150 mph M25 8-10
Discussion
flemke said:
vonhosen said:
They can & do get it wrong too.
No-one is perfect.Would I rather be driving on roads where the only other drivers were Police Advanced Instructors driving at whatever they deemed to be a safe speed, or on roads where the only other drivers were typical civilian drivers who were technically obliged to heed the posted speed limit?
For me, it's no contest. How about you?
jshell said:
flemke said:
Although I am not sure that I am in favour of any road being derestricted, I am, as I have said before, in favour of certain drivers being derestricted.
It is a nonsense to suppose that, for example, a Police Advanced Driving Instructor is incapable of judging the right speed for given conditions when he or she is off duty.
If you are capable of doing something that can reasonably be expected to be harmless, why the heck should you be barred from doing it? To keep other people from getting jealous?
Rowlocks! http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...It is a nonsense to suppose that, for example, a Police Advanced Driving Instructor is incapable of judging the right speed for given conditions when he or she is off duty.
If you are capable of doing something that can reasonably be expected to be harmless, why the heck should you be barred from doing it? To keep other people from getting jealous?
That's not what we're talking about here.
As several posters have written here, when Police are on a call it is expected that they will sometimes take driving risks that would not be justified if they were not on a call. This trade-off is broadly endorsed by our society.
In such instances, perhaps there is a 1 in 1000 chance that there will ensue an RTA. For 100,000 B&2s runs, that would mean 100 crashes, many at a fairly high speed. We, almost all of us, accept this level of risk.
In "normal", civilian driving, no-one should consciously be taking a 1 in 1000 risk, certainly not an off-duty Police Class 1 driver. I don't know what the acceptable level of risk ought to be, but it seems to me that it should be more like 1 in 1,000,000, or one one-thousandth as much as what we deem acceptable for the same Police driver on an emergency call.
Do I think that a Police Class 1 should be able to drive on a deserted, straight, dry motorway at 150 mph? Yes, because the level of risk to innocent persons in those circumstances would be miniscule to microscopic. Nonetheless, that benign act could result in a custodial sentence. That is illogical.
Debaser said:
LoonR1 said:
Devil2575 said:
It's not unexpected that a German car maker with the tag line "the ultimate driving machine" have designed a car that is reasonably pleasant to cruise at high speeds for long distances.
Good point. Let's pick a Vauxhall Insignia and see if anyone thinks that would hold up well. My Honda Accord Type-R would max out in Top gear, at about 6700 rpm IIRC. I'm sure it would do it perfectly safely all day long but after a few hours of driving it flat out i'd probably be half deaf, exhausted and want to kill someone. My mate used to wear ear plugs when he did a motorway run in his Integra Type-R and more than once they took his Girl friend's Ka instead. But as it was developed and designed to drive at Vmax I'm sure that's ok...
Kawasicki said:
I'm making the suggestion that cars are designed and engineered to be driven at top speed. You said
"It will do over 100 mph but if Toyota designed that car with the idea that it was ever likely to be driven at 3 figure speeds then they're s
t at making cars"
That's plainly wrong. And then you contradict yourself with...
"It's safe at that speed because Toyota has to make it safe at that speed. If the car can do 100 mph then Toyota has to engineer it so that it is safe at 100 mph."
Talking about NVH and revs and steering ratio is very interesting, but it doesn't take away from the fact that cars are generally designed and engineered to be driven at top speed. No car is singularly designed for top speed usage, but it still falls within the design requirements, and it would be negligent of a car company to sell a car that wasn't engineered to take top speed usage into account.
I have not contradicted myself. You need to read my posts properly."It will do over 100 mph but if Toyota designed that car with the idea that it was ever likely to be driven at 3 figure speeds then they're s
t at making cars"That's plainly wrong. And then you contradict yourself with...
"It's safe at that speed because Toyota has to make it safe at that speed. If the car can do 100 mph then Toyota has to engineer it so that it is safe at 100 mph."
Talking about NVH and revs and steering ratio is very interesting, but it doesn't take away from the fact that cars are generally designed and engineered to be driven at top speed. No car is singularly designed for top speed usage, but it still falls within the design requirements, and it would be negligent of a car company to sell a car that wasn't engineered to take top speed usage into account.
NVH, revs and steering can all make a car s
t to drive at very high speeds on a motorway. A car can be a absolute blast to hammer down a B road bouncing off the limiter but bloody awful to drive on the motorway. The fact that it is perfectly safe to drive in this way is irrelevant.vonhosen said:
flemke said:
vonhosen said:
They can & do get it wrong too.
No-one is perfect.Would I rather be driving on roads where the only other drivers were Police Advanced Instructors driving at whatever they deemed to be a safe speed, or on roads where the only other drivers were typical civilian drivers who were technically obliged to heed the posted speed limit?
For me, it's no contest. How about you?
Devil2575 said:
Yes but of course it has. It can do X mph so the manufacturer needs to make it sure it is safe and durable at that speed. It may be an incredibly unpleasant experience driving it that fast but it I'm sure it will be safe.
My Honda Accord Type-R would max out in Top gear, at about 6700 rpm IIRC. I'm sure it would do it perfectly safely all day long but after a few hours of driving it flat out i'd probably be half deaf, exhausted and want to kill someone. My mate used to wear ear plugs when he did a motorway run in his Integra Type-R and more than once they took his Girl friend's Ka instead. But as it was developed and designed to drive at Vmax I'm sure that's ok...
I'm genuinely surprised at the limited understanding of vehicle development shown on this thread. I'd have thought enthusiasts would be keen to understand more. My Honda Accord Type-R would max out in Top gear, at about 6700 rpm IIRC. I'm sure it would do it perfectly safely all day long but after a few hours of driving it flat out i'd probably be half deaf, exhausted and want to kill someone. My mate used to wear ear plugs when he did a motorway run in his Integra Type-R and more than once they took his Girl friend's Ka instead. But as it was developed and designed to drive at Vmax I'm sure that's ok...
jm doc said:
LoonR1 said:
So you're fighting for a right that most people seem happy to have given up.
So they are "happy" to have given it up. It obviuosly never occurred to you that people might only be doing it because they will otherwise be PUNISHED??
On the subject of risk and death: studies showed that switching off lighting (for Co2 reduction etc) might kill a few extra people a year and for some reason that was accepted and the lights are switched off on certain stretches. Curious eh?
Finally I am sure that MoP surveyed on M Way speed limits favoured 80mph when that was tabled recently... So there is some evidence that those that pay for and use the network would favour a move from the archaic 70mph limit.
Confession time. I've just had a blast along the motorway and got up to 140 in fairly short order. It was easy for the car to get there, it was less comfortable being bounced around as the road surface was quite bumpy at that speed and there were bumps where none exist at a more sedate 90. The car also went very light over a crest at a junction.
I was doing that speed for no more than 30 seconds and the closing speed on the cars in front was ridiculous. When i was getting close to them I backed right off to 90.
I was pretty stupid.
I was doing that speed for no more than 30 seconds and the closing speed on the cars in front was ridiculous. When i was getting close to them I backed right off to 90.
I was pretty stupid.
Debaser said:
I'm genuinely surprised at the limited understanding of vehicle development shown on this thread. I'd have thought enthusiasts would be keen to understand more.
Before you make statements like this you need to say what your experience/knowledge is.Also, aside from asserting that a car will be safe at it's top speed the rest of my post is my own subjective opinion. Have you sat in an Accord Type-R at 6700 rpm?
Have you done over 100 in a Corolla Verso?
Edited by Devil2575 on Tuesday 24th March 03:48
FurtiveFreddy said:
LoonR1 said:
I glanced at a list amd got bored. Do they test this top speed over years of constantly doing it?
So let me get this right. Some of you here are arguing about what cars are capable of running at Vmax 24 hours a day for years on end?Some people just like arguing.
flemke said:
vonhosen said:
flemke said:
vonhosen said:
They can & do get it wrong too.
No-one is perfect.Would I rather be driving on roads where the only other drivers were Police Advanced Instructors driving at whatever they deemed to be a safe speed, or on roads where the only other drivers were typical civilian drivers who were technically obliged to heed the posted speed limit?
For me, it's no contest. How about you?
LoonR1 said:
Confession time. I've just had a blast along the motorway and got up to 140 in fairly short order. It was easy for the car to get there, it was less comfortable being bounced around as the road surface was quite bumpy at that speed and there were bumps where none exist at a more sedate 90. The car also went very light over a crest at a junction.
I was doing that speed for no more than 30 seconds and the closing speed on the cars in front was ridiculous. When i was getting close to them I backed right off to 90.
I was pretty stupid.
No, you lived therefore it's perfectly safe. What more evidence do you want :-/I was doing that speed for no more than 30 seconds and the closing speed on the cars in front was ridiculous. When i was getting close to them I backed right off to 90.
I was pretty stupid.
vonhosen said:
flemke said:
vonhosen said:
flemke said:
vonhosen said:
They can & do get it wrong too.
No-one is perfect.Would I rather be driving on roads where the only other drivers were Police Advanced Instructors driving at whatever they deemed to be a safe speed, or on roads where the only other drivers were typical civilian drivers who were technically obliged to heed the posted speed limit?
For me, it's no contest. How about you?
A friend who has been a Police Advanced Driving Instructor for more than 2 decades has told me that, amongst the students who come to the school where he works, roughly half are driving enthusiasts who take their new assignments and the instruction seriously, and the balance appear to see the activity as just another chore.
I have spent quite a bit of time riding with (and taking instruction from) a number of Police Advanced Driving Instructors and, without exception, these guys are really good drivers, very (physically and mentally) skilled and very committed to excellence.
Jon1967x said:
No, you lived therefore it's perfectly safe. What more evidence do you want :-/
I'm not fluent in smileys, so unsure whether that means you're being sarcastic or not. Just to clarify for those proposing unlimited speeds, I didn't die, but under current legislation my speed would have put my driving under the microscope amd the question is whether the standard of my driving fell way below that expected of a competent and careful driver.
Of course, the speed I quoted could be purely hypothetical.
LoonR1 said:
Jon1967x said:
No, you lived therefore it's perfectly safe. What more evidence do you want :-/
I'm not fluent in smileys, so unsure whether that means you're being sarcastic or not. Just to clarify for those proposing unlimited speeds, I didn't die, but under current legislation my speed would have put my driving under the microscope amd the question is whether the standard of my driving fell way below that expected of a competent and careful driver.
Of course, the speed I quoted could be purely hypothetical.
Jon1967x said:
LoonR1 said:
Jon1967x said:
No, you lived therefore it's perfectly safe. What more evidence do you want :-/
I'm not fluent in smileys, so unsure whether that means you're being sarcastic or not. Just to clarify for those proposing unlimited speeds, I didn't die, but under current legislation my speed would have put my driving under the microscope amd the question is whether the standard of my driving fell way below that expected of a competent and careful driver.
Of course, the speed I quoted could be purely hypothetical.
(it is midday somewhere in the world)Jon1967x said:
I was quoting the various people (not you) on here that think because they've done something and lived then its safe - so more for other peoples benefit. Some would even have it you were safer because you were on the road for less time.
BP had started their plant up in Texas City plenty of times and because nothing went wrong it must have been safe. Until the time when it wasn't and they killed 15 and injured 180...http://www.csb.gov/bp-america-refinery-explosion/
Anone who thinks that because nothing went wrong that it must have been safe knows nothing about risk.
Devil2575 said:
Jon1967x said:
I was quoting the various people (not you) on here that think because they've done something and lived then its safe - so more for other peoples benefit. Some would even have it you were safer because you were on the road for less time.
BP had started their plant up in Texas City plenty of times and because nothing went wrong it must have been safe. Until the time when it wasn't and they killed 15 and injured 180...http://www.csb.gov/bp-america-refinery-explosion/
Anone who thinks that because nothing went wrong that it must have been safe knows nothing about risk.
Jon1967x said:
We're in agreement. I worked with a guy who crashed his car near where he lived as he went round a corner too fast like he always did, ended up on the wrong side of the road like he always did and had a head on crash. When he returned to work he thought he'd been unlucky - "less than a 1% chance a car was coming the other way" (it was a quiet road). I pointed out he did that corner at least 200 times a year on his way to work. He's still trying to work out the significance.
Or as Terry Pratchett put it, million-to-one chances happen 9 times out of 10.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff