Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Hi Guys

Well i was driving to work this morning and i came across a few people doing under the speed limit say doing 60kmp in a 80kmp zone etc im sure it happens to everyone everyday, But the question is do you think its just as dangerous/hazard as say speeding over the limit? I find it very frustrating and could possibly cause a accident?

What are your thoughts?

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/179092-drivers-doing-under-the-speed-limit/
Share on other sites

  • Replies 49
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Yes it is as just as dangerous as speeding , well maybe not as dangerous but it is a problem

I wonder about the drivers skill if they cant do the speed limit

Yeh it makes me wonder to, whats so hard about sitting on the legal speed limit,

Dangerous for who? Pedestrian or the driver?

Would you rather get hit at 30 KM/h or 90 in a 60 zone...

I highly doubt you will see police officers stopping grannies doing 30 in a 60 zone saying "pardon me miss but you were doing 30 in a 60 zone..."

Edited by Modena
my dad got busted for going too slow on the freeway in the U.S

LMAO

but yes, there's nothing more annoying than getting stuck behind someone going almost half the speed limit

Haha thats a good one, I wonder if they would ever bring that law out here?

my dad got busted for going too slow on the freeway in the U.S

LMAO

but yes, there's nothing more annoying than getting stuck behind someone going almost half the speed limit

If they see you doing 50 in a 100 zone on a freeway then police will pull you over to see whats up, they may fine you if your reason is not sufficient... if they catch you doing 150 on a freeway, your going to court with a big ass fine and a loss of licence.

Slow drivers can be just as dangerous, sure they won't hit as hard but what about the frustrated person who has been stuck behind them for a while. They eventually snap and do something stupid to get past said slow person and end up causing an accident. Indirectly the slow person is responsible because had they been traveling at the legal speed there is a fair chance that the other driver wouldn't have had to do anything stupid in the first place.

Dangerous for who? Pedestrian or the driver?

Would you rather get hit at 30 KM/h or 90 in a 60 zone...

I highly doubt you will see police officers stopping grannies doing 30 in a 60 zone saying "pardon me miss but you were doing 30 in a 60 zone..."

of course you wont... theres no revenue in that

Edited by ctjet
Hi Guys

Well i was driving to work this morning and i came across a few people doing under the speed limit say doing 60kmp in a 80kmp zone etc im sure it happens to everyone everyday, But the question is do you think its just as dangerous/hazard as say speeding over the limit? I find it very frustrating and could possibly cause a accident?

What are your thoughts?

well to be honest..goin under limit morning time is bad...but if u look it in another way..i sometimes like to just cruise...and u can never do that...some a&&hole has to be right behind u..just go around mate..

I highly doubt you will see police officers stopping grannies doing 30 in a 60 zone saying "pardon me miss but you were doing 30 in a 60 zone..."

if it was a narrow road and they had a huge amount of traffic backed up behind them then they could be booked for dangerous driving or something like that. they are causing road rage, and then people would be trying to overtake, and you may get someone 10 cars back try to overtake a whole lot of cars and then get past 5 and have a car come the other way and he has to take evasive action.

but if you are unable, or not confident enough to drive at the limit then you are a dangerous driver. you would end up possibly causing accidents and road rage. it is the same with people who take for ever at intersections they wait for ages till there is a huge gap because they don't want to try to fit into a normal sized gap because they are too scared. and then everyone behind them gets impatient and takes more risks because they are angry/frustrated and doesn't want to be stuck there even longer.

Man nothing pisses me off :thumbsup: more then that especially when they are doing 10-20 under the limit in the left lane. Primarily i think its old people, sometimes I wonder if they will introduce a re-test at a certain age to keep you licence??

Edited by the97skyline

also the people who slow down to have a sticky-beak at an accident as they drive past. then they take their eyes off the road and slam up the back of the person in front of them that is doing the same thing. or they just slow down the rest of the traffic and you end up with traffic backed up for ages simply because some people want to have a good old look at a crash. admittedly i will slow down to have a look if there isn't much traffic, but if i have a heap of cars behind me i will keep going at normal speed.

Man nothing pisses me off :thumbsup: more then that especially when they are doing 20-30 under the limit in the left lane. Primarily i think its old people, sometimes I wonder if they will introduce a re-test at a certain age to keep you licence??

after the age of 85 they have to re-do their test every year.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • I came here to note that is a zener diode too base on the info there. Based on that, I'd also be suspicious that replacing it, and it's likely to do the same. A lot of use cases will see it used as either voltage protection, or to create a cheap but relatively stable fixed voltage supply. That would mean it has seen more voltage than it should, and has gone into voltage melt down. If there is something else in the circuit dumping out higher than it should voltages, that needs to be found too. It's quite likely they're trying to use the Zener to limit the voltage that is hitting through to the transistor beside it, so what ever goes to the zener is likely a signal, and they're using the transistor in that circuit to amplify it. Especially as it seems they've also got a capacitor across the zener. Looks like there is meant to be something "noisy" to that zener, and what ever it was, had a melt down. Looking at that picture, it also looks like there's some solder joints that really need redoing, and it might be worth having the whole board properly inspected.  Unfortunately, without being able to stick a multimeter on it, and start tracing it all out, I'm pretty much at a loss now to help. I don't even believe I have a climate control board from an R33 around here to pull apart and see if any of the circuit appears similar to give some ideas.
    • Nah - but you won't find anything on dismantling the seats in any such thing anyway.
    • Could be. Could also be that they sit around broken more. To be fair, you almost never see one driving around. I see more R chassis GTRs than the Renault ones.
    • Yeah. Nah. This is why I said My bold for my double emphasis. We're not talking about cars tuned to the edge of det here. We're talking about normal cars. Flame propagation speed and the amount of energy required to ignite the fuel are not significant factors when running at 1500-4000 rpm, and medium to light loads, like nearly every car on the road (except twin cab utes which are driven at 6k and 100% load all the time). There is no shortage of ignition energy available in any petrol engine. If there was, we'd all be in deep shit. The calorific value, on a volume basis, is significantly different, between 98 and 91, and that turns up immediately in consumption numbers. You can see the signal easily if you control for the other variables well enough, and/or collect enough stats. As to not seeing any benefit - we had a couple of EF and EL Falcons in the company fleet back in the late 90s and early 2000s. The EEC IV ECU in those things was particularly good at adding in timing as soon as knock headroom improved, which typically came from putting in some 95 or 98. The responsiveness and power improved noticeably, and the fuel consumption dropped considerably, just from going to 95. Less delta from there to 98 - almost not noticeable, compared to the big differences seen between 91 and 95. Way back in the day, when supermarkets first started selling fuel from their own stations, I did thousands of km in FNQ in a small Toyota. I can't remember if it was a Starlet or an early Yaris. Anyway - the supermarket servos were bringing in cheap fuel from Indonesia, and the other servos were still using locally refined gear. The fuel consumption was typically at least 5%, often as much as 8% worse on the Indo shit, presumably because they had a lot more oxygenated component in the brew, and were probably barely meeting the octane spec. Around the same time or maybe a bit later (like 25 years ago), I could tell the difference between Shell 98 and BP 98, and typically preferred to only use Shell then because the Skyline ran so much better on it. Years later I found the realtionship between them had swapped, as a consequence of yet more refinery closures. So I've only used BP 98 since. Although, I must say that I could not fault the odd tank of United 98 that I've run. It's probably the same stuff. It is also very important to remember that these findings are often dependent on region. With most of the refineries in Oz now dead, there's less variability in local stuff, and he majority of our fuels are not even refined here any more anyway. It probably depends more on which SE Asian refinery is currently cheapest to operate.
    • You don't have an R34 service manual for the body do you? Have found plenty for the engine and drivetrain but nothing else
×
×
  • Create New...