Marco, you said: '' then the good (responsible) drivers who still enjoy using their cars wouldn't be getting so heavily punished.''
How do you define the 'good responsible driver' who's going to get punished if this restrictor stuff comes to be? If they're good and responsible, they won't be breaking any speed limits and they won't be affected by it. Can't you see the irony in your posts?
The 'sports' exhaust you mention. Is that legal? No de-cat? same noise levels as standard? Unlikely. Highly unlikely that they get an extra 33bhp from the Impreza (as per their ad) without a decat. And what sport are we engaging in on the public road?
Personally I'd rather remap and not increase the noise, but that's me. Yes I fully understand the noise bit and the appealing sound but I wouldn't want to impose it on other people.
Anyway, your posts tend to point towards the issue that some people like to think they can make their own judgements, at the right time, and in the right place, such that they can excuse themselves from the legislation when it suits them. (those good responsible drivers being punished- remember?) . All well and good until their juddgemnet is found wanting and as previous contributors have expressed , some poor innocent becomes victim of that poor judgment. I'm afraid I've said it before on here but when a family suffer a loss through road accident, I've yet to see anyone just shrug their shoulders and accept it as a an accident. The default position is that they want the full weight of the law to come bearing down on any offender. Perhaps ask yourself the question: If a member of your family were killed on the road, what would your expectation be? Still accept that some special gifted people can waive the rules at what they consider to be the right time and place?
I'm afraid I count myself as a so-called 'petrol head'. Quite frankly I'd rather I found the same satisfaction in some other pursuit but sadly the motor car and motorbike are firmly embedded under my skin, but at the same time, I don't think I can advance any reasonable proposition against the proposal to speed limit cars. Any such argument is to argue against the limits. That would be more open and fair - argue that the speed limits are too low and to have them raised. 52/48 against in a referendum I reckon!
How do you define the 'good responsible driver' who's going to get punished if this restrictor stuff comes to be? If they're good and responsible, they won't be breaking any speed limits and they won't be affected by it. Can't you see the irony in your posts?
The 'sports' exhaust you mention. Is that legal? No de-cat? same noise levels as standard? Unlikely. Highly unlikely that they get an extra 33bhp from the Impreza (as per their ad) without a decat. And what sport are we engaging in on the public road?
Personally I'd rather remap and not increase the noise, but that's me. Yes I fully understand the noise bit and the appealing sound but I wouldn't want to impose it on other people.
Anyway, your posts tend to point towards the issue that some people like to think they can make their own judgements, at the right time, and in the right place, such that they can excuse themselves from the legislation when it suits them. (those good responsible drivers being punished- remember?) . All well and good until their juddgemnet is found wanting and as previous contributors have expressed , some poor innocent becomes victim of that poor judgment. I'm afraid I've said it before on here but when a family suffer a loss through road accident, I've yet to see anyone just shrug their shoulders and accept it as a an accident. The default position is that they want the full weight of the law to come bearing down on any offender. Perhaps ask yourself the question: If a member of your family were killed on the road, what would your expectation be? Still accept that some special gifted people can waive the rules at what they consider to be the right time and place?
I'm afraid I count myself as a so-called 'petrol head'. Quite frankly I'd rather I found the same satisfaction in some other pursuit but sadly the motor car and motorbike are firmly embedded under my skin, but at the same time, I don't think I can advance any reasonable proposition against the proposal to speed limit cars. Any such argument is to argue against the limits. That would be more open and fair - argue that the speed limits are too low and to have them raised. 52/48 against in a referendum I reckon!
