c’était un rendez vous

[Big_Richard]

Its misleading, as a commenter pointed out...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COyab3YQS48

Look at the indicator on the yellow car at 6:00 minutes.

Its flashing way too fast indicating this film has actually been sped up.

also the hazards flashing on the truck at 5:19 are too fast along with the unnatural movement of the men behind it (moving out the way)

[TJ 450]

I can't link to at at the moment, but there is a film featuring Claude himself driving sedately through the route in a 6.9, explaining how it was done. It is in French, naturally.

Tim

[wbrian63]

I've seen both films. Never noticed the speed-up of the first one.

The second one's a hoot to watch, as the journalist in the passenger seat is a bit nervous at times when Claude accelerates briskly.

[WGB]

This should be the link to the 2006 documentary.

/urlhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHn5Q15kaIA&feature=related


Bill

[oscar]

I love how this keeps popping up though I wish someone would dub a 6.9 engine over the top. 

I have to respectuflly disagree with the sped up idea.
IMO, the footage at 6:00, is all good.  Keep clicking back and check out the red parked car that appears between truck and the yellow car.  The red car has hazards on and the lights flash at least twice with a normal gap in between.   Besides that, among the possibilities for the quicker flashing indicator of the yellow car, assuming his headlights are on, his right rear red light doesn't work before the brake lights come on.  Makes you wonder if the front indicator bulb has blown too hence the quicker flashing.  Who knows, but the red car I reckon shows that part of the film to be ok.

As for the 5:19 bit, sorry but I just don't see a prob with it.  Looks normal to me.

[nathan]

I don't think the 2006 car is a 6.9. No sunroof. Stillpossibl a 6.9 though

[wbrian63]

Sped up - nah.

3:26 there's a bus turning out of the path of the car - normal signal frequency.
4:00, another bus - same deal.
4:08, a car, again same frequency.

The fast-flashing light at 6:00 - there are only 3 blinks. Could easily be a fast-flash with a bulb out.

At 5:50, there's a pedestrian walking across the street - natural gait.

From what I know about tampering with speed, everything is going to change. The vehicles in motion move naturally, not accelerated. Anyone who suggests otherwise is mistaken.

[Hemersam]

If this guy was driving this fast, he should be hung by the thumbs from the top of the Eiffel Tower. Just my opinion, of course.
Hemersam
P.S. No matter what anyone would prefer to think, statistics PROVE that speed kills more drivers than any other factor of driving.

[wbrian63]

"hung by the thumbs from the top of the Eiffel Tower" come-on, give the fellow a break.

One would think the shame of making this film and dubbing the sound of screeching tires and a Ferrari engine over the musical tones of the gallant M-100 uber-engine would be punishment enough.

Agreed that this was foolish. It was obviously done during a low traffic period, but the number of red lights he flies through at intersections where cross traffic would not be visible until too late, is astonishing.

I also suspect that the positioning of the camera - at bumper level, adds a perception of speed far greater than the actual speed attained.

As for your quoted statistics, one must always be careful how the #'s are interpreted. As my college junior statistics prof said on the first day of class - "There are lies, damn lies, and then there are statistics."

On my way to work this AM (I'm an early-bird- 5:30am start), driving near the posted speed limit of 60mph (probably 65 or so), I see an IDIOT changing lanes on the freeway ahead. I'm in lane 3 from the right. He's going MAYBE 35-40, and with blinker engaged is busy changing into my lane. Why? I have no idea - there's nothing in front of him, no interchange is coming within 2 miles and there is virtually no traffic. I nail the horn and change lanes to the left to avoid him. As I pass I can see in the dim light of the freeway lamps utter confusion on a middle-aged man's face...  Speed doesn't have to be HIGH speed to be dangerous.

[haromaster87]

"hung by the thumbs from the top of the Eiffel Tower" come-on, give the fellow a break.

One would think the shame of making this film and dubbing the sound of screeching tires and a Ferrari engine over the musical tones of the gallant M-100 uber-engine would be punishment enough.

Agreed that this was foolish. It was obviously done during a low traffic period, but the number of red lights he flies through at intersections where cross traffic would not be visible until too late, is astonishing.

I also suspect that the positioning of the camera - at bumper level, adds a perception of speed far greater than the actual speed attained.

As for your quoted statistics, one must always be careful how the #'s are interpreted. As my college junior statistics prof said on the first day of class - "There are lies, damn lies, and then there are statistics."

On my way to work this AM (I'm an early-bird- 5:30am start), driving near the posted speed limit of 60mph (probably 65 or so), I see an IDIOT changing lanes on the freeway ahead. I'm in lane 3 from the right. He's going MAYBE 35-40, and with blinker engaged is busy changing into my lane. Why? I have no idea - there's nothing in front of him, no interchange is coming within 2 miles and there is virtually no traffic. I nail the horn and change lanes to the left to avoid him. As I pass I can see in the dim light of the freeway lamps utter confusion on a middle-aged man's face...  Speed doesn't have to be HIGH speed to be dangerous.

Great post. First off, I agree that there's no reason to be so hard on the guy. I mean, yes it wasn't the safest driving, but geez, calm down. And yes, things like the faster engine noise, the bumper mounted camera, and the whole feel of the film create an illusion of much greater speed. I read somewhere, were they had analyzed the film and they said that he never really got going more then 70mph, and that was only on like the open straights. Truth is, there are some parts of the world were his driving style is really common, and it's just how everyone does things. Granted, he wasn't in one, but still. Besides, what better car to do all of that in, then a Mercedes-Benz.

[Hemersam]

WBrian63, you're right; he should be hung by the thumbs only thirty feet up the Eiffel tower. Sorry, but I just don't like drivers who think they should be free to speed and endanger the lives of other people. As for stats, remember when the government lowered speed limits in America to 55 mph? Well, deaths from automobile accidents declined dramatically. Speed kills; that was my point.
Hemersam

[TJ 450]

Yep, the fact is that drivers will be involved in collisions from time to time. Chances of death climb exponentially with increased speed.

However, the term "Speed Kills" really doesn't go down well with me, as it is nonsensical to put it bluntly. Distance/Time does not kill you alone.

I do understand what you're saying though, Hemersam.

Tim

[koan]

However, the term "Speed Kills" really doesn't go down well with me, as it is nonsensical to put it bluntly.

Agree with that. It puts the focus on one aspect of driver behaviour, getting drunks and banned drivers off the roads would be far more effective in saving lives and preventing injuries.

There will always be accidents, cars approaching each other with a combined speed of 200 kmh and passing each other with in a couple of meters is something less than ideal. One sure way to prevent accidents is to go to 10 kmh limits and have a person with a red flag walk ahead of every vehicle and even then someone would manage to find a way of killing themselves or others, probably from frustration.

Interesting to note that locking away drunks, dividing roads, fixing level crossings and many other real ways of reducing death and injury all cost governments (our) money but the simplistic speed kills notion raises money for government through speed camera fines.

koan

[Hemersam]

It seems to me that some of you guys are contorting with all kinds of words to avoid the FACT that speed kills! Let me try again: in America when the national speed limit was set at 55 mph the Gulf oil crisis), the death rate from automobile accidents DECREASED 'DRAMATICALLY. When the State of Texas (where I live) increased the speed limits on almost all highways, the death rate increased significantly. What more indication can there be? If a person wants to speed, fine; that's his/her decision. But the facts are that the faster a person drives, the higher the percentage he/she will be involved in an accident. Then, of course, there are all the other people who obey the speed limits; why should they be exposed to the dangers of speeding drivers? Guys, I don't wish to seem argumentative, because many of the you on this site are so very helpful to me (and others) in 116 matters, but I just think the facts are what they are. No offense intended.
Hemersam

[oscar]

....... cars approaching each other with a combined speed of 200 kmh .......

Did you know that if a car travelling at 100km/h has a head on collision with another similar car travelling 100km/h in the opposite direction, each driver experiences a force the same as though each hit a solid object separately whilst doing 100km/h.  It was on Mythbusters   I was surprised, so were Adam and Jamie.  I've always held the view there'd be a combined speed effect during the impact but not so. 

I don't mean to be argumentative either Hemmersam as it's an interesting discussion.  Yes speed can kill, though there is an arguement that it's not speed, it's the sudden stopping that kills  tounge in cheek of course, I know what you mean, I honestly do, and when reflecting on the rendevous film, what they did was dangerous and could've ended part way through much more dramatically.  Makes you wonder if some of the current youtube clips of bikers and racers screaming away from police will receive cult status and subject of a documentary in years to come.   People have done that sort of thing for years and not all have ended so well.

That aside, I disagree with the "speed kills" mantra I get my way.  Not to disprove the association of speed with crashes and/or injury and death, rather I get annoyed at the focus by politicans and law enforcement on speed rather than other contributing factors causing crashes and of course the practice of using speed detection devices, mobile or otherwise, to "catch" speeding motorists rather than "preventing" speeding and some improper locations where these things are used.  Nothing works better than a visible police or camera presence.  There's some fixed cameras at notrious sections of roads in my state (New South Wales) with warning signs beforehand.  You can't or shouldn't really miss them, everyone slows down.  I'd happily assume too  that when anyone sees a cop car approach or parked on the highway they immediately check their speedo.   Those measures work.  Hidden cameras and highway patrol cars parked behind trees on non notorious roads - whatever impact they had after their initial implementation has long worn off.