Well what's the point of them even doing 125, when 100 could easily suffice?
Yes, although the buying public should be able to chose what vehicles they drive. However, they should drive them responsibly.
Well the law is what it is. Deal with it.
I'm not proposing to go back to 2001, try again.
Bet you're fun at parties.
Well then the boys will be separated from the men and the boys can have their car impounded for dangerous driving.
I'm not even convinced that limiting cars on the road is incompatible with track days! Drones, for instance, can be geofenced to prevent them operating within certain areas. For instance here is a map showing restrictions on DJI drones. It's surely not impossible to imagine a governor that has similar functionality but in reverse. If you're in a geofenced area, i.e. a race track, the governor is disabled and you can use the full range of the car but outside it's limited to whatever speed is determined as being the maximum. Or you can just do it manually. Car must be fitted with a governor limiting it's speed but you can have it disabled it legally when on recognised race tracks or similar facilities.
The law can and does change...
Truly incredible debating skills. "This is the law, I know you would like it changed, but my argument is that this is the law". C'mon.
You can pretend all you like that you're not clever enough to have no grasp of what rhetorical point that was trying to illustrate.
That's what people who wanted to ban smoking in public places were told too, usually by bores.
That's fine but you (or any other fast car driver) don't 'take the consequences' of causing a death or a life-changing injury unless it is your own. The maximum sentence for a Death by dangerous driving conviction is 14 years, and that will usually be reduced to below 10 years if there is a guilty plea, (as is likely in this case). Hard as it might seen to a motorist feeling sorry for themselves, that 'punishment' is nothing like the sentence that the unfortunate person who dies or their friends/relatives suffer.
As with the 'debate' about closing level crossings, people need (however sadly) to be and benefit by being protected from themselves and the poor actions of others.
Similarly.- to be bluntWell funnily enough, I was preparing a chicken curry yesterday and needed to use a large kitchen knife to chop up the onions and peppers, but for that task I managed fine just using the knife’s edge. The only time I had to use the pointed end was to pierce the packaging of the chicken as it was impossible to peel off from the edges (you know when you peel the plastic film but it only takes off the edges rather than all of it), but then packaging shouldn’t be designed like that in the first place.
I would imagine that Piccadilly Line users, esp Park Royal users would be having at least 'pause for thought'. Some will have had sensitivities enhanced by the also inexplicable murder of the 87 year old mobility scooter user not far away along the A40. People are not always logical in their responses; we are living, feeling people with similarly concerned friends and families. 'It could have been you', or me!
A car which could only reach 70-80mph would be incredibly inefficient when running at the legal speed limit on a motorway. Electronically limiting cars to a reasonable limit is a different matter
Electronic limiting can be done very quickly on pretty-well all engine management systems. Andl it won't be a problem much longer because EVs can easily be limited very precisely with no impact on their energy efficiency, drivers might need to exercise a bit of restraint by not attempting unachievable manouevres though.
From memory the fast Nissan from a few years ago had that technology (the one used in a Top Gear race across Japan). If the GPS recognised the car as being on a race track it releases restrictions on power/speed.
Yes, 10, maybe 20 over the NSL. If that is changed then the setting needs to be as well.
Someone was telling me a few weeks back they knew someone who had a top of the range Tesla with a sports upgrade that will allow to do 0-60 in under 3 seconds. It is specifically setup with GPS so that you can't access this feature on a public road.
+1Yes it does. Why do you think kitchen knives have pointy ends? You should do some cookery classes.
'Guns don't kill people, people kill people' is the simplistic slogan of the Gun Lobby over the pond. An intelligent seven year old could demolish that argument in a trice, and the same goes with this one when it comes to speed limitation. There is no reason on earth why a car on a public road in this small country should be capable of 120 or 150 mph, and that includes police cars imo. The latter would have no reason/excuse to travel at those speeds either if no other vehicle on the road could achieve them.
Are they? The amount of energy dissipated by decelerating an object from 70mph versus 120mph is quite considerably less!
No but we do make it a legal requirement that they wear a seatbelt and prosecute the driver if they fail to ensure their passengers are wearing one.
I just want to make it clear that at no point did I say doing so would ruin track days, rather that track days exist so you can drive your fast car how it was meant to be driven, in a safe environment away from public roads. Our good friend alterego however, is trying to make out like that was my argument.
I don't think it should and people should instead learn to drive in an appropriate manner.
I merely think think that you should be allowed to buy high performance vehicles, but you carry the consequences of your actions should you do anything wrong. What else is there to debate? I feel like you're trying to turn it into an argument for arguments sake. My opinion on this subject isn't popular here, but tough. There are several takes you've had on here that are as equally unpopular. If my opinion being unpopular is enough to rile you up like this, you should maybe not interact with me?
I'm just proposing people should be allowed to buy whatever they want, not drive however they want, which is what you seem to incorrectly think. If you want to drive at a million miles an hour, I'm not going to stop you, but I still believe that you should face the long arm of the law if you are caught breaking traffic laws or you do what this moron allegedly did.
I'm beginning to think that you want to try and paint me as someone who wants to kill people. Your 'won't somebody think of the children' shtick isn't going to wash with me. As I said, if you want to drive at ridiculous speeds on the road, be my guest but don't go crying when you wind up with consequences for knocking a child off a bike or running over granny at a crossing.
Woah, look at this rebel here with his extreme views! Next you'll be suggesting the crazy idea that people take responsibility for their actions.
Probably that vehicles are extremely dangerous, especially when they're capable of doing 120mph on the public road. Nobody needs to do 120mph on the public road, and it shouldn't be possible. You're not even trying to enter a discussion about why some very risky activities aren't just banned, but impossible to carry out at all.
People haven't even responded to your point about "Why have we bought 140mph trains" yet, because the answer - that they have very strict limiters on them - exactly what people are proposing for off-the-shelf cars cars in this thread - is so obvious and so defeating to your own argument I expect they don't think it's a real point.
I've never suggested that, and you know - as everyone else reading the thread surely does - that the entire crux of my argument, repeated several times now, is that vehicles should not be capable of that extremely dangerous speed on the public road, hence stopping anyone so inclined from causing a dreadful accident.
That's obviously very silly, and nobody thinks you "want to kill people", but what is obvious is you don't have a very good argument as to why vehicles on the public road should be able to go very far over the speed limit.
Why do you think we have gun laws? After all, if I had a gun, I'd be really good and safe with it; if most people had a gun in their homes, they'd be used responsibly by most people, wouldn't they?
It's not an extreme view it's just not a very clever one. What he calls "knee jerk reactions" like, for example, mandating seatbelts and banning handguns and having speed limits outside schools, actually save lives. And he goes on about how "well, you'd still have SOME deaths". Sure, but that merely acknowledges the fact people's lives - some people's - could be saved! So would being unable to drive on the public road over about 85mph, and you've not put forward a good argument as to why people should have the capacity to be able to drive faster than that.
What purpose is served by selling vehicles that can travel so vastly in excess of any legal speed limit in this country? What freedom do you lose by not being able to purchase such a vehicle, were they to be restricted? After all, you say "if you want to drive at a million miles an hour, I'm not going to stop you, but I still believe that you should face the long arm of the law if you are caught breaking traffic laws or you do what this moron allegedly did" - but driving so fast will always be breaking a number of traffic laws on a public road, so is it really that wrong to limit a person's ability to do so in the first place?
Modern high end SUV's handle pretty well at high speed and are not prone to rolling over.
I seem to recall a Royal personage had his Range Rover tipped over in a relatively slow speed accident about 3 years ago. A relative hit a large white van that swerved in front of her Range Rover last year, rolling the much bigger vehicle. In both cases the occupants may have been badly bruised but seat belts, air bags and the solid vehicles saved them from more serious injuries. It very much depends on where a large vehicle is hit, or hits, and at what speed as to how it will roll.
www.railforums.co.uk
