Overtaker Haters!

[Rave]

1. The rules are based on "the lowest common denominator" which is based around "that piece of junk that barely passes an MOT"....Stopping distances, handling, visibility etc can be leaps and bounds better in any new car. I have driven many different cars in the last 10 years and you can feel the difference between them. Some are CONSIDERABLY safer at 100MPH then others at 70MPH, which does make a mokery of the current laws.

Well, the cars may be better, but the human driving it isn't. As speeds increase, stopping distances increase exponentially- and your reaction time stays the same. New cars may be able to stop better than old ones but not so much better that they make 100mph safer than 70mph in an old car.

I don't have a problem with people speeding on the motorway, I occasionally do it myself, but don't kid yourself that it's no more dangerous than travelling at the speed limit, because it is. A good driver doing 100mph is probably safer than a bad driver at 70, but the good driver would be safer still if he were doing 70.

[MadduckUK]

but the good driver would be safer still if he were doing 70.

or 60... or 50.... or 40... or just walking?

[arbitor]

or 60... or 50.... or 40... or just walking?

lol

i do agree with rave here.

I would like to see the whole country driving gtis and performance vehicles as they ARE safer imo, they brakes are much better normally and they feel more stable at speed.

as clarkson said "a db9 will stop in half the distance quoted by the dvla, so why cant he drive twice the speed" now this is just clarkson but i do agree that the aston martin is the safer car in that sense and that if i want to overtake something on a straight peice of road then i can.

[Howard]

Most modern >1.9L diesels have serious torque to allow for pretty rapid acceleration nowadays, and I'm pretty sure the cars they're attached to will have much better brakes and general roadholding than their older equivalents

[Rave]

lol

i do agree with rave here.

I'm not quite sure that you do, actually....

as clarkson said "a db9 will stop in half the distance quoted by the dvla, so why cant he drive twice the speed"

Yet again Clarkson proves what an ignorant dipstick he is. Any given car, all else being equal, will take four times the distance to stop from 140mph that it would from 70mph. In the real world, driver reaction times and quite possibly brake fade could make the difference even greater.

[redlight]

Most modern >1.9L diesels have serious torque to allow for pretty rapid acceleration nowadays, and I'm pretty sure the cars they're attached to will have much better brakes and general roadholding than their older equivalents

I can vouch for that I have a Citreon 1.9TD it comes to a halt in half the time of my cavalier 1.9TD.

[Howard]

Which citroen?

[redlight]

Xsara. I know its a bit lighter but that does not account for massive difference in the length of road it needs to stop. Also I drive it a lot faster. Oh that third gear I love it.

[finlay666]

That's very dangerous, but it does work

Well on the car I drive (VW polo) if you even gently put your foot on the brake the lights come on, dont have to push down more than a couple of mm and the lights come on....

[J4MES]

I'm staggered by some of the outrageous, unsafe, and frankly ridiculous suggestions of how to get people to back off their bumpers, it's shocking, utterly shocking.






















Just knock it into 3rd and wring it to the 13000rpm redline...

[Howard]

Well on the car I drive (VW polo) if you even gently put your foot on the brake the lights come on, dont have to push down more than a couple of mm and the lights come on....

Yes, but the person behind you might not know this, and he'll start to brake. The person behind him might not notice, be looking at his stereo, following too closely, whatever, and go into the back of him. The person behind that person is ****ting himself as he is locking his wheels up and knows he's about to jump right into the middle of a pile-up. It's far more dangerous on the motorway than on B roads, but still braking causes a chain reaction

[Stoo]

Just knock it into 3rd and wring it to the 13000rpm redline...

And watch as the pistons come flying through the bonnet of the clueless dipstick in his Nova from following your advice

How is the bike btw?

[finlay666]

Yes, but the person behind you might not know this, and he'll start to brake. The person behind him might not notice, be looking at his stereo, following too closely, whatever, and go into the back of him. The person behind that person is ****ting himself as he is locking his wheels up and knows he's about to jump right into the middle of a pile-up. It's far more dangerous on the motorway than on B roads, but still braking causes a chain reaction

TBH I wouldn't see that as my problem, they wouldnt have a problem if they kept a safe braking distance of the 2 second rule (or more depending on weather conditions and tiredness etc) and pay attention to the road, what if I genuinely had to break for say a large animal was to run into the road? I'd rather not get whiplash thanks to their poor driving skills and lack of patience to get from A to B (I appreciate im not patient with my tattoo mind lol)

And i mainly drive on the single carriageway roads, if some guy/gal's car is trying to mount me from behind I just keep a steady speed and ignore it on a dual carriageway

[Howard]

Very true, but you shouldn't exploit their stupidity

[finlay666]

Very true, but you shouldn't exploit their stupidity

awwww, but is so easy, fun and helps them learn not to drive like michael schumacher after a few pints

and the large animal thing has happened before with a horse lol

[Howard]

Wouldn't you rather not risk damage to your car though?


I brake for small animals if it's a 40 limit or under :/ lol