In reply to John Halley (Talking Point, 9 April) his comments are not only wrong but they surely go against good engineering practice. Car makers are making smaller engines for a given power output. The Smart car being an example.
However, I cannot dispute that much extra power that could be available is taken up running devices to reduce emissions. Sensors are one of the most common faults on a modern engine and invariably require technician-time to cure.
It is true car makers are making faster and more powerful models — the vehicles to which most people aspire — and cars like the Bugatti Veyron and Koenigsegg CCX are the ultimate in automotive engineering excellence.
To say a car is too powerful can only be applied to learner drivers or those with an inability to drive correctly. As Mr Halley points out, most modern family saloons can travel at almost double the speed limit. The fault here is that the speed limit is too low. Today’s advanced brakes, suspension, steering and devices such as stability control and adaptive cruise control mean we can all drive safely at 100mph.
In the right conditions we should learn from the Germans and have no speed limit.
The comment that a car is capable of almost double the speed limit ‘facilitates dangerous driving’ is incorrect. A vehicle that is capable of this type of speed will be safer than one which is only capable of say, 90mph but which is being driven at 85mph. As for company vehicles having power limits, who will pay for the extra time the journey will take?
If more people applauded and used available technology perhaps the government would be less likely to listen to the minority who prefer we remain in caves.
In reply to John Halley, his comments are not only wrong but they surely go against good engineering practice.