|
AF, we have road like yours where I live - I am usually able to go over them at about 20 and its acceptable, but I tend to go at the same speed between them as well - seems no point in speeding up/slowing down all the time - if i come across someone only doing 10/15mph I'll overtake them between humps if its clear - though I've been flashed by them for doing so - can't understand why as its 30 limit and I'm not breaking the limit but there you go!
|
though I've been flashed by them for doing so - can't understand why as its 30 limit
There is a percentage of drivers, including one or two who post here, who hate and fear the automobile but don't allow themselves to recognise that fact. The slower they feel they have to go for these ridiculous obstructions and chicanes, the happier the carphounds are. Of course they are much too thick, usually, to understand that you are allowed to go faster than them by law. They think the pathetic crawl they feel happy at is the legal speed, or ought to be, and that those who pass them are behaving in an anti-social manner.
Give them a wide berth - such drivers are among the most dangerous on the road owing to their low intelligence and extreme anxiety - and ignore their flashings and gesticulations (or answer in kind if you feel you must, but I don't recommend it).
|
the people thet 'mimse' at 45 mph in the nationals between villages and towns are generally poor drivers who lack awareness. They mimse because it's easier for them to do so, because they're unaware. It's easier to pootle than actually have a think "what is the limit here", "what are the hazards"; "where does the road go up ahead"; "if i look over the hedge there's a lorry approaching a bend towards me"; "there's diesel, horse carp, gravel, drain covers on the carriageway" etc, etc...
so bimble along oblivious, it's safe isn't it??? Not like those speedsters, oh look there's one coming past now, must give him a load of main beam and a cheery wave.
|
Some of the assumptions & comments made about those who choose not to exceed posted limits or, heaven forfend - actually drive below them! - would be almost funny if they didn't seem to indicate some deep discontent or apparent road-rage like symptoms bubbling just under the surface.
The OP makes a quite reasonable point about large numbers of speeders & questions the wisdom of large-ish differential speeds on safety grounds & whether these people have considered the possible effects of their behaviour - what is the problem with that?
Do the same people here who espouse speed & 'making progress' practice their same 'techniques' on the high street pavement, supermarket queue or pub bar I wonder? Why such a holier-than-thou attitude to people, who, after all, are breaking no laws? Why assume you're some sort of terrific driver just because you press the accelerator pedal a bit more & everyone else who doesn't, can't drive? Does it ever occur to the 'super-drivers' that perhaps it's just plain daft to drive at ten-tenths all the time, that accidents are associated with speed, that some regard a relaxing journey more important than a hell-for-leather dash from A to B?
If it's that important to 'make progress' why not use your abilities & overtake - I thought that would be fun for you! I'm rarely held up by slower drivers, I overtake. I don't resent their presence or choice of speed - it's an engaging challenge to plan an overtake safely.
If I can't (due to whatever) well, I'll go with the flow for a while - no big deal!
Edited by woodbines on 01/06/2008 at 19:08
|
woodbines,
it's dangerous to drive at 10/10ths there's no leeway there....i'd like the people that want to mimse to be as accepting of other's rights to drive faster as you've mentioned above that faster drivers should for them to drive slower
in other words both sides to respect the other
however, increasingly so in England (not Scotland), the slower ones wish the faster ones to conform to their standards, which ironically (if i'm accurate), isn't necessarily a high standard, just a slow one. Furthermore they will often go out of their way to block faster drivers e.g. by deliberately hogging the crown of the road, deliberately bunching up in a queue and/or gesticulating, unnecessary horn usage or main beam flashing.
a decent 'A' road drive in Scotland sums it up to me...those that want to drive slowly do so and help to facilitate those that wish to press on...which is the opposite to England.
In fact France is pretty obliging as well.
|
in other words both sides to respect the other
Quite. As long as neither is driving unsafely/dangerously wrt other road users, because either can in the "wrong" situation be classed as doing just be that!
|
|
|
10/10ths Westpig!
Very few drivers capable of that even on a track without coming off at the third bend... doubt if I am myself anyway. Absolutely flat (except in a very slow car) is difficult and dangerous. Most people have no idea what it means or feels like.
|
|
|
|
Do the same people here who espouse speed
I may be doing some of those people an injustice, because I am never sure whether they are making some point just to instigate debate and I am not sure if I have read them correctly on the following, but IIRC I think some of them also espouse other driving practices which are against the law, eg. using mobile phones while driving, and driving having imbibed some alcohol that they feels is within their own limit even though it may be beyond the legal limit.
|
|
|
If I can't (due to whatever) well I'll go with the flow for a while - no big deal!
Quite right woodbines. We all have to do it. But the flow is increasingly dominated by people who have had cars sold to them or forced on them as transport, when they don't actually like driving and aren't good at it.
I am charmed by your euphemism 'road-rage-like symptoms' for the intense road rage I quite often feel. The problem with that is to avoid expressing it then and there on the road (rather than here in our, er, ivory tower where it can't do much harm). I usually manage that these days being quite middle-aged, indeed very.
I am relieved too that someone has seen fit to scold me for the provocative and unkind way I have said some things here. That apart, though, I don't expect everyone to understand or approve of my 'attitudes' on this matter, but I know they are sound. There's a hell of a lot more to going briskly without being dangerous than pressing the loud pedal harder. But even if you can do that, it doesn't make you a 'superdriver', just a driver. I wish there were a few more of them in the mix.
|
|
|
|
|
if i come across someone only doing 10/15mph I'll overtake them between humps if its clear
That is one of the things that amuses me about this piece of road. Prior to the speed-bumps all the traffic did 25-30mph. It was not possible to go faster as it is through a narrow village, with quite a few parked cars, providing natural chicanes. The humps were not installed to slow traffic down or to prevent accidents, but to persuade people to use another route (again information from the FOI request), which was why they made them as high and steep as legally possible. The only problem is there is no other route, so...
Now the speed humps are in place, almost every day someone takes exception to my speed and overtakes me (which I could not care less about), but they seem to wait until the narrowest twistiest part of the road, where the kids are waiting for the school bus, before deciding to do so, and because it is not a safe place to overtake, they do it as fast as possible. I suppose it makes a mad kind of logic.
So all the council has achieved is a more dangerous road but with the same amount of traffic.
And what really seems to make the red faced drivers who have overtaken, even more red faced, is when I overtake them on the dual carriageway 1/2 mile ahead.
Edited by AF on 01/06/2008 at 19:16
|
|
I'm with you on this AF - I decline to accumulate suspension damage by crashing over these things. Although I can straddle the local 'cushions' with minimal disturbance, I have discovered by doing so that this wears the inner edge of the tyres double quick. So I now put one side on, one side off, and maintain 10mph for half a mile. If the red-faced ones don't like it, they can complain to the control freaks who put them there.
|
|
|
And what really seems to make the red faced drivers who have overtaken even more red faced is when I overtake them on the dual carriageway 1/2 mile ahead.
LOL AF. There are lots of those. They bomb through a 30 or 40 limit at a steady 50 and then continue to mimse at a speedometer 50 outside the village limits... carphounds, and idiotic with it. Just like the ones who out-accelerate you at the lights with their excellent machines and then wander about in front of you below the speed limit for the next two miles. The awful thing is you know they are going to do it as soon as you feel their passively malevolent vibe beside you at the lights.
|
Why do some drivers get so upset about being overtaken.
Its not often these days, but on a out of town road its a rare privelidge to see a competent driver overtake several people either all at once or by leap frogging between oncoming sparce traffic.
As i say, its a very uncommon sight, especially when the odd expert that can really do this properly often never touches the brakes between overtakes, but the ones that have been caught by surprise are braking and accelerating at all sorts of velocities in a vain attempt to block said driver, who invariably has disappeared into the distance by the time they've worked out what happened.
I'm not confusing idiots with expertise here by the way, the overtakes i'm talking about are being performed quickly and as safely as anyone can.
Another one that i took me hat off to.
Chap in BM on wet roundabout went round said island on power slide about 4 or 5 times, i was glad to wait for him to finish, rarely seen skill.
|
Powerslides - Oh yes, I remember them. :-(
Downshifting from an uberwagen to a lowly Skoda has taught me to embrace steady progress - its quite enjoyable !
|
I'll give the skoda another 12 months, then you'll remember this isn't a rehearsal for the main life, as SWMBO reminds me whenever i look at normalish cars (she now wants me to get a newish dodge charger, who am i to argue).
Should imagine a V8 or twin turboD BM could be gracing the PU mansion house courtyard.
|
Should imagine a V8 or twin turboD BM could be gracing the PU mansion house courtyard.
...and quite rightly so
|
|
|
|
|
|
Michael R: I suggest a physics and/or advanced driving course in order that you get some understanding about the energy involved in braking from high speed.
Are you suggesting that high performance, large diameter multipiston disc brakes incoporating systems such as EBD are a marketing thing and no more effective than the piddly things on the front of Doris's Punto? Thats a nuisance, I kinda begrudge paying for 330mm discs if they offer no performance advantage over the brakes on the front of a Matiz.
FWIW I've no practical experience of braking hard from 100mph becuase I simply don't drive at such a speed, I always stick to 70mph on Motorways but this is becuase I'm too tight to pay for the extra fuel and becuase sods law says I'll get nicked, not becuase of the safety aspect as I don't think it's particularly dangerous on a quiet Motorway.
Edited by MichaelR on 02/06/2008 at 01:19
|
MichaelR,
You cannot tell me in a car like that, that you haven't come off the Marsh Mills Roundabout and 'seen off' a chavmobile up the hill to join the A38?..Perleeease.
|
You cannot tell me in a car like that that you haven't come off the Marsh Mills Roundabout and 'seen off' a chavmobile up the hill to join the >>A38?..Perleeease.
I was of course talking in the context of sustained cruising speed ;)
It's difficult not to accidently break the odd boundry if you put your foot into the carpet but of course in situations like that where it isnt sustained the need to performance a hard brake are far, far reduced hence i've never had to do it.
|
|
|
|
Are you suggesting that high performance large diameter multipiston disc brakes incoporating systems such as EBD are a marketing thing and no more effective than the piddly things on the front of Doris's Punto? Thats a nuisance I kinda begrudge paying for 330mm discs if they offer no performance advantage over the brakes on the front of a Matiz.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but as anyone with a decent GCSE grade in physics will tell you, the big brakes ARE largely a marketing thing, just like painting the calipers red. The main advantage of bigger brakes is cooler running, which is important in avoiding brake fade when there is repeated hard braking (like on a race track or very twisting roads). The bigger disc acts as a better heatsink and has more area for radiant cooling.
For normal driving (i.e. not on a race track), even from 100+ speeds, the brakes on Doris' Punto should be every bit as good as your 330mm discs. The limiting factor will not be the brake torque, but rather the frictional coefficient between your tyre and the road. I think as the poster Number_Cruncher once put it, if your brakes are power enough to lock the wheels then they are powerful enough, full stop (or something like that), fitting bigger brakes ain't going to stop you any quicker. Even piddling little things like Fiat Pandas have ABS/EBD/EBA etc nowadays too. In fact, proportional to weight, I wouldn't be surprised if a Fiat Panda doesn't have relatively more powerful brakes (in terms of brake torque to weight ratio) than a large BMW. I think modern car brakes are all very good, I can't recall driving a recent car that has not had more than adequately powerful brakes.
|
|
Well said, getting tired of hearing from MichaelR that you need at least 200bhp to overtake safely and the other pointless dribble which often more than not, is based on brand reputation not science.
|
|
|
Sorry to burst your bubble but as anyone with a decent GCSE grade in physics will tell you the big brakes ARE largely a marketing thing just like painting the calipers red.
I'm sorry but I simply cannot agree - to state there is no difference in braking performance between different brake setup defies logic. If this is the case, why do different cars stop from 70mph in different distances? Why is a Ferrari F430 fitted with 6 piston calipers when 2 piston calipers would stop it just as easily?
To support my case, here are some figures for the braking distance from 62mph of several cars.
VW Polo 1.4: 42.9
Porsche 911 GT3 35.1
Why the difference? Is it perhaps becuase the Porsche has a far better braking setup?
>>I think as the poster Number_Cruncher once put it if your brakesare power enough to lock the wheels then they are powerful enough full stop (or something like that) fitting bigger brakes ain't going to stop you any quicker.
Can your car lock the wheels at 70mph then?
I will admit that part of my comment is slightly tounge in cheek - I'm not stupid and I do understand the dangers of stressed sales reps bombing along busy Motorways at 120mph. But that doesnt change the fact that technically speaking, differences in capability exist between braking distances and funnily enough, better brakes can (as well as, as you mentioned, dissapate heat better) stop you quicker.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xrh0muW5pd8
If you fast foward to 4 minutes on that video, you will witness everyones favourite motoring journalist stopping a Mercedes SLR from 120mph in just less than the distance the highway code thinks it should take to stop from 60mph.
Can a Fiat Punto do that? I suspect not. Neither, I suspect, can any BMW this side of an M3 GT-R but it highlights that brakes CAN affect stopping distances.
Edited by MichaelR on 02/06/2008 at 02:44
|
VW Polo 1.4: 42.9 Porsche 911 GT3 35.1 Why the difference?
Not strictly comparing apples with apples here - the Porsche has the engine in the back so under braking (and weight transfer) there's still a fair bit of weight on the rear wheels so they can brake harder. On a front engined car perhaps with FWD there's very little weight on the rear under braking so the rear wheels don't do much at all.
As for the rest of the 330mm brake discs and number of pistons per calliper, if you've got a heavy car you need big brakes. A little hatchback can be as good with smaller brakes.
Bigger brake discs give more leverage (torque) to stop the road wheel but all of this is missing the main issue: To stop quicker from 120mph than a normal hatchback can do from 70mph is impossible unless you can use hefty aerodynamic tricks too.
I've done a few hard stops from 100+mph and I can confirm that even when you've been holding the brake pedal down for what seems like ages, you can glance at the speedo and still see 80mph!
|
|
|
I'm sorry but I simply cannot agree - to state there is no difference in braking performance between different brake setup defies logic.
No, its entirely logical and provable with basic maths. What you mean is that it defies your 'gut instinct'.
I didn't say there was no difference in braking performance - mainly talking about stopping distance here. A lot of things influence stopping distance (weight distribution, tyre friction coefficient etc).
To support my case here are some figures for the braking distance from 62mph of several cars. VW Polo 1.4: 42.9 Porsche 911 GT3 35.1 Why the difference? Is it perhaps becuase the Porsche has a far better braking setup?
With all due respect I think those figures rather shoot down your argument. You compare the stopping distance of a supermini with a supercar (rear engine, low centre of gravity, probably very soft high-friction tyres) and probably one of the most sophisticated braking set-ups out there. Yet the difference in stopping distance is a mere 7m (less than 20%). Even assuming the same set of test conditions (temperature, moisture, driver reaction time) this is an astonishingly small difference and probably within the measurement error for the test itself (there must be a fair amount of human error in exactly when the pedal is pressed and fluid pressure applied to the brake calipers). In fact at 62mph a 1/4 second discrepancy in pressing the pedal would account for the seven metre difference. This is quite apart from differences in ABS operation etc. and of course the actual measurement of the stopping distance itself.
A quick 'back of the envelope' calc suggests that best stopping distance from 62mph, assuming tyres with a frictional coefficient of approaching 1, will be about 39m. So the figures quoted are about what you would expect within the limits of accuracy of the test.
|
|
|
Can a Fiat Punto do that? I suspect not. Neither I suspect can any BMW this side of an M3 GT-R but it highlights that brakes CAN affect stopping distances.
Easy on the cussing of Punto brakes! My Dad's Grande 1.9 has all-round discs, front ventilated. Nothing whatsoever wrong with how that stops. The identical setup on my Panda 100HP is even more impressive although 975kg kerb weight may be a factor there, I concede.
Now if on the other hand you'd said Cinquecento (i.e. the mid-90s sort) brakes, I couldn't agree more. Trying to do hill starts on Lansdowne Road in Bath with a handbrake that wouldn't hold the car on the hill no matter how hard you hauled on it was educative... :-)
|
|
|
>>Why is a Ferrari F430 fitted with 6 piston calipers when 2 piston calipers would stop it just as easily?
The answer to this one isn't quite as obvious as you might think.
Any guesses? [Garethj excepted, because I suspect he already knows!]
|
|
|
|
|
FWIW I've no practical experience of braking hard from 100mph becuase I simply don't drive at such a speed I always stick to 70mph on Motorways but this is becuase I'm too tight to pay for the extra fuel and becuase sods law says I'll get nicked not becuase of the safety aspect as I don't think it's particularly dangerous on a quiet Motorway.
I definately must try to bone up on these new-fangled spellings. Is there a website I can visit to get some tuition? Just because I'm old it doesn't mean I have (or want) to stop learning! ;-D
|
|
|
|
|
