RE: Someone has done the Cannonball in 27hrs 25mins

[anonymous-user]

V166 said:

Haven't read through the whole thread yet, but has anyone posted pics of the Lambo girls already?

These ones?

fblm said:

Outstanding!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evA3_NV7cPM&fe...

[anonymous-user]

outnumbered said:

I love this sort of thing, even though I know I shouldn't really.

I'm not sure about the legal situation in the US though. What happens if some dashcam warrior they happened to pass, submits footage to the local state plod of three figure speeds ? Is there any possible federal offence as well for the overall journey ? I'm just wondering what the legal risks are, since there have been plenty of people in this country convicted on dash cam footage.

They've been lawyered up in previous videos. Seriously doubt they can be done for anything now. There's a far more rebellious streak in US car culture than in the UK where we've been cowed and congested into submission; I actually doubt anyone would volunteer dashcam footage let alone it be usable evidence.

[mat205125]

fblm said:

outnumbered said:

I love this sort of thing, even though I know I shouldn't really.

I'm not sure about the legal situation in the US though. What happens if some dashcam warrior they happened to pass, submits footage to the local state plod of three figure speeds ? Is there any possible federal offence as well for the overall journey ? I'm just wondering what the legal risks are, since there have been plenty of people in this country convicted on dash cam footage.

They've been lawyered up in previous videos. Seriously doubt they can be done for anything now. There's a far more rebellious streak in US car culture than in the UK where we've been cowed and congested into submission; I actually doubt anyone would volunteer dashcam footage let alone it be usable evidence.

The USA must be like the “good old days” used to be in the U.K.

Back when the police actually had to catch you in order to prosecute.

Their roads can’t be just littered with rows and rows of cameras waiting for drivers to come past, and send points and fines out in the post.

[cheddar]

My guess is that they overtake at around 90mph then accelerate up to 120/30/40 on the empty bits.
I see nothing wrong with that.

Gumball, rather than Cannonball, is whole elevated level of stupidity, drivers still intoxicated from 4am parties, weaving, racing, overtaking/undertaking at 200mph, endangering the general public and often crashing.

[anonymous-user]

mat205125 said:

fblm said:

outnumbered said:

I love this sort of thing, even though I know I shouldn't really.

I'm not sure about the legal situation in the US though. What happens if some dashcam warrior they happened to pass, submits footage to the local state plod of three figure speeds ? Is there any possible federal offence as well for the overall journey ? I'm just wondering what the legal risks are, since there have been plenty of people in this country convicted on dash cam footage.

They've been lawyered up in previous videos. Seriously doubt they can be done for anything now. There's a far more rebellious streak in US car culture than in the UK where we've been cowed and congested into submission; I actually doubt anyone would volunteer dashcam footage let alone it be usable evidence.

The USA must be like the “good old days” used to be in the U.K.

Back when the police actually had to catch you in order to prosecute.

Their roads can’t be just littered with rows and rows of cameras waiting for drivers to come past, and send points and fines out in the post.

Damn straight:

Uk: petty small minded bureaucratic s
Us: “live free or die” individualistic culture, ‘fire at will’ and a short hospital stay can possibly bankrupt you.

Pros and cons on either side, but the UK is seriously 1984 these days. S172 anybody ?

Edited by anonymous-user on Friday 6th December 21:59

[DBSV8]

rb_89 said:

TomTVR500 said:

Galsia said:

These guys shouldn't be celebrated, they should be in prison.

:

[browngt3]

Do they not have unmarked patrol cars in the US or is that just our devious Plod?

[anonymous-user]

mat205125 said:

Their roads can’t be just littered with rows and rows of cameras waiting for drivers to come past, and send points and fines out in the post.

Do they make bullet proof speed cameras?

[Chestrockwell]

Sofa said:

Muzzer79 said:

Most I've hit is 110 and that was years and years back. The only roads you can sensibly get into 3 figures on now are too littered with cameras.

Is your car broken, or do you drive a 2CV? I can think of quite a few roads I could (theoretically) get my 120hp hatchback into 3 figures with no trouble and virtually no risk.

Agreed, there are many roads where you can hit 110, even on the M25 between the gantries if you’re in a car powerful enough.

I don’t see how people are afraid to or think exceeding 110 is dangerous, it all depends on the time, road, conditions and car. 70 - 110 - 70 was extremely easy and safe (good brakes)in my 2 previous cars and they weren’t 700 bhp E63 AMG’s.

Edited by Chestrockwell on Saturday 7th December 01:34

[Graveworm]

mstrbkr said:

Disagree. On derestricted autobahn people are aware that a car might come up behind them at 190mph. Changing lanes with that knowledge vs. not having that knowledge is a massive difference!

Whilst I haven't driven at 190 in the UK, I have frequently driven in the UK legally, in relative safety, above 150 as have thousands of people. I know others who have been around 190. So the unawareness of others is not a barrier.
On the few occasions I have driven at 190ish, in Germany, I wasn't making any assumptions about other drivers there either.

Edited by Graveworm on Saturday 7th December 13:14

Edited by Graveworm on Saturday 7th December 13:14

[anonymous-user]

Chestrockwell said:

I don’t see how people are afraid to or think exceeding 110 is dangerous, it all depends on the time, road, conditions and car.

exactly. But pure it's a matter for pure statistics that the probability for having an accident is the risk level multiplied by the time spent at that risk level..

And that's the problem with racing across an entire continent at high speed. At some point, your "luck" runs out, and when it runs out at say 140mph, very bad things happen:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIE4KdJbk2E&t=...

https://jalopnik.com/this-new-bmw-m5-crashed-going...


etc
etc

[Graveworm]

Max_Torque said:

exactly. But pure it's a matter for pure statistics that the probability for having an accident is the risk level multiplied by the time spent at that risk level..

And that's the problem with racing across an entire continent at high speed. At some point, your "luck" runs out, and when it runs out at say 140mph, very bad things happen:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIE4KdJbk2E&t=...

https://jalopnik.com/this-new-bmw-m5-crashed-going...


etc
etc

Well pure statistics are that drivers exceeding the speed limit, are less likely to be involved in accidents, of any kind including serious or fatal accidents, than those complying.
That doesn't mean that, driving faster, all things being equal doesn't increase risk because obviously it does.

[anonymous-user]

Graveworm said:

Well pure statistics are that drivers exceeding the speed limit, are less likely to be involved in accidents, of any kind including serious or fatal accidents, than those complying.

Source?

[Graveworm]

Max_Torque said:

Source?

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/833827/ras50001.ods
and
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/governmen...

In summary, depending on road type, in 2017 between 9 and 86 percent of cars were exceeding the speed limit whilst only 5 percent of cars involved in accidents are exceeding the speed limit.

All it means is that where and when people drive above the speed limit is safer than where and when they comply. Driving faster at the same time and place almost always increases the risk.

[DonkeyApple]

That’s one of the core arguments for the reducing of speed limits in that when drivers know they are breaking the law then they pay more attention to their surroundings. The argument being that cars driving at 60 in a 50 are safer than if the legal limit were 60 as more drivers would be on mental cruise control.

It’s arguably why the motorway limit wasn’t raise to 80 as it's smarter to have those who chose to drive at 80 paying an extra level of attention that is brought about by the knowledge that they are breaking the law.

[ManualOnly]

I'm fascinated by these records.

Having watched the DVD "32 hours 7 minutes" several times and would love to see a movie about this record run too.
It´s hard to imagine what it feels like to average 103 mph for more than 27 hours!

I do have the habit to go fast when I´m on my own and the traffic is light.
Think it was 16 years ago now..I did 62,77 miles in 26 min 59 s, average speed 139,2 mph. Not necessary, but fun!

[anonymous-user]

Graveworm said:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/governmen...
and
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/governmen...

In summary, depending on road type, in 2017 between 9 and 86 percent of cars were exceeding the speed limit whilst only 5 percent of cars involved in accidents are exceeding the speed limit.

All it means is that where and when people drive above the speed limit is safer than where and when they comply. Driving faster at the same time and place almost always increases the risk.

That report is concerned with "speed compliance" and not "risk of an accident vs speed". which is actually really very difficult to calculate / estimate!

As drivers we actually drive to our own "level of risk" rather than to any particular speed. Hence, on motorways which are wide straight, well signed, sighted, and single direction (ie no oncomming traffic), people speed much more than they do on say a narrow country road. What that actually reflects is that motorway speed limits are too low, which the average driver in a modern car quite happy to drive in excess of the posted limit precisely because they feel safe in doing so!

You can't look at actual accident data and directly correlate an "risk factor" from speed, simply because there is no opposing data. This is because when there ISN'T an accident, there is NO data. So whilst we know (roughly, see below) when there has been an accident, how many were exceeding the limit, we have no way of knowing how many cars that were exceeding the limit DIDN'T have an accident, making a direct comparison impossible

The only way to get a direct, objective dataset would be to carry out a study where there are a large set of drivers (thousands), individual subsets of which which are required at all times to drive at fixed speeds on fixed types of roads, and in say 10 years time, we would see which group had the highest accident rate! Unfortunately, that study would require groups to break the speed limit and so be impossible to conduct!


There are also significant issues and subtleties in the way accidents are reported and categorised when it comes to determing the influence of speed, both "excessive" (in excess of posted limits) and "in-appropriate" (below limits, but too fast to stop / avoid)

For an accident to be officially recorded as "due to excessive speed" there needs to be objective and direct evidence to back that up. And this simply doesn't happen in the vast majority of cases. For most accidents, with no objective evidence, "excessive speed" is not actually allowed to be put down as a factor. Ie, you have a minor bump with another car on a road, no one is hurt, but the police are called. The drivers are asked "how fast were you going" and eye witness sort, but realistically, for the majorioty of non injury or minor injury accidents there is no objective evidence, and so that accident cannot be recorded as due to "excessive speed". (There's plenty of "yeah, they were driving like a lunatic" subjective evidence but that is no enough )

When you look at serious, major injury accidents, a very different picture is seen. Here due to the severity of the accident, full (expensive & timeconsuming) accident investigations occur that much better identify the true causes of the accident. And here we see a much higher correlation with excessive speed and in-appropriate speed. And yes, the direct risk factor from speeding is lower than for other (human) causes (primarily miss-attention and poor judgement) but when you compare risk factors for speeding only, then the picture is relatively clear.

World Health Organisation said:

An increase in average speed of 1 km/h typically results in a 3% higher risk of a crash involving injury, with a 4–5% increase for crashes that result in fatalities"

https://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/publications/road_traffic/world_report/speed_en.pdf


European data summary here:

https://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/special...

Again, no claims are made for "non injury" accidents simply because there is no objective data for those sorts of accidents



It's also worth noting that risk is often rated as "chance of accident vs distance driven" so as your average speed increases, the numerical chance of having an accident actually increases even if the risk percentage itself does not, because you travel further in any given time increment!


BTW, if you really want to geek out, the industry standard models for accident risk vs speed were developed by Dr Göran Nilsson, first published in 1981, and revised in 2004:

http://saiv.espaceweb.usherbrooke.ca/References/03...

Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 7th December 14:01

[Niffty951]

Max_Torque said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIE4KdJbk2E&t=...

As is the wonder of peoples differences in thoughts and experiences I see this completely the other way.

Speed was not the cause of this accident and if the driver hadn't been very alert then it could have been a lot worse.

Good driver, focused on the task at hand, he made a very good effort at getting control of a very serious situation. He also saved the car with only light damage.

[anonymous-user]

Niffty951 said:

Speed was not the cause of this accident and if the driver hadn't been very alert then it could have been a lot worse.

I assume you are talking about the N'ring video of the M5 stepping sideways and into the barriers?

And if so, how can you say "speed was not the cause" as it's quite clearly the cause!


(Hint cars don't just suddenly loose traction and go sideways all of their own. At lower speed there is both a lower dynamic force on the vehicle meaning less chance of a loss of control, and because the speed is lower, there is more time and room to sort it all out before you end up in the barriers if you do loose control)

[anonymous-user]

Graveworm said:

Whilst I haven't driven at 190 in the UK, I have frequently driven in the UK legally, in relative safety, above 150 as have thousands of people. I know others who have been around 190. So the unawareness of others is not a barrier.
On the few occasions I have driven at 190ish, in Germany, I wasn't making any assumptions about other drivers there either.

Edited by Graveworm on Saturday 7th December 13:14

Edited by Graveworm on Saturday 7th December 13:14

With sirens and blue lights on?

On a track?