Another cracking EU proposal regarding motoring...

[snowdog]

Sound like a great idea to me. You don't need a car that does over the speed limit.

In the same way i don't need a 4x4.

Uk isnt the only country in europe, in germany you can drive as fast as you want in 40% of the motorways (iirc), personally often in germany due to having family in poland, wouldnt like it if I had to drive longer to poland than I have to now.

Is it me or is the EU trying to send us all back in time to the dark ages? It's the 21st century, we should all be zooming along the motorway at over 100 by now!

Completly agree, speed limits on these day's motorways are completly unneeded, especially here, here you can drive on for 15 miles without seeing even a tiny bend, yep u have to drive 60 or 75 max...

Should implent a minimum speed of 75 instead of a max speed.
Envoirment my ***, cars produce a way to few emissions to make a difference compared to the total picture.

 

[Tommy B]

I wouldn't worry.

Italy & Germany would never let this happen in a million years.

Our government seem obsessed on ending anything that brings enjoyment. It's a shame that cretin doesn't put a speed limit on his ludicrously pathetic ideas. Why do we have such a ridiculous speed limit anyway? Some people are more confident driving at faster speeds and should be allowed to do so, there are lanes available for such drivers. I guess Health & Safety dictates that an accident at 100mph would be worse than one at 70mph. I doubt it, in both cases they'd be severe. As said above, the emissions cars produce is negligible compared to the total picture, and WHY the hell should the public be forced to give something up and not the industries who produce the majority of the pollution?

There is absolutely no need for such regulations in the motor industry. If they really did insist on something, then I would only ever be sympathetic towards regulations to make engines more efficient. VW are already doing this though. The 1.4 TSI does 0-60 in 7.7 seconds and has a fuel consumption of over 40mpg.

The problem is the government see cars as a tool. The public (well, Men anyway) see them as toys. If we all saw them solely as a way of getting from A to B, why would we spend so much money on them?

 

[[TW]Fox]

You'd actually be suprised just how few of the population see a car as anything more than either a status symbol or a tool.

 

[alexthecheese]

You'd actually be suprised just how few of the population see a car as anything more than either a status symbol or a tool.

I was going to say. You don't really get a diverse breadth of opinion when you frequent forums like these, so it's easy to lose track of the bigger picture. A lot of people couldn't give two hoots what car they drive when it comes to performance.

As devil's advocate, why do you actually need a car that can do more than 100mph? What is the big thing going on here with everybody getting anti about it? They could easily limit cars in this country to 100mph as the legal maximum limit is 70mph.

I'm not saying take away the power so cars physically can't get to the speed either.

I understand the issue with track day cars, but how many cars are actually used on the track compared to those that aren't? It must be a tiny proportion. Special allowances could be made for those cars quite easily. Unlocked on the track, locked when you leave.

 

[Third Opinion]

You'd actually be suprised just how few of the population see a car as anything more than either a status symbol or a tool.

That number is likely to get even smaller with the imminent introduction of pay as you drive.

I know for one that with a mortgage and a family we struggle to run two cars, even though we both desperately need them to go to work in.

The thing is even if we vote another party in they are all obsessed with climate change and that the main culprit are cars and aeroplanes.

I think the golden age of motoring and travel has been and gone now.

 

[Sinizterguy]

Holy crap ... These people need to be removed from the gene pool.

 

[[TW]Fox]

The thing is even if we vote another party in they are all obsessed with climate change and that the main culprit are cars and aeroplanes

The UK car population has nil effect on world climate change.

 

[JRS]

The UK car population has nil effect on world climate change.

Good luck getting TPTB to understand that.

 

[Entai]

Indeed, the worst that will happen is manufacturers will put an electronic limiter on the cars, and it is trivial to remove said limiters.

The guy doesn't have a clue what he's talking about anyway. Cars aren't heavier because they are capable of high speeds, the reverse is true.

Cars have become more powerfull to compensate for the extra weight of all the new safety features (all-round safety, not 'high speed safety' as this muppet suggests), and the higher top speeds of the average everyday car are merely a by-product of the higher power requirements.

TBH it is a catch 22 situation really.

Manufacturers make cars that go fast because that is what sells, that means that the new version of pretty much any car is faster than the outgoing version. To make it faster requires (usually) more power. More power means faster speeds, which means crashes occur at higher speeds, therefore more safety systems need putting in place, to protect the occupants in crashes at those higher speeds, this means a heavier car, this means more power needed etc etc etc.

There are two ways around this either do as the man says and ban all fast cars.

Or (probably even more controversial) do away with all safety features in cars, no airbags, no crumple zones, no ABS, ESP, EBA, uncle Tom Cobley and all.
This will result in lightweight small fast powerfull cars for all to enjoy at very cheap prices (it is all the rubbish that puts up costs).

When they crash it will be one or more less muppets on the road clogging it all up for everyone else, and think of the savings for emergency services, any crash at over 20-25 mph will kill all occupants of the vehicles so we don't have to pay taxes to hospitalise these people, there will be vast savings to be made everywhere.

 

[DreXeL]

which means crashes occur at higher speeds, therefore more safety systems need putting in place, to protect the occupants in crashes at those higher speeds

But are these safety systems there to protect occupants at higher speeds, or to make a car safer at normal, everyday speeds? I thought it was the latter, hence my point about the higher power being an indirect by-product of the extra weight, not the cause of it.

 

[K.C. Leblanc]

Firstly I don't think this argument stands up because ncap don't impose higher safety standards on faster cars (unless you're counting Quadricycles).

Also people here need to bear in mind that ever though Mr Average says he doesn't care how fast his 1.6 Astra (or even Mr Despirate to keep up with the Jones at all cost in his 316) goes if he was made to swap it for a 900cc Deawoo Matiz he'd be unsatisfied by it's performance.

 

[Entai]

But are these safety systems there to protect occupants at higher speeds, or to make a car safer at normal, everyday speeds? I thought it was the latter, hence my point about the higher power being an indirect by-product of the extra weight, not the cause of it.

When crash testing came into being it was done at a speed of around 25-30 mph, as that was considered to be the speed at which death was likely if systems were not in place to help prevent serious injury.

As cars became safer they also became heavier and larger, because of the added safety features. Thus manufacturers had to put bigger more powerful engines in to make the car go at least as well as it did before the features were added, preferably quicker.

Therefore crashes that were debilitating at 20-25 mph were now almost totally survivable. However because of the added weight of cars and the added performance crashes were now happeneing at 30-35mph that were now becoming very serious and difficult to survive.

Therefore the safety systems were beefed up to make sure that the crash was survivable at the increased speeds as much as at the lower speeds. Again cars became heavier and larger, so the cycle continued.

Now crash tests are carried out at 40mph, and most new cars (quadricycles excluded!!) should be perfectly safe and crash worthy and fully survivable at that speed.

There is already in the pipeline legislation for a crash test at 50 mph which must be passed with similar results to the 40 mph one at the moment. So what size will cars be in ten years time if they have to be crash worthy at 50mph.

 

[Rilot]

Well, I think it may go a lot further than you think.

Those of you who were riding bikes in 1990 - 1993 will remeber the proposed 100bhp limit for motorcycles. It got a long way, even though the evidence for doing it was based on a tiny sample of motorcycle accidents from just one town in Germany.

It eventually took the parliament 3 negative votes to convince the European Commission to drop it. Remember, that it's the commission that comes up with this sort of stuff, not the parliament. The commission are unelected and don't actually have to listen to the will of the paliament and consequently, the will of the people.

It eventually got chucked out but the name Martin Bangerman will be forever etched in every biker's mind.

It is rubbish like this that adds weight to the argument to stay the heck away from Europe and it's meddling ministers.

 

[West]

Dont see that happening, but if it does... the germans are gonna have a ball

 

[The_Dark_Side]

over engineered and therefore heavier?
what this uninformed berk seems to be blissfully ignorant about is that supercars, for example, use different materials which in most cases are stronger and lighter than those used in more mundane cars.

what a plank.

 

[The_Dark_Side]

interesting post, but snipped to save space, sorry..

take cars like the 205 gti.
you couldn't build a car like this today as the legislation demands you fit airbag this and doorbar that etc etc.
IIRC the mk4 polo is heavier (and i think larger too but i could be wrong about that) than the mk2 Golf).

 

[Tommy B]

Why do we need fast cars? Some of us actually enjoy driving, and relish the performance and enjoyment from fast cars. You're not likely to drive over 100mph in this country, but as soon as that limit comes in, car manufacturers may decide to cap the performance full stop. The 911 Turbo isn't my dream car because it does 196mph (or whatever it is), it's because it goes from 0-60 in 3.7 seconds. OK, that's not the only reason, I think the design is gorgeous, but it's still one of the eminent facts that makes me love the car.