Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Please note that it is not permitted to have referral links posted in your signature. Keep these links contained in the appropriate forum. Thank you.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2055940817/signature-rules

(Would you like the)Motorway speed limit to be raised to 130km/h

Options
123457»

Comments

  • Options
    #182
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    284241.jpg

    http://www.etsc.eu/documents/Speed_Fact_Sheet_1.pdf


  • Options
    #183
    Days 298
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,311 ✭✭✭Days 298


    One could argue

    or simple point out the bias in the report from the outset
    mHmTzez.png


  • Options
    #184
    creedp
    Registered Users Posts: 5,649 ✭✭✭creedp


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    Or you could just walk. ;)


    May as well if certain people get their way!


  • Options
    #185
    Jesus.
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,794 ✭✭✭Jesus.


    Seen a graph somewhere before that said that generally, around 60 mph was the optimal fuel efficient speed. Once you go above it you start sucking Daysul


  • Options
    #186
    pafro
    Registered Users Posts: 99 ✭✭pafro


    Jesus. wrote: »
    Seen a graph somewhere before that said that generally, around 60 mph was the optimal fuel efficient speed. Once you go above it you start sucking Daysul

    http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/driveHabits.jsp


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #187
    dr.fuzzenstein
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 16,635 ✭✭✭✭dr.fuzzenstein


    Days 298 wrote: »
    One could argue

    or simple point out the bias in the report from the outset
    mHmTzez.png

    This will happen when the Yanks give up guns. :P
    Meanwhile, all is well and will remain so.
    There are always people who will argue for a worldwide 60 km/h speed limit, but don't mind 'em and just up their meds.


  • Options
    #188
    dr.fuzzenstein
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 16,635 ✭✭✭✭dr.fuzzenstein


    Jesus. wrote: »
    Seen a graph somewhere before that said that generally, around 60 mph was the optimal fuel efficient speed. Once you go above it you start sucking Daysul

    Once you start running on empty, you have to drive faster.
    Why?
    because you need to hurry up to get to the petrol station before the fuel runs out!:cool:


  • Options
    #189
    Sobanek
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,354 ✭✭✭Sobanek


    dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »
    Once you start running on empty, you have to drive faster.
    Why?
    because you need to hurry up to get to the petrol station before the fuel runs out!:cool:

    Funnily enough most times you'd be better off with doing this, rather than driving slowly.
    My mate was running on empty (literally) and the car was travelling at 110kph and still running, but once we slowed down to 50kph it turned off. We were able to speed up to 80 and the car rolled from a hill down to the petrol station.


  • Options
    #190
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    Days 298 wrote: »
    One could argue

    or simple point out the bias in the report from the outset

    dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »
    This will happen when the Yanks give up guns. :P
    Meanwhile, all is well and will remain so.
    There are always people who will argue for a worldwide 60 km/h speed limit, but don't mind 'em and just up their meds.



    You may have missed, or deliberately ignored, the ETSC's reference to empirical evidence of "very large casualty reductions".

    If you think you could argue then a good place to start would be to point out where such evidence is flawed.

    The report explicitly refers to cross border impacts, a legitimate concern for a high-level EU body supported by the European Commission and with a membership that includes the national road safety agencies of numerous countries, as well as academic bodies and commercial interests.

    This is Europe and not America, tbtf, though that's not always apparent in this Minor Outlying Island.
    With its central geographical situation Germany is one of the major crossroads of Europe and borders 10 countries (Poland, The Czech Republic, Austria, Liechtenstein, Switzerland, Luxembourg, Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark, and France). One can therefore ask whether unlimited motorways in Germany do not influence the behaviour of drivers most prone to speeding when they cross over to neighbouring countries. This is a legitimate question within a continent that knows no borders, and should be investigated further by appropriate studies.


  • Options
    #191
    dr.fuzzenstein
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 16,635 ✭✭✭✭dr.fuzzenstein


    Not gonna happen.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #192
    Vegeta
    Registered Users Posts: 11,393 ✭✭✭✭Vegeta


    Chimaera wrote: »
    because it becomes the equivalent of hitting a solid wall at >120 km/h.

    That's not true, yes the speed doubles but so does the mass. So hitting another (identical) car, both cars doing 60km/h, is the same as driving into an immovable wall at 60km/h.


  • Options
    #193
    corktina
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,733 ✭✭✭✭corktina


    unkel wrote: »
    +1

    On a family holiday to Kerry, I gained nearly an hour between Dublin and Limerick compared to the other families we were holidaying with. Kept the lead and we were all settled in, had a swim in the sea and a drink by the time the others arrived :D

    they must have stopped for a cup of tea, you couldn't better them by an hour in 100 miles

    In fact most traffic on the motorways is travelling below 120 k so a raised limit will not make much difference to anyone. (count the vehicles you overtake and compare it to the number pass you)


  • Options
    #194
    Chimaera
    Registered Users Posts: 1,652 ✭✭✭Chimaera


    Vegeta wrote: »
    That's not true, yes the speed doubles but so does the mass. So hitting another (identical) car, both cars doing 60km/h, is the same as driving into an immovable wall at 60km/h.

    Consider the energy dissipation:

    Scenario 1: Two cars collide head on, each with mass m and speed v: Kinetic energy for each car is 0.5mv^2 so total kinetic energy is mv^2

    Scenario 2: One car with mass m travelling at a speed of 2v collides with a stationary object: kinetic energy for the car is 0.5m(2v)^2 = 2mv^2 (a stationary object has no kinetic energy)

    So I exaggerated slightly: the equivalent speed for a single vehicle collision is 1.414 times the speed of the head on collision.

    It still doesn't change the point that a head-on collision is more serious than a single vehicle collision at the same speed, and reducing the number of head-on collisions would do far more for road safety than more speed cameras.


  • Options
    #195
    CiniO
    Registered Users Posts: 16,089 ✭✭✭✭CiniO


    corktina wrote: »

    In fact most traffic on the motorways is travelling below 120 k so a raised limit will not make much difference to anyone. (count the vehicles you overtake and compare it to the number pass you)

    That's probably right.

    Few years ago in Poland motorway speed limit was raised from 130km/h to 140km/h.
    Even though I don't think it caused people to drive faster. Rather opposite.

    When driving at 140km/h I overtake vast majority of other vehicles, being overtaken only very occasionally, usually by someone doing way over that.


  • Options
    #196
    Vegeta
    Registered Users Posts: 11,393 ✭✭✭✭Vegeta


    Chimaera wrote: »
    Consider the energy dissipation:

    Scenario 1: Two cars collide head on, each with mass m and speed v: Kinetic energy for each car is 0.5mv^2 so total kinetic energy is mv^2

    You're ignoring newton's 3rd law here though

    Yup total kinetic energy is mv^2, but each car only contributes and therefore receives half of that energy i.e. 1/2mv^2 The same as if it drove into an immoveable object.


  • Options
    #197
    Vegeta
    Registered Users Posts: 11,393 ✭✭✭✭Vegeta


    Mythbusters (in fairness it was carried out in a facility for testing crash forces) has done this experiment for us anyway

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8E5dUnLmh4


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8E5dUnLmh4


  • Options
    #198
    Mycroft H
    Registered Users Posts: 9,316 ✭✭✭Mycroft H


    I remember having that debate in school in Physics class. Newton's good old 3rd law.


  • Options
    #199
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    Chimaera wrote: »
    If you look at road collision statistics, head on collisions on N and R roads are the single biggest cause of death on our roads, every year. So driving too fast really isn't the problem people think it is


    Both your information and your conclusion are incorrect.

    Single-vehicle collisions, including those where the victim is a pedestrian, are consistently a greater cause of road fatalities than head-on crashes.

    Speed is a very important element of both single-vehicle crashes and collisions involving pedestrians. Excessive speed is a significant causal factor in single-vehicle crashes, while the speed of the vehicle when a pedestrian is struck very strongly influences whether the outcome is likely to be fatal or 'just' a serious injury for the victim.

    On average in the years 2005-2011 there were three times as many fatalities due to single-vehicle and pedestrian collisions combined than were caused by head-on crashes. In 2011 that figure was 4.5x (67% versus 15%).

    COLLISION TYPE/YEAR|2005|2006|2007|2008|2009|2010|2011
    Head-on|28%|28%|14%|23%|25%|18%|15%
    Single-vehicle|30%|31%|36%|35%|38%|42%|40%
    Pedestrian|18%|22%|26%|18%|18%|24%|27%


    Source: RSA Road Collision Facts 2005-2011.


Advertisement