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

[The Natural Philosopher]

You don't do that speed when other traffic is coming towards you..BUT

Another fallacy. The road that you could see when your headlights were undipped, does not disappear or change position in reality, when you dip them.

Thought wrong, but then that's pretty much a habit with you.

The nature of the exercise is not totally one of absolutes.

You can guarantee to a very high degree of probability that the road hasn't changed just because you cant see it anymore.

You can guarantee that if there are no side turnings, no unlit car (a distinctly rare possibility in the unlit countryside at night) has pulled out in front of you.

So what is left. You know where the road is. You know that nothing you didn't see before is on your side of the road. You know exactly where the oncoming car is.

What is left is the minute possibility that some unlit object has materialised in the road in front of you.

That is small, but not infinitely small. Deer do leap out of hedges BUT if you drive on that assumption, you will, even in daylight, do less than 5mph on any country road. Because that is about as fast as you can go and absolutely guarantee you will never hit a deer.

In general just about any other animal will look at you and its eyes will light up. Pretty visible in any conditions, and whilst it may dent the car, it won't normally kill you. Unless you slam on the brakes and lose control.. I always choose *my* life over a small furry animals, I'm selfish like that.

In addition tree branches DO fall on cars. However they can do that in any light conditions. Round here the wiser drivers note that one or two people a year, driving in gale force conditions, get killed by branches falling on cars. They stay at home.

Slowing down makes remarkably little difference to any of these hazards. The only difference it does make, is when you hit the deer. Over about

60mph it is a very serious accident. So if the road is bounded by the sort of woods that deer like, AND deer are known to exist locally. pushing on much faster than that carries a distinct risk.

Which is why, round here, I don't do it.

HOWEVER that isn't the case on other roads.

[The Natural Philosopher]

We were talking about caravans. I asked you to cite a caravan that is suitable engineered to be safe to be towed by a normal saloon car at over 60mph. You have failed to answer the question.

The vast majority of cars by the way are capable of whatever speed they will actually do. To fail to be so, renders them liable to being sued by customers. That is precisely why top line fast saloons are limited to a safe speed for the tyres.

The vast majority of drivers are perfectly capable of driving safely at any speed in the right conditions.

I agree that they are not capable of safely driving at any speed in

*any* conditions, but so what? THEY are the best judge of that aren't they?

And how many speed limits take into account the conditions. VERY few.

[The Natural Philosopher]

There you go then. You couldn't do it could you?

>

[The Natural Philosopher]

The latter.

That's his problem. Seems a novel enough way to commit suicide.

Well you can't actually say he is a bad one for sure, for that reason. He might actually have seen the train, and decided he has the time to do it. That's his prerogative really, and there is - short of cameraing up every crossing, not much you can do to stop him.

I personally wouldn't do it unless I had a very pressing reason. Its a very high risk for and extremely small gain in speed. The risk/benefit analysis is not good.

I don't ignore them. I understand why they are there, and use them as a reasonable guide. I don't slavishly obey them at all times. That's all.

I see you failed to answer that question.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Er..no.

[Tim Lamb]

In message , The Natural Philosopher writes

I've already mentioned my maths problems but I hate to think what speed you would need to get up to.

I think this is the only practical solution. Remember any one of that long line could pull out to overtake, not realising what you are trying to achieve.

Anchors on and shave across the rear bumper of the one in front of the lorry. He isn't going to be able to close the gap and should be wise enough to know what you are doing.

I have always believed that the *accelerate out of trouble* folk have been listening too closely to the car salesman.

Closing gaps or otherwise using a moving vehicle to enforce your view of the law is incredibly stupid.

regards

[Dave Liquorice]

Or protect people from their own stupidity. Recent story of young woman lucky to be alive herself and not killed others by her actions trying to blame a sat nav and can't follow simple instructions:

[dennis]

I am not a TV presenter and I don't need to do stupid things for kicks. They don't have that job because they are good drivers or do you think they are?

[dennis]

If they did what they said then er yes.

[John Rumm]

Look at the bright side though, free food! ;-)

[John Rumm]

Erm, no. Think about it. The book specifies vehicle separation in seconds, not distance. That automatically scales with speed.

Sorry, but the laws of physics apply to you as well.

Do you not? Too busy telling everyone they can't drive and you are the only one who can it seems. Perhaps one day we will all be a good as you eh?

[The Natural Philosopher]

Er..you obviously don't know who Lewis Hamilton is, do you?

Another thing to add to a long list of things you know sod all about, but write authoritatvely on.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Rules are not necessarily laws. Saying something is not necessarily doing it.

Thank GOD you aren't involved in matters legal, moral or law enforcing.

[Steve Firth]

No, it's why they need to be removed.

Nothing if you're a vindictive petty minded Daily Mail reader.

No we weren't.

[The Natural Philosopher]

True. Had several road kill pheasants. Pheasant vindaloo is highly recommended.

[The Natural Philosopher]

I'd rather be alive. How he has managed it must be down to pure luck.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Makes you long for the good old days of the 60's. The really bad drivers lasted months only.

[John Rumm]

Had to make do with a lamb one last night... don't think that was roadkill though, although I suppose you never know!

[John Rumm]

Its, ok, he likes to live everyone else's lives for them, so it does not matter if he one of his own.

[dennis]

Quote from the post you are replying too>>>