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

[DoreSlamR]

I've been noticing lately that a lot of people seem to sit about 10kms under the speed limit. I guess it could be a result of the advertising telling us that speed kills.

But is it really safer?

It tends to bank traffic up, particularly in areas where overtaking is scarce.
More drivers become impatient, making them do erratic things.

So I thought I would throw it out to the wider (and more knowledgeable) community.

So, what do you believe is more dangerous and why?


Cheers

[homegrown]

well it can't be more dangerous. the speed limit is there for a reason, but on one hand driving 10 kays under will have alot more people risking overtaking moves which is alot of risk in some cases, especially if the car your overtaking starts speeding up to the speed limit. plus going that extra bit slower on a really long trip could mean your on the road for an extra hour than your supposed to be causing driver fatigue.

[balthazarr]

Neither. It's the obsessing over the speedo that's the problem. (IMHO, of course.)

Whether you're consistently -10 or +10 doesn't matter - it's the fact that more and more drivers seems to be paying more attention to their speedo than what's going on around them (either that, or driving instructors have really, really dropped the ball).

To appease the speed kills crowd, and deflect some of the flames... of course, if you're doing 10 km/h less than the speed limit whilst obsessing over your speedo, when you hit something, it'll be softer than if you were doing +10. Exponential braking distance and all that...

[Nostalgia]

I didn't vote as neither are correct.

The safest speed for human's is walking pace.

We are not designed for any G-Force beyond that.

Sorry for being off-topic but that's the fact.

Adam.

[homegrown]

Originally Posted by Nostalgia

I didn't vote as neither are correct.

The safest speed for human's is walking pace.

what about when you run. is that speeding.

[DoreSlamR]

Originally Posted by Nostalgia

I didn't vote as neither are correct.

The safest speed for human's is walking pace.

We are not designed for any G-Force beyond that.

Sorry for being off-topic but that's the fact.

Adam.

I did think about putting up a 'both' or neither' option but I decided against it because both, in some way could be dangerous.

I'm really after one or the other, if it's neither for whatever reason, such as yours, it won't come up in the poll. :

[fiery]

Originally Posted by Nostalgia

I didn't vote as neither are correct.

The safest speed for human's is walking pace.

We are not designed for any G-Force beyond that.

Sorry for being off-topic but that's the fact.

Adam.

Well walking pace might be the safest speed but not always the safest speed for those that are walking whilst others are driving... far too many walking seem to get run over and not always by a speeding driver.

I couldn't vote as personally I think if you are 10klms under the posted speed limit then you are quite possibly causing traffic bank up (I know 10ks doesn't seem a lot, but it can equate to quite a bit further and further back down the line of traffic) and it can also cause others to be stupid drivers, but then again, they were most likely stupid just waiting to happen.

Now, 10klms over is not safe as we are always being told that even 1klm over is deadly. Personally I think depending on where the 10klms over is occurring determines just how deadly it would be.
Like in a school zone of 40, doing 50 could be the difference of spotting that kid about to run across the road because his parents haven't taught him that big metal things hitting you will actually hurt, or worse - kill you.
Whereas, on a highway that is good quality road (yeah I know, far and few between) it might not be such a big impact.

Well, that would be until the Police caught you anyway, then the 10klms over will hurt somewhat... ouchy for the pocket most definitely

So the answer to this (which you need to add one more choice to the poll) is simply.. sit on posted speed limit, can't be too much of an annoyance to anyone then hopefully and won't have fines or loss of points

[Charliewool]

Originally Posted by fiery

Well walking pace might be the safest speed but not always the safest speed for those that are walking whilst others are driving... far too many walking seem to get run over and not always by a speeding driver.

I couldn't vote as personally I think if you are 10klms under the posted speed limit then you are quite possibly causing traffic bank up (I know 10ks doesn't seem a lot, but it can equate to quite a bit further and further back down the line of traffic) and it can also cause others to be stupid drivers, but then again, they were most likely stupid just waiting to happen.

Now, 10klms over is not safe as we are always being told that even 1klm over is deadly. Personally I think depending on where the 10klms over is occurring determines just how deadly it would be.
Like in a school zone of 40, doing 50 could be the difference of spotting that kid about to run across the road because his parents haven't taught him that big metal things hitting you will actually hurt, or worse - kill you.
Whereas, on a highway that is good quality road (yeah I know, far and few between) it might not be such a big impact.

Well, that would be until the Police caught you anyway, then the 10klms over will hurt somewhat... ouchy for the pocket most definitely

So the answer to this (which you need to add one more choice to the poll) is simply.. sit on posted speed limit, can't be too much of an annoyance to anyone then hopefully and won't have fines or loss of points

If that ain't fence sitting, I'll go he!...

[Daymoe]

Originally Posted by charliewool

If that ain't fence sitting, I'll go he!...

Not giving a direct and one ended answer is the key to writing a good english essay!

[fiery]

Originally Posted by charliewool

If that ain't fence sitting, I'll go he!...

No Mr Charlie, it isn't fence sitting. You have completely missed the points I was making (which is understandable : ).
I was pointing out the difference (it is called LOGIC) and then added my conclusion

[Powdered Toast Man]

Originally Posted by Nostalgia

I didn't vote as neither are correct.

The safest speed for human's is walking pace.

We are not designed for any G-Force beyond that.

Sorry for being off-topic but that's the fact.

Adam.

But if you walk at human walking pace straight into a wall you can still do damage so that's not techinically safe either :

It's not whether it's 10km/h under or over, it's the relative differences in speed between cars that causes the problem.

Apart from that I agree with balthazarr, too much speedo watching nowadays. I have even found myself doing it on occasion. It's when you realize you have had your eyes off the road for an extended period of time that how much your not paying attention to more important things really hits you.

[SM1DY]

Originally Posted by Powdered Toast Man

But if you walk at human walking pace straight into a wall you can still do damage so that's not techinically safe either :

Especially if your drunk, maybe we'll have to start breath-testing people before they get out of bed in the morning.

[ltd_on20s]

Originally Posted by Nostalgia

I didn't vote as neither are correct.

The safest speed for human's is walking pace.

We are not designed for any G-Force beyond that.

Sorry for being off-topic but that's the fact.

Adam.

what about contact sports? what about that japanese dude who walked into a tree and died a few years back?

its not a case of which speed is safer...its more the person behind the wheel and the car he is driving

eg your the top gear crew in an audi, or some schmuck in a clapped out 80's sigma thinking his 15' wheels are "da Bomb"

[BlackLS]

Originally Posted by Nostalgia

I didn't vote as neither are correct.

The safest speed for human's is walking pace.

We are not designed for any G-Force beyond that.

Sorry for being off-topic but that's the fact.

Adam.

I think its more that we aren't designed to respond to situations at any speeds more than running pace, and that cars don't respond as quickly as we'd like (although Brembo brake package helps )

Perhaps make it the law to constantly Ghost Ride the Whip...

[phoon]

Originally Posted by Nostalgia

I didn't vote as neither are correct.

The safest speed for human's is walking pace.

We are not designed for any G-Force beyond that.

Sorry for being off-topic but that's the fact.

Adam.

So lets assume that walking pace is 5k per hr. If we went 10k under that speed, we would in theory be walking at -5k per hr or if you like, we would be walking backwards. I would also assume that since we dont have eyes in the back of our heads that this would be dangerous and for this reason I vote for 10k over is safer. Safety first I say.

[SM1DY]

Originally Posted by DoreSlamR

I guess it could be a result of the advertising telling us that speed kills.

That could be a reason for it, but I work with my father and we travel to work together. In the mornings there is no doubt he's flying down the roads and at times it's a bit scary, but afternoons I think he's slower just because he's switched off.

So to answer your question, I reckon 10km/h over is probably more dangerous, but not being entirely alert behind the wheel can't be good either.

[Daymoe]

Hmm, 10km/h over in low speed areas would be a bit dangerous, but 10km/h under on a highway might be too.

[homegrown]

i didn't vote either because as long as there's little rice burners who can't see over their dash there's always going to be accidents. even if the speed limit is 10. sorry, but the roundabout down the road from my street is proof it doesn't matter what the speed limit is, people always pull out in front of you.(in fact there is a car that is still parked there from 2 weeks ago after it hit a bus) and thats the biggest problem on our roads. people don't have patience. and after seeing that guy abuse the truck driver on the other thread is proof of that. anyway its getting late and right off the subject now i think.

[Charliewool]

You'd make a great politician methinks....

[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.

[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.

[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".

[homegrown]

what about the guy who walked into a bar.

[Yellow_Festiva]

Originally Posted by homegrown

what about the guy who walked into a bar.

Well, its bloody Summer.... he was probably wanting to quench a thirst.... why?? Caus a hard earned thirst needs a big cold beer, and the best cold beer is V....

Meh... Anyway. I voted 10klicks over is more dangerous, caus it is against the law.

But seriously there are so many variables. What if the guy was doing 10kays more caus he was being chased by a bikie gang?? For if would def be more dangerous for said doomed bloke if he was going 10km under...

[ILLaViTaR]

10kmph under.

Because that then forces me to overtake these idiots and puts me in dangerous situations.

And it's too frequent for my liking. More than half the "drivers" on these roads sit 10-20 under the limit.

[homegrown]

actually i was talking about a pole (bar), just emphising some extreme walking to a previous comment.

[Rob's 76 Effy]

Check this out
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=gT8GbYL35oU

[sgt_doofey]

10km/h over. In the case of an accident, one could assume that the impact would be less if you were 10km/h under considering that it's a difference of 20km/h between the two extremes.

[axeray]

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

[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....