loquasagacious said:
And the posting of accident photos in a thread about driving at high speed wasn't making an implicit link?
It tends to remind people of their mortality. Something which I think people like you need reminding of. Especially, when you spend plenty of time trying to defend the actions of doing 200kmph plus on a public road.
wheredanton said:
You read this thread (about speeding) and wonder why the large proportion of dead drivers are young.
So what do you think causes the high rate of death and injury among young drivers? Surely if you recognize that speed amplifies any mistakes made, which we all make when driving, even if you are as well trained as you are (
) speeding doesn’t make your driving situation any safer.
Anyway no matter what I say about speeding being dangerous (because you know the faster you go your mistakes are amplified and we all make mistakes!) you will still continue to do what you do because you are not an inexperienced driver who has done defensive driving courses and whose father was a race car driver . Even if there where a million studies showing that speeding increased the risk of death I believe you would still speed because you personally believe that because of your background and training that you are skilled and experienced enough to undertake the speeds that you did (at night?) on public roads.
wheredanton said:
In any case your correlation is wrong. The car I drive is older than 5 years. It’s not a small car and my father and I service it.
loquasagacious said:
Oh so you drive a fifteen year old shitbox too? Don't make baseless assumptions.
Ohhh that one hurt. Unlike you, the car I drive is not an extension of my penis and my pride is not damaged when someone says my car is a shitbox. I also then don’t spend a few pages trying to make out that is it a terrible thing to call my car a shitbox.
Whether you are right of wrong my car provides transport and I don’t amplify any mistakes that I may make, or any undetected defects that may escape a careful inspection of the car, by doing speeds which are dramatically over the speed limit.
wheredanton said:
My use of the phrase '15 year old shit box' is aimed to demostrating how stupid someone is when they do over 200kmph on public roads shared by the general public who may not share the driver's assessment of their 'above par' driving skills in a car (I'm assuming its a stock early 90s camy) not really made for getting up to such speeds. Especially when it's already reasonably old. I think it would be reasonable to say that attaining a 200kmph plus speeds in a any car should be left to flat well maintained german freeways and race tracks rather than crap Sydney roads.
loquasagacious said:
When I do such speeds the general public is not around at 3am I am endangering only myself. On the flats we actually closed off the section we were using with roadblocks. In any other situation headlights are a clear indication that there is someone else around and to abort.
I really hope that you never make any mistakes at that pace. But then again you did a defensive driving course, your father was a race care driver and your drive a lot – ie your are not an inexperienced p plater :uhhuh:
I’ll remind everyone how you feel you are a better driver.
[B said:
loquasagacious][/B]
Also at what point did I become an inexperienced P-plater - I would lay down money that I'm a better driver than you or your parents. As I type I'm about six months away from getting a full licence since getting my licence I've done two practical defensive driving courses and a theory one.
Therefore you should be able to do 200kmph plus in your modified cars on flats out the back on the flats!
loquasagacious said:
Of the cars quoted none except the Integra were in stock configuration. The camry would in fact have been the most modified having coped new shocks and springs on all corners, front and rear sway bars, mags, extractors, a beefier steering rack and some other work. Next would come the Volvo; mags, larger front sway bar, rear sway bar, wider tyres and stiffer rear shocks. The lancer would be a Cold Air Intake.
Ah damn. There you go trying justifying your actions. Trying to tell me it’s safe. The only time when doing those speeds is safe (well it’s not really that safe but safer) is with a driver who has years of experience, in a controlled environment with all the safety precautions.
loquasagacious said:
In essence I agree with you - I am not suggesting that people drive around 24/7 at 200+. I have driven at those speeds on very limited occassions and purely for benchmarking purposes. In fact as you may have noted I directed sk8_boi to look into fanging his commodore around oran park or eastern creek raceway.
Benchmark on a racetrack please, take your own advice.
wheredanton said:
And if we want to get into pedantics about how 'good' cars may be I think it would be reasonable to assert that cars made today are, generally, safer than cars made 15 years ago.
loquasagacious said:
How is this a reasonable assumption? What major improvements in safety have been made in the last 15 years? Lets think seatbelts, airbags, cumple zones, safety cells, collapsable steering columns all around 15 years ago. In fact four of those five are present on my Volvo and its 33 years old.
wheredanton said:
You seem to assume that car manufactures have not made any advances in safety. I think this is highly spurious. Advances have been made in the areas which you outlined above. Also many of these safety devices are now available to relatively inexpensive cars unlike in the past. Surely you must accept that advances in all the aforementioned areas have been made thus making cars today safer.
Unless of course you are going to tell me that no advances have been made by car manufactures in the past 15 years when it comes to crash safety.
Think of the advances and improvements made to airbags. Two stage deployment and the imposition of side airbags, curtain airbags and knee airbags. Or improvements made to breaking systems with more advanced versions of ABS, Electronic stability control, better tries and better and crumple zones.
loquasagacious said:
I'm suggesting that only limited advances have been made (eg the airbags everywhere that you mention) and that no major advances have been made. eg the introduction and use of seatbelts had a huge impact nothing in the last 15 years has had that effect.
Electronic advances such as traction, stability, etc control have not had the huge effect required to be a pivotal development and are as yet not widespread even among new cars.
I made the statement that cars are generally safer than they were 15 years ago. You said this is not a reasonable assumption because the same safety devices that are found in today’s cars were also found in cars of yesteryear. I rebutted your argument by suggesting that there have been advances in car safety in the last 15 years, even if it was to existing safety systems, which have made cars generally (I’m being kind) safer than they were 15 years ago. I enforced this argument by saying that it would be silly to think that no advances were made in safety in the past 15 years which made cars safer. Even if there was an incremental advance in car safety cars today would be in general safer than cars of yesteryear.
Even if it was the case that there had been no improvements or refinements of safety systems the motoring population would be safer as a whole as more cars today come equipped with these safety devices.
I gave you a big fat massive list and then argued that it would be odd to suggest that safety has stood still for the last 15 years. I also pointed out that many of their safety devices are available on relatively inexpensive cars when they were not in the past. I think it’s also reasonable to say that the all the safety systems in cars have been dramatically improved in cars. Certainly I’d feed much safer in the Current model of a stock Toyota Camry than a 1988 Toyota Camry.
Personally I think the improvements in car structure (in terms of rigidity) have made many cars safer as well as the widespread implementation of better crumple zones.
The point is that cars today are, in general, safer than cars of a generation ago. To suggest that it is not a reasonable assumption to say that cars today are, in general, safer than they were 15 years ago ignores all the refinements and safety advances that have been made.
Let me remind you of your words
wheredanton said:
I think it would be reasonable to assert that cars made today are, generally, safer than cars made 15 years ago.
You attempt to counter this assertion.
loquasagacious said:
How is this a reasonable assumption? What major improvements in safety have been made in the last 15 years? Lets think seatbelts, airbags, cumple zones, safety cells, collapsable steering columns all around 15 years ago. In fact four of those five are present on my Volvo and its 33 years old.
I think it’s a reasonable assumption that cars are in general safer today because of the refinements in the existing safety systems.
loquasagacious said:
You seem to ignore that I have done and continue to do significantly more driving than the average driver - eg a year of my driving experience may well be worth two years of someone elses.
I don't know what you think they teach you at defensive driving courses - or what my father taught me. I have been taught how to avoid a potentially disasteruous situation. I have been taught how to recover from a potentially disasterous situation. I have practised recovering from such situations. I have recovered from such situations on the roads.
I have learnt how to drive a racing line, how to trail brake, how to feel the car move and how to guide it. How to push the car to the absolute limit - and no further.
I have a higher level of skill and experience than the average P-plater. I have a higher level of skill than most drivers full stop. The dowdy middle-aged woman who talks too much is not somehow a better driver than me because she has been toodling around for fourty years.
I think it would be wrong to say that you are on your P’s and are somehow not inexperienced. It doesn’t matter how many defensive driving courses you have done the fact remains that you have not had many years on the road
and your arrogance and supreme self confidence (confidence enough to flaunt the road rules and do over 200kmph) is the stuff that kills young foolhardy men who feel they have the ability to do 200kmph plus on public roads.
Even if the middle ages women is not a technically good a driver as you, if you has been accident free for 40 years and has not endangered life then she is a good driver.
You personally feel that you have the ability to do two times the maximum speed limit, but so do other people whose speeding DID cause their crash.
loquasagacious said:
Obviously those who crashed were - for whatever reason - not up to par. They should NOT have sped, THEY made the wrong call, THEY did not have the requisite skill.
…and you are up to par? I’m sure many people out there would not share your subjective confidence in your driving skills. Even after ‘proof’ at why you are not inexperienced…even if you are a ‘good’ driver you are still plenty arrogant about your ability. I don’t think that’s a good driving trait.
