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

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.

But isn't this at odds with what you've previously complained about, I.e. when some selfish **** overtakes from behind and doesn't wait his place in the overtaking queue? You didn't seem relaxed last time this was discussed!

No, it is at odds and it's at odds with the highway code too.

Imagine of that fiesta had more power, say for example a heady 115 bhp like a mk1 golf gti, which you claim is too powerful for the road.

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

As long as someone isn't bombing up the ouside of the queue in their cockmobile...

.. and we're back full circle!

...back to the imaginary queue 🙁

Seems like everyone should just buy an MX5 like mine.
Fun, not that fast and very little automatic systems on it

Far too powerful.

I happily drove a 65bhp Aygo from Manchester to Nr.Frankfurt. I happily overtook cars on Snakepass in the later C1, also 65bhp engine.

We dont NEED fast cars but it makes insecure men feel good so hey.

[i]you're[/i] too powerful

yourguitarhero - Member

Seems like everyone should just buy an MX5 like mine.
Fun, not that fast and very little automatic systems on it

I think it has insufficient wheelbarrow docking space

Power is gooooood. thing is bhp is BRAKE horse power so actually the engine brakes the speed quicker while a smaller less engine with less compression will brake slower 🙂 just saying!

Back to the OP - I think the precept that cars aren't faster is incorrect, if you look at 0-60 times (car mag measured) rather than claimed power to weight ratios then cars are much faster than they were in the 70s.

Top speeds and acceleration at speed is less to do with power to weight ratio too as drag starts to come into it. And as most mags don't even bother trying to measure top speeds (except in the odd closed road marketing exercise from Bugatti etc.) these days, I think that says it all.

But, somehow, less people (still too many of course) are getting killed and seriously injured on the roads per year than in the 70s. Must be doing something right.

philjunior - Member

Back to the OP - I think the precept that cars aren't faster is incorrect, if you look at 0-60 times (car mag measured) rather than claimed power to weight ratios then cars are much faster than they were in the 70s.

Well since it's going to be hard to get performance figures for a base spec Golf I looked at the GTI again. 0-60 in the late 70's claimed at 8.1 seconds, the current golf GTI does it in 6.5 seconds. So in 30+ years that's 1.6 second decrease or a 25% increase in 0-60 performance. Less than 1% increase every year.

Less drivers are getting killed and injured due to seat belts, crumple zones, air bags, better road infrastructure, speed cameras, less drink driving... . Now look at pedestrian and cyclist deaths and bear in mind that fewer people walk and cycle.

What's changed is not so much the "peak" power to weight ratio if you compare modern cars to old ones, but the "fatness" and accessability of the power at ALL engine speeds. With the advent of all these modern turbo cars, pretty much even crappy cars have 200Nm at about 2000rpm, thats something like 50Nm more than say a golf Gti Mk1 had at PEAK torque! As a result, and with the added traction, and better cabin NVH, people can travel a lot faster in the real world that they realise if they are not concentrated on driving.

And they really, really aren't concentrating on driving.......

Exactly. Not concentrating is dangerous in itself but can also result in too much speed ESPECIALLY in a plush modern car. You noticed it in the old days because you started having to rise your voice over the engine...

At least with speed there is a big dial in front of you showing it in an absolute sense. If cars has attentionometers and there were attention cameras on roadsides, then great - install those instead.

maxtorque - Member

What's changed is not so much the "peak" power to weight ratio if you compare modern cars to old ones, but the "fatness" and accessability of the power at ALL engine speeds

Absolutely. Useable power across the rev range is greatly improved, so cars are more driveable. Of course that's supplemented by abs brakes, improved handling, tyres, traction control. But my point is, they haven't morphed into flame spitting, child murdering super cars. The average car is still less than 100bhp per tonne.

Whilst BHP per tonne doesn't indicate drive-ability or torque it's a key metric of how fast a car can be. Some people would argue it's the only true measure of performance.

Its the advances in NVH that maxtorque mention really make the difference. In the 80's in pretty much any car 70mph on a bumpy B road felt really fast. Especially in smaller cars like minis, metros, 205's , Golfs, Astras and Escorts.
Modern cars have so much more sound deadening materials used in construction to mask road noise and quieter tyres. Suspension has improved alot, and with it ride and handling quality.
The luxo barge market is still better , take a newer Insignia and compare to an old Carlton for example. Or a new Mondeo against an old Seirra.
Add in better seats , better interiors that deaden road rumble, electronic toys to help you if it goes abit wrong, better headlights and all of a sudden its very easy to barrel along at 75 - 80 and feel perfectly safe and secure .

In some ways having a nice big fat powerband will make the car safer as it's more predictable. IF you have a narrow powerband and the same power (to weight) you're far more likely to put your foot down out of the powerband, hit it, wheelspin/understeer/spin off the road depending on driven wheels. If you have a nice wide spread of power you'd have to be properly stupid to do that.

After a big Leffe, several Guinness and now Jameson I'm not sure I'm ina postion to disagree with you, but I disagree if I think I'm understanding what I think you're saying. If peak power is right at the redline then you have to rev the nuts off a car to get it to go quickly, but if you've got peak power lower in the rev range you can brake traction or lose control more easily.

They're too refined - not too powerful.

Edit: Sorry, didn't see how long this is! Peaky power bands feel faster - a massively boosty power delivery makes a car feel a lot quicker. Definitely agree with the safety concern - especially for people who expect an old school power delivery. Doesn't apply to driving gods though, obviously 😀

A 190 bhp 200 kg motorbike would make these hand wringers very upset then.

rureadyboots - Member
A 190 bhp 200 kg motorbike would make these hand wringers very upset then.

It would also upset the driving gods when they realise how gutless their "fast" cars are. 🙂

Quick synopsis anyone?
Safest form of travel by far is a quick motor that when diddery diddery old Doris is in front going 27 in a 60 do you can drop and shoot by safely. Prior to this overtake, learn how to drive like Doris who's never had a shunt in 48 yrs of driving.
Its a fine line.

rureadyboots - Member
A 190 bhp 200 kg motorbike would make these hand wringers very upset then.
It would also upset the driving gods when they realise how gutless their "fast" cars are.

Why does some cretin always mention bikes on a car thread. It's like bikers seem to have a chip on their shoulder or something. Have ridden bikes abroad, absolutely no desire to repeat the experience in the UK thanks.

Loving the constant snidey reference to "driving gods" too.
Pompous much?

wrightyson

Quick synopsis anyone?

Well apparently these are two of the statistically safest cars in the UK

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

and these are two of the most dangerous

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

But even with that established people will revert back to arguing that they are better safer drivers because they driver slower, lower spec, duller cars, even when they admit they need a run up, to execute an overtake.

epicyclo

rureadyboots - Member
A 190 bhp 200 kg motorbike would make these hand wringers very upset then.

It would also upset the driving gods when they realise how gutless their "fast" cars are.

No. Molgrips won't be worried about a bike because it doesn't highlight the inadequacies of his car. And people who drive fast cars won't be worried because other than in a straight line, bikes don't have a bike speed advantage and quite often the guys riding them are mid life crisis coffee shop poseurs.

Well apparently these are two of the statistically safest cars in the UK

and these are two of the most dangerous

Here's a thought...... Maybe the former are driven by people who take an interest in driving, and god forbid even enjoy it. And the latter are driven by people with no interest in driving.

Would people who are not interested in driving and don't enjoy it be less engaged and more easily distracted from the task or give it less focus in the first place?

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?

What's your definition of getting the benefit?

Fuel consumption is probably the last thing somebody who has bought a car like that will be thinking about, I certainly don't think about it when my car is averaging 5mpg.

My other car averages 50mpg though which helps me feel a little less guilty about it 😆

Would people who are not interested in driving and don't enjoy it be less engaged and more easily distracted from the task or give it less focus in the first place?

^^This

"Driving god" that I am, as I said before, I enjoy having a bit of oomph, it makes it more fun.
Doesn't automatically mean I drive like a dick.

Mate had a gtr, it was incredible. You'd have to be doing something ridiculous to lose control of it. I used to have imprezas, I miss them, the ability to pass cars easily was a bonus but more so the actual braking and handling was a huge bonus in the wet. I never worried when the mrs was out in them unlike when we had our little Peugeot 206.
Now got a Mazda 6 sport. I chose it because it handles brilliantly for an estate, if I could afford to run one it would have been an rs4 avant but that's still on the list.

The figures your looking are people asking for an insurance quotes on those cars whilst disclosing a insurance claim in the last year, that is a hell of lot different than statistically safe.

Since this thread was born of misrepresented quotes in another thread it's probably not surprising. The point made previously was that a car almost all cars are way more capable than they need to be to comfortably fulfil their purpose. That facilitates the culture of an increasingly smal number of people who see cars as a sporting device used for fun.

I can understand that because driving can be fun but no one should be in any doubt, driving faster, accelerating harder, braking harder, cornering harder than average greatly increase the likelihood you'll be involved in an incident.

mark90
Here's a thought...... Maybe the former are driven by people who take an interest in driving, and god forbid even enjoy it. And the latter are driven by people with no interest in driving.

Would people who are not interested in driving and don't enjoy it be less engaged and more easily distracted from the task or give it less focus in the first place?

Absolutely. Add to that the fact that performance cars are more likely to be cherished or aspirational - you're less likely to want to want to damage your pride and joy than something that just gets you from a to b.

Also, cars that are on the sporting end of the spectrum generally have much more driver feedback and interaction, heavier clutch, better steering feel, a brake pedal that doesn't lock up the wheels on a sneeze so you can judge surface grip, heavy precise gear shift, so the driver is more engaged in the experience as a whole.

Couple that with the fact that a lot happens when you accelerate in such cars and you will be careful with how and when you use them.

Since this thread was born of misrepresented quotes in another thread it's probably not surprising. The point made previously was that a car almost all cars are way more capable than they need to be to comfortably fulfill their purpose. That facilitates the culture of an increasingly small number of people who see cars as a sporting device used for fun.

Nothing misinterpreted about it. You just reaffirmed it. if you and others are so aghast at how capable cars are why don't you make a suggestion as to how they would be more suitable? What's the maximum permissible engine or power output you would allow? How would you adjust that for larger cars? What's your magic formula for a safe car? Or would you go the other way strip cars of sound deadening or heaters? or windows? Remove abs and power steering, that would make them lass capable.

Since the invention of the car people have enjoyed motorsport and motoring culture and they have taken pleasure from fast capable cars. And others who can't afford them have protested them. It seems miserable begrudgers won't be content until they've implemented some sort of Orwellian nightmare where everyone drives a Kia Sedona limited to 45mph.

 

.....
Safest form of travel by far is a quick motor that when diddery diddery old Doris is in front going 27 in a 60 do you can drop and shoot by safely. Prior to this overtake, learn how to drive like Doris who's never had a shunt in 48 yrs of driving.
Its a fine line.

True that, except the one thing never taken into consideration is how many accidents has Doris contributed to by driving at inappropriate speed everywhere she goes, completely oblivious to everything around her?

Hey who's dissing the Rover 75. My diesel one is like a luxury slug. I love it.

anagallis_arvensis that Rover in the picture is a Rover 45 1.6

For 10 years I drove a 1.4 Rover 400 (the boxy Honda Concerto one) and it was more than capable of "making progress" mainly as so many people seem to drive round in a dream state.

But these days I wouldn't want to try it as I know my reactions are not as quick.

I now drive a diesel estate that is quicker than the MK II GTi Scirocco I had in my youth but I tend to drive it at probably 50% of its capability as despite all the modern driving aids it packs I seem to see more risk than I did years ago.

The safest car I owned was a 1966 MG Midget as 30mph felt like 50 & 70 felt like 100mph

What's your magic formula for a safe car?

I have a magic formula for a safe driver..

Open showrooms that only sell two cars - one is an energy efficient, ecologically friendly vehicle, that is practical and comfortable.. The other is some kind of flash beefy testosterone substitute..

Place both cars at the same very, very affordable price..

Anyone choosing the flash motor gets taken out to the back of the showroom and fired into space from a cannon

Anyone choosing the flash motor gets taken out to the back of the showroom and fired into space from a cannon

Yes!

Choice is a consumerist nonsense. As with motorbikes, you should have to apply for a special licence according to the power and potential deadliness of your car.

people will revert back to arguing that they are better safer drivers because they driver slower, lower spec, duller cars, even when they admit they need a run up, to execute an overtake.

Wow, that's not even close to what I said. Not in the least. I hope you pay more attention to your driving than your reading!

By the way, there were two cars on the forecourt when I bought mine - one was the 105bhp model and I didn't buy it because it was too slow.

The rest of your post is total rubbish also, jimjam. Let me know if you need it explaining why.

I dont really overtake in the car makes life simpler.

"Modern cars are too powerful for UK roads"

😆 In the mid-80s we were already driving Toyota Corolla with 4age engine that came with standard 150hp with none of your ABS, airbag etc. I mean if you are just the sort of guy that like normal aspirated car ...

Oh no ... we put a turbo into the 4age engine and turn it into road legal "dragster" that could outrun standard RB32 anytime in a quarter mile race.

molgrips

The rest of your post is total rubbish also, jimjam. Let me know if you need it explaining why.

No you're alright. I don't need any further platitudes from the blessed sage of motoring psychology. I've already read the same self aggrandizing, sanctimonious smug guffery several dozen times since you keep spamming every thread that relates to driving with exact same sermon.

I'm baffled as to how you can't see the contradictions in some of your statements. It's laughable to say that something with 115bhp is too powerful for uk roads, then say how you need a run up to overtake in a 900cc fiesta, but that you always wait patiently for an opportunity to overtake, but you do get annoyed by little old ladies in micras holding you up. You chose a higher spec model passat because the lower one was too slow, and yet modern cars are too powerful for anyone (other than you it would seem). You won't even acquiesce to the idea that more power can make for a safer overtake, despite the fact that this is actually part of the highway code.

I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt that maybe you're just a wind up artist, if so well done. You got me. Again. Everything you type just smacks of someone who resents the idea of anyone having a car that's superior to yours.

alaslas

As with motorbikes, you should have to apply for a special licence according to the power and potential deadliness of your car.

Bring it on, if you made a petition for that I'd sign it, so long as it wasn't just an additional form of tax. No problem. But you're trying again to insinuate that power is inextricably linked to deadliness and that is simply not the case. Any car you buy can do 100mph. Are they all stable at that speed? Can they corner at that speed or decelerate safely and quickly from that speed? No. There's nothing stopping an 18 year old lad in a corsa trying to drive like Walter Ruhl on the roads.

The average young driver pays £1000 - £2000 for insurance on the most weedy underpowered cars, and yet they are still the highest risk group. Try and get a quote for an 18yo on a GTR. Go on. 99% of companies won't touch you, and those that will are going to charge 3 fortunes, effectively pricing most people out of the market. Even into your 30's it's difficult and expensive to insure fast cars for normal use, and prior experience with similar cars is a factor. So this perception that powerful "deadly" cars are a readily accessed fix for speed junkies and renegade sociopaths is just a complete fallacy. The only deadly aspect of a car is the driver. They're just lumps metal. Do you think moshimonster in his 911 is more dangerous than some chav in his 1.2 corsa sxi with a big bore exhaust, chopped springs and a burning desire to show off to his mates?

thooms - Member
They're too refined - not too powerful.

This to a certain extent. Arguably a car can't be too refined - why would anyone prefer not to be in a quiet and comfortable environment. However that does mask speed very well. I took a friend out for a blast on the autobahn recently and gave it some beans. Asked him after how fast he thought we were going and he guessed a good 30% lower than we had been.

Unsure I'd get a super saloon again as you do need to be going at a serious lick to feel like the car is even trying and I do often yearn for something lighter and rawer when on my own. However, when I've got the wife and 3 kids it really is just an effortless way of getting anywhere and they do love hard acceleration, even though I think they'll never be impressed by much else in the future having got used to 560bhp!

People tend to drive at a speed that they feel comfortable with and a speed that their car is comfortable with. Normally this is related to their level of skill and confidence as a driver (okay there are always exceptions e.g. Boy racer, but I'm talking generally here). People with less skill and confidence perceive that someone driving faster than them must be more dangerous. They can't comprehend that the faster driver may have more skill, more experience, more training, a more capable car etc. To the slower driver it just looks dangerous, even if in reality is that it's probably not.

To the slower driver it just looks dangerous, even if in reality is that it's probably not.

Perception is a big part of it, I'm sure.

There's a bend near me that I've taken comfortably at 85+ in a crap car in my young stupid days. My OH (who doesn't drive) shits herself if I go round it at the 70 limit and grabs hold of the Jesus handle like she's going to go flying across the car and into my lap, to a point where I now take it at 50 - 60 for a quiet life. However, if she's distracted, if we're having a conversation, she barely registers it as an issue. It's not a severe bend at all, but it leads the eye and looks worse than it is.

Dont mistake driving carefully with a lack of confidence, the driver has probably just planned their journey better than you and is less influenced by juvenile hormones.

If you are seriously excusing dangerous drivers as just more capable you deluded beyond a state words on this forum will fix.

People tend to drive at a speed that they feel comfortable with and a speed that their car is comfortable with. Normally this is related to their level of skill and confidence as a driver (okay there are always exceptions e.g. Boy racer, but I'm talking generally here). People with less skill and confidence perceive that someone driving faster than them must be more dangerous. They can't comprehend that the faster driver may have more skill, more experience, more training, a more capable car etc. To the slower driver it just looks dangerous, even if in reality is that it's probably not.

The faster driver might believe they have more skill, experience, training, car etc but studies of illusory superiority suggest they're wrong.

[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_superiority ]Illusory Superiority[/url]

Driving ability[edit]
Svenson (1981) surveyed 161 students in Sweden and the United States, asking them to compare their driving safety and skill to the other people in the experiment. For driving skill, 93% of the US sample and 69% of the Swedish sample put themselves in the top 50% (above the median). For safety, 88% of the US group and 77% of the Swedish sample put themselves in the top 50%.[26]

McCormick, Walkey and Green (1986) found similar results in their study, asking 178 participants to evaluate their position on eight different dimensions relating to driving skill (examples include the "dangerous-safe" dimension and the "considerate-inconsiderate" dimension). Only a small minority rated themselves as below average (the midpoint of the dimension scale) at any point, and when all eight dimensions were considered together it was found that almost 80% of participants had evaluated themselves as being above the average driver.[27]

A survey by Princeton Survey Research Associates showed that 36% of drivers believe they are an above average driver while using a phone for things like texting or email compared to other drivers who are using their phones for things like texting or email, while 44% considered themselves average, and 18% below average.[28]

In answer to the OP's question I suspect what underlies the apparent increase in incompetent driving is that modern cars are too powerful for the skill of the average driver and that the average driver has fallen for the effects of illusory superiority and believes (falsly) that they do have the skill to manage that power.

It's obviously too late to ask but I bet if you could interview every dead driver, they'd tell you they thought they had everything under control...

wilburt - Member

If you are seriously excusing dangerous drivers as just more capable you deluded beyond a state words on this forum will fix.

Of course he's not doing that- he's saying that "dangerous" is often a matter of perception,what seems reckless and dangerous to one person may actually be perfectly safe (if I'm allowed to say that without someone saying "driving god"...) In the classic everyone slower than me is an incompetent, everyone faster than me is a psychopath way.

Frinstance... Sometimes with good forward observation you can identify that a road is clear, and pass, by checking it out as it undulates or as visibility grows and shrinks. But to the person who's only seeing what's bang in front of them, you're obviously a maniac, because you're using information they don't have.

Or other frinstance, using offsiding- if someone doesn't know what you're doing, they just assume you're "riding on the wrong side of road" or better still "On the racing line like Barry ******* Sheene" and may go mental accordingly. When actually you're maintaining visibility, which improves safety.

Course, the reverse applies, what some people think is perfectly safe may actually be total madness. I doubt many dangerous drivers actually think they're driving dangerously.

brooes, that survey is of students ie young inexperienced drivers and the second group is presumably comprised of idiots (anyone who would get into a debate as to their ability to phone or text while driving). So I really can't put too much credence in it.

It's obviously too late to ask but I bet if you could interview every dead driver, they'd tell you they thought they had everything under control...

You can always ask people who survived? You don't have to have a fatal car crash to gain an observation about making a driving error at speed. I can't really comment though since my only serious car crash (touch wood) was when a dithering oul **** in an RV ran a red and T-Boned my vehicle nearly flipping it on it's roof.

Northwind
Course, the reverse applies, what some people think is perfectly safe may actually be total madness. I doubt many dangerous drivers actually think they're driving dangerously.

Scariest drivers I've ever sat in with were the ones who've been distracted while driving. One mate who would do 80-90 everywhere whilst searching the car for "mix tapes" of his shitty dance music. Then tells me he's written off his last 6 cars. His eyes were hardly ever on the road. Sheer terror.

Another mate who used to text and drive whilst lighting a fag and having a full blown conversation. Even at moderate speeds it was scary to be in a car with him.
Compared to those guys, sitting in the passenger seat with any number of "driving gods" whilst they are "making progress" is relatively calm, since they are focused on the road.

It's a bit like skiers. Good skiers ski faster and have less accidents than poor skiers skiing slowly (World Cup downhill excepted).

Love these threads...

...i've undertaken advanced and emergency driving courses due to my job and over the last 14 yrs have attended numerous RTCs in my role as a Paramedic.

Most RTCs take place at slow speeds in built up areas, kerbing car power outputs and top speeds wouldnt prevent these.
I forget the actual stats but its something like 75% of RTCs take place at junctions not on the open road....why?...because people dont look.

Improve people's ability to read the road and lift their field of vision and you'd significantly reduce the RTCs stats....just banning fast cars would barely dent the figures as these RTCs that take place at speed on open roads are a fraction of the total.

People's driving is terrible, but nobody admits it...in fact most people equate slow to safe.

You can be slow and veering all over the place, random braking, random accelaration, no signalling, no awareness of what's around you etc etc....a complete liability and entirely dependent on other people staying out of your way...but these people think they're safe because they never breach 60 on an A-road and always do 30 through town....delusional.

More traffic police would help....and not just for the obvious speeding drivers.
People who tailgate need ticketing, people who dont signal need points too, people who drive at 45mph on the motorway need a word in their ear.

I actually dont have a problem with a 100mph limit, to be honest it would be nice if people used the power they already have though...i see (on a daily basis) people dawdling up slip roads at 40mph expecting to join traffic that is doing 70...not gonna happen, so they grind to a halt at the end of the slip and then have to look for a gap large enough to accelerate from a standstill into with 70mph traffic...nuts.

Its the same when exiting the motorway, people brake to 50mph while still in lane one, then often have to speed back up once on the sliproad!....leave the motorway at the speed you were doing, then do your braking on the slip...thats what its there for!

Motorways suffer the concertina affect around sliproads as nobody seems to know (or have the confidence) to use them properly.

Electronic driver aids are great...in the dry.
None of them will save you while you're aqua planing.

....been out to too many heroes that come unstauck in the rain thinking their ERS, ABS, TC etc etc will magically defy the laws of physics and glide them to work unhindered...no, no and no again.

Was caught in a biblical downpour the other morning, i slowed to about 50mph and had my wipers on full and it was still bad...cars were flying by, "here we go" i say to myself, sure enough not more than two mins later i'm sent to an RTC...arrive to thamkfully find the driver OK but his car has stacked into the central reservation then spun across three lanes down the verge...he says "it started to rain so i slowed down"....how slow? i ask....he replies "came down to about 80"...

These idiots will always crash, there is no known cure for stupidity....needless to say the car was modern with all the safety gizmos designed to make him feel invincible and dull the actual sensation from the road surface and mute any information about what is going on with your tyres and traction.

I could go on and on...i go to plenty who approach a corner and if they'd just left well alone would've been fine but no, they had to panic brake mid corner....oops, the car ends up in a hedge.

More driver training is the answer and a staggered licence system like motorcycles, i'm not in favour of complusory retesting but there could be mandatory retraining (not too strict, no pass/fail element for example) that people have to take in a given window every 5 years for example....failure to attend training days sees your insurance go up, failure to attend three on the trot sees you banned until you do attend one.

It's not just perception it's the laws of physics, go faster and the kinetic energy of your car increases as the square of your speed. Travel faster and your reaction times means you'll cover more distance making decisions. Simple decisions might only take half a second, more complex ones may take a couple of seconds. The faster you go the narrower your field of vision and the less likely you are to see dangers coming in from the side. It all stacks up against you.

I trundle along happily in queues of traffic, behave in a courteous manner around other road users, accept that I make mistakes and go slow enough to limit the consequences. After lots of these threads I think it's time for a CV, it's going back a bit but on a budget that was my salary and in cars I built myself:

MSA (RAC) British autotest champion.
BTRDA autotest champion.
3rd Nova cup (which was part of the national rally series at the time).
The home internationals: National Breakdown, Circuit of Ireland, Welsh (first in class), Ulster.
The "other driver" in Russ Swift's display team in the early years.
Display work for GM.

I stopped at 26 which gave me time to get into climbing, alpinisme, skiing, triathlon (best result of 6th scratch in the French Winter national championships, 27th in the worlds), adventure racing and all sorts of other activities.

I don't consider myself any safer than anyone else out there because we all share the roads. Russ Swift has a foot that is rotated by about 60° because he was hit head on by an on-coming driver overtaking.

Love these threads...

...i've undertaken advanced and emergency driving courses due to my job and over the last 14 yrs have attended numerous RTCs in my role as a Paramedic.

Most RTCs take place at slow speeds in built up areas, kerbing car power outputs and top speeds wouldnt prevent these.
I forget the actual stats but its something like 75% of RTCs take place at junctions not on the open road....why?...because people dont look.

Improve people's ability to read the road and lift their field of vision and you'd significantly reduce the RTCs stats....just banning fast cars would barely dent the figures as these RTCs that take place at speed on open roads are a fraction of the total.

People's driving is terrible, but nobody admits it...in fact most people equate slow to safe.

You can be slow and veering all over the place, random braking, random accelaration, no signalling, no awareness of what's around you etc etc....a complete liability and entirely dependent on other people staying out of your way...but these people think they're safe because they never breach 60 on an A-road and always do 30 through town....delusional.

More traffic police would help....and not just for the obvious speeding drivers.
People who tailgate need ticketing, people who dont signal need points too, people who drive at 45mph on the motorway need a word in their ear.

I actually dont have a problem with a 100mph limit, to be honest it would be nice if people used the power they already have though...i see (on a daily basis) people dawdling up slip roads at 40mph expecting to join traffic that is doing 70...not gonna happen, so they grind to a halt at the end of the slip and then have to look for a gap large enough to accelerate from a standstill into with 70mph traffic...nuts.

Its the same when exiting the motorway, people brake to 50mph while still in lane one, then often have to speed back up once on the sliproad!....leave the motorway at the speed you were doing, then do your braking on the slip...thats what its there for!

Motorways suffer the concertina affect around sliproads as nobody seems to know (or have the confidence) to use them properly.

Electronic driver aids are great...in the dry.
None of them will save you while you're aqua planing.

....been out to too many heroes that come unstauck in the rain thinking their ERS, ABS, TC etc etc will magically defy the laws of physics and glide them to work unhindered...no, no and no again.

Was caught in a biblical downpour the other morning, i slowed to about 50mph and had my wipers on full and it was still bad...cars were flying by, "here we go" i say to myself, sure enough not more than two mins later i'm sent to an RTC...arrive to thamkfully find the driver OK but his car has stacked into the central reservation then spun across three lanes down the verge...he says "it started to rain so i slowed down"....how slow? i ask....he replies "came down to about 80"...

These idiots will always crash, there is no known cure for stupidity....needless to say the car was modern with all the safety gizmos designed to make him feel invincible and dull the actual sensation from the road surface and mute any information about what is going on with your tyres and traction.

I could go on and on...i go to plenty who approach a corner and if they'd just left well alone would've been fine but no, they had to panic brake mid corner....oops, the car ends up in a hedge.

More driver training is the answer and a staggered licence system like motorcycles, i'm not in favour of complusory retesting but there could be mandatory retraining (not too strict, no pass/fail element for example) that people have to take in a given window every 5 years for example....failure to attend training days sees your insurance go up, failure to attend three on the trot sees you banned until you do attend one.

I think I love you. 😀 Well said.

I have a magic formula for a safe driver..

Open showrooms that only sell two cars - one is an energy efficient, ecologically friendly vehicle, that is practical and comfortable.. The other is some kind of flash beefy testosterone substitute..

Place both cars at the same very, very affordable price..

Anyone choosing the flash motor gets taken out to the back of the showroom and fired into space from a cannon

Jeez, what a boring ****ing world that would be.
Anyone who thinks utilitarianism is the way to a rewarding life needs shooting. (It'd be the ecologically kindest thing to do)

Well said deviant.

i'm not in favour of complusory retesting

Given everything you've said in your thread, why not?

Well wouldn't mandatory retraining fill quite the gap to mandatory retesting?

Broods...honestly I think if retesting was introduced then half the drivers on the road would end up having their licences taken away, it's not practical and would negatively impact on the economy, overload public transport and lead to social unrest.

Far better to make compulsory retraining fun, informative and to get drivers passionate about driving instead of it being a passive process where even the person driving is usually sat there bored and not paying attention to the actual process.... teach understeer, oversteer, have a day at a skidpan etc etc...most people who attend those police run courses you can sometimes take to avoid penalty points say they are a day well spent, introduce that kind of thing every few years with insurance incentives and penalties and I don't think you'd need the harshness of retesting.

The trouble with retesting is that most people can probably get it together for half an hour and do a test standard drive... Even if they need to do a bunch of lessons beforehand. If the issue is inattentiveness and recklessness these are things you opt to do and can stop doing when you're on best behaviour. If someone watched me for 30 minutes at work I bet I'd not swear or go on the internet but the second they turn their back I'll be posting about it on STW...

The actual problem, imo, is a cultural one rather than really a driving skills one, people who can drive safely choose not to. I have no clue how to fix [i]that[/i]. But you can treat the symptoms with more traffic cops, especially more plainclothes. And a move away from obsessing about speeding and prosecutions IMO, but policing driving standards is harder than pointing a speedgun at people and the same observation issue applies. I'm no surveillance state fan though

Also, I do think we need to stop this nonsense where people get lenient sentences because they need their cars for work. If you need your car for work, it's up to you to drive safely, it's not up to the court to keep you driving even though you're a ****. That's just a terrible message all round. Minor issue but still.

Under it all, the basic problem is I think that a lot of dangerous or bad driving is just not that simple to pull people up for. It's not that obvious that someone's not paying attention til they drive through a busful of baby robins. Increasing sentences, some strict liability, might help... But it's still the "won't happen to me" "I'm a safe driver" "I'm not doing anything wrong" problem, you could punish dangerous driving with death by acid and most folks would drive the same.

The actual problem, imo, is a cultural one rather than really a driving skills one, people who can drive safely choose not to. I have no clue how to fix that.

An obligatory black box in every car.

A voluntary tracker in every car with results sent to insurers. Anyone who refuses the tracker pays the highest premium the company charges any driver with a tracker +50%.

agent007 - Member
"It would also upset the driving gods when they realise how gutless their "fast" cars are."
Why does some cretin always mention bikes on a car thread. It's like bikers seem to have a chip on their shoulder or something. Have ridden bikes abroad, absolutely no desire to repeat the experience in the UK thanks.

Bikers don't need a chip on their shoulder. They have have the only vehicles capable of being driven properly fast on interesting roads. For a mere few tens of thousands they can eclipse hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of car. For that matter you can do it with less than £10,000 as almost all motorbikes have an excess of power for use on UK roads.

But a cretin with a chip on his shoulder might contemptuously regard "fast" cars as posturing tool for a flabby fatboy with inadequacy issues who cannot pull chicks with his personality. But I wouldn't think like that. 🙂

Basically if you want a proper sense of speed get a motorbike or drive a go-cart (an Ariel Atom would suffice).

Sounds like we need to ban any bike over 25cc.

jimjam - Member
Sounds like we need to ban any bike over 25cc.

It would make sense. 🙂

But first they would have to catch us...

Edukator - Troll

An obligatory black box in every car.

A voluntary tracker in every car with results sent to insurers. Anyone who refuses the tracker pays the highest premium the company charges any driver with a tracker +50%.

Which doesn't tackle bad observation, inattention, general negligence, driving tired or distracted, excessive speed in bad conditions... I'd say this is more of the same- targeting speed because it's easy. And that's exactly what's led to "I'm safe because I'm doing 30, while doing my makeup, and that cyclist I just hit must have COME OUT OF NOWHERE"

When excessive speed contributes (not causes, contributes) to 14% of collisions but failure to look causes 40%, the solution is not more speed checking imo. Not saying it's not a good idea when viewed by itself but it's not the answer to the bigger problem.

FeeFoo - Member

...Anyone who thinks [s]utilitarianism[/s] an 'interesting' car is the way to a rewarding life needs shooting. (It'd be the ecologically kindest thing to do)

Northwind - Member

...And that's exactly what's led to "I'm safe because I'm doing 30, while doing my makeup...

but i'd be surprised if you couldn't see that they were up to something shonky from all the panic-braking and jerky steering.

Trackers and black boxes can also record acceleration in three dimensions. That gives a good idea of how erratic the driver is. Hard sudden braking, swerving and flying bridges show up. An eye-movement monitor could be incorporated if you are worried about someone using their phone, GPS or putting on makeup.

#I could edit in response to Northwind's edit but then Jimjam's insult wouldn't make sense so I've left this unedited#

I did a wee sneaky edit there btw so there's a bit more to my post that clarifies where I was going.

How about we just put a GPS tracker in your anus Edukator. Then we'd know where you were trolling at all times.

How about we just put a tracker in your anus Edukator.

FeeFoo - Member
...Anyone who thinks [s]utilitarianism[/s] an 'interesting' car is the way to a rewarding life needs shooting. (It'd be the intellectually kindest thing to do)

beautifully put 😀

Northwind - Member

When excessive speed contributes (not causes, contributes) to 14% of collisions but failure to look causes 40%, the solution is not more speed checking imo. Not saying it's not a good idea when viewed by itself but it's not the answer to the bigger problem.

in my humble opinion, we [s]should[/s] could just accept that people can be a bit rubbish, that they will crash into things.

so let's reduce speed limits on rural+urban roads, and enforce the hell out of them.

people will still crash, but they'll do it at a slower speed.

anyway, dinner's ready, i'm off!

[quote=molgrips ]Wow, that's not even close to what I said. Not in the least. I hope you pay more attention to your driving than your reading!

I reckon jimjam is after a prize for the most strawmen in one thread. Incidentally, despite claiming

[quote=jimjam]

Since this thread was born of misrepresented quotes in another thread it's probably not surprising.

he's yet to come up with an example to disprove my earlier suggestion that it was started with one.

I think you need to check what the definition of a straw man argument is. I don't need to pander to your pedantry.

ahwiles - Member

in my humble opinion, we should could just accept that people can be a bit rubbish, that they will crash into things.

That sounds like a ****ing terrible idea to me tbh. Do I want to be knocked off my bike by someone doing 40 or 35? Well I'd rather not be knocked off tbh. Nope, just accept it, 40 or 35.

🙄

[quote=jimjam ]Well since it's going to be hard to get performance figures for a base spec Golf I looked at the GTI again. 0-60 in the late 70's claimed at 8.1 seconds, the current golf GTI does it in 6.5 seconds. So in 30+ years that's 1.6 second decrease or a 25% increase in 0-60 performance. Less than 1% increase every year.

Whilst we're at it, what would you consider a significant increase? Exactly 1% a year, which would result in a modern Golf GTI having similar performance to a Honda NSX supercar? 1.5% a year (current 911 Carrera 4)? or 2% a year (current AM Vanquish)?

God you risk free looneys. Put on your driving gloves and flat caps its sunday tomorrow so your day.
Why do you like singletrack riding again, steady now.
I know whats right and I know whats wrong, its the bit in the middle I love FUN!

[quote=joepose ]God you risk free looneys. Put on your driving gloves and flat caps its sunday tomorrow so your day.
Why do you like singletrack riding again, steady now.

You're not the first to make that comparison. Let's see if you can work out what the difference is between having fun in a car on a public road, and having fun on a mountain bike - something lots of us hand wringers do like to do fast (I'm also a bit of a pansy at that, but I do other things which would scare most of the people who like driving fast).

The real answer is autonomous, self-driving cars.
Most people don't care about a driving/are shit at it.
So let the computer do it and you can sit and read the paper, do your makeup, have a beer or a **** - whatever.

You'd get where you're going more refreshed and faster, because once everyone was in these cars they could all sync together and drive along in convoy at higher speeds than people can be trusted at it. Similar how having a 50 mph limit on a crowded motorway gets everyone through the section quicker than if they limit was 70.

Performance cars can become like horses are now - for leisure. If you like driving you have a track day car.

In fact, I'd take it even further. You wouldn't own a car. You just lease a car service. Need to go somewhere? Fire up your phone, tell them where you want to go and how many seats you need. The nearest car appears to take you. After you get dropped off in town it goes and sits in a little car pen somewhere waiting for someone else to ping it on their phone. You could have them all stacked neatly somewhere - no need to leave a space for the doors to open. They could be electric and go back on charge when someone's not using them.

Imagine going on a big mountain biking trip. You get a car to the start and then when you get to the end say, 35 miles away - a new car comes to get you and take you home. No need to do big loops to get back to where you left your car.

aracer

Whilst we're at it, what would you consider a significant increase?

I don't have a problem with progress or technological advances. I don't have an irrational fear of inanimate objects, the danger factor is the human behind the wheel. Being afraid of a car, past, present or future is pointless despite what the Daily Mail tell you to think. Manufacturers aren't going to stick an 800bhp engine in a shopping car, and even if they did they would hopefully supplement it with systems that would make it driveable.

I'm less concerned about the twonk in a powerful car, than I am the twonk in the shit car or van, driving like they are in a performance car, or the the frustrated twonk in his rep mobile who's just decided he's had enough of sitting in a queue of traffic and is going to chance an overtake.

yourguitarhero
because once everyone was in these cars they could all sync together and drive along in convoy at higher speeds than people can be trusted at it. Similar how having a 50 mph limit on a crowded motorway gets everyone through the section quicker than if they limit was 70.

Have you ever tried to sync your phone to your computer? Imagine trying to sync a Ford to a Toyota? Sounds like a recipe for death on a stick.