Farming group slams RACV over push to cut speeds on country roads

 
Topic moved from News by dthead on 06 May 2021 14:38
  8502 Station Master

Don't usually like to comment on stupid statements but feel compelled to on this occasion.

President of the Victorian Farmers Federation, Emma Germano, says reducing speed limits doesn’t make country roads safer.

“The danger … of this blanket refusing of speed limits is we end up with all levels of government thinking that they don’t need to fix our regional roads,” she told Neil Mitchell.

“The roads don’t get any safer by making people drive slower on them.”
VFF

I am now thinking there are two possibilities.

1. The government has been reducing speed limits around the state lying to us all about the benefits of slower safer roads
2. Emma from the VFF is another no hoper.

Farming group slams RACV over push to cut speeds on country roads

Sponsored advertisement

  Big J Deputy Commissioner

Location: In Paradise
I don't see what the problem is with the VFF saying that the government should maintain the roads at the current speed limit.

If you think that it is ok for the government not maintain the assets in the regional areas, then you must think it is ok for the government not to continually add lanes to the freeways serving the metro as that is another way the government can save money too.

Its a cop out, to reduce speed limits on regional roads, as the government cannot (or doesn't want) spend money to maintain assets at their current  service level. If this is an acceptable solution then let's put all service levels on the table for debate.
  Donald Chief Commissioner

Location: Donald. Duck country.
16 km of the Donald-Murtoa Rd between Donald & Minyip is now an 80 km/h zone.  VicRoads have spent money on 20 new 80 signs and 20 Rough Surface signs instead of just fixing the road.
Last time they did this, it took 18 months to put in 5 metres of bitumen which is now starting to fall apart.

It will take 10 minutes longer for every hour trip in the country.  Trying to drag us down to the City levels are they?
  Madjikthise Deputy Commissioner

“The roads don’t get any safer by making people drive slower on them.”

But it does go hand in glove with pushing their message of "Speed Kills".
  8502 Station Master

“The roads don’t get any safer by making people drive slower on them.”

But it does go hand in glove with pushing their message of "Speed Kills".
Madjikthise

The words from the VFF Emma lead are just ridiculous and are at complete odds with the government policy and strategy even considering the agency called TAC who are running ads previously about road safety.

It is a stupid comment and I cannot see the government being happy about it.

If you want to reduce road damage then slow down the trucks to something less than 80 km/h.
  YM-Mundrabilla Minister for Railways

Location: Mundrabilla but I'd rather be in Narvik
Not saying that I agree with it but country roads are apparently getting a dose of what rural rail has been suffering for years. Less maintenance, lower speeds (in the name of safety, of course).

Blanket speed limits are simply money raisers whilst specific location limits (like winding sections of road) are of more use but had we taught people to drive according to the conditions rather than taught them simply to get a licence in the last 30 odd years we would all be better off.

Obviously there are some well run road operators and professional drivers but it seems that in so many ways trucks are virtually exempt from good practice here in Victoria.
  8502 Station Master

Is the state getting good value for money for road maintenance contracts?
  YM-Mundrabilla Minister for Railways

Location: Mundrabilla but I'd rather be in Narvik
Is the state getting good value for money for road maintenance contracts?
8502
Not even the passholders get value for money in Victoria.
  Big J Deputy Commissioner

Location: In Paradise


If you want to reduce road damage then slow down the trucks to something less than 80 km/h.
8502
Why, when the road is designed for 100km/h operations?

As a rail fan, I get despondent when government cuts maintenance on rail lines and the easiest solution is to cut speed limits, when they should invest and maintain the asset (the rail line) at the design level. they do this over many years. Every state has seen this.

Roads are no different.

I live in a region, why should I put up with a government underspending on their responsibility to maintain assets, that tax payers paid for in the first place with. This applies to all assets.

If the government wants to change service levels, then they should have the gonads to go to the community and have the  discussion on why they can't and how they will use the funding instead. Instead, they will erode maintenance funding over time, to fund new assets that they have no thought how they will be funded into the future to operate, as they won't be around in 3 years time. So over time the existing assets service levels drop by stealth, so they can have ribbon cutting exercises for the next white elephant.

Good on the VFF, on calling this out. Sorry linking this to speed kills, is dog whistling. Read their statement as posted. They are not saying everyone has a right to speed. They are saying do not let roads deteriorate. Fair call.
  freightgate Minister for Railways

Location: Albury, New South Wales
Isn’t the point the road is no longer safe for 100 km/h use or never was ?

I think the point from the RACV is roads have become so lacking maintenance because probably due to the number of larger and lager trucks using small roads and they are resigned to making them safer and therefore speed limits should be reduced.

This makes sense to me.

If you want more and more trucks then it comes with a cost and that cost is higher maintenance. The government was prepared to allow larger and larger trucks without understanding the impact to road maintenance.

Better value for money in rail maintenance and rail Freight.
  Donald Chief Commissioner

Location: Donald. Duck country.
I thought the RACV was to advocate for motorists?  They should be pressuring the gov for more funds for road maintainence, not rolling over and agreeing to lower speed limits because it is cheaper to put up shiny new signs.
In their magazine, they have more articles on bike paths than cars.
  Madjikthise Deputy Commissioner



If you want to reduce road damage then slow down the trucks to something less than 80 km/h.Why, when the road is designed for 100km/h operations?

As a rail fan, I get despondent when government cuts maintenance on rail lines and the easiest solution is to cut speed limits, when they should invest and maintain the asset (the rail line) at the design level. they do this over many years. Every state has seen this.

Roads are no different.

I live in a region, why should I put up with a government underspending on their responsibility to maintain assets, that tax payers paid for in the first place with. This applies to all assets.

If the government wants to change service levels, then they should have the gonads to go to the community and have the  discussion on why they can't and how they will use the funding instead. Instead, they will erode maintenance funding over time, to fund new assets that they have no thought how they will be funded into the future to operate, as they won't be around in 3 years time. So over time the existing assets service levels drop by stealth, so they can have ribbon cutting exercises for the next white elephant.

Good on the VFF, on calling this out. Sorry linking this to speed kills, is dog whistling. Read their statement as posted. They are not saying everyone has a right to speed. They are saying do not let roads deteriorate. Fair call.
Big J
When the time comes to explain to the public why they're reducing limits they definitely won't say "because we don't want to spend money" so they'll pull out the old speed kills excuse, which is now politically incorrect to argue against.
  Carnot Minister for Railways

If it slows down grain trucks and sees more freight on rail, then good.

We just need rail lines to have decent line speeds and access again.
  BigShunter Chief Commissioner

Location: St Clair. S.A.
It's a complex one this and it probably is a combination of factors. Are very regional roads really built to carry todays amount of traffic ?

As an example, the road past my joint where I grow up, near Cavendish was a rather narrow single lane road and back in the 50's was the only sealed road in the area. In the middle 70's they added a couple of feet to either side, 3/4 years later they sealed over the whole lot which made for a reasonably good  & wide road to what it was previous. Early 80's they added another couple of feet to either side and same a gain a few years later sealed over the lot which now made quite a respectable 2 lane road, cars in both directions, plenty of room, semi's would be a bit of a squeeze. So you would have to ask is the formation or foundations of the road really meant to carry the not only the volume but weight of the vehicles we run these days.

The road Donald is referring too, would be classed as a fairly major secondary road but again when it was constructed was it envisaged that it would carry type and amount of traffic it does these days ?

Trucks are the real killer of roads but even our day to day traffic has changed considerably, early 70's most road traffic would be Holdens and Falcons and similar, these days a lot of regional folk have Toyota Prado's of Land Cruisers or large 4 wheel drives and in general we just travel a hell of a lot more these days.

So no  wonder the highway from the Wimmera down to Portland is a shambles a lot of the time, RustyRick might have some answers but without regular maintenance anything goes to the pack doesn't it.

BigShunter.
  YM-Mundrabilla Minister for Railways

Location: Mundrabilla but I'd rather be in Narvik
I thought the RACV was to advocate for motorists?  They should be pressuring the gov for more funds for road maintainence, not rolling over and agreeing to lower speed limits because it is cheaper to put up shiny new signs.
In their magazine, they have more articles on bike paths than cars.
Donald
Have they too rolled over to the government (like the RSL and ANZAC Day)?
  bevans Site Admin

Location: Melbourne, Australia
I thought the RACV was to advocate for motorists?  They should be pressuring the gov for more funds for road maintainence, not rolling over and agreeing to lower speed limits because it is cheaper to put up shiny new signs.
In their magazine, they have more articles on bike paths than cars.
Have they too rolled over to the government (like the RSL and ANZAC Day)?
YM-Mundrabilla

Yes perhaps they have also come to the realisation the funding is not going to increase and again trucks are not part of the RACV charter.
  BDA Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney
Sets unhealthy precedent , wonder if rail will cop this cop out next and into the future .
  Carnot Minister for Railways

Sets unhealthy precedent , wonder if rail will cop this cop out next and into the future .
BDA
Precedent?  Rail has been copping this kind of neglect and slow line speeds for decades.
  RustyRick Chief Commissioner

Location: South West Vic
A couple of points

"Is the state getting good value for money for road maintenance contracts?"

In my opinion, no. Once upon a time, an experienced CRB guy (mostly) would look at an area and say "This is stuffed. Fix from here to here." Now the company does a pothole, and another and another, etc, then a bigger patch, a few more, then eventually rehabilitates an area. Money to fix the same issue many times. That may be my jaded view, but it sure looks like that around here. Oh, and spending the maintenance budget on signs.

Maintenance

As BigShunter stated, most roads are gradually widened to meet the traffic volume, not necessarily the mass. The original limestone base material around here just turns to dust under the heavy pounding.

I'm looking after a rehab contract for a 2 lane urban road with parking lanes. It's $100k per 100m. The Shire has about 1100km of sealed and another 1100km of unsealed roads. A quick calculation gives you the dollars involved.

Speed limits

Works both ways. Why is the 4 lane dual carriageway west of Geelong only 100? I went over to Adelaide via Robe over Easter, and two lane roads are 110! It was SO dangerous...

The problem with speed limits is we don't differentiate between different vehicles. There are some roads where a car can safely travel at the posted speed, but a B-Double will have its rear trailer bouncing across the lane. The knee jerk reaction is to limit everything to the truck's capability.
  railblogger Chief Commissioner

Location: At the back of the train, quitely doing exactly what you'd expect.


If you want to reduce road damage then slow down the trucks to something less than 80 km/h.Why, when the road is designed for 100km/h operations?

As a rail fan, I get despondent when government cuts maintenance on rail lines and the easiest solution is to cut speed limits, when they should invest and maintain the asset (the rail line) at the design level. they do this over many years. Every state has seen this.

Roads are no different.

I live in a region, why should I put up with a government underspending on their responsibility to maintain assets, that tax payers paid for in the first place with. This applies to all assets.

If the government wants to change service levels, then they should have the gonads to go to the community and have the  discussion on why they can't and how they will use the funding instead. Instead, they will erode maintenance funding over time, to fund new assets that they have no thought how they will be funded into the future to operate, as they won't be around in 3 years time. So over time the existing assets service levels drop by stealth, so they can have ribbon cutting exercises for the next white elephant.

Good on the VFF, on calling this out. Sorry linking this to speed kills, is dog whistling. Read their statement as posted. They are not saying everyone has a right to speed. They are saying do not let roads deteriorate. Fair call.
Big J
I get despondent and even infuriated when the government takes the easy way out for anything let alone roads and rail. Their responsibility is to help us help each other, not to make decisions for us and punish anyone who disagrees like they currently do.

If they are not willing to live up to their responsibilities then they do not deserve to be in office.
  james.au Minister for Railways

Location: Sydney, NSW
Two words

Road pricing.

Let a charge be levied according to the maintenance and capital cost of the road and let the dollars sort out what speed the road should be.  If the usage warrants 100kph then it will pay for itself.
  8502 Station Master

I get despondent and even infuriated when the government takes the easy way out for anything let alone roads and rail. Their responsibility is to help us help each other, not to make decisions for us and punish anyone who disagrees like they currently do.

If they are not willing to live up to their responsibilities then they do not deserve to be in office.
railblogger

The government has backed itself into a corner on the policy of larger vehicles and less road spending.  The model today does not work otherwise the roads would be better quality.  Not all roads are maintained by the state government many are council roads and there are a lot of them. Councils need to get together and push for more rail as this is state government funded and this would take maintenance pressure off the councils and in doing so the roads would be of better quality with less damaging heavy vehicles.
  RustyRick Chief Commissioner

Location: South West Vic
I get despondent and even infuriated when the government takes the easy way out for anything let alone roads and rail. Their responsibility is to help us help each other, not to make decisions for us and punish anyone who disagrees like they currently do.

If they are not willing to live up to their responsibilities then they do not deserve to be in office.

The government has backed itself into a corner on the policy of larger vehicles and less road spending.  The model today does not work otherwise the roads would be better quality.  Not all roads are maintained by the state government many are council roads and there are a lot of them. Councils need to get together and push for more rail as this is state government funded and this would take maintenance pressure off the councils and in doing so the roads would be of better quality with less damaging heavy vehicles.
8502
Unfortunately, improved rail won't help the majority of our 2200km road network, or Moyne's, or Southern Grampians... It would help ease the pressure on the highways, which are State funded. But to be honest, if the State decided to reinstate the line to Casterton or Mt Gambier I'd be pushing for the money to go into a major rebuild of the road network. That would be a bigger benefit to the whole region. But that's not going to happen.
  8502 Station Master

I have read on here Mount Gambier is back on the cards with business case completed and seeking some federal and state government support.

What is the business case for Casteron?
  RustyRick Chief Commissioner

Location: South West Vic
I have read on here Mount Gambier is back on the cards with business case completed and seeking some federal and state government support.

What is the business case for Casteron?
8502
I doubt there is one to Casterton. The main freight would be wood, and the old yard really isn't suitable. Wrong location for the number of trucks delivering and too small. Plus a big bridge that would have to be built. Possibly Sandford or Merino would work but in reality very little chance.

Sponsored advertisement

Subscribers: 8502, bevans, Big J

Display from: