Snip
Edit: excuse if I'm coming off like a broken record/a bit nonsensical, at this point i'm more expressing salt than being productive, oops. i just have very strong opinions on this. it's one thing putting yourself in harm's way, that's your choice. it's another to put other's in harm way -- it's just downright selfish. this is coming from somebody who used to drive/ride around unlicensed at night back in the day. i was a grade a+ dickhead, but i've tried to mature
I don't really see the point in your first argument. Just because we can do something doesn't mean we should. I can eat a fucktonne more of food, but I don't, because that'd be causing health issues. I eat a reasonable amount to stay fit -- not become overweight.
The German licensing system is pretty damn strict. Hell, it's $2,000 dollars to get it, and you even need a first aid certificate. Their roads are much better -- they're reinforced heaps for smoother rides and have to undergo regular checkups, as do cars. Like you said, their accident rate is lower, but the percentage of deaths in said accidents are higher. Given all this, I don't think I can make an accurate judgement on the safety of higher speeds (as exhibited on the Autobahn) given there are too many factors at play and, well, I'm obviously not an expert.
I'm pretty sure most people rate themselves as above average drivers. Illusory superiority is a funny thing, huh. I should note that your class is likely almost all learner drivers -- that is, INEXPERIENCED drivers. If you're better than 70% of your class, good for you, but that doesn't mean you're better than 70% of actual drivers.
Maybe you need longer halfway breaks.
Just like any poor habit, maybe you should try stopping that. If you refuse to even try, you can't blame it solely on your family's influence.
Are you talking about the M8 btw? And I don't think it's necessarily about if the road is strong enough to sustain the speeds, more so if your ability is enough to contain that speed 100% of the time (spoiler alert: nope) and if the people around you are strong enough to sustain being hit (spoiler alert: unlikely).
It reflects poorly. Not everything has to be exciting. If you want to speed, go to a speedway.
That... isn't an excuse? Certainly, you've been put in danger from dickheads on their phone, but I've been in danger from people speeding. One doesn't negate the other.
150 hours is a lot for a learner, good on you. That is not a lot for a normal driver. Hell, you'll find most people break well over that in a year just driving to work.
also i'm gonna be THAT dickhead and point you in the direction of the Dunning-Kruger effect
They can stop both. Again, one bad thing doesn't negate the other.
If it's so safe to go faster, why would we have these unnecessarily low speed limits in the first place? Is it revenue raising?
I understand where you are coming from, and I also understand that I sound like a know-it-all teen. Which I am. I like the Dunning-Kruger reference. Only a touch of ad-hominem...
I am arguing solely from the point of an
experienced learner driver. I still believe that it is safe to travel within a 10km\h band of the speed limit.
Just a few points.
About the M8... Being in control all the time. Can you expand why that is not so?
I agree that it is a bad habit, but I don't think that it's worth stopping? I can't really explain it. That's probably why I am so vocal on this topic. I actually do want to be safe, but I really don't see the point in driving slower. As said earlier... I consider it safe to drive within a 10km\h speed band.
Yes, I do want speed, and no, speedway is not an actual realistic answer (for me). I agree that it is selfish to put everyone else in the car at risk, but when I actually wind it out (like 160+) I always go for a drive for that specific purpose. There is a road that is hardly travelled, incredibly straight, and I always let the supervisor know what I am doing. Is this selfish, to make a public but unused road my free speedway for a few minutes?
And yeah, that kinda was an excuse. I will deign to accept that
excessive speeding is also an issue, but I think that the greater risk for the public should influence the greater action towards public safety. Hence, someone travelling at 110 while texting is just as dangerous as someone weaving in and out of traffic at 150. Someone sitting mainly in one lane, with cruise set at 119 I would consider safer than both.
Why is it so low? I am not a conspiracy theorist, but the idea that the government make money off it is not that far fetched. Shitty restrictions to take the test, bad roads, frustratingly low speed limits. You get drivers that should not be on the road combined with hoons, and it's a bad mix that is gonna provide revenue in 1 of 3 ways... Fines, Crashes, or Burial fees.
But seriously, is 10 kmh more such a danger?
____________________________________________________
@Vox... I referenced Germany not because of the infrastructure or speed limit similarities (which are non-existent), but for the great example they provide in driver training. Before you can even look at driving a car you must know how to control it in any situation that may arise.
So @Lear, that is what I am arguing for. We won't get legislation passed to increase speed limits if we don't already have safer drivers. By making the license harder to get, you encourage safer, confident drivers, while simultaneously decreasing the carbon emissions because there are all those bad drivers that can't get their license and are using public transport.
@Turin...
I do agree. I have had some close calls, but only when nature stepped in with torrential rain. I like your idea... Make way for other's mistakes.
Speed differentials
is the major issue, and has been somewhat recurring throughout this thread. But in the larger picture, is an extra 1.6 metres per second really gonna impact you when most things are already happening at 30m\s?
Agreed, at lower speeds this is more critical, and there is a cool TAC add showing the difference between 60kmh and 65kmh in an emergency braking situation, but this difference negates itself at higher speeds. The ratio of 60-70 is marginally higher than the ratio of 110-120, and this continues as you go to higher speeds.
Your point number three is actually very interesting. From what I have heard, 80kmh is actually the most fuel efficient speed, but it would be unthinkable to travel long distances at such a stupidly slow speed.