Bad Drivers

doughnutmachine

martinthebandit wrote: »

Do they have to be?

So I assume your argument is that UK consumers should be able to buy cars with unlimited top speeds because they might go to Germany?

imho allowing things to be sold in this country just because they are legal elsewhere is a stupid position to take. Assualt rifles are allowed in the USA, should we sell them here as well?

JReacher1

doughnutmachine wrote: »

So I assume your argument is that UK consumers should be able to buy cars with unlimited top speeds because they might go to Germany?

imho allowing things to be sold in this country just because they are legal elsewhere is a stupid position to take. Assualt rifles are allowed in the USA, should we sell them here as well?

You don't need to take an assault rifle across a border.

You do often drive across a border.

It's not a good comparison.

artbaron

doughnutmachine wrote: »

I used to work in an industry where every vehicle had a speed limiter. Speed limiters are relatively cheap to install.

Not to limit cars to 70mph they're not. The limiter would have to start gradually limiting the fuel / air mix from a ridiculously low speed unless you wanted that 'hitting a wall' effect every time your attention wandered.

doughnutmachine wrote: »

I agree that motorways are the safest roads, but that doesn't mean that the faster a car travels the safer it is.....

I never suggested that but now you mention it, it's probably true. Performance cars have better safety features on average than shopping trolleys. I'm far safer travelling at 100mph in a Ferrari 355 than I am at 60mph in some tinpot Korean wonder. Even in my modest track car I can brake from 0 to 60 and accelerate back to 60 before the Korean wonder has come to a stop.

doughnutmachine wrote: »

Apart from racing on a private track there is no legal place where you can drive at over 70mph. So why are car manufacturers allowed to sell cars that can do 150mph? With knifes or booze people can use them in a responsible way, but there is no responsible way that someone can drive at 120mph (apart from a track day).

That doesn't make sense. You're not comparing like with like. I can buy a car and drive it responsibly just like I can drink a pint responsibly. I can also buy a car and crash it at 150mph just like I can drink 20 pints and kick in a shop window. Yet for some reason you think the brewers shouldn't be prosecuted but the car manufacturers should. Not only would limiting speed not save any lives, it would result in tens of thousands of job losses in the car industry and other professions related to performance vehicles.

doughnutmachine

artbaron wrote: »

Not to limit cars to 70mph they're not. The limiter would have to start gradually limiting the fuel / air mix from a ridiculously low speed unless you wanted that 'hitting a wall' effect every time your attention wandered.

That doesn't make sense. You're not comparing like with like. I can buy a car and drive it responsibly just like I can drink a pint responsibly. I can also buy a car and crash it at 150mph just like I can drink 20 pints and kick in a shop window. Yet for some reason you think the brewers shouldn't be prosecuted but the car manufacturers should. Not only would limiting speed not save any lives, it would result in tens of thousands of job losses in the car industry and other professions related to performance vehicles.

sorry, but you were saying that you couldn't fit limiters to cars? I just said that I've driven cars with limiters... and they work fine.

but it's legal to go out and have a drink, so it's only sensible that you can go out and buy a drink. but it's not legal to drive cars above 70mph, yet manufacturers sell cars that can break this speed.

here's a picture of two BMWs that were racing at a reported 140mph. do you not think BMW are slightly responsible for the accident? They are knowingly selling a product to people that will break the law. While brewers sell a product that only a relatively small people will abuse.

artbaron

doughnutmachine wrote: »

sorry, but you were saying that you couldn't fit limiters to cars? I just said that I've driven cars with limiters... and they work fine.

No, I said it's nowhere near as easy as you think to safely limit a car to 70mph. When did you drive a car limited to 70mph?

doughnutmachine wrote: »

but it's legal to go out and have a drink, so it's only sensible that you can go out and buy a drink. but it's not legal to drive cars above 70mph, yet manufacturers sell cars that can break this speed.

I have here on my desk a litre of Sebor Absinthe. If you drank it all you would die, no question. Yet I can, and have, driven cars at 140mph and lived. So by your own reasoning the brewers should be more liable than the car manufacturers, not less.

doughnutmachine wrote: »

here's a picture of two BMWs that were racing at a reported 140mph. do you not think BMW are slightly responsible for the accident?

No, not even slightly. They are zero point zero percent responsible for that accident (assuming it wasn't a mechanical fault).

doughnutmachine wrote: »

They are knowingly selling a product to people that will break the law.

How do BMW know that a customer will break the law, let alone kill someone?

doughnutmachine wrote: »

While brewers sell a product that only a relatively small people will abuse.

There are 25 times more alcohol-related deaths per year than road-related ones. Or another way, around three thousand times more people die of alcohol abuse than speed abuse on motorways. I wouldn't call that a relatively small number.

bod1467

Indicators.

Rule #1 ... if someone is not indicating then assume they are going where you're intending to go.

Rule #2 ... if someone IS indicating then assume they are testing their indicators, and are going where you're intending to go.

doughnutmachine

artbaron wrote: »

No, I said it's nowhere near as easy as you think to safely limit a car to 70mph. When did you drive a car limited to 70mph?

How do BMW know that a customer will break the law, let alone kill someone?

ehhhmmm, I drove a car limited to 70mph when I was in the middle east.... the speed limit was set by some of the biggest companies in the world, i'd imagine they would know what they are doing....

yeah, you got me with your second point, BMW drivers are well known for spending upwards of £25k on a car with max speeds of over 100mph and then sticking to 69mph on the motorways.

stephen77

doughnutmachine wrote: »

yeah, you got me with your second point, BMW drivers are well known for spending upwards of £25k on a car with max speeds of over 100mph and then sticking to 69mph on the motorways.

But from the stats the bigger issue is people going to fast in the built up areas and not on the motorways?

Thus we need to limit roads in a urban places were children running about rather than motorways.

artbaron

doughnutmachine wrote: »

ehhhmmm, I drove a car limited to 70mph when I was in the middle east.... the speed limit was set by some of the biggest companies in the world, i'd imagine they would know what they are doing....

I don't know what that means.

doughnutmachine wrote: »

yeah, you got me with your second point, BMW drivers are well known for spending upwards of £25k on a car with max speeds of over 100mph and then sticking to 69mph on the motorways.

I think I got you with all my points, but the question I asked was, how do BMW know that a customer intends to break the law, as you stated. The answer is they don't. All cars have top speeds over 100mph so your argument becomes even more ridiculous because you believe that all car manufacturers should be prosecuted for selling cars that exceed the speed limit. This is beyond even the swivel eyed ramblings of Brake.

prowla

somethingcorporate wrote: »

40 on a 60 drives me batty. If you cannot drive safely at or near the speed limit then you probably shouldn't be driving.

I had an awesome one last week driving south on the A64. This road is notoriously busy but there was a car sat at a junction to my right looking to cross the northbound carriageway and come into my lane. There was a small gap between the car in front of me and my car - maybe 30-40m but the traffic was flowing at 60mph. This numpty thought I should let him in as it was momentarily quiet on the northbound so he drove across and stuck his nose into my lane as I was rapidly approaching him at 60! Evasive manovers followed to avoid this prat, he honked me, flashed and sat on my bumper for the next 5 miles as if I should have given way to his bonkers and selfish driving.

The standards are so poor on the road - I have been using a dashcam for months now and wouldn't drive anywhere without it. I've already reported a number of fools for dangerous, stupid and incompetent driving (not the 40 in a 60 brigade though).

I saw something like that just ahead of me whilst I was driving along the motorway yesterday - there was a woman who was joining the motorway and seemed to think that the car in the left lane was going to magically disappear or something; when he didn't she blasted her horn and started gesticulating at him. He had right of way and did nothing wrong.