Clarkson: Clarkson admits to speeding on public roads again....
- Thread starter MWF
- Start date
pepitko
Well-Known Member
Personally, I admire JC for being a sort of a lone voice against the limits on everything. For instance, why unlimited motor-ways work in Germany but nowhere else? And UK is worst with speed limits, 70 mph on motorways (112 km/h) is just ridiculous.
These speed limits were introduced many years ago when average car had 60 HP and weak brakes. But today, these limits seem way out of place. My ideal speed limits would be: 50-100-150 kmh (37-60-93 mph) for town-outside of towns-highway and possibly unlimited for roads with three lanes and more.
These speed limits were introduced many years ago when average car had 60 HP and weak brakes. But today, these limits seem way out of place. My ideal speed limits would be: 50-100-150 kmh (37-60-93 mph) for town-outside of towns-highway and possibly unlimited for roads with three lanes and more.
klankymen
BLT Master
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2008
- Messages
- 3,298
- Location
- M?nchen, K?nigreich Bayern
- Car(s)
- plastic Japanese iPod dock on wheels
they're not going to work here in .de for long if the greens communists and socialists get their way....
pepitko
Well-Known Member
yeah, thanks for pointing that out.. on the basis of going green we might even see speed limits going down. Anyone remember the seventies oil crisis?
MWF
Now needs wood
- Joined
- May 29, 2008
- Messages
- 28,275
- Location
- MWF HQ, Ukadia
- Car(s)
- MX-5 1.8i Indiana SE, update pending
It's already happening. According to the broadsheet press people are driving more slowly because of the cost of fuel, and as a regular UK motorway user I can back that up. Travelling at 85mph uses 20% more fuel than driving at 70, and people are beginning to realise it and do something about it, with the exception of the M3 CSL that "bounced" me on the M26 this morning!
Vector
Active Member
Exactly. I think speed limits would even be more effective if they would get that message accross.
So instead of "Speed kills!" make it "Speed is keeping you from that HDTV!". I guarantee once people see it affects their bottom line you will see speed dropping.
So instead of "Speed kills!" make it "Speed is keeping you from that HDTV!". I guarantee once people see it affects their bottom line you will see speed dropping.
klankymen
BLT Master
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2008
- Messages
- 3,298
- Location
- M?nchen, K?nigreich Bayern
- Car(s)
- plastic Japanese iPod dock on wheels
That's a question of viewpoint. In any case I don't think the government should be telling me how I spend my money though.
Take me for example. I have a 60 kilometer commute each way. thats 120 kilometers. If I drive at 100kmh that takes me 1 hour 12. If I drive 180 that's 40 minutes. So I'm saving a half an hour of time. Half an hour could be put to earning around 15?. 15? will buy me 10 liters of fuel. that means I can use 8 liters more per 100km I drive. Driving at 100 my car uses 7 liters/100km, driving at 180 it uses 15l/100km. So I break even.
HDTV is not in fact moving any farther away.
Vector
Active Member
Completely ignoring the fact that most people's work hours are fixed and they drive faster to get home quicker, not so they can squeeze in more work. 
pepitko
Well-Known Member
Personally, I do a 800 km drive almost every other week(400 there, 400 back), to get home for a weekend. When I am doing on average 100 km/h it takes me 4 hours and about 5.1 liters/100 km. But I hate the commute and just want it to be over soon, so I usually drive faster with an average speed of about 125. This way I save two hours on the round trip (!) and my fuel consumption goes up to some 5.8 l/100 km (41 MPG).
My point here is that I'd rather pay a little extra to get the journey over with. That is why I was previously saying highway could even be unlimited, because you should have the choice of either saving money or getting there faster..
My point here is that I'd rather pay a little extra to get the journey over with. That is why I was previously saying highway could even be unlimited, because you should have the choice of either saving money or getting there faster..
Corvu
Active Member
It's not speeding that kills people; it's becoming stationary, very, very, quickly.
Ottobon
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2005
- Messages
- 3,310
- Location
- Detriot Metro Area
- Car(s)
- 2 Rust buckets and a confused 1999 American.
Actually its not speeding that kills period. Not compared to sleep deprivation, drunkeness, inattentiveness etc etc. Infact if you look at the crash statistics usually none of the speed kills stuff adds up, but its a damn good way of making money and sadly nobody is above that. The fact that deaths went up the year northern Australia (Stuart highway i believe) mandated a speed limit was largely ignored just suggests that people in general are misinformed and sadly unwilling to change, even if it was for the better.
Personally if you want to save gas by madating something then mandate better aerodynamics. The fact we waste so much fuel pushing air around should be considered a crime, especially as 90% of cars nowadays look terribly bland anyways. People trying to get from place to place quickly on the other hand should be given a pat on the back for being upstanding citizens with initiative and a verve for life.
Personally if you want to save gas by madating something then mandate better aerodynamics. The fact we waste so much fuel pushing air around should be considered a crime, especially as 90% of cars nowadays look terribly bland anyways. People trying to get from place to place quickly on the other hand should be given a pat on the back for being upstanding citizens with initiative and a verve for life.
Last edited: