Driving in Australia
Quick Getaways
Race-cars and super-cars have plenty of power, and sometimes this can be a handful to manage when accelerating quickly away from a standstill. There is some special technology that new muscle cars now have which enables optimum power and traction for the best fast getaway. The better the launch control system, the faster the getaway. So how does a decent launch control system work?
Launch control is a clever piece of technology which acts electronically to balance the optimum ratio of power with enough traction so as to get the car moving forward from a standstill with minimal wheel spin. The quickest getaways come from the best systems that control the colossal levels of optimum power under hard acceleration with the amount of wheel spin. Wheel spin under hard acceleration suggests that the tyres are unable to grab at the road because of excessive torque reaching the driving wheels. Too much torque and power results in the tyres losing grip on the road, and there is a lack of forward motion at this point. Launch control systems, electronically, allow an input of an optimum amount of engine revs that will provide enormous but not too much power at the driving wheels. A rapid and defined engagement of the clutch also occurs so that a mistimed human clutch progression is nullified. Electronically managed wheel spin, at take-off, results in smoother, quicker acceleration.
One part of the launch control system includes the many sensors and computers that are constantly calculating the amount of torque available at the drive axles. If the computer recognises that there is too much power available at the axle which would make the wheel spin, then the power is electronically adjusted in minute timeframes – as small as milliseconds. Launch controls systems are quite complex as they even take into account things like tyre temperature, tyre pressure, road surface and engine temperature; all of which are variables that can affect the desired rapid fast getaway. Even when driving quickly, there are also traction control systems that use torque vectoring and individual wheel braking to spread the torque evenly between the driving wheels. Numerous supercars are now All-Wheel-Drive (AWD), so the torque vectoring occurs evenly between left-to-right wheels as well as front-to-rear wheels.
With ever increasing levels of power becoming available for race cars and supercars the need for better launch control in fast getaways, and torque vectoring when cornering, is all the more necessary, particularly when striving to get an edge over the competition. A successful launch will propel a supercar or race car to big high speeds in a matter of seconds, and once the launch has been completed the on-board computer switches the launch control system off, passing the control over to the traction management system and also back into the hands/decision of the driver.
You’ll also find that aspects like downforce are very important to gaining traction when accelerating fast from a standstill and at high speed. Supercars like the BMW M4 and Porsche 911 have active aerodynamics which changes the rate of downforce according to the speed, thus keeping the car hugging the road as much as possible for better traction and control.
The sheer pleasure of acceleration is even better experienced with important management control systems like Launch Control and Traction Control being employed. These sophisticated systems are also what push the buying prices of supercars upward – as you would expect.
Seeing Round Corners
Ever wanted to know what’s around the corner? Thanks to today’s new car technology, the driver can gain insight into what might be approaching at that terrible intersection or hard-to-get-out-of driveway. There is no doubt that the intersection can be a dangerous place when driving. Until recently, the only sure way a driver could check what was coming beyond the intersection was to poke the nose of the car beyond any visual obstacle just enough for them to lean forward and crane the neck to get a better view of any oncoming traffic – hardly safe. Heaven help the oncoming cyclist!
Ford has a new safety system that could change that. Mounted in the front grille of the car is a Front Split View Camera and reveals in real-time a 180 degree view from the left to the right of the front end of the car. It’s easy to use, and at the push of a button the driver has the 180 degree panoramic picture displayed on the car’s touch screen display in the middle of the dash. To keep the view crisp, the camera even has a lens washer that turns on whenever the wipers are switched on. Ford hopes to have the majority of its models equipped with this round-the-corner camera technology by 2020.
An excellent new safety feature, don’t you think?
Planes, Trains, and Automobiles
Not quite the John Candy/Steve Martin film, but more a query in regards to transport options. As it appears Australia will have a Federal election sometime this year, the age old question about fast trains (especially in Australia’s eastern states) gets hauled out of the too hard basket and recycled for another look-see. 
To fly between the three main cities, Sydney, Melbourne, and Brisbane, on the eastern seaboard, takes an hour to seventy minutes, with the usual conditions about weather applying. In context, the Sydney-Melbourne route is considered to be the world’s fifth busiest air route. To fly from Sydney to Perth or the reverse varies, from four to five hours, however the fast train option doesn’t quite apply here. 
Also, theres plenty of intra-urban trains (some will, in certain areas say, not enough), rural trains such as the Prospector that runs between Perth and Kalgoorlie, the XPT service between Sydney and Melbourne and Brisbane (11 to 14 hours) and some other destinations, and the world famous Indian-Pacific…which takes 65 hours to travel Perth to Sydney.
If one was to drive, non stop, it’s somewhere in the order of ten to eleven hours. from Sydney to either other city. So why don’t we have a fast train option yet? Firstly though, in order to be considered a fast train in this context, the rolling stock must reach 200 kmh. There’s the well known bullet train in Japan, the 320 kmh TGV in Europe and a trial, of sorts, here in Australia, with a Tilt train reaching 210 kmh.
There’s been numerous studies, as it happens, since the early 1980s. In 1979, the “Premiers Meeting” suggested the electrification of the rail network between Sydney and Melbourne. “Oddly enough”, it was rejected on economic grounds, which appears to be the reason why all such subsequent proposals have been shelved. One proposal in the early ’80s, from the CSIRO, was costed at $2.5 billion dollars, with then estimated revenue at $150 million per year whilst operating costs were estimated at around $50 million. However, the construction costs were allegedly found to be $1.5 billion under what the purported true cost would be and the project was binned.
In 1986, a VFT (Very Fast Train) project was investigated. The route would have been from Sydney to Melbourne via Canberra, with stops at locations such as Goulburn and Albury-Wodonga. The estimated train speed would have been 350 kmh. Construction costs then were estimated at $6.6 billion but would take just five years to be built, being based on existing trackwork. However, the Australian Democrats and Australian Conservation Foundation raised objections, focusing on the coastal corridor plan that was put forward as part of the route. Again, cost, amongst other reasons was cited.
As journalist Dominic Knight noted recently: “Just try travelling from Sydney to Newcastle, a route that inexplicably begins the trip to Newcastle, which is north-east of Sydney, by travelling due west to Strathfield, and you’ll get a sense of just how absurdly archaic our train network is.” And: “Australia’s the only first world country I’ve ever visited where intercity trains, with their dedicated traffic-free corridors, are reliably slower than driving.”
It’s also why certain road journeys are quicker than taking the train. A driver can comfortably cover the distance from Kalgoorlie to Perth in six hours or so; the Prospector is over eight hours in duration. There’s also the time of travel to the airport, then checking in….and checking out via the baggage pickup at the destination. Assuming the airline got your baggage there…
Driving also needs breaks; for a reast, food, a toilet break. All of these can be done on the train. And it’s clearly not an issue of building a trainline from scratch between the cities.
So when will a government bite the bullet and start now before the real cost becomes so much it’ll be cheaper to build a carbon fibre space elevator? And safer than driving a car long distance? Sadly, don’t hold your breath…
Safety, Dollars, Speed versus Speed.
“It was more like extreme education. It happened about twenty years ago and I’ve never forgotten.”
“Because having the police personally means that I know I am PERSONALLY responsible for my actions. Getting something in the mail just feels like a rates notice or similar bill that just has to be paid (which I may or may not whinge about).”
“Personal interaction with a police officer is far more meaningful than merely receiving something through the mail like any other letter.”
“My young child was in the car with me. I felt like I had let them down.”
“It’s personal, it’s confronting, and it’s timely.”
NRMA Members talking about the effect of being pulled over by a police officer.
“Speeding”. It’s seen as one of the greatest sins a person driving a car can commit. It’s a subject that divides communities, raising ire and bringing forth strenuously opposing views.
But when is speeding speeding, when is it dangerous? In NSW there are freeways zoned at 110 kmh and one at 100 kmh. It’s not uncommon to see the majority of vehicles exceed, and comfortably, the 100 kmh mandated, but the flow seems to be fine at 110 kmh.
Residential roads are zoned as 50 kmh. Certain roads see traffic at no less, and often, 70 kmh.
What is speed? It’s distance over time, be it kilometres per hour or metres per second or thousands upon thousands of kilometres per year in the case of a space probe. It’s nothing more than simple physics but becomes a little more complicated when mass is involved. Why? Maybe this link will help: https://www.facebook.com/nswroadsafety/videos/954175617964007/
Speeding on a freeway or highway like the Hume that joins Melbourne and Sydney certainly has the potential to see excessive speed for the conditions (note the caveat) cause problems but what about the humble residential road?
At 50 kilometres per hour, it takes one second to cover 14 metres. At 70 kilometres per hour it takes one second to cover…wait for it…twenty metres. Think about that for (no pun intended) a second.
At 70 kilometres per hour, you cover an extra six metres per second than you do at fifty. On a long, open sighted highway, not so much of an issue but when it’s a residential road, with cars parked on the road, with the potential for a car or a dog or a ball or a child to suddenly appear in front of you, that six metres per second (coupled with the reaction time plus a probably more distracted or inattentive driver) will suddenly become very important and make a hell of a difference.
Sydney drivers are now used to seeing high visibility police cars in locations that aren’t readily visible to on coming drivers, yet: Seven out of ten (69 per cent) NRMA Members believe that a visible presence of police cars is the most effective way of tackling bad driver behaviour than other methods such as speed cameras.
But: As part of ‘Operation Slowdown’ in NSW, a single Traffic and Highway Patrol vehicle operating on the F3 was able to issue 16 infringement notices in one hour to drivers of unregistered vehicles using automatic numberplate recognition units.
Invariably, it’s presumed by the public that these are the cars that AREN’T highly visible, but the aforementioned non visible locations. It’s also an example that’s completely at odds with the wishes of members to have a more highly visible presence but also clashes with the statements presented by members that an interaction with the police has a higher and more longer lasting effect.
Another statement: It remains vital that education campaigns are followed up with police enforcement to cement the experience. Advertising alone without police enforcement does not change behaviour. The fear of getting caught is dramatically reduced when a person has not experienced being pulled over and randomly breath tested, an activity that can be done whenever anyone is pulled over by a police car.
Again, that interaction with the police is seen as more important. Consider a road that has a high school, a dead end road at that. Car and buses taking students to that school have to enter and they have to leave. Consider that a high percentage of drivers will travel at 70 kmh, not 50. It would appear that the logical thing to do is to place police vehicles in a position to monitor the speeds and enforce the laws pertaining to speed.
The conundrum here is simple: high visibility policing without booking or low visibility with direct interaction? The former will slow the cars but only for the time the car is on site. The second will penalise the drivers and, according to the members feedback, have a more direct and longer lasting effect.
It also begs the question of what is more effective for the mooted objective of the police and government, to reduce the road toll. Speed cameras are not seen as a popular alternative and the point to point cameras also. This statement possibly says a lot more than is realised about this objective: Only a limited portion of the NSW Police Force budget is focused on addressing road safety, so it is important that the money is used effectively.
We’re told that speeding is dangerous. The caveat is excessive speed for the conditions. A long, flat, open highway is as safe as it can be until it becomes wet, fogged in, smoked in from a bushfire or has drivers travelling, under ideal conditions, below the limit for no apparent reason.
A highway can be zoned at 110 kmh, with that velocity mandated to be utilised under the aforementioned ideal conditions. Some sections of road are signposted to warn of ice or snow and you’re warned to drive appropriately.
But on a residential road there’s no such warning system, no such reinforcement of the law, apart from the 40 kmh school zone locations. Inexplicably, drivers are still being penalised for speeding in school zones. Unfortunately there’s no readily available information as to whether there are repeat offenders.
And: The study showed that non-camera based methods were preferred by respondents and had higher self-reported compliance rates
To sum up: it seems that people have a longer lasting effect after being physically dealt with by the police, that a higher visible presence from the police will in likelihood change driver behaviour but it doesn’t seem as if the two will meet and work together. It’s expected to see police on a highway but not so on a residential road when there’s a higher proportion, kilometre for kilometre, of excess speed. People would seem to equate a high visibility but non interactive police presence with a speed camera, and very quickly ignored.
And an extra twenty kilometres per hour over the residential limit, six metres per second, has an increased stopping distance that could be vital if a child suddenly appears in front of you on a congested road. But this isn’t apparently seen to be nearly as dangerous as doing 120 in a 110 zone on a road and in an area that’s been specifically mandated to be that velocity.
Why?
Level 2, 9 Help Street