V fast down country lanes!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/oxfordshire/6312673.stm
Jan 30, 2007 4:23:31 PM
Jan 30, 2007 4:32:36 PM
Jan 30, 2007 4:50:28 PM
Quote:
MMD said:
Yikes, on country roads! 172mph is INSANE on a track (for amateurs). What's the next step up from "insane?" Maybe he'll find out in jail.
Jan 30, 2007 5:20:57 PM
Jan 30, 2007 5:43:22 PM
Quote:
Alex (UK) said:
Looking at google earth; there are a couple of dual carriageway sections on the A420 around Abingdon. Quite straight too.
I guess it wouldn't take much of a stretch to get a new Turbo up to 172mph.
Given the standing start I did at Millbrook proving track, I would say that a Turbo could achieve that easily within a mile straight. The first dual carriageway A420 section is about 2 miles between a roundabout and normal single carriageway.
Obviously I don't condone such actions, but I would be interested to know just how 'insane' this actually was ie. how on the edge of the cars abilities he was, what were the driving conditions and what other cars were on the road with him?
And remember, as Richard Hammond has now categorically proven - 'speed kills'!
Jan 30, 2007 5:59:01 PM
Quote:
Crash said:
Look, if the road is straight and the visibility is good, there is nothing wrong with it. It's just the masses being led to believe that speed kills by money-hungry bureaucrats. The fact that much more could've been done by improving people's driving skills (correct use of turn signals and so forth) but ISN'T, due to profit, is downright criminal in my book.
Quote:
MMD said:
Maybe the lawyer will tell the judge that his client personally walked the roadway to check for debris and defects in the pavement.
Also his client closed the road to other drivers and obviously insured every measure was taken to eliminate pedestrians, pets, animals from the high-speed run.
I have no problem doing 120-130mph on a section of interstate highway that is clean and green and rural.
But there's a hell of a lot of difference between 130mph and the top speed of (170-180mph) these cars. The amount of kinetic energy difference between 100 and 180 is "exponential."
I label it insane because just kill or seriously injure one person and EVERYTHING you've worked for your entire life is f'ing gone! The odds are against getting away without causing injury or death. The "rewards" of maxing out the car on public highway are so pitiful in comparision to several lifetimes of suffering that can result.
Sorry to sound like an ahole..., just try to keep it down to an occasional "sane" 130mph in the passing lane of a vacant interstate.
Jan 30, 2007 6:29:00 PM
Quote:
Alex (UK) said:Quote:
Crash said:
Look, if the road is straight and the visibility is good, there is nothing wrong with it. It's just the masses being led to believe that speed kills by money-hungry bureaucrats. The fact that much more could've been done by improving people's driving skills (correct use of turn signals and so forth) but ISN'T, due to profit, is downright criminal in my book.
I'm 100% with you!
Perception of speed being the root of all evil just shows what a bunch of morons we have running this country at times. I actually signed a HUGE petition which was submitted to the government to abolish speed cameras a couple of months back. The resulting official response was laughable:
Safety cameras have been regularly proven to reduce speeds and casualties at camera sites. The independent four-year evaluation report of the National Safety Camera Programme assessed the effectiveness of cameras and found that after allowing for the long term trend, there was a 42 per cent reduction in death and injury at camera sites, including a reduction of over 100 fatalities per year. This and previous reports are available on the Department for Transport website.
Between 2003 and 2005 there was an increase in the number of dedicated traffic officers in England and Wales. The latest and most complete information we have on the number of dedicated traffic officers shows that in 2002-03 there were 6,902, in 2003-04 there were 6,702 and in 2004-05 there were 7,104 traffic officers. In addition, any police officer, whether or not engaged in specific traffic duties, can enforce road traffic legislation when necessary. Since coming to office, the Government has increased the number of police officers by over 14,000.
Cameras do not replace roads policing officers; they supplement their work through their continuous deterrent effect and by enabling more effective and simpler enforcement of speeding and red-light jumping, so that police can focus their road policing function on other offending.
The petition provided the real data, and then the government response is to just regurgitate the nonsense that we have just told them is incorrect!
Quote:
MMD said:
Sorry to sound like an ahole..., just try to keep it down to an occasional "sane" 130mph in the passing lane of a vacant interstate.
Quote:
KJB said:
I agree with MMD. Fact is, sh*t happens. Regardless of how straight, how much visibility, how smooth, etc. At 170+ you have precious little time to deal with the unexpected. And as MMD says, one injury or death causes a billionfold misery compared to the rush of the run. Those of you who are surgeons familiar with victims of crashes dying in the ER know what I mean. If you need speed that much, just go to a track. 110-130 on an expressway - no problem under ideal conditions since these roads are designed for speed anyway, but 170+ on a rural surface road? Stupid if you ask me, unless its blocked off and checked.
Jan 31, 2007 5:29:47 PM
Jan 31, 2007 6:34:17 PM
Quote:
Alex (UK) said:
Turns out that the 911 in question was the black 997 Turbo demo car from my local OPC! They sold it to the car lease company a few weeks ago, and then they saw it in the news the other day.
Really weird as I have been out in that car several times...
Quote:
Dan L said:
Way too many things can happen to a car at those speeds to make things go badly fast. He could have a blowout or a small animal could dart in front of the car. When you're in an uncontrolled environment, which a surface street is, you're in the hands of fate. (On the autobahn, it's a wholly different matter, where you have controlled access, trained drivers, better run-offs, etc.)
Quote:
Crash said:
And however you slice it, there are things that can happen even well below the speed limit that could kill you, so the issue is, for the most part, moot.
Quote:
MMD said:Quote:
Crash said:
And however you slice it, there are things that can happen even well below the speed limit that could kill you, so the issue is, for the most part, moot.
I just want to suggest that the difference between 80 and 170 mph is huge. Braking distance is *not* merely doubled nor is the amount of energy in a crash just doubled.
The other thing is human reaction time stays the same, whereas "closing distances" are foreshortened.
Think about driving 20 mph in a parkinglot vs 40mph. Though 20 mph would hardly be noticed, most people would know it's extremely negligent to be doing 40 in a parkinglot.
Quote:
Crash said:
[
Yes, that's my point.