I know we're not exactly safe on the moral high ground here. Eagle-eyed readers will be sure to scan TTAC's archives for any and all admissions that the reviewer drove at extra-legal speeds. (My entirely fictional take on the Porsche Carrera GT.) But it's clear from Edmunds' blog of their current road trip that they have no compunctions telling the world that they're driving the new Nissan GT-R at monumental speeds on public roads. The "Making Time" video of the GT-R's speedo shows Senior Writer Ed Hellwig pushing the car to somewhere between 165 and 170mph on a Western highway. In fact, the blog contains numerous off-hand (if not downright boastful) references to law-breaking velocities, including a flippant description of getting pulled-over for [a reported] 91mph. There's a video of Bonneville Salt Flats' hoonage sans helmet with the comment "that was only 130." I know many of you will view any objections to this type of journalism as sanctimonious codswallop, but doesn't the fact that impressionable teens idolize the GT-R oblige Edmunds to show a bit more journalistic responsibility? And aren't they criminally liable for that video?
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
They can drive as fast as they want, but they can’t outrun ugly.
I guess you could spin it off as a public service announcement as an example of how useful and safe a car can be when you stuff more computer power into it than the space shuttle.
They shouldn’t be any more liable for their antics than a film about racing should be. Teens are just as influenced by the fast and the furious (if not more so)
Why is everyone suddenly using “codswallop”? or is it just on this site?
I agree that the site should not show the car traveling at 160+ mph on a public road. That is irresponsible.
At least the “hoonage” on the Bonneville Salt Flats was away from other drivers. And I don’t think that a helmet would do much good in a 130 mph crash in a regular production vehicle.
As for driving 91 mph on public highway – I’ve seen soccer moms in minivans doing that on interstate highways around here. I’m sure that, in plenty of rural places, that speed is called “keeping up with the flow of traffic.”
As for any criminal liability – I think you mean civil liability. And wasn’t that settled by the case involving the person who was shot by teens who had seen Natural Born Killers?
You’re assuming teens read Edmunds.
geeber :
As for driving 91 mph on public highway – I’ve seen soccer moms in minivans doing that on interstate highways around here. I’m sure that, in plenty of rural places, that speed is called “keeping up with the flow of traffic.”
Something tells me that ticket was “written down.”
You’re assuming teens read Edmunds.
So is Edmunds, apparently.
Mr. Farago,
Even out West, I have a hard time believing that many cops would “write down” a ticket when the person was traveling at triple-digit speeds. I recall reading that, when Montana reinstated its speed limit at 75 mph, the cops would give leeway for up to 95 mph, but after that, all bets were off.
Cop didn’t see it, I didn’t do it.
Corollary: Filming yourself doing it, and making it available on teh Internets, is a good way for the cops to see that you did it.
@Johnny Lieberman
True, but the question is what is the page rank for the video in a Google search? How long until it reaches a forum that the teens might see?
That said, whenever anything is prohibited “for the children” I want to barf. That, and leave liquor and cigarettes near high schools.
geeber :
As for any criminal liability – I think you mean civil liability. And wasn’t that settled by the case involving the person who was shot by teens who had seen Natural Born Killers?
I’m not speaking about Edmunds’ influence on others. I’m wondering about them breaking/flouting the law.
We could ban every single fun and worthwhile thing in life under the guise of protecting children.
Kids sped and died before Edmunds, kids will speed and die after Edmunds.
Sorry, no sale.
I know many of you will view any objections to this type of journalism as sanctimonious codswallop, but doesn’t the fact that impressionable teens idolize the GT-R oblige Edmunds to show a bit more journalistic responsibility? And aren’t they criminally liable for that video?
No.
–chuck
Jonny Lieberman : Well, I wouldn't have allowed that 165mph+ video on this site. You gotta draw the line somewhere.
“The “Making Time” video of the GT-R’s speedo shows Senior Writer Ed Hellwig pushing the car to somewhere between 165 and 170mph on a Western highway.”
Well, at least he didn’t upshift to third gear so he could go really fast!
Robert Farago: I’m not speaking about Edmunds’ influence on others. I’m wondering about them breaking/flouting the law.
I believe that the proper authorities would have had to apprehend them at the time that the violation actually occurred. Traffic law is different from criminal law.
If anyone knows otherwise, I’d be interested in hearing the explanation.
Utah is about to raise its speed limit to 80 mph. Nevada used to have a “reasonable and prudent” limit before 55 rained on everybody’s parade. So sorry, but my hackles aren’t raised about 91 mph if conditions allowed for it.
But I can’t think of a public highway, anywhere, where 170 is anything approaching reasonable and prudent, even under the best of circumstances. If that wasn’t done on a track, he should go to jail for it. It doesn’t take much to turn velocity that high into an act of manslaughter.
They drive that fast and faster on the Autobahn everyday.
How did this careen off into a “for the children/will teens be influenced” debate? I have similar questions as to whether Edmunds would be liable for posting video of themselves travelling at illegal speeds. This isn’t so much a matter of “will kids that watch speeding cars drive fast” as it is a matter of “if you film yourself robbing a store and don’t get caught but then post the video to the Internet can you still get it trouble” issue.
Darwin was right when he made his theory regarding the “survival of the fittest.” The idiots thinking they are superheros in a GT-R will be culled off slowly. I just hope they don’t take innocent people with them. Another vehicle which inspires this kind of bone-headed disregard for physics is the Mitsubishi Evolution. The web is scattered with photos of smacked up Evos.
Didn’t that guy in Canada with an F40 or Enzo (who was doing 200mph) on a Canadian freeway (who then sold the video for money) get arrested and fined a lot of money for that offense? The burden of proof might be a lot different up there (not very familiar with their code of law).
@Buick61
Yeah, and buicks are great looking…
Anyway, I don’t have a problem. I’ve seen idiots in BMWs how think they really are driving “the ultimate driving machine”. You run the risks, you reap the consequences…if any.
What’s the point of an 197mph car if you can’t run it up? You get caught. You get caught. If you’re willing to post it up on youtube or whatever, that you’re prerogative. I don’t agree with that part, though.
sanctimonious codswallop
Love it!
The front reminds me of a platypus.
As for driving 91 mph on public highway
Don’t forget the governor of New Jersey. He (or his driver) was doing 96 in a big SUV on America’s Main Street (the New Jersey Turnpike) when he and two other trucks got into a little bang-up, than landed him in the hospital for a few weeks.
91 on interstates in the wilds of Utah, on the other hand, in my experience qualifies as reasonable and prudent.
I sooooo want this car, what a beast!
If they were going between Sacramento and the Bonneville Salt Flats, they must have been traveling I-80. There are enough semis on that stretch through Nevada and Western Utah that 165 is definitely way out of line. 91 mph in California, I dunno, but 91 on I-80 or I-15 in UT wouldn’t be considered reckless, just ticket-worthy. Highway Patrol doesn’t bat an eye at 82 mph outside the populated areas (my normal cruising speed on rural I-15).
In 1965 I could legally drive at 70 mph in a car with drum brakes, no airbags, maybe no seat belts, and definitely no shoulder belts, bias ply tires – maybe with tubes, and handling that was remote and unresponsive – think a 1955 Oldsmobile for example.
Now in a modern car with oodles of airbags, Z rated rubber, huge disc brakes, and so forth the speed limit has been raised from the one of 40 years ago by NOTHING. Does this make sense? Of course not.
alanp, perhaps it doesnt matter how many drivers, passengers and pedestrians were killed because of drivers goin 70 in those 50s death traps. To hell with all regulations and rules. Let them die, it will decrease the surplus population.
John R :
@Buick61
Yeah, and buicks are great looking…
Way to make it personal. My Buick is from the age when Buicks were the most stylish things going. But you don’t care about the real reason for my name, you just wanted to be snarky.
Buick61:
This was 8 years ago, so the statute of limitations is dead and buried…
Myself and a friend once drove a ’61 Skylark from Sonoma County to Malibu in 3 hours 45 minutes.
We left at midnight.
That’s 453 miles
And we had to stop for gas. Often.
Fantastic, beautiful cars they were.
Here’s a bit of math: At 170 mph, you’re traveling about 250 feet per second. Based upon a friction coefficient guesstimated based upon a 60-0 braking distance of about 105 ft. from an Edmund’s test, and assuming reaction time of two seconds, that means that the GT-R would require at least 1/4 mile for a 170-0 stop. And mind you, that’s a fairly optimistic estimate.
Have another car pull in front of you at 60 mph, and you’d have a closing speed of 110 mph, or 160 feet per second. If that slower driver locks his brakes for some reason, his braking distance with a two-second reaction time in a normal passenger car will be about 275-300 feet.
You can see the problem. To allow for a safe stop in this scenario, you need to maintain at least 1,000 feet of stopping distance to avoid hitting that stopping car (1,300+ ft for you, less the 300 ft needed by the other guy.) In rough numbers, that’s over 60 car lengths of distance needed to avoid a crash.
On a public highway, that’s next to impossible to expect. That requires a level of attentiveness that is unreasonable for your average person, as well as excellent vision and depth perception. On a track, that can work, but on a public highway, that’s sheer madness.
(Feel free to correct any of the math, but I’m sure none of it will justify highway speeds of 170 mph.)
David Holzman: Don’t forget the governor of New Jersey. He (or his driver) was doing 96 in a big SUV on America’s Main Street (the New Jersey Turnpike) when he and two other trucks got into a little bang-up, than landed him in the hospital for a few weeks.
If I recall correctly, either he or his driver (can’t remember who was driving at the time) swerved to avoid a slower-moving vehicle. His SUV (a full-size GM SUV) then rolled.
To make matters worse, the Governor was not wearing a seat belt (despite laws requiring it).
He is lucky to be alive.
Having driven the New Jersey Turnpike, I’d say most people are lucky if they get up to 80 mph. Traffic is just too heavy (unless we are talking about 3 a.m.) to drive any faster.
Pch101: (Feel free to correct any of the math, but I’m sure none of it will justify highway speeds of 170 mph.)
Good analysis…I can’t imagine any scenario that would justify driving at 170 mph on a public road.
Posting that video not only gives people the wrong ideas about how fast one can safely drive on public roads, but could also result in a backlash against all “speeding,” which in the real world means pulling people over for driving 75-80 mph on a limited access highway. Which, in the end, does next-to-nothing to improve safety.
Pch101: Math ain’t my thing (ahem) but I like fun with numbers.
170 mph to 0 very well might take a 1/4 mile, but why would the driver need to totally stop? Is there a brick wall?
Why couldn’t the driver just slow down if a problem arose?
I’ve done a lot of high-speed driving in the desert. Usually you just need a bit of brake to go from 120 mph to 80 mph.
Why couldn’t the driver just slow down if a problem arose?
Unfortunately, you can’t control the other guy or his circumstances.
Surely, we’ve all been on a highway when it was necessary, for some reason, to lock your brakes. Pothole, animal, object in roadway, drunk braking for ghosts, it’s impossible to tell.
In a controlled environment, with a select pool of drivers driving top notch vehicles, it’s less of an issue, but you don’t choose who you share the public road with, nor do you dictate the conditions of the road and the environment. You need to allow for the possibility that you have to brake to zero, however infrequently that happens.
Pch101:
Kinda. But on an empty desert road?
Really?
Strange coincidence–I was headed back to work after a late lunch in Delta, Utah and lo and behold, I saw a GT-R in my rear view mirror. They passed me and I decided to follow for a bit to see how fast they decided to push the car once they hit open highway west of Delta, which is an open stretch of US 6&50 known as the “loneliest highway in the US.” They suddenly pulled over and I decided to go up to the window of the car. Ed and Scott were quite friendly and good about letting me look over the car, though no offers for me to drive were forthcoming. They admitted to having been pulled over just a few minutes before for going 81 in a 65 just north of town, but trust me–I really don’t blame them for getting bored on that stretch of highway.
I don’t know what the point is; maybe just that they seemed to be traveling at reasonable speeds for the area, and seemed fairly responsible in their driving that I observed. However, I didn’t have the guts to ask them where they had pushed the car up to 170, so who knows. Oh, and the car looks much better in person than in the pics.
170mph? Yes, reckless. 100? Not at all. Heck, traffic rolls at 140km/h in rush hour in Toronto and it’s safe, because we’re going against traffic and there are few cars on the road. Same road at 3PM when it becomes the direction of traffic… sheer madness!
So you see, speed limits depend on more than just roadway conditions, but also traffic density (low) and lane discipline (very good when there’s little/no traffic). When laws begin to reflect these other factors, they will be obeyed.
Of course, now with the 50km/h over the limit law where they impound your car and fine you thousands, I’ve never been past 145 km/h.
Likewise, if speeding REALLY killed as the OPP claims, they would do the same for going anything over 5km/h above the limit (to compensate for differences in speed reading devices – speedometers on vehicles and radar detectors used by the police). But it isn’t, and everyone knows it.
Rant over.
But on an empty desert road?
The problem is that it is a public road. You can’t control who is on it, when they use it or how competent they are when they use it. Since it is public, you not only know that there is a possibility that they will use it, but that it is likely that they will use it, as it is intended for their use. You can’t count on it staying empty.
If the requirement is to keep a half-mile between you and the next car, then the other driver has to see you and then act accordingly. That means that the driver needs sufficient line of sight to see you, and enough reaction time to process the information so that they don’t cut you off or otherwise get in your way.
At those speeds, you are increasing the likelihood that someone can make that kind of mistake, and if a mistake is made at those speeds, it is almost certainly fatal. A driver with 20-40 vision can see at one mile what an ideal eye can see in two miles, which means a lot of licensed, otherwise perfectly capable drivers who are unlikely to see you coming until you are at a distance that is too close for safety.
It comes down to the fact that roads are not built to these design speeds. A rural interstate with clear lines of sight, good pavement and the proper barriers may be safe enough at 100 mph or so, but there is no way to create design features that allow traffic to commingle without incident at 160-170.
Particularly in the US, where there is no lane discipline to speak of, you are begging to hit someone when you drive that fast. If you can’t keep cars far away from one another and control their interactions, it’s crazy to drive that fast. You can stay lucky for awhile, but it’s a matter of time before you’re going to wreck.
There is only one place for that kind of driving and that’s on a test track or other such purpose designed facilities. One can understand all the exicitment a car such as the GT-R creates but Edmunds should not demonstrate such total disregard for the law but even worse, for common sense! On the subject of influencing others, the assumption that all humans will use good judgement and be able to say to themselves something like: ‘Well I would love to see how fast my GT-R goes and I have a good idea which Highway Edmund’s used but I am not a professional driver so I won’t do it’ , is flawed in the extreme. Even a cursary understanding of human nature shows this clearly. This sort of video WILL influence someone to copy it and someone WILL be killed or seriously injured. Our love of cars, speed and performance is not worth this cost.
like it’s surprising that they drove the GT-R like that? You all know that before he wrote for Edmunds, Scott Oldham was the editor for Sport Comparct Car? One of the most hilariously deliquent car mags out there? Or, rather, it used to be – when Oldham was editor.
Once again, TTAC is pandering to the Politically Correct. How fast do they (safely) drive on the German autobahns? Oh, yeah, but it would be a big moral (enviro) faux pax to drive like that in the land of the Puritanical… Ma guvnment says it just ain’t safe.
I can see both sides of this debate. Easily. Personally, as well as professionally.
I just don’t think it’s a good idea for a website– a “mainstream” car website– to encourage illegal activity.
I’ve just amended Stephan Wilkinson’s GT-R review to reflect that opinion. But the fact that I put it up in the first place shows how deeply inured I am to the idea of serious speeding.
Take that as you will.