PDA

View Full Version : liveable cities etc.



arosar
21-10-2004, 04:13 PM
which city is going to be lucky to have you join them :hmm:

It's gotta be Sydney. It's the only logical choice.

AR

Recherché
22-10-2004, 05:08 PM
It's gotta be Sydney. It's the only logical choice.

Sydney's a lovely place to visit, but Melbourne is a better place to live. :cool:

And we consistently rate higher on the list of the world's most livable cities. :P

Garvinator
22-10-2004, 05:20 PM
Sydney's a lovely place to visit, but Melbourne is a better place to live. :cool:

And we consistently rate higher on the list of the world's most livable cities. :P
i recommend Brisbane, lovely weather, warm all year round :D and the interstaters know this so they are moving up here in droves :whistle:

arosar
22-10-2004, 05:23 PM
i recommend Brisbane, lovely weather, warm all year round :D and the interstaters know this so they are moving up here in droves :whistle:

Didn't the Sunshine Coast just shut its doors?

There's too many toads and Japanese tourists up there gray. That's the problem.

AR

Garvinator
22-10-2004, 05:34 PM
Didn't the Sunshine Coast just shut its doors?

There's too many toads and Japanese tourists up there gray. That's the problem.

AR
no and there are not. what do you have against japanese tourists anyways?

JGB
22-10-2004, 06:27 PM
i recommend Brisbane, lovely weather, warm all year round :D and the interstaters know this so they are moving up here in droves :whistle:

Yeah but after the first cyclone they all head back south. ;)

I think its funny how we Aussies argue about the best city. I thought that it would be normal in other counries to do the same but I have not seen this in other countries like in Australia. Truth is we would like to combine the Melbourne city living with the Brisbane climate. (and no Sydney is not the perfect solution :D )

Garvinator
22-10-2004, 06:32 PM
Yeah but after the first cyclone they all head back south. ;) you know full well that Brisbane doesnt get cyclones, monsoon storms occasionally, but no cyclones;)


I think its funny how we Aussies argue about the best city. I thought that it would be normal in other counries to do the same but I have not seen this in other countries like in Australia. Truth is we would like to combine the Melbourne city living with the Brisbane climate. (and no Sydney is not the perfect solution :D )

i think its cause in reality there isnt a whole lot of difference between the cities, so we have to try and point out the differences ;)

JGB
22-10-2004, 06:39 PM
you know full well that Brisbane doesnt get cyclones, monsoon storms occasionally, but no cyclones;)

Are you sure of this fact? :whistle:

Rincewind
22-10-2004, 06:40 PM
I think its funny how we Aussies argue about the best city.

I don't argue. Otherwise the traffic in the Gong would become interminable. ;)

Garvinator
22-10-2004, 06:54 PM
Are you sure of this fact? :whistle:
i cant recall any brisbane cyclones in my living memory. the only cyclone close to Brisbane was cyclone wanda in 1974 which came ashore north of brisbane. There might have been one in 1893, but i dont think that counts towards current times :whistle:

Bill Gletsos
22-10-2004, 07:19 PM
Sydney's a lovely place to visit, but Melbourne is a better place to live. :cool:
Thats only true if you are Mexican to start with. ;)


And we consistently rate higher on the list of the world's most livable cities. :P
Actually didnt Sydney just win some world travel award ahead of Melboune.

JGB
22-10-2004, 07:44 PM
Actually didnt Sydney just win some world travel award ahead of Melbourne.

doubt it, :lol: just kidd'n.

As a Melbournian I hate it how so many people kling to that most livable city award that the city once won (in the 90's sometime).

Bill Gletsos
23-10-2004, 01:59 AM
doubt it, :lol: just kidd'n.

As a Melbournian I hate it how so many people kling to that most livable city award that the city once won (in the 90's sometime).
The award I was talking about was awarded this year in the past month.

JGB
23-10-2004, 02:16 AM
The award I was talking about was awarded this year in the past month.

I assumed that, I was just referring to this award 'Most Livable City' (whatever that means) which a few Melbournians use a little too often.

Recherché
24-10-2004, 02:56 PM
Actually didnt Sydney just win some world travel award ahead of Melboune.

As I said, it's a nice place to visit. :P


As a Melbournian I hate it how so many people kling to that most livable city award that the city once won (in the 90's sometime).

We consistently rate highly in that award, even in the years we don't win it (and I think we've only won it once, so far).


'Most Livable City' (whatever that means)

They look at many aspects of life, including the cost of living, the climate, the entertainment, transport, etc.

Sydney tends to fall behind Melbourne due to its crime rate. Often it scores lower on the weather too, though I don't personally agree with that, since I don't mind humidity. I would imagine the transport side of things would hold Sydney back as well. The ferries are marvellous if you happen to live and work somewhere suitable, but the rest doesn't match up to Melbourne.

Bill Gletsos
24-10-2004, 05:33 PM
Sydney tends to fall behind Melbourne due to its crime rate.
You have to be joking.
VIC cops have killed far more people than NSW.

ursogr8
24-10-2004, 05:59 PM
You have to be joking.
VIC cops have killed far more people than NSW.

You are on a winner with this metric Bill.
Stick with this argument and you will defeat Rob hands down.


starter

Bill Gletsos
24-10-2004, 06:33 PM
You are on a winner with this metric Bill.
Stick with this argument and you will defeat Rob hands down.
It Has nothing to do with any metric.
It just happens to be true.
You are far more likely to be killed by a cop in VIC than you are in NSW.

ursogr8
24-10-2004, 09:18 PM
It Has nothing to do with any metric.
It just happens to be true.
You are far more likely to be killed by a cop in VIC than you are in NSW.

Of course it is true Bill. I was agreeing with you.
If you want to convince Rob which city is more liveable then this line of argument is a sure winner.
I am surprised he has not immediately yielded.

starter

Recherché
24-10-2004, 09:53 PM
You have to be joking.
VIC cops have killed far more people than NSW.

There's a myriad of obvious comebacks to that, but I feel most if not all of them would be in rather poor taste.


You are far more likely to be killed by a cop in VIC than you are in NSW.

While true, this is hardly an accurate indicator of the crime rate. And I can't think of any instance where someone was shot and killed by police that didn't involve them first being in an armed confrontation with said police - so it's something the average citizen can do a lot to avoid, as opposed to a random street mugging for instance.

These crime rate statistics (http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@.nsf/0/76c8926bd8a12e1fca2568a9001393f2?OpenDocument) (refer to Table 1, and the rate per 100,000 persons by victim type) show crime in NSW to be higher than in Victoria for every category except Blackmail/Extortion. Because the population is so heavily skewed towards the capital cities, the crime figures for the two states should be well representative of the crime figures for Melbourne and Sydney.

Note that crimes such as Murder and Kidnapping are probably unreliable for comparisons such as this due to the low incidence. A single incident (like that barrel murders thing in SA) can potentially skew the figures for a particular year.

Rhubarb
24-10-2004, 11:05 PM
When the Victorian Police first introduced speed cameras, they clocked a telegraph pole going 74kph in a 60 zone. For some reason, quite a few mexican motorists weren't too happy.

Garvinator
24-10-2004, 11:16 PM
When the Victorian Police first introduced speed cameras, they clocked a telegraph pole going 74kph in a 60 zone. For some reason, quite a few mexican motorists weren't too happy.
and similiar speed camera policies have spread throughout NSW and QLD :(

Bill Gletsos
24-10-2004, 11:23 PM
There's a myriad of obvious comebacks to that, but I feel most if not all of them would be in rather poor taste.
No doubt. ;)
However no matter how you look at it the DBC rate in VIC is higher than NSW


While true, this is hardly an accurate indicator of the crime rate. And I can't think of any instance where someone was shot and killed by police that didn't involve them first being in an armed confrontation with said police - so it's something the average citizen can do a lot to avoid, as opposed to a random street mugging for instance.
Most probably true.


These crime rate statistics (http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@.nsf/0/76c8926bd8a12e1fca2568a9001393f2?OpenDocument) (refer to Table 1, and the rate per 100,000 persons by victim type) show crime in NSW to be higher than in Victoria for every category except Blackmail/Extortion. Because the population is so heavily skewed towards the capital cities, the crime figures for the two states should be well representative of the crime figures for Melbourne and Sydney.Most likely true, however rather than NSW having more criminals we may just have more prolific crims e.g The typical VIC car thief may steal 2 cars a day whilst the NSW thief steals 5. :lol:


Note that crimes such as Murder and Kidnapping are probably unreliable for comparisons such as this due to the low incidence. A single incident (like that barrel murders thing in SA) can potentially skew the figures for a particular year.
I would agree.

JGB
24-10-2004, 11:59 PM
You have to be joking.
VIC cops have killed far more people than NSW.

...thats just because they are better trained. ;)

Bill Gletsos
25-10-2004, 12:01 AM
and similiar speed camera policies have spread throughout NSW and QLD :(
I dont think NSW have booked any stationary telegraph poles let alone any speeding ones.

Recherché
25-10-2004, 10:47 AM
Most likely true, however rather than NSW having more criminals we may just have more prolific crims e.g The typical VIC car thief may steal 2 cars a day whilst the NSW thief steals 5. :lol:

"Live in Sydney: we have the most talented criminals in Australia!"

Do you think it matters to the person who gets burgled how many crims are contributing towards your higher crime rates?


When the Victorian Police first introduced speed cameras, they clocked a telegraph pole going 74kph in a 60 zone. For some reason, quite a few mexican motorists weren't too happy.

Do you have any evidence to support that claim? Regardless of its veracity, that can hardly be taken to be representative of current speed camera performance. They're not even using the same type anymore.

We've had some problems with fixed speed cameras recently. I don't see that technical problems are any reason to abandon such technology though. They can be resolved.

I think speed cameras are a positive thing. People seem very fond of saying they're about "revenue raising" instead of public safety. Why can't they be about both? And what's wrong with revenue raising from dangerous criminal practises? People don't seem to complain about confiscating property bought with drug money. Speeding fines aren't like parking fines.

Rincewind
25-10-2004, 11:46 AM
Speeding fines aren't like parking fines.

Some parking practices can also be a danger to public safety. EG parking close to corners, pedestrian crossings, school crossings, ec., reducing visibility. So there is no distinction between speeding and parking. Both serve some public protection and some revenue raising. The question is just one of proportionality.

Bill Gletsos
25-10-2004, 12:45 PM
"Live in Sydney: we have the most talented criminals in Australia!"

Do you think it matters to the person who gets burgled how many crims are contributing towards your higher crime rates?
Just because a crim is prolific does not mean he is more talented than someone less prolific.



I think speed cameras are a positive thing. People seem very fond of saying they're about "revenue raising" instead of public safety. Why can't they be about both? And what's wrong with revenue raising from dangerous criminal practises? People don't seem to complain about confiscating property bought with drug money. Speeding fines aren't like parking fines.
Unlike laws against murder, burglary etc speed limits and hence speed cameras just cater for the lost common denominator.
It does not matter that a particular driver may be able to safely drive at a higher speed than another driver or that their car is much safer at higher speeds they aree constrained by the one size fits all idea of a speed limit.

Even with exiisting limits a max speed of 110 on some of sections of our freeways is silly. There are sections where a much higher limit would be suitable just liike there are sections where a lower limit would be desirab le.

Bill Gletsos
25-10-2004, 12:46 PM
Some parking practices can also be a danger to public safety. EG parking close to corners, pedestrian crossings, school crossings, ec., reducing visibility. So there is no distinction between speeding and parking. Both serve some public protection and some revenue raising. The question is just one of proportionality.
In fact starting next year in NSW some parking infingements will attract demerit points just like driving offences.

antichrist
25-10-2004, 01:18 PM
i recommend Brisbane, lovely weather, warm all year round :D and the interstaters know this so they are moving up here in droves :whistle:

Brisbane's climate been good? You are joking, I would not live there if you paid me. I have a chance to look after a friend's mansion there for five weeks over Chrismas, house has air con and luxury car thrown in. I refused it.

The climate is so hot and stuffy that you cannot breath. Southerners may think it is good but they know no better. The ideal place is on a moderate position on a hill overlooking the water getting northerly and easterlies. There are no decent beaches at Brisbane which is why they crowd out other surrounding places and are despised for it.

For generations it was known as just a large country town. And until recently was known as red-neck territory. Where you had to put your watch back about 20 years.

I used to go there in Joh Bjelke days and do lone demos down the main streets (when they were illegal) protesting for freedom of speech, everyone was too gutless to join in.

He threw on a police state during Springboks tour about 1971, gave him curry then too.

arosar
25-10-2004, 01:30 PM
The climate is so hot and stuffy that you cannot breath.

But you could always put on an air-con. Only one problem: QLD's power infrastructure isn't set up to support so many people using so much electricity. And with 1M southerners expected to migrate up north over the next 10 years, the QLD government better get crackin' on improving power supply. This is, as the AFR so aptly puts it today, the "dark side of a QLD sea change".


And until recently was known as red-neck territory. Where you had to put your watch back about 20 years.

I got cousins in Hanson territory mate, prolly more red-neck than Brissy. They been there for years. But they never felt or live that at all - ya know, under sieged and all that. Musta been just the way you looked mate.

AR

Garvinator
25-10-2004, 01:45 PM
Brisbane's climate been good? You are joking, I would not live there if you paid me. I have a chance to look after a friend's mansion there for five weeks over Chrismas, house has air con and luxury car thrown in. I refused it. and for this we are eternally grateful.


The climate is so hot and stuffy that you cannot breath. Southerners may think it is good but they know no better. The ideal place is on a moderate position on a hill overlooking the water getting northerly and easterlies. ever heard of acclimatisation? Yes the humidity is not good in february, but you deal with it and get on with life. I am sure Brisbane ppl just love with winter months in Melbourne with regular drizzle and cloudy skies compared to fine, warm weather almost every day.


There are no decent beaches at Brisbane which is why they crowd out other surrounding places and are despised for it. Brisbane ppl are much more liked that interlopers from interstate, except for ppl from tweed heads.


For generations it was known as just a large country town. And until recently was known as red-neck territory. Where you had to put your watch back about 20 years. Do you have anything that might be relevant to the 21st century?

Kerry Stead
25-10-2004, 01:49 PM
As far as the original question goes, I'd take Sydney or Melbourne as my city of choice in Australia. Maybe its just because I've grown up in a big city, but I don't particularly like the smaller capital cities as much - just doesn't seem to be as much going on there, although they can be good holiday destinations.

Garvinator
25-10-2004, 01:51 PM
As far as the original question goes, I'd take Sydney or Melbourne as my city of choice in Australia. Maybe its just because I've grown up in a big city, but I don't particularly like the smaller capital cities as much - just doesn't seem to be as much going on there, although they can be good holiday destinations.
thats true, state and local government policy is always to keep Brisbane and Qld as a 9am to 5pm state :evil:

antichrist
25-10-2004, 02:04 PM
[QUOTE=ggrayggray]and for this we are eternally grateful.

I lived in Qld 30+ years ago, have they won a Sheffield Shield yet?

Qld can keep the Gladitors.

Recherché
25-10-2004, 04:01 PM
Unlike laws against murder, burglary etc speed limits and hence speed cameras just cater for the lost common denominator.
It does not matter that a particular driver may be able to safely drive at a higher speed than another driver or that their car is much safer at higher speeds they aree constrained by the one size fits all idea of a speed limit.

The whole driving skill argument is inadequate. It only fully applies under controlled conditions, like a racetrack, or to some extent a freeway. Being able to control your car effectively around corners at high speed, to brake properly, etc, can't do enough to offset the increased risk of accident at high speed. No matter how skilled a driver you are, you cannot control other people doing unexpected things, be they other drivers or pedestrians. If a pedestrian steps out in front of your car, your chance of stopping (assuming ABS) in time is almost wholly dependant on the speed you're travelling at. There are other factors which can reduce your chances of stopping in time, but none that can do anything to improve them and mitigate the influence of your speed.


Even with exiisting limits a max speed of 110 on some of sections of our freeways is silly. There are sections where a much higher limit would be suitable just liike there are sections where a lower limit would be desirable.

Freeways are a rather special case. I agree, but only to an extent. And I wouldn't be in favor of no-limit freeways.


Some parking practices can also be a danger to public safety. EG parking close to corners, pedestrian crossings, school crossings, ec., reducing visibility. So there is no distinction between speeding and parking. Both serve some public protection and some revenue raising. The question is just one of proportionality.

Hmm. Yes, perhaps, though the proportion of parking fines that are for unsafe parking practises as opposed to just parking in a safe place too long would have to be examined. Also I would imagine far fewer serious accidents are linked to parking infringements.

Garvinator
25-10-2004, 04:10 PM
Freeways are a rather special case. I agree, but only to an extent. And I wouldn't be in favor of no-limit freeways.
I would be in favour of no speed limit lanes, ie from my understanding the autobahns in Germany. If James reads this thread, he might be able to help on how it works properly, but I think it works where the freeway has ten lanes in one direction and each lane has a particular speed limit. So for us in Australia, then left hand is the slowest lane and so on till the far right lane which is almost speed unlimited. From what i know, autobahns have very few accidents at all. I think this would be because each person can travel at the speed they feel most comfortable with.

I am not sure that this idea would work with freeways of four lanes or less.

arosar
25-10-2004, 04:22 PM
From what i know, autobarns have very few accidents at all.

Well, you'd think and hope so, wouldn't you? I can't imagine anything moving at 110kmh in a barn mate. But on an autobahn, that's another story.

(Sorry mate, cheap shot that one).

AR

Garvinator
25-10-2004, 04:30 PM
Well, you'd think and hope so, wouldn't you? I can't imagine anything moving at 110kmh in a barn mate. But on an autobahn, that's another story.

(Sorry mate, cheap shot that one).

AR
havent you heard of them, tractors go around at 110km in their own special lanes. the barn work gets done so much quicker and everyone can go at their own speed ;)

JGB
25-10-2004, 09:03 PM
I would be in favour of no speed limit lanes, ie from my understanding the autobahns in Germany. If James reads this thread, he might be able to help on how it works properly, but I think it works ...

I am not sure that this idea would work with freeways of four lanes or less.

Autobahns (freeways without a speedlimit) are a joke and a catastrophy. Not only for people like me driving a non luxury sports car but for everyone involved. here in Germany the Autobahns are as much hated as they are loved. Loved by those who drive big BMW's, Audi, Mercs etc and pretty much hated by the rest. The government is slowly learning also, they would to scap the whole idea and make a limit of 130kmh but the big car manu's here will not allow that. I could talk about the subject all day but I ain't got the time, all I can say is that if there was a system where 10 lanes existed the Autobahn might work (in Germany or any other country), but that would cost way too much to maintain (roads cost heaps).
Here you are lucky when its three lanes (normally it only two) and trucks, heaps of trucks congesting the whole thing just make the whole leap frog concept of the Autobahn a catastrophy in my eyes.
Just think of the car accidents we see on the news on a daily basis here, forget about injuries on the autobahn, its a matter sometimes of being able to identify the victims (due to the speeds involved).

Garvinator
25-10-2004, 09:07 PM
Autobahns (freeways without a speedlimit) are a joke and a catastrophy. Not only for people like me driving a non luxury sports car but for everyone involved. here in Germany the Autobahns are as much hated as they are loved. Loved by those who drive big BMW's, Audi, Mercs etc and pretty much hated by the rest. The government is slowly learning also, they would to scap the whole idea and make a limit of 130kmh but the big car manu's here will not allow that. I could talk about the subject all day but I ain't got the time, all I can say is that if there was a system where 10 lanes existed the Autobahn might work (in Germany or any other country), but that would cost way too much to maintain (roads cost heaps).
Here you are lucky when its three lanes (normally it only two) and trucks, heaps of trucks congesting the whole thing just make the whole leap frog concept of the Autobahn a catastrophy in my eyes.
Just think of the car accidents we see on the news on a daily basis here, forget about injuries on the autobahn, its a matter sometimes of being able to identify the victims (due to the speeds involved).


as i said, not sure if it would work on four lane highways.

JGB
25-10-2004, 09:09 PM
add: just reading the last posts, some of you have a pretty weird imagination of how the German autobahn works (beacuse it does not work, especially if your cars limit is less than 200 without very good pick up). There has not be an incident free journey I have made on the autobahn in three years, everytime I see at least one fatality somehere and ghost drives (geister fahrer - drivers driving in the wrong direction at full speed) are always on the radio.

Garvinator
25-10-2004, 09:34 PM
add: just reading the last posts, some of you have a pretty weird imagination of how the German autobahn works (beacuse it does not work, especially if your cars limit is less than 200 without very good pick up). There has not be an incident free journey I have made on the autobahn in three years, everytime I see at least one fatality somehere and ghost drives (geister fahrer - drivers driving in the wrong direction at full speed) are always on the radio.
i think the theory of the autobahn is very good, but as we all know, things that are good in theory are not always good in practice.

Recherché
25-10-2004, 09:36 PM
^ People with more horsepower than brain cells are just one of the reasons I'm against no-limit freeways.

Garvinator
25-10-2004, 09:40 PM
^ People with more horsepower than brain cells are just one of the reasons I'm against no-limit freeways.
people like that will drive way over the speed limit just cause they can, no matter what speed limit you place on it.

Recherché
25-10-2004, 10:04 PM
people like that will drive way over the speed limit just cause they can, no matter what speed limit you place on it.

"People will break laws anyway so there's no point having them"

?

The good thing about having a law is, when people like that do drive at ridiculous and unsafe speeds, we can confiscate their drivers license, their car, their fluffy dice, and anything else necessary to prevent them from doing it again. ;)

Garvinator
25-10-2004, 10:16 PM
"People will break laws anyway so there's no point having them"

?

The good thing about having a law is, when people like that do drive at ridiculous and unsafe speeds, we can confiscate their drivers license, their car, their fluffy dice, and anything else necessary to prevent them from doing it again. ;)
most ppl only obey laws when they are enforced. If i understand the autobahn correctly for say a ten lane autobahn is that each lane progressively increases in speed. This means if it was out here that ppl in the far left lane can still drive at 50km/hr if they wish to do so. People who want to drive a bit faster, say 100km/hr can do so, they just use a different lane. Those that want to drive very quickly use the far right lane. Maybe speed limited, maybe not.

Recherché
25-10-2004, 10:39 PM
most ppl only obey laws when they are enforced.

An argument in favour of speed cameras, then?


If i understand the autobahn correctly for say a ten lane autobahn is that each lane progressively increases in speed. This means if it was out here that ppl in the far left lane can still drive at 50km/hr if they wish to do so. People who want to drive a bit faster, say 100km/hr can do so, they just use a different lane. Those that want to drive very quickly use the far right lane. Maybe speed limited, maybe not.

Is this a general comment, or are you arguing something? I don't think that having only one speed-unlimited lane is really an improvement on the idea.

Incidentally, I'm not aware of any freeways in Australia which are more than 8 lanes (four each way).

JGB
25-10-2004, 10:45 PM
note: when I am talking about German autobahns, three lanes is obviously 'per side' although for an autobahn to work at all a minimum of four lanes per side are required just to prevent the stop-start working of a high speed highway.

Garvinator
25-10-2004, 10:53 PM
An argument in favour of speed cameras, then? yes in favour when they are used to save lives, not revenue raising.


Is this a general comment, or are you arguing something? I don't think that having only one speed-unlimited lane is really an improvement on the idea. the improvement is that people can drive at whatever speed they feel comfortable with. Have a look at the major highways of Australia and you have to drive at the speed limit or a bit above just to keep up. Anyone driving say twenty kms below the limit is just as much a hazard as someone who is driving 20kms above.


Incidentally, I'm not aware of any freeways in Australia which are more than 8 lanes (four each way).
neither am i. the pacific motorway is four lanes each way, divided median strip for part of the motorway. Speed limit is 110km/hr.

Garvinator
25-10-2004, 10:53 PM
note: when I am talking about German autobahns, three lanes is obviously 'per side' although for an autobahn to work at all a minimum of four lanes per side are required just to prevent the stop-start working of a high speed highway.
are there any 'large' autobahns?

JGB
25-10-2004, 11:00 PM
Obviously where 2 autobahns merge you have 4-6 or 7 lanes but it usually pans out to three lanes again after a few kilometers. The cost a these highways and the maintainence it huge and Australia could never afford such a system. Think of Germany 80 million people in the size of Victoria. Australia would be impossible.

Recherché
25-10-2004, 11:09 PM
yes in favour when they are used to save lives, not revenue raising.

And how can you tell when they're being used specifically to save lives? Do the police hold them sideways or something?

Also, what is wrong with raising revenue from speeding motorists?


the improvement is that people can drive at whatever speed they feel comfortable with. Anyone driving say twenty kms below the limit is just as much a hazard as someone who is driving 20kms above.

I meant that a no-limit freeway is a bad idea whether it's all the lanes or just one. Freeways already have a fast lane and a slow lane, but yes, going below say 80 even in the slow lane is just asking for trouble. (Highways are not Freeways, by the way - very different conditions a lot of the time.)

Allowing people to drive at a speed at which they feel comfortable isn't an effective safety measure, either.

Arguing about speed limits on Freeways is almost beside the point, though. Most accidents happen on regular roads.


neither am i. the pacific motorway is four lanes each way, divided median strip for part of the motorway. Speed limit is 110km/hr.

The Tullamarine Freeway in Melbourne is also an eight-laner, at least until you get out around the airport, anyway. Speed limit 100.

Bill Gletsos
25-10-2004, 11:43 PM
as i said, not sure if it would work on four lane highways.
You originally mentioned 10 lanes yet there is nowhere in the world where that exists.
James notes it is more like 2 or 3.

You then suggest 4 wont work.
That does not make any sense in relation to James post.

Bill Gletsos
25-10-2004, 11:44 PM
^ People with more horsepower than brain cells are just one of the reasons I'm against no-limit freeways.
I didnt suggest no limt.
I just suggested that there are places where it could safely be above 110.

Bill Gletsos
25-10-2004, 11:46 PM
most ppl only obey laws when they are enforced. If i understand the autobahn correctly for say a ten lane autobahn is that each lane progressively increases in speed. This means if it was out here that ppl in the far left lane can still drive at 50km/hr if they wish to do so. People who want to drive a bit faster, say 100km/hr can do so, they just use a different lane. Those that want to drive very quickly use the far right lane. Maybe speed limited, maybe not.
What is with you and this 10 lane autobhan rubbish. There is no 10 lanes in one direction autobahn.

JGB
25-10-2004, 11:48 PM
An important fact to remember is that city freeways are different to the in-between freeways. These four lane highways that exist in Melbourne exist to some extent all big cities in the countries I have lived, Australia, England, Canada and Germany. This is required, but tell me where in Australia there are four lane (or even three) per side highways linking cities. Autobahns are only usefull in the linking of cities to save time. Ring road highways and Autobahns around cities are even in Germany normally speed limited.

Garvinator
25-10-2004, 11:48 PM
What is with you and this 10 lane autobhan rubbish. There is no 10 lanes in one direction autobahn.
i could have sworn there was. It appears that i was incorrect.

Bill Gletsos
25-10-2004, 11:49 PM
yes in favour when they are used to save lives, not revenue raising.

the improvement is that people can drive at whatever speed they feel comfortable with. Have a look at the major highways of Australia and you have to drive at the speed limit or a bit above just to keep up. Anyone driving say twenty kms below the limit is just as much a hazard as someone who is driving 20kms above.


neither am i. the pacific motorway is four lanes each way, divided median strip for part of the motorway. Speed limit is 110km/hr.
Actually it is only 4 lanes each way in some parts.

I've driven on a 10 lane freeway in the US (5 each way). Max speed was 70m/hr I think.

Garvinator
25-10-2004, 11:58 PM
Actually it is only 4 lanes each way in some parts.
that is what i said, didnt i :doh:

JGB
25-10-2004, 11:59 PM
In city freeways like the four lane Melbourne example, speed limits are essential due to the number of exists and entrances, it would otherwise be too dangerous having cars entering a highway at 80kmh and others in the next lane travelling at 200 kmh.

Bill Gletsos
26-10-2004, 12:06 AM
that is what i said, didnt i :doh:
Not necessarily as your wording was ambiguous.
The way you worded it, it could have meant that it was 4 lanes all the way but only divided median strip for part of the way.

Therefore I clarified it. ;)

Recherché
26-10-2004, 12:11 AM
I just suggested that there are places where it could safely be above 110.

Such as?

It seems to me the requirements would be:

a) A well maintained highway of at minimum two lanes in each direction, with median strip
b) Relatively long distances
c) Few trucks (trucks can't match such a limit)
d) Low to medium level traffic

The maintenance level is perhaps debatable. I think there are some high or possibly no limit highways in NT which are a bit cruddy. Nor really sure what the situation is out there, though. Can anyone enlighten me?

It seems to me that the main candidate for such a road would be a Melbourne-Sydney route, but that would be chockers with Trucks.

Bill Gletsos
26-10-2004, 12:14 AM
Such as?

It seems to me the requirements would be:

a) A well maintained highway of at minimum two lanes in each direction, with median strip
b) Relatively long distances
c) Few trucks (trucks can't match such a limit)
d) Low to medium level traffic

The maintenance level is perhaps debatable. I think there are some high or possibly no limit highways in NT which are a bit cruddy. Nor really sure what the situation is out there, though. Can anyone enlighten me?

It seems to me that the main candidate for such a road would be a Melbourne-Sydney route, but that would be chockers with Trucks.
There are a number of suitable places on the Hume Highway between Sydney & Canberra.
Trucks however would need to be restricted to the left lane.
Either that or all cars would need to be fitted with "adaptive" cruise control. ;)

JGB
26-10-2004, 03:22 AM
Naturally a high speed freeway is only possible with a large divide or median strip, very highly maintained roads, and a high speed lane or 'truck free lane'.
For me only four countries in the world are (possibly USA also) suitable for a real 'autobahn' or high speed freeway; Germany, France, Japan and England. This is due to the high population levels in relatively small lands with a strong enough economy to support the cost of such a system of highways.

Outside of all this are you guys thinking about the environment, a car burns so much fuel when travelling at high speeds.

I think Germany is really the only country in the world able to maintain such a system of freeways due to the Automobile industies political weight coupled with the need for many Germans to travel daily or at least weekly long distances to work.

Recherché
26-10-2004, 08:46 AM
Outside of all this are you guys thinking about the environment, a car burns so much fuel when travelling at high speeds.

Well personally I don't believe cars are justifiable on environmental terms for individual use. But that's a whole new argument. :D

antichrist
26-10-2004, 03:46 PM
Well personally I don't believe cars are justifiable on environmental terms for individual use. But that's a whole new argument. :D

That is what I have been saying for thirty years. I have thought that if car pollution was purple smoke instead of clear haze people would see the crime they are committing and give them up.

Everyone is very selfish in using cars -- future-eating they call it.

Which was another reason why I was against everyone going to Canberra for Doberl. But that is another whole new (old) argument.

ursogr8
27-10-2004, 08:36 AM
None too liveable in Melbourne today, I can tell you.
The sky is at its sinister worst; like a grey lid over the city.
Drizzle has set in for the duration.
The inside of the train windows opaque due to the moisture build-up.
Puddles everwhere.

A great day for playing chess in a coffee lounge. :cool:

starter

antichrist
28-10-2004, 05:46 PM
and for this we are eternally grateful.

ever heard of acclimatisation? Yes the humidity is not good in february, but you deal with it and get on with life. I am sure Brisbane ppl just love with winter months in Melbourne with regular drizzle and cloudy skies compared to fine, warm weather almost every day.

Brisbane ppl are much more liked that interlopers from interstate, except for ppl from tweed heads.

Do you have anything that might be relevant to the 21st century?


Yes, they have the highest percentage of Creation believers in Aussie.

Alan Shore
30-10-2004, 11:57 PM
Look, weather-wise you can't beat QLD. End of story. You Southerners may say a bunch of things but you shall always be perpetually, in arrears re: good climate. ;)

Alan Shore
31-10-2004, 12:44 AM
Yes, they have the highest percentage of Creation believers in Aussie.

Wtf mate..

antichrist
31-10-2004, 11:24 AM
Look, weather-wise you can't beat QLD. End of story. You Southerners may say a bunch of things but you shall always be perpetually, in arrears re: good climate. ;)

I will have you know that the scientists say that the region of least temp. difference is the most comfortable to live in, i.e., Byron Bay area to Coffs Harbour. The whole Gold Coast is almost ruined by high-rise. One of the few decent areas Qld has is ruined. I have lived in Qld a number of times and have found the Far North Coast of NSW much more pleasant. Townsville/Cairns where I have lived as well is perfect for 9 months then hell on earth during the wet season. I worked in an non-air conditioned office, the sweat used to drip from my arms onto my work. Could not put the fan on strongly as would blow paperwork away, besides the fans don't do the job that well anyway.

In the previously mentioned areas on a hill with ocean views and good breezes is as good as it gets.

antichrist
31-10-2004, 11:27 AM
Originally Posted by antichrist
Yes, they have the highest percentage of Creation believers in Aussie.

BD:
Wtf mate..

(I could have quoted but would have only provided half of story - so my method is sometimes superior)

AC: If you are not fussy about the mental hubis around you well it does not matter. With my atheist credentials I can't stand the BS in this scientific age.

When I lived there I was quickly told that a university-educated person was an "educated idiot". I did not think to ask when they were sick did they go to an university-educated doctor or not.

antichrist
31-10-2004, 12:17 PM
When living in Townsville about 1970 a few times the locals showed they did not like my shoulder-length hair and anti-redneck ideas and wanted to let fly with fists, one was a top fighter. All I will say is that I still have my pretty face and you should have seen their faces go pale and their eyes freeze.