I believe it was a Ford Sierra which killed a motoring journalist when the front end lifted at speed causing it to go out of control? Another example of vehicles on the road which are incapable of matching their performance potential. Until the manufacturers revert to proper prototype testing, I will not trust any new model, and I would not just get in and drive at high speed, you only have to look at VOSA recalls with regards to brakes, steering and general handling problems to see just how badly some cars are designed, and sold to the unsuspecting motoring public.
How fast have you had out of your Car?
-
20-04-09 14:12
Perhaps you are in control yourself, I don't disagree, I am just not going to overestimate my driving abilities; it is overconfidence that leads to reckless driving and accidents.
I didn't mean I have no control at all at 100mph, but obviously it's severely reduced, it would be silly to deny that.
And yes you can suddenly end up in a tree if you are going at even 50mph on a road that is completely unsuitable for that speed. -
20-04-09 14:24Extract from 98selitb's post above: 'I didn't mean I have no control at all at 100mph, but obviously it's severely reduced, it would be silly to deny that.'
Personally, I deny it emphatically. You may call me silly, I don't mind, but please do not generalise in such a fashion, it is unrealistic. I agree that there is more potential for a loss of control, but it is down to circumstances.
I have done Clubman Racing, and competed in the IoM TT, and you don't win without speed and 'full' control. -
20-04-09 14:33
But vehicles designed for motorsport are designed for such speeds. Road cars on the other hand may be capable of going at very high speeds but are not necessarily safe to do so.
You actually think you are just as capable of controlling your car and making good judgements while driving at 100mph as while driving at 60?
I don't normally make generalisations like the one you alluded to, I apologise, but it is just so obvious that control of your road car is significantly reduced at very high speeds that I cannot believe anyone would disagree. I think denying that is on a par with denying you have less car control when you have been drinking a lot of alcohol. -
20-04-09 14:46'You actually think you are just as capable of controlling your car and making good judgements while driving at 100mph as while driving at 60?'
Quite simply, yes. In the same way I drive on some roads at 30, 40, 40, 60, or 70 or any speed in between. It is a matter of what is appropriate. Through Bushey at 3pm, I doubt I would exceed 25mph, because of parked cars, and school traffic. A1(M) 2am J10 - J4, I often travel at 60mph or 70mph depending on my mood. Race track where there is no possibility of pedestrian or cyclist wandering in front, no pillock reversing out of his drive, etc, etc, then I will go as fast as I can whilst still being in control, up to as fast as is suitable for the course and the vehicle I am driving/riding. -
20-04-09 16:25
Im afraid i will have to say yes as well.Depending on the type of road,volume of traffic,conditions etc.
I really do not know what to say to that remark.We all know drinking affects your driving but to tie it in with speeding is just plain stupid. -
20-04-09 22:04
absoloutley spot on!!!!!!
i also do not class 100MPH as VERY high speed, in this country then yes may be so but for instance the german autobahn there are few people traveling less than 100mph and BMW have even proven that there new M3 model produces the same emmissions at 60mph than it does at 140mph. i seriously cannot think of a single production car that is not capable of 100mph and i think that technology etc has moved on so much over the last few years that even the avarge ford focus etc is easily controlable and more than capable of 100mph.
phil. -
GuestHometune20-04-09 22:35
I suggest you read my post above about the 2 incidents involving police drivers and crashing. In both cases, had the drivers been doing 70mph, there is every possibility no accidents would have occurred. And wasn't 2007 the worst year ever on record for fatalities involving police cars?
As for those advocating its okay to be driving their Renault Clio 1.2, Fiesta 1.3 or Escort 1.8 diesel or whatever standard production car at 100+ mph, well, have a good look at the speed rating on the tyres and decide for yourself if you are going to risk it.
Of course you don't go flying into trees when you suddenly reach 100mph in your big engined BMW car, but to generalise is crazy.
Thats why we are all here arguing in response to the original post. -
20-04-09 22:59
There is a few!
The one thing that has never got better in all the years of motorcars is the human being, they make errors. -
21-04-09 08:34
The first one you mention was doing nearly 90mph in a residential 30mph area.
As i said driving to the conditions.Is doing 100mph in a housing area as safe as doing 100mph on an empty motorway?
The second example i do not know about so i can not really comment. -
21-04-09 08:44Just to reinforce MrDanno, The weakest part of any car is the nut holding the steering wheel.
Tony -
21-04-09 13:12
Also in the case of the officer that hit the girl the driver was charged with death by dangerous driving.Note death by dangerous driving not speeding. -
21-04-09 13:32
I heard there was a change in definition making police chases etc even wider.Hence there was an increase in statistics.
Also if someone is trying to escape the police and they crash and the police car is within a certain distance then that would go down as a crash/fatality involving a police car even thought the police car did not crash.Therfore its a bit hard to add any weight to the topic with the above comment. -
21-04-09 22:31
yes 90 mph in a 30 mph limit is dangerous driving!
however 90 mph on an empty motorway i dont think is.
phil. -
21-04-09 22:34
yes very true a cars weakest link is nearly always going to be its driver i suppose.
phil. -
21-04-09 22:39
all tyres should be rated above the maximum speed of the vehicle to which they are fitted and i do belive that it would be the garages fault that fitted the tyres if this did not happen?:confused:
phil. -
GuestHometune21-04-09 22:40
So, is speeding not one of the main points to prove when prosecuting for dangerous driving?? Of course it is.
The case I mentioned earlier, the second one, was the police sergeant who just decided to give the BMW a good thrashing in torrential rain, aquaplaned and you can guess the rest at 100mph. I cannot remember the judge's exact words but they were very damning.
So it does add weight to the topic as in both cases excessive speed was the sole contributing factor.
As for trying to excuse the police due to a different way in which they are recorded is just a non-starter. In Leeds, a lady minding her own business at a junction was wiped out by a police car chasing a suspected stolen car. Presumably, its so bloody important to catch a serial car thief that a perfectly innocent person is killed. Oh, and just to make sure you understand, SPEED was the contributing factor.
In all my posts the relevant point is excessive speed and while I am aware that you will continue to defend the police at every opportunity in this and many other threads, please don't try and mitigate the stupidity of those who are supposed to enforce the rules. You will NEVER convince me that killing someone is justifiable because a police officer high on adrenaline wants to stop a suspected motorist in a pursuit. And the reason he's on a high is SPEED. -
22-04-09 09:45Speeding idiot
Hometune, for what it's worth I agree with you, but you'll never convince him - see my previous!:cool: -
22-04-09 09:56
No it is not.
The main point is that you was driving dangerously.You can drive dangerously at 50mph in a 70mph limit.
Speeding is speeding.
When you get done for speeding you do not automatically get done for dangerous driving. -
22-04-09 10:08
Im not trying to defend them at all.All i am saying is that unless you look at all the statistics and know
the full facts for each one its not fair to base an argument on them.
You are quite right no one should be killed on the roads by a police officer on a call just like no one should be killed on the road by any other driver.
I may come across as defending them but i could say you or anyone else comes across as slagging them off. -
22-04-09 10:56
If that happened at a speed far above the legal speed limit, I would blame the driver for being a fool and trying to make his/her vehicle do things that it is obviously not capable of doing, and if he had the book thrown at him for dangerous driving I would have no problem for that, if it was his dangerous driving and/or excessive speed that directly caused the tyre to fail.
Whatever everyone's take on speeding is, there is no excuse or defence for it, and if you are caught then you deserve what you get. Yes we are all guilty of human error and I don't deny I have sometimes gone to 33 or 65 while going downhill and looking at the road rather than at my dashboard, but have corrected myself when seeing my speed. But in the case of deliberate, arrogant, excessive speeding, I am happy for the law to throw the book at anyone who does this. -
22-04-09 11:21With regard to tyres, I am currently looking at new tyres for a vehicle. It weighs 1150kg, and has a recorded top speed of 112mph. Currently fitted are 82H which are suitable for 475kg and 130mph, and Kwik Fit's tyre chart offers 86T which are 530kg and 118.8mph. Not hard to see that neither of these tyres are the right ones for the vehicle, and the ones fitted were done by Kwik Fit. Does make me wonder just how many vehicles are on the road with unsuitable tyres.
-
22-04-09 15:55Rolebama,
The load rating of 475 kg is for the tyre. The weight of the vehicle is 1150 kg.
With 4 tyres fitted and the load evenly distributed, 4 x 475 = 1900kg would this not satisfy the load requirements? This is about 65% safety margin.
The same calculation can not be applied to speed as all 4 wheels should be rotating at the same speed! -
22-04-09 16:28
in this curcumstance the vehicle is capable of doing it, its just the the tyres that arnt surley!!??
phil. -
22-04-09 17:58
Yes that's true.
If the tyres were capable of doing higher speeds then it would be less dangerous, but it still depends 99% on the ability of the driver. -
GuestHometune22-04-09 21:10Quote:
No it is not.
The main point is that you was driving dangerously.You can drive dangerously at 50mph in a 70mph limit.
Speeding is speeding.
When you get done for speeding you do not automatically get done for dangerous driving. Unquote
I think you need to sit in court and listen to a case of dangerous driving. In almost every case if the prosecution can show excessive speed, then they are a long way to proving the main offence. -
GuestHometune22-04-09 21:23
I don't slag them off as you put it. And, if I did choose to do so, I don't see where you think you have some right to put me down for my opinion. I point out where they go wrong. There are quite a few who quite openly think they can act above the law and speed when they like. I am often on the M1 near the police helicopter base and police cars come flying past me at speeds well in excess of 70mph. No lights. No siren. Yet I will catch up with them as they travel into Wakefield where they then obey the 30mph speed limit. Seems one rule for one etc. It is this attitude that helps colour the attitude of the original post and why we are having such a long thread. A young impressionable driver will think its okay for him/her to speed just because they see a police car flying about for no reason.
Anyway, after the recent proposal to reduce speed limits on virtually every road, this thread will become redundant soon.
