M5 Crash

banbury frank

Banned
Jan 13, 2011
1,565
5
Hi I think That the moderator should Lock this Thread as it is all in bad taste

7 People DIED I and all you forum Should respect the relatives and leave this subject

God bless you all and My Condolences to all involved

Frank
 

funkylyn

Esteemed Pedelecer
Feb 22, 2011
3,172
27
South Shields, Tyne & Wear
Hi I think That the moderator should Lock this Thread as it is all in bad taste

7 People DIED I and all you forum Should respect the relatives and leave this subject

God bless you all and My Condolences to all involved

Frank


I quite agree Frank....

Lynda
 

indalo

Banned
Sep 13, 2009
1,380
1
Herts & Spain
Originally Posted by banbury frank


Hi I think That the moderator should Lock this Thread as it is all in bad taste

7 People DIED I and all you forum Should respect the relatives and leave this subject

God bless you all and My Condolences to all involved
Frank
I quite agree Frank....
Lynda
I make no apologies for disagreeing with you both, Frank & Lynda. The carnage caused on the M5 needs to be discussed in every household, every office, every pub and every forum possible.

The only thing in bad taste is the opinion expressed by some amongst our number who defend high speed citing all sorts of spurious rationale. I really don't care whether we speak of excessive speed being anything over the relevant maximum limit or whether it's inappropriate speed in a particular circumstance. The reality is that both types of excessive speed are regularly practised by the same cretins. Those cretins are selfish and don't care a jot about other people's safety or wellbeing.

Anybody with even the most basic grasp of physics must realise what happens in collisions at various speeds. To quote that much-hackneyed expression, "It's not exactly rocket science!"

In my book, breaking the law shows bad taste and it doesn't matter which law that is. Those who advocate lawbreaking or defend it in any way, shape or form are no different from the lawbreakers themselves. Those forum members, (cyclists) who have expressed such opinions should be ashamed.

Indalo
 

flecc

Member
Oct 25, 2006
53,196
30,602
Before pushing the merits of a 70 limit, it should be borne in mind that following a short trial period with it, it was only reinstated permanently as a fuel saving measure following the Arab oil crisis in the early 1970s.

Safety played no part in the decision.

Every speed above that the human body evolved for is a dangerous potentially killing speed. The governments road research laboratory state that above a speed of about 26 mph at the body surface, the impact results in death through the seat belt causing critical internal organ failure.
 

flecc

Member
Oct 25, 2006
53,196
30,602
Before pushing the merits of a 70 limit, it should be borne in mind that following a short trial period with it, it was only reinstated permanently as a fuel saving measure following the Arab oil crisis in the early 1970s.

Safety played no part in the decision.

Every speed above that the human body evolved for is a dangerous potentially killing speed. The governments road research laboratory state that above a speed of about 26 mph at the body surface, the impact results in death through the seat belt causing critical internal organ failure.
 

lessped

Pedelecer
Sep 7, 2007
170
3
How do you know at what speed those vehicles were travelling? Has the investigation completed and published it's results? Maybe the investigation will find that they were all driving at 50mph and this was a major factor in the pile-up, who knows at this point in time? No-one.



What is the correct speed that you would be doing? There are not many drivers that do above 100mph anyway and very few that travel 90mph+. Do you have an insight into the minds of drivers that makes them think they are wonderful at certain speeds. Do drivers travelling at 80mph think they are wonderful also? Do drivers travelling at 50mph (which could also be considered a dangerously low speed for motorways in certain conditions) think they are wonderful too?

Do you think drivers driving at the 'correct' speed should hold up drivers that want to go faster, would you not think that may cause bigger problems such as tailgating, frustration and road rage leading to more motorway incidents (maybe that was a contributing factor in the M5 crash). I don't notice many deliberate acts of drivers holding up faster drivers because they think they should be doing the 'correct' speed and when I do see it, it's usually an accident waiting to happen, so who is in the wrong there? (Both, to my mind).

Surely if a mature debate about speed is to be had, then the debate needs to be about appropriate speed and driving to the conditions rather than just speed per se?
Do you think drivers driving at the 'correct' speed should hold up drivers that want to go faster, would you not think that may cause bigger problems such as tailgating, frustration and road rage leading to more motorway incidents (maybe that was a contributing factor in the M5 crash). I don't notice many deliberate acts of drivers holding up faster drivers because they think they should be doing the 'correct' speed and when I do see it, it's usually an accident waiting to happen, so who is in the wrong there? (Both, to my mind).
So what is your answer to the above paragraph ? it seems to that the uniform seventy mph is the correct way to go from what you are saying there .!
 

eTim

Esteemed Pedelecer
Nov 19, 2009
607
2
Andover, Hants.
So what is your answer to the above paragraph ? it seems to that the uniform seventy mph is the correct way to go from what you are saying there .!
I'm not saying that any speed is the correct speed, because any speed could be the appropriate speed for the road, driving conditions, weather, tiredness level of driver, experience of driver etc etc. So my answer is that appropriate speed is the correct speed, not an arbitrary speed limit. Ask yourself why the government, presumably advised by scientific experts, road users, police and so on, are considering raising the limit, as a layman driver, I can only conclude that it must be a good thing!

As a regular user of the motorways traveling mainly at 80mph and have done for many years with little incident, I can only conclude that 80mph feels like a safe, reliable, relaxing speed, with plenty of gap left for braking and usually plenty of room behind me for those traveling at roughly the same speed. I move over for those that want to go faster without incident, hardly ever get tailgated and certainly experience little road-rage in myself or prompted in others! If I drop to 70mph or below, I find that my workload is increased as I have to account for much more hazardous traffic around me which means increased driver tiredness, more lane changing and more sudden actions from drivers in front and behind. So for me 80mph is a naturally safe speed on the motorways, if the limit is raised I would not want to travel any faster and my guess is that the vast majority of motorway users that already travel at 80mph will not wish to travel much faster either. Of course there will be the few fly-boys (and women I might add) that will travel faster, but they do that regardless of the legal speed limit.

On the subject of this thread being bad taste, I can't see why, no-one is disrespecting what happened on the M5, I'm sure we are all horrified at the crash and have sympathy for family and friends, but the crash has prompted a thread debating speed on the road, mainly in the context of motorways. Everybody's opinion is valid and can be read and written if so wished.
 

eTim

Esteemed Pedelecer
Nov 19, 2009
607
2
Andover, Hants.
Before pushing the merits of a 70 limit, it should be borne in mind that following a short trial period with it, it was only reinstated permanently as a fuel saving measure following the Arab oil crisis in the early 1970s.

Safety played no part in the decision.
Flecc - I'm glad you are around to provide much needed historical context. It amazes me that the gems that you produce continue to change my perspective about items that I have grown up believing and how that perspective has been incorrect because no historical information has been available to provide context!

I have been reading your other fascinating historical posts on another recent thread with interest and whilst history is known about the last 100 years (I know you are not that old) there's nothing like reading about it from a living horses mouth :D
 

amigafan2003

Esteemed Pedelecer
Jul 12, 2011
1,389
139
why do you drive a Scorpio Cosworth whats wrong with a normal ford .?
Because I like it and normal Ford are boring?

The 2.9 v6 Cosworth engine is one of the truly great engines to be produced in the 90's imo. I like the comfort the Scorpio gives but imo the 2ltr and 2.3ltr variants are underpowered for the size of the car.

If you're inferring that I shouldn't like fast/big engined cars then I'd best not tell about my other three cars!

Remember, whilst there is a speed limit there is no law stopping you getting to that speed limit as quickly as possible (as long as you do it in a controlled manner ofc) :)
 
Last edited:

lessped

Pedelecer
Sep 7, 2007
170
3
Because I like it and normal Ford are boring?

The 2.9 v6 Cosworth engine is one of the truly great engines to be produced in the 90's imo. I like the comfort the Scorpio gives but imo the 2ltr and 2.3ltr variants are underpowered for the size of the car.

If you're inferring that I shouldn't like fast/big engined cars then I'd best not tell about my other three cars!

Remember, whilst there is a speed limit there is no law stopping you getting to that speed limit as quickly as possible (as long as you do it in a controlled manner ofc) :)
I was more concerned about the cost of running such cars i.e.fuel insurance spare parts thats all ' as the above vehicle is way out of my league hence my interest in this forum as i can manage to run an e-bike .! ..oh by the by could you please define boring regarding cars ? cheers n beers T.J.:)
 

lessped

Pedelecer
Sep 7, 2007
170
3
Before pushing the merits of a 70 limit, it should be borne in mind that following a short trial period with it, it was only reinstated permanently as a fuel saving measure following the Arab oil crisis in the early 1970s.

Safety played no part in the decision.

Every speed above that the human body evolved for is a dangerous potentially killing speed. The governments road research laboratory state that above a speed of about 26 mph at the body surface, the impact results in death through the seat belt causing critical internal organ failure.
Well i think that is all the more reason to keep the limit at 70mph in view of the current economical crisis that we find ourselves today oh yes the oil crisis do you know i still have my petrol coupons for tho's dark days .!
 

flecc

Member
Oct 25, 2006
53,196
30,602
Well i think that is all the more reason to keep the limit at 70mph in view of the current economical crisis that we find ourselves today oh yes the oil crisis do you know i still have my petrol coupons for tho's dark days .!
My conscience back then is clear since I didn't use my full ration, giving away some coupons. My cars mileages are still very low, but many of them are at very high speeds. I don't like speed limits, driver performances are far too variable for them ever to be "correct", so only the lowest common denominator is really safe. And that correct lowest common denominator speed is so low that the roads would be paralysed if it was in force.
 

amigafan2003

Esteemed Pedelecer
Jul 12, 2011
1,389
139
I was more concerned about the cost of running such cars i.e.fuel insurance spare parts thats all ' as the above vehicle is way out of my league hence my interest in this forum as i can manage to run an e-bike .! ..oh by the by could you please define boring regarding cars ? cheers n beers T.J.:)
It's not too bad actually - I'll have had it three years this coming April and I think I've only spent about £400 on maintanence. insurance is £350 a year. Ok, so it only gets 20mpg around town but as I only drive it a few times a week I only spend about £25 a week in fuel (my Lexus LS400 with a 4ltr V8 is only slightly worse on fuel). Also, as it's a pre-2001 car it's just flat rate road tax of £205 a year.

To me, a boring car is one that can ONLY be viewed as an efficient means of transport - one that doesn't give you goosebumps, one that doesn't have any nice toys, one that isn't exciting to drive, one that is "too common", one that you could never think about "lets go for a drive" in.

Take my Westfield as an example - as a means of 4 wheel vehicular transport it's almost entirely and utterly inappropriate - it has no boot, no windscreen, no roof, no heaters - however it's undoubtedly the best car I've ever driven - you don't go anywhere in it - you just go out in it for the sheer enjoyment of "driving".

My attitude towards cars are actually very similar to why I'm now into ebikes - I like the technology, I like building stuff, I like tinkering. Saving money/the planet is of no concern to be as far as my ebike goes. Just as I like driving fast cars, I also like being on a bike - an ebike means I'll be on a bike more often as fitness is now an issue that I'm getting older. My ebike balances my car fleet perfectly - it means I can keep the mileage and maintenance down on them whilst getting some exercise :)
 

lessped

Pedelecer
Sep 7, 2007
170
3
It's not too bad actually - I'll have had it three years this coming April and I think I've only spent about £400 on maintanence. insurance is £350 a year. Ok, so it only gets 20mpg around town but as I only drive it a few times a week I only spend about £25 a week in fuel (my Lexus LS400 with a 4ltr V8 is only slightly worse on fuel). Also, as it's a pre-2001 car it's just flat rate road tax of £205 a year.

To me, a boring car is one that can ONLY be viewed as an efficient means of transport - one that doesn't give you goosebumps, one that doesn't have any nice toys, one that isn't exciting to drive, one that is "too common", one that you could never think about "lets go for a drive" in.

Take my Westfield as an example - as a means of 4 wheel vehicular transport it's almost entirely and utterly inappropriate - it has no boot, no windscreen, no roof, no heaters - however it's undoubtedly the best car I've ever driven - you don't go anywhere in it - you just go out in it for the sheer enjoyment of "driving".

My attitude towards cars are actually very similar to why I'm now into ebikes - I like the technology, I like building stuff, I like tinkering. Saving money/the planet is of no concern to be as far as my ebike goes. Just as I like driving fast cars, I also like being on a bike - an ebike means I'll be on a bike more often as fitness is now an issue that I'm getting older. My ebike balances my car fleet perfectly - it means I can keep the mileage and maintenance down on them whilst getting some exercise :)
Ahh so it's a love affair in truth might i assume you are an avid Top Gear fan ?myold mate has just sold his lexus yes that was 4ltr 1990 ish reg. huge thing .You might laugh at this but the best car i ever owned well regarding reliability was my old Skoda Favorit six years i had that car passed every mot all i had was a set of tyres and a exhaust downpipe i can hear you laughing from hear anyhow thans for the info T.J.
 

flecc

Member
Oct 25, 2006
53,196
30,602
You might laugh at this but the best car i ever owned well regarding reliability was my old Skoda Favorit
In terms of every ownership factor taken into account, the best car I've ever owned was a Skoda Fabia 1.2 which I had for five and a half years. I sold it exactly as I received it, every part original without exception, and still looking as good as when it rolled out of the showroom. It's only fault was that it didn't evolve into something different, which is why I sold it, just for the change.
 

Scottyf

Esteemed Pedelecer
Feb 2, 2011
1,403
-1
I always buy stupid unreliable things. But I buy them because I like to learn about them and half my enjoyment comes from that education into how something works.

My first motorbike was two stroke that I spent more time rebuilding it than riding it. But loved it all the more when it worked. Numerous amounts of Italian cars and my first car was an alfa 145. Please bear in mind I'm not as old as some of you :)


Head gaskets, gearboxes, clutches learnt alot about tuning in both 2 stroke and 4'stroke. All from things failing and taking them apart.

I was the same when I was 5, I'd spend more time taking a toy apart to see how it would work instead of actually using it. Nothings changed I guess.

Ebike so far has been super reliable.
 

lessped

Pedelecer
Sep 7, 2007
170
3
Y
I always buy stupid unreliable things. But I buy them because I like to learn about them and half my enjoyment comes from that education into how something works.

My first motorbike was two stroke that I spent more time rebuilding it than riding it. But loved it all the more when it worked. Numerous amounts of Italian cars and my first car was an alfa 145. Please bear in mind I'm not as old as some of you :)

Head gaskets, gearboxes, clutches learnt alot about tuning in both 2 stroke and 4'stroke. All from things failing and taking them apart.

I was the same when I was 5, I'd spend more time taking a toy apart to see how it would work instead of actually using it. Nothings changed I guess.

Ebike so far has been super reliable.
Yes understood Scottyf like you say ya aint as old as us i'msure Flecc will agree that many moons ago cars were not nearly as reliable as they are today yep had many a motor in bits plus cars were easier to work on back in the day yes we had our day us old un's plust heavy goods licence too i also remember the first part of the M1 being opened 1959 methink's feeling old now (groan)
 

flecc

Member
Oct 25, 2006
53,196
30,602
I'm sure Flecc will agree that many moons ago cars were not nearly as reliable as they are today.
Indeed, my first car was a 1936 Vauxhall DX, 6 cylinders and having the infamous "curtsey", the front dipping deeply and gracefully on braking, causing much amusement to any pedestrian stopped for. It was the leading link independent front suspension pistons that were responsible for that, also for the way taking a corner threatened to grind down the door handles.

I reckon that car took the best part of an hours maintenance for every two driving hours, though much of that was occasionally replacing a main bearing or two. The crankshaft was worn out with journals oval, but I couldn't afford to have it reground. I regularly injected fullers earth into the clutch housing to soak up the oil from the rear main that brought on clutch slip, and some sawdust mixed with the oil in the gearbox kept that quiet!

Yes, it was worn right out, but as a teenager it was all I could afford and it gave me three years of service with those ongoing bodges.

New ones were often not much better. My first brand new car, a 1960 Mini, failed on the first trip home from the dealer, second gear just completely disappearing without a sound. Turned out a part hadn't been hardened and fell into pieces, typical of motor industry "quality" control in that era.
 

lessped

Pedelecer
Sep 7, 2007
170
3
Indeed, my first car was a 1936 Vauxhall DX, 6 cylinders and having the infamous "curtsey", the front dipping deeply and gracefully on braking, causing much amusement to any pedestrian stopped for. It was the leading link independent front suspension pistons that were responsible for that, also for the way taking a corner threatened to grind down the door handles.

I reckon that car took the best part of an hours maintenance for every two driving hours, though much of that was occasionally replacing a main bearing or two. The crankshaft was worn out with journals oval, but I couldn't afford to have it reground. I regularly injected fullers earth into the clutch housing to soak up the oil from the rear main that brought on clutch slip, and some sawdust mixed with the oil in the gearbox kept that quiet!

Yes, it was worn right out, but as a teenager it was all I could afford and it gave me three years of service with those ongoing bodges.

New ones were often not much better. My first brand new car, a 1960 Mini, failed on the first trip home from the dealer, second gear just completely disappearing without a sound. Turned out a part hadn't been hardened and fell into pieces, typical of motor industry "quality" control in that era.
They were the days methinks we have turned this thread into a nostalgia trip while we are on the subject of old motors were you ever into the motor bikes i only had a couple Triumph speed twin (bath tub type) ab my old bsa c15 just as unreliable as the cars hee hee yes i was a greaser back in the days of mods n rockers happy days . T.J.