High Performance Cars And P Platers - Page 6

Feathers · 07-04-2005, 06:21 PM

Speed limiting trucks is BS anyway. I know people who do Syd-Melb 5 nights a week.
Even the police have told them, up to 130ks they won't touch em, but go over that and they'll stop you.

Yaw · 07-04-2005, 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by donno

That's a bit of the pot calling the kettle black!!

Your argument entails that by limiting to 120, you stop these retards winding out their cars. Only thing is you forgot the simple fact that they are retards. By going say 200, even 140, they are allready reckless, and are breaking the law. What makes you believe these idiots are going to comply with this new law?

They'll just over ride the limiter (like every single truck that has passed me doing 110+), and your problem is still there. Not only this, you risk other law abiding motorists lives. I'm only a P plater for petes sake, and even I have enough experience to see the problems with it.

Have you ever been in a situation where you thought you were in a perfectly safe overtaking situation, got halfway, and the conditions changed? Now you have two options:

a) Drop back behind
b) Flaw it to above the limit, and finish the manouver

What happens when a isn't an option? I'm bloody finicky when it comes to overtaking, I don't like anything in sight, so usually there is a car behind me by the time I get round to it, and when you start your manouver, they move closer so they can have a crack, blocking your braking escape.

Now out of the distance, blended into the road, from behind the sun, in the heat haze, out of an invisable dip, whatever, comes a car. You have no option a, and you hands are tied becuase of a stupid 120 limiter. The guy next to you probably hasn't noticed you overtaking and won't budge. Next thing you know, your staring down the barrel of a head on.

Now how on earth can you consider that irrelevant? It is simple logic. Also can you tell me you've never been caught off gaurd and had to exceed the posted limit to overtake? I frankly find that very hard to swallow.

We don't live in a perfect world. If we did, band aid solutions would work, and politicians would be renowned genious'.

Yes I must admit I have been in that postion, but when the highest speed limit is 110 in QLD (small part of bruce highway and not much of it) is two lanes anyway, for the most the rest of max speed limit is 100 so if I have to pass someone that gives me an extra 10-20 km and hour I can pull out, if your passing something doing 100-110 your breakin the law and must be speeding in the first place. who's fault is that but the driver doing the wrong thing ?

P.S. I did state as you quoted I was not overly phased about the idea. I seriously doubt it will happen, I am merely showing your flawed argument.

donno · 07-04-2005, 06:51 PM

Actually there is many 110 sections in QLD. Nearly everywhere west of Miles is. There is also a section between Dalby and Macalister (Get your map out lol). All is single lane

I fail to see how my arguament is flawed. Yes it is illegal to exceed the speed limit when you overtake, but who on earth doesn't? It is safer to exceed the limit by that little bit and get past quicker (I don't mean rediculous speeds, more like 115 in 100 zone or so), less time in the oncomming lane and danger, then dwell and stick to the road rules. My arguament would only be flawed in a perfect world where everyone sticks to the speed limit like saints. Heck, if we all did that we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place.

xdc351 · 07-04-2005, 06:56 PM

The fundamental flaw in the 120kmh limit is the assumption that speed is dangerous. It is not. Chronicle, you wanted accident figures for the german autobahns... well here you go http://www.safespeed.org.uk/roadsafety.html

I'd say 4 deaths per 1 billion vehicle kms travelled is pretty good when you consider the roads do not have a speed limit and vehicles routinely exceed 150mph.

The most recent data I was able to locate on road fatalities was from 2002. It shows more fatal crashes occur in low speed zones as compared to high speed zones (ref1) in Vic, NSW and QLD. Other states has very close numbers, NT of course had higher numbers due to the very small amount of low speed zones. The same happened in 2001 also. It also fails to mention cause of accident of which i'm sure a fair percentage were fatigue related in the high speed zones.

Obviously this is a small amount of data to be basing a law change on, but it should at least point out that speed does not kill.... Excessive speed kills and the only way to know if your speed is excessive for the conditions is proper education. Lower limits and "zero tolerance" policing of speed limits have had no lasting effect on the road toll, they have however made the Victorian government over $1bn in the past 3 years which is far easier than spending money on improvents to driver education and better roads. Isn't is Mr. Bracks? Far easier to spend millions making us believe its the problem while you prop up you budget with blood money.

Enough of my rant. I really wasn't going to read this thread again. Oh well.

[Ref 1: page 24 Australian Transport Saftey Bureau "Road Fatalities Australia: 2002 Statistical Summary" located here http://www.atsb.gov.au/road/stats/pd..._2003Dec04.pdf]

Yaw · 07-04-2005, 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by donno

Actually there is many 110 sections in QLD. Nearly everywhere west of Miles is. There is also a section between Dalby and Macalister (Get your map out lol). All is single lane

I fail to see how my arguament is flawed. Yes it is illegal to exceed the speed limit when you overtake, but who on earth doesn't? It is safer to exceed the limit by that little bit and get past quicker (I don't mean rediculous speeds, more like 115 in 100 zone or so), less time in the oncomming lane and danger, then dwell and stick to the road rules. My arguament would only be flawed in a perfect world where everyone sticks to the speed limit like saints. Heck, if we all did that we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place.

If there is oncomming danger, DO NOT OVERTAKE.
How simple is that ?

donno · 07-04-2005, 07:09 PM

I know, people don't just pull out without checking, that's just stupid. But the danger is not always evident at the time when you start to overtake. People can't see into the future, they make mistakes, exercise poor judgement at the time etc. It isn't always that simple.

kiwikid · 07-04-2005, 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by donno

Actually there is many 110 sections in QLD. Nearly everywhere west of Miles is. There is also a section between Dalby and Macalister (Get your map out lol). All is single lane

I fail to see how my arguament is flawed. Yes it is illegal to exceed the speed limit when you overtake, but who on earth doesn't? It is safer to exceed the limit by that little bit and get past quicker (I don't mean rediculous speeds, more like 115 in 100 zone or so), less time in the oncomming lane and danger, then dwell and stick to the road rules. My arguament would only be flawed in a perfect world where everyone sticks to the speed limit like saints. Heck, if we all did that we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place.

you are correct even defensive driving course instrutors tell you "while overtaking it is safer to speed and overtake quickly, than stick on the limit and be in danger"....

the unexpeted can happen, it is plan stupidity to argue dont overtake unless safe...
(didnt aim that at anyone, afew people have said it)

why stop at P-platers how about banning the whole driving population from driving a Hi Po car-older people crash too, im sure most people (now off their P's) in this forum wouldnt be impressed.....

Speed doesnt Kill, stupid drivers do.....

bring on the driving courses and let us keep out V8's , turbos and all round "high performance cars"

Trevor 57 · 07-04-2005, 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SSbaby

BTW, I notice you have convenienlty avoided answering my main question. Are you paid by the government?

Yes, I am, but not in the the way you think

XRQTOR · 07-04-2005, 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Feathers

Speed limiting trucks is BS anyway. I know people who do Syd-Melb 5 nights a week.
Even the police have told them, up to 130ks they won't touch em, but go over that and they'll stop you.

Try telling that to the 5 drivers we had knocked off on tuesday night by the goulburn HW/P. The last bloke got done for 11k's over going down a hill, in a Double which IS SPEED LIMITED.

P.s How do they get to get from sydney to melbourne 5 nights a week.

krusic · 07-04-2005, 08:08 PM

Having spent the time to read all posts in the topic so far I thought I'd add my 2 cents to this topic.

Firstly I am in full favour of having a restriction on the cars that P-plate drivers are able to drive. If enforced it has the ability to keep some idiots out excessively powered vehicles that place both the driver, passengers and other road users in EXTRA danger. I realise that someone driving a hyundai poorly is more dangerous than a responsible p-plate driver driving a car like that has a lot of power in a responsible manner, but experience plays an extremely large part on the drivers ability behind the wheel, not just car control, but the ability to read traffic, keep tabs on other vehicles around their car and also potential situations with kids playing on the side of the road, etc. Good road craft and experience can be learnt behind the wheel of any vehicle, whether it be a 4 cylinder buzz box or a new FPV GT. Besides that it is only 3 years that a driver has to be on their P's in Victoria, you have your whole life ahead of you to own any car you want after that time, what is the rush to get into high powered vehicles from day? Restrictions on P-platers would only be of use if they were enforced, otherwise they are a waste of time.

Furthermore I believe that all learner drivers should have to do some formal driver training before they are able to sit their licence. It does not have to be skid pan training or how to drift cars around corners, rather useful techniques like illustrating the differences between wet and dry braking conditions, with and without ABS, where to look while driving (scanning techiques) and correct maintence techinques of their vehicles (tyre pressures, and other basic checks to ensure that they know their vehicle is as safe to drive as possible). These skills are vital to ensure that new drivers are prepared as best as possible when they hit the roads.

Onto the topic of speed limiting vehicles to 120km/h. I think that this would be much more dangerous than not having them limited (to a lower speed than 230 - 250 km/h). It a dangerous situation it narrows the driver's choices of what they can do in a dangerous situation. Not all accidents can be avoided by jumping on the brakes. The example that has been given is overtaking the b-double truck. What happens if you have an impatient driver also pull out behind you to pass the truck at the same time??? In effect, if something happens like a car pulls out of a road or driveway and suddenly the time you have to overtake is cut short and you can't go back, what can you do?? Sit on the 120km/h limiter and hope for a miracle??? I don't think so. So in effect you are screwed in a situation where you have taken all the necessary care, but there are also other drivers on the road that have their own minds and make decisions, good or bad that we cannot predict.

The main problem I have with most drivers is their attitude towards driving. Most people i have talked to think of driving as a chore and don't like to do it but they have to. In my opinion this is a very dangerous attitude to have. How can a driver who thinks this be guaranteed to concentrate 100% on what they are doing behind the wheel? If you don't want to do something it can be very easy for your mind to wander. Personally I love driving and push myself when I am behind the wheel to concentrate and be the best driver that I can be. I know my limits as a driver and I know the limits of my car.

For the record im currently 24 and have been driving since i got my L-plates at the age of 16. I have never had a ticket or accident in those 8 years of driving. I use the cruise control at the speed limit of highways and whoever wants to pass me can do what they like.

My first car was a 1972 VW type 3 fastback which i had until I got off my P's. Over that time I also routinely drove a 95 VW Passat. When I hit 21 I went out and bought myself a 95 EF2 XR6 Manual, which had about double the power of anything I had ever driven before.

Having worked for Ford last year as a co-op at the Lara proving ground, I was required to do a defensive driving course before I was allowed to touch one of the work cars. Even though I had 7 years experience under my belt, I still found the day to be extremely useful and puts everything in perspective of how slight changes in road conditions can dramatically affect the vehicle. While at Ford I had the pleasure of driving everything from a fiesta through to GTPs and Typhoons, and while with all that power they are an inherently safe vehicle (much safer than my EF) when driven responsibly. The main question though with a vehicle like a GT, would I let my P-plater son or daughter (if I had a child) drive one... Not on your life, because I know the potential the car has at the press of the traction control button and I know how easily teenagers can be influenced by peer group pressure or take unnecessary risks.

These are just my opinions,

Cheers,

Steve

Trevor 57 · 07-04-2005, 08:16 PM

If I put my former OH&S Cap and conduct a risk assessment on the job of driving it would be quite intereseting to see the outcome, wouldn't it?

Car manufacturers have done a great deal to protect occupants from harm, if this was a piece of workplace machinery it would have been locked out years ago.

Just about everywhere in the world what is commonly known as the Hierachy of Controls is used in Risk Managment, Risk Managment is about managing items that have the potential to injure, it tells you that best option for solving an injury problem is to eliminate the equipment. Now that would be intersting wouldn't it. Eliminate vehicles!!!

The second best option is to isolate the equipment (car), again another interesting concept.

The third best option is to introduce engineering controls so people can't get hurt, this is probably where vehicle manufacturers at now, air bags, crumple zones, shatter proof glass, etc.

The 4th best option is put Administrative Controls in place, things like posted speed limits.

The last option for protecting people is give personal protective equipment to wear, seatbelts would fall into this category. Now I believe seatbelts are mandatory, they have been proven to save lives, but it was the best they could come up with back in the '60's and early 70's, and it relies heavily on the driver putting them on.

XR-ENVI · 07-04-2005, 08:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by donno

XR-ENVI

Maybe when you're stuck half way the side of a road train staring at an oncoming car hitting the 120 limiter and out of options you'll think differently. Read my previous post (page 8 i think). If there was 120 limiters, I would quite possibly be dead.

i think that if you knew you had a speed limiter you wouldnt take the chance
knowing there was no limiter would have made your decision completely different
i am not saying i never speed either

XR-ENVI · 07-04-2005, 08:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SSbaby

And that's why I wouldn't attempt it at a measly 120km/h, limited. I'd be wanting to overtake quickly and safely. At only 120km/h, I wouldn't think I would be overtaking quickly or safely. I'd be putting my own life and passengers at risk.

BTW, I notice you have convenienlty avoided answering my main question. Are you paid by the government?

So you would want to "safely" break the law

XR-ENVI · 07-04-2005, 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by XRQTOR

So what happens when i want to take my car to the strip, Launch it and run the 1/8 only and roll home or bounce it off the limiter till the 1/4 is up and get my time card showing a 28sec 1/4 time.

And if they have it so it can be disabled at the track who's going to perform/police it. How are the coppers going to police a limiter, with the Boss edit it can be turned on and off as often as we like.

LIke i think it was chronicle said before, drag cars can be modified
actually all cars can be modified people will find there way around it, I really dont understand why there is an argument here guys, the speed limit is 100-110 in most areas/states so its against the law to go any faster on the road.

Trevor 57 · 07-04-2005, 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by XRQTOR

Try telling that to the 5 drivers we had knocked off on tuesday night by the goulburn HW/P. The last bloke got done for 11k's over going down a hill, in a Double which IS SPEED LIMITED.

P.s How do they get to get from sydney to melbourne 5 nights a week.

Booking people going down hills is always a bit suss.

But it is not hard to understand the 11k's over going hill in speed limited truck, the vehicle is speed limited through the ECU. Trucks in Australia have been electronic since the mid to late 80's. The diff ratio in these things is around about 3.5 - 3.7, so that means that 100 km/h they are doing about 1600 revs in a 2000 max rev engine. There is this wonderful technology could "gravity", when you put something on wheels and let it roll down a hill, the speed increases. 3.6 diffs would allow a truck to go to about 130 at 2000 rpm, hence the speed limiting, but it only the ECU that is limited, not the diffs.

Hope that helps.

As for Sydney 5 nights a week, I find that hard to beleive, that is 19-20 hours driving everyday, let alone loading and unloading the thing, as well as waiting to be loaded and unloaded. Frog Shit, I say.

Kryton · 07-04-2005, 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by XR-ENVI

LIke i think it was chronicle said before, drag cars can be modified
actually all cars can be modified people will find there way around it, I really dont understand why there is an argument here guys, the speed limit is 100-110 in most areas/states so its against the law to go any faster on the road.

well you answered your own point didnt you. you say to speed limit cars - you also said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by XR-ENVI

actually all cars can be modified people will find there way around it

so if all cars were to be speed limited then whats stopping anyone from taking it off? how is that going to be policed. there goes your saftey thing of 'cars cant go over 120kmh' coz they will.
basically it would just be another revenue raising bandaid solution.

donno · 07-04-2005, 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by XR-ENVI

i think that if you knew you had a speed limiter you wouldnt take the chance
knowing there was no limiter would have made your decision completely different
i am not saying i never speed either

If you read over my last 3 or so posts you'd see i've allready addressed this point. I always overtake only in areas where I don't have to exceed about 110-115 (in 100 zone) to get past quickly and safely. But it doesn't always work out that way. You could be on a dead straight road, with what appears to be nothing ahead. You proceed to overtake. Suddenly out of the heat haze, from out of a dip, blended into the road at distance, whatever comes a car. Your now looking at a head on. Wouldn't you rather that speed to be available to you, or just pray?

XR-ENVI · 07-04-2005, 08:28 PM

WHAT HAVE I STARTED
but some nice healthy argueing is good as long as no-one takes things the worng way and is offended. After all how boring will the place be if everyone agreed.
All the same, the law needs to be considered, you never know who is veiwing this stuff?????

Trevor 57 · 07-04-2005, 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by donno

It is safer to exceed the limit by that little bit and get past quicker (I don't mean rediculous speeds, more like 115 in 100 zone or so), less time in the oncomming lane and danger, then dwell and stick to the road rules.

That is exactly my point, at 120 it gives you that tolerance. The limit is only 100 you know.

XR-ENVI · 07-04-2005, 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by donno

If you read over my last 3 or so posts you'd see i've allready addressed this point. I always overtake only in areas where I don't have to exceed about 110-115 (in 100 zone) to get past quickly and safely. But it doesn't always work out that way. You could be on a dead straight road, with what appears to be nothing ahead. You proceed to overtake. Suddenly out of the heat haze, from out of a dip, blended into the road at distance, whatever comes a car. Your now looking at a head on. Wouldn't you rather that speed to be available to you, or just pray?

yes you addressed it but i hadnt addressed you personally afetr you quoted me

XR-ENVI · 07-04-2005, 08:37 PM

YOU MUST ALL ALSO REMEMBER THAT YOU MAY BE ABLE TO HANDLE A HIGH POWERED CAR OR A SPEEDING LAW BREAKING CAR BUT MY FATHER HAS ALWAYS TOLD ME, YOU HAVE TO DRIVE FOR OTHER PEOPLE TOO. What i am saying is, you may come accross someone who cannot handle the speed and the performance and you may inncoently suffer because of antoher imcompetent driver. You have to think about this i believe.

donno · 07-04-2005, 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chronicle

That is exactly my point, at 120 it gives you that tolerance. The limit is only 100 you know.

That post was in regard to not being able to exceed the limit when overtaking. It gives you tollerance for overtaking yes, but not when the crap really hits the fan. And you can't go back and say you shouldn't overtake unless its safe, because as a driver trainer you would surely know conditions can change very quickly.

kiwikid · 07-04-2005, 08:40 PM

driving home from bathurst,i was still in NSW (two way highway) heading to VIC, i was stuck behind a semi we came to a passing lane so i pulled into the right hand lane, (with cars behind me) i almost got to the start of the second trailer then the truckie started vearing into my lane to the extent i was on the wrong side of the highway, i spotted another truck heading towards me so i booted it, last time i checked the speedo i was at almost 200 and still going....

like most people, id rather loose my lisence than my life of the life(s) of passengers....

if the speed limerter wasnt bypassed i woul be dead along with my dad (his car) it is a high powered car but dad wouldnt be able to drive to and from from bathurst (about 9-10 hours) by himself and my car was to small and proberly wouldnt have made the trip.... i know i shouldnt have been driving a "Hi Po car" what ya gonna do..... it was know differant than driving on L's dads car him in the passenger seat...... i wasnt going stupid i know better than to do that......

Yagz · 07-04-2005, 08:41 PM

Ok, here's a repost from my previous response on FF.COM, hopefully it'll give a good indication of where i stand on this issue..
----

I've never fired a gun before, but if i were to find a loaded one, pick it up, point and shoot, would i hit whatever i was aiming at? if i really wanted to hit it?

I would guess so. I could easily pick up the gun, stand 20 meters away from a 1 meter wide target, and most likely hit it.

Now, i've had no prior experience with hand guns, and yet i was able to pick it up, and shoot a target, and hit it.

This is the same for driving. Any fool can get into a car, and drive it. Whether it be a Skyline GT-R or a Datsun 120B, any fool can kill themselves. Bringing in retstrictions for p platers to not drive high powered cars is just ridiculous. As the owner of an XR8, i can safely say, that what i could achieve in that car, i could achieve in my XR6, and lesser.

My point is, i am of legal age, i am 19 years old, and i should have legal freedom over how powerful my car is. You have 3 different categories of people;

- Those who can drive (natural ability, whits about them)
- Those who simply cannot drive (both men and women, have no natural ability when it comes to driving
- and those who THINK they can drive, and have too much confidence.

Now, are you going to tell me that an 18 year old girl, who hates driving, is going to go out and buy an XR8 as their first car? Nope, doesn't happen.

The people who get high powered cars are those who THINK they can drive, but have too much confidence, or those who can genuinele drive and enjoy it, and are responsible.

The people who kill themselves, the people who wrap themselves around trees are those who fall under the over-confidence category. I cannot stand it when people (my parents included) place me in the same category as a stupid p plater who decides to speed along a road with bloody power poles right in the middle of it, and on top of that, have people in the car that he takes with him.

Here's a factual realisation.
1. Not all P-Platers are this stupid
2. No amount of defensive driving courses are going to stop stupid young drivers from speeding and wrapping themselves around trees,
3. There is no 'right' or 'fail safe' plan to stop this from happening.

I guess this come down to how much the driver values their life, how much they value other peoples lives (which isn't within their rights, no-one can value anyone elses life) and their own choice. Every adult (which is what they are at 18) must make choices. To me, someone who drives a car with 4 people in it, at high speeds, and kills them, is the same as walking upto someone and murdering someone with intent. The act is the same.

As mentioned above, NOTHING will solve this problem. There is nothing that society can do. It's upto the individual to make the decision. Society has done all it can. The best society can do is enforce heavy penalties for reckless driving, and charging people with murder when they kill someone on the road while breaking the law, but still, these young people don't take any of this into account.

Here's a fact for you.

While the media goes on about young drivers killing themselves, how's this for a statictic.

- During 2003, there were 1632 deaths from road accidents in Australia.
Out of these 1632 deaths, 330 were victorians. Of these 330, there were 72 deaths from the age group of 18 - 25 year olds. Thats 21.81% of the total road toll, down from 26.19% in 2002.

If this is such an alarming problem amongst P Platers, how come there were 96 deaths of people aged between 30 and 49 (the EXPERIENCED drivers).

Surely this whole p plater situation is being blown out of proportion?

Let me get this right, because we're young, we get slapped with this mediocre bullshit of being inexperienced, when it's proven that there are even more experienced drivers dying on our roads.

I think that we just draw more attention to ourselves because we have that little red P displayed on our windscreens. If you get cut off by a p plater, or see a p plater doing something irresponsible, you automatically think "stupid young drivers", but if you see an 'experienced' driver doing the same thing, you are annoyed, but you forget about it.

In conclusion, there is nothing that society can do, nor should they have to. There are only a handful of p plater deaths on our roads in comparrison with other road users, so i'd love to know why we are being targetted. Maybe it gets ratings.. ?

Sorry about the long post, but i had to get this off my chest.

Trevor 57 · 07-04-2005, 08:42 PM

Well let's make the speed limit 300 then, coz you never know what might happen!!!!!

As XR ENVI made the point above, what about the people coming towards you who can't drive at speed????? Do you trust them???? You know your limits, but do you know theirs????

Trevor 57 · 07-04-2005, 08:46 PM

Everyone is bagging the Governemts for introducing laws - true?

What the Government(s) are doing is managing risks the best way they can, let us turn this thread into something positive, and tell us how YOU would stop people killing themselves and others in vehicles. Here is the power to you.

Let's hear about examples from around the world, from Countries with low death tolls.

BTW, in one country they have very low drink drive incidence, want to know why? It is because a drink driver is shot by a firing squad. Intersting, but true.

XR-ENVI · 07-04-2005, 08:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davway

well you answered your own point didnt you. you say to speed limit cars - you also said:
so if all cars were to be speed limited then whats stopping anyone from taking it off? how is that going to be policed. there goes your saftey thing of 'cars cant go over 120kmh' coz they will.
basically it would just be another revenue raising bandaid solution.

BECAUSE IT would mean (And this is not based on any statistical evidence) that at least , perhaps 80+% of cars will be speed limited rather than none

XR-ENVI · 07-04-2005, 08:51 PM

I Start To Believe My Dad More And More Everyday: The Racetrack Is Safer Than The Roads

donno · 07-04-2005, 08:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by XR-ENVI

YOU MUST ALL ALSO REMEMBER THAT YOU MAY BE ABLE TO HANDLE A HIGH POWERED CAR OR A SPEEDING LAW BREAKING CAR BUT MY FATHER HAS ALWAYS TOLD ME, YOU HAVE TO DRIVE FOR OTHER PEOPLE TOO. What i am saying is, you may come accross someone who cannot handle the speed and the performance and you may inncoently suffer because of antoher imcompetent driver. You have to think about this i believe.

Dad taught me a similar thing, treat every other driver on the road as if they don't know what they're doing.

In order to protect the idiot, are you willing to sacrifice the innocent?

Yes in some cases the idiot takes the innocent with him, but with 120 limiters I can see more being wiped out running out of steam so to speak, then by a minority of tools. If you ask pretty much any driver, I gaurentee they have a story or three of when they got into a tight bind from what was a safe position, and the only way the got out was to get up to some rediculous speeds.

But then I can just bring back the good ole fact that a tool is a tool. He'll just disable the limiter, and keep driving like a tool.

donno · 07-04-2005, 08:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by XR-ENVI

BECAUSE IT would mean (And this is not based on any statistical evidence) that at least , perhaps 80+% of cars will be speed limited rather than none

But the ones who didn't tamper with it were the law abiding citizens who didn't do stupid things in the first place. The 20% are the tools.