Stopping Distances: Real World vs Highway Code
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 6 ก.พ. 2025
- Highway code figures were first published 40 years ago and as a bit of fun we test what results we’d get in a modern car.
Vbox Sport:
www.vboxmotorsport.co.uk
The tools used in this video can be bought here: road-and-race.c...
Road-and-Race.co.uk
TH-cam: / roadandracetv
Twitter: @RoadandRaceTV
Facebook.com/RoadandRaceTV
Instagram: Roadandracetv
When Jaguar started to fit disc brakes all round they even went to the point of adding a warning on the back of cars to remind other road users that their brakes were considerably better what would be expected by the Highway Code. So I guess it's hardly surprising that I would expect most modern cars with discs all round and ABS will significantly outperform the Highway Code.
yeah on modern cars the limiting factor on stopping is not the brakes its the tyres
I took my driving test as a teenager back in the 1950s and when the examiner asked me the thinking and braking distances at some speed, I said I'd have to work it out for him. I did using the formula that the thinking distance in feet is the same as the speed in miles per hour and the braking distance in feet is one-twentieth of the square of the speed in miles per hour!
Omg thank you so much :P Prepping for my motorcycle theory atm and this is gonna make those stopping distance questions so easy
It’s not a good practice. People are bad in measuring distance with their eye, especially while moving in a car. A more convenient way is counting seconds before the car ahead. When a car ahead passes a landmark (such as a pillar), count the time before you reach the same landmark. If it’s less than 2 seconds, you are in danger.
I did an emergency stop on the M1 from 60mph in the wet some years ago and practically gave myself whiplash. Wet stopping distances are supposed to be double dry ones, but my car stopped well under the dry numbers from the code, like your results it was somewhere between 30 and 50% shorter for the dry figures.
Edit: Of course, some people will tell you that the figures are an average for all cars including those with poorer brakes, tyres, etc. But to that I'd say: That's what the MOT is for.
"wet" doesn't mean much. How much wet? _When_ is it? Is it right after a long period of dryness? That's the worst possible road condition, next to straight up oil-spill. _Where_ is it?
@@GeorgeTsiros all excellent questions. For my specific case it was moderate rain which had started in dry conditions 10 minutes earlier, and it was on the M1.
@@PhillipParr Has it rained a lot recently? If yes, the road is much, much less slippery than if it had been without rain for months. All the debris, oil, dust and stuff that was deep in the road crevices, gets mixed into the rainwater and covers the surface. If it has rained _a lot_ recently, the road will be much much better.
@@GeorgeTsiros we're talking about 2016 so I'm not sure I can answer for my case 😅
@@PhillipParr anyway, if the road is good, braking is violent! All is well as long as we return home in one piece...
I've hit the brakes hard at about 100 km/h (60 mph) after swerving to avoid a kangaroo (yes I live in Australia). Swerving probably wasn't the best idea but the car (a city hatchback) came to a stop fairly quickly. ABS works wonders. You can really hear (and feel) it going off when you slam the brakes at speed.
ABS actually increases the brake distance. Unless you don't have the skills of braking properly that is. A good driver will outperform ABS though. For manouvering under heavy braking it is ideal though
@@silent_fluo6917meow…😊
@@silent_fluo6917 A "good" driver only thinks that...but a proper good drivers knows that ABS saves lives in emergency scenarios. So no, your good driver will not outperform ABS in those emergency situations, which is exactly what ABS is designed for. Not people who think they're race drivers racing in predictable environments and conditions
dont swerve......
@@kingprone7846 don't swerve is how you hit objects that appear in front of you in an emergency. Only a complete idiot thinks they can outperform good ABS in an emergency situation. Although there are some bad systems out there
The test was performed in perfect conditions (dry road, good tyres suiting the outside temperature, well-functional car). In real life the condition are often not perfect. If the stopping distance is uncertain, it’s better to be on the safe side of the estimation.
For the morons in the comments saying a Porsche is unfair because it had a short braking distance, let me remind you that the only thing that affects your braking distance is your tires and whether or not your brakes are strong enough to activate ABS. That old Porsche has a pretty crappy braking distance compared to any new car.
For the morons who do not know how science works, you do not assume. You _measure_ .
So just casually ignoring the major difference between performance disc brakes and standard drums?
@@k4p1t4l9 Yes. That literally makes zero difference to braking distance and anyone with any kind of racing or engineering experience will tell you that.
Performance brake parts are used to handle *sustained* loads, AKA to not overheat when for example subjected to multiple laps on a racing track, or braking from extremely high speeds like 300 km/h. As long as it's strong enough to activate the ABS braking distance will be the same, and for a single emergency stop any drum brake on a road car will be enough for that.
@@k4p1t4l9 I thought it was just that drums overheat more easily, but I see no reason why drum brakes can't lock the wheels. They are probably more efficient on fuel economy to be honest if you are not driving in a way that needs a lot of braking. It's easier to stop them rubbing and giving you worse mpg.
One factor not taken into account is that its not only the cars ability to stop and that can be altered by many circumstances . worn braked or tyres, under or over pressured tyres, or road surface wet or dry or downhill, on a bend etc, etc.
However one should also take into account the driver and his or her ability to see and to read the road ahead. If too close, closer than the recommended stopping distance in the H.C. then one cannot see much that is happening ahead, other than the rear end of the vehicle in front. Being too close to recognise a potential danger or real danger occurring and then to asses what action to take and come to a decision and then if necessary then apply the brakes .
All these thoughts take time and that relates to safe stopping distances. Times of between mill. second or maybe as much as 3 or 4 or 5 second to make a decision to stop before brakes are actually applied. An example, in one second at say 70 mph one has l already travelled some 105 ft. in distance. If one is only giving some 50 or 60 ft of following distance then you have already become involved in an accident in half a second.
Forget all the crap of modern cars being able to stop better than before. GET THAT OUT OF YOU MIND and simply follow the giving of at least the 2 second rule and of giving more at higher speed. AND THAT WILL KEEP YOU A LOT SAFER THAN JUDGING THE SAFE DISTANCE YOURSELF. Simply to give as much safe space as you possibly can and do not follow anything with less space and that definitely means not just giving the Thinking distances only.
Follow this simple measure of safe distance and you will become one of the safest drivers or riders on our roads today. I have followed this rule for the last 60 odd years and it really works. And remember that with this space given your safer view of the road ahead is improved no end and that means that you can see more and others can see you also so its a win win situation.
Do not be concerned or angered if someone pulls in or out on you from a side street or overtakes as your space can be invaded. Let them go, relax and just pull back to give your safe space again and allow them to continue their journey as you continue yours. The following details are easy to remember and when set in you mind you will find that you will subconsciously give more space all round and all the time.
One lamp post .Around town at 30 and 40 mph give at least one lamp post distance. That's about 40 metres or 130 ft.
Two lamp posts. At 50 and 60 mph on roads with lamp posts, give two lamp posts distance . That's some 80 metres or approx. 260 ft.
On country roads with Telegraph poles they are approx. 60 metres apart and that is safe at 50mph
Three lamp posts. At 70 mph on motorways . dual carriageways give three lamp posts. That's some 120 metres or almost some 400 feet stopping distance. Otherwise give at least one marker post apart and they are some 100 metres apart. approx. 315 ft.
Safe driving.
Basically, you hit the brakes and stop quicker than the Highway Code, I drive a van and can’t stop as quick, I end up rear ending you because it’s a Porsche you are driving. Keep the distances, brake to suit the situation.
Steven Adams This Porsche is old. A new family estate could stop like this
Don’t drive so close to the car in front then! If you rear end someone in your van it is your fault no matter what the circumstances. No exceptions.
@@franciscope7141 yeah I thought that. It's not my job to make sure the van behind can stop in time. That's down to the driver of the van.
if you know your vehicle is heavier and can’t break as well, increase your distance
Great video, always thought of doing this myself. Reaction times obviously omitted as distances are without reaction, just stopping distances, however what about the truck behind you on a real road? Additionally this is at maximum bringing by a reasonable driver on a good road... how much margin of error?
1. Trucks have keep a distance of 50 meter to the driver in front.
2. A modern (european) Truck has the sasme stopping distance a car has. If its loaded and has good tires and good road surface and is a good truck it can even stop quicker then a car. maybe not as a Sopts car with fancy brakes and race tires but we are talking about an average car
@@derfurz8618 You ever seen a truck keeping a 50 metre gap?
@@squirrelofdoom3830 yes, they do basically 98% of the time
@@derfurz8618 yeah, ok
I have a follow up question: Did you push the brake to 100% at the higher speeds? (60mph and up) how does it feel like making a full stop at these high speeds?
+Willi Werkel Yes, pressed the pedal to the floor every time. 60 mph felt incredibly safe. No issues. At 70 mph on that narrow track the car did squirm a little but it was still surprising assured.
Road and Race thanks for your response!
Willi Werkel I have done it in a BMW 5 series to avoid someone joining the motorway from the hard shoulder, at a very slow speed. Was doing 80mph, hit the brake as hard as I could (no time to turn) the car handle it fine, just had to keep hold of the steering wheel. Main thing is the deceleration you feel, quite scary, wouldn't want to try it in a low performance car. Maybe slide side ways or would not have stopped in time.
@@tomtdh4903 tbh, even in low performance cars, most of them actually feel quite safe braking at relatively high speeds. Braking on a turn though, I wouldn't be too confident.
@@tomtdh4903 I did an emergency stop in by old VW golf (G reg) on a roundabout (not very fast) and it spun 180 degrees, and I ended up facing the person behind be, very strange.
an automatic Boxster should be banned
SuperQbik having an M race clutch makes you think about an automatic. General it becomes annoying as hell.
It DOUBLED when going from 50 to 60!
E=0.5*M*V^2
Your energy (and therefore the energy your brakes have to turn from kinetic to heat) squares with your speed. So at the minimum you'd expect it to take about 30% longer (50^2/60^2 = ~0.69). 30 to 60 should take about four times the distance (which checking back is about right, little less than 10 metres for 30mph, and about 35 metres for 60mph).
Actually we can work out how much energy he used in these tests (well no, i'm just going to ignore drag, power lost to drag is cube of the velocity, at least until the transonic region..., either way i can't be bothered).
30, 40, 50, 60, 70 mph, is 13.4, 17.9, 22.4, 26.8, 31.3 m/s
Boxster weights ~1300 kg. So 650*V^2.
116714, 208266, 326144, 466856, 636798
116.7, 208.3, 326.1, 466.8, 636.8 KiloJoule for each test
A litre of Petrol is 34200 kJ. Assuming an engine efficiency of 30% (can be between 20-35 for road going cars).
1754.7 kJ in total. He used at least 170 ml of petrol just to accelerate the car up to speed. For these tests.
Funnily, if petrol is at £1.30 a litre, it costs about 8 pence to take that from 0-70 and only 1.5 pence to go from 0-30. Of course drag is where the costs usually come from.
@@Logarithm906meow./
You should see how much stopping sight distance traffic engineers are required to give drivers in passenger cars time to stop. It's a lot more than the highway code, but it is researched based to cover 90% of the driving population.
Different cars yes good to update but still keep a distance every driver needs time to think also
Your pre planning
Didn't they pre plan in the tests 40 years ago?
Cars are getting safer as long as oversized vehicles are getting safer.
I wonder what speed we'd have to do to match the stopping distance to the highway code 😂😂😂
Testing Porsche Boxster + ready to brake + 100% attention VS beater + offensive driving + distracted driver?
well, if you are driving offensively in a beater with almost run out brakes while not paying attention you kinda deserve to crash into something. these distances are pretty much average for any unloaded car with brakes in decent nick. they dont even need to be brand new ceramics for shit like this to happen.
BTW everyone, that Porsche has mono block Brembo brake calipers. The best mass production car breaks in the world at the time.
What about reaction and thinking distance. Also, what's wrong with erring on the side of caution when safety and or lives are at stake?
I'm surprised you were able to stop from 40 in 11meters. That's only 2 more than the 30 mph. I'd want to repeat some of those figures, though cars with downforce will beat the speed squaring relationship at higher speeds. Also I suppose the weight transfer to the front wheels takes some amount of time before the brakes reach full power.
What about thinking time and reaction time?
90% of UK drivers must have missed this lesson
I think the highway code does not make the assumption that the average Joe is driving a tuned sports car...
This is very fun but it must be pointed out that the way he is running this test completely removes reaction time from the equation, which would add an increasingly significant distance to each higher speed. These tests need to have a signal light that goes off randomly so that reaction time can be evaluated.
The highway code has two parts braking distance and reaction distance. He is comparing to the braking distance, the reaction distance is assumed accurate. So it's actually totally valid.
fair enough I guess@@Komrade_juice
When I took my test in early 80s it was thinking distance breaking distance and overall stopping distance and I knew them off by heart. And I got asked one from the questions. U got to practice. Myn you my brain wasn’t so sizzled as it is now lol
The complaints in the comments aren't fair. The car used is an older model Porsche Boxter, which isn't really "high performance". This car will have about the same stopping power as a modern day car from say ~2014.
Far less - take a look here: www.which.co.uk/news/2012/05/best-and-worst-supermini-braking-distances-285596/ - VW Polo from 2012...
Let me remind you that the only thing that affects your braking distance is your tires and whether or not your brakes are strong enough to activate ABS. That old Porsche has a pretty crappy braking distance compared to any new car.
Can we have a radio version
0:18 Every new car that Motorweek (TV show in the US) tests, for at least the last few years, stops from 60-0 in LESS THAN 130 feet, with sports cars stopping in about 100-110 feet. Those figures really are outdated.
But research also shows the average driver also can't utilize the full power of their brakes- the research seems to more support that the highway code is correct, in estimating what the average driver is capable of. But actually, when it comes to reaction perception time, the highway code significantly underestimates that. Meaning the highway code should actually have increased stopping distances, not less.
Aren’t you eleminating one factor of the equation by knowing when to brake? As you’re expecting where to brake you don’t consider the thinking time that a real world scenario would have. Not saying braking distances haven’t shortened, but this demonstration is misleading!
Not really, the Highway code breaks their stopping distance down into thinking distance and breaking distance. From 70mph it states 21m thinking and 75m breaking. This test shows that the actual breaking distance is almost half of what it was when the Highway Code was written, and thats in a fairly old boxter.
so.. real world = everyone is driving porsche ?
This old boxter is comparable to most modern cars with ABS. Actually, when Jeremy Clarkson did the test in the late 90's, the Peugeot 106 had a shorter braking distance than the 911.
wet roads dont exist either
@@kinstar guess what, there are different measurements made on wet roads. Don't compare these two, they are completely different tests.
@@kinstar Highway code state regular conditions
An early 2000s boxter definitely has ABS
It's a Porsche tho. Can you do it with a standard family car?
+ghini518 On the day we had a Vauxhall Astra lined up to do some runs but, as it usually does in England, it started raining so we weren't able to do it. If this video is popular enough we may go back and do a comparison video though.
What about wet and ice?
To be fair the experiment would only work on a really rubbish new car, you'd also need to include 3 -4 seconds reaction time.
3-4 seconds reaction time? A sleepy drunk driver who smoked marijuana and who is talking over the phone would react way faster. Even one second is a very slow reaction for an old driver.
I think people have no idea what a second actually is. Reaction time should be fractions of a second
@@Sheridantank 100ms is pretty much the absolute lowest, 150ms is very good, average is about 200-250ms. Can test yourself here: humanbenchmark.com/tests/reactiontime
@@bst857
I’ve always had extremely quick reaction times. I often catch things without being aware of it in a way that surprises people. A reaction time of more than a full second is pretty slow. 2 seconds is awful.
@@bst857
I averaged 245ms on that test but I think gross motor tests are a better representation. Thanks for the extra information though.
Bet his brakes and tyres are well above average.
There's a lot of variables.
My 2002 vauxhall corsa can stop from 70mph to stop in approximately 1 week.
So about as fast as it takes it to get there, then?
Get better tires...
Try that in a hyundai or psangyong not a porche
Hyundais are decent nowadays, but big SUVs, minivans, or many cars which still have drum brakes on the rear...
There many factors that set braking distance had stop quickly going 60 mph in 40 feet cause had no choice but had performance parts racing seat belt bruised me up
Your test and conclusions are nonsense when the "modern car" is in fact a modern high-speed, high-performance sports car, on which the suspension, brakes and tyres are all specifically chosen for maximum performance. The Highway Code figures were intended to reflect everyday driving, so to have any validity your test would need to use a modern average family saloon.
the Boxster can stop on a dime and pick it up.......
stop on a dime and give you your change
try it in a fiat panda
tehblizz light cars stop easly, probably not as good as porsche but fairly good
the california driver handbook says it takes 400 feet to react and stop a car at 55 mph in good conditions. lol
Traffic engineers are required to design the roads at a design speed of 55 with about 550 feet of stopping sight distance. But this covers below average drivers (up until 90% of the total passenger car drivers).
Not a realistic test you cannot compare the braking capacity of a Porsche with a more common Toyota or Nissan family sedan that will have a less effective braking hence longer braking distances. You also have to consider the weight of the vehicle, a large SUV will have a longer braking distance
Perfectly realistic test. Brakes are designed and adapted to the car weight... Here is a medium-size crossover (Nissan Qashqai 2011) stopping from 30 mph in a "disappointing" (10 years ago) 11.9 m in the wet, 20% shorter than the Highway Code reported distance in the dry: www.practicalcaravan.com/reviews/nissan-qashqai-2-0-dci-tekna
2013 Evoque - not exactly a light vehicle - stopping in 9 m, same as the Porsche: www.edmunds.com/car-reviews/track-tests/2013-land-rover-range-rover-evoque-coupe-track-test.html
Supeminis brake group test from 2012 - the worst in the group stopping in 44 m, the best in 34 (same as the Porsche here, but it's a VW Polo). www.which.co.uk/news/2012/05/best-and-worst-supermini-braking-distances-285596/
Pick up any car magazine doing tests, and you will find that a ~10 m braking distance at 30 mph is pretty much the norm, as is a ~40 m from 60 mph. A high performance car will go well below these, but the most important difference will be brake fade resistance, not "one-off" emergency stop. Highway Code says 14 and 55...
Yes, but Jay Leno in the 1950s cadillac is not gonna stop in that distance.
Cool, he can stay in the US then with his barge on wheels and we're all good
what about wet condition
Yuchi Lin the highest code states stopping distance will be x2 In wet conditions, and up to x10 more in Icey and snowy conditions
You know when you are going to stop as you come to a flag. Your stopping distance does not include thinking time. So basically double it depending how quick you think after you see an obstruction. Imagine a wet day with spray and doing 70 mph. The highway code is probably giving the actual stopping distance taking into account quality of tires and pressures and the tiredness level of the driver. Not to mention those who think a pint after work will not affect their driving. This sort of fun is dangerous if people watch it and believe it.
Agreed
The Highway Code is giving both distances: "thinking distance" and "braking distance" for a vehicle in good order and on a dry road with good surface, not "whatever may happen to an MOT brake failure with bald tyres on a flooded roundabout". What was reported here was the braking distance only.
It's not like the Highway Code is not available for free online - go and check rather than suggesting that this is "dangerous"; the Highway Code clearly needs to be updated - with significantly increased reaction times given the much greater amount of distractions now normally on the roads, and equally significantly decreased braking distances given the progress from cross-ply tyres, live axles and drum brakes without ABS that were the norm in 1956 (last time those numbers were changed...)
He said this test is not including thinking time. Only stopping time
If yoi have a good reaction time you should be able to react in 1-1.5 car length
Exactly what I was thinking of. He doesn't take into account that he is not going to react that fast if a deer jumps in front of him or a wild boar or something similar (an asshole break checking for example). He breaks because he knows he is supposed to and prepares for it accordingly.
Yes, because in real life, we all know exactly when to brake for the accident ahead. The stopping distances are longer to allow for reaction time.
Shame that the distances compared here are the braking distances, not the total stopping distance. www.highwaycodeuk.co.uk/control-of-the-vehicle.html rule 126
Traffic rules are a money grabber now a days... Nothing to do with the safety anymore. We been on the same rules since the 1960... Like the cars did not evolve, right!?? Back then most of the cars could not even do 60Mph, but they were allowed! BS all the way...
Says the guy driving a Porsche.
This guy is testing emergency stopping at those speeds, in driving day in day out you not emergency brake everytime. So the test he is doing is incorrect. Need to test a gradually stop safely.
What modern car - just name it.
does highway code state the braking distance is with or without reaction time?
edit : nvm,i asked above while i was loading the video, question got answered seconds in haha
MillieVerthandi silly Millie
How about this, if people spend more money on breaks and good pads then it could be better for everyone
Your stops more quickly than the laws of physics allow…..(unless it is generating downforce)
I think this stopping distance is made assuming the vehicle is poor at stopping. For example a heavy or worn out old vehicle. They have to make it to the worst possible standard to cover everything
Yeah but people then use these breaking distances to decide speed limits which heavier vehicles already have to obey a different speed limit in these zones regardless so it is a little silly to have not made an amendment for modern day
Not an everyday car so the test has no credibility try it in a ford focus or something similar
Porsche Boxter from year 2000 is nothing special a modern ford focus will stop just as fast.
Also, there's a big difference between the tyres that Ford fit when new to that a typical owner would put on when needed.
I will try this in my ford f450
Why are you doing the test in an old Porsche, what are you chatting fella
they add new stupid and dangerous rules for cyclists but still havent updated stopping distances
U need to be doing this in a Ford Fiesta or a car that everyone owns not a fucking Automatic Porsche
Why?
Here you are. Perfectly comparable results www.which.co.uk/news/2012/05/best-and-worst-supermini-braking-distances-285596/
yes but not everyone has porsche brakes lmaoo
a fiesta isnt going to stop this quick
Any modern car is going to be far closer to the breaking ability of a mid 2000s Boxter than a 1980s Ford Escort, which the highway code distances were based on
But it’s a Porsche....
But this is an old, possibly pre-Y2K, Porsche. I don't think ABS back then are as advanced as today.
Do the same exercise in a bog standard -2005 Ford Fiesta or a Fiat Punto. Maybe the numbers wouldn´t be that much off...?
Or not. These are 2012 numbers, and as you will see they aren't far off a 2001 Porsche. What people keep misunderstanding about "sport car" braking is that the big difference is not in the one-off stop, but in the resistance to fade. www.which.co.uk/news/2012/05/best-and-worst-supermini-braking-distances-285596/
The highway code says "typical stopping distance" these tests are always emergency style stops NOT typical stopping as the highway code states. so not relevant or comparable.
They are not even that. Calculate average deceleration, and you will see clear evidence of distances being estimated, as average deceleration implied by the Highway Code numbers is a constant 0.66 g. This would have been reasonable emergency stopping for the 1950s with a vehicle with cross-ply tyres, live-axle suspension, drum brakes without ABS. As to what the Highway Code writer meant for "typical", you'd have to ask him; for the 1950s (when the table was first published - with these values!) these are "typical" of shortest possible distances... not of "typical braking".
and this is in a 20 year old boxster ha
I'm just trying to understand what the point with this video is. Braking distance is determined by the speed and the coefficient of friction.
The coefficient of friction depends on the weakest link in brakes, tires and surface. (Brakes and tires need to be proportional to the weight to be able to work properly)
Have you taken into consideration on the friction of the surface between the tests? Or the qualities of the tires?
So the only thing you are saying is "On this surface, with these tires and these brakes I have shorter braking distance tha the highway code". Hell, even a slight slope up or down changes it.
And since your tests don't scale properly we know that you are either not braking on a surface with the same friction for the whole stretch or you are not consistent with either the speed or point of braking.
It's interesting, but hardly a good argument against the Highway Code. Especially since as you can see in the comments that people tend to read this as "See, I can drive faster because I can always stop faster than what the book says"
It's not "The Real World" It's one test in the real world.
A Porsche isn't a typical modern car. Mr Clarkson said the braking distance was set by a normal Ford Cortina, not a £40,000 high performance Roadster. You couldn't find a Vauxhall Corsa anywhere?
+Cash Wfivefive Hold on, I'll check behind the sofa...
haha, you know there are about two on every street mate
A 2001 Boxster S can be bought in good condition for 10K or less today. its really not that much.
My mum's cousin worked for the MOT in the 50s and 60s. He said that the car they used was a Ford Anglia.
Here you are: www.which.co.uk/news/2012/05/best-and-worst-supermini-braking-distances-285596/ - and note that these are (by now) 10 year old superminis, not 2021 high performance vehicles. The best ones perform as well as the Roadster, the worst ones are still 25% better than the Highway Code.
BTW - the Highway Code distances are suspiciously closely fitting a 0.66 g (2/3 g) constant deceleration curve - so I suspect no testing as such was involved; only assumptions. In any case the distances haven't changed since the 1954 edition, whereas the Cortina was launched in 1962.
So at 95 mph, dry road stopping distance would be around 70 metres, which is a perfect stopping distance for a 70mph car in the 1965 highway code, but... response time in any direction would have been diminished as well if we were to have applied that speed as from about '98 or so, overtaking would have become more difficult, etc... I would agree to an 80-85 mph speed on highways today, if no one used any drugs nor alcohol, nobody would smoke while driving, nobody used any cell, etc... . Let alone demanding car part quality way beyond MOT, etc. . We're not there yet, and I guess we never will. There are even guys thinking that 4 Scotches makes them drive better!
Really guys!! You use a sports car with beefed up brakes to do this test? Then pretend that you've proved something about "real conditions"? Dear oh dear.
Beefed up brakes? A 23 year old Boxster has smaller rotors than most family hatchbacks now.
hes missing the point, the highway code assumes the driver is surprised by the need to brake, this increases the thinking and reaction distance
This vid would be more relevant if you used a regular car instead of a Porsche.
this bullshit is irrelevant because 95% of cars on the road are closer to a vw golf than a porsche.
why use a light weight midengine porshe boxter...use a car an average person would use with basic breaks ect... like a truck or midsize sedan
this guy looks like anthony from gaskings
try that with a common car and in the rain and get back to us
carkeeks in the rain the highway code doubles it's braking distance
Those braking distances are pretty similar to my braking distances in my stock Jetta and don’t extend much farther in the rain
Try that with a 10-year old VW Polo - in the dry, as per Highway Code - and get the same result www.which.co.uk/news/2012/05/best-and-worst-supermini-braking-distances-285596/
you dont get asked stopping distances in either of the two driving tests
So in summary, you used a car with performance disc brakes on all 4 wheels to do a test for everyday drivers.
I can test you that the Fiesta I just sold absolutely could not stop that quickly with its drum brakes.
Also driving 70mph on a clearly 60mph road… really?
Not forgetting the fact your thinking time is 0 because you are marking the start point as when you start braking.
Jesus.
1) reaction time (here first flag expected) 2) Porsche
The braking distances compared to in the video are official braking distances from the time the brake is activated. Not total stopping time, including reaction time. There are studies showing that reaction times are seriously underestimated by the Highway Code "standard", and there are plenty of tests showing that braking distances are in total cloud-cuckoo-land, based as they are on 1950s cars.
Porsche yes, but a 15 year old one (at time of filming), and not one famed for its braking prowess even back then.
Driving along the motorway at 70mph and you need to come to an immediate stop takes you ???? metres but at 80mph starting your braking at the same point you will arrive at that same point (70mph point) still travelling at 37mph. That speed can kill an emergency worker, person in the road, a pile up etc.
Point, see the situation earlier or kill your speed.
Ill choose to see it sooner then!
This is gear dependant.
So basically all UK speed limits are pointless
Absolute codswollop They were using a 2.3 litre Porsche a special Roadster light sports/saloon car and not a normal bog standard everyday machine. Its light and it has a good power to weight ratio and by its cost, maybe 3 or 4 times the cost of an average users car has a better braking capability.So its an awful lot quicker than the vast majority of cars on the road and as a result of its particular manufacture can easily stop quicker.
Next time use a normal everyday 5 seater saloon car fully laden with passengers and for a holiday with luggage so that its weight and that means MASS is increased and then and only then come back with some reality figures and not this nonsense of making others believe that they can stop in these low distances. They cant but Porsche drivers can. and anyone who believes that they can stop in that distance in a bog standard saloon car is living in cloud cuckoo land as you are.
PS. its also possible for the sake of winning any argument that as this was not on a level runway but on a normal appearing road that there may be an ever so slight up hill gradient of say 30 cm in 50 metres and that would slow the car down that is not under acceleration. Also its quicker to stop a car if one has tyres that are not fully inflated, say losing 1 or 2 psi would also enable a car to stop in less distance but taking too much out could be dangerous.
Only an idiot and a dangerous fool would argue that braking distances are better now and quoting this result as substantial evidence that the H.C. and the DVSA and all training organisations have it wrong.
Haha, only thing that affects your braking distance is your tires and if your brakes are good enough to activate ABS, that porsche will have a horrible brake distance compared to even the shittiest of new cars.
@@swecreations Again what you and others fail to realise is first they didn't use a high performance sports car as that would give a false a unreal in comparison with other standard saloons. Then again as I have stated one needs to prove the worst case scenario and that is of a fully laden saloon car with 4/5 persons in and enough luggage in the boot. Then when its full loaded only then find out the braking capability. After that average out the good and the bad o perhaps just take the worst case scenario and then for good safe measure add on a further 10 % of distance. Then you will have a realistic figure of just how far one needs to be able to stop in on our roads.
As a by the bye there were tests done in 2021 by the Motor Vehicle Research and Development Center for a Road Safety charity and the result of these test proved that it was generally some 1.5. seconds on average for the Thinking and reaction distances and not the mere 0.7 of a second we now take for granted. So that increases ones overall stopping distance by at last one second. being an increase of some 105 ft of Thinking Distance at 70 mph.
@@judgedredd49 Sure, but a fully loaded saloon will stop earlier then this Porsche since it's newer, so this Porsche is a worst case scenario as most people don't drive cars from the 90s anymore.