Yes, but there is more chance at 130km/h than 110km/h. It's all about risk, and I'm afraid that your risk taking is affecting the rest of us. It's unfortunate that you value saving 3 minutes a day over the lives of innocent people.iamsickofyear12 said:
Not all that much more. If you were to measure the difference in risk it wouldn't be enough to matter. Modern cars and tyres and designed to go that fast.j_davo24 said:
And there's more chance of it at 110km/h than at 60km/h. It's absolutely ludicrous to believe that there is some magical number at which driving is safe, and above that you're "irresponsible". Drive to the conditions, to your skill level, and to the speed of traffic surrounding you.j_davo24 said:
They aren't randomly assigned at all, AFAIK they are based on the conditions of the road, whether there is likely to people pedestrians around, the proximity of property in relation to the road and depth of visibility in the area. I do agree they don't always get it right, and if a fatal occurs on the road they generally lower the limit these days for some strange reason.iamsickofyear12 said:
Firstly, I never said he was irresponsible for doing some 'magic number'. I said it was irresponsible to plan to go out there and do 30km/h over the limit.circusmind said:
This I completely agree with you on. People who consistently stop the flow of traffic, do not indicate and sway from one lane to the other are the worst. The fact that they have a licence in the first place puzzles me somewhat. There needs to be some kind of review process for existing licence holders other than an eye-test and paying a fee.circusmind said:
A speed limit of 110 is not an accurate reflection of the conditions. It was the highest allowable speed at the time it was implemented so that is the speed limit. Both cars and roads have since improved. In a lot of cases the speed limit doesn't at all reflect the road conditions. The speed limit is 110 on bends and it is 110 on long straights... clearly different driving conditions but the speed limit is the same.j_davo24 said:
Don't forget revenue-raising. I know of several spots which seem to be intentionally designed to trick you into getting done for speeding.j_davo24 said:
No, but you argued that it was irresponsible to do 30 over the limit because of increased risk of accidents. I want to know why the set speed limit is the point at which this argument is always abandoned.
I do. I don't need to do some course (though I probably should, one of these days) to know that I'm inexperienced in, say, snowy conditions. As such, I would drive more slowly in snow than someone who is familiar with that situation. On the other hand, I know the ins and outs of my local roads far better than someone from out of town, and accordingly drive faster than they would at certain spots in my suburb.
These people need to be fined. It's a nonsense to punish safe drivers who do 10km over the limit while their dimwitted, brake-riding, indicator-shy counterparts are causing real danger.
I didnt actually suggest we fix the roads, i just used that as a preemtive counter to the argument that our speed limit is because our roads are shit. Modern roads are more than capable of taking an extra 20-30 with no increased risk. What i would like to see is 3-4 classes of speed limitsAzamakumar said:
Firstly there is no limit at which it is abandoned. The concept of limiting speeds is all about reducing or minimising risk while facilitating efficient transport. To just suggest that is just being petty and pedantic.circusmind said:
Simpifying the speed limit is a great idea. However it's not going to be done. I also think there needs to be another category in there for 'highways' such as inland single lane in each direction roads largely in disrepair. Sometimes even the 100km/h speed limit on these is too fast IMO.Serius said:
Sorry but that statement doesn't seem to make any sense.Serius said:
If only it were that simple. Just saying they should drive slower doesn't mean they will. Infact truck drivers are some of the worst offenders in my experiences. If the speed limit is increased people are going to attempt to drive faster regardless of there skills I am almost certain of it. Even those people who shouldn't have a licence in the first place.serius said:
I don't know if you are entirely correct on this fact. If you are I apologise, but I recall it being suggested somewhere that in cases where things that were illegal are legalised people who do these are less likely to do them to as much of an extreme. For example I think that the average cannabis usage per user in the netherlands is less than that here (could be wrong). In another similar example when they removed rubbish bins from the train platforms in Sydney they found there was less rubbish than when the bins were there. You cannot tell me that there is not any psychological influence on peoples behaviour by their surroundings, to the level that it could quite possibly influence someone to drive faster.serius said:
I don't remember where I read it so I can't give you a link but there was a study done on a particular road and by raising the speed limit by 10km/h the average speed traveled decreased because drivers actually stuck to the more reasonable speed limit.j_davo24 said:
Unfortunately that would never work. It gives too much power to the police. For example if a person is doing 150 on the freeway with nobody in sight, then all the police have to say is there was someone and you just didn't see them. Then it ends up being you word against theirs. Might not happen very often but still hard to enforce.iamsickofyear12 said:
