So me being confident in my driving, having very good driving skills, and being respectful to other drivers on the road still makes me a bad driver? Wow thats totally awesome!!!! I wonder what a good driver is then.... Dont bother replying, I wont acknowledge anymore comments from someone so pathetic. Yes... I would. winrar! +1
To put a line under the discussion: Whether you, or I or anyone else, likes it, there are enforceable speed limits in place at this present time, both in your country and mine. In the UK, the police are allowed to use discretion for speeding offenders, so there is some leeway (albeit a small amount). Now whether you choose to abide to these laws or not is up to you. I choose to abide by the laws because I would never be able to live with the guilt of harming another person due to my irresponsible actions. Imagine if I am just 10 miles an hour over the limit, have a crash, but the speed was not the ultimate factor of the crash maybe a slight contributory factor. I bang into a car with a full load, and cause some serious injuries or even fatalities. I would know that I was not driving as I should have been (according to the law), and this would in turn serve me a massive slice of the guilt pie each and every time I looked in the mirror. I couldn't live with that, and I doubt many of you guys who admit to speeding could either. But you think it will never happen to you, because you are special, and can handle the speed. That's absolute bollocks. I used to put cadavers away from traffic incidents in ward 13 (the mortuary) when I was a porter at the local hospital, and I also used to see people coming in seriously injured in A&E too. Life's full of people who think it will never happen to them, but life has a nasty way of proving that theory wrong, and does so frequently. If I could have been given a pound for every time I heard "he/ she was such a careful driver" after such incidents, I would be a very rich man! Driving according to the rules doesn't mean that accidents will never happen, but it does mean that you may be able to live with yourself should one happen and others are injured as a consequence. That means a lot to me, enough that I choose to abide by the laws, irrespective of whether I agree with them or not.
Thanks for being dismissed kind sir, what a knobhead you really are. Now go get your joypad out, do a lap or two, and find the dummy you spat out. Then come back with something sensible, OK me ole lah.
The problem with engine braking, is that it isn't as smooth as brakes, and brakes on either a race car or bike, are more than strong enough to deliver as much braking force as the tyre can handle, so the comparitively rough engine braking isn't wanted or needed. When you are at maximum braking power just before a relatively slow corner, and then gently easing off the brakes as you turn in towards the apex, idealy you are going so fast that the tyres are at the limit of adhesion. Any engine braking here will just make the car want to go sideways, or straight or wide, depending on wether you are rwd, fwd or awd. But when you aren't racing at the limit, then engine braking is an easy way to get a trail braking effect as you turn into a corner. And yes, engine braking does increase the wear on the clutch and engine and gearbox a bit, but meh compared to stuff like burnouts or WOT. (Wide Open Throttle) Feathering or blipping the throttle on down shifts is basically heel and toe downshifting, where you use your heel to blip the throttle, which makes it easier to get the gears in, and gentler on the gearbox due to the matching of speeds, and when you do it right on a syncromesh gearbox, you don't need to use the clutch, but still using the clutch does help to make things even smoother. So even when you have a slipper clutch, smooth practises still help. All this smoothness isn't just about prolonging the life of drivetrain components, that's just a benefit. The main point is to keep the car as smooth/flat as possible = more grip= faster braking and corner and take off speeds Watching someone like Senna perform heel and toe might seem intimidating, but it's not that hard. If people these days spent as many hours practising on the track, as they do playing car racing games, then maybe they might be about as good as Senna I've only been to one track day at Phillip Island on my 250cc, there were quite a few guys on big bikes like Honda 929, 600, Ducati 748, 996, etc... and most of them were faster than me on the roads, because they really didn't care about things like road rules or losing thier license... but on the track, there were only a couple that I couldn't overtake and leave behind in the corners They had no idea what it meant to be smooth, or how to get thier knee even close to scraping the ground.
I want to learn heel-toe downshifting but I can't squeeze my leg to the inside. For a fat guy I am very flexible in general but I can't make this movement at all. Quite annoying
Not every car has the pedals in locations that are suited to heel and toe, usually sports cars have a nice long accelerator and the brake pedal is up high enough to make heel and toeing easy. Get some new pedals
It is not up to YOU to make these judgements. YOU should not be calculating the risk of someone else dying or not. Oh God yes.. almost ALWAYS. Pile ups happen for one reason: The person behind failed to stop in time. Usually because they were driving too fast for the conditions, and they were not obeying the cardinal rule - Leave a gap you are confident you would be able to stop within. It wouldn't matter why they were too close either. You could say it was foggy.. but it's still speed that caused the accident, because they were driving to fast to stop within the distance they could see to be clear. It's for this reason that insurance companies will always rule in favour of the driver who was hit from behind. Even if the driver in front slammed on for no apparent reason, if you were a safe distance behind, and going at a suitable speed, you would have stopped in time. The only exception is you failed to notice the standing traffic ahead... in which case you really are a knob end! This is very true, and you'd be correct, but... and it's a big but... there are still other factors in play where distance from the cars ahead has no relevance: Tyre failure, poor lane changes without checking mirrors, objects falling from trucks, and things falling from poorly maintained vehicles. Animals running onto the highway (hit a deer at 70 and you'll probably not survive), lunatics jumping off bridges.... it all happens. The faster you are going, the harder it will be to negotiate these hazards, and no amount of maths will help you predict these things... and even it if could, you're too busy driving to calculate it anyway. No it doesn't. No one will stop driving. Which is exactly why limits have to be set, and legally enforced, because there are clearly people out there who are prepared to calculate the risks themselves, and drive to standards they themselves have set. They may be right, they may be wrong - my money is on wrong. I wouldn't trust most people to sit the correct way around on a toilet seat, nevermind do a valid risk assessment of all the hazards they may encounter any given day. I'll go with the speed limit. LOL... here's the funny part. Your average speed on highways there is 60.. and you seem to think 70 is more appropriate. Here, the limit is 70. Guess what? Most people think 80 is more appropriate. If we raise the limit to 80, then I'd bet everything I own that public opinion would again shift, and people would think 90 is more appropriate. We always want more. You are correct, speed didn't CAUSE the accident, no. However, my point is, something you yourself had no control of, and had no way of predicting was made a great deal worse by you not obeying a speed limit, all because you saw no increased danger in doing so. Obviously, that decision to go faster, in this situation, was in error. Are you absolutely sure every time you make that choice is not in error? If not, don't make it. That's my point. It's just not worth it most of the time. I'm no saint. Every now and then I'll be on a stretch of road that is straight, no footpath, great visibility and no side roads or entrances that would allow a vehicle onto the road, and yes.. I will go crazy, but that's between me and the tree I hit. I can see there's no one else ahead, and I know there is no way for anyone else to join the road from the side. It's effectively a closed track for as far as I can see (i'm talking about roads I actually know here) In any other situation, I'll just not want it on my conscience that something I did may have caused someone's death. Lots of gathered data on statistics from previous crashes I assume. The work has been done for me, so I see no point in making my own risk assessment. I know it's not random, as every now and then, they'll change a limit as and when new data is available, and no... it's not always to lower limits. I've seen several cases local to me where limits have been raised. I'm actually confident they are set sensibly, and by gathered data, not some arbitrary figure decided by a suit. Fine... I'm not trying to lecture you, we're just having a debate, but if you ever are involved in an accident and your speed is deemed to be a contributory factor in someone's death, you'll be left wondering if that 5 minutes off your commute was bought cheaply or not. I will agree in principle to some truth in that. People who drive UNDER the limits are usually scared, un-confident old people, who are just a hazard as soon as they turn the key. This can make it appear that the faster drivers are safer... and in that sense, they are. Remove the old fossils and scared drivers however, and I think you'll find the weighting will shift a little downwards. Food for thought There is no data to support raising it... which is why it stays. It was set in response to initially having no speed limits in this country, until some fool on a AC Cobra got caught doing warp 1 one day, and government had to do something, and yes, it was an arbitrary decision. It has been looked at closely on several occasions however, and every time there has been no evidence to support the argument that raising it would have no negative effect on fatality figures. That's all I was saying - higher speeds equal more fatalities... regardless of what actually cased the incident. At you're willing to enter into a sensible debate about it though from a sensible, scientific, and logical standpoint. You lack the experience. Computer games don't count. No... you wouldn't. You're either trolling, or being a knob now... which is it? I hope you're trolling, because that's forgiveable.
Except that you HAVE to make such judgements when you're driving. Speed limits on our roads are mostly fixed* and it is up to individual drivers to determine whether their speeds are fit for the conditions, the traffic level, the state of their car, etc. Take an example - an average motorway. The national speed limit is 70mph for a car. As a driver, your car may have a space-saver tyre on. The weather may be foggy, icy, wet, etc. There may be heavy traffic. Is 70mph the safe speed in these conditions? Almost definitely not. If you truly think that you don't have to assess what the safe speed is, that some numpty in Whitehall has said "60mph is safe here" so I'll do 60mph and it's safe, then you're deluding yourself. EDIT: to clarify * I mean most roads don't have the dynamic speed limits that are available on some motorways, where the police can set temporary speed limits using the displays on the overhead gantrys and matrix signs
ok, seems like there is a major derailment occurring about driving 'luck'. It really is the luck of the draw every time you get in a car or on a bike. You think about how well controlled aircraft are with set flight paths, and the amount of near misses that happen daily would make you puke from stress. The human factor is the biggest failure point in any system, are mental and physical state can switch so quickly and accident can occur before we even noticed.
Notice how no-one thinks your a great driver, but just thinks your cocky? Tell us what makes you such a good driver. What advanced driving courses, qualifications etc have you got? You've been driving a few years yet you seem to be such an amazing driver astounds me. And the fact you think you know all on the track, well, is actually embarrassing.
Having re-read the last ten pages of this thread, it looks like it's just going in circles with a pinch of trolling and flaming thrown into the mix. Agree to disagree - it's something that you lot are going to have to do with topics like this as everyone has they're own opinion and won't change. For the record my opinion is that every driver on the road is an eejit. Everyone makes stupid mistakes from time to time, no exceptions
If I ever cause an accident due to this, I will officially proclaim that I am indeed a knob end! That's my point, our modern world pratically requires driving. Eventually we have to just accept that because of this demand, people will get hurt and die, even on legal limitations. And, due to the demand for productivity and advancement, just how many people we're willing to give up in exchange for fast travel can become a fluctuating figure. But your view that most people can hardly sit facing the right way on a toilet seat is probably not too far off. Getting off on a bit of a tangent, at least in the US, no formal driving school is required for anyone. As long as a person can pass a multiple choice test, they are free to drive as long as one of the passengers has a license (and has had it for a number of years iirc). Yes, for learning purposes people will eventually have to get into the car and drive, but this means that someone who has never once even seen a car can read a pamphlet, get a friend or family member with a license, and hit the freeway. Entirely at the judgement of what the driver and license-holder feel is a comfortable situation for them both. After that, this driver can pass another multiple choice test (20 out of 25 questions right is acceptable) and a basic driving test which, in my case, involves puttering around a parking lot and cruising a suburban block. No adverse weather driving test, no freeway driving test. In my first winter I was probably incredibly dangerous! It's really shocking that speed can get pretty fierce polarity (just look at us all ) but the moment anyone brings up rigid driving tests people lose interest. They see work beyond replacing some signs. I actually wonder if that's because of your roads initially being built for 100mph. More straight stretches and smoother pavement could make the speed more comfortable. I seem to remember reading once that US freeways were designed for 75mph and I'd believe it. Some overpass-pavement interfaces are a pretty brutal bump even at 60. I can't vouch for everyone else but I personally value my car too much to slam into a 2" lip at 80mph. Now that would be great to see! It would really play with those SafeSpeed numbers. Just imagine how much easier all of this would be if it was even possible to see data on those fast, but "safe", drivers going the limit, or even under. Everything left out I either can't argue you on (most studies say higher speed means higher fatality by varying amounts, and I question the ones that flatout disagree) or have to say Brooxy's right. So you know what that means, Pooky... We must settle this on the streets!
i remember back in 2005 we went on a trip to North Carolina. The interstate speed limit was 65mph and ALL traffic was doing a minimum of 80mph. There were times were everyone was going 85-90mph even. Those roads are incredible too. 90mph doesn't even feel fast in the slightest. Lots of fun it was.
It's a nightmare. A few times people have been right up behind me, like a few feet, and I've pulled over to the side of the road and waved them past. They are confused by it but as they drive past my angry glare explains to them what's going on. I had two major road rage outbursts because of this, and both times didn't go too well. First time we got to a set of lights, and I jumped out ready to beat crap out of the guy who was right up my bum for the last 5 minutes. Turns out he was about 90 years old and was with his wife. The second time was the same situation, and it was a gorgeous 16 year old girl. So now I just do the wave past thing and glare at them. It doesn't happen all that much, having people REALLY close, but even once in a while isn't nice. And most people in general drive way too fast, and way too carelessly. I used to drive too fast too, but I've seen a few mad things on the road that stopped me. I saw a kid ran out in to the road chasing a football when my friend was driving once, and I've also seen a guy go through red light, right between 2 cars like it was some kind of mathematically planned stunt. It was scary.
I do have one more question for you, and for stuartpb or anyone else who feels like tossing in their own opinion. We've talked a lot about speed limits and what they should be and how they're determined, etc. But does it seem a bit odd that traffic laws (in both countries) don't count someone as speeding until either 5mph over or 10% over? If some outside civilization was to observe traffic laws and customs they would likely be confused why our speed limits are not actually enforcable at the limit.
because of common sense. not all vehicles are calibrated the same. then you factor in different tire sizes, tire wear and the fact that not everyone can keep their car at the exact same speed without cruise control.
I go to the speed limit exactly on any road other than a motorway. Just because you dont see the point in them doesnt mean the guy who has done statistical analysis on the dead people along there doesnt. Dont see the point in a 30 zone? At some point, someone else probably didn't either, then someone died, and it got reduced. I sometimes break the limits on a motorway, but only if I can see way ahead and have a good 2 whole chevrons to the car in front. 30mph = 13.3333 mps -> 88 Joules per kilogram kinetic energy 40mph = 17.7777 mps -> 158 Joules per kilogram kinetic energy you'll notice and extra 10 mph adds roughly twice the energy per kilogram. Not to mention if you hit anything whilst going at 40 in a 30 zone you could be looking at prison. The moral of this post is to stop being a dick, leave the house 5 minutes earlier, and don't recklessly endanger other peoples safety by being a knob and flouting the rules of the road, devised and set by people much cleverer than you who have got statistical and scientific data to decide what limit is best in what places. edit: the 5mph (or 10% iirc here in the uk) is due to calibration issues between different brands and ages of car. To this end it was deemed that if a true effort to get the correct speed had taken place the effect should be a speedo to within 10% of the true speed. That doesnt mean that you can do 77, but then you might be doing 84.7, and get snapped. Do 70 in a 70, 30 in a 30. edit2: you have epic driving skills doesn't mean everybody else does. Speed limits factor in how you have to be defensive about other peoples driving too.
But doesn't that apply to the ticketable limit as well? For instance, what's the difference between the current laws saying an officer can pull me over for his radar saying 65 when my speedo says the legal 63, or a hypothetical world where I'm pulled over for his radar saying 61 when my speedo reads as the legal 59? It's a problem which will always be there as long as there's a specific number value where speed becomes illegal or not. My question is simply why isn't that specific number value the actual limit as posted? If you're worried about calibration issues then just drive a bit under the speed limit? Or, and I'm sure this will give a heart attack to anyone who opposes big government, implement some sort of standard for making sure a car's speedometer is at least halfway accurate? Like emissions tests. It seems like a feature of cars which is pretty important to have more accurate than 10%.
