8 killed on the roads

MrPudding

impr0v wrote:

1) I'm not sure that this is the case, if it is, perhaps some statistics?

There was a guy from the NSC on Newstalk this morning. He said it was around 30%.

MrP

Ann Elk

eireal wrote:

First up well then the owners are stupid for not declaring there modifications,id also like to see the papers you read because again ive never seen a modified car totaled or left in a ditch

Are you trying to tell me that such cars don't crash?

eireal wrote:

99% Of cars new from the manufacturer for the past few years have come as standard with alloys.Does this make them all modified or any unsafer?

Please read my original reply to you. It's pretty clear that anything fitted by the manufacturer would be within engineers tolerances and so could be assumed safe. If not - any victim/family thereof would have a company with very deep pockets to persue for compensation - not the case with your average driver of a modified car.

eireal wrote:

There repuation is there from two things.One being muppets who *think* they drive a modified car thats actually a bucket,in the eyes of any enthusiast these are fools and are who we try dissasociate ourselfs from due to being tarred with the same brush which leads to 2 which is lack of joe publics knowledge on what is/isnt a modified car

Eh? My knowlege of what is a modified car is "a car which has been changed in any way from the manufacturer's original specification" - if its good enough for the law its good enough for me. If you change something, it's modified.

eireal wrote:

Larger alloys do not increase the perfomance of a vehicle,if anything they decrease its acceleration and top speed - FACT

Performance refers to more than straight line acceleration - FACT why do you thing performance cars/rally cars/F1 cars have such big wheels?

eireal wrote:

I have 18"wheels fitted to my car and its lowered 35mm and its certainly not so i can get around corners quicker,as with most modified cars its purely for looks so that the car doesnt look like its on stilts from the bigger wheels fitted.

You got the suspension lowered to make the car look nice with the 18" wheels on it - why did you fit the wheels in the first place? I presume in order to make the car look nice. Why do bigger wheels make the car look nice? I presume because it gives the impression of speed. Why does it give this impression? I presume because performance cars/rally cars/F1 cars have big wheels. Why do they have big wheels? Because it increases performance!
Do you see a pattern here?

eireal wrote:

Air filters and performance exhausts on a stadard small engined car again are of no benifit to performance and may actually decrease it - FACT.

On this one, I'll have to reserve judgemant - as my mechanical knowledge isn't the best in the world. I will say this though - I find it hard to believe, in the case of the air filters, that they have no benefit to the cars' performance. Why would they be fitted otherwise? They aren't visible. Surely if this were true then no-one would fit them - if this is the case then whats the problem.

eireal wrote:

Nitros oxide and superchips are a whole different ball game,yes they increase performance but the chances of seeing a 1 ltr corsa flying about town with them is very slim.

Again - the type of car really doesn't matter - insert a Focus/Skyline/Anything you want in here - it's the principle that matters.

ambro25

Time for my unsollicited €0.02, now that the thread appears to have definitely veered onto yet again modded vs stock vehicles, and all manners of suppositions and half-supporting quotes and figures...

The time of the accident and the makeup of the occupancy of the 306 makes me pre-suppose drink (optionally recreational drugs), first and before any consideration of speed and car behaviour and/or mods, and drivers' perceived aptitude at the time (although if alcohol is to be factored in, big impact on this last point).

So, as previously posted at the beginning of the thread - but long since silenced - yes, getting to know the respective tox levels of the drivers involved in each crash over the week-end should be revealed (for I don't believe that the Premacy driver can be excluded from suspicion solely because he drives a 'family' car - it was 03:00 AM after all).

And where belts are concerned, I don't wear mine.
(i) I have been in 5 (bad) accidents [am now touching acres of wood as I'm typing],
(ii) in 2 of those I was wearing a belt,
(iii) in 1 of the 2 it didn't work (in a head-on) and I have a 20-year old lip scar (faint now, thankfully for my good looks ) to prove it
(iv) in the other the belt got stuck (head-on then 2 full rolls then against tree) and the car eventually caught fire, but only after my dad cut the belt with a pair of secateurs we thankfully had in the boot
(v) in 3 of the 5 (including iii and iv above), we were the victim of a drunk driver.

As an aside, my dad has had another two *very* bad crashes, in both of which he wasn't wearing his seat belt and,

*whilst in one of those it didn't make any difference: my dad was static in an XM, got rear-ended @ over 100kph by a Primera. other guy was wearing belt, was killed instantly,

* in the other it saved his life,and that's no exaggeration: he got ejected through sunroof of his Renault 25 @ about 120 kph, landed in freshly plowed field (don't get me wrong, he was in bits... but-), car went on to do 3 full rolls "head-to-toe", engine was over half-into compartment, car was generally in a U-shape with roof halfway across back portion of fwd seats. There wasn't a bolt or a nut worth saving from it for any breaker :eek:

5500

Ann Elk wrote:

Are you trying to tell me that such cars don't crash?

No,im telling you ive never seen one on its roof in a ditch in the paper or on the news

Ann Elk wrote:

Performance refers to more than straight line acceleration - FACT why do you thing performance cars/rally cars/F1 cars have such big wheels?

How do you know they have such big wheels fitted?Ive been to track days in modello and youd be be lucky to see some of the cars with bigger than 15" wheels on the cars as there alot lighter than a big heavy set of 18's.

Ann Elk wrote:

You got the suspension lowered to make the car look nice with the 18" wheels on it - why did you fit the wheels in the first place? I presume in order to make the car look nice. Why do bigger wheels make the car look nice? I presume because it gives the impression of speed. Why does it give this impression? I presume because performance cars/rally cars/F1 cars have big wheels. Why do they have big wheels? Because it increases performance!
Do you see a pattern here?

I dont see a pattern tbh,your understanding on it seems wrong.Bigger wheels dont give the impression of speed,I cant say i could look at a car and think "wow them wheels are big,it must be fast"

I put them them on for the purpose of styling,its all im intrested in when it comes to car mod's,in saying that i do have an exhaust fitted but aside from its looks its of no benifit to performace whatsoever

Ann Elk wrote:

On this one, I'll have to reserve judgemant - as my mechanical knowledge isn't the best in the world. I will say this though - I find it hard to believe, in the case of the air filters, that they have no benefit to the cars' performance. Why would they be fitted otherwise? They aren't visible. Surely if this were true then no-one would fit them - if this is the case then whats the problem.

There mostly fitted to smaller cars for there noise,when you accelerate they give a growling suction type of noise,simular to an exhuast tone,i could go into detail on how they arent of benifit but simplified they suck hot air from the engine bay which is of no performance gains whatsoever.

Another thing worth pointing out is ive declared all modifications to my insurance company but they werent intrested in any of them once nothing was done to increase the engines displacement,they said that noone needs to declare any after market engine or exterior parts once the displacement stays the same which in theory means a car can be chipped or nitros added and it doesnt have to be declared as the displacement stays the same.

el tel

Almost 1 in 3 drivers don't wear seatbelts and there plenty of TV ads indicating the consequences of not belting up. I've loads of close friends who are doctors working in all the medical fields and they always have stories of the people they get in who wouldn't have sustained their horrific injuries had they been wearing a seatbelt. Just last year I had to run from my parents house in the middle of the night to a crash outside where I found I guy staggering around an upturned car desperately looking his fiance. After 10 minutes of frantic searching I found her body wedged between the boughs of a tree. Guess which one was ejected from the rolling car because they weren't wearing their seatbelt? No matter what anyone says seatbelts save lives in serious crashes and reduce injuries in minor ones and there are plenty of statistics to back it up.

jester77

Alot of these accidents come down to the lack of education and experience of drivers.
Our education system needs to be overhauled. There are more important things in life than learning poetry, Shakespeare, algebra, etc. Politics, personal finance and driving are 3 subjects I would make mandatory in our education system.
Young testerone-fueled people just hand over €20 and they have a licence to drive a machine that they don't understand the mechanics of on roads that they don't know the rules of. Young people should be made sit and watch videos of their consequences, learn how a cars mechanics work, learn the rules of the road, learn what to do when they come across an accident before they can sit in a car. And then they should only be allowed to sit in a car with a supervised instructor until they are able to pass a proper test. Not the test we have now where you just drive around in traffic for 30 mins.
This would cut down on a lot of the needless carnage on our roads.

Seth Brundle

Interceptor wrote:

Do you know that Merc and BMW (and others) are forced by the German govt to limit their cars to 155mph?

Are you sure - i thought it was a voluntary limit set up by the industry (which many manufacturers are now starting to ignore).

A lot has been and will be said about speeding here. Speeding does not cause accidents. inappropriate speed does!

jester77 wrote:

Our education system needs to be overhauled.

To be honest, we don't have a drivers ed system here. Anyone can set up a driving school and teach others. Our rules of the road are outdated and do not apply to current legislation and driving factors.
Also the provisional licencing system is farcical. What Ireland needs is proper education like the german system where driving is a privilege not a right. After this we need a sensible licencing system and not one where anyone who can sign their name on an application form can drive.
However, on top of all this the gardai need the resources and willpower to police the system appropriatley, not like the current 'PR Policing'.

Kersh

ok, lets clear up a few 'facts' here.
-- The smaller the wheel, the quicker the acceleration,-- the larger the wheel, the higher the top speed. Replacing 15" wheels with 18" wheels makes no difference to the speed, cos generally the profile of the tyre reduces, thus the rolling radius of the wheel remains the same, = same speed.
As for someones comment about f1 wheel sizes etc - an f1 car has 13" wheels., as do Indycars/f3/fford/fvee/f3000/A1gp etc - the size that these categories chose wasnt for 'performance' its kind of race industry standard if you can call it that.
As for rally cars/touring cars, i have no idea how large the wheels are on these, i just know about single seaters .

ambro25

el tel wrote:

Almost 1 in 3 drivers don't wear seatbelts and there plenty of TV ads indicating the consequences of not belting up. I've loads of close friends who are doctors working in all the medical fields and they always have stories of the people they get in who wouldn't have sustained their horrific injuries had they been wearing a seatbelt. (etc.)

No doubt. But each to their own conclusions from their own experiences (which I fully admit are in no way conductive of any certainty at all, for something as chaotic and random as a car accident and the mechanics/physics thereof).

In more absolute terms:

(i) if I don't wear a seat belt, maybe I'll be more mangled than another wearing a belt in accident A, and maybe it'll save my life and kill said other in accident B.

(i) but if said other drives under the influence (of alcohol, drug, medication, delusions of prowess, etc.) and I do not, there is a reliable certainty (not so much randomness, if you want) that said other is more at risk of causing an accident than myself.

My point is that the belt is an incidental issue. Therefore, start by looking at the factor(s) causing the accident(s), instead of the incidental issues:
(1) lack of driving skills - and in that bag I enclose education, adaptation to environment/circumstances, etc, etc.)
(2) substance abuse - and in that bag I enclose alcohol, recreational drugs, prescribed drugs)
(3) maintenance neglect - and in that bag goes an absolutely essential component of any vehicle: the tyres, even more so than the brakes (a close second). You do realise, of course, that all that connects your car to the surface is about 15 to 20 square centimeters x4, don't you? Just pause and think that all the forces generated from the movement of a ton of metal get translated through that tiny little surface...

Ann Elk

Why is everyone hung up about the dameter of the wheels? I'm pretty sure they have a width measurement as well? And Im also pretty sure that this increases as the performance of the car increases - eg. compare the width of an evo wheel with that of a skoda fabia - I reckon its obvious which is wider - it's the witdh which allows for better roadholding and, hence, faster cornering. That was my point in the first place - my apologies for not being clearer.

el tel

Until an inquest in a year or two we'll never know exactly the causes or contributory factors. Anyone one of us could get involved in an accident where a car (fully road worthy or not, above, below, or on the speed limit, drivers sober, drunk, or high, big, small or meduim wheels, provional license or full, insured or uninsured etc) is in a collison but everytime I'd hope you are belted in.

check this out if y'all care:
http://www.thinkseatbelts.co.uk/launch.html

69 mustang

Its not only people that like cars cause crashes or are in them. most of the time the modified cars [or mobile Christmas trees] are so over done you can see them coming a mile off and they always are well lit.
To go back to my point earlier if we all drove with our dipped lights on deaths on our roads would drop for sure.
I do a fair bit of mileage a year and a grey car on a grey road on a grey day is not easy to see especially if you add road dips.
Even Eircom proved that by making all there vans use lights all the time they have saved on road accidents and claims.

Also speeders know its points free by staying on R roads they also make you feel like your going faster than you are.

Capt'n Midnight

kbannon wrote:

Are you sure - i thought it was a voluntary limit set up by the industry (which many manufacturers are now starting to ignore).

I'm fairly certain that all performance cars on the Irish market have to be limited. And only the Guards are allowed ungoverened ones.

jester77 wrote:

Our education system needs to be overhauled.

You do realise that the only change in the last 30 years has been the driver theory test. Now before you can get a license you have to memorise a list of questions from book. That's it, nothing more. Ok there is a legal requirement to wait two years to drive on your own but I've never heard of anyone being done for it at a checkpoint.

kbannon wrote:

Anyone can set up a driving school and teach others.

Do you even need a driving license ?

monkeybusiness

mike65 wrote:

The road death stats for Donegal are appalling, they must be the worst per capita by a country mile. Call me an old fogey but is it incidental that the dead were all young and on the road at 3.30 am?

Mike.

i could call you a lot worse than an old fogey, but im so disgusted at your insensitivity that i cannot find the words to tell you how hurtful your comments are .
i understand and accept, knowing only too well and at first hand that Donegal has a desparate record in relation to road deaths, this particular accident happened about 20mins from a niteclub which im sure the victims were attending,are young people not allowed to go out on a friday night now? or do they have to be home before 12? waken up to the world my friend, if you are not willing to do that keep you insensitivity to yourself
they were obviously on their way home-travelling on a treacherous stretch of road, with appalling conditions for driving, non stop rain on friday/ friday night slippery roads- the list goes on

peasant

Why doesn't anybody ever mention selective speed limits?

Surely the signposting of speed limits, especially since the changeover, is a joke?

Who hasn't seen the borreen with the 80 sign? The "accident black spot" with the 100 sign right next to it? The sharp bend / hidden dip / dangerous crossing / etc sign, closely followed by ...yes you guessed it ...another 100 km/h sign...

Sheer and utter nonsense !!

The road safety authority should URGENTLY conduct a survey of danger spots on all roads and put up speed limits that actually match and reflect the conditions. And if accidents keep happening there ...enforce the limits with cameras ...after all they also work at three in the morning.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

5500

peasant wrote:

The road safety authority should URGENTLY conduct a survey of danger spots on all roads and put up speed limits that actually match and reflect the conditions. And if accidents keep happening there ...enforce the limits with cameras ...after all they also work at three in the morning.

Do you think that people would stick to those limits if signs were erected tho?Even if im driving in thr country and the limits 80 id tend to stick to 50 or lower as im so used to driving in the capital.It amazes me how some people will rip by and overtake you on country roads full of bends without a care in the world,its like a free for all.

Ive bever actually seen a speed check on a backroad outside of dublin either,obviously on main roads you'l find gatso vans and lazers but ive never seen one on a fast country road

Belle_Morte

eireal wrote:

Do you think that people would stick to those limits if signs were erected tho?Even if im driving in thr country and the limits 80 id tend to stick to 50 or lower as im so used to driving in the capital.It amazes me how some people will rip by and overtake you on country roads full of bends without a care in the world,its like a free for all.

This amazes me too; I don't care how good a driver anyone is or how well they know the road, they still can't see around a corner.

Why don't they consider putting up permanent speed cameras at the sites of known accident blackspots? Surely that would make people go a bit more carefully.

mike65

monkeybusiness wrote:

i understand and accept, knowing only too well and at first hand that Donegal has a desparate record in relation to road deaths, this particular accident happened about 20mins from a niteclub which im sure the victims were attending

So you are familair with the locality and you belive you know why the 5 were on the road at the time in question, has someone you know been killed on the roads? If so you are well placed to talk about what you think happened and the cultural context. Donegals road fatalites are way off the scale and have been for a while, why is this?

they were obviously on their way home-travelling on a treacherous stretch of road, with appalling conditions for driving, non stop rain on friday/ friday night slippery roads- the list goes on

Indeed it does, so there is car with 5 youngsters in it, having been in a nightclub until 3 am driving on 'dangerous' raods in poor conditions...I can draw my own conclusions. I could be wrong, but if I read a report on the crash I expect it will confirm my suspicions.

Whats the local media saying - the radio 'phone-ins' etc?

Mike.

RainyDay

Ann Elk wrote:

RainyDay, with regards the comprehensive claims against the modified car, it's at the insurers discretion whether or not they choose to pay out. They used to be a little more lenient, but with the flak they cop over premiums, and the pressure they're under to bring them down, they are beginning to get much tougher on such claims. As it stands now, if the engineers spot an undisclosed modification, they will likely disallow your claim.

With regards the third party claim against the car in question, under the road traffic act, the insurers are obliged to pay out as they issued the disc, they can then try to recoup the costs from you, or bring charges against you for fraud. Generally, this doesn't happen though, and they'll just make it difficult to get re-insured elsewhere.

Thanks for the clarification, Ann.

mackerski

kbannon wrote:

Are you sure - i thought it was a voluntary limit set up by the industry (which many manufacturers are now starting to ignore).

The German practice of limiting cars to 250km/h is completely voluntary (often referred to as a gentlemen's agreement), and, as you say, not universally observed. The papers of every German-registered vehicle list, among other things, the top speed, and non-limited cars have their 250+ limit noted officially - it isn't any kind of grey market chipping gig. On the plus side, we're talking here about cars built not just to attain those speeds, but to brake from them too.

FWIW, by the time you reach 250 without killing yourself, you've probably qualified yourself for whatever additional speed the car can do. There are very few circumstances where you can sustain that kind of speed in today's traffic.

Dermot

Sesshoumaru

Ann Elk wrote:

Why is everyone hung up about the dameter of the wheels? I'm pretty sure they have a width measurement as well? And Im also pretty sure that this increases as the performance of the car increases - eg. compare the width of an evo wheel with that of a skoda fabia - I reckon its obvious which is wider - it's the witdh which allows for better roadholding and, hence, faster cornering. That was my point in the first place - my apologies for not being clearer.

So wider bigger tyres give better roadhandling is it? So you are saying we should all modify our cars and equip them with larger wheels? because they give better grip and are therefore safer. Or we should all fit tiny wheels on our cars that have crap grip because that would scare us into slowing down?

Seth Brundle

Sesshoumaru wrote:

So wider bigger tyres give better roadhandling is it? So you are saying we should all modify our cars and equip them with larger wheels? because they give better grip and are therefore safer. Or we should all fit tiny wheels on our cars that have crap grip because that would scare us into slowing down?

Wider tyres both do and don't give better roadhandling. I currently have 255 wide tyres on the back and 235 on the front of my tank. They stick like glue to the tarmac. However, wider tyres are known to increase tramlining and also increase the risk of aquaplaning.


The idea of a modified car being more likely to kill is stupid. It is the person driving the car that causes the accident (99.9%) IMO. That is the crux of the problem. Would a ban on modified cars stop accidents and dangerous driving?

Ann Elk

Sesshoumaru wrote:

So wider bigger tyres give better roadhandling is it? So you are saying we should all modify our cars and equip them with larger wheels? because they give better grip and are therefore safer. Or we should all fit tiny wheels on our cars that have crap grip because that would scare us into slowing down?

I'm saying you should leave the wheels as they were designed by the qualified engineers at the time the car was being built.

kbannon wrote:

However, wider tyres are known to increase tramlining and also increase the risk of aquaplaning.

This is my point - why should you be allowed to change a part of a standard specification, designed with tolerances in mind, to non-standard parts which increase the risk of accidents?

kbannon wrote:

The idea of a modified car being more likely to kill is stupid. It is the person driving the car that causes the accident (99.9%) IMO. That is the crux of the problem. Would a ban on modified cars stop accidents and dangerous driving?

Cars don't kill people - drivers do, and on that point i'm in 100% agreement with you. My point is that most modifications are done with the desire to increase performance in mind. It seems logical to assume that people who wish to increase the performance of their cars wish to do so in order to drive the car at levels which the standard specification will not permit - it is this desrire to drive in such a manner which results in accidents.

I'm not advocating a ban on freedom of choice - people should be free to do as they wish once it doesn't threaten the safety of others. There are track days available for people who wish to drive outside the scope of the rules of the road.

Mr. Presentable

Billy Connolly has the solution to reduce the number of accidents on our roads. "Fit every steering wheel with a sharpened steel spike that terminates an inch from the drivers throat. That'll make him very aware of the road conditions and other users"

There are many hazards on our roads.

1. Poor surfaces
2. Inexperienced drivers
3. Poorly maintained vehicles
4. Inappropriate speed limits
5. Intoxicated or otherwise affected drivers.
6. Bad lighting
7. Mobile phone users
8. Smokers, cappucino drinkers, sandwich eaters....
9.
10.
etc

People cope with one or two or three at a time most of the time. I am out in my '96 Corsa, it probably needs new tyres but they'd cost more than the car is worth. It's raining today, and I'm texting my mate. Another driver runs the red light in front of me. It doesn't have to be my fault, but I have made a contribution to an accident.

Take a car, middle of the night, packed with people having a laugh, it's raining, had a couple of beers (not above the limit), having a smoke. The road is quiet so I travel a bit faster, not much beyond the limit, but the road *is* deserted. Turn up the cd player and a car comes round the bend - he's tired and maybe a bit off line....

It's not one big thing usually that causes accidents, but a lot of little things

Seth Brundle

Ann Elk wrote:

I'm saying you should leave the wheels as they were designed by the qualified engineers at the time the car was being built.

Many cars will accept many different wheels not just the ones supplied when the car was sold. It is a huge business that even the manufacturers participate in.
Many uprated wheels are in height only thereby meaning that the car then uses low profile tyres - these tend to have better handling properties. Also Im making a huge presumtion here but I suspect that someone who goes to the effort of getting bigger wheels will usually get a good brand name tyre and not some crappy tyre with low adhesion abilities.

Ann Elk wrote:

This is my point - why should you be allowed to change a part of a standard specification, designed with tolerances in mind, to non-standard parts which increase the risk of accidents?

I didn't say they increase the raik of an accident and I doubt there are statistics to prove it. I mentioned that there are pros and cons to increasing. However, I did mention that my OEM 17" wheels stick to the road like glue!

Ann Elk wrote:

Cars don't kill people - drivers do, and on that point i'm in 100% agreement with you. My point is that most modifications are done with the desire to increase performance in mind. It seems logical to assume that people who wish to increase the performance of their cars wish to do so in order to drive the car at levels which the standard specification will not permit - it is this desrire to drive in such a manner which results in accidents.

Fair enough, someone who modifies their car may want to increase performance whilst others may just want to increase the asthetics. This does not mean that they will automaically become more dangerous.
Is someone more dangerous in a modified car than they are in a standard one? If I chip my car to get another 20 or 30 bhp out of it, does this make more dangerous? Just because the power will be there for me doesn't mean that I will take a back road 50kmph faster.

Ann Elk wrote:

I'm not advocating a ban on freedom of choice - people should be free to do as they wish once it doesn't threaten the safety of others. There are track days available for people who wish to drive outside the scope of the rules of the road.

Being realistic, we don't have a rules of the road!

prospect

Ann Elk wrote:

It seems logical to assume that people who wish to increase the performance of their cars wish to do so in order to drive the car at levels which the standard specification will not permit - it is this desrire to drive in such a manner which results in accidents.

by this rationale, people who buy cars with big engines, do so because they want increased performance, blah blah blah....

I drive a 600cc Diahatsu Copen. Has your car got a bigger engine? If so you must be a careless driver who sppeds and causes accidents. We should ban all cars with engine capacities over 600cc.























BTW, I am being sarcastic.

mackerski

Ann Elk wrote:

I'm saying you should leave the wheels as they were designed by the qualified engineers at the time the car was being built.

How about the tyres? The ones the manufacturer put on my car have since worn out, so I bought new ones. Nice grippy good-in-the-rain tyres. I didn't ask the manufacturer about them, though. Nor did I ask what brand of petrol was in the tank when I picked it up.

To be a little more constructive, German-registered cars have a big list of allowable tyre types (not rims, though the size of one pretty much drives the other) specified on the papers. You can't go telling people they can change absolutely nothing, but it is valid to regulate key components.

Dermot

Ann Elk

kbannon wrote:

Fair enough, someone who modifies their car may want to increase performance whilst others may just want to increase the asthetics. This does not mean that they will automaically become more dangerous.
Is someone more dangerous in a modified car than they are in a standard one? If I chip my car to get another 20 or 30 bhp out of it, does this make more dangerous? Just because the power will be there for me doesn't mean that I will take a back road 50kmph faster.

Being realistic, we don't have a rules of the road!

My overall point is that if you wish to get more power out of the car, it must be for a reason - I presume that you dn't like spnding money for the sake of it. I just find it puzzling in the extreme that someone would spend money on an upgrade that has no aesthetic qualities at all (like a chip) an which only serves to uprate the engine output and then claims not to drive any faster. I know i'm using a gereralistic argument to an extent (on a forum with 40,000 odd members is there any other way to argue?) and that I run the risk of tarring all with the same brush. I mean, you may only use the extra power on trak days in which case, fair enough - however I believe that this is only true for the minority of drivers with such upgrades. I suppose that there is no resolution to this argument due to the fundamental beliefs both sides - but I think you have to admit that I have a valid point.

Whilst not everyone who drives a performance modified vehicle is a danger on the roads, the majority I have witnessed are. The only way to make sure that the idiots can continually uprate their cars to the point of being a danger is to prohibit certain modifiations. Afterall, you can still buy the pro-drive/FQ/AMG/M-Sport etc versions of vehicles if you wish. If it's individuality that is the issue - I have nothing against purely aesthetic modifications as long as the don't inhibit views etc.

At the very least, there should be a government body responsible for approving modifications according to the standard of work done, the percentage increase in engine output, the age/experience of the driver and the suitability of the original vehicle's chassis to handel the increase.

5500

Ann Elk wrote:

At the very least, there should be a government body responsible for approving modifications according to the standard of work done, the percentage increase in engine output, the age/experience of the driver and the suitability of the original vehicle's chassis to handel the increase.

There is,its called the nct In fairness to them if there are mods on a car they deem dangerous they will make you remove it.

Alot of mod parts come E approved,i know for a fact my rear lights and headlights are stamped and its the case with alot of aftermarket parts available.