Conference terri::cars_uk

	Pompous indeed ! hah. Well I'm a perfect driver so I'll dismiss
	your critiscm's as those born out of driving an XR3.

	Actually, I think everyone here will admit to having some bad
	habits, it's just that a lot of other drivers seem to have more
	dangerous ones.

	As to speeding, I doubt if ANYONE can say they have never exceeded
	a speed limit, can they ?

	Yes, I do enjoy driving my car, particularly when there are'nt any
	idiots on the road :-)

	Gordon

I don't think the noters here are pompous armchair experts.  This conference
promotes discussion on all aspects of cars and driving with the intention of
heightening general awareness among noters of what is safe / legal, etc.  This
achieves two things: encourages noters (hopefully) to pursue a higher quality of
driving themselves, and promotes safe ways to deal with drivers who are being
unsafe.

Yes I agree it is very easy to criticise others for what we ourselves do, but
nobody is perfect and it is only by discussing limitations and offering
suggestions in an informal, wide-coverage means such as notes provides that we
are going to learn from our, and others', mistakes and make driving far more
enjoyable and safe for everyone.

Scott, who can't drive anywhere 'cos his mini isn't finished yet...   :-(

    Re -1;
    
    I had to "make" the XR3. And add a few modifications to Mr Fords
    original design.
    
    Simon

RE .1

I am also a perfect driver.  But I am scared witless by some people on the road.

You should have seen this bloke the other day, he was driving only inches
in front of me!! 8^)

Steve

    My copy of the Highway Code appears to be incorrect !
    
    It says that that you should use your indicators to let other traffic
    know what you are doing. I appear to be the only one who uses his
    indicators, especially at roundabouts.
    
    As no one else indicates, I can only assume that my copy is incorrect.
    
    	Wayne

"Make" your XR3?  Please explain:
    1) What exactly you mean
    2) Why anyone would make an XR3 when there are infinitely better cars
       available in kit form (ie just about every kit car...  :-)

Scott, who still has no **@#??@# where to build his Moss... :-(

>>         <<< Note 994.3 by VANTEN::MITCHELLD "23=>42|skate=>Answer" >>>
>>
>>
>>	One day you might  make a real car.( emphasis on the make )
>>

    
    	Perhaps you could help me Derek,
    
    	I was also thinking of making a car , and your experience would be
        appreciated, When you made your engine block did you use aluminium
    	or iron, I have been saving all my coke cola cans up for the last
    	few years and was thinking of casting a v12 all aluminium engine ,
    	block , head etc, but how do i get the high tempretures necessary
    	to melt the cans , my girlfriend has ruled out the oven at home
    	saying it will cost too much to keep putting the 5p peices in
    	the meter to get it to the right tempreture. 
    
    	hope you can help
    
    	Garry.
    

Someone help me - I cannot see the connection between "making" cars and 
"driving" them, particularly bad driving.

In the last week, I have -
	Driven along the A66 to Scotch Corner at over 120mph (In a Volvo 240!!)
	"Forgotten" to dip my headlights when some idiot didn't dip his first.
	Become a member of the CLOC.
Can't say I used the rear fogs because there was no point in looking in the
mirror anyway ......  there was no other traffic around (I sneaked a peek every
15 seconds or so  :-)  )
	Saw a smash-up because of a "flashing headlights" misunderstanding
		(4 cars involved, probably over 10 grand of damage)

Of course, I'm just a "normal" driver, aren't I???

The link between making your own car and being a better driver?  Probably just
shobbery, but there again, why is insurance cheaper for most kits (comparing
like with like)?  'Cos we (kit owners) have less accidents.  Why do we have
less accidents?  'Cos we know the effort involved in putting the thing back
together!

As for being an armchair expert, well, I guess that we're all guilty of that.
The acid test is how does your armchair driving compare with the real thing?

Dave

Insurance cheaper for kits !!??  Tell me who you're insured with!
Quotes I've had for the Moss (OK, so I haven't built it yet but I wanted to
budget accurately) are a lot dearer than for the donor car.  With a 1600 engine,
they put it in groups 6-7, rather than 2-3 for an Escort.

Even allowing for greater performance because of the weight reduction, this is
still very steep!  If you know of a sensible insurance company that realises
kit builders aren't going to smash up hundreds of hours work, let me know!!!

Scott.

    Scot,
    I decided to race an escort in the road saloon championship. This
    meant some serious modifications to brakes, suspension etc so
    rather than take any chances I bought a new shell and started fronm
    scratch!!!
    
    Simon

Mine are Snowball Marlow 0283-31391, unlimited milage, fully comprehensive
for under 200 pounds.

Dave

Dave, Thanks I'll give them a call.

Simon, Ahhh... I see.  Did you buy all the bits to fix to the shell new?  Must
hve cost a fortune...

Scott.

    Most of the running gear, such as susspension etc is new, the 'box
    I rebuilt and most of the engine is new. I used an insurance write
    off to get all the trim parts, windows, petrol tank etc.
        
    You can get a ready painted shell for 1000 pounds (ish) so it was
    a cheap way of getting a virtualy new car (provided youy don't count
    the labour hours, most of which was spent fitting the wiring loom!!)
    
    Simon

Re: .6

>    It says that that you should use your indicators to let other traffic
>    know what you are doing. I appear to be the only one who uses his
>    indicators, especially at roundabouts.
>    
>    As no one else indicates, I can only assume that my copy is incorrect.
>    
>        Wayne

Don't you think its incredible how many cars in this day and age still dont have
indicator bulbs fitted - I guess it's one of those 'no-cost' options like the
badgeless beemers;

Simon

Re: .9

> In the last week, I have -
>	Driven along the A66 to Scotch Corner at over 120mph (In a Volvo 240!!)

If this is true, consider this.  The magistrates there regularly hand out 6
and 12-month bans for speeding.  They are also very unsympathetic to "I 
need to drive for my work" pleas in mitigation.

jb

Who said anything about mitigation?  I was enjoying myself!  The car has run
better since it's blow-out too   8-)

Brian

PS - I don't actually *need* a car for work, although it's a nice benefit
when trolling up the 2 mile long hill on the way here!

    RE .18
    
    >If this is true consider this. The magistrates there regularly
    hand out.....etc etc.
    
    		Who stops to consider the implications of everything
    we do? The world would be very boring if we all stopped and pondered
    the results of all our actions...prehaps we would end up doing nothing
    because the chance of failure is was to great....life is about taking
    risks.  The art is getting the balance between being totally stupid
    {100mph in the fog} and the blast down the country lane at highly
    illegal speeds.  Tinge all your judgements with common sense and
    live for today..........
    
    				Mike...
    p.s. ......remember the interest is in the debate.
    

><< Note 994.20 by KERNEL::HEANEYM "And if I should wake from this dream, which is life....." >>>
>
>           The art is getting the balance between being totally stupid
>   {100mph in the fog} and the blast down the country lane at highly
>   illegal speeds.
    
    Do you blast down country lanes at highly illegal speeds? If so I think
    it's about time you woke from your dream and tinged your judgement with
    some common sense, before you meet yourself coming in the opposite
    direction.
    
    
    Rod

>        Do you blast down country lanes at highly illegal speeds? If so I think
>    it's about time you woke from your dream and tinged your judgement with
>    some common sense, before you meet yourself coming in the opposite
>    direction.
    
	Who remembers the clip for "It'll be alright ..etc" of the run
    through the forest stage with the cameras in the back of Tony Ponds'
    (?) car.
    
    Something along the lines of "second gear corner..up into third..and
    we can really get some speed up here.....what the hell ?"
    
    Mr and Mrs Norman Normal coming in the opposite direction in their
    Mk IV Cortina - brilliant camera work  of a head-on collision !
    
    Ever since then i've been dead wary of hacks through country lanes.
    
    T

    Re .22:
    
    The point about the "open road" is that it isn't, other people have a
    nasty habit of also wanting to use it. While it may be great fun to
    pretend you're a rally driver along a twisty country lane, you're
    liable to meet walkers, cyclists, riders, tractors and other cars, all
    of whom you may well be endangering. Buying a car with good handling
    and power to spare does not buy you the licence to use it as you like.
    
    
    Rod

    > liable to meet walkers, cyclists, riders, tractors and other cars, all
    
    And don't forget horses!  There might be one just round the next
    corner.
    
    Jeff (who meets lots of horses in country lanes)
    
    PS: Please tell me which roads you use, and I'll use different ones.

    re last
    
    driving fast wont NECESSARILY kill you, just increase the chances
    of doing so.
    
    driving, of any kind, implies a risk to yourself and other living
    things near you (ie peds, other cars, animals). This is absolute
    fact.
    
    Rich.

    So if you drive round a bend, and there is an obstruction in the road - 
    
    at 25 mph your attention has wandered and you drive into it
    at 50mph you are on the ball and won't splatter yourself over it

    But crawling traffic is an entirely different situation to driving
    quickly in a 'narrow country road' type environment.
    
    Last night, coming back from near Goring, I had to come off the road
    because a S**t for brains came round a blind bend very fast, sitting
    quite happily in the middle of the road.  He must have been doing 60+
    judging from the rate he vanished up the road at.
      I must have slowed down to 30ish for the bend.  If I'd been going
     quicker, I wouldn't be typing this in now.  There is no way that kind
    of behaviour can be justified.

    I agree totally.
    
    re earlier :  the old arguement 'on the road longer increases risk':
    
    this needs looking at more closely. An incident is an individual
    event. These events occur fairly randomly during the lifetime of
    the experiment. In otherwords, one would expect that driving for
    one hour to come across twice as many events as one would for driving
    for 1/2 hour - in the long run.
    
    Obviously some days I could drive for hours and not come across
    any possible accident situations, but get crunched driving to the
    papershop around the corner.
    
    So far this supports some of your arguement. However it is much
    more complicated. ie  driving for 1 hour at 60mph you will cover
    - wait for it - 60 miles !!  Driving at 30 will cover 30 miles.
    On winding roads/country lanes, many of the incedents will be cars
    or tractors pulling out on blind corners, animals in the road etc.
    Therefore the more road you cover, the more of these you may encounter.
    
    Ok - you are going to say that you only have to drive 30 miles,
    at 60mph. Therefore the number of events will be less, and probably
    less than the driver at 30 may encounter who is on the road for
    1 hour, but you will still be travelling faster and therefore more
    likely to have an accident. ie longer braking distance, more serious
    concequence of hitting something.
    
    Note that the slower driver=less alert/thinking distance is a seperate,
    mathematically speaking, problem.

The fact that some drivers drive more slowly than others does not mean they are
less alert or paying less attention to what's going on around them.  It is
arguable that they are more aware of their surroundings and the potential risk
situations simply because they have more time to be aware of it.  If we take
this top it's logical conclusion, then if a driver is stationary then the risk
of him being involved in any form of moving traffic accident is virtually nil,
unless he/she parks on a blind bend and encounters said idiot from a few back
storming round bends too fast to react to a stationary obstruction?

Driving fast never equates linearly to driving safely.  Safety is fairly
constant within a certain speed limit, and once that limit is exceeded safety
declines exponentially relative to both your own increase in speed and the
hazard risks in the environment.  To evaluate the risks, see .31 .....  Bear in
mind that any driver travelling at a different speed from any other driver is
by definition a potential hazard - both of them.

A simple lesson I was taught when I was learning to fly - if your engine fails,
GET YOUR SPEED BACK.  Why?  Simple - you can land an aeroplane relatively
safely, even without an engine, at 60 mph, but at 100 mph you're dead.  The
AAIB facts prove it.  There are other reasons too, such as best glide speed
and angle etc. but very few people actually die because of crashing aeroplanes
at LOW speed.  Speed does kill.

Brian

Nothing wrong with driving fast around corners...

...as long as you can see the road ahead around the corner to know there is no
obstruction there, and there is no-one about to walk / drive / throw something
into the road.

Taking a sharp bend on a country road lined with high hedges "fast" is very
silly.  So is "using the whole road" on such a bend, as was pointed out earlier.

I think some clarification on the conditions under which people think it safe
to drive fast would help the discussion here.

Scott

    Re: .32
    
    Brian,
    
    sorry, but planes have nothing whatsoever to do with the argument
    (unless you live near the M25!).
    
    Re: the rest
          
    As i have said a million times before - SPEED DOES NOT KILL !!!!
                                  
    Driving at 55mph round a blind bend on the wrong side of the road
    is certainly the best way of getting killed.
                                  
    Driving at ANY speed in any situation whereby you cannot avoid
    potential situations (tractors, horses, roadworks, pedestrians etc)
    is jolly silly.               
                                  
    Nevertheless, driving at speed doesn't in itself mean danger. I
    have often driven back from Reading to Birmingham, and prefer to
    drive back late at night and usually at high speed. Driving late
    means less traffic, and the traffic that remains is "usually" visible
    by their lights. Driving "fast" keeps me awake (as well as being
    more enjoyable). I (hope that i) drive within my limitations, even
    to the extent of assuming that the "other" driver is beyond his
    (or her) limits - thus making allowances.
    
    There are many "country roads" where you can easily and safely exceed
    the national speed limit, by several(teen) miles per hour; but there
    are also cases where 10-20mph is too fast.
    
    Don't generalise - do what is safe!
    
    mb

>    I think some clarification on the conditions under which people think 
>    it safe to drive fast would help the discussion here.


I'll kick-off, at the risk of being pounced. 
    
    *IMHO* :-) 
        
    Summed up,  I drive as fast, as I can see.   This means if I can
    see a clear road then I will drive as fast as I can.
    
    This means I slow down when I hit fog, If it starts to rain, if
    i can't see round a bend, or over the brow of a hill. If it's too
    dark to see far enough ahead of my headlamps. (and probably a few
    other instances that don't come to mind straight away)
    
    However.... If it's clear, if i can see, I go. I then drive as fast
    as I feel safe, the car feels safe, and the conditions allow.
    
    I enjoy driving, as i'm sure anyone reading and contributing to
    this note does otherwise they wouldn't be here, however contrary
    to most comments I am not out on the roads to
    	a) kill anyone
    	b) kill myself
    	c) put the emergency services to any bother
    	d) antagonise the constabulary
    	e) incur personal expense repairing a damaged vehicle.
    
    T.

    Sounds fair enough to me
    
    Mikef

    Tony, you actually said something worth applauding...
    
    Clap,clap,clap.

	Here, here.

>>         <<< Note 994.33 by VANTEN::MITCHELLD "23=>42|skate=>Answer" >>>
>>                             -< Speed and corners >-
>>Or lets put another way just cos YOU feel unsafe at speed doesnt mean that
>>I AM  unsafe at speed.

Or lets put another way just cos YOU feel SAFE at speed doesn't mean that
 you ARE safe at speed.
    
    Richard

    RE Speed doesn't kill
    
    Crash 1
    
    I drive into a tree at 30mph.  Probable damage would be severly
    crunched front of car, possible leg damage to me, bruised ribs from
    seatbelt. Hopefully thats it.
    
    Crash 2
    
    I drive into a tree at 60mph.  Car explodes. Ex-driver.
    
    
    
    What was the significant difference between crash 1 and 2  ?
    
    
    Rich.

crash 2 destroyed a tree.

/. Ian .\

Speed doesn't kill.  The Earth is hurtling through space at thousands of miles
an hour, and we all seem remarkably undamaged.

Driving fast doesn't kill.  Driving fast into a tree does.

The whole point is knowing where and when it is safe to drive fast, taking into
account:
  - weather and visibility
  - road surface condition, width, sharpness of bends
  - other traffic, people, obstructions
  - condition of car
  - condition and ability of driver

Thinking of people I have driven with:
  - one always drives within the legal speed limit and is very "safe"
  - one always drives within the legal speed limit but scares me to death
     because of the way he drives and the way he reacts to changing conditions
  - one drives over the speed limit when it is sensible and safe so to do, and
     I feel safer with them than with the driver above.

I agree there are a lot of speed-mad idiots on the road, but there are also
those who can drive at higher speeds just as safely as other drivers who can
only cope with lower speeds.

Sensible fast drivers would never get into the situation where they could hit a
tree at 60mph (unless it fell on them ;-)

Scott

    > Speed doesn't kill.  The Earth is hurtling through space at thousands of
    > miles an hour, and we all seem remarkably undamaged.
    
    You raise a non-point.  Everyone else is talking about relative speed,
    not absolute speed.  If someone is approaching a tree at 5060 mph, and
    the tree is moving in the same direction at 5000 mph, then there will
    be a 60 mph collision.
    
    I agree with everything else you say.
    
    Jeff.

    I'm sorry, but the driving skill of a particular driver is irrelevent
    to the force of two bodies meeting in a collision. The only relevant
    things are the velocity of the objects and their mass. This will
    determine the damage done to each.
    
    I drive pretty fast quite often, but I'm sensible enough to admit that
    it increases the risk factor, and any subcequent accidents will
    probably be of a more serious nature due to the increased damage
    caused by increased velocity.
    
    R. 

> I agree there are a lot of speed-mad idiots on the road, but there are also
> those who can drive at higher speeds just as safely as other drivers who can
> only cope with lower speeds.

Suppose one of you who can safely drive at higher speeds meets someone who
thinks they can but can't. If you were driving slower, then you may have more
time to take avoiding action.

It seems to me that speed limits are required because people can not always
judge what is a safe speed, either because they can't read the road conditions,
or they don't realise their own limitations and those of the car they are
driving.

Everyone makes mistakes. Mistakes at high speed cost lives. Mistakes at low
speeds cost a dent.

Julian

    
>>Suppose one of you who can safely drive at higher speeds meets someone who
>>thinks they can but can't. If you were driving slower, then you may have more
>>time to take avoiding action.

    I think that given the above situation, eg fast driver hurtling round
    the corner on the wrong side of the road, whether it was another fast
    driver or a slow one, the damage all round is going to be bad, and a
    differential in speed of 20mph is not going to make that much
    difference in the time 'slow' driver has to take avoiding action.
    
    
>>It seems to me that speed limits are required because people can not always
>>judge what is a safe speed, either because they can't read the road conditions,
    
    Just because the speed limit is 30/60/90 doesn't mean it is safe to
    drive at that speed, if someone is relying on the marked speed limit to
    indicate how fast they can go, instaed of taking notice of the road
    conditions, and using the marked limit as another 'input' to help their
    judgement, I don't want to be in the car with them!
    
    I agree with Scott about 'fast' and 'slow' drivers not necessarily
    equating to 'dangerous' and 'safe'.
     
                                                                     

>    Just because the speed limit is 30/60/90 doesn't mean it is safe to
>    drive at that speed, if someone is relying on the marked speed limit to
>    indicate how fast they can go, instaed of taking notice of the road
>    conditions, and using the marked limit as another 'input' to help their
>    judgement, I don't want to be in the car with them!

Agreed. Thats not what I really meant. The speed limit is clearly an upper
bound at which the powers that be think it is safe to drive on that type of
road. Clearly along any stretch of road there will be places where the marked
speed limit is too high for real safety. What worries me are the people that
think they can drive at 90 mph safely, and believe they will never misjudge
when it is safe to do so.

>    I think that given the above situation, eg fast driver hurtling round
>    the corner on the wrong side of the road, whether it was another fast
>    driver or a slow one, the damage all round is going to be bad, and a
>    differential in speed of 20mph is not going to make that much
>    difference in the time 'slow' driver has to take avoiding action.


It might not, but then again it might !


Julian

re .43

the earth isn't exceeding the celestial speed limit.

Were it to do so it would increase the mean orbital radius and we'd all freeze 
to death.

Furthermore if it hit an object of similar mass the speed (kinetic energy 
really) would convert to alternative forms and we'd all die real quick.

/. Ian .\

How about the idiot who was hurtling along the A75 westbound near Annan (the
new stretch) overtaking caravans down the middle of the road and forcing the
oncoming traffic (me) into the grass?

This person was driving "at speed" and he thought he was "safe" (otherwise would
he/she have been doing it?), but one caravan went into a major snake taking
avoiding action and one Volvo put a major rut in some new grass verge and
the driver emerged sweating.

Now, according to Messrs Mitchell and Co., this person was just another mad
driver.  According to me and many others, he/she was simply another mad idiot
driving too fast.  "It" came up TOO FAST behind the caravans and had to either
hit one of them in the rear or rely on inertia to speed through an impossible
gap.  Incidentally, I judged the speed of the caravans to be between 50 and 60
mph - one a Volvo 7xx and the other a Granada tow car. 

With any luck, that driver will have a major accident and slow down, at least 
for a while.  Problem is they will probably kill someone on the way - like the
18 year old in the next grave to my first wife's who was killed by a driver
doing "only slightly over the speed limit, officer".  His girlfriend is also
badly scarred for life, both physically AND emotionally.  The driver?  Fined
#25 and 6 points for driving without due care and attention!

Unfortunately, there is no cure for this illness.  Eventually it is terminal.

Brian

    I don't really care what the speed limit is . People today drive too
    damed fast for road conditions, saftey and any other reason you can
    think of. Everyone can add their own theory to what is safe and who's
    right. How often can anyone honestly say they drive at or below the
    speed limit. I know I don't often , even around town. If you stop and
    think about it's simple ( to me anyway ). How often can you sit
    behind the wheel of a car and make a determined effort to drive at or
    below the speed limit, particularly around town??? I can't say for the
    Reading and Basingstoke area I don't live round here, but in London I
    know if I drive at 30 MPH around the houses, before long some moron
    will be up my tailpipe climbing all over the back of me just itching to
    get past or failing that you get someone who will try to make you go
    faster by flashing or whatever means. I wished I could say it's all
    these young tearaways but, I have seen the boy racer in his suped up
    cortina through to senior citizens doing the same thing.
    
    
    My answer is plain and simple , the roads are where saftey should came
    first and provide a means of getting from a to b. Public roads are not
    a race track (few execptions). If people want to tear up the road and
    drive like a lunatic they should do it on a race track, They'll learn
    quick enough what speed is safe and where its safe to do it or simply
    get banned. People just need educating , unfortunatly all too often
    someone dies before some people learn , others never learn or get killed
    themselves.
    
    
    
    Garry
    
    
    

    Does the panel think....
    
    ...manufacturers are building cars too fast ?
    
    Many years ago your standard family motor was not capable of exceeding
    70 mph for sustained periods. A top speed of 100 mph was looked
    on as being extremely quick. A 0-60 below 14 secs. was thought fast,
    a 0-60 below 10 secs. was thought to be a racing car ! These are
    just three areas that nowadays would be considered unacceptable
    when buying a car.
    
    While manufacturers have improved road-holding, braking, and safety
    features at the same time, is this as consequence of increased
    performance rather than natural development of a product ?
    
     Interested to hear the comments.
    
    AMS. 

    
    
    When you drive home, look for three things:
    
    	- What you can see:    
    
    		eg. a bend on a country lane etc...
    
    	- What you can't see:
    
    		eg. anything beyond the bend in the country road...
    
    	- What you can reasonably expect:
    
    		eg. a bicyclist coming the other way, with a car passing
    		    her.
    
    
    Having thought about these three points, drive so that you can stop
    safely should you have to. Remember that on narrow roads,  you have
    account for the other driver needing to stop as well. If other
    drivers want to drive faster or slower than you, let them. 
    
                                                              
    Bi||.

>>    
    Many years ago your standard family motor was not capable of exceeding
    70 mph for sustained periods. A top speed of 100 mph was looked
    on as being extremely quick. A 0-60 below 14 secs. was thought fast,
    a 0-60 below 10 secs. was thought to be a racing car ! These are
    just three areas that nowadays would be considered unacceptable
    when buying a car.
 >>


many years ago people used to ride around in horse drawn carts 
I bet there were accidents then too...

0-60 times could be measured using a calendar...

so what ?

upgrades in a vehicles ability just seem to have progressed...


...art

>> Upgrades is a vehicle's ability seem to have progressed...

But people haven't been upgraded to cope with more powerful cars.  A lot of very
silly people have access to cars they do not know how to handle, and they become
dangerous drivers without even trying.

OK, I would like a car a bit more powerful than my 1000cc metro, so that when I
want to overtake a tractor I don't need a whole mile of clear road to do it, but
I see no reason for having more power than necessary.

I agree that all the examples of "fast is dangerous" which have been given *are*
dangerous, and I would not drive fast under such conditions, as I have explained
before.  What is sadly lacking amongst many motorists is knowing *when* it is
safe to drive fast.  I include myself in that, and if in doubt I err on the side
of caution, but when it is *obviously* safe I will go a bit faster.

The whole point is just because some people drive fast stupidly, doesn't mean
all fast drivers are incompetent and unsafe.

Speed limits are essential to keep the stupid drivers in check, and also to keep
traffic to a speed suitable for the surroundings.  But I don't think they are
always senibly applied.  The A329 between Ascot and Bracknell has a 60mph
section, which I think ought to be 40.  Likewise there are 40mph roads which
ought ot be 60.

I am in favour of post driving test tuition / qualifications, which are linked
to the power of car you are allowed to drive.  This would reduce people's
access to cars in which they do not know how to be sensible.

Scott

PS The comment about the Earth's motion is relevant: it's safe for the Earth to
go that fast 'cos there's nothing in its way.  The same applies to when it is
safe to drive fast: when you are 100% certain there is nothing in the way.

>>But people haven't been upgraded to cope with more powerful cars.  


I agree.
However there *IS* something which can be done:

improve your driving ability; take an advanced driving course as a start


move from being an 'armchair expert' to a 'driving seat expert'


...art

Definitely worth doing.  Question - does an advanced driving expert become an 
even more boorish armchair expert?

I took the IAM, and other, advanced tests a long time ago, in 1970 to be
precise.  The 70 limit had just come into force, and was opposed rigorously by
the IAM.  It was expected that you would ignore it when safe to do so whilst on
the test!  I did - doing 85 along one clear straight in the country.  However,
one thing about IAM bothered me - the whole principle being taught was explained
to me at the time as "getting from A to B as quickly and safely as possible".
I liked the safely bit, but disapproved of the quickly piece - in fact once I'd
passed their test I actually slowed down significantly because I ENJOYED being 
on the road more than exerting my adrenalin at high speed all the time.  Anyone
know if the approach has changed in recent years?  

The REAL advantages I got from advanced driving courses were :-
	1. Reduced insurance premiums (dramatically!).
	2. It forced me into a much stronger awareness of my surroundings.
	3. I got a swanky badge for the car.
The disadvantage was an almost immediate feeling of superiority.

Brian

    
    Just thought I'd mention that I found it very comfortable cruising at
    between 130 and ~160 mph during the weekend ......
    
    Of course, it was in Germany.

    reply;-1
    
    What car gave you a cruise speed of 130+ Mph .
    
    And did any one flash you from behind at 130MPH .
    
    
                          KR

>>	1)driving hard warms the tyres
>>		makes them stick better

Only true if you REALLY drive hard, and depends on road surface conditions too.
You should know that Derek!	

>>	2)Similar for the brakes.

Funny, my brakes have always tended to fade somewhat after any prolonged spell 
of hard braking.  

The tyres wear out faster too!

Of course, if you weren't driving so hard in the first place you wouldn't need
the marginally additional traction from hot tyres (warm isn't enough).

    
    Re Brakes....
    
    I'm sure that i've never read that prolonged Alpine descents improve
    there performance  :-)
    
    Nigel

    
    Funny you should say that Nigel. Porsche do an advert advertising the
    fact that they use Alpine passes to test their brakes, and it helps
    them to improve their performance.
    
    Having said that, the pass that you have in mind was where I faded the
    911s brakes, so I think the factory should get back to the passes and
    do some more testing. 

    re a few back - I thought warm tyres would give you better grip
    than cold ie warm=after a few miles. ??  You can certainly feel
    the difference with your hand (and presumeably the pressure must
    therefore increase). My tyre guage/handbook states pressures when
    the tyre is cold. !
    
    Rich

    Further to my earlier views on the subject of speed and safe driving, I
    still think that the general standard/attitude to driving is wrong.
    There are far too many people who drive too aggressivly, often at
    speeds greater that nessesary, and with little or no consideration to
    other road users. You can have a big heavy right foot and drive like
    the wind, do handbrake turns and perform all sorts of 4 wheels wounders
    but, if you can't see or read the road and conditions your nowhere.
    Think about what you see on the roads, How often do you see rearend
    shunts??? more to the point how often do you see rearend on motorways.
    
    If you just think about some of the silly things you see and how often
    , it should be fairly easy to see what I mean. What ever happened to
    the curtious driver, my experiance is that if you drive by the book you
    will get a variation of between 1 and 2 fingers displayed and a lot of
    verbal abuse, for holding up a budding Ayrton Senna. It's expecting far
    toomuch but the answer is more fines and stiffer ones and as some has
    already suggested a limitation on cc/power and age/driving experiance.
    Put the average teenager behind the wheel of a powerfull car and you
    could probably save with some conviction that that will be bent before
    too long. I know there are some very wide sweeping statements in there
    but just think about what happens in reality and not what should
    happen.
    
    Garry
     

    I didn't bend my first car - it was a Volvo !
    
    Paul :-)
    
    

    
    Mine didn't bend - the plastic padding shattered!
    
    Elaine

Mine didn't bend, someone bent it for me.

Would have made an excellent donor for the Moss, but due to lack of space I had
to get rid of it.  I've still got the alternator from it though, which was
brand new...

    As it happens mine did bend.
    
    Someone had done a neat conversion for it's day of making a two
    seater Mini. To achieve this they cut away all the metal bulkhead
    between the boot and the interior of the car. So when you opened
    the boot - you went straight to the back of the front seats.
    
    All this was done very well, cosmetically. The petrol tank had been
    moved to the 'back seat' footwell, a very nice timber bed had been
    fitted, bit of filler, make good.
    
    Only problem was that removing the backseat metalwork also removed
    the torsional strength of the bodyshell. 
    
    Hence, if i drove one front wheel up a curb, and then opened the
    drivers door, i couldn't shut it because the aperture was twisted!
    
    AMS. 

    Re: a couple back...
    
    >>
    Put the average teenager behind the wheel of a powerfull car and you
    could probably save with some conviction that that will be bent before
    too long. 
    >>

    Hey! I'm a teenager (still) and i havent bent any cars i driven,
    in fact i haven't even scratched any. These include Marina,Bluebird,
    Porsche,Pug 1.6 & 1.9 gti,Mercedes,BMW 318i,XR2 (ok i scratched
    the XR2 but this only involved a minute concrete post ;-)),Xr3i,
    Ren 25,Metro Turbo... and a few others.
    
    Now most of these are fairly nippy cars, but adapting to these was
    not as hard as i would have thought.
    
    Maybe i'm not an average teenager, but i'm proud of the fact that
    i've never caused an accident, and the only accident i've been in
    was with a french woman who overtook me at the lights when i was
    turning left!
                             
    Maybe people think i drive fast, but my track record is still not
    too bad for 'a teenager' (compared to yours and insurance company
    views...)
    
    Lewis.

> re. Note 994.73 by RUTILE::BISHOP
>
>    Hey! I'm a teenager (still) and i havent bent any cars i driven,
>    in fact i haven't even scratched any. These include Marina,Bluebird,
>    Porsche,Pug 1.6 & 1.9 gti,Mercedes,BMW 318i,XR2 (ok i scratched
>    the XR2 but this only involved a minute concrete post ;-)),Xr3i,
>    Ren 25,Metro Turbo... and a few others.
>    
	Where do you get your insurance from ?????

    The insurance is just a 3rd party any car insurance. I suppose
    people trust my driving enough to let me drive their cars!
    
    Lewis.

    but not their ski's I expect !   ;-)
    
    Ric

    Next question, is where does a teenager get the money for an xr2 etc
    etc, also bearing in mind that insurance quotes for these sort of cars
    iare v.high (600 pounds plus!)
    

    I wish it was that cheap too.
    
    >>	Where do i get the money?
    
    I work here of course! ;-) Well contract here anyway!
    
    Lewis.