What's more dangerous 10km over or 10km under?

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by Keepleft

Not that it is 'safer' per se, just that it isn't necessarily 'unsafe' to do so, particularly in relation to high-standard roads outside built-up areas. Of course the physics change with increased movement, and that entails greater responsibility on part of the driver.

NB; NSW has speed 'as a factor' in around 42% of all fatal crashes, whilst not being necessarily the 'initiating factor' of a crash, such might be fog, inattention et al, or a combination of such. We continue to say 80% of crashes occure below the speed-limit, and that 0.01% of licenced P plate holders will die in a crash.

I do expect a reduction in 110km/h zones in NSW where applied to rural two-lane highways, and a reduction in the rural default maximum.

Agree 100%, ive never said its "unsafe" just not "safer"... again though, its very dependant of driving conditions as you've outlined.
Very compelling stat too that speed was a factor in 42% of NSW fatals, that stat seems consistent with the message that ambo's and police seem to say as well....

[xbgs351]

Such a simplistic question deserves a simplistic answer - It depends on the circumstances.

[Daymoe]

I think its time to close the thread, we've gone around in a few circles and keep coming to the same conclusions except from different people, lol.

[Silver Ghia]

Originally Posted by Daymoe

I think its time to close the thread, we've gone around in a few circles and keep coming to the same conclusions except from different people, lol.

I've been waiting a few days for it to close. I think the mods are on holidays.

[geckoGT]

One thing that has been missed in this thread is the original question does not mention the open road at all, just a general which is safer, in all conditions.

Many of those that believe 10 over is safer as it reduces road rage, crazy passing, fatigue and loss of valuable life time, all discuss open roads and highways.

The simple fact is the vast majority of Australians are city dwellers, drive on city and suburban streets and do not spend as much time on 80-100kmh zones as they do 50-60kmh zones.

My previous response considers all driving, both highway and suburban. Yes the difference may be small on the highways but in the suburbs the difference is huge.

Consider this, in a suburban 60 zone with driveways, side streets, kids, dogs, cyclists, pedestrians and other motorists that are too busy doing other things rather than drive their car. 10km/h under in this situation will allow more time to see a hazard, react to it and provide a shorter braking distance. At the speed limit these reactions times decrease and braking distances increase. Add 10km/h and they get worse again, simple! That is fact and you will not find any credible motoring body, driving instructor or safety council that will dispute that.

It is due to this situation that I will often drive an ambulance under lights and sirens under the speed limit, if the conditions do not allow exceeding the limit. In the ambulance I have a loud siren with multiple tones, red/blue strobes and candy striping all over it, just to make it safe to exceed the limit in "most" situations. I have not seen one private vehicle equipped like that.

While I agree that 10km/h over the limit in some situations is not a death wish. I am not convinced it is always safe, there are some circumstances when the speed limit is not safe. I also refuse to believe the person doing 10 under is responsible for causing dangerous situations because some moron has to get past and does crazy things to do so. That responsibility falls on the moron and the simple fact is that they would still do crazy things if the other person was on the speed limit.

In summary, remove the idiot racing driver that passes and the road rage rock ape, as it is their action that caused the unsafe situation, not the guy doing 90 in a 100 zone. The question only states which is safer of the 2 speeds, nothing more, in all environments (as it does not specify highway). There is no way on this earth anyone can justify 20km/h extra speed being safer. The simple fact is for every increase in speed, the braking distance increases x4, not to mention decreased reaction time and other factors.

If you do not believe me, read this article

here

and then debate it with science, logic and sound reason rather than opinion. Just remember, no motorist abiding by the road laws is accountable for those that don't.

[b0son]

Originally Posted by Keepleft

NB; NSW has speed 'as a factor' in around 42% of all fatal crashes

Speed is rated a factor any time they judge that you could have avoided the crash had you been going slower. They then parade this stat to quite clearly imply *speeding* (ie. exceeding the limit) is a factor in 42% of fatal crashes - not nearly the same thing.

If the RTA were a private company, they'd have long ago been prosecuted for misleading advertising.

I do expect a reduction in 110km/h zones in NSW where applied to rural two-lane highways, and a reduction in the rural default maximum.

Seeing as I drive Syd>Ade>Syd at least once per year, if the Sturt limit is lowered and enforced, I'll start taking the plane. 100 is simply too slow over that road and guaranteed to send some drivers to sleep.

[DoreSlamR]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

One thing that has been missed in this thread is the original question does not mention the open road at all, just a general which is safer, in all conditions.

Many of those that believe 10 over is safer as it reduces road rage, crazy passing, fatigue and loss of valuable life time, all discuss open roads and highways.

The simple fact is the vast majority of Australians are city dwellers, drive on city and suburban streets and do not spend as much time on 80-100kmh zones as they do 50-60kmh zones.

My previous response considers all driving, both highway and suburban. Yes the difference may be small on the highways but in the suburbs the difference is huge.

Consider this, in a suburban 60 zone with driveways, side streets, kids, dogs, cyclists, pedestrians and other motorists that are too busy doing other things rather than drive their car. 10km/h under in this situation will allow more time to see a hazard, react to it and provide a shorter braking distance. At the speed limit these reactions times decrease and braking distances increase. Add 10km/h and they get worse again, simple! That is fact and you will not find any credible motoring body, driving instructor or safety council that will dispute that.

It is due to this situation that I will often drive an ambulance under lights and sirens under the speed limit, if the conditions do not allow exceeding the limit. In the ambulance I have a loud siren with multiple tones, red/blue strobes and candy striping all over it, just to make it safe to exceed the limit in "most" situations. I have not seen one private vehicle equipped like that.

While I agree that 10km/h over the limit in some situations is not a death wish. I am not convinced it is always safe, there are some circumstances when the speed limit is not safe. I also refuse to believe the person doing 10 under is responsible for causing dangerous situations because some moron has to get past and does crazy things to do so. That responsibility falls on the moron and the simple fact is that they would still do crazy things if the other person was on the speed limit.

In summary, remove the idiot racing driver that passes and the road rage rock ape, as it is their action that caused the unsafe situation, not the guy doing 90 in a 100 zone. The question only states which is safer of the 2 speeds, nothing more, in all environments (as it does not specify highway). There is no way on this earth anyone can justify 20km/h extra speed being safer. The simple fact is for every increase in speed, the braking distance increases x4, not to mention decreased reaction time and other factors.

If you do not believe me, read this article

here

and then debate it with science, logic and sound reason rather than opinion. Just remember, no motorist abiding by the road laws is accountable for those that don't.

Some good points Gecko, for the record I later added a scenario, admittedly I probably should have put it in the first post but the time to edit had long run out.


Anyway, here's the scenario:

Ok, I'll add some conditions similar to what I experienced yesterday.

I had to drive the same stretch of road 7 times, so 14 trips up and back in a 3 tonne Isuzu truck loaded to its capacity one way, empty the other. The truck could do the posted speed limit which was 90km/h with no problems (besides being slow getting there).

The conditions are clear, the sun is high in the sky the stretch of road is single lane which has a distance of about 20km.

There aren't many overtaking opportunities due to having consistent traffic in both directions and several long sweeping corners.

So, out of my 14 trips I counted 11 instances where I had to slow down because someone couldn't manage the speed limit for whatever reason.

The cars going slow were all less than 10 years old except 1, which was an older, larger truck. We can let that one off I guess.

So now that we have some sort of an idea of conditions.

In this specific case, does going slower make it safer?

[Daymoe]

On the topic of speed:

Speed-limiting devices should be fitted to cars on a voluntary basis to help save lives and cut carbon emissions, according to a new report.

The government's transport advisers claim the technology would cut road accidents with injuries by 29%.

The device automatically slows a car down to within the limit for the road on which it is being driven.

Ministers are planning to help councils draw up digital maps with details of the legal speed on every road.

The system uses satellite positioning to check its location and when the speed exceeds the limit, power is reduced and the brakes are applied if necessary.

It has been well-trialled, and the Commission for Integrated Transport and the Motorists' Forum, which both advise the government, are calling on ministers to promote a wide introduction of the system.

The advisers believe it should be voluntary but say drivers who have tried it, liked not having to worry about exceeding the limit.

However, the BBC's transport correspondent Tom Symonds said the report is likely to be rejected by some motoring groups which believe the government overestimates the importance of speed in causing accidents.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7803997.stm

[Bobman]

When will it end though?

Let's ban junk food, cigarettes and alcohol too.

They contribute to more deaths then any road-toll ever will or has.

[gtxb67]

Originally Posted by DoreSlamR

Anyway, here's the scenario:

if the person going slower doesn't feel comfortable going quicker, then it is safer
if the said vehicle is involved in an accident, then it is safer

although frustrating, it is up to everyone to drive to the conditions. rain, fog, unsealed surface, cars going slower in front - it is all relevant. the driver has to drive to suit what ever the hazard in their area is




as many have suggested - within reason, alertness and also competance is much more important than speed
i would much rather everyone drive 10 kph over the limit, providing they were aware of all the surroundings - either in front, to the side or behind, than someone driving 10 kph slower and not being aware
the powers that be are more interested in telling us to go slower incase of an impact, than trying to educate us into avoiding the accident in the first place. surprisingly enough - no impact, no road trauma

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by gtxb67

if the person going slower doesn't feel comfortable going quicker, then it is safer
if the said vehicle is involved in an accident, then it is safer

although frustrating, it is up to everyone to drive to the conditions. rain, fog, unsealed surface, cars going slower in front - it is all relevant. the driver has to drive to suit what ever the hazard in their area is




as many have suggested - within reason, alertness and also competance is much more important than speed
i would much rather everyone drive 10 kph over the limit, providing they were aware of all the surroundings - either in front, to the side or behind, than someone driving 10 kph slower and not being aware
the powers that be are more interested in telling us to go slower incase of an impact, than trying to educate us into avoiding the accident in the first place. surprisingly enough - no impact, no road trauma

That is all true, i think though the powers have given up on the idea that some morons can be educated to think for themselves and drive safely, so unfortunately the lowest common denominator dictates the rules, so they legislate to protect us from them, and them from themselves....

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by gtxb67

if the person going slower doesn't feel comfortable going quicker, then it is safer
if the said vehicle is involved in an accident, then it is safer

although frustrating, it is up to everyone to drive to the conditions. rain, fog, unsealed surface, cars going slower in front - it is all relevant. the driver has to drive to suit what ever the hazard in their area is




as many have suggested - within reason, alertness and also competance is much more important than speed
i would much rather everyone drive 10 kph over the limit, providing they were aware of all the surroundings - either in front, to the side or behind, than someone driving 10 kph slower and not being aware
the powers that be are more interested in telling us to go slower incase of an impact, than trying to educate us into avoiding the accident in the first place. surprisingly enough - no impact, no road trauma

Very good points there.

4V Man, all too true!

[vanman_75]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

That is all true, i think though the powers have given up on the idea that some morons can be educated to think for themselves and drive safely, so unfortunately the lowest common denominator dictates the rules, so they legislate to protect us from them, and them from themselves....

too tru ,as the only real safe speed is at the point where any two vehicles can collide, and noone gets hurt. anything above that is meant to be a safe (as can possibly be achieved be) ,also allowing for a reasonable traveling speed to suit the masses .the whole road system needs a major rethink if there is too much more growth.with the traffic is your safest ,pity mosttimes its wrong

[dreadly]

Hey guys what do i do?? I got booked today 88kms in an 80kms zone...
Was an unmarked grey commodore right up my ***, i couldnt tell so though get ^%$*ed queue jumpers dropped it down a gear and took off.. and then as soon as i did knight rider like lights on the dash and grill of the commy, and they said i was doing 88 in an 80km zone... did the checks, and wrote me up and under 15km? ticket $81 and 6 points i gather due to double demerits.
I travel this road daily... i live in a beach town, we dont even have a resident cop. Pop 1600. But in the holidays that swells to like 3k at least and we get the cops out doing laps and perving on the tourist girls... Ive seen 6 today.
Surely a local could be let off 8kms?! with a warning. Highway patrol should stick to the ^%&*(ing highways.
Can an unmarked highway patrol allowed to even be 25kms off the highway??
Now ive got 2 points left for my ute. and 6 for my bike :(...... surely theres a junkie or a terrorist that needs their attention. rather than this blaitent revenue raising!!! I say fix the roads and increase the speed limits!

[shane3]

LOL, speed limits are just a guide, you have to look at every situation and judge it for your self, some people are good drivers some aren't.

A good mate of mine is a Doctor (Obstratrition and Gynecologist) but can't judge distances (length or width of his own car) or speed to save himself, but give him a women in a distressed labor and he is a miracle worker.

And this debate will go on forever as there is no rite answer.

[ltd_on20s]

Originally Posted by dreadly

Hey guys what do i do?? I got booked today 88kms in an 80kms zone...
Was an unmarked grey commodore right up my ***, i couldnt tell so though get ^%$*ed queue jumpers dropped it down a gear and took off.. and then as soon as i did knight rider like lights on the dash and grill of the commy, and they said i was doing 88 in an 80km zone... did the checks, and wrote me up and under 15km? ticket $81 and 6 points i gather due to double demerits.
I travel this road daily... i live in a beach town, we dont even have a resident cop. Pop 1600. But in the holidays that swells to like 3k at least and we get the cops out doing laps and perving on the tourist girls... Ive seen 6 today.
Surely a local could be let off 8kms?! with a warning. Highway patrol should stick to the ^%&*(ing highways.
Can an unmarked highway patrol allowed to even be 25kms off the highway??
Now ive got 2 points left for my ute. and 6 for my bike :(...... surely theres a junkie or a terrorist that needs their attention. rather than this blaitent revenue raising!!! I say fix the roads and increase the speed limits!

you broke the law. he was a hard ***, you got done. cop the fine

incedentally seeing he was booking you anyways did you ask him to write up a ticket for himself for tailgating you and causing you to accellerate as you thought he was going to hit you? im sure you could ask for the footage....

[DBL15]

simply fact is what ever speed your doing someone will want to over take you and normally do even if your doing 120 or more in a 110 zone its simple there will all ways be someone that will pass you

as for me if i am just cruising on a 6 or 8 lane M1 alot of times i am in the inside lane cruising at 100km/h but i will admit once it goes back to two lanes only each way i up my speed to the limit if i need to.

little cars and a tyre blow out at 120 then good help the driver and any one else around because you would more then likely be taken out by them as well if your close enough

as i said i don't mind 10 under and i will continue to do it note only in 110km zones only for my case

as for whats more dangerous just start your car and go for a drive it doesn't matter what speed your doing its normally the others on the roads that we have trouble with : : :

[ILLaViTaR]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

I find it frightening the amount of "Intolerance" allot have to other people's chosen speed, especially where people "choose" a speed they feel comfortable to travel at, with posted limits in mind....
Its not hard to see why we have issues and fatalities on our roads if that's
peoples attitude...

It angers me how selfish slow drivers can be.

I have no tolerence/patience for slow drivers, they don't respect me (don't seem to budge when I honk the horn in the right lane) so I don't respect them.
They have no regard for other peoples time, just don't care if anyone's in a rush or has a deadline. They're so selfish and non understanding they don't even consider simply moving over to the left lane. I'm not a fast driver I just make sure I'm constantly doing the limit, I'm a commercial driver(can't risk speeding) so I guess I'm fed up of how regular these situations occur.

We estimate our travel time using speed limits generally, that's compromised when we have stupid inconveniences coming into the picture that we shouldn't even rightfully have to account for.

I have no problem with people driving slow as long as it doesn't affect anybody else. Stay in the left lane and do the limit on single lane roads, or pull over and let people pas you want to drive slow, and I'd assume you have all the time in the world if you're driving slow so then you'd have time to constantly pull over and stop roadblocking people from their daily duties.

If you're not capable of doing the limit and reading keep left signs, you're incapable of having a license. The only time I get respect on the road is in the country, people see a car behind them and politely move over, I take my hat off to these people.

This post may seem incredibly ignorant to some, but that's because people have this thing in their heads that slow drivers are the safer/more wise group of . Which is incorrect, they're testing peoples patience, which many don't have.

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by ILLaViTaR

It angers me how selfish slow drivers can be.

I have no tolerence/patience for slow drivers, they don't respect me (don't seem to budge when I honk the horn in the right lane) so I don't respect them.
They have no regard for other peoples time, just don't care if anyone's in a rush or has a deadline. They're so selfish and non understanding they don't even consider simply moving over to the left lane. I'm not a fast driver I just make sure I'm constantly doing the limit, I'm a commercial driver(can't risk speeding) so I guess I'm fed up of how regular these situations occur.

We estimate our travel time using speed limits generally, that's compromised when we have stupid inconveniences coming into the picture that we shouldn't even rightfully have to account for.

I have no problem with people driving slow as long as it doesn't affect anybody else. Stay in the left lane and do the limit on single lane roads, or pull over and let people pas you want to drive slow, and I'd assume you have all the time in the world if you're driving slow so then you'd have time to constantly pull over and stop roadblocking people from their daily duties.

If you're not capable of doing the limit and reading keep left signs, you're incapable of having a license. The only time I get respect on the road is in the country, people see a car behind them and politely move over, I take my hat off to these people.

This post may seem incredibly ignorant to some, but that's because people have this thing in their heads that slow drivers are the safer/more wise group of . Which is incorrect, they're testing peoples patience, which many don't have.

Incredible....
You are, by your own admission, by every sane definition the epitome of the stereotypical bad, "road rage" dangerous driver.
Your attitude and behavior to the road, other drivers and driving in general is both dangerous, impatient and probably illegal.....

[ebxr8240]

Red P platers 10 K over normal speed limit...

[Rob's 76 Effy]

Originally Posted by ILLaViTaR

It angers me how selfish slow drivers can be.

I have no tolerence/patience for slow drivers, they don't respect me (don't seem to budge when I honk the horn in the right lane) so I don't respect them.
They have no regard for other peoples time, just don't care if anyone's in a rush or has a deadline. They're so selfish and non understanding they don't even consider simply moving over to the left lane. I'm not a fast driver I just make sure I'm constantly doing the limit, I'm a commercial driver(can't risk speeding) so I guess I'm fed up of how regular these situations occur.

We estimate our travel time using speed limits generally, that's compromised when we have stupid inconveniences coming into the picture that we shouldn't even rightfully have to account for.

I have no problem with people driving slow as long as it doesn't affect anybody else. Stay in the left lane and do the limit on single lane roads, or pull over and let people pas you want to drive slow, and I'd assume you have all the time in the world if you're driving slow so then you'd have time to constantly pull over and stop roadblocking people from their daily duties.

If you're not capable of doing the limit and reading keep left signs, you're incapable of having a license. The only time I get respect on the road is in the country, people see a car behind them and politely move over, I take my hat off to these people.

This post may seem incredibly ignorant to some, but that's because people have this thing in their heads that slow drivers are the safer/more wise group of . Which is incorrect, they're testing peoples patience, which many don't have.

Hate to be you in peak hour traffic then, the widows would fog up from the steam blowing from your head, lucky your not behind me honking that horn of yours, i'd slow down even more just to fiss you off, how you ppl believe driving under the speed limit by 10k's is more dangerous is beyond reasoning