Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

Speeding or Stopped......is there an in between?

Discussion in 'General Motorcycling Discussion' started by ronk, Mar 3, 2006.

  1. I don't think there is. If you are moving then, you must be speeding, otherwisw you would be stopped.

  2. No, not quite. Speeding is relative to a set standard. 30 kph is only half the minumum limit for most roads, so it's not speeding.
    130 kph is 30 kph OVER the set standard for the open road and is therefore speeding. This is irrelevant to any argument as to whether or not 30 or 130 is inherently dangerous. Remember the first cars in England had a man walking ahead of them waving a red flag even though they were not travelling as fast as the horses.....
  3. ahh but you haven't taken into account that strange thing those big loud bikes with monkey bar handle bars and back rests on their seats do .... i think its called .....umm ....cruising ??
  4. Pont taken, old boy, crusin' is neither speeding nor stopping, although it does seem to involve a fair amount of the latter!!!

    {Just kidding Voyager and others, put away the flame-throwers.)
  5. Were the first and last words misspelled?? Was it meant to read ...

    Point taken, old boy, crusin' is neither speeding nor stopping, although it does seem to involve a fair amount of the latte!!!

    :LOL: :LOL: :LOL:
  6. Very good Ross, the sort of punny comment I like to make myself :LOL:
  7. Are you just trolling? Or just stupid. The original thread question is just the sort of question that someone who thinks they are "victimised" by speed limits would ask. Of course there is an in between. Most people on the road have no problem understanding this concept.

    (By the way, I'm grumpy and have had a bad day and really shouldn't have even read this thread)
  8. Even for a habitual speeder there is a in-between. As you accelerate from being stationary you are "inbetween" stopped and the speed 'limit' until you accelerate past it.
  9. Perhaps the point is that once you are 1km/h past the speed limit the implication is that suddenly you are doing something dangerous, whereas 1km/h less and suddenly you're doing something safe.

    Obviously it's a flawed system, but what's the better alternative? Even with the safest roads and vehicles ever, without speed limits people would do 100km/h past schools and someone would get killed for no reason.

    Yes, even 20km/h past schools could (and probably has) killed someone. They tradeoff between convenience and safety, and they picked 40, in this case.
  10. And have you also noticed that if a limit is 60, people do 80, and when they raise the limit to 80, people do 100???? :grin:
  11. & when its 100, we do 260 :grin:
  12. It has nothing to do with speed limits, as I can be doing 60 or 90km/h in a 110km zone, and not be breaking the speed limit, but, if a 'roo jumps out and I run into it, no doubt "speeding" would be reported as "a contribiting factor to the accident".
    Like if the dog runs out and you fall off at 30km/h then your were speeding.

    The problem is in any "incident" speeding is reported as a factor, whether the speed is legal or not.

    Also on some roads I ride, it is actually safer in to do 130km/h in daylight than 80km/h at night.

    So your either speeding or stopped.
  13. Has anyone seen an article written by an ex police officer who is trying to bring in 'Autobarns' to Aus...

    He said that on long drives, the major contributing factor is boredom!
    Having to sit on 100 or 110 ks p/h for 1 or more hours is too much. We need to have unrestricted roads!
    Its the fast pace and adrenilin that would keep us safer!

    I believe this is a fantastic idea but unfortunatley we have too many scared drivers (especially women :evil: ) who would never agree to such a thing.

    Thats just my 2 cents worth :)
  14. I wouldn't like to see it happen actually. Boredom leading to accidents is but one of many factors associated with major highway crashes. Addressing one aspect in isolation won't suddenly drop the road toll. In fact I think it will increase it, at least initially(first few years).

    On an autobahn, the driver/riders ability to assess what is a safe speed is even more critical as you can go so much faster. I don't believe that the majority of drivers have that ability. Mainly because they have never done it before and have no experience of controlling a car and assessing hazards at that speed. So allowing them to do whatever speed they want would be catastrophic. They would need to do significant training before they could be considered able to competently assess what is a safe speed.

    Also, we don't have the roads for it. They are not built for 200kph. They would have to rebuild any road that this was proposed for. Then you would have to impose limits on drivers so that you don't get a 20 year old straight off their P's with a couple of years experience of city driving at slow speed going to try it out and doing 250.
  15. Don't they have road in the NT with unlimited speeds ?

    I like the French motorsways that have two speed limits, one for fine and one for wet weather, good idea ! But I think the Aus traffic police would wait until one drop of rain fell and then start booking people who didn't slow down in time.
  16. Thats because you can go that much over and if you're caught you still get to keep your licence :wink:
  17. Seems to me you've confused 'speeding' with 'excessive speed' being a contributing factor and as being the same thing.

    you can have an accident caused by excessive speed when you were not speeding. The speedlimits are not accident proofing.
  18. You do know that there have been many, many studies in europe where drivers were allowed to do any speed they want. And more than 99% of drivers did NOT end up going flat out, they just sat on a speed that was comfortable for them, their car and their abilities.
    It's this thing called common sense. Many people still do have it, but governments, and safety nazis would like people to not acknowledge it's existance, for fear of an outbreak of self respect, self control and general well being.
    To overgovern is to manipulate the taxpayers into thinking governments are doing something useful about a problem that really doesn't exist.
    I personally am happiest cruising at about 130-140km/h. Its where I am comfortable with teh car/bike and my own abilities.
    I am tired of this lowest common denominatos legislation. I can't drive very well, people going fast scare me, so let's all go slower.
    And as for school zones, I like how the REAL issue has been avoided, mainly, educating children about road safety and lazy parents dropping kids off in cars across the (busy) road from school.

    Regards, Andrew.
  19. Just because you feel comfortable at 130/140 doesn't mean you are driving at a safe speed. And just because you think you have common sense doesn't mean you do. We all know there are A LOT of bad drivers on the road. Not necessarily because they don't have common sense and can't assess safety in a situation but because they are lazy or choose not to take appropriate precautions. The "Sorry I didn't see you" case is the classic. Many of these people have the common sense not to pull out in front of a bike, but their laziness prevents them from not doing it.

    It is a different perspective if YOU are responsible for reducing the road toll than when it is someone else's problem and the only thing you worry about is the limits placed on you. If it was your job to keep all drivers as safe as possible then allowing the lowest common denominator to kill themselves and others is unacceptable. So they have to legislate to take into account the lowest common denominator. And remember, the lowest common denominator means "common" not extreme.