Common Cause - Just zis Website

Let's see...

In the U.S., the lowest-powered diesel Golf would be the 1.9 litre
TDI's that come with 100 hp. In the UK, the lowest-powered diesel Golf
is the 68-hp normally-aspirated diesel. Should I opt for a petrol Golf
in the U.S., the cheapest one is the 2.0-litre model producing 115-hp,
a far cry from a UK Golf's 1.4 litre motor producing 75 hp.

A base Kia Rio here in the U.S. has a 104-hp 1.6 litre motor while the
base Kia Rio in the UK comes with a paltry 74-hp 1.3-litre motor.

The U.S. does not have VW Lupos here. In the UK, there are Lupos with
a paltry 50-hp 1.0-litre motor that takes a mind-boggling 17.7 seconds
to hit 60 mph.

With that into consideration, I don't think it has anything to do with
the power. However, the sound "ka-ching" is eerily familiar...

That was in comparsion to Europe. Compliance with motorway limits are
lower in the UK compared to Belgium and Netherlands. In France, they
are all gung-ho on speeders and have installed cameras. Time will tell
if they start complying with the limit. In Germany, going from
unrestricted to 120 km/h apparently takes motorists a lot of time and
some just ease up on the gas, taking a full 2 kilometres to finally go
down to 120 km/h, while some drivers hit the brakes at 230 km/h to slow
down to 120 km/h!

I am in Orange County where the posted limit is 65, but everybody does
75 to 80. Police enforcement here is noticeably lower than that of the
UK. On UK motorways, I have gone past speed cameras at 15 mph above
the limit, and there was no flash from the Gatso cameras. On the M4 to
London, I can say with certainty it's well less than half of the cars
complying with the limit and roughly 2 percent exceeding 90, probably
to beat the queue (traffic). When the M4 turns into A4, compliance
increases. It seems cameras on the A4 are more trigger-happy.

Wiggums wrote:

I am in Orange County where the posted limit is 65, but everybody does
75 to 80. Police enforcement here is noticeably lower than that of the
UK. On UK motorways, I have gone past speed cameras at 15 mph above
the limit, and there was no flash from the Gatso cameras.

15mph indicated? Could have been as little 77mph, which is within the
ACPO guidelines. Even then, I suspect cameras are often set even higher
as there is little point catching 100 people doing 80mph and then
running out of film, when setting the camera at (say) 85-90ish would
catch 100 more serious offenders instead.

I would be really surprised if I was flashed at doing less than 85 mph
on the motorway. I just go along with the flow and it's generally 80
to 85. As you said, it's possible the Gatso's are set up to not run
out of film. I do remember right after the petrol crisis, there were a
lot of cars barrelling at over 100 mph because they knew all the
Gatso's were out of film!

Brimstone wrote:

[...traffic at 90-95mph...]

It's common to see cars travelling at that speed all over the country.

....endangering nothing but respect for the law.



A

--
Trade Oil in €

Brimstone wrote:

Which is simply because US cars are slower.

I drive a 98 Honda Civic with a 1.2 liter engine. And I live at 5000
feet, so due to the altitude the engine only makes about 80-85% of the
power it'd make a sea level. And the car will easily go 95 here.

I'm guessing 99% (or more) of the cars sold in the U.S. today will do
100mph.

Rich

Brimstone ) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying :

(BTW - it was a bit of gentle micky taking so that seem like a double
WOOSH.

May I refer the honourable gentleman to the time of a Friday night it was
posted, and the state of the wine bottle next to my laptop?

On Thu, 26 May 2005 21:11:23 +0100, Alistair J Murray
wrote:

Al C-F wrote:
On Thu, 26 May 2005 16:32:03 +0100, Alistair J Murray
wrote:


So poorer quality drivers raise their game when forced to realise
that slow != safe; excellent result.

I follow this logic

Good...

Drivers forced to contemplate the potential danger of the road
decide to wear seat belts; excellent result.

but not this. Why is this excellent?

It gives me a bullet point in my campaign against arbitrary speed
limits.

The kind of reasoning I expected.

I know that increased seat belt wearing is not *necessarily* a safety win.

I think you will find that an increase in pedestrian and cyclist
casualties followed introduction of mandatory seat belt wearing.

So it wasn't a safety win at all.

Adrian wrote:
Brimstone ) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying :

(BTW - it was a bit of gentle micky taking so that seem like a double
WOOSH.

May I refer the honourable gentleman to the time of a Friday night it
was posted, and

the state of the wine bottle next to my laptop?

Not full?

Brimstone ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying :

the state of the wine bottle next to my laptop?

Not full?

In the recycling box now.