Won't somebody think of the millionaires?

mr_goo

socrates wrote:

Is the point here not that he broke the law. He did not get banned because he is famous. End of. Typical British celebrity status. If I lost my licence it would be difficult for my kids to get to school but I bet that would cut no ice with a magistrate.

Quite. Your average Joe would get banned, irrespective of the hardship it caused.

VTech

That's the issue. Celebrity status didn't help him. Anyone would get off with this if they said the right thing.

I said from the start, if it were me, I'd have walked from the court with licence intact, the same as anyone who could show a hardship. If he had been doing 50 in a 30 it may well have been a different outcome.

Remember, in the 60/70's when limits were set cars took over twice the distance to stop at 70 as they do now.y car will hit 0-70-0 in less than 6 seconds. The average ford mondeo will stop from 100 quicker than an 70's car does from 60 !
Of course reaction time is always a key factor but that's the same no matter what the car.

pblakeney

Mr Goo wrote:

Quite. Your average Joe would get banned, irrespective of the hardship it caused.

Sometimes I wonder why I bother posting.
I must increase my efforts.

bdu98252

Having driven from Cumbria to Southampton last Thursday and having seen no fewer than 4 accidents with police in attendance I really do think that today's fines and punishments are not an actual deterrent. One idiot managed to have the car on its roof with no other vehicles involved. In the case of accidents where deemed at fault drivers should automatically have their license revoked and made to resit their test regardless of inconvenience. After 2 crashes it should be driver less cars only once they are available as they are clearly and idiot. There is not much I detest more than being held up on my journey as individuals cannot get from A-B without crashing into things. This is a pretty basic skill.

Old Freddy is likely to need to drive within the speed limit for a good while before some of his points come off. Given his past record it does not look likely he will manage this. We appear to also lost the meaning of exceptional in this case.

VTech

bdu98252 wrote:

Having driven from Cumbria to Southampton last Thursday and having seen no fewer than 4 accidents with police in attendance I really do think that today's fines and punishments are not an actual deterrent. One idiot managed to have the car on its roof with no other vehicles involved. In the case of accidents where deemed at fault drivers should automatically have their license revoked and made to resit their test regardless of inconvenience. After 2 crashes it should be driver less cars only once they are available as they are clearly and idiot. There is not much I detest more than being held up on my journey as individuals cannot get from A-B without crashing into things. This is a pretty basic skill.

Old Freddy is likely to need to drive within the speed limit for a good while before some of his points come off. Given his past record it does not look likely he will manage this. We appear to also lost the meaning of exceptional in this case.

I guess this post is the exact issue we have in this country, I'm sure others also.
Its where someone looks at a situation and automatically looks for the worst.
It could be an animal crossing the motorway and the driver swerving to avoid, it could be a blown out tyre or a gust of wind but instead, people look for the worst and blame poor driving.
Of course driving could be to blame but at the same time it may not have done so whats wrong with looking for the less "grisley" viewpoint ?

I was in london at the weekend and was driving at around 4mph when I was pulled over for having no insurance but 2 police who were walking the road.
During the time it took them to confirm who I was and that the car belonged to me I heard many passers by say "I'm glad they pulled him for parking like an idiot" although I pulled up to EXACTLY where the police told me to park.
One fella came up to me and said "i bet it belongs to a rich paki or arab, they don't care what they do or where they park, they just pay the fine as they are loaded, we should kick them out of the country" the officer was next to me at the time and did nothing although in my book that was very wrong.

Anyway, 20 mins later I was on my way but it goes to show that perception isn't always reality.

monkimark

Did the police tell you to stop 4ft from the kerb? :P

jawooga

monkimark wrote:

Did the police tell you to stop 4ft from the kerb? :P

pblakeney

monkimark wrote:

Did the police tell you to stop 4ft from the kerb? :P

You are not allowed to park on that line.

Reminds me of a time I saw a car where the driver obviously wanted to park outside a shop but there were double yellow lines. So he parked on the pavement.

Edit_ PS. I had a track day at the weekend in an Aston Vantage and a Ferrari 360. Wonderful cars and had a blast but I see no place for these types of cars on public roads. Okay, you can drive them but you will be missing out on all the supposed fun.

pesky_jones

PBlakeney wrote:

monkimark wrote:

Did the police tell you to stop 4ft from the kerb? :P

You are not allowed to park on that line.

Reminds me of a time I saw a car where the driver obviously wanted to park outside a shop but there were double yellow lines. So he parked on the pavement.

Edit_ PS. I had a track day at the weekend in an Aston Vantage and a Ferrari 360. Wonderful cars and had a blast but I see no place for these types of cars on public roads. Okay, you can drive them but you will be missing out on all the supposed fun.

Well, I don't think people buy them for their performance. They would probably get cars for less money with similar performance (just not as glam) if that was the case

pblakeney

Pesky Jones wrote:

Well, I don't think people just buy them for their performance. They would probably get cars for less money with similar performance (just not as glam) if that was the case

I have done a little modification for you.
I take your point. A Caterham for example.
Would there be much of a market for a Ferrari shell with Golf GTI performance? I doubt it, so the "POWER!" brigade demand performance that they will never use. Much the same as a Range Rover never going off road. People are buying the wrong tools for the job.

pesky_jones

Hmm so they buy them predominantly for the novelty, but the performance is a necessity? Yeah I agree.

VTech

If you really want to get your head around why people buy such cars, there is only one answer. "because they can"

pblakeney

VTech wrote:

If you really want to get your head around why people buy such cars, there is only one answer. "because they can"

Not necessarily.
I can but having treated the weekend as a test drive, I have chosen not to.
To be honest you will probably have as much fun in an MX-5 on the open road than you will in a Ferrari other than that blip to 70. My choice is a lesser car for the road and track days for fun. Because I can.
Anything else is ego massaging and I don't need that.

VTech

PBlakeney wrote:

VTech wrote:

If you really want to get your head around why people buy such cars, there is only one answer. "because they can"

Not necessarily.
I can but having treated the weekend as a test drive, I have chosen not to.
To be honest you will probably have as much fun in an MX-5 on the open road than you will in a Ferrari other than that blip to 70. My choice is a lesser car for the road and track days for fun. Because I can.
Anything else is ego massaging and I don't need that.

You didn't get my point.
Ive worked with cars all my life and its funny you mentioned the MX5 as its probably about the best 2 seater sports car ever made, its a stunning car to drive but it isn't exclusive enough.
If you have the money to be able to afford anything you want why would you settle for less ?
Its very easy to say you would but I'm sure the majority would have the best if able.

Ill give an example, we delivered a Pagani Hauyra to a client this weekend, he will probably not drive it or he may do a hundred or so miles, he has the following that we have supplied and of course countless that we haven't, Aventador, Huracan, 458, 458 Speciale, McLaren 650, RR Wraith, F40 and RR Ghost.

Not many people can, but of those that can, many partake in some form of "ego massaging" as you call it.

pesky_jones

"Because they can" is such a generic and quite basic response, I doubt you don't understand it, but i could be wrong.

Just because they can do it, doesn't mean they will. First of all - they have to be able to afford it (the "can" part) then there has to be a secondary justification (otherwise they would own everything they possibly could). You have answered your own question, kind of, in your own response.

VTech wrote:

Not many people can, but of those that can (first part), many partake in some form of "ego massaging" (second part) as you call it.

VTech

Pesky Jones wrote:

"Because they can" is such a generic and quite basic response, I doubt you don't understand it, but i could be wrong.

Just because they can do it, doesn't mean they will. First of all - they have to be able to afford it (the "can" part) then there has to be a secondary justification (otherwise they would own everything they possibly could). You have answered your own question, kind of, in your own response.

VTech wrote:

Not many people can, but of those that can (first part), many partake in some form of "ego massaging" (second part) as you call it.

I dont understand your point ?

The only people I'm referring too is those that can in the context of the people who can afford to buy themselves whatever they like. Do you honestly think a client with a £25m car collection really worries about buying the next car ?

I "can" buy any car I like but reality is different, I could buy the worlds most expensive production car at around £2.6m by paying out the initial deposit but what then ? I couldn't afford the repayments so truth is, I can't !

Anyway, thats by the by, it isn't worth arguing the fact of mega rich people more often than not buying things for the sake of it because its factual.

pesky_jones

Ok. So you came and said the only reason people buy such cars is because they can. Man A likes fast and powerfull cars, or he is "ego massaging" (it doesn't matter which, they are both more advanced reasonings then "they can afford it") Man B is an equally rich man who can buy a fancy car, but doesn't. Because he doesnt feel the need to. Do you see why being able to afford it can't be the only justification for buying? Before youre input I said that perhaps one of the reasons was for show, before I was corrected by PB who said that if it was just for show, then GTIs in ferrarris clothings would sell. Get it?

pblakeney

VTech wrote:

If you have the money to be able to afford anything you want why would you settle for less ?

I can answer that question with another question which will make it clear, I think.

What is the point in buying a car in which you won't come close to exploring it's potential unless it is just for show?

In fact, why not just buy a Bentley and waft around showing off in supreme comfort?

If you are buying to impress then you are on a fools errand as only the vacuous will be impressed and who is interested in their opinions?

Life becomes much more fun once you realise that it is not worth the time or effort to impress people.
(Or even change their mind on an internet forum )

If someone wants to buy a super car then fair enough, go for it. But unless you are taking it to the track I do not see the point.

VTech

PBlakeney wrote:

VTech wrote:

If you have the money to be able to afford anything you want why would you settle for less ?

I can answer that question with another question which will make it clear, I think.

What is the point in buying a car in which you won't come close to exploring it's potential unless it is just for show?
because they can. Most are not really drivers, having worked hard to achieve the wealth needed to purchase the cars in the first place.
In fact, why not just buy a Bentley and waft around showing off in supreme comfort?
because it just doesn't cut it these days. I can pick up a 2 year old bentley for £40k with fsh, it's hardly elite
If you are buying to impress then you are on a fools errand as only the vacuous will be impressed and who is interested in their opinions?
maybe so but it brings about my earlier statement of "because they can"
Life becomes much more fun once you realise that it is not worth the time or effort to impress people.
(Or even change their mind on an internet forum )

If someone wants to buy a super car then fair enough, go for it. But unless you are taking it to the track I do not see the point.

I think some are disliking what I'm writing here although I'm only commenting on first hand experience of a business I've been involved in for 25 year. Nothing has changed. Like watches, men spend on cars in the same manor.

Who would buy a Rolex? I have a few and they are the worst time keepers of my collection. Nothing competes with a £10 battery watch so is anyone with a decent timepiece stupid ?

If you won £100m on the euro lottery do you buy an mx5 or a Ferrari ?

When you were 10 did you want a Porsche or a Subaru ?

Why do woman like having dozens of pairs of shoes ?

Go watch the matrix movies, it explains everything you need to know about humans and how they work.

imposter2.0

PBlakeney wrote:

What is the point in buying a car in which you won't come close to exploring it's potential unless it is just for show?

PBlakeney wrote:

If someone wants to buy a super car then fair enough, go for it. But unless you are taking it to the track I do not see the point.

Replace the word 'car' with 'bicycle' and you will see the fallacy in your argument. None of that stops people (myself included) from buying top-spec cycles. There are lots of things that I can't afford - but the things I can afford I buy, because I want them, and because I can afford them. What I do with them after purchase is nobody's business but mine. Why shouldn't the same thing apply to cars?

pblakeney

Imposter wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

What is the point in buying a car in which you won't come close to exploring it's potential unless it is just for show?

PBlakeney wrote:

If someone wants to buy a super car then fair enough, go for it. But unless you are taking it to the track I do not see the point.

Replace the word 'car' with 'bicycle' and you will see the fallacy in your argument. None of that stops people (myself included) from buying top-spec cycles. There are lots of things that I can't afford - but the things I can afford I buy, because I want them, and because I can afford them. What I do with them after purchase is nobody's business but mine. Why shouldn't the same thing apply to cars?

That is not a good analogy.
I can ride a top-spec bike to it's limits on a public road. You simply cannot do that in a super car.
If people want to waste their money then that is up to them but it is still a waste.

pblakeney

VTech wrote:

Who would buy a Rolex? I have a few and they are the worst time keepers of my collection. Nothing competes with a £10 battery watch so is anyone with a decent timepiece stupid ?

Style and function. If you have both why spend more?

If you won £100m on the euro lottery do you buy an mx5 or a Ferrari ?

Both. MX-5 for the road. Ferrari for the track. With carbon brakes and track slicks.

When you were 10 did you want a Porsche or a Subaru ?

A Lamborghini Countach but I now know the folly.

Why do woman like having dozens of pairs of shoes ?

Ask a woman.

Go watch the matrix movies, it explains everything you need to know about humans and how they work.

I don't live my life by what what others think far less movie scripts.

I know why people buy these items but most examples of extravagance will get used. Supercars are an unusual example as they will rarely get used properly. And that is a waste.

VTech

You wouldn't buy a Ferrari for track use. There are plenty of better cars.
My friend who is 20 would complete the Nurburgring in a 1.9d beetle faster than any of us here in a supercar so usin a car to its potential isn't just about the elite of cars.

You can buy for looks, an mx5 hasn't the looks of a countach even though it's a better drivers car.

imposter2.0

PBlakeney wrote:

Imposter wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

What is the point in buying a car in which you won't come close to exploring it's potential unless it is just for show?

PBlakeney wrote:

If someone wants to buy a super car then fair enough, go for it. But unless you are taking it to the track I do not see the point.

Replace the word 'car' with 'bicycle' and you will see the fallacy in your argument. None of that stops people (myself included) from buying top-spec cycles. There are lots of things that I can't afford - but the things I can afford I buy, because I want them, and because I can afford them. What I do with them after purchase is nobody's business but mine. Why shouldn't the same thing apply to cars?

That is not a good analogy.
I can ride a top-spec bike to it's limits on a public road. You simply cannot do that in a super car.
If people want to waste their money then that is up to them but it is still a waste.

No, I think you are missing the point. Unless you are an elite or pro-level rider, you will probably not get the most out of a top-spec cycle. By the same token, any licence-holding idiot can push the accelerator to the floor and hit 150mph or whatever. You are assuming that outright speed is the only reason to buy a car like that. It may be one of the reasons, but it is not the only reason.

pblakeney

Imposter wrote:

No, I think you are missing the point. Unless you are an elite or pro-level rider, you will probably not get the most out of a top-spec cycle. By the same token, any licence-holding idiot can push the accelerator to the floor and hit 150mph or whatever. You are assuming that outright speed is the only reason to buy a car like that. It may be one of the reasons, but it is not the only reason.

I have at no point rated a car by how fast they go. As Vtech says, a competent driver in an MX-5 will leave Joe Bloggs for dead in a Ferrari.

I can make a top bike pull a wheelie, do an endo, have it throw me off, or slide out on a corner. I can push it to it's limits and exceed them. As you say, any idiot without fear can point a bike down a hill and go fast. You simply can't (or shouldn't) push a Ferrari to it's limits on an open road. To argue otherwise is ridiculous.

pblakeney

VTech wrote:

You can buy for looks, an mx5 hasn't the looks of a countach even though it's a better drivers car.

Thank you for clarifying my point.
For me it is about the driving experience. For some it is about the appearance.
I think that I am done here.

bdu98252

VTech wrote:

bdu98252 wrote:

Having driven from Cumbria to Southampton last Thursday and having seen no fewer than 4 accidents with police in attendance I really do think that today's fines and punishments are not an actual deterrent. One idiot managed to have the car on its roof with no other vehicles involved. In the case of accidents where deemed at fault drivers should automatically have their license revoked and made to resit their test regardless of inconvenience. After 2 crashes it should be driver less cars only once they are available as they are clearly and idiot. There is not much I detest more than being held up on my journey as individuals cannot get from A-B without crashing into things. This is a pretty basic skill.

Old Freddy is likely to need to drive within the speed limit for a good while before some of his points come off. Given his past record it does not look likely he will manage this. We appear to also lost the meaning of exceptional in this case.

I guess this post is the exact issue we have in this country, I'm sure others also.
Its where someone looks at a situation and automatically looks for the worst.
It could be an animal crossing the motorway and the driver swerving to avoid, it could be a blown out tyre or a gust of wind but instead, people look for the worst and blame poor driving.
Of course driving could be to blame but at the same time it may not have done so whats wrong with looking for the less "grisley" viewpoint ?

I was in london at the weekend and was driving at around 4mph when I was pulled over for having no insurance but 2 police who were walking the road.
During the time it took them to confirm who I was and that the car belonged to me I heard many passers by say "I'm glad they pulled him for parking like an idiot" although I pulled up to EXACTLY where the police told me to park.
One fella came up to me and said "i bet it belongs to a rich paki or arab, they don't care what they do or where they park, they just pay the fine as they are loaded, we should kick them out of the country" the officer was next to me at the time and did nothing although in my book that was very wrong.

Anyway, 20 mins later I was on my way but it goes to show that perception isn't always reality.

If he can't brake in what he can see to avoid then by definition he is driving too fast. As I past the car at 5mph they tyres were in tact and perfectly serviceable however the car was upside down so it looks unlikely he will be able to use the rest of the tread. If cars were so easily rolled by a gust of wind then tell us when was the time you came out to find your Lambo flipped in the car park.

The police stopped you as in London there are a large number of non UK citizens driving high powered cars with no insurance. This is why they will have targeted you alongside the fact that you were driving at 4mph which in your case would be dipping the clutch repeatedly as your car would probably not do 4mph at idle in 1st.

People have a bizarre attitude to accidents in Britain as most of them are preventable and nearly all could be anticipated if people stepped back and thought about how they were approaching a situation. Just think if the car crashing into the back of others followed cars with a minimum 2 second gap and was attentive then this would not have happened. If the guy changing lanes had checked his mirrors and identified that there was a car overlapped with him then he too would not have crashed. All of these are entirely predictable and entirely avoidable. The word accident in all of these cases could be substituted for muppet.

VTech

PBlakeney wrote:

Imposter wrote:

No, I think you are missing the point. Unless you are an elite or pro-level rider, you will probably not get the most out of a top-spec cycle. By the same token, any licence-holding idiot can push the accelerator to the floor and hit 150mph or whatever. You are assuming that outright speed is the only reason to buy a car like that. It may be one of the reasons, but it is not the only reason.

I have at no point rated a car by how fast they go. As Vtech says, a competent driver in an MX-5 will leave Joe Bloggs for dead in a Ferrari.

I can make a top bike pull a wheelie, do an endo, have it throw me off, or slide out on a corner. I can push it to it's limits and exceed them. As you say, any idiot without fear can point a bike down a hill and go fast. You simply can't (or shouldn't) push a Ferrari to it's limits on an open road. To argue otherwise is ridiculous.

Again your missing the point.
I accept that you are very skilled on a bike, the issue is that almost all are not.

Its the exact same with a car, I have been driving for 20+ years and have only had a couple of accidents of which one was my fault and the other wasn't but the years of experience doesn't make me a good driver simply because I know people who have been driving for a couple of years and are far more skilled.
I would say that I am an incredibly good controller of a car, I can park anything into a space as long as there is physical room to do so. but thats only one element.

The Stig from top gear is a very good friend of mine and he is an incredible driver, in all aspects. He can talk to me whilst driving at 150mph+ on a track and yet have total control over what he is doing that although I'm scared whitless, I am still aware that he is in total control.

The point about cars is that they are all good, there isn't a bad car on the market because companies won't/can't allow it. They are all designed for a purpose. A Ferrari is meant to fulfil a passion, it is the elite of car ownership, there is no doubt of that. The Lamborghini is far more pretentious, it shows an aggressive side, anti-establishment raw power. Bentley have lost their way, they are too cheap now for the market they aspire too and then we have Rolls Royce, the ultra elite of arrival, there is no doubting the class oozed from a roller, they are perfect from every viewpoint and are the ultimate.

Taste drives markets in the same way for all objects. Watches, Bikes, Cars etc. The only true magical fakeries are clothing and diamonds which have no real value as its all fake.

When you were a kid you didn't want a casio, you wanted a rolex.
When you were a kid you didn't want ford you wanted a ferrari/lamborghini.
When you were a kid you didn't want a council flat you wanted a mansion.

Truth however in the most differs, my casio tells the best time, I drive my ford transit daily and its my daily No1 choice and I was most happiest in my first council flat.

pesky_jones

lol

pblakeney

Vtech,
You are the one missing the point on the bike analogy.
Any semi-competent cyclist can ride any bike to it's limits on a public road.
Safety and laws limit what even the best drivers can do in a super car on a public road.

Can you not even acknowledge that last sentence?
I have stated again and again that super cars belong on a track. Or for poseurs who will never use them properly which is a waste.
I cannot be bothered to repeat that last point any more but it is FACT.

There you go, I used caps, making it fact.