Post by: dermite on July 18, 2018, 01:42:39 pm
People that drive in the right line who are L platers and people who drive too slow.
Like god damn it 10km under the limit on a sunny day.
( yes I know speeding is bad, but so is being a slowpoke as you block the traffic)
when i was on my Ls i always drove in the right lane, 10km ABOVE the speed limit cus i was told that speedos are deliberately inaccurate and display a faster speed to keep you from speeding.
#i_didnt_choose_the_thug_life,_the_thug_life_chose_me
Mod edit: Topic has been split from 'Things That Shit Me'. --Calebark
Post by: S200 on July 18, 2018, 04:01:10 pm
And also that the Cop's (except cameras) don't bother ya if you're less than 10kmh over the limit.
when i was on my Ls i always drove in the right lane, 10km ABOVE the speed limit cus i was told that speedos are deliberately inaccurate and display a faster speed to keep you from speeding.
#i_didnt_choose_the_thug_life,_the_thug_life_chose_me
I am still on L's, and I do this... :)
Post by: Calebark on July 18, 2018, 04:07:00 pm
Post by: Joseph41 on July 18, 2018, 04:11:05 pm
I feel like you're missing the point here. The speed limit isn't some pointless rule to stop you having fun on the road. It's especially important when you're on your L's, because you have little driving experience/skill and probably overestimate your ability (being young and all -- we all do it), which is a pretty dangerous combination. Not just for you, but for others on the road, and I don't think anyone has a right to put others in danger just because they don't like driving slow.
100% my sentiment. Driving is a privilege - not a right.
Post by: Sine on July 18, 2018, 04:21:13 pm
when i was on my Ls i always drove in the right lane, 10km ABOVE the speed limit cus i was told that speedos are deliberately inaccurate and display a faster speed to keep you from speeding.
#i_didnt_choose_the_thug_life,_the_thug_life_chose_me
And also that the Cop's (except cameras) don't bother ya if you're less than 10kmh over the limit.y tho? I don't think speeding is something to be proud of, you are not only putting yourself at risk but most importantly others who are safely following all the road rules. Also not sure what supervisor driver would allow the L plater to knowingly speed.
I am still on L's, and I do this... :)
Just because you know you won't get caught doesn't make something ok.
I think the vast majority of road users are happy with Learners going a tad slowly because they are still learning and for all you know it could literally be the first time they are driving a car.
If you have a 100km journey and you go 100km/h it takes you 1 hr
If you go 110km/h it takes you 55 mins.
Post by: Lear on July 18, 2018, 04:42:38 pm
Post by: Joseph41 on July 18, 2018, 04:45:16 pm
On the point of speed limits, there’s a view that speed limits should be increased as we have progressed past driving in metal boxes with no safety features. The current speed laws were likely made for those type of cars and can be argued to be out of date. I believe that at least on major freeways that go interstate the speed limit should be increased to 130-150.
That's a different topic entirely, though. Maybe it's worth a thread in the rants and debates board, haha.
Post by: K888 on July 18, 2018, 05:17:24 pm
On the point of speed limits, there’s a view that speed limits should be increased as we have progressed past driving in metal boxes with no safety features. The current speed laws were likely made for those type of cars and can be argued to be out of date. I believe that at least on major freeways that go interstate the speed limit should be increased to 130-150.I've read that speed limits hit their max at 110 here because past that speed any accident that occurs is usually not survivable (believe that this was in an RACV magazine or on the conversation...will try to find it) - doctors and surgeons particularly are big advocates for not having unrestricted speed limits due to the impact on fatalities. Imagine the extra trauma that happens if you're travelling at 140km/h and you're hit by someone else also going 140km/h. Airbags and safety features don't make you invincible.
Post by: S200 on July 18, 2018, 06:04:43 pm
I've read that speed limits hit their max at 110 here because past that speed any accident that occurs is usually not survivable (believe that this was in an RACV magazine or on the conversation...will try to find it) - doctors and surgeons particularly are big advocates for not having unrestricted speed limits due to the impact on fatalities. Imagine the extra trauma that happens if you're travelling at 140km/h and you're hit by someone else also going 140km/h. Airbags and safety features don't make you invincible.Well, with higher speed limits should come greater training for the Drivers.
We had a few family friends over from Germany this time last year, and they literally would not drive on our roads when they learnt that all we had to do to get a licence was to sit in front of a computer...
I feel like you're missing the point here. The speed limit isn't some pointless rule to stop you having fun on the road. It's especially important when you're on your L's, because you have little driving experience/skill and probably overestimate your ability (being young and all -- we all do it), which is a pretty dangerous combination. Not just for you, but for others on the road, and I don't think anyone has a right to put others in danger just because they don't like driving slow.Well, yeah, but the speed limit is actually incredibly slow. and when you are driving for long periods a touch extra speed does make a difference, both in travel time and concentration. The risk of being caught helps my concentration, as I focus more on the road ahead and less on what's happening in the car.
Whilst that's said, my family does have a tendency to drive faster than most, mainly because we are horrible at punctuality. With practice at it, and having grown up always travelling faster than the speed limit, it becomes incredibly easy to just drive to the limits of your skill rather than the limits imposed by signs. Obviously, under changed conditions like heavy rain, I slow down, but unless I am on a very unfamiliar roads (unusual experience), I will normally just do what I'm used to.
It helps to keep the drive exciting...
And in reality, being on your phone, or driving under foreign influence are FAR more dangerous to other drivers than speeding is.
Post by: Calebark on July 18, 2018, 06:23:22 pm
Quote
Well, yeah, but the speed limit is actually incredibly slow. and when you are driving for long periods a touch extra speed does make a difference, both in travel time and concentration. The risk of being caught helps my concentration, as I focus more on the road ahead and less on what's happening in the car.Incredibly slow? Well yeah, compared to the speed of a plane. Compared to the safe speed required for somebody to not have their organs turned into paste? No.
If you need risk to make you concentrate, then your driving skill is poor, and this is even more reason for you to slow down. Most people don't need this in order to drive safe.
Quote
Whilst that's said, my family does have a tendency to drive faster than most, mainly because we are horrible at punctuality. With practice at it, and having grown up always travelling faster than the speed limit, it becomes incredibly easy to just drive to the limits of your skill rather than the limits imposed by signs. Obviously, under changed conditions like heavy rain, I slow down, but unless I am on a very unfamiliar roads (unusual experience), I will normally just do what I'm used to.
Then you can leave earlier rather than speeding. Hell, all my family speed, and growing up I always went faster than the speed limit. This doesn't make it right -- it just makes it normalised. I think you've got a bit of selection bias going on here. Sure, your family and yourself have managed to break the law without hurting someone, but many people haven't.
Quote
It helps to keep the drive exciting...
And in reality, being on your phone, or driving under foreign influence are FAR more dangerous to other drivers than speeding is.
I'd think driving a few-tonne mass of metal powered by miniature explosions is exciting enough. If not, I don't think you're mature enough to be driving -- again, it's putting others at risk.
That doesn't make speeding okay. Snorting meth and injecting heroin are worse than taking pingers, but this doesn't make taking pingers okay. These aren't affected by each other -- they're dangerous in their own right.
Post by: napkin101 on July 18, 2018, 06:45:30 pm
Then you can leave earlier rather than speeding.Well said. Seriously, you're hardly gonna save any time at all by speeding. On a 25 min drive, you're gonna save 3-4 minutes MAX by speeding here and there, and I'm pretty sure that a life is much more valuable than cutting down a 25 min drive by 3-4 minutes.
That doesn't make speeding okay. Snorting meth and injecting heroin are worse than taking pingers, but this doesn't make taking pingers okay. These aren't affected by each other -- they're dangerous in their own right.Calebark is right, they're dangerous in their own right. Just because speeding may be 'less dangerous' than the other stuff you mentioned, it doesn't take away from the fact that it can still take lives, and it takes thousands every year. I don't think saying that it's 'less dangerous' than other stuff is a good excuse for driving faster than you should, and not getting caught doesn't make it right either.
Post by: EEEEEEP on July 18, 2018, 07:00:58 pm
If it's a highway or country road , where there won't be much pedestrians, I am a fan of what they do on German highways (which is no speed limits). So no, to speed limits on highways.
If anyone has ever been to route 66 or the German Autobahn, it is VERY safe with common sense driving =). Germany has one of the lowest car deaths per 1 million km.
I honestly think that speeding limits don't go far enough. They should also implement minimum speeds too of some kind (e.g. you must do a minimum speed of 15 below the set speed limit)I'm glad you bought that point up!
If people drive too slow, there will be more bottle necks, causing more car build ups and more car accidents!
Post by: Aaron on July 18, 2018, 07:06:51 pm
I have started a new job and driving on a road when somebody is doing 40 infront of you in a 70 zone really imo is dangerous as well.
Eh, you can't win either way but I definitely am starting to feel the irritation of slow drivers. Most of the time forcing me to overtake.
Most speed limits are reasonable and set for good reason (e.g. school zone = 40, built-up area = 50). Once you have driven on your own for a while, you can start to see that speeding and extremely unreasonable slow speed both contribute to road accidents. Speeding more so than the slow driving. Don't speed - if you don't know how to do a reasonable speed on a road, please get off it and don't put yourself and other road users at risk due to your stupidity and selfishness.
Also think all drivers should be tested either in a car or a digital road rule test every 5 years (or upon license renewal), regardless of whether they are 21 or 81 to ensure they have an understanding of road rules, speed signs, etc.... but that's a different discussion :) Driving on dangerous roads for the past few years has definitely opened my eyes.
Post by: S200 on July 18, 2018, 07:11:44 pm
Incredibly slow? Well yeah, compared to the speed of a plane. Compared to the safe speed required for somebody to not have their organs turned into paste? No.Well, two completely different vehicles, but yes, when you compare them it seems small. But just look at what cars CAN actually do. We are literally travelling at a quarter of the speed that we could be travelling. Although I don't suggest that everyone could travel at over 450 Km h, I seriously believe that we should be travelling faster. Clearly some training would be required. Compare the number of accidents in Australia with the number of accidents in Germany. Because of their higher training, they have just a percentage of our crashes. Regrettably, they do have a higher chance of death if they crash, but this is a major driver in automotive design and manufacturing. Germany is still safer than us though. Germany has 4.3 deaths per 100000 people in 2014 compared with Australia's 5.6.
Quote
If you need risk to make you concentrate, then your driving skill is poor, and this is even more reason for you to slow down. Most people don't need this in order to drive safe.Well, at risk of bragging, I actually believe that I drive better than 70% of others. This is only my opinion, and based off a small survey of my class. Again, though this may just be a learner driver talking, and "probably overestimat[ing]
But the only reason that I said that concentration thing is that my average driving time would be well over an hour. I routinely do trips to to rural areas like Swan Hill, and with only short halfway breaks. Thus, I am continually driving with a smidgen of fatigue, which is eliminated by this risk-taking strategy.
Quote
Then you can leave earlier rather than speeding. Hell, all my family speed, and growing up I always went faster than the speed limit. This doesn't make it right -- it just makes it normalised. I think you've got a bit of selection bias going on here. Sure, your family and yourself have managed to break the law without hurting someone, but many people haven't.This I do agree with, and I am always trying to leave earlier. But as you said, it's "normalized" now, and it's like a heroin habit.... It's not something you can just stop.
Seriously, you're hardly gonna save any time at all by speeding. On a 25 min drive, you're gonna save 3-4 minutes MAX by speeding here and there, and I'm pretty sure that a life is much more valuable than cutting down a 25 min drive by 3-4 minutes.You would actually be surprised how much time you can make up... Particularly on longer trips. I agree though, that it is limited on shorter trips. And of course, I can't morally argue with the bolded part, so I agree there. But I still think that a safe speed is a speed that the driver is routinely comfortable with, and that is safe for the road. For instance, from Bacchus Marsh to Ballarat, you don't need to slow down below 160 anywhere. That is fact. The road is safe enough to keep that speed continuously.
Quote
I'd think driving a few-tonne mass of metal powered by miniature explosions is exciting enough. If not, I don't think you're mature enough to be driving -- again, it's putting others at risk.
Well, I personally don't find it exciting to be running on explosions. I personally like electric cars. So yeah, not sure how that reflects on my maturity...
Quote
Well, yes, but I from my personal experience, I've been put in more danger from others on their phones than I have from my speeding.It helps to keep the drive exciting...Snorting meth and injecting heroin are worse than taking pingers, but this doesn't make taking pingers okay. These aren't affected by each other -- they're dangerous in their own right.
And in reality, being on your phone, or driving under foreign influence are FAR more dangerous to other drivers than speeding is.
On busy roads like places near schools and city centres, yes.100% agree with this comment. And slow drivers are extremely dangerous. I agree with Aaron that minimum speeds should also exist.
If it's a highway or country road , where there won't be much pedestrians, I am a fan of what they do on German highways (which is no speed limits). So no, to speed limits on highways.
If anyone has ever been to route 66 or the German Autobahn, it is VERY safe with common sense driving =). Germany has one of the lowest car deaths per 1 million km.
I'm glad you bought that point up!
If people drive too slow, there will be more bottle necks, causing more car build ups and more car accidents!
And just a disclaimer.. I pay minute attention to the speed limit in town and in school-zones etc.
On highways and freeways though, it's open season.
Post by: Aaron on July 18, 2018, 07:15:46 pm
Quote
On highways and freeways though, it's open season.Don't agree, sorry.
If anything, you are potentially putting yourself in harms way. If you're doing say 150 and you lose control of your car, even for a second.... your car will end up being a write-off and you and passengers in a fatal/critical condition. It is not difficult to lose control of a car. And tbh if you disagree with this... I would challenge you to come back and support your own views again after you've had a few years of solo driving experience.
If you're on your own and want to do that... sure. If you have passengers in your car and want to do that still, then that's just absolutely selfish.
I've been driving solo for nearly 6 years now and I still can't look away for more than a second without starting to steer off the road. I can refocus as I'm usually only doing 50-60 in most cases... can't imagine having that opportunity if it was higher.
What freeways/highways do you drive on? I used to drive from Melbs to Geelong regularly and that's probs got moderate traffic? Wouldn't imagine doing any more than the speed limit on that. Putting yourself and others at risk, again.
Post by: S200 on July 18, 2018, 07:19:55 pm
Don't agree, sorry.I agree, and by open season, I was referring to my first comment, to drive at 10kmh over the speed limit.
If anything, you are potentially putting yourself in harms way. If you're doing say 150 and you lose control of your car, even for a second.... your car will end up being a write-off and you and passengers in a fatal/critical condition. It is not difficult to lose control of a car. And tbh if you disagree with this... I would challenge you to come back and support your own views again after you've had a few years of solo driving experience.
If you're on your own and want to do that... sure. If you have passengers in your car and want to do that still, then that's just absolutely selfish.
But, for reference, I have only been driving just over a year and have driven for more than 150 hours. I consider myself quite experienced.
I do believe that I will develope further thoughts on this as I move to solo driving though...
Edit:
I am not saying that I have not traveled at 150kmh. I am saying that I find it funner to travel at 121 than 109. To go back to OP, the speedo is invariably out by at least 3 kmh, and the police radar have a tolerance of ~2-3 kmh. To get back to my OP, it isn;t worth the Cop's time to stop you for what is only a 1 demerit and $150 fine, when they cn go on and stop the guy doing >25 kmh over and actually make people safer on the road.
Post by: Yertle the Turtle on July 18, 2018, 07:33:28 pm
Post by: S200 on July 18, 2018, 07:39:47 pm
As far as I can see, those who need a speed limit the most are those who consistently break them. However, I believe that it is a good thing to have a speed limit at least as an indicator of a good speed. However, having the speed limit in place, it must be more strongly enforced, so that we get the dangerous people off the road. On the whole, I think that having them in place is good, but they must be enforced if they are to remain.I agree in part. Speed limits are necessary for built up and high-risk areas, but in general travel, with decent roads and decent driver training I think they are unnecessary. The thing I like most about speed signs are the yellow ones that suggest safe speeds for upcoming corners. They are what I actually base most of my driving off...
Post by: Calebark on July 18, 2018, 08:00:07 pm
Quote
Well, two completely different vehicles, but yes, when you compare them it seems small. But just look at what cars CAN actually do. We are literally travelling at a quarter of the speed that we could be travelling. Although I don't suggest that everyone could travel at over 450 Km h, I seriously believe that we should be travelling faster. Clearly some training would be required. Compare the number of accidents in Australia with the number of accidents in Germany. Because of their higher training, they have just a percentage of our crashes. Regrettably, they do have a higher chance of death if they crash, but this is a major driver in automotive design and manufacturing. Germany is still safer than us though. Germany has 4.3 deaths per 100000 people in 2014 compared with Australia's 5.6.
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.
Quote
Well, at risk of bragging, I actually believe that I drive better than 70% of others. This is only my opinion, and based off a small survey of my class. Again, though this may just be a learner driver talking, and "probably overestimat[ing]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.yourmy ability (being young and all)...".
Quote
But the only reason that I said that concentration thing is that my average driving time would be well over an hour. I routinely do trips to to rural areas like Swan Hill, and with only short halfway breaks. Thus, I am continually driving with a smidgen of fatigue, which is eliminated by this risk-taking strategy.
Maybe you need longer halfway breaks.
Quote
This I do agree with, and I am always trying to leave earlier. But as you said, it's "normalized" now, and it's like a heroin habit.... It's not something you can just stop.
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.
Quote
For instance, from Bacchus Marsh to Ballarat, you don't need to slow down below 160 anywhere. That is fact. The road is safe enough to keep that speed continuously. [
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).
Quote
Well, I personally don't find it exciting to be running on explosions. I personally like electric cars. So yeah, not sure how that reflects on my maturity...
It reflects poorly. Not everything has to be exciting. If you want to speed, go to a speedway.
Quote
Well, yes, but I from my personal experience, I've been put in more danger from others on their phones than I have from my speeding.
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.
Quote
But, for reference, I have only been driving just over a year and have driven for more than 150 hours. I consider myself quite experienced.
I do believe that I will develope further thoughts on this as I move to solo driving though...
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
Quote
o get back to my OP, it isn;t worth the Cop's time to stop you for what is only a 1 demerit and $150 fine, when they cn go on and stop the guy doing >25 kmh over and actually make people safer on the road.
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?
Post by: vox nihili on July 18, 2018, 08:29:25 pm
Germany is a small country, with really good infrastructure. Which makes sense really because they simply don't need as many highways. Whereas Australian highways are shiiiit.
Post by: Lear on July 18, 2018, 09:22:35 pm
Just putting it out there that the Germany-Australia equivalencies are bullshit.
Germany is a small country, with really good infrastructure. Which makes sense really because they simply don't need as many highways. Whereas Australian highways are shiiiit.
I’ve also heard that in general getting a licence in Germany also requires a much higher standard of ability. Definitely not comparable.
Post by: turinturambar on July 18, 2018, 11:02:10 pm
1. I used to think I was a better-than-average driver because I hadn't had any crashes and felt safe. Then I realised I'd had quite a few times when I'd made mistakes and got away with them. Change a few things and it could have got very ugly. You can get away with a lot of things you don't really deserve to - that doesn't necessarily make you a better driver. But this might appeal to you: Now I drive more conservatively to help me recover when I make mistakes - but also to give some margin for error when others around me inevitably make mistakes.
2. My experience is that large speed differentials are more of a problem than absolute speeds - doesn't matter if you are a long way under the speed limit or a long way below. Sometimes I just follow the traffic ahead and find myself 5 or 10 km/h over, and don't particularly mind because it's matching the traffic and I assume the speed limit is somewhat arbitrary. After all, having your eyes glued to the speedo to meet an arbitrary speed limit can be more dangerous than going with the flow and concentrating on the traffic (now if I had cruise control it might be a different matter...).
But if the road has a decent amount of traffic and you're weaving in and out to go faster than everyone else I really wouldn't recommend it.
(it also feels unsafe if you're the only one sticking to a 40 km/h speed limit - but I still do it...)
3. Once you get up to top gear faster speeds are usually less fuel efficient. If the speed limit were 130 or 150 I would probably follow it (I definitely go at 110), but is the increase in speed really worth the increased energy usage?
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 don't think it's revenue raising, just that it's easier to move it down than up. If there are accidents, it's easy to feel like you've "fixed" it by reducing the speed limits or adding a traffic light or restricting the green turn arrow. But it's much harder to go the other way.
Post by: S200 on July 18, 2018, 11:54:14 pm
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... ;)SnipEdit: 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 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.
Post by: turinturambar on July 19, 2018, 12:23:17 am
Post by: Lear on July 19, 2018, 07:41:35 am
Post by: Poet on July 19, 2018, 01:11:13 pm
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?
To tack onto the end of this thing (I know most of this was argued last night, but hear me out) I have personal experience with the consequences of speeding, and so, after a bit of research, I want to show you what 10km can do to your car's breaking distance:
(https://www.allianz.com.au/aalaus/aalaus.nsf/docs/A4A10278E75007A9CA257F17000F71BD/$file/stopping-distances-01-420x280.jpg)
This is from Allianz Insurance's website, and you can find these graphs with other sites including RACV, various government initiatives and even the police. Stopping takes time and force. If you're into physics, you'll know about momentum. Do the math. This isn't just about you and how fast you think is convenient. This is about your safety and the safety of other drivers.
I had a friend (on her L's) driving on the freeway. She hit a piece of debris and rolled her car, on the speed limit. The car was totalled. She almost broke her neck. 10km more and the doctors say she would have been severely injured, or dead.
My mother's best friend was killed by a driver going 15km over the speed limit. He could have stopped in time if he'd been going the speed limit, and now she's gone.
Don't ever assume that these situations wouldn't apply to your case if you were driving, because they would. That is the reality. Arguing about the theory of speeds isn't going to change the risks involved if you do speed. And on that subject, "hooning" involves speeding. So if you're considering the risks of "hoons" on the roads and people who should not be driving, remember to put yourself in there, too. There are always bad drivers - you just have to do your best to stay out of that category, and that means obeying the most basic road rules.
This is not a personal attack, this is fact. Consider the condition of your car, the weather, the road surface, your concentration level and reaction time, as well as the force you apply to the brakes from that speed. From 100 to 110, there is an ideal breaking distance difference of 23 meters. And that could be the deciding factor between life and death.
So, please consider what you're arguing very carefully. Driving is not a game.
Post by: Joseph41 on July 19, 2018, 01:17:52 pm
Is this selfish, to make a public but unused road my free speedway for a few minutes?
Sure is.
Post by: EEEEEEP on July 19, 2018, 01:56:03 pm
Post by: Sine on July 19, 2018, 02:19:22 pm
Re highways, in some Countries there are fast and slow lanes, so some lanes are already dedicated “speed ways”. That would mean they designed for it and it sn’t selfish, the system allows for it.Pretty sure this isn't what the user was referring to :/
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... ;)Now I'm thinking they should have tests if someone wants to be a supervisor driver or at least a psychic evaluation. Since I don't blame you (since you are still a very inexperienced learner driver) as much as I would the supervisor driver who is making you think it's ok to do this sort of things.
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.
Idk why you keep on bringing up texting whilst driving just because someone else does something wrong doesn't make the thing you doing ok. You shouldn't be doing either one of those things.
Post by: Calebark on July 19, 2018, 02:27:22 pm
Quote
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.
Experienced full driver >>> experienced learner driver. That's a few years of difference, and probably well over 1,000 hours. They're the ones making the rules -- they're the learned ones.
Quote
About the M8... Being in control all the time. Can you expand why that is not so?I'm... not really understanding this. You said it's a fact that you can speed all the way there and that the road can remain safe. Maybe the road can, but not the people. There are still other people on the roads. I'd think the fact that any accident has occured there as a result of speeding would show otherwise.
Quote
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.That sounds a bit contradictory. If you don't think it's worth stopping, then it's not a bad habit.
Quote
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?Why is speedway not a realistic answer? You need to accomodate your interests, you can't expect the world to do it for you. The alternative is to just not speed. And yes, it is selfish of you, and it is selfish of your supervisory (lol) driver. I really don't think I can express myself any other way.
Quote
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.I'm rreeaalllllyyy not getting you here. Public safety can be aimed at all types of silly behaviour. We don't have to pick one to focus on for public safety at the expensve of another.
Quote
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.I don't think it's overly far-fetched. However, given those three factors, there is only one that is in our IMMEDIATE control, and that is the actual speeding. Even if you think your driving skill is top-notch and won't cause an accident, the shitty restrictions to take the test and the bad roads still affect the other drivers around you, who could be a danger to yourself -- a danger that you're only exacerbating.
But seriously, is 10 kmh more such a danger?
I'll leave that last point to secretly_a_poet, she made a good post about it.
Re highways, in some Countries there are fast and slow lanes, so some lanes are already dedicated “speed ways”. That would mean they designed for it and it sn’t selfish, the system allows for it.
We are not one of those countries. It is selfish here.
Post by: sweetiepi on July 19, 2018, 02:30:52 pm
Re highways, in some Countries there are fast and slow lanes, so some lanes are already dedicated “speed ways”. That would mean they designed for it and it sn’t selfish, the system allows for it.We get that you personally like to speed, but this isn't Europe, and speeding is considered selfish here. :)
Post by: S200 on July 19, 2018, 03:56:12 pm
We get that you personally like to speed, but this isn't Europe, and speeding is considered selfish here. :)
I guess that kinda wraps it up then... :'(
The alternative is to just not speed.
...
We are not one of those countries. It is selfish here.
So how does anyone see self-driving cars affecting speed limits (or travel generally) in the next 5 - 10 years?Interestingly, we had a debate about this through school the other day...
I personally agree with Lear. They aren't a feasible reality within the next decade, just because of the sheer volume of cars currently on our roads.
Post by: keltingmeith on July 19, 2018, 04:01:45 pm
They aren't a feasible reality within the next decade, just because of the sheer volume of cars currently on our roads.
I mean, I don't think volume has anything to do with it? If anything, the addition of self-driving cars that can communicate with each other would allow for MORE cars to hit the roads. You wouldn't have start-stop traffic - the car in front of you would tell your car it's moving, so your car will know that it can move. The problem with a large body of cars at the moment is that we can't do that, and so rely on what we see (not what the other drivers are thinking) to make our decisions.
I do, however, believe that self-driving cars would lead to speed limits staying the same. Partly because I believe you will still be required to know how to drive in the case of your car malfunctioning and the AI not being trustworthy to drive, but also because a lot of speed limits are based on what speed a vehicle can safely move at, not what its driver can control and respond to (eg, turn a corner too fast, you will tip - it doesn't matter how good of a driver you are. It's just physics)
Post by: S200 on July 19, 2018, 04:13:35 pm
I mean, I don't think volume has anything to do with it? If anything, the addition of self-driving cars that can communicate with each other would allow for MORE cars to hit the roads. You wouldn't have start-stop traffic - the car in front of you would tell your car it's moving, so your car will know that it can move. The problem with a large body of cars at the moment is that we can't do that, and so rely on what we see (not what the other drivers are thinking) to make our decisions.By volume, I meant that we probably would not be able to replace every car on the road with Electric cars, just because of how many there are, and obviously travel distances etc.
Quote
I do, however, believe that self-driving cars would lead to speed limits staying the same. Partly because I believe you will still be required to know how to drive in the case of your car malfunctioning and the AI not being trustworthy to drive, but also because a lot of speed limits are based on what speed a vehicle can safely move at, not what its driver can control and respond to (eg, turn a corner too fast, you will tip - it doesn't matter how good of a driver you are. It's just physics)Although there is still a limit to the actual physical possibilities, driver skill is an inherent factor in how confident people are to take corners faster. If you know the correct way to do trail-braking, you can increase the weight-load over the front wheels, and hence increase to possible friction and centripetal force produced by the wheels.
Post by: turinturambar on July 19, 2018, 11:26:46 pm
I honestly don’t even think self driving cars will make up a majority of the cars on the road for at least 15 years.
Majority? Yes, I probably agree. Unless it becomes a serious safety issue and humans are banned from driving full-stop (it has been suggested). I was just trying to keep it within a manageable time-frame.
Interestingly, we had a debate about this through school the other day...
I personally agree with Lear. They aren't a feasible reality within the next decade, just because of the sheer volume of cars currently on our roads.
Automatic cars are interoperating with human drivers right now in some parts of the world.
By volume, I meant that we probably would not be able to replace every car on the road with Electric cars, just because of how many there are, and obviously travel distances etc.
I'm not sure why self-driving cars have to be electric? But I agree that complete replacement of every car on the road is a difficult endeavour, no matter how good the technology is.
I mean, I don't think volume has anything to do with it? If anything, the addition of self-driving cars that can communicate with each other would allow for MORE cars to hit the roads. You wouldn't have start-stop traffic - the car in front of you would tell your car it's moving, so your car will know that it can move. The problem with a large body of cars at the moment is that we can't do that, and so rely on what we see (not what the other drivers are thinking) to make our decisions.
But surely that is only possible if every single car on the road is driven by computers? It's not easy to do big bang changes like that.
Theroetically, this would be great. Way more efficient traffic. But it's also a massive risk - what about if a rogue car sends bad directions to other cars? Or what if the network drops out, or is deliberately jammed? Current self-driving car technology is based on interoperating with humans without trusting them - but that also allows it to interoperate with other self-driving cars without having to trust them.
Quote
I do, however, believe that self-driving cars would lead to speed limits staying the same. Partly because I believe you will still be required to know how to drive in the case of your car malfunctioning and the AI not being trustworthy to drive, but also because a lot of speed limits are based on what speed a vehicle can safely move at, not what its driver can control and respond to (eg, turn a corner too fast, you will tip - it doesn't matter how good of a driver you are. It's just physics)
If you always see a need for humans to be driving, then I'm not sure you can have the nice efficient platoons. It's also potentially a lot of extra hardware in the car that is theoretically there for a human to talk to the computer, but is never actually used. And when the time comes to use it you find it failed six months ago and you never noticed.
I hope you're not suggesting that humans will still be sitting in the driving seat ready to take over when the computer mysteriously fails five hours into a journey. Because we know that doesn't work - it's a questionable strategy even in the Tesla semi-automatic modes...
Post by: Lear on July 20, 2018, 07:37:43 am
I don’t see why many would want to still have an actual vehicle when autonomous vehicles are common. Have thousands of these communal cars in city areas efficiently moving around people.
Post by: S200 on July 20, 2018, 07:55:23 am
One of the things I’ve looked very very favourable on is a sort of ride sharing vehicle that is autonomous. A sort of big cart that you simply enter from your house or whatever and travel to your destination with others. Like a tram but on the road and self driving if you will. This could be very efficient in city areas.We could have a "computer lane" and a "human lane" that would enable those who still wanted to drive themselves to do so without interfering with the autonomous cars.
I don’t see why many would want to still have an actual vehicle when autonomous vehicles are common. Have thousands of these communal cars in city areas efficiently moving around people.
Post by: Lear on July 20, 2018, 08:04:03 am
We could have a "computer lane" and a "human lane" that would enable those who still wanted to drive themselves to do so without interfering with the autonomous cars.
This is likely what will happen in the inbetween stage, but I honestly envisage a future that eliminates the human element to travel.
Post by: Bri MT on July 20, 2018, 10:28:09 am
I don’t see why many would want to still have an actual vehicle when autonomous vehicles are common. Have thousands of these communal cars in city areas efficiently moving around people.
People who go camping, 4wd etc are very likely to want their own cars and for them to be under their control.
I also think that despite the fact that the setup you are describing could be very efficient there are certainly people who would prefer to be in control and independent for the sake of it. I imagine there would also be significant variation depending on the population density in the cities/towns etc. drivers are residing and working in
Post by: vox nihili on July 20, 2018, 10:57:08 am
I know that's really annoying but it just helps other people navigate the forum more easily and find things they want to discuss!
Post by: Yertle the Turtle on July 20, 2018, 11:06:26 am
Just a reminder to keep the discussion on topic, otherwise we can split a new thread if you want to continue to talk about autonomous vehicles.Done!
I know that's really annoying but it just helps other people navigate the forum more easily and find things they want to discuss!