U.S. vs China: The future of efficient automobiles

[Eejit]

Well it is a waste of limited resources. Doesn't mean we should stop it though. Waste can be justified.

 

[repiV]

If freedom of movement is a waste, and travelling is a waste - being one of the most valuable freedoms and one of the most enriching life experiences, then the whole of modern life may as well be a waste.

The car has contributed more to society than the television or the computer ever will. A true miracle of the modern world. Not only for mobility, but it allows the average person to be able to travel anywhere they like, easily.

I just can't understand the ridiculous anti-car mentality so prevalent these days. Nor can I understand why city dwellers seem to be directing transport policy.

 

[VirusType2]

I love all motor sports. I have since I was a very little child.

It's a shame that billions of people drive around in traffic everyday for hours, like mindless zombie slaves, hating their lives and wasting precious fuel that could be used for having fun and excitement!

Almost nobody knows that motor sports are what pushes developmental limit of motor vehicles, and new materials and techniques find their way to improve other sciences and the quality of life.

Formula 1 motor racing is not usually something associated with medical innovation, however a new exhibition at the Science Museum shows how Formula 1 inspired technology is being used to improve medical practice and resources. The Fast Forward exhibition shows twenty ways in which Formula 1 is changing the world, six of which are focused around improving health care.

The story here:
http://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2009/03/23/juliet-walker-on-using-f1-technology-in-medicine/

 

[Solaris]

"
I've ridden 20,000 miles in the last year, about half of that for fun, on some of the most dangerous roads in the country, at speed, every day and in all weathers including ice and blizzards without a single incident. I would kindly ask you to STFU with your clueless opinions on what is safe and unsafe."

Um didnt you almost die in an accident?

 

[repiV]

Yes. Over a year and a half ago. It's not an unusual event for anyone who rides a motorbike, at some point in their lives.

 

[CptStern]

so ...you're saying there's three catagories of motorbike drivers:

those who have faced death and lived to tell the tale, those who faced death and are no longer amongst us and those who are waiting to face death at some point in their lives as motorcycle drivers


doesnt sond all that appealing ...as in they'll be a-peeling you off the tarmac lol ;(

 

[VirusType2]

^ Pretty much. That's why I don't ride one.

But I'll admit, it's an incredible thrill to be out in the wind with that much acceleration.

 

[repiV]

so ...you're saying there's three catagories of motorbike drivers:

those who have faced death and lived to tell the tale, those who faced death and are no longer amongst us and those who are waiting to face death at some point in their lives as motorcycle drivers


doesnt sond all that appealing ...as in they'll be a-peeling you off the tarmac lol ;(

Hope not. The leg still gives me grief.

The thing is, there's nothing inherently dangerous about motorbikes, but they need vastly more skill to operate than a car, many aspects of riding go completely against our instincts (eg. leaning a bike over just feels inherently wrong), other traffic poses far more of a threat, the kind of maneuvers bikes are made for are hazardous from the outset (overtaking, filtering through traffic) and if you do crash the consequences are so much worse. And then there's the testosterone aspect.

You can ride your whole life and never get hurt, but you have to be ****ing good. But IMO, the first couple of years is the real danger period and after that it's much safer. My earlier riding exploits do make me wince. Proper training would eliminate 90% of the accidents...the stuff they teach you to get your license is worthless.

At the end of the day, life is for living. If you risk nothing you gain nothing.

 

[repiV]

^ Pretty much. That's why I don't ride one.

But I'll admit, it's an incredible thrill to be out in the wind with that much acceleration.

Bendy roads are where it's at. Feels like flying.

 

[CptStern]

Hope not. The leg still gives me grief.

The thing is, there's nothing inherently dangerous about motorbikes, but they need vastly more skill to operate than a car, many aspects of riding go completely against our instincts (eg. leaning a bike over just feels inherently wrong), other traffic poses far more of a threat, the kind of maneuvers bikes are made for are hazardous from the outset (overtaking, filtering through traffic) and if you do crash the consequences are so much worse. And then there's the testosterone aspect.

You can ride your whole life and never get hurt, but you have to be ****ing good. But IMO, the first couple of years is the real danger period and after that it's much safer. My earlier riding exploits do make me wince. Proper training would eliminate 90% of the accidents...the stuff they teach you to get your license is worthless.

At the end of the day, life is for living. If you risk nothing you gain nothing.

much like truck drivers, it's not usually the motorcycle driver who causes the accident that leaves them a bloody smear on the asphalt but rather the idiots out there who make it especially dangerous to drive a motocycle. this is the sole reason why I'd never get a bike. too many idiots out there making driving a car difficult. but at least you'll survive most encounters with other objects which cant be said about motorcyclists

 

[repiV]

much like truck drivers, it's not usually the motorcycle driver who causes the accident that leaves them a bloody smear on the asphalt but rather the idiots out there who make it especially dangerous to drive a motocycle. this is the sole reason why I'd never get a bike. too many idiots out there making driving a car difficult. but at least you'll survive most encounters with other objects which cant be said about motorcyclists

I'd like to be able to agree, but unfortunately the vast majority of motorcycling fatalities are self-inflicted.

There is a big element of other drivers being the problem...I think about 75% of bike accidents are caused by the other party, but these aren't usually fatal accidents. You're not at the mercy of others by any means though, you just have to anticipate and prepare for all the eventualities and compensate for their idiocy. Which is why it's generally safer to be riding a bit faster than the traffic, overtaking and all the other things that make bikers look aggressive to non-riders. It puts you in control of the situation rather than being a victim of it.

Most of the fatalities are caused by running off the road in a corner or overtaking in the wrong place and having a head-on collision. At the speeds these accidents happen, death is the usual outcome.

It's hard to articulate why this is the case to someone who doesn't ride because cornering a bike is completely different from cornering a car. You can't just hit the brakes if you've gone in too fast because you'll either lose the front wheel and crash or sit the bike upright and run off the road. You have to keep accelerating and push the bike further and further over, and keep utterly committed until the bend straightens out. Completely the opposite of the reflexes that take hold when you panic.

Moral of the story is, bikers need much better training.

 

[CyberPitz]

Aahh, I'm glad I'm a sports car owner who is egotistical and better than everybody else!

Wait, repiV already raped him on that quote? Damn, I'm always late.

 

[VirusType2]

Moral of the story is, bikers need much better training.

A little girl racer:




I strongly believe that this is where it starts, as a very young child. This way, it is ingrained in your brain and the handling comes naturally, without thinking.

If you aren't raised riding, then don't even bother. These guys in their 40's who guy buy their first bike are doomed.

 

[Raziaar]

The thing is, there's nothing inherently dangerous about motorbikes

What makes you think that there is nothing inherently dangerous about motorbikes?

The simple fact that if you are unable to react to a situation that is beyond your control for whatever reason, and a car or truck or something hits your bike, there's a better chance than not that you will lose control of that bike and you will fall prey to the forces of your acceleration. You have utterly no control at that point.

It doesn't take a whole lot for a heavy car which bumps a light bike for that bike to shift oh so slightly which at high speeds will be almost impossible to recover from even from the most experienced riders.

That's what makes them inherently dangerous in my opinion.

I'm sure many many of the riders who have been in a situation like that, where they could not see or react quickly enough in time to somebody else's mistake, were expert drivers. But not even the most talented driver can have much of a chance wrestling a bike which has its frame angle changed relative to its direction of motion suddenly.


That's what I believe anyway.

 

[repiV]

A little girl racer:




I strongly believe that this is where it starts, as a very young child. This way, it is ingrained in your brain and the handling comes naturally, without thinking.

If you aren't raised riding, then don't even bother. These guys in their 40's who guy buy their first bike are doomed.

I don't think it ever comes naturally, and that's the problem as the correct way to handle a bike is not widely taught either. Most people - especially older riders - have no idea how to actually steer a bike, they just look where they want to go and "lean off" and it drifts in the vague direction they're after. You need to push the inside bar away from you to steer, and most people only do this unwittingly when they move around on the bike (you don't need to move at all) but have no idea how they're actually getting it to turn. So when they really need to be able to make that bike turn, they can't do it.

A lot, if not most of, riding a bike is completely counter-intuitive. Most people shut the throttle when they take a corner - the correct thing to do is accelerate all the way through to keep the weight on the rear wheel and add grip and stability. Opening or closing the throttle will actually affect your direction in a corner as well as your speed. But it's a pretty tall order to learn this stuff through trial and error. Mostly people get away with it because they're not riding fast enough for the incorrect technique to cause a crash. But no matter how slow you ride, eventually you'll misjudge a corner and need to corner harder than you expected to - without the right technique, or being comfortable at high lean angles (terrifying if you aren't used to it), this is when sensible riders end up buried in the scenery.

Older "born-again" riders are very overrepresented in the fatal/serious accident statistics, mind. But that's because they haven't ridden for 30 years, have the money to go out and buy a litre sportsbike, have absolutely no idea how to handle it as it's unbelievably powerful compared to the kit of yesteryear, only ride it on the occassional sunny Sunday with their friends and get in over their head and crash. And when they do crash, they crash at much higher speeds than the 17 year old newbie because their bike tops 100mph in first gear.

For some reason people think modern sportsbikes make good beginner bikes. I looked at the service record for my bike, it was first registered in October 2005, and the first service was done at 492 miles in July 2006! What's the point in even buying the thing? A lot of the time I think they get scared off because they bought something far too intimidating. It's also had six previous owners and I bought it in March with just over 10,000 miles on the clock.

What makes you think that there is nothing inherently dangerous about motorbikes?

The simple fact that if you are unable to react to a situation that is beyond your control for whatever reason, and a car or truck or something hits your bike, there's a better chance than not that you will lose control of that bike and you will fall prey to the forces of your acceleration. You have utterly no control at that point.

It doesn't take a whole lot for a heavy car which bumps a light bike for that bike to shift oh so slightly which at high speeds will be almost impossible to recover from even from the most experienced riders.

That's what makes them inherently dangerous in my opinion.

I'm sure many many of the riders who have been in a situation like that, where they could not see or react quickly enough in time to somebody else's mistake, were expert drivers. But not even the most talented driver can have much of a chance wrestling a bike which has its frame angle changed relative to its direction of motion suddenly.


That's what I believe anyway.

Almost all situations are within your control. If anything takes you by surprise, you haven't been paying enough attention. A good rider shouldn't ever have to react to something unexpected happening, because they wouldn't have let themselves get into that situation in the first place.

After a while, you develop a sixth sense for what people are going to do. It's not a case of just going along on autopilot thinking about what's for dinner, as people tend to drive their cars. Eyes on stalks and brain on alert...

 

[Raziaar]

Almost all situations are within your control. If anything takes you by surprise, you haven't been paying enough attention. A good rider shouldn't ever have to react to something unexpected happening, because they wouldn't have let themselves get into that situation in the first place.

After a while, you develop a sixth sense for what people are going to do. It's not a case of just going along on autopilot thinking about what's for dinner, as people tend to drive their cars. Eyes on stalks and brain on alert...

Bullshit. There are always going to be situations that even the most experienced, sixth sense rider/driver will not be able to respond to quickly enough before shit hits the fan. You're delusional if you think an experienced driver can avoid every possible scenario that crops up. Defensive driving is an incredibly good skill to have, and it can get you out of many potentially terrible situations, but it's not a perfect art form. Unexpected things happen. Many superb riders/drivers have died before in situations that cropped up instantaneously and beyond their control.

Just because you're keeping your eyes on the road, superbly focused... observing traffic ahead of you and behind you, does not mean you're ****ing immune when shit happens, and shit tends to happen in the blink of an eye, not gradually. And you're not always going to be in a position to see and react to the vehicle/object that suddenly and instantaneously causes you harm.

 

[Farrowlesparrow]

It could happen to you
Eyes on the road. There's a car coming. Avoid.
Corner.
Leaning.
Accelerate. Overtake. I feel the danger. A deer jumps out. But I'm already gone.
I'm a mile down the road.
Nothing can take me. I have experience.
Sixth
Sense.

Policeman. Pulls me over.

Excuse me, sir. Care to tell me why you're not wearing any pants?

Shit.

 

[Raziaar]

It could happen to you
Eyes on the road. There's a car coming. Avoid.
Corner.
Leaning.
Accelerate. Overtake. I feel the danger. A deer jumps out. But I'm already gone.
I'm a mile down the road.
Nothing can take me. I have experience.
Sixth
Sense.

Policeman. Pulls me over.

Excuse me, sir. Care to tell me why you're not wearing any pants?

Shit.

 

[VirusType2]

this

 

[Krynn72]

Nobody needs quite alot of things. We don't need online games, or more to the point, the server farms that they run on consuming vast amouts of energy. The "need" argument is a dangerous thing.

Its a pros vs cons argument. There is no significant pro to outweigh the cons of allowing civilian vehicles to travel over 100mph.

 

[VirusType2]

Its a pros vs cons argument. There is no significant pro to outweigh the cons of allowing civilian vehicles to travel over 100mph.

How else are we going to fight the government (lose the police in a chase) if the need arises? The police officer could be corrupt and in need of overthrowing. No fair the gov't vehicles are un-capped, and ours would be limited.

I'm completely joking. I actually agree, and think it should be even lower than you suggest.

 

[repiV]

Bullshit. There are always going to be situations that even the most experienced, sixth sense rider/driver will not be able to respond to quickly enough before shit hits the fan. You're delusional if you think an experienced driver can avoid every possible scenario that crops up. Defensive driving is an incredibly good skill to have, and it can get you out of many potentially terrible situations, but it's not a perfect art form. Unexpected things happen. Many superb riders/drivers have died before in situations that cropped up instantaneously and beyond their control.

Just because you're keeping your eyes on the road, superbly focused... observing traffic ahead of you and behind you, does not mean you're ****ing immune when shit happens, and shit tends to happen in the blink of an eye, not gradually. And you're not always going to be in a position to see and react to the vehicle/object that suddenly and instantaneously causes you harm.

Things don't "just happen". Things only happen unexpectedly if you didn't observe what was happening well enough. A large part of it is preparing yourself against the "unexpected". Don't travel alongside other vehicles on the motorway. Don't be the last vehicle in the queue - filter to the front so you can't get rear-ended (unfortunately you have retarded laws about motorbikes in the US, and this is illegal). Treat every single vehicle as a potential threat. Make sure you're only in the "killzone" for the smallest amount of time possible.

No traffic situation ever crops up instantaneously. I used to commute across London, which is full of ****ing nutter drivers and half of them probably bought their license for a dollar in Pakistan at that. When I first started I was having near misses every day, from other people doing stupid shit. Several months in my journey was incident-free and I got there quicker too.

 

[repiV]

Its a pros vs cons argument. There is no significant pro to outweigh the cons of allowing civilian vehicles to travel over 100mph.

Speed limits should be about safety and nothing else.

 

[VirusType2]

Speed limits should be about safety and nothing else.

That's a good point, but I disagree because fuel economy is becoming increasingly important.

Take a look at this:

A car cruising on a highway at 50 mph (80 km/h) may require only 10 horsepower (7.5 kW) to overcome air drag, but that same car at 100 mph (160 km/h) requires 80 hp (60 kW). With a doubling of speed the drag (force) quadruples per the formula. Exerting four times the force over a fixed distance produces four times as much work. At twice the speed the work (resulting in displacement over a fixed distance) is done twice as fast. Since power is the rate of doing work, four times the work done in half the time requires eight times the power.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_(physics)

In my opinion, highway speed limits should be lowered from 65 to 50 or 55.

 

[repiV]

That's a good point, but I disagree because fuel economy is becoming increasingly important.

Take a look at this:

Note that the power needed to push an object through a fluid increases as the cube of the velocity. A car cruising on a highway at 50 mph (80 km/h) may require only 10 horsepower (7.5 kW) to overcome air drag, but that same car at 100 mph (160 km/h) requires 80 hp (60 kW). With a doubling of speed the drag (force) quadruples per the formula. Exerting four times the force over a fixed distance produces four times as much work. At twice the speed the work (resulting in displacement over a fixed distance) is done twice as fast. Since power is the rate of doing work, four times the work done in half the time requires eight times the power.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_(physics)

So people should get banned from driving for low fuel economy?

Besides, it's me who's paying for the petrol. I usually stick to 80-90 on long journeys because otherwise it's just noisy and tiring, but if I want to travel 30 miles or so quickly down the motorway then 130mph does the trick.

 

[VirusType2]

It is my opinion that the speed limit should be 50 mph. The power required doubles just to increase that to 60 mph. Not only that, but the engine will be revved higher, using even more fuel. It more than doubles the amount of fuel consumption with an insignificant savings in time.

At higher speeds, the chance of a vehicle accident becoming fatal increases by magnitudes as well - though this of course involves many variables, but the chances are simply based on statistics.

 

[repiV]

It is my opinion that the speed limit should be 50 mph. The power required doubles just to increase that to 60 mph. Not only that, but the engine will be revved higher, using even more fuel. It more than doubles the amount of fuel consumption with an insignificant savings in time.

Who travels anywhere at 60mph? Our 60mph speed limit for single-carriageway roads (be they fast and straight or narrow and windy with one lane carrying two way traffic) is enforced fairly leniently as it is. Our dual carriageway/motorway speed limit of 70 is universally acknowledged to be far too low, and the police won't even give a second glance to anyone doing under 90 (average traffic speed about 85mph even taking into account the traffic jams so common to our congested network, trucks limited to 56mph etc).

I can think of many, many reasons why a 50mph speed limit on the motorway would be an extremely bad idea. For a start, it's so slow that nobody will be able to concentrate on the road for any period of time, and people will literally fall asleep at the wheel. You need to be travelling at a speed that allows you to stay focused. On a six lane straight road, at 50 - you might as well walk! Note the UK phenomenon of trucks plowing straight into the back of stationary traffic because the driver travelling at a mind-numbing 56mph for hours on end wasn't paying attention.

Then there's the fact that enforcing limits which are unnaturally low on multi-lane roads causes traffic bunching, which is dangerous for obvious reasons. We have 50 limits enforced by average speed cameras in roadworks zones (even though there's usually no roadworks going on) and I want to be out of there as soon as possible. Walled in by cars and trucks, with nowhere to escape, and everyone's eyes glued to the speedo. On single-lane roads, enforcing limits which are too low causes aggression, frustration and stupid overtakes.

And then it doesn't double the fuel economy, either. Which isn't that bad cruising at a constant speed anyway, even at 100mph so long as you don't have a shite engine that's being wrung out. It's stopping and starting that's the worst thing, I get far worse fuel economy in city riding than I do thrashing the living daylights out of it on country roads or cruising on the motorway.

What a horrible proposition. Long motorway journeys are tedious enough as it is, I can't imagine sitting there at 50mph for hours on end. And if the purported reason is "fuel economy" that's even more ridiculous - it's my bike and my petrol, I'll use it how I like. We have enough big brother nonsense as it is.

At higher speeds, the chance of a vehicle accident becoming fatal increases by magnitudes as well - though this of course involves many variables, but the chances are simply based on statistics.

That doesn't mean that higher speeds are more dangerous, often the opposite. Everyone survives the accident they don't have. And it's not the free travelling speed that matters in the result of the accident, it's the impact speed - which almost always follows braking. Someone travelling at 80mph and concentrating will probably crash at a lower speed (if at all) than someone bimbling along at 50. Also, you can't have a head-on collision on a motorway.

You can also shed off speed so fast in modern vehicles. I can bring my bike to a dead stop from 100mph in a few seconds.

Irrelevant to me, anyway - any collision with a solid object at an impact speed of 30mph or even less is likely to be fatal to me, so I'd rather just concentrate on not crashing in the first place.

 

[VirusType2]

We all know you obviously don't follow speed limits, so lowering them won't bother you.

you can be the guy that goes as fast as he wants and - on occasion, pays the extra tax in the form of traffic tickets.

But - think of the millions of cars on the road that will be using 50% less fuel on the highway [should they choose to obey the law.]


Let me say the same thing in another way, because I want to stress its significance.

Millions of cars using half the fuel they do now. The catch? Sacrificing about an extra minute in the car in a 15 mile stretch into town.

 

[repiV]

Congratulations on completely and utterly missing the point.

Also, your claim that reducing speed from 60 to 50 would double fuel economy is patently nonsense. I get around 45mpg at 85mph (a lot better than I get at generally lower speeds on country roads or in town), I wouldn't get 60mpg from doing 50, let alone 90mpg. Hell, I can't even use the top two gears comfortably at that speed. It would labour the engine.

 

[VirusType2]

You are putting your lower speed scenario getting lower fuel economy in stop and go traffic, or on roads with lots of hills and turns, but putting your scenario of higher fuel economy in a straight line with no lights, hills, large turns or heavy congestion to stop for. That is irrelevant. Try putting two vehicles on the highway at 50 and 60 mph and then compare fuel economy.

Also, your claim that reducing speed from 60 to 50 would double fuel economy is patently nonsense.

You are disputing the laws of physics.

"A car cruising on a highway at 50 mph (80 km/h) may require only 10 horsepower (7.5 kW) to overcome air drag, but that same car at 100 mph (160 km/h) requires 80 hp (60 kW). With a doubling of speed the drag (force) quadruples per the formula."


8 times more power is required to go 100 instead of 50 mph. Twice as much power is required to go 60 from 50.


I didn't miss your point. Your point was that there are other reasons that a higher speed limit is a good idea. I'm completely dismissing these points because they have no relevance as far as my argument is concerned. My argument is solely about fuel economy.

 

[repiV]

You are putting your lower speed scenario getting lower fuel economy in stop and go traffic, or on roads with lots of hills and turns, but putting your scenario of higher fuel economy in a straight line with no lights, hills, large turns or heavy congestion to stop for.

I wouldn't get 90mpg in a straight line, under any circumstances.

Besides, with your reasoning, why don't we just all get mopeds?

Why are you completely ignoring everything that I said. Enforced fuel economy at the cost of all else is not the be-all and end-all of road travel.

You are disputing the laws of physics.

"A car cruising on a highway at 50 mph (80 km/h) may require only 10 horsepower (7.5 kW) to overcome air drag, but that same car at 100 mph (160 km/h) requires 80 hp (60 kW). With a doubling of speed the drag (force) quadruples per the formula."

8 times more power is required to go 100 instead of 50 mph. Twice as much power is required to go 60 from 50.

That may be the case, but your supposed fuel economy benefits are not reflected in the real world.

I didn't miss your point. Your point was that there are other reasons that a higher speed limit is a good idea. I'm completely dismissing these points because they have no relevance as far as my argument is concerned. My argument is solely about fuel economy.

An argument that only takes account of one single factor, ignoring all others, is pointless.

 

[VirusType2]

I wouldn't get 90mpg in a straight line, under any circumstances.

your supposed fuel economy benefits are not reflected in the real world.

First let me say the topic is about passenger cars. In many ways, motorcycles can be lumped with other vehicles in this discussion - but not always.

There are many factors that can change things. For one, if you are bogging your engine (driving/riding at a lower RPM - out of the power band) that doesn't give you sufficient power, you can easily end up actually using more fuel than you would in the power band, despite the fact that you may actually be revving higher.

But that's not part of the equation I provided and can't be argued for here because it's different for every vehicle.

Based on wind drag alone, if a vehicle gets 30mpg on the highway at 60 MPH, it would get 45mpg at 50 MPH. It does apply in the real world, hence why I get poor gas mileage if I am late for work

Vehicle aerodynamics plays a big role in wind drag, but again, it's different for every vehicle, so we can't factor for that.

Besides, with your reasoning, why don't we just all get mopeds?

We can't all drive mopeds. Mopeds aren't allowed on highways here. Many people use vehicles for transport, including passengers and cargo. Sometimes weather doesn't permit, or makes things treacherous.

Why are you completely ignoring everything that I said. Enforced fuel economy at the cost of all else is not the be-all and end-all of road travel.

In my opinion, the sacrifice of spending slightly more time to travel is worth the significantly increased fuel economy. For the precious resources saved, the decreased pollution, and for the safety. I've made up my mind long ago that these benefits are worth it, as you seem to have made up yours that they are not. Fair enough, I think we can agree to disagree on it.

I feel that if you want to have a spirited ride or drive, then you should do so on a private road, a closed course, or a race track, not on roads intended for safe public transportation.

I agree that it is your petrol, and I don't want to take the right away to do as you please - within the law.

I even think they should provide more places that people can go and drive their vehicles for fun. But the tires would need inspection to ensure that they still pass inspection before getting back on the public roads.

An argument that only takes account of one single factor, ignoring all others, is pointless.

Your arguments are things like - you think it's safer to go faster. I find this a pointless thing to argue about. First because it has nothing to do with fuel economy - the topic of the discussion, but also because there is absolutely no way to prove either way. We could compare statistics all day long and still you would claim that it was because they don't know how to drive. I'm simply not interested in that kind of discussion.

 

[Saturos]

Nobody needs quite alot of things. We don't need online games, or more to the point, the server farms that they run on consuming vast amouts of energy. The "need" argument is a dangerous thing.

^agree

We really don't need alot of things. Even electricity and indoor plumbing is a luxury. Just ask the Omish.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Necessity, however, must trump other things, and the reason people talk about fuel economy is because they feel it will be necessary in the future to conserve limited resources, whether those resources represent fossil fuel stocks or the actual capacity of the ecology to sustain life.

The questions are, then:
- Do we need to conserve (and how much)?
- Will any particular measure in road regulation actually contribute to that aim?
- is it worth it in terms of the liberties lost?

 

[repiV]

First let me say the topic is about passenger cars. In many ways, motorcycles can be lumped with other vehicles in this discussion - but not always.

There are many factors that can change things. For one, if you are bogging your engine (driving/riding at a lower RPM - out of the power band) that doesn't give you sufficient power, you can easily end up actually using more fuel than you would in the power band, despite the fact that you may actually be revving higher.

I know this.

But that's not part of the equation I provided and can't be argued for here because it's different for every vehicle.

Based on wind drag alone, if a vehicle gets 30mpg on the highway at 60 MPH, it would get 45mpg at 50 MPH. It does apply in the real world, hence why I get poor gas mileage if I am late for work

Vehicle aerodynamics plays a big role in wind drag, but again, it's different for every vehicle, so we can't factor for that.

You would never, ever get people in this country to stick to 60 or even 70 on the motorway, let alone 50. And given that the UK is about the size of Florida, with 30 million cars on the road, we have a hell of a lot more traffic too. God knows why you guys are happy dawdling along on your huge empty roads, but it wouldn't happen here.

It takes me two and a half hours to do the 200 mile journey from here to London, and that's without going remarkably quickly compared to other traffic. At 50mph, I wouldn't even bother going for a weekend, and the entire trip would be a miserably torturous exercise.

We can't all drive mopeds. Mopeds aren't allowed on highways here. Many people use vehicles for transport, including passengers and cargo. Sometimes weather doesn't permit, or makes things treacherous.

Then they can ship their belongings in a lorry that's already carrying other stuff. Anything else is just a selfish waste of energy, right?

Who are you to decide everyone else's priorities.

In my opinion, the sacrifice of spending slightly more time to travel is worth the significantly increased fuel economy. For the precious resources saved, the decreased pollution, and for the safety. I've made up my mind long ago that these benefits are worth it, as you seem to have made up yours that they are not. Fair enough, I think we can agree to disagree on it.

The difference is that you want to impose your opinion on everyone else. And there is no safety benefit whatsoever. American roads are some of the most dangerous in the developed world, and also some of the slowest. German Autobahns are twice as safe as US highways, with far greater traffic densities and rush hour traffic that travels at in excess of 150mph. UK motorways are twice as safe again.

Because safety is not about speed limits.

I feel that if you want to have a spirited ride or drive, then you should do so on a private road, a closed course, or a race track, not on roads intended for safe public transportation.

Slow doesn't equal safe. Fast doesn't equal dangerous.

Your arguments are things like - you think it's safer to go faster. I find this a pointless thing to argue about. First because it has nothing to do with fuel economy - the topic of the discussion, but also because there is absolutely no way to prove either way. We could compare statistics all day long and still you would claim that it was because they don't know how to drive. I'm simply not interested in that kind of discussion.

If you think that speed limits should be restricted to 50mph, then the discussion is no longer just about fuel economy - as in isolation that's not remotely an acceptable reason to change the speed limit.

 

[VirusType2]

Who are you to decide everyone else's priorities.

Ohh k, I think this discussion has taken a turn for the worse.

I'll ask you the same thing: who do you think you are? Who are you to decide everyone else's priorities?

I was never even talking about your country or even your type of transport in the first place. You made it about you. Your country, your motorcycle.

You just like to argue about how going twice the speed limit is safe, meanwhile you show us pictures of your nearly missing leg suffered from an accident.

I'm entitled to my opinion just the same, so you'll just have to deal with it.

The difference is that you want to impose your opinion on everyone else. And there is no safety benefit whatsoever. American roads are some of the most dangerous in the developed world, and also some of the slowest. German Autobahns are twice as safe as US highways, with far greater traffic densities and rush hour traffic that travels at in excess of 150mph. UK motorways are twice as safe again.

Are you a tool? I'm suggesting that government should do so, not me. I am not your law, your government, your enforcer. This is really tiresome. I have no idea what your government should do. I'm talking about lowering the speed limit from on highways from 65 to 55 or from 60 to 50, where applicable, in the United States of America.

What you seem to think I have the power to change it, is really bugging me.

I think it's irresponsible the government can't figure out why we don't have enough fuel for the world as the USA ranks - by far - highest in waste, with a population about 10% of the world, meanwhile developing China is about to blow the roof off this planet and suck up a quantity that will dwarf the current demand. It is absolutely UNOBTAINABLE. You understand? There is no way that we will be able to supply everyone fuel.

So you can say, "well it's mine, I paid for it", be prepared to pay dearly. How much are you prepared to pay? Double, triple, Quadruple? When does driving around become not worth the cost anymore? The prices will just get so high that only people willing to pay the most will get it.

Because safety is not about speed limits.

If speed limits weren't about safety then they wouldn't have them! That is their point.


Yes, you can be a safe driver at high speeds. I'm a safe driver whether I'm going 25 or whether I'm going 50. It makes no difference.

However, it's still more dangerous, for the driver and everyone else on the road. DON'T BELIEVE IT? What about reaction times. Yes we can predict movements of other drivers, but trust me, in fact, I don't think i have to tell you they don't always follow that. They will literally drive into you or drive you off the road. Try driving off the road in your sportbike doing 130 mph.

Grip, vehicle malfunction, slippery roads, fog, blind spots, distractions, unforeseen variables like a tree laying in the road that comes up after a blind turn.

It is more dangerous for human life the faster you go, and that's a fact.

Driving slow is too boring for you and people don't pay attention? If you can't pay attention doing 50 mph, then I don't want you on the road.

If you think that speed limits should be restricted to 50mph, then the discussion is no longer just about fuel economy - as in isolation that's not remotely an acceptable reason to change the speed limit.

What does that mean? Is 50 miles in an hour too slow for you? I don't know about the UK, but in my country, if you drive 130 mph like you, you lose your license.

See how long it takes you to go 50 miles on foot. Especially difficult if you have a bad leg, sir.

 

[repiV]

Ohh k, I think this discussion has taken a turn for the worse.

I'll ask you the same thing: who do you think you are? Who are you to decide everyone else's priorities?

I'm not trying to do so. A lack of legislation lets everyone decide their own priorities. You're the one arguing people should be forced to conform to your view.

I was never even talking about your country or even your type of transport in the first place. You made it about you. Your country, your motorcycle.

You just like to argue about how going twice the speed limit is safe, meanwhile you show us pictures of your nearly missing leg suffered from an accident.

An accident which occured within the speed limit. An accident which no speed limit would prevent. Funny that.

I'm entitled to my opinion just the same, so you'll just have to deal with it.

Yes, but you're not really backing it up.

Are you a tool? I'm suggesting that government should do so. NOT ME. I think it's irresponsible these fools can't figure out why we don't have enough fuel for the world as the USA ranks - by far - highest in waste, with a population about 10% of the world, meanwhile developing China is about to blow the roof off this planet and suck up a quantity that will dwarf the current demand. It is absolutely UNOBTAINABLE. You understand? There is no way that we will be able to supply everyone fuel.

You want the government to enforce your belief upon everyone else. What's the difference?

So you can say, "well it's mine, I paid for it", be prepared to pay dearly. How much are you prepared to pay? Double, triple, Quadruple? When does driving around become not worth the cost anymore? The prices will just get so high that only people willing to pay the most will get it.

Queue the battery cars and such -

The fuel economy of cars is such a minor element of such a big picture, why the hell would you pick on that above everything else in the world? What is the point in even having cars if you're going to force people to drive them at practically walking pace.

If speed limits weren't about safety then they wouldn't have them! That is their point.

Yes, that is their point. It's also the case that the people who make road traffic policy usually have no idea what they're doing.

Yes, you can be a safe driver at high speeds. I'm a safe driver whether I'm going 25 or whether I'm going 50. It makes no difference.

However, it's still more dangerous, for the driver and everyone else on the road. DON'T BELIEVE IT? what about the human brain - reaction times. Yes we can predict movements of other drivers, but trust me when I tell you that they don't always follow that.

I've been driving too fast, and a car that's been in the slow lane forever suddenly decides he's going to get in the fast lane.

So you ignored the number one rule of driving fast - know when to slow down. It's not smart to pass a dawdler at a high speed differential, you should have anticipated that they might pull out.

Grip, vehicle malfunction, slippery roads, fog, blind spots, distractions, unforeseen variables like a tree laying in the road that comes up after a blind turn.

And you also ignore the number two rule - always be able to stop in the distance you can see to be clear. This is what sets the safe speed at any given moment, not the number on the stick. It might be 200mph, it might be 2mph. It entirely depends on the situation.

It is more dangerous for human life the faster you go, and that's a fact.

So tell me why US highways, with the lowest speed limits and lowest traffic speeds in the developed world, are twice as dangerous as German Autobahns with no speed limits and 150mph traffic with only two narrow lanes in each direction, and four times as dangerous as UK motorways which are also considerably faster and more congested than your highways.

Driving slow is too boring for you and people don't pay attention? If you can't pay attention doing 50 mph, then I don't want you on the road.

It would be very difficult for any competent driver to pay proper attention at 50mph on a motorway. That's just how the brain works, it's an incredibly mind-numbing task. Perhaps you would be interested to know that over a quarter of motorway accidents in the UK are caused by people falling asleep at the wheel.

What does that mean? Is 50 miles in an hour too slow for you? I don't know about the UK, but in my country, if you drive 130 mph like you, you lose your license.

50mph is too slow for anyone except Miss Miggins. In the UK you'd be potentially liable for a careless driving charge for driving so slowly on the motorway.

You would also lose your license for 130mph here, but only if you get caught. You're unlikely to even get stopped for doing 95 on the motorway however, and that's around about the speed the traffic usually flows in the outside lane.

And this guy? Highly qualified.

M6 motorway

 

[Minister]

^
Goddamn lorry in the outside lane.

 

[VirusType2]

Yes, but you're not really backing it up.

I'm not? I believe I've made a very strong case; yours is weak as a house of cards. Have you read anything I typed?

You know, they don't call it blind rage for nothing. I was seriously sensing some rage around the time I was bringing the case.

You want the government to enforce your belief upon everyone else. What's the difference?

You don't even live in USA. I've never been to Europe and haven't seen any of the road systems there, so how could I even argue one way or the other for a speed reduction on highways. That's why I'M NOT. You are trying to regulate OUR highway speeds.


I think that most people - once examining the facts, would go for this; grudgingly - it is a sacrifice. But it's irresponsible and stupid not to. Or else were all going to be paying three times what we pay now for fuel in our lifetimes. I seriously believe this would make all the difference. And not to mention the pollutants and deterioration of the quality of life on Earth. Especially once China gets in the game.

They'd have to leave earlier - however, the way I see it, there would be less accidents - and less severe ones - to jam up traffic along the commute. I realize you argue that 10 MPH less is the deal breaker and is what will lose the brain's attention, but you've yet to prove that. Maybe you are speaking for yourself here. I've never had any problem maintaining my attention while driving, and I have ADHD.

And you know, when I was a child, my mother used to be so tired she would have a bitch of time staying awake while driving, and it didn't matter that we were on the highway going 65 ish and she was slapping herself in the face. She was falling asleep because she was exhausted and didn't belong on the road..

The fuel economy of cars is such a minor element of such a big picture, why the hell would you pick on that above everything else in the world?

I seriously can't believe some of the things you say. What universe are you from?

How much do you pay for fuel there? How much did you pay 10 years ago. How much do you expect to pay 10 years from now?

It's also the case that the people who make road traffic policy usually have no idea what they're doing.

Most of your arguments are just like this one - nothing but an argument.

So you ignored the number one rule of driving fast
...
And you also ignore the number two rule

I didn't ignore any rules.

My point was simply, the faster you go, the greater the statistical chance of injury or death for you and everyone around you. There is gravity and physics here on Earth where I live. We are just bags of meat and water.

So tell me why US highways, with the lowest speed limits and lowest traffic speeds in the developed world, are twice as dangerous as German Autobahns with no speed limits and 150mph traffic with only two narrow lanes in each direction, and four times as dangerous as UK motorways which are also considerably faster and more congested than your highways.

I can't tell you much about foreign highways, but from a TV special on the Autobahn, it is said that it is the most advanced road system in the world - its monitored by a control tower and has computer controlled signs. There is a large number of safety measures. It's simply not practical for all roads to have this.

With no speed limit there - at 200 MPH (a speed someone like you might dare obtain), 32 times more power is required to combat air drag.

It's consuming an exorbitant amount more fuel to do the same task - point A to point B. At one time in the world, this road system might have been a good idea to save time, but I think it will end up being driven much more slowly in the near future.

It would be very difficult for any competent driver to pay proper attention at 50mph on a motorway. That's just how the brain works, it's an incredibly mind-numbing task.

I don't have any problem paying attention at 50 miles per hour, or at any speed.

People that can't pay attention at 50 mph because it's too boring? So you are saying that if everyone white knuckled and raced around everywhere, the roads would be safer?

Perhaps you would be interested to know that over a quarter of motorway accidents in the UK are caused by people falling asleep at the wheel.

And they wouldn't fall asleep if they were driving 10 MPH faster? Good luck proving that.

Less people would die if they were driving 10MPH slower and they fell asleep.

50mph is too slow for anyone except Miss Miggins. In the UK you'd be potentially liable for a careless driving charge for driving so slowly on the motorway.

Look, maybe it's frustrating to ride a sport bike at slow speeds, you know what, I don't care - and I never did, if bikes were allowed to travel faster. Bikes tend to get good gas mileage. They are extremely light and aren't carrying two tons of metal, glass, and plastic around everywhere they go. My main concern here is the millions of cars burning up limited resources and pumping toxins into the atmosphere.

What is the point in even having cars if you're going to force people to drive them at practically walking pace.

You are seriously trying to convey that 10 MPH is the difference between getting somewhere in a hurry and going at a walking pace.

 

[Raziaar]

Things don't "just happen".

You're right, things don't "just happen".

They do "just happen relative to you" though.