RE: Someone has done the Cannonball in 27hrs 25mins
Discussion
vaud said:
DoubleD said:
We dont know what risks they took, unless the video is 27 hours long.
I think we can guess that it was significantly elevated, given the average and peak speeds.Don't get me wrong, I like speed, but mostly on a track or event where the others have signed up to the same risk.
Niffty951 said:
I'm suggesting that reckless and speeding are two mutually exclusive terms. Applying one does not necessarily imply the other.
I believe no one can drive in a queue of traffic at 60mph in a "smart" average speed zone every day and remain attentive for an hour. You cover the most distance and carry the most energy in the time before you hit the brake pedal. The danger you don't see while worrying about work, your marriage, the DIY you're doing at the weekend is still very present.
This behaviour is socially acceptable but who's to say this 'blind driving' while multi tasking is safer than driving fast but attentively?
Look at that man's face in the video, not blinking, eyes wide and alert.
I don't believe he's reckless. I believe he's breaking the law.
There is no black and white when it comes to speed. I believe no one can drive in a queue of traffic at 60mph in a "smart" average speed zone every day and remain attentive for an hour. You cover the most distance and carry the most energy in the time before you hit the brake pedal. The danger you don't see while worrying about work, your marriage, the DIY you're doing at the weekend is still very present.
This behaviour is socially acceptable but who's to say this 'blind driving' while multi tasking is safer than driving fast but attentively?
Look at that man's face in the video, not blinking, eyes wide and alert.
I don't believe he's reckless. I believe he's breaking the law.
I'd suggest (and i suspect a judge would back me up) that doing something like 3 times the speed limit is in fact the very deffinition of Reckless.
And of course due to the square law in kinetic energy, a crash at 180 mph has NINE times more energy than one at 60mph, so the consequences become a lot more serious for anyone involved.
Fail to pay attention when driving at below the speed limit and you could be prosectuted for "careless" driving, ie, you didn't explicitly act in a way that caused an elevated risk, but through negligance you allowed that to occur.
Drive at 3 x the speed limit deliberately and it moves from Negligence (careless driving) to Recklessness (Dangerous driving).
We accept as a society the elevation in risk under certain circumstances because it brings benefits to all of us, even at the expense of carelessness. In todays modern cars, a crash at 60mph on the motorway is in fact very survivable in the majority of cases for car occupants.
To suggest that gross and deliberate speeding is "ok" because something else (carelessness) occurs is not just eroneous, but also highly illogical.
Modern cars are increasingly including assistance technology to prevent accidents due to carelessness (lane deperature warning, drousness detection systems, even in-car breath analysis to prevent drunk driving). Those systems are increasinly becoming manditory precisely because they do prevent accidents.. Next on the list are devices to limit speed. Publicly bragging about doing 193 mph is pretty much the perfect way to get those devices to manditory fitment as soon as possible. If people demonstrate that they cannot in fact drive responsibly, then that responsibility will be taken away.
wst said:
I'm betting a large proportion of people here moaning about oestrogen, passed at ~100mph speed differential, would s
t themselves for about a week. Amazing how big their bks are on a forum though.
.
Oh stop being such a drama queen. That might make you jump and pay attention I grant you. Assuming of course they did actually pass people at that kind of differential which frankly seems very unlikely given a.) their MO to draw as little attention to themselves as possible and b.) that they aren't still washing bits of them and the people they didn't hit off the road. I suspect the vast majority of the trip was at about 120, IIRC limit is mostly 75 and IME in Colorado and Montana out in the middle of nowhere 90+ is common. The middle of USA isn't the UK. Shocker.t themselves for about a week. Amazing how big their bks are on a forum though..
Did the haters on here dislike the Cannonball Run back in the 70's?
They weren't exactly slow, setting times around 32 hours in 1979 running Jags, Pontiac's and even vans on cross ply tyres.
Infinitely more dangerous, often without seat belts let alone the plethora of safety equipment used more recently such as thermal imaging and gyro stabilised binoculars.
I'm as amazed at the reliability of the car given that the total payload would have been around half a ton when fully fuelled.
They weren't exactly slow, setting times around 32 hours in 1979 running Jags, Pontiac's and even vans on cross ply tyres.
Infinitely more dangerous, often without seat belts let alone the plethora of safety equipment used more recently such as thermal imaging and gyro stabilised binoculars.
I'm as amazed at the reliability of the car given that the total payload would have been around half a ton when fully fuelled.
cheddar said:
Did the haters on here dislike the Cannonball Run back in the 70's?
No, it was certainly an event. But as with much of risk appetite we have changed a a society. Taking lead out of fuel (good). More diesel (generally bad with hindsight). Banning smoking in workplaces (good). Compulsory seat belts in many countries (good).But then the US is a study in contrasts when it comes to risk. You can ride on your Harley with no crash helmet, to buy your ammo and gun with a very limited background check. But not buy fireworks (and in some places no alcohol on a Sunday but that is religion, not risk).
Odd place. I quite like it and have spent a lot of time there.
The run has been done before by a diesel. This Petrolicious article
https://petrolicious.com/articles/a-euro-market-au...
describes an endeavour made in 2017 using an Abt-tuned Audi A4 Avant with a 103 US gallon auxillary tank in the boot. The time for the run came in at 30 hours 53 minutes.
https://petrolicious.com/articles/a-euro-market-au...
describes an endeavour made in 2017 using an Abt-tuned Audi A4 Avant with a 103 US gallon auxillary tank in the boot. The time for the run came in at 30 hours 53 minutes.
wst said:
I'm betting a large proportion of people here moaning about oestrogen, passed at ~100mph speed differential, would st themselves for about a week. Amazing how big their bks are on a forum though.
Stupid achievement, regardless of the insane logistics challenge it entailed.
Who would they have passed at a 100mph differential exactly? I'm sure the top speed was probably set on an empty interstate at 3 in the morning. t themselves for about a week. Amazing how big their bks are on a forum though.Stupid achievement, regardless of the insane logistics challenge it entailed.
Great achievement, what has happened to this place with all the moaning and hatred of speed?!
The only ones that would agree with this stupidity are the usual desmonds on this forum, these will inevitably take the form of skinny goofy, geeky, nerdy types who themselves think they're driving gods.
Daft behaviour like this just shows how many out there have absolutely no regard for others lives. Kill an innocent person who got in the way of their quest for publicity and this type of moron would inevitably plead not guilty in court. Totally selfish pricks who should never be on the roads..
Daft behaviour like this just shows how many out there have absolutely no regard for others lives. Kill an innocent person who got in the way of their quest for publicity and this type of moron would inevitably plead not guilty in court. Totally selfish pricks who should never be on the roads..
Max_Torque said:
There is no black and white when it comes to speed.
I'd suggest (and i suspect a judge would back me up) that doing something like 3 times the speed limit is in fact the very deffinition of Reckless.
And of course due to the square law in kinetic energy, a crash at 180 mph has NINE times more energy than one at 60mph, so the consequences become a lot more serious for anyone involved.
Fail to pay attention when driving at below the speed limit and you could be prosectuted for "careless" driving, ie, you didn't explicitly act in a way that caused an elevated risk, but through negligance you allowed that to occur.
Drive at 3 x the speed limit deliberately and it moves from Negligence (careless driving) to Recklessness (Dangerous driving).
We accept as a society the elevation in risk under certain circumstances because it brings benefits to all of us, even at the expense of carelessness. In todays modern cars, a crash at 60mph on the motorway is in fact very survivable in the majority of cases for car occupants.
To suggest that gross and deliberate speeding is "ok" because something else (carelessness) occurs is not just eroneous, but also highly illogical.
Modern cars are increasingly including assistance technology to prevent accidents due to carelessness (lane deperature warning, drousness detection systems, even in-car breath analysis to prevent drunk driving). Those systems are increasinly becoming manditory precisely because they do prevent accidents.. Next on the list are devices to limit speed. Publicly bragging about doing 193 mph is pretty much the perfect way to get those devices to manditory fitment as soon as possible. If people demonstrate that they cannot in fact drive responsibly, then that responsibility will be taken away.
Speed limits are an abitrary limitation put in place to deal with all eventualities. It's like car engines being able to run on grades of fuel far lower than they'd get in the UK.I'd suggest (and i suspect a judge would back me up) that doing something like 3 times the speed limit is in fact the very deffinition of Reckless.
And of course due to the square law in kinetic energy, a crash at 180 mph has NINE times more energy than one at 60mph, so the consequences become a lot more serious for anyone involved.
Fail to pay attention when driving at below the speed limit and you could be prosectuted for "careless" driving, ie, you didn't explicitly act in a way that caused an elevated risk, but through negligance you allowed that to occur.
Drive at 3 x the speed limit deliberately and it moves from Negligence (careless driving) to Recklessness (Dangerous driving).
We accept as a society the elevation in risk under certain circumstances because it brings benefits to all of us, even at the expense of carelessness. In todays modern cars, a crash at 60mph on the motorway is in fact very survivable in the majority of cases for car occupants.
To suggest that gross and deliberate speeding is "ok" because something else (carelessness) occurs is not just eroneous, but also highly illogical.
Modern cars are increasingly including assistance technology to prevent accidents due to carelessness (lane deperature warning, drousness detection systems, even in-car breath analysis to prevent drunk driving). Those systems are increasinly becoming manditory precisely because they do prevent accidents.. Next on the list are devices to limit speed. Publicly bragging about doing 193 mph is pretty much the perfect way to get those devices to manditory fitment as soon as possible. If people demonstrate that they cannot in fact drive responsibly, then that responsibility will be taken away.
Just because the speed limit is 60, doesn't necessarily mean that going 150 or whatever is always reckless. It'll be set to 60 as during the day there are hundreds of cars on it, which is understandable. What about at 2am when there's nobody on it, if the car and road are up to it then what's the issue?
Have you never been on a motorway in the early hours with nobody about, driving a modern car and thought that 70 is incredibly slow and that doing 100 would be absolutely fine? If you say no I won't believe you
A1VDY said:
C7 JFW said:
It's an incredible achievement.
... that they didn't kill innocents along the way. Only idiots would applaud fellow idiots...
cheddar said:
In its 45 year history I can't find a single incident where anyone has been killed, in fact it's hard to find information about any accidents at all.
It's almost like it's all planned and whilst risks are taken, none that are so great that failure is anything more than a slight possibility.Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff