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
🤟
If we're going to limit speed or acceleration, can we also build in cars leaving enough of a gap so that cars that want to overtake can do so safely, one car at a time if necessary.
I've got a reasonably powerful car. The time I use that power most frequently is on a NSL road where there are four or five cars in a line sitting very close to each other at 30 or 40mph admiring the view. If they left a gap, I wouldn't need the power.
Likewise automatically stop ******** drivers from accelerating when other cars start to overtake on the same roads. It's not an everyday occurrence, but I can't believe how often that it does happen (generally they are over 60, with a dash cam).
Cars are too fast. I like them, but I agree. The worst drivers I see are rarely speeding in fast cars though.
Cars are too fast. I like them, but I agree. The worst drivers I see are rarely speeding in fast cars though.
Indeed. I can't believe there has been 5 pages of arguing about this. The limit is a step in the right direction, but it's not what we should be focused on if we want to improve road safety.
We have the technology to make significant leaps.
If they really wanted to save the world/ peoples lives / the planet / fuel / *** delete as applicable . Then a 100mph limit would be much better 100mph = 162kph. Its not hanging around and will get you where you want t go very quickly. OK , not as quick as 140mph , but it gets very uneconomical, noisy , and can be scary at well over 100mph .
100mph limit would encourage a running speed of 90 - 95 ( europe ) leaving some margin to accelerate to manoevere round a slower vehicle under acceleration if a faster vehicle is approaching
There was atest between a Prius and a BMW M3 ona track , The M3 just had to keep up with the prius , which was drive as hard as possible. The Prius used more petrol as the M3 was performing well under its maximium potential
Its inappropriate speed for the prevailing conditions which catches people out , not speed in itelf although the end result is alot less spectacularo if you throw it in a hedge at 40 , not 60
Its inappropriate speed for the prevailing conditions which catches people out , not speed in itelf although the end result is alot less spectacularo if you throw it in a hedge at 40 , not 60
and beyond a point you just don't have the ability to react quickly enough to events unfolding around you. Hence speed limits have not really increased over the years as technology has.
If they really wanted to save the world/ peoples lives / the planet / fuel / *** delete as applicable . Then a 100mph limit would be much better 100mph = 162kph. Its not hanging around and will get you where you want t go very quickly.
For a journey long enough for that to make a difference use a train. A limit like that isn't really better it's just not quite as bad as the other option. It's not a preferable solution.
For a journey long enough for that to make a difference use a train.
I've just done a quick search to see how much a journey I do reasonably regularly would cost by train... £111 per person return.
It costs under £140 in fuel for the same journey. Admittedly it's probably 30 minutes quicker by train, but I have to change three times including trudging across London.
With a dog and two 30kg bags.
I'd rather drive thanks 🙂
I’ve just done a quick search to see how much a journey I do reasonably regularly would cost by train… £111 per person return.
I’d rather drive thanks 🙂
Well if you try and do it at 100mph it will cost you a damm site more and a good chance you will need a lift home after they cut up your license in front of you on the hard shoulder. Which is what the point was actually about.....
I'm trying to think when I last drove at seriously silly speeds, i.e. over 100mph, in this country (being honest here, I doubt there's a bloke that hasn't or hasn't tried to) and it was probably over thirty years ago. Not sure of the exact figures but there was probably half the traffic density back then. Even on the motorway I don't go above an indicated 85mph and that's not that regular.
No doubt there are road where excessive speed is still doable other than in the dead of night.
Most of the time on NSL roads I find myself in heavy enough traffic going at 50mph or so that it's not worth the stress to constantly hassle to overtake.
being honest here, I doubt there’s a bloke that hasn’t or hasn’t tried to
Err....I’m a bloke and pretty close to Action Man on that gender scale. I’ve never driven a car at more than 70mph. This thread is like reading a thread about “Why I need an assault rifle for hunting deer” At the end of the day it boils down to:
Drive slow and dangerous = Bad
Drive fast and dangerous = Bad with the ability to cause more carnage.
Take away the ability to go too fast and the net result will be a bit better. As for those claiming it’s impinging on their freedom, grow up. We all have to follow rules. Don’t like it, tough shit. People are morons and need checks and balances and I include myself in that. The sooner the tech for safe gaps between vehicles and speed control is in place and in all vehicles as standard, the better.
I sometimes can’t believe this a cycling forum.
@funkmasterp - I'm all for tech to enforce minimum gaps between vehicles and the EU proposal to have "black box" data recorders in cars. It's not impinging freedom, the inference here is that the "freedom" to speed, etc. is equivalent to freedom of thought and speech and acting on one is a harbinger on actions on the other when it's actually enforcing responsibility.
A pedestrian, cyclist and motorist. 😉
Completely agree with you whitestone
I love it when people quote out of context . I use 100mph as a better than 112mph and the brackets ( europe ) and all of sudden I am advocating driving at 99mph in the UK . I am not .
Trains are fine , but the sad reality is with bikes , and luggage and friends its quicker and cheaper to drive
I am sure Germany used to have tailgating cameras, but no one else in ( europe ) sic . does.
And Yes , I have done a max speed run . It was fast , would I do that sort of speed again . I very much doubt and my current car is probably 30mph too slow anyway
I sometimes can’t believe this a cycling forum.
I know, it's almost like some people are just different!
You lot might be surprised to hear that once upon a time (1992/3 maybe 4) in a far off land (Germany) I drove over 100mph..
Yes I did 🧟♂️
I did it a few times actually.
Y’see I once used to travel to Hungary via Rotterdam/Germany/Austria and then the Autobahn were mostly unrestricted until you were in the vicinity of a large town/city. Over those years I had a couple of cars, a Toyota Corolla GTi and Celica GT4.. Both capable of speeds in excess of my capability..
And this is the crux of my point here..
I saw (over those years) a number of proper pile ups, witnessed about 5/6 (can’t quite remember) and saw the aftermath of about 20. It’s not really a nice sight watching ahead a series of red lights and wobbles ending up in mashed rear ends and catapulting vehicles, knowing only too well that there were people in those cars, and people being mashed to death that were caught up in the chaos who were there innocently going about thier daily business. My boss at the time was a speed freak, had a Supra Turbo and always floored it to the hotel as soon as he got onto a black ribbon, and was as aggressive as some of those old vids you see on YouTube where the drivers pass flashing lights and giving others the finger.. He was an arse TBH, until one day he piled into the back of a people carrier killing 2 and life injured 2 others.... and it was his own family.. yep. He changed overnight, it affected every living minute of his life from then on and had a massive impact on mine too.
Its probably why I am so passive when I drive, have been since that day back in 96’. When the impacts of such devastating consequences are so raw just becuse someone wants to drive fast on a public highway...
I admire fast drivers, on the track they can do what they like. But with so many uncontrollable variables and perceived consequences I simply can not comprehend why people speed or indeed drive fast on the public highway.
Hey ho.
Oh, and honestly I am not in favour of “black box” recorders or any other monitoring system. We don’t really need them. To me they are an invasion of people’s private lives and they shouldn’t be allowed. But I do foresee a time when these become the norm, in my lifetime I pretty much guarantee they’ll be fitted.
But that could change, if people didn’t break the law or drive recklessly the vast majority of normal road users wouldn’t have to suffer the consequences of the few... but all in all it really is the few that will spoil lifestyles for the many. Those selfish few who will continue to treat others as targets and bully thier own way through life at the wheel.
🤷♂️🤟
Peace out brothers & sisters.
I sometimes can’t believe this a cycling forum.
I know, it’s almost like some people are just different!
Or self entitled and have delusions of having driving skillz that are so awesome they can predict what all the other road users are going to do.
Just read your post bikebouy. My brother was killed by someone who was ‘driving to the conditions’ or ignoring speed limits as it’s actually called. It definitely alters ones perspective when it comes to cars and the selfish, entitled behaviour of some.
100mph limit would encourage a running speed of 90 – 95 ( europe ) leaving some margin to accelerate to manoevere round a slower vehicle under acceleration if a faster vehicle is approaching
The maximum speed limit on a road where you would overtake with on-coming traffic is 60mph. Why would you need a limiter at 100mph? If you can't overtake within the speed limit then you should not be overtaking. Let alone getting 50% or more above the speed limit.
I am sure Germany used to have tailgating cameras,
France uses cameras for "distances de sécurité" (tailgating) The local Gendarmes use drones to identify tailgating trucks on the autoroutes and N10 up from Spain/Portugal. They also have gendarmes riding on the pegs of their bikes to see inside truck cabs to catch the drivers watching films on laptops.
One of the results of the yellow vest protests is an increase in road deaths. The police/gendarmes have been too busy with rioters to police the roads and 2/3 of provincial radars have been vandalised. People are going noticeably faster on one of the roads into my home town.
100mph limit would encourage a running speed of 90 – 95 ( europe ) leaving some margin to accelerate to manoevere round a slower vehicle under acceleration if a faster vehicle is approaching
The maximum speed limit on a road where you would overtake with on-coming traffic is 60mph. Why would you need a limiter at 100mph? If you can’t overtake within the speed limit then you should not be overtaking. Let alone getting 50% or more above the speed limit.
Yes, That does not scan . If I had written approaching from behind it would have made more sense. Having done a thousands of miles in Germany it is the speed of the approaching car that needs to be judged and , in some cases matched , when pulling out from lane 1 into lane 2 overtaking an HGV for example , hence overtaking a slower moving vehicle.
What does a photo (posted above my mws) of NASCAR cars involved in a racing collision got to do with this thread?
NASCAR cars, you know, those that race on the oval track at 200mph whilst being nose to tail with a couple of inches gap between each car.
Nothing to do at all with driving on public roads.
NASCAR cars, you know, those that race on the oval track at 200mph whilst being nose to tail with a couple of inches gap between each car.
Nothing to do at all with driving on public roads.
Been on the motorway network?
What does it have to do with the thread? Well people were talking about being able to handle faster speeds, what they can't process is the complex signals from every other road user and make an accurate prediction as to what will happen next. The more people you have going faster - even on a motorway all going the same direction the less time anyone has to react to a changing situation.
