WAFarmers is against lowering default speed limits outside built-up areas
1. The Core Problem Is Not the Default Limit but Driver Behaviour and Road Maintenance
While road safety is a shared national priority, the assumption that lower default speed limits will materially reduce fatalities oversimplifies a complex issue.
- Driver error, fatigue, distraction, alcohol, and inattention are leading causes of rural road crashes — not simply “speed.”
- Many regional and remote roads are in poor condition due to underinvestment in maintenance, not inherently because 110 km/h is unsafe.
Reducing limits without addressing road quality shifts blame from governments’ infrastructure obligations to drivers.
2. One-Size-Fits-All Rules Don’t Suit Australia’s Geography
Australia’s road network – and particularly Western Australia’s – spans vast, diverse environments: from well-engineered rural highways to isolated gravel tracks.
- A blanket lower default limit penalises safe, open roads simply because a few are unsafe.
- Local road authorities already have the power to set lower limits where conditions warrant. A new national reduction adds bureaucracy, not safety.
- What’s needed is targeted local risk assessment, not a broad national downgrade.
3. Economic and Social Impacts on Regional Australia
Lowering rural speed limits disproportionately affects regional and remote communities:
- Travel times and productivity: Farmers, freight operators, tourism providers, and emergency services rely on efficient road travel. Reducing the default from 110 km/h to, say, 80 or 70 km/h could add hours per week in lost time and increase the risk of greater fatigue for regional workers and transporters.
- Social isolation: Longer travel times between towns discourage regional economic activity and community connection.
- These communities already face declining services; slower transport adds another layer of disadvantage.
4. Diminishing Returns on Safety Gains
Empirical evidence shows that once roads reach moderate compliance and enforcement standards, further speed reductions produce marginal safety benefits.
- The risk reduction achieved by dropping from 110 km/h to 90 km/h is statistically minor compared with the benefit of improving road surfaces, signage, and shoulders.
- Lower limits may even produce driver frustration and risk-taking (e.g., more overtaking on narrow roads) that offset intended benefits.
5. Enforcement, Compliance, and Credibility Issues
- A blanket reduction risks eroding public trust in road rules if limits are seen as arbitrary or punitive rather than evidence-based.
- Enforcement in remote areas is already limited; lower limits could create “paper laws” — rules that exist but are widely ignored, reducing respect for all speed limits.
- Credible enforcement requires contextual legitimacy — drivers must perceive the limit as reasonable for the conditions.
6. Better Alternatives Exist
Instead of default reductions, governments could:
- Invest more in road infrastructure — sealing unsealed roads, improving line markings, installing rumble strips and better signage.
- Target specific high-risk roads with context-appropriate limits.
- Enhance driver education for rural and remote conditions.
- Incentivise vehicle safety technologies like lane assist and collision avoidance.
These measures address root causes rather than imposing blanket restrictions.
Conclusion
Lowering the default rural speed limit risks being a symbolic rather than substantive policy — a “quick fix” that appears proactive but fails to address the structural issues behind road trauma.
Australia’s challenge is not to make rural travel slower; it’s to make it safer and smarter through infrastructure, technology, and education — not blunt regulation.
