Speeding on public roads

[semiautomatix]

Dude, a Ferrari going 200km/h will take longer than a Jazz going 80km/h to get to 0km/h. Yes, performance cars generally have terrific brakes, but that doesn't completely mitigate the speed differentials when looking at stopping distances.

*edit* Right back at ya, AcidRazor

A Ferrari Enzo stopping distance from 120 km/h is 59.7m. A Toyota Corolla travelling at 90 km/h has a stopping distance of 55.8m. The Enzo will stop with a deceleration of almost 1G but a Corolla is only 0.6G.

So no, your logic is not correct.

 

[BCO]

A Ferrari Enzo stopping distance from 120 km/h is 59.7m. A Toyota Corolla travelling at 90 km/h has a stopping distance of 55.8m. The Enzo will stop with a deceleration of almost 1G but a Corolla is only 0.6G.

So no, your logic is not correct.

Not sure how. If a concrete wall was 56m away, the Enzo would have gone into the wall, no?

 

[Claymore]

Not necessarily true. If you've ever been in a Ferrari you will be frightened by how quickly the car comes to a stop from high speeds, this is mostly thanks to the large mags and huge breakpads. Performance vehicles are made to stop much quicker than you bottom of the range cars.

What do large mags have to do with it? And it's "brake pads", not "breakpads".

 

[Moto Guzzi]

160kM/H max

To pass a 115Km/h car quickly you may be needing 140-160Km/h to accellerate to pass.

Now how about vehicles traveling faster than 160Km/h be unroadworthy for two years.

That will show some statistics related to very high speed.

All I know is 120 head on with another 120=240 impact=No survovors

 

[Claymore]

I can understand than many speedsters feel they're good drivers and are well within their abilities during fast driving, but the fact remains that the faster you're going, the less time you have to react, the bigger the distances required to come to a stop, and the closer to your car's limits you're driving. You might be able to drive relatively safely at high speed, but it would be even safer for yourself and other road users to drive at the speed limit.

Exactly. People don't seem to understand how braking distances increase with speed. And at night, it can be easy to outrun the range of one's headlights - by the time something is visible in the lights, it's too late to react.

 

[xrapidx]

A Ferrari Enzo stopping distance from 120 km/h is 59.7m. A Toyota Corolla travelling at 90 km/h has a stopping distance of 55.8m. The Enzo will stop with a deceleration of almost 1G but a Corolla is only 0.6G.

So no, your logic is not correct.

You sure? A Honda S2000 120-0 is about 53.4m

 

[DOOMIE61]

Mclaren SLR 100km-0=30m and 1.10g, that's ceramic brake's for you

 

[JK8]

Would you agree that a driver is more vigilant when they driving faster?
More adrenaline, faster reaction speeds?

Blue?

 

[BCO]

Blue?

I would not agree with a blanket statement like that. I drive slowly and I'm very vigilant.

It's also arguable that even if your reaction times are quicker due to adrenaline, this is easily offset by the smaller window to act due to the higher speed.

 

[Alan]

And the speed limit was 80km/h. If you'd been going 40km/h slower than you were (AKA at the speed limit) you would have had sufficient time and space to react safely.

I can understand than many speedsters feel they're good drivers and are well within their abilities during fast driving, but the fact remains that the faster you're going, the less time you have to react, the bigger the distances required to come to a stop, and the closer to your car's limits you're driving. You might be able to drive relatively safely at high speed, but it would be even safer for yourself and other road users to drive at the speed limit.

Agree. Well said

 

[JK8]

I would not agree with a blanket statement like that. I drive slowly and I'm very vigilant.

It's also arguable that even if your reaction times are quicker due to adrenaline, this is easily offset by the smaller window to act due to the higher speed.

A slow vigilant driver... in a Panda... I can picture that...
I on the other have it the other way, if im cruising at 120 I tend to do other things like smoke, look around, play with the cars computer, play with the radio, sms, make calls all the things you shouldnt do while driving...

 

[BCO]

A slow vigilant driver... in a Panda... I can picture that...
I on the other have it the other way, if im cruising at 120 I tend to do other things like smoke, look around, play with the cars computer, play with the radio, sms, make calls all the things you shouldnt do while driving...

I am the only person who my grandfather is not afraid to drive in the car with, lol.

 

[supersunbird]

A Ferrari Enzo stopping distance from 120 km/h is 59.7m. A Toyota Corolla travelling at 90 km/h has a stopping distance of 55.8m. The Enzo will stop with a deceleration of almost 1G but a Corolla is only 0.6G.

So no, your logic is not correct.

And what distance would you have covered over the 2 seconds it takes your foot to go to the brake pedal and press down at 120 compared to the 90 of the Corolla.

Dont try selectively using physics on my logical mind bitch

 

[BCO]

And what distance would you have covered over the 2 seconds it takes your foot to go to the brake pedal and press down at 120 compared to the 90 of the Corolla.

Dont try selectively using physics on my logical mind bitch

Oh snap.

 

[supersunbird]

Don't bother, let me do it...

120km/h = 33.33m per second = 66.66m for those 2 seconds

90km/h = 25m per second = 50m for those 2 seconds

A whole 16m distance differensial and that doesn't include stopping distance and 2 second is quite fast...

 

[Jonny Two Shoes]

Speed variation...I have to agree with that as well.

 

[adamr]

the problem comes in when you doing 200km/h in a 120km/h zone and there is a F#$$er doing 60 in that same lane ...

its happening more and more these days ...

Speeding is dangerous ... your reaction time.... other drivers look in their rear view mirror see no car look again, a Ferrari F430 up your rear ...

With so many idiot drivers on the road these days i choose not to speed ... if the highway is absolutely clear ... meaning no cars at all ... i will open the car up for a short burst and tap off ... (thats only if im taking the car out for a run)

 

[Keith]

Speed is but one contributing factor to accidents, be it very high or excessively low speeds. Is doing 60 on the freeway too slow if everyone else is doing 60, even if the minimum speed limit is 80. And on the same note, is doing 140 a problem when all the traffic is doing the same when the speed limit is 120.

Frankly, I believe that negligence, recklessness and lack of tolerance is at the top of the list of contributing factors in accidents and road rage. Some examples are:

Doing 60 when everyone's doing 120.
Doing 120 when the traffic is rolling along at 60.
Not having your focus on the road (doing your makeup, fiddling with your cellphone, etc)
Not using your brain (this actually happened to me... driver doing 100 in the fast lane on a 3 lane highway decides to brake hard and cut across all 3 lanes at 90 degrees because he/she missed the offramp..chaos ensued )

As I said... Speed is not at the top of the list, but cannot be disregarded.

BTW: I do exceed the speed limit from time to time, and yes I do pay my fines.

 

[I am Penguin]

So is speeding irresponsible. Yes. Why? Because most accidents that do happen can be minor if you stuck to the speed limit.

Sorry have t0 dissagree some. Accidents at a speed of 120 is just at lethal and that is within the speed limit. So a blow out at 120 or 140 would both be serious, the onemaybe a bit more than the other.

We have to define "speeding"! If anyone says going over the speed limit is irresponsible "speeding" then they have to look at their own judgement again. Yeah traveling 140 - 250 is just crazy on SA roads and may be called reckless as per law but doing 125 - 140 when traffic conditions allow is another thing all together. On the autobahn I traveled in exess of 180, is that now suddely responsible driving because the law say its OK..? NO! Depends on many factors as already mentioned. .

Thus it's not just the speed, its the driver, the speed, the conditions and the drivers attitude combined.

So no blue, the old (fat) auntey driving 90 on the highway in the "wrong" lane is not a safe or responsible driver at all. Driving 90 in the fast lane of a 120 zone is more irresponsible and dangerous as it frustrates others and at the same time force them to pass on the left in slower lanes

 

[news24]

Speed does not kill.... its the chop behind the wheel that Kills.... hehehe

I guess your in the same boat as those who say "Guns don't kill...People kill people". Well we really have to look at the statistics on road deaths, the numbers are appalling, and we can play our part by driving responsibly. $hit like use of cell phone while driving pisses me off, it only take a few seconds for one to cause an accident.

How much control do you have over a car that is running at 140,150,160 km/h? How will you be able to handle a tire rupture for instance? Your life maybe miserable, you may want to die, you may have medical aid, but there is another road user who is a family man, a breadwinner, a father/mother, who might not have medical aid, or car insurance. Act responsibly speed does kill, and buckle up!

Speed does kill, Substance abuse does kill, Not getting enough rest does kill!

PS! I follow road speed limits, an exception involves a truck or bus, I want to get as far away from those as possible(responsibly ofcourse)