Speeding camera fines.

[Mailman]

Okay so that's not a serious suggestion, but the braking ability of different cars does vary enormously and this is not something that seems to ever get mentioned in all the talk of speed and road safety. Clearly if you can stop faster you're safer at higher speeds.

Dunno if that would be true though when you factor in the shorter reaction times and stuff like that?

Mailman

[expat]

Dunno if that would be true though when you factor in the shorter reaction times and stuff like that?

Mailman

stopping distance = thinking distance + braking distance.

Half the braking distance and you do shorten the stopping distance (but not by as much as half).

Increase the speed and you increase the braking distance (for a given car) by about the square of the speed increase. (i.e. if car A brakes to a stop in half the distance of car B at the same speed, you could multiply the speed of car A by about 1.4 and it would then brake in about the same distance as car B).

So yes, the car with better brakes could go faster than the car with worse brakes, and still stop in the same distance; which is virtually self-evident. Although it's not nearly as much as Clarkson suggested, it holds a real point: the inaccuracy of the one-size-fits-all approach preferred by the authorities, who only know how to enforce blind rules, not how to work to real results.

[expat]

Clearly if you can stop faster you're safer at higher speeds.

I have heard an American cop say inofficially that he doesn't normally ticket Porsches for speeding, because they control so well (until the back end goes , brake so efficiently, and are almost always driven well, even if above the posted speed limit.

[sasguru]

stopping distance = thinking distance + braking distance.

If that's true, if I was Mailman I would drive very slowly, regardless of the car I was in

[threaded]

expat: I think that is more to do with party donors tending to be richer and hence giving his boss a hard time on the campaign trail if he gives them a ticket. It's the american dream: with enough money you can get away with murder.

[The Lone Gunman]

Better cars stopping faster is a cause of accidents, not a way of avoiding them.
If the jalopy behind is obeying the two second rule and you anchor up in a second then he is going to arse end you.

HTH.

[threaded]

Yes, IIRC the Ford Zephyr was one of the safest cars ever made. The driver just knew in an accident he would be pinned by the (no collapsable) steering column like a butterfly in a display case.

[expat]

Better cars stopping faster is a cause of accidents, not a way of avoiding them.
If the jalopy behind is obeying the two second rule and you anchor up in a second then he is going to arse end you.

HTH.

Then the "rule" doesn't work and it's his fault for applying it.

[The Lone Gunman]

Then the "rule" doesn't work and it's his fault for applying it.

So now I have to have a set of rules (stopping distances) in my head dependant on the car in front?

The rule is a standard for keeping a safe distance (the stopping distances at given speeds work out at 2 seconds) and it is the basis for those "keep 2 chevrons apart" sections. If top range cars can stop faster then we have a problem.

The 2 second rule works at 150 mph just as well as it does at 15 mph

[threaded]

Oh dear.

2 second rule doesn't depend on how fast the car infront stops, it is how fast you can stop.

If the weather is bad, or you're towing, then you should increase the number of seconds, saying the rule twice is a good start.

Unless you are towing a caravan, in which case DIE FSCKTARD DIE.