remember the gut who got caught at 156mph ?

Will Gill · 15 May 2003 at 14:34

Originally posted by Sundance Kid
I doubt it - the distance a car covers doing 150mph is waaaaaaay more than a car doing 70mph, regardless of the cars better ability to stop it will take a longer distance.

It would be interesting to test

*goes off to search web for figures*

I really don't think the difference would be that huge, but after reading my heatily constructed post maybe I am being a bit of a pillock

I also didn't read that the knobjockey in question didn't have a license/insurance etc.. that is a different kettle of fish and maybe a lot more justified.

anyone want to test the 150/70 theory?

Andyman · 15 May 2003 at 14:35

Hmmm, I doubt it too. Having had to rapidly slow from 160 to 70 in Germany when a corsa pulled out on me I know just how much space it takes. I had the ABS briefly cut in at about 140 and the backend was fish-tailing badly. The corsa was about 1/4 of a mile away when he started pulling out and we only just slowed within 2 or 3 car lengths.

I doubt very much if I could have made it to a stop from 160 because the brakes were fried. Uprated stoppers would have helped with the fade but you're still limited by the grip of rubber on tarmac.

EyeDot · 15 May 2003 at 14:35

Originally posted by pinkaardvark
Rush hour or not, there's no need for 120mph in a 40mph zone.

Whilst i agree in principle, dont forget how silly the zoning commision is for speed limits.

The A13 into docklands, turns into a 50 zone, and further in, a 30 zone, yet its still a dual carridgeway, with central reservation and no houses.

WHY ? So they can stand on the bridge in the morning, and earn lots, as EVERYONE does 50-60 in the 30 zone, quite simply AS its a dual carridgeway with NO POSSIBLE was for someone to get on.

WHY is it a 30 zone ??

If this was a residential 40, then sure.. he is in the wrong, but we cant say he deserved it JUST as it was a signed 40.

IMHO

moss · 15 May 2003 at 14:36

Originally posted by Sundance Kid
I doubt it - the distance a car covers doing 150mph is waaaaaaay more than a car doing 70mph, regardless of the cars better ability to stop it will take a longer distance.

It would be interesting to test

lol youve obviously never broke hard from a high speed in a micra with standard brakes....they work great till about 30mph then fade like hell, quality of the tyres also help too

Fr0dders · 15 May 2003 at 14:42

we really cant comment untill we know what roads he was clocked on.

but i hardly think that doing 156 on an empty dual carriageway is worthy of a prison sentance.

after all youd need an empty one b4 you started to drive into the back of peoples boots.

EyeDot · 15 May 2003 at 14:42

Originally posted by Andyman
Hmmm, I doubt it too. Having had to rapidly slow from 160 to 70 in Germany when a corsa pulled out on me I know just how much space it takes. I had the ABS briefly cut in at about 140 and the backend was fish-tailing badly. The corsa was about 1/4 of a mile away when he started pulling out and we only just slowed within 2 or 3 car lengths.

I doubt very much if I could have made it to a stop from 160 because the brakes were fried. Uprated stoppers would have helped with the fade but you're still limited by the grip of rubber on tarmac.

but what car was that.. my point would be, just cos the car could DO 160, doesnt make it safe to, were you pusing it to the extreme ? in which case obviously it would get bent out of shape.

I have seen > 170 in 3 vehicles, and my experience is this, at 150, they were all v.v.stable v.v.capable, > 160 they got a little 'worrying' > 170 = where i chicken out, as the vehicles I was in werent going to 'feel safe' over those speeds.

I know for sure, that the porker i am in atm, drops from 160 to 70 in 2-3 seconds (and it didnt feel out of shape doing it!)

Now, I an not advocating speeding, merely contesting the comment from the sherif and ROSPA that

Sheriff Veal told McAllister: "Anybody driving at this speed must realise that it's dangerous and inevitably a custodial option will be top of the priorities."

Reacting to the case, Roger Vincent, of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (RoSPA), said: "It was absolutely crazy for someone to try and drive at that speed on a public road.

Inevitably a custodial ?

WHY, we know these speeds ARENT unsafe, as they are regularily explored on the AutoBahns...

OK, so thats germany, are our roads THAT inferior to theirs ?

I will accept the argument that our drivers dont expect people to fly past at 150+, so dont drive accordingly, and thats a fine argument, except for the cases when its a clear empty stretch of road, THEN, whats the excuse for saying its CRAZY?

thats my point!

SDK^ · 15 May 2003 at 14:42

Sticking with the braking thing

It's takes an average road car 96 metres to stop from 70MPH
It's takes an F1 car approx 100 Metres to stop from 150mph

I think your Micra would stand a good chance of stopping before a Scooby at those speeds

Will Gill · 15 May 2003 at 14:42

Originally posted by EyeDot
Whilst i agree in principle, dont forget how silly the zoning commision is for speed limits.

The A13 into docklands, turns into a 50 zone, and further in, a 30 zone, yet its still a dual carridgeway, with central reservation and no houses.

WHY ? So they can stand on the bridge in the morning, and earn lots, as EVERYONE does 50-60 in the 30 zone, quite simply AS its a dual carridgeway with NO POSSIBLE was for someone to get on.

WHY is it a 30 zone ??

If this was a residential 40, then sure.. he is in the wrong, but we cant say he deserved it JUST as it was a signed 40.

IMHO

the docklands is a joke I don't speed there out of principle now the amount of my colleagues with points from old bill down there is a joke!

and definitely agree with you resedential comment too

Rilot · 15 May 2003 at 14:55

I just think this whole crack down on speeding at the expense of everything else has just got bonkers recently. It seems that no one will be happy until all cars/bikes are restricted to a maximum speed of 20mph.

To once again quote an artical in PB recently "There is no incentive to become a better driver. Only a slower one"

Lopéz · 15 May 2003 at 14:59

Performance motorist are a seriously endangered species

It would seem that the general public, "normal" motorists included hate us with a passion normally reserved for murderers and kiddie-fiddlers.

Did this guy deserve to do time for his motoring offences?

No way in hell!

Dolph · 15 May 2003 at 15:01

Originally posted by Sundance Kid
Sticking with the braking thing

It's takes an average road car 96 metres to stop from 70MPH
It's takes an F1 car approx 100 Metres to stop from 150mph

I think your Micra would stand a good chance of stopping before a Scooby at those speeds

Distance != time.

The F1 car will do that breaking distance a lot faster than the average road car (which incidentally probably comes in as about a 1.4 ford focus without ABS, remember the vast majority of cars on the road aren't performance cars).

Distance and time are separate.

-Dolph

Andyman · 15 May 2003 at 15:17

<aside>
Do most 'normal'/'standard' cars have ABS? You know it actually increases dry stopping distances. In the dry straight line braking is quicker locked up than with the wheels rotating. Not so good for tyres tho huh?
</aside>

EyeDot · 15 May 2003 at 15:19

Originally posted by Andyman
<aside>
Do most 'normal'/'standard' cars have ABS? You know it actually increases dry stopping distances. In the dry straight line braking is quicker locked up than with the wheels rotating. Not so good for tyres tho huh?
</aside>

Nope

in theory it decreases stopping distance

in practise, ppl panic, jam on the brakes, and lock up.

ABS will stop 99.9% of ppl FAR faster 99.9% of the time.

Andyman · 15 May 2003 at 15:27

Sorry but have to disagree. In a dry weather straight line emergency where steering isn't an issue ABS increases stopping distances by keeping the wheel rotating. Locking up would actually decrease the stopping distance because it fully optimises the grip between the rubber and the tarmac. ABS was invented to help people who don't know how to brake in emergencies where steering and braking must be used together. Wet weather braking is another matter. Locking up in the wet causes the tyre to aquaplane and stopping distance will increase.

Jamming on the brakes in an ABS car is exactly what you should do. Its the most effective way to stop a car with ABS.

Will Gill · 15 May 2003 at 15:30

Originally posted by Andyman
Sorry but have to disagree. In a dry weather straight line emergency where steering isn't an issue ABS increases stopping distances by keeping the wheel rotating. Locking up would actually decrease the stopping distance because it fully optimises the grip between the rubber and the tarmac. ABS was invented to help people who don't know how to brake in emergencies where steering and braking must be used together. Wet weather braking is another matter. Locking up in the wet causes the tyre to aquaplane and stopping distance will increase.

Jamming on the brakes in an ABS car is exactly what you should do. Its the most effective way to stop a car with ABS.

I'd have to disagree

You might think that optimal braking is implemented by completely locking all the wheels. but, the laws of physics tells us that the coefficient of friction between the ground surface and a static object is always greater than a moving object. If the tyres are sliding on the road surface, the friction between road and wheel will not be maximum. Therefore, the maximum braking occurs when the wheels are braked up to the level that the wheels just do not slide.

SDK^ · 15 May 2003 at 15:46

Originally posted by Andyman
Sorry but have to disagree. In a dry weather straight line emergency where steering isn't an issue ABS increases stopping distances by keeping the wheel rotating. Locking up would actually decrease the stopping distance because it fully optimises the grip between the rubber and the tarmac. ABS was invented to help people who don't know how to brake in emergencies where steering and braking must be used together. Wet weather braking is another matter. Locking up in the wet causes the tyre to aquaplane and stopping distance will increase.

Jamming on the brakes in an ABS car is exactly what you should do. Its the most effective way to stop a car with ABS.

Wrong

Like Eyedot and Will also said -
An ABS car will stop shorter; we've had this debate many a time on here.

Originally posted by Dolph
Distance != time.

The F1 car will do that breaking distance a lot faster than the average road car (which incidentally probably comes in as about a 1.4 ford focus without ABS, remember the vast majority of cars on the road aren't performance cars).

Distance and time are separate.

-Dolph

^ That post doesn't make any sense :confused:

It's obvious an F1 car will stop "a lot faster than the average road car"

The distance is still 100 Metres regardless how many seconds pass

blueboy2001 · 15 May 2003 at 15:47

I don't for one minute think people should be sent to prison for speeding unless they have caused somebody injury.

They should be banned from driving.

In this case, the gentleman concerned was already banned from driving thus already demonstrating he was not fit to be on the road.

If he's already been disqualified, and that hasn't kept him off the roads, then the Judge only has one other option to stop him driving and thats to lock him up.

I would guess this guy has not been jailed on the basis of his speeding, but for flouting the law and demonstrating the only way to keep him off the road is to keep him in jail.

How else can he be punished?

Fr0dders · 15 May 2003 at 15:50

Originally posted by Lopéz
Performance motorist are a seriously endangered species

It would seem that the general public, "normal" motorists included hate us with a passion normally reserved for murderers and kiddie-fiddlers.

Did this guy deserve to do time for his motoring offences?

No way in hell!

least he will have an interesting tale to tell when hes inside

"what you in for"

"being clocked at the highest ever speed ever recorded by the scottish police"

"respekt !!!"

lol

EyeDot · 15 May 2003 at 15:55

We have to rememebr here tho, its not a clean cut speeding charge

he was banned, and uninsured as well.

For that, i think he needed a harsher punishment, as i HATE uninsured drivers..

So, best we rememebr that, had he hit someone, they would have been up the duff and forced to seek payment from the MiB, something our premiums contribute to!