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

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.