Limiting cars top speed. Arguments for and against - Page 4 - Ford Forums

Black EX-R6 · 11-08-2004, 15:36

Casper. Dont make stupid remarks, you just lost $1000 as Tim's friend caused the deaths of three people through excessive speeding. Tim himself posted a plea for people to slow down.

Sorry tim. Didnt want to bring you up personally.

biomechanic · 11-08-2004, 15:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by ianmcginley

The answer does not lie in GPS at all. Where would it end? GPS says i'm in a school zone, thus forced to 40km/h? GPS says i'm on a freeway offramp, i'm force to 80km/h?

How would you integrate it into all the old cars that are on the road in Australia. At who's expense?

Do cost (R&D, implimentation, deployment, education and service) versus return (lives saved, reduced police required to field cameras and such) and you will find that the cost massively outweighs the return. It wouldn't happen in the near future.

No, I think simply limiting to 130km/h within certain minimal boundaries is the idea, limiting to every single speed zone would be pretty ridiculous.

Old cars are old cars - you can't do anything about them, you don't see them being retro-fitted with airbags.

Cost is always an issue, but this technology gets cheaper and cheaper every year, so I would say you will see something, not necessarily my idea, but -something- in the next 5 - 10 years. This technology's already being used in cars, it's a matter of re-purposing the technology.

Personally if it helps save a family from an out of control stolen WRX travelling at high speed then it's well worth it - seeing as we, the customers, will have to absorb some of the cost (as well as our government tax dollars).

Black EX-R6 · 11-08-2004, 15:38

Also, if cars are limited, then we should see accidents reduced, insurance claims reduced and therefore insurance premiums reduced.

dave_au · 11-08-2004, 15:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by Black EX-R6

So most people towards the end of this thread are basically saying because you can kill at 40km/h why not let everyone have the potential to do 200km/h. Sounds sane to me.

But people do have that ability anyway right now - it doesn't mean the majority of us go out there and pull 200 for the hell of it anyway.

What it boils down to is liberties - and whether we need to be babied like children and end up with speed limited vehicles. I don't think so, and I think any government that introduces such a measure wouldn't be in for long.

Sometimes the ability to exceed the speed limit is actually useful for removing yourself from a dangerous situation. When I'm overtaking on the wrong side on the lines so to speak I dont care, I plant it until I clear whatever I'm overtaking. The less time spent on the wrong side of the road, the better. Let me clarify, I wouldn't call this excessive speed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Black EX-R6

Also, if cars are limited, then we should see accidents reduced, insurance claims reduced and therefore insurance premiums reduced.

No we won't, the majority of fatal accidents happen below 110km/h. The majority of accidents also happen +/- 10km/h of the posted speed limit at the site of the accident.

Casper · 11-08-2004, 15:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by Black EX-R6

Casper. Dont make stupid remarks, you just lost $1000 as Tim's friend caused the deaths of three people through excessive speeding. Tim himself posted a plea for people to slow down.

Sorry tim. Didnt want to bring you up personally.

And if the car was limited to 130kph would it have had the same result? Possibly. Heres the thing, we never will know. This is what I'm saying, even at 130kph the same result could have happened. And if it didnt then something else may have happened.
Also, what about the lives that have been saved when a person has been able to avoid trouble by speeding up (even over 130kph)?

Too many variables and, in the end, we are talking about possibly 20 deaths a year caused by excessive speeding, most of them occuring under 130kph and most of them due to stupidity not outright speed.

I stand by what I said, speed limiting cars to 130kph will do nothing.

bladeXR8 · 11-08-2004, 15:41

I read an interesting article in MOTOR a few months ago that claimed some states in the US were considering, or may already have RAISED their speed limits because they figured out that speed was not the major killer it is continually made out to be. Their conclusion was that it was driver fatigue from time spent on the road that was the cause of many an accident. Their reaction: RAISE the speed limit so people spend less time on the road = less accidents Makes you think doesn't it?

Black EX-R6 · 11-08-2004, 15:41

Still....no good arguments as to why speed limiting is bad.

Only complaining about the government and having something you never use taken away from you.

ianmcginley · 11-08-2004, 15:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by biomechanic

No, I think simply limiting to 130km/h within certain minimal boundaries is the idea, limiting to every single speed zone would be pretty ridiculous.

Old cars are old cars - you can't do anything about them, you don't see them being retro-fitted with airbags.

Cost is always an issue, but this technology gets cheaper and cheaper every year, so I would say you will see something, not necessarily my idea, but -something- in the next 5 - 10 years. This technology's already being used in cars, it's a matter of re-purposing the technology.

Personally if it helps save a family from an out of control stolen WRX travelling at high speed then it's well worth it - seeing as we, the customers, will have to absorb some of the cost (as well as our government tax dollars).

Ah but can't you see that if it can be applied to a highway, it can be applied to a school zone just as easily (and in my opinion thats better almost a better idea). However the problem doesn't stem from modern cars, as I attempted to state in my first message on this thread.

Our problem of accidents and safety stem from 2 items.
1) Age of cars on the road, how many cars on the road (esp those involved in those 6pm news story accidents) have little more than ABS brakes (if that, considering a 2003 Toyota Corolla doesn't have ABS). How many of them have up to date side intrusion beams, how about crumple zones, how about speed alert indicators?

2) Education of Drivers. Thats a simple one to understand.

Black EX-R6 · 11-08-2004, 15:45

Casper: no we will never know if limiting the car to 130 would have saved them. But from my understanding of the accident he was doing well over 130. And lost controll due to driver skill being insufficient at that speed.

Maybe at 130 he may have held onto it and made it. Sure there are times when speeding up will avoid an accident, but very very few. Ask any police man what he thinks of that policy. If you speed up and dont clear the accident you are adding to the carnage and possibly killing people where you may not have.

Everything is what if and conjecture. I still ask someone to come up with a reason why a car should not be limited in top speed only, to 130km/h. 20k/h above the maximum road speed in australia.

gsw · 11-08-2004, 15:48

Guy's and Gals, I would have to agree with everything Black EX-R6 has said, it all good to say that people should use common sense but there are some out there that can not be helped. Also if limits were placed at 130km I would not even notice because I do not speed. There is no need to go any faster than that. As for limiting speed not making any difference to road deaths I personally know of about three people that I went to school with a couple of years ago that are no longer with us because they were doing about 200km. Thats not in one car, two of them were speeding the other was hit.