Which is more reckless

[obi_waynne]

I thought this would make an interesting debate. Please excuse the extremes used and note that we are not endorsing doing any of these things.

1) Driving at 60mph in a 30mph zone
2) Driving at 150mph in a 70mph zone
3) Driving in a 30 mph zone whilst, tired inattentive or distracted?

So which one is the most reckless? How would you rank these in order of recklessness and do you think that any or all of the above are perfectly safe to do?

 

[HDi fun]

All three are pushing the boundaries to be honest.

 

[obi_waynne]

But which is the worst?

 

[boostnturbos]

a reckon itd be doin 60 in the 30 cuz ur nerly guarenteed to meet an old granny crossn the road that never even considered looking to see whats comming n youd plough clean into her ( she wouldn enen know she was killed itd be that quick) wher as you can do 150 in the 70 cuz datl only be done on the motorway n evreybody is goin the same direction - no problems there and if u hit sombody r sumthing at 30 the chances r you wont kill them r u, hopflly befor the ambulance gets to ye.

 

[HDi fun]

But which is the worst?

I'm not going to answer - there's not enough information in the question.

150mph on an empty, dry motorway at 5am in June is the least silly.

But what if the driver had been drinking 'til 4.30am and the car had 3 tyres with sidewall damage and next to no tread? (At least on a deserted motorway he's only go to kill himself!)

See what I mean? - the question is simply too vague for a straightfoward answer.

 

[awif]

2) in my opinion

 

[Broken Cambelt]

So many factors could contribute to the final decision, if we assume the car is in roadworthy condition and the driver did not drink three bottles of vodka the night before, then i would have to say that it would be number 1)

why? the motorway has no oncoming traffic, and no pedestrians, or junctions that may be hidden, and though 150 mph is truely nuts to be doing, it is less likley to cause an accident than a 60 mph stint through town, which will kill poor old granny. period.

though 3) is still just as likley to cause an accident, your not deliberatly going too fast. so it would count as neglect. not recklessness.

 

[dpsubaru]

All other things being equal:

no 1.

In order of most reckless:
1
2
3.

believe that 3 is a common occurrence, this must affect most people on the school run every morning.

 

[jackclio]

60 in 30 most dangerous
30 while being tired is dangerous
150 in a 70 can be dangerous but if its an open road no one about then youd only harm yourself and passangers

 

[fezzafii]

Tired is worse is my opinion.

If your doing 60 in a 30 or 150 in a 70 under the correct circumstances (rare, but it happens) then these can, possibly, be safe.

Driving when tired or distracted means you are not taking into account any dangers, and therefore much more likely to cause some harm.

Say for instance you are doing 60 in a 30 at 4am in june, nice and dry etc then, with the adrenaline pumping etc you are going to be much more aware of old granny walking out into the road. Your braking distance will increase however you will see her.

While your fiddling with the CD's in your glove box, however, you simply will not see her. Hitting her at 30 is much worse than not hitting her atall.

 

[davevm]

All the three and if during night-time, then super reckless.