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

[GasoLane]

Oh Goody. Another "How long is a piece of string" threads.

The correct answer would depend totally on the situation.

IE: 120kmh (10k over) is not dangerous on most highways but 40 in a 50 (10k under) zone would be impossible through some country town shopping streets.

[reece1]

i see what you getting at. but 10km over is 20km/h faster than 10 under so alot more can go wrong at that speed. everthing happens significantly quiker and longer to pull it up.
but 10 under shits me to tears and is a pain. around the area i live we have some ridicuosly slow speed limits and more seem to pop up. just recently the princess hwy here that runs past the royal national park just dropped its speed from 90 to 80 and its a great stretch of road. its now painfully slow. problem is to many do gooders trying to save the world. although there intentions are good. accidents will still happen its inevitable. sad but its a way of motoring life. we cant keep changing the rules and making things stricter. just my 2 cents

[GT0132]

Originally Posted by WILDB

I voted for under the speed limit for the reasons stated above that it causes people to attempt dangerous overtaking manouvres due to causing traffic to bank back. I know that is the reason there are numerous accidents on the Bruce Highway north of Cooroy. People going under the speed limit banking up traffic then people try overtaking when it isn't safe and bang! head on collision usually fatal.

Everyone has a different view on this topic, however I wrote what I did above due to witnessing several major near misses due to this behaviour on this road.

I agree with what this bloke says.

What really annoys me is if I'm doing the limit, or slightly over (say 5kph over) I often get idiots overtaking me and giving me the glare because i'm holding them up. No doubt about it we're living in a world now where there's just no patience anymore...Not sure if this is just a Sydney thing.

[irlewy86]

More dangerous in what way? Under you might cause an accident and over you might not be able to react in time?

[axeray]

10k's under the limit on a freeway is more dangerous than doing 10k's over.

[FGII-XR6]

there should be more options even 10Ks under is risky in adverse conditions so safe driving speed is relative

[Marduk]

To many other varying factors to say whether 10 over or 10 under would be more dangerous. It's not a clear cut black and white thing.

[Silver Ghia]

Originally Posted by jason71

What gets me is roads that used to 100k people did 90,
then they were reduced to 90k zones and people did 80,
then they have been further reduced to 80k and everyone seems to do 70!
Over this period of time the same roads have been improved and cars have been made "safer".

Correct.

However as others have mentioned. sometimes it depends on the road conditions at the time (like rain, wet roads, momentary hazards), where slowing down to below the limit may be appropriate at that instant.

Generally the speed limits around here in Vic are set 10 kph or so too slow, basically for those who dont know how to adjust their speed to the actual conditions and traffic at a particular moment, and just drive at the speed limit regardless.

But I voted for the second option as in the general sense its those driving 10k under the limit regardless in the safest conditions that are the unsafest (for others).

[smoo]

Generally speaking, the people sitting under the speed limit are in a daze, inexperienced, not aware of their surroundings, braking when they don't need to (corners, when a truck is coming the other way), speed up when the road widens etc. These are the dangers on our road, and there are so many of them. And it gives me bad road rage, especially when I try to use cruise control.

[LTDHO]

I have always believed that slower is not safer.

People are scared of the revenue makers!

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by axeray

10k's under the limit on a freeway is more dangerous than doing 10k's over.

Not necessarily.. but one is illegal, the other isnt.
Traffic moving 10k's above the legal limit has the propensity to catch people out when changing lanes...
Slower traffic requires patience to negotiate, faster moving traffic requires unplanned reflex reactions that can lead to an accident.
It still is very dependant on conditions....
Speed "differential" is a problem....

[balthazarr]

Originally Posted by Silver Ghia

Correct.

However as others have mentioned. sometimes it depends on the road conditions at the time (like rain, wet roads, momentary hazards), where slowing down to below the limit may be appropriate at that instant.

Generally the speed limits around here in Vic are set 10 kph or so too slow, basically for those who dont know how to adjust their speed to the actual conditions and traffic at a particular moment, and just drive at the speed limit regardless.

But I voted for the second option as in the general sense its those driving 10k under the limit regardless in the safest conditions that are the unsafest (for others).

You think the limits in Vic are too low... Adelaide has terrible limits. Hardly any above 60, long stretches of main/arterial roads at 50km/h, etc.

[DoreSlamR]

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?

IMHO It creates more situations for an accident occurring.

[blueoval]

I think people need to use common sense and general curtiousy (sp).

Get to the limit if your banking up/obstructing traffic, or pull over if you want to continue at your slower speed and let the cars behind pass.

If your over the limit, well most us know the financial consequences. But at least you aren't obstructing traffic. But also your chances of pulling up in an emergency is decreased. (of course that subject is debatable also)

thats my 2c

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by DoreSlamR

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?

IMHO It creates more situations for an accident occurring.

The situation you've described is managable with patience... it might be frustrating and inconvenient but i don't see it as dangerous. The only thing dangerous about that situation would be you (or someone else) trying to overtake a line of traffic when it wasnt safe to do so...
Im my mind the "overtaker" was the person creating the risk or "danger", not the slower moving traffic...
Single lane roads are notorious for this kind of build up, patience is the key.

[DoreSlamR]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

The situation you've described is managable with patience... it might be frustrating and inconvenient but i don't see it as dangerous. The only thing dangerous about that situation would be you (or someone else) trying to overtake a line of traffic when it wasnt safe to do so...
Im my mind the "overtaker" was the person creating the risk or "danger", not the slower moving traffic...
Single lane roads are notorious for this kind of build up, patience is the key.

Yeah it does create impatience.

People may be doing it more this time of year because of double demerits.
But as a couple of others have said, the whole watch the speedo like a hawk mentality is disturbing.

Is this really the type of driving that should be encouraged? Watch the speedo so you don't speed, because speed kills?

Personally I'd rather be 10kms over with my eyes ahead spotting any obstacles that may occur then have my head down checking the speedo every 5 seconds.

Maybe the solution is mandatory cruise control?

[Gabbs]

It depends on where it is. On highways its very annoying when you have people sitting under the limit especially in the country. I've seen some people overtake in dangerous situations cause they get really inpatient.

[4Vman]

The whole "speedo check is bad" arguement carries no weight IMO.. weather we like it or not we should all know what speed our vehicles are doing, we lived for decades without cruise control, it isnt that hard to keep your foot steady and give the speedo an occasional glance.
The problem here is people see speed limits as "mandatory to travel" at the posted limit, and see anyone who isnt as a menace, the limits are a max limit, not compulsary limit....

[uranium_death]

No simple answer. The question is rather stupid.

Going 10km/h faster on a straight highway may be fine, but that isn't taking into account the weather, your car's tyres, the condition of the road itself, visibility etc.
If it's foggy and raining like hell, I would slow down considerably, more than just 10km/h under the limit.

Going 10km/h slower I do not believe is ever much of a problem, unless you're one of those complete and utter who do it in the right lane, and are not turning right. However, it's annoying as hell when people do it in 50 or 60 zones.

[GasoLane]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

The problem here is people see speed limits as "mandatory to travel" at the posted limit, and see anyone who isnt as a menace, the limits are a max limit, not compulsary limit....

Geez for once I agree with 4Vman (it must be Christmas)

Most people forget that it is a speed LIMIT and anything under it is quite lawfull. Yes its a PITA, especially in my job, but thar aint noting we can do about it.

[noosacuda]

Both depend upon weather,road,vehicle and driver conditions,there for i didn't vote.

[EgoFG]

I have been diligent in adhering to the arbitrary limits is nw Sydney for quite some time. I can instinctively know whether I am going about the speed limit.

I know by the change in the number of 'surprises' while driving that my driving quality has suffered to get there. Not unsafe, but less safe.
But even now, if the road gets better and the speed limit does not change my speed will creep up.

IMHO speed rarely causes accidents, but it does make them worse.
I think the real causes should be isolated, and infringements enforced.
I have taken the time to write a few of these up: http://www.fordforums.com.au/showpos...9&postcount=31

Speed is easy to detect, so that is what they look to see in all accidents.

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by EgoFG

I have been diligent in adhering to the arbitrary limits is nw Sydney for quite some time. I can instinctively know whether I am going about the speed limit.

I know by the change in the number of 'surprises' while driving that my driving quality has suffered to get there. Not unsafe, but less safe.
But even now, if the road gets better and the speed limit does not change my speed will creep up.

IMHO speed rarely causes accidents, but it does make them worse.
I think the real causes should be isolated, and infringements enforced.
I have taken the time to write a few of these up: http://www.fordforums.com.au/showpos...9&postcount=31

Speed is easy to detect, so that is what they look to see in all accidents.

Hmmm.... Statistically "speed above the posted limit" is a contributing factor or common denominator in the vast majority of road deaths on our roads, its a fact.
Speak to ambo's or police who regularly attend fatals, excessive speed is the number 1 factor, second to alcohol...
Excessive speed can kill, without question.
Weather that supports or negates the "speed kills" slogan i really don't care, its splitting hairs....

[EgoFG]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

Hmmm.... Statistically "speed above the posted limit" is a contributing factor

but not the "Single Cause" that it is usually heralded to be.

In fact the collected stats by the police dont actually include part of your sentence.
They sight excessive speed, not speed 'above the posted limit'

Except in the case of loosing control due to excessive speed (and no other catalyst), or traveling at a speed that did not allow another car to give way to you. There are very few occasions where speed will be the sole cause of an accident.

Policing speed is the easy way out, (it raises revenue too) but from all I have read does not seem to be directly correlated to the road toll.

BTW - I am in no way endorsing speeding, just saying that if we want safer roads we need to focus elsewhere as well - dont just take the easy way out.

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by EgoFG

but not the "Single Cause" that it is usually heralded to be.

In fact the collected stats by the police dont actually include part of your sentence.
They sight excessive speed, not speed 'above the posted limit'

Except in the case of loosing control due to excessive speed (and no other catalyst), or traveling at a speed that did not allow another car to give way to you. There are very few occasions where speed will be the sole cause of an accident.

Policing speed is the easy way out, (it raises revenue too) but from all I have read does not seem to be directly correlated to the road toll.

BTW - I am in no way endorsing speeding, just saying that if we want safer roads we need to focus elsewhere as well - dont just take the easy way out.

True, its not the single cause.. but if you look at suburban Fatals involving single cars into road side furniture/shrubbery i bet its pretty close to it.
I also do agree that "excessive speed" is a better term than "speed above the limit" because it allows for the chances of conditions playing a part too.
Maybe the slogan should be "Excessive Speed Kills".?

[EgoFG]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

True, its not the single cause.. but if you look at suburban Fatals involving single cars into road side furniture/shrubbery

I wonder what % of the road toll that represents

Originally Posted by 4Vman

Maybe the slogan should be "Excessive Speed Kills".?

You must know I would prefer "Excessive Speed makes accidents worse"

But even then we are targeting the multiplier - not the cause.

I would love to get other people to add to my ideas mentioned in the above post - it might make a letter to someone somewhere one day.

I would like to identify the policable causes of the majority of road deaths.

[DoreSlamR]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

The whole "speedo check is bad" arguement carries no weight IMO.. weather we like it or not we should all know what speed our vehicles are doing, we lived for decades without cruise control, it isnt that hard to keep your foot steady and give the speedo an occasional glance.
The problem here is people see speed limits as "mandatory to travel" at the posted limit, and see anyone who isnt as a menace, the limits are a max limit, not compulsary limit....

I do agree with you with what you're saying, it's good to get other perspectives.

Here's a question for you:
If a person or their vehicle (meaning C classed car, not towing) are unable to do the posted speed, particularly highway speeds and providing the conditions are suitable, do you think maybe they shouldn't have a license?

I ask because I get the feeling a lot of the people who do stay well under the limit do it because they are not comfortable with traveling faster than a certain speed.

That's probably too an open question, but I hope you get what I mean.

[FordFan86]

Speed doesn't matter, just the skill or lack of that the driver has.

[Laminge]

Another thread ruined!

Ive re opened this thread, lets keep it on topic

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by DoreSlamR

I do agree with you with what you're saying, it's good to get other perspectives.

Here's a question for you:
If a person or their vehicle (meaning C classed car, not towing) are unable to do the posted speed, particularly highway speeds and providing the conditions are suitable, do you think maybe they shouldn't have a license?

I ask because I get the feeling a lot of the people who do stay well under the limit do it because they are not comfortable with traveling faster than a certain speed.

That's probably too an open question, but I hope you get what I mean.

Good question.. from my perspective id rather see someone drive "within their limits" and if that means they don't feel comfortable driving at the posted limit given their assessment of the conditions then i think that's a better option then them being forced to drive faster than they feel comfortable or "safe" doing.
Id hate to see a culture develop where young inexperienced drivers (and the elderly too) felt obligated to drive faster than they felt safe to do... regardless of the posted limit.
I totally understand what a PITA slower moving traffic is on single lane roads though....