Re: Totally OT - Highway Question - Is 100 Metres Enough

[Dave Liquorice]

If you eat dead animals...

[dennis]

Yes but it is set that way because the cars can stop at that speed. It would have to be changed to meet the new higher speed longer stopping distances involved. A 3 second rule or a 4 second rule.

Thats why the rules would have to change. Don't argue if you can't understand.

Who said I was the only one that could? It wasn't me.

I have always said that *all* drivers are idiots. You will find things are much safer when you realise its true.

[dennis]

Do I need to care?

[<me9]

Modelling the system mathematically putting in reasonable G figures, the two second rule breaks down at about 60 mph, and is nearer 3 seconds at 70mph, equating to 300 feet. doing the sums for 100mph would be somewhere near double the distance. Unless you want to end up in the boot (or worse) of the vehicle in front.

This doesn't take into account the almost doubling of kinetic energy available for destruction at 100mph as against 70mph.

The 2 second rule is a reasonably accurate rule of thumb, over the speed range it is intended for. If everyone would stick to it at 70mph, things would be a lot better than they are at the moment on our roads.

[Steve Firth]

Yes and where does it say they are "speeders"? That was your own particular hobby horse.

[Steve Firth]

No, I didn't describe either of them as speeders. You'll have to do better than that.

[dennis]

If you can't understand what you wrote what hope have I got of explaining it to you.

[Steve Firth]

I understand perfectly what I wrote. It appears that you have a learning disorder.

[dennis]

This is true but the two second rule is set assuming 70 mph as the top limit. If it were 100 mph it would need to be a 4 second rule to have a similar safety margin.

[Andy Hall]

Look at it this way..... humans are made of...... meat.....

[Tony Bryer]

If you follow the 2 second rule then a lane of traffic can pass 1800 vehicles per hour regardless of speed.

[The Natural Philosopher]

That is a pretty cogent POV.

[The Natural Philosopher]

And so will you, when you realise that you are no exception.

The fdufference between us, is I know I can be and strive very hared not to be.

YOU think you know all the answers. You will never ever learn anything ever again, because of that.

I see a bad situation: I don;t think 'he was in the wrong, he nearly killed me, he should be banned'

I think 'he was in the wrong, he nearly killed me, he should be banned, but he won't be, and he probably never even realised how much of a dennis he was being. Now how can I adjust my driving, not to the rules, because he although he would swear he was slavishly adhering to them was actually a mile wide of them, but to make sure if I ever meet a dennis like that again, its not me he kills'

You know the chap. There you are minding your own business at 20mph when Dennis pulls out in front of you and you have zero chance of missing. His response? 'You must have been speeding, I was only doing 5mph'

[The Natural Philosopher]

Its patently obvious that you care for nothing except your own self importance and pious righteousness. Whether you should care or not about your ignorance, is something only the coroner at your inquest will probably ever stop to consider.

Why you ask my opinion on the matter is beyond me. You are not in the slightest bit interested in it, on any other.

[The Natural Philosopher]

The rule is not intended to prevent collisions with stationary objects or we would all be dead. It is there as a decent enough time to assess the behaviour of the car in front and get the brakes on as fast as he has them on.

If there IS a pile up ahead, and cars have come to a halt, it's totally inadequate anyway..

The best you can hope for is that you are not just slavishly following some rule, but can see issues up to a couple of miles ahead. One reason I don't like being the meat in a 56mph trick sandwich. No visibility, even if you drop way back.

[John Rumm]

Too right, they are delicious!

SWMBO is a veggi, so we sort of cancel each other out...

(although I have a feeling the chicken tikka masala she had the other night may have been stretching the definition of a vegetable a bit!)

[The Natural Philosopher]

Yup. and 1800 cars per hour is 1800 car miles per hour at 1mph, and

180,000 car miles per hour at 100mph.

In short, you can get 100 times the journey miles in, in a similar time period.

Now you may believe that car traffic will expand until congestion forces it to stop, but there is a limit to the distances we need to travel on a daily basis. If for no other reason than cost.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Wow, so 2 = 4 is 'similar'

An art student, obviously 'they are both numbers aren't they?'

Thank god you didn't write the highway code.

[John Rumm]

The rule is not designed to leave a complete stopping distance between you and the car in front (i.e if the car in front stopped dead, two seconds is not enough to avoid hitting it). All the separation distance does if allow enough time to react to what is going on ahead. If they start breaking hard, you have time to do the same etc.

(also why one looks at what is happening on the road well ahead of just the car in front)

Agreed, and I don't think it is intended to. It does not take into account the vastly increased mass of an artic either for example.

If people allowed anything like two seconds, that would be a great improvement for starters.

[dennis]

Do you have a problem?

The fdufference between us, is I know I can be and strive very hared not > to be. >

Why not try a reasoned argument instead of childish personal attacks. I realise that its hard to argue sensibly when you are in the wrong but at least try and remain objective.