So tired today, long drive
Driving home from Woomera to radelaide
Speed limit 110 km/h
This minda copper be hitting 105km/h for good 80 kms
Now everytime came the overtaking lanes, the chicken I am didn't dare to overtake him
Since i would have had to hit ~120km/h
Question: would I get done ?
yes but does that matter if you dont crash?
i'm sure physics is the same in the EU but they dont have to contend with worthless australians
yes but does that matter if you dont crash?
Go back & look at all three of Newton's laws of motion, then have a bit of a think about how they might apply to the likelihood of a crash as well as the outcome.
i'm sure physics is the same in the EU but they dont have to contend with worthless australians
We don't have Autobahns in Australia bro.
Have you actually driven overseas??? Aussies are no worse drivers overall than any other nation…you really need to get out more.
yes but does that matter if you dont crash?
Who plans to get into an accident? As far as I know, most accidents are unexpected.
Depending on the situation, that one surprising accident could seriously injure you or kill you, your passengers, other drivers and people. Your speed could determine whether you just get a sore shoulder or broken rib.
@tplen1
The Tesla was doing ~100km/h from the rumors I've read.
Anyone doing 100 near pedestrians in a moron.
That said, I'd rather be hit by a Tesla than a Kingswood.
@StewBalls
Modern Cars have impact zones to decrease the acceleration inflicted on the passangers of a vehicle in the event of a crash.
These impact zones have made high speed crashes more survivable.
As for the likelihood of a crash, that is statisics, not physics. German Autobahn's are around 4x less likely to kill you compared to German urban roads.
These impact zones have made high speed crashes more survivable.
More survivable =/= safe by any stretch mate.
As for the likelihood of a crash, that is statisics, not physics.
Commonsense tells us that as you go faster, every contributing physical factor in the equation of a potential accident becomes magnified…ergo, yes you are statistically more likely to get into problems. To deny the implication of physics in this increased probability is just being ignorant.
German Autobahn's are around 4x less likely to kill you compared to German urban roads.
I'm not sure where you're going with this? How do you think that comparison relates to Australian urban roads???
"More survivable =/= safe"
In this case it does. To die in a modern, 5 star safety car on a modern freeway someone has to drive stupidly.
'Deny physics'
Deceleration is what kills. Modern car design significantly reduces deceleration for many common crash situations. Many modern cars have many features that are more effective at speed (areodynamics, tyres, brakes). Many safety features will not work properly at lower speeds (crumple zones and air bags).
Yes stoping distance increases, but with a good car so does the chance of an attentive drive avoiding a crash.
"Australian urban roads"
This comment chain has nothing to do with urban roads. This is about overtaking on a multilane highway at 150km/h. It's in the first three posts. You have brought up death and the likelihood of crashing, so I brought a number.
Holy batwings, that has to be a troll…
Um, wow, you clearly win the interwebz Mastur Ch!3f…I can't be bothered debating with someone so genuinely clueless!
Have a nice Queen's Birthday, let's pray you never get a chance to test some of your theories…
We don't have Autobahns in Australia bro.
There are plenty of highways in Australia built to standards as high, if not higher, than Autobahns/Autoroutes/Autostrade (especially the older ones).
For example, the M1 from Brisbane to the Gold Coast, in Europe would have a speed limit of 130km/h (which means actual traffic speeds of 140-150km/h). Sections of it might even qualify for derestriction in Germany.
The biggest failing of most Australian restricted access motorways are in the merging lanes, which tend to be grossly inadequate or add/remove lanes at random and often on the wrong side (eg: they often add or remove a lane on the left rather than the right, or, even crazier, sometimes have an off/on ramp on the right).
Have you actually driven overseas??? Aussies are no worse drivers overall than any other nation…you really need to get out more.
Well, I've lived overseas and driven in probably more than a dozen different countries, and - in the context of a western nation - Australians are awful drivers. In particular, lane discipline (indeed, driver courtesy across the board) here can only be described as atrocious.
Good driving is upwards of 50% attitude, and Australians generally have a bad one.
In fairness, this is due to the laughably bad driver education systems in Australia, and the near exclusion of any aspects of road safety outside of speeding and drink driving.
However, the assertion that "Aussies are no worse drivers overall than any other nation" doesn't even pass the laugh test for anyone who has spent time driving in Germany, France, Sweden, heck, even the UK or Italy.
Commonsense tells us that as you go faster, every contributing physical factor in the equation of a potential accident becomes magnified…ergo, yes you are statistically more likely to get into problems. To deny the implication of physics in this increased probability is just being ignorant.
Actual data says the safest roads are the ones with the highest speed limits.
You are far more likely to die on an urban road at less than 80km/h than you are on a 100km/h+ road - especially a restricted access motorway.
There are plenty of highways in Australia built to standards as high, if not higher, than Autobahns/Autoroutes/Autostrade (especially the older ones).
Yes, but we still don't actually have any actual Autobahns/Autoroutes/Autostrade in Australia, correct. We haven't been raised, trained or experienced with them. My point is that suddenly allowing people to drive on our existing road system at 150km/h would simply not be feasible. Your own description of the inherent logistical inadequacies seems to corroborate this.
Well, I've lived overseas and driven in probably more than a dozen different countries, and - in the context of a western nation - Australians are awful drivers. In particular, lane discipline (indeed, driver courtesy across the board) here can only be described as atrocious.
I won't pretend to be as experienced as you, but my modest experience in the US & UK would beg to differ. I found just as many poor drivers in both these Western Nations as here. With the exception of Japan, don't even get me started on many parts of Asia!
Honestly mate, it sounds like you've got a bit of a chip on your shoulder about Aussie drivers…as you rightly say, "Good driving is upwards of 50% attitude, and Australians generally have a bad one", so not trying to be too adversarial, but maybe you're a little biased? It's worth stopping to think whether it's solely their attitude that is the issue…
You are far more likely to die on an urban road at less than 80km/h than you are on a 100km/h+ road - especially a restricted access motorway.
So what about at 150km/h on a 100km/h road??? This is the only salient point…does exceeding the posted speed limit by 50% sound like a good idea to you?
Yes, but we still don't actually have any actual Autobahns/Autoroutes/Autostrade in Australia, correct.
Autobahn is just a word. That's what the Germans call them. The French call them Autoroutes, the Italians call them Autostrade. We call them motorways. What matters is the traffic speed the road has been engineered to and, by and large, modern (say, built within the last 25 years) limited access motorways in Australia will allow for safe travel at speeds well in excess of 110km/h.
So we do, in fact, have Autobahns.
What we don't have are Autobahns with derestricted areas (note that most of the Autobahn network is not derestricted and speed limits vary from 100 to 130 km/h). In my experience (maybe a couple of thousand kilometres on German Autobahns) even in the derestricted areas, the vast majority of traffic sits at around 140 +/- 15km/h (ie: not much faster than the speed limit those sorts of roads would have in most other countries). So the common argument that without speed limits, people will just drive as recklessly fast as their vehicles will go, is not really supported by evidence.
We haven't been raised, trained or experienced with them. My point is that suddenly allowing people to drive on our existing road system at 150km/h would simply not be feasible. Your own description of the inherent logistical inadequacies seems to corroborate this.
I don't think anyone has suggested speed limits be upped to 150km/h across the board or without any other considerations.
I was merely making the point that there are roads in Australia designed for safe travel at that kind of speed.
With that said, I'd argue someone who isn't comfortable driving a modern car at 130-140km/h on a modern motorway, probably should reconsider whether they should be on a motorway at all.
I won't pretend to be as experienced as you, but my modest experience in the US & UK would beg to differ. I found just as many poor drivers in both these Western Nations as here.
The USA is as bad as Australia, the difference is their highway system is so much bigger and better that poor lane discipline has a much smaller negative impact.
I don't know where you were driving in the UK, or Australia, but my experience of UK drivers is that they are leagues ahead of Australian drivers in terms of lane discipline. It's certainly gotten worse since 10-15 years ago with their high population growth (and immigrant drivers), but I struggle to believe anyone could drive there and here and not notice how much better UK drivers are at keeping left. It's no France or Germany, but it's much better than anywhere I've driven here.
With the exception of Japan, don't even get me started on many parts of Asia!
There's a reason I said in the context of western nations. :)Honestly mate, it sounds like you've got a bit of a chip on your shoulder about Aussie drivers…as you rightly say, "Good driving is upwards of 50% attitude, and Australians generally have a bad one", so not trying to be too adversarial, but maybe you're a little biased? It's worth stopping to think whether it's solely their attitude that is the issue…
My interest is in safe and efficient road transport. Which in many ways in Australia is in direct conflict with how things are officially done.
Most of the problems I see in Australian drivers have little to do with mechanical skills. They're all attitude - not keeping left, not letting merging vehicles in, not indicating, not paying attention (usually playing with a phone), following too closely, etc.
As I said earlier, this is a product of our woefully bad driver education programmes and broken ongoing approach to road safety, where people are taught that driving 5km/h over the limit on a freeway is a recipe for disaster, but says nothing about keeping left, indicating, merging properly or just generally not driving like an ass.
So what about at 150km/h on a 100km/h road??? This is the only salient point…does exceeding the posted speed limit by 50% sound like a good idea to you?
Depends on the circumstances. Consider overtaking a B-double road train or several caravans in convoy. These are vehicles that are 30 metres long, and keep in mind if you want to follow the law you need to pull out into the other lane while still leaving at least two (preferably three) seconds of following distance - at 90km/h, that's another 50 (possibly 75) metres. So you've probably got to cover a total of at least 100 metres on the wrong side of the road to complete an overtaking maneuver in a stricly legal manner, and maybe up to 150.
At 100km/h, that's a 10km/h speed difference, or about 3m/s. So overtaking legally is going to take on the order of 35 seconds to cover the 100 metres, during which you will cover about a kilometre on the wrong side of the road.
Now, say you overtake at an average of 135km/h, where you might hit 150km/h for a couple of seconds. The 45km/h difference means you'll spend about 8 seconds and 300 metres on the wrong side of the road.
Now consider there's probably a dozen cars lined up waiting to get past (aside: this is actually one thing UK drivers handle quite poorly - on a B road they will queue up for miles behind a slow-moving vehicle rather than overtake).
Which of these scenarios would you argue is safer ?
Now, just to head off any silly straw men, I'll give a counter-example. 150km/h on a busy freeway with lots of other vehicles only doing 100, is inadvisable, especially here where no-one looks in their rearview mirror except to put on makeup. Speed differentials and traffic congestion are what cause problems, not speed itself (hence the reason you can get fined for driving too slow, though you'd have to be damned unlucky for that to happen in Australia). Indeed, I see plenty of people dodging and weaving dangerously through relatively heavy motorway traffic at under the speed limit (thus, almost certainly ignored by an enforcement system that focuses primarily on exceeding the speed limit).
The fundamental point here is that road safety is nowhere near as simplistic as "every K over is a killer". The letter of the law might say you can never exceed the speed limit. That doesn't make it right.
Re: Attitude about driving.
I'd say personal i've experienced that there is a problem with drivers attitudes in major cities in Aus. Esp in Sydney where i do most of my driving. Traffic isn't even close as bad as those i've experienced in SE, Vietnam, Cambodia, Thailand where the drivers just put up with it. Where as in Sydney i generally notice people honking and being aggressive. Cutting into lanes deliberately, basically a FU, getting out of their cars and road raging. Attitude problem.
Just finished a 10 day trip in Japan and reflected on this. Traffic is pretty much as bad in Sydney and worse in peak hours. Yet i noticed drivers give you space to cut into. When they cut into your lane or overtake, they blink the emergency lights as sign of courtesy. When would you expect that in Sydney? You'd more likely get the bird.
Sydney has probably the most aggressive drivers I've ever encountered, and that's including NYC and LA.
@StewBalls
"Holy batwings, that has to be a troll…"
I've been driving cheap old cars for the past ten years. I have dropped down to 80 in that 110 zone between Lake George and Canberra because my old, roadworthy car couldn't handle a little wind. I upgraded to a cheap, base model, modern Euro. The increase in stability at freeway speeds is amazing.
Then there are the brakes. My new car weighs the same as my old car, they both have ABS, good tyres and similar sized disk brakes on all wheels. My 20 year old car stopped fine. My new car is very noticeably better.
You can keep dismissing every idea you don't like with childish rhetoric or you can reply with well thought out rebuttals like this one:
"My point is that suddenly allowing people to drive on our existing road system at 150km/h would simply not be feasible.”
if the left lane is at 110 and you cant exceed 110, why have overtaking lanes?
Because it's frustrating for those able to drive at the speed limit to be stuck behind a slower vehicle.
Maybe it's a truck carrying a heavy load up a hill. Maybe it's a heavy truck going down a hill. Maybe it's a Camry pulling a caravan in windy conditions. Maybe it's a P-plater who has a speed restriction. Maybe it's an ambulance transporting a hypersensitive patient.
It's perfectly legal to drive at 100km/h in a 110km/h zone, and in some situations it's safer to drive under the posted speed limit.
It's perfectly legal to drive at 100km/h in a 110km/h zone, and in some situations it's safer to drive under the posted speed limit.
But remember that if you go too far below the speed limit (for no good reason) you can also get booked for obstructing traffic.
if you go too far below the speed limit (for no good reason) you can also get booked for obstructing traffic
You have to be "obstructing traffic" or causing a hazard to get the fine, not just driving slowly.
In the context of this thread, driving 5km/h under the limit (knowingly or not) isn't obstructing traffic.
I can tell you don't drive much. You can't see a reason for overtaking lanes? Never been on a country road stuck behind a heavily laden semi/truck with a trail of cars behind. As @thrift says above there are many reasons why people drive slower than the posted speed limit and hence the need for overtaking lanes.
And it is generally safer to drive at the speed off the traffic flow, whether it is speeding or not. Driving slower or faster increases the probability of an accident occurring.
Are you genuinely retarded?
Fully loaded truck, foot to the floor… struggling to get 110kmh (even 90kmh). He could be 100kmh limited anyway. These zones are often uphill.
In SA I swear the cops I see all drive 5-10 under the limit, and you see just about everyone stuck behind them, too afraid to overtake.
I always drive past them, sticking to 60, 80 whatever on the GPS.
In an overtaking lane, the person on the left has to give way. So if you overtake at 110 and by the end of the lane you are neck and neck, because they have to cross the dashed white line, they have to give way. It is not a zip merge…
I always see them do 63-65ish!
yes it is the signs clearly say merge.
exactly! Its a lane end merge! I wish more people understood this, http://drivesmartdrivingschool.wordpress.com/2010/08/24/merg…
They're just waiting for someone to overtake them coz they know the person won't make it in time doing the speed limit ;)
Imo, like a pace car they have control of the drivers and their speeds behind them and anyone willing to risk going faster would obviously their attention
You accidentally my attention.
*get their attention
Ugh! typos
north of port augusta there are plenty of areas that you can overtake with a 5 kmh speed difference without even using overtaking lanes..must have been peak hour?.lol
Flash your high beams and honk that slowarse into letting you past. 5 under at 110 isn't any safer, it's just likely to piss people off more and therefore likely less safer to those around them.
There's no law against honking and flashing highbeams (during the day) at a slow driver, although you might get pulled over and a verbal grilling - it would be totally worth it.
5 under at 110 isn't any safer, it's just likely to piss people off
You know that people most likely are not doing it on purpose?
For vehicles made before mid-2006, the Australia Design Rules allowed speedometers to read ±10%. The speedo might be indicating 110km/h, however the vehicle's true speed could be between 99km/h and 121km/h. Manufacturers' tended to make the speedos over-read rather than under-read.
For vehicles made after mid-2006, the speedometer must not read less than the true speed but can read over by 10% + 4 km/h. At an indicated 110km/h, the vehicle's true speed could be between 96km/h and 110km/h.
Tyre condition can also affect the indicated speed by two or three km/h.
So you might be stewing that the car in front is dawdling 5km/h less than the posted speed limit, but their speedo could be indicating they're right on the limit.
There's no law against honking and flashing highbeams (during the day) at a slow driver
If you check the road rules for your state, you'll find there most likely is. You can use your horn to warn others, but not to tell someone to move over. Likewise, flashing your lights in that manner will fall foul of either the 'minimum distance' rule or a 'not in prescribed manner' type offence.
its 10% under not over
its 10% under not over
An under-reading speedo will indicate a lower speed than true speed.
e.g. indicate 100km/h when you're actually doing 110km/h. In a 100 zone, that could be a speeding fine.
Underread: to take a reading below the correct reading
- http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/underread
your actual speed is 10% less than what your speedo says, not sure how you didnt understand that
considering the amount of idiots on the roads (probably you included) run non-standard size tyres the amount can be all over the place.
It's an offense in NSW to honk or flash your lights unless responding to an emergency.
Page 10:
http://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/usingroads/downloads/top_10_misund…
There's no law against honking and flashing highbeams (during the day) at a slow driver, although you might get pulled over and a verbal grilling - it would be totally worth it.
Totally worth it even if you get pulled over?
So being forced to drive 5km/h below the limit behind another driver is enough of an annoyance and waste of your time, but being pulled over and quizzed/grilled by police for beeping or using your highbeams to flash that slow driver out of your way is not a waste of time?
The amount of time used up by the police to ID you, ask why you beeped/flashed, and give you a lecture (or ticket) will more than cancel out any time saved by you driving 5km/h faster than the "slow driver".
Your logic amuses me, nonetheless lol.
This is stupid. The speed limit is the limit there's no discretion particularly if you're overtaking police.
This might be an unpopular comment but the Speed Limit is a maximum limit on the speed at which you are lawfully allowed to travel. It's not a recommended speed. If you have an accurate speedometer and aim to drive at the speed limit you will in practice exceed the speed limit on the order of half the time.
Some drivers want to ensure that they very rarely exceed the speed limit and thus they leave a margin of 10–5 %. In the context of the law, this is a sensible decision.
So if you want to drive closer to the speed limit than the vehicle in front of you either do so safely without exceeding the speed limit or wait until you can.
Its a good idea you didnt overtake them, can only overtake up to speed limit.
Saying that tho Ive heard that when ur speeding u can get away with up to 117kms hr but dont quote me
It depends on the error margin of your speedo.
Car Speedos aren't accurate enough, the law allows them to overstate the speed but they cannot understate the speed.
This is done to protect you and to protect the company just incase they had a bad batch and they are showing 70km when you are doing 80km.
I have noticed that most cars nowadays report around 4-5km higher than actual speed.
You will need to know exactly how much your car is over quoting before you can drive faster than your speedo. Don't go on a blanket assumption that every car is quoting 5-8km higher than what you are really going.
Or else wait for fines to pile in.
Speedo errors will always be in percentage figures and not km/h.
Most I drive these days seem to be out by 10% when compared with satnav readout.
"Driving home from Woomera to radelaide
Speed limit 110 km/h
This minda copper be hitting 105km/h for good 80 kms
Now everytime came the overtaking lanes, the chicken I am didn't dare to overtake him
Since i would have had to hit ~120km/h"
Lol I read minda copper as Mini Cooper. Thought it was a typo!
Lol I read minda copper as Mini Cooper. Thought it was a typo!
There was actually a time when coppers drove Mini Coopers… :)
Yesss… and they were not very quick either LOL… Had a lot of fun with them :-)
Haha
A few years ago a friend and I were travelling along freeway in perth. We passed a police car which was probably doing 105ish we were doing 111km. We were pulled over a short way past him and met with a you guys were travelling a little fast back there weren't you?…ok then, no fine
I am still trying to understand your comment mate.
usama91 where exactly was this?..commentors look at a map there are multiple places to overtake with a 5kmh speed difference you do not have to overtake in 2 seconds/flat
I remember in the driving test — Q: under what circumstance are you allowed to drive above the speed limit? Overtaking was one of the options and if you picked that you probably should read the road rules again.
lol bro who cares if your speeding when overtaking couldn't care less
but yeah if cops there dont do it
Legally you can't exceed the limit, ever. Moronic, but rational improvement of road safety isn't a big thing in Australia.
Personally, I would have been comfortable setting the cruise control at 115 and sliding past them assuming the overtaking lane was long enough (km or so). But I have 12 points to burn and haven't gotten a speeding ticket in Australia for 10 years. :)
At 100km/h+ your speedo almost certainly reads high from 5-10% (assuming stock tyres/wheels/proper pressure). GPS will be accurate if you have one. Set your speed based on that.
Note that if you're under 30 and/or in a remotely hot looking car (or on a bike), you will likely get pulled over even if you haven't actually exceeded the limit over taking them.
You guys do realise that the speed limit is an upper limit - not the speed at which you have to drive - don't you?
There is no "10% rule" either. You can get fined for driving too slow if it is impeding traffic, but there's no "10% under speed limit is illegal" law.
It is the speed you should drive to avoid causing traffic problems.
Well that's not really true at all. It's the maximum allowed speed, nothing more.
Problem being that they set this maximum allowable speed at the speed they expect the bulk of traffic to remain at, allowing for x percentage of the cars to exceed the limit by a certain amount and still remain safe.
Despite the advertising campaigns, they do not set speed limits at the speed where 1km/h faster is dangerous.
There is no speed restrictions other then the posted speed limit on L & P platers in Vic and the ACT.
Don't forget the national heavy vehicle speed limit of 100 km/h.
How about drivers with L, red/green P? Should they drive at 110km to avoid causing traffic problems? How did u get your license?
You would get done, they were probably baiting it.
Going off the math I'm guessing they would have pulled you over for speeding.
105km/h over 80km means the patrol car travelled for 45 minutes. In 45 minutes the patrol car hadn't spotted any speeders in the on-coming direction. They also didn't spot any speeders overtaking you and them.
After 45 minutes of patrolling that would make your 120km/h the first legal opportunity to issue a ticket.
Two things:
FIRST:
+1 for the comments about a limit being the LIMIT. As in a MAXIMUM.
You never have a right to get angry at people who choose to sit at a speed below the maximum.
If they are going particularly slowly and choose to never pull over to let a long line of traffic past (i.e. caravans) that's another story. If they speed up during overtaking lanes, then that's another story.
BTW, yes copper was baiting, but not you. What they're hoping for is a couple of cars "close" behind to mask their car, and then someone barreling up to the back of the queue at 120+ and overtaking it all in one foul-swoop….
SECOND:
Whilst it may feel like you're being forced to "crawl along", the math tells a VERY different story:
105 Km/hr is 1.75 Km per minute. 80 Km @ 1.75 Km/min = 45.7142857143 minutes to ten decimal places.
110 Km/hr is 1.83 Km per minute. 80 Km @ 1.83 Km/min = 43.6363636363 minutes to ten decimal places.
Total difference is 2.08 minutes.
125 seconds.
Keep in mind the faster you go, the less fuel efficient you are:
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/05/fuel_consumptio.html
I think you did the right thing. Not worth taking the risk, especially if it was a long weekend. Psychologically, it can be a bit stifling travelling at 105, but I tend to just stop at a rest point for about 5 minutes and stretch my legs. The cop car is then 8-10km ahead of you and you are unlikely to catch up with it. Just gives you a bit more peace of mind.
I've heard of a case where someone was done for driving 63 in a 60 zone. The fine was something like $14. Must've been a slow day for that cop.
Had this cop pass me once in an 80 zone…we was doing 90-100kmh. A cheeky P-Plater was following him and overtook me too. I watched them disappear into the distance, but before they completely were out of sight I saw the cop floor it and haul ass out of there - the P-Plater didn't chase but kept up the excessive speed. The cops stopped about 2km up the road and then pulled out behind the P-Plater and lit up the dance floor.
In another story, the slow drag out of Ararat another 80 zone and this pensioner is doing 70 and it's double white lines all the way out…so we're sitting, sitting, sitting and finally the double white lines stop and the zone is now 100…so pull out to overtake and this bloody pensioner accelerates (not slow either)…I'm out on the right side of the road and floor it to complete overtaking move (against law to accelerate while you're being overtaken BTW) and hit 130kmh as I go past him at almost the exact same time there is a speed camera on the other side of the road. F-Bomb explodes in my head and it ruins my weekend mulling over the scenario and I'm real unhappy about the whole thing…never got the ticket however.
Sometimes the camera office will withdraw a fine if there are multiple vehicles in frame. Not sure if this is policy based on the cost of prosecuting technicality laced cases or not.
Might have been the case, we were pretty much side-by-side in front of the camera but me doing 130kmh caught out on the wrong side of the road with oncoming cars - and of course the huge tail-back this guy had created had closed out the gap behind so I was committed to the overtake.
Yeah, bogan logic. It shows a staggering misunderstanding of the impacts (pun intended) of speed in a collision.
It's not just advertising Tony, it's actually physics mate…the main laws you should be thinking about here are Newton's.