• RNAi [he/him]
    hexagon
    ·
    3 years ago

    dude 200 km/h is already too much. Vehicles that don't follow tracks and are conducted by random idiots shouldn't go faster than 120 km /h

    • aaaaaaadjsf [he/him, comrade/them]
      ·
      edit-2
      3 years ago

      I was being lenient but yeah. Here the speed limit on highways is 120km/h/75mph, in some areas of the world 130kph/81mph, so the limit can't be that low otherwise there would be no overtaking and it would make highway travel dangerous.

      Also 120mph is 192km/h, not 200. I know the limiter in Japan for all road cars is 180kph/112mph. So around there or less is more realistic. Personally I think a limit at 160kph/100mph should still allow for pretty much all overtakes to be completed safely on the highway.

      • fox [comrade/them]
        ·
        3 years ago

        It's generally legal to exceed the limit briefly for the purpose of overtaking, so long as it's not sustained

        • aaaaaaadjsf [he/him, comrade/them]
          ·
          edit-2
          3 years ago

          Yeah that's why you can't have cars mechanically limited to the speed limit, it would make overtaking impossible/dangerous.

      • SoyViking [he/him]
        ·
        edit-2
        3 years ago

        You are not supposed to exceed the speed limit on the highway when overtaking. If the speed limit is 130 km/h and you're already driving that you have no use for overtaking.

        • aaaaaaadjsf [he/him, comrade/them]
          ·
          3 years ago

          I mean unless you want the overtake to take a long period of time (which can be dangerous when you're on a one lane road and have to go into the oncoming lane to overtake), it's better to exceed the speed limit briefly during the overtake and spend less time in the oncoming lane. Obviously don't blast past trucks/trailers at 160km/h/100mph+, but briefly going 5 or 10 over during an overtake of a long truck/trailer is fine, and better than spending more time in the oncoming lane.

          • SoyViking [he/him]
            ·
            3 years ago

            If you are not sure you can overtake someone safely within safe speeds you shouldn't overtake them in the first place. And yes, that means sometimes you'll be driving 75 km/h on a 80 km/h road. That won't kill you and won't affect your life negatively, we're talking about five extra minutes of travel time on a 100 km stretch.

            • aaaaaaadjsf [he/him, comrade/them]
              ·
              edit-2
              3 years ago

              But it's not driving 75km on an 80km zone. It's being stuck behind a 40 meter/ 120ft long truck going 80-90km/h in a 120km/h road. Obviously only perform an overtake when it is safe to do so, on a straight section of road with good visibility, no blind turns, crests, fog or mist. Rarther spend time behind the truck or slow vehicle, it's much better than risking your life for an overtake. But it's still preferable to spend as little time in the oncoming lane as possible, especially when overtaking such long truck/trailers with 30+ wheels. South Africa has a 10km/h speed limit tolerance both for this and other reasons (speedometer inaccuracies, etc).

    • culpritus [any]
      ·
      3 years ago

      force = mass * acceleration

      so if we want less people to die on roads, we should limit speed based upon mass of the vehicle

      if you want to drive around in a metal cage that weighs more than a ton, then your speed limit is gonna be much lower than less massive vehicles

    • Haste_Hall [he/him]
      ·
      3 years ago

      An extremely well functioning ambulance service, even in rural areas, is a prerequisite for this. So, not gonna happen lol :doomer:

      • RNAi [he/him]
        hexagon
        ·
        edit-2
        3 years ago

        Yeh nobody is trying to ban ambulances, nor firefighters trucks, nor disabled people's cars, nor utilitary vehicles, nor rural areas cars, those are at most a 5% of all vehicles anyways.

        • Haste_Hall [he/him]
          ·
          3 years ago

          No, my point is, if you're rural enough, your best chance is NOT to wait for an ambulance; it's to have someone else in the household haul ass to the hospital with you as a passenger.