Clutch Starter Safety Switch ;)

[Impreza WRX]

In real life, road cars with manual gearboxes have a little safety switch. The car will not engage the starter unless you push the clutch. Even if you are in Neutral.

It would be a little cherry on top to have the road cars in LFS do the same thing, where to start the car "Press I" you have to hold in the clutch.

[BigPeBe]

Most cars don't have that option, I don't know about USA but atleast not here. It's kinda lame to have switches like that.:scratchch

[Nathan_French_14]

^ I agree. Not alot of cars over here have them kind of switches, and i can only imagine them being on more modern cars. I doubt cars from the era that LFS's road cars are from will have that kind of feature.

[AndroidXP]

In real life, road cars with manual gearboxes have a little safety switch. The car will not engage the starter unless you push the clutch. Even if you are in Neutral.I fear that's only true in the US.

[Renku]

In real life, road cars with manual gearboxes have a little safety switch. The car will not engage the starter unless you push the clutch. Even if you are in Neutral.
Is that an American thing?

[ajp71]

I have never seen a car with such a pointless little device. In fact I have seen cars successfully bump started with the starter motor in first gear on cars without a clutch.

I'm glad to say that such a silly thing has stayed in a country where they have to write warning messages on mirrors and hasn't migrated across even to our big brother state.

[GFresh]

I don't have one on my Leon :shrug:

[Gekkibi]

Never heard that there is that kind of feature in cars. Well, EVERYTHING is possible in US of A, I guess... Just wondering that WHY should there be that kind of option.

There is one plus for not having it: You can actually use starter to move your car. For example, if you are out of gas and have stopped right in the middle of railway junction...

[Woz]

In real life, road cars with manual gearboxes have a little safety switch. The car will not engage the starter unless you push the clutch. Even if you are in Neutral.

It would be a little cherry on top to have the road cars in LFS do the same thing, where to start the car "Press I" you have to hold in the clutch.


I think that is US only. Even here in NZ where most cars are auto, like the US, the manual cars do not have that.

[tristancliffe]

Correct - it's a USA thing! Can you guess why? It involves stupidity, the public and lawsuits.

Fortunately the rest of the world doesn't need them. Again, I'll let you work out what I mean ;)

[blackbird04217]

I remember asking the same question and getting the same response. It wasn't all that fun either, but yea lots of cars don't have that safety switch installed on them... There are a lot of Americans that are too dumb and would try starting in gear, run through their garage and then sue a car company because TOO many BLOODY people like to SUE for stupid reasons...

However, I do know there are a lot of tracks here in the US that require cars to still have this switch enabled - meaning if they had modified the car and removed the "Press clutch to start" detector/mechanism then it would be against the rules. I am not opposing the idea, however it would be very strange to all of a sudden need to push in the clutch if you don't normally need to!


Tristan: You beat me!

[Gekkibi]

Can mods change the name of this thread to "Amerifag bashing"? </joke>

[ACCAkut]

I know that most automatics won't start unless you are in neutral, but I have never seeen such a device on a manual.:scratchch

[Woz]

Correct - it's a USA thing! Can you guess why? It involves stupidity, the public and lawsuits.

Fortunately the rest of the world doesn't need them. Again, I'll let you work out what I mean ;)


True. The country that let a woman take McD to court and win damages because she was stupid enough to put a hot cup of coffee between her legs while driving then wonder why she got burnt :)

[Gekkibi]

I know that most automatics won't start unless you are in neutral, but I have never seeen such a device on a manual.:scratchch

Correction: They can also be started when they are on "P". I have owned one car with automatic transmission: Ford Taunus -81. ;)

[MAGGOT]

Correction: They can also be started when they are on "P". I have owned one car with automatic transmission: Ford Taunus -81. ;)

A lot of new-ish cars will only start in 'P' (Park) and when the brake pedal is pressed. More idiot-proofing, I guess.

[Gekkibi]

A lot of new-ish cars will only start in 'P' (Park) and when the brake pedal is pressed. More idiot-proofing, I guess.

That's possible, because if you start your car in N, it can start to roll forward/backward and hit something/someone and then everyone sues car manufacturer for permitting this kind of homicide-attempts.

Ok, this sounded like bashing. Sorry, amerifa...americans. ;)
No, really, I don't have anything against americans. I hope/know they are smarter than they appear on the television. ;)

[blackbird04217]

A little off the original topic, but still near the current topic:

Its not that we are dumb - at least not all of us, and not all the time. I am sure every country / area has its share of people who didn't think at that moment and got caught on tape for everyone to see and laugh at... See Example (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytLnnCNOCWA) But a lot of our darn precautions come from the fact that too many people are "Sue Happy". There was a elementary school in Massachusetts somewhere that is no longer allowing tag, or any other sort of childhood game that involves running... Because they are worried parents will sue because of a child getting hurt. That POOR generation! What are we doing to our kids? (or upcoming generations).

I can say I am sick of the "Ouch that hurt let me get $5000 and it won't hurt anymore..." type of atmosphere - should I move?! j/k I do enjoy living in the country but there are things that get to me, every place has ups and downs...

(By the way he was ringing a bell in the example if you didn't already know).

[UncleBenny]

I have a feeling that the generation of kids growing up now is going to be so much worse than their parents are currently.

[Gekkibi]

I have a feeling that the generation of kids growing up now is going to be so much worse than their parents are currently.

That is a global problem, it doesn't concern USA alone. For example, in Finland these days kids has problems with alcohol, physical- (fatness) and mental health.

"It wasn't this way when I was young"(tm)

[ajp71]

However, I do know there are a lot of tracks here in the US that require cars to still have this switch enabled - meaning if they had modified the car and removed the "Press clutch to start" detector/mechanism then it would be against the rules. I am not opposing the idea, however it would be very strange to all of a sudden need to push in the clutch if you don't normally need to!


Got some kind of link to that? I can't imagine anything much more irritating than having to get into a car everytime you want to start the engine.


Its not that we are dumb - at least not all of us, and not all the time. I am sure every country / area has its share of people who didn't think at that moment and got caught on tape for everyone to see and laugh at...

Thing is we laugh at them rather than rewarding them for their stupidity. It's not a safety measure, starting a car in gear isn't normally going to result in serious injury and unless you have the reactions or a particularly slow tortoise or are very tightly parked is unlikely to even result in you hitting anything. We should offer warnings and safety devices to prevent genuinely unforeseeable events that are likely to result in serious injury, not things that people could try and sue for.

[blackbird04217]

Got some kind of link to that? I can't imagine anything much more irritating than having to get into a car everytime you want to start the engine.

I need to do this every time I get into my car, as far as a link no I don't have one. Although I am sure there are articles out there. I am at work ATM so I can't look around sorry...

Thing is we laugh at them rather than rewarding them for their stupidity.

Yes, but in laughing at them we spread it around and some people think thats the reward - but also some people are getting rewarded for their stupidity such as the "Hot Coffee" incidents where people burn themselves and sue, for a reward that they get.

It's not a safety measure, starting a car in gear isn't normally going to result in serious injury and unless you have the reactions or a particularly slow tortoise or are very tightly parked is unlikely to even result in you hitting anything.

No but in a garage, you could break things, or run your motorcycle over. Generally you wouldn't need reaction time not to cause damage as the engine will stall first. But I was giving an example of one of the reasons why I guess things are this way.

We should offer warnings and safety devices to prevent genuinely unforeseeable events that are likely to result in serious injury, not things that people could try and sue for.

I agree we should offer warnings to things that can create unforeseeable events and not just the "Warning: Your coffee is hot"... Its pretty dumb. I am sure soon there will be labels on all food saying: "Warning: You could choke on this" and people who are severely worried will die of starvation... Ok, so thats beyond stupidity (I sure hope).

[GobLox]

Yes, they appear on all cars in the US after some time in the '80s but I certainly wouldn't go so far as to say it's useless. Everyone makes mistakes (If you don't congratulations) and If I have my 911 parked in front of some econobox It's nice to know that it's a little harder for that driver, who has been distracted somehow, to bump my car. Don't pretend it doesn't happen in Europe; I've seen what happens to cars in Italy. :really:

[ajp71]

Yes, they appear on all cars in the US after some time in the '80s but I certainly wouldn't go so far as to say it's useless. Everyone makes mistakes (If you don't congratulations)


I can genuinely say I've never started a car in gear accidentally. I have let the clutch out forgetting it was in gear before though, which is a far worse mistake to make TBH ;)

I've seen what happens to cars in Italy. :really:

No that's got more to do with general complete disregard for traffic rules than difficulties starting :D

[Primoz]

Driving school Yaris (current gen.) had that, 1st gen Punto doesn't have it.

[NathanRx-7]

If stupidity was a disease America would be quarantined :shrug:

[DragonCommando]

Here in canada, they even have dummy labels on new vehicles that tell you these things. "Press brake to shift from park" or "Clutch must be applied to start engine" (we call them dummy labels because anyone with common sense should know this already)

Personaly, I think they are there for people that haven't driven cars before, like new drivers. But alot of them are retarded because you can't remove them, like the park sticker on my Express 3500, It's behind the clear plastic cover for the gauges, I'd have to take apart the dash to remove it, on top of that, its painted on.

I think there should be an overide on them, like on some automatics, you either press a button, or put the key in a slot, and it alows you to shift out of park. They should have a switch that overides the clutch switch, alowing you to operate the starter when ever you want.
It would have to reset after a short time though, because idiots would hit it and leave it on.

[GobLox]

Here in canada, they even have dummy labels on new vehicles that tell you these things. "Press brake to shift from park" or "Clutch must be applied to start engine" (we call them dummy labels because anyone with common sense should know this already)

Personaly, I think they are there for people that haven't driven cars before, like new drivers. But alot of them are retarded because you can't remove them, like the park sticker on my Express 3500, It's behind the clear plastic cover for the gauges, I'd have to take apart the dash to remove it, on top of that, its painted on.

I think there should be an overide on them, like on some automatics, you either press a button, or put the key in a slot, and it alows you to shift out of park. They should have a switch that overides the clutch switch, alowing you to operate the starter when ever you want.
It would have to reset after a short time though, because idiots would hit it and leave it on.

My '94 4Runner has a button to disable this system and allow it to be started without pressing the clutch. It resets after the ignition is turned off. Rarely usefull at best.

[wheel4hummer]

I think there should be an overide on them, like on some automatics, you either press a button, or put the key in a slot, and it alows you to shift out of park.

Yeah, but modern automatic transmissions are electronically controlled, so if the battery is dead then you're stuck in park. The only reason that automatics lock the gear selector is so that you don't accidentally knock it into neutral while you're parked. BTW, for future reference, there is no "gear shifter" on an automatic. It's called a "gear selector" because you aren't shifting with it, you're selecting the gear that you wish to be in.

[GobLox]

I could be wrong but I would be surprised to learn that the pin/tooth that engages the output shaft for park was not still actuated by linkage to the shifter (I'm calling it a shifter still - if It's good enough for the Toyota FSM it's good enough for me =) ) - certainly on older electronic transmissions like AODE, E4OD, A241E(Toyota) some valving and the park mechanism are still handled by shifter linkage. On a 2008 Honda? I have no idea.

[MijnWraak]

A lot of new-ish cars will only start in 'P' (Park) and when the brake pedal is pressed. More idiot-proofing, I guess.

Funny story, i was in parking lot in a car and this lady couldnt seem to get her car started. She tried everything, turning the ignition every which way and to no avail. My friend stepped in and about 2 seconds later it was started.

Fricking lady didnt have her foot on the brake. :really: (2005 scion)

[DragonCommando]

It's still called the gear shift on most of the manuals I've read.
And gear selector would apply to manuals to, because you arn't actualy shifting gears around, you are selecting them by shifting rings around.

But that's not the point. Electronic or not, if the battery is out of power it won't make a difference, you can still shift to nutral.

It's possible on some cars you can't, but that would be a stupid move on any automakers part. None of the car's I've ever worked on had to be boosted before being moved. The battery is bad, we take it out, put the car in nutral. Push it into the shop and then we work from there. on most cars electronic just means that the shift points arn't done the old way, instead they use a computer to control it.
Even the tiptronic ones I've worked on had a shift linkage going to the transmission.

We had one car, a Benz I belive, that was parked outside the shop for a day. the battery was fried, and something else was wrong. But we where still able to put it in nutral and push it into the shop. My bosses reason for not boosting it was simple, he didn't want to.

[Uncle Rooster]

Here in Québec, Canada... it's not been done yet but they want to put a law for every cars to have an alcohol meter so you have to prove your car you're not drunk to be able to start it!

[wark]

This would keep you from pushing your car to the pits with the starter motor, so +1

[blackbird04217]

Here in Québec, Canada... it's not been done yet but they want to put a law for every cars to have an alcohol meter so you have to prove your car you're not drunk to be able to start it!

This is a great amazing idea... and its one of the few things that should be common sense that I *would* support.. Although look at that idiot blowing into the steering wheel....

[Uncle Rooster]

link about it... (french)

http://news.caradisiac.com/Canada-l-antidemarreur-ethylique-bientot-obligatoire-675

[GobLox]

How the hell are you supposed to get your car home from the bar?! :bananadea

[Dark Elite]

This would keep you from pushing your car to the pits with the starter motor, so +1This can be done in almost all real-life race cars, so why should it be disallowed in LFS?

For the record, I've never even heard of this feature, and, as has already been said, it looks to be nothing more than manufacturer arse-covering against lawsuits from the United States only - as no other country has such an obsession with making money out of their own mistakes.

Even then, though, I must admit I can't see the point of this system at all. If you turn over the starter motor without the clutch in, the engine is almost guaranteed to stall - if it starts at all - whatever road car you're in. Especially if the throttle pedal's been left alone. I can't think of a single car that could cope with such an action. If you were on a steep downhill incline, then it's possible that the engine could fire properly, but you'd already be rolling since you had the clutch pedal in... And if you'd put the brakes on, you wouldn't have needed the system to stop yourself moving.

Can anyone shed any light on this at all? :rolleyes:

Sam

[tristancliffe]

Bear in mind a lot of US cars had stupid large engines to overcome the fact most drivers had so few skills they needed lazy engines to help them. And a small block Chevy will quite happily fire up whilst pulling a car along on the starter motor. Their starter motors are more powerful than most VTECKII engines over here! :p

[keiran]

How the hell are you supposed to get your car home from the bar?! :bananadea

Assign a designated blower!

[wheel4hummer]

Assign a designated blower!

A blower? One like this?
http://www.hothemiheads.com/Garlits_Scoops/images/SC500/SC500S/C06.jpg

on most cars electronic just means that the shift points arn't done the old way, instead they use a computer to control it.

Well, electronic really means that the clutches are engaged by solenoids opening and closing, therefore allowing the hydraulic fluid to engage the clutches. As opposed to the old kind of mechanically-shifted automatics which had a weird system of pistons. Where the faster the car went, the more the governor valve opens, therefore letting more fluid through. And then the pressure would push the shift valve open which would engage a gear-set. And if you are using more throttle, then the shift will be delayed because the throttle is applying pressure to this valve in the opposite direction as the fluid flowing in. Basically, a three-speed transmission such as the GM TH350, would have two of these valves. One for the 1-2 shift and another for shifting from 2-3. And in a later GM 4-speed (I forget the name) the 4th gear was basically just 3rd gear overdrive.

[ajp71]

This can be done in almost all real-life race cars, so why should it be disallowed in LFS?


Any real car would soon suffer a flat battery, especially racing cars which have much smaller batteries than road cars. Even more so single seaters that have small batteries and no alternator will soon be flat after multiple starts.

[tristancliffe]

single seaters that have small batteries and no alternator will soon be flat after multiple starts.

And multiple = a small number! Maybe 10 without assistance and short cranking periods with a semi-warm (i.e. free, but not hot) engine. It won't get you back to the pits, unless you are about 5m from the pits.

[Dark Elite]

I had, of course, forgotten that we were talking about massive, torquey V8s with batteries bigger than a UPS. Maybe it serves some purpose, then. :razz:

I said it could be done, theoretically, not that it was advisable or practical ;)

I do recall a Panoz being laboured back to the pits on the starter motor during the 24 Heures du Mans, though, so it's not entirely unheard of. How the car actually coped with that, I've no idea, nor do I know how close it was to the pits when the driver resorted to the starter-motor, but since we have no battery simulation in LFS, I guess it's good that the stalling physics seem to disallow this technique now anyway.

Actually, I haven't really tested it at length, but it's certainly a hell of a lot harder to do than it used to be

[GobLox]

Even then, though, I must admit I can't see the point of this system at all. If you turn over the starter motor without the clutch in, the engine is almost guaranteed to stall - if it starts at all - whatever road car you're in. Especially if the throttle pedal's been left alone. I can't think of a single car that could cope with such an action.

I can say without a doubt that a 5.0L Ford Mustang, 5.7L Ford Bronco, 3.0L Toyota 4Runner (With Clutch Start Cancel Switch pressed) will fire right up in 1st gear on flat ground.

[atlantian]

yes, you would stall if you try to move the car with the starter motor, why would you NOT have a mechanism that prevents you from doing that?(although it's redundant) it would save your car's engine's lifespan if you are learning manual. and there is already a mechanism on the lfs cars, it's called inertia, it stops your car and your engine when you start without the clutch depressed

[dawesdust_12]

My '94 4Runner has a button to disable this system and allow it to be started without pressing the clutch. It resets after the ignition is turned off. Rarely usefull at best.
My '90 4Runner has that same button, but doesn't reset when you start the car, it will stay enabled.

[PAracer]

Most of the time, the 'neutral safety switch' is mounted on the clutch pedal. For instance, mine was a plunger and contact switch at the top of the pedal under the dash. After 15 years, it finally gave out and wouldn't let me start the car. Honestly, it's a good feature, even for people outside of the US.

Pulling the wires out of the plug and connecting them will disable the feature (consult your wiring diagrams to make sure that the switch is not hot and causing a drain on the battery). By the way, I feel victim to starting in gear in the pits at Watkins Glen. I felt like an idiot amongst a bunch of Bimmer drivers.:(

[tristancliffe]

yes, you would stall if you try to move the car with the starter motor, why would you NOT have a mechanism that prevents you from doing that?(although it's redundant) it would save your car's engine's lifespan if you are learning manual. and there is already a mechanism on the lfs cars, it's called inertia, it stops your car and your engine when you start without the clutch depressed

WTF! How does a button requiring you to press the clutch save 'the engine's lifespan'? Can you refrain from posting about semi-technical stuff until you've finished kindergarten?

[The Radness]

he's just reinforcing the fact that us americans have soup in our heads.

The alcohol thing is real, court ordered, and YOU have to pay for it. 600 a month.

i say if you can't drive a manual, get the hell out of the drivers seat and let someone who knows what they're doing take the wheel.

[dawesdust_12]

... Watching me drive a manual is funny.
Now me in an automatic, is not bad, as long as I can get rid of that "aim for pedestrians" desire.

Honestly, if I can get the basic hang on a standard in about the span of time it takes a 6 yearold to climb a tree, then anyone should be able to drive a standard.

[wheel4hummer]

and there is already a mechanism on the lfs cars, it's called inertia, it stops your car and your engine when you start without the clutch depressed

I just call it the parking brake, but I guess you call it something else.

[Woz]

yes, you would stall if you try to move the car with the starter motor, why would you NOT have a mechanism that prevents you from doing that?(although it's redundant) it would save your car's engine's lifespan if you are learning manual. and there is already a mechanism on the lfs cars, it's called inertia, it stops your car and your engine when you start without the clutch depressed

First thing that was driummed into me was waggle the stick to make sure you are not in gear BEFORE you start the car. Why would you not do this, it is just common sense. The most vital thing about driving stick in knowing what gear you are in at ALL times.

Also look at the history of the motor industry. Why would an industry that performs cost of deaths vs recall calculations worry about fitting such a system unless forced to. Fitting it makes the car more expensive to produce. So there must be a law in place or they must have been sued once and it cost them enough to not want another case against them :)

[wark]

Come to think of it, when I tried once, I was surprised when my car wouldn't start in neutral without my foot on the clutch. It's just as well, though, as it's just extra mass for the starter to get up to speed. I have put the clutch in half way and then dumped it as I'm starting, though—no biggy.

Either way, I always start the car in 1st or R with the clutch in. I make sure it's in gear before starting (just habitually).

[Bluebird B B]

A lot of new-ish cars will only start in 'P' (Park) and when the brake pedal is pressed. More idiot-proofing, I guess.


Only experienced this in a renault auytomatic. Glad it was not my own car, not because of the safety mechanism, but the engine acted like it was already worn out with only 38000km driven. Oil consumption, loss of engine power(well the little amount it had, became even less), electronic failures of the computer. I did like the programming of the auto-box, felt like driving as someone is manually shifting the gears, reacting very well to heavy braking, accalaration etc.

But safety switch, never heard of it or saw it on cars with manual gear-boxes.

[Dark Elite]

This is rapidly confirming my belief that those who use automatic gearboxes are not drivers, merely motorists.

Having messed around in LFS a bit, I can now say that the FO8 can be made to move on the starter motor, but only with full throttle. I suppose battery wear simulation is another thing to go on the Big List of Stuff To Add, then...

Sam

[spanks]

this is rather simple imo...

Americans are taught to drive in automatics...some places don't even really want you taking your driving test in a manual.

Driver's ed courses never once mentioned manual trans operation. This means it would rely on someone else teaching you not to be a dumbass and start while in gear...:smileypul

[tristancliffe]

Do you really need to be taught not to start in gear? Did you need to be taught how to work light switches, or how to listen to sounds? Surely it doesn't require 'training' not to be a dumbass (although I know people AREN'T born equal, and some dumbasses are just a result of poor breeding, but they shouldn't be allowed to drive in the first place).

[Woz]

Do you really need to be taught not to start in gear? Did you need to be taught how to work light switches, or how to listen to sounds? Surely it doesn't require 'training' not to be a dumbass (although I know people AREN'T born equal, and some dumbasses are just a result of poor breeding, but they shouldn't be allowed to drive in the first place).

Blunt and too the point, refreshing in the modern bullsh*t world of PC-ness (Is that a word?) :)

[Dark Elite]

Where would we be without Tristan? :razz:

Voila, the solution to danger on the roads of today - a basic intelligence test as part of the driving examinations.
Should be part of S2 licencing conditions, actually. :rolleyes:

Sam

[real_firefly]

My mum's 14 year old Hyundai Pony (Excel) has that "feature".
It was the first Hyundai ever exported to the USA :scratchch

[spanks]

Do you really need to be taught not to start in gear? Did you need to be taught how to work light switches, or how to listen to sounds? Surely it doesn't require 'training' not to be a dumbass (although I know people AREN'T born equal, and some dumbasses are just a result of poor breeding, but they shouldn't be allowed to drive in the first place).

you have way too much faith in people

more than half the people on the road is either a dumbass

a dumb bitch

a dumb asshole...or something of the sort

I'm just saying, I don't want some dumb ____ to start their car in gear and run into mine

And yes, you do have to learn how to operate a car...every single feature, either through someone telling you...or just watching someone else do it, or experimentation.

[Dark Elite]

The first lesson you should ever learn when driving anywhere is that you need to treat everyone on the road like a complete idiot, so that when it turns out they are, you were expecting it and won't be taken by surprise.
And yes, you do have to learn how to operate a car...every single feature, either through someone telling you...or just watching someone else do it, or experimentation.But is it not bloody obvious that if the gearstick has a gear selected, and the clutch pedal is not depressed, there is nothing to stop the engine being under full load when you try to start it? If you hold a driving licence, you need to have an understanding of how a car works, and so if you can't figure out why your car moves when you start it in gear, your licence should therefore be taken away.

Sam

[Woz]

The first lesson you should ever learn when driving anywhere is that you need to treat everyone on the road like a complete idiot, so that when it turns out they are, you were expecting it and won't be taken by surprise.
But is it not bloody obvious that if the gearstick has a gear selected, and the clutch pedal is not depressed, there is nothing to stop the engine being under full load when you try to start it? If you hold a driving licence, you need to have an understanding of how a car works, and so if you can't figure out why your car moves when you start it in gear, your licence should therefore be taken away.

Sam

I actually believe you should have to learn to drive and pass in a manual before you are allowed on the road. In the UK there is an auto only licence and here in NZ you can learn and pass in an auto then drive any transmission.

The way I see it is that if you can't understand how to drive a manual your IQ is far too limited to deal with what you will encounter driving on the public roads.

[dawesdust_12]

If I can drive a manual, albiet poorly (5th gear != 3rd gear), anyone should be able to.

[ajp71]

I actually believe you should have to learn to drive and pass in a manual before you are allowed on the road. In the UK there is an auto only licence and here in NZ you can learn and pass in an auto then drive any transmission.


Personally I'd rather our auto-only test was limited to those who were physically unable to drive a manual not just those who are plain lazy or incompetent.

[Dark Elite]

in NZ you can learn and pass in an auto then drive any transmission.That's news to me, and monumentally stupid.
Personally I'd rather our auto-only test was limited to those who were physically unable to drive a manual not just those who are plain lazy or incompetent.We should probably throw in some sort of marking too, for those who hold an auto-only licence - we've got the P-plate for recently passed drivers, now we should have something like the R-plate for those with an auto-only licence...

Sam

[heson]

+1 This is a must have in the far future, I'd say time is right just after implementation of cigaret lighter and rear window demist. (only on cars that are likely to have it in RL ofcourse)

[Woz]

That's news to me, and monumentally stupid.

If you think that is stupid, that is the tip of the iceberg lol

You can drive at .... drum roll..... age 15 and insurance is OPTIONAL. :shrug:

You can imagine where this ends up when you can go to a car yard, put down $1 deposit then drive off in a WRX or Evo.

I have to laugh when people then wonder why these "young" drivers wrap themselves around a tree etc.

[Dark Elite]

I knew the age limit was only fifteen - personally I approve of lower age limits, but only if there is a more comprehensive test and some sort of personality assessment for younger people. I speak as someone too young to hold a driving licence in the UK.

Insurance, though... That is simply ridiculous. I'm facing premiums of over £2000, but not having it is just unthinkable. Or rather, the person who hits you not having it is unthinkable.

Sam

[tristancliffe]

I think the age limit should be INCREASED. Whilst younger people have the reactions to cope with emergencies, they don't have either experience to draw on (and changing the age just moves the upwards) or the sense to stay out of trouble! Most 17 year olds are too keen to show off, drive too fast, have no patience, don't understand how dangerous cars are, and are out to prove too much. Raise the limit a year or two. And put power/torque restrictions for the first two years, limiting new drivers to about 70hp. And ban any non-standard modification other than pattern parts for the same period.

[Dark Elite]

To be honest, Tristan, if the age moves up to, say, 19, they're not going to have a hell of a lot more sense. They're still going to be just as much impatient, ignorant showoffs as if they'd been 17 (I'm stereotyping :p) - because their understanding of cars will be little greater, and their experience will be exactly the same. They'll also have been waiting for longer, and thus be even more impatient to get out there and drive - whether they can do it well or not. More than that, they'll also be able to buy alcohol more easily.

As for restricting new drivers... Well, I'd think a 70bhp car, with no protection, weighing next to nothing, would be a hell of a lot more dangerous than my 4WD 136bhp Mondeo, don't you? And I think most modifications are ruled out by insurance costs now, anyway.

Sam

[Impreza WRX]

Examples of cars with CSSS I have personally witnessed to have...

1990 Mitsubishi Eclipse

1991(?) Ford Probe Turbo

1991 Ford Explorer

1992 SAAB 900

1995 Honda Civic DX

2003 Chevrolet Cavalier

SAAB is Swedish, built overseas according to VIN, the Honda was built in Suzuka, Japan according to VIN.

[tristancliffe]

Well, as you're too young to drive, I assume you mean your parents Mondeo. But of course a 19 year old new driver is safer than a 17 year old driver. You DO mature a LOT between 17 and 19. Maybe not much in terms of 17 to 30, but you have to draw a line somewhere.

Their knowledge of cars would be greater, as they'd be exposed to them more, and be at an age they're likely to see how much energy is involved in moving 1.5 tons of metal around.

What has alcohol got to do with it? Lets stick to the age limit shall we. If buying alcohol was a problem then we'd have to raise the learning to drive age to about 100.

70hp = safer for new drivers than 136hp. Maybe not in the 'get out of danger' as the car won't accelerate, but it'll VASTLY reduce their chances of getting into an emergency in the first place. Ever seen someone mow through shoppers, killing them all because of a few second inattention on a skateboard? Slower = safer in the majority.

No protection? I think you'll find ALL modern cars are a lot safer than some older ones! Okay, a Ka is built out of tin foil, but modern cars are a lot better, especially since NCAP caused them to raise their game in certain areas (possibly to the detriment of untested aspects).

Weighing next to nothing? It's feckin' hard to find a car that weighs less than 1 ton! 1.3 tons plus is more like it...

So no, I don't think a silly rep-mobile is more safe for a new driver.

Mods ruled out by costs? Open your eyes laddie - look at all the twats in Vauxhalls with blue LEDs, unpainted bodykits, daft fake Recaros and printed carbon fibre filler flap covers. Ricing is alive and well (with a plus side that it means you can hear their fart-cans from a mile away, plus they make the car go slower, so you have more time to get out of the county).

[Impreza WRX]

Can you move this discussion off my thread please? I would rather see this thread return to the topic at hand instead of being locked!

[tristancliffe]

We finished your topic - non US cars very rarely have such noob protections, and it wouldn't add anything to LFS if Scawen wasted time on it.

Now we've moved on to more interesting topics :D

[Dark Elite]

Well, as you're too young to drive, I assume you mean your parents Mondeo.No, I say what I mean; it's my car, paid for by me, registered in my name. Being unlicenced to drive it on the roads doesn't mean I can't own a car, despite what everyone says when I refer to 'my' car :rolleyes:

The age point in general is quite difficult to judge - as we've never seen what a large number of new 19-year-old drivers behave like compared to a large number of new 17-year-old drivers, we can't really say how much of an impact such a change would have. Personally, I do think that the majority of people who take their driving test in the UK do so mostly out of practical reasons, for independence, whatever - not people who have a great interest in cars, or who have been paying a great deal of attention to them in the time before getting their licence. Not wishing to stereotype an entire nation, but we just don't know how much of a change there'd be in two years.
What has alcohol got to do with it?Something to do with the legal age to buy alcohol being 18, not 17? I used that as a passing comment, that new drivers at the age of 18 or over would be more easily able to buy - and drink before driving - alcohol. Not a great consideration, but I mentioned it nonetheless.
No protection? I think you'll find ALL modern cars are a lot safer than some older ones!I agree entirely - but who says a newly licenced driver is going to have a modern, safety-oriented car? It seems far more likely, again due to costs, that new drivers will be in cheaper, older cars - with less safety equipment. Indeed, cars less safe to be hit by too, but that's besides the point.
Weighing next to nothing? It's feckin' hard to find a car that weighs less than 1 ton! 1.3 tons plus is more like it...A new Vauxhall Corsa 1.0 weighs 1,025kg, which really isn't far off. Older cars way respectively less, too, and as above, those are more likely to be driven by new drivers. Actually, the weight distribution is more of a concern as far as safety goes - I'm thinking front-wheel-drive, lightweight cars with nothing over the back end experiencing lift-off oversteer in the wet, that sort of thing that new drivers tend not to know much about or how to deal with.
Mods ruled out by costs? Open your eyes laddie - look at all the twats in Vauxhalls with blue LEDs, unpainted bodykits, daft fake Recaros and printed carbon fibre filler flap covers.I thought you meant modifications that affected performance, as in, modifications that actually matter as far as safety is concerned.
(with a plus side that it means you can hear their fart-cans from a mile away, plus they make the car go slower, so you have more time to get out of the county).Always a silver lining, eh ;)

I just want to make it plain that I want this to be an intelligent discussion, not a flame-war or an argument. Better that way :)

OT
That comment about assuming it wasn't my car didn't chuff me up much, nor did referring to it as a silly repmobile - a mid-Nineties dark-coloured 4WD two-litre saloon sounds pretty unassuming to me, but, hell, make of it whatever you will :p

And having driven a Ka, yes, I agree that it is made out of very compressed tin foil...
/OT

Sam

[JJ72]

Quote James May "I love procedures"

But only in Flight Sim, not in LFS.

[Woz]

I knew the age limit was only fifteen - personally I approve of lower age limits, but only if there is a more comprehensive test and some sort of personality assessment for younger people. I speak as someone too young to hold a driving licence in the UK.

Insurance, though... That is simply ridiculous. I'm facing premiums of over £2000, but not having it is just unthinkable. Or rather, the person who hits you not having it is unthinkable.

Sam

Actually NZ is a prime example why you should NOT let younger drivers on the road. You just have to look at the young kids playing GT4 IRL to realise they are NOT equiped to drive at that age!

Always young deaths, always young people running from police with chase ending around a lamp post etc etc.

If you want to lower premiums for younger people they need to take the responibility to stop having crashes. There are higher premiums for younger drivers because they have the MOST crashes. It is as simple as that.

The reason yours costs so much is that chances are, at your age, you will cost the insurance company money :)

[Dark Elite]

Well, quite:only if there is a more comprehensive test and some sort of personality assessment for younger people.I can imagine the problems it causes for younger people to take the same tests as older ones. It should really only be those with a great deal of experience, knowledge and/or ability who are allowed to have a driving licence at a lower age, not to mention the sense of responsibility and respect for the car. However, I do still think that the majority of younger people being too idiotic to deserve a driving licence should not mean that the few who could hold one safely are not allowed to do so. It's a tough government, though, who will impose particular tests for different age groups, and unfortunately we, er, don't have a tough government :p

Some sort of time restriction on re-taking the test should be employed as well, I think; if someone fails, they shouldn't be allowed to just keep trying over and over again until they get lucky and pass - because they clearly aren't ready for it. The driving test in the UK in particular is easy enough for anybody remotely capable to pass it, and those that don't probably should be made to think about it for a few months before they can try again. This might help lower newly licenced accidents too.

Sam

[sil3ntwar]

We had a Hyundai Sonata that required the clutch be pressed before starting the car. I push the clutch when starting anyway :shrug:

[tristancliffe]

Of course you're in favour of lowering the age of starting - not because you've thought it through, or because you've digested the facts of driving (being unable to drive on the road means you don't know very much about it). You want the limit lowered because YOU want to drive.

I am unbiased. I have been driving for over 10 years legally (and some more on private roads/airfields etc). Raising the age limit won't change my ability to drive, and so I can look at the pros and cons retrospectively. And it's OBVIOUS that a 19 year old new driver is VASTLY (factors of 10) safer as a new driver. Will there still be accidents? Yes. Will some still be twats on the road? Yes. But overall the picture is safer.

And of course you don't agree with power restrictions because you 'own' a silly repmobile (that is a LOT more dangerous as a first car than pretty much anything vaguely close to sensible). Again, you are biased, and therefore your views hold little water.

When you grow up you'll realise just how silly letting most 17 year olds out in cars on their own (or worse, with mates) is. But right now, as a child, you are unable to see that because you are the very age group you need to look at.

[Woz]

Of course you're in favour of lowering the age of starting - not because you've thought it through, or because you've digested the facts of driving (being unable to drive on the road means you don't know very much about it). You want the limit lowered because YOU want to drive.

I am unbiased. I have been driving for over 10 years legally (and some more on private roads/airfields etc). Raising the age limit won't change my ability to drive, and so I can look at the pros and cons retrospectively. And it's OBVIOUS that a 19 year old new driver is VASTLY (factors of 10) safer as a new driver. Will there still be accidents? Yes. Will some still be twats on the road? Yes. But overall the picture is safer.

And of course you don't agree with power restrictions because you 'own' a silly repmobile (that is a LOT more dangerous as a first car than pretty much anything vaguely close to sensible). Again, you are biased, and therefore your views hold little water.

When you grow up you'll realise just how silly letting most 17 year olds out in cars on their own (or worse, with mates) is. But right now, as a child, you are unable to see that because you are the very age group you need to look at.

:)

As for restricting new drivers... Well, I'd think a 70bhp car, with no protection, weighing next to nothing, would be a hell of a lot more dangerous than my 4WD 136bhp Mondeo, don't you? And I think most modifications are ruled out by insurance costs now, anyway.

Sam

I think the 4WD 136bhp Mundano sounds a nightmare in the hands of a 17 year old TBH. But then I get the feeling you will be in for a nice shock when it comes to insurance.

You should think what it is that insurance costs show. Here is the general idea though.

1) The more powerful the car the more chance it is involved in a crash.
2) The younger the driver the more chance they are involved in a crash.
3) The more years of experence the less chance of a crash.

You can see where you sit in this no? :)

[Stang70Fastback]

I have to say, it's not all stupidity. My dad has owned a Jaguar E-Type 12 Cylinder, a DeLorean, an Alpha Romeo and other cars - all manual - and when I started driving, one of the things he got me into the habit of doing was pressing the brake when I start the car. He said that way, one day, if you accidentally start a car in gear, at LEAST your foot will be on the brake, because it WILL happen to you once, lol.

As for the whole age thing, I honestly don't know what to do anymore. What I DO think is that at the first sign of stupidity, your license should be revoked. The other day I was driving down one of those roads with three lanes - the middle being the turn lane - and some IDIOT (oriental 40 year old woman) stopped in the DRIVING LANE waiting for other traffic to pass before turning, causing a massive jam. I guess she didn't understand that was what the middle lane was for, despite all the turn arrows lining the whole road. THAT KIND OF STUPIDITY and display of lack of common sense, should merit an immediate suspension of your license should a cop see that happen. No one who is that clueless can possibly drive a car safely. The same should apply to teens. It is obvious when an accident was the result of a teenager's over-confidence, or sheer inability to control a vehicle, and those instances should merit a 1-year license suspension and OBLIGATORY additional driving lessons.

[nihil]

When you grow up you'll realise just how silly letting most 17 year olds out in cars on their own (or worse, with mates) is.

Nah, think laterally... Let let them have mopeds at the age of fourteen, then by the time they are seventeen, they will either be dead (hence of zero concern to the statistics relating to seventeen year old driving incidents) or they will have more road knowledge than you or I ever did at seventeen.

[tristancliffe]

Have you seen how wreckless 16 year olds are on mopeds? That's bad enough! Whilst I don't give two hoots if they die or not, I'd rather they weren't out there for ME to hit! :)

[Dark Elite]

Of course you're in favour of lowering the age of starting - not because you've thought it through, or because you've digested the facts of driving (being unable to drive on the road means you don't know very much about it). You want the limit lowered because YOU want to drive.Yes, of course I want to drive - but that does not mean I haven't thought it through, and I'd like to think my posts reflect that I have considered the matter at length.
I am unbiased.I'm not so sure - seeing as you're way above any possible age issues with driving, you don't care that much about what happens to those who might be affected by changes, so you don't much care about the restrictions and inconveniences that would be placed on seventeen-year-olds and their families by not being allowed to drive.
And of course you don't agree with power restrictions because you 'own' a silly repmobile (that is a LOT more dangerous as a first car than pretty much anything vaguely close to sensible). Again, you are biased, and therefore your views hold little water.I would like to know what's silly about a two-litre saloon, if you're going to carry on taking the piss out of my car you might as well justify it. And I'm also wondering why you don't seem to accept that it is mine, as it's been bought, registered, maintained and driven by me.
When you grow up you'll realise just how silly letting most 17 year olds out in cars on their own (or worse, with mates) is. But right now, as a child, you are unable to see that because you are the very age group you need to look at.So, I'll be a 'child' right up the point at which I turn seventeen? A sixteen-year-old is classified as a 'child' because they're not allowed to drive by this government, and is younger than you? Yes, I know it's damnably hard to assess your own age group, but that doesn't mean my attempts should be subject to patronisation instead of reasoned argument, does it?

Much as I wanted to have an intelligent discussion here, it seems we're going to fail because you're unable to treat me as an equal, and feel the need to patronise me because you think I don't have a valid opinion from this side of the driving age barrier. It's a shame I mentioned my age, because I feel that you'd respond differently if you didn't have that particular point to lock on to all the time.

I think the 4WD 136bhp Mundano sounds a nightmare in the hands of a 17 year old TBH. But then I get the feeling you will be in for a nice shock when it comes to insurance.

You should think what it is that insurance costs show. Here is the general idea though.

1) The more powerful the car the more chance it is involved in a crash.
2) The younger the driver the more chance they are involved in a crash.
3) The more years of experence the less chance of a crash.

You can see where you sit in this no?If you use the laws of averages, those three points are correct - and yes, I can see where I unfortunately sit in this scenario. It's not going to stop me, but I do acknowledge it. The sad fact is that I'll have had over three years' driving experience, three years' experience of the physics involved in driving a car, and three years' teaching in the dangerous nature of driving; but no insurance company will care. I know there's no substitute for road driving experience, but that doesn't mean no other experience is worth anything.

I'm still kind of ambivalent about whether a larger, more powerful but also heavier and better-planted car is more dangerous than a smaller, less powerful but also less protected and less grippy one.

Oh, and I agree entirely with Stang70Fastback, for the record.

Sam

[Stang70Fastback]

Oh, and I agree entirely with Stang70Fastback, for the record.

:thumb:... for the record.

Also, I don't see what is so particularly dangerous about a 136bhp vehicle. That's not a lot of power at ALL. I drive a 165bhp AWD station wagon, and it's nowhere near powerful enough to pull a burnout or race anyone and have a hope of winning. I realize that in America our standards of 'power' are greatly exaggerated, but still, I think anyone with one iota of common sense could be able to handle a 136bhp car without issue.

Where I start to have a problem is when 17 year olds start getting cars with over 200-250 bhp. One kid in our school was given a BRAND NEW Ford Mustang by his parents... crashed it, and got ANOTHER (from his parents.) That's just ridiculous. In another example, I was once given a ride home by a girl with a Ford Thunderbird (V8) and was scared to death. She had no sense of speed, cut corners blindly on small roads going faster than the limit, and just had no idea how a car worked. It's no wonder I had to help pull her car out of a snow drift the FIRST time we had to drive to school in the snow (about 1 inch of snow - and it was literally 3/4 from her home.) Actually, I got in her car and drove it while a 14 YEAR OLD KID from the house across the street from where she was stuck, pulled the car out with a farm tractor, lol. And he looked like he could do much better driving that car than she could.

This is the girl that asked me why the car lurched every once in a while when it accelerated, and I had to explain to her that that was the "TRANSMISSION." Oh, and I'm not making this up, she also asked why cars had that "feature" that locked the wheels when you slammed on the brakes. HOW IN HELL CAN SOMEONE LIKE THAT BE GIVEN A LICENSE?!! THOSE are the people who should be limited to .0005 bhp cars, not everyone.

[ajp71]

I am unbiased. I have been driving for over 10 years legally (and some more on private roads/airfields etc). Raising the age limit won't change my ability to drive, and so I can look at the pros and cons retrospectively. And it's OBVIOUS that a 19 year old new driver is VASTLY (factors of 10) safer as a new driver. Will there still be accidents? Yes. Will some still be twats on the road? Yes. But overall the picture is safer.


I think the starting age should be lowered under the supervision of a driving instructor I don't think a 16 year old starter poses any more danger. Maybe L plates at 17 and a compulsory motorway element/separate test. I'd certainly be in favour of making the test harder and doing something to stop people just rebooking there test time and time again. I know someone who passed there test (third time) still not understanding that without a filter you don't have priority when turning right at a green light, he just turned across traffic expecting it to stop for him :really:

The theory also needs throwing away and replacing, what about proper training of dangerous situations (possibly a simulator based part of the test/compulsory training) just going by the theory book I think I'd have had a (non-fault) head on by not being able to get out of the way of an idiot (probably another young driver). I've got another friend who tried to overtake a lorry traveling at 60mph uphill just before a blind crest, he pulled out changed up a gear then despite the fact there was an oncoming car and he was hardly faster than the lorry waited for the lorry to slam on its brakes and let him in. In terms of f***ing retardedness it doesn't get much better, the scary thing is he thought nothing of the fact that two other road users had to brake to avoid a certainly fatal accident caused by total ignorance resulting in a string of unforgivable mistakes none of which are covered in a driving test.

Equally conditions need to be properly covered, I also know someone who managed to spin and crash a car into a hedge on ice on at low speed on a dead straight road :doh:


And of course you don't agree with power restrictions because you 'own' a silly repmobile (that is a LOT more dangerous as a first car than pretty much anything vaguely close to sensible). Again, you are biased, and therefore your views hold little water.


I'd have said weight and capacity restrictions would be a sensible measure, and IMO cars should be taxed based on weight, the idea of a 2 ton car that happily cruises at 90mph is pretty scary and is bad for safety, the environment (if you believe in global warming) and just a completely senseless waste of resources that nobody should be driving.

[Woz]

If you use the laws of averages, those three points are correct - and yes, I can see where I unfortunately sit in this scenario. It's not going to stop me, but I do acknowledge it. The sad fact is that I'll have had over three years' driving experience, three years' experience of the physics involved in driving a car, and three years' teaching in the dangerous nature of driving; but no insurance company will care. I know there's no substitute for road driving experience, but that doesn't mean no other experience is worth anything.

I'm still kind of ambivalent about whether a larger, more powerful but also heavier and better-planted car is more dangerous than a smaller, less powerful but also less protected and less grippy one.

I am interested in your 3 years driving experience, where was this gained. Please do not say LFS.

The trouble is that when you start to drive on real roads you realise that all the theory, sims and lessons has not prepared you for what you WILL encounter on the roads, it can be a nightmare out there in the real world. The place is full of t*ats that should not be on the roads at all. :)

Here is a great example on why you faster but "more stable" car (As you put it) will put you more at risk...

There were studies done years ago on seatbelts wearing around the time when the law changed so you had to wear them. The test subjects were monitored driving with and without a seatbelt. What the researchers found was that when people wear seatbelts they pull away faster, drive faster, brake later and take more risks in general.

The safer you feel in your car the more you will push it harder. The less "risk" you feel the more "risk" you take, this is just basic human nature and the same think happens in all aspects of life no matter the activity.

Try it yourself. Drive without your seatbelt and you will feel very exposed. You will find you are less inclined to push it.

As you yourself acknowledge, you are at the bottom of the chain. No RL road experience coupled with fast car. While you might feel you are safe there will be situations that catch you. That first time you hit black ice, oil or even a big deep puddle at real speed is the time you realise how little room for error there is. Even the first time someone steps out on you and you are forced to stop or kill them.

So a car which is slower and feels less safe will make you drive slower. The slower you are the more margin of error you have and the more chance you have to recover.

I have learnt, over my long driving history, that in the end on public roads a slower car with crap tyres ends up more fun. You can push its limits at far far slower speeds and the lack of speed means you have a chance to catch the mistake with time to spare. In the end it is just as much fun but you do not end up dead as you go into a tree backwards :)

[Stang70Fastback]

I still don't think you can call a 136bhp car 'fast.'



<--- THAT'S fast. But that's got like almost 10x the power :)

[wheel4hummer]

I admit that if I were to drive anything with more then 200HP, then I would end up in a ditch somewhere the first day I drove it. Although I did drive my friend's Pontiac Grand Prix once, but that only has about 190HP.

[Woz]

I still don't think you can call a 136bhp car 'fast.'



<--- THAT'S fast. But that's got like almost 10x the power :)

Yep your avitar car is a "very fast" car but this is relative.

We are talking about the first car a person will drive on public roads.

So in the context of someone still learning what testosterone is and its effects on the mind and body, yes 136 bhp is fast and will get you into trouble.

lol:)

I admit that if I were to drive anything with more then 200HP, then I would end up in a ditch somewhere the first day I drove it. Although I did drive my friend's Pontiac Grand Prix once, but that only has about 190HP.

I took a BWM Works Cooper S on a 500mile test drive once. 210bhp light car that is not yours and no worries about your own no claims bonus in the arse end of Scotland makes you drive like a nutter. Yep its true, the faster the car will go the faster you need to drive it before it becomes fun. This thing didnt really start to sit right on the road until you hit 90+mph. At that speed you could feel the suspension was working at the frequencies it was designed to operate at. It just felt too solid at slower speeds.

And that is the problem right there. The faster a car is designed to go the worse it feels and the slower it feels until you get it up to its operating speed. The speed the suspension and setup are designed for.

I bet an Enzo is a pile of shite to drive around town, its designed for very different tasks :)

[atlantian]

WTF! How does a button requiring you to press the clutch save 'the engine's lifespan'? Can you refrain from posting about semi-technical stuff until you've finished kindergarten?
well, "bumping" the car along with the starter motor and repeatedly stalling the car couldn't be good for the engine could it?

and BTW, i start in 1st, i just have the clutch depressed when i start the car.:sheep:

[Stang70Fastback]

Yep your avitar car is a "very fast" car but this is relative.

We are talking about the first car a person will drive on public roads.

So in the context of someone still learning what testosterone is and its effects on the mind and body, yes 136 bhp is fast and will get you into trouble.

lol:)

I have to say I disagree. What exactly is your idea of a good car to learn on? Something that goes 0-60 in 20 seconds? Ideally you could start every teenager out in a PowerWheels and slowly work them up to a real car, but there's a point at which a 'slow' car actually becomes useless for teaching anything, or even dangerous in traffic. 136 hp is NOT fast enough to get into trouble unless you really are an idiot, in which case you'll probably be just as likely to get into an accident in a 70 hp car. There were 500 students who went to my high-school, and I only heard of maybe a handful who managed to crash their cars - and those cars were: new Toyota Scion... another new Toyota Scion, a Ford Mustang, a Camaro. There were quite a few tiny accidents, but none were the result of overpowered cars, more underpowered brains and the inability to watch the car in front of them in heavy 5mph traffic on the way to and from school.

The thing is, most teenage drivers that would crash a high-powered car, are stupid enough that they usually manage to get into accidents no matter what kind of car you hand them the keys to. In a sense, I think that it's better to just let them drive the way they want. As they say, having an accident is the only way to learn :P

[wheel4hummer]

I'm sorry, I have to disagree. Unless you're talking about the four-cylinder Camaro, then it definitely was because the driver was driving a car with too much power. What year was it, and v6 or v8?

[Stang70Fastback]

Thats what I was saying. The only accidents at our school involved cars with too much power. But TOO much power means 200+ bhp (or ever 300 in some cases there.) 135 hp is LESS than almost ALL of the cars at my school had, and no-one seemed to have any trouble controlling those raging horses under the 'bonnet.'

[Woz]

Thats what I was saying. The only accidents at our school involved cars with too much power. But TOO much power means 200+ bhp (or ever 300 in some cases there.) 135 hp is LESS than almost ALL of the cars at my school had, and no-one seemed to have any trouble controlling those raging horses under the 'bonnet.'

I get the feeling you fail to understand what I am talking about then. No a 140bhp car is not like a 200bhp car. You are 100% right there and a 200bhp car will get you in trouble far faster. agreed.

BUT a 90bhp car is nothing like a 136bhp car. You might not accept that a 136bhp car is fast but with modern cars they are actually capable of high enough top speeds to get a new driver into lots of trouble. It is even enough to get the back to step if you panic in a corner and play with the throttle with a lead foot trying to correct.

Even the poster with the car admits that the 3 stats I made a note of are TRUE. Youth + lack of RL driving experience + power DOES increase the risk of a crash. The further any of those moves up the scale the more likely the crash is.

You do realise that driving is NOT just about your skill, but the rest of the stupid morons on the road.

Yes you can get many cars of that power level nowdays and that might make you believe it is no longer a powerful car but compared to the cars most young drivers are forced to drive in the UK due to high insurance costs for anything remotly powerful it is far more powerful.

Does that help you see where I am coming from.

[wheel4hummer]

You might not accept that a 136bhp car is fast but with modern cars they are actually capable of high enough top speeds to get a new driver into lots of trouble.

That's true. My mom's 4 cylinder accord only has 160HP, and is a slow, boring sedan, but I've gone 90mph in it before. So, 160HP is enough to get you killed. But, I've been just as fast in my Saturn once, which only has 124HP. You don't need a lot of power to go too fast for the road. Now, both times I went that fast were obviously on the highway, and when there was no traffic around. But let's just say that a tire blowout at that speed would definitely not be fun. The speed rating on the tires is 93MPH, and that's one speed limit I didn't wish to exceed! 124HP is plenty powerful for me. 0-60 in 8.5 seconds is slow, but I have never gone from a dead stop to 60mph in any car ever before.

[Stang70Fastback]

Yes, I fully understand where you are coming from, but what if you could buy a car with 20 bhp? Would you recommend THAT as a starting point?

I guess I should restate what I'm trying to say. What I mean to say is that if someone really is incapable of safely driving a car with 100+ bhp, they probably won't be much safer with a car with 70 or even 50.

Let me put it this way. Imagine some 17 year old who is a FANTASTIC driver, and will never crash his 300 bhp car. Great. He has to be somewhat intelligent. Now imagine another person who has difficulty controlling a car with 150 bhp. Probably not as much common sense up there. Same with 100 - the intelligence level (when it comes to driving) goes down IN GENERAL. What I'm trying to say, is that there's a point at which, if a person cannot control a car of xxx power, they probably don't have enough skill to merit having a license and driving ANY car at all. In other words, I think if someone cannot control a 100 bhp car, giving them a car with 60 bhp is probably still going to be almost as dangerous because odds are they will have an accident anyway - though not at as high a speed I guess.

Basically, if you don't trust someone with a car faster than 30 seconds to 60, you shouldn't trust them on the road at ALL.

I know that they still will be safer with less power, but ALL I am trying to say is, why let them on the road at all? They're probably too dangerous ANYWAY.

[atlantian]

Thats what I was saying. The only accidents at our school involved cars with too much power. But TOO much power means 200+ bhp (or ever 300 in some cases there.) 135 hp is LESS than almost ALL of the cars at my school had, and no-one seemed to have any trouble controlling those raging horses under the 'bonnet.'
well, in my city, practically every kid is spoiled with a brand new 30k car. we here, have evos, z's, infinity skylines, and gti rabbits(fastest guy in school). they all have atleast 300 bhp.

and yes it's all relative, guess everyone in my neighborhood is competent enough to handle "beasts"

the most powerful thing i have driven is my cousin's 250is with around 200 hp... felt a little too tame...

and i have also driven a 70's 911 and it kinda scared me... i expect that a lot of hp escaped...

[Impreza WRX]

Clearly you haven't been privileged to drive 300+ horsepower V8 pickup trucks like half my graduating class in high school! Not only did they start their driving career driving power hungry (and fuel hungry) full size 4x4s and 4x2s with lift kits and I/H/E mods but they also took them racing at Morosso, off-roading (real off-roading with mud and jumps and water forging and winching) at "the Hump", and would come to school with trucks that had a fresh coat of "everglades mud" gray! It was always amazing that their trucks survived the abuse, too, but then again, OLDER Chevrolet and Dodge trucks were really built "Like A Rock". And I stand by my word that Fords are floppy, poorly-built trucks. I've driven them alongside the competition and... bleh.

Of course, the other half of the senior class drove real expensive "my rich daddy bought me a brand new BMW" cars or Honda Civics. Mainly Honda Civics.

I have driven a 2007 Silverado LT CREW CAB with the 4.8L Vortec V8. Its power (all top end, great for speed bad for towing) was counterbalanced by its MASSIVE girth! Although it was running 295 BHP, it took too long to see that, given the torque didn't peak 305 ft-lbs. until 4800 RPM. However, it was pretty cool to be able to get to 50 MPH in one gear. Handling and braking, though, leave a LOT to be desired. Driving a huge pickup truck is like driving a bus. If someone stops hard in front of me, it's my fault whether I like it or not, 'cause it ain't gonna stop for another ten miles!

This is the kind of vehicle many Americans learn to drive on. You HAVE to be a safe driver to even think of driving a truck!

[Dark Elite]

I am interested in your 3 years driving experience, where was this gained. Please do not say LFS.Private roads on a weekly basis, and circuit training with a qualified race instructor.

I don't have time to run through all the responses right now, I'll do so later on - but I will say I've driven a Lotus Exige for half an hour at race speed without trouble, in damp conditions, if a marker on my experience/ability is needed by anyone.

The thought of 'most teenage drivers' seems to keep recurring too, and I stress that I do not by any means propose that all drivers at the age of sixteen, fifteen, even seventeen should be allowed to drive on the roads - but that they are subject to far more stringent tests, along with some sort of assessment of their level of respect for the car and other road users, and sense of responsibility concerning driving. I think the current UK road driving test is far too easy, and lets far too many idiots onto the roads. I don't want the laws changing so I can drive in the nearer future, I'd like to see a change that doesn't penalise good drivers whilst allowed morons to carry on endangering people.

Sam

[dawesdust_12]

I dunno, that's the problem, everyone thinks "It's everyone else, not me, blah blah", when the stupid stuff I've seen done (and done myself) is remarkable, I think that cops should have the ability to give people mandatory drivers training or they get their licence taken away if they get observed doing something absolutely stupid (like running stop signs or making a California Stop while driving around the block...)

[nihil]

I don't want the laws changing so I can drive in the nearer future, I'd like to see a change that doesn't penalise good drivers whilst allowed morons to carry on endangering people.


I like your style, cool and rational, and thoroughly agree with you. I think Woz is on a hiding to nothing arguing about power figures... Power is irrelevant when you consider that the primary skill required for driving on the road is AWARENESS.

If you are aware - of your car, of the driving conditions, of the surrounding environment - then you can drive anything. And awareness is not a natural ability that some have and some do not - it is a skill that can be taught.

In the UK, you are much more likely to acquire this skill if you do Compulsory Basic Training for a motorcycle. The CBT isn't a test, its a training day and the fact that car drivers do not have something similar is appalling.

I don't think tests need to be more rigorous, that's a red herring... But training does have to be more thorough. Make people ride a bicycle or a moped in city traffic for a week. That alone would increase awareness skills by a significant factor, making a glance over the shoulder, before any manoeuvre, a reflex action as natural as undoing your flies before taking a piss.

[AndroidXP]

What's up with all the more power = more speed = more dangerous nonsense? I agree that more power is more dangerous, but in my opinion it's a psychological phenomenon, not a speed issue. Heck I've done stupid things like driving >110mph in my 21yr old 115hp Audi 100, so a "low" powered 136hp car is more than enough to reach stupid speeds.

The problem of high powered cars goes IMO more like this:
More power = more grunt = more manly = more testosterone = more stupid decisions (like driving too fast).

[Jakg]

In the UK, you are much more likely to acquire this skill if you do Compulsory Basic Training for a motorcycle. The CBT isn't a test, its a training day and the fact that car drivers do not have something similar is appalling.I dont know if it's different for a "proper" bike but when i did my CBT for my bike i just went to a car park and, in effect, dicked about with a crappy scooter - went round some cones, emergency stops, was taught how to look at the road and how to look as you move across the road (cue random shout of "LIFESAVER!") and then just going out on a road and trying to do it. TBH i think that a driving lesson would teach you the same stuff.

I did my CBT with someone else doing there 125 Direct Access course and they did the same thing only having to worry about a Clutch...

[nihil]

I dont know if it's different for a "proper" bike but when i did my CBT for my bike i just went to a car park and, in effect, dicked about with a crappy scooter

The CBT is the same for all classes of motorcycle, it's all about slow control ("dicking about" as you put it...) and awareness (it almost certainly wasn't a random shout of "Lifesaver" since that glance over your shoulder should be part of a very particular routine)

The CBT has proved itself statistically in reducing road deaths, but I think the real benefit is that it has introduced the notion of training as a developmental thing to motorcyclists.

A test is just something you pass and forget about. Training is something you consider as an ongoing thing: once you have your licence you might think about advanced training with a police instructor, or a sportsbike school... whatever...

Motorcyclists are much more likely to consider these options, and I don't think that's just because we are generally more enthusiastic about our machines (though that is admittedly part of it). All I can say is that when I did my CBT, riding home was like being on a different bike to the one I rode to the training centre on. But the bike hadn't changed at all. I had.

[ColeusRattus]

I think Woz has a point there. It's a statisatical proven fact, at least here in austria, that most traffic casualties are (ore are caused by) people between the age of 18 and 24 years with cars that have more than 100 hp (and in austria, due to fuel prices, taxes and insurance, a car with more than 100 hp is very expensive to run).

It boils down to a simple equation: the longer it takes for you to reach speeds where you can't control the car anymore, the less chance there is to reach those speeds. And especially younger drivers really tend to overestimate their abilities while underestimating the danger for themselves and others, which leads to very unreasonable driving styles.

And concerning the 136 hp is too slow: that might be the case for 2.5 tons of automatic transmission crippled trucks, but my 90 hp 900 kg toyota can be driven quite agressively, and it reaches 180 km/h on the autobahn quicker than I like it.

So I too am for a system similar to that we have for motorbikes: you basically have to earn the privilege to drive ones with bigger engines.

[Stang70Fastback]

I completely agree that you should have to earn the right to drive bigger, faster cars. I just don't think that everyone should necessarily have to start out with a 90 bhp car. People have different driving abilities and they should be rewarded.

I should mention that 90 bhp to me seems TERRIBLY slow because most vehicles over here weigh twice as much as your cars. I'm trying to imagine my 1500 kg Subaru with 90 bhp and I can't see that thing moving any faster than a snail.

[tristancliffe]

Maybe limit new drivers to 70hp/tonne for the first year, 90hp/tonne for the second year, and 200hp/tonne in the third year before allowing any vehicle.

And this applies more to the UK, where we have corners and more than 1 car per square mile, than the States where a light car is considered as up to 3 tonnes, a weedy car is considered to have less than 300hp, and the drivers are considered to have 1 brain cell.

[Stang70Fastback]

Yeah - there's not much you can do about the stupidity over here. I do have to say a big part of the problem with people in America driving poorly is the way they are taught, and the laws. Not once did my driving instructor tell me to keep right - just to stay out of the left lane. They simply don't seem to care to teach you the stuff that makes you DRIVE well, they just teach you not to run red lights and what a stop sign is. The stuff everyone knows anyway. They say "be aware" but that's it. They SHOULD tell people things like, "the light's green, but you should always glance left-right anyone to make sure no-one is running the intersection."

In fact, the driving instructor that is linked to our school is known to fall asleep most of the time and just lets the kid drive around for two hours. My dad got terribly angry when we were behind him one day teaching some student how to drive, and the student pulled out not into the near lane, but all the way across into the far lane. My dad started yelling at him out the window about how he wasn't teaching anything and shouldn't be an instructor at the next light, lol.

And then the laws don't help. They should make it like they do in Europe, where you have to leave your blinker on when passing. That might get people to move over.

Of course, in some places, people drive well. I'm from New Jersey, where no-one drives correctly, but down here in Virginia, they don't need 7-lane highways, because everyone leapfrogs like they should and just drives correctly.

Also, that's the other point. As you stated, in the UK, in many parts (particularly the cities) it is MUCH more dangerous for someone to have a powerful car. Here in VA, I honestly don't see the issue with someone being allowed a little more power. The roads are simply much more open, and there are much fewer drivers. Which is simply another example of why there really isn't a good STANDARD for everyone.

[ajp71]

I still don't think you can call a 136bhp car 'fast.'


136bhp in a lightweight hatch back is a lot of power. 90bhp is more than enough to get most cars over 100mph, at which speed the idea of something going wrong isn't nice.

I only heard of maybe a handful who managed to crash their cars - and those cars were: new Toyota Scion... another new Toyota Scion, a Ford Mustang, a Camaro. There were quite a few tiny accidents, but none were the result of overpowered cars, more underpowered brains and the inability to watch the car in front of them in heavy 5mph traffic on the way to and from school.


In the UK we have corners and narrow tree lined roads, meaning it's a lot easier for people to crash from driving too fast and head ons are a particularly nasty result of people driving too fast down narrow roads, on a lot of UK roads too fast is less than the speed limit and a lot less than even the most basic cars will happily cruise at. When we say too much power we're not talking about controlling the power quite like you're thinking, more simply a car that ends up traveling at silly speeds too easily.

Private roads on a weekly basis, and circuit training with a qualified race instructor.


That scares me so you reckon you can drive fast but you've yet to learn to deal with traffic or have to read an unknown road or drive in the dark yet you've obviously got a desire to drive fast. I'd have said that a 136bhp saloon is definitely not a sensible car for you to learn in.

[Stang70Fastback]

136bhp in a lightweight hatch back is a lot of power. 90bhp is more than enough to get most cars over 100mph, at which speed the idea of something going wrong isn't nice.

The thing is, you guys have this idea that every kid who owns a car WILL drive 100 mph whenever they get the chance - or at least that is what you make it sound like. This is simply not true. I have never gone 100 mph in my car. Even when I was with my friend and we were on a secluded strip of road where EVERYONE takes their cars to go 150 mph or faster because it is straight, has open fields on both sides, and no cops and he pushed me to do so, I refused. Admittedly, I am sure many kids try to break 100 mph at least once when they get a new car. My parents did it when they got their new minivan, and a new Bonneville. Everyone will do it at least ONCE just out of curiosity, but most people are not going to do it again.

If it's that much of a worry, put a limiter on the car, or toss a GPS unit in the trunk. But don't force someone to learn to drive in a car that does not have enough power to accelerate onto the highway or out of a dangerous situation.

In reference to the above stat

[tristancliffe]

I don't approve of artificially limiting cars via GPS or whatever, because that will cause more desperate driving, and stupier overtaking.

However, being the UK, we'll just roll over and accept it, like with Gatsos, Health and Safety crap, windfarms, ID cards (1984?), the Euro (eventually, even it though it will bring only downsides), banning smoking etc. We're losing human rights faster than you can shake a tiny stick in a hummingbirds wing.

You might be a sensible driver (or a complete pussy, depending on your point of view - there is such a thing as safe speed, but knowing when to attempt it comes with experience and not bravery - the opposite of what most, but not all youngsters have), but I'd guess that statistics put you in a lonely 5 - 10% of your vague age group. Teenagers are reckless - always have been, always will be - as a group. Removing/limiting them so that their uncontrolled recklessness doesn't result in people (and not just the youngsters) driving is a good thing.

Oh, and about my comment about being an adult further up - in the UK you are not legally considered grown up or an adult until you are 18. Therefore you are a child and a minor. Clear as daylight.

[Stang70Fastback]

I don't approve of artificially limiting cars via GPS or whatever, because that will cause more desperate driving, and stupider overtaking.

I'm just curious, could you elaborate on that? I don't understand what you mean.

Oh, and about my comment about being an adult further up - in the UK you are not legally considered grown up or an adult until you are 18. Therefore you are a child and a minor. Clear as daylight.

I take it you're referring towards me someone else?

[tristancliffe]

Imagine you are stuck behind a lorry at 50mph in a 60 limit. It will be a lot MORE dangerous if the limited car pulls out to overtake, but cannot continue accelerating for the duration of the overtake = dangerous! Remove the limiter, and the person can continue accelerating to above the speed limit, reducing the TED (time exposed to danger - a real and genuine term), and improving safety. The overtaking car can then slow down again to the speed limit.

That's just one example. There are lots more to do with active safety and what-not. Plus, who REALLY wants Big Brother controlling EVERYTHING THEY FECKING DO AND SEEING WHEREVER THEY FECKING GO!!!!!!!!!!!!!


The other bit wasn't at you, but the schoolboy with the mundaneo.

[ajp71]

The thing is, you guys have this idea that every kid who owns a car WILL drive 100 mph whenever they get the chance - or at least that is what you make it sound like. This is simply not true. I have never gone 100 mph in my car. Even when I was with my friend and we were on a secluded strip of road where EVERYONE takes their cars to go 150 mph or faster because it is straight, has open fields on both sides, and no cops and he pushed me to do so, I refused. Admittedly, I am sure many kids try to break 100 mph at least once when they get a new car.

In the UK a lot of people like driving fast. Compared to the states typical cars are about half the weight and don't fall over when presented with a corner, which we have lots of. In the UK you can't just get in your automatic barge get up to 50 and leave it there for a few hours our driving requires much more activity from the driver, due to roads and traffic. I think most of my friends have done the far side of the ton in cars that struggle to get there and a lot do enjoy messing about in a car, which can be fun so long as one doesn't get carried away and it's by no means just car made males who drive fast, I know several girls who have no problem driving far faster than you'd drive on the highway down narrow lanes in the middle of the night, which can be done reasonably safely if one's aware of the risks and can plan ahead the problem comes when people aren't ready to do it. There have been quite a few single car multiple-fatality accidents locally all due to young drivers in small hatchbacks wrapping themselves round trees at high speed whilst obviously trying to drive fast so the argument that few young drivers will drive quickly just doesn't hold in this country.

[Stang70Fastback]

Imagine you are stuck behind a lorry at 50mph in a 60 limit. It will be a lot MORE dangerous if the limited car pulls out to overtake, but cannot continue accelerating for the duration of the overtake = dangerous! Remove the limiter, and the person can continue accelerating to above the speed limit, reducing the TED (time exposed to danger - a real and genuine term), and improving safety. The overtaking car can then slow down again to the speed limit.

Alright. I thought you were going to say it was SAFER in the limited cars because they didn't have the power to pass without going over the limit and so wouldn't try, in which case I was going to say that that was a stupid idea, since people need to be able to be aggressive on occasion - even teenage drivers. But I see that that's what you were saying, so cool.

Yeah, I guess you cannot have the same standards in both the UK and the US due to the differences in the roads, infrastructure, cars, etc...

[Woz]

I guess in the end the point I am trying to get acorss is that no matter how much "experience" a new driver feels they have on the road they are not "battle hardend".

By this I mean prepared for the utter stupidity you will see and encounter on the road on a daily basis. The ONLY thing that actually prepars you for it is experience.

I am the first to admit that the road is full of people that can't drive and should not have a licence, and age does not factor in that.

I would say anyones first year on the road will open their eyes to the worst of human nature. After a year you have learnt enough to realise how defensive you have to be around other people. They do not do what you expect and when you expect like a stract driver.

Until you "go solo" in a car and have to fight your way across a large city you are unfamiliar with you will not realise the presures that build if you let it etc. Couple that stress with a new young driver and a 300bhp car and you WILL get problems.

The NZ issues are a special case I believe. The original idea for 15 year old drivers is that NZ is very sparsly populated mostly rural. So kids need to get about. The licence for young drivers is limited so they can't drive late at night and they can't carry passengers. There is also a far lower drink drive limit for younger drivers, I think the change point is 25.

All that worked fine in the past until the very cheap high performance cars became available. I can get an old WRX under $10000 (£4000). When the cheap performance came so did the F&F like problems. Huge groups (100s) collected together to have burnouts etc.

I am NOT saying that there are not responsible drivers at 17. What I am saying is that at 17 your body is still fighting you. Testosterone can be a cruel master until you learn to deal with it and learn wheen it is talking and when it is you. :)

I actually like the P plate idea. Where you have to put P plates (jusst passed) for the first year so that others on the road KNOW and can cut you some slack.

[Stang70Fastback]

Until you "go solo" in a car and have to fight your way across a large city you are unfamiliar with you will not realise the presures that build if you let it etc.

Reminds me of me of my few endeavors in New York City. That was loads of fun.

But yeah, nothing can replace real-life experience. In my two short years driving solo, I have avoided being rear ended (flooring it to get out of the way of a sliding car) which I must say was directly a result of my situational awareness, being side-swiped, and being slid into on icy roads multiple times. I fail to understand how those little old ladies get in as few accident as they do, since I have avoided many CERTAIN incidents simply by paying attention to others. I've even been behind a convertible 20 feet in front of me at 70 mph that over corrected when he had to swerve to avoid a car that cut him off, spun out and slammed into the center barrier. I had to brake HARD, stay in my lane, and then squeeze between two cars in the lane to the right because the truck on my left had to move over to avoid hitting the convertible himself. I really think a driving course JUST teaching situational and active awareness should be mandatory.

[Impreza WRX]

Until you "go solo" in a car and have to fight your way across a large city you are unfamiliar with you will not realise the presures that build if you let it etc.

Then whatever you do, don't try to drive through Miami, Florida. You will either kill yourself from the pressure or some angry Hispanic will kill you when you cut him/her off.

Miami, FL is rated by Insurance Groups as the city with the worst drivers in America!

[duke_toaster]

http://www.deepjiveinterests.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/stop-hammer-time.jpg

OK, this thread has gone 110% off topic and it's run considerably more than its course.

We've established that this feature is found predomenantly on large American cars which are normally found with automatics.

This would not be found in a Mini/Citroen Saxo/Vauxhall Calibra/Porsche 911. Therefore, LFS does not need it on them. However, should we get such a car it would be welcome.

Thank you and goodnight.

[wheel4hummer]

It is true that 17 year olds are the most irresponsible drivers. Today, I saw a kid in a monstrous diesel-powered ford F250 attempt driving on the wrong side of the road illegally to pass the people making right turns into the school. He gets into the left lane, and then floors it without even looking. He almost hits a poor woman in a Honda Civic head on at 20mph each. Luckily he slammed on his brakes and sat there blocking the path of the Civic. The Civic, being road-blocked by a giant Ford pickup truck had no path to take other then into the school. And after this I saw some asshole in an infiniti do the same exact thing. I really didn't feel like seeing a woman die because a tank ran over her car.

[rcpilot]

I can genuinely say I've never started a car in gear accidentally. I have let the clutch out forgetting it was in gear before though, which is a far worse mistake to make TBH ;)



No that's got more to do with general complete disregard for traffic rules than difficulties starting :D
I have an '84 supra and I managed to turn the starter on once while in gear without the clutch. More just happened through reflex though, where I had the car parked I normally left it in neutral and expected it to be in neutral without checking. And it's not that insane, like my mom's automatic '02 echo (sold as something else in europe, goofy toyota econobox) has a lockout that prevents you from taking it out of park until your foot is on the brake. But you can still turn the car on as long as it's in park (which it will be considering you can't take the key out without it being in park).

There's no reason not to have some of these little fixes in there, actually kind of stupid to not have some of them. One thing I've learned in web development, is if you have something that's used by a general sample of the population, if you can put a 'user error' catch in there without inconveniencing everyone else, you should. Never underestimate the stupidity of the 'lower half' of any populous, plus no one's perfect and mistakes happen. But, yes, we have become an overly cautious sue-happy culture in general. I've experienced some of it first-hand after accidentally breaking someone's arm back in middle school attempting to get an item back from them that belonged to a friend of mine. (Spun him around by his shirt and let go, fell on his arm badly.) We offered to pay medical expenses etc., don't hear anything from them until a couple years later when their lawyer calls. Our insurance took care of it all at least. (This incident was so horribly 'my fault' that the school never talked to me about it or punished me for it.)

[Woz]

Then whatever you do, don't try to drive through Miami, Florida. You will either kill yourself from the pressure or some angry Hispanic will kill you when you cut him/her off.

Miami, FL is rated by Insurance Groups as the city with the worst drivers in America!

I have been driving 22 years so nothing like that really hold fear now. Even driving in Paris (Anyone that has ever done this will know you take you life in your own hands :))

I am saying that any new driver, no matter how "great" they believe themselves to be is in for a real shock when they hit real life road networks. As you say, there are situations that no driving test prepares you for :)

At 17, there is no such thing as greatness behind the wheel either. That is just testosterone talking and that in itself is a danger lol :)

I bet there is not a single person here that will dispute the 3 facts I posted earlier but I am happy to hear from someone that does. Here they are again

1) The more powerful the car the MORE chance it is involved in a crash.
2) The younger the driver the MORE chance they are involved in a crash. (Take the old gits out of this as the rule changes as you approach adult nappy stage :))
3) The more experience behind the wheel the LESS chance you are involved in a crash.

Yes they are generalisations but on the whole they are right. Anyone disagree? (This should be fun as there is a HUGE body of evidence out there to back these up BTW)

[Stang70Fastback]

Your three points make absolute sense, but I like to think of the "power to kill" ratio as a sideways curve (see attached image.)

In other words, working backwards, give a kid a 500 hp car, and you can pretty much guarantee he'll get into an accident.
A 400 hp car is not very much safer.
A 300 hp car is a bit safer, but still dangerous in the hands of a teen.
A 200 hp car is a lot safer than a 500 hp, but still could get into trouble.
A 100 hp car is not that dangerous at all really.
A 0 hp car needs to have an IDIOT behind the wheel to get into an accident (and I know plenty of people who could qualify, lol.)

The point being, I don't think there is as much of a difference in safety between a 90 and 130 bhp car as there is between a 130 and 170 bhp or a 170 and 210 hp car. Just look at the graph to see what I mean. I just don't think a 136 bhp car is THAT much more powerful to merit too much concern - that's all.

But yes, all of your points are valid.

Speaking of the qualifying for the 0 HP accident award, some girl at our school managed to roll her Jeep on a perfectly straight and level road at 20 mph... and Jeeps are not THAT prone to rolling over, lol.

[flymike91]

....jeeps are like the most well-known vehicle in america for rolling over.

Anyway, I don't see why it's such a big deal that you have to have the clutch down to start the engine or have the brake down to select another gear in an auto. If you're doing it right, you do these things already. They're not even things to "protect stupid Americans", they're things that could keep ANYONE from making a mistake and damaging their second most expensive belonging.

I really hate the anti-american bullshit on this forum

[benja-man]

I've even been behind a convertible 20 feet in front of me at 70 mph...

Isn't that a bit too close?

[dawesdust_12]

Depends on the speed that you're going at. Laws here atleast are 2 seconds on normal streets, and 3 seconds on Highways.

[tristancliffe]

They're not even things to "protect stupid Americans", they're things that could keep ANYONE from making a mistake and damaging their second most expensive belonging.

I really hate the anti-american bullshit on this forum

True, they could protect anyone stupid enough to make that mistake. It's just that the rest of the world isn't that stupid (on the whole, with lots of exceptions to each rule obviously) :)

You would hate it - you're American. The French hate anti-French stuff. The Germans hate the anti-German stuff. And the English would, but they're too busy taking the mickey out of Scotland and Wales :D

[ColeusRattus]

how dull would the world be without the occasional friendly racism (or rather nationalism... as I wouldn't go so far as to call the americans a "race")...

But then, noone thinks that americans are more stupid, then, for example, brits, italians spanish, portuguese, french, russian, german, austrian, swiss, etc. people, BUT, at least according to some urban myths, the US of A's system acctually gratifies stupidity (coffee burns, poodles in microwaves), and additionally, the whole list of warnings seen on american products, of which at least two thirds are beyond people with a little common sense in them, makes it actually seem like america itself regards the americans as thick.

But back on topic... hell, there is no topic anymore!

[Jakg]

I'd like to point out the Coffee burn lawsuit was because the Coffee was needlessly hot (180 degrees) when the Coffee would be the same at a lower temperature, only take a tiny amount of time more to make. She was NOT suing because the Coffee wasn't labelled as hot.

[ColeusRattus]

Degrees fahrenheit, I deem. And I still think it's stupid to sue for a self inflicted injury, AND getting through with it.
And honestly: because the coffee "wasn't labelled as hot"? Would you sue, if you'd burn yourself with tea because the cup didn't say it was hot? I think there are some things that should be regarded as common knowledge (if it steams = hot)... Just because it's actually less tupid than publically percieved doesn't make it not stupid in general.

well, back to topic: dun need no clutch strater safety thingy. thx ^^

[AndroidXP]

And honestly: because the coffee "wasn't labelled as hot"?
Read again:
She was NOT suing because the Coffee wasn't labelled as hot.

[Jakg]

Degrees fahrenheit, I deem. And I still think it's stupid to sue for a self inflicted injury, AND getting through with it.
And honestly: because the coffee "wasn't labelled as hot"? Would you sue, if you'd burn yourself with tea because the cup didn't say it was hot? I think there are some things that should be regarded as common knowledge (if it steams = hot)... Just because it's actually less tupid than publically percieved doesn't make it not stupid in general.

well, back to topic: dun need no clutch strater safety thingy. thx ^^Erm, 180 degrees CELSUIS.

You might think it's obvious it would be hot, but i think that if if you were served a 500 degree steak and burned your mouth after leaving it for 10 minutes you would sue too.

She WASN'T suing because it wasn't labelled as hot, but that was something McDonalds did to stop them getting sued again ("meh, we told 'em it was hot!")

[AndroidXP]

Wow. She must've gotten a high pressure cup then, otherwise I'm pretty sure the coffee would've boiled in the cup at 180°C :scratchch. Or maybe I just don't understand the coffee-thermodynamics that well :shrug:

[tristancliffe]

I suppose super heated coffee-steam would be a possibility, albeit unlikely. But to serve it the cup must be pressurised, which is probably what those plastic lids do (because they are USELESS for drinking through :p)

[Stang70Fastback]

....jeeps are like the most well-known vehicle in america for rolling over.

Take a look (http://www.suv-rollovers.com/nhtsa-rollover-rating.cfm) at where the Jeep Wrangler sits among SUV rollover ratings. It is definitely not the most well known SUV to roll over.

[tristancliffe]

No, he said it was like the most well-known vehicle in America for rolling over. And the Jeep Wrangler is a bit like the most well-known vehicle in America for rolling over - it has four rubbery wheels, a body, some glass etc etc.

Either that, or he added a 'like' without meaning to, probably as a result of inbreeding.

[Stang70Fastback]

I took it as he said "like" as in "I am like the coolest kid ever."

The way those teenage girls always talk... you know "Like so YESTERDAY I was like shopping, and three guys like walked up to me, and I like totally told them..."

And, even if you disregard the fact that there are MANY, MANY more SUVs that are more prone to rolling over, unintentionally rolling ANYTHING at 20 mph really involves some serious skill (or lack thereof.) Apparently she didn't even swerve to avoid anything - no-one knows how she managed it (it was in traffic) and she didn't even get it on its side, she got it on it's ROOF, lol.

[Mille Sabords]

/me wants a pic of the equipment pouring 180°C cofee!
check this ;)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Water_phase_diagram.svg

I think driving license should not be granted to anybody who can not demonstrate 2 years / 20'000 miles driven distance...

More seriously the best form of training I have seen was a driving license working like this (in France in the early 90s):
at 16 you get to drive with an appointed adult (holder of the license for min 3 years) and both receive a few hours instructions - around 10.
You are then allowed to drive for 2 years (and you must have a plate on the car) with your "coach" in the car.
at 18 you can take the test after another 10 hours alone with an official instructor.

[Dark Elite]

Well, we're now massively off the topic, but I just wanted to leave this last thought...
That scares me so you reckon you can drive fast but you've yet to learn to deal with traffic or have to read an unknown road or drive in the dark yet you've obviously got a desire to drive fast. I'd have said that a 136bhp saloon is definitely not a sensible car for you to learn in.I have driven in the dark, and read plenty of new roads (and cars), but I know that this does not prepare me for public road driving. Yes, I have a desire to drive fast - when it's safe to do so. Driving on a circuit provides a vent for that desire, giving somewhere far safer to drive at the limits of your car's performance; and if you can do that, you won't feel quite so urged to make a dubious overtaking maneouvre, or push too hard on a dodgy surface, when out on the road.

I learnt in a 150bhp Audi A6 weighing 1350kg, and I never put myself in any danger whatsoever in that either. Come to think of it, I've driven a dozen different cars from 70 to 200bhp at speeds up to 100mph, and never once placed anyone in danger at all. It is not the car, or the conditions, that decide the danger level - it is the driver, or the other drivers around him. Hence my proposition for harsher punishments on sub-standard drivers, and higher standards for driving tests. The most important thing, though, is the psychology of the driver, including how likely they are to take risks, to push too hard, to drive too fast, in any given situation. Unfortunately this isn't easy to measure, and so I consign myself to the hell of insurance premiums, but I don't buy the statement that my car is an unwise choice for me - given my experience relative to most new drivers, and my respect for the car and others relative to most new drivers.

No, I'm not perfect - bloody far from it, like plenty of people - but if I didn't think... If I didn't know, rather, that I could be trusted with that car, I would never even consider driving it on the roads.

Tristan's idea about having restrictions based on power-to-weight seem more sensible, but perhaps these should be based on an assessment rather than just fixed numbers. Again, responsible drivers shouldn't be restricted by precautions taken against unsafe ones, and nor should unsafe drivers be allowed into cars that would be dangerous for them because most other people could handle them.

Sam

[atlantian]

a 135 hp saloon, is like a lancer or a corolla, hairdresser and a car for the broke

complete joke

[ColeusRattus]

thank god, atlantian contributet to the thread...

[dawesdust_12]

Life finally makes sense.

[Dark Elite]

It's nice to know that such well-read and eloquent people have clearly thought-out and justified opinions to share, isn't it? :rolleyes:

Sam

[Stang70Fastback]

a 135 hp saloon, is like a lancer or a corolla, hairdresser and a car for the broke

complete joke

Yes, but scathing alertness revokes non-contempt, and justifiably so, given the contemporary lifestyles and complacent gratuitousnesses that are so often perceived... and that pretty much invalidates your theory.

[flymike91]

"Like so YESTERDAY I was like shopping, and three guys like walked up to me, and I like totally told them..."

well i am from california :)
you're right, I wasn't up to date with the latest rollover test results. I assumed because I've seen more than one rolled over irl and in the news.

[Stang70Fastback]

well i am from california :)

lol, that'd just about do it :D

[GobLox]

Erm, 180 degrees CELSUIS.

Brilliant.

Obviously there are stupid people all over the world. I agree, the bigoted bull-shit is annoying. And no, I'm not offended only because I'm an American and subject to the prejudice. If people here were forever calling Mexicans lazy I would still say it's unacceptable. Tribalism is the last bastion of the feeble mind. Still, at this point I don’t even raise an eyebrow over it; I just thought I'd remind everyone that there are plenty of targets for bigotry. I wouldn't want anyone to think I was a one trick pony if that was my thing.

[Impreza WRX]

If n00bs should drive way underpowered cars because its safer, then by all means do get your new drivers a mint condition 3 cylinder Geo Metro! It's absolute lack of power means it will reach a top speed of 76 MPH maybe. It has good handling due to being as heavy as a bike, and it comfortably seats 2. Also, who doesn't like a convertible top?

There is one problem.

The Geo Metro is about as safe as driving a bunch of beer cans welded together in the shape of a car. If he/she hits a parking meter too fast, the results can be devastating!

So, instead of the n00b driver dying from rolling a super car on a twisty road at 100+ MPH, the n00b driver will die from a head-on while trying to pass someone on a 2 lane road at 40 MPH.

Really, then, it's not so much how fast the car that is being driven (although there is some accuracy to that) as it is the responsible education of the driver that needs to learn how to safely operate a 160 BHP grocery getter!

[Stang70Fastback]

If n00bs should drive way underpowered cars because its safer, then by all means do get your new drivers a mint condition 3 cylinder Geo Metro! It's absolute lack of power means it will reach a top speed of 76 MPH maybe. It has good handling due to being as heavy as a bike, and it comfortably seats 2. Also, who doesn't like a convertible top?

There is one problem.

The Geo Metro is about as safe as driving a bunch of beer cans welded together in the shape of a car. If he/she hits a parking meter too fast, the results can be devastating!

So, instead of the n00b driver dying from rolling a super car on a twisty road at 100+ MPH, the n00b driver will die from a head-on while trying to pass someone on a 2 lane road at 40 MPH.

Really, then, it's not so much how fast the car that is being driven (although there is some accuracy to that) as it is the responsible education of the driver that needs to learn how to safely operate a 160 BHP grocery getter!

Touche (with the little accent thingy over they e...)

[ajp71]

a 135 hp saloon, is like a lancer or a corolla, hairdresser and a car for the broke


It's still too fast to be driven near flat out safely on all but a few interesting roads so for anybody who wishes to drive quickly it's a bad choice of car.

@Dark Elite - I don't think you've realised quite what reading a road and traffic means and just like all learners you'll be completely out of your depth the first time you drive down a main road ;)

[Stang70Fastback]

It's still too fast to be driven near flat out safely on all but a few interesting roads so for anybody who wishes to drive quickly it's a bad choice of car.

I honestly find that statement to be ridiculous. ANY car cannot be driven flat-out safely. You'd be just as likely to die going flat-out in any car, considering that any of those cheap 90-mph top speed hatchback cars aren't built well enough to save your life if you hit something at any speed over 20.

The ridiculous part though is just the fact that if a car can go fast "flat out" that automatically means it's a bad car for a learner. I'll say it again, if you really think that the person is going to take his car flat out whenever he gets the chance, as a parent, you shouldn't allow him to buy a car or drive it.

I honestly believe that the solution could easily be an ANONYMOUS tracker in the person's cell phone. It would not track position, JUST speed, and would just send an email to the parent IF speeds exceeded, say, 85 mph. That's all. If you have to go 85 mph to overtake someone, I'm fairly certain that you shouldn't have needed to overtake them to begin with. Problem solved. Even better, it would report speed to the police, or the insurance company maybe, which would raise insurance if the speed was exceeded. There are so many ways to keep a person's speed in check. Or just require all teen drivers to have a GPS chip installed in their vehicle that does the same thing.

[Dark Elite]

Dark Elite - I don't think you've realised quite what reading a road and traffic means and just like all learners you'll be completely out of your depth the first time you drive down a main road ;)Like I said - I know my experience comes nowhere near preparing me for road driving, and I will be out of my depth the first time I drive on my own on a public road; just a bit less so than most first-time drivers. The bit that irks me is that my experience, however minor an impact it may have, isn't taken into account at all. :rolleyes:

Having a tracker installed in cars by law is an extremely sensitive thing to think about, and I feel that some sort of privacy protection will disallow it. It has also been said by plenty of high-up people in the industry that any device which is not controlled by the car, entirely internally, cannot be permitted to affect the car's behaviour. Something like a GPS speed restrictor, which uses throttle and brakes to restrict speed, could also be made to crash a car, and so this isn't really viable. Trackers, though, remain quite unlikely, and the concept of trust should really make them redundant :p

Sam

[ajp71]

I honestly find that statement to be ridiculous. ANY car cannot be driven flat-out safely. You'd be just as likely to die going flat-out in any car, considering that any of those cheap 90-mph top speed hatchback cars aren't built well enough to save your life if you hit something at any speed over 20.



The ridiculous part though is just the fact that if a car can go fast "flat out" that automatically means it's a bad car for a learner. I'll say it again, if you really think that the person is going to take his car flat out whenever he gets the chance, as a parent, you shouldn't allow him to buy a car or drive it.


The Morris Minor we've got in our garage has to be driven as fast as it physically can to get anywhere vaguely quickly, same goes for the less powerful Minis and some later hatches. You can have genuine fun in them on crap tires as fast as they're able to go at half the speed you'd be traveling in a 200bhp car. You can't get away from the fact that E=½mv2 and simply not hitting something as hard is far far better than adding tons of safety features to make a stupidly fast car 'safer' in an environment where its performance is total overkill. I would have used the Minor as a learner car if it wasn't for the fact that getting insurance wasn't possible for me due to its age.

Like I said - I know my experience comes nowhere near preparing me for road driving, and I will be out of my depth the first time I drive on my own on a public road; just a bit less so than most first-time drivers. The bit that irks me is that my experience, however minor an impact it may have, isn't taken into account at all. :rolleyes:

You have no experience. You can operate a car that's it. It's not difficult to drive a car a lot of people can do it before they start learning on the road and most will pick it up in a week or two. For an insurance company that stage is pretty much non-risk because they're unlikely to get a massive third party claim as a result of someone trying to drive down a side street at 5mph.

[Dark Elite]

You have no experience. You can operate a car that's it.Well, I'm sorry, but if driving a dozen different cars amongst others in cars - and on foot - in different conditions, on a hundred different days, is not experience... I've no idea where you draw the line between a complete newcomer and someone with at least some basic preparation.

Sam

[GobLox]

Well, I'm sorry, but if driving a dozen different cars amongst others in cars - and on foot - in different conditions, on a hundred different days, is not experience... I've no idea where you draw the line between a complete newcomer and someone with at least some basic preparation.

Sam

Don't mind these people. The first time I got in a Helicopter the Instructor was not impressed that I had hundreds of hours in a simulator and no real seat-time. He was a little more impressed when I was given the controls and produced a fairly competent hover. Patterns were a breeze. The next time out, at about 1.5 hours TT and completing many maneuvers better than many 10-20 hour Pilots (20 Hours in an R22 can be $6000 or more) I was asked if I'd ever done any "Autos" (Autorotations.) The simulator stigma is starting to go away as more people enter the industry having first flown sims. The old timers still think doing it the old fashioned way is the only option. Yes - your LFS racing experience does give you an edge. It may also have instilled some bad habits as well so be on the lookout for those. Check each intersection your cross; cross traffic is supposed to stop but it certainly doesn't mean they will. Things like this don't crop up as much in LFS. Situational awareness is key though.

[ajp71]

Real track/off road experiences and necessary skills are completely different to road driving. If you said you'd been clocking up hours in a learner driver simulator that might be slightly more relevant.

[Stang70Fastback]

You're wrong. Simulator driving, real-racing and off road experience is VERY relevant to on road driving. By your logic, a defensive driving course would do nothing to enhance a person's on-road driving skills, and yet it is the MOST HIGHLY RECOMMENDED and ENCOURAGED driving lesson to take to make you a safer and better driver. Racing is essentially DEFENSIVE driving. The fact that I know which way to steer when my car goes into a spin to keep it going the way I want is EXACTLY what defensive driving teaches you.

I know people who intuitively turn the wheel the WRONG way when going into a slide. LFS has taught me MANY things about the physics of a vehicle's motion that I would not have learned otherwise - especially in a car that does not have enough power to do anything remotely dangerous. I have, in multiple instances, had the rear tires on my car swing loose - be it the result of snow, black ice, or hydroplaning - and I can tell you, while it's still scary as hell when it happens unexpectedly, I feel way more confident controlling my car in these situations because of my LFS and off-road fun experience. That does not mean I'm going to be COCKY and simply ignore all the laws of physics and assume I can correct for any slide at any speed, it only means I have more respect for the car, the road, the physics involved and a greater understanding of what the limits are.

Your statement is not only unsupported, but plainly wrong.

[wheel4hummer]

if you really think that the person is going to take his car flat out whenever he gets the chance, as a parent, you shouldn't allow him to buy a car or drive it.

Well, isn't really that dangerous to go "flat out" if you are on a highway. Most highway crashes are not the result of speeding. As long as you aren't exceeding the speed rating of the tire, and there is no traffic.

[ajp71]

You're wrong. Simulator driving, real-racing and off road experience is VERY relevant to on road driving. By your logic, a defensive driving course would do nothing to enhance a person's on-road driving skills, and yet it is the MOST HIGHLY RECOMMENDED and ENCOURAGED driving lesson to take to make you a safer and better driver. Racing is essentially DEFENSIVE driving. The fact that I know which way to steer when my car goes into a spin to keep it going the way I want is EXACTLY what defensive driving teaches you.

The driving test and learning is mainly focused around interacting with roads and traffic. Understanding how to drive a car at the limit should be irrelevant for any road driver, you will not experience extreme road conditions, traffic, pedestrians, navigation, lane use, round abouts or the majority of what new drivers struggle with on anywhere other than on the road or possibly a simulation of it. A sim or track experience can help make you a better driver in the long run but before one's even passed their test you shouldn't be worrying about driving fast and any illusion you can on the road is plain dangerous. As for the basics of car control, yes a sim will help you with that as will karting a track day or a muddy field. No doubt it helps to have that before hand but it should be completely irrelevant until at least after passing the test. The only time I needed any car control whilst learning was when I had a high speed blow out, hardly anything tricky but I know a lot of learners (and experienced drivers) panic the moment they end up in danger, a compulsory car control course/test may well be a good idea if all it does is gets people to remain calm and do what should be natural when it goes wrong. I still maintain though that car control is a minor (but absolutely vital) element to road driving and simply understanding car control isn't going to help you read the environment properly and have the confidence to drive safely on the road and for that reason in no way counts towards basic road driving experience, maybe it's the icing on the cake but you need the building blocks first.

[benja-man]

Depending on the driver I believe (sim-)racing experience can work both ways: Either it makes you too confident in your car control so you take unneccessary risks / drive absent-mindedly, or it will give you a better feeling for what can go wrong. Before starting simracing and without a lot of driving experience I took quite some stupid risks when driving of which I only later fully understood how dangerous the situations were. Starting simracing has certainly made me become a much more careful driver.

And for the record, the car I made most of my driving experience with was a 45hp/800kg Polo and I agree that this snail of a car (0-100kmh in 21s according to the manual) was much more fun than the more powerful and heavier cars I have driven and also got me everywhere more than fast enough.

Saying that a 100+hp car is not fast enough to get you in trouble seems to miss the point. As soon as you get to more than walking speed you can easily kill a pedestrian and also yourself if you are unlucky enough. Just imagine moving an object more than 15 times your weight at more than double the speed you can dash. Then pair this figure with a city driving situation and remember the last time you knocked your foot on a table leg while walking around in your house. Measure the result in "Ouch".

[Stang70Fastback]

The only time I needed any car control whilst learning was when I had a high speed blow out, hardly anything tricky

On the rear or front?

[ajp71]

On the rear or front?

Instant blow out of the nearside rear, ran over a piece of metal plate with both nearside tires at 60mph, it the front flung it into the sidewall of the rear tire. Saw it too late under the shadow of a bridge to safely slow down and couldn't avoid it because there was oncoming traffic. Car control helped me to know not to close the throttle on a FWD car when I realised it had blown a rear tire and bring it to a safe stop but it was road skills that let me know I was in for a bump and quickly decide that I had no option but to run over it without slowing. Of course in reality something like that happens in a split second and all the skills merge into one, but situational awareness is still imperative TBH because if I hadn't spotted it (my driving instructor didn't) I'd have had the shock of my life.

[rcpilot]

Depending on the driver I believe (sim-)racing experience can work both ways: Either it makes you too confident in your car control so you take unneccessary risks / drive absent-mindedly, or it will give you a better feeling for what can go wrong. Before starting simracing and without a lot of driving experience I took quite some stupid risks when driving of which I only later fully understood how dangerous the situations were. Starting simracing has certainly made me become a much more careful driver.

And for the record, the car I made most of my driving experience with was a 45hp/800kg Polo and I agree that this snail of a car (0-100kmh in 21s according to the manual) was much more fun than the more powerful and heavier cars I have driven and also got me everywhere more than fast enough.

Saying that a 100+hp car is not fast enough to get you in trouble seems to miss the point. As soon as you get to more than walking speed you can easily kill a pedestrian and also yourself if you are unlucky enough. Just imagine moving an object more than 15 times your weight at more than double the speed you can dash. Then pair this figure with a city driving situation and remember the last time you knocked your foot on a table leg while walking around in your house. Measure the result in "Ouch".
At the same time that I probably corner a bit too fast than I should at times in real life, how much I know about what happens when things go wrong scares the crap out of me. And inattention causes most accidents, and I am anything but inattentive because of this (eyes never leave the road for more than a second, usually just a split second to gauge where something is in the car). I do have to say that even in some relatively extreme conditions and with some car issues (beater issues, broken front swaybar endlink throughout one winter, balding rear tire another winter), I've never gone off the road or spun (accidentally) my rwd 84 supra. I'd like to think that this useless simulator helped me a lot, considering I had never driven rwd before I sat in that car and I started driving it at the start of winter. I did however manage to go off the road once on ice my first winter driving solo (parent's minivan), very light corner doing the speed limit when road conditions changed as I started into my friend's housing development.

And all this talk about hp is kinda meaningless. It's more about the car's package. My car (160hp) scares my friend more to screw around in than it does his 400hp 3000gt vr-4. My car being willing to snap at the wrong inputs from an inexperienced driver, his car just glued to the road.

[Woz]

I agree that if someone has spent time with a car "out of shape" you will have a better knowledge on how to recover when things go wrong. This is a good skill to have on the road and will save your life :)

It is also a skill that is never taught to most drivers, the risks of teaching it are too high for teacher and student :(

The trouble with things like track and sim experience is that these environments are very very alien compared to the road, which is full of the great unwashed. Track and sim experience can lead to a skewed belief that people in cars are predicable and that they will do things the "correct way". Everyone on a track or in a sim is driving the same way because they want to drive fast.

On a track you KNOW they won't:

Lean across to the passenger footwell to reach their mobile that is ringing, head below the dash so they can't see.
Drink 5 pints down the pub and think they can drive home.
Turn into a side road and because they are from another country and suddenly forgotten which side of the road they are meant to be on start driving down the wrog side of the road.
Pull out of a side road at the last second forcing you to stand on the brakes because they think thay can make the gap.
Drive from the fast lane, across 3 lanes of traffic to reach the exit ramp at the last second because they noticed the sign at the last second.
Stop in the middle of the road and start looking at their map or have a huge argument with their other half because they took a wrong turn.
They won't adjust the rear view mirror so they can see themselves so they can put on their makeup while driving.
They won't drive with their newspaper folded up in the middle of their steering wheel so they can read it on the way to work.
Tune their radio while approaching a corner, look up and realise where they are and then stand on the brakes when they panic.
Get so pissed off with the "slower" car in front of them that they overtake a car on the approach to a blind hill/corner.
Won't sit 3mm off your bumper no matter the speed trying to make you go faster because they are late for work/meeting/date etc.
Be so involved with the conversation their mates are having in the car that they are not looking at the road.You might find it hard to believe that there are people stupid enough to do some of these but it is just the normality you will experience every single day on the road. This is what the track and sadly even the driving lesson does not teach you :(

NOTE: I am not saying the list is the fault of the young. There are cupid stunts of all ages that will pull the above and more on you day in, day out. You will even do some of them yourselves at some point in your life even if you believe you won't, don't fool yourself on this.

This is what I tried to say with battle hardend in an earlier post. The road is full of c*nts and some days on the road you will just not believe your eyes :nod:

This is why insurance companies will NOT take into account ANY track experience. Some might even load you up higher as your confidence in your skills can make you an even higher risk in a road setting because you feel you already know.

The UK insurance system does limit what people can drive on the road. The younger you are the less you can afford to drive. Try and get a quote for a 911 at 17 with no road experience to see what I mean.

But it is an unfair system based on cash and not skill. Why is a rich kid safer in a 911 because he has rich parents?

The more I think about the more the solution is probably that EVERYONE no matter what age is power limited in what they can drive UNLESS they pass the advanced driving test. At least it stops the people that should not even be on the road driving a fast car. On a bike you are power limited with staged tests, why not cars? :)

The thing that nobody appears to acknowledge in this thread is that the more a car is tuned for speed the more BORING it becomes at slower speeds. A car that is made to do 150mph gives you a false sense of safety while driving at 90mph. This is a fact anyone that has long enough experience in a range of cars will agree with. Its the reason you see performance bike pushed hard, anything tuned to operate at 10000rpm and go at 140mph+ just is not fun at 50mph.

For me the most FUN cars I have owned have ended up being the slowest, my 1977 Mini Clubman and a 2CV. It was not SAFE enough to push my BWM Mini Cooper as hard on the road, so you just ended up frustrated stuck behind "slower" people etc.

[Stang70Fastback]

Insurance companies do cut your rates if you have taken a defensive driving course.

[Woz]

Insurance companies do cut your rates if you have taken a defensive driving course.

And they should if it is a recognised course. They do also in the UK if you pass the advanced driving course, probably similar.

Try going to one and say I have just passed my test but I have 3 years track racing experience though and see what they say :)

[Impreza WRX]

Stop the music!

The whole problem about "power limited" is that many way underpowered vehicles that you recommend are beer cans when it comes to safety. If they get hit by someone else, which does happen too you know, it means certain death, especially when they are hit by SUVs and War Wagons!

The main issue here is brainless kids driving very fast cars. If you want to make sure they get slow cars, you go by power to weight ratio! That allows them to drive the tanks and land yachts that are no quicker than the Kei cars, despite their tremendous power, and if they get in an accident, at least you know they will be well protected by a fortress of materials and airbags and crumple zones! Much more than the littke Kei cars. Plus, Insurance Companies don't put giant premiums on granny mobiles and Subarus (NOT the Impreza you dolt!) like they do the smaller cars.

I still maintain that a proper education is as or more important as/then learning to drive in a big golf cart of death that slightly resembles a small car on your own.

[ajp71]

^^Most small modern cars will do far better in an accident than any SUV or pickup truck, which have a habbit of folding up on themselves and rolling. They may be tough but they do not deform in a safe manner for the occupants, not to mention they present more of a danger to other road users than a smaller lighter car. Older cars may not be safe but your still less likely to get in an accident in one and when you do you'll do less damage to everything around you. Just getting a bigger heavier car so you can obliterate anything that gets in your way is a rather American approach to the issue.

[ColeusRattus]

Also, mass translates into impact force. So basically a crash with 30 in a 2 ton monster is doing more harm than a crash with 50 in a 1 ton car.
Harshly put: if somebody is stupid enough to kill himself in traffic, at least he should do it in a manner where he poses as little danger as possible to others.

[nihil]

Real track/off road experiences and necessary skills are completely different to road driving. If you said you'd been clocking up hours in a learner driver simulator that might be slightly more relevant.

FFS geezer, let it go... You are now officially talking shite... Personally I think Dark Elite's concern that certain young drivers should be given some kind of of 'insurance credit' is the sort of product that some companies would consider, but as a general rule it seems too complicated to administer to be considered by most major companies.

Anyway, I would trust my car to anyone with his experience, because the only way to acquire road knowledge is to drive on the road. He is plainly learning car control (if its not all BS, and it doesn't sound like it...) and simply needs to adapt such awareness to the random environment called traffic. Really not that hard.

Any hours clocked in a 'learner driver simulator' would count for nothing with me.

[MikeT1986]

They probably only have those switches in American made cars because 99% of American's drive automatics. When they get into a 'stick shift' they probably forget that the engine's actually connected directly to the wheels.

There's a great video on YouTube of a kid crashing Mustang by turning the engine over with the accelerator down and the clutch out.

Here it is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdbcFtVbrIo


I would though, like to see the ability to stall the engine so you actually have to use the clutch correctly to idle the car.

[MikeT1986]

Its not that we are dumb - at least not all of us, and not all the time. I am sure every country / area has its share of people who didn't think at that moment and got caught on tape for everyone to see and laugh at... See Example (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytLnnCNOCWA) But a lot of our darn precautions come from the fact that too many people are "Sue Happy".


It's true. I know a guy who got sued for pain and suffering because he farted in an elevator in New York.

It was a long elevator ride, but seriously.

[XCNuse]

I haven't read through this thread at all but as for the beginning topic, every manual car I've touched has been the same.
It can be in neutral, you just have to put the clutch in, start engine, and if it is in neutral just let the clutch out and you're fine.

Same for every manual car i've been in the following:
Aston Martin Vantage, VW Golf Mk2 (hardtop and convertable), VW Jetta, Acura NSX.. probably some others I can't think of.

I don't know about our Ferrari Daytona though, that was so long ago but I could ask my dad if he had to, I only got to go for a ride in it once or twice, but that was a good 8+ years ago.

[wheel4hummer]

Americans are stupid. There's no question about that. They sure like to flatspot their tires (watch past the burnout part, when they go over a jump):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUDG1nW0I6E

Another person, who doesn't seem to care about their front suspension:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlvOtFXeyiM

These people seem to think that a solid white line means "bypass traffic using this lane". It makes sense to use your turn signal when you are breaking the law anyway? lol:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGnSn31Lqzc

I don't know what to say about this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ea7YFH9dlRw

[ajp71]

Anyway, I would trust my car to anyone with his experience, because the only way to acquire road knowledge is to drive on the road. He is plainly learning car control (if its not all BS, and it doesn't sound like it...) and simply needs to adapt such awareness to the random environment called traffic. Really not that hard.


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.

[atlantian]

damn guys, those are anecdotal evidence. they are worth shit, you can't use those to prove Americans are bad drivers and lunatics...

[AndroidXP]

But you sure do your best.

[wheel4hummer]

I'm pretty sure Americans are stupid. Just look at all of the presidents elected after Reagan.

[Stang70Fastback]

I'm pretty sure Americans are stupid. Just look at all of the presidents elected after Reagan.

Most are. 'Tis the sad truth.

[Woz]

Most are. 'Tis the sad truth.

Thats the thing with sterotypes, on the whole there is normally some fact in them :)

[ColeusRattus]

Well, he said it.

G'day Mate!

[dawesdust_12]

So, 'eh, I'm gonna go build my igloo 'eh. Sound's like fun? 'eh?!


:hide: 'eh

[wsinda]

I'm pretty sure Americans are stupid. Just look at all of the presidents elected after Reagan.Three stupid presidents do not a whole nation of morons make. (OK, four. Reagan fits in.) But you have a point there. :tilt:

<puts finger back in dike>

[XCNuse]

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!

[ColeusRattus]

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...

[XCNuse]

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.

[ColeusRattus]

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.

[Stang70Fastback]

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.

[wheel4hummer]

you got your first black man
I thought Bill Clinton was the first black president? :shrug:

[nihil]

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.

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.

[tristancliffe]

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.

[nihil]

More power = faster, quicker = less safe for other people on the road.

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)

[Stang70Fastback]

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.

[tristancliffe]

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.

[ajp71]

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.


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.


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.

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.

[wheel4hummer]

Keep it light (less momentum). And fit a weedy engine to keep the speeds down = perfect for youngsters. :)

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.

[Woz]

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 :)

[nihil]

I have not said that speed itself is the danger. .....

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."


One young dead kid in an M5....


Probably says more about the doting nature of rich parents to be honest. Laws should not be framed around exceptions.

[tristancliffe]

More power = faster, quicker = less safe for other people on the roadI 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.

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."

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).

[wheel4hummer]

Here is an accident that occurred near where I live: http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/police/news-releases/2008/012208fatalupd.htm

Clearly, the problem wasn't speeding, but the fact that drivers around my town are pussies and decided to speed away from the scene of an accident instead of checking to see if the pedestrian that they just ran over is okay. If you flee the scene, you're just in more trouble anyway!

[tinvek]

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.


since (in theory) the candidate with the most votes wins, by definition it's always a popularity vote as the most popular person gains the most votes and wins.

i know what you mean though, over here we'd call it a personality campaign rather than a policy campaign, the difference this time could be that genetic influences may be the over riding factor about the peronalities in question

[wheel4hummer]

I like pie. You know what's good? Apple pie. Except, I've heard that they don't have Apple pie in Germany. Oh well, the Germans have lots of beer though. Is beer better then Apple pie? I guess it is if you're German.

[ColeusRattus]

I like pie. You know what's good? Apple pie. Except, I've heard that they don't have Apple pie in Germany. Oh well, the Germans have lots of beer though. Is beer better then Apple pie? I guess it is if you're German.

Well, we austrians have Apfelstrudel, which beats the hell out of apple pie any day.

But what's the point?

[wheel4hummer]

But what's the point?

My point is that this thread stopped having to do with "Clutch Starter Safety Switch[es]" about 4.5 pages ago, and it needs to be locked.

[ColeusRattus]

I concur.

[Stang70Fastback]

Clutch starter safety switches look good in green...

...all fixed!

[Impreza WRX]

I know some ppl have "rewired" their manual cars to bypass the switch when it distintegrates from age.

Actually, a better option that just plain locking is to split the thread up and put the whole "kids should have slow cars" part in a thread in the off topic section.

[janipewter]

In real life, road cars with manual gearboxes have a little safety switch. The car will not engage the starter unless you push the clutch. Even if you are in Neutral.

It would be a little cherry on top to have the road cars in LFS do the same thing, where to start the car "Press I" you have to hold in the clutch.

The only car I have ever seen where you have to depress the clutch in order to start it is the new Toyota Yaris.

My car will start as long as it's in neutral, you don't have to have the clutch it, and it is the same in every other car (over 20) I have ever driven.

[KeiichiRX7]

after 4 pages i just wanted to gouge my eyes out.

I propose the disolving of the Europoean Union as it stands and teh formation of the European Automotive Nanny State. Since the leader for such a nation must be Overbearing, Condescending and have a two foot long piece of 3/4 inch bar stock shoved up thier bum, I nominate Tristan.

okay, now that ive got the satire out of my system:

I have to agree with Fastback, 130 bhp isn't enough to be "dangerous" (all cars are dangerous if nto respected, but 130 isn't remarkable.) I often find over here in the states that its actually barely enough, with the way some road ways are designed. Lower horsepower makes you less likely to have a silly moment that ends you up in the ditch on your own, however conversely it also makes the car more dangerous in traffic (such as merging onto highways from urban roads on relatively short access ramps). Low power vehicles pose a danger to not only the driver of the vehicle, but all vehicles around them, as they scramble to cope with a car going much slower than them, in a "high speed" situation.

As far as idiots on the road...... yeah. I'm gonna make a youtube video this weekend, an open letter to the motorists of Ohio entitled "USE YOUR F*CK1NG TURN SIGNALS!!". Nothing pisses me off on the road worse than a sudden move from a car intoa tigh space between me and the car in front of me. Conversely and second only to the previous offense are people who insist on moving into the space that I just signalled I'm about to move into. Both dangerous and stupid situations caused by ignorance.

Tristan, I honestly don't think that bumping driving ages back would make any difference. Remember, Stupid is forever.

[Stang70Fastback]

I often find over here in the states that its actually barely enough, with the way some road ways are designed. Lower horsepower makes you less likely to have a silly moment that ends you up in the ditch on your own, however conversely it also makes the car more dangerous in traffic (such as merging onto highways from urban roads on relatively short access ramps). Low power vehicles pose a danger to not only the driver of the vehicle, but all vehicles around them, as they scramble to cope with a car going much slower than them, in a "high speed" situation.

Exactly my point. I guess you could relate it to the slower cars in a race being sometimes more of a hazard that the cars fighting for the lead. In fact, you go too slow, they take you off the track because it's too dangerous. Not quite the same thing, but you get my point.

[Impreza WRX]

That's why I drive foot to the firewall in my cars. With 0-60 times in the mid 8's, there is no way to safely get up to speed without punching it, unless you like waiting up to 20 minutes for a long enough break that you can roll out at granny speeds.

[atlantian]

130 hp in a 2300 lb car is only dangerous if you are a woman...

lolz

[wheel4hummer]

130 hp in a 2300 lb car is only dangerous if you are a woman...

And the idiot of the day award goes to: atlantian!!!!!!

[atlantian]

^thank you! i appreaciate it!!!

[dawesdust_12]

It was quite an honour, seeing the day was nearly finished.

[benja-man]

That's why I drive foot to the firewall in my cars. With 0-60 times in the mid 8's, there is no way to safely get up to speed without punching it, unless you like waiting up to 20 minutes for a long enough break that you can roll out at granny speeds.

Excuse me, but are you kidding? 0-60 in less than nine seconds is hardly slow in my book!I've been driving a car with a 20sec time quite happily, and that includes getting on the autobahn safely. You just have to use your eyes and right foot with a bit of foresight and you will be fine.

[Impreza WRX]

...and a lot of patience, which no one in South Florida has! Except that old guy that drives the camper down US1 (45 MPH) at 25 MPH.

[atlantian]

wtf... you haven't lived until you have done 60 in a 35 zone, on windy dark roads with black ice and snow on the asphault...

[Stang70Fastback]

wtf... you haven't lived until you have done 60 in a 35 zone, on windy dark roads with black ice and snow on the asphault...

No, you haven't DIED until you have done 60 in a 35 zone, on windy dark roads with black ice and snow on the asphalt...

[ColeusRattus]

Arguing with atlantian is like arguing with a brick wall.

I so hope that he is merely trolling, and actually not that stupid in real life (which would be a short pleasure for him, if he is).

[tristancliffe]

I think he IS that stupid in real life. No one can be that consistently stupid whilst trolling on purpose.

[mrodgers]

I think he IS that stupid in real life. No one can be that consistently stupid whilst trolling on purpose.
I agree. Trolls are too stupid to be consistantly stupid. :D

[zoltecrules]

I hate to troll, but yeah, Atlantian is a tool:

http://drifting.com/forums/showthread.php?t=24124

[Stang70Fastback]

I hate to troll, but yeah, Atlantian is a tool:

http://drifting.com/forums/showthread.php?t=24124

Ahaha - FINALLY, lol.

[Dark Elite]

My Lord.

I wonder if he's ever heard of IP tracking...

Sam

[atlantian]

No, you haven't DIED until you have done 60 in a 35 zone, on windy dark roads with black ice and snow on the asphalt...
you know that's the most dangerous thing i could think of at the time right? that was to taunt people, because i am pissed at people saying cars under 200 bhp is soooo dangerous

[Stang70Fastback]

you know that's the most dangerous thing i could think of at the time right? that was to taunt people, because i am pissed at people saying cars under 200 bhp is soooo dangerous

I know :D I just had to say it.

[atlantian]

^btw, lolz... yes it is, yes it is