Porsche should be selling bumper cars

[Markymark]

[QUOTE 4025883, member: 45"]I thought it was all about engine size?

I've shown you some evidence.[/QUOTE]
Phil stated that the higher perforamce car is cheaper than the lower. You think that only teenagers and old people drive cheap cars anbd that's why they are dangerous. I have been told (not by you) that cheap cars are moire dangerous becuase they are, well cheap.

So, if we want to kake the roads safer why is perforamce the isssue here/ Surely banning old people, young people and poor people would make more sense?

 

[Profpointy]

mark - are you really arguing (and you may not be) that insurers are wrong when they charge more for fast cars, and furthermore, to the extent they simply won't insure riskier drivers at all for fast cars?

 

[screenman]

Alcohol shoud be banned that kills people. 42.6 per 100,000 compared with 18 for cars.

 

[PhilDawson8270]

[QUOTE 4025780, member: 45"]It factors in accident likelihood in that vehicle, age of driver has an influence on that.

But you're comparing powerful cars with powerful cars now.[/QUOTE]

a 1.4 Honda Civic that is slower than a mini is hardly a "powerful" car

 

[PhilDawson8270]

[QUOTE 4025782, member: 45"]We've discussed the evidence. An 18 year old can get cover for a £10k Fiesta, but not a £10k Impreza.[/QUOTE]

Which suggests that it's the 18 year old, and their behaviour that is the primary issue.

 

[Profpointy]

Which suggests that it's the 18 year old, and their behaviour that is the primary issue.

but it's the same 18 year old in both cars?

 

[PhilDawson8270]

Car culture is inherently wasteful and aspirational.

I agree, but I would also agree that carbon bikes, and fancy wheels is wasteful. The whole cycling industry is inherently wasteful. As we don't truly need the stuff that we buy. Yet, it's nice to have it if you want it.

 

[PhilDawson8270]

[QUOTE 4025865, member: 45"]My scenario has nothing to do with age, because it's the same person. The variable is the car. And the higher the performance, the higher the risk.

And why are you still talking about engine size? Drive a tractor?[/QUOTE]

I would guess my lower performance car, costs more to insure. Is that it is not only more expensive to repair than the older high performance car. But that maybe only younger people buy the 1.4 model. I can buy the big fast Type R for the same money, and insure it for less still than my slow, small engine.

I bought the small engine, for fuel economy, tax and running costs. As they outweigh the insurance difference.

There are many different high performance cars I can insure for less than my slow car. Point being, in that when cars risks are assessed they look at the accident stats for that vehicle, which will inadvertently profile the usual type of driver.

 

[PhilDawson8270]

but it's the same 18 year old in both cars?

Yes? I don't see where you're going.

18 year old with poor attitude to driving, is likely to be irresponsible. More power may mean more risk. Yet premiums for older drivers, don't correlate with this. Which would suggest that higher performance cars with more mature drivers, generally have similar risk profiles to standard cars.

Maybe it would be more appropriate to discuss whether cars should have staged access similar to motorbikes, to restrict access to performance based upon age and experience/

 

[Profpointy]

I

Yes? I don't see where you're going.

18 year old with poor attitude to driving, is likely to be irresponsible. More power may mean more risk. Yet premiums for older drivers, don't correlate with this. Which would suggest that higher performance cars with more mature drivers, generally have similar risk profiles to standard cars.

Maybe it would be more appropriate to discuss whether cars should have staged access similar to motorbikes, to restrict access to performance based upon age and experience/

yebbut I'm old and whilst I can insure a moderately powerfull car and an extremely powerfull motorcycle at an acceptable price, I'm pretty sure a honda 125 scooter would be a lot less to insure than my 1000 cc triumph.

I accept there are other factors - a mate of mine refused to understand why a version of the same car with spotlights and a stripe down the side cost more to insure - when it was quite obviously because it appealed more to jac-the-lad types. But it's simply silly to imply car performance isn't a risk factor

 

[Tin Pot]

Ok. Hands up. It is nothing but the politics of envy.

But I am a winner too, by your logic, as I can own and drive a (needlessly conspicuously qantonly, fast car too. But I just don't want to.

tlh being happy with size of my member I'd rather spend the money on bikes, whiskey, and good wine.

I don't understand the car/cock thing. My ego outweighs both anyway.

 

[PhilDawson8270]

But it's simply silly to imply car performance isn't a risk factor

I entirely agree. it IS a risk factor. My disagreement is that it is the primary risk factor. The profile of the driver is the issue. A prat in a Corsa, will be a prat in Porsche.

 

[CopperCyclist]

Alcohol kills and injures people (and not just the person imbibing it if you factor in drink drive and alcohol fueled assaults). The same can be said of cigarettes.

The cars are part of the problem - but like many other things in life the outright banning of them is too far into the nanny state.

What we should have is stricter and harsher laws, and better policing of those laws (which unfortunately requires more money, of which there is none).

Caught speeding? Set number of points applied based on zone/speed. No argument to lessen the points. No argument of "hardship" allowing someone to keep their licence. You need to drive for work? All the more reason you SHOULDN'T have been doing 42 in a 30 then.

Remove the current "all speed cameras will be highly visible and in identifiable spots". Make them covert and movable. Why the hell is the excuse "It's not fair, they caught me when I couldn't see them" even considered!

Stop putting forward the argument they are safety cameras and stay firm with "yep. Speed cameras. Don't speed."

And lastly (and I've said this before) for "simple" speeding offences remove the fine, and just have points on a licence, and court costs IF the driver choses to challenge it in court to shut up the "stealth tax" moaners.

Then sell as many 600bhp, 0-60 in 4 second superstars as you want. I'd still buy one if I won the lottery!

 

[Levo-Lon]

You got anymore left @User9609 ,ill have a eigth please..

your in a plyfull mood today

 

[mustang1]

II always thought the insurance is based on (apart from location and where itnis kept overnight):
Age
Number of previous accidents
Number of points on license
Occupation

That last one, occupation, may have a lot to do with the personaloty of the driver in the car.

I have both a selection of powerful cars and mundane cars at my disposal and I drive none of them inappropriately. In fact one of my favourite cars is a normal golf because it attracts so little attention.

Idk what it's top speed is but I know its over 70mph. But even if it was 170mph, it is irrelevant.