I would hope that if you were travelling at 100, that you would leave a somewhat larger gap to the car in front than you would at 70, ie an absolute minimum of 2 seconds (this of course should increase as your speed does, as your reaction time though being the same will mean that you have travelled a larger distance before actually braking)
Just a note but is it possible to drive along at a set distance behind the car in front if he/she is doing 70 and you are doing 100? (not unless someones speedo is out in my opinion)
As for no gravel traps etc, and mechanical failure, what are your odds of surviving if you are doing 70 and the same thing happens, I believe the outcome would be the same on 99% of situations.

 

OK Robertio,
So you think that all speed limits should be lowered. Maybe we should get a man with a red flag to run along in front of us making sure the road is clear.... That being the case, we might still suffer mech failure and flatten him, so taking your arguement to its logical conclusion we would have no cars. Do you work for some EU anti enjoyment campaign?

 

just thought I'd add a little comment to the "church_monster" posting earlier...

your were pulled over by "Geoff Capes' older brother" you say... I've been out of the country for a while but I seem to remember that Geoff Capes was actually a Traffic Cop and as you probably haven't seen Geoff Capes on TV for a while quite possibly it was actually Geoff Capes!

Food for Thought...

(unless of course Geoff Capes has died or something and I didn't see it on CNN!)

 

Stuart,

thanks for your open posting of your approach. IMHO thats about what the limits should actually be. If the limits were more reasonable, there may be public support for a zero tolerance campaign. Town centres should be 10-15mph in my opinion. A roads and motorways should be faster to encourage people to use them rather than go through the centre of towns, where the pedestrians are.

Everyone else,
For the record I generally tend to do 80-85 on a motorway, it was purely because some stuiped mare in a 206 would not get away from me that I sped up for a few miles to get away from her. (I tried slowing down first, but she just slowed down as well. why!?) Car must have become magnetic is all I can say.

robski

 

A large number of you appear to believe that 90 or 100MPH is "safe enough" on a motorway. Consider this...
Two cars are travelling along a motorway. The front one is doing 70 MPH. The rear one is 315 feet behind (average stopping distance at 70 I think)and travelling at 100 MPH. If the first car does an emergency stop, how fast will the second car be travelling when the crash occurs? First correct answer wins a PS2 ( except Stuart - he probably uses this as a lecturing example when he is harrasing us poor speeders for trying to kill ourselves and innocent bystanders)

 

100mph

Can I have my new PlayStation now.......

(I believe Stuart posted this exact question last week....!!!)

 

Also forgot to add (in my excitment of winning a PS2 ) that the Authorities no longer call them ACCIDENTS, as this insinuates no guilty party, but rather INCIDENTS, as this better describes that somebody was at fault.

Hmmmmm..... (litigation laywer anyone..)

 

apologies for dragging over old ground then. I've just lost my newbie tag this very day.

Dr Hu. The bit I can't believe is that Stuart posted the question last week and you still got it wrong... Well, the traffic cop who asked me at the side of the road told me it was 70. It is still going to hurt a lot.

p.s. If you want your free playstation2, please send a cheque for 600 quid to cover posting and packaging to.....

 

How about if the first car is a Morris Minor - drum brakes all round - with my nan driving (and she's been dead for years) and the following car is a Porsche Carrera GT with M. Schumacher at the wheel? Don't think you can be quite so generic in these situations. Different people and different cars have different abilities. Quoting figures is meaningless although obviously there has to be an "official" view on how long it takes to stop.

 

fastbloke,

so at the same speed as the bloke who is driving safely at 70 mhp.
It doesnt matter that hes more intent on talking to his passengers, lighting a ***, and trying to find a cd in the glove box!

robski

 

Fair point Richard, but the general idea is that a reasonably large proportion of the population would be leaving the scene of the aforementioned 'incident' in a wooden box. (You nan included by the sound of things). I love speed. I drive a Scoob unless I'm in a hurry when I take my R1, but I don't kid myself that what I'm doing is safe. Tell me this. What would the well capable Mr Schumacher do if he was approaching a corner in his well capable Ferrari F1 car when a sudden mechanical failure means he can't steer or brake? We don't have gravel traps and tyre walls on the Motorways round here

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:<HR>The rear one is 315 feet behind (average stopping distance at 70 I think)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Didn't Top Gear prove on TV a while back that the average stopping distances in the Highway Code are out dated?

Something as average as a Ford Focus stopped well inside the distance IIRC, whilst a 911 or something equally exotic pratically defied the laws of physics with it's distance. I do remember they also tested a Land Rover discovery that took a fair distance to stop.

Chris.

 

did I mention it was snowing?

 

Quite the opposite, speed limits around schools should be 20, in built up areas 30, both rigerously enforced, however on the open road I would do away with speed limits all together. This leaves the driver to drive to the current road conditions, while ensuring they don't do stupid speeds where kids etc are involved. Every driver on the road should have to pass more than the current driving test as well, but none of this is ever going to happen (well other than speedlimits getting lowered around schools) so I am probably gibbering away for no good reason.
I was just pointing out that whether you are doing 70 or 100 in an accident the outcome is likely to be the same.

 

The general public in this country are unsuitable for high speed driving.

At 70 they tailgate, leave stupidly small stopping distances. Will they suddenly 'see the light' at 100mph. I would love to see the limit on clear motorways raised to 90. This seems to be the average speed of the speeders.

People can't be trusted to leave a gap at 50mph. They lane hog etc. Until this population start to drive like the Germans on their Autobahns, move out, overtake, move in and maintain a safe gap, it's just not going to happen.

Leave the high speed for the track. Any fool can go fast, but not every fool should.

P.

 

IMO the police (in Berkshire anyway) don't tend to spend a lot on catching speeders anyway.

Since I trashed my Scoob (and thanks to the policeman for breathalising me whilst I was lying with a headwound in the ambulance and it was 8.30 a.m. and I was obviously on the way to work but no hard feelings eh?) I've been driving a car that just about reaches 85mph if I push it hard.

Sometimes I do indeed go 85mph on the motorway and 95% of the traffic (lorries included) is going FASTER (not just Berkshire either). So the current police methods fail to make drivers slow down.

You can make statistics mean anything. Safety is all about risk analysis. Yes you are less likely to be able to avoid an accident at 85mph than 70mph but exactly by how much? And what impact does quality of brakes, tyres, reaction time, eyesight, general mood, etc. have on this? It can be calculated, but as the rail industry proves, no-one bothers.

The hard reality is that we have limited resources and sometimes we need to decide who is going to suffer. Unfortunately this decision is driven by politics, and not by risk analysis.

So when the police stop you for travelling at 90mph in a car that could stop in half the distance that another travelling at 70mph could, and the next day you read in the papers that a child has been murdered, blame the politicians, and not the police.


P.S. I moved out of the Safety industry and into IT 'cos there was no money in it.

 

Apart from getting done for 39mph in a 30 a long time ago, I have found most bobbies to be ok if you are ok with them.

When I had a call at work to say my wife was in labour at Wrexham Maelor Hospital I 'hotfooted' to my car and started the 10 mile or so journey. At this time I had an Astra SRi, and I unwittingly spun my wheels in haste at the roundabout to join the by-pass to Wrexham. I was stopped on the entry slip road by a copper in a Volvo T5 estate.
I apologized and exclaimed the reason for my haste and it must have been written all over my face because he said "Ok, I believe you, follow me as we are on route to Wrexham but I didn't do this"

He then joined the by-pass and just drove all the way to Wrexham at about 90mph in the outside lane. Nothing excessive, no flashing lights, just an aide to make my journey faster as it cleared the lane.

As we neared Wrexham he just flashed his hazards once and took off. Absolute Gospel this one and it was much appreciated.

blubs

 

Very eloquently put!

 

ChrisB

Actually the Discovery stopped only very slightly shorter than a 1964 Ford Anglia (typical car around the time the Highway Code stopping distances were last updated).

Modern cars stop much faster (think it was a 106 they tested at almost as good as the Porker) but whilst ever "2 ton diesel monsters" (Clarkson's descrip) are driving about the stopping distances stay!

FWIW
Paul

 

Was that before or after the pink elephant flew past you ?

 

I know of someone who got done doing 79 on a dual carriageway.

C

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:<HR>Originally posted by fast bloke:
<B>Consider this...
Two cars are travelling along a motorway. The front one is doing 70 MPH. The rear one is 315 feet behind (average stopping distance at 70 I think)and travelling at 100 MPH. If the first car does an emergency stop, how fast will the second car be travelling when the crash occurs?[/quote]

Maybe i am missing something, but...

* Car in front at 70mph, car behind at 100mph (315 feet gap)
* Car in front brakes
* You have to wait for the "thinking distance" - 15 metres @50mph, thus 30 metres @100mph
* 30 metres equals about 100 feet
* Thus you, and the car in front, both reduce speed with a _gap_ of 215 feet apart, hence no collision!

Unless
- the rear vehicle is in a Scooby and the front vehicle is in a Morris Minor - in which case there is a bigger gap under braking.

or - the rear vehicle is a Morris Minor and the front vehicle is a Scooby - in which case the MM at 100mph deserves to be booked!

or - the front vehicle hits a stationary vehicle and stops DEAD, and thus the rear vehicle will have great difficulty in avoiding a collision (dunno the Scooby 100-0 distance). However, any nutter who drives at 100mph (or even 20mph) and only watches the vehicle immediately in front shouldn't be allowed on the road!!!!!!

Or - anyone who drives at 100mph on a motorway when the car immediately in front is doing 30mph less also shouldn't be allowed on the road!!

Or - anyone who drives at ANY speed on a motorway when the car immediately in front is doing 30mph less also shouldn't be allowed on the road!!
So - what's your point?

mb

 

Surprised if anyone remembers braking distances after they have passed the test. It maybe gives learners an idea of how long it takes to stop a car but useless in real world driving.
I own a Scoob (UK with ABS), Skoda Felicia diesel (don't laugh, 3 years no problems at all, 1st class dealers, 60mpg) and a 1966 Series 2A Land Rover (Drumbrakes all round and no servo!! ).
Needless to say the braking distances are somewhat different.

The standard of driving on UK roads is appalling, I couldn't do Suarts job without some sort of stress counseling.
Finally the Motorway should be part of the Driving Test and bad lane discipline should be an offence.

Stopped rambling now

Lee

 

Boomer, if a Morris Minor was doing 100 MPH, the tuner would deserve a medal!!

I think I'e said my piece on tailgating etc before........

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:<HR>Originally posted by church_monster:
<B>Was that before or after the pink elephant flew past you ?[/quote]


If that comment is aimed at my good self, may I cordially invite you to bite my nether regions at your earliest possible convenience ?

 

I agree with logiclee. The root of most of the problems in this country come from the laughable driving test. This is was designed 30 years ago and has barely changed. There is no provision for motorway driving, driving in adverse conditions, a skid pan to learn how to control your car properly etc.

I can understand that they don't want hoards of L drivers in Nissan Micras on the motorway, but there has got to be a better way than just banning learner drivers and then expecting everyone to learn as they go on. We need to change attitudes and driving styles before anything can be done about speed limits.

Chris

 

re the original topic of this thread..

i've never been prosecuted for speeding but i have had a DI basically tell me that he knew i was doing 150mph on a certain road at a certain time, a couple weeks after i'd one it , now that was a bit weird to say the least! lol

 

Boomer,

Can the computer take away the two wrong answers please?

Robin

 

Boomer

A car braking from 100mph will slow down at a slower rate than a car slowing from 70mph. The car at 100mph has more than twice the kinetic enrgy of the car at 70mph, depsite travelling less than 50% faster. this energy has to be dissipated through heat in the brakes; this can only be achieved at a maximum rate for the said brakes, which will be the same for both vehicles. If the energy is dissipated at a fixed rate, the 70mph vehicle wiull slow quicker than the 100mph vehicle, as teh energy is related to the speed squared, i.e. not a linear relationship.