Privately owned express roads in the US concept

[Koen]

Well, I didn't put that in question did I ? I asked if OP had ever driven in Germany... Move on.

[tooki]

Well, I didn't put that in question did I ? I asked if OP had ever driven in Germany... Move on.

Whatever, you're obviously not interested in actuality discussing, just in being difficult.

[Someone]

Or ridiculously technical requiring driving skill but sadly in Australia each time people find a road thats fun to drive at the speed limit the authorities come in and reduce the speed limit further.

Half the problem is the authorities have to cater for the lowest common denominator. Mister Man on his provisional licence goes and kills himself because he is uneducated, unskilled, takes risks, drives drunk or drives a shit box of a car (or any combination thereof); their solution is to throw up a fixed speed camera (which does next to nothing but force people to drive at or below the limit for approximately 50 metres), rather than address the real problem of what actually caused the crash in the first place. Why kids aren't taught basic driver education at high school is beyond me.

I know why it happens, even in areas with no history of crashes the newer risk assessments are applied and speed limits lowered. All the while pedestrian safety is ignored and the risk to pedestrians appears to be increasing year on year but the money and works go to putting up "safer" barriers on rural roads, dropping speed limits, and mandating cars be safer for the occupants (which risk compensation then eliminates and possibly even reflects back onto those outside the cars).

Also, we need tougher penalties for driving on your phone, driving with alcohol and/or drugs in your system, those who choose to drive unlicenced etc.... To be honest, 14 demerit points in NSW is too much in my opinion, why are we giving people 5, 6... 10 chances?. Want to talk on your phone and drive a car? Get caught once, a fine and one strike. Second offence, you cop a fine and your phone gets seized by Police for 48 hours. Third offence, your licence gets cancelled and you need to start over on your learners permit.

Ignorance and stupidity aren't excuses. The roads should be reserved for those who have earned a licence and have demonstrated that they can drive skillfully, defensively and safely.

I'll disagree on more severe penalties for drug affected driving. Recall that amphetamine, methamphetamine, cocaine, etc were widely dispensed in WWII (and well after) to increase the cognitive abilities of the troops and industrial workers and are known to improve the ability of people to drive, but lets throw science out the window and be tough on drugs because thats politically easy. The limits for drink driving were arrived at by careful study of risks, different countries applied different thresholds, if mandatory drug testing is going to be put on drivers it should be with limits set with sound evidence.

But yes, personal responsibility is the key. Ignorance isn't an excuse under law, but a lawyer will spin a lovely story to add believable mitigating circumstances if you have the money.

[Nusa]

... facts are not dependent on who is stating them.

Be glad you aren't directly exposed to US politics. Donald Trump would disagree with you!

[tooki]

... facts are not dependent on who is stating them.

Be glad you aren't directly exposed to US politics. Donald Trump would disagree with you!

Sadly, as an American living abroad, US politics affect me directly.

But yeah, Trump's relationship with facts is... tenuous. :/

[MarkS]

This road in Texas is a good example..

http://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/editorials/article/Texas-seldom-traveled-toll-road-9887527.php

I lived in San Antonio when this was built. It is most definitely a joke. It is roughly 40 miles from San Antonio to 130. Austin is ~70 miles from San Antonio via I 35. It's a roughly 50+ mile trip from Interstate 10 (the start 130) to Austin via 130. You do the math.

[EEVblog]

This is truly the most outrageous thing.
Dave says:

>The idiot politicians sign these ridiculous lucrative agreements with the private companies, some of which include a "no compete" public transport clause.

These "non-compete clauses" which limit improvements a government can make to other needed infrastructure, are a huge problem with these so called "Public Private Partnerships" or PPPs.

By capturing an entire function- in a defined area, they attempt to force the relinquishment of local control, basically private companies, gain an ability to veto or even set policy, and it is an inherently unequal situation with, thanks to trade agreements, the corporations hold all of the cards. In the case of toll roads, its been the effect in Australia that they have gotten to block improvements in non-toll roads!

Yep, it's quite bad, and it gets almost zero press coverage 

Its not sane for a government which is supposed to be of by and for the people, to guarantee a future revenue stream for corporations.

How this is even possible is beyond me.

[janoc]

Well, safe journey...  I hope your TomTom guided 3000km trip will be without unpleasant suprises.

Thanks.

And make sure you obey the speed limit as long as your TomTom is on, since it will spill the beans on you!

Article: Tom Tom sold driver's GPS details to be used by police for speed traps

Well, that I am not worried too much about, never got a ticket for speeding.

The worse problem is that the TomTom speed limit data are terrible, outdated or not even close to reality, often alerting me that there is 50 where there 130 on a motorway (e.g. because it got confused by a nearby road) and similar.  My old Garmin satnav was much better in this regard.

[EEVblog]

I'm sure people realize that toll roads function as a highly regressive tax. One which impacts the working poor the highest, proportionately.

They arent always economic successes, either. Sometimes they end up being colossal failures.
This road in Texas is a good example..

http://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/editorials/article/Texas-seldom-traveled-toll-road-9887527.php

We had one famous one in Sydney called the Cross City Tunnel:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-14/cross-city-tunnel-owners-blame-government-for-debt-woes/4958084
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_City_Tunnel
http://www.maths.usyd.edu.au/u/geoffp/melfin2.pdf

[janoc]

Ummm... no, whether the person making the statement has driven in Germany is not relevant to facts. Facts exist independently of the speaker. Fact is, the highway fatality rate in Germany is substantially lower than in most countries. This is a fact regardless of who is saying it.

Driver discipline is absolutely relevant: it is the primary reason for Germany's low highway fatality rate. Lack of driver discipline is why the US has a much higher highway fatality rate.

If you think Germany's road surfaces are bad, go to Pennsylvania or Ohio.

Tooki, the problem is that you are making a strawman argument here. When someone who has obviously never driven in Germany and is claiming that "Germany has managed just fine" with unlimited speed it is necessary to point that out. That "managed just fine" statement is misleading because the majority of German network does indeed have speed limits (and they would have known that if they have actually driven there). So where, exactly, did Germany "manage just fine" without them? On that infamous cca 200km stretch from the Swiss border?

Then the entire debate about driver discipline and what not is not relevant. Yes, it is true that there are fewer fatalities in Germany than in the US and that US drivers in many cases won't get their licenses recognized in Europe and may have to pass a driving test, because the US exams are not considered up to the local standard. But that is not relevant to the point that the premise of the entire debate is incorrect.

So be careful about "calling bullshit".

[Cerebus]

Well, I didn't put that in question did I ? I asked if OP had ever driven in Germany... Move on.

Whatever, you're obviously not interested in actuality discussing, just in being difficult.

If, for argument's sake, he is, you're aiding and abetting...

[MarkS]

This is all moot, at least as to the OP. Even if a road is private in the US, once public access is allowed, state and federal driving laws come into play for public safety. It wouldn't be possible to have a public access private road without a speed limit. Now, on your own property without public access, do what you want.

[Cerebus]

I know why it happens, even in areas with no history of crashes the newer risk assessments are applied and speed limits lowered.

In the UK, if a given stretch of road has an accident rate above x* accidents/mile then the speed limit is ratcheted down. All well and good but there are several flaws with how it is done in practice. 1) whether speed was actually contributory is usually ignored or exaggerated, 2) the limit isn't reassessed if changes are made to that section of road, 3) in practice speed limits only ever go down, I have never seen them lowered and later raised again no matter what improvements have been put in place.


* I don't know the actual figures used as criteria and am too lazy to go and ferret them out.

[CatalinaWOW]

I've mentioned this before, but it is so common and so stupid it bears repeating.

Here in the US fatal accidents often result in a review.  And if speed was involved, often result in a lowering of the speed limit.  The silly part comes when you realize that the fatal accident involved speeds far above the existing posted limit.  I don't know why there is any belief that the new lower limit will be obeyed when the existing sign had no effect.

[tooki]

I've mentioned this before, but it is so common and so stupid it bears repeating.

Here in the US fatal accidents often result in a review.  And if speed was involved, often result in a lowering of the speed limit.  The silly part comes when you realize that the fatal accident involved speeds far above the existing posted limit.  I don't know why there is any belief that the new lower limit will be obeyed when the existing sign had no effect.

Really good point.

Reminds me of when pit bulls (and a whole slew of other "fighting dogs") were banned here in Zurich after a child was mauled. Turns out that the three dogs involved were already known to the authorities, and under existing law, should already have been seized several incidents ago. So if the authorities already didn't enforce the existing laws, how does adding another one for them to ignore help anything? 

Meanwhile, responsible owners of the banned breeds, and the affected dogs themselves, became subject to draconian rules. All because the authorities didn't enforce the previous laws adequately.

[Cerebus]

So if the authorities already didn't enforce the existing laws, how does adding another one for them to ignore help anything? 

Because "Something must be done!" and it's much easier to create new laws and punish the innocent rather than punish inefficiency/laxness/corruption on behalf of officials, some of whom are your good friends. In the vein of "You can judge a society on how it treats its most vulnerable members" I propose "You can judge a government by how effective they are at punishing wrongdoing within their own ranks".

[Halcyon]

Also, we need tougher penalties for driving on your phone, driving with alcohol and/or drugs in your system, those who choose to drive unlicenced etc.... To be honest, 14 demerit points in NSW is too much in my opinion, why are we giving people 5, 6... 10 chances?. Want to talk on your phone and drive a car? Get caught once, a fine and one strike. Second offence, you cop a fine and your phone gets seized by Police for 48 hours. Third offence, your licence gets cancelled and you need to start over on your learners permit.

Ignorance and stupidity aren't excuses. The roads should be reserved for those who have earned a licence and have demonstrated that they can drive skillfully, defensively and safely.

I'll disagree on more severe penalties for drug affected driving. Recall that amphetamine, methamphetamine, cocaine, etc were widely dispensed in WWII (and well after) to increase the cognitive abilities of the troops and industrial workers and are known to improve the ability of people to drive, but lets throw science out the window and be tough on drugs because thats politically easy. The limits for drink driving were arrived at by careful study of risks, different countries applied different thresholds, if mandatory drug testing is going to be put on drivers it should be with limits set with sound evidence.

But yes, personal responsibility is the key. Ignorance isn't an excuse under law, but a lawyer will spin a lovely story to add believable mitigating circumstances if you have the money.

Yes and medicine used to give people lobotomies for various "illnesses" and ailments. I have no argument that illicit drugs were used in WWII, however you can't compare the substances from then to what is available now. The crap out there on the street is a concoction of who knows what and if you listen to the science, it shows that it's terrible for your health, not to mention it impairs driving and ability to think clearly, not the other way around. I wouldn't say it's politically easy either, we aren't exactly winning the "war on drugs".

Drug testing is where alcohol testing was where it was first introduced. There were no BAC levels or a device which gave you a concentration, you blew into the bag and if the chemical turned a different colour, you had alcohol in your breath, regardless of your level of impairment.

The drug driving thing is a double-edged sword, firstly, you're driving with a substance known to affect your driving and decision making ability in a detrimental way and secondly you have a substance in your system which shouldn't be there because by virtue of law, it's an illegal substance.

You can't replace driver education and aptitude with a pill. If you want to be more alert, have a strong tea or coffee or get a good night's sleep.

[nctnico]

I want to make it clear that this is a personal concept, not something that exists.

I had an idea, and I've been wondering how feasible it is and why it has not been tried yet.

The idea is for a series of privately owned and maintained highways, build for the purpose of having a partially speed unlimited highway, similar to Germany's highway system. In my mind, the advantages would be numerous.

Several countries in Europe have such systems. For example France where you can drive 130km/h (81mph) throughout the country. Driving faster really isn't a problem. Trough Germany I'm steadily at 160km/h (100mph) when it is quiet. It also helps to have gotten a real driver's education and thus some experience before climbing behind the steering wheel of a car.

[tszaboo]

I know why it happens, even in areas with no history of crashes the newer risk assessments are applied and speed limits lowered.

In the UK, if a given stretch of road has an accident rate above x* accidents/mile then the speed limit is ratcheted down. All well and good but there are several flaws with how it is done in practice. 1) whether speed was actually contributory is usually ignored or exaggerated, 2) the limit isn't reassessed if changes are made to that section of road, 3) in practice speed limits only ever go down, I have never seen them lowered and later raised again no matter what improvements have been put in place.


* I don't know the actual figures used as criteria and am too lazy to go and ferret them out.

Yes, that is really stupid. Reminds me to the complains Top gear was making all the time about UK traffic. Speed does not kill people, stopping very quickly does. Lots of countries, they just put a sign there, stating that this strip of concrete is 130 kph. That is bad. In a nice car, good weather, good driver, low traffic can probably drive there 200, without issues. If any of the conditions are not met, then you cant. Now, a lot of places in west europe has also variable speed limit, where there is a digital sign, stating what the max speed is. Sounds nice in theory, much better than just painting a sign. Still. I think I saw a statistic, where speeding was only like 5-7% of the cause of accidents.
Relative speeding, tailgating, not using turn signs, elderly people, people who should not drive in general...

[John B]

From the perspective of government, speed limits are the easiest way to go. Being over the limit is a strict liability offence, the "crime" is easily provable and easy to collect evidence for - and the most corrupting aspect - easy to profit off. However, being a strict liability offence, it makes no distinction based on the environmental circumstances of the road. I can think of a stretch of road that is as wide as a freeway, 2 lanes both ways, where the limit was lowered to 80kmh/50mph. Depending on the time of day, the road can be packed or almost empty. Naturally, at the times when its almost empty, and traffic naturally flows faster, is exactly when the gubbermint likes to put out its privately contracted speed vans.

The spectre of money really poisons everything. Its been an ongoing debate here in Australia. There is a very sordid web when it comes to lowering speed limits, the increasing use of private companies for speed enforcement, and the use of taxpayer money to propagandise the issue. For example, Monash University Accident Research Centre has ongoing controversy surrounding it. It produces studies to support lowering speed limits, whilst having financial ties to the private companies that operate speed cameras.

[Koen]

In Belgium, statistics made from police reports in 2015 [1-2, in french] claim speed to be among the reasons for 9.3% of accidents on highways. Behind poor driving skills, overtaking, inattention and errors made following others or merging into dense traffic.

[1] : http://www.ibsr.be/publications/Statistisch%20Rapport%202015%20-%20Verkeersongevallen/Rapport%20Statistique%202015%20-Accidents%20de%20la%20route.pdf

[2] : http://www.bivv.be/publications/Doden%20op%20de%20snelweg/Les%20tu%C3%A9s%20sur%20les%20autoroutes%20-%20Analyse%20approfondie%20des%20accidents%20mortels%20sur%20les%20autoroutes%20belges%20pendant%20la%20p%C3%A9riode%202009-2013.pdf