Why engine power restrictions won't work

Contrary to a progression of safety based incentives, a range of inaccurate information has been put forward concerning application/s for restricting the power output of vehicles.
This has come about in an effort to target drivers who (being generally novices or P platers) are more at risk from using excessive speed.

Despite the intention, facts have become inanely falsified - and the emotion involved may have lead to various people becoming somewhat 'carried away' by this misinformation.

To understand the facts we must concentrate on the objective, which is to minimise the hazard - excesive speed. This is partly where the confussion has arrisen. In looking for a remedy, people have been misled by the 'power' factor, forgetting that there has to be an amount of "velocity" to produce the resultant danger. 
Perhaps these people have then become blinded to other evident facts, such as that PTW restrictions can't really work for cars anyway.  Read Below> Cars versus motorcyles.

A key example of the inanity that has subsequently attached itself to the issue can be exposed by the following excerpt passage - regarding incompetent spokespeople, commenting on dangerous driving practices and possibly influencing reckless speeding on public roads: 
...Excerpt, from page six>belowTo explain it bluntly (in terms of exposing the intellect of those who argue the affirmative) if their performance is unsafe argument was to have any validity, then a 1996 Nissan Primera would be a quite unsafe car for a newly licensed driver to own because its PTW ratio is markedly greater, in performance, than a 1985 model.
, this is the type of mindless nonsense that has/is being attempted to be sold to the youth driver safety industry in the years since 2005? The fact that media personalities' such as Mark Sainsbury , have allowed their ego's to blind them in regard of simple engineering facts... >

Engine power restriction[Et_Al] is likewise based on a perception where high speed/s is incorrectly linked to drivers of cars with high engine performance. The fact is that only a small percentage of fatal crashes involving drivers between age 16 and 24, where an excessive speed is the main factor, have involved 'high performance' vehicles. 
Generaly these tragedies involve cars that would be in the medium performance bracket, so the question remains... at what level to set the performance?? and at what age to have the restrictions complete??
If crash statistics were to show that drivers in age bracket 25 - 38 are overepresented in seriouse crashes involving high performance cars (which is not the case at pressent) then wouldn't a simple solution be to limit the excesive top speed of all vehicles, thereby covering all possible aspects of age and/or lincence experiance.



Explanations highlighting the often confusion about engine power and its relevance to safety.

Engine "power" restrictions - why they won't work on cars.

An Overt 'challenge' to established safety and road code.

Acceleration versus speed - which is the culprit.

Explaining power to weight ratios & performance aspects:

Since about 2004 there has been an increase of media publicity, in both Australia and New Zealand, surrounding the subject of ‘general’ road safety, with many so-called experts "coming out of the wood-work" to pass comment in regards the greater performanc of modern vehicles.
Unfortunately, some of this has shown to be pathetically flawed and inane. Significant amongst these flaws have been incompetent ideas about engine pwr restrictions [re: page 5].
Hence, important aspects are being misrepresented and/ or poorly explained – by a range of incompetent spokespeople.

It should be considered that if these faults [some of which have been perpetuated for several years at time of publishing] are not corrected, or continue to be sold to younger/novice type drivers as being “correct” and factual, it could lead to negative influences for driver education, further down the track. It beggars belief that some of the comments are not seen for what they are, by the authorities; because in many instances they are an overt suggestion to vehicle owners to challenge established authority. For example, if a seventeen year old driver was to discover, two years hence, that technically incompetent information had been (more or less) endorsed by NZTA, this might lead to entrenched scepticism and loss of respect for all relevant authority attached to road safety.

Suggesting inaneand/or feel good type ideas:

In terms of the general insult to the intelligence of many motorists, it hasn't gone unnoticed that on several occasions in recent years a particular [self appointed type] advocate for youth road safety - who we shall refer to only as 'Greg' - appears to be confused regarding some technical issues, and has some absurd ideas about other aspects.
For example, as late as 2011 there still appears to be people advocating for the [absurd and unworkable] engine power restrictions for novice drivers? – one example on a prime-time TV slot, 27 October 2010.
A youth road safety advocate was noticed blithely submitting this impractical notion back in 2005; and it was assumed that by now (i.e. then) someone would have had a quiet word in his ear to the effect, “Look, Greg, these ideas might work for two wheeled machines, but there are numerous mechanical dynamics/reasons that preclude it from being able to be applied to the drivers of four wheeled machines.”

In terms of the role that Road Policing Authorities ought to play in this ridiculous 'side issue'; they will be clearly aware of what the reasons are, regarding why engine power (pwr) restrictions won’t be practicable for cars - in combination with the more serious aspect relating to the 'tacit suggestion' of law-breaking> See: “PTW restrictions” next pages>> -for greater clarification.
this is another blithely overlooked aspect; i.e. with a modicoum of thought it is obvious that the 'inverse' of PTW restrictions based on age/experience suggests that if you are outside those constraints you are almost expected to use excessive speed from time to time!!
If this seems a 'too longer bow' of linking the inverse assumption, then why do we have vehicles that can reach these enormous speeds? - but of course that might be a too simpler question to ask??< re; this web site in general.

What is important is that these types of foibles should not be finding their way (unchallenged) onto prime-time TV News bulletins . . . where they may be interpreted as “gospel” by the inexperienced or learner driver.
E.g. In conjunction with the above, quite serious, foible, too many of these 'characters' [or self-appointed experts on novice drivers?] have been trying to argue that cars with high performance “power to weight” ratios [see: essay next>] are somehow more dangerous than those manufactured with lesser powerful engines – and hence PTW performance.

This assertion is quite astounding; as surely those such as Greg would know – and with very few exceptions, probably of cars that never sold in large quantities – those manufactured to high PTW performance are generally much easier to drive! And, they usually have greater amounts of in-built safety features.  This has been especially so in the past 20 years, where luxury type sports sedans have been made with an increasing array of sophisticated functions to help the driver and provide an aid to traction and braking – not to mention ‘Passive Safety’ improvements that (also) have habitually been installed in greater quantity on such vehicles.
The only time that these extra powerful cars would be more dangerous than a normal type sedan would be if they were being driven at excessively high speeds – an act that is totally illegal.

When appearing on TV One Close-Up, in 2010, "Greg" was responding in part to the sentencing of the 18 year old Christchurch driver who had lost control, of his illegally modified car, at a low speed - mounting the footpath and killing the four year old child.
Though this loss of control happened at a low speed it is notable that the vehicle had been illegally modified – which exemplifies the point that the manufactures make them perfectly safe to be driven at legal speeds.  There are very few instances of fatalities or serious injuries having been caused by (late model) high performance cars crashing at speeds below 80km/h . . . unless, that is, they have had illegal (and stupid) modifications done. [Note, the statistics referred to do not include combined speeds, re; 'two vehicle' crashes.]

As many people will be aware, the nuisance value of boy-racer type drivers performing burn-outs and making insufferable noise late at night is a slightly separate issue; and though very irritating, only becomes (exceedingly) hazardous where there is the potential for a head-on type impact, with the resulting combined speed effect.  If this were not so, the obituary of 'boy-racer deaths in New Zealand/Australia over the past 10 years would be much greater than it has.

Excluding three or four instances, virtually all of the boy-racer related deaths in New Zealand have been the result of one or more of the vehicles travelling at excessive speed.  Most importantly, many of these crashes have involved cars of [what Greg would describe as] quite low PTW performance! – yet they were travelling at an excessive speed, the real killer.  <Four teens/killed/single/car/crashRead also: What Is A PTW Ratio.

Readers may like to reflect, at this point, that given many of the statements by Greg in the years since 2005, he doesn't seem to be able to understand the technical points and crash statistics related in the above four paragraphs. Even more indicting regarding his understanding of the Road Code is that whilst he advocates (absurdly) for some type of PTW restriction for younger and/or inexperienced drivers, he is, evidently, quite happy for older type drivers to own cars with very high engine performance.
It is no secret, that in many instances, these cars have habitually been marketed with their top speed capability - which can be as high as 240km/h - being a major presentation to customers.
Hopefully for our sakes, none of these owners would try to achieve some of that speed on public roads; however, what Greg may be naively advocating, is akin to tacitly suggesting that they do!

Whatever the case, he seems to be quite confused in this area also because he is on record as having stated that high performance cars are dangerous (which they are not) for one group of licence holders, and next he is in an advertisement endorsing high performance cars – and using the slogan Test Drive the new …. It’ll BLOW YOU AWAY.

Regrettably, and in conflict with the otherwise improvement of novice driver training, similar foibles to the above have also been demonstrated by other incompetent commentators - proposing similar views... E.g. that an extra phase of licence could be used for young/or inexperienced drivers; moving through stages of licence restrictions - (or ‘vehicle performance’ as they have described it) - culminating in a Full licence, to drive “the higher end, higher performance cars” [Sic].

Placing to one side the most obvious foible - that this could be tantamount to suggesting that some drivers should break the law from time-to-time! - there is also the contradicting fact that all cars are now quite powerful.
Surely such ideas are suggesting to a driver, (who may be inclined to have disregard for the safety of others) that it is ‘OK’ to drive above speed limits at times - as long as they are the owner of car that is designated as being in a
fast performance category?

These impractical and probably ‘legally indicting’ suggestions, coming from people who would be expected to show more competence on the whole subject, may represent the very type of comment that could - through psychological inducement - actually encourage immature drivers. . . .  to persist with their reckless habits.

In other words, for Authorities not to officially correct these serious road safety foibles, would be insulting to the intelligence and integrity of the whole department, as well as to both younger/inexperienced drivers and many older motorists also.

[We wait with bated breath for the NZTA and the Ministry Of Transport to put out a statement; that they do not endorse, in any way, these suggestions/ incompetency, as outlined above.]

To illustrate the sheer incompetence by some authorities, in relation to their understanding safety & 'cause of trauma' etc, is to compare the facts presented in this segment/article with the tellingly realised hypocrisies and anomaly's raised in the <-RACQ-discussion-paper-- >re; high-powered vehicle restrictions, dated 2009.  E.g. it states, "...The actual performance and risk posed by a vehicle is contingent on many variables . . ." etc, (refer page 3 of the paper).


Engine Power Restrictions . . . Cars versus Motorcycles . . .

Examining confusion surrounding the applicability of engine power restrictions for cars:
At times, a range of misguided thoughts has been put forward by incompetent people, suggesting that power to weight (PTW) performance restrictions, such as we have for motorcycles, could [somehow] be applied to CAR drivers. Their assumption is incorrect; and PTW restriction cannot work (practicably) for cars.

The main reason: There are a range of inherent (and 'rather obvious’ on casual observation of) engineering and mechanical dynamics that separate two wheeled machines from those with four, i.e. cars.  Most significant of these differences is Power to Weight variability characteristics.  This “variability” - caused in part by laden versus 'unladen' weight - will produce large inconsistency and/or changeability to the performance maxim being striven for, with the motor car.

It can be slightly complex, but when intelligent consideration is given to the engineering+weight dynamics of a motorcycle, it becomes evident that the bike only requires its engine to be able to move its own weight, plus a small amount of mechanical infrastructure [e.g. with only two wheels... no spare etc] and of course the rider – and perhaps a pillion.  Therefore, small engined motorcycles, not being able to change their laden weight by the same percentage as a car, will have a PTW ratio that doesn't change [vary] as much.
Illustrated another way; a two wheeled machine, with its engine strung between the wheels, has completely different power (engine) to mechanical infrastructure (inherent WEIGHT) characteristics, to that of a car.

NB: High performance/small engine; In the past 20 years many motorcycles have been manufactured with quite small engines that are very high in performance. Thus, many of these machines, though fitting within the (previous) legislation of <250cc. would make a complete mockery of that designated engine size restriction.  To rectify this problem, most countries, including New Zealand, have now changed to a PTW ratio designation or formula.  The way that this ‘formula’ is expressed is as a kilowatt per tonne ratio – which means, obviously, that for vehicles weighing less that a tonne the ratio is calculated using a linear division type method. [For greater clarity read; What is A PTW Ratio.]

Another significant aspect to consider, regarding the impracticality of PTW ratios for CAR drivers, is to think of it in terms, that even a small engined car, manufactured since (about) 1998 onwards, will (nonetheless) be able to attain a very excessive speed.

This top-speed ability (subsequently) wouldn't leave many options – of make/models - for novice drivers to own!  if PTW restrictions were to be attempted. The legislated engine size would probably need to go below 1200cc to be contiguous with the (decreased) power rationale!  Yet, when a two litre car is laden with passengers and luggage, its PTW performance might easily drop below the requirement striven for with the 1200cc vehicle that only has an 85kg driver.   [Conversely, you can’t load a small motorcycle with passengers and luggage.]
In other words, all sorts of problematic contradictions and inconsistencies would arise – significant of which would be that many younger employees would not be able to drive their employers larger engined vehicles, etcetera!

A further important fact, is that the rationale for restricting PTW performance on car drivers – supposing it could actually work – would be to inhibit excessive speed.  In other words, the rationale, for both PTW restrictions and speed limiter restriction is EXACTLY the same!
Yet we do not hear the advocates of PTW restriction (unworkable anyway) calling for the much more practical and easy to implement ESL [electronic speed limiter] restriction, why?

Hence, the illustrated confusion of these (PTW) advocates is palpable; on one hand they want to restrict excessive speed through some form of power regulation, but when top-speed ESL is mooted they are prone to invoke entirely spurious type arguments against this . . . not realising that both their idea and that speed limiters are merely achieving the same result! - with the exception that speed limiter regulation will accomplish it much more accurately and effectively!

Note. When considering the experience and expertise of motorcycle riders, the associated safety rationale is subtly different to those applicable to the car, and there are other aspects such as ability to control the weight + acceleration. . . including several additional factors inherent to the operation of a TWO wheeled machine – a machine that doesn't even have a spare tyre or a “jack” to alter its PTW ratio variability! These are aspects why PTW restrictions will work for motorcycles but not for cars.

Scrutiny of public forums such as Radio talk-back can also show that a number of ill-informed motorist will say, with great sincerity evidently, that the engine power restrictions we have for bikes ought similarly be used for novice car drivers.  This lack of knowledge perhaps exposes the deficiencies by authorities, regarding the topic, and, exemplifies the general tenure surrounding mis-information, expressed in this whole article.

So, for the benefit of these hapless individuals, we explain the PTW 'variability aspect' yet another way:  Imagine two motorcycles but instead of having riders, they are both remote controlled, with radio devices weighing only 600grams.
One machine is a 100cc model and the other has a 350cc engine. In terms of top-speed (being the main safety paradigm considered) the 350cc machine will be faster. However, if a 95kg rider was placed on the 350cc bike, but the 100cc machine was remote controlled only, it could thus become very nearly as fast as the larger engined machine, on account of it being unencumbered by weight - that its designers would have calculated for when working out gear ratios and such like.
The explanation "rationale" here, being that the weight of an average adult rider will have quite significant affects on the PTW performance of these two machines - but, if the engine size of the larger one were to be increased to above 700cc, the "variability" in the PTW ratio/s -caused by the weight of a rider - is much less.  I.e. in such an experiment a rider's weight makes a big difference to a machine with an engine smaller than (roughly) 500cc.
The conclusion therefore, for those with lower IQ, is to note that most small CARS have engine sizes of 1200cc or larger. Subsequently, though their PTW can be changed quite a bit when they become laden-up, the amount of change (variability) is nowhere near as great as it is for a motorcycle with a lower powered engine. [Website apologizes to intelligent motorists -for resorting to such rudimentary type explanation/s, -as used in previous paragraph/s.] 

A further point regarding the subject of weight: Because the small engined motorcycle doesn't possess very much, it therefore cannot do anywhere near as much harm to people or property that a 1200cc CAR might, if it were to crash.  The damage, when a small motorcycle crashes, is usually restricted to the rider only.

[NB. Recently released New Zealand ACC and MOT crash statistics for motorcycles show that in 60% of crashes involving bikes, the ‘biker’ was responsible, or partly there/so.]

Conclusion: Contrary to popular misconception, high performance cars will generally be easier and therefore SAFER to drive than those of lower performance - provided they adhere to speed limits.
See also: "Two Dead after Driver passes on Yellow..." and read below.

An overt challenge to established safety parameters . . .

To suggest that high performance cars can be dangerous [more-so than ordinary models] in the hands of inexperienced drivers, is quite absurd and in complete conflict with the rationale for having a driver licence system in the first instance!  (It also implies a tacit and overt suggestion to "challenge"  established safety law.)
Firstly there is the fact that they are easier to drive than more standard type saloons; because, they are made to greater all round specifications covering everything from suspension and brakes, to the ergonomics of the drivers seat.  Being easier [more ergonomic and requiring less physical effort and coordination etcetera] to drive means safer not more dangerous.

Secondly; though the above facts concerning high performance being “easier and therefore safer” to drive is a fundamental point in its own right, it is also a partly redundant point.  It becomes redundant because of the ongoing refinements to vehicle performance that override any previous paradigms that might otherwise have been designated.  Subsequently, the continual raising of the performance and safety in successive models would tend to make the ‘previous paradigm’ redundant about every four or five years – when considered over the past twenty years or so.

To explain it bluntly (in terms of exposing the intellect of those who attempt to argue the affirmative) if their “performance is unsafe” argument was to have any validity then a 1996 Nissan Primera would be a very unsafe car for a newly licensed driver to own because its PTW ratio is markedly greater in performance than a 1985 model?  Yet, this is the type of mindless nonsense that has/is being attempted to be sold to the “youth driver safety industry” in the five years since 2005.
The fact that media presenters such as Mark Sainsbury, to name one, allow such inanity to go unchallenged is partly the fault of traffic safety Authorities, who ought to be correcting these shortcomings at the earliest opportunity – that is what the Ministry of Transport are paid to do.
Either that or it suggests a level of inane sycophantism on the part of the presenter?

A further indictment regarding the Authorities’ omission to act in respect of the occasions where people such as TV broadcaster/s have allowed the above, outlined safety foibles, to go unchallenged, is the absolute inconsistency and contradiction of the safety rationale concerned.

It is astounding that there is even debate, at all, about the safety of higher performance vehicles.  A vehicle is either ‘safe’ or ‘unsafe’.  The safety, no matter what aspect of road-code it is based on, applies equally to all licence holders, including “R” licensees.  Otherwise, as has been stated twice already, re: above articles, you are tacitly suggesting that some, but not other, licensees, might like to break the law from time to time!

It doesn't matter if a vehicle is a 2001 Toyota Echo or a 2007 Audi RS 4, they are both capable of exceeding the 110km/h speed limit by more than 40km/h – and therefore if one is dangerous, so is the other. [NB: For technicality’s sake, the Audi would be by far the safest car to crash in at an equal speed.]
In other words… to entertain a discussion, surrounding that the Audi might be more dangerous than the Echo, not only indicates a serious mental deficiency regarding engineering dynamics, its also a bit like saying to the motoring public hey, look, you can now have this [particular machinery or] product- it is easily capable of becoming quite dangerous within a few moments of carelesness, so to speak, and it has all these features that help you to make it do so. We even provide special notification telling you (by) how much it can exceed legal parameters, and we almost encourage you to “challenge these established paradigms... but, if you are caught by the law in the process you will be prosecuted.

In association with routine and proper driver responsibility it is not an exaggeration to describe the ambiguity and stupidity of the notion, regarding that higher performance means less safety for the inexperienced, in the manner illustrated in the previous paragraph.
driver licence is a confirmation that the licensee has met the requirements of a driving/road-code exam giving the holder the privilege to operate motor vehicles on public roads. Nowhere has it ever been conveyed or implied that a licensee might be “expected” to break the law from time to time!  Yet, if officialdom is going to enter into discussions surrounding that some vehicles – that the licensee is fully licensed to operate – ought somehow require a higher phase of licence than others merely because they can be more easily driven to exceed legal parameters, then such a discussion opens up a whole range of serious legal questions and contradictions - yet to be tested...

Significant amongst these is that the discussion itself is more or less suggesting to the owners of the vehicles in question that they are sort of expected to break the law from time to time.

Some people might describe it as a type of entrapment.  It might also be called other (legal) names if a completely innocent person were to be injured in the process of the (affected) vehicle owner/licence holder, experimenting with the overt and/or tacitly suggested challenge - to establishedl paradigms.

The legal position pertaining is explicitly simple; the rationale underpinning responsible behaviour on public roads is, not to operate your vehicle at an excessive speed.

The fact that you might recently have upgraded your 1988 Nissan Primera to a 2002 model does not give you the right to drive it at 150km/h.  It doesn't matter if Greg or Mark, or even John Campbell have been tacitly suggesting – in whatever implied language – that perhaps you could on occasion, most Courts would up-hold the road Code; which states that whatever car you drive you must adhere to speed limits at all times.

[To recap the main points; having plenty of power at the disposal of a driver is not actually a dangerous aspect, as some people may mistakenly believe.
As pointed out above, it is somewhat astounding that discussions surrounding these absurd notions have been given any Air-time at all! – let alone being allowed to perpetuate for as long as they have.  Not only do they undermine the New Zealand road code, possibly corrupting the good intentions of learner drivers, they are an insult to the intelligence of the majority of well-intentioned motorists.]

In summary, if the same logic, regarding high performance being unsafe, had been applied to the same (boy-racer type) problem in say 1984  [or 1991 or 97 or 2000 even] then the cars that would have been deemed too powerful for novice drivers at those times, would now be in the pathetically UNDERPOWERED category.

Notwithstanding that greater power can be more easily used to facilitate [annoying] burn-outs etcetera; the factor that impacts directly on the [trauma] seriousness of crashes, is the velocity involved at point of impact.  [Read below: Acceleration or Speed].
If the high performance vehicle involved has not reached an excessive velocity – of say 140km/h - then the kinetic energy required to produce serious trauma, is likewise greatly reduced.
Provided that high PTW performance cars are not driven at these types of speeds they are actually safer than cars manufactured to a lower performance.

Professor John Banzhaf (USA) writes, in a press release dated June 2011, "It makes little sense to focus on electronic systems to reduce rol-overs, and completely ignore another current ESL system which could prevent virtually all high speed accidents".
I.e. < Teen-in-turbo-Subaru-Caught @184km/h -W.A.> why not simply restrict the top speed?

Stop/Press!-2012 WA opposition Police Spokeswoman (for road safety ignorance) - Michelle- Roberts-/calls-for-powerful-car-ban/ >must be in line for the 2012 Anachronism Award - if she hasn't heard that nowadays all cars [both high performance or not] have a top-speed limiter function already installed at manufacture.

Typical example of incompetent/intransigent ignorance; Stewart Hydes of ChCh New Zealand has witnessed a police pursuit that ended in the death of Troy McKay, age 22.  Mr Hydes says in hisTV interveiw that turbocharged WRXs are akin to the (irresponsible Sic) driver have a loaded gun ready to go off - and he alludes to being one of the 'muppets' who think? [or haven't thought at all!] that ownership of high performance car should be restricted from younger drivers??
Unfortunatley the police person [interviewed] also seems to endorse this shallow thinking.


Acceleration Versus Speed ?
Another area where confusion sometimes arises is with the distinction between acceleration and speed. What is important is that for there to be an incident involving serious trauma to the human body, there needs to be sufficient dissipation of kinetic energy; in other words 'speed'.
This can only happen if there is kinetic energy present in the first instance!

In other words, mere acceleration, no matter how rapid, cannot produce dissipation of energy to the required level unless the ‘acceleration’ has reached an associated velocity - with a sudden stop afterwards.
In other words . . . without a sufficiently high [excessive] speed, there is not enough kinetic energy retained in the vehicle, to generate the forces needed to produce injury or death.

Obviously therefore, by restricting this VELOCITY - regardless of how rapidly a vehicle may attain such - the problem concerning the related potential for serious trauma, is reduced.

This is one of the reasons why motorcycle licensees’ are restricted to machines of a certain power rating – in an effort to reduce impacts at excessive speeds.  Refer also: 'Causes of Death in road...' It should be noted however, that there are several aspects applicable to motorcycles and their respective PTW ratio, that do not and cannot be applied to CARS <read above<.

Footnote: In most situations, increased acceleration performance will provide greater car control - and therefore safety. Vehicle occupants are unlikely to be killed if they crash, into a stationary object, whilst performing a Doughnutor 'burn-out', at 75km/h.

Unfortunately for the many intelligent motorists, there appears to be a frustratingly persistent number of unintelligent people who persist in the shallow thinking/misconception that "power" and acceleration (alone) cause and initiate the problematic aspects relating to serious road trauma.  E.g. notwithstanding the advent - since 1992! - of widespread ESL instalment in vehicles, the idea that power equals danger is mostly farcical.
Power will provide quick acceleration, and injudicious use of acceleration can indeed lead to loss of traction on the driving wheels - which in turn can lead to 'spinning-out' perhaps into the path of an on-coming.  Though this happens quite frequently, and with fatal results, it is very rare for it to occur where the out-of-control vehicle is travelling less that 120km/h with "power" induced wheel-spin being the primary factor.  There are instances, but usually these have other contributing factors such as wet conditions combined with low tyre tread.

In other words, for anyone who wants to research the data on these types of cross-centre-line fatalities, they will find that the vast majority will involve a quite excessive speed; as-well-as the "so demeaned" acceleration.
As stated ad-nauseaum, if the vehicle cannot attain the 140km/h top-speed, it probably won't crash - even if its driving wheels are "spinning excessively" from too much power.

Some Relevant Maths: There is a 76 percent increase in kinetic energy when velocity increases from 120km/h, through to 160km/h.