Limiting cars top speed. Arguments for and against - Ford Forums

Black EX-R6 · 11-08-2004, 04:29

With afew threads started about some comments made on radio directed at the F6 and its top speed. I made afew comments which sort of hi jacked a thread. So ive started this one to discuss the issue.

Before i go further I will say I am all for limiting a cars top speed. But intelligently.

Where do I start....

Firstly let me say I am yet to hear a sensible argument or reason as to why a car should'nt be limited. I ask someone to convince me.

Virtually all cars made today can go faster than 180km/h. Which is I think what cars are limited to nowadays. But why do they need to be limited at 180km/h? Currently our roads fastest posted limit is 110km/h. So why do we need cars that can go 70km/h faster than the fastest legal limit?

Someone pointed out it is common sense not to drive at insane speeds. If this is so then why is it an issue in the first place. Do you want cars that can do 200km/h but then argue it is common sense not to actually go that fast?

My idea of limiting a car is to do so via computer. Much like the ecu. But a seperate unit. For those who want to drive on track then the computer should be able to be disabled by the driver. This would be controlled by the police and rta etc. Obviously some people will just disable the computer permanently and that is up to them. They would run the risk of being fined.

Whats your opinion on this issue and your argument for or against.

seano14 · 11-08-2004, 04:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by Black EX-R6

Virtually all cars made today can go faster than 180km/h. Which is I think what cars are limited to nowadays. But why do they need to be limited at 180km/h? Currently our roads fastest posted limit is 110km/h. So why do we need cars that can go 70km/h faster than the fastest legal limit?

its a good point, and something i've thought about from time to time. the only reason i could think of incase of an emergency, rushing somewhere at 110km/h...

but what else? the other thing would be enforcing such a rule. the only way the police would know if you over-ride the 110kmh speed limiter would be to get in your car and take it upto that speed. either that or the police would need to carry their own portable dyno style roller machine

mz_fpv · 11-08-2004, 05:00

They ARE already limited.... The GT 250kph,... XR8's, XR6T's,& Pursuits to 230kph.
So Ford DO have our safety well & truly under control

seano14 · 11-08-2004, 05:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by mz_fpv

They ARE already limited.... The GT 250kph,... XR8's, XR6T's,& Pursuits to 230kph.

i think you missed the point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Black EX-R6

Currently our roads fastest posted limit is 110km/h. So why do we need cars that can go 70km/h faster than the fastest legal limit?

Cobra · 11-08-2004, 05:14

What about for the people in NT. There is unlimited speed's on some of the roads over there. What about the people from any other states that want to use those roads?

EB-maen · 11-08-2004, 05:33

when you think about it, there is no real reason why cars should go faster than 110, aside from the northern territory (and the autobahn where its most probably safer). what about some form of licencing, like CAMS, where if you demonstrate that you are a qualified driver after completing courses etc you get an allowance with your licence (kind of like auto and manual licences) that allows you to have a higher limiter. having said that, it is presumed that people who go and spend the hundreds of dollars acquiring this licence and therefore having the allowed top speed of their car raised, do not let other people drive their car, under the risk of heavy penalties. this would probably get rid of a lot of those 'stupid p plater does 200 and kills people' (thats basically the message that they convey) incidents as most fools wont spend the time and money going through the process, of course, ppl will probably have it done anyway, but if they are caught in a vehicle with a higher speed limiter and they are not licenced then they will be severely punished

lizardmech · 11-08-2004, 05:48

Why don't we build cars that can only turn left. Turning right can be dangerous and in someplaces illegal.

rsgerry · 11-08-2004, 06:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by lizardmech

Why don't we build cars that can only turn left. Turning right can be dangerous and in someplaces illegal.

well said. turning right means that you have to cross oncoming traffic.

seriously, there is the small issue of overtaking a vehicle / vehicles on a two lane interstate highway. the more time you spend on the wrong side of the road, the more danger you are exposed to.

then there is the issue of motorsport. many owners of performance vehicles like to be able to enjoy the cars capabilities in a controlled environment. do you really believe that the police will be there to disconnect speed limiters? FFS, they dont have enough staff to properly patrol our roads and respond to crime, how ill they find the time to attend functions such as these? as for CAMS doing the work, that would leave both CAMS and the person farting around with your car wide open for legal action in the event of something going wrong.

the idea of limiting cars is impractical and dangerous. further, it is impossible to police. it is the kind of knee jerk reaction that politicians raise in an attempt to appease the mindless masses, especially as they know it buys votes and is so impractical as to be completely worthless.

XRated · 11-08-2004, 06:38

How many car accidents are caused by speeding in excess of 120km/h? It's another knee-jerk reaction. Instead of jumping to all of these irrational solutions, how about the money that we spend on speeding four kays over the limit goes towards better roads, better education, stricter licencing, R&D into more safety, etc?

I assume a limiter would be embedded into the ECU (or similar device), that would easily be cracked/overcome by aftermarket specialists anyway in little to no time at all. It is a waste of money and a waste of time.

Did reducing speed-limits reduce death tolls as dramatically as they were envisaged? I think not. Not even 2% of road fatalities are above the speed limit. I am getting sick and tired of hearing that "Speed Kills." Speed does not kill! Collisions kill. Negligent driving kills. Unwary pedestrians kill.

RaceCraft · 11-08-2004, 07:01

Perhaps something similar to what they use on the trucks??
What about pre EFI cars? How would you restrict the speed in a case of an old LJ Torana, or a old 351 XY?
My only adjustment to the arguement would be to speed limit P platers, as of the 2% of the figures you quoted Xrated would be made up of 75% of P platers.... THat then opens another can of worms, how do you limit variable vechicles that different classed license holders drive?

As much as it might be a good idea, i tend to think it would be nearly impossible to implement hence just leave it in the too hard basket