Interesting article

[kevinod]

Was shown an interesting article on vage.ie:

http://cars.vage.ie/invision/index.php?act=ST&f=28&t=6302&s=3ed4027fcc062ff270540223ae3dbe8c

Kev.

[Mustang]

This one has been doing the rounds on the motoring forums alright, saw it on octane first.
May as well offer my 2 cents worth.
1. Bad reflection on car related forums in general, as you'll find we will all be tarred with the same brush
2. Compo culture alive and well.
3. "Did not tell his insurance company it was a 'powerful' twin cam engine"
I for one would would like more detail on this particular aspect. Essentially they are implying he mislead the ins. co. But its not clear. Commonly referred to as the corolla twin cam, is the correct name not the corolla GT coupe? (Levin /Trueno for jap imports). In my limited experience it seems to be treated as a regular 1.6 corolla for insurance purposes anyway.
Unless "twin cam" is in the model name then I can not see that you would specify it to the insurer.

[soc]

Just read the post on vage.ie - am pretty disappointed at the attitudes of most users of that forum. Most seemed to think the big problem with the story was the civil action that was going on!

Personally I think neither of the individuals concerned should be allowed drive again for a long, long time. Smacks of the classic "chav" scumbag tearing around the place with no regard for other road users...... unfortunately these idiots give all genuine car enthusiasts a bad name!

[Myfeckin FTO]

... "Did not tell his insurance company it was a 'powerful' twin cam engine"
I for one would would like more detail on this particular aspect. Essentially they are implying he mislead the ins. co. But its not clear. Commonly referred to as the corolla twin cam, is the correct name not the corolla GT coupe? (Levin /Trueno for jap imports). In my limited experience it seems to be treated as a regular 1.6 corolla for insurance purposes anyway.
Unless "twin cam" is in the model name then I can not see that you would specify it to the insurer.

The Twin Cam engine was in both the rear wheel drive GT coupe and the FWD GTI 3 door hatchback. So either of those models would need to have been specified to the insurer.

Read this article in the independant as well - does not put a positive spin on motoring forums.
Can what they said to each other on the forum be held as evidence I wonder?

[Mustang]

Shane wrote

Just read the post on vage.ie - am pretty disappointed at the attitudes of most users of that forum. Most seemed to think the big problem with the story was the civil action that was going on!

Well Shane, I'm inclined to agree with them. Compensation for legitimate injuries, loss of earnings, etc fine. But compo culture quick buck mentality, I do not agree with.

Shane wrote

Personally I think neither of the individuals concerned should be allowed drive again for a long, long time.

This may be an appropriate punishment for the driver, however I do not believe it is a fitting or appropriate punishment for the passanger. Yes they are both in it together, and he may have even encouraged the driver. However the ulitmate responsibility lies with the driver -always.
From an objective view point, as far as I can see the only crime the passanger was guilty of was not wearing his seat belt -which is a misdemeaner.



Shane wrote

Smacks of the classic "chav" scumbag tearing around the place with no regard for other road users

Yes. The speed in this case is a bit excessive, and trying to obtain evidence of same seems to smack of schoolboy levels of immaturity.
However, like the guys on vage said regrading the speeding. If you can hand on hart claim never to have intentionaly broken the speed limit. Then let he who is without sin cast the first stone!



Shane wrote

unfortunately these idiots give all genuine car enthusiasts a bad name!

Agreed.



MfFTO wrote

The Twin Cam engine was in both the rear wheel drive GT coupe and the FWD GTI 3 door hatchback. So either of those models would need to have been specified to the insurer.

Agreed, I was assuming it was the GT coupe they were referring to, it could be the GTI. In any case they are implying that he mislead the company, but have not really substantiated it.

[soc]

Shane wrote

Just read the post on vage.ie - am pretty disappointed at the attitudes of most users of that forum. Most seemed to think the big problem with the story was the civil action that was going on!

Well Shane, I'm inclined to agree with them. Compensation for legitimate injuries, loss of earnings, etc fine. But compo culture quick buck mentality, I do not agree with.

I do agree with you here - the compo culture is out of control in Ireland - sure I was shafted by QD and some knacker who ran out from behind a parked car in front of me... he was charged by the garda for being drunk and an endangerment to other road users but it was never made stick. As soon as he got off (a year later) he sued QD who settled out of court for the max award possible!!! Makes my blood boil..

However, I'm still amazed that most people seem to think the fact some idiot is trying to make a sly quick few quid (assuming that's what he's trying to do) is worse than the fact both these idiots were driving on public roads at 125mph!

Shane wrote
Personally I think neither of the individuals concerned should be allowed drive again for a long, long time.

This may be an appropriate punishment for the driver, however I do not believe it is a fitting or appropriate punishment for the passanger. Yes they are both in it together, and he may have even encouraged the driver. However the ulitmate responsibility lies with the driver -always.
From an objective view point, as far as I can see the only crime the passanger was guilty of was not wearing his seat belt -which is a misdemeaner.

Personally I think the punishment should be such that it would make others think twice before going down the same road... maybe I'm a bit too hard line on this though.....

Shane wrote
Smacks of the classic "chav" scumbag tearing around the place with no regard for other road users

Yes. The speed in this case is a bit excessive, and trying to obtain evidence of same seems to smack of schoolboy levels of immaturity.
However, like the guys on vage said regrading the speeding. If you can hand on hart claim never to have intentionaly broken the speed limit. Then let he who is without sin cast the first stone!

I totally disagree with you on this one.... obviously I've broken the speed limit before but I don't think anyone can compare doing 50mph on the 40mph stillorgan dual cariageway or 85mph on the M50 motorway with doing 125mph on a non-motorway road that probably had a 40mph speed limit! I'm happy to say that I've never done a stupidly excessive speed in ireland.........

Sure doesn't this lead into what motorists have been complaining about in recent times - multitudes of garda out catching people doing 45 in a stupidly limited 40 zone while these idiots are out doing double and treble the speed limit and killing themselves and in many unfortunate cases other people!!!

I think it's time Ireland got real about it's speeding problem and did something constructive about solving the problem!!!

[Mustang]

Shane wrote

I totally disagree with you on this one..

Fair enough, a controversial one like this is always good for dividing the camps

Shane wrote

I've broken the speed limit before but I don't think anyone can compare doing 50mph on the 40mph stillorgan dual cariageway

Fair enough, but the issue of inappropriately low speed limits on busy roads, for the purpose of revenue collection is a different debate for another day.


Shane wrote

obviously I've broken the speed limit before but I don't think anyone can compare doing 50mph on the 40mph stillorgan dual cariageway or 85mph on the M50 motorway with doing 125mph on a non-motorway road

Lets be clear on this, I'm not defending the guy. Of course the absolute speed and percentage over the limit is a big factor.
Certain people would argue that 70mph is sufficient on a public road, and thats what the law says. On that basis it's hard to justify travelling at 85mph on the likes of the M50, in close proximity to other traffic, (unlikely to see the M50 without traffic).
In this case the guys were travelling at 125mph on what was described as a clear road i.e. with no other cars on it at the time (thats what the article says) of course you can never guarantee this to be the case, however assuming it to be true they are endangering themselves only, whereas you could argue that speeding on a busy motorway potentially endangers all around you i.e. non willing parties!


Shane wrote

on a non-motorway road that probably had a 40mph speed limit!

Come on Shane, thats purely subjective! I'd suggest more than likely that the road in question had the nation speed limit of 60 mph.

[soc]

I'm happy to say that I've never done a stupidly excessive speed in ireland.........

After thinking about this one for a bit I realised that it's not just the speed that counts but stupidity comes into play too - unfortunately I have done my fair share of stupid things in my time, most of which were low speed and harmless - but that said, stupid all the same - with that in mind I think I probably don't have any right to take the moral high ground with these guys but hopefully (like me) they will live and learn....

[soc]

Shane wrote

I totally disagree with you on this one..

Fair enough, a controversial one like this is always good for dividing the camps

I agree 100% -

Lets be clear on this, I'm not defending the guy. Of course the absolute speed and percentage over the limit is a big factor.
Certain people would argue that 70mph is sufficient on a public road, and thats what the law says. On that basis it's hard to justify travelling at 85mph on the likes of the M50, in close proximity to other traffic, (unlikely to see the M50 without traffic).
In this case the guys were travelling at 125mph on what was described as a clear road i.e. with no other cars on it at the time (thats what the article says) of course you can never guarantee this to be the case, however assuming it to be true they are endangering themselves only, whereas you could argue that speeding on a busy motorway potentially endangers all around you i.e. non willing parties!

I hear what you're saying and have to agree - I didn't stop to think about any possible mitigating factors. That said, 125mph is very, very fast so I'm not sure there could be any excuse with these guys...

Come on Shane, thats purely subjective! I'd suggest more than likely that the road in question had the nation speed limit of 60 mph.

You're probably right - I just made the assumption that the road would be 40mph as it sounded like it was in a reasonably built up area.

[Mustang]

Shane wrote

That said, 125mph is very, very fast so I'm not sure there could be any excuse with these guys...

Big speed alright. This story reminds me of the one doing the rounds a few years back. This Japanese guy bought a Ferrari (F40 I think) and filmed himself travelling at ~200mph. Then distributed the film to his buddy's. The film was subsequently used to prosecute him. I remember seeing the film footage on Top Gear or perhaps one of those cheesey Clarkson videos.

I was under my FTO shortly after buying it and found a large screw lodged on the inner tyre wall. As the wall curves out the screw had entered the side wall travelled up through it for about 1.5 inches then out through the side wall again, without actually puncturing the tyre, but seriously compromising the strength of the tyre wall. Not sure how long I was driving around blissfully unaware. This is the type of thing that would manifest into a big problem at 3 digit figure speeds.
Type of thing that gets you thinking!