Richard Hammond in four-car pile-up in his ?110k supercar

Bah it can be mended. Just give it some Sun and water and it will grow back.
 
Teehee crash. Makes me feel better that I'm not the only idiot who can't seem to stop crashing.
 
perhaps he didn't like this car very much...

don't worry Richard, get a new Zonda and be happy :D ... people i'm just joking of course,

i just hope he's alright. :)
 
Squidge said:
Well, we are autobahn free so the likelihood of anyone reaching those speeds is slim. As a general rule the 400 series highways are capped at 100 km/h, major roads at 80 and residential streets are anywhere between 40 and 60. Three car lengths is considered a safe stopping distance here - even on snow and ice (although I generally allow more myself, as Canadians seem to forget how to drive every time winter rolls around).
Click to expand...


That's amazingly stupid. When traveling at 100 kilometers pr hour your car moves 27 meters per second. A standard car is about 5 meters long so your three-car-distance-rule means that if the car in front slams on his brakes for whatever reason and gets down to 50kph, youll have around 1-1,5 seconds (depending on how big brakes the car in front has) to see him slow down, react, and halve your speed. Needless to say, you'll rear-end him quicker than you can spell moron.

In Norway we're taught the 1003-rule. Pick a spot by the side of the road and count 1001,1002,1003. If you start when the car in front passes the spot you should be at the same spot at the end of "1003". It takes about a second to say each word so the distance between cars is supposed to be 3 seconds.

Measuring in time, not distance is the only sensible way to do it as it works with varying speeds.


Now ON topic: Good riddance to the Morgan, I think it looks nasty.
 
First, if a car going 100 km/h can get to 50 km/h BEFORE you notice, you should probably be paying more attention.

Second, if you can't react within a second of seeing brake lights, you probably shouldn't be driving. (Average human reaction time to visual stimuli is 215 milliseconds.)

However, I agree that time, not distance, should be the way to measure distance between cars.
 
Last edited:
4 car pile up? it was a slight bump. According to this...
Yahoo News said:
The BBC presenter was apparently involved on a four-car incident at the Over Roundabout on the A40 near Gloucester.
The star, who escaped death in 2006 when his jet car crashed at 288mph, was believed to be in his ?110,000 Morgan Aeromax at the time of the latest smash.
The accident on Saturday lunchtime is said to have involved a BMW 3 Series, a Volvo V40, and a Nissan Almera, as well as the Morgan.
Gloucestershire police said they could not confirm or deny that Hammond, known as The Hamster, was involved.
But a spokesman said there was a "damage only" accident involving four cars at the roundabout requiring no action from officers.
The presenter is believed to have been on his way home from a flying lesson nearby when the accident occurred.
An eyewitness told the Mail on Sunday: "Richard was at the back of the line and he received no damage to his rear end but the front was in a pretty bad way.
"Everyone got out and exchanged details and there was some good-humoured banter exchanged by the drivers after they realised it was him."
The BBC said the presenter had been involved in a minor collision and was unharmed.
Click to expand...
 
racingfan1 said:
First, if a car going 100 km/h can get to 50 km/h BEFORE you notice, you should probably be paying more attention.

Second, if you can't react within a second of seeing brake lights, you probably shouldn't be driving. (Average human reaction time to visual stimuli is 215 milliseconds.)
Click to expand...

You need to see the car's brake lights light up, let your brain process it, decide to brake, move your foot from the accelerator to the brake, and slam dowb both feet.

You may be able to respond to something you are constantly expecting (ie, your hand is on a buzzer, and a scientist tells you "as soon as you hear a horn, depress the buzzer) in a quarter of a second, but tests have shown that responding to something you don't really expect to happen, such as a car in front of you slowing down, plus actually getting to the brakes, take more like 1 second, so the 1 second figure is realistic.

Also, the higher your speed, the more the braking effect of wind resistance is, so if the car in front lets off the accelerator at 200 without braking, he will receive an alot higher negative acceleration than if he had done that in town.

Also, at high speeds, you travel more distance braking the same ?v, so it makes an alot bigger difference at high speeds if the car in front of you has better brakes. So if you're driving along in your... VW Polo or Buick Roadmaster, and the Porsche in front of you has to slam on his carbon ceramic brakes, if you are only 3 car lengths (that's 15 meters, or at motorway speeds of 130kmh a mere 0.4 seconds) behind him, you'll be up his ass faster than you can yell BRAKE CHECK.
 
Last edited:
TraumaDoll said:
Seriously? Okay - when you learn to drive in the UK, your instructor teaches you to keep two seconds' distance between you and the car in front, in good weather on a good road. This can be measured using a sign or similar marker by the side of the road, and the reason they use it is to prevent you from rear-ending...
Click to expand...

I thought you were talking about the thing where you drop a sandwich and have to pick it up before two seconds is over. Otherwise you can't eat it anymore and have to make a new sandwich.

AKA three second rule. :p
 
frankiess said:
I thought you were talking about the thing where you drop a sandwich and have to pick it up before two seconds is over. Otherwise you can't eat it anymore and have to make a new sandwich.

AKA three second rule. :p
Click to expand...

It's 5 seconds here...how dirty is the ground in Finland? :p
 
stiggles said:
I got instruction somewhere that said (as a rule of thumb) to follow by 2s on a dry road, 4s on a wet one and 10s on an icy one.
Click to expand...

Tell that to the tw*ts tailgating me in the pissing rain on the A3 last weekend...:mad:
And i was going, well, over 70 shall we say...:shifty:
 
Here in Norway its 3 seconds behind the car in front BY LAW.
That is, if you are caught being closer you will get fined.
If you are closer than 1.5 sec, you will lose your license.
 
kurthest said:
Here in Norway its 3 seconds behind the car in front BY LAW.
That is, if you are caught being closer you will get fined.
If you are closer than 1.5 sec, you will lose your license.
Click to expand...

Getting pulled over due to distance from the car in front seems like a good idea - perhaps not a fine, but I've seen a few people who could definitely do with a warning. Does it work? I don't know much about the accident rate in Norway, I'm afraid.
 
TraumaDoll said:
Getting pulled over due to distance from the car in front seems like a good idea - perhaps not a fine, but I've seen a few people who could definitely do with a warning. Does it work? I don't know much about the accident rate in Norway, I'm afraid.
Click to expand...

Nah doesnt really work that well, even tho we have ridiculously high fines people dont seem to care too much.
Same with speeding or speaking on the mobile without "handsfree". There are generally way too few cops out there to really enforce the law.
 
alpha said:
That's amazingly stupid.
Click to expand...
I didn't say it was the best way, just the way it's done over here.

Personally, I prefer to keep more than three car lengths between myself and any car. It's not always possible though, especially in high congestion areas. Staying alert has always been my first line of defense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top