Modern Hot hatches

BigMonka

The OP is an interesting question, and it's one that Toyota/Subaru tried to answer with the GT86/BRZ where they said that driving dynamic is much more entertaining that all-out speed. I haven't tried one but everything I've read has said that it's a good premise but could do with a bit more power! lol

Snap

holnrew said:

Driving should be about going from A to B as safe as possible. Anybody who wants to go fast is selfish and puts their own pleasure ahead of others' lives. Speed limits and cameras are a good thing and the sooner the human gets removed from driving the better.

If you want to go fast, go to a track and don't put others at risk.

Nope. Not at all. You are plain heavy handed wrong.

Driving most definitely SHOULD be about being safe.

Speed limits and cameras: the most dangerous roads are the slowest ones, the safest are the fastest ones. That is a fact.

Speed is ONLY a factor in safety when speed is inappropriate. You go on a speed awareness course and this point is hammered all day.

you do 40 in a 30mph zone, and if you hit a child, they will likely die: hit them at 30, or 25, they will likely walk away. That is the sort of twattish behaviour that needs the heaviest penalties IMO: the arsehole caning it in a residential area. Often some toe rag in a company car, thinking he's Lewis Hamilton.

Doing 85mph on a motorway, keeping your distance, with your wits about you, you aren't putting anyone in much danger at all. Certainly you are inflicting less danger than driving past a school at 25 mph. Far less chance of anything happening.

Yet, the berk sitting in the middle lane, doing 70, not pulling in, when they ought to, is creating more of a hazard. AS is the div tailgating at 60, or the shitehawk on their phone.

So, go talk to any driving organisation about speed, they will say the same thing: its about appropriate use of speed.

As the current laws on motorway speed stand, I can on the M1, at 11pm at night, empty road, doing 100mph, not a car in sight, and I can get done, severely. Why? To what end?

Maynehead

Snap said:

As the current laws on motorway speed stand, I can on the M1, at 11pm at night, empty road, doing 100mph, not a car in sight, and I can get done, severely. Why? To what end?

I largely agree but on your last point, it's because if your headlights show up a hazard ahead at 100mph, you can't stop in time, whereas at 70 you can.

It's not good practice to drive on the assumption that you won't encounter anything dangerous. A safe speed is a speed at which you can deal with any reasonably expected hazards, such as a stationary car in your lane.

ThePrettyDamned

When I was in major trauma we'd generally have more, and worse, accidents from old people who shouldn't be allowed to drive and people who drive fast cars and think they're capable. 

Yeah, I know, the driver has the accident not the car - but not everyone has fast enough cars. What if the limit was 100mph in the fast lane but the BMW driving fuckbucket who's tailgating you wants to go 110mph? Our roads are already over populated with vehicles. And frankly, most people are not good enough drivers, even if they think they are. 

If you drove, solidly, at 100mph in a 30 mile journey you'd take 20 minutes. If you drove at 70mph for 30 miles it would take just under 26 minutes. 

Wanna beat traffic? You can either drive at 100mph ("oh I'm less dangerous than someone on their phone) or... Leave 10 minutes earlier and go 70mph and beat the guy who leaves later going 100mph. Probably use less petrol, and avoid more traffic - win win. 

I also agree we could raise the speed limits on motorways, but truth be told I don't often have big problems on motorways (other than tailgating - and no, I won't decelerate from 70mph to 56mph to merge in the traffic in the left lane to move out of your way). It's usually porsche cayennes and hot hatches in national limit rural roads overtaking when I'm already doing 60mph. 

I've also had a road near me reduced from a 50mph limit to a 40 because yet another hot hatch went into the river running alongside it. It's perfectly safe at 50, and if it's wet you drive slower because you're not a fucking imbecile - these numpties ruin it for everyone. 

Axe_meister

It is not beyond modern technology (already exists in cars) to have variable speedlimits on most road. My car already switches on the windscreen wipers the second there is a drop of rain, and switches on the lights as soon as it gets a little dark. Not reason this technolgy cannot be used on most roads.
Most road deaths happen on country roads, a) Because it takes ages for somebody to notice you've had an accident and the national speed limit (50) is actaully two quick for most B roads (yes they are fun to drive at that speed but you have no idea what is around the next corner (horse, tractor).

Snap

ThePrettyDamned said:

When I was in major trauma we'd generally have more, and worse, accidents from old people who shouldn't be allowed to drive and people who drive fast cars and think they're capable. 

Yeah, I know, the driver has the accident not the car - but not everyone has fast enough cars. What if the limit was 100mph in the fast lane but the BMW driving fuckbucket who's tailgating you wants to go 110mph? Our roads are already over populated with vehicles. And frankly, most people are not good enough drivers, even if they think they are. 

If you drove, solidly, at 100mph in a 30 mile journey you'd take 20 minutes. If you drove at 70mph for 30 miles it would take just under 26 minutes. 

Wanna beat traffic? You can either drive at 100mph ("oh I'm less dangerous than someone on their phone) or... Leave 10 minutes earlier and go 70mph and beat the guy who leaves later going 100mph. Probably use less petrol, and avoid more traffic - win win. 

I also agree we could raise the speed limits on motorways, but truth be told I don't often have big problems on motorways (other than tailgating - and no, I won't decelerate from 70mph to 56mph to merge in the traffic in the left lane to move out of your way). It's usually porsche cayennes and hot hatches in national limit rural roads overtaking when I'm already doing 60mph. 

I've also had a road near me reduced from a 50mph limit to a 40 because yet another hot hatch went into the river running alongside it. It's perfectly safe at 50, and if it's wet you drive slower because you're not a fucking imbecile - these numpties ruin it for everyone. 

My point isn't really about being able to drive at a ton everywhere, you can't. My point is that a speed limit on a motorway is probably largely pointless as a motorway is self governing in terms of speed, due to traffic.

If you can drive at 80 mph you should be allowed to, as long as its safe, same goes for 90, 100, whatever. If you are looking properly and paying attention, you can stop in plenty of time for hazards. If you are going fast, you just need to be more aware of things further in the distance. If you can't be aware, slow down. Its what I do. That's about being able to drive properly isn't it?

Limiting it at 70 is daft.

Motorways are a special case, and I do think the limit should be increased. Rural roads I'd have dropped to 50 everywhere, too many bends, hazards, dickheads, to be faster than that. The Snake Pass here is horrendous for arseholia - always some tosser sales rep in an Audi thinking he can overtake on a blind bend. Sends me apoplectic with rage. What these divs don't think about is that they are endangering everyone with their antics.

Axe_meister

@Snap Consider driving along a motor way, just you and a lorry. You approach it at 70mph one lane over to overtake. Suddenly a strap on the lorry breaks, throwing part of it's load into your lane. At 70mph you may have time to react and get out of danger (hit the breaks or move into a different lane).
Same scenario at 100mph. Your reaction time is the same but you will travel alot further in that time period, by which time you could hit the load.

Foster

I thought the term 'Hot Hatch' was used to describe a post curry shit?

Garthy

Maynehead said:

Snap said:

As the current laws on motorway speed stand, I can on the M1, at 11pm at night, empty road, doing 100mph, not a car in sight, and I can get done, severely. Why? To what end?

I largely agree but on your last point, it's because if your headlights show up a hazard ahead at 100mph, you can't stop in time, whereas at 70 you can.

It's not good practice to drive on the assumption that you won't encounter anything dangerous. A safe speed is a speed at which you can deal with any reasonably expected hazards, such as a stationary car in your lane.

And if the motorway is lit?

The plod aren't going to ban Snap because of the dipped beam distance, they do it because he'd be an easy target. Speed is low hanging fruit, the bigger baddies would require actual policing. I see some bloody awful driving every day outside my house, it's a 30 limit yet almost all of the really bad driving takes place under 20mph under the watchful eye of our reflective yellow GATSO. 50 yards away.

Bucket

Maynehead said:

Snap said:

As the current laws on motorway speed stand, I can on the M1, at 11pm at night, empty road, doing 100mph, not a car in sight, and I can get done, severely. Why? To what end?

I largely agree but on your last point, it's because if your headlights show up a hazard ahead at 100mph, you can't stop in time, whereas at 70 you can.

The motorway speed limit was devised at a time when cars had poor brakes and took an eternity to stop. Cars now usually don't have poor brakes, and could stop within the Highway Code's stopping distance from 70, at more like 90 or 100 mph.

It's a bit of a sore point with me because I've just been done for speeding - on Hanger Lane, by a camera that is apparently notorious, I think it sits just after the limit goes down from 40 to 30. It was late at night - 11:55pm. I remember the exact journey - I was driving back home from my girlfriend's house, about a month ago. Both the road and pavement alongside it were utterly peaceful, there was very little traffic, and I was paying full attention to the road. I got done at 36mph. Rather irritating - I know that I did not pose a danger to ANYONE on that occasion. Just a little revenue raising exercise by our esteemed leaders.

Bucket

Turns out you don't need a hot hatch to get done for speeding.

A twelve year-old 1.6-litre Honda Civic with scratches all down the side will do it.

Sporky

Bucket said:

The motorway speed limit was devised at a time when cars had poor brakes and took an eternity to stop. Cars now usually don't have poor brakes, and could stop within the Highway Code's stopping distance from 70, at more like 90 or 100 mph.

Though reactions haven't improved, and there are more distractions.

The question, I would suggest, then becomes do you want to keep motorways as safe as they are now, or do you want to sacrifice a bit of that safety in order for some people to drive a little bit faster?

guitarfishbay

I'm with Sporky on this. I don't think there's a compelling argument for making the speed limit 100mph. 

Also the noise at high speed in a lot of more affordable (and those fitted with cheaper tyres)/lower powered (especially diesel) cars isn't good for your ears by the time you've cranked your stereo up to hear it over the top. So even if you're safe driving at that speed you're more likely to damage your hearing over time. Different story if you're in a high end luxury car with a big engine. Most people won't care about this but musicians should at least be careful with their hearing.

Bucket

guitarfishbay said:

I'm with Sporky on this. I don't think there's a compelling argument for making the speed limit 100mph. 

Also the noise at high speed in a lot of more affordable (and those fitted with cheaper tyres)/lower powered (especially diesel) cars isn't good for your ears by the time you've cranked your stereo up to hear it over the top. So even if you're safe driving at that speed you're more likely to damage your hearing over time. Different story if you're in a high end luxury car with a big engine. Most people won't care about this but musicians should at least be careful with their hearing.

Definitely not 100, but I think 80 is reasonable.

My car is a Honda with a (small) VTEC engine, so you need to absolutely thrash the nuts off it to get anywhere. At motorway speeds it sits at around 4000 rpm, which is extremely tiresome so yes, up goes the stereo. The one thing I would change about it is giving it a 6th gear.

Sporky

Bucket said:

Definitely not 100, but I think 80 is reasonable.

I think 80 might be justifiable if it was brutally policed, but as it is with a 70 limit people regularly do 90 and above. Up the limit to 80 and will they think it's OK to pile on another 20-30 as they do now?

I know the majority don't thrash it to that extent, but it only takes one eejit who thinks they're a racing driver and one other eejit who doesn't look before pulling out and you potentially have a multi-car pile-up. Just as you do now, only the racing driver thinks they're OK at an even higher speed.

I know that probably sounds a bit hand-wringy, but I honestly don't see the point in increasing the limit. We have lovely safe motorways, and in a relatively small country we don't have anything like the distances Germany has so adding another 10mph really doesn't make a lot of difference to journey times.

guitarfishbay

The fast lane is generally 80 already outside of rush hour (at least up North) and it clearly isn't heavily policed otherwise there'd be a lot of banned drivers.  If the legal limit was 80 then it would inevitably push the fast lane beyond that.

Snap

Axe_meister said:

@Snap Consider driving along a motor way, just you and a lorry. You approach it at 70mph one lane over to overtake. Suddenly a strap on the lorry breaks, throwing part of it's load into your lane. At 70mph you may have time to react and get out of danger (hit the breaks or move into a different lane).
Same scenario at 100mph. Your reaction time is the same but you will travel alot further in that time period, by which time you could hit the load.

So, by the same logic, reduce the speed limit to 60 then, give me even more time.
You could apply that very rare scenario to every single speed limit. The safest speed is zero. After that its just a question of scenarios and probabilities.

Really, I agree with you, but I do think there is a good case to increase the speed limit on motorways.Tbh I don't think many people would be travelling much quicker than they do now, but it would reduce the worry of getting done when doing 80 mph, which IMO is a perfectly reasonable speed to be travelling at, conditions permitting.

I'd have more 30mph limits though, more 20mph lmits too, but would up the motorway, and reduce national speed limit on single carriageways to 50. Focus on the unsafe roads.

Snap

guitarfishbay said:

The fast lane is generally 80 already outside of rush hour (at least up North) and it clearly isn't heavily policed otherwise there'd be a lot of banned drivers.  If the legal limit was 80 then it would inevitably push the fast lane beyond that.

Don't think it would, not by much really. I think what limits most people's speed is traffic volume and the speed at which you feel comfortable. For me, that is about 80. Faster than that, it gets tiring (concentration level required). At 80, most modern cars are quiet, smooth and comfortable. Above that it gets a bit less so.

Dominic

I think 100 mph is too slow and very unfair to all the Porsche,Bentley,AMG,Ferrari and Lambo owners -should be at least 160

crunchman

Snap said:

Axe_meister said:

@Snap Consider driving along a motor way, just you and a lorry. You approach it at 70mph one lane over to overtake. Suddenly a strap on the lorry breaks, throwing part of it's load into your lane. At 70mph you may have time to react and get out of danger (hit the breaks or move into a different lane).
Same scenario at 100mph. Your reaction time is the same but you will travel alot further in that time period, by which time you could hit the load.

So, by the same logic, reduce the speed limit to 60 then, give me even more time.
You could apply that very rare scenario to every single speed limit. The safest speed is zero. After that its just a question of scenarios and probabilities.

Really, I agree with you, but I do think there is a good case to increase the speed limit on motorways.Tbh I don't think many people would be travelling much quicker than they do now, but it would reduce the worry of getting done when doing 80 mph, which IMO is a perfectly reasonable speed to be travelling at, conditions permitting.

I'd have more 30mph limits though, more 20mph lmits too, but would up the motorway, and reduce national speed limit on single carriageways to 50. Focus on the unsafe roads.

I know it wouldn't be popular but I'd switch over to km and kph.  You could set the speed limit for residential areas to 40kph (25mph).  They are putting 20 mph limits everywhere around here now and people are just ignoring them.  There is also the danger of getting overtaken by people on pushbikes.  25mph would be a sensible compromise but that would be a lot easier to do in kph where it's a nice round number.

You could also set the motorway limit at 120kph which is 75mph which would be a bit better than what we currently have but it wouldn't have the Greens screaming end of the world.