RE: M4 scamera protest planned
Discussion
atom290 said:
atom290 said:
leadfootlydon said:
So the prevailing road conditions are a factor in determining what is a safe speed? A simple "Yes" or "No", please.
Yes
Thank you. I'm glad we got that sorted out.
Can we further agree that as road conditions deteriorate, safe speeds reduce and as road conditions improve, safe speeds increase?
(I am sorry that the question sounds patronising, but this question must be asked in order to maintain the chain of logic)
Dont worry if i thought you were being patronising I would tell you!
I do agree that safe speeds are directly proportional to the road conditions.
However there needs to be an upper limit based on the reasons I gave
So logic goes out the window after all.
And we were getting on so well.
BTW, I suggest you brush up on your O-level physics. For example, kinetic is *lost* not, generated when objects colide. And all that irrelevant stuff about car lengths. Pleeeese.
leadfootlydon said:
So logic goes out the window after all.
And we were getting on so well.
BTW, I suggest you brush up on your O-level physics. For example, kinetic is *lost* not, generated when objects colide. And all that irrelevant stuff about car lengths. Pleeeese.
We were getting on well, I agreed with certain points and not with others
OK you are correct about the kinetic energy a body will posses the kinetic energy since it is moving, this will then be transformed into a bit of potential energy...no doubt the moving vehicles will lift up, noise, and heat.
And as I said in my last post the only reason I said about the car lengths is so that it gives a visual concept to the speed you are travelling at
atom290 said:
deltafox said:
atom290 said:
You cant condone driving at well over a 100mph, it is dangerous.
Why is the magic number *100 mph* dangerous then?
You seriously suggesting 99 is safer?
The sustained triple digit run i did a while back was in perfect safety. Its not how fast youre going but where and when you do it that either makes it dangerous or safe.
Youre doing exactly what the speed kills numpties do, getting a measurement and comparing it with a perception of danger. There is absolutely no evidence whatsover to demonstrate a mechanism whereby the faster you go the more danger from the speed is encountered.
Danger from mechanical failure, unexpected events yes, but NOT noway on earth just from going quicker.
Its time this speed kills bollox was laid to rest.
If no one had a speedo then youd have no idea what speed you were doing, then youd drive to the natural speed of the road and conditions.
Surely thats the way forward, not silly numbers on a sign saying "Thou shalt no go faster"???
Theyve tried the scam approach and failed, get shot of em and do something sensible for once.
atom290 said:
Right this is fun!
Id have to agree there!
atom290 said:
Ok then, No I am not suggesting for one minute 100mph is dangerous and 99mph isn’t! I was merely picking up on someone else’s comment that they considered 100 to be ok
100 mph on a lightly inhabited motorway is 100% reasonable and desirable, it IS "OK". Its a transport system, designed to transport us as fast as safely possible.
Most motorways could support much higher speeds than that if theyre properly maintained.
atom290 said:
I am quantifying danger with speed, and I have given reasons why:
Lets examine them!
atom290 said:
1. At 100mph you are travelling at 146 feet per second that’s approximately 11 car lengths every second. Is that enough time for the average person to react?
Yes, of course it is. If it wasnt id be dead almost everytime i go out.Its also possible due to the rest of the vehicles all travelling at similar speeds. The speed differential isnt therefore 100mph, its 30...plenty of time to react.
atom290 said:
2. Crashes involve an impact, an impact involves kinetic energy being generated. This energy is proportional to the square of the velocity. Therefore substantially less damage is done by dropping your speed.
Crashes are the result of two objects (in our case cars) meeting at differing speeds. In order for energy, kinetic or otherwise to create destruction, such a meeting has to happen in the first place.
The speed of the impact isnt (imho) so important as the mass combined with the speed of the two objects colliding.
For example, 2 supertankers of 500,000 tonnes coliding head on at 5 mph.....would you like to be on the bows of either? Nope, nor me. Speed in this case isnt nearly as important as the masses involved.
No impact no problem. Lesson here is: Dont impact!
atom290 said:
3. People don’t have a great perception of speed. When someone is driving at speed in the 3rd lane someone in the 2nd lane wont be able to judge the speed due to inexperience. It happens, Ive been in a vehicle at 120mph and someone’s pulled out in front of you purely because they couldn’t judge your speed.
This isnt so much a speed problem as a driver education problem. Practice makes perfect. Dumbing down drivers through the speed kills message is helping to create dumber drivers with all the results that are now being reaped in the form of higher road deaths.
atom290 said:
4. Your average saloon’s brakes aren’t designed to stop you at those speeds,
Thats not accurate. The brakes on a vehicle are designed to retard it from its maximum speed value, time and time again, although pad material may not be up to it for sustained and continual useage in that manner.
atom290 said:
and more to the point a vast number of people fit non OEM brakes the majority of which are less efficient and cause the disks to warp at high temps.
Thats quite possible, but its not a reason by itself not to exceed the numbers on a sign.
atom290 said:
I HAVE ALWAYS SAID THAT IT ISNT SPEED THAT KILLS ITS INAPPROPRIATE SPEED THAT KILLS!
Great stuff! Now we're getting somewhere.
Whats an innaproriate speed though? Depends on circumstances maybe? Local conditions perhaps? Am i getting through?
atom290 said:
Look back through this thread and I have tried to put that forward,
Agreed!
atom290 said:
but there has to be an upper limit,
Why does there? Speed dosent kill, inappropriate speed kills. If its inappropriate then we shouldnt do it. If it is, we should. No other guidance is necessary!
[quote=atom290]and in my eyes with the amount of traffic on the motorways its not fair to speed at triple figures or thereabouts.
This is related to the previous statement ie; "inappropriate speed for conditions" and is thus covered by it.
Converted yet?
>> Edited by deltafox on Wednesday 27th April 17:57
atom290 said:
30mph limits are there for a reason. So if people cant watch their speed and drive responsibly then yes they deserve to be caught. Children no matter how many times they watch Peter Pervis telling them the Green Cross Code will walk out in front of cars. How would you feel if a child you knew was knocked down, when it was proved that the speeder was going 5mph over the limit?
These are official statistics/recognised research results:
(i) approx. 70% of drivers exceed the 30mph limit
(ii) approx. 14,000 child pedestrians were crash involved, mostly in 30mph and 40 mph limits
(iii) at impact speed of 30mph, 50% of child pedestrians will be killed
(iv) for the same period, 70 child pedestrians (approx. 0.5%) were in fact killed.
So what happened? If (i) and (iii) are true, we should have expected to see several thousand child deaths.
I'll tell you what happened. Drivers reacted! They did something to avoid the crash or mitigate the consequences. They braked or swerved or whatever. That 'something' is far more important than their pre-impact free travelling speed and it's that 'something' which we need to be concentrating on and trying to improve.
atom290 said:
... but please note that if you are going to quote me, get all of them.
If you comments are inconsistent, that's your problem. How am I supposed to know which you really mean?
>> Edited by OBSERVER on Wednesday 27th April 18:23
Flintstone said:
A suggestion to all those planning to attend. Take your daily drivers - not your flash TVRs and Ferraris.
And what about those of us whose 'flash' car is their daily driver?
Sorry, I can't afford two cars. Shall I not show up then?
My daily drive has some gearbox issues, so it's the flash car for me too. Robin says that bringing a flash car is fine if there's just a few of us, this isn't Pistonfest!!
Flintstone said:
A suggestion to all those planning to attend. Take your daily drivers - not your flash TVRs and Ferraris.
And what about those of us whose 'flash' car is their daily driver?
Sorry, I can't afford two cars. Shall I not show up then?
Be a marshal.
I'd be there even though I live in Norfolk ; but I can't.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff