
>> be
>> undertaken.
>>
>> The road looked like a freeway, so I suspect it had a speed limit of 80
>> or
> more.
>> I don't know what caused the crash - there was some mention of a
> semi-trailer -
>> but I can't see how anything but tailgating is to blame. If that's the
> case,
>> then it's more proof that the government is really ****ing up road safety
> by
>> focusing solely on speeding in their road safety campaigns. The endless
> loss of
>> life single minded government policy that isn't achieving anything
> positive
>> almost brings me to tears!
>
> Ben
>
> The road in question was the F3 Freeway specifically, the Mooney Mooney
> Bridge which is a very high bridge between two mountains (for lack of a
> better explanation). It normally has a posted limit of 110km/h. The
> Sun-Herald reported that there was an accident southbound on the right
> hand
> lane. Part of the northbound lanes were closed as a result. Apparently
> there was a subsequent accident before a truck coming down the long
> downhill
> section on the northbound lane reportedly lost its brakes. It clung to
> the
> left shoulder but evidently collected multiple vehicles. I am not sure if
> there were any other incidents that formed part of the "Pile-up".
>
> I had the misfortune of travelling from NW NSW to Sydney on Friday night
> and
> by the time we got to Mooney Mooney (about 9.00pm) the area was lit up
> with
> big flood lights and there were literally flashing lights everywhere. The
> RTA/police crews do a good job of managing the traffic around the accident
> considering what they were up against.


Why would you want to take the time out to explain it that way? Ben only
wants to complain about the authorities in here. Giving a full and
reasonable explaination for the actions of anyone who's genuninely
interested in road safety, as opposed to those merely wanting to complain
about it, is NOT ON here!!!!

[Shane]

"Mot Adv-NSW" <mot.adv@gotalk.net.au> wrote in message
news:2u3oe4F25qsquU1@uni-berlin.de...
>
> "Dale Jones" <d
>
>> I was lucky that I missed the accident, but I couldn't believe how
>> much a pain in the arse the F3 is. I am one of these people that like
>> to keep left when not overtaking.
>
> Keep left or middle??


It would be impossible for all those not overtaking to keep far left. The
middle lane has also got to be used in those circumstances.
>
>
> I found that doing this meant that
>> you could not get back into the right hand lane when trying to get
>> past a car doing 100km/h because all the people in the right hand lane
>> were 2 car lengths apart, and never changing lanes themselves.
>
> Symptomatic of a too low speed limit


How do you work this out Jeremy?

- I propose divorcing it, marriage in
> traffic is deadly. We could raise the fine and points for not keeping
> adequate distance, but this will encourage drivers to drive slower which
> will add to frustration and outbreaks of greeat joy.

Raising the speed limit in those conditions would IMO result in daily
occurrences of what we just witnessed. Like a previous post suggested, it
was more than likely rubber-neckers that caused most of the other minor
crashes after the initial contact. Higher speed limits and triangles aren't
going to reduce the number of crashes under these circumstances. In fact,
attempting to place triangles in these circumstances are going to get people
killed more than save them IMO.

>
>
>> Is there any solution to this? Why are people on the F3 so 'manic'? It
>> really feels like a race. I've been to Gosford, I don't think its
>> 'that nice'. Why hurry?
>
> Many factors, 'late comers and residents', the earlier localised drivers
> were generally faster on this road and more experienced with it, as it
> developed over the years and you could appreciate how locals drove, with
> increased residential movement from Sydney to the housing estates,
> primarily from Sydneys west, we've had M4 type behaviour and 'big city'
> attitude driving that goes with that. I raised this annoyance back in
> 1989. It has, predictably, gotten worse, the behaviour. The F3 is now
> part of the Sydney Road Network.


That would be the behaviour of the older residents not adapting? That's not
speed limit related Jeremy. That's like Narellan Road. I used to travel
along there at 100kph only 10 years ago. Now if you can get over 20 kph's in
the morning good luck to you. There are still people weaving in and out of
traffic even though it's almost stationary. Running late, impatient, older
residents? Who knows? But I know one thing, raising the speed limit isn't
going to do squat for those who really would like to take advantage of it.

>
> Recall, it was 110km/h all the way through, so with the 90km/h imposition
> following an unusually wet Saturday, behaviour has worsened, people feel
> 'put upon' and we've had a tough time explaining 'why' the limit was
> imposed as championed by Gosford Police (RTA senior local staff do not go
> along with it).
>
> The other issue is 110km/h is simply too slow a speed limit for many a
> greater part. I'd raise it to 130km/h or even derestrict the road AFTER
> the median barrier in installed at the full length, the driver must
> therefore be given greater responsibility, rather than hiding their
> selfish actions behind numerical speed limits.


You obviously don't have to investigate crashes do you Jeremy? :)))) The
same selfish drivers are going to remain selfish at any speed. You're
advocating greater speed differentials and therefore IMO higher *rates* of
crashes and greater *severity* of same. You just finished saying that the
older *conditioned* drivers on this stretch of roadway still haven't adapted
to the slower speed limit or the greater volumes of traffic sharing *their*
road. Not that these individuals should have to change their behaviour or
anything Jeremy :)))))) but how do you then presume that the ones
conditioned to driving at 100k's are going to adapt to much higher speeds
therefore reducing speed differentials? Not everyone using that road gets
out of bed at the last minute placing themselves in a position to have to
race to work. The sheer volume of traffic is going to dictate the speed
average, but IMO opinion raising the speed limit will only encourage those
you just claimed can't adapt, to more dangerous and ambitious manoeuvres in
future. Lose, lose.

>
> Until this is addressed, I promise you more of the same as the pressure
> cooker increases.


I guess the majority of this NG simply wants to drive faster whenever they
feel like it so you will no doubt get all the support you need in your
argument. IMO, raising the speed limit or derestricting it in these
circumstances will increase the risk of injury and death.




>
> JP.
>
>
>
>
>
>> Dale.
>
>

[Shane]

"BenOne©" <nosp@m.thanks.mate> wrote in message
news:bekhlc.gmu.ln@192.168.11.2...
> Shane wrote:
>
>> "BenOne©" <nosp@m.thanks.mate> wrote in message
>> news:417C2BF0.7050603@m.thanks.mate...
>>
>>>Hi all,
>>>
>>>After seeing the big 30 car smash in NSW on the news I was wondering how
>>>I could find out more about the results of the investigation that will no
>>>doubt be undertaken.
>>>
>>>The road looked like a freeway, so I suspect it had a speed limit of 80
>>>or more. I don't know what caused the crash - there was some mention of a
>>>semi-trailer - but I can't see how anything but tailgating is to blame.
>>>If that's the case, then it's more proof that the government is really
>>>****ing up road safety by focusing solely on speeding in their road
>>>safety campaigns. The endless loss of life single minded government
>>>policy that isn't achieving anything positive almost brings me to tears!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzz
>>
>>
>>
>>>--
>>>Ben Thomas
>>>Opinions, conclusions, and other information in this message that do not
>>>relate to the official business of my firm shall be understood as neither
>>>given nor endorsed by it.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> Why do you bother?


I was thinking exactly the same thing. All you do is whinge. You complain
about anything the authorities do, and do it without knowing what you're
talking about. Do you believe that perhaps it's YOU that's taken this
*dumbing down* business too far? You seem to believe that any strategy the
authorities take is measured only by revenue. Both myself and Spook have
posted many times before what *really* goes on and how most highway patrol
operate. If you chose to ignore information right from the coal-face and
continue to dream up conspiracies all the time then that's your business.
But, IMO it's gets a little tedious reading one post after another when all
it contains is complaints without evidence to support your argument. Go find
out the cause of the crash before you come to your stupid conclusions that
any authority caused it. Perhaps it was a guy just like you that decided
he'd do whatever speed he felt like doing and caused the crash when it all
got too hot to handle? Imagine if I posted that kind of argument straight
away without knowing the facts? You just did exactly that! "but I can't see
how anything but tailgating is to blame. If that's the case, then it's more
proof that the government is really ****ing up road safety by focusing
solely on speeding in their road safety campaigns. The endless loss of life
single minded government policy that isn't achieving anything positive
almost brings me to tears!"
Boring.
>
> --
> Ben Thomas
> Opinions, conclusions, and other information in this message that do not
> relate to the official business of my firm shall be understood as neither
> given nor endorsed by it.
>

[Mot Adv-NSW]

"Jacko" <jacko6777@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:uGXed.37883$5O5.4643@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>

Mmmmm,

Truck is unregistered and uninsured, had dodgy mechanicals... more later..

[Wonko the Sane]

>
> Ben
>
> The road in question was the F3 Freeway specifically, the Mooney Mooney
> Bridge which is a very high bridge between two mountains (for lack of a
> better explanation). It normally has a posted limit of 110km/h. The
> Sun-Herald reported that there was an accident southbound on the right hand
> lane. Part of the northbound lanes were closed as a result. Apparently
> there was a subsequent accident before a truck coming down the long downhill
> section on the northbound lane reportedly lost its brakes. It clung to the
> left shoulder but evidently collected multiple vehicles. I am not sure if
> there were any other incidents that formed part of the "Pile-up".
>
> I had the misfortune of travelling from NW NSW to Sydney on Friday night and
> by the time we got to Mooney Mooney (about 9.00pm) the area was lit up with
> big flood lights and there were literally flashing lights everywhere. The
> RTA/police crews do a good job of managing the traffic around the accident
> considering what they were up against.
>

I also had the misfortune to be traveling on the F3 on Friday
afternoon-Saturday morning. I took the exit to get onto the old Pacific
highway at Mooney Mooney as indicated by roadside electronic boards, and
then sat back and enjoyed the wait. I was surprised by the impatience of
some of the drivers who I had the pleasure of being stuck with on the
Pacific for the next 2 hours. At one stage we were stopped by a car on
the side of the road that had overheated and was in need of some water.
The car in front of me, traveling with friends about 5 cars in front of
him who had water went forward to them to get water for the guy
restoring my faith in humanity, which was quickly lost when a guy from
about 10 cars behind came up and gave a 'mouthful' to the guy who was
helping for holding up the traffic which had moved all of 100m in this
time. At a later time I couldn't believe the stupidity of some people
who insisted on honking their horn, as if that was going to speed things
up. Over all it took me over 2 hours to drive the 20 or so k's needed to
get back onto the F3 to continue on to Newcastle but during the jam
managed to read a few chapters of a book, do some work on my laptop and
have a good conversation on the phone with my family who were waiting
for me to arrive. Surely in these rare circumstances people should have
enough sense to realise that getting upset/angry at other road users is
going to have very little effect on how long it will take them to get to
their destination. It was good to see that the majority of people had
the sense to turn of their engines when not moving so as not to gas the
rest of us.

Wonko the Sane

[athol]

Jacko <jacko6777@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

> The road in question was the F3 Freeway specifically, the Mooney Mooney
> Bridge which is a very high bridge between two mountains (for lack of a
> better explanation).

I've been saying that the bridge isn't anywhere nearly high enough
since it was built.

_
\
\ __
\ /
\ /
-___-

Some EU countries have had to bridge similar terrain and have built
the bridge with a deck height about level with the lower approach.

Much safer. Much more expensive, of course...

> It normally has a posted limit of 110km/h. The
> Sun-Herald reported that there was an accident southbound on the right hand
> lane. Part of the northbound lanes were closed as a result. Apparently
> there was a subsequent accident before a truck coming down the long downhill
> section on the northbound lane reportedly lost its brakes. It clung to the
> left shoulder but evidently collected multiple vehicles. I am not sure if
> there were any other incidents that formed part of the "Pile-up".

Unlike most of the older sections of the F3 with steep descents, this one
doesn't appear to provide safety ramps for heavy vehicles.

> I had the misfortune of travelling from NW NSW to Sydney on Friday night and
> by the time we got to Mooney Mooney (about 9.00pm) the area was lit up with
> big flood lights and there were literally flashing lights everywhere. The
> RTA/police crews do a good job of managing the traffic around the accident
> considering what they were up against.

I sort of expected that the majority of the traffic would have been
diverted along the Peats Ridge expressway. Only a 2-lane road and now
substantially undermaintained but still an effective bypass of the
Mooney Mooney secton of the F3.

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

[Dale Jones]

feral <plonked@home.ru> wrote in message news:<417c88fe$0$31709$61c65585@un-2park-reader-01.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au>...
> Dale Jones wrote:
>
> > My solution, slow down to 100km/h and sit in the left hand lane until
> > after the Gosford exit, and resume speed back to 110+ km/h. Much more
> > sane, except for the groups of people that bunch up with the same
> > behavior.
> >
> > Is there any solution to this?
>
> Yes.
> You see, the drivers in the RH lane are really doing
> about 125k. So, if you're in the left lane doing 110k
> (?), when you see you are coming up behind a slow car,
> you accelerate to 125k to slip in between two doing this
> speed. Then you slip back into the left lane and slow to
> 110k again.

The only problem I've got with this 'solution' is that I don't feel
safe sitting a single car length between two cars at 125km/h. I'm
obviously a wally that can't drive. Either that or I really like
living and don't want to interrupt it with a stint in hospital.

You are assuming that I either don't know what my speed is, or cannot
judge the speed of other cars. If I'm doing 115km/h and the car next
to me stays next to me, what speed would you say it is doing? 125km/h?

Most of these people are too lazy or too frustrated to get out of the
RH lane, as they know that it'll be hard to get back in to overtake
the next slow car. The wankers that come up the back of the car in the
LH lane to cut into any buffer zone for the car in the RH lane are
probably another reason for this.

In these situations, I've learnt to chill out and drop to a lower
speed, in this case 100km/h, where I don't need to overtake as often,
and therefore avoid the gooses in the RH lane. I really am quite fond
of living and can live without any extra stress. 30 minutes late over
3 hours, who cares?

>
> You know what, I don't really believe your scenario, or,
> don't you know about NSW "tolerences".

I'm not sure what you don't believe, and probably can't help you. Do
you drive?

Seriously though, my speedo is pretty accurate, and I'm one of those
idiots that likes to sit within 1 or 2ks of the speed I want, down AND
up hills. If the limit's 110, I'll probably sit at 115. I've got the
speed alert configured as a digital speedo, and it seems a bit more
linear than the normal speedo.

NSW tolerances don't really appear to be the issue. Why should they?
Going by your logic, these tolerances change on double demerit
weekends, because on those days, a lot of people sit well below the
speed limit. My limited grasp of logic suggests that these people
aren't looking at their speedos that often.

>
> Why are people on the F3 so 'manic'?
>
> *Only* the F3. :-)

True, some roads are bad, but on the F6 you get fast people, but they
seem to drive smoothly. The geniuses on the F3 seem to want to do
anything to get in front or to stop anyone else getting in front.

> > It really feels like a race.
>
> It is.

To Gosford? No offence, I'm sure it's a nice place, but Sydney's not
that bad.

>
> I've been to Gosford, I don't think its
> > 'that nice'. Why hurry?
> >
> Escaping Sydney? :-)

Death'll do that to you.

>
> T.C. Feral

Dale.

[Dale Jones]

"Mot Adv-NSW" <mot.adv@gotalk.net.au> wrote in message news:<2u3oe4F25qsquU1@uni-berlin.de>...
> "Dale Jones" <d
>
> > I was lucky that I missed the accident, but I couldn't believe how
> > much a pain in the arse the F3 is. I am one of these people that like
> > to keep left when not overtaking.
>
> Keep left or middle??

Generally left. On three lane roads this is great as I can overtake
other cars that sit below the speed limit in the centre lane, and
often avoid people sitting in the RH lane also below the speed limit.
Its great!
(Before anyone comments about overtaking in a LH lane, read the road
rules, and no this is not Europe)

>
>
> I found that doing this meant that
> > you could not get back into the right hand lane when trying to get
> > past a car doing 100km/h because all the people in the right hand lane
> > were 2 car lengths apart, and never changing lanes themselves.
>
> Symptomatic of a too low speed limit - I propose divorcing it, marriage in
> traffic is deadly.

Jeremy, I think we are learning too much about you, and not about the
road. Too low a speed limit? I think in these conditions, no mater
what the limit was, these same people would stay in the RH lane as
they are too scared or unskilled to change lanes.

> We could raise the fine and points for not keeping
> adequate distance, but this will encourage drivers to drive slower which
> will add to frustration and outbreaks of greeat joy.
>
>
> > Is there any solution to this? Why are people on the F3 so 'manic'? It
> > really feels like a race. I've been to Gosford, I don't think its
> > 'that nice'. Why hurry?
<snip>
> Recall, it was 110km/h all the way through, so with the 90km/h imposition
> following an unusually wet Saturday, behaviour has worsened, people feel
> 'put upon' and we've had a tough time explaining 'why' the limit was imposed
> as championed by Gosford Police (RTA senior local staff do not go along with
> it).
>
> The other issue is 110km/h is simply too slow a speed limit for many a
> greater part. I'd raise it to 130km/h or even derestrict the road AFTER the
> median barrier in installed at the full length, the driver must therefore be
> given greater responsibility, rather than hiding their selfish actions
> behind numerical speed limits.

I like driving fast, but I don't think this approach will work. Most
modern cars are quiet and economical at high speeds. If you are not
looking at your speedo now, why would you change this habit just
because its a higher speedlimit? It'll just make the damage more
severe from the resulting accidents.

I think someone mentioned years ago about ending the RH lane when
lanes need to merge instead of the LH lane. I think this would tend to
make a lot of drivers stay in the left or middle lane. This would
probably cause some problems, but I can't help but thinking people
stay in the RH lane because its easier than changing lanes.

>
> Until this is addressed, I promise you more of the same as the pressure
> cooker increases.

Jeremy, I think you'll have to face facts, most drivers aren't that
good at driving. I think simple approaches just don't work. You need
to understand 'why' people are doing what they are doing, and its not
because the speed limit is too low. In the same vein, dropping speed
limits is not going to help too much either.

I am amazed at how many people will sit close behind my car when I'm
over the speed limit. Yet when I move over left (while keeping exactly
the same speed) to let them pass, they either sit at the same speed,
move behind me, or slow down. (Yes some do overtake.... and then slow
down!) When they really piss me off, I slow down to 20ks below the
limit, and some still sit there. Go figure.

>
> JP.
>

Dale.

[feral]

Dale Jones wrote:
>
> The only problem I've got with this 'solution' is that I don't feel
> safe sitting a single car length between two cars at 125km/h. I'm
> obviously a wally that can't drive. Either that or I really like
> living and don't want to interrupt it with a stint in hospital.
>
I was having a lend Dale. ;-)

> You are assuming that I either don't know what my speed is, or cannot
> judge the speed of other cars. If I'm doing 115km/h and the car next
> to me stays next to me, what speed would you say it is doing? 125km/h?
>
+/- 20k :-)

> Most of these people are too lazy or too frustrated to get out of the
> RH lane, as they know that it'll be hard to get back in to overtake
> the next slow car. The wankers that come up the back of the car in the
> LH lane to cut into any buffer zone for the car in the RH lane are
> probably another reason for this.
>
There's still something wrong with that logic. Can you
see it?

> In these situations, I've learnt to chill out and drop to a lower
> speed, in this case 100km/h, where I don't need to overtake as often,
> and therefore avoid the gooses in the RH lane. I really am quite fond
> of living and can live without any extra stress. 30 minutes late over
> 3 hours, who cares?
>
Good approach.
>
> I'm not sure what you don't believe, and probably can't help you. Do
> you drive?
>
Only for 43 years. :-)

> Seriously though, my speedo is pretty accurate, and I'm one of those
> idiots that likes to sit within 1 or 2ks of the speed I want, down AND
> up hills. If the limit's 110, I'll probably sit at 115.

That's cool, but unless there is heavy traffic the RH
lane will still be about 120-125k. Right?

> NSW tolerances don't really appear to be the issue. Why should they?
> Going by your logic, these tolerances change on double demerit
> weekends,

Nah. Peoples trust of the "tolerence" and the fear of
extra monetary/points loss plus extra traffic would be
more to the point IMO.

because on those days, a lot of people sit well below the
> speed limit. My limited grasp of logic suggests that these people
> aren't looking at their speedos that often.
>
See above.
>
> To Gosford? No offence, I'm sure it's a nice place, but Sydney's not
> that bad.
>
Sydney is the pits IMHO Dale. I was born and bred there.
Moved out in 1975, not sorry. :-)
>
> Death'll do that to you.
>
There's life after Sydney. ;-)

T.C. Feral

[athol]

Mot Adv-NSW <mot.adv@gotalk.net.au> wrote:

> Truck is unregistered and uninsured, had dodgy mechanicals...

Very interesting...

> more later..

Yes please.

Did it have plates on it?

Was it an over 8T vehicle, and if so, how did it get past Mt White?

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

[athol]

Dale Jones <dale-google@monsya.net> wrote:

> Too low a speed limit? I think in these conditions, no mater
> what the limit was, these same people would stay in the RH lane as
> they are too scared or unskilled to change lanes.

Then the HWP should be out there booking them for failing to keep
left. Shane has previously mentioned doing this on the Hume and
I applaud him for it.

> I like driving fast, but I don't think this approach will work. Most
> modern cars are quiet and economical at high speeds. If you are not
> looking at your speedo now, why would you change this habit just
> because its a higher speedlimit? It'll just make the damage more
> severe from the resulting accidents.

Actually, the statistics from overseas where freeway limits are
actively being raised show that the increased limits actually drop
the crash _rate_, so crashes become less inevitable...

Comprehensive installation of barriers in the correct places makes
sure that crashes only involve vehicles travelling in the same
direction, significantly reducing the severity of crashes. Barrier
installation should not be restricted to the median, either. The
outside of the carriageway often needs a barrier to keep vehicles
from swerving off, overcorrecting and spearing diagonally into the
median...

Addressing issues with unlicensed drivers and unregistered vehicles
would help too, considering that Jeremy mentioned that the truck
involved in the F3 crash was unregistered, etc..

> I think someone mentioned years ago about ending the RH lane when
> lanes need to merge instead of the LH lane. I think this would tend to
> make a lot of drivers stay in the left or middle lane. This would
> probably cause some problems, but I can't help but thinking people
> stay in the RH lane because its easier than changing lanes.

Merging the left lane and starting a new right lane is a better way
of doing it. I'd like to see that on climbing lanes on steep hills
on freeways. With the way that drivers here drive, it'd probably be
worth starting a new right lane and ending the left lane on almost
every small rise. :-)

> Jeremy, I think you'll have to face facts, most drivers aren't that
> good at driving. I think simple approaches just don't work. You need
> to understand 'why' people are doing what they are doing, and its not
> because the speed limit is too low. In the same vein, dropping speed
> limits is not going to help too much either.

A small increase in speed limit can effect a noticable improvement
in driver behaviour once they adjust to the new limit. I'd even go
so far as to say that I would support limit raising in steps of 10
or 20 rather than just jumping. I agree with Jeremy's suggestion
that the maximum posted limit should be about 130, with derestriction
being the next step.

Hence, I'd like to see the existing 110 zones go up to 120 for say
6 months, then 130 for 6 months then derestriction. I know that
there would be an issue with the cost of signs but I believe that it
would be a safer way of implementing raised limits. It also allows
for gathering of hard data on the improvement in safety that occurs
with each increase.

> I am amazed at how many people will sit close behind my car when I'm
> over the speed limit. Yet when I move over left (while keeping exactly
> the same speed) to let them pass, they either sit at the same speed,
> move behind me, or slow down. (Yes some do overtake.... and then slow
> down!) When they really piss me off, I slow down to 20ks below the
> limit, and some still sit there. Go figure.

I've seen all of those behaviours and more. They're not likely to
improve without being forced to do so by licence retesting &/or by
being booked for it.

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

[BenOne©]

Hi all,

After seeing the big 30 car smash in NSW on the news I was wondering how I could
find out more about the results of the investigation that will no doubt be
undertaken.

The road looked like a freeway, so I suspect it had a speed limit of 80 or more.
I don't know what caused the crash - there was some mention of a semi-trailer -
but I can't see how anything but tailgating is to blame. If that's the case,
then it's more proof that the government is really ****ing up road safety by
focusing solely on speeding in their road safety campaigns. The endless loss of
life single minded government policy that isn't achieving anything positive
almost brings me to tears!
--
Ben Thomas
Opinions, conclusions, and other information in this message that do not
relate to the official business of my firm shall be understood as neither
given nor endorsed by it.

[Shane]

"BenOne©" <nosp@m.thanks.mate> wrote in message
news:417C2BF0.7050603@m.thanks.mate...
> Hi all,
>
> After seeing the big 30 car smash in NSW on the news I was wondering how I
> could find out more about the results of the investigation that will no
> doubt be undertaken.
>
> The road looked like a freeway, so I suspect it had a speed limit of 80 or
> more. I don't know what caused the crash - there was some mention of a
> semi-trailer - but I can't see how anything but tailgating is to blame. If
> that's the case, then it's more proof that the government is really
> ****ing up road safety by focusing solely on speeding in their road safety
> campaigns. The endless loss of life single minded government policy that
> isn't achieving anything positive almost brings me to tears!



Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzz


> --
> Ben Thomas
> Opinions, conclusions, and other information in this message that do not
> relate to the official business of my firm shall be understood as neither
> given nor endorsed by it.
>