Stick to The Left - vehicle travel.

nuno on 25/12/2018 - 08:14
Last edited 25/12/2018 - 10:32

Merry Christmas All,

if you're travelling by car this festive season and embarking on some long journeys on the Queens highways, please remember to stick to the left as soon as you've overtaken the vehicle in front.

Do not hog the right hand lane until your car which is travelling a mere 2km/h faster and takes 3-5 minutes to overtake. This creates an unsafe condition for yourself and the car next to you by removing buffers.

Speed up, create the safe buffer for a lead in and pull back into the LEFT lane. This should be done in a matter of seconds, not minutes.

Safe travels.

Travel

Comments

    • godoftoast on 25/12/2018 - 09:05
      +84

      Think it through. If you and the guy in front of you are travelling at the speed limit and it will take a few minutes to overtake them legally then why are you trying to overtake them in the first place? Just continue on at the same speed behind them and dont clog up the right hand lane. Speeding is dangerous but clogging up the right lane and causing congestion behind you is even more dangerous. Next time you are driving just keep left instead of being a (profanity) and trying to impose your own timing on everyone else.

      • abuch47 on 27/12/2018 - 01:46

        This guy gets it

      • Budju on 28/12/2018 - 19:44
        +4

        The right lane is there so if someone is going slower than the speed limit people can overtake. People who tail gate and rage at those merely using this lane for its intended purpose need to be removed from the gene pool.

      • gmatht on 29/12/2018 - 17:45

        I was behind a truck going 60kph in a 110k zone. It sped up over 100k whenever there was a break in the double white lines, so I was missed four opportunities to pass it before I reached a double lane stretch of road.

        • Baysew on 29/12/2018 - 18:45
          +2

          That was the plot of Steven Spielberg's first film - Duel

    • Third_Gear on 25/12/2018 - 10:02
      +54

      Speed doesn’t kill. Selfish drivers do. Ever driven the autobahn? 180 km/h no issue and everyone keeps the passing lane free. Speed doesn’t kill.

        • Kamsi on 26/12/2018 - 17:08
          +1

          I think his referring to a freeway such as the autobahn. 10km/h on a freeway is illegal.

          • Zachary on 26/12/2018 - 17:28

            @Kamsi: I thought freeway was limited to 110km/hr max…or 130km/hr in the case of Norther Territory state?

            • dust on 26/12/2018 - 22:12

              @Zachary: I thought they removed the speed limit on a section of the Stuart highway?

              • Pantagonist on 27/12/2018 - 14:04

                @dust: They trialed a 200km long no-limit section between Barrow Creek and Alice Springs a few years back which applied for a year or two before it reverted back to 130km/h (because politics).

                They did a bunch of upgrades before the trial and which improved advisory signage before the (very slight) bends. Even at 160km/h it was still a pretty boring drive which I know from experience.

                Before 2007 the whole road had no limit in the NT. Those were the days. Darwin to Alice Springs in 8-9 hours compared with the 12+ hours it takes now.

                • whooah1979 on 27/12/2018 - 14:09

                  @Pantagonist: Did you see any kangaroos?

                  • Pantagonist on 27/12/2018 - 14:14

                    @whooah1979: You really don't see many roos on NT roads, especially compared to rural areas of the southern states. Up there your main concern on the highways is generally wandering stock like cattle. They tend to be pretty easy to spot and move slowly so you don't tend to get surprised by anything. NT road toll is generally populated by drunks rolling their utes on dirt roads and other "single vehicle incidents" (i.e. being a moron).

                    • whooah1979 on 27/12/2018 - 14:21

                      @Pantagonist:

                      cattle

                      The road up to the Snowy is littered small with wildlife. Imagine hitting a cow at >130km/h.

                      • Pantagonist on 27/12/2018 - 14:35
                        +1

                        @whooah1979: It's pretty hard to compare alpine roads in the Snowy Mountains with long straight stretches of track over the Barkly Tableland.

                        I doubt there would be many alpine roads in Australia where an average speed of 130km/h could be achieved over a 100km section. Those sorts of speeds are safely achievable in Central Australia, primarily due to wildlife density being low, hardly any bends and next to no vegetation on the side of the road that restricts what you can see coming up ahead.

                        The road that runs across the Nullarbor Plain could safely be de-restricted using the same logic, but for some unknown reason you're restricted to 110km/h despite the road having the longest straight stretch of tarmac roadway in the country (146km).

                        Me, I'll generally drive to the conditions and pull over to let people through if someone's riding my bumper on a long section of road where there are no overtaking opportunities, then wave to them politely as I pass them at the petrol station in the next town.

                        Is there a substantive point that you're trying to make by replying to my posts? I'm just curious as I haven't advocated for any changes in anything that I've posted but I feel you're trying to imply something?

        • ozeebee on 27/12/2018 - 09:45

          What an idiotic comment. Do you travel at 10km/h everywhere you go 24/7 is it?

          • spaceflight on 27/12/2018 - 09:52
            -1

            @ozeebee: I guess you don't understand what making an example looks like.

            I'll keep it simple.
            "Speed doesn’t kill" is the idiotic comment. It does.

        • This Guy on 27/12/2018 - 19:18
          +1

          So you're just as likey to die in a 10km/h crash as 180km/h?

          I don't think so.

          Both kill. Watch some dash cam footage. Driving well below the limit or unexpected stopping causes many avoidable accidents as too many people zone out while driving. Caitlyn Jenner killed Kim Howe in such a crash.

          I'll keep it simple.
          "Speed doesn’t kill" is the idiotic comment. It does.

          Force = Mass * Acceleration

          Acceleration kills, not speed.

          A car legally traveling at 110km/h rear ending a 10km/h heavy truck could have the same impact as either car in a head on crash with both cars traveling 100km/h (a 200km/h crash). Both impacts in modern cars are not only generally survivable, but often cause very little physical damage to humans.

          Change the 10km/h truck to a car and the rear car is far better off. However the 10km/h car is screwed as rear crumple zones are extremely limited. Better hope Old 10km/h is wearing a HANS device.

          How many Police Officers die in high speed crashes? They don't. Ironically it is not unheard of for Highway Patrol to hit 210km/h while catching up to a speeder.

          Driving like a moron kills, at 10km/h or at 180km/h. Both speeds can be safe. Both speeds can be dangerous and completely stupid.

          • spaceflight on 27/12/2018 - 21:21

            @This Guy:

            Driving well below the limit or unexpected stopping causes many avoidable accidents

            I haven't said that isn't the case.

            Acceleration kills, not speed.

            Well in the case of a car crash that could be negative acceleration, deceleration, as your internal organs smash into your rib cage.

            A car legally traveling at 110km/h rear ending a 10km/h heavy truck could have the same impact as either car in a head on crash with both cars traveling 100km/h

            It could but it's so unlikely that it is not with considering.

            Hitting the truck in your example would be like hitting a wall. The truck is not likely to move significantly when you hit it.

            Having a head on with another car is much more unpredictable and has a greater chance of your car rolling/spinning.

            The collision dynamics in both crashes are completely different.

            Change the 10km/h truck to a car and the rear car is far better off. However the 10km/h car is screwed as rear crumple zones are extremely limited. Better hope Old 10km/h is wearing a HANS device.

            That's why head rests are mandatory safety devices…

            Speed is still the determining factor in injuries/death in your example.
            It doesn't matter that the injuries are potentially worse in the car travelling slower, the injuries are still determined by the speed of the other car.

            Ironically it is not unheard of for Highway Patrol to hit 210km/h while catching up to a speeder.

            I don't know where you got that from but no police officer I know will do that trying to catch someone. The guidance for pursuits does not allow such speeds.

            Driving like a moron kills

            It does, but so does speed.

            In two identical crashes where the only difference is the speed of impact. The outcome will be worse in the crash where the vehicle was travelling at a higher speed.

            My simple initial example maybe could have been clearer to avoid the variables of a dynamic collision that you have added in.
            Which would you rather do.
            Dive you car at 10mm/h head on into a wall or dive it into the wall at 100km/h?
            or be walking down the street and be hit by a car travelling at 10 km/h or 100km/h?

            Rationalise it however you want but you cannot change that speed is major contributory factor to the severity of a crash and an aggravating factor in the severity of all crashes.

            • This Guy on 28/12/2018 - 09:22

              @spaceflight: You are forgetting your argument.

              So you're just as likely to die in a 10km/h crash as 180km/h?

              I don't think so.

              10km/h on a freeway is stupidly dangerous and often results in a crash for someone behind the slow driver. Watch a few crashes if you don't believe me (Potentially NSFW).

              180km/h on the freeway PASSING, or especially IN TRAFFIC is just as stupidly dangerous, but now the driver is more likely to be involved.

              However, people, like police officers, can safely drive at 180km/h if there is no risk of sudden deceleration, like other cars or obstacles. I AM NOT SAYING THEY SHOULD.

              Someone driving silly speeds who slows down for traffic is endangering far less people on a freeway than anyone doing 10km/h on a freeway.

              I don't know where you got that from but no police officer I know will do that trying to catch someone. The guidance for pursuits does not allow such speeds.

              How do you think Police catch up to a car doing 160km/h when they start at a standstill or driving the opposite direction?

              • spaceflight on 28/12/2018 - 12:42
                +2

                @This Guy:

                You are forgetting your argument.

                No I'm not, I never said anything about doing 10km/h on a freeway.

                Of course doing 10km/h on a regular freeway is dangerous.

                But if a 10km/h car is hit by a 180km/h car the 10km/h car is still in a 180km/h crash. The overall speed of the impact is 180km/h not 10km/h. The car doing 10km/h was not in a 10km/h crash.

                You can't look at the slower car and say it was going slow so the high speed of the other car didn't affect the outcome.

                As I said above speed is the leading behavioural factor in car related death, the major contributory factor to the severity of a crash and an aggravating factor in the severity of all crashes.

                Saying that speed doesn't kill is idiotic.

                How do you think Police catch up to a car doing 160km/h when they start at a standstill or driving the opposite direction?

                I'm not going to discuss police procedure on a public forum. But police cannot go as fast as they want to catch someone.

                • This Guy on 28/12/2018 - 17:10

                  @spaceflight: I don't disagree with you as much as you seem to think.

                  So you're just as likely to die in a 10km/h crash as 180km/h?
                  I never said anything about doing 10km/h on a freeway.

                  10km/h would be dangerously slow on a freeway or failing to give way at an intersection. I know you didn't say freeway. I am looking at when 10km/h could be deadly.

                  But if a 10km/h car is hit by a 180km/h…

                  Yes.

                  You can't look at the slower car…

                  Yes. In your example the person going 180km/h is the worst. Doing 180km/h on public roads is stupid. Doing 180km/h anywhere near another road user is extremely stupid. Doing 180km/h off a freeway or race track is suicidal.

                  As I said above speed…

                  No. The leading behavioral factor is driver failing to drive to road conditions (like driving at 180km/h in almost every case).

                  The crumple zone's and crash cell of a car are the major contributory factor to the severity of a crash. Those are what make crashes above 40km/h survivable.

                  Yes, speed is an aggravating factor in the severity of all crashes, as acceleration is the derivative of speed.

                  Saying that speed doesn't kill is idiotic

                  No. Speed kills is an advertisement. A nice catch phrase.

                  Force = Mass * Acceleration.

                  Acceleration is a derivative of speed, and related to speed, but different. Excessive Force kills people. Like a low speed crash in a very old car or an extremely high speed crash in a modern car, a cars ability to slow the deceleration of it's occupants determines each occupant's outcome.

                  If speed killed every race driver would die instantly as soon as they reached the deadly speed.

                  I'm not going to discuss police procedure…

                  There is no point. Police procedure changes between each state and territory.

                  • spaceflight on 28/12/2018 - 18:03

                    @This Guy:

                    No. The leading behavioral factor is driver failing to drive to road conditions (like driving at 180km/h in almost every case).

                    And failing to drive to the road conditions is speeding - going to fast in rain, fog etc.

                    Acceleration is a derivative of speed, and related to speed, but different. Excessive Force kills people. Like a low speed crash in a very old car or an extremely high speed crash in a modern car, a cars ability to slow the deceleration of it's occupants determines each occupant's outcome.

                    That's a bit like saying bullets are derived form lead so it's actually lead that kills people and not bullets.

                    I understand what you are saying however in the context it's still speed.
                    Speed is the only variable that drivers can control that makes an impact to F=m*a
                    Yes high force will kill you, but you cant directly control the force. Speed is the controllable variable.
                    Less speed means less acceleration which means less force.

                    If speed killed every race driver would die instantly as soon as they reached the deadly speed.

                    Of course, but taken in the context of road safety (which is what the catch phrase is associated with) and as a controllable variable speed does kill.

                    The faster you are going, the more likely you are to have a crash and the worse the outcome is going to be for all involved.
                    In a road safety context speed is the major behavioural factor (followed by alcohol and fatigue) we can adjust to improve road safety for everyone.

                    So to have people like Third_Gear say "Speed doesn’t kill. Selfish drivers do" is the sort of selfish attitude that can put other road users at risk.

                    I don't disagree with you as much as you seem to think.

                    I probably don't disagree with you as much as you think I do :)

                    • This Guy on 29/12/2018 - 11:09

                      @spaceflight:

                      In a road safety context speed is the major behavioral factor

                      Speed is not a behavioral factor. It is a result of the vehicle moving. Speed, not speeding, is almost always a factor, as for a vehicle to crash is has to be moving at some speed. Non speed related accidents could include a tree falling on a stopped car (yes, the tree would be moving but speed always refers to the vehicle in these studies) or a stopped vehicle catching fire.

                      Speed is blamed by politicians as speed is an easy target that deflects from unsafe roads (which is their responsibility to fund and fix).

                      Failing to drive to conditions is the major behavioral factor and includes speed, speeding, fatigue and driving under the influence.

                      While the preferred term is driver error, I am using failing to drive to conditions as too many crashes are due to mental illness or stupidity. Most people I knew who have passed in a crash passed in an 'accident'. One wasn't even speeding. I even know a female who said they drove into concrete in the heat of an argument with their partner. Other people who I knew displayed incredibly un-accident like behavior, like riding while drunk and riding while drunk.

                      I am not saying there are no accidents, just many crashes at speed might be answering the void. Most cars don't suddenly lose traction at speeds a healthy, non-hormonal person would drive (I am ignoring socioeconomic factors involved in risk taking behaviors).

                      My argument is low speed crashes can have just as bad outcomes, have similar bad outcome rates as low speed crashes are far more frequent and are normally completely driver error, not the broader failing to drive to conditions.

                      • spaceflight on 29/12/2018 - 16:13

                        @This Guy:

                        Speed is not a behavioral factor.

                        Of course it is. The car doesn't decide how fast it moves the person driving it does. That's a behavioural factor.

                        A behavioural factor is something that a driver has the most ability to modify.

                        Failing to drive to conditions is the major behavioral factor and includes speed, speeding, fatigue and driving under the influence.

                        Failing to drive to conditions/speed (responsible for 31% of Australian road fatalities) is not the same thing as fatigue (10% of fatalities) and driving under the influence of alcohol (15% of fatalities).

                        They are all separate behavioural factors.

                        as too many crashes are due to mental illness

                        Crashes as a result of mental illness make up a small (not tracked) segment of all crashes.
                        Every year one in five Australians will suffer some form of mental illness.
                        With 20% of the population having some form of mental illness at any point if it was responsible for a high number of crashes it would be tracked.

                        Too many fatal crashes are due to:
                        Speed 31%
                        Alcohol 19%
                        Fatigue 10%
                        Inattention 5%

                        My argument is low speed crashes can have just as bad outcomes, have similar bad outcome rates as low speed crashes are far more frequent and are normally completely driver error, not the broader failing to drive to conditions.

                        Low speed crashed might occur more frequently but the outcome is generally better and statistically more deaths occur in higher speed traffic zones.

                        In 2017 approximately 45 per cent of all fatal crashes occurred in posted speed zones of 100 km/hour or over.
                        22% occurred in speed zones of 70-90km/hour
                        18% occurred in speed zones of 60 km/hour
                        12% occurred in speed zones of 50 km/hour or under.

                        So I'm not sure how you can say low speed crashes have similar bad outcome rates. It doesn't get worse than death.

                        Minor speeding has been found to be more dangerous to the community than excessive speeding. The cumulative effect of a small additional risk multiplied by a high number of drivers results in more casualty crashes, than the cumulative effect of a few drivers who speed by a large margin.

                        Statistical modelling suggests that a 5% increase in average speed leads to an approximate 10% increase in crashes involving injury, and a 20% increase in those involving fatalities.

                        During the 1970's energy crisis, the maximum speed limit was reduced across the USA from 70 mph (113 km/h) to 55 mph (89 m/h) and the NHTSA issued a report, pointing out that this reduction in maximum speed had resulted in 16.4 percent drop in fatalities. In 1987 the USA lifted the speed limit on rural interstates to 65mph (105 km/h), which led to 17% rise in fatalities.

                        It's really simple. Speed kills.

      • JungliChilli on 26/12/2018 - 13:31
        +7

        You are partially wrong. Speeding is a factor that does kill. The autobahn is designed for excessive speeds. Most of our roads aren't.

        • This Guy on 27/12/2018 - 19:44
          +2

          Most German roads aren't either.

          Many of our freeways are designed at or above autobahn spec as most of our freeways are 20 to 30 years newer designs and have been regularly upgraded.

          Our main issue against an 'autobahn' is regional freeway access control and driver training. Social issues stopping speed increases include increases in pollution and noise.

      • 2ndeffort on 26/12/2018 - 15:50
        +28

        Reality is though that generally speeding drivers are by definition the most selfish on the road. They are happy to trade off the safety of all other road users so that they alone can get to wherever they are going faster. Anybody in their way is wrong because they potentially delay them pursuing their own private business. In my book that it massively selfish. I see these Morons every day weaving in and out of traffic to get somewhere 3 mins quicker. Stick to the rules our society has set for us all to be safe. If you don't like the rules or disagree with them run for office and change the law.

        • Zachary on 26/12/2018 - 17:31
          -1

          If you don't like the rules or disagree with them run for office and change the law.

          Next law introductory: There is now no speed limits on any roads, you are free to go as fast or as slow as you want!

        • zathras on 27/12/2018 - 13:40
          +1

          How do you figure all speeding drivers are selfish?
          I would argue that just because some selfish drivers speed, it does NOT mean that all speeding drivers are selfish.
          If I see one red car speeding, I don't assume all speeding cars must be red.

          Speeding and courtesy are not mutually exclusive.
          I think it is more discourteous to hold up a string of vehicles by blocking an overtaking lane than to upset one slow driver by speeding past them in the left lane.

          I will admit to exceeding prescribed speed limits on numerous occasions in the past, but I always move quickly into the left lane when a faster driver is approaching from behind.

          I do agree weaving drivers are dangerous, but they aren't always speeding either.
          Generally impatient drivers weave across lanes when traffic is heavy and travelling slower than the speed limit.
          Weaving in and out of traffic is dangerous, but not necessarily due to excessive speed.
          The danger with weaving is the way the drivers execute their lane changes.

          • spaceflight on 27/12/2018 - 21:49
            +3

            @zathras:

            How do you figure all speeding drivers are selfish?

            Someone doing 150km/h on a highway to get somewhere is being selfish as they are thinking about their need to get somewhere faster without regard to the safety of other road users.

            People don't expect a car to be doing excessive speed so when someone looks in their mirror to change lanes the car in their mirror that should be doing 100km/h is a safe distance behind them.
            When that car is actually going 50% faster than it should be that same safe distance to change lanes isn't safe anymore.

            So because that person wanted to get somewhere faster they have now caused a serious rear end collision.

            • zathras on 28/12/2018 - 12:13
              +1

              @spaceflight: I wouldn't call that example selfish, just stupid driving.
              Even approaching a line of slow moving vehicles at the speed limit (eg 100 km/h) is dangerous driving if the line of vehicles are travelling well below the speed limit (eg 60 km/h). All it takes is one selfish driver to pull out without looking and there's a collision. I always slow down and cover my brakes when closing fast on a line of slower moving vehicles.

              Driving at any speed is dangerous if not taking into account the road conditions.

              • blackfrancis75 on 28/12/2018 - 13:31

                @zathras: "My desire to go faster is more important than the potentially life-threatening situation I'm imposing on other road users"
                This is selfish, no two ways about it

                • zathras on 28/12/2018 - 14:30
                  +1

                  @blackfrancis75: I never heard anyone say that before, and I doubt any sane people would hold that opinion.
                  Non-psychopaths (ie most drivers) place road safety above speed, and only speed on occasions when it is NOT causing a risk to others.

                  I see the biggest issue is not people speeding, or even drink driving, but mobile phone use while driving.
                  Mobile phone distraction is the worst of all offenses, and should be punished more heavily.

                  We're all getting off-topic in any case.
                  The thread was started to discuss selfish drivers that fail to keep left.
                  And they don't only block speeding drivers.

      • j24bauer on 27/12/2018 - 10:49
        +4

        probably because german drivers arent complete dumbarses. australian drivers are so the slower the better.

        • spaceflight on 27/12/2018 - 21:51

          Austrian drivers do not have the same driver education that German drivers do.

      • alikazi on 27/12/2018 - 11:29
        +1

        @Third_Gear The real story of speeding on Autobahn is quiet different.

        https://youtu.be/XTnCcJl-g-I

        • This Guy on 27/12/2018 - 20:12

          180km/h is far slower than 300km/h. That driver is an idiot. They were not driving to conditions. Overtaking a bus like that should earn them jail.

          However:

          No one died in that crash.
          Drivers loose control like that at all speeds.

          That road and the car were both reasonably safe even at that stupid speed.

      • rlay3 on 28/12/2018 - 13:56
        -1

        Wow "speed doesn't kill" gets 47 upvotes? I must be out of touch.

        • [Deactivated] on 28/12/2018 - 14:00
          -3

          No, just brainwashed.

    • theHMASfriendship on 25/12/2018 - 10:19

      Stay home then

      • Yummy on 25/12/2018 - 15:52
        +2

        And stick with your Need For Speed games.

        • theHMASfriendship on 26/12/2018 - 10:15

          Lol no

        • Zachary on 26/12/2018 - 17:27

          If EA went back to the roots of Undergrounds 1, 2, Most Wanted, Carbon and I guess Undercover is acceptable, then maybe yes…. I hear the reboot of that isn't as good…….

    • [Deactivated] on 25/12/2018 - 12:09
      +4

      How about you stay in the slow lane instead then grandma?

    • Ughhh on 25/12/2018 - 12:32
      +2

      if it takes me a couple of mins to overtake so be it, whats the big rush?

      If it takes you that long to pass, then you're not really overtaking. Stay on the left.
      It's not a matter of a big rush or not, but rather you feeling you have to right to be a hazard intentionaly.

      • whooah1979 on 25/12/2018 - 12:47

        Stay on the left.

        Stay on left lane and set the cruise control to 110km/h to 120km/h.

        • nuno on 25/12/2018 - 14:31
          +6

          There are drivers who drive by GPS speed, others their indicated car cluster speedo, others 6km per hour over GPS and the rest 6km/h over their car speed.

          Coupled by the fact their cruise control deviates from all those set speeds, its little wonder why maintaining traffic speed is an arduous task.

          The autonomous driving cars cant come soon enough imo.

          • spaceflight on 26/12/2018 - 12:15
            -6

            @nuno:

            cruise control deviates from all those set speeds

            Cruise control holds your speed. That's the point. It doesn't intentionally deviate from the set speed.

            • nuno on 26/12/2018 - 12:39
              +1

              @spaceflight: Rubbish.

              Undulating roads
              Varying degree of road surfaces
              Head / tail wind cross winds
              Slipstreams
              Plus cruise lag

              All have an effect on the ability for a cruise control to maintain set speed.

              It's the reason you can have the same speed with the car in front yet if you don't continually monitor and adjust your cruise control using the incremental buttons, you'll end up his back side.

              That's when the righteous muppets pull out and think they can overtake only to find out they cannot. And hence sit there in the RH lane without a care in the world.

              • JungliChilli on 26/12/2018 - 13:37
                +1

                @nuno: Also don't forget that not all speedos are calibrated the same. Ie a reading of 100kmph might not actually be 100kmph

                • [Deactivated] on 26/12/2018 - 14:13
                  -2

                  @JungliChilli: No one puts a p in kmh

                  [Deactivated] on 26/12/2018 - 14:13 (Collapsed - Offtopic. Show)
                  • mafmouf on 26/12/2018 - 14:30
                    +1

                    @[Deactivated]: It's kilo miles per hour obviously.

                    mafmouf on 26/12/2018 - 14:30 (Collapsed - Offtopic. Show)
                    • [Deactivated] on 26/12/2018 - 14:46
                      -4

                      @mafmouf: Obviously, that’s why I used the correct version of it. But no one uses a p.

                      [Deactivated] on 26/12/2018 - 14:46 (Collapsed - Offtopic. Show)
                      • JungliChilli on 26/12/2018 - 16:01
                        +2

                        @[Deactivated]: Not sure why that matters but I've never heard kmh. What's your source of kmh being the 'correct' version? It should be km/h or kmph. But frankly I don't care as long as it makes sense..

                        JungliChilli on 26/12/2018 - 16:01 (Collapsed - Offtopic. Show)
                        • [Deactivated] on 26/12/2018 - 16:06
                          -6

                          @JungliChilli: Zero people apart from you use kmph. Zero.

                          [Deactivated] on 26/12/2018 - 16:06 (Collapsed - Offtopic. Show)
                          • JungliChilli on 26/12/2018 - 16:19
                            -1

                            @[Deactivated]: Lol yeah I thought you'd come with a response like that. Not going to bother wasting my time anymore than I have already.

                            JungliChilli on 26/12/2018 - 16:19 (Collapsed - Offtopic. Show)
                          • StickMan on 26/12/2018 - 17:10

                            @[Deactivated]: You're confusing it with mph

                            If you use kilometres, you need to use km/h or kmph.

                            That's the format.

                            StickMan on 26/12/2018 - 17:10 (Collapsed - Offtopic. Show)
                            • spaceflight on 26/12/2018 - 21:59
                              +1

                              @StickMan: km/h is the correct unit as defined by SI standards.

                              It's a unit of distance over a period of time.

                              spaceflight on 26/12/2018 - 21:59 (Collapsed - Offtopic. Show)
                        • spaceflight on 26/12/2018 - 22:02
                          +1

                          @JungliChilli: See if you can find kmph in the SI units. The closest you will find is km/h

                          spaceflight on 26/12/2018 - 22:02 (Collapsed - Offtopic. Show)
                          • JungliChilli on 26/12/2018 - 22:29

                            @spaceflight: I am familiar with the SI units. Original issue started with kmh being correct and not kmph not about SI units. As far as I know it's pretty common to use kmph instead of km/h. Similar to Mbps which is actually Mb/s if you strictly go by SI format.

                            Anyways I think there's enough here to say kmh is just wrong.

                            JungliChilli on 26/12/2018 - 22:29 (Collapsed - Offtopic. Show)
                            • spaceflight on 26/12/2018 - 22:33
                              +1

                              @JungliChilli: I've never seen anyone use kmph before.

                              Miles is abbreviated to Mi but people don't use miph they use mph so kph would follow this.

                              I don't think kmph is wrong, maybe it is just not used as often or depends on your location and what others use.

                              spaceflight on 26/12/2018 - 22:33 (Collapsed - Offtopic. Show)
              • spaceflight on 26/12/2018 - 21:49
                +1

                @nuno:

                All have an effect on the ability for a cruise control to maintain set speed.

                All effect your car's ability to maintain a speed. It has nothing to do with cruise control.
                Cruise control will react to these conditions just like your foot.

                It's the reason you can have the same speed with the car in front yet if you don't continually monitor and adjust your cruise control using the incremental buttons, you'll end up his back side.

                Probably because the car in front is not using cruise control.

                Your speed fluctuates much more when using your foot to control your speed.

          • Ulysses31 on 26/12/2018 - 20:29
            -3

            @nuno: Cruise control in traffic… Darwin Award winner in the making.

        • cameldownunder on 27/12/2018 - 11:09

          Stay in the right lane and put it to 130km/h. If there's a copper, just pay the fine. That's the price for FREEDOM !!

    • Scrooge McDuck on 26/12/2018 - 13:03
      +1

      speeding kills

      Actually, it's the rapid deceleration of a crash which kills.

      • wordplay on 26/12/2018 - 13:07

        That bloke that got killed by the hit+run driver in our street the police said he may have survived if the car had been going the speed limit. I'm not sure what deceleration had to do with that.

        • Scrooge McDuck on 26/12/2018 - 13:37

          In that case it's the acceleration (they're physically the same) and implied forces of being hit which killed.

          • wordplay on 26/12/2018 - 13:59
            -3

            @Scrooge McDuck: ok if they are the same i will be sure to decelerate while overtaking.

            • Scrooge McDuck on 26/12/2018 - 14:12

              @wordplay: I wrote "physically the same". I'm referring to the physics of inertial reference frames and unbalanced forces.

              For example, your acceleration relative to the road would be deceleration relative to a vehicle traveling at a higher speed in the same direction.

        • cameldownunder on 27/12/2018 - 11:10
          -1

          But if he'd survived he would very likely be quadriplegic, so the driver did him a favour by killing him. </sarcasm>

    • DiscoJango on 26/12/2018 - 15:24
      +1

      a couple of minutes to overtake? lol your the type of moron who gets tailgated and run of the road.

      • cameldownunder on 27/12/2018 - 11:13
        +1

        The tailgater is the moron. Let's be honest, there is no highway that is not clogged over the holidays, so what happens is that right lane is 100kmh and left lane is 115kmh, except for some morons that don't see it and tailgate car after car, to save maybe a 10 minutes.

        • DiscoJango on 27/12/2018 - 11:42

          tailgating in heavy clogged traffic yes, pointless

          the "moron" is the driver who sits in the right hand lane, 10-20kph below the speed limit, who at the same time can easily chose any other lane

          this brain dead member of society needs to re-do their 120 hours of learner training

          however, it seems that an overwhelming portion of society and drivers are part of this brain dead, kim kardashian obsessed clan.

    • ozeebee on 27/12/2018 - 09:47

      Why overtake in the first place? Just stay behind and be a nice citizen and not be a nuisance to the rest of society.

  • Ocker on 25/12/2018 - 08:28
    +64

    "speeding up" to overtake another vehicle is not an accepted excuse for exceeding the speed limit - you can still get nailed.

    • Mike88 on 26/12/2018 - 10:20
      +56

      Wish they’d nail people who speed up when you try to overtake them legally after they’ve been drivin 10 under for the past several k’s

      • decr on 26/12/2018 - 13:31
        +7

        And then do 10 over come overtaking lane. On the left.

      • doheedo on 26/12/2018 - 23:35

        "Slow vehicle turnout"? Nope not me. My speedo goes to 180.

      • cloudy on 27/12/2018 - 10:06
        -5

        You make it sound like people deliberately go out and frustrate you on the road. The truth is most people don’t know who you are, and don’t care to frustrate you.

        If you feel like people are playing with you it’s probably all in your own mind.

    • alikazi on 27/12/2018 - 11:35
      +2

      Can someone please clear it up for me whether speeding in the right-most lane on the motorway is OK or not? I can't reason why I would want to go exactly the speed limit on a less crowded motorway, as long as I keep 3 seconds buffer from the vehicle in front and indicate when I want to switch lanes for an exit.

      • [Deactivated] on 27/12/2018 - 21:28
        -8

        I also don't get it, why should I change to the left if I am at the speed limit or even say 3kmh above it?

        A car that would want to overtake me would need to speed 10 or 20 above the limit.

        Since they can't legally do that, why should I bother to change to the left to make them able to do illegal things?

        • spaceflight on 27/12/2018 - 21:57
          +7

          Because the road rules say you need to.

          When you are driving on a multi-lane road with a speed limit of more than 80 or 90 km/h (depends on the state) you need to keep left unless you are overtaking.

          It doesn't matter if you are doing the speed limit you need to use the left lane.

          What you want to do is illegal.

          • [Deactivated] on 27/12/2018 - 22:53
            -5

            @spaceflight: Still doesn't make sense to me. Basically I have to switched to the left to enable the car behind me commit speeding illegally.

            Anyway I drive on the left anyway because doesn't make sense to drive on the right unless there is a slow car that I want to overtake on the left.

            • spaceflight on 27/12/2018 - 23:17
              +4

              @[Deactivated]:

              Basically I have to switched to the left to enable the car behind me commit speeding illegally.

              No you haven't.
              You have moved to the left lane because you are legally required to. You are not moving to let people speed.

              By not being in the right lane you are at a greater distance from oncoming traffic so reduce your chances of a head on collision.

              You are keeping a free lane for emergency vehicles.

              You are leaving an open lane for vehicles to overtake slower moving vehicles.

              • [Deactivated] on 28/12/2018 - 07:49

                @spaceflight:

                By not being in the right lane you are at a greater distance from oncoming traffic so reduce your chances of a head on collision.

                On most intercity highway there is a huge uncrossable gap with the other side.

                Anyway all are fair point. Thank you.

                Just couldn't get around that if all cars driving at speed limit, why would anyone can or need to overtake.

                Also the someone commented to keep left of you only 3kmh faster than the left car, because it will take 3min to overtake. But what if 3kmh is already over speed limit, would the car behind me speed 10 or 20 kmh?

            • iDroid on 28/12/2018 - 12:14
              +13

              @[Deactivated]:

              Still doesn't make sense to me. Basically I have to switched to the left to enable the car behind me commit speeding illegally.

              Yes, it makes perfect sense.

              The rules you need to follow are the rules that are designed to make the roads work - that is, given a specific situation each driver should be able to know in advance what is going to happen.

              One of those rules is - to keep left unless overtaking.

              Some reasons for this to be:

              • Emergency vehicles and other vehicles who are allowed to pass should not need to wait for you go get your car over to the left - you should have already been there!.

              • While it is illegal, you do not know why the person is trying to pass you (you should not care, it's not your job to police the rules). You may cause someone's death one day from your "doesn't make sense to me". Sure most are just being impatient, but some have what they believe is a valid emergency to act as they are (regardless of how foolish). You will cause this situation to be far more dangerous than it need be.

              • Some people will, for what ever reason they deem necessary want to go faster than you. They will get past you some how. You do make this extremely dangerous by frustrating them into dangerous manoeuvres.

              • Some people do not have good anger control. Purposely blocking someone in may cause their anger to increase and danger ensues. Not a smart move really (road rage happens and people die).

              • Perhaps your speedo is 2km under the limit, perhaps someone else's is 2km over, you appear to be doing 4km under. Sure it's just 4km, but your behaviour is (an apparent) unnecessary inconvenience to others (regardless of how little in your opinion).

              When people do not obey the keep left rule, please explain what happens when a car approaches a car in the right lane and wants to pass? (because this does happen, even if it makes no sense to you).

              • Will you move over?
              • Will they change to the left lane and pass?
              • Will they come up behind you and slowly creep closer to get you to move?
              • Will they blast up behind your car and try to push you away?
              • WHO THE *&^% KNOWS RIGHT?

              We should all be able to ass assume it's the first - You move over. For the simple reason - it's the safest thing you can do, and the rules are designed for it to work this way.

              That's right, because of your inability to see reason as to why you should obey that simple rule, now we have a road system where we have no idea of what's going to happen, and crashes happen, because car behind now tries to pass on left (because that's how it's done now because others wont move to the left) then someone does the correct thing and changes to the left lane to allow someone to pass and they crash..

              I see it all the time (not the crashing, but), cars jostling for where each is going to go so one can pass.

              This is a ridiculous ego driven nonsense situation.

              Just be friendly, move over, keep left, let other's in, indicate always, indicate early, accelerate at a reasonable speed at lights, keep safe distance from others, don't speed up when someone is passing, don't drive with high beams on, follow the road rules (including keeping left), etc. It's just manners.

              That's the job of a driver. Not enforcing rules on others.

          • [Deactivated] on 30/12/2018 - 18:48
            -1

            @spaceflight: What is "overtaking though"

            On a 100k road, there will be cars going anywhere between 85kmph to 130kmph.

            If there are cars going at 90-99kmph in the left lane, anyone going at 100+ will not be breaking the law unless no one is going slower than them in the left lane.

            A person driving at 130kmph will be perpetually pissed and throwing this rule at everyone's faces because they will always be held by by someone overtaking rightfully at the 110 or 120kmph. But guess where the problem lies.

            If this law is to be interpreted by the people who drive at the highest speed possible, no one else is supposed to be on the right lane but them.

      • spaceflight on 27/12/2018 - 21:58

        Can someone please clear it up for me whether speeding in the right-most lane on the motorway is OK or not

        No, you cannot legally go faster than the speed limit.

      • akashra on 28/12/2018 - 09:37
        +3

        Noone ever keeps a 3-second buffer to vehicles ahead in Australia. It just doesn't happen. This is part of the problem. The moment you leave a gap, someone fills it. This is also the issue with people 'hogging' the right lane - if you want them to move over, give them a space they can safely merge in to. That doesn't mean merging in to that gap between the two cars that are already following 1.2s apart - meaning that they would now create a chain of three cars 0.6s apart each. Now the guy that just merged has to slow down to create a gap that's a safe distance to the guy he merged in behind (35-50m minimum@100km/h), and the guy he merged in front of thinks he's an ass cos he overtook him then immediately slowed down, and he's gotta slow down now just to allow for him slowing down, but to then also create a gap to the guy that merged in front of him.

        All this because some asshat who wanted to do 107 in a 100 zone was tailgating the guy overtaking at 103.

  • whooah1979 on 25/12/2018 - 08:28
    +24

    Speed up (even if it means going a little bit over),

    By all means speed up if you like to donate to the residents of NSW. We don't mind the extra revenue.
    http://www.wsfm.com.au/newsroom/double-demerits-new-south-wa…

    • pegaxs on 25/12/2018 - 17:37
      +7

      Double demerits!!!! If it takes me an hour to overtake a car, then so be it. I’m not copping a double demerit block for some entitled, frustrated commuter who wants to get to their destination 2 mins earlier at the cost of me and my family's safety…

      Speed doesn’t kill. It's pushy, entitled, road raging butt holes that do.

      • whooah1979 on 25/12/2018 - 18:25

        Double demerits!

        It's only 2 points.

        • pegaxs on 25/12/2018 - 21:01
          +5

          Depends on how much faster I go. Added to that I then have to inform my insurance company of the infringement and that drives up my premium. I drive for a living, so any mark on my license could be the difference between getting a job or not.

          So, thanks for the advice, but it’s not just “2 points”…

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join