Two fatal Accidents In my area

Mildly_Miffed

Nasqueron said:

A straight road on 60mph limit whether single or dual carriageway, I would similarly do 60

You do know that NSL on a dual carriageway is 70, not 60, right...?

matt_drummer

Mildly_Miffed said:

Nasqueron said:

A straight road on 60mph limit whether single or dual carriageway, I would similarly do 60

You do know that NSL on a dual carriageway is 70, not 60, right...?

It depends what type of vehicle you are driving, whether you are towing a trailer and not all dual carriageways are NSL for some or all of their length or at some times of the day and some even have variable speed limits.

Very few people know that the NSL for a van on a dual carriageway is actually 60mph and not 70mph like a car. And 50mph on a single carriageway. Car derived vans are the same as cars though.

Bonniepurple

The most important thing that I was taught was to drive according to the conditions.  20mph in a built up area with double parked cars may be too fast, despite the speed limit being 30mph.  Likewise, driving on a busy but moving straight road at 40mph may or may not be appropriate, depending on the weather conditions.  I’ve been on a motorway during a cloud burst and the traffic was at 10mph.

It also depends on the vehicle’s ability. One of the reasons why I traded my Honda Jazz in was because the CVT gearbox took time to think and so overtaking was often unwise.  I now drive a Ford Focus which goes when I ask it to.

LightFlare

born_again said:

Tony5896 said:

I see no issue with driving at 50-55mph on a multi lane road where people are free to overtake as needed .. I do see issues where people drive at 55-60 mph and then don't increase speed while over taking .. I also see an issue where people crawl along single lane roads at 10mph or more less than than the posted limit ..  
  

The limit is advisory & subject to road conditions, not a target. 
Different drivers have different perception of what is safe. Simply take a look at the number caught speeding 🤷‍♀️

Def agree - also familiarity (or lack of) makes a huge difference.

Roads I know very very well, I could do at least 20mph more than people who aren’t familiar with it - especially at night

SiliconChip

matt_drummer said:

SiliconChip said:

matt_drummer said:

My current car accelerates from 0 to 60 mph in less than 3 seconds, complete unnecessary, utterly ridiculous and positively dangerous in the wrong hands.

One would have to ask why you bought a car that will accelerate at that rate if you consider it to be so unnecessary, surely it's a key feature of any car that does that, along with a top speed that is likely to be significantly more than twice the maximum speed limit in the UK. 

It's not even special or particularly expensive.

You must have a different definition of "expensive" to me, this list of cars that will do 0-60 in under 3 seconds seems to feature cars that I would say are all expensive, although obviously some significantly more so than others. I'm not sure which of them you might consider not expensive but doesn't have a cheaper model with lesser performance (such as some of the BMWs and Teslas).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fastest_production_cars_by_acceleration#By_0%E2%80%9360_mph_(97_km/h)_(less_than_3.0_s)

matt_drummer

SiliconChip said:

You must have a different definition of "expensive" to me, this list of cars that will do 0-60 in under 3 seconds seems to feature cars that I would say are all expensive, although obviously some significantly more so than others. I'm not sure which of them you might consider not expensive but doesn't have a cheaper model with lesser performance (such as some of the BMWs and Teslas).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fastest_production_cars_by_acceleration#By_0%E2%80%9360_mph_(97_km/h)_(less_than_3.0_s)

Probably.

But I don't need to apologise for the position I am in. It's all relative. Most new cars are a lot of money but expensive must apply to those that cost the most.

I do realise that the car I drive is out of reach for most people.

I didn't say it was a cheap car, just not particularly expensive compared to the likes of supercars such as Ferrari, Lamborghini or some even more exotic cars.

I didn't say there wasn't a cheaper model, just not a cheaper model with the features I considered important to me.

However, cars in general have got much faster in recent years and I don't see any great leaps in driving standards, except downwards!

God help us when ancient Teslas find their way into the hands of newer drivers.

But even bog standard cars like Skoda's and VW's do 0-60 in less than 6 seconds these days.

It's beyond what many drivers can handle in my opinion.

It's too easy to get into a car now with performance beyond the capabilities of the people that buy them.

Modern cars are very fast, they need some respect and care when using that performance.

Impatience and aggression coupled with high performance is a recipe for disaster.

Emmia

matt_drummer said:

SiliconChip said:

You must have a different definition of "expensive" to me, this list of cars that will do 0-60 in under 3 seconds seems to feature cars that I would say are all expensive, although obviously some significantly more so than others. I'm not sure which of them you might consider not expensive but doesn't have a cheaper model with lesser performance (such as some of the BMWs and Teslas).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fastest_production_cars_by_acceleration#By_0%E2%80%9360_mph_(97_km/h)_(less_than_3.0_s)

Probably.

But I don't need to apologise for the position I am in. It's all relative. Most new cars are a lot of money but expensive must apply to those that cost the most.

I do realise that the car I drive is out of reach for most people.

I didn't say it was a cheap car, just not particularly expensive compared to the likes of supercars such as Ferrari, Lamborghini or some even more exotic cars.

I didn't say there wasn't a cheaper model, just not a cheaper model with the features I considered important to me.

However, cars in general have got much faster in recent years and I don't see any great leaps in driving standards, except downwards!

God help us when ancient Teslas find their way into the hands of newer drivers.

But even bog standard cars like Skoda's and VW's do 0-60 in less than 6 seconds these days.

It's beyond what many drivers can handle in my opinion.

It's too easy to get into a car now with performance beyond the capabilities of the people that buy them.

Modern cars are very fast, they need some respect and care when using that performance.

Impatience and aggression coupled with high performance is a recipe for disaster.

When I did driving lessons my instructor had the top engine spec in a Citroen saxo... A light vehicle with a decent engine. If you touched the accelerator / or thought about it... it went. 

My instructors perspective was that his pupils would pass and would probably have access to their parents cars, which weren't 1ltr jobbies - part of his tuition was being able to safely handle something with a bit more oomph.

chrisw

Emmia said:

matt_drummer said:

SiliconChip said:

You must have a different definition of "expensive" to me, this list of cars that will do 0-60 in under 3 seconds seems to feature cars that I would say are all expensive, although obviously some significantly more so than others. I'm not sure which of them you might consider not expensive but doesn't have a cheaper model with lesser performance (such as some of the BMWs and Teslas).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fastest_production_cars_by_acceleration#By_0%E2%80%9360_mph_(97_km/h)_(less_than_3.0_s)

Probably.

But I don't need to apologise for the position I am in. It's all relative. Most new cars are a lot of money but expensive must apply to those that cost the most.

I do realise that the car I drive is out of reach for most people.

I didn't say it was a cheap car, just not particularly expensive compared to the likes of supercars such as Ferrari, Lamborghini or some even more exotic cars.

I didn't say there wasn't a cheaper model, just not a cheaper model with the features I considered important to me.

However, cars in general have got much faster in recent years and I don't see any great leaps in driving standards, except downwards!

God help us when ancient Teslas find their way into the hands of newer drivers.

But even bog standard cars like Skoda's and VW's do 0-60 in less than 6 seconds these days.

It's beyond what many drivers can handle in my opinion.

It's too easy to get into a car now with performance beyond the capabilities of the people that buy them.

Modern cars are very fast, they need some respect and care when using that performance.

Impatience and aggression coupled with high performance is a recipe for disaster.

When I did driving lessons my instructor had the top engine spec in a Citroen saxo... A light vehicle with a decent engine. If you touched the accelerator / or thought about it... it went. 

My instructors perspective was that his pupils would pass and would probably have access to their parents cars, which weren't 1ltr jobbies - part of his tuition was being able to safely handle something with a bit more oomph.

Mine was the other way round. I learnt in my dad's 2l Cortina and took my test in the instructor's Triumph Acclaim. Unfortunately it didn't accelerate like I thought it would when I pulled out of a junction to beat a lorry and I failed the test.

Emmia

chrisw said:

Emmia said:

matt_drummer said:

SiliconChip said:

You must have a different definition of "expensive" to me, this list of cars that will do 0-60 in under 3 seconds seems to feature cars that I would say are all expensive, although obviously some significantly more so than others. I'm not sure which of them you might consider not expensive but doesn't have a cheaper model with lesser performance (such as some of the BMWs and Teslas).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fastest_production_cars_by_acceleration#By_0%E2%80%9360_mph_(97_km/h)_(less_than_3.0_s)

Probably.

But I don't need to apologise for the position I am in. It's all relative. Most new cars are a lot of money but expensive must apply to those that cost the most.

I do realise that the car I drive is out of reach for most people.

I didn't say it was a cheap car, just not particularly expensive compared to the likes of supercars such as Ferrari, Lamborghini or some even more exotic cars.

I didn't say there wasn't a cheaper model, just not a cheaper model with the features I considered important to me.

However, cars in general have got much faster in recent years and I don't see any great leaps in driving standards, except downwards!

God help us when ancient Teslas find their way into the hands of newer drivers.

But even bog standard cars like Skoda's and VW's do 0-60 in less than 6 seconds these days.

It's beyond what many drivers can handle in my opinion.

It's too easy to get into a car now with performance beyond the capabilities of the people that buy them.

Modern cars are very fast, they need some respect and care when using that performance.

Impatience and aggression coupled with high performance is a recipe for disaster.

When I did driving lessons my instructor had the top engine spec in a Citroen saxo... A light vehicle with a decent engine. If you touched the accelerator / or thought about it... it went. 

My instructors perspective was that his pupils would pass and would probably have access to their parents cars, which weren't 1ltr jobbies - part of his tuition was being able to safely handle something with a bit more oomph.

Mine was the other way round. I learnt in my dad's 2l Cortina and took my test in the instructor's Triumph Acclaim. Unfortunately it didn't accelerate like I thought it would when I pulled out of a junction to beat a lorry and I failed the test.

That means you presumably hadn't driven the triumph much... And frankly I'm not surprised they failed you for that manoeuvre.

ididgetwhereiamtoday

matt_drummer said:

Arunmor said:

matt_drummer said:

Arunmor said:

In my view the one thing drivers should do is drive over (the true) 56mph on motorways so as not to become a mobile chicane to the HGVs whose speedos will read a true 56mph.  For most cars that will mean an indicated slightly over 60mph.

HGV's don't exist any more and haven't done for over 30 years

I hope you are taking that with the government they seem to disagree and still use the term eg:-

https://www.gov.uk/training-hgv

So if the government still use it so can I.  That was just an act of pedantry on your part. 

On your other point of course they were not a problem to you, but is a problem to the large queue behind you.

Pendantry or educational as I prefer to think of it, they are LGVs now and the government should know that seeing as they changed it in the 1990s.

I am not sure what the other point is you refer to, I never had queues behind me as I just followed the truck in front on a dual carriageway so as not to spend three miles trying to overtake and blocking the whole road. I also slowed down as other trucks overtook me so it was over sooner.

I saw no material difference whether I was doing 54.5mph or 55mph, it doesn't matter.

I applaud you for your sensibility. I always wondered why lorries try to overtake each other. Surely it can’t make much difference to the eta. 

Why do some trucks drive at 56mph and some at 60 mph?
LGV? Long goods vehicle?