[iandusud]

Although this isn’t specifically about bikes it affects all cyclists. I have read of two accounts on BBC News this morning of pedestrians being killed by drivers of cars which are marketed on the basis of their high performance. In these two incidences an Audi and a AMG Mercedes. I don’t think that the cars themselves are particularly more dangerous than an avergage family car, lets face any lump of 2 tonnes travelling even at legal speeds is likely to kill a pedestrian or a cyclist if there is a collision. The point is that these cars are deliberately made for and marketed at people who wish to drive at levels of performance that are totally inapropriate for public roads. When will our governement do something to curb the marketing of such cars for use on public roads? 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-54932641

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-54945577

Topic

[Tom_77]

Secret_squirrel wrote:

Can anyone point me at some stats that show its the type of car rather than say the type of driver (youngish males perchance)?

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cars/article-6799443/Cars-like-involved-crash-UK-roads.html

Top of the list is the Toyota Prius (popular as a taxi), after that it’s mostly the sort of cars driven by teenagers, quite a few BMWs too (possibly company cars with high annual mileage?).

 

[Captain Badger]

Secret_squirrel wrote:

Can anyone point me at some stats that show its the type of car rather than say the type of driver (youngish males perchance)?

No sorry. There was an article last year that pointed to smaller cars/drivers (topping the list was the Peugeot 205 and Hyundai i10) being safest on the road with the usual suspects  (BMW, Audi) being the worst, however couldn’t find it right now. There was an article in NewScientist discussing how sports cars were worse than SUVs, but behind a paywall so couldn’t get to it.

Indeed it is likely to be a combination – performance cars are likely to attract a buyer that wants to use that performance. Unfortunately, that compound effect is difficult to parse. Indeed I don’t believe it is necessary to do so – the whys do not detract from the reality; that they have attached problems and few, if any, benefits.

There is a further dimension. The performance car in itself fosters a culture. This is evidenced by the forums, magazines, shows, meets etc. 

So culture, of course, plays a part, however, the culture is not independent of the type car, it is in part driven by it.

[Tom_77]

There are rules for car

There are rules for car adverts, the gist of which is:

Advertisements should not contribute to a culture of dangerous, irresponsible or inconsiderate driving or motorcycling, especially among young drivers.

ASA seems to be a bit toothless though, if you break the rules you’re just told you can’t run the advert again. E.g. this Audi R8 ad, and this Ford Mustang ad, and this Fiat ad.

[Simon E]

Captain Badger wrote:

I agree with you that the central problem is the car-centric culture, however, performance cars are still a distinct problem within that, on safety, environmental, and antisocial behaviour grounds.

Agreed.

The essential problem with the promotion and availability of high performance cars is that driving at high speed is made desirable.

Manufacturers, the vast majority of media outlets (print, TV, online etc), race teams, sponsors and everyone else involved in motorsport refuses the wholly negative effects of this behaviour on everyone outside the car – other road users, people who live/work near those roads – which is rendered completely irrelevant.

Limiting max speed to 85 mph won’t prevent the majority of collisions, especially in areas where 30 or 40 mph is the legal limit. Plenty of far less powerful vehicles are involved in crashes every single day. Sadly SMIDSY or the arrogant belief that ‘might is right’ are often significant factors, as a glance through the contributory factors in the annual road stats will show.

It would be more instructive to ask why 150,000 people are still being killed or injured every year on our roads. And that number doesn’t include the many incidents where no injury is recorded – see the ongoing Car crashes into building thread in the forum for some examples.

I see from my local rag’s homepage this morning that a 2-lorry crashed has blocked the M54 while another article states that “one in 20 motorists in the TF and SY postcode areas have had to declare motoring offences when applying for car insurance, compared to a national average of one in 10.” – story about the Moneysupermarket figures here. Before anyone thinks that’s great, we’re twice as well behaved as the national average, it’s worth noting that SY covers Shropshire and mid-Wales which have a very rural populations, thinly spread police forces, and low camera counts.

[Secret_squirrel]

Captain Badger wrote:

kil0ran wrote:

Reformed petrolhead here. ….

 

Really intelligent post, and very readable. 

Ditto

[Secret_squirrel]

Captain Badger wrote:

however, performance cars are still a distinct problem within that,

I’m not sure I buy that – I think we’re in danger of doing exactly the same thing as the anti-cylists do by singling out a subsection of the population of car owners – but willing to be convinced otherwise.

Can anyone point me at some stats that show its the type of car rather than say the type of driver (youngish males perchance)?

[Captain Badger]

Secret_squirrel wrote:

False comparison.  What has one go to do with the other?

I would say that it seems absurd to speed-limit a low-risk form of transport to maximum speed, but not speed-limit a hi risk form of transport.

Seems like a fair comparison to me….

[Captain Badger]

Secret_squirrel wrote:

You need to take your blinkers off, no matter how important you think the point you are trying to make is.  Which BTW I disagree with – you are in Daily Mail “wont somebody think of the children” territory.   The problem isnt performance cars – its that we live in a car-centric culture.   Changing that is meaningful, banning performance cars on the assumption that thats the problem is just daft.

A couple of notes.

The Audi has no further description – for all you know it could be anything from a 1L A1 upwards, or a 15 year old 1.4 A3 or a SQ7 sports barge.

The Audi news article says nothing of the circumstances of the incident – until then you are reaching to make a point.

I think there is a risk that you are in “Guns don’t kill people…”  territory.

I agree with you that the central problem is the car-centric culture, however, performance cars are still a distinct problem within that, on safety, environmental, and antisocial behaviour grounds.

 

[Captain Badger]

kil0ran wrote:

Reformed petrolhead here. ….

 

Really intelligent post, and very readable. 

[Secret_squirrel]

False comparison.  What has

False comparison.  What has one go to do with the other?

[Secret_squirrel]

You need to take your

You need to take your blinkers off, no matter how important you think the point you are trying to make is.  Which BTW I disagree with – you are in Daily Mail “wont somebody think of the children” territory.   The problem isnt performance cars – its that we live in a car-centric culture.   Changing that is meaningful, banning performance cars on the assumption that thats the problem is just daft.

A couple of notes.

The Audi has no further description – for all you know it could be anything from a 1L A1 upwards, or a 15 year old 1.4 A3 or a SQ7 sports barge.

The Audi news article says nothing of the circumstances of the incident – until then you are reaching to make a point.

[kil0ran]

Reformed petrolhead here. I

Reformed petrolhead here. I spent most of my 20s/30s buying, modifying, and thrashing all sorts of Japanese/German motors (if you think cycling is expensive wait till you spend £250 on a set of brake pads that last one track day).

Why did I do it? A mix of tribalism, showing off, and as a way to satisfy my mechanicking/tinkering urge (that’s now well and truly satisfied by bikes). I enjoyed driving fast, I did really stupid things on public roads (140mph on the M3 at 3 in the morning probably the worst) and lobbed a huge amount of money at the hobby.

Fortunately I survived to my mid-30s without killing/injuring anyone and only picking up 6 points in 15 years of driving. Eventually I realised that all cars are basically the same, and are basically just a massive source of worry and and equally massive drain on funds. Weekends were spent tinkering on the car and then watching motorsport. That’s all I did. No going out except to car meets, no holidays (except track days) no dating, not much focus on my career.

All changed when I met my partner and she asked a simple question – “What’s the point?” and I couldn’t really answer. Now I drive a Volvo estate (slowly) and rant at drivers like my former self. 

I guess the point is that we all like nice things, and we’re all encouraged by marketing and other forces to want things we don’t actually need. If it’s not cars it’s bikes or camera gear or watercraft or whatever.

Stuff like BMW’s “Ultimate Driving Machine” slogan mean that they end up making these absurd cars like the M140i (355bhp in a hatchback FFS) to pick up all the petrolheads who must go one louder than everyone else. I loved Hondas back in the day and had a Mk1 Integra Type R which I reckon at most, even on a track, I could drive at 75% of its capabilities. It was that car that started me doubting the point of it all – I did some proper instruction in it where I improved massively during the day, thought I was at the limit, and then the instructor took me for a hot lap where he was something like 30% faster. I guess it’s a bit like the MTB world where people are spanking about on full downhill world tour bikes and simply don’t have the skill/bravery to exploit the capabilities of the bike to the full. 

This might be false equivalence but owning performance cars doesn’t mean you drive like an idiot, in the same way that owning £10k’s worth of World Tour superbike doesn’t mean you jump off the side of alpine passes sat on the top tube in an aero tuck. Very few cyclists need a £10k superbike, yet there are plenty about in the hands of people who would blow up in the first hour of a stage race.

[Gary's bike channel]

i own a 2019 suzuki sv650,

i own a 2019 suzuki sv650, which will go from 0 to 60 miles an hour in three seconds, something only the very fastest supercars can keep up with. I also have a kawasaki er500 and and enduro motorbike. Although the sv can and will accelrate faster than a lamborghini and i have done it, once i got to 120 mph i let off the throttle.  Now i only go to about 5000 rpm on it and dont break the speed limits as im using it for a commuter. I always give cyclists ridiculously wide amounts of space too.   Its the operator of the vehicle, not the vehicle itself.       https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpmyf8O9rSo

in the same way, if i had the funds to drive a very fast car, lets say i bought a holden monaro, 5.2 litre v8. I would still only use the power when it was warranted. Id still drive it just as carefully past cyclists and fully use the other lane when i went past.

[Captain Badger]

As with everything the danger

As with everything the danger of a car is zero unless there is a driver behind the wheel. Any car marketed for performance means that the vendor intends the driver to use the excess power. In addition, racetrack inspired innovations (which are useful when a car is on the track pushed to its limits) are unlikely to be noticeable when driving safely. 

With the above in mind, any vendor who markets these features knows that they are inappropriate for use on the public highway and so are ethically culpable when the results of that use manifest themselves. This is why there has not been a significant improvement in road violence outcomes in the past decade or so – vendors are actively enabling irresponsible, negligent and dangerous behaviour.

[Rendel Harris]

Agree 100% – all cars should

Agree 100% – all cars should be limited by law to 85 mph (15 mph extra in case a boost is needed to avoid a collision on a motorway). The fact that it’s illegal to run an ebike on the public highway that can exceed 15.5 mph but you can run a car or motorcycle that can do 200 mph accentuates the absurdity.

[Author]

Replies