Your three points make absolute sense, but I like to think of the "power to kill" ratio as a sideways curve (see attached image.)

In other words, working backwards, give a kid a 500 hp car, and you can pretty much guarantee he'll get into an accident.
A 400 hp car is not very much safer.
A 300 hp car is a bit safer, but still dangerous in the hands of a teen.
A 200 hp car is a lot safer than a 500 hp, but still could get into trouble.
A 100 hp car is not that dangerous at all really.
A 0 hp car needs to have an IDIOT behind the wheel to get into an accident (and I know plenty of people who could qualify, lol.)

The point being, I don't think there is as much of a difference in safety between a 90 and 130 bhp car as there is between a 130 and 170 bhp or a 170 and 210 hp car. Just look at the graph to see what I mean. I just don't think a 136 bhp car is THAT much more powerful to merit too much concern - that's all.

But yes, all of your points are valid.

Speaking of the qualifying for the 0 HP accident award, some girl at our school managed to roll her Jeep on a perfectly straight and level road at 20 mph... and Jeeps are not THAT prone to rolling over, lol.

....jeeps are like the most well-known vehicle in america for rolling over.

Anyway, I don't see why it's such a big deal that you have to have the clutch down to start the engine or have the brake down to select another gear in an auto. If you're doing it right, you do these things already. They're not even things to "protect stupid Americans", they're things that could keep ANYONE from making a mistake and damaging their second most expensive belonging.

I really hate the anti-american bullshit on this forum

Quote from Stang70Fastback :

I've even been behind a convertible 20 feet in front of me at 70 mph...

Isn't that a bit too close?

Depends on the speed that you're going at. Laws here atleast are 2 seconds on normal streets, and 3 seconds on Highways.

Quote from flymike91 :

They're not even things to "protect stupid Americans", they're things that could keep ANYONE from making a mistake and damaging their second most expensive belonging.

I really hate the anti-american bullshit on this forum

True, they could protect anyone stupid enough to make that mistake. It's just that the rest of the world isn't that stupid (on the whole, with lots of exceptions to each rule obviously)

You would hate it - you're American. The French hate anti-French stuff. The Germans hate the anti-German stuff. And the English would, but they're too busy taking the mickey out of Scotland and Wales

how dull would the world be without the occasional friendly racism (or rather nationalism... as I wouldn't go so far as to call the americans a "race")...

But then, noone thinks that americans are more stupid, then, for example, brits, italians spanish, portuguese, french, russian, german, austrian, swiss, etc. people, BUT, at least according to some urban myths, the US of A's system acctually gratifies stupidity (coffee burns, poodles in microwaves), and additionally, the whole list of warnings seen on american products, of which at least two thirds are beyond people with a little common sense in them, makes it actually seem like america itself regards the americans as thick.

But back on topic... hell, there is no topic anymore!

I'd like to point out the Coffee burn lawsuit was because the Coffee was needlessly hot (180 degrees) when the Coffee would be the same at a lower temperature, only take a tiny amount of time more to make. She was NOT suing because the Coffee wasn't labelled as hot.

Degrees fahrenheit, I deem. And I still think it's stupid to sue for a self inflicted injury, AND getting through with it.
And honestly: because the coffee "wasn't labelled as hot"? Would you sue, if you'd burn yourself with tea because the cup didn't say it was hot? I think there are some things that should be regarded as common knowledge (if it steams = hot)... Just because it's actually less tupid than publically percieved doesn't make it not stupid in general.

well, back to topic: dun need no clutch strater safety thingy. thx ^^

Quote :

And honestly: because the coffee "wasn't labelled as hot"?

Read again:

Quote :

She was NOT suing because the Coffee wasn't labelled as hot.

Quote from ColeusRattus :

Degrees fahrenheit, I deem. And I still think it's stupid to sue for a self inflicted injury, AND getting through with it.
And honestly: because the coffee "wasn't labelled as hot"? Would you sue, if you'd burn yourself with tea because the cup didn't say it was hot? I think there are some things that should be regarded as common knowledge (if it steams = hot)... Just because it's actually less tupid than publically percieved doesn't make it not stupid in general.

well, back to topic: dun need no clutch strater safety thingy. thx ^^

Erm, 180 degrees CELSUIS.

You might think it's obvious it would be hot, but i think that if if you were served a 500 degree steak and burned your mouth after leaving it for 10 minutes you would sue too.

She WASN'T suing because it wasn't labelled as hot, but that was something McDonalds did to stop them getting sued again ("meh, we told 'em it was hot!")

Wow. She must've gotten a high pressure cup then, otherwise I'm pretty sure the coffee would've boiled in the cup at 180°C . Or maybe I just don't understand the coffee-thermodynamics that well

I suppose super heated coffee-steam would be a possibility, albeit unlikely. But to serve it the cup must be pressurised, which is probably what those plastic lids do (because they are USELESS for drinking through )

Quote from flymike91 :

....jeeps are like the most well-known vehicle in america for rolling over.

Take a look at where the Jeep Wrangler sits among SUV rollover ratings. It is definitely not the most well known SUV to roll over.

No, he said it was like the most well-known vehicle in America for rolling over. And the Jeep Wrangler is a bit like the most well-known vehicle in America for rolling over - it has four rubbery wheels, a body, some glass etc etc.

Either that, or he added a 'like' without meaning to, probably as a result of inbreeding.

I took it as he said "like" as in "I am like the coolest kid ever."

The way those teenage girls always talk... you know "Like so YESTERDAY I was like shopping, and three guys like walked up to me, and I like totally told them..."

And, even if you disregard the fact that there are MANY, MANY more SUVs that are more prone to rolling over, unintentionally rolling ANYTHING at 20 mph really involves some serious skill (or lack thereof.) Apparently she didn't even swerve to avoid anything - no-one knows how she managed it (it was in traffic) and she didn't even get it on its side, she got it on it's ROOF, lol.

/me wants a pic of the equipment pouring 180°C cofee!
check this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Water_phase_diagram.svg

I think driving license should not be granted to anybody who can not demonstrate 2 years / 20'000 miles driven distance...

More seriously the best form of training I have seen was a driving license working like this (in France in the early 90s):
at 16 you get to drive with an appointed adult (holder of the license for min 3 years) and both receive a few hours instructions - around 10.
You are then allowed to drive for 2 years (and you must have a plate on the car) with your "coach" in the car.
at 18 you can take the test after another 10 hours alone with an official instructor.

Well, we're now massively off the topic, but I just wanted to leave this last thought...

Quote from ajp :

That scares me so you reckon you can drive fast but you've yet to learn to deal with traffic or have to read an unknown road or drive in the dark yet you've obviously got a desire to drive fast. I'd have said that a 136bhp saloon is definitely not a sensible car for you to learn in.

I have driven in the dark, and read plenty of new roads (and cars), but I know that this does not prepare me for public road driving. Yes, I have a desire to drive fast - when it's safe to do so. Driving on a circuit provides a vent for that desire, giving somewhere far safer to drive at the limits of your car's performance; and if you can do that, you won't feel quite so urged to make a dubious overtaking maneouvre, or push too hard on a dodgy surface, when out on the road.

I learnt in a 150bhp Audi A6 weighing 1350kg, and I never put myself in any danger whatsoever in that either. Come to think of it, I've driven a dozen different cars from 70 to 200bhp at speeds up to 100mph, and never once placed anyone in danger at all. It is not the car, or the conditions, that decide the danger level - it is the driver, or the other drivers around him. Hence my proposition for harsher punishments on sub-standard drivers, and higher standards for driving tests. The most important thing, though, is the psychology of the driver, including how likely they are to take risks, to push too hard, to drive too fast, in any given situation. Unfortunately this isn't easy to measure, and so I consign myself to the hell of insurance premiums, but I don't buy the statement that my car is an unwise choice for me - given my experience relative to most new drivers, and my respect for the car and others relative to most new drivers.

No, I'm not perfect - bloody far from it, like plenty of people - but if I didn't think... If I didn't know, rather, that I could be trusted with that car, I would never even consider driving it on the roads.

Tristan's idea about having restrictions based on power-to-weight seem more sensible, but perhaps these should be based on an assessment rather than just fixed numbers. Again, responsible drivers shouldn't be restricted by precautions taken against unsafe ones, and nor should unsafe drivers be allowed into cars that would be dangerous for them because most other people could handle them.

Sam

a 135 hp saloon, is like a lancer or a corolla, hairdresser and a car for the broke

complete joke

thank god, atlantian contributet to the thread...

Life finally makes sense.

It's nice to know that such well-read and eloquent people have clearly thought-out and justified opinions to share, isn't it? :rolleyes:

Sam

Quote from atlantian :

a 135 hp saloon, is like a lancer or a corolla, hairdresser and a car for the broke

complete joke

Yes, but scathing alertness revokes non-contempt, and justifiably so, given the contemporary lifestyles and complacent gratuitousnesses that are so often perceived... and that pretty much invalidates your theory.

Quote from Stang70Fastback :

"Like so YESTERDAY I was like shopping, and three guys like walked up to me, and I like totally told them..."

well i am from california
you're right, I wasn't up to date with the latest rollover test results. I assumed because I've seen more than one rolled over irl and in the news.

Quote from flymike91 :

well i am from california

lol, that'd just about do it

Quote from Jakg :

Erm, 180 degrees CELSUIS.

Brilliant.

Obviously there are stupid people all over the world. I agree, the bigoted bull-shit is annoying. And no, I'm not offended only because I'm an American and subject to the prejudice. If people here were forever calling Mexicans lazy I would still say it's unacceptable. Tribalism is the last bastion of the feeble mind. Still, at this point I don’t even raise an eyebrow over it; I just thought I'd remind everyone that there are plenty of targets for bigotry. I wouldn't want anyone to think I was a one trick pony if that was my thing.