dennis@home wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

vehicle in a hundred miles.
Apart from a few things like caravans and trailers that are rightfully
restricted to 50mph most people do between 55 and 85mph.
Why is it rightful to restrict caravans and trailers to 50mph (its 60 mph
ATM BTW).
There are circumstances where its perfectly safe for them to do 100 mph.

Just like its safe for you to speed.
Why is it different for others and not you?
Have you ever driven an articulated combo with no intelligent link that
will go rigid under braking?

Have you ever seen a caravan doing 60mph suddenly go unstable swing from
side to side and topple its car broadside into a flow if traffic?

Obviously not.

There are caravan + car combinations that are safe at 100 mph.

Show me one. Without a rigid link, I very much doubt it.

Why is it that you think they should be restricted in speed but not you.

because in this one special case there is an absolute correlation
between extreme liklihood of a serious accident and the speed.

Its the same with certain cars that are limited to 150mph. The tyre will
disintegrate at higher speeds. No one in his right mind would pull the
limiter off a car like that.


You may think you are a good driver and think that you are safe but your own
record and attitude shows that you are wrong.
You don't have a clue about driving IMO.

Well thats for me to know and you to have an opinion on.


****.

There are very sound reasons to do with the dynamics of articulated
vehicles why they are restricted, particularly so for caravans which are
essentially two wheeled vehicles, not subject to much in the way of load
regulation and driven by drivers who have NOT passed the very strict HGV
tests. Nor who have generally dine more than a few thousand miles per
year, if that, towing.

I my break speed limits in a sports car, but you would never catch me
doing 60 with a heavy trailer on. I've had some nasty moments in a normal
vehicle with just 3/4 of a ton up the back over 60mph.. started to sway
from side to side alarmingly..I backed out of that one very gently.

See I said your judgement is impaired only a fool would drive a caravan over
60 you said so yourself.

It was not a caravan. I see you are unable to read and follow a simple
post. It was a land rover - cleared for that load - its actually cleared
for 15cwt, or twelve passengers, but it was not stable at over 60mph.
With the load in the rear area.

Its fairly obvious that bereft of any better argument ou are resortting
to ad hominems.

Troll.


The trouble with a caravan, you don't feel it till its too late.

Yes you do.
You just have to recognise what is happening.
Its the same with a car you need to recognise what is happening or it
happens without warning.

You just can't drive very well IMO.

I don't think you have ever driven anything have you?

Your opin9ons bear no relationship to any practical experience.

I guess you are too young to drive..?

In message , Roger
writes

I would bet on the skills of the faster driver any day of the week.
Leaving aside the thorny issue of whether or not the slow driver is slow
mainly because he has slow reflexes the slow driver doesn't need the
skill that the faster driver has to acquire just to continue to stay
alive and just doesn't get the experience that would improve his
roadcraft. Practice in this case might not make perfect but it certainly
improves the situation.

Dunno about you, but at a steady 70 mph, I'm driving in an unconscious
overdrive

At 120+ mph, I'm fully alert

--
geoff

dennis@home wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

Its 20% off journey times directly, but more imnportant it would reduce
congestion. Unless you think that congestion is actually keeping the vast
majority of drivers off the road, and clearer roads would simply attract
more traffic..

The capacity of a road goes down as traffic gets faster.
Unless its full of idiots that don't keep a safe distance.



No it doesn't. Cars per hour is similar, but since they are all going
faster, they all take less time to get there. Overall you get more
journey miles per hour at higher speeds.

A simple *reductio ad absurdum* shows this to be the case.
Consider: A suite of cars dong 1 mph over a stretch of single
carriageway road that is say 100 miles long.

Well put them bumper to bumper - say 12 feet apart.
So at any given time we have 100 miles x 5280/12 cars on the road.
Thats 44,000 cars all doing 1mph, so the total car miles per day is
44,000 * 24. That is a shade over a million car miles a day on that road.

Now put them on at 100 miles and hour, and space them ten car lengths -
so its 4,400 cars on the road, and they are doing 4,400*100*24 car miles
per day. A shade over 10 million car miles per day.

10 times the snails pace where they are squeezed as tight as they can go.

Or let's stop them all..thats as slow a speed as you can get. That's
zero car miles a day. Great.

Never mind the beneficial aspects of low journey times on drivers stress
levels and alertness..

The reality of this is why you get compression waves in car congestion.
The flow, once interrupted, slows to a halt because once below cruising
sped, the road cannot handle the car numbers. One slow car pulling out
of a junction onto the M25 causes an accident 20 minutes later and 20
miles further back on the motorway.

In message , John
Rumm writes
dennis@home wrote:

You seem to be equating excessive speed with speeding again, they
are unrelated.
Any speeding is excessive speed.
Not quite unrelated.

That is nonsense.

You can be driving at excessive speed while below the speed limit, and
you can be driving at an entirely reasonable and prudent speed while
above it.

29mph in a 30 zone down a narrow road as school kids pike out of school
in the rain is excessive speed. 79 on a deserted motorway at 4am is not.

You will be telling us ID cards are a good idea next ;-)

I don't know why you bother

He hasn't understood a single sentence

--
geoff

The message
from "dennis@home" contains these words:

You seem to be equating excessive speed with speeding again, they are
unrelated.

Any speeding is excessive speed.
Not quite unrelated.

That is nonsense.

No it is fact.
Its even recorded as excess speed on your license.

On your licence perhaps but you will have been booked for exceeding the
speed limit in a commercial van in the days that they were limited to 40
mph on grounds entirely unconnected with road safety.

These days the police analysis of contributory causes distinguishes
between speeding and excessive speed.
--
Roger Chapman

On Fri, 11 May 2007 22:24:12 +0100, Roger
wrote:

The message
from John Rumm contains these words:

You are making the same error as all the other fast drivers.
You assume it takes skill to drive too fast.

It takes more skill to drive fast and safely.

It takes a lack of skill or attention to drive too fast.

You seem to be equating excessive speed with speeding again, they are
unrelated.

That expresses my thoughts somewhat better than I could have put it myself.

I often wonder why people _have_ to rush around so much these days. We
all have so much more leisure time than in days of yore.
Little wonder that so many people suffer from stress/heart attacks...

Just take it easy - relax and enjoy life!

--
Frank Erskine

dennis@home wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:
"Roger" wrote in message
k...
The message
from John Rumm contains these words:

Same energy, since that is the speed the bulk of the traffic is moving
at now anyway.
ISTR that it used to be the case before the Nanny State got serious that
the Authorities wouldn't countenance a speed restriction unless 85% of
the traffic was already going that slow. A courageous Government could
reverse this criterion and go for raising limits where more than 15% of
traffic habitually exceeded the limit outside camera zones. As far as
motorways are concerned I am not at all sure that 85 mph is actually
high enough to bring 85% within the law. 90 mph might.
A really corageous government would enforce the law better and get that
15% off the roads.
If that happened, first of all comerce would grind to a halt.

secondly if every driver who ever exceeded a speed limit was banned, there
would either be no drivers left, or the roads would be one perpetual
traffic jam.

I have never ever known a single driver who kept within all speed limits
at all times.

Despite their protestations to the contrary, a glance across at the speedo
reveals that they are just the same as anyone else, apart from their
capacity for self delusion.

I suspect that if such a law were introduced, you would be one of the
first to be banned. with HUGE protestation of course.

You really should not keep making judgements like that.
All you do is provide evidence that your judgement is impaired.



This would get rid of most of the really bad drivers that ignore all the
rules and make life much easier for the rest of us.
No, itr would not,.

Most of te bad drivers commit their grosser errors well under the speed
limit.

Most of the bad drivers also speed.

That is total rubbish,.

Most of the bad drivers are so paranoid about being stopped by the
police that they drive well under the limits all the time.

Im talking not about the drivers that irritate YOU, but the ones who
actually cause accidents.

Like my dear old mum, who unbeknonsst to us was in the early stages of
dementia, and completely forgot where she was an what she was doing and
drove slap into the back of a stationary truck in broad daylight on a
completely clear road.

Like the lovely old boy, now deceased thank god, who used to drive
across the main road to the village shop without stopping. Or looking.
At 2mph. I never saw him in second gear. How he never got hit is a
tribute to other peoples reactions.

Like the middle aged mum who for reasons still not clear to me pulled
out directly in front of a car on a fast roundabout at less than 20mph,
and sent it hurtling into the crash barrier after rolling three times.

Like my first fatal accident I witnessed, where a man doing a
respectable 25mph hit and killed an old lady who stepped straight out in
front of him with absolutely no reason that the court could ascertain
nowhere near a pedestrian crossing..

Like the van driver who got himself in a terribly difficult position,
with the main toad in his blind spot, and, unable to see me coming at a
totally legal 60mph, pulled straight across the road in front of me.
That one was NOT an accident. If you had been there you would have been
able to judge whether I am a good driver or not.

Of course in the tabloids these things are not news. Only boy racer in
nicked cars writing themselves off at 90mph on a country road are 'news'

Thats the difference between you and me. YOU have opinions, based on
very little fact. I have experience of YEARS of driving.

Catching them speeding is easier than catching them doing other things and
would be just as effective at getting rid of them if it were done correctly.
Just accept that habitual speeders are bad drivers just like other drivers
that break the rules.

No..thats the point. You DEFINE bad drivers as ones who 'break the
rules' I define bad drivers as ones who have accidents.
If speeding drivers had more accidents the insurance companies would
penalise people who have speeding offences. They do not.

There is no discernible correlation between people who get caught
speeding and their likelihood of having an accident. The isnurance
companies know this.


They just like to delude themselves into believing they are OK.


If there is any delusion going on here sweety pie, its you.

If you think that strict adherence to a set of rules will save your
bacon, think again.

I am trying to tell you how to survive, not how to stay legal.


More average speed cameras is what is need to do that.
Or in car monitoring.

Nightmare. It would be like commercial traffic, a nose to tail 70mph queue
of cars up and down the motorways, with no free road at all, and highly
dangerous. Even the police admit that.

Rubbish.
Cars driving at 100 mph need to leave much more road infront of them than
cars doing 70 mph.

Not that much. a car length for every 10mph is the required space. Its
not far off what I would say is correct in dry conditions. I leave a
shade more. Most drivers a lot less.

Therefore you get less cars on the road and you get more congestion.


********

Also it would be far safer with all the cars doing 70 mph rather than a
random spread of speeds.

It wouldn't, but then you obviously do not drive much, if at all.

The police know this, and don't like it. Its the same reason why
motorways are built with curves in them. To keep some input required
from the driver. Theye tried them straight and people fell asleep..



Personally I would go for unlimited on decent sections of motorway.
Construction of a good proportion of our motorway network was actually
started before the blanket limit came into force and and I doubt if the
basic design concepts have changed since that temporary limit was
introduced so all motorways should be good for derestricted motoring.
Unfortunately by now we have 2 generations of motorists who are
habituated to restrictive limits and might go wild if the limits were
removed completely rather than gradually increased.

I did make a suggestion (not entirely tongue in cheek) a few years back
that in an effort to make drivers more responsible the Minister of the
day should enter into a pact with the car driving population that for
every year the accident rate on the various classes of rural roads
(single carriageways, dual carriageways and motorways) decreased the
rural limits should be raised by 5 mph as a reward for good behaviour.
Obviously accidents involving the criminal classes (joyriders and the
like) and police cars would have to be excluded as neither are going to
take any notice of speed limits whatever they are set at. Slow speed
accidents (the majority) have no bearing on speed limits either but the
idea was to provide an incentive to improve driving standards at all
speeds, not just the higher range.
See even you think 100% enforcement of the speed limits would be good as
it gets rid of the criminals.

Well if a 0,.001mph over the limit makes you a criminal yes, it would I
suppose.

However its as easy to get rid of those criminals by removing the speed
limits innit?

How does that help?

Well it removes all the bad drivers at a stroke doesn't it..since by
your definition a bad driver is one who breaks the law.

With no laws to break, there are no longer any bad drivers

QED.

dennis@home wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Frank Erskine wrote:
On Fri, 11 May 2007 00:02:11 +0100, (Steve
Firth) wrote:

Frank Erskine wrote:

On Thu, 10 May 2007 22:55:58 +0100, Roger
wrote:

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/85-mph/?
What's the significance of 85 mph?
I would imagine that it is close to the 130km/h limit common in the rest
of Europe and that it is de facto the limit observed by most drivers in
the UK.
So by that argument, if the speed limit was raised to 85 mph, "most
drivers" would then do 100 mph, then there'd be campaigning for the
limit to be 100....

I think there would be less pressure actually. 85 +10% is 90 and a
bit..and its probably more than adequate for most journeys. Its nice to do
140mph down a deserted motorway but frankly one seldom gets the chance,
and anything more than 30mph faster than what is likely to pull out in
front of one is distinctly dangerous..with artics at 56mph, that means
85mph is really the safe limit in company.

The fact of the matter is that in germany, where many autobahns are not
restricted at all, the bulk of the traffic is in the 70-90mph range..fuel
consumptions rockets at over 100mph, and its just a few people with money
to burn who are doing 100mph plus.

I've done it for the interest..but the nice thing about the Autobahns are
that when you come to a roadworks everybody DOES slow down to 60kph or
whatever because

1/. There is actually someone working on the road, and the cones are not
protecting 5 miles of empty carriageway

2/. you can always make up for lost time but doing 15 miles at 100mph...

In addition, congestion caused by Denniss' who have strayed from home and
who are sitting with their optimistic Ford Ka speedos reading 70mph (in
reality 63mph) firmly in the fast lane defying you to undertake them (I
always do, on principle)does not happen..since it is as illegal to BE
undertaken in Germany as it is to undertake. All traffic gives way to
anyone behind them, because that is the Law, and the Germans love being
Law Abiding. And because everyone does it, and there aren't speed cameras
everywhere, the law is respected far more. And you do not get the huge
trains of traffic behind someone who decides that they alone are the
arbiters of what is a safe or legal speed to do. In Germany it is illegal
to sit in the fast lane if someone faster comes up behind you, period.
Likewise people are far happier to let someone pull out in front, because
they know they will - must - pull in as soon as there is room to do so.
This results in far better road usage..all te carriageways are full.
Contrast a typical situation in te UK where everybody sits in the fast
lane, because there is a truck up ahead and there is no way anyone will
let you pull out to overtake it, because stuck at 63mph by Dennis at the
queue front, there is extreme pressure to get to the front and hope the
******* will finally pull over and let people with more accurate speedos
get on their way.


I think you will find my speedo is calibrated to be correct within 1 mph.
8-)

I seriously doubt it, because the wear on your tyres and the temperature
of them will make more difference than that.

Not to mention substituting a different make. Rims are exact. Tyre
outside diameters are not.


I don't slow down when there is a speed camera like you do.
I bet you do 35 past the 40 mph cameras.
Do you modify your driving if you notice the police car following behind?
Why?

Because they are like you. Dickheads by and large with quotas to make
up, and axes to grind.

And as bad a set of drivers as anyone else by and large.

Look at how many peoole have been killed by speeding cops, versus the
general public..its rather shocking.

dennis@home wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Tony Bryer wrote:
On Fri, 11 May 2007 10:35:47 +0100 Frank Erskine wrote :
I would imagine that it is close to the 130km/h limit common in the
rest
of Europe and that it is de facto the limit observed by most drivers in
the UK.
So by that argument, if the speed limit was raised to 85 mph, "most
drivers" would then do 100 mph, then there'd be campaigning for the
limit to be 100....
Speaking purely for myself, if there was no speed limit on motorways I
would drive at 80-85 given free-flowing traffic. What ought to be picked
up and punished on motorways is following too close, overtaking and then
cutting in sharply, and cutting across several lanes to the slip road
exit at the last minute. The emphasis on speed cameras leaves these
behaviours (dangerous at any speed) unchecked.
Hear bloody hear.
I would drive at any speed between 45mph and 140mph that I felt the
conditions allowed.

When I had a luxurty sports coupe, and traffic was light, sometimes just
sitting on cruise control listening to a bunch of nice CDS at 60mph was
more relaxing and less fuel hungry than trying to beat records.

Conversely, sometimes at midnight plus getting home from afar, its nice to
simply say 'sod the cost' and do it at 120 mph.

Do you wear night vison googles or do you just accept that if there is
anything infront of you you are going to hit it?


I don;t really understand. If I can't see anything in front, and the
road is lit as far as the eye can see, how can there be anything in front?

On unlit roads the limit is about 100mph with decent halogens.

Although you can spot other cars (strangely they also have lights on
that are visible up to 5 miles) you cant see the bends coming up.

Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Fri, 11 May 2007 19:35:45 +0100, John Rumm wrote:

Do you wear night vison googles or do you just accept that if there is
anything infront of you you are going to hit it?
Not heard of street lights?

Urbanites again. Street lights or lit motorways are an urban/built up area
thing and on a majority of those roads 120 would not be an acceptable
speed.

You are joking surely? I got a ride once somewhere near Aston, at 2 a.m.
in a souped up rover 3.5, and the driver was doing 140mph all down the
M1, slowing for other cars and the bends occasionally. It was lit the
WHOLE way.

But anyway, i've done 130 on unlit roads..its fine if the headlights are
up to it, and you know the road. And on that car they were. And I did. I
don't make a habit of it, but if the road is empty and there are no
entrances on to it for that stretch.. why not? No skin of anyones nose.

Older cars don't cut the mustard on the lighting though.

dennis@home wrote:
"The Reid" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 11 May 2007 17:32:32 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote:

Why is it rightful to restrict caravans and trailers to 50mph (its 60 mph
ATM BTW).
There are circumstances where its perfectly safe for them to do 100 mph.
Just like its safe for you to speed.
Why is it different for others and not you?
because my car at 100 can be controlled with a couple of fingers and
has powerful ABS brakes to stop it quickly. A caravan at 100mph would
be difficult to keep on the road at all and would probably jacknife if
braked from 100, plenty of them go off the road at 60 just because its
a bit windy.

That doesn't apply to all caravans.

so which ones does it NOT apply to then?

Are you suggesting the speed limits should be set for the lowest common
denominator?

No but for the vast majority of caravans 60mph is the safe speed and
thats it. setting the limit at 50 gives a bit of margin for error.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

Its 20% off journey times directly, but more imnportant it would reduce
congestion. Unless you think that congestion is actually keeping the
vast majority of drivers off the road, and clearer roads would simply
attract more traffic..

The capacity of a road goes down as traffic gets faster.
Unless its full of idiots that don't keep a safe distance.



No it doesn't. Cars per hour is similar, but since they are all going
faster, they all take less time to get there. Overall you get more journey
miles per hour at higher speeds.

A simple *reductio ad absurdum* shows this to be the case.
Consider: A suite of cars dong 1 mph over a stretch of single carriageway
road that is say 100 miles long.

Well put them bumper to bumper - say 12 feet apart.
So at any given time we have 100 miles x 5280/12 cars on the road.
Thats 44,000 cars all doing 1mph, so the total car miles per day is 44,000
* 24. That is a shade over a million car miles a day on that road.

Now put them on at 100 miles and hour, and space them ten car lengths - so
its 4,400 cars on the road, and they are doing 4,400*100*24 car miles per
day. A shade over 10 million car miles per day.

Lets try that with some real figures shall we.

Say 70 mph with a spacing of 70m (much less than the 315 ft in the highway
code but it will do.

So as the energy is V x V we need to extend that distance by 2 times as the
energy between 70 and 100 is doubled.
So now you have half the number of cars per mile but only 1.4 times the
speed.. a net reduction in the capacity of the road.
Unless you are some idiot that wants to drive too close to the car infront.

If you paid attention you would also know that that is the reason for the
variable speed limits on the M25.
Its an attempt to maximise the throughput by allowing the maxiumum amount of
traffic along the road which is *not* at high speed.


10 times the snails pace where they are squeezed as tight as they can go.

Or let's stop them all..thats as slow a speed as you can get. That's zero
car miles a day. Great.



Never mind the beneficial aspects of low journey times on drivers stress
levels and alertness..

The reality of this is why you get compression waves in car congestion.
The flow, once interrupted, slows to a halt because once below cruising
sped, the road cannot handle the car numbers. One slow car pulling out of
a junction onto the M25 causes an accident 20 minutes later and 20 miles
further back on the motorway.

You will find that the standing waves are caused by drivers going too fast
and then having to jump on the brakes when the traffic slows.
They invariably over do it and that causes a chain reaction as the next one
does the same.
You may also notice that these waves usually start in the offside lane.
But don't let the truth interfere with your delusions that you know how to
drive.

dennis@home wrote:


You are making the same error as all the other fast drivers.
You assume it takes skill to drive too fast.


No, it take nothing more than a heavy right foot to drive TOO fast. It
takes a huge amount of skill to drive fast..and stay alive.

If it were that easy, why aren't YOU the next Hamilton? Gotta be an easy
way to earn a million..

"Roger" wrote in message
k...
The message
from "dennis@home" contains these words:

You seem to be equating excessive speed with speeding again, they are
unrelated.

Any speeding is excessive speed.
Not quite unrelated.

That is nonsense.

No it is fact.
Its even recorded as excess speed on your license.

On your licence perhaps but you will have been booked for exceeding the
speed limit in a commercial van in the days that they were limited to 40
mph on grounds entirely unconnected with road safety.

These days the police analysis of contributory causes distinguishes
between speeding and excessive speed.

If you say so.
I still have my original; clean license.
I suppose I will have to get a photocard one sometime.

dennis@home wrote:
"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:

You are making the same error as all the other fast drivers.
You assume it takes skill to drive too fast.
It takes more skill to drive fast and safely.

It takes a lack of skill or attention to drive too fast.

You seem to be equating excessive speed with speeding again, they are
unrelated.

Any speeding is excessive speed.
Not quite unrelated.


Excessive for what?

Every post you make betrays more and more opinion and less and less
actual experience. Have you ever driven anything?

Are you Dr Drivel?

Tim Lamb wrote:

And I don't believe people who say they know what speed they are doing
to within 2mph just by looking out the window either.

No. Engine noise perhaps.

Not in a decent car.

Most concentration is needed for maintaining
road spacing.

exactly. That's why I switched off the cruise control

Maintaining the spacing is the only thing that can make you safer on the
M25..that means speeding up to make sure some clot doesn't cut in in
front of you and then usually slam the brakes on when he realises there
WAS another car in front of you after all.. and backing off to open it
up again when no one is likely to do it..and accelerating past the
slower cars, and then finding a clear bit and dropping back the speed again.

Constant speed adjustment, as dictated by the traffic and forget the
bloody limits, because they are simply getting in the way of safe driving.

One immediate case springs to mind.

You are in the center lane of the motorway doing a legal 70mph.

the traffic in the slow lane, which you have been steadily overtaking at
a legal 70mph, stretches back unbroken for the previous 5 miles.

There is a gap 3/4 mile ahead.

You want to turn left off the motorway in 2 miles time.

Do you

(a) start slowing down and try to force your way into a gap in the slow
lane that isn't there?

(b) wait till you get to the junction and then stop in the middle lane
with your indicator going waiting for teh 5 miles of traffic to go past
and a decent gap in the slow lane? (this is actually the LEGAL course of
action)

(c) boot the car up to 100mph and make the gap well before the junction,
pull smoothly across upsetting no one (except Dennis, who is in the slow
lane in the middle of the queue, who moves out in front of you to stop
you, but you undertake him out of sheer evilness) indicate, slow and get
off the road disturbing no one?





regards

On 2007-05-12 00:10:26 +0100, "dennis@home"
said:

I still have my original; clean license.
I suppose I will have to get a photocard one sometime.

Had they introduced driving tests when you got it?

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
dennis@home wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:
"Roger" wrote in message
k...
The message
from John Rumm contains these
words:


snip

Im talking not about the drivers that irritate YOU, but the ones who
actually cause accidents.

This is an issue that many folk do not seem to be able to appreciate!

snip

If there is any delusion going on here sweety pie, its you.

If you think that strict adherence to a set of rules will save your
bacon, think again.

I am trying to tell you how to survive, not how to stay legal.


It worries me greatly that we have this dangerous Nanny State attitude
at large. "I was doing less than 30 mph when the accident happened" - on
a morning when there was black ice on the road in front of the school -
when more than 5 - 10 mph would be irresponsible.

This lunatic attitude to speed rather than irresponsible speed bugs me.
We desparately need to educate people to consider context and to forget
the application of legislation.

"Laws are there for the guidance of wise men and the obiedence of
fools!" Hmm - who was it?

snip

Frank Erskine wrote:

Just take it easy - relax and enjoy life!

By going out for a nice thrash round some empty country roads! ;-)

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

dennis@home wrote:

Say 70 mph with a spacing of 70m (much less than the 315 ft in the highway
code but it will do.

The highway code shows a minimum car to car distance of 2 seconds, which
at 70mph equates to 62m at or just over 200 feet. At 100mph that equates
to 88m.

You know you really ought to have a look at the book if you are going to
quote it, rather than just making up stuff.

So as the energy is V x V we need to extend that distance by 2 times as the
energy between 70 and 100 is doubled.

Not really. The kinetic energy is proportional to v^2 not equal to it
(you need to include mass into the equation). The drag is proportional
to v^3. So there is a massive increase in retardation available at
100mph that will kick in the moment you remove the motive force. So even
if you wish to set your car spacing based on KE values, you can get them
closer that those number alone would suggest, and them still be within
stopping distances.

Still much of this is pointless hot air anyway, the vast majority of
accidents occur on 30mph roads, so you are focussing on the wrong
problem to solve in the first place.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

Roger wrote:
The message
from "dennis@home" contains these words:

You seem to be equating excessive speed with speeding again, they are
unrelated.
Any speeding is excessive speed.
Not quite unrelated.
That is nonsense.

No it is fact.
Its even recorded as excess speed on your license.

On your licence perhaps but you will have been booked for exceeding the
speed limit in a commercial van in the days that they were limited to 40
mph on grounds entirely unconnected with road safety.

These days the police analysis of contributory causes distinguishes
between speeding and excessive speed.

The same way it distinguishes between a terrorist and a Brazilian?

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2007-05-12 00:10:26 +0100, "dennis@home"
said:

I still have my original; clean license.
I suppose I will have to get a photocard one sometime.

Had they introduced driving tests when you got it?



Course they had. They don't run out..

The message
from raden contains these words:

Dunno about you, but at a steady 70 mph, I'm driving in an unconscious
overdrive

Mind bogglingly boring isn't it?

At 120+ mph, I'm fully alert

I don't get to drive at that speed very often but at 70 (or more) mph on
a modern single carriageway or 20 mph (or even less) on a blinkered
single track road so am I. :-)

As I have said on this ng before I am determined to give up driving when
I reach the point where I find 70 mph in any circumstances too fast for
comfort. Meanwhile I think any driver, whatever their age, who is
already in that condition should stop driving immediately. They just
haven't got what it takes to cope with an emergency.

--
Roger Chapman

The message
from Frank Erskine contains these words:

You seem to be equating excessive speed with speeding again, they are
unrelated.

That expresses my thoughts somewhat better than I could have put it myself.

I often wonder why people _have_ to rush around so much these days. We
all have so much more leisure time than in days of yore.

I don't know about you but I don't have to rush anywhere. Apart from
anything else I have been retired for 12 years so while I have the time
to enjoy myself I don't have the money. I drive at the speed I do
because it helps me concentrate on the job in hand - getting from A to B
as quickly and as safely as possible.

Little wonder that so many people suffer from stress/heart attacks...

Driving per se doesn't stress me at all except in extreme weather such
as dense fog or black ice. What does stress me while driving is other
drivers casual attempts to kill me by closing down the gap when I am
overtaking, pulling out in front of me or, as very nearly did for me
within the last year overtaking on the approach to a blind bend.

I was driving North on the A49 in Cheshire at my usual pace and as I
came round a bend I was faced with a small while van on my side of the
road. I was down to walking pace by the time the overtaker made it back
to his (or her) side of the road with perhaps a yard to spare and
actually come to a dead stop before moving on. As I engaged first gear I
glanced up at the driver of the lorry that had just been overtaken and
his face was completely blank. He certainly hadn't done anything to help
white man van get past and judging from his express hadn't even noticed
anything was amiss.

I didn't notice what was behind the lorry or how far behind so white van
man could forced to go the extra vehicle by one of my pet hates, the
gate closer, but what I am fairly sure about is that neither of us were
exceeding the speed limit. Dennis of course will claim I was driving too
fast even though I wasn't speeding at that point but had I been in the
same position and driving like the typical zombie I wouldn't have had
time to brake to a halt.

Just take it easy - relax and enjoy life!

And fall asleep at the wheel. :-)

--
Roger Chapman

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I still have my original; clean license.
I suppose I will have to get a photocard one sometime.

Had they introduced driving tests when you got it?

Course they had. They don't run out..

Better check, pdq....

Mine will run out exactly on my 70th birthday.

--
Tony Williams.

The message
from The Natural Philosopher contains these words:

I think you will find my speedo is calibrated to be correct within 1
mph.
8-)

I seriously doubt it, because the wear on your tyres and the temperature
of them will make more difference than that.

Makes it sound as he has had it specially calibrated doesn't it. No car
I have had has every had a speedometer that accurate. How do I know?
Well in days of yore I used to check with a stopwatch and motorway mile
posts. These days I just use a gps that does claim to be than accurate.

Judging by the speed many drivers drive at when supposedly obeying speed
limits most car speedos are close to the bottom end of their allowed
margin (10% under isn't it?). What those people doing 45 in a 50 limit
who drop to under thirty when passing a speed camera have in front of
them (or inside their head) doesn't bear thinking about.

--
Roger Chapman

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

Snip total garbage.

The driving record you stated shows that you are in no position to know what
a good driver is.

Your attitude shows you are not a good driver.

You don't understand basic physics.

You don't have clue as to how much traffic you can get down a road or why.

You can't get it through you ego barrier that breaking the rules
automatically makes you a bad driver.

You think different rules should apply to yourself than to others.

You have descended into personal insults like all losers do.

There is no point in trying to continue a reasoned argument with you.

Bye.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

I think you will find my speedo is calibrated to be correct within 1
mph. 8-)

I seriously doubt it, because the wear on your tyres and the temperature
of them will make more difference than that.

Not to mention substituting a different make. Rims are exact. Tyre outside
diameters are not.

Who said it was mechanical?

Bye.

"Roger" wrote in message
k...
The message
from The Natural Philosopher contains these words:

I think you will find my speedo is calibrated to be correct within 1
mph.
8-)

I seriously doubt it, because the wear on your tyres and the temperature
of them will make more difference than that.

Makes it sound as he has had it specially calibrated doesn't it. No car
I have had has every had a speedometer that accurate. How do I know?
Well in days of yore I used to check with a stopwatch and motorway mile
posts. These days I just use a gps that does claim to be than accurate.

Someone else. 8-)

And no I haven't bothered to download a speed camera POI set as they are
unnecessary.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

Do you wear night vison googles or do you just accept that if there is
anything infront of you you are going to hit it?


I don;t really understand. If I can't see anything in front, and the road
is lit as far as the eye can see, how can there be anything in front?

On unlit roads the limit is about 100mph with decent halogens.

Even on dipped or don't you dip them when other traffic is there?
Do you slow down to the correct speed everytime you have to dip them?

Thought not.


Bye.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:
"The Reid" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 11 May 2007 17:32:32 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote:

Why is it rightful to restrict caravans and trailers to 50mph (its 60
mph
ATM BTW).
There are circumstances where its perfectly safe for them to do 100
mph.
Just like its safe for you to speed.
Why is it different for others and not you?
because my car at 100 can be controlled with a couple of fingers and
has powerful ABS brakes to stop it quickly. A caravan at 100mph would
be difficult to keep on the road at all and would probably jacknife if
braked from 100, plenty of them go off the road at 60 just because its
a bit windy.

That doesn't apply to all caravans.

so which ones does it NOT apply to then?

Are you suggesting the speed limits should be set for the lowest common
denominator?
No but for the vast majority of caravans 60mph is the safe speed and thats
it. setting the limit at 50 gives a bit of margin for error.

For the vast majority of cars and drivers the safe limit is about 80 setting
it to 70 mph gives a bit of margin for error.

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:

Say 70 mph with a spacing of 70m (much less than the 315 ft in the
highway code but it will do.

The highway code shows a minimum car to car distance of 2 seconds, which
at 70mph equates to 62m at or just over 200 feet. At 100mph that equates
to 88m.

You know you really ought to have a look at the book if you are going to
quote it, rather than just making up stuff.

The book is written for a maximum speed of 70 mph.
If you want to set the limmits to 100mph then it will have to be changed.
Do think about it before quoting what would be out of date sources.


So as the energy is V x V we need to extend that distance by 2 times as
the energy between 70 and 100 is doubled.

Not really. The kinetic energy is proportional to v^2 not equal to it (you
need to include mass into the equation).

No I don't you aren't going to produce new half as light cars to drive at
100mph you are talking about the same ones.

The drag is proportional to v^3. So there is a massive increase in
retardation available at 100mph that will kick in the moment you remove
the motive force. So even if you wish to set your car spacing based on KE
values, you can get them closer that those number alone would suggest, and
them still be within stopping distances.

Still much of this is pointless hot air anyway, the vast majority of
accidents occur on 30mph roads, so you are focussing on the wrong problem
to solve in the first place.

Its not me that keeps bringing up motorways and 100+ mph driving.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:


You are making the same error as all the other fast drivers.
You assume it takes skill to drive too fast.
No, it take nothing more than a heavy right foot to drive TOO fast. It
takes a huge amount of skill to drive fast..and stay alive.

If it were that easy, why aren't YOU the next Hamilton? Gotta be an easy
way to earn a million..

The hospital bed was occupied.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On 2007-05-12 00:10:26 +0100, "dennis@home"
said:

I still have my original; clean license.
I suppose I will have to get a photocard one sometime.

Had they introduced driving tests when you got it?

They had been around for while then.
They aren't like GCSEs though.. they don't appear to get easier each year.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:
"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:

You are making the same error as all the other fast drivers.
You assume it takes skill to drive too fast.
It takes more skill to drive fast and safely.

It takes a lack of skill or attention to drive too fast.

You seem to be equating excessive speed with speeding again, they are
unrelated.

Any speeding is excessive speed.
Not quite unrelated.

Excessive for what?

Every post you make betrays more and more opinion and less and less actual
experience. Have you ever driven anything?

Do you ignore all the rules or just the ones *you* decide don't make a bad
driver?
What about the guy that drives around level crossing gates?
Is he a good driver as he hasn't been killed or killed anyone yet?

You ignore the rules.. you are a bad driver by definition.

Are you Dr Drivel?

"clot" wrote in message
...

"Laws are there for the guidance of wise men and the obiedence of fools!"
Hmm - who was it?

A criminal?

On Sat, 12 May 2007 01:49:22 +0100, John Rumm wrote:

Just take it easy - relax and enjoy life!

Yeah man, life is too short to waste. I suspect several posters in here
have never come anywhere near an "OK, this is it, I'm going to die"
moment. Once you have *and know it* you get a different perspective on
life, everybodies life.

By going out for a nice thrash round some empty country roads! ;-)

Country roads are anything but empty. B-) There are rabbits, hares,
pheasants, lambs, badgers, sheep and deer to name but a few things you'll
find wandering about the roads. Most are *much* less predictable than
99.99% of other drivers. Pheasants are the worst, rabbits second and don't
think a rabbit can't damage your car, one cost me a new grill, wind
defelector and couple of headlamp mountings the other year.


--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

In message , Roger
writes

Judging by the speed many drivers drive at when supposedly obeying speed
limits most car speedos are close to the bottom end of their allowed
margin (10% under isn't it?). What those people doing 45 in a 50 limit
who drop to under thirty when passing a speed camera have in front of
them (or inside their head) doesn't bear thinking about.

For those of us who have forgotten the last speed limit sign they
passed, a repeater in the run up to the camera is very helpful:-)

regards


--
Tim Lamb

On Sat, 12 May 2007 08:31:51 +0100, Tony Williams wrote:

Mine will run out exactly on my 70th birthday.

And how long will it have been since you where last offically examined as
competent to drive when that happens? For me (I hope) it will be the best
part of 53 years. I passed my test, first time, 5 months 6 days after my
17th birthday.

Vehicles, driving conditions and the law have changed a great deal since I
passed my test nearly 30 years ago. I expect there will be similar changes
in the next 23 years. It's about time there was regular re-testing of all
drivers, say, every 5 years. With theory (to raise awareness of law
changes) and practical, including motorways. Though the latter has
problems in some parts of the country that are many miles from any
motorways.

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

dennis@home wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

Do you wear night vison googles or do you just accept that if there is
anything infront of you you are going to hit it?


I don;t really understand. If I can't see anything in front, and the road
is lit as far as the eye can see, how can there be anything in front?

On unlit roads the limit is about 100mph with decent halogens.

Even on dipped or don't you dip them when other traffic is there?

You don't do that speed when other traffic is coming towards you..BUT

Another fallacy. The road that you could see when your headlights were
undipped, does not disappear or change position in reality, when you dip
them.

Do you slow down to the correct speed everytime you have to dip them?


Depends.

Thought not.

Thought wrong, but then that's pretty much a habit with you.

The nature of the exercise is not totally one of absolutes.

You can guarantee to a very high degree of probability that the road
hasn't changed just because you cant see it anymore.

You can guarantee that if there are no side turnings, no unlit car (a
distinctly rare possibility in the unlit countryside at night) has
pulled out in front of you.

So what is left. You know where the road is. You know that nothing you
didn't see before is on your side of the road. You know exactly where
the oncoming car is.

What is left is the minute possibility that some unlit object has
materialised in the road in front of you.

That is small, but not infinitely small. Deer do leap out of hedges BUT
if you drive on that assumption, you will, even in daylight, do less
than 5mph on any country road. Because that is about as fast as you can
go and absolutely guarantee you will never hit a deer.

In general just about any other animal will look at you and its eyes
will light up. Pretty visible in any conditions, and whilst it may dent
the car, it won't normally kill you. Unless you slam on the brakes and
lose control.. I always choose *my* life over a small furry animals, I'm
selfish like that.

In addition tree branches DO fall on cars. However they can do that in
any light conditions. Round here the wiser drivers note that one or two
people a year, driving in gale force conditions, get killed by branches
falling on cars. They stay at home.

Slowing down makes remarkably little difference to any of these hazards.
The only difference it does make, is when you hit the deer. Over about
60mph it is a very serious accident. So if the road is bounded by the
sort of woods that deer like, AND deer are known to exist locally.
pushing on much faster than that carries a distinct risk.

Which is why, round here, I don't do it.

HOWEVER that isn't the case on other roads.











Bye.