Thread: High performance cars and young drivers

The article states "The cars are getting faster and faster"...

Really.. Any facts to back this BS up?

What exactly was the speed at time of impact...

Looking at a pile of modern vehicles... Almost *any* vehicle will do unsafe speeds for unsuitable areas...

Heck I even passed a little Smart Car on the highway an hour ago - he was doing 110km/h in a vehicle made of tin foil and disposable plates... A Roo strike would be fatal in that thing!


Fact is, that idiot in the Rex, and his two now deceased mates are the only ones to blame - but not the only ones to suffer...

And yes, unfortunately long suffering people like Treads have the horrible job of using an Egg Slice to get them off the road/dash/tree and then having to tell the Parents of such child prodigys of their unfortunate demise due to Darwinism.

One only hopes that they dont take innocent people with them at the time.

And NO, the occupants are NOT innocent, I've pulled handbrakes on cars doing 100km/h because the driver wouldn't slow down, stop or let me out...


Very rare "High Power" kills people - yes, some get out of shape off the line due to the acceleration. But more often its the top speeds that get them...

Heres a Big Brother solution...

(1) Ban all old vehicles - remove them and scrap. (Or Japan style rego system, price them off the road)

(2) All new vehicles to have:

• Alco test interlock
• Card reader
• Facial recognition camera in steering wheel.

(3) Drivers licence has smart chip


(4) Driver hops into vehicle. Swipes card which compares occupant with camera and stored image on licence.
Then blows in bretho...
All clear gives them 3 seconds to start vehicle (plus load sensor in seat detects if they get out/swap driver attempting to beat system)

Then based on data (age, hours driven, additional training records) the parameters of the vehicle are set... Eg. Top Speed, Max Accel rate etc...


Shouldn't cost more than say about a Trillion dollars to introduce. Would save lives, and only make new cars 2-3 times the price...

Originally Posted by dullbird

put all P platers in old volvos with automatics 0 to 60 in about 6weeks I think give or take a few days problem sorted

These are the vehicle of choice to be modified in the Scandinavian countries. Very easy to turn one if these into a snarling 450hp turbo charged monster that's built like a brick s**t house. There is no way to solve this dilemma, you just can not rule out the idiot factor. Parents could help by refusing to finance said "HP" vehicles. I learned to drive in old Volvo's and I now concider myself a safe and courteous driver. To be quite frank, it is only sad when one of these morons take out an innocent.
Regards
Robbo

Well, I've read through all 7 pages and seen the entire predictable gambit of responses. Me, I like facts devoid of emotion and that sometimes ****es people off who have an emotive response to something but tough titties.

Twenty years ago I started driving in Vic. There was a power to weight ratio applied that was 100kw/t. Now everyone think back to what the common new cars were in the early 90s, better yet go onto carsales or similar and have a look at what was produced at that time and the respective reviews and specifications. Compared to today's cars they were crap by any subjective measure. Now that was new cars, think about what the cars were that P platers actually bought. Add another 10 years or so onto that so you get what they could afford.

Power to weight ratio dictates how a vehicle will accelerate. That is it. It does not have any correlation to how it brakes, handles, top speed (marginally) or how its crash rating is. I learnt to drive in an old 2A with a 186 conversion, for all our love of the Land Rover brand, talk about a POS to learn to drive in! Massive body roll, drum brakes all around, no crumple zones, woeful steering, double clutching etc. but it was what was available for me to learn in and was affordable.

The calls for drivers to be restricted based on engine capacity are also rubbish as are the glib comments that people can learn to drive in something anaemic for a couple of years and then get something else. I think that perhaps many supporters of such ideas forget that cars are not cheap (thanks to our over-inflated used car prices) and that what someone buys they will end up hanging onto for some time, unless they borrow heavily or crash it. Pity the poor bastard that elects to be a tradie, they won't be able to carry anything but basic tools and be virtually unemployable as their transport is inappropriate.

I too have attended several serious injury and fatality collisions (I don't call them accidents) in an official capacity and in the vast majority of incidents the vehicle had no influence on the cause of the collision, and for the 'ban them crowd' this means that the vehicles were not V8s, turbos etc. Most were simple 4 cyl ****boxes that you would endorse someone learning to drive in.

You cannot legislate against stupidity and you cannot suppress genetic predispositions. Young males have and will always risk-take, it is in our make-up and one reason for the survival of our species. The sooner the powers that be acknowledge that and seek to channel that in an appropriate direction the better.

For my 2c worth the licencing regime needs to be completely re-worked. Reinstate a feasible power-to-weight limit to keep the hand-wringers appeased and then the following:
- Learners consists of theory as is as well as level 1 DEFENSIVE driving course and car care fundamentals such as checking fluids, tyre change etc.
- Ps require retest of theory, demonstration of practical car care skills, Level 2 DEFENSIVE driving course and on road practical test as is.
- At the conclusion of 3 years, a person wishing to gain an unrestricted licence must complete a L3 Defensive driving course.
- Theory re-test of all road users on the road law every 5 years as well as re-do L3 Defensive driving course. If this is not done, they go back on their Ps and start again.

The restrictions on driving times of the day for people learning is impractical, as is restricting their speed. Removing the ability for people to carry passengers is also not workable for several reasons, among them young families and the designated driver. If someone is sensible enough to go out and not drink they can surely be trusted to drive their mates home.

What hasn't been stated in the discussion is the difference between new cars and old when it comes to the feed back an ddriver aids. Was discussing ths last night while scrutineering cars for the Nats.

Old cars and lots of feed back where a modern car doesn't. Friend with 4 moster cars agrees his new one is the fastest in top speed , acceleration and breaking but there is no warning about pushing the limits it does what you want till it's to late. The old val which is his burnout car is insane but you feel the warning befoer your in the tree. Also a modern car will try to go exactly where you point it so correcting like an old car doesn't work.

Originally Posted by PeterM

You cannot legislate against stupidity and you cannot suppress genetic predispositions. Young males have and will always risk-take, it is in our make-up and one reason for the survival of our species. The sooner the powers that be acknowledge that and seek to channel that in an appropriate direction the better.

A problem arise when some people can't distinguish between "risk taking" and "putting others at risk".

Young males are also genetically predisposed to do other things that it is inappropriate to describe in detail on a G rated forum. Most of them accept that society does not consider it acceptable to give full rein to those urges whenever and wherever the urge arises. So they need to learn that society expects them to place some restrictions on their own risk taking behaviour when in a vehicle.

Introduce very stiff licence testing standard including skid pad session for all learners, all 'P's" to obtain open licence, all existing licence holders.

Result?

At least 3/4 of existing licence holders fail the test and can no longer drive. Most learners fail test repeatedly. Economic disaster as most of the motor trade closes down due to lack of customers. Used cars become worthless as there is no one left holding a licence to drive them. Government changed at next election in a landslide. New government with a mind to being re-elected restores the status quo.

Originally Posted by George130

What hasn't been stated in the discussion is the difference between new cars and old when it comes to the feed back an ddriver aids. Was discussing ths last night while scrutineering cars for the Nats.

Old cars and lots of feed back where a modern car doesn't. Friend with 4 moster cars agrees his new one is the fastest in top speed , acceleration and breaking but there is no warning about pushing the limits it does what you want till it's to late. The old val which is his burnout car is insane but you feel the warning befoer your in the tree. Also a modern car will try to go exactly where you point it so correcting like an old car doesn't work.

I believe that is a very important consideration. Manufacturers are committed to producing cars that insulate occupants so well from the world around them, that they feel that all is well until way past the point of no return.

There seems to be a lot of evidence that everyone has a level of risk that they are prepared to accept. Reduce the perception of risk and the risky behaviour increases to the point which the person feels is acceptable.

My Austin A40 used to give me plenty of feedback about the fact that my speed had crept up over the 45mph which the car seemed to think was a comfortable cruising speed.

Originally Posted by robbotd5

I learned to drive in old Volvo's and I now concider myself a safe and courteous driver.

All Volvo drivers think they're safe and courteous.