You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Thought experiment...
So, we have a problem with people driving a fast car faster than a slower car, right? They should drive at the same speed. But wait, the fast car with its improved brakes, traction, possibly electronic stability and all that jazz, is safer at the same speed than a bog standard family saloon. By extension, there will be a point where the fast car is going faster, but is on balance exactly as fast as the slow car driven slower.
So by the same logic, if the slower car and the faster car are travelling at the same speed, the slower car should now slow down to equalise the safety. At which point the fast car should also slow down otherwise STW will get offended. And then the slower car should slow down again. It all gets a bit paradoxical in the end but the main thrust of the argument seems to be that all cars should be identical, because as soon as you have even one car in the world with higher or lower performance than all the rest, it becomes morally unforgivable to drive anywhere.
Northwind wins the Internet for the whole of April
You can apparently only see in black in white.
You must be new here...
the main thrust of the argument seems to be that all cars should be identical
Not really. The main thrust of the argument is that we should all be driving in basically the same way, at a relaxed pace.
To encourage this, I would like to fit black boxes to every car, but also I'd build racing tracks in every town - access would be free in return for zero tolerance on the roads. That way, boy racers could get their rocks off on a track and drive properly fast, and leave the roads as a means of transport rather than self expression or indulgence.
Northwind wins the Internet for the whole of April
😆 😆
Wow 7 pages about an Audi s3...actually it a pretty slow tbh
I'd still like one.
molgrips - MemberThe main thrust of the argument is that we should all be driving in basically the same way, at a relaxed pace.
So you're happy that most people will be driving around being drastically less safe than someone in an S3, driving in basically the same way at a relaxed pace? In that case, why aren't you happy with someone in an S3 driving around just as safely, but a little quicker?
Seems like the concern here isn't about safety at all, it's about demeanour.
I'm constantly amazed at people on a cycling forum talking about driving fast on public roads, don't you ever think that some of the people that you respond to on here might be using those roads as well as pedestrians, cyclists or horse riders? although, admittedly, if they knew you were out being awesome and driving fast then they probably won't be using those roads..
I'm constantly amazed at people on a cycling forum talking about driving fast on public roads,
Oh, bugger, is this cross-posted into the bike forum by mistake?
*checks*
Nope, all good, looks like its a conversation about fast cars in a "chat" forum then
why aren't you happy with someone in an S3 driving around just as safely, but a little quicker?
Because a S3 doesn't stop any better than most other cars on the road. Do some research on the cars with the shortest stopping distances Northwind. They are not sporty cars, unless you count big luxury barges a
Because a S3 doesn't stop any better than most other cars on the road. Do some research on the cars with the shortest stopping distances Northwind.
I thought we'd established that a lot of this was to do with tyres, and I'd be willing to bet that the S3 will have significantly better rubber than a Nissan Almera
I love driving on twisty roads. I like cars with a bit of performance. I used to own an S3. To have fun on twisty roads you don't need to break the speed limit, drive without consideration or progress in any other way which increases risk. I am enjoying a commute which takes in the road between Bromyard and Ombersley in Worcestershire at the moment. It is really great fun. There are many elements of it though where I don't do the speed limit... I drive less than the speed limit as the road isn't suitable for driving any faster IMHO.
I would have and really enjoy a new S3 but in a family of five and taking our holidays in Europe by car it wouldn't be practical. I would be jealous Lecht but I know I have the right car for me now. I hope you really enjoy it though!
why aren't you happy with someone in an S3 driving around just as safely, but a little quicker?
Because an S3 doesn't stop any better than most other cars on the road. Do some research on the cars with the shortest stopping distances, Northwind (and check out my earlier contributions to this thread). They are not sporty cars, unless you count big luxury barges and people carriers as sporty. Even then the insignificant differences in stopping distances don't justify driving even a little bit faster when speed limits are based on the consequences for what happens when it all goes wrong.
30: the speed below which at which a pedestrian has a good chance of survival if hit. More recent research suggests dropping this urban limit to 20mph to improve survivability as pedestrians and cyclists are now disproportionally represented in fatalities.
50/60: the speed at which occupants of a vehicle leaving the road and hitting an obstacle have a chance of survival.
70 the speed at which the occupants should survive a motorway accident in which the vehicle remains on the carriageway.
Cars have turned into air-bag-equipped tanks since the limits were set so the number of people surviving has improved. People being killed has become less socially acceptable though so limits have remained low - vulnerable road users are just as vulnerable as ever.
If you want confirmation that going faster in a vehicle with better brakes, handling and acceleration is not a good idea compare motorcycle fatalities per km with pedal bicycles.
Check my earlier posts, Zokes. Stopping does indeed have a lot to do with tyres.
Having the right tyres for the season is very important. Changing tyres at 3mm rather than letting them get down to the legal limit is very important. In terms of stopping ability the width and profile make next to no difference in the dry and overly wide tyres don't stop well in the wet.
Changing tyres at 3mm rather than letting them get down to the legal limit is very important.
And who is more likely to take heed of this sage advice?
Someone applying bangernomics and bluffing their way from one MOT to the next? Or someone who's spent 35 grand on a car and is thus likely to be somewhat interested in all facets of its performance, including the four bits of rubber that keep it glued to the road?
I'd wager it would be the latter. I'd also wager that it's extremely unlikely that someone with so little interest in cars as to let their tyres get to dangerous levels of wear would be spending 35 grand on a performance hatchback.
FWIW, mine are at 15 mm at the moment I think, but then horses for courses - you wouldn't get an S3 where we go, that's for sure...
Edukator, theres no point everyone on this threads too awesome.
Perhaps Anagallis. Perhaps Zokes didn't read my [url= http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/Audi-R8-driver-involved-fatal-crash-denies/story-19983763-detail/story.html ]R8 fatal crash [/url]story the first time I linked it. It has all the attitudes of the AIM/"I'm a better driver" in performance car in it, including the dangerously worn tyres.
Edit: you'll find performance tyres have less tread to start with to avoid tread squirm. As little as 8mm though I'd have to do some Googling to confirm that.
Edukate yourself of the definition of the word "likely", then try again.
IAM? Its only called that because The Institute of Slightly Better Than Average Drivers wouldnt sell.
I reckon it's more likely someone who buys tyres with only 8mm on them will be more tempted to run them below 3mm than someone that buys tyres with 14mm on them. Especially as the buyer of performance tyres will know that racers who are obliged to use road tyres put them in a lathe to machine off most of the tread to improve dry grip and handling.
That link does contain an excellent message.
I reckon it's more likely that someone that buys tyres with only 8mm on them will be more tempted to run them below 3mm than someone that buys tyres with 14mm on them. Especially as the buyer of performance tyres will know that racers who are obliged to use road tyres put them in a lathe to machine off most of the tread to improve dry grip and handling.
That's certainly interesting, but as a previous owner of a fast car (not S3 level, granted), I can't say that ever occurred to me. Had I been interested in racing it, on a race track, then maybe. I would be highly surprised if it was something the majority of drivers of faster versions of standard cars would do though...
Change tyres with 3mm left on them?
Yeah right, OK. I wish I could afford to.
Same as winter tyres, can't afford that. Dream on sunshine.
Most of my miles are done on a motorbike now anyway (for reasons of economy and commuting in heavy traffic) and AFAIK you can't get winter tyres for bikes anyway.
I've had time to check now, [url= http://www.demon-tweeks.co.uk/performance/track-day-tyres/toyo-proxes-r888-tyre ]Toyo 888 tyres[/url] have 6/32" (4.7mm) when new. They also have no sipes. Can you see anyone changing them at 3mm which is only half worn in legal terms.
why aren't you happy with someone in an S3 driving around just as safely, but a little quicker?
They can drive a bit faster, that's fine. But this is a 300bhp car and people are talking about pushing it hard. That would make it a hell of a lot faster than normal.
Re tyres with less tread - are we saying that even in the dry worn tyres are worse grip?
I've had time to check now, Toyo 888 tyres have 6/32" (4.7mm) when new. They also have no sipes. Can you see anyone changing them at 3mm which is only half worn in legal terms.
I think you'd have to be mad to buy them in the first place!
That's a barely road legal track tyre. Same sort of thing is available for bikes.... But the big problem is that road use doesn't work them hard enough to get them warmed up, so they end up being worse for the road than a sports-touring tyre, which is the sort of thing I put on our bikes. Bridgestone 023, for example.
anagallis_arvensis - Member
Edukator, theres no point everyone on this threads too awesome.
Pretty sure I'm not. Deeply average I imagine - probably why I don't speed on twisty country roads despite my previous choice of car, current car or liking of the new S3. Liking and/or owning such a car and loving driving on twisty roads doesn't mean you have to drive above the speed limit or any speed up to the speed limit greater than the road conditions should sensibly dictate.
Back to the point of the thread - the new S3 and in my experience the original model are lovely cars!
Worn tyres have more grip in the dry, Molgrips.
Yokohamas with 7mm of tread when new are probably the equivalent of your sports-touring tyre, Peter. Again not the ideal thing on a cold, wet road.
I have yet to post a negative comment on the S3 or similar other than to point out that braking performance isn't superior to many "dull" cars and therefore doesn't justify driving faster. What drew me in was bragging about a "ding dong" on the M40 in 150mph+ cars. I'd be tempted by an S3 if it were bigger inside, had a little more ground (snow) clearance and did better than 6l/100km on petrol.
If you are making use of anywhere near the potential of a 200+bhp car then you need to be going seriously fast, I fail to see how you can argue otherwise.
I've got a seven year old, round the clock, Octavia estate VRS diesel with a piffling 170bhp. I find it ridiculously easy to get to 100 or cruise about at 80+.
It has been looked after, has good tyres and so on, but making use of that 170bhp can become dangerously fast very easily.
I rarely drive the car, most of my miles are in my van.
When I do rarely get it to myself, and go for an 'enthusiastic' drive, I fully admit that I'm an arsehole. It is more dangerous, end of.
Another one turning into his dad 😉
If you are making use of anywhere near the potential of a 200+bhp car then you need to be going seriously fast, I fail to see how you can argue otherwise.
I think this depends what you see as potential...
When I do rarely get it to myself, and go for an 'enthusiastic' drive, I fully admit that I'm an arsehole. It is more dangerous, end of.
I would suggest that it's best you don't drive it then. If you can't drive considerately, thoughtfully or with the legalities of road use in mind - leave the car at home.
That's the point I'm making jamj, talking about the driving within the legalities of the road renders cars like the S3 totally pointless.
Having fun on a twisty road at less than 60, something like an old mini makes more sense.
Yokohamas with 7mm of tread when new are probably the equivalent of your sports-touring tyre, Peter. Again not the ideal thing on a cold, wet road.
Probably not on a car, no. Motorcycle sports-touring tyres are where the smart money is on bikes though, they are the best for general road use by a mile. Nobody would put anything much harder (if it was available which I doubt) on a modem bike and lots of sports bikes come with sticky rubber that soon gets swapped for a S-T tyre when it wears out. I'm not into pure sports bikes at all. They're no good to us as we both do a fair few miles on our bikes. We share 2 bikes, a Ducati ST3s and a Honda NC700x. The Duke can whisk us both away on a touring holiday fully loaded with ease but I wouldn't want to commute regularly on it. Too much bike, too much power for that. The ease with which it gets from A to B is simply staggering. But 25 miles of heavy motorway traffic every day? No thanks. That's what the NC is for. Manoeuvrable and easy to ride with a nice high riding position to see over all the cars.
But both bikes wear the same type of sports touring tyre. Thinking about it they're as close as you'll get to a wet weather tyre on a motorbike I guess. They're designed for best grip in all conditions on the road.
Enjoy the bikes. I'm a lot more tolerant of bikers traveling quickly. I know that they know that an error is going to hurt if they survive at all.
The problem with cars is the impunity drivers feel which is why I'd like to see trackers fitted to all cars with insurance premiums and payouts in the case of a crash based on the behaviour of the driver. people with bad habits would soon be priced off the roads.
Agree with Ed, on this thread!
#nedthread
That's the point I'm making jamj, talking about the driving within the legalities of the road renders cars like the S3 totally pointless.
For some maybe - for me it definitely didn't! I drive a car with 313PS at the moment. Don't use all that power either!
Ah right. So it's more a posing thing then?
Different people get different kicks out of motoring. Some like flash in your face cars, some like economic cars that do 60 + mpg. With some people it's a status symbol, look at me look how successful I am etc. Some of my most favourite times in a car have been in a bog standard mini 1000 van. The best fun was in an Audi 80 sport that had an Audi Quattro 10 valve turbo engine transplanted in it. What a Q car that was. Let's all live and let live.
Now if somebody would transplant that S3 running gear into a old Octavia 4x4 estate now your talking!
I'd like to see trackers fitted to all cars
1) I'd rather you paid for that
2) I'd rather not live inside an Orwellian 1984
I'll pay for it as soon as I can, it'll save me money. My sister has it on the car her kids use. The kids are happy to live with it, the lead-footed, hole-in hedge-parents find it hard to adapt.
Log off then, your ISP knows your every move.
Edukator - TrollBecause an S3 doesn't stop any better than most other cars on the road. Do some research on the cars with the shortest stopping distances,
Actually, an S3 will stop faster than most other cars on the road- you don't have to be the shortest to be above average, obviously ( a standard A3 has a better than average stopping distance) And as above, an S3 is very unlikely to be fitted with MOT-pass ditchfinder tyres, when I picked up my last 2 cars the stopping distance was measured in days in the wet, totally road legal and socially acceptable, very common, and undeniably less safe than driving the same car with quality tyres a little bit quicker.
And in the spirit of my earlier posts...
Edukator - TrollEven then the insignificant differences in stopping distances don't justify driving even a little bit faster
Ah hah. So the difference in stopping distance from 60 is irrelevant; that must mean that increasing speed, so your stopping distance increases by the same, is also irrelevant. It doesn't of course, but this is the logical failure here. If a car can be safer while going faster- and it can- then why is it the driver of that car that's being condemned, when it's the car going slower, less safely, which presents that greater risk?
Who knows, perhaps it's because it's harder to be envious of a dude in a 20 year old Cavalier with 4 ditchfinder tyres on it, than it is the dude in a new S3.
The problem with cars is the impunity drivers feel which is why I'd like to see trackers fitted to all cars with insurance premiums and payouts in the case of a crash based on the behaviour of the driver. people with bad habits would soon be priced off the roads.
I'd like to see the test so hard that some people cannot pass it, skid pan training, tiered licensing, compulsory further training and retesting. That sort of thing. But that'll never happen because it would be a vote looser.
The most scared I've ever been was as a passenger in the car of someone with so little skill and interest in what they were doing it was laughable. I've been in a car where the driver has stalled at 20-30mph. I didn't even think that was possible. Mrs PP used to share a lift with a woman who by all accounts was an accident waiting to happen. I used to worry if she'd make it home to be honest, I was a lot happier when she took the motorbike.
I've seen people laugh and think it was funny that they couldn't get round a corner without smacking the wheels on the kerb. And these people are still driving (mostly) undetected.
Northwind, please quote stopping distances for an S3 and the "average cars" you are comparing it with. I've linked a video to show a performance car (Mini Cooper S) being beaten in a realistic braking test by a cross-over BMW, Mazda people carrier and Mercedes luxury saloon.
The S3 is fitted with low rolling resistance tyres to achieve better fuel economy so I suspect it doesn't do too well. If you find results for 60mph to zero I expect them to correspond to the tyres fitted varying from say 95ft for something on Michelin Pilots to 110ft for normal tyres and even more for low rolling resistance tyres.
Log off then, your ISP knows your every move.
I very much doubt it. Perhaps in France, but the lucky country down under as of yet has failed to implement anything of the sort. Sure, if asked by the police they could record every tedious argument with le troll on stw, but they've probably got better things to be doing. Besides, our PM doesn't really understand the internet.
2) I'd rather not live inside an Orwellian 1984
If that's not hyperbole I don't know what is. If you'd read 1984 you'd know how ridiculous you sound. People simply cannot be trusted to drive well, and people are dying as a result. This is not acceptable.
Edukator, low RR tyres are not significantly worse than normal ones. They were when they were first introduced, but not now. OEM ones are though, but that's because all OEM tyres are worse than aftermarket models with the same name. Afaik anyway.
@edukator- here's a nice collated list of real world tests, a few years old but indicative:
http://www.monteverdiclub.com/rahmen/stoptbl.htm
It doesn't have an S3, but does have 3 models of A3. S3 is recorded at 36.5 metres from 100km/h by Autocar.
Though I'm not sure why you asked, since you insist differences in stopping distances are insignificant.
I've got some Conti Ecocontact OEMs to go back on the car after a Winter on Michelin Alpins. They are truly dreadful. Madame, who takes no interest in cars noticed that the rather vague feel to the car disappeared and it became normal when I put the Michelins on.
If you'd read 1984 you'd know how ridiculous you sound.
I'm reading it now thanks. Not a bad factual representation of 21st century conservative politics, actually...
People simply cannot be trusted to drive well, and people are dying as a result. This is not acceptable.
Correct, but unless you've been saving it for this moment, I'm yet to see any correlative, let alone causative relationship between car type and accident likelihood. Insurance weighting, which is correlative at best, is far more weighted by location (theft issues), age, sex, and previous history
The Prius with its OEM Bridgestone Turanza would easily wheelspin out of junctions in the dry causing the super cautious traction control to come on and slow you down at the worst moment. It has Michelin Energy Savers on now, aftermarket ones, and whilst I find the tyres a bit noisy and harsh it won't wheelspin at all even in the wet.
The Passat has Nokians on, all their tyres are low RR and it won't lock up on braking at all no matter how hard I brake. Unless there's gravel or mud.
I'm yet to see any correlative, let alone causative relationship between car type and accident likelihood.
Of course. I'm not saying driving an S3 is more dangerous than anything else. I'm saying driving fast is more dangerous than driving normally.
Incidentally, Zokes, do you also get upset when your insurance company asks you if you have locks on your windows, or do you tell the thought police to sod off?
So an S3 stops 1m shorter than a 15-year-old Mondeo 2.0 i GLX (which has to be as average as they come). I don't consider that significant. Pity we don't have a more recent table. That one does demonstrate very clearly what I've been saying here, the cars are very close with differences down to tyre spec. The Volvo V70 at 48.2m and the other 4x4s show just how bad tyres can be..
We don't know if Autocar used the same road surface so the one-off result you quote should be treated with caution though it is consistent with results for the TT in the table. Some results in American magazines have clearly been achieved on high-grip racing circuits.
I suspect the more humble cars have improved most in the last 15 years, the very basic ABS systems then offered have been replaced with very good trickle-down technology.
Seeing as there's a massive thread drift going on.
PeterPoddy
AFAIK you can't get winter tyres for bikes anyway.
You can; Heidenau Scouts, or if you look you will find some of the more dual purpose tyres (I noted your NX) are rated M&S and suitable for lower temperatures. I've run a variety of them through the last 5 winters.
As for winter tyres, my last set of part worns (7mm) cost me £20 a corner, fitted to my Partner. I can't fault them.
Edukator - Troll(which has to be as average as they come)
Nope, you've actually picked out a fast stopping car from the list and declared it to be average. Purely coincidental I am sure.
And again, fixating on stopping distance alone just doesn't make any sense, any more than fixating on speed alone.
I can't believe this is still going on!
Edukator...I've not watched your video, but what age Cooper S is on it? The original R53 was comically under braked. It shared the same brakes as the One and Cooper. I was shocked at how bad mine were hence why many people splashed out for the JCW brake kit. The R56 was much better.
As for those mentioning posing, there is an element of drama like engine noise etc that you get with quick cars, even if you don't drive then like a fit. I was in pub the other night and a guy pulled up in a V12 Vantage and it sounded ace. Even just pooling about. I love the noise that cars like that make.
True, the Citroen C5 would have been another one to pick out, or the Vectra. They all did as well or better than the Audi TTs tested by Sportauto and I'd put good money on that 15-year-old Mondeo on its normal tyres bettering a current S3 on its low rolling resistance tyres - on the same surface with the same driver of course.
Did you look at the Lotus results? Do you still want someone in a Lotus who probably thinks he's a better than average driver tailgating your Mondeo on the basis he's in a car with better braking, handling and performance?
A flashy "perforamnce" car is unlikely to stop significantly better than humble models and does not justify driving faster. Thanks for helping me demonstrate that, Northwind.
bedmaker - Member
Ah right. So it's more a posing thing then?
Vanity probably plays a part... I like the way higher-performance cars drive, I like feeling a bit special driving one (Very shallow I acknowledge.), I like the idea that the car is better engineered and way more capable than I am and relatedly the perceived increase in safety margin this brings me.
Edukator - TrollTrue, the Citroen C5 would have been another one to pick out, or the Vectra
No, if you want to talk about averages, talk about averages, don't talk about specifics. That table shows that the Audi is well under average (as is the Mondeo- which was always an excellently equipped car, all but the most pov spec models came with the same brakes that worked well on the ST220)
And you're still only talking about dry, ideal condition stopping distances, evasion is at least as important, and wet stopping distances is where better electronics etc come into their own. My mondeo'll stop faster than most folks'd believe but it'll not change direction like an S3 or similiar.
Educator, your focus on tread depth, a single stopping distance test etc is misleading at best. Please go and drive something like an S3 or RS4 for yourself for an extended period of time and in a variety of conditions and you will then see for yourself how much more capable these cars are than an average family hatchback.
The question isnt whetjet the car is more capable but is the numpty behind the wheel any better? In most cases thats unlikley to be true based on my life experiences. Fast cars, like fast bikes are often driven very poorly and worse than average.
Fast cars, like fast bikes are often driven very poorly and worse than average.
What's the average?
Just my perception I havent used a calculator.
A fast car is likely to encourage fast driving. Speed is highly addictive, for me certainly. And regardless of braking time, reaction time does not change.
You also have to take other people into account. They also have to react quicker to you, and they will not be expecting you hurtling around the next corner in your S3.
molgrips - MemberA fast car is likely to encourage fast driving. Speed is highly addictive, for me certainly. And regardless of braking time, reaction time does not change.
My experience doesn't match this. If you see a vehicle driven at rocket speed, 95% of the time it'll be a 320d, Zafira or Transit.
A fast car is likely to encourage fast driving. Speed is highly addictive, for me certainly. And regardless of braking time, reaction time does not change.
Appreciate that some people have issues with self control, but it's funny that the majority of truly fast cars I see on the road seem to be generally driven at a sensible and conservative speed. It's often the case of lesser models, old wrecks, delivery vans etc pushing the boundaries of common sense, yet these are the type of vehicles with the least built in capability and the least margin for error.
Also reaction time does change. An observant driver driving quickly has a hightened sense of awareness and alertness meaning that reaction times are sharper. Often when you're dawdling slowly, you become relaxed, easily distracted, less aware and reaction time suffers accordingly. Human nature I'm afraid.
You also have to take other people into account. They also have to react quicker to you, and they will not be expecting you hurtling around the next corner in your S3.
I always assume that there's something coming at me faster than the posted limit when approaching any corner. If you're an observant driver then there's not much on the road that's truly unexpected - and if you find that you're always getting surprised by stuff on the road, then maybe it's time for you to up your driver observation and perception skills by taking some extra driver training.
On second thoughts...I'm staying out of it. 🙂
reaction time does change. An observant driver driving quickly has a hightened sense of awareness and alertness meaning that reaction times are sharper.
Brilliant, just brilliant how ****ing AWESOME.
it's funny that the majority of truly fast cars I see on the road seem to be generally driven at a sensible and conservative speed
That's OK then. Apart from being a waste of valuable fuel.
Often when you're dawdling slowly, you become relaxed, easily distracted, less aware and reaction time suffers accordingly.
Now who's got no self control? Speak for yourself!
An observant driver driving quickly has a hightened sense of awareness and alertness meaning that reaction times are sharper.
it is not the quick car you need - it is a car with lots of feedback - otherwise driving is mundane and not involving and it is easy to drop your levels of concentration.
Hence a sports car that is easy and enjoyable to drive within road legal speeds is the optimum for road safety.
Those people driving mundane cars like passats who cruise along at 40 whatever the speed limit are the dangerous ones.
This is why I have had 3 alfas on the trot now, I just feel a lot safer as I am a lot more attentive to the road, and it is much easier to drive at 30 in urban areas and be able to keep a look out for hazards rather than have to concentrate on keeping the car speed down and potential lose reaction time if someone stepped out in front of me.
Often when you're dawdling slowly, you become relaxed, easily distracted, less aware and reaction time suffers accordingly.
Now who's got no self control? Speak for yourself!
This isn't a case of self control, it's just basic human nature I'm afraid. It's why the biggest cause of accidents isn't speed, it's poor driver attention, awareness and observation. Drivers are often less alert and less attentive at low speed - FACT!
I'm with agent on this one - stick to the slow lane of any motorway and you'll be in amongst the drivers chatting to their friends, either in the car or by mobile phone, drinking, eating or applying makeup. Whilst the 'heightened senses' is poor, possibly trolling, wording, people who are driving faster (not the same as fast) are often found to be concentrating more. I'd rather have one of those following closely behind me than a guy holding a mobile under his chin and chomping on a sandwich!
Edukator - Troll
True, the Citroen C5 would have been another one to pick out, or the Vectra. They all did as well or better than the Audi TTs tested by Sportauto and I'd put good money on that 15-year-old Mondeo on its normal tyres bettering a current S3 on its low rolling resistance tyres - on the same surface with the same driver of course.Did you look at the Lotus results? Do you still want someone in a Lotus who probably thinks he's a better than average driver tailgating your Mondeo on the basis he's in a car with better braking, handling and performance?
A flashy "perforamnce" car is unlikely to stop significantly better than humble models and does not justify driving faster. Thanks for helping me demonstrate that, Northwind.
POSTED 4 HOURS AGO # REPORT-POST
The performance difference between brands / models is going to tell you very little in a test like that. What options / tyres / larger alloys to make the car look good for the test were fitted?
However, assuming VW supply their cars at a similar spec, it's worthy of note that the faster ones seem to stop around 10% faster than the 1.6. I think that's what I said about 4 pages ago.
However, if you want a safe car, go for the Porsche 911. It seems a rear engine helps the braking quite a bit (oh wait, they're also fast ;-))
Edit, bollocks, I can't work quotes tonight. I've had a lovely bottle of red and I feel like testing to see if concentrating more makes up for being over the limit as well!
The first Google result disagrees with you 007.
[url= http://www.rospa.com/faqs/detail.aspx?faq=298 ]Acccident causes[/url]
A lack of vigilance is an increasing problem that the Swiss authorities attribute to increased use of cruise controls rather than driving too slowly.
The fastest cars I've driven have generally been the ones with the least margin for error. Tunnel vision, less time to process information, more distance covered between each driver input, kinetic energy rising as the square of the speed; the faster you go the greater the chances of getting it wrong and the worse the consequences.
Heidenau Scouts
They sound like quality tyres........ 😯
I think I'll stick to Bridgestone and Michelin to be honest.
EDIT
I've just googled them. They're a dual sport tyre, i.e. Designed for road/off road, they'd be bloody awful on wet roads!
Sorry educator, that link whilst being quite interesting, doesn't seem counter 007's argument. The stand out to me is 40% who crashed due to not looking properly. Add that to the 20% who failed to judge another cars speed, If 40% of drivers speed*, then clearly the slow coaches are causing the crashes.
I do however agree that if driving a car at high speed, all the concentration in the world isn't going to get you out of trouble. That however is speed too high for conditions and at that point, I'd rather have a car that had emergency brake assist, abs, stability control and a ton of grip in a well designed singed chassis to make up for my obvious ( because otherwise I wouldn't be in this situation) lack of skill/ awareness has got me into.
*completely made up statistic
Oh, also I read and autocar test the other day about braking distance test for tyres. The winner was the Perelli P7 Centerato (sp) which is their energy saver. Very different to my oem Michelin energy savers on the old golf. They were sodding terrible. Happily I've got them on my golf as standard so I'll be sticking!
Hoisted by your own link Edukator- the Rospa sight says very clearly that only around 25% of all ksi's involve a speeding driver or one driving too fast for the conditions. Spot the distinction, not "caused by" but simply involves speeding or driving too fast.
Meanwhile, 40% involve "failing to look properly"- the biggest contributor named.
The first Google result disagrees with you 007.
Sorry but you haven't read your own article that you've just posted have you? If you actually read the article it cleary says that:
"Sadly, driver error remains the most common cause of road accidents"
Here's a link to the actual statistics for you:
[url= http://www.driving-test-success.com/causes-car-crash.htm ]Most Common Causes of Accidents[/url]
Exceeding the speed limit is a contributory factor in just 5.2% of all accidents.
it's just basic human nature I'm afraid
Nope. It is possible to drive at the speed limit in a sensible and consistent manner, and pay attention.
For the record, I'm not talking about grandad dawdling here. I'm talking about normal driving as opposed to 300bhp being thrashed.
Exceeding the speed limit is a contributory factor in just 5.2% of all accidents.
I'd need to see how they came to that conclusion. If someone pulls out in front of me and I hit them - what caused the accident? The car pulling out, of course.
However, if I'd been doing 30mph in a 30 instead of the more common 35mph, perhaps I could've stopped? So depending on how you look at it speed may be a contributing factor, or it may not.
Likewise, if I send a text message or look for a CD and crash, then that's the cause of the accident. But if I'd been going slower perhaps I'd have covered less ground in the time I'd had my eyes off the road, and I'd have noticed sooner that I was veering out of my lane.
Speed is a factor in every accident, of course it is. It may not be the most prominent cause in most of them, but it's always a factor. WHATEVER I do on the road, if I am going slower I have more time to react - and so do the other road users.
Then there's the question of consequences. Higher speed always means more severe consequences.
Failing to look properly is also a "people in a hurry" issue. In fact speed is an issue in the majority of causes in your link:
Failed to look properly 35%
Failed to judge other persons's path or speed 18.9%
Careless, reckless or in a hurry 16.2%
Loss of control 14.7%
Poor turn or manoeuvre 14.1%
Travelling too fast for the conditions 10.2%
Slippery road due to weather 10.1%
Pedestrian failed to look properly 7.2%
Sudden braking 7.2%
Following too close 6.7%
Any list like that that fails to put drink driving near the top is well off the mark when there are still 300 drink driving deaths a year..
molgrips - MemberI'd need to see how they came to that conclusion. If someone pulls out in front of me and I hit them - what caused the accident? The car pulling out, of course.
However, if I'd been doing 30mph in a 30 instead of the more common 35mph, perhaps I could've stopped? So depending on how you look at it speed may be a contributing factor, or it may not.
You've just described the exact difference between a primary and contributory factor tbh. I'm not going to stand behind the stat, no idea how they arrived at it and it feels low, but the concept is pretty simple.