drpellypo Posted December 20, 2006 Report Share Posted December 20, 2006 [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I didn't hit it because I was going 65-70. Had I been going faster, although seemingly safe, I would have killed two people, and I would have been to blame for that. [/ QUOTE ] ....I don't agree. And I don't see how you can be so sure they would have died - Their fate may have been quite different. [/ QUOTE ] Because they landed right in front of me Robin. My bumber was just short of the passengers head. Had I been going 100mph plus, I would have slammed into the car, and there's very little chance they would have survived. OK, perhaps it was a sweeping statement, but they without any doubt would have been seriously injured. As it was, they were OK. And if I was travelling at a dangerous speed, and I had hit them, then how could I not have been responsible? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R32Ash Posted December 20, 2006 Report Share Posted December 20, 2006 [ QUOTE ] And if I was travelling at a dangerous speed, and I had hit them, then how could I not have been responsible? [/ QUOTE ] I think you're confusing 'over the speed limit' with 'dangerous'. What if the limit happened to be 60 and not 70? Would the speed you were travelling at then have been dangerous? Or if the speed limit was raised to 80, would it then be safe to do 80, whereas the day before it was dangerous ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_B Posted December 20, 2006 Report Share Posted December 20, 2006 [ QUOTE ] Bring back hanging, I say. [/ QUOTE ] That's because you're soft on crime; it should be hanging, drawing and quartering, and then probably a 12 month ban, and a good chinese burn to both wrists for good measure. Damn liberal softies, trying to let people get off with just a hanging! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_B Posted December 20, 2006 Report Share Posted December 20, 2006 [ QUOTE ] IMO the histeria related to travelling above 100mph has no real foundation at all [/ QUOTE ] But, but, but! It's 100 miles an hour! That means every hour, you'd have travelled one hundred miles! That's got to be dangerous, I've seen programmes where they tell you about how fast jet fighters go and pilots blacking out, so going quickly must therefore guarantee a blackout, and a crash by the speeding vehicle into a layby full of buses carrying old ladies, children and sweet little puppies. That's why it's dangerous, duh! You maniac speed-obsessed lunatics, you're going to choke to death the lucky few that you don't mow down in your glittering death-machines! Why don't you just weld large knives to the front of your cars and get it over with a little bit quicker? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ari Posted December 20, 2006 Report Share Posted December 20, 2006 [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I didn't hit it because I was going 65-70. Had I been going faster, although seemingly safe, I would have killed two people, and I would have been to blame for that. [/ QUOTE ] ....I don't agree. And I don't see how you can be so sure they would have died - Their fate may have been quite different. [/ QUOTE ] Because they landed right in front of me Robin. My bumber was just short of the passengers head. Had I been going 100mph plus, I would have slammed into the car, and there's very little chance they would have survived. OK, perhaps it was a sweeping statement, but they without any doubt would have been seriously injured. As it was, they were OK. And if I was travelling at a dangerous speed, and I had hit them, then how could I not have been responsible? [/ QUOTE ] That is really weird logic mate. What if you'd been doing 69mph and the car had landed six feet in front of you. If you'd been doing 20mph they'd have stood a chance so would it have been your fault then? Any speed over 20mph is potentially lethal (someone stepping in front of the car), does that make youy a crazed killer at 30mph? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ari Posted December 20, 2006 Report Share Posted December 20, 2006 [ QUOTE ] IMO it deserves a ban of 12 months minimum. I think its dangerous, if anything happens fast in front of you, maybe Dorethy and Mable on the way to bingo? They dont realise the car coming up behind is doing 100+mph, then what happens? [/ QUOTE ] Ok, here's a shock for you. If I'm doing 120mph on an empty, err, autobahn, and I spot Mabel in front doing 60mph, I don't blast past her at double her speed, I slow down!!! Then once safely past I speed up again. That way if she wanders into my lane I'm not doing 60mph more than she is. Radical huh? DRiving quickly safely is about driving to ever changing conditions, traffic, weather, your car, visibility, etc etc etc. How can 80mph in pouring rain on the M25 in rush hour in an old Metro be safer than 120mph on a clear dry empty motorway in a new Porsche 911? I've got to be honest, people that look at one speed as "safe" and another as "dangerous" worry me because it shows an inherent inability to drive to the prevailing conditions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_B Posted December 20, 2006 Report Share Posted December 20, 2006 [ QUOTE ] Well, I'm assuming that most people on here won't be doing 100+ mph through town, on country roads or on busy motorways and dual carriageways. So let's assume that they are doing 120mph on a relatively quiet motorway. If they do come up behind Doris and Mable (?) on their way to bingo then, assuming that D&M are travelling at a sedate 60mph, the 'closing' velocity of the cars is 'just' 60 mph. [/ QUOTE ] Well, what's wrong with an empty country road? To some people who've only lived in towns, "a country road" probably brings up an image of something from Last Of The Summer Wine or Heartbeat, with narrow little lanes with passing places and dry stone walls. So many rural A roads have nice long straights with clear vision, a quick blast in a powerful car to overtake (in as much safety as any prolelled vehicle journey can involve) a few dawdlers could easily see triple digit speeds being hit briefly. Doesn't mean to say that the driver would therefore assume they are safe to drive at over 100 mph down the entire length of road. You're right about closing speeds, overtaking a 60 mph vehicle at 120 mph is a closing speed of 60 mph; the same as passing a stationary vehicle at 60 mph, and half the closing speed of passing a vehicle coming the other way at 60 mph. As you rightly say, it's down to good drivers, and unfortunately, there just aren't enough of them on the roads IMHO. D&M may be pettering along at 45 mph (in NSL and in 30 mph limits...) and I might have to make some seriously good progress to get past them plus the three cars that are cloggin up behind them, but I like to thikn I have the hazard perception to be able to spot a safe place to do this, then settle back to my chosen cruising speed that still gives me plenty of time to spot upcoming hazards and be able to adjust my speed and position long before an amergency maneuver is required to do so. if this means that I drive faster on roads I know well, where I can look through gaps in hedges etc, so be it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teacake Posted December 20, 2006 Report Share Posted December 20, 2006 [ QUOTE ] I was coming up the A1 last year, on a totally empty, well lit stretch, in a brand new car with ESP, new tyres, superb brakes etc etc, certainly 'capable' of handling speeds of more than 100mph, but I chose not to. Half way down said road, a collision occured on the opposite side of the A1, the Megane involved spun, rolled, and ended up on it's roof right in front of me. I didn't hit it because I was going 65-70. Had I been going faster, although seemingly safe, I would haev killed two people, and I would have been to blame for that. [/ QUOTE ] It is true that accidents at higher speeds cause more damage and worse injuries. It is also true that at higher speeds you travel further before you have a chance to react to an unexpected event in front of you. But the logic you employ in your example is, I'm afraid, faulty. Saying that if you had been going faster you would have hit the other car would only be true if you had suddenly sped up in the last couple of seconds before the collision. If you had been going 10mph faster for the previous 10 minutes you'd have been more than 1.5 miles further down the road and the accident would have happened behind you. Should we use this as a reason to drive faster? No, of course not. All this second-guessing based on individual near-misses does no good at all. I was nearly hit by a falling piano five years ago, so now I always make sure I stoop to pick up an interesting-looking pebble when I walk down our road, so that the next piano lands where I would have been if I'd carried on walking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon magnifique Posted December 20, 2006 Report Share Posted December 20, 2006 I have to say I agree with Ari's somewhat radical approach. I adjust my speed to suit the prevailing circumstances. Sometimes I catch myself out and get it a bit wrong - fortunately in recent years not so badly wrong that I've completely lost control, perhaps because after 20 years behind the wheel I still learn something on almost every journey. Admittedly these days I have slowed down a bit more simply because I want to keep a clean licence. The most important factor is never to drive faster than what you're comfortable with, because if you do - whatever the speed - you're more likely to get something wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mouse Posted December 20, 2006 Report Share Posted December 20, 2006 I was guilty of a similar speed on the same road in the summer. Obviously had a lucky escape Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Botang Posted December 20, 2006 Report Share Posted December 20, 2006 [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Well, I'm assuming that most people on here won't be doing 100+ mph through town, on country roads or on busy motorways and dual carriageways. So let's assume that they are doing 120mph on a relatively quiet motorway. If they do come up behind Doris and Mable (?) on their way to bingo then, assuming that D&M are travelling at a sedate 60mph, the 'closing' velocity of the cars is 'just' 60 mph. [/ QUOTE ] Well, what's wrong with an empty country road? To some people who've only lived in towns, "a country road" probably brings up an image of something from Last Of The Summer Wine or Heartbeat, with narrow little lanes with passing places and dry stone walls. So many rural A roads have nice long straights with clear vision, a quick blast in a powerful car to overtake (in as much safety as any prolelled vehicle journey can involve) a few dawdlers could easily see triple digit speeds being hit briefly. Doesn't mean to say that the driver would therefore assume they are safe to drive at over 100 mph down the entire length of road. You're right about closing speeds, overtaking a 60 mph vehicle at 120 mph is a closing speed of 60 mph; the same as passing a stationary vehicle at 60 mph, and half the closing speed of passing a vehicle coming the other way at 60 mph. As you rightly say, it's down to good drivers, and unfortunately, there just aren't enough of them on the roads IMHO. D&M may be pettering along at 45 mph (in NSL and in 30 mph limits...) and I might have to make some seriously good progress to get past them plus the three cars that are cloggin up behind them, but I like to thikn I have the hazard perception to be able to spot a safe place to do this, then settle back to my chosen cruising speed that still gives me plenty of time to spot upcoming hazards and be able to adjust my speed and position long before an amergency maneuver is required to do so. if this means that I drive faster on roads I know well, where I can look through gaps in hedges etc, so be it! [/ QUOTE ] Wooooo Hooooo well said that man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon magnifique Posted December 20, 2006 Report Share Posted December 20, 2006 Back in my, ahem, more progressive days one of my few excursions beyond 130kph was on a tree-lined, single track strip of unclassified tarmac. It felt quite safe really - at that speed, you can't actually see the individual trees... Oh - one thing I discovered to my cost. Looking through hedges on familiar roads doesn't always help if the traffic immediately round the blind bend is stationary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_B Posted December 20, 2006 Report Share Posted December 20, 2006 [ QUOTE ] Looking through hedges on familiar roads doesn't always help if the traffic immediately round the blind bend is stationary. [/ QUOTE ] Ah, but wherever there's the possibility of stationary traffic where you can't se it, if you know the road that well, you've taken that possibility into account and probably have several evasive moves lined up, and have slowed down to increase the number of options. It's impossible to have a simple set of rules that cover all situations and make all those situations safe. As has already been said in the thread, adapting to the conditions is the safest way to drive. This is what scares me the most about the emphasis on speed above all else; last night I came across no end of drivers all within a few feet of each other at 40 or 50 mph in the 'fog' (heavy mist actually, visibility was over 100 meters, so why so many foglights on and nobody using full beam?), which of course they probably thought was safe because they'd slowed down in the fog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon magnifique Posted December 20, 2006 Report Share Posted December 20, 2006 [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Looking through hedges on familiar roads doesn't always help if the traffic immediately round the blind bend is stationary. [/ QUOTE ] Ah, but wherever there's the possibility of stationary traffic where you can't se it, if you know the road that well, you've taken that possibility into account and probably have several evasive moves lined up, and have slowed down to increase the number of options. [/ QUOTE ] Of course! Well... every time since then at least. It wasn't a place one normally finds staionary traffic (something had broken down) but that's not an excuse. Entirely agree on adapting to conditions. Advanced drivers do not learn a set of hard and fast rules, but rather gain the knowledge and experience with which to accurately assess all aspects of the road/conditions/other road users around them and constantly make and remake the correct decisions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_B Posted December 20, 2006 Report Share Posted December 20, 2006 [ QUOTE ] Entirely agree on adapting to conditions. Advanced drivers do not learn a set of hard and fast rules, but rather gain the knowledge and experience with which to accurately assess all aspects of the road/conditions/other road users around them and constantly make and remake the correct decisions. [/ QUOTE ] So, if it's so obvious to us, why isn't it obvious to "the man"? Oh that's right, there isn't an automated camera yet that can replace a police officer's training and experience in spotting idiots on the road. The dumbing down of law enforcement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Botang Posted December 20, 2006 Report Share Posted December 20, 2006 Being honest and I know it sounds a bit cavalier but all the talk of closing speeds and speed in general doesnt come into my thought process too much. I tend to think of how I can drive without affecting any other drivers. If I overtake I do so safely and only when appropriate gaps are available in oncoming traffic and also an appropriate gap to pull back into. The speed or the closing speed of a car coming in the opposite direction is irrelevant as long as I can perform my manouvere without affecting their progress. *goes to put on flame suit* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon magnifique Posted December 20, 2006 Report Share Posted December 20, 2006 Seems entirely reasonable to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patently Posted December 20, 2006 Report Share Posted December 20, 2006 [ QUOTE ] *goes to put on flame suit* [/ QUOTE ] No, that's pretty much what I do. The Highway Code defines a safe move as one that doesn't require avoiding action by other road users, which (to my mind) means that you should be able to complete your move whatever anyone else (within reason) does. So the closing speed doesn't bother me - I'm not planning to be still there on the other side when the collision would have happened! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigyb Posted December 20, 2006 Report Share Posted December 20, 2006 [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] *goes to put on flame suit* [/ QUOTE ] No, that's pretty much what I do. The Highway Code defines a safe move as one that doesn't require avoiding action by other road users, which (to my mind) means that you should be able to complete your move whatever anyone else (within reason) does. So the closing speed doesn't bother me - I'm not planning to be still there on the other side when the collision would have happened! [/ QUOTE ] Agreed, but you should also be ready for the unexpected, when Mable decides to change lane without warning. I try to read the body language (positioning) of the cars ahead to be aware that they are thinking of doing something stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon magnifique Posted December 20, 2006 Report Share Posted December 20, 2006 Absolutely - particularly if you're about to pass a line of cars. That's why the advanced method is to pull out to the offside and hold back long enough to double check the maneouvre can be safely completed before flooring it. And always have an escape route if at all possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_B Posted December 20, 2006 Report Share Posted December 20, 2006 [ QUOTE ] you should also be ready for the unexpected, when Mable decides to change lane without warning. I try to read the body language (positioning) of the cars ahead to be aware that they are thinking of doing something stupid. [/ QUOTE ] Yep, always take a look at their position on the road, if they're drifting out, have they just looked in their mirror, have they sped up slightly, etc. When passing I also look out for clues that they haven't seen me and are about to move, obvious things like indicators, but subtle ones like the first twitch of their front wheel as they think about moving out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian_C Posted December 20, 2006 Report Share Posted December 20, 2006 [ QUOTE ] Wooooo Hooooo well said that man [/ QUOTE ] As Matt says, wise words Chris. We've all had that feeling where we are accelerating passed something / joining a motorway / leaving a motorway and left things 'a bit late' and regretted it afterwards. You feel that you should continue your manoeuvre when in fact you are using up far too much of your comfort zone. Whilst I always leave myself a margin for error, a few months back I used too much of mine. I swear the BMW that I was overtaking didn't want to be overtaken and sped up. He tailgated my like a bastard after I passed him, although that was possibly as I pulled in more sharply than usual - I wanted to get out of the oncoming lane. Was chatting with NikW at an MK Meet a while back - is there anything wrong with aborting an overtake? The car behind you might think "idiot, why did he try to overtake there", but the car behind might not know how fast your car is, and it is always better to drop back in line than continue a potentially unsafe move and put yourself in danger. Chris, I still enjoy the four 'a day in the life of RS6' video clips that you posted a while back. On the best you overtake four cars but drop back into line before the two lorries causing the queue. Shame you couldn't blitz the whole lot in one go, but it is a perfect example of a safe overtake. Ian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patently Posted December 20, 2006 Report Share Posted December 20, 2006 [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] No, that's pretty much what I do. The Highway Code defines a safe move as one that doesn't require avoiding action by other road users, which (to my mind) means that you should be able to complete your move whatever anyone else (within reason) does. So the closing speed doesn't bother me - I'm not planning to be still there on the other side when the collision would have happened! [/ QUOTE ] Agreed, but you should also be ready for the unexpected, when Mable decides to change lane without warning. I try to read the body language (positioning) of the cars ahead to be aware that they are thinking of doing something stupid. [/ QUOTE ] That's pretty well what I meant when I said "whatever anyone else (within reason) does". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Botang Posted December 20, 2006 Report Share Posted December 20, 2006 [ QUOTE ] is there anything wrong with aborting an overtake? [/ QUOTE ] Quite the opposite Ian, surley part of performing an overtake is continually assessing the situation, only this week I aborted an overtake, the road was clear when I began the manouvere, was still clear when I began the pass, but a car appeared in the distance, whilst I'm confident I could have made it, the driver coming the other way may have braked to be cautious. Rather than creating this situation I braked and slotted back in behind the vehicle I was overtaking. The only minor problem with that is the car I was overtaking was being observant and braked a bit too but I cant help that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian_C Posted December 20, 2006 Report Share Posted December 20, 2006 Cool. Nik and I agreed that there was nothing wrong with pulling out of a move. The car you are aiming to overtake braking though is indeed a fear! Ian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now