STOPPING DISTANCES (Finland) & MORE:-)

[Keepleft]

First link is a Finnish SWF tuition program that shows you stopping distances, you simply choose the speed and weather conditions. Press START and CONTINUE,- as prompted!

(Note the ICE icon, and choose say a 100km/h commute speed:-) Compare then to other criteria such as SNOW or WET. SWF takes into account reaction time etc).

Compare results to what your AUS State or Territory handbook tells you:-)

Enjoy:-
http://www.liikenneturva.fi/www/en/a...smatka_ENG.swf


Driving in Finland:-

Basic information on Finnish traffic regulations and rules (Ministry of Transport PDF)

http://www.expat-finland.com/pdf/driving_in_finland.pdf

Note 'Roundabouts' and compare rules to our own, you will see harmonisation of law.

See also lane-use (motorway and general), but rem Finland in an LHD country, so reference to the free-right-lane is the LEFT here in AUS when the say motorway has three.

[rancidpunx]

For anyone who wants to see Finnish drivers and their training, watch the Top Gear episode in which James May goes to Finland and hooks up with Mika Hakkinen.

Puts the Australian driving tests to shame. I kid who works for me just passed his test. He was joking about and laughing at how he even managed to hit a curb twice and still pass. Once on a turn in the road, and once exiting a mini roundabout.

[AWD Chaser]

From RTA Handbook:

5 km/h over the speed limit MEANS 32 km/h on impact
Two cars are travelling, one at 65 km/h and the other 60 km/h. A truck
unexpectedly appears across the road about 38 metres ahead and both
drivers apply the brakes at the same point. The vehicle travelling at 65 km/h
will hit the truck at 32 km/h and suffer extensive damage. The slower vehicle will be travelling at 5 km/h on impact.

From Finish Program

At 60kph, the driver uses 3 seconds to stop the car.
In total, the stopping distance (Rection distance (17m) + Braking distance (20m)) is 37 meters.

[4117kev]

Braking distances for Australia, taking into account a good level bitumus road (lol) and a reaction time of 1.5 seconds are

60kph is 60m toatal. reaction distance is 25m
110kph is 156m toatal. reaction distance is 46m

[prydey]

surely braking distances aren't set in stone. as cars improve, so surely must their research tell them, that braking distances also improve.

also, there are some cars on here with 6 and 8 piston brembo's that are going to smash your face into the windscreen if they are applied with serious pressure


why does one country have info that says you will stop 1 metre short of the object and another says you will plough into it? are conditions that much better in finland? maybe the aussie 'experts' aren't so 'expert'! just part of the govt PR/marketing team. can't really bang on about 'every k over is a killer' without something to back it up, so we create our own statistics.

speaking of statistics, they can be manipulated many ways to suit many arguments.

[mik]

i would say they are average brakeing distances not gospel, good tyres and better brake/s pads and of course the type of car make a big difference.

[EDManual]

braking is overated in my opinion, so many times no matter how good my brakes were it wouldn't have helped. Its all about steering through the problem! Especially on dirt/ice.

[xbgs351]

Even those stopping distances look somewhat conservative. For instance at 80 km/h its says the braking distance is 35 metres (58m total), when most cars can pull up from 80 km/h in under 30 metres.

[durtyharry]

Suggest for some data that relates to Australia use: http://www.nrma.com.au/keeping-safe-...ce-tests.shtml,
these distances dont include reaction times. Nor do they tell us whether the Kingswood was on current day tyres, Im assuming it was as the data from memory looks correct and tyres were most likely not the limiting factor in stopping this car.

Then go to http://www.phy.ntnu.edu.tw/ntnujava/index.php?topic=137, where you can choose any speed you like and any braking performance(the friction coefficient basically represents the number of g’s of the stop, whether it is brake limited or tyre limited) ie 1 represents a deacceleration of 9.80m/s/s or a 1g stop.

You can use basic newtonian physics to verify that the 2004 commodore used in the nrma test averages a 0.925g stop, whereas the 79 kingswood averages 0.725g. (both these seem very representative)
So how much faster can the 2004 Commodore go and still have the same stopping distance as the 31 year old Kingswood. Of course we should include driver reaction time if we are going to relate it to the real world.
Research indicates that is about 1.5 seconds for the driver to recognise the danger and get their foot from the accelerator and hard on the brake. Of course in the simulation if you are good you can react within 0.2 secs with your fingers, but to perhaps try some realism, put your mouse on the floor and try it with your foot placed six inches away(but do appreciate you are primed for an emergency, after 1 hour on the freeway, most are not.
So for the Kingswood travelling at 110km/h(30.6m/s), the total stopping dist is 30.6 x 1.5 + 65.7 = 111.5m
......the 2004 commodore could travel at 120km/h and enjoy the same stopping distance.
120km/h = 33.3m/s
33.3 x 1.6 + 61.28 = 111.3m(you can use the simulation or do the maths to verify the 61.28m)

So have cars improved enough in the last 30 years to allow an increase in speed from 110 to 130km/h, well no it would be an overall decrease in safety.
Should we allow more modern cars to do 120km/h? Did we ever have limits of 110km/h on freeways 30 years ago, not in vic. 70mph was given up as bloody dangerous in the late 60s. The 110km/h is already pushing the limits of these older cars and is more in line with what the average car and driver! represents today.

The 110km/h wet figure distance for the Kingswood is interesting!. At 50 and 60km/h the difference is only a couple of metres, wheras its about 27m at 110km/h(misprint?). If not, wondering how this was achieved(no clues given), was it standing on the brakes or stopping without locking up any of the wheels, the latter would massively increase the distance as the front to rear bias in older cars is setup for dry weather(larger bias to the front), cant beat abs in these circumstances.

[xbgs351]

Originally Posted by xbgs351

Even those stopping distances look somewhat conservative. For instance at 80 km/h its says the braking distance is 35 metres (58m total), when most cars can pull up from 80 km/h in under 30 metres.

Just looked up the braking distance for a Citroen C5 like my family car. From 80 km/h NRMA measred 23.2 metres.