Speed Limit being a target

Ah-Watch

Sorry if this topic has been done a million times before in this forum...
After reading a thread here this morning about speeding and speed is seen as a target I keep thinking back to my driving test.

I was failed for not going fast enough, doing 10-15 under the speed limit on an open road and not driving fast enough through towns. I'm a male driver and never wanted to be branded a speeder so thought I was doing the right thing by driver a bit slower than the speed limit and I know some people drive so slow it can be dangerous too but are the RSA not somewhat to blame when they are failing people for not driving fast enough. I see both sides of the argument- you can be a hazard if not travelling fast enough but at the same time they're the ones telling you to be traveling slightly under the speed-limit.
What are your views, I might be picking it up wrong or not thinking of something but what do you think

Anan1

It all depends on the situation, IMO. 30km/h past a school can be dangerously fast, whereas 200km/h on an empty motorway can be fine.

langdang

Suit your speed to the road conditons, road location, road standard and the traffic around you.

80kph on windy country road with high ditches can be too much. 90kph on a good road in dry conditions with hardshoulder etc is pointless really

Unfortunately the RSA can't tell people to just use common sense because it's not all that common - so they have to come out with these one-size-fits-none solutions.

djimi

I dont think you fail for driving too slowly; I think you fail because by driving overly slowly consistently it comes across as hesitancy and lack of confidence, and this will result in a fail.

Noone can tell you that you have to drive at a certain speed (with the exception of on a motorway), but you should be able to go as fast as it is safe to go so as not to cause a disruption to the general flow of traffic. For example, on a 100kmph road, its annoying when youre behind someone doing 80, but I dont they can be classed as a problem. However, someone doing 50 on a 100 stretch of road (where its safe to go closer to the limit) is an issue.

Thats my take on it anyway.

Mr. Presentable

If I understand you correctly, OP, you were doing 35-40kmh in a 50 zone? The problem created here is that not everyone behind you wants to travel that slowly, and thus it causes a hazard. It is a bit abstract, but you are supposed to maintain a safe speed while making progress not to discomfit other road users.

djimi

Mr. Presentable wrote: »

If I understand you correctly, OP, you were doing 35-40kmh in a 50 zone? The problem created here is that not everyone behind you wants to travel that slowly, and thus it causes a hazard. It is a bit abstract, but you are supposed to maintain a safe speed while making progress not to discomfit other road users.

Its not a hazard. An obstruction/inconvenience maybe, but in a 50 zone someone doing 35-40 is not a hazard.

Ah-Watch

It was on the long stretch (and was told it was the stretch) I was failed for, doing between 85-90 and was told it was too slow for a 100kmph speed limit and that I should maintain a speed of 95-100 to be "safe". I have my full licence full over 2 years now but I often thought back to their idea of doing 95-100 in a 100kmph to be a "safe driver"

Cookie_Monster

Ah-Watch wrote: »

It was on the long stretch (and was told it was the stretch) I was failed for, doing between 85-90 and was told it was too slow for a 100kmph speed limit and that I should maintain a speed of 95-100 to be "safe". I have my full licence full over 2 years now but I often thought back to their idea of doing 95-100 in a 100kmph to be a "safe driver"

thats a bit ridiculous then IMO. nothing wrong with doing 90 on such a road. Were you even holding people up? (not that that really matters in the situation)

Ah-Watch

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

thats a bit ridiculous then IMO. nothing wrong with doing 90 on such a road. Were you even holding people up? (not that that really matters in the situation)

No, not holding anyone up, a stretch of road long and wide but I had just come out of the 50km zone into the 100km, and knew I would be turning left not far up the road at all. I still to this day think its a wrong mentality to be teaching young male drivers or any drivers tbh. I dont know really what I wanted from this thread, maybe someone to say I wasnt going bananas to think this- I just wish they wouldn't say that, it just encourages speeding

djimi

Ah-Watch wrote: »

It was on the long stretch (and was told it was the stretch) I was failed for, doing between 85-90 and was told it was too slow for a 100kmph speed limit and that I should maintain a speed of 95-100 to be "safe". I have my full licence full over 2 years now but I often thought back to their idea of doing 95-100 in a 100kmph to be a "safe driver"

I would have seriously questioned that. To my knowledge there is nothing in the rules of the road that says you have to travel at the speed limit, nor is there a set minimum speed for any given road type.

chasm

They are called speed LIMITS, so as far as im concerned that is exactly what they are..limits.
There was, and i think still is a sign somewhere between Knock airport and Boyle regarding speed, and it says its a limit NOT a target.

I think alot of people get confused when testers saying they are "failing to progress with traffic", it's not just about speed, it's about moving when they are moving etc

JimmyCrackCorn

chasm wrote: »

They are called speed LIMITS, so as far as im concerned that is exactly what they are..limits.
There was, and i think still is a sign somewhere between Knock airport and Boyle regarding speed, and it says its a limit NOT a target.

I think alot of people get confused when testers saying they are "failing to progress with traffic", it's not just about speed, it's about moving when they are moving etc

Its also about doing the speed limit when safe to do so.

dr.fuzzenstein

chasm wrote: »

They are called speed LIMITS, so as far as im concerned that is exactly what they are..limits.

Well, on a good, dry day in good light with moderate traffic when conditions allow on most main roads and motorways there should be no reason not to drive at the limit since most of the time it would even be safe to go faster.
Motorways in Ireland are perfectly safe to drive at 140 IMO, so 120 to me is not a target, but a limit that I'll try my best not to creep over.
Same goes for most national roads, you can do 100 km/h on them all day long and not be in the slightest bit of danger.
If you think that 120 on M ways and 100 on N roads is some kind of mental, lunatic, white knuckle, insane speed you shouldn#'t be on the road since you're clearly not up to it.
The limits where designed that the average driver can do them in a safe and relaxed manner and if people by and large stick closely to them motoring becomes safer and traffic flows better.
Only when people say "No, I believe that the limit on this road should be 60 not 100 and therefore I will force everyone to drive at 60" does traffic become dangerous and chaotic because of some dimwit holding everyone up and forcing people to overtake.
Having said that I have seen backroads signposted at 100 km/h but unless you are a rally driver in an Evo with a deathwish you wouldn't even dream of going that fast.

keithclancy

Its a failure for 'Making progress'

Basically its when the instructor sees that you are not driving at an appropriate speed for the conditions.

I.E. You were driving slow, but you have no idea why. The whole point of the test is to see if you drive at a speed appropriate for the conditions. If for example there was children playing next to parked cars you'd slow down and see that as a hazard. If however there were no obstructions there is nothing dangerous about driving at a consistant speed on the limit.

If everyone keeps the same speed traffic flows much more quickly and things are more predictable. If everyone is doing a different speed then traffic gets snarled up very quickly due to people braking etc.

Its very similar to a fail for 'observation' wherby the person cannot understand why they failed as they were moving their head all over the place looking at their mirrors, when in actual fact the instructor was looking for them to use their mirrors apporpriately, i.e. look in right mirror before turning right, looking in left when turning left, looking in rear view before using the brakes etc.

IMO the op probably failed on making progress due to slowing or driving slowly when there was absolutely no reason to.

Ah-Watch

It could have been a lack of progression- I dont believe it was but thats now beside the point, I've resat the test and passed. I just think sticking so close to the speedlimit shouldn't be encouraged by the RSA, it will only lead to more speeding overtime IMO. Anyway I'd say this has run its course and can be locked if necessary. Think I got my answer:D

dr.fuzzenstein

Ah-Watch wrote: »

It could have been a lack of progression- I dont believe it was but thats now beside the point, I've resat the test and passed. I just think sticking so close to the speedlimit shouldn't be encouraged by the RSA, it will only lead to more speeding overtime IMO. Anyway I'd say this has run its course and can be locked if necessary. Think I got my answer:D

I don't think it's fair to say this is encouraging speeding.
Had you gone over the speed limit you would have failed for that.
How does that encourage speeding pray tell?

To me it simply says there is a speed limit for a reason and you should try to stick to it and not go over or under by too much.
We don't get to decide what the limit is.

djimi

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

I don't think it's fair to say this is encouraging speeding.
Had you gone over the speed limit you would have failed for that.
How does that encourage speeding pray tell?

To me it simply says there is a speed limit for a reason and you should try to stick to it and not go over or under by too much.
We don't get to decide what the limit is.

To the best of my knowledge (and again I could be wrong; it wouldnt be the first time today) there is nothing in the rules of the road that tells you that you much stick to the speed limit. Its not a speed suggestion or a speed zone or something like that, its an upper limit that you are allowed to drive at. Now I agree that drivers should, where safe and possible, drive at a speed that is as close to the limit as possible so as to aid a good flow of traffic, but there is nothing in the ROTR to say you have to be within a certain percentage of the limit.

Eric Cartman

with the exception of school zones, and those backroads stupidly left at 80km/h all speed signs are 'minimum targets' as in its better to be a little over

langdang

Eric Cartman wrote: »

with the exception of school zones, and those backroads stupidly left at 80km/h all speed signs are 'minimum targets' as in its better to be a little over

TUT TUT TUT! Everytime you speed, Gaybo kills a kitten...;)

Anan1

Eric Cartman wrote: »

with the exception of school zones, and those backroads stupidly left at 80km/h all speed signs are 'minimum targets' as in its better to be a little over

There are a lot more exceptions than that. Would you do 50km/h past a pub with drunks milling around outside? Or in a housing estate with children playing on the road?

Eric Cartman

Anan1 wrote: »

There are a lot more exceptions than that. Would you do 50km/h past a pub with drunks milling around outside? Or in a housing estate with children playing on the road?

obviously individual circumstances require common sense , for instance a school zone - obviously at 3pm therell always be kids there so you definitley 100% of the time have to keep it slow, theres not always kids playing in an estate, in the situation there is ofcourse you slow down, just like if theres an accident on the motorway you dont do 100 approaching it . thats why it wasnt included.

but on average, especially in 80 and 100/120 zones on national roads / motorways, unless theres traffic or an accident there is no excuse for going even 1km under the speed limit

chasm

chasm wrote: »

They are called speed LIMITS, so as far as im concerned that is exactly what they are..limits.

It is extremely aggravating and borderline stressful for competent drivers who want to drive at the limit or a bit over it when people drive along at less than the limit and if there are no opportunities to overtake you are stuck there.

From many many miles of driving on roads which appear to attract annoying slow drivers I have seen so many near misses where people have been driven to their wits end going slowly and risk an overtaking maneuver.

Imo if people want to drive below the limit thats fine but they have to pull in to let others past.

Anan1

Eric Cartman wrote: »

but on average, especially in 80 and 100/120 zones on national roads / motorways, unless theres traffic or an accident there is no excuse for going even 1km under the speed limit

How about road conditions? Weather conditions?

Eric Cartman

Anan1 wrote: »

How about road conditions? Weather conditions?

OK let me re evaluate my entire post

On a dry day with clear visibility and no gale force winds on a motorway or national road with no accidents or spillages and light traffic there is absolutely no excuse for going even 1km under the speed limit ,

if visibility is impaired or the road surface is covered by some form of lubricant or liquid that may cause your car not to stop as effectivley then it is acceptable to go below the speed target for the safety of yourself and other motorists, but it is still important to keep pace with traffic and move to the left lane if anyone wishes to pass you

in the case of residential or village areas if the flow of traffic is hindered by people or other things you should slow down considerably until you pass the obstruction,

stimpson

From the Rules of the Road

Avoid driving too slowly

In normal road and traffic conditions, keep up with the pace of the traffic flow while obeying the speed limit. While you must keep a safe distance away from the vehicle in front, you should not drive so slowly that your vehicle unnecessarily blocks other road users. If you drive too slowly, you risk frustrating other drivers, which could lead to dangerous overtaking.

Sounds like the OP was failed fair and square. In normal circumstances, travelling close to or at the limit is safest for all concerned.

djimi

Again the rules of the road leaves it horribly ambiguous. Define "too slowly"? One persons definition of too slowly might differ very greatly from another persons.

stimpson

It's not ambiguous - not so slow that you're not holding up traffic. It depends on the conditions so it can't be a hard and fast rule. But 10 - 15 under the speed limit is pretty slow.

Anan1

Eric Cartman wrote: »

OK let me re evaluate my entire post

On a dry day with clear visibility and no gale force winds on a motorway or national road with no accidents or spillages and light traffic there is absolutely no excuse for going even 1km under the speed limit ,

if visibility is impaired or the road surface is covered by some form of lubricant or liquid that may cause your car not to stop as effectivley then it is acceptable to go below the speed target for the safety of yourself and other motorists, but it is still important to keep pace with traffic and move to the left lane if anyone wishes to pass you

in the case of residential or village areas if the flow of traffic is hindered by people or other things you should slow down considerably until you pass the obstruction,

The point i'm trying to make is that there are so many exceptions as to make any such statement meaningless. There are times when the limit is too low, and there are times when it is too high. Speed limits aren't 'minimum targets', they're arbitrary figures that may bear little relevance to actual conditions.

chasm

Brenna Delicious Patio wrote: »

It is extremely aggravating and borderline stressful for competent drivers who want to drive at the limit or a bit over it when people drive along at less than the limit and if there are no opportunities to overtake you are stuck there.

From many many miles of driving on roads which appear to attract annoying slow drivers I have seen so many near misses where people have been driven to their wits end going slowly and risk an overtaking maneuver.

Imo if people want to drive below the limit thats fine but they have to pull in to let others past.

There happens to be times/reason when many competent drivers drive below the limit so don't assume that just because someone is driving below the limit they are incompetent. Maybe they are a more vigilant driver than you?(or I?) Yes it may be annoying and tbh i've probably got a bit stressed myself when someone does it, but it isn't illegal whereas driving what you call "a bit over it" is

As regards "the many near misses where people have been driven to their wits end going slowly and risk an overtaking maneuver." that frankly is their own fault because any competent driver knows that you only overtake when it is safe to do so.

If i have to drive below the limit for whatever reason i will always pull over to let a vehicle pass because it is only common courtesy, on the otherhand if i am doing the limit and a vehicle behind me is speeding and driving on my a*se i will hold my driving line and let them wait to overtake.

Anan1

chasm wrote: »

If i have to drive below the limit for whatever reason i will always pull over to let a vehicle pass because it is only common courtesy, on the otherhand if i am doing the limit and a vehicle behind me is speeding and driving on my a*se i will hold my driving line and let them wait to overtake.

I'll pull over if it's safe or not if it isn't whatever my speed.

GTE

Its a problem in the way its taught.

The further up the speed limits you go the less important it is IMO.
In slow speed limit areas like towns and city streets then I think making progress is very important. On a 100kph road though, you should be allowed to do 80-90 if you wish. On a motorway down to 100 should be fine.

I may be told that that is too slow on a motorway but as was said in a recent thread about raising the speed limit and comfortable cruising speed if we all drove the way we are supposed then it shouldnt be a problem.

So you can see the difference between motorways where you can overtake slower cars and blocking up a low speed road that probably wouldnt have a decent place to overtake.

IMO its right to be punished for not making progress in towns and cities. I nearly failed on it but a year after I started out driving I understand it more.

unkel

Ah-Watch wrote: »

I was failed for not going fast enough, doing 10-15 under the speed limit on an open road and not driving fast enough through towns.

Your driving instructor never told you to keep up your speed (if safe)? That's one incompetent driving instructor :eek:

dr.fuzzenstein

djimi wrote: »

To the best of my knowledge (and again I could be wrong; it wouldnt be the first time today) there is nothing in the rules of the road that tells you that you much stick to the speed limit. Its not a speed suggestion or a speed zone or something like that, its an upper limit that you are allowed to drive at. Now I agree that drivers should, where safe and possible, drive at a speed that is as close to the limit as possible so as to aid a good flow of traffic, but there is nothing in the ROTR to say you have to be within a certain percentage of the limit.

I think Stimpson has it bang on:

Avoid driving too slowly

In normal road and traffic conditions, keep up with the pace of the traffic flow while obeying the speed limit. While you must keep a safe distance away from the vehicle in front, you should not drive so slowly that your vehicle unnecessarily blocks other road users. If you drive too slowly, you risk frustrating other drivers, which could lead to dangerous overtaking.

Unfortunately there is too much of an attitude of "I'm a driving God and have a divine right and entitlement to be on the road and drive at whatever speed I like regardless of other road users".
If you are deliberatly going slow to hold other road users up and fail to let them pass, you could be done for obstruction.
So, no, you cannot decide what the speed on a certain stretch of road whould be and then enforce that, any driver should make an effort to keep up with traffic.

chasm

Also from the rules of the road

"Signed speed limits set the maximum speed at which vehicles [/B]may[/B]legally travel on a section of road between speed limit signs, assuming the vehicles are not restricted in any way.

The signs indicate the maximum speed at which your vehicle may travel on a particular road or stretch of road, not the required speed for the road"

http://www.rulesoftheroad.ie/rules-for-driving/speed-limits/speed-limits.html

corktina

theres nothing to say you have to do the limit but dear God, how do people drive so slowly on the motorways? I couldnt do 80 or 90 on them to save my life.

dr.fuzzenstein

chasm wrote: »

Also from the rules of the road

"Signed speed limits set the maximum speed at which vehicles [/B]may[/B]legally travel on a section of road between speed limit signs, assuming the vehicles are not restricted in any way.

The signs indicate the maximum speed at which your vehicle may travel on a particular road or stretch of road, not the required speed for the road"

http://www.rulesoftheroad.ie/rules-for-driving/speed-limits/speed-limits.html

Yes, absolutely right, you must not go over the speedlimit.
Just stick closely to it when conditions are grand.
And if you decide that you want to drive at 60 km/h instead of 100 km/h and no one's going to get past you, you can also get done.

Stark

bbk wrote: »

The further up the speed limits you go the less important it is IMO.
In slow speed limit areas like towns and city streets then I think making progress is very important. On a 100kph road though, you should be allowed to do 80-90 if you wish. On a motorway down to 100 should be fine.

Not if there's absolutely no reason to drive slowly and you're frustrating other drivers by driving 20km/hr below the speed limit. If it's a wide, straight stretch of good quality road, then it doesn't say much for the ability of the driver if they can't drive at 100 on it.

chasm

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Yes, absolutely right, you must not go over the speedlimit.
Just stick closely to it when conditions are grand.
And if you decide that you want to drive at 60 km/h instead of 100 km/h and no one's going to get past you, you can also get done.

It says the maximum speed at which your vehicle may travel, Not "must".

The OP asked if the speed limit was a target, and i say no it is not, a limit means exactly that, the maximum permissible speed. I recall an argument before on boards where someone pointed out that if the limit has to be driven at or as close to, then cyclists would be expected to stay off the road, except in towns.

I agree 40kph below the speed limit is extremely slow, but most people i see who are driving below the limit are usually only 10-15kph below, if that. The thing is some people are never happy to be behind other cars whether they are doing the limit or not.

chasm

chasm wrote: »

It says the maximum speed at which your vehicle may travel, Not "must".

The OP asked if the speed limit was a target, and i say no it is not, a limit means exactly that, the maximum permissible speed. I recall an argument before on boards where someone pointed out that if the limit has to be driven at or as close to, then cyclists would be expected to stay off the road, except in towns.

I agree 40kph below the speed limit is extremely slow, but most people i see who are driving below the limit are usually only 10-15kph below, if that. The thing is some people are never happy to be behind other cars whether they are doing the limit or not.

Look there is no reason to be driving even 10 to 15km/h below the limit in most instances. I think it shows a lack of competence and driving ability and just lack of cop on not to keep up to the speed limit or a bit over it as you have to remember you speedometer tells you you are driving faster than you actually are by a few km/h.

It takes long enough to get places in this country on routes that don't have motorways without getting stuck behind people on a mission to slow down everybody behind them. I would safely say slow drivers add roughly 20 to 30 mins to my trip from Galway to Cork.

djimi

Brenna Delicious Patio wrote: »

Look there is no reason to be driving even 10 to 15km/h below the limit in most instances. I think it shows a lack of competence and driving ability and just lack of cop on not to keep up to the speed limit or a bit over it as you have to remember you speedometer tells you you are driving faster than you actually are by a few km/h.

Thats a ridiculously general statement. There are several 80kmph roads out my way that if I tried to go 80kmph or even close to it on them I would either wreck my car or end up in a ditch. Granted there are plenty of perfectly good straight roads where the limit feels quite slow, but there are an awful lot of country roads in Ireland where the speed limit is in excess of what would be considered a safe speed.

A speed limit is not there to tell you how fast you should be going. Its up to you as a driver to judge how fast you should be going. If a driver feels that, for any reason, going a certain speed is unsafe, then unless they are going excessively slowly then there is no reason why they should have to go faster than what they feel safe doing.

Just so were clear, I agree that drivers should make every effort to keep as good a pace as possible, Im not one for dawdling well below the speed limit so its not like Im trying to defend myself, but the way some people are going on in this thread youd swear just because a road has an 80kmph limit on it that is the speed you have to go or else all traffic is going to grind to a halt.

Anan1

bbk wrote: »

The further up the speed limits you go the less important it is IMO.
In slow speed limit areas like towns and city streets then I think making progress is very important. On a 100kph road though, you should be allowed to do 80-90 if you wish. On a motorway down to 100 should be fine.

I actually think the complete opposite. There are lots of urban areas where 50km/h is way too fast, whereas i've yet to see a motorway that can't easily take 120km/h.

GavRedKing

Its been mentioned already but the way I see it is, on a motorway if I can and if the conditions allow it, I will drive reasonalbly close if it not over the speed limit to a degree.

I always try and stay as close to the limit as I can, as I said if the conditions allow and if the road surface is sufficeint to allow safe travel at that speed.

chasm

Brenna Delicious Patio wrote: »

Look there is no reason to be driving even 10 to 15km/h below the limit in most instances. I think it shows a lack of competence and driving ability and just lack of cop on not to keep up to the speed limit or a bit over it as you have to remember you speedometer tells you you are driving faster than you actually are by a few km/h.

I'm sorry but after reading that i don't think i can take any other posts of yours on this thread seriously. Only for the fact that you have so many posts i'd have thought you were a troll!! Driving abit over the limit because your speedomer tells you you are driving faster than you actually are :rolleyes:

djimi

djimi wrote: »

Thats a ridiculously general statement. There are several 80kmph roads out my way that if I tried to go 80kmph or even close to it on them I would either wreck my car or end up in a ditch. Granted there are plenty of perfectly good straight roads where the limit feels quite slow, but there are an awful lot of country roads in Ireland where the speed limit is in excess of what would be considered a safe speed.

A speed limit is not there to tell you how fast you should be going. Its up to you as a driver to judge how fast you should be going. If a driver feels that, for any reason, going a certain speed is unsafe, then unless they are going excessively slowly then there is no reason why they should have to go faster than what they feel safe doing.

Just so were clear, I agree that drivers should make every effort to keep as good a pace as possible, Im not one for dawdling well below the speed limit so its not like Im trying to defend myself, but the way some people are going on in this thread youd swear just because a road has an 80kmph limit on it that is the speed you have to go or else all traffic is going to grind to a halt.

Well the problem is mostly encountered on N roads as these are generally the roads people use for getting from place to place and I will be more precise in saying leaving out towns and a few bad bends around buttevant there is no section of road between Cork and Galway where there is any need to at less than 100km/h, I have done the trip at 4am and sufficed to say I traveled the whole way comfortably at speeds well in excess of 100km/h.

djimi

Brenna Delicious Patio wrote: »

Well the problem is mostly encountered on N roads as these are generally the roads people use for getting from place to place and I will be more precise in saying leaving out towns and a few bad bends around buttevant there is no section of road between Cork and Galway where there is any need to at less than 100km/h, I have done the trip at 4am and sufficed to say I traveled the whole way comfortably at speeds well in excess of 100km/h.

I agree with you on those sort of roads, people should be trying to keep up with the speed limit where safe conditions allow on a long straight stretch of 100kmph road. The other side to that of course is that on those kinds of roads there is usually ample opportunities to overtake safely so its not always as much of an issue.

Brenna Delicious Patio wrote: »

Well the problem is mostly encountered on N roads as these are generally the roads people use for getting from place to place

Sorry but I had a bit of a chuckle at that; what else would people be using other types of roads for?!!

I jest; I know what you mean

djimi

djimi wrote: »

.

Sorry but I had a bit of a chuckle at that; what else would people be using other types of roads for?!!

I jest; I know what you mean

It looks slightly silly alright on re-reading.

chasm wrote: »

I'm sorry but after reading that i don't think i can take any other posts of yours on this thread seriously. Only for the fact that you have so many posts i'd have thought you were a troll!! Driving abit over the limit because your speedomer tells you you are driving faster than you actually are :rolleyes:

its common knowledge and has been discussed many times on this forum that your car speedometer reads a few km/h faster than you are actually travelling. This is easily confirmed using a sat nav.

Doylers

I have never gone 5km under the limit (except if I had to due to dangerous road conditions) I think it has to be said like above that not all road are suited to the limit. Out by me there is a bypass road that goes on the outskirts on waterford, the road is a dual carriageway with paths and the limit is only 60 but another country road by me has at least a turn every 2 mins hand it has a limit of 80 and the road is in pretty bad condition. Maybe road speed limits should be assessed individually per road and not just by type basis?

keithclancy

Brenna Delicious Patio wrote: »

its common knowledge and has been discussed many times on this forum that your car speedometer reads a few km/h faster than you are actually travelling. This is easily confirmed using a sat nav.

Here we go ... someones going to post that its not accurate, roads aren't flat .. blah blah blah ....

Why cant they have games builtin to cars that gives scores for overtaking, parking, average speed, flipping off grannies etc.

I can hear it now "Average speed 10 points ... smooth gearing 10 points... parallel parking ... ULTIMATE COMBO MEGA POINTS!!!"

chasm

Brenna Delicious Patio wrote: »

its common knowledge and has been discussed many times on this forum that your car speedometer reads a few km/h faster than you are actually travelling. This is easily confirmed using a sat nav.

I'm not going to get into a debate as to whether it is or not, it is the fact that you drive over the speed limit because of this.

stimpson

keithclancy wrote: »

Eh, he's right:

EU rules state:

* The indicated speed must never be less than the actual speed, i.e. it should not be possible to inadvertently speed because of an incorrect speedometer reading.
* The indicated speed must not be more than 110 percent of the true speed plus 4 km/h at specified test speeds. For example, at 80 km/h, the indicated speed must be no more than 92 km/h.

djimi

stimpson wrote: »

Eh, he's right:

EU rules state:

* The indicated speed must never be less than the actual speed, i.e. it should not be possible to inadvertently speed because of an incorrect speedometer reading.
* The indicated speed must not be more than 110 percent of the true speed plus 4 km/h at specified test speeds. For example, at 80 km/h, the indicated speed must be no more than 92 km/h.

That means the speedo may not be 100% accurate, not that it wont be 100% accurate. Unless youve had it tested and know for sure that its not producing an accurate reading, I think its a gamble to assume that its wrong.

One thing Ive always wondered about this arguement actually; people go on about the speedo being off compared to their SatNav; how do they know the SatNav is 100% accurate either, considering it is taking its reading from 20000 feet in space?