[Closed] "Modern cars are too powerful for UK roads"

Yeah but to be fair "any fool" is likely to be 40+ (maybe even higher) and probably a medical consultant/barrister/CEO with a family etc etc and might have a modicum of sense.

Well that was kind of my point really. But plenty of rich kids about too you know. It's just the sort of car that might appeal to a Premiership footy player or city dealer for example.

Whilst we're referring to power and safety the biggest cause of accidents by far (65%) is not speed or speeding but "driver error or reaction"

[url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/road-safety/8702111/How-do-accidents-happen.html ]See HERE[/url]

So inadequate training/skill or poor observation are far biggest problem on our roads. Those of you who like to rubbish the benefits that advanced driver training an observation skills can bring are clearly barking up the wrong tree, much like the government. The message shouldn't be so much 'speed kills', rather that having poor skills, poor judgement and poor observation kills.

The safety charity Brake! said "Wah Wah Wah! Fast cars are bad!" Lucky then that a "slow" car has never killed anyone

Not much of an argument. Why not just tell us all you don't give a shit and would rather have fun at someone else's expense and leave it there?

richmtb - Member

Good to see the bedwetters are out in force again.

That Daily Mail article is brilliant. "Faster than a Ferrari"

I'm pretty sure my humble SEAT is faster than a Ferrari too, a 246 Dino for example

"Can do 190mph" Yeah if you get two optional upgrades the standard one does 155mph

The safety charity Brake! said "Wah Wah Wah! Fast cars are bad!" Lucky then that a "slow" car has never killed anyone

What are you suggesting anyway? - a car that can barely reach 100 mph flat out on the rev limiter in top gear or just an artificial 100 mph limiter? The former would be a tiresome thing to drive any distance, the latter would be okay actually until you wanted to do a track day in it.

I doubt my van would get anywhere near 100mph - but it's fine at motorway speeds and once you recalibrate your brain to slower acceleration it's fine on any road. I'm not advocating that every car has the performance of a Trafic, but beyond a fairly conservative level it becomes just a sales tool. Mrs OD's 1.4TSI accelerates well enough and overtakes fine, no need for anything more for us. Maybe I'm just getting old as we both drove more powerful vehicles in the past.

agent007 - Member

Whilst we're referring to power and safety the biggest cause of accidents by far (65%) is not speed or speeding but "driver error or reaction"

And speed makes the result of these errors worse.

[img] [/img]

Poop poop!

From your link Agent007:

Topping the charge sheet is failing to look properly (the Smidsy factor – "Sorry mate, I didn't see you

Surely going more slowly would increase the chances of seeing someone? Fact is, whatever you are doing wrong, more speed makes it worse.

On the very same page half way down is a link to an article titled "Why 20mph limits save lives". So perhaps speed is a factor after all? That article says this:

The speed illusion works like this: everyone gauges the speed of an approaching object by assessing how quickly its image gets larger, its “looming rate”, and everyone has a threshold in their ability to detect it.

But, alarmingly, the faster a car is going, the lower its “looming” rate can appear

So even in normal situations fast moving cars make it harder to judge speed and space EVEN IF everyone is watching out - which is something I've said on here for ages.

The message shouldn't be so much 'speed kills', rather that having poor skills and poor observation kills.

I agree with that. Government campaign should be "watch what the **** you're doing"

and they do have that artificial limiter. it's just set at 155 or thereabouts on cars that have sufficient engine capability to reach that point.

Exactly, a 155 mph limiter would not bother me in the slightest. I could even live with a 120 mph limiter no problem and even a 100 mph limiter for everyday use. You don't generally buy any powerful road going sports car for its max speed, you buy it for its overall performance and fun factor. A high max speed is really just a by-product of that performance. Even a modern aerodynamically efficient boring Eurobox can easily exceed 100 mph. Even a 1980s Ford Cortina can just about get up there.

So trying to argue that 100 mph cars are totally pointless is like trying to argue that pretty much all cars are pointless.

moshimonster .

Well that was kind of my point really. But plenty of rich kids about too you know. It's just the sort of car that might appeal to a Premiership footy player or city dealer for example.

Well since you mention Footballers, a lad who lives near where I grew up up plays in the Football league and has a thing for cars. He's had Aventadors, F430s, Bentley Continental GTs, Cayenne Turbos ....you get the idea. He's managed to crash almost all of them without fail, and strangely enough he's done so without injury.

His mum and sister were chatting to my dad a while back and they asked what he thought of his latest purchase (I think it was a C63 AMG Black edition) to which my dad replied I think he would have been better buying some ****ing driving lessons before he kills himself. Apparently this offended them greatly 😐

Would I want to join the A14 from one of the many short slip

Never worked out why Suffolk drivers are incapable of using slip roads that would be perfectly adequate elswhere.

The point about cars being capable in general driving conditions would by default have high top speeds is twaddle that could easily be engineered and speed limits substantially above 100mph are sufficiently rare to be insignificant.

http://www.confused.com/car-insurance/articles/are-you-driving-an-accident-prone-car

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/revealed-makes-car-more-likely-2497973

I'm not seeing any 'powerful' cars in those links. The age of the driver seems to be the biggest factor.

molgrips - Member

TBF on an A road collision, whether it's 60mph with 120mph closing speed) or one tit is doing 90mph whilst reading a text, giving 150mpg closing speed, the carnage is barely survivable either way.

Hmm. Not a very good argument. There's over half as much energy again in the second example - enough to make a difference. But you've not mentioned that the 90mph has less time to take evasive action when he finally notices he's veering out of his lane. Plus every time he glances down at his phone he has travelled 50% further without lookin at the road.

In the case of the errant driver, your not dealing with the root cause by dealing with speed. the difficulty is that certain types of driving are dangerous at any speed.

I've had a head-on into a tyre wall on a hillcimb, probably only 30mph maximum closing speed, with 3-point race harness etc., and it really shakes you up.

molgrips - Member

No one 'likes' crashes, but the risk is a non-negotiable fact of motion.

What a bizarre thing to say. The risk of a crash is lower if speeds are lower, of course it is!

we all stay at home, not will will crash, but we're dealing with reality here.

Yes and in reality 60mph is plenty fast enough.

the difficulty is that certain types of driving are dangerous at any speed

Of course, but if you are being dangerous it's better to be doing it slower. Of course it's better not to be dangerous at all, and that needs to be part of driver education too.

Surely going more slowly would increase the chances of seeing someone?

Not necessarily, there have been studies done that show that the faster someone travels, the more they tend concentrate and the sharper their reaction become.

Fact is, whatever you are doing wrong, more speed makes it worse

If you're talking about the result of an accident then normally yes, but if you're talking about avoiding that accident in the first place then maybe in many situations yes, in plenty of other situations then no. But regardless I'd far rather get into a car with an observant, skilled driver driving above the posted limit, than a low skilled, unobservant dawdler driving at well below the limit.

torsoinalake - Member

http://www.confused.com/car-insurance/articles/are-you-driving-an-accident-prone-car

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/revealed-makes-car-more-likely-2497973

I'm not seeing any 'powerful' cars in those links. The age of the driver seems to be the biggest factor.

[b]Lowest claim rates[/b]

Which cars were least likely to be involved in accident claims?

hovering around the 1 per cent claims-rate mark were [b]Nissan’s Skyline, the Ford Focus RS[/b]

[img] [/img]

 

The point about cars being capable in general driving conditions would by default have high top speeds is twaddle

No it isn't. I can't think of a single modern car I would want to drive for pleasure (not just get from A-B) that can't top 100 mph. Examples please?

"130mph when the road was empty meant she caught her flight, by the skin of her teeth - 100mph wouldn't have done it."

as i said in the other thread - id like to see you defend that position in court.

Thankfully despite speeding at least a little bit pretty much every time I drive, I've never had an accident and never been prosecuted for speeding in 15 years of driving.

If I'm ever caught I'll fess up and throw myself at the mercy of the court - what else can you do? It's certainly a factor in my risk to reward thought process.

molgrips - Member

we all stay at home, not will will crash, but we're dealing with reality here.

Yes and in reality 60mph is plenty fast enough.

I tend to think there is a suspension of disbelief with many road users - they think they cannot die or be seriously injured. I drive knowing I and other road users most certainly can - cross the median of the road only when 100% safe, legal and necessary to do so and drive to what you can see.

No it isn't. I can't think of a single modern car I would want to drive for pleasure (not just get from A-B) that can't top 100 mph. Examples please

There would be plenty if a 100mph limit was in force.

But I think the concept of driving for pleasure is perhaps more of a problem.

... on a slight tangent - what do you all feel about automatic driving systems (or whatever they are called) becoming options on cars. If auto-braking and the like become increasingly common and self driving cars possible in 20 years if you believe google, then does that change the discussion?

No it isn't. I can't think of a single modern car I would want to drive for pleasure (not just get from A-B) that can't top 100 mph. Examples please?

So if, say, you found yourself in Dublin with a hired 3cyl Clio and a nice afternoon to kill, you would NOT drive up into the Wicklow mts simply for pleasure?

Speed is the ONLY thing you enjoy about driving?

No it isn't. I can't think of a single modern car I would want to drive for pleasure (not just get from A-B) that can't top 100 mph. Examples please?

Polaris Razor 😀

molgrips - Member

No it isn't. I can't think of a single modern car I would want to drive for pleasure (not just get from A-B) that can't top 100 mph. Examples please?

So if, say, you found yourself in Dublin with a hired 3cyl Clio and a nice afternoon to kill, you would NOT drive up into the Wicklow mts simply for pleasure?

Speed is the ONLY thing you enjoy about driving?

I might drive up to the mountains for the pleasure of the mountains and views they offer in said Clio, BUT I sure as hell wouldn't for just the pleasure of driving, because there'd be none in said Clio.

And no it's not 'ONLY' about the speed, its about the joy of driving a nice car, be it fast or slow.

There would be plenty if a 100mph limit was in force.

They would just have artificial limiters like a lot of high performance cars already do (usually set at 155 mph). What they wouldn't have is less power because pretty much nobody buys a car purely for its top speed. Nobody reduces the power on their supercar because it's artificially limited to 155 mph.

wilburt - Member

Would I want to join the A14 from one of the many short slip

[b]Never worked out why Suffolk drivers are incapable of using slip roads that would be perfectly adequate elswhere.[/b]

🙄

Hardly ever use the Suffolk stretch of the A14, so can't really comment.

I'm talking about the stretch between Dry Drayton & Huntingdon in that there Cambridgeshire where there are numerous short slip roads.

The slip roads from Bar Hill going west, Cambridge services going in both directions, the 'slip road' at Conington, St Ives is OK but not great, the 'slip road' going eastbound joining from Hemingford Grey, slip road from Hemingford Abbots......

I've used most of them and while they are usable - it's a lot easier to join (particularly in rush hour) in a car with a bit of oomph....especially at rush hour when both lanes are full and the HGVs aren't slowing down for anyone.

on a slight tangent - what do you all feel about automatic driving systems (or whatever they are called) becoming options on cars. If auto-braking and the like become increasingly common and self driving cars possible in 20 years if you believe google, then does that change the discussion?

I love active cruise now and there is good reason to think cars, roads, houses, you and loads of other stuff will all be connected much sooner than 20 years and much smarter than they are now.

moshimonster - Member

There would be plenty if a 100mph limit was in force.

They would just have artificial limiters like a lot of high performance cars already do (usually set at 155 mph). What they wouldn't have is less power because pretty much nobody buys a car purely for its top speed. Nobody reduces the power on their supercar because it's artificially limited to 155 mph.

Exactly!

So if, say, you found yourself in Dublin with a hired 3cyl Clio and a nice afternoon to kill, you would NOT drive up into the Wicklow mts simply for pleasure?

Well put it this way last time I was up in the wilds of Scotland I was driving our Volvo V50 and wishing I was in the 911 instead. Sometimes I drive just for the sake of driving (because believe it or not some people actually enjoy driving) and sometimes I'm just going somewhere.

But I think the concept of driving for pleasure is perhaps more of a problem.

why?

moshimonster - Member

But I think the concept of driving for pleasure is perhaps more of a problem.

why?

I think that is the unbridgeable divide in this discussion...

olddog - Member

moshimonster - Member

But I think the concept of driving for pleasure is perhaps more of a problem.

why?

I think that is the unbridgeable divide in this discussion...

People generally tend to enjoy doing stuff that they're good at - so this might explain it to some degree.

If I'm ever caught I'll fess up and throw myself at the mercy of the court - what else can you do?

Doesn't take this into account:

I tend to think there is a suspension of disbelief with many road users - they think they cannot die or be seriously injured.

It's noticeable how differently people approach risk when they rock climb and skydive - there's nothing like the same level of nonchalance about the risks and dangers and an awful lot less over-confidence and unjustified self-belief.

The whole culture around danger is noticeably very different and people who don't understand or want to understand the risk to themselves and others are dealt with pretty quickly... whereas when it comes to driving, at personal, community and government level the whole attitude just seems to be accepting of death and injury as some kind of theoretical risk or acceptable collateral damage.

Not much of an argument. Why not just tell us all you don't give a shit and would rather have fun at someone else's expense and leave it there?

It's Brake! who don't have an argument. They are pontificating about a cars potential for speed while ignoring the fact that it would be safer than the majority of cars when driven at normal road speeds.

agent007 - Member

olddog - Member

moshimonster - Member

But I think the concept of driving for pleasure is perhaps more of a problem.

why?

I think that is the unbridgeable divide in this discussion...

People generally tend to enjoy doing stuff that they're good at - so this might explain it to some degree.

That doesn't explain a large number of the people I see cycling (insert any pastime) for pleasure!

I love active cruise now

It's good when it's working, but what about when it fails and you're not ready for it? The problem with this kind of tech on a car is that, unlike commercial aircraft, there are no strict laws on vehicle servicing schedules. So when your car with active cruise control and whatever other electronic driver nannies is say 10 years old with 150K miles on the clock, what do you think might happen when those systems start failing? The more sophisticated these devices become and the more they take away the human element of control, the more likely there will be big accidents when they eventually fail. The self-driving Google car is perhaps the ultimate example of this. Great until it malfunctions and nonchalantly drives you off a cliff or into oncoming traffic. The kind of thing humans are actually quite good at avoiding.

Right, here goes, attempt No 2

a-ha-hem

'I'm not sure what's going to blow first:

my sanctimonometer or my bravadotron'

Thank you for your patience.

Right, here goes, attempt No 2

a-ha-hem

'I'm not sure what's going to blow first:

my sanctimonometer or my bravadotron'

Thank you for your patience.

Which actually, sums up attitudes to the risk, danger and collateral damage of driving quite nicely!

moshimonster - Member

It's good when it's working, but what about when it fails and you're not ready for it?

You just drive the car? It's not an autopilot, it's just a driving aid, all that happens if it fails is you're driving unassisted again.

Once you start getting into the really advanced future stuff, you just have to weigh up costs and benefits- maybe a self driving car drives off a cliff once every ten years but how many lives does it save in the meantime? No different to, say, ABS brakes in that regard.

It's noticeable how differently people approach risk when they rock climb and skydive - there's nothing like the same level of nonchalance about the risks and dangers and an awful lot less over-confidence and unjustified self-belief.

That's because all people who rock climb and skydive do it entirely for pleasure. They are interested in their sports and tend to be clued up about them.

Driving on the other hand is practised by pretty much everyone whether they like it or not and so inevitably some people are entirely clueless of the dangers involved. Particularly since modern Euroboxes are quite refined and remote from the world outside.

You'll also find that people who race cars professionally take as much care over safety as any rock climber / sky diver would.

You just drive the car? It's not an autopilot, it's just a driving aid, all that happens if it fails is you're driving unassisted again

I was talking in general about electronic nannies taking over driver controls. But active cruise control is one of those aids that could bite quite badly if you got too complacent with it. When I first drove a car with it I covered the brakes and then you inevitably stop doing that all the time when you get confident that it will work. It's not rocket science is it?

I also think that cars increasingly insulate from the risks of driving, whereas rock climbing the risk is obvious and tangible - and pushing personal limits whilst balancing personal risk is a conscious part of the sport. Sky-diving is just lunacy though 🙂

It's Brake! who don't have an argument. They are pontificating about a cars potential for speed while ignoring the fact that it would be safer than the majority of cars when driven at normal road speeds.

So, to put it another way - why buy a car that does 20mpg when you can't get the benefit? You know there's only so much petrol, don't you?

Driving on the other hand is practised by pretty much everyone whether they like it or not and so inevitably some people are entirely clueless of the dangers involved. Particularly since modern Euroboxes are quite refined and remote from the world outside.

Like the person I heard complaining that he had an accident in his car because the (normal non active) cruise control hadn't braked for him. Aparently he was incapable of 'just driving' the car.

molgrips - Member
So, to put it another way - why buy a car that does 20mpg when you can't get the benefit? You know there's only so much petrol, don't you?

Because you get the benefit of being somehwere much nicer than your 3 cyl Clio.

Just like riding your (insert nice mtb bike here) is so much nicer than riding a ASDA BSO.

Like the person I heard complaining that he had an accident in his car because the (normal non active) cruise control hadn't braked for him. Aparently he was incapable of 'just driving' the car.

Homer Simpson?

What an idiot! He should have had a more powerful car, it would have been safer.

It seems obvious that you need a powerful car to safely overtake. If I want to overtake 10 or 12 cars and a tractor on a country road, at night, in the rain with a bend coming up I wouldn't want to do that with less that 400bhp.

Seems completely sane to me.

brooess
It's noticeable how differently people approach risk when they rock climb and skydive - there's nothing like the same level of nonchalance about the risks and dangers and an awful lot less over-confidence and unjustified self-belief.

So, to put it another way - why buy a car that does 20mpg when you can't get the benefit? You know there's only so much petrol, don't you?

Well that wasn't Brake!'s argument was it. That's an entirely different argument (I'm sure there is a phrase for presenting a different argument as a response to an unanswered original one?)

A Tesla S then - a very powerful, very safe car that runs on 'leccy

moshimonster - Member

But active cruise control is one of those aids that could bite quite badly if you got too complacent with it.

TBH I think you'd have to be phenomenally stupid to be so unattentive- it's not like you can switch off while driving on active cruise, you're still managing everything bar speed.

Though, even if you accept there's a potential for risk in the hands of unsafe drivers, the question then just becomes whether it outweighs the benefits. One safety aid that definitely does have the potential to fail quietly then be dangerous is ABS- but it's been completely embraced, and rightly so.

I also think that cars increasingly insulate from the risks of driving, whereas rock climbing the risk is obvious and tangible - and pushing personal limits whilst balancing personal risk is a conscious part of the sport. Sky-diving is just lunacy though

Quite. There's a risk of death from driving, just as there is for skydiving.I don't have data to compare but it's curious that with skydiving, everyone's happy to admit there's a danger and quite happily accepts they have to follow specific procedures to manage that danger.

You try and get your typical driver to admit there's danger and try and get them to follow specific procedures to manage that danger... well.. .take a look at some of the comments on here!

TBH I think you'd have to be phenomenally stupid to be so unattentive-

Some people are though, that's the problem. Like that woman a couple of years ago who didn't notice the toll booths on the M6 Bham bypass. She tried to say her brakes failed even though the CCTV footage clearly showed her braking at the very last second.

... the other thing about skydiving/rock climbing, the risk is genuinely personal or at most shared with the belay partner etc, but certainly those actively involved.

Whereas driving involves unconnected others with the risk.

Yeah, but that level of incompetence is dangerous regardless. These sorts of systems can go some way to mitigate that and the worst case scenario in a failure is a resumption of normal incompetence.

Once you get up to the point where the driver can safely disengage from driving in normal use- driverless car basically- then yeah, failure becomes a concern. But driving aids always leave the driver in charge

But driving aids always leave the driver in charge

But they make a driver more complacent too. I can't think of a better example than active cruise control to be honest. Do you seriously cover the brake pedal every time it kicks in on the off-chance it might fail and hand the responsibility back to you?

But they make a driver more complacent too. I can't think of a better example than active cruise control to be honest. Do you seriously cover the brake pedal every time it kicks in on the off-chance it might fail and hand the responsibility back to you?

All this must have been factored in to the risk assessment for the tech. If it's available in the US they must be pretty happy that it is very much balanced towards safety given the risk of litigation.

But as these systems become more sophisticated and driving requires less driver input - is that the end of driving for enjoyment and so the market for performance cars? In the end will Governments start making this stuff compulsory and un-switch-off-able if it genuinely and materially reduces the risk of accidents?

There seems to be a real dichotomy of opinions here.

Wouldn't it be easier for every woman, old person and sanctimonious person to have a power limited car that's restricted to 70mph? The rest of us can have sufficient power to ensure we aren't frustrated by them?

I don't often speed - but I do like power. But then I just drive an ickle Focus Estate (ST3).

But driving aids always leave the driver in charge

I've pondered on this before, a lot of new drivers have never driven a car without power steering, brake servo, or without ABS, or without traction control, stability control etc.

They may be left 'in charge', but in a case of a failure of those aids left in charge of a vehicle which is handles so differently from what they're used to it might as well be something they've never driven before.

It's all well and good if you have, and you can the fall back on previous learned experience, but I remember having to have a quite bizarre discussion with my GF the first time she drove my hilux about the fact that it didn't have ABS so to be aware of it if she needed to stop in an emergency, and that a boot-full of go pedal on a wet roundabout when it was in RWD mode was not a great idea. I also had to explain about the difflocks and when NOT to use them for fear of winding the transmission up, she thought she should stick it in 4WD all the time because it would have more grip and therefore be safer.

She'd also never skidded a car, or properly lost traction and was consequently terrified of having to drive in ice and snow, she at least had the awareness to realise she might have problems. Many don't, and I really don't think driver training in this country goes far enough, getting to the bare minimum standard necessary to pass the test is step 1, but to most it's treated as the end goal.

Aids are fine and dandy when they are working, and should rightly be used, but there does still need to be awareness of the fact that it IS an aid and mustn't lead to complacency.

I'm not sure what my actual point is exactly but just throwing my thoughts out there.

[url= http://www.lefigaro.fr/actualite-france/2013/07/12/01016-20130712ARTFIG00357-les-regulateurs-de-vitesse-attenuent-la-vigilance-des-conducteurs.php ]Strasbourg University tested drivers in a simulator and found the cruise control made them less vigilant.[/url]

French statistics show that whilst the overall accident rate is going down the accidents due to people falling asleep and making errors whilst distracted is increasing.

All this must have been factored in to the risk assessment for the tech. If it's available in the US they must be pretty happy that it is very much balanced towards safety given the risk of litigation.

There are no end of lawsuits in the US due to malfunctioning cruise controls. There have been some large manufacturer recalls over it too. I'm not saying cruise control is inherently dangerous (I use it myself) just that if you extrapolate these "simple" driver aids into a largely automated vehicle then the whole industry will need to change in terms of regulation, servicing etc.

As a result I don't think mass car driving automation will happen any time soon. Makes a good story for the likes of Google though.

It seems obvious that you need a powerful car to safely overtake. If I want to overtake 10 or 12 cars and a tractor on a country road, at night, in the rain with a bend coming up I wouldn't want to do that with less that 400bhp.

Seems completely sane to me.

I wouldn't want to do that in any car to be honest so nice troll but not really a valid example. However with good visibility ahead, the right road conditions, with sufficient distance before bend/junction ahead etc (allowing for someone fast coming the other way) then 400hp does allow you to safely exploit overtaking opportunities (sometimes multiple) that would leave too much room for error in a lesser powered car.

I'm guessing this is exactly the dilemma Molgrips faces. An opportunity that might be marginal for his Passat could be completely safe in a much higher powered car (or for a driver who's given himself a greater degree of forward visibility because he's hanging back slightly from a tightly bunched group of cars ahead).

Lets not feed the troll hey.

It's good when it's working, but what about when it fails and you're not ready for it?

Identifying system failure will be one of the first things taken away from the operator and connected to the web. It will be on a car near you very soon.

TBH I think you'd have to be phenomenally stupid to be so unattentive- it's not like you can switch off while driving on active cruise, you're still managing everything bar speed.

It may be an urban myth, but I remember a tale from a few years ago about a bloke in the US who tried to sue Winnebago after his careered off the road. He'd stuck cruise control on and then nipped in the back to make a brew.

it's curious that with skydiving, everyone's happy to admit there's a danger and quite happily accepts they have to follow specific procedures to manage that danger.

Interesting analogy, not least because it's wrong.

In skydiving, whenever there's an accident there's an incident report (it has a catchy name which I can't immediately remember). Back when I used to hurl myself out of perfectly good aeroplanes I got into the habit of reading them as learning from others' mistakes struck me as a Really Good Idea.

Skydiving has a piece of safety kit called an AAD - an Automatic Activation Device. Simplistically, it detects whether you're below a certain altitude above a certain velocity, (ie, near the ground and not under canopy) and deploys your reserve. It's unpopular in some circles as it's not without drawbacks; complications due to misfires (you really don't want your reserve out if you've just deployed your main) and thrill-seekers choosing to intentionally pull lower than the AAD would have fired.

Every one of the incident reports has a little tick box, "would an AAD have saved the parachutist's life?" and in almost every fatality case the answer is "yes."

So yes everyone knows there's a risk, however not everyone follows recommended procedures to mitigate that, occasionally with tragic results. There used to be a poster at our DZ, "take not thine altitude in vain, for lo the ground shall rise up and smite thee" which is a quasi-biblical way of saying "don't be a dick."

Identifying system failure will be one of the first things taken away from the operator and connected to the web. It will be on a car near you very soon.

It's already here, I saw it on a report on it a couple of years ago. Cadillac? Maybe. Chap was stopped at the roadside, a mechanic from the dealer turned up, said "your car's told us there's a fault," fixed it, when on his way.

Identifying system failure will be one of the first things taken away from the operator and connected to the web. It will be on a car near you very soon.

Great, so you can get on the web from your hospital bed to see what went wrong.

It's not about balls-out BHP, it's about balance and the ability of the chassis and the brakes to handle the power. My brother works as a chassis and powertrain engineer in Detroit (he it was who engineered and built Hummer 11) and on a recent trip to the UK he hired a VW Passat Tdi estate. He was massively impressed with the car, saying it was not exciting to drive but was the most balanced car he had ever driven. I reckon he'd have said the same if he had driven a Mondeo or several other modern European executive cars.

Are we doing this again, really ? We just had 9 pages of it..... 🙄

I like having a bit of oomph under my right foot. It's more fun.
Whether it's just a quick, pointless bit of accelerating or overtaking quickly, I enjoy it.

Good enough reason for me to want an above average powered car.

I'm guessing this is exactly the dilemma Molgrips faces. An opportunity that might be marginal for his Passat could be completely safe in a much higher powered car

Of course - but I'll just relax and go when it is safe.

or for a driver who's given himself a greater degree of forward visibility because he's hanging back slightly from a tightly bunched group of cars ahead

I've no idea where this idea came from that I stay too close to the car I want to overtake. I've never said I do that, none of you have seen me do it. FFS I used to overtake in a 950cc Fiesta, you had to hang back in that thing to get a run up.

So yes everyone knows there's a risk, however not everyone follows recommended procedures to mitigate that, occasionally with tragic results. There used to be a poster at our DZ, "take not thine altitude in vain, for lo the ground shall rise up and smite thee" which is a quasi-biblical way of saying "don't be a dick."

I think we're on the same place here - there's no general acceptance of 'don't be a dick' in driving culture.

AAD was an optional piece of kit, at least when I was jumping (2000-2002). When I say known and accepted procedures I mean more things like packing your parachute the same way every time to minimise the risk of a malfunction, checking each other's reserve pin just before you got into the plane etc, tightly managed exit order, spotting etc - no-one ever complained about needing to do those things or accused anyone of being sanctimonious when they insisted on doing it.

Almost the polar opposite of attitudes to speed limits, highway code, red lights etc

It's already here, I saw it on a report on it a couple of years ago. Cadillac? Maybe. Chap was stopped at the roadside, a mechanic from the dealer turned up, said "your car's told us there's a fault," fixed it, when on his way.

That's it, its offered in a few new cars and can be retrofitted by using a OBD device, the value is in the analysis of the vehicles fault codes to correctly predict failure before it effects the vehicle and then get that message to the driver.

I would expect not having it will be the exception very soon.

modern driving enthusiasts are too ridiculous for UK roads

moshimonster - Member

But they make a driver more complacent too. I can't think of a better example than active cruise control to be honest. Do you seriously cover the brake pedal every time it kicks in on the off-chance it might fail and hand the responsibility back to you?

You should always be in control of the car. That doesn't mean covering the pedal, though, just being ready to act if you need to. Nothing to do with failures really, there's other reasons that you might want to brake independentaly of acc, just as when you're driving normally there's other reasons to vary speed other than maintaining a gap

ABS is totally a better example, because it can fail invisibly then not be there in an emergency or other hard braking situation. Is your ABS working? I assume mine is, no warning lights or fault codes but I've not used it for a looooong time. ACC can't fail without being immediately obvious.

Cougar - Moderator

It's already here, I saw it on a report on it a couple of years ago. Cadillac? Maybe. Chap was stopped at the roadside, a mechanic from the dealer turned up, said "your car's told us there's a fault," fixed it, when on his way.

I have a man from Ford follow me around, it's more efficient

People generally tend to enjoy doing stuff [b]that they for some reason think[/b] they're good at - so this might explain it to some degree.

FTFY

molgrips
FFS I used to overtake in a 950cc Fiesta, you had to hang back in that thing to get a run up.

Yup, that sounds safer than say, having an adequately powerful car for example. And seems in no way at odds with

molgrips

but I'll just relax and go when it is safe.

It's not at odds, no. I overtook when it was safe. It just took more planning. See the Clio example earlier.

Simply overtaking slowly isn't an issue if there's enough road.

It's easier with a pokier car, but you're right; overtaking is all about forward planning.