Related Articles

5 Comments

  1. 1

    wamut

    I suspect that the trial is a way to keep the large number of conservatives in the NT happy, as this one was a popular election promise. My hope is that common sense will prevail and it won’t go much further. (Note that the trial is close to the NTs 2nd biggest town, rather than on a more remote stretch, e.g. the Barkly Highway. That suggests that this is a populist move, rather than a policy-focused move).

    Even if this stretch stays without a speed limit, there’s still about 1500 more kilometres of speed-restricted highway than we once had.

    Reply
  2. 2

    Chris Jones

    I disagree.
    An open speed limit is not a requirement to drive or ride at excessive speed. All road users have a responsibility to share the road and not be a threat to others.
    You can sit on 170 km/h (if your vehicle will do it) on many of these roads to no ill effect. How many open road crashes are due to people falling asleep cause they were plodding along at 110?
    Good on them for trialling it, and I hope they collect as much useful data as they can. Then repeat the trial in a more affluent place like WA where the vehicles are perhaps, better maintained. I think the Medicos will be surprised with the outcomes.

    Reply
  3. 3

    oldskool

    I assume that the evidence you are quoting substantiates your argument.
    That the majority of that decrease in road related deaths occurred on the Stuart Highway, or other previously unlimited roads.(as opposed to in urban area’s which would completely negate your argument).
    2. that NT’s higher rate of road related deaths as opposed to other state/ territories is not linked to the dearth of public transport, and large distances involved to trave throughout the territory.
    ‘Speed kills’ is a very easy argument to put forward, as it is very difficult to be killed in a motor vehicle if noone is moving.

    Inappropriate speed kills is more accurate, if I am driving on a flat straight desert road with good peripheral visibility, and have an awareness of my vehicles dynamics then any posted speed limit is arbitrary- some vehicles I have owned woulld be unsafe at those posted speed limits, some vehicles I have owned would be perfectly safe at double the limit.

    It may be a populist move, but this articel is equally populist and scaremongering.

    Provide the evidence that this specific stretch of road specifically accounts for a large proportion of the reduction in road deaths once a limit was placed on it then your argument is a reasonable proposition, otherwise it has no greater credibilty than homeopathy.

    Reply
  4. 4

    Sven Stenvers

    Come on people. This country is one of the most over-regulated nanny states in the world. Just drive around Germany for a few weeks and you’ll see many examples of personal responsibility in place of unnecessary rules and regulations. Drive whatever speed you want on the good autobahns, but always, ‘drive to the conditions’. Very little in the way of stupid cautions and restrictions on what to do and what not to do, on or off the road. My god, if we continue down this path, nobody will be able to think for themselves in a few years. We’ll all be looking for the nearest sign on whether or not it’s safe to go outdoors, cross the road, go into the water. It’s about time some of this silliness started getting wound back. From a non-conservative voter.

    Reply
  5. 5

    oldskool

    Oops- Spelling…

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

© 2015 – 2019 Croakey | Website: Rock Lily Design

right-share-menu

Follow Croakey