So supplement that for simply adding the speeds. As I said, it's very abstract. EDIT: Actually, don't substitute. You'd still add the speeds for a head on collision or rear end of a fast car into a slow one to get your V. Instead, add the whole thing in. My proof is largely "common sense" and gained from reading about accidents. Of course, you can spend a few hours researching the subject and you'll get a wonderful mix of studies, crash test results, citations of real accidents, etc. And of course, it comes down to believing what you want to believe. I could search Google for "speed doesn't effect car crashes" and probably come back with plenty of links, but it would be pointless since you could search the opposite and bring just as much proof. It's a subject where so many factors come into play that it becomes tough to claim that any set speed is perfect. I would, however, like to cite that the typical British motorway speed limit is 70mph, correct? It's obviously deemed safe enough by at least one major government. If a car travelling at 60mph needs X feet to stop and a car travelling at 70mph needs Y feet to stop then that's obviously speed making a difference, but if an object enters the road at a distance less than X or Y feet ahead then you will hit it irregardless. The window of distance between X and Y where speed actually makes a difference is smaller than the difference between X and the car itself. It's more likely for an obstacle to enter the road in a zone that is less than X or greater than Y than it is to enter a zone between X and Y. Coming around corners is a similar situation, however it's not as random. The object is either there or not. Therefore, one should not travel at a speed where their stopping distance is greater than their view distance. Thankfully, freeways are largely devoid of this situation and usually only require slowing down to 60 at most (as that is what the road was designed for, no corner should be blind for less distance that the speed limit's typical stopping distance). Other situations which are often attributed to speed can be quite difficult to determine a cause for and are hard to cite proof for speed being a cause. Common things such as pile ups where cars rear end each other and trailing cars can't stop in time and cause a chain reaction. It comes down to multiple factors such as how close the cars were following (when travelling at higher speeds, follow farther back to accomodate for your increased stopping time), weather conditions (don't speed if you can't maintain control. At times, even go under limit if it's very bad), or lack of attention (watch the road, scan ahead for possible trouble areas). Speed is also often needlessly included for accidents in an attempt to make psuedo-PSAs out of accidents. Accidents caused by drunk driving are a prime example where a drunk driver goes 50 in a 25 and kills some family and their young kids. Would everyone have lived if it was a crash at 25 and 25? Maybe. Speed did make the accident more lethal. But would the driver have been speeding if he/she wasn't drunk in the first place?
I am not trying to argue with you or anything, but my situation out here is different. I live on the prairies. Our roads are straight and flat. We have no hills or blind curves. I'm not justifying breaking the speed limit. As I have said, I drive 110km/h. I've seen many people going 120-140km/h down the highway and IMO I see nothing wrong with it as long as they aren't weaving in and out of traffic. I don't go that fast because if I got caught by the police going that fast the ticket would be $400+. You obviously didn't even read my post. How do you think I drive???? I stated exactly how I drive. But you are obviously blinded by nerd rage so I have quoted the main parts for you. The rest of it was mostly trolling (though I meant every word of it) If you make a mature reply I will comment on it. Otherwise you can suck a big one.
So you admit to trolling, and then get all pantsy when it provokes a response? I read every post you made, and it brought me to the conclusion that you are a cocky shite, who seems to think because you are good at Gran Turismo or whatever it is you play, that you are some sort of Aryton Senna reincarnation. You also seem to be trying to associate your claimed prowess on a race track with good road driving - continually. Wake up and smell the daisies
You can't solve, or explain road accidents with a simple solution like that, because the sheer number of variables involved makes it totally impossible to predict anything. It would be like trying to explain chaos theory with a simple equation also. You are playing down the importance of speed entirely. In the MAJORITY of single vehicle accidents, speed is nearly always the cause. Cars rarely leave the road, or hit things unless the drivers was asleep, seriously ill, drunk/drugged, or... speeding. There's a hundred year's worth of stats backing this up. I think you'll find they are NOT a minority. That is probably the most common form of accident you will see on a road, and this is probably the biggest, if not the only reason a simple highway accident turns into a 50 car pile up! If everyone was driving at a safe speed, and yes I admit, safe distance as well, such pile ups wouldn't happen. They would merely become a huge traffic jam instead. Still can't escape the fact that the greater the speed, the much greater likelihood of fatality. My main concern is not someone doing 85 when they should be doing 70 though, so I kind of see the sense in your argument regarding highway driving. Here, distance between cars is FAR more important than speed. But.. don't forget that things like tyre failure at speed can be a much more dramatic event at 70 than 55. Quite, and I agree. However, not everyone can handles cars well in that situation despite being taught, and this is one of the factors that decide speed limits. You have to set limits in a "worse case scenario" way. In a residential area, keeping people below 30 will hugely reduce the risk of fatality when the inevitable happens. I see the logic, but not all accidents on highways are head on. In fact, very few are. What about the other accidents caused by someone side swiping you because they never checked their mirrors? That's probably far more common. If someone whacks into the side of you at 55, you have a much greater chance of keeping your car pointed in the same direction than at 70 or 80. Lower speeds mean lower fatalities. This has been proven so many times that we're flogging a dead horse here. You may as well be trying to argue that the world is flat. There is some logic in everything you say, but it's quite selective. I like speed... most people do, which is why most people on here are defending it. I just feel while speed may not be the CAUSE of accidents alone, it plays the most important role in determining the outcome of an accident regardless of the cause, and you can't ignore that. Only when you can populate the roads with utterly perfect drivers, and utterly perfect vehicles can you even think about raising limits. That will never happen until be find a way to develop the most important component: The nut behind the wheel No.. you wouldn't.
It would seem i need to sort out my brake balance today.. Early morning drive and the brakes seemed a little iffy, slow response, so when the road was empty, (B-road) nice long visible straight. I performed a full on emergency stop without locking my wheels, and found that indeed the balance is off as it started tracking and pulling hard to the left. Time to check that right calliper! However after that, the brakes seemed fine and it didn't pull, so maybe the piston was being lazy as it was sooo early for it! lol!
Better get those brakes checked out ASAP Burnout21!!!!!! When your car won't stop properly, that's some serious ****!!! It could be as simple as a little bit of air in one or more of the brake lines, so a simple bleed and flush would do the trick, but maybe there is a tiny leak, such as from one or more of the pistons in the calipers, so more air is just going to be introduced pretty soon. It could be one of many other possible causes aswell, so I wouldn't drive it until I had checked em out, or if you don't know how, then i'd get someone who does. I've noticed some talk about racing.... just thought I would mention, that you can record faster lap times, by minimising or better yet eliminating engine braking. You can do it by adjusting your idle speed to suit the track, and with clutch and throttle control, or you can just get a slipper clutch... not that engine braking control is the most important thing on the racetrack... but if you don't know about this, then I will own you on the track, just like one of the many other guys I've owned at Phillip Island
Surely if you're on either the accelerator (Where engine braking isn't in effect) or on the brakes (where you're slowing down anyway) engine braking isn't even a factor really? If there's a gap between releasing one pedal and depressing the other you're not controlling the car in the optimum manner to win a race anyway...
1, 2, 3, 4 = YES. NO. That's dangerously wrong and could lead to prosecution. If traffic is queueing in all lanes then undertaking is permissable on a motorway but rule 268 of the highway code states "Do not overtake on the left or move to a lane on your left to overtake" Nothing about doing the speed limit. Don't talk b*ll*cks.
As i suspected the right front calliper was at fault, small amount of air was trapped in there some how, shall keep an eye on it and figure out how it got in there, as all the lines were fine. I do know the brake fluid needs replacing as it getting darker which could either mean its contaminated, or its boiled due to too much water finally getting into it. Will have a look after this coffee. With regards to racing, i always thought engine braking was considered a no no due to the potential damage it can cause to the gearbox and clutch. Trying to remember when i came across this, but basically the guy was saying the high wheel speed, working against a high power engine, the transmission takes a pounding. So he was saying when down shifting feather the throttle to match the wheel/engine speeds before backing off the gas, rather than slamming them together.
If you truly believed that the unpredictable could not be mitigated, you would not drive anywhere, you probably wouldn't even step outside your front door, because there's always a chance that a child may run in to you, fall back and kill themselves when they land head-first. Every time you set foot outside, you are considering the odds and deeming them acceptable. It's exactly the same when you're driving. The speed you drive at is determined by a number of factors - your confidence, your assessment of the risks, etc. This applies equally to doing 20mph or 200mph.
for motorway driving the only thing really is pass plus after your test, costs £120 covers stuff from country lanes, to night driving (you do 6 hours overall) then down a motorway etc. here are the 6 "modules" to it - Module 1 -Introduction & Town Driving Module 2 -All Weather Driving Module 3 -Out of Town Driving & Rural Roads Module 4 -Night Driving Module 5 - Dual Carriageways Module 6 -Motorways So there is basic coverage of motorways, but this isnt mandatory but it does reduce insurance slightly after completion
actually, i believe, provided you dont change lanes, to undertake the numpty sitting in the second lane, it is legal. it would be more dangerous to try and change lanes to get around the numpty, because you would have to get into the third lane from the first. if however, you were travelling in the second lane, then went into the first lane to pass them, and re-enter the second lane, that is when it becomes illegal.
TBH forgetting about this law and that law isn't it really about common sense and good manners which some drivers sorely lack.
ok the following quote is the actual rule from the direct.gov website. it is a recommendation, as the do not, is not in bold type, like the must not of the other rules. ultimately, it will be a police officer who decides wether or not you need to be charged with dangerous driving. and then upto the courts to decide if you have broken the law.
I did this. It's really useful. Motorways at night are weird. I found myself getting hypnotised by the road, the lights, the cars in front get closer and the cars behind get closer. Really... yeah, I didn't have to navigate, I just had to worry about driving. The instructor let me plug my phone into the stereo in the AUX port, so there were some quality tunes playing. Stopped 2 hours into the 4 hour lesson and got a burger and a drink. Great fun. I also got overtaken by a Focus RS just a few weeks after the Top Gear review and it was awesome to behold.
No.. it's determined by speed limits. You are not in the best position to assess what the correct speed is, as you are not in possession of all the facts. If you think you are somehow in a position to make such judgements, you are deluding yourself. The inescapable fact is, when you have an accident, the speed you are travelling will largely determine the outcome. These arguments for breaking speed limits are just self-justification for doing something you enjoy doing with an eased conscience. If anyone in this thread thinks they can drive fast safely, they are delusional. You have not been trained to do so. You have no special abilities. You are just an average person with little or no experience of what it takes to drive fast safely, nor any training to handle the situations that can arise as a result. Even very highly trained traffic policemen will not endanger lives, and they will only force a vehicle in a pursuit situation when they have minimised the risk, and only then with lights and sirens blazing, and usually with air support to appraise the road conditions ahead... well they do in this country anyway. You have none of this. You are merely a average person, with average talents, and extremely poor training, and absolutely no way to assess the road conditions ahead. You are Mr Average with a driving license proving that you have had the bare minimum of training to be competent. I repeat, you are delusional if you think you are anything but that. It's ok you know... not being a great driver doesn't mean you have a small penis
Well said Pookey. In addition, by choosing to drive in excess of the speed limit in place, or drive with speed inappropriate to the current conditions, you are placing increased risks both on yourself, and on every other road user in your vicinity. This is what bugs the hell out of me. If you crash, and other people are involved, your choice to use excessive speed has affected them too. There's no way to sugar coat that fact - period. This is what those who choose to speed ignore. It's the same thing we see with drunk drivers, they make the same excuses. Regardless of whether we agree with the speed limits in place on our roads, it is our duty as licensed drivers to obey these restrictions. We don't get to decide for ourselves whether we should obey them or not, and this is rightfully so. If you are caught speeding, you deserve everything you get. If you are involved in an accident due to excess speed (or even where it was a contributory factor), and other people are injured, then you should have the book thrown at you. I would like to see these cases result in jail time and permanent bans myself.
Explaining chaotic things with incredible numbers of variables is quite common practice. The prime example is explosive/flammable objects. We've all seen the practice of storing them away from people so no one gets hurt, but do you think they're placed far enough away for no one to ever possibly be hurt? No. It's based on the chance of someone getting hurt being acceptable low. Regulation standoff distances for "total safety" may still get you killed by a rogue chunk of a propane tank. Have you ever also noticed that even though these items are carefully stored no one makes a fuss when a loaded truck goes by? Since the truck is never permanently in one place the calculated risk of any given person is very low. If it's only near you for a few minutes as you pass it on a motorway then it's not enough for them to care about. The equation I gave is a very basic risk analysis for any scenario. Motorway planning groups will likely do a more thorough analysis that is based off the same principle. As I pointed out, your motorways are rated at 70mph typical, whereas US freeways are 60mph typical. Why is that? Teams on either side did their own risk calculations and produced similar, yet slightly varying results. Obviously it would be safer for everyone to slow down to 60 across the world, so why don't they? Quite simply, other countries feel the increased risk is not enough to outweigh the increased traffic flow. For a quick laugh, consider for a moment that my scandalous speeding is simply catching up to your average. Both of our countries are laughable compared to a rare few others, even. The interesting thing, to me, is that you'll still see very similar speeds on smaller roads regardless of country. Where real turning and car manouvering comes into play most people can agree that speed will directly translate to lack of control. It's really only the motorways that get tricky. Pile ups are very common, yes, but pile ups which were proven to be the cause of someone going too fast as the only/main cause? A good bit rarer. As you say below, following distance is very important. Visibility is important, awareness is important, etc. The important thing, as I see it, is that speed is a product of those other factors. If a driver can clearly see far ahead, is following at a distance proportionate to his/her speed, and is paying attention to other drivers then speed can be raised to a reasonable limit. Likewise, if visibility is poor then slow down to compensate, and pay more attention. Or if you've just merged and you're following close slow down. And always pay attention .[/QUOTE] No you can't! But that eventually boils down to no one ever driving. There comes a point where one must determine what is a reasonable danger and go with it. My own opinion is that 70mph is that point. Others, including professionals (or at least I'd hope they are!) have agreed. And that is one of the reasons for my little "Within reason" clause. Completely unforseeable and unavoidable accidents turn speed into the only factor. But again, it comes to finding a point which is acceptable and having to live with it. Tyre failure at 55 can still be lethal, and driving at 40 would be safer. Or 25 rather than 40. The argument of slower is safer is true, but it becomes unreasonable. That is also why I quite strictly follow limits outside of the freeway. Speed has a direct impact on my control since there is so much manouvering and the chance of people/cats/objects on the road is much higher. Why didn't they check their mirrors? Again, speed didn't cause the accident. It made it deadlier, totally agreed, but neither my speed nor the other driver's speed affected whether or not it would happen. (With some exception, if you're flying along at 100mph you might be so far back when they check that they think it's safe, then you're next to them when they move). As a side note, those cases are why I think you're right about regular driving tests. The idea that a person tests once as a relatively inexperienced and amatuer driver, and is then considered good to drive for all of life is foolish at best. So many bad habits may be learned, so many good habits may be forgotten. With an inherently dangerous task like driving we should all be checked and taught to be at the top of our game. And I'll flog it again! You are being selective as well. It's easy to say that as a reason to keep people down to a speed limit, but what makes that speed limit so high and mighty? That limit is just what some traffic engineer determined was good enough. It's still dangerous, and going slower than it still means lower fatalities. If you truly believe in your argument, you should go under the speed limit. Eventually you reach yourself never moving. I like getting 5 minutes off my normal commute. It's a tangible difference and is my own reason for driving 70 and defending it. That tangible difference is the reason freeways and motorways have such high speeds in the first place, even if puttering along them at 30mph would be far safer. Sorry to bring it up again in the same post, but while doing some more research and fact checking, I came across http://www.safespeed.org.uk/speedlimits.html which has some interesting figures (including a variable for my "crash risk constant" to better reflect the real world as speed effects control) and ends up showing slightly faster drivers being the safest. Just a food for thought. Also, an interesting quote "It is not as if the 70 mph motorway speed limit was set by any sort of science. As we understand it it was an arbitrary decision taken at a meeting at the then Ministry of Transport in 1965. In 1965 a typical new car was a Ford Anglia with an absolute top speed of about 85 mph and much inferior brakes". So nevermind me about traffic engineers! The quote is a little less descriptive than one would like, the meeting likely had research and information to advise a decision, but it just goes to show exactly how open to interpretation speed limits are. And mainly, check out the Canadian study they link up near the top. It's a good read. Just a shame their US crash data is almost all fatal crash data. I think we're already in agreement that speed will kill more people in the same number of crashes. Most of the ones measuring total crashes, not only fatal, are tested at slower speeds than we're discussing. EDIT: Again, it's not about limits, it's about speeds. You say all this tough talk about harsh punishment, but consider that your everyday motorway drive would be illegal in many US freeways. What makes you any less dangerous? A pretty number painted on a sign? If we're both driving the same car down an identical stretch of road in our respective countries, both at 70mph, and we both get in identical crashes that are our own faults, how come yours isn't speed related while I'm rotting in jail?
Quite simply, because I would choose to drive according to the law. So if an accident was to happen, at least I know that it wasn't me choosing to ignore the speeding limits. If I caused an accident by using a mobile phone, or anything else that was both unlawful and irresponsible, then I would expect the book to be thrown at me. Don't think I am just pouring scorn on speeders alone. Seeing as the conversation has been dominated by speeding, my comments were a reflection on this. Any form of dangerous driving, where innocent people have been injured or killed should result in jail time and a life ban, as far as I am concerned. Driving is not, and never has been, a right. The quicker drivers get that into their heads, the safer our roads will become. A car is every bit as lethal as any other weapon, when driven irresponsibly, something people should consider much more when making silly decisions to bend the rules for their own purposes. EDIT: Also, don't get me wrong. I'm not a perfect driver (or motorbike rider), and would never claim to be. I do make mistakes, the same as any other driver or rider out there. What I choose not to do though, is to rewrite the laws of our highways so I can enjoy being on the road more. I also don't pick and choose which laws I shall abide by and which I shall ignore either. That doesn't mean that I am claiming to be a "perfect" driver, it does mean that I am claiming to be a law abiding driver though. I don't speed, I don't drink & drive, and I don't let things distract me when driving (such as mobile phones, filling my face etc). As I said I make mistakes, but these are never intentional and not something I go out of my way to do either. Speeding is a choice, there is a difference.
Ill be completely honest,I mostly go 80 on motorways,but what I have found is that 80 on my speedo isnt actually 80mph,its more like 74/75mph,according to two sat navs,which I tend to trust,as speedometers tend be a bit optimistic,so that you think your going faster than your are acutally are so you slow down. Is it a coincedence that the "national" speed limit is 60mph and that most "Extra urban" cycles in cars are tested at 56mph? They have to make up for the slack in the speedometers,or maybe Im talking poop and my speedo is faulty,lol.I found this to be the case in my old car too so unless both were faulty... All other roads I go the speed limit or lower,depending on the conditions,I fell safe going faster on motorways as they are big open spaces and you can easily be safe going 80-90mph,obviously if its not really windy,or foggy or raining. The only reason I dont go over 80mph on moterways Is becaiuse I notice a mpg drop,as I think that's the point the VTEC kicks in for 5th gear,lol. Im a very cautious and kind driver and I respect the rules of the road.
