Top speed

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Sheridan:
and when you start driving at speeds close to the maximum rating of a tyre you're going to end up with a blowout.

---

Speed ratings are actually more like heat ratings so if you're driving a heavy car at high speed in hot conditions for long distances then you'll want the best tyres available.

One of my motorbikes is a tourer and, despite a top speed of only around 125mph, it wears Z-rated tyres. It doesn't need them because of any speed rating, but it does need them as it's weight causes a lot of heat to build up in the tyres.

The sort of person who'll fit re-treads to a Jaguar isn't going to pay a lot of attention to maintenance so the chances are they'll allow tyre pressures to fall which can also add to heat build up and the likelyhood of a blow-out.

I once used re-treads for a short while (after being assured by the dealer that they met stringent European regulations), but in the last few years new tyres have come down in price so much that I hardly think it's worth the risk any more.

Steve B

If anyone needs assurance about how good retreads are you have just to look at the"A" roads and Motorways to see the residue left behind by this wonderful money saving device, imho they are unsafe at any speed above "0 mph"
oldie.

quote:

---

I'm reminded of Cozy Powell who was driving down the M4 when a lorry had blowout just in front of him. The lorry stopped very quickly, Cozy didn't. (Well he did but by then he was dead)

---

He can't have been going too fast as lorries generally don't do more than 56, so he must have been driving too close behind the lorry.



Regards,

Steve.

I think that you are being a bit unfair to remould tyres. There are at least two makes; Colway and Technic, who produce "V" rated (150mph) tyres. I used Technic remoulds on my Maikonics-modified Citroen CX Turbo (The correct tyres were not available) and had no problems with them whatsoever. The grip was fairly good although they wore faster than Michelins. I have also, in the past, used Colways rally tyres - these were "H" rated and, again, I had no problems at all despite using them for a full season of Tarmac rallying. The main advantage that I see to using remould tyres is environmental - tyres are pretty nasty things to get rid of (hence the disposal charge at your local tyre depot).
However, the rash of new, cheap tyre makes from far eastern sources has reduced the financial areguments for using them somewhat.

I think Cozy Powell was on the phone when he died.

FWIW hands free or not doesn't affect the accident rate for people on the phone while driving.

Paul

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steven Toy:
He can't have been going too fast as lorries generally don't do more than 56, so he must have been driving too close behind the lorry.

---

He also can't have been paying attention as lorries don't stop very quickly, especially when they've had a puncture.

Isn't there a zone during winding it up where it goes into a slow weave?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tom Alves:
Speed may not have been an issue but the point was that he didn't have time to react when someone else had an accident.

---

If the above reports are true then it sounds like he was driving without due care and attention (aggravated by being on the phone and possibly driving too close to the vehicle in front). Contrary to the governments enforcement line it's a fuck of a lot more dangerous than speeding.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tom Alves:
Agreed but if you're driving fast you need more time to react when someone else happens to you.

---

At least when driving fast people tend to pay a bit more attention.

Instead of the big debate about speeding shouldn't we be more concerned by stories like this: Don't let another family suffer?'

I think everyone should have to pass a driving test every 3 years, and that should reflect increased experience too.

Steve,
Yes of course you are right, but as I understand it and unless the law has changed you can legaly drive a vehicle even if you only have sight in one eye but that doesn't change things In my opinion excessive speed on public roads such has been demonstrated in this thread kills. 8 dead just out side Brighton when some young person tried ,by all accounts to raceing another car, lost control and flew over the central barrier straight into the path of on coming traffic that was 6 familys ruined that day. The resulting mess was so bad that some of the ambulance crews had to go for counselling afterwards,so even more lives affected. Foolhardy, reckless, stupid call it what you will but in any other circumstances other than driving a vehical anyone killing so many people
would have been charged with manslaughter at the least or posible murder.
oldie.

Foolhardy, reckless, stupid call it what you will but in any other circumstances other than driving a vehical anyone killing so many people
would have been charged with manslaughter at the least or posible murder.

If what you say about the accident is proven to be true then the driver (if they survived) would be charged with causing death by dangerous driving, which is a very serious offence and often ends in a (too short) prison sentence.

They're fairly unlikely to be charged for speeding if for no other reason than it'd be difficult to prove.

The problem I have with the way you're viewing that accident is that you seem to see it purely as a speeding/speed issue when it's cleary dangerous driving which was the cause.

quote:

---

Provided that I use lane 3 for its intended purpose, ie: overtaking without impeding (legal or Emergency) traffic*, I have every right to be there, although an absolutist may argue that anyone who is above the legal speed limit foregoes all 'rights'.

---

It's exactly this sort of bullshit that causes accidents.

You, as a responsible road user, should do EVERYTHING in YOUR power to prevent others getting into situations they cannot control. if you put someone else, no matter how irresponsible, into a position where they take further risk YOU take equal blame for any resulting accidents in my view.

As John has clearly highlighted either the advice you received from the Class 1 driver was erroneous, or mis-interpreted, Roadcraft makes that perfectly clear, you should try reading it sometime.

It's not remotely clear to me why "a reasonable driver should assume that no-one but a cretin would be coming up behind him, around (even a low-radius motorway) curve at such a speed as to require the latter to brake heavily (as evidenced by the 'dip' in his bonnet which coincided with the preadvertised 'flashing lights').".

Expect the unexpected, your judgements are based on three things: -

What you can see,

What you can't see

What you can reasonably expect to happen

Anyone who spends as much time as I do on a motorway expects exactly this sort of behaviour and looks out for it. If I find someone closing on me at a rapid rate, I'll pull over and let them pass, thereby removing myself from the danger area and potentially driving someone into doing something stupid, potentially killing even more people.

Andy.

I have every right to be there, although an absolutist may argue that anyone who is above the legal speed limit foregoes all 'rights'

The highway code explicitly states that not to be the case. Just because someone else is breaking the law doesn't absolve you of any duty of care.

Steve,
Speeding, raceing, Dangerous Driving I'm really not sure that it matters, surly excessive speeds constitutes Dangerous Driving and I'm not talking about 65mph on a dual carrigeway or even 80 mph on the motorway some of the speeds mentioned on this thread on a open public highway just don't bare thinking about.I have no problem with speed, If people wish to use excessive speeds use a race track remember not all the users of todays road are endowed with lighting reflexes and everbody[who has passed the relevant test,is licenced and insured] has the right to use the public highways.
oldie.

quote:

---

Originally posted by oldie:
Speeding, raceing, Dangerous Driving I'm really not sure that it matters, surly excessive speeds constitutes Dangerous Driving

---

Indeed it does, and what the speed limit was isn't a factor. I've seen just as many cases of excessive speed within the speed limit as without.

FWIW I don't regard my 152mph max as excessive as there were no other road users about, the road and weather conditions were perfect and the section of motorway I did it on doesn't have any junctions.

quote:

---

Originally posted by oldie:
everbody[who has passed the relevant test,is licenced and insured] has the right to use the public highways.

---

What? Even if they have tunnel vision or cataracts?

Steve,
If you can read a vehical number plate at 25 yds or what ever it is now ,tunnel vision, cateracts or even just one eyed thats all the law calls for.
152 on a PUBLIC HIGHWAY whatever the conditions is illegal which everway you put it.as I stated before, personaly I have nothing against high speed as long as it's carried out in the right place ie the race track/private road,and yes I have also seen idiots at 25mph and slower but when they make mistakes it's not usually catastrophic and they don't normally take 7 other people with them.
I realise that this is [A] emotional [b]irrelevant,[c] below the belt, but I wonder if you would argue so strongly in favour of excessive speed if it was your 2 and 4 yr old's killed by that
#@*x?%$ Idiot.
Sorry for any offence caused there is non intended but we ,along with thousands of other people had to put up with the aftermath of his so called "accident"
oldie

quote:

---

Originally posted by oldie:
Steve,
If you can read a vehical number plate at 25 yds or what ever it is now ,tunnel vision, cateracts or even just one eyed thats all the law calls for.
152 on a PUBLIC HIGHWAY whatever the conditions is illegal which everway you put it.

---

No it's not. I've done similar speeds on a public highway and it wasn't illegal.

Your post about what's "acceptable" for eyesight versus the illegality of speeding is typical of the sort of blinkers (or tunnel vision) a certain element of the population has.

It's dangerous driving that's dangerous. If someone is driving at a dangerous speed then that's dangerous driving - doesn't matter what the speed limit is or how much over or under it they're travelling.

If someone is driving with badly impaired vision then that's also exceptionally dangerous although apparently as far as you're concerned less of an issue than someone speeding on an empty, dry road...

quote:

---

Originally posted by oldie:
I realise that this is [A] emotional b. irrelevant,[c] below the belt, but I wonder if you would argue so strongly in favour of excessive speed

---

Your reading skills must be up there with your punctuation if you can find me arguing in favour of excessive speed.

So once more for the hard of thinking - excessive speed is by it's very definition dangerous and does not in any way relate to speed limits. I've seen many, many examples of excessive speed take place within the posted speed limits.

Steve,
So 152mph isn't excessive
oldie.

Quote:-

152 on a PUBLIC HIGHWAY whatever the conditions is illegal which everway you put it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



No it's not. I've done similar speeds on a public highway and it wasn't illegal.
________________________________________________________________

Steve,

perhaps you would like to inform us as to when 152 on a public highway is "sensible" and "legal".

Regards


NB

quote:

---

Originally posted by oldie:
So 152mph isn't excessive

---

IMHO not under the circumstances under which I did it.

If it wasn't illegal what would your view be?

What about 100mph where it's not illegal?

What about 85mph where it's not illegal?

What about 70mph where it's not illegal but foggy?

Or what about 30mph past a school where it's not illegal but there are lots of kids wandering about?

Or what about driving at 40mph in a 60mph limit while affected by tunnel vision?

Or driving at 20mph in a 30mph limit with vision blurred by cataracts?

Which of those are "excessive"?