Cycling UK Forum

Although this isn't specifically about bikes it affects all cyclists. I have read of two accounts on BBC News this morning of pedestrians being killed by drivers of cars which are marketed on the basis of their high performance. In these two incidences an Audi and a AMG Mercedes. I don't think that the cars themselves are particularly more dangerous than an avergage family car, lets face any lump of 2 tonnes travelling even at legal speeds is likely to kill a pedestrian or a cyclist if there is a collision. The point is that these cars are deliberately made for and marketed at people who wish to drive at levels of performance that are totally inapropriate for public roads. When will our governement do something to curb the marketing of such cars for use on public roads?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-m ... r-54932641

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-54945577

Are "high performance cars" more dangerous to others? Because if they are that would be a sensible and ethical basis on which to regulate their use.

But I'm very worried about doing that based on anecdotes, because they may not accurately describe what's actually happening. And people on bikes are particularly vulnerable to "THEY"RE NOT LIKE ME. I HATE THEM", as in Farage's latest campaign:
https://forum.cyclinguk.org/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=142227&hilit=farage

Jonathan

PS: This topic has been repeatedly raised since the introduction of National Speed Limits. My personal preference is for detection of breaches and enforcement of existing laws, and with technological assistance that's now possible as never before, even if there was ever to be adequate funding of the relevant enforcers.

Just stating "Audi" is meaningless. There are many models, not all of which are high performance.

Oldjohnw wrote:Just stating "Audi" is meaningless. There are many models, not all of which are high performance.

I think you have misunderstood my post. I clearly stated " I don't think that the cars themselves are particularly more dangerous than an average family car". And I didn't just state "Audi", I simply related the facts from the two unrelated articles on the BBC News concerning two deaths caused by drivers of cars and pointed out that the cars in question are clearly marketed as high performance cars. The point I am trying to make is that marketing cars for road use with an emphasis on high performance is IMO irresponsible.

I don't think all Audi drivers are dangerous, most aren't. However the percentage of dangerous passes I receive from Audis in relation to the number of Audis on the road is very high (Audi TTs are the worst) and I think this simply a reflection on how the cars are marketed. It is the drivers who are at fault, not the cars, but marketing cars with an emphasis on high performance only encourages such drivers.

I couldn't agree more with the above comment about enforcement of existing laws.

Oldjohnw wrote:Just stating "Audi" is meaningless. There are many models, not all of which are high performance.

...as indeed most C Class* AMG are 'AMG-Lines' so regular cars with styling ephemera, as opposed to being higher performance vehicles. (See also Audi S-Line, BMW M-Sport)

*The Mercedes model class involved - the classic 'rep-box'

I have never understood how / why it is legal to own a car capable of going more than 20mph over the speed limit....

Speed limit in this country is 70mph, high performance cars are totally unnecessary.

Stradageek wrote:Speed limit in this country is 70mph, high performance cars are totally unnecessary.

Yes, agreed. Along with whole lists of other things which stray beyond pure utility.

northerncyclist wrote:I have never understood how / why it is legal to own a car capable of going more than 20mph over the speed limit....

We all own lots of devices that can be used illegally.

Stradageek wrote:Speed limit in this country is 70mph, high performance cars are totally unnecessary.

But one person thinking that someone else's possession is "unnecessary" is nowhere near a case for it not being allowed.

I think that the argument has to be based on harm to others...

Jonathan

The good thing is the type of moron who drives like a maniac with no consideration to others seems to be obsessed with German car brands despite their horrific reliability and repair costs. So at least on the road you can identify the cars most likely to drive irresponsibly and recklessly plus of course white van man etc. Yes a Volvo driver may drive recklessly but the odds are far less likely.

I get news bulletins from a new site local to me 'Somerset LIve' and the frequency of news reports of car accidents is high. A recent news report was a collision between a BMW and Mercedes where one of the drivers was killed. One of them was likely driving recklessly and not sure if that was the driver who died but I see so many of these news reports and a huge percentage involve German car brands. I remember one report which was a BMW and white van. Most of these involve reckless overtaking. I don't see as many cyclist deaths compared to crashes purely involving motor vehicles where someone has died or had a major injury.

I can't see how you would ban such cars though and if you did the same people would likely modify their cars for greater performance or just drive recklessly in a more standard car and as a cyclist you wouldn't get any prior warning of a car driver likely to act recklessly. When you meet such people who buy such cars they are often obsessed with their own importance and have an inflated ego. They are very opinionated regarding others but expect very little of themselves. Cars are a symbol of their success and brand is important to them. The fact the cars are engineered very poorly with low reliability and high maintenance costs is not so much on their radar. Those type of people change cars frequently anyway so likely they never have a car without warranty. The reliability issue is really for owners further down the line.

Normal people I think would add value to the equation of buying a car so they stretch their disposable income more and avoid debt and the hassle of owning a car with poor reliability.

https://www.reliabilityindex.com/manufacturer

I think that the argument has to be based on harm...

Quite right, I would hazard a guess it will be pretty harmful to you as a pedestrian or cyclist if you are hit at 90 mph.....

Bonzo Banana wrote:The good thing is the type of moron who drives like a maniac...

Welcome to Generalisation Corner. Any evidence for any of that?

Jonathan

northerncyclist wrote:I think that the argument has to be based on harm...

Quite right, I would hazard a guess it will be pretty harmful to you as a pedestrian or cyclist if you are hit at 90 mph.....

That's an argument for controlling the speed of cars on public roads. But many (? all) cars that aren't "high performance cars" can do 90 mph. It would be better to deal with what's causing the harm.

Jonathan

Hence my first post that you replied to with a negative

I have never understood how / why it is legal to own a car capable of going more than 20mph over the speed limit..

Glad you are coming on board now.

Should not be capable of exceeding the maximum speed at all