MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
I still don’t get the policy of appeasing the idiots, how about we punish them more, problem is that needs more policing and more effort.
It's not my policy. If I had my way there'd be speed cameras every mile. There are roads in Somerset like that, there are so many that people just give up and do the speed limit. Nice and relaxing it is.
molgrips
Subscriber
I still don’t get the policy of appeasing the idiots, how about we punish them more, problem is that needs more policing and more effort.
It’s not my policy. If I had my way there’d be speed cameras every mile. There are roads in Somerset like that, there are so many that people just give up and do the speed limit. Nice and relaxing it is.
I just don't understand this mentality. You think that a driver with their eye constantly on the speedo is safe?
JP
You think that a driver with their eye constantly on the speedo is safe?
Obviously not. A good driver can keep speed down without constantly staring at the speedo. Are you saying you're not a good driver? Maybe your car has cruise control or a speed limiter? Mine does.
I just don’t understand this mentality. You think that a driver with their eye constantly on the speedo is safe?
It's comments like that which make me think retesting is a good idea.
I just don’t understand this mentality. You think that a driver with their eye constantly on the speedo is safe?
JP
The occasional glance at the speedo as you’re doing regular mirror checks isn’t ‘eyes constantly on the speedo’ is it? Are you one of the Spider-Man types I mentioned earlier?
Obviously not. A good driver can keep speed down without constantly staring at the speedo. Are you saying you’re not a good driver? Maybe your car has cruise control or a speed limiter? Mine does.
Exactly.
If a driver needs to constantly stare at the speedo to stay at their limit this means they are so obsessed with going as fast as possible that the need this level of control.
Try driving just under and glance at the speedo every now and then to make sure you don't go over. They taught you this for your test, you managed it safely then.
That being said, I don't see why cars are designed to go over 70.
I just don’t understand this mentality. You think that a driver with their eye constantly on the speedo is safe?
If you can't stay within the speed limit without being glued to the speedo then you will not pass your driving test.
I like cycling. I like driving. Where conditions safely allow sometimes at a decent pace. I don’t feel that these things are mutually exclusive.
Agree with volvos stance. No one needs to go faster than that here or in Germany. 20/30 limits in residential areas should be strictly enforced. Phone disabling would be great.
Limiting modern cars to 70 on Dry quiet motorways is frustrating and IMHO not needed though. The 130kph in good conditions the French use is safe.
I’ve had to brake hard to avoid danger. I’ve also accelerated hard to do the same Just not as often.
There’s a hill climbing out of a town after a set of lights I drive home through that quite often results in being stuck behind a lorry or elderly driver at 35. The road goes to 60 limit with clear straight lines of site for a decent distance whilst still up hill. Getting past as a considered planned overtake is perfectly valid. Limiting acceleration would make it a less safe manoeuvre.
As for this daft view
Going to ruin the day of any rep using the M1 who didn’t read the small print when they picked a Volvo for their company car.
You obviously don’t have a job that involves driving much or witness driving on motorways during working hours much. That speed is an automatic ban and my guess would be people caught at this speeds are not “professional” drivers but idiots. The standard of MW driving during the working week is far higher than weekends or holidays.
For example, getting to see a dying relative in time.
I'd stick to speed limits and be really careful in that situation. Emotion can adversly effect driving so I'd keep the speed down and concentrate. If they are dying a few minutes or even hours on a journey aren't going to make any difference and it would be a pity to injure/kill someone else with your selfish impatience.
I've only ever been in one life critical, time critical situation driving - taking Madame to hospital to give birth, I kept calm, stopped at red lights even when there was nothing coming, overtook nothing and gave her the smoothest least stressful ride possible. I was given junior to look after 15 minutes later.
Drac always comes up with the "safe overtaking" argument.
1/ how often do you come across situations where you are just behind one vehicle doing significantly less than the speed limit - almost never around here now trucks and cars have the same speed limit.
2/ you just adapt your safety margins to the performance of the car you are driving. IMO you are less likely to misjudge in a slow car than a fast one because the calculations are more critical in a fast car. I've driven some very fast and very slow cars and honestly believe risks are lower in the slower car as you are dealing with much longer distances, lower peak speeds and much longer periods of time to judge the bale out point in relation to clear road ahead and whether it's safe to continue. There's evidence too. Motorbikes are fast right, really quick so they should be really safe for overtaking according to Drac. Well they represent 30% of overtaking deaths in France despite being only a tiny percentage of road users. They're not inexperienced either the peak age for a motorcyclist to kill him/herself overtaking is 30.
That speed is an automatic ban and my guess would be people caught at this speeds are not “professional” drivers but idiots. The standard of MW driving during the working week is far higher than weekends or holidays.
Not meaning to be picky here, but driving for a living doesn’t make a person a professional driver. Just someone who has to drive a lot. It’s not like it requires extra or ongoing training. I drive on the M6 pretty much every other week. The standard of driving is mixed as much on a week day as it is on a weekend. Dickheads are generally dickheads on a full time basis.
Drac always comes up with the “safe overtaking” argument.
1/ how often do you come across situations where you are just behind one vehicle doing significantly less than the speed limit – almost never around here now trucks and cars have the same speed limit.
2/ you just adapt your safety margins to the performance of the car you are driving. IMO you are less likely to misjudge in a slow car than a fast one because the calculations are more critical in a fast car. I’ve driven some very fast and very slow cars and honestly believe risks are lower in the slower car as you are dealing with much longer distances, lower peak speeds and much longer periods of time to judge the bale out point in relation to clear road ahead and whether it’s safe to continue. There’s evidence too. Motorbikes are fast right, really quick so they should be really safe for overtaking according to Drac. Well they represent 30% of overtaking deaths in France despite being only a tiny percentage of road users. They’re not inexperienced either the peak age for a motorcyclist to kill him/herself overtaking is 30.
1) Daily here.
2) of course you do a rapid acceleration makes it easier. Death rate is higher on a motorbike involved in accident you say, I can't think possibly why.
I just don’t understand this mentality. You think that a driver with their eye constantly on the speedo is safe?
JP
The occasional glance at the speedo as you’re doing regular mirror checks isn’t ‘eyes constantly on the speedo’ is it? Are you one of the Spider-Man types I mentioned earlier?
No, I'm just not a car-hating eco-warrior like some on here.
Please do share clear evidence that shows how speed cameras demonstrably decrease accidents.
JP
Effectiveness of speed cameras
There is overwhelming evidence that speed cameras are effective in reducing speeds and preventing crashes and casualties. For example:A four-year national evaluation of more than 4,000 speed camera sites across the UK found a 70% reduction in speeding at fixed sites, a fall of 6% in average speeds and a 42% reduction in deaths and serious injuries [3].
Researchers at Liverpool University developed a mathematical model which proves that speed cameras substantially reduce crashes, even when accounting for random fluctuations in crash levels (known as ‘regression to the mean’) [4].
Analysis of data from 551 fixed speed cameras across England found that fatal and serious collisions dropped by an average of 27% in their vicinity following installation [5].
Annual deaths and serious injuries dropped 68% at all 408 speed camera sites in Scotland, when comparing the three-year average post-installation with the three-year average prior to installation [6].
A review of 35 international studies into the effectiveness of speed cameras found that speed cameras reduce average speeds by 1-15% and serious and fatal crashes by 11-44%
[7].
From Brake
http://www.brake.org.uk/facts-resources/15-facts/463-speed-enforcement
Clear enough?
I bet if you limited cars to 70 mph there would be more accidents!
+ it would be a real shame if you coul not buy a car capable of doing 150mph
1/ how often do you come across situations where you are just behind one vehicle doing significantly less than the speed limit – almost never around here now trucks and cars have the same speed limit.
All the ****ing time!
40mph (in cars) in a national with clear lines of sight and good conditions. Braking at the sight of anything oncoming. Braking for every corner. Braking if a fly farts in Marrakesh.
Also, round here HGV's are still restricted to 40mph on single carriageways.
Also, round here HGV’s are still restricted to 40mph on single carriageways.
Yup given our main A road is single carriage way for a majority of the route through Northumberland.
of course you do a rapid acceleration makes it easier
Rapid acceleration means you can use shorter opprotunities, and people do. People calculate as a function of the characteristics of the vehicle. You'll end up overtaking more often and reaching higher speeds in a higher performing vehicle.
I'm not sure I overtook anything faster than a tractor in a the works J4 van - very safe. In the Lotus 7/G4 Escort/R5 GT Turbo/AmG Merc/GpN Samba etc. almost anything could be overtaken in very little distance but I doubt I'd be here now if I'd used the overtaking potential of those cars all the time because you can't predict what other road users are going to do.
Be the guy with the dash cam, patiently driving at a safe distance and spectating as the dicks in performance cars screw up:
I feel sorry for the white van driver, probably the only one in the UK who repsects the 50mph for vans.
Rapid acceleration means you can use shorter opprotunities, and people do. People calculate as a function of the characteristics of the vehicle. You’ll end up overtaking more often and reaching higher speeds in a higher performing vehicle.
Yes, yes it does it also means you can complete your move. Well maybe but that isn't always bad.
Oh look a YouTube video.
you can’t predict what other road users are going to do.
No you can't some pull out in a slow car thinking they can overtake before you reach them.
I don’t necessarily disagree with it but I think it’s nothing more than a sales gimmick. Volvo themselves admit the limit is set way too high to make a difference to the vast majority of people. Whilst people continue to drive cars under their own control then they should be made to take responsibility for their own actions. Anything that further increases the sense of invulnerability felt by car drivers cannot, to my mind, be a good thing.
Driver education, stricter licensing, possibly with higher minimum ages and lower max ages, and proper enforcement would all be more useful imo.
40mph (in cars) in a national with clear lines of sight and good conditions. Braking at the sight of anything oncoming. Braking for every corner. Braking if a fly farts in Marrakesh.
I see these "safe" drivers quite regularly. The ones who sit there at 25mph in a 30, 36mph in a 40 and so on. So fixated on the speed readout that they fail completely to notice cyclists, other drivers, road furniture or layout and they lack any ability to plan more than 5ft in front of the bonnet.
But they reckon they're "safe" because they never speed. The fact that they stand the car on it's nose at every corner or at the first hint of a speed camera doesn't bother them. The fact they overtake cyclists with 6" to spare isn't an issue to them because they're proudly notspeeding. They will however overtake into width restrictions or coming up to traffic lights because they're so busy notspeeding that there's no more mental capacity to drive according to the conditions of the road.
The technology is there for all of this - automated maximum speeds, black box recorders, dashcams, and other things like ANPR at service station forecourts - no insurance or tax = no activation of pump. You could conceivably do the same with fingerprint ID scanner and/or breathalyser on starting the car. Fingerprint of a DQ'd driver = no car start. Yes, there are fairly obvious ways around it and I'm sure there'd be outrage over the nanny state / elfnsafety gorn mad but road safety could be improved dramatically with little actual effort. Unfortunately, it'd be political suicide so crack on killing 5 people a day and we'll just accept that.
Edit - just falls on deaf ears
mikewsmith
Subscriber
Effectiveness of speed cameras
There is overwhelming evidence that speed cameras are effective in reducing speeds and preventing crashes and casualties. For example:A four-year national evaluation of more than 4,000 speed camera sites across the UK found a 70% reduction in speeding at fixed sites, a fall of 6% in average speeds and a 42% reduction in deaths and serious injuries [3].
Researchers at Liverpool University developed a mathematical model which proves that speed cameras substantially reduce crashes, even when accounting for random fluctuations in crash levels (known as ‘regression to the mean’) [4].
Analysis of data from 551 fixed speed cameras across England found that fatal and serious collisions dropped by an average of 27% in their vicinity following installation [5].
Annual deaths and serious injuries dropped 68% at all 408 speed camera sites in Scotland, when comparing the three-year average post-installation with the three-year average prior to installation [6].
A review of 35 international studies into the effectiveness of speed cameras found that speed cameras reduce average speeds by 1-15% and serious and fatal crashes by 11-44%[7].
From Brake
http://www.brake.org.uk/facts-resources/15-facts/463-speed-enforcementClear enough?
You're quoting research published by an organisation that is as partisan as they come. You're also selectively quoting data that support your viewpoint and not mentioning instances where accidents in the vicinity of speed cameras increased since their installation (a small, but significant number).
I won't continue to argue with you as it's pointless to conduct a conversation with someone who holds a viewpoint with a relgious level of zeal.
Some of us value our freedom and think that proper driver education and selecting appropriate speed for the conditions is the best way to drive, not to have some sort of nannying big brother presence constantly dictating what we can and cannot do. But hey ho, if that's what you want go and knock yourself out.
JP
es, yes it does it also means you can complete your move.
Not always, sometimes:
Something comes the other way traveling a lot faster than expect, you can't assume everything coming the other way to respect the speed limit when you don't yourself - coz you'll definitley be well over the speed limit in every overtake in a quick car if you're spending as little time as possible on the wrong side of the road.
There will be a tractor that pulls out of a field and looks right - but you're coming from the left. (this happened to a landlord of mine)
A vehicle will move out to go around a horse/cyclist/pedestrian/fallen branch you didn't see because it was hidden by the big vehicle you decided to overtake.
There will be a truck on the wrong side of the road just around the bend you entered a bit quick having just completed your safe overtake.
When overtaking just remember - you're going faster than usual on the wrong side of the road with another (or several) moving vehicles in close proximity. A oeformamce car makes it more likely you'll try the pass and will increase the speed differentials.
Anyhow, I agree with those above who want cars automatically limited to the speed limit. The technology already exists, it just needs to be made obligatory.
Less trafic jams and better trafic flow
less CO2
lower speed collisions
less collisons
almost no overtaking collisions
less oil imports
no incentive to buy unnecessarily powerful and heavy cars
less cars made and sold (no reason to own a second "sports car")
What exactly is this video supposed to prove? Apart from the prat in the white car completely ignored the whole 'mirror, signal, manouver' procedure and ended up causing a crash that could have resulted in fatalities. From the look of it the black car wasn't passing that much quicker so could well have been in the 60mph bracket but certainly not much above it if he was breaking it.
More irrelevant nonsense.
Bollocks to that malarkey ...
One of the reasons I bought my car was due to the fact that it could achieve a high top speed and accelerate quickly ..
Will I travel to its maximum speed ..probably never but it's nice to know it's there ..
Do I use it's acceleration to get me past slower moving vehicles ..yes often..however
I actually drive more sedately in this car because I know what it's capable of ..
Limiting cars to any kind of speed ..we might as well all drive the same 1.0 litre boring little tin box ..
No thanks !
But they reckon they’re “safe” because they never speed. The fact that they stand the car on it’s nose at every corner or at the first hint of a speed camera doesn’t bother them. The fact they overtake cyclists with 6″ to spare isn’t an issue to them because they’re proudly notspeeding.
So you're saying that everyone who sticks to the speed limit is as you describe? A rubbish driver? Or is this just a straw man? Cos clearly no-one's suggesting that all you have to do to drive well is simply drive at the speed limit. That would be absurd.
You’re quoting research published by an organisation that is as partisan as they come. You’re also selectively quoting data that support your viewpoint and not mentioning instances where accidents in the vicinity of speed cameras increased since their installation (a small, but significant number).
I won’t continue to argue with you as it’s pointless to conduct a conversation with someone who holds a viewpoint with a relgious level of zeal.
Why not post links that support your side rather than resorting to comparisons with religious zealots when presented with evidence that doesn’t agree with your current view on the subject? Why’s it a small yet significant number? Are there other factors at play?
That video is brilliant. The white car is tailgating the van, pulls out without checking mirrors, and yet it’s the other car that is already over taking fault 🤔
I bet the white car is driven by mister sensible too who always sticks to the speed limit but clearly as no frckin idea what’s going on around him.
Fair play to dash cam man though, at least he was keeping a sensible distance. Normally people with dashcams drive badly too
Blanket limit of 70 of all vehicles? I hope you don’t ever find yourself in an emergency situation where the emergency services don’t help, but time is a factor. For example, getting to see a dying relative in time. Most of the time speed doesn’t matter, but when it does, it really does.
Actually made me laugh out loud.
Thanks for your contribution to road safely, and your concern for dying relatives at the expense of everyone else’s safety.
On the actual topic, I think my cars limited to about the same as Volvo are saying they are going to do. I don’t find it much if a hardship and in fact in the last 15,000 miles I haven’t noticed it. Plenty of acceleration to get around the constant (individual) quarry lorries around these parts though so I I’m in the good acceleration, limited top speed camp.
However, if people were sensible (they’re not), a speed limit in itself wouldn’t be needed as we’d all drive to conditions (we don’t)
I can see no point in it at all. 112 mph into something solid is going to make you just as dead as 120mph into something solid.
My works Transit is limited to 105mph iirc (probably terrifying) and my own car is limited by gear ratios to 150mph. It makes absolutely no difference to the way I drive either vehicle on public roads. In fact the faster one gets driven slower quite often due to fuel consumption and there’s no real rush as it’s somewhere nice to be whilst I kill the planet.
So you’re saying that everyone who sticks to the speed limit is as you describe? A rubbish driver? Or is this just a straw man? Cos clearly no-one’s suggesting that all you have to do to drive well is simply drive at the speed limit. That would be absurd.
He was referring to my point here:
40mph (in cars) in a national with clear lines of sight and good conditions. Braking at the sight of anything oncoming. Braking for every corner. Braking if a fly farts in Marrakesh.
Which, in turn, was in reply to Edukators question of when anyone ever encounters significantly slower drivers.
The drivers CrazyLegs and I are describing are not folk driving properly within the limits. They are nervous drivers, drivers who can't see properly and shit themselves every time they see something oncoming, drivers who - for reasons best known to themselves - drive at an arbitrary amount below the limit so they can sanctimoniously post on internet forums about how safe a driver they are and just people who actually don't know what the limit is.
Thanks for your contribution to road safely, and your concern for dying relatives at the expense of everyone else’s safety.
Well done you. You rumbled me. Thats exactly what I’m saying. 👍🏻
Some of us value our freedom and think that proper driver education and selecting appropriate speed for the conditions is the best way to drive, not to have some sort of nannying big brother presence constantly dictating what we can and cannot do. But hey ho, if that’s what you want go and knock yourself out.
You are free to break the laws of the land, just as you are free to accept the punishment for that. I assume no evidence as to the dangerous menace this speed enforcement causes?
As someone who likes to 'make progress' I have zero objection to an absolute speed limiter set at over a ton. I can't remember the last time I drove at that speed, it's licence-losing for a reason.
Also, even by STW's 'speed thread' standards, this thread has more bollocks spouted by both sides of the argument than average.
I will just comment on this though,
That being said, I don’t see why cars are designed to go over 70.
I have speakers that go way louder than I'll ever want to push them. The reason being, if they're designed to go higher than they'll handle the volume I want to drive them at comfortably. I don't really want speakers capping out at their maximum volume when listening and on the borderline of struggling.
That guy standing with his hands in his pockets . . . .There's a reason crash test dummies were invented!
There is an answer to dickhead speeding drivers.
Take their cars from them for 2 years but allow them to have a very large motorbike and no need to observe speed limits.
Those that survive that are probably ok.
After all god invented motorbikes to cull idiots.
I have speakers that go way louder than I’ll ever want to push them. The reason being, if they’re designed to go higher than they’ll handle the volume I want to drive them at comfortably. I don’t really want speakers capping out at their maximum volume when listening and on the borderline of struggling.
I can see your point, I am not implying they should all be asthmatic tin boxes. I don't see why it can't be a powerful car limited to 70. I get the acceleration argument, so by all means make it pokey. But if we designed cars to be a just below peak torque at around 70, (ie its top speed potentially could be much higher) it will feel very brisk and spot on to drive.
Electric cars can easily be tuned like this. I can imagine a grunty vehicle that will do 70 anywhere, even up steep hills.
You all got 1 litre Micras ?
No I suspect it's a social conscience and empathy.
I suspect this has come about because in the board room someone put up a slide either boasting about a new model's top speed and an exec asked the obvious question how it fits with the safety ethos, or more likely the next model has slightly worse top speed than previously and this was a way to put a spin on "lack lustre performance". If it was really about safety they'd have capped it lower.
Some of us value our freedom and think that proper driver education and selecting appropriate speed for the conditions is the best way to drive, not to have some sort of nannying big brother presence constantly dictating what we can and cannot do. But hey ho, if that’s what you want go and knock yourself out.
Do you think Train Drivers and Airline Pilots should just be able to make up the rules for themselves too - or is it only when you have your foot on the controls that you think the rules are wrong? If driver eduction and selecting appropriate speed worked then (1) nobody who ever went on a speed awareness course would ever get points in the future; (2) we'd probably have higher speed limits on UK motorways - but given people see the limit as the minimum not the max it would push speeds up. If you want to drive as fast as you can get away with - take up rallying or go to a track day.
...fixed speed cameras across England found that fatal and serious collisions dropped by an average of 27%...
Annual deaths and serious injuries dropped 68% at all 408 speed camera sites in Scotland....
A review of 35 international studies ... found that speed cameras reduce ... serious and fatal crashes by 11-44%
Anyone know why the Scottish performance seems to be not only better than the English but also beyond the range typically seen internationally?
Subscriber
My car only does 93mph.
Gets to 93 reasonably swiftly though assuming I've guessed right 🙂
Some of us enjoy driving still and live in places that don't have bumper to bumper traffic all the time.
I doubt a 112mph would affect me too often, but limiting acceleration would be painful. My daily commute involves safely overtaking a number of slower cars, limited acceleration would be the end of that.
From the look of it the black car wasn’t passing that much quicker so could well have been in the 60mph bracket but certainly not much above it if he was breaking it.
Why speculate when you can work it out, Squirelking?
The lengths of the cars give you the white line length for the portion from the point the grey car appears alongside to the point it hits the white car. Have a look, I reckon at least 9m, what do you think? 12 white lines go by for the car with the web cam and 16 for the grey car in just under 5 seconds, count the lines yourself, use a watch and give me your figures.
That gives an average speed of 48mph (21.6 m/s) for the dashcam car and 64mph for the grey car. The grey car was continuously accelerating so 70mph is a conservative estimate at the point the grey car hits the white car. I assume you're a cyclist so you know what 20mph feels like. The speed differential at the point of inpact was at least 20mph.
You blame the white car, I'll attribute blame more to the grey car as he was speeding and not anticipating an obvious overtaking opportunity for the white car. And before you say the driver of the white car didn't indicate, neither did the grey car driver.
It’s not difficult just stick to the limit and you’ll be safe.
And therein lies the problem.
I've seen many, many drivers over the years who were driving well under the limit and were very far from what I'd call "safe."
But the moint of thelimits is to make the accidents provoked by those very far from what you'd call safe causing too much carnage.
The 30 limit was intended to cut pedestrain deaths. It does but deosn't go far enough hence 20mph limits being introduced. I'm in favour of blanket 20mph in residential areas other than urban clear ways with separate cycle paths and pedestrian barriers.
The 90kmh limit in France was supposed to make a car leaving the road survivable, it's recently been lowered to 80kmh. The UK 50/60mph limits have the same purpose.
The 70 limit is set so cars remain between the barriers in motorway collisions.
A car with a 112 top speed is too fast unless perhaps it's Volvo and Volvo reckon you can have a crossover accident in one of their cars hit an on-coming truck and walk away. Even if you can Volvos share the roads with much more vulnerable road users so I suggest 112 is too fast.
its an interesting debate.
I also read that there are plans to make a black box type facility in each car available to any crash investigators.
perhaps that might stop some people from behaving the way they do?
Speed is not the only factor though in many accidents (clearly is is a significant one in many thought). Perhaps the thought of big brother knowing what speed and inputs were going on when you crashed would make people think twice? _ I doubt it, some seem to have a bad attitude to life!
The lengths of the cars give you the white line length for the portion from the point the grey car appears alongside to the point it hits the white car. Have a look, I reckon at least 9m, what do you think? 12 white lines go by for the car with the web cam and 16 for the grey car in just under 5 seconds, count the lines yourself, use a watch and give me your figures.
I think you’ve watched too much CSI:France
There have already been successful convictions based on speed data from airbag "black boxes" following fatal crashes both in the UK (a Jaguar) and the US (BMWs).
Edit to add:
CSI:France
Never watched it, schoolboy maths is all you need.
You blame the white car, I’ll attribute blame more to the grey car as he was speeding and not anticipating an obvious overtaking opportunity for the white car. And before you say the driver of the white car didn’t indicate, neither did the grey car driver.
At 16 s the lines change from long to shorter. At 18s the grey car fits in the gap between two lines - it looks like an Astra type car to me which is just less than 4m long. Now if you look at the Traffic Signs Regulations page you'll see that the only line with a 4m gap has a 2m line which looks about right to me.
This gives a total length (1 x line + 1 x gap) of 6m...... which makes your calculations look rather out.
If the grey car was going 70 then it would have travelled much further than it did. The white car travelled approximated 48m along the verge - the braking distance for 40mph is 24m (on tarmac in the dry) - and it wasn't braking.
In addition to maths a bit of observation goes a long way.
You indicate to show your intention to manoeuvre - the grey car had already completed his manoeuvre and you have no proof that he didn't indicate prior to overtaking the dashcam car.
If the white car had indicated it would have given the grey car a chance to brake.
I think you ned to look at the vid again Sharkbait, freeze the grey car next to the lines and compare the astra with both gaps and lines. At 17s the gap between the white lines is slightly longer than the car and the line itself is significantly longer than the 2.7m wheelbaseo of the car. It's there for all to see.
an Astra type car to me which is just less than 4m long.
I too reckoned it was an Astra, checked the model on Google images and then the spec: 4.702m for that model.
The grey car was accelerating up to the point of impact as I've already pointed out. It's avarge speed was 64mph and it ws visibly getting faster.
In your link about marking regualations check out diagram 1008.1 . I reckon it's that one in the vid = 6m+3m. The lines change along the road wihich is why I counted only the portion with 9m total spacing.
And therein lies the problem.
I’ve seen many, many drivers over the years who were driving well under the limit and were very far from what I’d call “safe.”
Or safe from getting a speeding fine which is where that conversation was going
I also read that there are plans to make a black box type facility in each car available to any crash investigators.
Sounds perfect, though for a of of people the fitness data in their phone probably gives a good indication
Still reading with interest 🤣🧟♂️
Now I've watched that video. Both cars were tits.
No maths are guesstimates required.
I don't know about others, i don't get much thrill from the top speed of a car, going 120mph in a modern car does not excite me in a straight line, much more thrilling to go 55mph down a hill on a bicycle for me.
For driving i much prefer smaller cars that corner well, rather than those that can go all out at 100mph plus, much more fun for me driving a car round a series of bends than blatting it along in a straight line
Now I’ve watched that video. Both drivers were tits.
FTFY
A few random thoughts rather than attempts at authoritative statements ...
Given that the vehicle with the dash cam was (at least) the minimum distance between it and the white car and that we don't know what sort of vehicle it was, it's possible that the grey car was concealed from the driver of the white car until that car began overtaking. A quick comparison of the the bonnet of the car with the driver as he runs to the crashed vehicle might indicate it's a standard car rather than a large van.
I'd be wary about overtaking multiple vehicles especially where there's a large gap between some of them. The driver of the white car *may* have checked his rear view mirror but not his side mirror and so wouldn't have seen the grey car as it wasn't in the lane immediately behind him.
The driver of the white car didn't move around in the lane before moving out leaving the grey car with few clues as to what might happen.
IMO Majority of the fault lies with the driver of the white car with contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the grey car.
FTFY
🤔🙄
Now I’ve watched that video. Both cars were tits.
No maths or guesstimates required.
Yup.
I think Volvo's 112 is a good start, especailly in places like Germany where they manage more serious accidents on the best, most obstacle free sections of their autobahns because there is no speed limit and some of them really are tits. The vast majority of Germans do between 100kmh (with the trucks) and 160kmh. Then you get the 250kmh brigade. Stand at the side of the M1 into London and the trafic going past is about the same as the nutters in the outside lane going past when you're following the trucks in Germany. Madame commented that the latest breed of German high speed cars have exhausts designed to sound like planes from the battle of Britain. Time for change.
Edit for anecdote: A mate has an AMG Merc bought straight from the dealers. There's a button to press to open up the exhaust so it pops, bangs and roars around town and makes a fighter plane like noise on the autobahn. How that's legal I have no idea. And despite the voluntary agreement between the German auto industry and government to limit at 250kmh it'll do nearer 300kmh because AMG Mercs don't abide by the agreement.
And despite all the agreements between the auto industry and EU on fuel consumption and CO2 that same AMG shows about 60l/100km when it's flat out. So it requires fueling twice a often as a Zoé driven at truck speed. There are worse:
The guzzler of guzzlers was the Porsche Cayenne Turbo S, which swills down an eye-popping 66.7 liters of fuel per 100 km at a top speed of 270 km/h
TBF it's still 60% over our supposed national speed limit, and how many people really drive anywhere in the UK over a ton?
Pointless. We should just have cars that are restricted automagically by the speed limit of the road with no override available.
I've already got a speed limiter in my car (it is french though) I leave it set om 30 and pop it on whenever I enter a 30 limit (oddly enough). Generally I get tailgated, but also have plenty of braking distance because ~98% of drivers will always speed in a 30 limit.
Are Volvo going to reduce the price of their cars ? Are car engineered to do 150mph will cost more to make than one that does 112mph
Also a car that only does 112 will beat emissions easier.
German high speed cars have exhausts designed to sound like planes from the battle of Britain. Time for change.
Not restricted to German cars that ^^
Jag famously advertised that little 2 seater thing they sell had an exhaust note proclaiming the very same thing. It had two settings Loud and ****ing Loud and was always set at ****ing Loud on start up.. you literally had to press a button to make the thing quieter.
But hey, it was Jag after all 🤷♂️
Set the limiter to 32, Cookeaa, you might find you're not tailgated because a lot of people have limiters now but also GPS so they set the limiter at a real 30 rather than indicated 30.
Or safe from getting a speeding fine which is where that conversation was going
Ah, fair enough. Had a break in the conversation between reading last night and this morning so missed that. Cheers.
the video blurring of a cheap dashcam is
It’sthere for all to see.
Look at the video at the end - If you think that line is twice the length of the gap then you need to get your eyes checked.
36 inch screen, good graphics card. There's another clue at your 38s. A tall guys ruhs/jogs the length of a gap+line in 9 strides. Now go for a jog and measure how far you run in 9 strides. I think you'll find your fast walking stride is .7m and you jogging stride about a metre.
which has absolutely nothing to do with the camera and speed blur
Sharkbait, yo've done everything in you power to discredit my calculation including stating an Astra is less than 4m long. Either put up you own numbers or acept that my calcualtion produced entirely plausible results. What's the most likely speed that big van and the webcam car are traveling along that road. I'd say 50 indicated minus speedo error so 48mph. The maths say the same. The extra distance covered byy the overtaking car say it was 16/12 faster than the other trafic on average
I've been conservative in my analysis, my "just under 5 seconds" were really 4.63, You time it. I'm inviting anyone else to put figures down.
I find it astonishing that anyone with any driving experience at all could watcxh that vid and claim the overtaking car was doing under 60 which is the point at which I got my calculator out.
tbh as a person that enjoys cars and drives one fast round corners that struggles to get double digit mpg i like the idea of limiting to 112.
However this is more than likely a cost cutting exercise. im also concerned that its the thin end of the wedge.
36 inch screen, good graphics card
FFS it's the same bloody resolution we're all watching it at, you don't have a magic CSI screen that can just "enhance" an image to see things, that only exists in fantasy!
You honestly talk the biggest pile of horse crap.
And you still fail to acknowledge that the white car absolutely did not check their mirrors or signal their intent.
And you still fail to acknowledge that the white car absolutely did not check their mirrors or signal their intent.
I most definitely stated that neither the white nor grey car used indicators and I have no idea if the driver of the grey car or white car used their mirrors or if the grey car was visible if the white car driver did - note sunlight being strobed by trees to the right where the driver would look in his door mirror.
If I'd been overtaking I'd have been aware there was a chance I wouldn't be seen. I'd have also given a blast on the horn. Well I wouldn't really because I'd have been driving the same as the guy with the webcam, relaxed and at a safe distance. Maybe I'd have overtaken once the white car had successfully done so but I really not in that much of a hurry.
You honestly talk the biggest pile of horse crap.
I regularly ride horses, most drivers are really nice to me. Slow right down, wide birth, last week the dirver of a big yellow truck pulled over and turned his engine off until we'd ridden past, would you do that Squirelking?
Set the limiter to 32, Cookeaa, you might find you’re not tailgated because a lot of people have limiters now but also GPS so they set the limiter at a real 30 rather than indicated 30.
Maybe, but even if I was doing an indicated 32 at least half the drivvers round here are probably doing 35+...
I'm still going to drive to the speedo not my GPS (with it's own potential innacuracies) I might be doing a real life 28 but honestly it makes sod all diference I'll still end up in the same traffic light queue having burned a wee bit less fuel...
Are Volvo going to reduce the price of their cars ? Are car engineered to do 150mph will cost more to make than one that does 112mph
Also a car that only does 112 will beat emissions easier.
Hmmm, top speed isn't the only variable affecting vehicle cost, and so far as I know emissions testing isn't actually done on vehicles flat out at top speed either. Nobody ever bought a new volvo because it was the cheapest vehicle in it's class.
As it stands most people buy cars for use use soley on public roads, which are capable of hugely exceeding the prevailing limits. Yet the majority never actually get the things even close to their top speeds, let alone top 100.
So essentially all volvo are saying is "we're going to stop selling a product with the capability to do something most of our customers never do, which is a pretty stupid thing to do anyway and so adds no real value"... good on 'em.
but honestly it makes sod all diference I’ll still end up in the same traffic light queue having burned a wee bit less fuel…
I agree on the first point, however if you drive a petrol car you'll probably find that it gives the best fuel economy at the lowest speed the engine will run cleanly in top gear which will be pronbaly be over 35mph. In a diesel (narrower power band) it could well be over 40mph. Try it if you have an instantaneous fuel consumption display.
You blame the white car, I’ll attribute blame more to the grey car as he was speeding and not anticipating an obvious overtaking opportunity for the white car. And before you say the driver of the white car didn’t indicate, neither did the grey car driver.
What I find most alarming, but in no way surprising, is that neither of the drivers were charged with anything (according to the YT comments).
I agree on the first point, however if you drive a petrol car you’ll probably find that it gives the best fuel economy at the lowest speed the engine will run cleanly in top gear
Why does it have to be in top gear? Think about that for half a second.
Second of all, energy is proportionate to the square of the velocity - greater velocity requires a greater amount of energy.
And you have the cheek to give armchair physics lessons based on a fuzzy dashcam vid.
Just stop digging, please, for the dignity of physics if nothing else.
Some of us value our freedom and think that proper driver education and selecting appropriate speed for the conditions is the best way to drive, not to have some sort of nannying big brother presence constantly dictating what we can and cannot do. But hey ho, if that’s what you want go and knock yourself out.
I must say 112 mph limit is hardly going to make any difference whatsoever. I don't think I've ever driven over 100mph ever in 25 years of driving. I like a fast car as much as the next man but there is no reason/excuse to ever drive 100 mph in the UK...
As for acceleration being dangerous. Only time I've ever really scared myself in a car was when I borrowed my mum's car, went to overtake a lorry, and literally didn't have any power to get past. Total misjudged it, poor driving I'll admit, but these things happen and when they do id much rather have a bit of power to get me out the situation. Spending less time on the wrong side of the road is a good thing imo.
It doens't have to be in top gear, but usually is in a petrol cars.
Aero resistance is only one part of the equation and quite low at low speeds. There's also
Rolling resistance.
Mechanical friction in the enegine and drive train.
Efficiency of combustion relating to valve timing, cyclinder filling, mixture...
Below 35mph you usually need a lower gear so you
Increase revs and thus mechanicla friction
Reduce throttle opening so reduce cyclinder filling and chemical efficiency
Anyhow try it, I have in several cars and the result has always been the same, the lowest instantaneous fule consumption is achieved in the highest gear at the lowest speed the engine will run cleanly. In my current petrol car it's 60-65kmh.
Anyhow don't rubbish me, rubbish the experts:
https://learn.eartheasy.com/guides/fuel-efficient-driving/
You are conflating efficiency with economy, they are not interchangeable terms.
Any engine will have a peak efficiency band, that's why slow and medium speed diesels as well as generators and pumps (generally) run at a set rpm. Gearing has nothing to do with it.
When you add a gearbox that necessitates changing engine speed then the economy argument comes into play however that is still dependent on the engine sitting in its preferred efficiency band.
Drag coefficient absolutely does matter but I never made any mention of it so why bring it up?
I honestly don't care I'll just use the device already integrated into my car to tell me what speed I'm doing, if it says 30mph, I'll take that as good enough...
I'd rather be 1-2mph under than on the button or a shade over. Plus I don't tend to bust out the GPS for every single journey, and I can't actually drive in any direction from my house without going past at least one speed camera so, if only to preserve my (points free) licence, I'll err on the side of caution rather than aim for 34.2mph in 6th gear just to get optimal fuel consuption...
I like a fast car as much as the next man but there is no reason/excuse to ever drive 100 mph in the UK…
You dont sit next to me then 🤣
there is no reason/excuse to ever drive over 70 mph in the UK…becuse that is the maximum speed limit, innit.
FIFM
🤟