Automotive What's the Point of High-Powered Cars in a World of Speed Limits?

[wolram]

AFAIK the only country one can go above 70mph is Germany, so why are these huge engined cars sold world wide, what is the use owning a car with a v10 engine capable of 200mph when your local motorway has a 70mph top limit.
In fact some 1600cc cars can go over 120mph, it is just crazy when every one is complaining of fuel costs, the most sensible thing would be to design a car with a max of 100mph you can have all the bells and whistles on it you want, so long as can pull a caravan

 

[billy_joule]

AFAIK the only country one can go above 70mph is Germany, so why are these huge engined cars sold world wide, what is the use owning a car with a v10 engine capable of 200mph when your local motorway has a 70mph top limit.
In fact some 1600cc cars can go over 120mph, it is just crazy when every one is complaining of fuel costs, the most sensible thing would be to design a car with a max of 100mph you can have all the bells and whistles on it you want, so long as can pull a caravan

I don't understand it either.
The social and economic costs of speeding are huge and governments spend millions on ad campaigns trying to scare drivers into staying within the speed limit.
Speeding is the second greatest cause of traffic incidents, behind distraction and ahead of alcohol, and the (partial) solution seems bleedingly obvious - speed limiters.
Of the cars that do have speed limiters the lowest I've heard of is 180 km/hr, many german cars are 250 km/hr.
There are so many safety regulations piled on production cars manufacturers but limiters never get a mention? Perplexing.

 

[DaveC426913]

Well, for starters because large manufacturers are not in the business of deciding for us what we need.
It is the consumers that drive what the manufacturers produce.
And consumers don't have to justify their desires.

This is an argument my wife puts forth a lot 'Why would anyone need X? Why don't we only make Y?'
To which my response is (diplomatically) 'Not your call'.

 

[wolram]

Look at this list, one has to go back to a 1973 mk 3 triumph to find a reasonable spec car, sure safety has improved and production costs have come down so we should be able to make a mk3 triumph variant cheaply and safe.
http://www.autosnout.com/Car-Top-Speed-List.php

 

[DaveC426913]

By whose definition of 'reasonable'? And who said 'reasonable' is the only allowed goal?

If you want a reasonable car, get a Corolla.
Are you deciding what other people should get to want? or am I missing the point of this thread?

 

[wolram]

Well, for starters because large manufacturers are not in the business of deciding for us what we need.
It is the consumers that drive what the manufacturers produce.
And consumers don't have to justify their desires.

This is an argument my wife puts forth a lot 'Why would anyone need X? Why don't we only make Y?'
To which my response is (diplomatically) 'Not your call'.

It should be down to governments,god help us, to make sane judgments on car manufacturers they make up the speed limits.

 

[DaveC426913]

It should be down to governments,god help us, to make sane judgments on car manufacturers they make up the speed limits.

It's not up to the government to decide what we want.

I think you will find that high speed is not the greatest cause of preventable accidents, so limiting it in cars is not an effective strategy for saving lives and property.

 

[wolram]

By whose definition of 'reasonable'? And who said 'reasonable' is the only allowed goal?

If you want a reasonable car, get a Corolla.
Are you deciding what other people should get to want? or am I missing the point of this thread?

Look at my list Dave then decide is you want one of the top 30,40 cars(why would you) unless you want to be able to break the law in first gear

 

[DaveC426913]

What's your point? It's a free country. Who gets to decide what people are allowed to want?

Less argumentatively: what problem are you hoping you solve?

 

[wolram]

It's not up to the government to decide what we want.

I think you will find that high speed is not the greatest cause of preventable accidents, so limiting it in cars is not an effective strategy for saving lives and property.

http://think.direct.gov.uk/speed.html the government think differently.

 

[SteamKing]

AFAIK the only country one can go above 70mph is Germany, so why are these huge engined cars sold world wide, what is the use owning a car with a v10 engine capable of 200mph when your local motorway has a 70mph top limit.

This statement is not true. There are a number of countries around the globe where speeds of 70 mph and above are legal. In some of these countries, you don't want to drive less than 70, if you value your life.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limits_by_country

In fact some 1600cc cars can go over 120mph, it is just crazy when every one is complaining of fuel costs, the most sensible thing would be to design a car with a max of 100mph you can have all the bells and whistles on it you want, so long as can pull a caravan

Why 100 mph? If you can't drive legally at 100 mph, why should your car be able to go that fast? Why not 35 mph, if fuel costs are the determining factor?

Why do trains get to go 180 mph? Because they run on track? What about derailments?

Same with planes. Why should planes fly 500 mph? Why not 100 mph? There are planes which are perfectly capable of flying at 100 mph.

If you drive over 100 mph and then complain about fuel cost, don't drive that fast.

 

[DaveC426913]

http://think.direct.gov.uk/speed.html the government think differently.

Considering their benchmark is 30mph, I don't know how it applies to fast cars going fast. It applies to lead feet on urban streets. Even a VW can do 30.

 

[wolram]

What's your point? It's a free country. Who gets to decide what people are allowed to want?

Less argumentatively: what problem are you hoping you solve?

It is not a free country, one can not do as one wants, if governments are elected to support speed limits they should not allow cars that can break it in first gear.

 

[DaveC426913]

It is not a free country, one can not do as one wants, if governments are elected to support speed limits they should not allow cars that can break it in first gear.

Well, the difference between capitalism and fascism is how much the government gets to decide what's best for everyone.

 

[wolram]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limits_by_country
I do not see any country that allows the driving speed or any where near it.

 

[wolram]

Well, the difference between capitalism and fascism is how much the government gets to decide what's best for everyone.

This is the one time that Volkswagen should win, the peoples car in fact, you can tart it up give it other specs but keep the top speed below 100mph.

 

[phinds]

It is not a free country, one can not do as one wants, if governments are elected to support speed limits they should not allow cars that can break it in first gear.

Fortunately, you are wrong. This IS a free country, more or less, and If you don't like it, you should go live in a country where the government gets to decide such thing. There are some.

Why are you so intent on imposing your morality on other people? It won't work, you know. People will decide what they want, and I'll bet none of them consult you, and manufacturers will build what they want.

You are making a logical argument that is divorced from the reality of the world we live in.

 

[wolram]

Fortunately, you are wrong. This IS a free country, more or less, and If you don't like it, you should go live in a country where the government gets to decide such thing. There are some.

Why are you so intent on imposing your morality on other people? It won't work, you know. People will decide what they want, and I'll bet none of them consult you, and manufacturers will build what they want.

You are making a logical argument that is divorced from the reality of the world we live in.

You are wrong, this is not a free country, we have laws, where the hell is the sense in allowing cars on our roads that can break the speed limit 3 times over

 

[phinds]

You are wrong, this is not a free country, we have laws, where the hell is the sense in allowing cars on our roads that can break the speed limit 3 times over

Again, you are making a logical argument that is pointless. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying it doesn't matter. People are going to do what THEY want to do, not what you want them to do.

 

[wolram]

Again, you are making a logical argument that is pointless. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying it doesn't matter. People are going to do what THEY want to do, not what you want them to do.

And they are going to keep on killing innocent people. if you look at my other post SPEED KILLS it is official.

 

[phinds]

And they are going to keep on killing innocent people. if you look at my other post SPEED KILLS it is official.

As I said, I'm not arguing with your point, I'm just saying it is divorced from the reality we live in.

Popcorn has little to no nutritional value and when slathered with salt and butter, it's definitely bad for you. I eat it every now and then. By your logic, the government should ban popcorn. It's not going to happen.

You are doing what in the military is called "pissing up a rope". You'll get yourself wet and have zero effect on the rest of the world.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

what is the use owning a car with a v10 engine capable of 200mph when your local motorway has a 70mph top limit.
In fact some 1600cc cars can go over 120mph, it is just crazy when every one is complaining of fuel costs, the most sensible thing would be to design a car with a max of 100mph

It's my understanding that one of the reasons cars can go much faster than the streets they drive is for engine longevity. A car moving at half its capability will wear down less than a car moving at near max capability.

 

[wolram]

It's my understanding that one of the reasons cars can go much faster than the streets they drive is for engine longevity. A car moving at half its capability will wear down less than a car moving at near max capability.

So some of the super cars will have to drive at well in excess of 200mph to save there engines

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

So some of the super cars will have to drive at well in excess of 200mph to save there engines

The super cars are often driven at very fast speeds on tracks

 

[wolram]

As I said, I'm not arguing with your point, I'm just saying it is divorced from the reality we live in.

Popcorn has little to no nutritional value and when slathered with salt and butter, it's definitely bad for you. I eat it every now and then. By your logic, the government should ban popcorn. It's not going to happen.

You are doing what in the military is called "pissing up a rope". You'll get yourself wet and have zero effect on the rest of the world.

I may well be pissing up a rope but any sane person would agree there should be a( safe) speed to drive. and for any government to allow car manufacturers to build and sell car that can break this limit may just as well be in the military selling guns.

 

[wolram]

The super cars are often driven at very fast speeds on tracks

Fair enough, they can and do kill them self's on tracks even

 

[xxChrisxx]

AFAIK the only country one can go above 70mph is Germany, so why are these huge engined cars sold world wide, what is the use owning a car with a v10 engine capable of 200mph when your local motorway has a 70mph top limit.

Because, top trumps.

plus V10s sound amazing.

 

[billy_joule]

Well, for starters because large manufacturers are not in the business of deciding for us what we need.

They already have and still do. My first car, a 1983 Mitsubishi Cordia turbo, like nearly all japanese cars, was limited to 180km/hr. This was not due to consumer demand.

It's not up to the government to decide what we want.

Many governments (Japan, Korea, EU) have put pedestrian safety legislation in place, if car designs don't meet the spec. they can't be sold. (I recall cars failing due to poor bumper design but google is not forthcoming with a link)
I assume it's the same for many other now ubiquitous safety features - seat belts, airbags, crumple zones etc

I think you will find that high speed is not the greatest cause of preventable accidents, so limiting it in cars is not an effective strategy for saving lives and property.

By that reasoning we should give up attempting to reduce obesity because it's not the greatest cause of preventable deaths..

Why do trains get to go 180 mph?

Because experts have deemed it is a safe speed for the given system?
Are trains capable of going over double their max posted speed limit? I wouldn't think so, it would be a total waste of resources, no one would buy a train that over engineered.
It's not a great analogy as the owner and driver are not the same person unlike most cars, but the point stands, why do we produce cars capable of over double the speed that the system is intended for?

Who here has driven their car at it's max speed? Driving safely at 200km/hr requires skill well beyond any normal driver licensing process provides and most roads are not designed for it.

 

[DaveC426913]

By that reasoning we should give up attempting to reduce obesity because it's not the greatest cause of preventable deaths..

Bad analogy. Obesity is not a market-driven feature.

I'm not saying there's no point in reducing accidents at high speeds, I'm saying, if Wolram wants to save lots of lives, he's being penny-wise but pound-foolish.

 

[xxChrisxx]

Look at this list, one has to go back to a 1973 mk 3 triumph to find a reasonable spec car, sure safety has improved and production costs have come down so we should be able to make a mk3 triumph variant cheaply and safe.
http://www.autosnout.com/Car-Top-Speed-List.php

http://www.parkers.co.uk/cars/reviews/facts-and-figures/dacia/sandero/hatchback-2013/58120/

There you go old boy. Safe in the knowledge that it'd only do 100mph if you drove it off a cliff.
Cheap as chips too.

Now I'll have the M5 thanks.

 

[DaveC426913]

I still don't understand what you're trying to prevent. Deaths?

Far more deaths occur below 100km/h than occur above it. Top speed of the car is not a big factor.
The big factor is speed relative to posted speed limit.
So, you'd reduce top speed and death rates would hardly be affected.

 

[dipole]

A car which could only go 100mph top speed actually wouldn't be very safe. It's import that an engine have enough power to be able to quickly overtake other cars that are traveling near or above the speed limit, for the purposes of normal lane switching/merging etc.

A car which has to slowly meander into another lane instead of being able to quickly accelerate and overtake another car so it can fit into an opening can cause a dangerous chain-reaction of breaking that can propagate miles backward.

A powerful/fast engine doesn't mean people intend to drive it at that speed all the time - usually only for a brief moment to allow safe or strategic manoeuvring while in traffic. If you've never driven on large congested highways this concept might be difficult to understand.

 

[SteamKing]

Because experts have deemed it is a safe speed for the given system?

Ah, I forgot briefly that we live in the Age where we graciously allow our lives to be overriden and managed by great masses of faceless, unnamed 'experts', man of whom are known as such only because that's what they call themselves.

 

[billy_joule]

Bad analogy. Obesity is not a market-driven feature.

The cheap, high fat and sugar foods driving the so called obesity epidemic are market driven (they taste better so people buy them) and many governments are legislating against them in the interest of public safety.

My point was that just because something is not the leading cause of traffic incidents doesn't mean it should be ignored outright as these comments imply:

I think you will find that high speed is not the greatest cause of preventable accidents, so limiting it in cars is not an effective strategy for saving lives and property.

Far more deaths occur below 100km/h than occur above it. Top speed of the car is not a big factor.
The big factor is speed relative to posted speed limit.
So, you'd reduce top speed and death rates would hardly be affected.

The big factor is mean speed, which of course is related to top speed:

''The likelihood of casualty crash involvement doubles for every 10 km/h above a 100 km/h posted limit''
https://infrastructure.gov.au/roads/safety/publications/1997/pdf/Speed_Risk_1.pdf""There is a large amount of evidence of a significant relationship between mean speed and crash risk:
• The probability of a crash involving an injury is proportional to the square of the speed. The probability of a serious crash is proportional to the cube of the speed. The probability of a fatal crash is related to the fourth power of the speed (38, 39).
• Empirical evidence from speed studies in various countries has shown that an increase of 1 km/h in mean traffic speed typically results in a 3% increase in the incidence of injury crashes (or an increase of 4–5% for fatal crashes), and a decrease of 1 km/h in mean traffic speed will result in a 3% decrease in the incidence of injury crashes (or a decrease of 4–5% for fatal crashes) (40).""
http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/42871/1/9241562609.pdf
(world report on road traffic injury prevention - WHO)

A car which could only go 100mph top speed actually wouldn't be very safe. It's import that an engine have enough power to be able to quickly overtake other cars that are traveling near or above the speed limit, for the purposes of normal lane switching/merging etc.

I don't think overtaking cars that are already traveling above the speed limit is considered 'normal' by any road safety authority.
Going 100mph is 40mph above the max speed in most countries and results in instant license suspension in many countries. No safe overtaking manoeuvre requires exceeding the speed limit by over 60%.
The claim that 'faster cars are safer' is a myth. Of course it's important to consider your cars performance when overtaking but having a car that can overtake quickly is not inherently safer, it only means you can make smaller gaps.

 

[dipole]

The reality is, most highways in the U.S. the typical driving speed is about 80 mph when traffic is not heavy. This seems to be true regardless of the speed limit - I have lived on both sides of the U.S. and driven cross-country, and whether I'm on a highway where the speed limit is 55 mph or 75 mph, people generally drive at about 80 if there's plenty of space.

That being said, a car whose top speed is near 100 mph is going to accelerate very slowly in the range of 80 mph - making manoeuvring in traffic difficult.

I know common sense would say that applying your break is safer than accelerating in cases where you need to move around other cars, but that's really not how it works. Breaking causes confusion among other drivers and creates dangerous situations often.

 

[billy_joule]

Ah, I forgot briefly that we live in the Age where we graciously allow our lives to be overriden and managed by great masses of faceless, unnamed 'experts', man of whom are known as such only because that's what they call themselves.

Imagine PF if we didn't:

Train driver needs help

Hi, I've derailed three trains this past week, my train is 100 tonnes, the curve in question has a radius of 200 m, I've tried 80, 70 and 100 km/hr with no luck, how fast can I go without derailling? pls halp, I'm close to getting fired and the blood of the innocent passengers is weighing on my mind.
sincerely, the fat conductor.

 

[russ_watters]

AFAIK the only country one can go above 70mph is Germany, so why are these huge engined cars sold world wide, what is the use owning a car with a v10 engine capable of 200mph when your local motorway has a 70mph top limit.
In fact some 1600cc cars can go over 120mph, it is just crazy when every one is complaining of fuel costs, the most sensible thing would be to design a car with a max of 100mph you can have all the bells and whistles on it you want, so long as can pull a caravan

As far as I can see, no one pointed out the physics/engineering flaw in your argument. The primary one is that engine power doesn't just provide for top speed, it also provides for acceleration, hill-climbing ability and towing/cargo capacity:

A buddy of mine owned a VW Rabbit that had something like 70hp and topped out at around 70mph. Going up a moderate hill on a highway meant going 40mph in second gear, with your fingers crossed.

My first car (that I really owned) was an Eagle Talon (Mitsubishi Eclipse) that had something like 95 hp, but it was really aerodynamic, so it topped-out at 110, but it was woefully underpowered for acceleration and hill climbing.

My second car was a Mazda 6 with 160 hp. It probably also topped out around 110, but was much better accelerating than the Talon. Still, I noticed times when more power would have been nice.

My current car is a Kia Optima turbo, with 275 hp. I've never used all the horses and it definitely doesn't top out at 110.

 

[nsaspook]

I've driven legally at 85 mph (5+ the legal limit) in Utah past Provo for hundreds of miles to Vegas and it's 85 at some roads in Texas. You need the power for acceleration with a load of six people and their luggage. It's also 115+ outside in summer so the AC is going full blast while you're driving up from the river. The last thing you need is some puny engine blowing a gasket and stranding your family in the middle of the desert.
http://www.speed-limits.com/texas.htm

 

[wolram]

The reality is, most highways in the U.S. the typical driving speed is about 80 mph when traffic is not heavy. This seems to be true regardless of the speed limit - I have lived on both sides of the U.S. and driven cross-country, and whether I'm on a highway where the speed limit is 55 mph or 75 mph, people generally drive at about 80 if there's plenty of space.

That being said, a car whose top speed is near 100 mph is going to accelerate very slowly in the range of 80 mph - making manoeuvring in traffic difficult.

I know common sense would say that applying your break is safer than accelerating in cases where you need to move around other cars, but that's really not how it works. Breaking causes confusion among other drivers and creates dangerous situations often.

This is not true engine manufacturers can tune a engine to rev up to 100mph then hit the limiter (goes off cam) quite easily.

 

[wolram]

As far as I can see, no one pointed out the physics/engineering flaw in your argument. The primary one is that engine power doesn't just provide for top speed, it also provides for acceleration, hill-climbing ability and towing/cargo capacity:

A buddy of mine owned a VW Rabbit that had something like 70hp and topped out at around 70mph. Going up a moderate hill on a highway meant going 40mph in second gear, with your fingers crossed.

My first car (that I really owned) was an Eagle Talon (Mitsubishi Eclipse) that had something like 95 hp, but it was really aerodynamic, so it topped-out at 110, but it was woefully underpowered for acceleration and hill climbing.

My second car was a Mazda 6 with 160 hp. It probably also topped out around 110, but was much better accelerating than the Talon. Still, I noticed times when more power would have been nice.

My current car is a Kia Optima turbo, with 275 hp. I've never used all the horses and it definitely doesn't top out at 110.

A 1600cccar is what you need regulated to 70mph top speed, may be with a( kick down)for emergencies.
Why have 275hp if you do not use it, may be you are planning a bank robbery

 

[256bits]

I may well be pissing up a rope but any sane person would agree there should be a( safe) speed to drive. and for any government to allow car manufacturers to build and sell car that can break this limit may just as well be in the military selling guns.

I don't think that you have a non-valid position. Everyone thinks that they are better driver than anyone on the road around them. You know the old "What's that idiot doing &%# ". Slowpoke in the fast lane doing the speed limit.
Trouble is today with most cars is that they are built that much better than yesterdays. One can be doing 80mph ands not realize it all, with the car not shimmying and rattling and feeling like it is going to fall apart. The extra speed from powerful engines is really not needed for most peoples purposes - they just think they have to have it just in case they might use it. Grown ups after all, and they never not admit it, in one form or another, are just as susceptible to flashy things as kids, and with cars it is exhibited in color, style, power, gadgets,... Tim The Tool Guy was not really that far off.

Having said that, I am not all that much in favour of a mandatory governor attached speed regulator. If someone wants to purchase car insurance at a lower premium from an insurance company inspects the driving record from an attached monitoring device then all the more powere to them also.

Speed does not kill - stupidity does. Speeding over the speed limit is really a non-issue. Speeding in excess of the capability as a driver, in excess of what the car's performance is, in excess over and above what road conditions ( it is actually possible to be driving at a lower speed than the speed limit and still be stupid by not taking into consideration of the road conditions ), in excess of what other drivers around can be comfortable with ( a lousy driver might not be in an accident, but he can sure as fire be the cause of other driver being in one ).

As an anecdote, just the other day ( actually a few months back in warmer weather ) three motorbikes traveling a few clicks faster than the posted speed limit, driving two abreast in one lane, then all three taking all three lanes, then spitting up, then one pops a wheely. Now if all that isn't just too much of "I am on the road and it is all mine" mentality. If the wheely guy did just hit a bit of a bump and flips, well, being driven over by the vehicle behind I don't think is much too pleasant. Plain stupid, really.

 

[wolram]

Bad analogy. Obesity is not a market-driven feature.

I'm not saying there's no point in reducing accidents at high speeds, I'm saying, if Wolram wants to save lots of lives, he's being penny-wise but pound-foolish.

What does it take Dave, i have seen three fatal accidents in as many months, the details mean nothing to the dead, what can i do other than protest in fora like this and hope some thing rubs off on people.

 

[Ranger Mike]

One point needs to be corrected. In the USA you can drive as fast as you wish. it is called private property. You can drive a motor vehicle drunk if you like. You can build a 1000 horsepower automobile and drive it like you stole it if you choose.
Driving on public roads is a privilege not a right. certain laws are in effect to govern this traffic.
It is ironic that this discussion came on the eve of Veterans Day. Freedom is good!

 

[xxChrisxx]

What does it take Dave, i have seen three fatal accidents in as many months, the details mean nothing to the dead, what can i do other than protest in fora like this and hope some thing rubs off on people.

I've only seen one accident that resulted in injury in over 10 years, that was a bicycle riding into the back of a car. Does my anecdote beat yours?

The problem with 'speed kills' as a campaign is that it is not a good way to promote good road craft. Distilling the sense of 'good' or 'bad' driving to a single metric makes people switch their brain off if they meet that metric. People thinking that they can't be doing anything dangerous because they are traveling slightly slower than some arbitrary number.

Good road craft focuses on perception and reading the road ahead and the appropriateness of what you are doing. The moment you stop questioning 'am I driving appropriately' is the moment you become potentially dangerous.



Also I'd like to point out that jumping up and down about limiting cars to 70mph makes little sense from a safety perspective. Motorways have by far the highest average speed of all the roads you can travel on, but are by far the safest roads.

Your 70mph limited car, can still travel 70mph in a 20mph limit past a busy school.

I'd advocate reducing speed limits on busy urban roads, but it really makes little sense to keep the motorway speed limit the same as that set 50 years ago.

 

[wolram]

I've only seen one accident that resulted in injury in over 10 years, that was a bicycle riding into the back of a car. Does my anecdote beat yours?

The problem with 'speed kills' as a campaign is that it is not a good way to promote good road craft. Distilling the sense of 'good' or 'bad' driving to a single metric makes people switch their brain off if they meet that metric. People thinking that they can't be doing anything dangerous because they are traveling slightly slower than some arbitrary number.

Good road craft focuses on perception and reading the road ahead and the appropriateness of what you are doing. The moment you stop questioning 'am I driving appropriately' is the moment you become potentially dangerous.
Also I'd like to point out that jumping up and down about limiting cars to 70mph makes little sense from a safety perspective. Motorways have by far the highest average speed of all the roads you can travel on, but are by far the safest roads.

Your 70mph limited car, can still travel 70mph in a 20mph limit past a busy school.

I'd advocate reducing speed limits on busy urban roads, but it really makes little sense to keep the motorway speed limit the same as that set 50 years ago.

Motor ways are the safest roads to travel on no argument there,, i would however challenge a (normal) driver to drive at 100mph safely on a 70 limited motorway for more than a few miles, it takes concentration, some thing we are all lacking for sustained driving at that speed
I really do not understand what you are all quibbling about, i doubt if you flout the laws of the land by speeding so why would you want a car that can go double the speed limit yet alone treble

 

[xxChrisxx]

Motor ways are the safest roads to travel on no argument there,, i would however challenge a (normal) driver to drive at 100mph safely on a 70 limited motorway for more than a few miles, it takes concentration, some thing we are all lacking for sustained driving at that speed

M6 toll and M6 from J4 down would hypothetically be easy peasy to sustain a lepton. M40 is also a really nice road to get a move on too. I'd probably estimate average outside lane speeds in free flowing traffic are 85mph + these days and its creeping up slowly. The perverse thing is it really doesn't feel fast.

I hate driving in towns though. All sub 30mph, all stop start surrounded by hyper aggressive physcos. I'd take flying up and down the motorway over it any day.

I really do not understand what you are all quibbling about, i doubt if you flout the laws of the land by speeding so why would you want a car that can go double the speed limit yet alone treble

For the same reason I have a watch that is waterproof to 100m.

 

[wolram]

M6 toll and M6 from J4 down would hypothetically be easy peasy to sustain a lepton. M40 is also a really nice road to get a move on too. I'd probably estimate average outside lane speeds in free flowing traffic are 85mph + these days and its creeping up slowly. The perverse thing is it really doesn't feel fast.

I hate driving in towns though. All sub 30mph, all stop start surrounded by hyper aggressive physcos. I'd take flying up and down the motorway over it any day.For the same reason I have a watch that is waterproof to 100m.

Are you really admitting breaking the law of the land?, okay 15mph over is only points on your licence, but what should the punishment be for going 30, 60, 90, 120 over

 

[xxChrisxx]

I'm merely pointing out casual observations regarding the average speed of the outside lane in free flowing traffic. There should be no outright punishment for traveling any speed over and above an arbitrary limit set 50 years ago. Each case should be considered on it's merits, unfortunately this is impractical to do in reality.

140mph down an empty M6 toll is perfectly feasible and not really dangerous at all. Weaving through traffic at 70mph during rush hour on the M6 is colossally dangerous.

The Germans got it right with the autobahns.

 

[wolram]

Even the Germans are looking into autobahn death rate.
http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/may/13/speed-limits-reduce-number-road-deaths.

What more can be said, the last of the countries with no speed limit on their roads are getting worried about the death rate.
sorry xxChrisxx you are out and out wrong.

 

[xxChrisxx]

Even the Germans are looking into autobahn death rate.
http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/may/13/speed-limits-reduce-number-road-deaths.

What more can be said, the last of the countries with no speed limit on their roads are getting worried about the death rate.
sorry xxChrisxx you are out and out wrong.

They may be, but it's extremely unlikely to happen. The big three hold far too much sway. I'd also like to make clear, that from an ideological point of view to motoring they got it right.

You can go as fast as you like on derestricted sections, but if speed is shown to be a factor you have increased culpability. It also encourages a sense of personal responsibility to others. To pass the driving test in Germany you have to know first aid. The TUV test is far stricter than the MOT. People don't scrimp out on crap tyres, winter tyres are mandatory, etc. The general standard of road craft is higher.

You couldn't apply the same rules that the autobahn has over here, as it would be utter chaos.





This is becoming a bit of a merry go round.

If saving lives is the order of the day, surely it's better to look at urban and rural roads first. Fix the least safe roads before you 'fix' the most safe ones. The issue is not people who belt up and down motorways. It's the 40mph everywhere crowds that are the menace.