Khan Should be taught a lesson

WildWaylon
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 3223
Joined: 02 Nov 2005, 13:35

Post by WildWaylon »

jamesmcdonnell wrote:
NorthEastBoxingFan wrote:
nickd wrote: 140mph is not safe on any road. I think it might have been an M6.

I've long said they need to have a minimum age limit on certain types of car a guy his age shouldn't be teararseing around in a fast car.

Maybe less than 2 litre engines until you're 25? I bet it would reduce the number of road deaths in young blokes.
That's a great quote nickd - I think the word you meant to spell is obviously terrorising around in a fast car but I like the way you put it better cos if u knock off the front and end of yours that spells .....arse-ing
around in a fast car.....which is what it boils down to :lol:
Even a 1.4 litre engine will do well over a hundred these days?

How about they limit the speed of cards to 100? It will never happen of course, but what possible rationale is there for having a car that does 160 mph, when our speed limit is 70, it's insane.
With fuel injection and 16 valves family cars can now match many of the performance cars of years ago - Are programs like Top Gear such a good idear promoting speed and accelleration - A bit of power can sometimes get you out of trouble but more often than not into it - Its not just top speeds, its driving too fast for the road you are on, like 50mph through a shopping centre - Dangerous, reckless driving should be treated as a serious crime with lifetime bans in certain cases - No favours to the rich, famous and powerful, the same law should apply to us all - I had been to a funeral, and in a pub room afterwards I sat near a high ranking police officer who had drank a gallon of best bitter - He gave instructions to a superintendant on his mobile to have the road cleared of police cars between the pub and his home - Absolutely disgusting and I told him so, his reply "bollocks" - A mate of his said "upset him and you wont be able to drive a mile without being stopped" - So people with power can break the law and get away with it - He needed the sack for abusing his position and a lifetime driving ban but I was in no position to report him - First of all they would all deny it and the matter would be dropped - Then they would be after me - I drink every night and often drive in the morning and although sober the alcohol would still be in my system so it wasnt worth the risk - I have seen so much special treatment, corruption and injustice in my lifetime and it doesnt seem to get any better - No, Khan wont need a get out of jail card, its never going to happen - Me or you thats another matter. :evil: :evil: :cry: :cry:
Exoddus
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 1516
Joined: 08 Oct 2007, 10:30

Post by Exoddus »

How about they limit the speed of cards to 100? It will never happen of course, but what possible rationale is there for having a car that does 160 mph, when our speed limit is 70, it's insane.
That question has been asked for over 20 years. It still hasn't been answered, by the government or the car companies. I guess we'll never get the answer to that one.
jamesmcdonnell
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 45233
Joined: 12 Nov 2003, 06:11

Post by jamesmcdonnell »

The government I guess are afraid of pissing off the car lobby as well as the automotive industry.

It is totally unjustifiable though. They could easily have limiters fitted to the engines of vehicles built for the uk market, and ban anyone driving a de-limited car.
Coco
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 28464
Joined: 08 May 2007, 05:42

Post by Coco »

jamesmcdonnell wrote:The government I guess are afraid of pissing off the car lobby as well as the automotive industry.

It is totally unjustifiable though. They could easily have limiters fitted to the engines of vehicles built for the uk market, and ban anyone driving a de-limited car.
How are the govt afraid of pissing off the car lobby??
Have you noticed the tax on petrol and incresaed car tax?
Or the stealth tax of all these speed cameras that serve to make money not stop accidents?
Or the fact none of this cash goes back into improving the road infrastructure?
m1kee50
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 4518
Joined: 04 Sep 2006, 11:07

Post by m1kee50 »

just checked BBCs boxing page, they are talking of two separate incidents - running the red light which Khan has been done for, and SEPERATELY a 140 speeding charge + failure to produce documents
Phenomenal-Nutrition
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 5185
Joined: 10 Feb 2005, 14:53

Post by Phenomenal-Nutrition »

jamesmcdonnell wrote:
NorthEastBoxingFan wrote:
nickd wrote: 140mph is not safe on any road. I think it might have been an M6.

I've long said they need to have a minimum age limit on certain types of car a guy his age shouldn't be teararseing around in a fast car.

Maybe less than 2 litre engines until you're 25? I bet it would reduce the number of road deaths in young blokes.
That's a great quote nickd - I think the word you meant to spell is obviously terrorising around in a fast car but I like the way you put it better cos if u knock off the front and end of yours that spells .....arse-ing
around in a fast car.....which is what it boils down to :lol:
Even a 1.4 litre engine will do well over a hundred these days?

How about they limit the speed of cards to 100? It will never happen of course, but what possible rationale is there for having a car that does 160 mph, when our speed limit is 70, it's insane.
Its about BHP or the power a car can output rather than engine size. A Mazda RX8 only has a 1.3 Turbo charged engine but can do 0-60 in 6seconds and can do 155mph. Most 1.4 engine cars can barely top 100.
m1kee50
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 4518
Joined: 04 Sep 2006, 11:07

Post by m1kee50 »

Phenomenal-Nutrition wrote:
jamesmcdonnell wrote:
NorthEastBoxingFan wrote: That's a great quote nickd - I think the word you meant to spell is obviously terrorising around in a fast car but I like the way you put it better cos if u knock off the front and end of yours that spells .....arse-ing
around in a fast car.....which is what it boils down to :lol:
Even a 1.4 litre engine will do well over a hundred these days?

How about they limit the speed of cards to 100? It will never happen of course, but what possible rationale is there for having a car that does 160 mph, when our speed limit is 70, it's insane.
Its about BHP or the power a car can output rather than engine size. A Mazda RX8 only has a 1.3 Turbo charged engine but can do 0-60 in 6seconds and can do 155mph. Most 1.4 engine cars can barely top 100.
just for info... i own a 1.1 Peugeot 106 that has done 110 (not that comfortably but still) and a Nissan Micra 1.1 that has done 100 slightly more comfortably... so smaller cars can still get up there..... tbh anything hitting you at 60 or more is probably fatal anyway
jamesmcdonnell
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 45233
Joined: 12 Nov 2003, 06:11

Post by jamesmcdonnell »

Coco wrote:
jamesmcdonnell wrote:The government I guess are afraid of pissing off the car lobby as well as the automotive industry.

It is totally unjustifiable though. They could easily have limiters fitted to the engines of vehicles built for the uk market, and ban anyone driving a de-limited car.
How are the govt afraid of pissing off the car lobby??
Have you noticed the tax on petrol and incresaed car tax?
Or the stealth tax of all these speed cameras that serve to make money not stop accidents?
Or the fact none of this cash goes back into improving the road infrastructure?
Well can someone give me a rational explanation then?

The fact is the exchequer makes money from those moves, nothing to gain from slowing car speed limits.
Coco
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 28464
Joined: 08 May 2007, 05:42

Post by Coco »

jamesmcdonnell wrote:
Coco wrote:
jamesmcdonnell wrote:The government I guess are afraid of pissing off the car lobby as well as the automotive industry.

It is totally unjustifiable though. They could easily have limiters fitted to the engines of vehicles built for the uk market, and ban anyone driving a de-limited car.
How are the govt afraid of pissing off the car lobby??
Have you noticed the tax on petrol and incresaed car tax?
Or the stealth tax of all these speed cameras that serve to make money not stop accidents?
Or the fact none of this cash goes back into improving the road infrastructure?
Well can someone give me a rational explanation then?

The fact is the exchequer makes money from those moves, nothing to gain from slowing car speed limits.
Slower car speeds, less petrol consumed, less tax revenue, also less tax revenue from the speed cams
n1ebf
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 4267
Joined: 20 Sep 2007, 10:33

Post by n1ebf »

true but it takes much longer distance to bring under control at 80 or 100 than it does 60.

as for Waylon's tale I have heard known of similar incidents myself, a friend of mine's ex started going out with a copper and from then on my mate got stopped about half a dozen times in a month. Complete c*nts, should be ran out of the force and made to shovel shit in a sewer where the sneaky b*stards belong.
I prefer to think they are in the minority tho' for my sanity's sake.
Phenomenal-Nutrition
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 5185
Joined: 10 Feb 2005, 14:53

Post by Phenomenal-Nutrition »

MIKEE wrote:
Phenomenal-Nutrition wrote:
jamesmcdonnell wrote: Even a 1.4 litre engine will do well over a hundred these days?

How about they limit the speed of cards to 100? It will never happen of course, but what possible rationale is there for having a car that does 160 mph, when our speed limit is 70, it's insane.
Its about BHP or the power a car can output rather than engine size. A Mazda RX8 only has a 1.3 Turbo charged engine but can do 0-60 in 6seconds and can do 155mph. Most 1.4 engine cars can barely top 100.
just for info... i own a 1.1 Peugeot 106 that has done 110 (not that comfortably but still) and a Nissan Micra 1.1 that has done 100 slightly more comfortably... so smaller cars can still get up there..... tbh anything hitting you at 60 or more is probably fatal anyway
Someone will be dead if you hit them at 40. Stopping distance is the all important thing on motorways

A 106 1.1 doing 110?? You sure about that and was it modified? Otherwise how'd you manage that, their max speed in tests is around 100. Doesn't it screw the engine pretty quick if you hit its maximum capacity?

The Mazda 1.3 has a special wankle engine and turbo chargers to achieve its speed. Its not a normal 1.3

My first year in driving I drove like a dick, speeding when I could, but not in built up areas, I wasnt a complete dick. Then 1 day I 360'd and span off in an MR2 in the rain - I wasnt going that fast but the engines in the back and its rearwheel drive so in the rain Mr2s are deadly. I was fine but I drove sensibly after that but occasionally give it some stick on clear road.

I can't abide people who speed in built u areas, and young lads racing in built up areas. Amir hasn't proven himself to be of this ilk yet but he needs to calm himself down
m1kee50
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 4518
Joined: 04 Sep 2006, 11:07

Post by m1kee50 »

Phenomenal-Nutrition wrote:
MIKEE wrote:
Phenomenal-Nutrition wrote: Its about BHP or the power a car can output rather than engine size. A Mazda RX8 only has a 1.3 Turbo charged engine but can do 0-60 in 6seconds and can do 155mph. Most 1.4 engine cars can barely top 100.
just for info... i own a 1.1 Peugeot 106 that has done 110 (not that comfortably but still) and a Nissan Micra 1.1 that has done 100 slightly more comfortably... so smaller cars can still get up there..... tbh anything hitting you at 60 or more is probably fatal anyway
Someone will be dead if you hit them at 40. Stopping distance is the all important thing on motorways

A 106 1.1 doing 110?? You sure about that and was it modified? Otherwise how'd you manage that, their max speed in tests is around 100. Doesn't it screw the engine pretty quick if you hit its maximum capacity?

My first year in driving I drove like a dick, speeding when I could, but not in built up areas, I wasnt a complete dick. Then 1 day I 360'd and span off in an MR2 in the rain - I wasnt going that fast but the engines in the back and its rearwheel drive so in the rain Mr2s are deadly. I was fine but I drove sensibly after that but occasionally give it some stick on clear road.

I can't abide people who speed in built u areas, and young lads racing in built up areas. Amir hasn't proven himself to be of this ilk yet but he needs to calm himself down
well the reason i wrote 60 is that a Nissan Sunny hit me at 40 and i am still here.... broke the tib and fib in the left shin, dislocated and broke my left arm, but im still here.....

These speeds were on the A12 in the dry, slightly downhill but even so... it was an XN model but factory settings - its actually a K-reg lol so maybe I was lucky not to fcuk it there and then....
Phenomenal-Nutrition
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 5185
Joined: 10 Feb 2005, 14:53

Post by Phenomenal-Nutrition »

jamesmcdonnell wrote:The government I guess are afraid of pissing off the car lobby as well as the automotive industry.

It is totally unjustifiable though. They could easily have limiters fitted to the engines of vehicles built for the uk market, and ban anyone driving a de-limited car.
All Brit cars are limited at 155, they could reduce it to 80 but boy racers would get their cars de-limited for a couple of hundred quid and the police wouldnt be able to monitor if someone had a limited car or not

Plus what about people who to take their cars to track days?
Phenomenal-Nutrition
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 5185
Joined: 10 Feb 2005, 14:53

Post by Phenomenal-Nutrition »

MIKEE wrote:
Phenomenal-Nutrition wrote:
MIKEE wrote: just for info... i own a 1.1 Peugeot 106 that has done 110 (not that comfortably but still) and a Nissan Micra 1.1 that has done 100 slightly more comfortably... so smaller cars can still get up there..... tbh anything hitting you at 60 or more is probably fatal anyway
Someone will be dead if you hit them at 40. Stopping distance is the all important thing on motorways

A 106 1.1 doing 110?? You sure about that and was it modified? Otherwise how'd you manage that, their max speed in tests is around 100. Doesn't it screw the engine pretty quick if you hit its maximum capacity?

My first year in driving I drove like a dick, speeding when I could, but not in built up areas, I wasnt a complete dick. Then 1 day I 360'd and span off in an MR2 in the rain - I wasnt going that fast but the engines in the back and its rearwheel drive so in the rain Mr2s are deadly. I was fine but I drove sensibly after that but occasionally give it some stick on clear road.

I can't abide people who speed in built u areas, and young lads racing in built up areas. Amir hasn't proven himself to be of this ilk yet but he needs to calm himself down
well the reason i wrote 60 is that a Nissan Sunny hit me at 40 and i am still here.... broke the tib and fib in the left shin, dislocated and broke my left arm, but im still here.....

These speeds were on the A12 in the dry, slightly downhill but even so... it was an XN model but factory settings - its actually a K-reg lol so maybe I was lucky not to fcuk it there and then....
Sorry to hear about your accident, you probably got a bit lucky in an unlucky kind of way. And maybe the car was at 40mph and hit the breaks and then hit you making it significantly less than 40.
m1kee50
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 4518
Joined: 04 Sep 2006, 11:07

Post by m1kee50 »

Phenomenal-Nutrition wrote:
MIKEE wrote:
Phenomenal-Nutrition wrote: Someone will be dead if you hit them at 40. Stopping distance is the all important thing on motorways

A 106 1.1 doing 110?? You sure about that and was it modified? Otherwise how'd you manage that, their max speed in tests is around 100. Doesn't it screw the engine pretty quick if you hit its maximum capacity?

My first year in driving I drove like a dick, speeding when I could, but not in built up areas, I wasnt a complete dick. Then 1 day I 360'd and span off in an MR2 in the rain - I wasnt going that fast but the engines in the back and its rearwheel drive so in the rain Mr2s are deadly. I was fine but I drove sensibly after that but occasionally give it some stick on clear road.

I can't abide people who speed in built u areas, and young lads racing in built up areas. Amir hasn't proven himself to be of this ilk yet but he needs to calm himself down
well the reason i wrote 60 is that a Nissan Sunny hit me at 40 and i am still here.... broke the tib and fib in the left shin, dislocated and broke my left arm, but im still here.....

These speeds were on the A12 in the dry, slightly downhill but even so... it was an XN model but factory settings - its actually a K-reg lol so maybe I was lucky not to fcuk it there and then....
Sorry to hear about your accident, you probably got a bit lucky in an unlucky kind of way. And maybe the car was at 40mph and hit the breaks and then hit you making it significantly less than 40.
who knows? it was 10 years ago, so im all better now, but tyvm anyway
WildWaylon
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 3223
Joined: 02 Nov 2005, 13:35

Post by WildWaylon »

I am no engineer but from what I have been told limiters play havoc with gearboxes and engines on automatics designed to go faster - Not sure about manual transmission - The government wanted bus companies that did long distance runs to fit limiters because of complaints that buses were doing 90mph on motorways - The top speed should be 60mph but if that was applied they would have to employ more drivers and carry a relief driver because of driving time limits - This would mean raising the cost of tickets - The government decided to drop the matter and the police turn a blind eye to buses going faster than the legal limit - They also seem to ignore overnight carriers - I was on my way to Heathrow and had to be there by 4.30am a few weeks ago - I was doing my usual 70/80mph and I had several whizz past me at over 90mph - Although the legal limit is 70mph it seems to me the police dont get involved unless you exceed the ton - Obviousy you have to avoid speeding where the speed cameras are but elsewhere 90 something seems OK - No, limiters wont be put on vehicles because companies have deadlines they have meet or in the case of buses timetables - Business would be crippled by vehicles not travelling fast enough - MPs travelling back from London to Newcastle or Gasgow wouldnt want a journey like that at 70mph so they are hardly likely to bring in a bill for all vehicles to be fitted with limiters.
WildWaylon
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 3223
Joined: 02 Nov 2005, 13:35

Post by WildWaylon »

My question to those who drive fast and risk the lives of others is, OK you have got home 10 mins earlier, so how will you spend that time you saved - The only time I have blatently broken the speed limit on normal roads was when my mother in law was dying and I was trying to get my wife and daughters to the hospital before she passed away - We were too late by just 5 mins - Another time but it was on the M1 was when my mother was dying - I did the ton plus and still arrived too late - Daft really you cant do anything to help these people, they are dying, so why risk the lives of people who potentially have years to live, plus your own - I do however have sympathy and understanding for those who say rush a child to A and E who has swallowed something - Ambulances can take 10 mins to get to you and that may be too long in some cases.
KO Artist
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 1835
Joined: 10 May 2005, 17:21

Post by KO Artist »

I think that if you have a car with a small engine or low power you tend to thrash it more.

I drive quite a powerful car (295 bhp) but I get little renaults 1.2 zooming past me on motorways and dual carraigeways with their engines screaming.

Its usually a young lad in it.
m1kee50
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 4518
Joined: 04 Sep 2006, 11:07

Post by m1kee50 »

WildWaylon wrote:My question to those who drive fast and risk the lives of others is, OK you have got home 10 mins earlier, so how will you spend that time you saved - The only time I have blatently broken the speed limit on normal roads was when my mother in law was dying and I was trying to get my wife and daughters to the hospital before she passed away - We were too late by just 5 mins - Another time but it was on the M1 was when my mother was dying - I did the ton plus and still arrived too late - Daft really you cant do anything to help these people, they are dying, so why risk the lives of people who potentially have years to live, plus your own - I do however have sympathy and understanding for those who say rush a child to A and E who has swallowed something - Ambulances can take 10 mins to get to you and that may be too long in some cases.
I only did it once, to see how fast it went.... its not like i make a habit of it
Phenomenal-Nutrition
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 5185
Joined: 10 Feb 2005, 14:53

Post by Phenomenal-Nutrition »

WildWaylon wrote:My question to those who drive fast and risk the lives of others is, OK you have got home 10 mins earlier, so how will you spend that time you saved - The only time I have blatently broken the speed limit on normal roads was when my mother in law was dying and I was trying to get my wife and daughters to the hospital before she passed away - We were too late by just 5 mins - Another time but it was on the M1 was when my mother was dying - I did the ton plus and still arrived too late - Daft really you cant do anything to help these people, they are dying, so why risk the lives of people who potentially have years to live, plus your own - I do however have sympathy and understanding for those who say rush a child to A and E who has swallowed something - Ambulances can take 10 mins to get to you and that may be too long in some cases.
Depends what you mean by breaking the speed limit, because 95%+ of people break the speed limit by 10-30% most the time they drive. And honestly if you do the speed limit your a bigger danger to other traffic than anyone else because your doing a different speed to everyone else, which makes you a hazard.

I don't do what I'd define as speeding anymore, but I definately break the speed limits by 10-30% depending on the road. I wouldn't speed in a built up area though because thats foolish.

Bad drivers can drive slow and cause accidents quite easily.

Sorry to hear about your mother.
jamesmcdonnell
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 45233
Joined: 12 Nov 2003, 06:11

Post by jamesmcdonnell »

jamesmcdonnell wrote:
Coco wrote:
jamesmcdonnell wrote:The government I guess are afraid of pissing off the car lobby as well as the automotive industry.

It is totally unjustifiable though. They could easily have limiters fitted to the engines of vehicles built for the uk market, and ban anyone driving a de-limited car.
How are the govt afraid of pissing off the car lobby??
Have you noticed the tax on petrol and incresaed car tax?
Or the stealth tax of all these speed cameras that serve to make money not stop accidents?
Or the fact none of this cash goes back into improving the road infrastructure?
Well can someone give me a rational explanation then?

The fact is the exchequer makes money from those moves, nothing to gain from slowing car speed limits.
Wasn't the legislation changed so speed camera revenue goes to the department of transport?
Coco
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 28464
Joined: 08 May 2007, 05:42

Post by Coco »

jamesmcdonnell wrote:
jamesmcdonnell wrote:
Coco wrote: How are the govt afraid of pissing off the car lobby??
Have you noticed the tax on petrol and incresaed car tax?
Or the stealth tax of all these speed cameras that serve to make money not stop accidents?
Or the fact none of this cash goes back into improving the road infrastructure?

Well can someone give me a rational explanation then?

The fact is the exchequer makes money from those moves, nothing to gain from slowing car speed limits.
Wasn't the legislation changed so speed camera revenue goes to the department of transport?
To be honest I don't know but if this is the case I have not seen any benefits for the driver.

Saying that apparently the health service has had a massive increase in spending and I have not seen any inprovements there
Goz
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 3490
Joined: 29 Aug 2003, 12:17

Post by Goz »

I'd love to see someone stinking rich take the government to court over a speeding case for failing to limit the speed on Cars sold in the UK.

You know, go and get caught doing 110 or whatever but then build a test case against the government for failing to take reasonable precautions by simply making it physically impossible to go above the speed limit!
101boxing
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 110
Joined: 25 May 2007, 05:51

Post by 101boxing »

nickd wrote:He just got a 6 month ban so no chance of a repeat. Warren should never have got him that 6 series BMW it's ridiculous a guy of his age and inexperience being behind the wheel of such a powerful car.
F ucking hell!!!!! I knew this would be Frank's fault at some point!!! He did NOT buy Amir that car. Fact.

Where did you come up with that one?
Goz
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 3490
Joined: 29 Aug 2003, 12:17

Post by Goz »

101boxing wrote:
nickd wrote:He just got a 6 month ban so no chance of a repeat. Warren should never have got him that 6 series BMW it's ridiculous a guy of his age and inexperience being behind the wheel of such a powerful car.
F ucking hell!!!!! I knew this would be Frank's fault at some point!!! He did NOT buy Amir that car. Fact.

Where did you come up with that one?
I thought it was quite well publicised at the time....
Post Reply