A Hard Sell

So the environment is (finally) a big problem; now it’s a polling issue. Welcome Johnny we’ve been waiting a decade so. NB hate to be the one break it to you but Iraq ain’t going that swimmingly – look forward to that becoming a polling issue so you can get your brush cut eyebrow, children overboard lying, interest rate advertising obfuscating, cole commission terms of reference restricting, baboon arse fugly head out of the sand on that one too.

But I’m not going to espouse a diatribe on what the federal government isn’t going to do a decade too late on the environment as that’s far too easy. I’ll leave that to others; I choose the hard sell.

Speed limits are dangerous and killing the environments. Yes it sounds ridiculous but there is undeniable science behind that seemingly absurd statement.
I live on a corner block. If I pull out and go left I’m hit a 40kph zone that lasts a few hundred metres and then goes 50 and a ‘cula hun’ed’ later goes 60. If I pull out right I’m in a 50kph zone that turns into a 60 zone at the T section a few hun’ed metres up. I drive 11kms to work and without exaggerating, I’ve counted, and there are 50 billion different speed zones. Apart from the obvious inherent danger in always glancing at the speedo due to the proliferation of speed cameras (can’t play pokies on the way to dropping the kids at school and the gov’s got make a buck somehow) plus constantly watching for speed signs the ridiculous number of speed changes is killing our environment.
Cars are geared to be most efficient around common speeds such as 60, 80 and 100kph. My manual car cruises at 60 in 4th at about 2000Rpm using about 6.5 litres per hundred kilometres (l/100) according to the on board computer. At 40kph the car is in 3rd gear at a slightly higher RPM and the slower speeds equates to about 9.2l/100k. Its simple maths, using the same RPM at lower speeds for the same distance will result in higher fuel consumption. Here is a brilliant real life example. My previous 5.7 litre manual sports ute with massive power gorged on fuel at the rate of about 18l/100k around town. But in 6th at 100kph it was geared to rev at about 1600 giving about 6.7l/100k. At 100kph that’s exactly the same as my current 3.0 litre manual with good power that does about 12l/100k (one third less) around town. It’s because the smaller engine needs more revs to be comfortable so it is geared to be doing about 2400RPM at 100kph.
In addition to using more fuel maintaining a lower speed we take a second slice of the fuel consumption cake again when accelerating from a lower speed zone to a higher - constantly. Then you add the extra wear and tear on the gearbox, brakes, tyres with all the, faster, slower, slower, faster - geesh! I’ll probably require a left knee reconstruction and or hip replacement at 65 not 67 with all these extra clutch actuations. With the danger, the environment, my joints society can’t bare the cost!
Plus, really drawing the long straw here, brake dust is dirty and very abrasive which ends up on the roads from all the braking from one speed to another goes into drains and kills the dolphins. I’ve always said my driving style is green. By braking less for corners and round-abouts I don’t have to accelerate out of the corner saving fuel and I don’t kill dolphins with brake dust. Why don’t we just go out and buy a cheap, imported, no name brand of canned flipper, oh I mean tuna. Is that too far? Excessive changes in speed limits KILLS DOLPHINS! (I told you it was going to be a stretch)

Back on a more serious note in Queensland or maybe New South Wales outback you would be into a 100kph and you would get a sign ’50 ahead’, slow down to 50 – Sir Wheat. Similar at the other end; you’d be in the 50 zone and get a 100 sign, none of this confusing 100 to 80, then 60, then 50 at both ends. Being the cynical dissident I can’t help but think it’s all part of a ‘cunning and devious plan’ to confuse us in order to raise speed camera revenue. On my recent road trip I’d found I was always doing something leaving a town; butting out a cigarette, closing the windows & sunroof while turning the air back on, scoffing deep fried something, adjusting my, um, ‘make up’, interrogating the GPS, all of the above - what ever. Up north if you past a speed sign you knew it was 100 no questions asked. Down south if you cruise past speed sign and don’t see it you have no idea. I missed one and was cruising at 80 looking for the hun’ed sign until a truck came barrelling up behind me so I guessed it must have been 100. To add to my cynicism they will wack in an 80 and then half a kay down the road you see another sign and it’s... another freekin’ 80. Surely they’re taking the piss, they just want you start building up for 100, tricked ya it’s an 80, click – thanks for visiting Victoria that’ll be a cupla hun’ed – would you like to pay the pokies while you’re here. Pricks – I don’t (perhaps selectively) remember a 100 sign then another 100 sign a minute later. Too bad you missed it, you can sit at 80 until a semi trailer driver that’s been awake for 83 hours who’s filled with more psuedo ephedrine than a ward of flu sufferers catches up and places his bullbar on the rear parcel shelf of your family car – Sir Funkin Wheat.

I’m not going to mention speed limits coming down while braking performance and electronic dynamic safety systems have improved exponentially in the same period. I won’t harp on about driver education being the only and obvious answer to reducing the road toll. I don’t even advocate increasing speed limits I just think the excessive changes in speed limits as implemented in southern states are confusing, dangerous and despite conventional thoughts to the contrary increases environmental damage.