So who was it doing 112mph on A30 this afternoon?

[Amarillo]

Im not going to cause others to get frustrated & possibly cause an accident by acting as a mobile road block driving under the speed limit on an empty road if conditions are good.

A friend of mine got into all sorts of problems at university with the same confusion you have. He thought of his overdraft limit as an overdraft target.

Few places have a minimum speed requirement. The 10 mph minimum speed through the Blackwall Tunnel went before pedalling a moped through the tunnel was banned:

https://goo.gl/maps/NiCao1fNGCU2

 

[VW Cali]

The nice thing about the Cali is doing more tgan 70mph doesn't seem like much of an option.

I once had an interesting experience in Germany. A Porsche owning cousin was driving his family in his new Mercedes E 350 CDI estate. We followed in our BMW 750i. On unrestricted autobahn he hit 160kph effortlessly and I followed. He pushed it to 200kph (120mph) and I just about followed. He then cranked up to 250kph, and I found I could not manage more than 200kph.

I mean our car could. It was close to 400bhp. But I couldn't. It jist did not feel safe. I slowed down to 160kph and then 120 kph.

Now it could be that I simply did not have experience of such speeds. But I have taken higher performance cars on such roads and hit higher speeds for short bursts when road is totally clear.

But totally clear then, and totally clear later are different things. Whatever the car's capabilities, these are less so at higher speeds. But any change on road gives you much less chance to react. I was very aware of this sensation.

Afterwards I spoke to squillionaire entrepreneur cousin with multiple degrees. I asked politely if it were safe, and if so wjy didn't he do so in his 911 cabrio instead.

He replied. "Oh, in England you can't but here we can. But I would never do that in my 911. I had the scare of my life when at just 200 nearly it nearly took off and was about to flip over. It doesn't hold the road very well. But no problem with this Merc!"

Now his experience with the 911 didn't surprise me. Engine behind rear axle and resulting odd weight distribution made the older 911s rather nose light. Front end would visibly bob up and down like a boat (yes, at least up to the 997).

But his overall remarks made no sense, and I am being polite.

I asked an actual German friend of mine who grew up near all the car factories in Bavaria amd his reply was insightful. "Oh, in Germany, there is an understanding that beyond 160kph it is hard to react to other drivers on road. That is about the safe limit."

And here we have the wonder of a Cali doing 112mph on a British road!

Wonders shall never cease.

 

[soulstyledevon]

Some of the arguments here are a bit silly. Anyone could think up a worst case scenario for any situation.

The odds of being struck by lightning are 1 in 960000. Does this mean you don't walk anywhere when it's raining...???

 

[Amarillo]

Some of the arguments here are a bit silly. Anyone could think up a worst case scenario for any situation.

The odds of being struck by lightning are 1 in 960000. Does this mean you don't walk anywhere when it's raining...???

No, but I wouldn't sit on the summit of Carrauntoohil with my back leaning against the iron cross in a thunderstorm. Neither would I swim in an open air pool.

 

[vmaxkiddy]

Appropriate speed. That's the term. Sadly most can't define what it is most of the time. One of my pet hates is people that drive at 45 mph on a perfectly good bit of (national limit) road and then continue to drive at 45 through a village...

I call drivers like that F.A.R.Ts. Forty All The Ruddy Time.

 

[VW Cali]

Some of the arguments here are a bit silly. Anyone could think up a worst case scenario for any situation.

The odds of being struck by lightning are 1 in 960000. Does this mean you don't walk anywhere when it's raining...???

Disagree with both conclusion and logic.

The probabilities are not static and are affected by own behaviour.

Your lightening example is incorrect. If you walk outside during a severe lightning storm holding a long pointy metal shaft over your head, your probability of being struck by lightening changes. It may not aooear so to you but trust me it does.

Ditto with driving at high speeds in cars.

There is a reason golfers, with their steel clubs, return so readily to the clubhouse when lightning is around.

 

[MattBW]

It's all about risk and human beings all treat risk differently, you will never get a consensus.

For me it's more about differentials for me than the actual speeds. Trucks restricted to 56, van doing 112, that's double the speed, that's when speed becomes a problem when there is a big difference in the speed of vehicles, be they going too slow or too fast.

At the end of the day the main reason the speed limits were not raised after review was pollution, not really safety. In fact i believe it is the original reason the 70 limit was introduced in the UK (used to be no speed limits on those roads in those days) was because of fuel shortages.

We all know that 90% of drivers when asked will say they are good and safe drivers, we all see enough numpties on the road to question if it is that many, we just have to challenge ourselves whether that's true of ourselves or not.

 

[VW Cali]

It's all about risk and human beings all treat risk differently, you will never get a consensus.

For me it's more about differentials for me than the actual speeds. Trucks restricted to 56, van doing 112, that's double the speed, that's when speed becomes a problem when there is a big difference in the speed of vehicles, be they going too slow or too fast.

At the end of the day the main reason the speed limits were not raised after review was pollution, not really safety. In fact i believe it is the original reason the 70 limit was introduced in the UK (used to be no speed limits on those roads in those days) was because of fuel shortages.

We all know that 90% of drivers when asked will say they are good and safe drivers, we all see enough numpties on the road to question if it is that many, we just have to challenge ourselves whether that's true of ourselves or not.

Matt, just this morning I was scribbling equations where I had set road safety as standard deviation of speeds!

I was going to out it up for Tom, who also has a maths degree I .

The basic metric is departure from laminar flow. If all cars move at same speed and direction then safety is optimal in some sense. At extreme other end is turbulence like behaviour with varying speeds and directions.

Now in this gedanken, German for thought experiment, throw into the laminar case a single vehicle with different speed and/or direction. This will cause a ripple effect and a non zero standard distribution of speeds and directions.

Now this model states that unusually excessive or slow speeds are both unsafe. If you then put in a factor responding to human response times tgrn one can see why high speeds cause more deaths than say incidents caused by very slow speeds.

But both are unsafe in above model and corresponds with my own experience. There is a reason one should not do 20mph on motorway either.

I am sure I can set up a full blown mathematical simulation within a couple of days. It will be so easy to program up. But the answer is already somewhat obvious.

 

[Velma's Dad]

The odds of being struck by lightning are 1 in 960000. Does this mean you don't walk anywhere when it's raining...???

That would be the probability on any given day. The probability over a lifetime is much greater than that (even though still pretty low of course).

Most people comprehend that Risk = Probability x Consequence. However the Probability part is itself a function of Single-exposure Probability x Number of Exposures. It's the last bit that humans often fail to take into account.

Out on a mountain in a thunderstorm? Well the risk on that one day would still be reasonably low (although I still wouldn't be shackling myself to Crispin and his ironwork, but let's not go there ). But if I did it regularly, the lifetime risk would be very high, which is why there are forest rangers in the USA who have been hit by lightning multiple times.

There is no 'safe' or 'unsafe', just degrees of risk and the total risk increases the more you do something. Even though, paraxodically, our perception of risk tends to fall, the more we do something.

So the first time you drive at 112mph you'll be aware it's pretty dangerous - if you do it every week you'll start to regard it is reasonably safe - regardless of the facts.

 

[soulstyledevon]

It's all about risk and human beings all treat risk differently, you will never get a consensus.
.

True.
My mother in law is scared of planes, because she sees a risk in them falling out the sky, boats because they might sink and trains because she seen them crash on TV.
What this means is, she has never left the British Isles and won't participate in anything remote or slightly risky.
She has lead a devastatingly boring and plain lifestyle...!!!

Very sad.

 

[VW Cali]

That would be the probability on any given day. The probability over a lifetime is much greater than that (even though still pretty low of course).

Most people comprehend that Risk = Probability x Consequence. However the Probability part is itself a function of Single-exposure Probability x Number of Exposures. It's the last bit that humans often fail to take into account.

Out on a mountain in a thunderstorm? Well the risk on that one day would still be reasonably low (although I still wouldn't be shackling myself to Crispin and his ironwork, but let's not go there ). But if I did it regularly, the lifetime risk would be very high, which is why there are forest rangers in the USA who have been hit by lightning multiple times.

There is no 'safe' or 'unsafe', just degrees of risk and the total risk increases the more you do something. Even though, paraxodically, our perception of risk tends to fall, the more we do something.

So the first time you drive at 112mph you'll be aware it's pretty dangerous - if you do it every week you'll start to regard it is reasonably safe - regardless of the facts.

Pity there is only an agree option.

This is one of the best posts I have ever read on this site. Quite possibly the best.

On a funny note, it does explain a subtle distinction between the infamous law of averages impression amongst the general population, and the probability of an event or more in long term.

Poisson processes anyone? Or compound Poisson processes for those with an insurance mind set?

 

[Amarillo]

Pity there is only an agree option.

"Clever stuff"?

 

[GrannyJen]

That would be the probability on any given day. The probability over a lifetime is much greater than that (even though still pretty low of course).

Most people comprehend that Risk = Probability x Consequence. However the Probability part is itself a function of Single-exposure Probability x Number of Exposures. It's the last bit that humans often fail to take into account.

Out on a mountain in a thunderstorm? Well the risk on that one day would still be reasonably low (although I still wouldn't be shackling myself to Crispin and his ironwork, but let's not go there ). But if I did it regularly, the lifetime risk would be very high, which is why there are forest rangers in the USA who have been hit by lightning multiple times.

There is no 'safe' or 'unsafe', just degrees of risk and the total risk increases the more you do something. Even though, paraxodically, our perception of risk tends to fall, the more we do something.

So the first time you drive at 112mph you'll be aware it's pretty dangerous - if you do it every week you'll start to regard it is reasonably safe - regardless of the facts.

As someone who is a member of the lucky strike club twice I am now totally reevaluating my life based on this post

 

[Joker 1299]

U.K. Speed limits were arbitrarily set when cars and trucks had drum brakes and skinny tyres and consequently longer stopping distances than modern vehicles. When limits are reviewed, generally by local polititions, they are more often than not, reduced; imagine the comeback if they raised a limit and someone had an accident.

If you follow all the rules, you don't live longer; it just seems like it!

 

[Amarillo]

When limits are reviewed, generally by local polititions, they are more often than not, reduced

Not true. National speed limits have increased on average 0.19 mph per year in urban areas over the past 151 years and 0.37 mph per year in non-urban areas (exc. motorways and dual carriageways) over the same time period.

 

[MattBW]

That would be the probability on any given day. The probability over a lifetime is much greater than that (even though still pretty low of course).

Most people comprehend that Risk = Probability x Consequence. However the Probability part is itself a function of Single-exposure Probability x Number of Exposures. It's the last bit that humans often fail to take into account.

Which I guess is why your insurance costs increase as you do more mileage

 

[andyinluton]

Not true. National speed limits have increased on average 0.19 mph per year in urban areas over the past 151 years and 0.37 mph per year in non-urban areas (exc. motorways and dual carriageways) over the same time period.

I would have thought that bloke walking in front holding the red flag for the first 31 of those years then the urban limit being 20mph between 1903 and 1930 probably accounts for that increase! what are the stats for say 1970-2016

As Denis Turner Head Economist at HSBC used to say "a man with his head in the oven & his feet in the freezer is on average, at a comfortable temperature"

you can make statistics fit to prove most things if you try hard enough.

 

[VW Cali]

As someone who is a member of the lucky strike club twice I am now totally reevaluating my life based on this post

Yes that pointy metal hat must go!

Pray, how did it happen?

 

[VW Cali]

I would have thought that bloke walking in front holding the red flag for the first 31 of those years probably accounts for that increase!

As Denis Turner Head Economist at HSBC used to say "a man with his head in the oven & his feet in the freezer is on average comfortable" you can make statistics fit to prove most things if you try hard enough.

Economists, good Lord!

They remind me of the famous Confucion saying:

"A man who walks with his shoe on his ear is deaf to the sound of his feet."

 

[sidepod]

Right I'm convinced.

Tonight on my way home I'm changing up at 7500 instead of waiting for the shift light.

 

[Amarillo]

The odds of being struck by lightning are 1 in 960000.

That would be the probability on any given day.

Something not right here: it implies about 70 people in the UK bring struck by lightning daily, 25,000 per year and a 1 in 38 chance of being stuck by lightning in a lifetime of 70 years. I suspect that the one in about a million chance over a year is more likely; 1:14,000 over a 70 year lifetime; and Granny Jen is a 1 in 200 million person, but we all know that!

 

[steve and lisa]

We have also had a near miss with a deer on a early morning start to Dover ferry port, we were possibly doing 77mph on an empty road and I came very close to losing control by trying not to hit it. As a result I am now much more cautious on an empty road at night and keep my speed below 70mph. Until you have a near miss like this you will always consider yourself invincible.

 

[GrannyJen]

Yes that pointy metal hat must go!

Pray, how did it happen?

Two ever so exciting times in my life.

The first was climbing on A buttress, Dow crag, in the lakes. I had got there driven by a madman on a motorcycle from the ODG, which I considered to be the most dangerous time of my life. 150 foot up, just reaching the second stance, big bang, ears ringing, feeling of being totally dismembered, a feeling of being bruised on every single part of my body, checked my waist belt just in time to watch a few scorched strands of perlon rope flake off leaving me totally unattached. THE most dangerous time of my life then followed as I attempted to reattach myself with just about every scrap of balance gone or making a slow and erratic recovery.

The second was quite amazing. Worsley on the M62 (now M60 I believe). Driving a BMW 7 series. Thunder everywhere than a great blue ball, seemed to hang in the sky, I'm sure the car lifted at the front but I was slightly distracted by lumps of a metal overhead gantry falling down. We carried on, probably the vehicle on cruise control, everyone behind me stopped. I pulled over after about a mile, got out, checked the car and my grey bonnet and parts of the doors were black. "Scorched" I thought but then found I could wipe it off like a polythene film. Someone suggested afterwards it was vaporised tarmac settling on the wet car, I really have no idea.

The electrics were peculiar though. One window not operating, the other going up and down with a mind of it's own. I wheeled it into the ever so teutonically efficient BMW dealer and with a smug smile on my face said to the service manager "Electric storm, probable lightning strike, need it checked over", ever so smug as they obviously would not have a manual procedure for that occurrence.

Two minutes later he emerged clutching a service bible and saying "ok, here we are, check list and recovery procedure, it will take an hour and 15 minutes". With smug smile wiped off face I went shopping

 

[MattBW]

I keep looking for a blimey/wow/holy cow type icon but instead I will have to use the Brexit one for now. Sounds terrifying as does the deer one. REmember too if you ever see a deer run out, the chances are another 1 or 2 are following behind!

I was once in a woodland with a guy in chainmail (dont ask), thunder started and his shirt began to make a buzzing noise and vibrate. Suffice to say he threw it off and we ran.

 

[GrannyJen]

Caused by BREXIT x 1
Crispin Family


No, I really must dispute that!

If anything the first was caused by BRENTRANCE, being soon after Ted signed us in