Legal Street Racing?

[niky]

Hmmmmmm.... you could migrate...

Although I agree with you Joey. If you were really only concerned about fuel economy, why not save some money and get a Base Yaris/Fit, or a Prius for not much more.

Prius, blech. It's the most boring drive in the Universe. Besides, a good turbodiesel (whatever objections Famine has to them) will save as much or nearly as much fuel as the Prius while being twenty times more fun to drive.

Yaris... should be good fun, but it isn't... just mild fun.

The Fit, though,, is an excellent example of something you can drive spiritedly without getting into trouble or breaking the law. And the lack of insulation, plus the thumpety ride, makes it feel twice as fast as most other cars at the same speed.

 

[Famine]

Prius, blech. It's the most boring drive in the Universe. Besides, a good turbodiesel (whatever objections Famine has to them) will save as much or nearly as much fuel as the Prius while being twenty times more fun to drive.

Plus, if you're bothered about the environment, the cradle-to-grave environmental costs for the Prius (because the bizarre materials it's made from require a lot of energy to extract in the first place and then dispose of) are about twice that of any regular, non-hybrid car.


But diesels are made of cancer.

 

[Joey D]

Although I agree with you Joey. If you were really only concerned about fuel economy, why not save some money and get a Base Yaris/Fit, or a Prius for not much more.

You wouldn't save money wit the Prius and after driving both the Yaris and Fit they felt cheap. While I enjoy fuel economy I also enjoy a solid vehicle.

 

[Danoff]

Screw danoff you win, you obviously know more than I.

Still trying to figure this one out. Are you taking your ball and going home? Or are you conceding that driving isn't about maximizing safety? (or both)

 

[buickgnx88]

Nah, try and find a 70's VW Rabbit Diesel. I found an old ad for the car that claimed it could get nearly 60mpg on the highway! Isn't it ironic that cars could get that high of mileage back when no one cared (well almost no one) and gas prices were low, whereas nowadays barely any cars can get 45-50mpg and many people want low-mileage cars with high gas prices?

 

[Danoff]

Nah, try and find a 70's VW Rabbit Diesel. I found an old ad for the car that claimed it could get nearly 60mpg on the highway! Isn't it ironic that cars could get that high of mileage back when no one cared (well almost no one) and gas prices were low, whereas nowadays barely any cars can get 45-50mpg and many people want low-mileage cars with high gas prices?

If low-mileage was all people cared about, the Rabbit Diesel would be in full production. People also want lots of heavy safety equipment, gobs of power under the hood, leather, noise deadening, and a navigation system (and let's not forget emissions standards).

 

[Famine]

If low-mileage was all people cared about, the Rabbit Diesel would be in full production. People also want lots of heavy safety equipment, gobs of power under the hood, leather, noise deadening, and a navigation system (and let's not forget emissions standards).

And something big enough not to get crushed by the neighbour's Expedition.

 

[Stevisiov]

Originally Posted by Joey D
This is why I do not agree. This is an opinion matter whether you think it is or not. You are entitled to feel as you do, as am I. I don't see what is so hard about that, it seems like it's a common thing on these boards though.

Your opinion is based upon the whole idea that spirited driving is more dangerous than normal driving, I posted a scenario which suggests the opposite, you convieniently forgot to quote this of course, or perhaps you decided to completely disregard it entirely. You have this idea that normal driving is the safest form of driving, this I feel is at the core of your argument yet you fail to recognise that driving Autonomously has its disadvantages which lie in the quote at the bottom of the page.

You also have this idea that an opinion is something you are entitled to. Correct. This however doesn't make an opinion right, an opinion can be wrong. An opinion can be misinformed and simply incorrect. There is a fallacy that opinions are impervious to others scrutiny, this I would like to add isn't the case. If you post on this opinions forum expect your opinions to be torn to shreds and people will argue your opinion, whether your opinion changes with regards to this is no choice but you own, but that doesn't mean you can post your opinion and expect people to say 'hey its ok, its only his opinion' because opinions can be misinformed or simply incorrect.

This is why I say, it is not a matter of opinion, you can drive and have fun without posing greater danger to yourself or others, I would go as far as saying this is a fact, it is possible. Famine has used countless examples, Dave A has used countless examples, I have used my own example etc.

On the note of opinions check the definition provided by dictionary.com
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/opinion No where does it say opinions cannot be wrong. I think you have opinions mixed up with preferences.

Originally Posted by Joey D
Actually it is an opinion, some feel that spirited driving is acceptable on the road while others do not. I feel there is everything wrong with anything other then normal driving on the road and that is my opinion.

Am I correct in assuming that you feel the problem with doing anything other than driving normally on the wrong is it is more dangerous? if so I would like to see you come up with a solid argument as to why? You feel that ther is everything wrong with anything other than normal driving.

If so then I ask you to re-consider how safe is normal driving?

I am going to post this again so you can give it some more thought.

Originally Posted by Stevisiov

I can't see what is to disagree with, be it your opinion or not you base it on the premise that spirited driving is more dangerous than normal driving. Just re-read Dave A's or Famines posts a bit more carefully. While you may think spirited driving is more dangerous, conversely I would be inclined to say that spirited driving is in fact just as safe if not safer. You increase your focus when driving spiritedly and also increase your awareness, unlike normal driving when you are very much in Autopilot. Sure you are conscious but you brain isn't processing at the rate it could, if you are bored in particular this effect can be pronounced long journeys can have that effect. Having fun whilst driving (note, that doesn't mean driving dangerously) will help keep your brain engaged so to speak, if your mind is fully on the task in hand then you are very likely to be safer than someone who is driving autonomously without thinking too much.

 

[Joey D]

Do I really have to respond? I've answered all of those questions 100 times already.

 

[Danoff]

Do I really have to respond? I've answered all of those questions 100 times already.

Of course not. But if you really feel strongly about your position, you'll recognize that others here have not properly understood your point of view. If your opinion is a rational, logical conclusion with strong supporting principles/arguments/evidence, then others here will agree with you if you take the time and patience to explain your thought process carefully. If people are having trouble understanding you, go back over it, ask where clarification is needed etc. Help people understand why you're correct. You might find out a thing or two about your own position in the process.

 

[Stevisiov]

Do I really have to respond? I've answered all of those questions 100 times already.

Nobody is going to force you to respond, I would however advise that you read carefully the points in hand and give them a good deal of consideration, if you feel they are not correct then by all means correct me.

If you don't want to respond then don't bother, but I would at least answer Danoff's last few questions. I doubt they will take much of your time to make a decent reply.

 

[Dave A]

If anytihng spirited driving is a lot safer than normal driving. I am at my most dangerous when I'm on my way to work and I'm not in the mood for anything other than just getting there and putting the kettle on before I start. I'm not interested in the drive at all. That is when I'm at my most dangerous, driving to work normaly. Driving can be boring, if you never get any fun out of it it becomes a chore and when it's a chore, your dangerous.

When I'm drving and having fun (which is while keeping within safe limits) I'm far more alert, I'm less interested in the radio, that girl walking past with a nice arse or many other distractions that take your concentarion away from the road, the surroundings (though some may argue the girls arse is part of thoes) and the other road users. When I'm enjoying my drive I'm far more focused on my drive, I'm far more alert to other road users and to the road itself. When I'm driving normally I'm on autopilot, I'm taking corners I take every day and I don't really think about the drive at all. It's when I'm driving normally I'm half a second slower to respond to the car in front braking, the traffic lights changing or someone running across the road. When I'm focused and enjoying the drive it's almost as though you can see some things happening before they do, and that is because your alert and your prepared.

Once again, as long as you are within all the safe limits how is the liklyhood of an accident increased beyond acceptable levels and remember just simply driving creates a risk. If you are driving safe then there is nothing at all wrong with that. there seems to be some who still seem to have some image of someone speeding or driving recklessly in thier heads or something, spirited driving is not about that. It's enjoying the drive while being safe, something that is not in any way a bigger danger to other road users than the autopilot drive most people do to work every day.

 

[Joey D]

Still trying to figure this one out. Are you taking your ball and going home? Or are you conceding that driving isn't about maximizing safety? (or both)

No I was sick of you putting words into my mouth and given off the impression that you are more superior then me because you have better debate skill. I know I'm not ace at it, but I feel as if I've shown my side quite well but people skipped over things.

Of course not. But if you really feel strongly about your position, you'll recognize that others here have not properly understood your point of view. If your opinion is a rational, logical conclusion with strong supporting principles/arguments/evidence, then others here will agree with you if you take the time and patience to explain your thought process carefully. If people are having trouble understanding you, go back over it, ask where clarification is needed etc. Help people understand why you're correct. You might find out a thing or two about your own position in the process.

How can you not understand my point of view? I feel that anything other then normal driving is adding unnecessary risk. That's my position on it. I don't think you should do it on the public road since there are plenty of areas you can go to play around with your car.

Nobody is going to force you to respond, I would however advise that you read carefully the points in hand and give them a good deal of consideration, if you feel they are not correct then by all means correct me.

If you don't want to respond then don't bother, but I would at least answer Danoff's last few questions. I doubt they will take much of your time to make a decent reply.

Read back through the thread, I've answered all of that in other posts. That was my point.

 

[Dave A]

How can you not understand my point of view? I feel that anything other then normal driving is adding unnecessary risk. That's my position on it. I don't think you should do it on the public road since there are plenty of areas you can go to play around with your car

This is what I just don't get, what is wrong with driving safe but spirited? Which as I said in my last post is probably safer than just drving normally. If you're that concerned with safe then why do you speed when you think there's no one around?

Your entire argument falls flat on its face over the fact that driving safe is driving safe, no ifs, not buts, no maybes, driving safe is driving safe regardless of if you are driving spiritedly or not.

 

[Joey D]

I don't see it at safer, this is where opinion come in. Why can't you see it?

 

[CraftyLandShark]

Seriously, find me a public autocross event anywhere in the UK...

From what I understand hillclimb is fairly popular over there - are there casually sanctioned hillclimbs that are cheap/free to enter?

If so, the SVX and I might be emigrating

 

[Famine]

I don't see it at safer, this is where opinion come in. Why can't you see it?

Would you consider police response drivers, fire truck drivers and paramedics to be safer or less safe drivers?

From what I understand hillclimb is fairly popular over there - are there casually sanctioned hillclimbs that are cheap/free to enter?

I'm afraid I can't answer that. Sadly.

If so, the SVX and I might be emigrating

Hey, bring it. I've only ever seen 2 on the road here.

 

[Joey D]

Would you consider police response drivers, fire truck drivers and paramedics to be safer or less safe drivers?

No, they have special training. If everyone had better training I wouldn't have an issue.

 

[Famine]

No, they have special training.

You're quite right, they do. And in the UK, that training manual is called "Roadcraft".

And the thing is, anyone can buy Roadcraft and everything I've posted in here is pretty much lifted from it.

Roadcraft teaches safe driving and safe driving technique. The "special training" the response drivers take at no point includes any of the stuff you might expect to see on a race track or Bad Boys 2 - it's all about safe driving. And the safer the drivers is, the faster (sorry, Alfaholic, I said it now) the driver can go in safety.


The only difference between a service response driver and a private individual who has studied Roadcraft is that the private individual must always factor in the road regulations as well - response drivers have exemption (usually when on a blue-light run, but not always limited to this).

So you end up with a driver who doesn't go any faster, because of legal constraints, but does travel a great deal more safely.

 

[Danoff]

No I was sick of you putting words into my mouth and given off the impression that you are more superior then me because you have better debate skill. I know I'm not ace at it, but I feel as if I've shown my side quite well but people skipped over things.

I think somehow you've interpreted my posts as more personal than they are. I didn't mean to give off that impression. If the quotes below are what you mean by showing your side quite well, then I think you've left something to be desired here.

How can you not understand my point of view? I feel that anything other then normal driving is adding unnecessary risk. That's my position on it. I don't think you should do it on the public road since there are plenty of areas you can go to play around with your car.

I don't see it at safer, this is where opinion come in. Why can't you see it?

Two things come to mind:

- You haven't explained WHY you don't see it as safer. Despite the fact that others here have provided explanations for why it actually just might be safer.
- You haven't addressed the problem that driving is not about maximizing safety, something you yourself have admitted by purchasing and driving a mini-cooper.

Those two things effectively counter your position. What you're asserting is fairly simple. 1) Public driving is about safety. 2) Spirited driving is not safe. Both of those assessments have been dismantled, and you've left it unchallenged. If I have misunderstood your position, feel free to correct me.

 

[forza2.0]

Personally I dont have a problem if people choose to drive a bit faster than usual from time to time as long as they choose the right place and time for it.

If a guy wants to stick his car into a ditch at 2 am on a empty road then that is fine by me.

 

[CraftyLandShark]

I'm afraid I can't answer that. Sadly.



Hey, bring it. I've only ever seen 2 on the road here.

If I could practically move there (and if I could I likely might) I'd just buy one over there... you guys, if I remember, got the better VTD system - default 47/63 F/R split continuously variable to 90% front in low traction. We bereft Americans got default 90/10 F/R variable back to 50/50 only That, and you have real glass headlamp lenses. Ours are plastic and cloud up.

Either way, yeah, they're rare but very affordable by virtue of being somewhat unknown.

To circuituously bring this back on subject, you want to talk about spirited driving? SVX+Tail of the Dragon=pure sex

I unfortunately witnessed the results of unsafe too-fast "overspirited" driving at the Dragon as well - at an SVX meet I attended, one of the more hotheaded owners plowed his into the side of a rockface when he decided to attempt overtaking an older XT Turbo outside the yellows to cut into the apex of a lefthander and met an oncoming bike. They avoided each other and nobody was hurt, but it was still ugly and could have been MUCH worse.

 

[Joey D]

You're quite right, they do. And in the UK, that training manual is called "Roadcraft".

And the thing is, anyone can buy Roadcraft and everything I've posted in here is pretty much lifted from it.

Roadcraft teaches safe driving and safe driving technique. The "special training" the response drivers take at no point includes any of the stuff you might expect to see on a race track or Bad Boys 2 - it's all about safe driving. And the safer the drivers is, the faster (sorry, Alfaholic, I said it now) the driver can go in safety.


The only difference between a service response driver and a private individual who has studied Roadcraft is that the private individual must always factor in the road regulations as well - response drivers have exemption (usually when on a blue-light run, but not always limited to this).

So you end up with a driver who doesn't go any faster, because of legal constraints, but does travel a great deal more safely.

Actually you bring up a good point. If something like that was mandated during driver's education I don't think I would have any problems what-so-ever with a bit more peppery driving. If you are trained for it and can demonstrate you can do is safely under given condition I don't really see an issue because you have minimized your risk. Emergency vehicles do make mistakes but there driver's are highly trained (a few family members are officers so I go by what they tell me).

It comes down to improper training that scares me the most about people driving in a spirited fashion. Here in the US anyone can get a license, it's very easy. I don't know how it works in the UK so I can not comment on that but really anyone here driving scares me. I don't even feel like I was properly trained, hence why I tend to drive carefully.

Just because you can drive correctly in a spirited fashion doesn't mean 98% of the population can. It's not just one person, but the group as a whole that concern me.

Although one thing I have to ask is how do you know the limits of yourself and your car while spirited driving without testing them? This is an honest question and anyone is free to answer.

- You haven't explained WHY you don't see it as safer. Despite the fact that others here have provided explanations for why it actually just might be safer.

Actually I have, numerous times. I feel it is less safe because you are increasing the risk unnecessarily to an already risky situation of driving.

- You haven't addressed the problem that driving is not about maximizing safety, something you yourself have admitted by purchasing and driving a mini-cooper.

1.) I would like you to show me a safer, cheaper, more fuel efficient, solid made vehicle other then the Mini. It fit what I needed. Who are you to question what I drive? It is safe and as long as you drive safely you should be able to avoid any issues.

When looking at buying cars I must have driven 20-30 different models and I did my homework. The Mini wasn't an impulse buy which is something you seem to be insinuating.

2.) The car itself doesn't matter, you could be a safe driver in a Ford Pinto. I drive every car I get in more or less the same way. Very aware of my surroundings, within the limits, and I know where possible danger zones on the vehicle are.

Those two things effectively counter your position. What you're asserting is fairly simple. 1) Public driving is about safety. 2) Spirited driving is not safe. Both of those assessments have been dismantled, and you've left it unchallenged. If I have misunderstood your position, feel free to correct me.

Actually I haven't directly said public driving is about safety, I agree you have to be safe while on the road but it's not 100% about safety. There are other factors as well when you get behind the wheel, however getting there in one piece should be a pretty high concern.

Spirited driving isn't dangerous it adds unnecessary risk to an already risky situation. You make it sound as if I'm saying if you drive spirited then you will crash and die, that is not what I am saying at all. There is an increased risk that something may happen, which is why I do not think it belongs on the roadway.

 

[Perfect Balance]

I drive better while doing "spirited driving"

I pay a lot more attention to my surroundings, and I focus on feeling the car through the road and all the feedback I get from it. I'm just way more alert to anything that might happen

If not, then you're just "going fast" which isn't the same thing.

 

[Dave A]

Joey, you basically have said me and Famine are right by admitting that if you were to drive by the conduct in that book there is nothing wrong or no increased risk. That is what we have been saying all along. not once have we said the spirited driving is about risks, pushing limits, trying to go fast. The point has been consistently made that it is driving within safe limits across the board. That is what that book is about, safe limits, only difference is as Famine said, regular road users have the legal limits to adhere to as well. As I said before I am more dangerous having an "I don't really want to be here" humdrum drive to to work in the morning that when I'm driving spiritedly across the pennines. I would love for you to answer my reasoning on that from a few posts back and get your view on that mor specifically.

I get you point of view, but what your point of view is objecting over is not what me and Famine are talking about. I am no more interested than you in seeing bad or risky driving, but spirited driving is neither.

 

[Joey D]

Joey, you basically have said me and Famine are right by admitting that if you were to drive by the conduct in that book there is nothing wrong or no increased risk.

How many people do you know drive spirited by that book? Other then operators of emergency vehicles, I bet the number is quite low. I've said from the beginning just because YOU personally can do something does not mean the other 98% of spirited drivers can.

I get you point of view, but what your point of view is objecting over is not what me and Famine are talking about. I am no more interested than you in seeing bad or risky driving, but spirited driving is neither.

It can be though, you seem to be missing that part. I've said spirited driving means different things to different people and while you or Famine might be able to do it just fine other probably can't. I have a problem with driving like that as a whole because only a small portion of people sort of know what they are doing.

 

[Danoff]

you or Famine might be able to do it just fine other probably can't. I have a problem with driving like that as a whole because only a small portion of people sort of know what they are doing.

Famine defined spirited driving as having been done within the limits of safety. So his definition of the term automatically satisfies your concerns above....

Actually I have, numerous times. I feel it is less safe because you are increasing the risk unnecessarily to an already risky situation of driving.

But not necessarily here. If you feel that any increase in speed is an increase in risk, and any increase in risk is unacceptable - then you still have a problem with what Famine, Dave, ///M-spec and others are saying.

But I've been trying to show you that driving isn't only about minimizing risk.

1.) I would like you to show me a safer, cheaper, more fuel efficient, solid made vehicle other then the Mini. It fit what I needed. Who are you to question what I drive? It is safe and as long as you drive safely you should be able to avoid any issues.

When looking at buying cars I must have driven 20-30 different models and I did my homework. The Mini wasn't an impulse buy which is something you seem to be insinuating.

Again, you're interpreting my post as being more personal than it was intended to be. I'm not insinuating that your purchase was an impulse buy. Rather the opposite, I was insinuating that you considered many factors instead of just one - safety. If safety was the only consideration, and avoiding any and all unnecessary risk was your task for driving, not only should you have chosen a safer car, you shouldn't even drive in the first place.

Again, my point here is that safety is not the only thing that matters to you. Driving isn't about maximizing safety. It's about many other things within the limits of a reasonable degree of safety. As long as you keep yourself within those limits, you're doing fine. We can argue about what those limits should be - but arguing that any and all unnecessary risk is unacceptable isn't a defensible position.

That's all I'm trying to say.

2.) The car itself doesn't matter, you could be a safe driver in a Ford Pinto.

You could be a safe driver in a pinto, but it would be taking on unnecessary risk - which you said was unacceptable.

Actually I haven't directly said public driving is about safety, I agree you have to be safe while on the road but it's not 100% about safety. There are other factors as well when you get behind the wheel, however getting there in one piece should be a pretty high concern.

I'm interested. What other factors?

Spirited driving isn't dangerous it adds unnecessary risk to an already risky situation. You make it sound as if I'm saying if you drive spirited then you will crash and die, that is not what I am saying at all.

Again, you're misinterpreting my post. Don't look for what isn't there.

 

[Famine]

A couple of interesting snippets here:

It comes down to improper training that scares me the most about people driving in a spirited fashion. Here in the US anyone can get a license, it's very easy. I don't know how it works in the UK so I can not comment on that but really anyone here driving scares me. I don't even feel like I was properly trained, hence why I tend to drive carefully.

You mention that improper training scares you and that you think you were improperly trained..?

Would that not put you in the group of people about which you are concerned?

Just because you can drive correctly in a spirited fashion doesn't mean 98% of the population can.

Combine this with the paragraph above - it seems as if you're saying that most people can't drive at all. So to you, even driving "normally", as you put it, is a huge risk.


So... if your position is that "spirited driving" is dangerous because most people can't do it safely so it shouldn't be done at all, why do you not have the same position for normal driving - which is dangerous because most people can't do it safely?


The driving test in the UK pretty much tests you to see if you have basic working knowledge of driving and the legislation surrounding it - can you push the right hand pedal without crashing, and do you know what a blue circle with a white arrow pointing downwards and to the left is. The key word is BASIC. The driving licence says you - and in fact, I - have the basic skill set required to conduct a vehicle between two points. Nothing more. There is, in fact, no mention of safety in the UK driving test...

Advanced driving - and I'll add that I have no qualifications in advanced driving - starts off by teaching about safety.

Although one thing I have to ask is how do you know the limits of yourself and your car while spirited driving without testing them? This is an honest question and anyone is free to answer.

You shouldn't be testing the limits of your car at any point on public roads - not least during spirited driving which is intrinsically a safer driving method. The roads are not a test course.


However, you learn the limits of your car and yourself by making mistakes - as you learn anything else. I have personally exceeded the limits of my current car twice. Both were within the first two months (of more than 4 years) and, amusingly, occurred in "normal" driving and, apparently, I wasn't paying attention to myself. But you learn something new every day and I did.

 

[Stevisiov]

No you can not see the difference, either that or your view of spirited driving is weak and what you think it is, is nothing more then normal driving. Once again, I can't believe people who harp on street racers think this is ok to do, you are being hypocritical.

This is where my argument originates from, you claimed Famine was being hypocritical, yet you seem to make this about all spirited drivers bar a few. Famine suggests he drives in a safe manner opening the taps a little when it is safe to do so, taking an apex when is safe to do so, this doesn't make his driving more dangerous, yet you maintain you argument as if it is to do with other spirited drivers who do not understand what is safe. You have this imaginary figure; 98% don't know how to drive spiritedly and safely yet from my experience invert that figure and you would be close. Your whole aregument with Famine is on the premise that he cannot drive safely and spiritedly

This was illustrated quite clearly when you said

Originally Posted by Joey D
Actually it is an opinion, some feel that spirited driving is acceptable on the road while others do not. I feel there is everything wrong with anything other then normal driving on the road and that is my opinion.

This suggest that only normal driving can be safe. This couldn't be further from the truth. I have provide an example, Dave A has provided an example, both of which you convieniently ignored. You have quite obviously changes your argument to support your viewpoint. You veiwpoint has no specific foundation other than anything other than nromal driving is dangerous, which lets be honest is complete nonsense other than to support your veiwpoint.

You just can't admit that you had it wrong and you are simply arguing for the sake of it. This isn't the first time you have argued for the sake of it is it?

Can you just stop trying to push your porous argument and get on with the real arguement in hand.

 

[Joey D]

But I've been trying to show you that driving isn't only about minimizing risk.

Other then getting from A to B in one piece what is driving about?

I'm interested. What other factors?

Commute time and driving directions should probably be on your mind as well. They have nothing to do with how safe you get there but are important.

You mention that improper training scares you and that you think you were improperly trained..?

Yes I was improperly trained, hence why I am still taking it easy on the road because four years of driving really isn't what I would considered experienced.

Would that not put you in the group of people about which you are concerned?

Yes it would.

Combine this with the paragraph above - it seems as if you're saying that most people can't drive at all. So to you, even driving "normally", as you put it, is a huge risk.

Most people can not drive here in the US at least, as I've said I have no idea how the UK driving education system works. I believe you are at a greater risk here then in other countries. I am not sure if you have even been here or not but if you do look at how many people talk on mobile phones, read books, put on make-up, shave, eat, etc. It concerns me quite a bit.

Those who aren't overly distracted think they need to got 40mph faster then everyone else and if you don't follow what they are doing they will run you off the road.

So... if your position is that "spirited driving" is dangerous because most people can't do it safely so it shouldn't be done at all, why do you not have the same position for normal driving - which is dangerous because most people can't do it safely?

Yes that is my position and you never asked me about normal driving. The fact that people can't drive puts the initial risk in there to begin with, spirited driving increases that risk, at least in my opinion.

I suppose I've been in one to many accidents and close calls where I have given up on the driving community in America.

The driving test in the UK pretty much tests you to see if you have basic working knowledge of driving and the legislation surrounding it - can you push the right hand pedal without crashing, and do you know what a blue circle with a white arrow pointing downwards and to the left is. The key word is BASIC. The driving licence says you - and in fact, I - have the basic skill set required to conduct a vehicle between two points. Nothing more. There is, in fact, no mention of safety in the UK driving test...

Advanced driving - and I'll add that I have no qualifications in advanced driving - starts off by teaching about safety.

In America basically if you can parallel park and turn right and left you are fine. My test took 5 minutes and the guy talked with my dad the entire time.

I plan on taking an advanced driving course as soon as I can find one that isn't a racing school


You shouldn't be testing the limits of your car at any point on public roads - not least during spirited driving which is intrinsically a safer driving method. The roads are not a test course.


However, you learn the limits of your car and yourself by making mistakes - as you learn anything else. I have personally exceeded the limits of my current car twice. Both were within the first two months (of more than 4 years) and, amusingly, occurred in "normal" driving and, apparently, I wasn't paying attention to myself. But you learn something new every day and I did.

All too often though people do do this, which is what I am getting at.

Famine suggests he drives in a safe manner opening the taps a little when it is safe to do so, taking an apex when is safe to do so, this doesn't make his driving more dangerous, yet you maintain you argument as if it is to do with other spirited drivers who do not understand what is safe. You have this imaginary figure; 98% don't know how to drive spiritedly and safely yet from my experience invert that figure and you would be close. Your whole aregument with Famine is on the premise that he cannot drive safely and spiritedly

Actually is does because doing this on a public road is never safe to do so because you are in an uncontrolled environment. Also 98% is just a number I don't know what it is, maybe I should have said majority so you could understand it?

You just can't admit that you had it wrong and you are simply arguing for the sake of it. This isn't the first time you have argued for the sake of it is it?

I don't feel as if I am wrong, I still think driving spirited on a public road is less safe then driving normal. It's not arguing for the sake of it because this is something I actually believe. Some of you can not see that though and it's irritating, Famine and //M-Spec while I have disagreed with them seem to be holding a discussion just fine.

Can you just stop trying to push your porous argument and get on with the real arguement in hand.

Can you trying showing some respect?