"Top Gear" should be banned!!

Bronzie said:

If anyone else heard the report and knows who the lobby group where,
let me know so I can add my signature to their petition!

Assuming you aren't some sort of daft troll - the group is/was Transport
2000.

You're also about 3 weeks behind everyone else.

BTW, I hope when someone takes away your favourite program because "the
viewers might take it seriously" - or in fact any kind of fantasy (because
again, people might take it seriously) show I do hope you won't be
complaining.

Or alternatively, just don't watch the blooming programme.

Top Gear is I think a very good show. People watch it to get a glimpse of
cars they couldn't ever possible afford so to that extent it is fun
enetertainment, nothing more or less. It's interesting but the people I
know who drive the cars featured regularly on the programmes aren't the ones
who in my view are dangerous on the road eg TVR's, Ferrari, Aston, Porsche.
The dangerous ones are the max power crowd with their souped up hatchbacks
with subwoofers blaring without the intelligence to drive according to the
conditions. They're the ones who terrorise cyclists and pedestrians.

I drive a TVR Griffith and on a clear road in good weather away from urban
areas I enjoy the odd surge of power and on occasion exceed the speed limit.
In such conditions on a motorway I don't think speeds of 80, 90 or even
100mph are hazardous provided one drives a car in a responsible manner.
Equally in heavy rainstorms I've been known to pull into the inside lane of
a motorway and do 40mph in the TVR. Driving through towns though as I
frequently see the max power crowd do at 60mph in a 30mph zone is just plain
stupid. They're also the ones who jump lights, leave insufficient clearance
and lurch out of roundabouts in front of other road users. Impound their
cars for 6 months I say!

I don't think Top Gear encourages that sort of behavior. It does encourage
people to appreciate beautiful cars and enjoy them on tracks or suitable
roads in suitable conditions.

Jonathan (PS I am a keen cyclist)

"dwb" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Bronzie said:

If anyone else heard the report and knows who the lobby group where,
let me know so I can add my signature to their petition!

Assuming you aren't some sort of daft troll - the group is/was Transport
2000.

You're also about 3 weeks behind everyone else.

BTW, I hope when someone takes away your favourite program because "the
viewers might take it seriously" - or in fact any kind of fantasy (because
again, people might take it seriously) show I do hope you won't be
complaining.

Or alternatively, just don't watch the blooming programme.

"Jonathan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

snippity...

But not, perhaps, a sane or responsible driver if you think that driving on
the public highway at 100mph is not hazardous or irresponsible.

Cheers, helen s
(also a cyclist, a driver and a pedestrian)

On 9/5/05 11:59 am, in article [email hidden], "wafflycat"

waffles*AT*v21net*DOT*co*DOT*uk said:

"Jonathan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

snippity...

But not, perhaps, a sane or responsible driver if you think that driving on
the public highway at 100mph is not hazardous or irresponsible.

Take for example the M3. Middle of the night, clear dry road, no other
traffic. Fine for you to do 80,90,100, except that the stopping distance for
the deer that runs out is much further (goes up with the square of speed).

Not a theoretical instance either - a fair few collisions each year. I have
hit a deer on a minor road (just outside Blewbury in oxon) having braked
from well below the posted legal limit[1][2]. It was sufficient to put a
dent in the bumper and the grille through the radiator in my Volvo. Had I
been doing the posted limit it would have been a far more serious incident.

...d

[1] though the legal limit is whatever speed below the posted limit is
appropriate for the circumstances.. that road is very twisty in places, this
was on one of the few straight parts)

[2] I had brand new tyres on the front as well.. only about 80 miles on
them.

wafflycat said:

But not, perhaps, a sane or responsible driver if you think that driving
on the public highway at 100mph is not hazardous or irresponsible.

Driving on a public highway at 30 mph is hazardous at some level.

I can think of all sorts of possible scenarios where driving a TVR at
100 is a damn site safer and more responsible than driving other cars
quite legally at 70. Unfortunately I can't think of an objective way to
tell exactly when such situations arise, which is where your real
trouble arises...

Driving into Crieff once I was well under 30 going into the almost right
angle bends you meet, because a Volvo 740 wouldn't be able to take them
safely at 30. There was a TV in front of me which showed no clear
indication it was speeding, but nor was there any suggestion it slowed
appreciably for those bends, which it proceeded to take as if it was
glued to the left side of the road. All cars are not created equal, but
the law assumes (not unreasonably) that they might as well be. If the
book gets thrown at someone doing 100 in a very good car I certainly
won't cry, but assuming it is clearly worse in terms of absolute hazard
than /any/ other vehicle doing legal speeds is a simplification.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Quoted message said:

You're also about 3 weeks behind everyone else.

As a Newbie to this group, my apologies for missing the original thread, but
many thanks for your warm words of welcome. (PS since I heard the feature
on Radio 5 only on 5th May, I'm not sure how I've got 3 weeks behind -
presumably it was a press release from Transport 2000 that got the ball
rolling).

Quoted message said:

BTW, I hope when someone takes away your favourite program because "the
viewers might take it seriously" - or in fact any kind of fantasy (because
again, people might take it seriously) show I do hope you won't be
complaining.

Or alternatively, just don't watch the blooming programme.

I don't watch it - my nine-year-old son does however and very much enjoys
it - IMHO this is probably the BBC's target audience.

I don't care if people do watch it or not, but I am concerned that some
viewers may take the programme's attitude as their right to drive without
due care and attention for others. To my eye, the programme promotes
driving in a style that is at best anti-social, at worst dangerous. Most
viewers will treat it as it should be treated, complete nonsense. Others
might just be tempted to try Clarkson's experiment that if you drive past a
speed camera at over 150mph, it won't go off. I just hope I'm not round the
next bend on my bike at the time!

I think it used to be a good show - they tested cars (including what I would
call "normal" everyday cars) against each other and said which one was best
value etc. - all very helpful and informative.

In the last few years Auntie Beeb decided it needed "sexing up" and it has
turned into a programme where "The Stig" tries to blow the nuts off some
piece of exotic machinery on a test track, caravans are blown up because
they "get in the way", and speed cameras are driven past at over 150mph to
see if they still go off. Is any of this relevant to everyday motoring???
I hope not. Maybe they just need to back to their roots a bit, that's all.

Before you get the wrong end of the stick, I am not anti-car. At the end of
May, I shall be going to Santa Pod to see 5,000hp dragsters in action. All
good fun with my son and a great spectacle. But I wouldn't advocate trying
to drive one of these home down the M1!

"Peter Clinch" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

wafflycat said:

But not, perhaps, a sane or responsible driver if you think that driving
on the public highway at 100mph is not hazardous or irresponsible.

Driving on a public highway at 30 mph is hazardous at some level.

Indeed it is, but I was replying to the poster who stated, "the people I
know who drive the cars featured regularly on the programmes aren't the ones
who in my view are dangerous on the road eg TVR's, Ferrari, Aston, Porsche."

He then went on to say, "In such conditions on a motorway I don't think
speeds of 80, 90 or even 100mph are hazardous provided one drives a car in a
responsible manner." I don't think that driving above the speed limit is not
hazardous. It *is* hazardous IMO, as one simply does not know what is going
to come out from the side (deer?) and at those sort of speeds, there is less
time to react to any hazard to avoid such and at greater speed the greater
the damage...

Quoted message said:

I can think of all sorts of possible scenarios where driving a TVR at 100
is a damn site safer and more responsible than driving other cars quite
legally at 70. Unfortunately I can't think of an objective way to tell
exactly when such situations arise, which is where your real trouble
arises...

Indeed, and as we know, we drivers tend to overestimate our abilities as
compared with other drivers.

Quoted message said:

Driving into Crieff once I was well under 30 going into the almost right
angle bends you meet, because a Volvo 740 wouldn't be able to take them
safely at 30. There was a TV in front of me which showed no clear
indication it was speeding, but nor was there any suggestion it slowed
appreciably for those bends, which it proceeded to take as if it was glued
to the left side of the road. All cars are not created equal, but the law
assumes (not unreasonably) that they might as well be. If the book gets
thrown at someone doing 100 in a very good car I certainly won't cry, but
assuming it is clearly worse in terms of absolute hazard than /any/ other
vehicle doing legal speeds is a simplification.

I have no problem with understanding that driving at below the posted speed
limit has hazards, I just take issue with those who think driving at speeds
above it is *not* hazardous and is a responsible thing to do.

Cheers, helen s

Quoted message said:

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Peter Clinch said:

wafflycat said:

But not, perhaps, a sane or responsible driver if you think that driving
on the public highway at 100mph is not hazardous or irresponsible.

Driving on a public highway at 30 mph is hazardous at some level.

I can think of all sorts of possible scenarios where driving a TVR at
100 is a damn site safer and more responsible than driving other cars
quite legally at 70. Unfortunately I can't think of an objective way to
tell exactly when such situations arise, which is where your real
trouble arises...

Driving into Crieff once I was well under 30 going into the almost right
angle bends you meet, because a Volvo 740 wouldn't be able to take them
safely at 30. There was a TV in front of me which showed no clear
indication it was speeding, but nor was there any suggestion it slowed
appreciably for those bends, which it proceeded to take as if it was
glued to the left side of the road. All cars are not created equal, but
the law assumes (not unreasonably) that they might as well be. If the
book gets thrown at someone doing 100 in a very good car I certainly
won't cry, but assuming it is clearly worse in terms of absolute hazard
than /any/ other vehicle doing legal speeds is a simplification.

But not a very big one. Braking distances are not significantly different,
but perhaps more importantly reaction times, driver attention or lack
of it, and absolute driver skill are not a function of the type of car
involved. Most accidents are caused by errors the driver makes, not
by faults or limitations in the car. These errors are independant of
the type of car being driven.

--
Trevor Barton

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Driving into Crieff once I was well under 30 going into the almost right
angle bends you meet, because a Volvo 740 wouldn't be able to take them
safely at 30. There was a TV in front of me which showed no clear
indication it was speeding, but nor was there any suggestion it slowed
appreciably for those bends, which it proceeded to take as if it was
glued to the left side of the road.

I found that road out of Crieff to be one of the least pleasant I have
ridden on, purely because of people driving like that (not just in TVR but
artic's etc.) I just try to get through such a stretch of road as fast as
possible.

As has been stated, it isn't roadholding that is the problem, it is
sightlines and reaction times.

...d

Bronzie said:

I don't care if people do watch it or not, but I am concerned that
some viewers may take the programme's attitude as their right to
drive without due care and attention for others. To my eye, the
programme promotes driving in a style that is at best anti-social, at
worst dangerous. Most viewers will treat it as it should be treated,
complete nonsense. Others might just be tempted to try Clarkson's
experiment that if you drive past a speed camera at over 150mph, it
won't go off. I just hope I'm not round the next bend on my bike at
the time!

We have a police force that should then remove these people from the ranks
of the drivers.
The BBC is not, IMO, responsible for enforcing the laws in this country.

Therefore the solution to the problem is not the removal of TOp Gear, but an
improvement in the levels of enforcement. The result of which would be
better respect for the law and ergo, less speeding etc.

Removing Top Gear won't make the blindest bit of difference.

David Martin said:

I found that road out of Crieff to be one of the least pleasant I have
ridden on, purely because of people driving like that (not just in TVR but
artic's etc.)

Like what? Always on their own side of the road?

Quoted message said:

I just try to get through such a stretch of road as fast as
possible.

Is very emphatically the *wrong* answer!

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Peter Clinch said:

David Martin said:

I found that road out of Crieff to be one of the least pleasant I have
ridden on, purely because of people driving like that (not just in TVR but
artic's etc.)

Like what? Always on their own side of the road?

Going round corners fast, right in to the side of the road.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I just try to get through such a stretch of road as fast as
possible.

Is very emphatically the *wrong* answer!

Read that again and note that I did not state I was in a car.. I was
referring to being on a bike in such a situation.

Going through there as fast as possible [1] (which isn't much more than
20mph in my case) is a reasonable approach to take.

...d

[1] taking into account being able to survive the rest of the journey as
well so not eyeballs out sprinting...

David Martin said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Driving into Crieff once I was well under 30 going into the almost right
angle bends you meet, because a Volvo 740 wouldn't be able to take them
safely at 30. There was a TV in front of me which showed no clear
indication it was speeding, but nor was there any suggestion it slowed
appreciably for those bends, which it proceeded to take as if it was
glued to the left side of the road.

I found that road out of Crieff to be one of the least pleasant I have
ridden on, purely because of people driving like that (not just in TVR but
artic's etc.) I just try to get through such a stretch of road as fast as
possible.

.... like everyone else, apparently.

--
Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap

Quoted message said:

The BBC is not, IMO, responsible for enforcing the laws in this country.

Of course not - but would they air a show that glorified a similarly
anti-social behaviour to driving at excessive speed - say drink-driving? I
very much doubt it.

Quoted message said:

Therefore the solution to the problem is not the removal of TOp Gear, but
an
improvement in the levels of enforcement. The result of which would be
better respect for the law and ergo, less speeding etc.

Removing Top Gear won't make the blindest bit of difference.

I think you are quite right - but every time I have seen the show recently,
I have had the same thought. "How in this day and age of supposedly
environmental and increasing road safety awareness does this programme still
get an airing!!". It just seems to have totally lost the plot.

Bronzie said:

Before you get the wrong end of the stick, I am not anti-car. At the end of
May, I shall be going to Santa Pod to see 5,000hp dragsters in action. All
good fun with my son and a great spectacle. But I wouldn't advocate trying
to drive one of these home down the M1!

There was a story about a bloke in the early years after the M1 opened
mounting a Rolls Royce Merlin engine [1] in some car and attempting the
London to Leeds trip as quickly as possible. Apparently he evaded all
attempts at capture because noone could!

I guess it's probably an urban myth.

[1] Engine used in the Spitfire.

--
Trevor Barton

Trevor Barton said:

Bronzie said:

Before you get the wrong end of the stick, I am not anti-car. At
the end of May, I shall be going to Santa Pod to see 5,000hp
dragsters in action. All good fun with my son and a great
spectacle. But I wouldn't advocate trying to drive one of these
home down the M1!

There was a story about a bloke in the early years after the M1 opened
mounting a Rolls Royce Merlin engine [1] in some car and attempting
the London to Leeds trip as quickly as possible. Apparently he
evaded all attempts at capture because noone could!

Wasn't illegal at the time

Quoted message said:

I guess it's probably an urban myth.

[1] Engine used in the Spitfire.

They weren't particularly fast cars anyway, I thought.

A

Ambrose Nankivell said:

They weren't particularly fast cars anyway, I thought.

No smiley?

The Spitfire /aeroplane/ was a nippy bugger for its time.

d.

Trevor Barton said:

There was a story about a bloke in the early years after the M1 opened
mounting a Rolls Royce Merlin engine in some car and attempting
the London to Leeds trip as quickly as possible. Apparently he
evaded all attempts at capture because noone could!

I guess it's probably an urban myth.

I have a recollection of one John Dodd being regularly clocked at V > 200
mph on the autobahn in his Merlin[1]-powered device yclept "The Beast", so
there may be some truth in it. Very rapid but prone to eating its
transmission.

Dodd went on to build a six-wheeled mid-Merlin-engined device; it certainly
got to rolling chassis stage but I don't think it was ever bodied.

1 - some say that it was a Meteor tank engine, which is basically a Merlin
shorn of supercharger

--
Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/>
Tip of the Day: 20%