Feckin' Modified Car On Me Road!!!!

wet-paint

I'm just thinking troll right now.

Children aren't responsible, they will do stupid and dangerous things all the time. It's 100% your fault if you hit them, regardless of what speed you're doing. I'll put this in bold to make sure I get my point across. Children CANNOT be expected to exercise caution. They CANNOT be expected to look before they cross. This is why they are children and not adults.

Sure, parents have a duty of care toward their charges, but so do you as a road user.
Your attitude really beggars belief, if you really stand by it. If you are trolling though, kudos. I bought it.

Also, I'm not sure, but is / was there a lower speed limit for residential estates?

wet-paint

I think we can put this one to rest?
[edit] To answer your question cpoh1, yeah, over the speed limit is too fast, but on a lot of occasions, under the limit is too fast as well, depending on driving conditions.

tuxy

layke wrote:

I have a loud aftermarket exhaust, but it's only loud noise when you rev the **** out of the engine, which I suspect what your neighbour is doing.

Just out of interest and I know it's off topic. What kind of performance gains would one expect to get with one of these exhausts on a 1.3-1.6 engine?

Gran Hermano

yop wrote:

A word has been had but has been laughed back in our face, garda were rang when a dog was mowed down but have not done anything about having a word with them, now they are sitting outside the houses at nite revving the crap out of the cars.

I'm guessing the dog wasn't on a lead or under effective control of it's
owner when it was knocked down. The Gardai should have reprimanded the
dog owner for breaking the law by letting it's dog run wildly around the roads,
I know if a dog hit my car I'd be claiming off the dog owner.

cpoh1

Once again everyone is missing the point. If people think its ok to have 3 year old children unsupervised and playing on or near a road where there's a risk of cars passing at a designated speed limit im afraid the only person responsible is the parent if a child is involved in an accident.

Crosstownk you might think its ok for a 3 year old to play at the edge of a raod but I certainly wouldnt let my youngfella do it.

Wetpaint this is my attitude, how you find that to be "trolling" whatever that is then im very worried for your parenting skills. Its typical of Irish people, blame somebody, blame anybody but themselves. I would always look at what I can do before blaming someone else and having a responsible attitude towards your children should be first on the list. Im sure the government would back this up, if they thought 50kph wasn't safe in a residential area the speed limit would be lower. Parent play a massive part in ensuring their children are safe at all times, you cant expect road users to be 100% responsible for what your children do unsupervised.

Im leaving this now, ive made my point loud and clear.

Jumpy

cpoh1 wrote:

If its below the speed limit its no too fast end of story.

Can somebody possibly get this lad a brain?
Many factors influence speed. Your simplification of this is frankly awe inspiring.

Jumpy

cpoh1 wrote:

you cant expect road users to be 100% responsible for what your children do unsupervised.

Not only can you, you will find the courts will too.

cpoh1

Jumpy wrote:

Many factors influence speed. Your simplification of this is frankly awe inspiring.

Jumpy wrote:

Not only can you, you will find the courts will too.

So in your first post youre saying the government are wrong to make the law the way it is and in the second youre happy to abide by a courts decision making?

Which one is it, you know better than the government who make the speed limits?

Ive reported your abusive post too by the way.

Gran Hermano

I have to agree with cpoh1, it amazes me how 'responsible' parents complain
about motorists when they allow their little treasure to play on the road.
On occasion whilst driving at 5-15 km/h within an estate I've had to stop
because some parent can't see the problem in letting their toddler sit on the
middle of a road on their tricycle. I don't care if it's a cul-de-sac or not, it's still a
road and not a playpen. Housing estates have green areas and gardens
for a reason.

el tel

It reckon it's not the noise that bothers Volvoboy per se , but is more a question of the source and delivery of it. For example, my neighbour's Bentley makes a loud 'woofle' noise upon start up and he likes to give it a bt of a rev before switching off but I don't mind in the least

MarkR

You can be crawling on a road and still have a kid sprint / cycle / wheel themselves out in front of you, so there's no way you can say that a court will leave a childs safety 100% on the driver.

I thought this thread was about a guy with a noisy car on his road?

Jumpy

cpoh1 wrote:

So in your first post youre saying the government are wrong to make the law the way it is and in the second youre happy to abide by a courts decision making?

Which one is it, you know better than the government who make the speed limits?

Ive reported your abusive post too by the way.

Happiness has absolutely nothing to do with it. "Sorry your honor, I am not happy with that ruling" doesnt really get you popular with them wigged fellas.
You have a rather skewed impression of abuse as well.

Henry Ford III

Carrying "protection" aka an offensive weapon, is illegal too.

I have no particular issues with modified cars, infact I admire a few of the more tastefully done ones.

What isn't acceptable is making too much noise in residential areas (and generally driving like an idiot) be that caused by excessive speed, over reving, overly loud exhausts/induction kits/or dump valves on turbos, or even booming stereos.

cpoh1

Jumpy wrote:

Happiness has absolutely nothing to do with it. "Sorry your honor, I am not happy with that ruling" doesnt really get you popular with them wigged fellas.
You have a rather skewed impression of abuse as well.

And just like the ruling of the judge you would also have to accept that the law for speed limits is there for a reason also and you have to accept that too.

wet-paint

Yeah, that's right. Let's see what happens with Volvoboy and the residents' association, or cops.

cpoh1

Henry Ford III wrote:

What isn't acceptable is making too much noise in residential areas (and generally driving like an idiot) be that caused by excessive speed, over reving, overly loud exhausts/induction kits/or dump valves on turbos, or even booming stereos.

I agree 100% with this post. Breaking the speed limit is bang out of order in any built up area.

@wetpaint, what exactly do the residents association have to do with anything? Are they a branch of the law?

I can just picture the conversation with a garda now.

VB: Garda im unhappy with this boyracer in my estate making noise and drving too fast.

Garda: Is he breaking the speed limit?

VB: Eh well no but there are kids on the road and it might be dangerous.

Garda: Well then keep an eye on your children, if you are not 100% sure they are sensible or developed enough to realise that there are cars on the road then keep them indoors unless they are being fully supervised.

stovelid

Gran Hermano wrote:

I'm guessing the dog wasn't on a lead or under effective control of it's
owner when it was knocked down. The Gardai should have reprimanded the
dog owner for breaking the law by letting it's dog run wildly around the roads,
I know if a dog hit my car I'd be claiming off the dog owner.

Are you taking the f*ckin piss here?

If you're driving at a responsible speed around an estate, you can easily stop safely in most emergencies and avoid hitting a dog or kid.

Housing estates are not a f8cking dual carriageways.

Jumpy

cpoh1 wrote:

And just like the ruling of the judge you would also have to accept that the law for speed limits is there for a reason also and you have to accept that too.

No, no, no. Speed limit. That means your topmost speed allowed by law under any situation.
You are still held responsible for maintaining a safe speed given the situation you are in if an incident occurs.

wet-paint

Uh, yeah, I think he is taking the p1ss. I laughed anyway.
And CPOH1, it's referring to the advice someone gave to VB about the noise fro myer man's can. It's always good to have their support in matters like these.

cpoh1

Jumpy wrote:

No, no, no. Speed limit. That means your topmost speed allowed by law under any situation.
You are still held responsible for maintaining a safe speed given the situation you are in if an incident occurs.

Yes yes yes, it means that the law have deemed that driving at up to 50kph is safe on the stretch of road designated with this speed limit. It doesnt mean "you'll probably have to drive slower because there are unsupervised children about whose parents havent taught them how to cross the road proerly". If this was the case why don they have a slower speed limit of 30kph in these areas?

stovelid

wet-paint wrote:

Uh, yeah, I think he is taking the p1ss. .

hope so

Gran Hermano wrote:

I have to agree with cpoh1, it amazes me how 'responsible' parents complain
about motorists when they allow their little treasure to play on the road.
On occasion whilst driving at 5-15 km/h within an estate I've had to stop
because some parent can't see the problem in letting their toddler sit on the
middle of a road on their tricycle. I don't care if it's a cul-de-sac or not, it's still a
road and not a playpen. Housing estates have green areas and gardens
for a reason.

So if a parent loses sight of their kid for a couple of minutes, their "neglect" absolves you of the need to do everything you can to avoid running them over?

Jumpy

cpoh1 wrote:

Yes yes yes, it means that the law have deemed that driving at up to 50kph is safe on the stretch of road designated with this speed limit. It doesnt mean "you'll probably have to drive slower because there are unsupervised children about whose parents havent taught them how to cross the road proerly". If this was the case why don they have a slower speed limit of 30kph in these areas?

Ok, this is the point I call troll or deliberate flamer.
The single car width dirt and gravel track outside my house 100 metres away from and on the same road as the school is signposted 80km/hr. This sort of mislabelling is common.

cpoh1

stovelid wrote:

So if a parent loses sight of their kid for a couple of minutes, their "neglect" absolves you of the need to do everything you can to avoid running them over?

Nobody ever said it absolves them of blame but it doesnt take from the fact that 90% of the problem is parent being responsible for their children AT ALL TIMES, the driver 10% once he's below the speed limit and paying attention to potential hazards.

crosstownk

cpoh1 wrote:

Yes yes yes, it means that the law have deemed that driving at up to 50kph is safe on the stretch of road designated with this speed limit. It doesnt mean "you'll probably have to drive slower because there are unsupervised children about whose parents havent taught them how to cross the road proerly". If this was the case why don they have a slower speed limit of 30kph in these areas?

You need to realise that it is a speed LIMIT i.e. the maximum permissible limit. You can drive up to that limit provided it is safe to do so.

Quote from the Rules Of The Road....................

As a driver, you must always be aware of your speed and judge the appropriate speed for your vehicle, taking into account:

• driving conditions,
• other users of the road,
• current weather conditions,
• all possible hazards, and
• speed limits.

Driving conditions relate to the volume of traffic around you and the quality of the road.

Other users of the road include motor-cyclists, cyclists, pedestrians, school children, animals and all others you as a driver should anticipate will or may be on the road.

Possible hazards include anything you can see that can, and will, give rise to an emergency, such as oncoming traffic if you are turning onto a major road. They also include anything you cannot yet see and anything you can reasonably expect to happen, such as a pedestrian walking onto the road in front of you, a child running onto the road between parked cars, and or animals on the roadway. It includes your own physical and mental state while driving (for example whether you are stressed or tired) and the condition of your vehicle.

On a cul-de-sac, I'd say it's reasonable to expect a child to run out in front of you.

Seth Brundle

tuxy wrote:

Just out of interest and I know it's off topic. What kind of performance gains would one expect to get with one of these exhausts on a 1.3-1.6 engine?

It would be fairly safe to assume that no gains would be made! Unless it was a complete exhaust system with a remap done then you might see a small percentage increase.

cpoh1 wrote:

Ive reported your abusive post too by the way.

Noted.

cpoh1 wrote:

Nobody ever said it absolves them of blame but it doesnt take from the fact that 90% of the problem is parent being responsible for their children AT ALL TIMES, the driver 10% once he's below the speed limit and paying attention to potential hazards.

Do you drive? If so then who taught you as your perception of the rules is bizarre?
Everyone on the road must use due care and attention - this includes motorists, cyclists, pedestrians, etc. You have to take those who don't have this ability, i.e. children and animals into account. If there is a likleihood of children playing then you drive slower regardless of where their parents are. The advice of expecting the unexpected was coined for a reason! If you knock down a child, you are at fault because you hit them. They/their parents are not at fault because they didn't keep a proper watch on the situation!

stovelid

cpoh1 wrote:

Nobody ever said it absolves them of blame but it doesnt take from the fact that 90% of the problem is parent being responsible for their children AT ALL TIMES, the driver 10% once he's below the speed limit and paying attention to potential hazards.

Next time I run over a toddler, i'll keep it mind that its mostly the parent's fault...

TBH I drive as as slow as I can in my estate as it's packed with parked cars and kids. I have to crawl along for something like 25 seconds. Not a major sacrifice, you'll agree.

Gran Hermano

stovelid wrote:

hope so



So if a parent loses sight of their kid for a couple of minutes, their "neglect" absolves you of the need to do everything you can to avoid running them over?

I suppose if there was a large/deep river running close to a house and
the parent 'accidentally lost sight' of their toddlers only for one of them to
drown you'd blame the river - and not the parents who should not have let
the incident to occur. What is the problem with modern society whereby
parents can not take responsibility for their own children. I know if I lived
near a hazard - be it a lake, river or road - I would ensure my children
were supervised at all times.

And for those of you doubting my comment on a dog running out
in front of my car I'd advise you to check the Control of Dogs Act,
it clearly states that a dog must be under the effective control of it's
owner at all times - and depending on your local authority that may
include being on a leash at all times in a public place. If you are following
the aforementioned law then I fail to see how a dog can just run out in
front of a car.

wet-paint

Wow, you were being serious? Man, I think that's a bit callous to turn to the owner of poor fido who you've just mashed into the ground, and go looking for a bit of cash to replace the lights. I know you're right, but I'd swallow the cost of it, unless it was a large amount, or the guy started acting the dick.

cpoh1

I think kbannon you'll find that im agreeing with everything you say. I never said for one second that a driver shouldnt be aware of all potential hazards on the road. I am also saying that parents have the ultimate responsibility for their childrens actions and no matter what a driver does to prevent an accident by taking precautions it wont change the fact that an unsupervised child can run out in front of a car and be knocked down.

Instead of worrying about the speed cars on public roads are driving at id be more inclined to worry about my childs whereabouts and the wisdom of leaving them unattended on a busy road. Thats coming from a father and car enthusiast.

Seth Brundle

stovelid wrote:

Next time I run over a toddler, i'll keep it mind that its mostly the parent's fault...

That will help you overcome the trauma!

Gran Hermano wrote:

I suppose if there was a large/deep river running close to a house and the parent 'accidentally lost sight' of their toddlers only for one of them to drown you'd blame the river - and not the parents who should not have let the incident to occur. What is the problem with modern society whereby parents can not take responsibility for their own children. I know if I lived near a hazard - be it a lake, river or road - I would ensure my children were supervised at all times.

I presume you would also reduce the likleihood of the children gaining access by erecting a fence or something. You can't do that with a road!

Gran Hermano wrote:

And for those of you doubting my comment on a dog running out in front of my car I'd advise you to check the Control of Dogs Act, it clearly states that a dog must be under the effective control of it's owner at all times - and depending on your local authority that may include being on a leash at all times in a public place. If you are following the aforementioned law then I fail to see how a dog can just run out in front of a car.

Thats all well and good but if you were not driving at an appropriate speed then you are entirely at fault.