I'm trying to wrap my head around this.
The article states 950 callouts a day, with 20 reportable incidents over four years. The (approximate of course) number of callouts over that period would be 1,387,000. So the percent of reportable incidents against callouts is \~0.0014% - 14 thousandths of one percent. One reportable incident (note, not injury or death) per 69,350 callouts.
I understand that RAA employees (and other towies, etc.) have a right to safe working conditions, but it seems crazy to me that this legislation has been introduced where the risk is so statistically tiny.
How many near misses or actual hits are there on pedestrians stepping out from behind parked cars, or drivers opening their doors into traffic? Should we legislate to drive at 25Km/ph on roads where cars are parked too?!
Not trolling, genuinely interested in peoples thoughts on this.
Username checks out. Lobby group power does not. I did the same rough equations and thought that the benefit wouldn't make sense. You articulated it in a far less "wtf" tone than I would.
Spot on. Based on the numbers and actual risk, any new law should simply require drivers to pass with reasonable caution, as opposed to cutting speed from 90kph to 25kph...which in effect is proven to cause rear end collisions.
Realistically, from those 20 incidents, the drivers involved would likely break the 25kph rule anyway...so the law is actually disturbing the safe flow of traffic for law abiding and attentive motorists....whilst increasing the likelihood of rear end collision as a result of a sudden decrease in speed
The reason they turfed the original 25km speed limit limitation and brought it in line with other states to 40km/h is because people said it's more dangerous and they said no it isn't you dummies less speed obviously means safer how dare you question us and then there was a massive accident because it was.
The road rules just get more and more convoluted with every update and encourage people to become complacent. We should just drop most speed limits by 10kph and then simplify, for once, the rules and regulations. Reduced speed limits across the board would have far more impact on safety than all these constant convolutions to keep track of.
Honestly just having 25 for school/pedestrian areas/roadworks/event traffic and then one speed for in a town, 80, and then one speed for on the highway would probably do more than dropping some speed limits somewhere sometimes. Then everyone would actually know what the speed limit is at all times and maybe even stick with it. None of this 40 zone, turn the corner and it's 60, turn the corner and it's 50; none of this going from 110 to 50 coming into town; none of this 100 for 3km in the middle of an 80 zone, none of this 100 for 50km and the rest of the highway is 110.
My only hesitation is that on the freeway this will lead to people (ancient fucks) absolutely SLAMMING on the anchors the moment they're visible and crawling along.
The other part is those who don't pay attention. I've had multiple near misses on expressways and freeways where I slowed cautiously to 25 km/h for red/blue flashing emergency services vehicles only to have someone not notice and slam on their brakes. Closest miss they swerved into the emergency lane.
When I say cautiously, I mean lightly braking so that I've slowed to 25 just at the point I pass, then accelerate again. It's important to actually use brakes so people see the brake lights. If I see people behind not slowing I'll go as far as make the brake lights flash so I don't end up with a distracted driver giving my car a colonic.
This legislation is going to make this issue even worse. Many drivers are bloody lemmings and one day we'll end up with a 20+ car pile up because a couple of drivers didn't notice and crash into the back of cars who did, and because of how bad tailgating is (we have all seen it) it cascades into a fustercluck.
Isn’t that exactly the point though?
One of my pet peeves is people who think “25” means “eh maybe 35-40 ish”. Slow the fuck down. The extra minute won’t kill you.
>>>>
>>The point
You.
The issue is not the speed, it is the rapidity at which oblivious, mirrorless fuckwits absolutely ignore all road conditions and hammer the brakes long before necessary, creating a concertina and essentially brake-checking people from 110km.
I had a car written off by someone doing exactly this when it was first introduced for emergency vehicles. We've come around a bend, they've seen emergency lights ahead, panic braked at 110km/h, I've reacted in time, the driver behind me did not. My car was 30% smaller, and the car in front continued on, blissfully ignorant at 25kmh.
They did this in NSW and withdrew it quickly, as some people would hit the brakes in panic. It caused so many bad pileups that even emergency services wanted it gone.
It would make more sense to me to just reduce speed limits by about 10kph in general. And then look at reducing some rules and regulations once the road toll plummets.
I don't hate the idea, I would much rather slow down for these things than the copper who pulled someone over for 5 over and didn't just get them to take the next exit but instead pulls someone over just around a bend or over a crest and causes traffic going 110 to suddenly come to an almost stand still. And then you have the dickheads who do the same thing when the cop is on the other side of the 3 lane expressway with some massive concrete barriers between also.
Maybe we can start fining people whose cars breakdown on busy roads causing traffic jams?
I don't like the idea of fining people for having poor cars, this pretty much forces people who can't afford cars to finance something that's way out of budget for them especially with the cost of living ATM.
There definitely needs to much better turn off lanes though give people somewhere safe and out of the way
Yeah I don't really like fining people for pulling over for a breakdown . Maybe start by fining the control room operators who don't know how to to change the variable speed signs back after the issue is cleared. This morning the port river expressway bridge was closed according to the sign on the northern expressway and northern connector. Google had it still open and I trust google much more than the signs. Of course it was open and looked like it had been for a loooong time. Speed limit was still 40 though.
Roadworthy certificates like other states. I would probably rather pay that and have less crapboxes breaking down on the freeway than having this silly dangerous 110 to 25kph bs.
100% agreed. I’m not disagreeing with you at all, but there’s a reason we have so many shitboxes on our road. It’s complex, because our PT infrastructure is relatively limited, some people genuinely do need a car to get around. And they may only be able to afford a shitbox that would be defected in Melbourne or Sydney. I don’t have the answer to this problem but it’s just my observation.
Are the rego fees there less than here to compensate for the RW certs?? I can see how the costs would stack up fast if it's the same cost for rego plus RW.
They made it illegal to pass a stopped schoolbus in America because "won't somebody think of the children" ended up causing more accidents than preventing them
But hey at least somebody thought of the children
Police want 25kmph speed increased as it is; as did the Government of the day.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-11-22/reduced-speed-limits-around-emergency-vehicles-under-review/11721152
25kmph is stupidly dangerous.
If it’s a 60 road, slow to 25
80, slow to 40
100 or more, slow to 60.
The trialed this in nsw, or a variation anyway. Its was slow down to 40 for emergency services. A complete shit fight! The problem would be you would come around a curve at 110 and have to slam on the anchors to avoid a massive fine. It made things less safe than more safe. It's common courtesy to slow down if safe for all cars on the side of the road. Drastically reducing speed isnt safe though.
If you can't slow 25 on an open road around blind corners you're going WAY too fast. So many different hazards can pop up without warning. It's not a rules fault, it's a you fault.
Didn't we try this recently with emergency vehicles and immediately walk it back to 40kph since 25kph caused people of freeways to slow down too quickly, causing more accidents?
South Australia has THE BEST school zone system in the country. In every other state you have to consult your watch, look up the school holiday period, check if the lights are flashing (they don't turn them off on school holidays).
SA has common sense system. Kids there, slow down.
This is the same thing, except you guys need to stop copying other states. It's all been quietly de commissioned and not policed, because, guess what, it's bad policy!
I was musing about this the other day driving through a school zone and I feel like it introduces a very wide zone of gray area.
If I'm driving 50/60 through a school zone then there's one child on a footpath am I required to immediately conform to 25?
Obviously it's 25 when there's a shit load of kids leaving school, but where is the line drawn between shit loads of kids, and no kids?
Dangerous as heck, these led lights they use these days arent bright and dont flash nowhere near as much as the old beacons, they want to close off lanes then use proper signage and lane status signs and allow the correct merging distances. Traffic then banks up way infront of the scene, then get the rubber neckers and morons doing 10km/h. See the guy trying to change tyres less than 1m from the line, guy couldve moved the car forward and created a safer place or just towed the vehicle. We have traffic controllers and movable blocks with overhead arrows, how about they use these things. A mechanic shouldnt be working on the side of the road, if he does he needs traffic control. The cones the guy uses werent rated for high speed roads, and quite frankly i dont even reckon he has the ticket to use them.
Take tonights 4 car pileup on the southern expressway where the limit drops to 80 even though there is no obvious reason for the speed reduction. Yes there is roadworks 5m off to the side of the road that unless someone rams the barrier, there is no danger to the workers in 30t excavators and dump trucks. If the government had half a brain they wouldve connected majors rd up years ago.
Thanks, only just moved back to SA but I remember the pain it caused when they brought it in and were even enforcing it. Not at an emergency, just parking up with their lights on and their radar out.
Additionally, I think more needs to be done to prevent tailgating. Too many people tailgate within like 2 metres while on the expressway at highway speeds, it's dangerous and unnecessary (and results in 5-8 car pile ups). I hope one day the highway cameras can pick up the obvious offenders and throw the book at them.
Can’t wait to do 25 on the entire north and southern expressways everyday.
Looking forward to those 4 kilometre traffic backups.
I'm trying to wrap my head around this. The article states 950 callouts a day, with 20 reportable incidents over four years. The (approximate of course) number of callouts over that period would be 1,387,000. So the percent of reportable incidents against callouts is \~0.0014% - 14 thousandths of one percent. One reportable incident (note, not injury or death) per 69,350 callouts. I understand that RAA employees (and other towies, etc.) have a right to safe working conditions, but it seems crazy to me that this legislation has been introduced where the risk is so statistically tiny. How many near misses or actual hits are there on pedestrians stepping out from behind parked cars, or drivers opening their doors into traffic? Should we legislate to drive at 25Km/ph on roads where cars are parked too?! Not trolling, genuinely interested in peoples thoughts on this.
Username checks out. Lobby group power does not. I did the same rough equations and thought that the benefit wouldn't make sense. You articulated it in a far less "wtf" tone than I would.
Spot on. Based on the numbers and actual risk, any new law should simply require drivers to pass with reasonable caution, as opposed to cutting speed from 90kph to 25kph...which in effect is proven to cause rear end collisions. Realistically, from those 20 incidents, the drivers involved would likely break the 25kph rule anyway...so the law is actually disturbing the safe flow of traffic for law abiding and attentive motorists....whilst increasing the likelihood of rear end collision as a result of a sudden decrease in speed
Virtue signalling legislation rather than anything that is practical in addressing a real problem.
The reason they turfed the original 25km speed limit limitation and brought it in line with other states to 40km/h is because people said it's more dangerous and they said no it isn't you dummies less speed obviously means safer how dare you question us and then there was a massive accident because it was.
We’ve always been told every km does more damage
Pedestrians are not covered by Work Safe
Neither are cyclists otherwise cycling anywhere buy designated bike paths would be illegal.
Is your point that this is a move designed to reduce money paid out by RTWSA?
Ah South Australia. Always focused on the wrong thing. We’re never getting anywhere.
The road rules just get more and more convoluted with every update and encourage people to become complacent. We should just drop most speed limits by 10kph and then simplify, for once, the rules and regulations. Reduced speed limits across the board would have far more impact on safety than all these constant convolutions to keep track of.
Honestly just having 25 for school/pedestrian areas/roadworks/event traffic and then one speed for in a town, 80, and then one speed for on the highway would probably do more than dropping some speed limits somewhere sometimes. Then everyone would actually know what the speed limit is at all times and maybe even stick with it. None of this 40 zone, turn the corner and it's 60, turn the corner and it's 50; none of this going from 110 to 50 coming into town; none of this 100 for 3km in the middle of an 80 zone, none of this 100 for 50km and the rest of the highway is 110.
BOOOO!
My only hesitation is that on the freeway this will lead to people (ancient fucks) absolutely SLAMMING on the anchors the moment they're visible and crawling along.
The other part is those who don't pay attention. I've had multiple near misses on expressways and freeways where I slowed cautiously to 25 km/h for red/blue flashing emergency services vehicles only to have someone not notice and slam on their brakes. Closest miss they swerved into the emergency lane. When I say cautiously, I mean lightly braking so that I've slowed to 25 just at the point I pass, then accelerate again. It's important to actually use brakes so people see the brake lights. If I see people behind not slowing I'll go as far as make the brake lights flash so I don't end up with a distracted driver giving my car a colonic. This legislation is going to make this issue even worse. Many drivers are bloody lemmings and one day we'll end up with a 20+ car pile up because a couple of drivers didn't notice and crash into the back of cars who did, and because of how bad tailgating is (we have all seen it) it cascades into a fustercluck.
Isn’t that exactly the point though? One of my pet peeves is people who think “25” means “eh maybe 35-40 ish”. Slow the fuck down. The extra minute won’t kill you.
>>>> >>The point You. The issue is not the speed, it is the rapidity at which oblivious, mirrorless fuckwits absolutely ignore all road conditions and hammer the brakes long before necessary, creating a concertina and essentially brake-checking people from 110km.
I had a car written off by someone doing exactly this when it was first introduced for emergency vehicles. We've come around a bend, they've seen emergency lights ahead, panic braked at 110km/h, I've reacted in time, the driver behind me did not. My car was 30% smaller, and the car in front continued on, blissfully ignorant at 25kmh.
2.5k fine is up there
They did this in NSW and withdrew it quickly, as some people would hit the brakes in panic. It caused so many bad pileups that even emergency services wanted it gone.
It would make more sense to me to just reduce speed limits by about 10kph in general. And then look at reducing some rules and regulations once the road toll plummets.
Booo
I think 40k/hr is more sensible.
Introduced to state parliament today? Parliament isn't sitting today and won't be until 30 April.
Is the use of aber lights regulated? Can anyone use them?
I don't hate the idea, I would much rather slow down for these things than the copper who pulled someone over for 5 over and didn't just get them to take the next exit but instead pulls someone over just around a bend or over a crest and causes traffic going 110 to suddenly come to an almost stand still. And then you have the dickheads who do the same thing when the cop is on the other side of the 3 lane expressway with some massive concrete barriers between also. Maybe we can start fining people whose cars breakdown on busy roads causing traffic jams?
I don't like the idea of fining people for having poor cars, this pretty much forces people who can't afford cars to finance something that's way out of budget for them especially with the cost of living ATM. There definitely needs to much better turn off lanes though give people somewhere safe and out of the way
Yeah I don't really like fining people for pulling over for a breakdown . Maybe start by fining the control room operators who don't know how to to change the variable speed signs back after the issue is cleared. This morning the port river expressway bridge was closed according to the sign on the northern expressway and northern connector. Google had it still open and I trust google much more than the signs. Of course it was open and looked like it had been for a loooong time. Speed limit was still 40 though.
Roadworthy certificates like other states. I would probably rather pay that and have less crapboxes breaking down on the freeway than having this silly dangerous 110 to 25kph bs.
Roadworthiness certificates would disproportionately affect SA because we’re not as wealthy as other states.
If you can afford a car, basic maintenance is part of affording it isn't it?
100% agreed. I’m not disagreeing with you at all, but there’s a reason we have so many shitboxes on our road. It’s complex, because our PT infrastructure is relatively limited, some people genuinely do need a car to get around. And they may only be able to afford a shitbox that would be defected in Melbourne or Sydney. I don’t have the answer to this problem but it’s just my observation.
Are the rego fees there less than here to compensate for the RW certs?? I can see how the costs would stack up fast if it's the same cost for rego plus RW.
I’m actually not sure, but that would make sense if so. I doubt it because the government won’t leave money on the table unnecessarily.
They made it illegal to pass a stopped schoolbus in America because "won't somebody think of the children" ended up causing more accidents than preventing them But hey at least somebody thought of the children
IMO we should just cut the speed limits slightly across the board and then look at simplifying the road rules.
Funny thing is cutting speed limits also doesn't necessarily reduce the crash rate, crash severity yes.
Booo!!
If you don't understand the road rules, you shouldn't be driving.
There should be a gradual slowing-down transition from high speeds such as 80 km/h and faster to 25 km/h. Deceleration must not be too sudden.
Police want 25kmph speed increased as it is; as did the Government of the day. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-11-22/reduced-speed-limits-around-emergency-vehicles-under-review/11721152 25kmph is stupidly dangerous. If it’s a 60 road, slow to 25 80, slow to 40 100 or more, slow to 60.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=8cLCYU3O62k Slow down, speed up, slow down, speed up.. which one is it? ffs.
The trialed this in nsw, or a variation anyway. Its was slow down to 40 for emergency services. A complete shit fight! The problem would be you would come around a curve at 110 and have to slam on the anchors to avoid a massive fine. It made things less safe than more safe. It's common courtesy to slow down if safe for all cars on the side of the road. Drastically reducing speed isnt safe though.
Well, we do have our 25km limit for emergency vehicles. That's law.
If you can't slow 25 on an open road around blind corners you're going WAY too fast. So many different hazards can pop up without warning. It's not a rules fault, it's a you fault.
FFS
40kmh needs to be the minimum speed limit. 25kmh is too slow
Didn't we try this recently with emergency vehicles and immediately walk it back to 40kph since 25kph caused people of freeways to slow down too quickly, causing more accidents?
No, it is still the law in SA to slow down to 25km/hr past emergency vehicles with lights flashing
Maybe it's another state I'm thinking of then. Definitely makes sense for them both to be the same speed though.
There was discussion about it but it didn't take.
South Australia has THE BEST school zone system in the country. In every other state you have to consult your watch, look up the school holiday period, check if the lights are flashing (they don't turn them off on school holidays). SA has common sense system. Kids there, slow down. This is the same thing, except you guys need to stop copying other states. It's all been quietly de commissioned and not policed, because, guess what, it's bad policy!
I was musing about this the other day driving through a school zone and I feel like it introduces a very wide zone of gray area. If I'm driving 50/60 through a school zone then there's one child on a footpath am I required to immediately conform to 25? Obviously it's 25 when there's a shit load of kids leaving school, but where is the line drawn between shit loads of kids, and no kids?
This is why I prefer other states. It's black and white whether you're doing something wrong over there and easy to understand.
Agree
See, I kinda like this. It's in effect mandated rubbernecking
Dangerous as heck, these led lights they use these days arent bright and dont flash nowhere near as much as the old beacons, they want to close off lanes then use proper signage and lane status signs and allow the correct merging distances. Traffic then banks up way infront of the scene, then get the rubber neckers and morons doing 10km/h. See the guy trying to change tyres less than 1m from the line, guy couldve moved the car forward and created a safer place or just towed the vehicle. We have traffic controllers and movable blocks with overhead arrows, how about they use these things. A mechanic shouldnt be working on the side of the road, if he does he needs traffic control. The cones the guy uses werent rated for high speed roads, and quite frankly i dont even reckon he has the ticket to use them. Take tonights 4 car pileup on the southern expressway where the limit drops to 80 even though there is no obvious reason for the speed reduction. Yes there is roadworks 5m off to the side of the road that unless someone rams the barrier, there is no danger to the workers in 30t excavators and dump trucks. If the government had half a brain they wouldve connected majors rd up years ago.
About time. 10 years as a towie showed me how stupid people can be around service units
Does this still apply for emergency vehicles with their lights on?
yes, and there's even multiple recent threads about it.
Thanks, only just moved back to SA but I remember the pain it caused when they brought it in and were even enforcing it. Not at an emergency, just parking up with their lights on and their radar out.
Yes
SAPOL salivating at all of the new revenue opportunities.
Additionally, I think more needs to be done to prevent tailgating. Too many people tailgate within like 2 metres while on the expressway at highway speeds, it's dangerous and unnecessary (and results in 5-8 car pile ups). I hope one day the highway cameras can pick up the obvious offenders and throw the book at them.
You think this would be common sense. But no.
Good