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

[geckoGT]

What is the point of this question? I am sorry but I see it as a no brainer.

The question is what is more dangerous, 10 over or 10 under, and this is obviously 10 over. It is a question of pure physics, the more speed, the less reaction time and the harder the hit, simple.

If you dont believe me try this, get on a bike with a speedo and ride into a wall at 20km/h (it will hurt). Then ride into the same wall at 30km/h (bet that hurts more), now if you are slow learner and still do not believe, do it again at 40km/h (enjoy the hospital visit). A car is no different, more speed equals more kinetic energy at the point of impact.

As for this idea that 10 under is more dangerous because it causes people to do stupid things to get past, grow up!

In this situation it is not the person doing 10km/h under the limit that has created a dangerous situation, it is the fool trying to pass without due care. Therefore in this situation it is not 10km under that is more dangerous, it is the ?km/h over to get past when it is not safe. We all need to remember that a speed limit is just that, a limit! It is not a required speed, 10km/h under is not unreasonable and this decision is up to the descretion of the driver. Anyone who feels they are justified to do crazy overtaking moves as a result of 10km/h needs to be stripped of their license.

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

What is the point of this question? I am sorry but I see it as a no brainer.

The question is what is more dangerous, 10 over or 10 under, and this is obviously 10 over. It is a question of pure physics, the more speed, the less reaction time and the harder the hit, simple.

If you dont believe me try this, get on a bike with a speedo and ride into a wall at 20km/h (it will hurt). Then ride into the same wall at 30km/h (bet that hurts more), now if you are slow learner and still do not believe, do it again at 40km/h (enjoy the hospital visit). A car is no different, more speed equals more kinetic energy at the point of impact.

As for this idea that 10 under is more dangerous because it causes people to do stupid things to get past, grow up!

In this situation it is not the person doing 10km/h under the limit that has created a dangerous situation, it is the fool trying to pass without due care. Therefore in this situation it is not 10km under that is more dangerous, it is the ?km/h over to get past when it is not safe. We all need to remember that a speed limit is just that, a limit! It is not a required speed, 10km/h under is not unreasonable and this decision is up to the descretion of the driver. Anyone who feels they are justified to do crazy overtaking moves as a result of 10km/h needs to be stripped of their license.

Well said! GAME OVER.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

Well said! GAME OVER.

Not if you look at the results in the poll. No wonder I am never bored at work!

[Pete from Port]

Unfortunately there is no shortage of road rage ready strangely wired idiots on our roads. Any little thing is likely to trigger one....especially being held up in a line of traffic. If you are the front runner the acco may be right next to you....

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

Not if you look at the results in the poll. No wonder I am never bored at work!

Yeah.. as i said earlier... its a frightening place to be on our roads with so many people with poor attitudes to other people displaying due care on the roads...........

[Rob's 76 Effy]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

Not if you look at the results in the poll. No wonder I am never bored at work!

Poles are not always right :

[vanman_75]

[QUOTE=geckoGT]What is the point of this question? I am sorry but I see it as a no brainer.

The question is what is more dangerous, 10 over or 10 under, and this is obviously 10 over. It is a question of pure physics, the more speed, the less reaction time and the harder the hit, simple.

If you dont believe me try this, get on a bike with a speedo and ride into a wall at 20km/h (it will hurt). Then ride into the same wall at 30km/h (bet that hurts more), now if you are slow learner and still do not believe, do it again at 40km/h (enjoy the hospital visit). A car is no different, more speed equals more kinetic energy at the point of impact.

As for this idea that 10 under is more dangerous because it causes people to do stupid things to get past, grow up!


i dont do stupid things to get past but it sure as heck adds a lot to a trip overtaking all day long ,when all i want is a trip that i dont have to overtake anything bar those that require or is safer to sit at a lower speed .
i dont get angry at caravans slow trucks elderly as its their road too ,but as we would probably all agree slow vehicles would cause way more grief to people ,right or wrong than fast vehicles .answering the question of course more speed is more dangerous thats a no brainer ,but really getting sick of undertaking vehicles in the wrong lane ,etc etc etc .and from the thread from the other day the new long 90 k zone both side of gympie is a death trap, i sat on the 90 on the down trip and near got wiped out 2 many times so on the return trip today,i sat on the hundred plus like everyone else to preserve my life ...end rant

[Silver Ghia]

Originally Posted by vanman_75

i sat on the 90 on the down trip and near got wiped out 2 many times so on the return trip today,i sat on the hundred plus like everyone else to preserve my life ...end rant

So it was safer at 10k over, eh?

Unfortunately the subject question has too many interpretations, who is safer and why, conditions etc etc as discussed.

Originally Posted by 4Vman

Yeah.. as i said earlier... its a frightening place to be on our roads with so many people with poor attitudes to other people displaying due care on the roads...........

Heres another interpretation, that all people driving 10k over have poor attitudes regardless of the situation and conditions.

And the stat that says the safest speed is that what all the other vehicles are also travelling at. That means along the Monash in the road construction area where everyone except me was travelling well above the 70kph limit in that certain (70kph) section. I just kept in the left lane and let everyone else pass. Not an issue at all.

Just waiting for the mods to close this thread again as it is really pointless with many answers correct depending on the interpretation, they must be on holidays.

[shane3]

Monash Freeway coming home from Chadstone 3 AM no cars in sight, 4 lanes clear, and it's an 80 zone!!!, thanks to the road works being done behind a 2 foot thick concrete wall (no one there at all), tell me how doing 110 is going to cause more trouble and danger to the rest of the world, as logic dictates that going faster (130km/h +) would be fine to do so.
EVERY driving situation has to be looked at and valuated on its current situation at that point in time, back streets of Narre Warren (lots of kids) I sit on 40KM/H, Monash Freeway at 2 AM...what every I can.

[Silver Ghia]

Originally Posted by shane3

Monash Freeway coming home from Chadstone 3 AM no cars in sight, 4 lanes clear, and it's an 80 zone!!!, thanks to the road works being done behind a 2 foot thick concrete wall (no one there at all), tell me how doing 110 is going to cause more trouble and danger to the rest of the world, as logic dictates that going faster (130km/h +) would be fine to do so.
EVERY driving situation has to be looked at and valuated on its current situation at that point in time, back streets of Narre Warren (lots of kids) I sit on 40KM/H, Monash Freeway at 2 AM...what every I can.

Outbound there's a 70 zone in one section which is even more silly.

Doing well over the limit you stand a good chance of suddenly coming up to and collecting some innocent motorist doing the speed limit. Unfortunately the authorities have deemed the whole length (except the one I mentioned) at 80kph. I agree its too slow especially east of Toorak road, also that section of the Calder between Keilor Park drive and the Calder Raceway heading west. But we cant do anything about it, so we just have to grin and bear it.

But again, this and being good in kids zones is irrelevant to the poll question.

[EgoFG]

[QUOTE=vanman_75]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

If you dont believe me try this, get on a bike with a speedo and ride into a wall at 20km/h (it will hurt). Then ride into the same wall at 30km/h (bet that hurts more), now if you are slow learner and still do not believe, do it again at 40km/h (enjoy the hospital visit). A car is no different, more speed equals more kinetic energy at the point of impact.

You have just nailed some very specific circumstances where higher speed is more dangerous.

My days of deliberately running into walls on a bike are long past (they did exist though).
The real world is a much more fickle place, and there are a lot of different personalities out there.
Higher speed can save lives, just as can slower speed.

[JG66ME]

In a 40km/h school zone 10k over is more dangerous. 10k under would be safer.

In a 110km/h zone 10k under in the right hand lane is more dangerous. 110km/h would be safer.

[b0son]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

It is a question of pure physics, the more speed, the less reaction time and the harder the hit, simple.

But it isnt that simple. If it were, crash rates would be highest on the roads with the highest limits. They arent (not even close).

Crash risk is dependent on many factors (traffic density, exposure time, road design, speed, conditions, etc).

A car is no different, more speed equals more kinetic energy at the point of impact.

But we're not discussing impact severity once a crash has occurred, we're discussing the risk of a crash occurring in the first place. There is a big difference (if there wasnt, who would ever dare fly anywhere?).

10km/h under is not unreasonable and this decision is up to the descretion of the driver.

That decision should be made on the basis of what surrounding traffic is doing (including if you feel the need to go 10kmh faster).

http://www.rsconference.com/pdf/RS020113.PDF

If one driver chooses to drive well below the limit in good conditions, impeding traffic (the majority of which is doing the limit), it most certainly is the driver going slower who is posing the risk.

[Zephyr]

I have always believed slower is unsafer.

Think about it.

If more people were alert and courtious, then the raods will be safer.

[Daymoe]

Originally Posted by Zephyr

I have always believed slower is unsafer.

Think about it.

Ifmore people were alert and courtious, then the raods will be safer.

That magical word, IF.

[4Vman]

Im totally baffled and speechless that people genuinely believe going faster than the speed limit is safer......

[Daymoe]

Slower is fine, as long as you arent sitting real slow in the right lane on a highway. Experience 2 nights ago coming home from shopping at late night with Dad, we were sitting on 80km/h in a 100 zone and a Roo crosses the road infront of us, if we had of been going any faster, we would have hit it for sure.

[Falcon Coupe]

Originally Posted by Daymoe

Slower is fine, as long as you arent sitting real slow in the right lane on a highway. Experience 2 nights ago coming home from shopping at late night with Dad, we were sitting on 80km/h in a 100 zone and a Roo crosses the road infront of us, if we had of been going any faster, we would have hit it for sure.

By your logic, you may as well have been doing 100 the whole way, you would never have seem the Roo as it would have crossed well behind you.

[schnoods]

10km's over is more unsafe. No brainer.

Whether some knob decides he wants to overtake a car doing 60 in a 70 zone is up to him, chances are he will do over the speed limit to overtake and if an accident occurs, it is because he is speeding, overtaking where he shouldnt have, etc. It isnt because of the other car doing a conservative speed.

Im not a speed demon on the road, i do however inch the speed limit (go over 5-10km's an hour) at my own risk, It is unsafer, the braking distance is increased, reaction time is shorter as well.

Road rage is never the person doing the legal speed limit's fault. If someone chooses to get fired up because a car isnt doing the speed limit, again it rests on his shoulders and should anything happen, he will cop the penalty.

No one will be punished for doing the right thing.

[Daymoe]

Originally Posted by Falcon Coupe

By your logic, you may as well have been doing 100 the whole way, you would never have seem the Roo as it would have crossed well behind you.

How would we know something else wouldn't jump out infront of us at the last minute?

[Charliewool]

Originally Posted by Daymoe

Slower is fine, as long as you arent sitting real slow in the right lane on a highway. Experience 2 nights ago coming home from shopping at late night with Dad, we were sitting on 80km/h in a 100 zone and a Roo crosses the road infront of us, if we had of been going any faster, we would have hit it for sure.

What the hell was the Kangaroo doing out shopping?
Look this thread has turned into a chicken & egg thread!...
There is NO truly correct answer?.. I also believe there's a thing called FATE, of which we have no control over... Apart from possibly TRYING to be careful.

[4Vman]

I want to know how fast the kangaroo was going before passing judgment.......

[bd737]

Originally Posted by Daymoe

Experience 2 nights ago coming home from shopping at late night with Dad, we were sitting on 80km/h in a 100 zone and a Roo crosses the road infront of us, if we had of been going any faster, we would have hit it for sure.

So that's the logic behind driving 20 kph under the limit. That's all my daily laughs accounted for.

[bd737]

Accidental repost... Please delete.

[JG66ME]

Originally Posted by bd737

So that's the logic behind driving 20 kph under the limit. That's all my daily laughs accounted for.

Lots of roos around here. Three roads in particular are swarming with them. I slow down at night on those roads.

Reason 1, beter chance of seeing it
Reason 2, beter chance of slowing down and/or dodging it
Reason 3, if you do hit it, a LOT less damage to car

Guy got killed up the road not long back, hit a roo at 100km/h, came through the windscreen and the car left the road and slammed into a tree.

Its just like any other reason why you may have drive under the limit, fog, hail, heavy rain etc.

[bd737]

What I'm laughing at echoes Falcon Coupes comment - that if Daymoe was travelling at 100kph, by his logic the roo would have passed well behind.

[DoreSlamR]

Meh, my three roo incidents all involved me slowing down to a virtual stop, crawling past the roo, only for it to jump into the side of my car.

But that's probably going off topic...

[EgoFG]

Hmmm, if you are on a long journey, and so is someone you do not know. Same start, same destination - lets say less than a tank of fuel distance, and identical cars, all rural driving, no other traffic.

The other guy starts 5 second before you, but stays 2% under the speed limit at all times.
There is no overtaking lane long enough to pass (this is Australia, and he is only 2kmph slower at most).

Is is safer for you to travel behind for 5 hours, or for you to exceed the speed limit enough to pass safely (5% would likely be enough), then allowing the gap between the two cars to steadily grow ?

[LTDHO]

Originally Posted by schnoods

10km's over is more unsafe. No brainer.

Whether some knob decides he wants to overtake a car doing 60 in a 70 zone is up to him, chances are he will do over the speed limit to overtake and if an accident occurs, it is because he is speeding, overtaking where he shouldnt have, etc. It isnt because of the other car doing a conservative speed.

Im not a speed demon on the road, i do however inch the speed limit (go over 5-10km's an hour) at my own risk, It is unsafer, the braking distance is increased, reaction time is shorter as well.

Road rage is never the person doing the legal speed limit's fault. If someone chooses to get fired up because a car isnt doing the speed limit, again it rests on his shoulders and should anything happen, he will cop the penalty.

No one will be punished for doing the right thing.

Really? You have researched this or just believe the BS? It has been proven that faster speeds are safer over seas, it's just that you can't make money with 'safety cameras' unless you convince people that SPEED KILLS.

Originally Posted by bd737

Accidental repost... Please delete.

Maybe your repost was to slow, causing the accident... lol

[Keepleft]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

Im totally baffled and speechless that people genuinely believe going faster than the speed limit is safer......

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.