Revoke your AA membership... calls to ban Nitrous

[Mr Gear]

Any informed person who saw this on the BBC this morning will probably be thinking the same as me:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7989110.stm

That the BBC had its work-experience boy writing the "news" again.

They have to be kidding... they are blaming Nitrous Oxide kits on high teen crash rates... but provide absolutely no figures to support this. They also say in the article that it's OK to put nitrous on a Ferrari, but not on a boggo hatch - WRONG! You're more likely to nuke the highly strung exotica than the overbuilt Japmobile. And the AA supports this?! Probably just because they are fed up of sending out their patrol men to fix badly maintained systems.

I don't use Nitrous, but I know lots of people who do at the dragstrip, and this type of reporting just panders to the idiots. Since when did the BBC become the Daily Mail?

[robm3]

Well, they actually talk about all modified cars with the only reference to Nitro being the AA calling for "new rules on modifications" which the reporter then adds in "including Nitros Oxide"

Revoking AA membership is probably a similiar 'knee jerk' response to claiming they want to ban Nitrous right?

But I'm surprise Nitro takes a 158bhp car to 300bhp, my understanding is it adds a maximum of roughly 30% and looking at Dale Vodden I think he personally kills the power to weight ratio anyhow.

[robm3]

Mr Gear said:

They also say in the article that it's OK to put nitrous on a Ferrari, but not on a boggo hatch - WRONG! You're more likely to nuke the highly strung exotica than the overbuilt Japmobile.

You're right here unless it's a brand new Jag or Ferrari, they struckle to cope with normal conditions and fuel let alone Nitro....

[Mr Gear]

robm3 said:

Revoking AA membership is probably a similiar 'knee jerk' response to claiming they want to ban Nitrous right?

OK, I'll concede that, but you have to admit it is a shockingly poor article.

[wanacoop]

the worry is that nitrous oxide is just the start, it could then be chips, air filters etc.. Just F off and catch people that are drink/drug driving.

[boycey lm600]

Here here!! The main problem i think is that people spend hundreds of pounds on installing nitrous but then do not compensate this with upgrading handling or stopping power, they just want to go fast and fk the safety aspect!.

[Mattt]

When they do these clips, they always manage to find some gimp who makes everyone look a tool.

[wanacoop]

just heard this on the news again and it got my blood boiling, so i'm back for a 2nd rant!! Thing is with this, are they going to cap cars to a certian bhp?? As it makes no sense that anyone can buy a car with 300bhp+, or a car with 200bhp and tune it to 300bhp+..

It's still too much power if in the wrong hands.

A couple mates & I have an LDV van which had a 2.5 TD engine, thought a 3.5ltr rover V8 would suit the van better, so now it has one, BUT, it isn't fast as it weighs the same as church, but the same engine in a TVR makes the car rapid! So how can they just ban tuning? BHP is not the be all and end all.

TURDS.

[1960Zody]

ACE have already been in contact with Edmund King of the AA on this subject and, as you will see from his response, published on our website, it's not quite the 'Call for Nitrous to be banned' that it's being portayed as.

http://www.the-ace.org.uk/its-no-laughing-matter.h...

The AA are actually more concerned with inesperienced driver being in control of Modified cars, (An issue that high insurance rates on such a combination makes unlikely) rather than modified cars in general

We have contacted the author and reporter on the piece to get his slant on the controversy that he has created and will publish any response we may get.

Overall, it's another example of the 'Mainstream' media reporting badly on something it das no understanding of and I'm surprised that the AA could be so 'Media Unsavvy' as to let their quote be used this way.

Steve Wallace
The ACE Team
http://www.the-ace.org.uk/

[Mr Gear]

1960Zody said:

ACE have already been in contact with Edmund King of the AA on this subject and, as you will see from his response, published on our website, it's not quite the 'Call for Nitrous to be banned' that it's being portayed as.

http://www.the-ace.org.uk/its-no-laughing-matter.h...

The AA are actually more concerned with inesperienced driver being in control of Modified cars, (An issue that high insurance rates on such a combination makes unlikely) rather than modified cars in general

We have contacted the author and reporter on the piece to get his slant on the controversy that he has created and will publish any response we may get.

Overall, it's another example of the 'Mainstream' media reporting badly on something it das no understanding of and I'm surprised that the AA could be so 'Media Unsavvy' as to let their quote be used this way.

Steve Wallace
The ACE Team
http://www.the-ace.org.uk/

Nice post. And pretty much everything I have read on the subject points to bad reporting by the BBC. They didn't even get the AA's side of the story right, which makes my title to this thread look a bit harsh.

It wasn't long ago they reported on motorcycle airbag jackets, and that was an utterly woeful piece of journalism full of lies, selective quoting and failure to report both sides of the story missing some key facts.

It makes me wonder what other "news" the BBC runs that I do not have a full understanding of that never gets questioned. Whenever they do an automotive article they cock it up in fine style.

[E V King]

Guys, I wonder if I can clarify this topic from the horse's mouth (so as to speak)as I am president of the AA and was interviewd by the BBC.

The BBC report was instigated by Dan from BBC Radio One Newsbeat. I spoke to the BBC about statistics concerning new and inexperienced drivers.

The AA line was that in the hands of inexperienced new drivers these modifications could increase the risk of crashes due to limitations of some cars and some drivers. Sadly that fact was tragically shown on BBC Breakfast this morning.
This is a media summary:

"Son of viewer was killed in a modified car. David's friends have released a single to highlight campaign. STUDIO INTERVIEW: EDWINA WARES, MOTHER - he and his friend were racing. He lost control and was killed. His car had a larger engine than it was made with. I had said the nitrous oxide was one step to far. I think the kits should be illegal. It makes cars harder to handle. His friend Katie wrote song and the Council got hold of it and it fronts Denbighshire County Council's campaign. Speeding does kill."


AA does not call for an outright ban of modifications and never have but we have said that such modifications are not suitable for inexperienced drivers.

The AA is fully committed to improving road safety for new drivers but we don't knee-jerk to support dranconian restrictions on new drivers advocated by many ie night time curfews, limit to number of passengers, increase in driving test age etc. We advocate practical steps so earlier this year set up the AA Charitable Trust which offers free Drive Smart lessons to new drivers most at risk. Check out wwww.theAA.com/drive-smart for details.

So come on guys and join the AA on our road to implement sensible polices and training to help new drivers rather than just assume that we are anti young drivers.

Thanks for listening and have a great Easter.

Edmund King, AA president

[FNG]

E V King said:

Guys, I wonder if I can clarify this topic from the horse's mouth (so as to speak)as I am president of the AA and was interviewd by the BBC.

The BBC report was instigated by Dan from BBC Radio One Newsbeat. I spoke to the BBC about statistics concerning new and inexperienced drivers.

The AA line was that in the hands of inexperienced new drivers these modifications could increase the risk of crashes due to limitations of some cars and some drivers. Sadly that fact was tragically shown on BBC Breakfast this morning.
This is a media summary:

"Son of viewer was killed in a modified car. David's friends have released a single to highlight campaign. STUDIO INTERVIEW: EDWINA WARES, MOTHER - he and his friend were racing. He lost control and was killed. His car had a larger engine than it was made with. I had said the nitrous oxide was one step to far. I think the kits should be illegal. It makes cars harder to handle. His friend Katie wrote song and the Council got hold of it and it fronts Denbighshire County Council's campaign. Speeding does kill."


AA does not call for an outright ban of modifications and never have but we have said that such modifications are not suitable for inexperienced drivers.

The AA is fully committed to improving road safety for new drivers but we don't knee-jerk to support dranconian restrictions on new drivers advocated by many ie night time curfews, limit to number of passengers, increase in driving test age etc. We advocate practical steps so earlier this year set up the AA Charitable Trust which offers free Drive Smart lessons to new drivers most at risk. Check out wwww.theAA.com/drive-smart for details.

So come on guys and join the AA on our road to implement sensible polices and training to help new drivers rather than just assume that we are anti young drivers.

Thanks for listening and have a great Easter.

Edmund King, AA president

Thanks for coming here to clear up the AA's side of this debacle.

While taking your points above and largely agreeing with them, I must regretfully comment that I think the AA's position is frequently either weak or poorly represented in the mainstream media, and would respectfully suggest you look to the reasons for that and rectify as much as possible.

In addition, if the AA truly does wish to support better driver training and push for more driver awareness and education, please please do all you can to push back against the media's urge to promote the "speed kills" mantra.

It's such a simplistic and disingenuous tagline that has little or no basis in fact. Please, AA, use your position as a voice of moderation as a representative of normal drivers effectively. Hints that appropriate speed is required; observation is important; concentration is vital; basic car maintainance is essential, when commenting on the latest news story or tragedy would hopefully gain some sway in the public consciousness. At present we only hear what safety camera partnerships, councils, government and anti-car pressure groups have to say about road safety and they are largely self-interested.

Ramming home these points more than speed compliance are vastly more contributory to road safety and your organisation is one of the very best placed ones to promote true road safety in preference to blind obeyance of a speed limit.

Thanks for reading.

[herewego]

FNG said:

Thanks for coming here to clear up the AA's side of this debacle.

While taking your points above and largely agreeing with them, I must regretfully comment that I think the AA's position is frequently either weak or poorly represented in the mainstream media, and would respectfully suggest you look to the reasons for that and rectify as much as possible.

In addition, if the AA truly does wish to support better driver training and push for more driver awareness and education, please please do all you can to push back against the media's urge to promote the "speed kills" mantra.

It's such a simplistic and disingenuous tagline that has little or no basis in fact. Please, AA, use your position as a voice of moderation as a representative of normal drivers effectively. Hints that appropriate speed is required; observation is important; concentration is vital; basic car maintainance is essential, when commenting on the latest news story or tragedy would hopefully gain some sway in the public consciousness. At present we only hear what safety camera partnerships, councils, government and anti-car pressure groups have to say about road safety and they are largely self-interested.

Ramming home these points more than speed compliance are vastly more contributory to road safety and your organisation is one of the very best placed ones to promote true road safety in preference to blind obeyance of a speed limit.

Thanks for reading.

You can hardy expect the AA to suggest that people don't need to comply with legal speed limits.

[FNG]

herewego said:

hbYou can hardy expect the AA to suggest that people don't need to comply with legal speed limits.

I don't expect that. I haven't suggested that.

Perhaps you could read it again. Properly this time.

I'm suggesting a focus on other aspects of road safety, not simply supporting "speed kills".

[Fleckers]

the owner is a tool

carmust be safe its £150 per corner bridgestone tyres, I wish my standard fit tyres were that cheap

as for the reporter saying what about a boy racer in on of these cars coming up behind you on a motorway, mmmmmmm what about getting motorway lane diciplin osrted out forst ?

what about banning cars from having flamable liquid in tanks, banning card from having flamalable liquid as a meathod of combustion

WHAT A LOAD OF BS

what a load of fast and furious talk Nitros oxid or NOZ
What a fast car up to 100 mph on a private test track with NOZ giving nearly 300 bhp, my god I am shocked there was not sonic boom when the car hit 50 mph let a lone 100 mph

still I guess a moron reporter trying to fire up the god and tree hugging squads would not know that a 10 year old 1.6 focus / escort can do the mighty ton, in fact in 1983 I had a 1.2 Opel that could hit 105...........................

all BS and scare everyone talk

why dont the AA F off and try and get the price of petrol down

[herewego]

FNG said:

herewego said:

hbYou can hardy expect the AA to suggest that people don't need to comply with legal speed limits.

I don't expect that. I haven't suggested that.

Perhaps you could read it again. Properly this time.

I'm suggesting a focus on other aspects of road safety, not simply supporting "speed kills".

I'm not aware that the AA are involved in any specific road safety campaigns. As far as I know they are simply sometimes asked to comment by media such as in this nitrous piece. If asked to comment on a speed kills campaign, you have suggested that they "push back" against the message. I've said that's not going to happen.

[VPower]

My 2 peneth.

If youngsters stopped killeng themselves it would not be a such problem?

My son agrees that new drivers should be restricted on passenger numbers.
Seems once you get a car load of kids together, the driver forgets what he is supposed to be doing. He himself has had problems with his friends acting like kids in his car. He even stopped and told them all to get out or calm down once!!

100 meters from my house a 17 year old driver flipped his car, hit a tree and killed himself, his three passengers survived.
FACT - He WAS drivng too fast!
Too fast for the car its weight, road conditions and his experience.

I agree this article was stupid, as that 17 year old was driving a standard Fiesta.
Is there any PH'er out there that thinks our driver training can't be improved significantly? They did it for bikes and it works.

[hman]

its ok, i'm with ADAC, the only company to tow you of the ring for free (I have had to use their recovery services at the ring twice so far) ;-)

[FNG]

herewego said:

FNG said:

herewego said:

hbYou can hardy expect the AA to suggest that people don't need to comply with legal speed limits.

I don't expect that. I haven't suggested that.

Perhaps you could read it again. Properly this time.

I'm suggesting a focus on other aspects of road safety, not simply supporting "speed kills".

I'm not aware that the AA are involved in any specific road safety campaigns. As far as I know they are simply sometimes asked to comment by media such as in this nitrous piece. If asked to comment on a speed kills campaign, you have suggested that they "push back" against the message. I've said that's not going to happen.

No - I said push back against the media trying to promote that message. There is a difference between that and refuting the need for speed limits

It means making it clear that the AA want to see better driving standards and ways of educating drivers about many aspects of driving, not just their speed.

That doesn't undermine any message, it reinforces the notion that there's more to safe driving than obeying the speed limit.

The AA do have their own views on many aspects relating to motoring. They are not merely responding to a BBC reporter's random phone call. They don't need to be actively involved in particular campaigns to have policies and values that they wish to further in the media.

[V88Dicky]

Fleckers said:

the owner is a tool

carmust be safe its £150 per corner bridgestone tyres, I wish my standard fit tyres were that cheap

as for the reporter saying what about a boy racer in on of these cars coming up behind you on a motorway, mmmmmmm what about getting motorway lane diciplin osrted out forst ?

what about banning cars from having flamable liquid in tanks, banning card from having flamalable liquid as a meathod of combustion

WHAT A LOAD OF BS

what a load of fast and furious talk Nitros oxid or NOZ
What a fast car up to 100 mph on a private test track with NOZ giving nearly 300 bhp, my god I am shocked there was not sonic boom when the car hit 50 mph let a lone 100 mph

still I guess a moron reporter trying to fire up the god and tree hugging squads would not know that a 10 year old 1.6 focus / escort can do the mighty ton, in fact in 1983 I had a 1.2 Opel that could hit 105...........................

all BS and scare everyone talk

why dont the AA F off and try and get the price of petrol down

I'm sorry mate but what on God's earth are you trying to say? For us older people please speak English! Thankyou.