BBC article on ludicrous cars

[boblo]

For goodness sake.... Innocent lives being lost? When? Where? This poor bloke is now in trouble not just for driving a firebreathing monster, killing the planet, destabilising society but also, ALSO ...killing innocents....

Rearrange the following well known phrase or saying: Grip, Get, A

[kwackers]

For goodness sake.... Innocent lives being lost? When? Where? This poor bloke is now in trouble not just for driving a firebreathing monster, killing the planet, destabilising society but also, ALSO ...killing innocents....

Rearrange the following well known phrase or saying: Grip, Get, A

You don't believe that speeding kills? You don't think that making cars that accelerate quickly and can easily exceed speed limits encourages risky behaviour? You don't think the guy in the article has already admitted to such risky behaviour? (And apparently is even willing to demonstrate his driving prowess!)

It's not a case of having a grip - more of existing in the real world.

You really should try reading the article - particularly the bit about the fact that manufacturers sell these cars not to make money, but because they're an ideal that people buy into.

[boblo]

Ranting and foaming at the mouth in a Daily Mailesque style does not make it so.....

If I was to be particularly pedantic, speed itself does not kill anyone at all, never ever ever. Fact. It's actually rapid decleration that does the damage especially if it involves hitting objects moving or stationery. This is evidenced by the fact that people happily drive around the sky at Mach 2 every day and pop back for cup of tea, decidedly undead. So if you must spout the garbage you've become indoctrinated with, at least make it accurate (for us pedants).

As for the subject of this thread (ludicrous vehicles - remember). My position is nosey parkers with a nasty killjoy/jealous streak should mind their own business, go back to trimming their Geraniums and riding their one Chinese made peoples bike and leave the rest of us to get on with enjoying our lives.

Bah and indeed humbug.

[Mike Sales]

When one compares the last two posts, from Kwackers and from Boblo it is pretty clear who is ranting and foaming at the mouth. Kwackers has the cogent arguments.

[mrjemm]

This is evidenced by the fact that people happily drive around the sky at Mach 2 every day and pop back for cup of tea, decidedly undead.

Is it ironic in this case that all planes that fly this fast are designed to kill? So perhaps the pilot's still alive, but...

[hubgearfreak]

When one compares the last two posts, from Kwackers and from Boblo it is pretty clear who is ranting and foaming at the mouth. Kwackers has the cogent arguments.

i'd say that you're correct in that. but it doesn't mean that kwacker's point (below) doesn't need challenging

You don't think that making cars that accelerate quickly and can easily exceed speed limits encourages risky behaviour?

so kwackers - if you were minister of transport, or benevolant king or whatever - what limit would you put on the cars available to buy? howabout 25kW/t? what about 0-60mph in 29 seconds? have you got an actual figure above which a car is a tool for the wreckless and below which is a reasonable choice?

in short, aren't the rules of the road sufficient and the problem lies with lack of enforcement and low penalties for those few that get caught?

[Mike Sales]

I have not seen the programme, and I don't much want to, but I know the sort of car we are discussing. Their USP is excessive acceleration and high speed well above the NSL. Why would someone buy this type of car in order to drive sedately and within speed limits? Any driver can kill with carelessness, but people who use the capabilities of high performance vehicles make the roads unpleasant to use. I really hate the ambience which pressure drivers create, for cyclists and also other drivers. Its true that average cars can be driven in this aggressive way, but performance cars' raison d'etre is fast aggressive driving. If this capability is not used, what is the point of them? Its a bit naive to imagine that they will not be driven in a way which scares other road users.
What to do about this sort of driving is another question, and I think it's irrelevant to whether such cars are ludicrous. One can deplore the production of vehicles which are designed for idiotic use without formulating a law to ban them. It's not impossible to have a law such as HGF suggests AND enforce traffic law. Which is not done at the moment, as so many posts in this forum complain.

[mark a.]

Gilesuk and kwackers must be right. Because it's a car driver (and an expensive car at that), it automatically means that he breaks the speed limit all the time and probably kills innocent people.

Or... perhaps not.

Look, we rightly get pedantic about rights for cyclists. When people tell us that we should be cycling on the cycle path instead of the road, or if someone tells us we don't pay road tax, or if an article says "cyclists collided with car" instead of "collision between cyclist and car", we get up in arms and complain that people are jumping to incorrect conclusions or using poor stereotypes against us.

But if it's an expensive car being mentioned, we're no longer pedantic and jump to conclusions ourselves. "He overtook some cars - he must have been speeding." Err, not necessarily.

My car isn't that great. It's a 2 litre diesel Volvo, so not exactly high performance. But I can already break the speed limit easily if I wanted to: but I don't, as a general rule. So there's no reason why the RS6 owner can do the same, but he also has the advantage of being able to go to Thruxton or Silverstone and have immense fun on the track if he wanted to. It will also be fun on the roads, even if he keeps to safe speeds or speed limits.

[kwackers]

so kwackers - if you were minister of transport, or benevolant king or whatever - what limit would you put on the cars available to buy? howabout 25kW/t? what about 0-60mph in 29 seconds? have you got an actual figure above which a car is a tool for the wreckless and below which is a reasonable choice?

in short, aren't the rules of the road sufficient and the problem lies with lack of enforcement and low penalties for those few that get caught?

You could argue that there is no need for any rules - I frequently do! However the problem is when it turns out we can't be trusted with the freedom that gives and so there needs to be some form of intervention.
(The driver in the article pretty much demonstrates that he can't be trusted.)

More enforcement is of course the holy grail, but we have to accept that the price of enough enforcement to make a difference means it's not going to happen - particularly if you consider that road casualties have been falling (albeit slowly) which basically means the government aren't under much pressure to do anything.

So in terms of what I'd do.
I'd simply make black boxes compulsory. They already exist in the form of ECU's and most record data, all that's needed is the legislation to enforce a standard and make the data available (via a warrant).
I believe it would in effect be the 'spy in the cab' (of tachograph fame) and would have a measurable effect on peoples behaviour.

[kwackers]

But if it's an expensive car being mentioned, we're no longer pedantic and jump to conclusions ourselves. "He overtook some cars - he must have been speeding." Err, not necessarily.

If he *needs* an RS6 to overtake a line of cars he most definitely is speeding. If he isn't then he doesn't need the RS6, but the implication in the article is that is why he has it.
He did after all "let rip to overtake a line of traffic", that doesn't sound to me like he's smoothly accelerated to the speed limit and tootled past.

It's also true that if you need that sort of acceleration to overtake a line of cars then it's almost certainly not a sensible manoeuvre and you'd be better hanging back until you actually have the space to overtake.
This sort of manoeuvre is a classic accident. Car at the rear pulls out and boots it, car near the front pulls out also and is rear ended by a vehicle that to all intensive purposes appeared from nowhere. It's fairly easy in such a car (or motorcycle) to gain another 50-60mph in just a couple of cars lengths.

[mark a.]

But if it's an expensive car being mentioned, we're no longer pedantic and jump to conclusions ourselves. "He overtook some cars - he must have been speeding." Err, not necessarily.

If he *needs* an RS6 to overtake a line of cars he most definitely is speeding. If he isn't then he doesn't need the RS6, but the implication in the article is that is why he has it.
He did after all "let rip to overtake a line of traffic", that doesn't sound to me like he's smoothly accelerated to the speed limit and tootled past.

At no point does the article say that the RS6 was necessary to overtake those cars. It just says that the car's power was obvious during an overtake. That could be because he went at 150 mph, or it could just be because of the acceleration or the noise from the engine.

The driver does say that it's safer to overtake in a more powerful car, and I'd probably agree, for the reasons below.

For the record, I guess that he did speed to overtake the cars, but that is an assumption, not fact. Again, let's not jump to conclusions.

It's also true that if you need that sort of acceleration to overtake a line of cars then it's almost certainly not a sensible manoeuvre and you'd be better hanging back until you actually have the space to overtake.
This sort of manoeuvre is a classic accident. Car at the rear pulls out and boots it, car near the front pulls out also and is rear ended by a vehicle that to all intensive purposes appeared from nowhere. It's fairly easy in such a car (or motorcycle) to gain another 50-60mph in just a couple of cars lengths.

I disagree about the acceleration. In fact I'd say that better acceleration is always better. In the bad old days of an underpowered car, you had to plan your overtake miles in advance*, building up speed as much as you can before pulling out and hope that your calculations were correct. In the RS6, you can follow the police/advanced driver advice better: pull out to do a final check of the road ahead (this also alerts the cars in front of you that you plan to overtake) and then accelerate. In this manner, the classic accident you describe is irrelevant whether you're in a Fiesta or an RS6, ignoring the fact that the RS6 probably has better braking.

So for a given overtaking situation, a high-powered car will be safer. Or, as a corollary, an RS6 can safely overtake in situations where a slower car would find it unsafe.

Whatever the case, the fact that a high-powered car is involved doesn't necessarily mean that they're hooning around dangerously.

* Planning ahead is always good, of course, whatever you car's power.

[Cunobelin]

I read this differently........

All the "Safe Speed" propaganda of course applies and speeding is an issue that should be dealt with far more seriously as an indicator of a truly dangerous or inept driving style.

However this is about selling the electric car

As a concept these may have a significant potential, but are saddled with the reputation of being slow, poorly designed and impractical for daily use




To get that millstone from around the neck, there is a need to advertise, promote and meet the same standards as other cars.

Unfortunate, but that is the only way that the Clarksonistas are going to consider them seriously

[philg]

As a concept these may have a significant potential, but are saddled with the reputation of being slow, poorly designed and impractical for daily use

And not in the least bit green whilst electricity generation remains non-renewable (although the transfer of pollution from cities has some benefit)

[kwackers]

The driver does say that it's safer to overtake in a more powerful car, and I'd probably agree, for the reasons below.

It is, but with one caveat - that you're performing the same manoeuvre you'd be doing in a less powerful car. Unfortunately that's where it falls down. What actually happens is you discover you can leave it later and overtake with less available space and longer lines of cars by making use of the cars performance. The upshot of this is that if something does go wrong the energies that need dissipating are significantly higher.

I disagree about the acceleration. In fact I'd say that better acceleration is always better. In the bad old days of an underpowered car, you had to plan your overtake miles in advance*

Giving you time to actually plan your overtake instead of just doing it.

of you that you plan to overtake) and then accelerate. In this manner, the classic accident you describe is irrelevant whether you're in a Fiesta or an RS6, ignoring the fact that the RS6 probably has better braking.

I'm sorry that's just nonsense. Fundamentally a Fiesta brakes much better than it accelerates whereas the RS6 is much more balanced. What that means is the extra braking distance required by the Fiesta is significantly less than would be required by the RS6. From 70mph a Fiesta can easily out stop an RS6 doing 120.

So for a given overtaking situation, a high-powered car will be safer. Or, as a corollary, an RS6 can safely overtake in situations where a slower car would find it unsafe.

Or where the slower car might simply decide not to take the risk?

Whatever the case, the fact that a high-powered car is involved doesn't necessarily mean that they're hooning around dangerously.

Statistics and insurance companies seem to disagree. Hence why it costs more to insure a fast car (speaking as someone whose car is group 17.)

* Planning ahead is always good, of course, whatever you car's power.

Most definitely.
Fundamentally the main issue with fast cars is that if you make a mistake you'll be going faster and the prognosis worse. Even as the owner of a moderately quick car and a stupidly fast bike I think the era of fast has been and gone. Time for some common sense and to make room for slower, more economic vehicles.
Cunobelin's post above makes some very valid points imo.

[Mick F]

As a concept these may have a significant potential, but are saddled with the reputation of being slow, poorly designed and impractical for daily use

And not in the least bit green whilst electricity generation remains non-renewable (although the transfer of pollution from cities has some benefit)

The CO2 output of electric cars is minute compared to petrol/diesel cars even though the electricity to power them has to be generated.