I still maintain the experience isn't very relevant to road driving. Car control will only ever become an issue on the road if your either driving a car with a problem or on appalling road conditions or possibly low speed control if you have avoid something. A typical track will teach you nothing about car control bellow 50mph, where the majority of control related accidents are on the road. On a track day everyone is very vigilant has to follow the rules strictly and normally at least a keen driver. The need for situational awareness on a track day only really comes important when something happens ahead, passing cars and being passed is far simpler than driving on a busy motorway and nothing like overtaking on a two way road, because you've normally got an enormous speed differential between cars. Track days are fun and do teach you a lot that might get you out of trouble later if you learn in a safer environment but a new driver should not be worried about driving fast or how a car will behave on the limit in dry conditions. That comes far later and why an insurance company would want to discount as a result is beyond me, maybe an experienced driver with an advanced drivers test should then be eligible for discount if he's done a car control course or holds a race license but for a learner they only really pose the additional risk of over-confidence and send a pretty clear message that you like driving fast.
I still maintain the experience isn't very relevant to road driving. Car control will only ever become an issue on the road if your either driving a car with a problem or on appalling road conditions or possibly low speed control if you have avoid something. A typical track will teach you nothing about car control bellow 50mph, where the majority of control related accidents are on the road. On a track day everyone is very vigilant has to follow the rules strictly and normally at least a keen driver. The need for situational awareness on a track day only really comes important when something happens ahead, passing cars and being passed is far simpler than driving on a busy motorway and nothing like overtaking on a two way road, because you've normally got an enormous speed differential between cars. Track days are fun and do teach you a lot that might get you out of trouble later if you learn in a safer environment but a new driver should not be worried about driving fast or how a car will behave on the limit in dry conditions. That comes far later and why an insurance company would want to discount as a result is beyond me, maybe an experienced driver with an advanced drivers test should then be eligible for discount if he's done a car control course or holds a race license but for a learner they only really pose the additional risk of over-confidence and send a pretty clear message that you like driving fast.
damn guys, those are anecdotal evidence. they are worth shit, you can't use those to prove Americans are bad drivers and lunatics...
But you sure do your best.
I'm pretty sure Americans are stupid. Just look at all of the presidents elected after Reagan.
Most are. 'Tis the sad truth.
Thats the thing with sterotypes, on the whole there is normally some fact in them
Well, he said it.
G'day Mate!
G'day Mate!
So, 'eh, I'm gonna go build my igloo 'eh. Sound's like fun? 'eh?!
:hide: 'eh
:hide: 'eh
Three stupid presidents do not a whole nation of morons make. (OK, four. Reagan fits in.) But you have a point there.
<puts finger back in dike>
No you want to see a biased election, watch this years'.. I still don't know who to vote for because they're all soaked up in their fame!
On a siednote: Somehow I think that the democrats are heading for a defeat deliberately. Just look at their best cadidates (or is it candadints?): A black guy and a woman... Not that I don't trust both of them (or blacks and women in general) to run a country, BUT I just don't think that the american people is going to vote for someone other than a white male in his early to late 50ies...
Yea but here's the thing, this is why I keep calling it biased.
You have your first woman running for president, so you'll get a ton of feminists voting for the first time, and you got your first (well.. not really) black man, so you're gonna get you're gonna get a bunch of first time black voters (btw do not mean to be racist or sexist at all in this post in any way shape or form), so really.. you have two new groups voting .. for their group, so really this once again has turned into a popularity vote.
You have your first woman running for president, so you'll get a ton of feminists voting for the first time, and you got your first (well.. not really) black man, so you're gonna get you're gonna get a bunch of first time black voters (btw do not mean to be racist or sexist at all in this post in any way shape or form), so really.. you have two new groups voting .. for their group, so really this once again has turned into a popularity vote.
By the power of castle greyskull!
Why not niminate a paralyzed black lesbian woman who was brought up in a reservation for native americans? That way you'd have all the minorities combined.
Why not niminate a paralyzed black lesbian woman who was brought up in a reservation for native americans? That way you'd have all the minorities combined.
Well, that couldn't possibly leave us any worse off than we are now - so sure, what the hell.
I thought Bill Clinton was the first black president?
Yeah, you seem to be stuck in a logical rut of your own making ... Car control is the simple matter of making a car move without kangarooing down the road or being a danger to yourself and others. Dealing with blow-outs is just the extreme end of the spectrum.
Situational awareness has to be learnt in traffic, so there has to be a first time. If you can go out into the world of buses, cyclists, and dozy pedestrians without simultaneously running the mantra "ABC -accelerator, brake, clutch" through your head, you have an advantage over the general standard of learners.
I don't see how that can be disputed.
And I still maintain that power is irrelevant. My very first time behind a wheel was in a Kadett GTE (not a monster by any means, but not an average family hatchback either) in city traffic. The above average power wasn't an issue at any time.
Don't mistake YOU being able to cope with power with the general 17 year old public, who just want to 'go fast'. More power = faster, quicker = less safe for other people on the road. Whilst a lot of young drivers are not speed maniacs (some are sensible, others are scared, whilst still others remain well out of their depth despite passing the 'test'), a sufficient large number are to warrant limits.
Whilst I understand your concern, I have to say that this is precisely the same logic that has seen the proliferation of speed cameras, and the reduction of active traffic officers on the road.
It will also be the rationale for the introduction of GPS based speed limiters.
It is simply not true to say that quicker is inevitably unsafer. Power is not the issue; awareness is. Which is why I would argue for structured and recorded, life long training before any kind of technological 'fix' (and I include as a 'fix' utterly arbitrary power limits, whether bureaucratically or mechanically enforced)
I do believe that a GOOD driver education program, coupled with better behind-the-wheel programs, would significantly decrease traffic fatalities more than any law that might enforce horsepower limitation. The thing is, most accidents occur at speeds well below the vehicle limits. Sure there are situations where teenagers take their new BMW to the runway and then try to take off but end up hitting a tree at 200 mph and dying, but that is not the norm... at least where I live. Most accidents around here are the result of poor situational awareness or of not slowing down enough for a curve on a wet or icy road - not of having a vehicle that is even moderatly powerful.
I have not said that speed itself is the danger. I'm well aware of the speed issue being a factor in <5% of all accidents (although arguably it's also a factor in 100% of accidents). And I that Gatsos are everywhere and the state is becoming very 1984.
But in young hands, without experience (but with good reactions, generally, unless they play music too loud or mess about with their mates) more power (and hence more acceleration and speed potential) does make a car more dangerous to others.
What they need to do is make a tiny car. Then fit really long crumple zones (so it's the size of a large saloon, but mostly just safety cells). Keep it light (less momentum). And fit a weedy engine to keep the speeds down = perfect for youngsters.
Sadly education can only be part of the solution. I know lots of people who passed their driving test without being able to drive. I know lots of people who got engineering degrees without having a clue what a lathe, spanner or protractor actually are (they can't do theory either). It's called learning stuff 'parrot fashion', and doing what is needed to pass an exam. I could pass ANY driving test if I knew what I needed to drive like, so I don't see why a young driver can't pass a harder test, then drive on our roads as if he'd never taken a test (as now).
The long and the short of it is that more education from a younger age, coupled with safe experience generators (power limits) and social limitations (max number of friends in the car) is frankly the only way to make it safe for other people. At the same time make sure that trackdays, police skidpans and other 'extreme' driving arenas are accessible and encouraged to ALL AND SUNDRY at sensible, affordable prices so that Mr Learner Boy Racer has somewhere to learn how to drive quickly (and thus satisfy his needs/wants) without being able to practice on the open road, and allowing him more experience of what to do when the back end jumps out on a damp off camber bend when he lifted off.
But in young hands, without experience (but with good reactions, generally, unless they play music too loud or mess about with their mates) more power (and hence more acceleration and speed potential) does make a car more dangerous to others.
What they need to do is make a tiny car. Then fit really long crumple zones (so it's the size of a large saloon, but mostly just safety cells). Keep it light (less momentum). And fit a weedy engine to keep the speeds down = perfect for youngsters.
Sadly education can only be part of the solution. I know lots of people who passed their driving test without being able to drive. I know lots of people who got engineering degrees without having a clue what a lathe, spanner or protractor actually are (they can't do theory either). It's called learning stuff 'parrot fashion', and doing what is needed to pass an exam. I could pass ANY driving test if I knew what I needed to drive like, so I don't see why a young driver can't pass a harder test, then drive on our roads as if he'd never taken a test (as now).
The long and the short of it is that more education from a younger age, coupled with safe experience generators (power limits) and social limitations (max number of friends in the car) is frankly the only way to make it safe for other people. At the same time make sure that trackdays, police skidpans and other 'extreme' driving arenas are accessible and encouraged to ALL AND SUNDRY at sensible, affordable prices so that Mr Learner Boy Racer has somewhere to learn how to drive quickly (and thus satisfy his needs/wants) without being able to practice on the open road, and allowing him more experience of what to do when the back end jumps out on a damp off camber bend when he lifted off.
No learner should be placed in a car on all but the quietest side road until they can reasonably competently operate a car at low speeds, for most this happens either before or shortly after they start driving, there are those who never become competent at the basic principles of driving some give up others just keep trying the test until they pass it. Going on the assumption that all learners will be under a responsible instructor/passenger who'll keep them out of danger the issue of car control shouldn't effect insurance premiums until after they've passed their tests, at which point they should have gained these skills. I'm not saying that track experience isn't valuable and won't ever help you on the road just that it's not going to appeal to an insurer with a new driver, who is statistically far more likely to have a big accident as a result of ridiculously excessive speed than other road users. The fact he's done something involving fast driving before driving only highlights the fact he's likely to want to drive fast too soon. In fact I'm sure if insurers could they'd heighten premiums for those with track experience just like they do with modified cars as they're obviously high risk drivers who enjoy driving fast, even if the actual track experience makes them a bit safer.
For normal day to day driving it doesn't make a difference but no one can deny that a lot of new drivers (the ones who also always want more power) get themselves into trouble driving too fast too soon. There's no doubt that even a fairly average new driver could drive a supercar round town fairly safely, but as soon as they tried to drive it fast they'd be wrapped round the first lamp post, much like footballers really.
That's what makes a Saturn a great first car. Most of it is plastic, and it doesn't have much power. Although the model with the 85HP engine might be a better first car then the 110HP one.
Here you go. I think THIS LINK says what needs to be said.
http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?t=38152
One young dead kid in an M5.... Bet he thought he was a great driver as well.
THIS IS THE ROAD PEOPLE, NOT A TRACK. Mistakes at speed = dead more often than not. A tree, lamp post, truck is not a crash barrier, tyre wall or sand trap
http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?t=38152
One young dead kid in an M5.... Bet he thought he was a great driver as well.
THIS IS THE ROAD PEOPLE, NOT A TRACK. Mistakes at speed = dead more often than not. A tree, lamp post, truck is not a crash barrier, tyre wall or sand trap
Well you did, but whatever... Stuff written in haste etc... I agree with most of what you said though, especially about tiny cars! Why the hell does a Ford Mondeo have to weigh nearly one and a half tonnes?! Start making light, and consequently lower powered cars: less consumption, more fun.
Ultimately though, if we agree that speed is not the issue, I don't see the point of arguing about power figures. We agree that training is essential, but don't confuse it with testing. My instructor (all those years ago...) was quite clear: "I'll teach you to pass the test, and then you can start learning to drive."
Probably says more about the doting nature of rich parents to be honest. Laws should not be framed around exceptions.
I said that, but I did NOT say that speed itself is the problem. I've been down the accident route, I've sat through coroners reports, accident investigation reports and things to do with my own family. I'm well aware than the misuse of speed is NOT a problem in most accidents. But there is no denying that a powerful (and hence quicker and faster) car is more dangerous than a less powerful (and hence slower) car, which is what I meant above.
I've used that quote before. I also say "If you drive like on the test for the rest of your life then you will die in a car". It is an INCREDIBLY dangerous way to drive. The only reason more learners aren't killed is because other people (and I don't exactly rate the public's driving standards as being that good) manage to keep out of their way, and because the learners cars are plastered with "I AM A LEARNER, I DON'T KNOW WHAT I'M DOING" stickers (abbreviated to L).
Clutch Starter Safety Switch ;)
(228 posts, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG