Limiting cars top speed. Arguments for and against - Page 5 - Ford Forums

Casper · 11-08-2004, 15:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Black EX-R6

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.

Speed limiting cars is bad as it:
1. Is an expense that would have to be carried by the purchaser
2. Is pointless as it only looks at an extreame minority of fatalities
3. Does not address the major issues of fatigue and inexperiance
4. Will have virtually no effect on the road toll..thereby being another knee jerk reaction that is aimed at votes not saftey
5. will actually, in some cases, expose drivers to greater danger such as overtaking trucks and being exposed to oncoming traffic for a greater period of time

Theres just a few.

Black EX-R6 · 11-08-2004, 15:49

ianmcginley: that is what I am saying. Speed limiting is not THE answer. It is part of the answer. Driver education is another huge part. Older cars will always exist, nothing can be done about them except to phase them out slowly through their own attrician over time.

Mr Sparkle · 11-08-2004, 15:55

I find it insulting that the government feels the need to impose more and more external controls / systems on cars. It is intrusive, it is denying several basic human rights, and worst of all - it means that as a driver, you WON'T have full control of the vehicle at ANY time. That is the point that worries me.

If there is a GPS (or any remote) based system for limiting speed or having any other controlling powers, how long would it be until it either c0cked up, was hacked, or was used for unlawful monitoring etc. Don't tell me that would never happen either - it already is. I'd rather have the power of life and death on the road in my own hands, thank you very much.

It pisses me off that the government is always looking at ways to try and enforce and control, rather than trying to examine the underlying cause and promote ACCOUNTABILITY and CHANGE. They are politicians - they will take the easiest and most profitable answer, and in terms of road safety, that is to blame speed for everything. They can get their funded lap-dog organisations (MUARC, RTA etc.) to concoct half-truths for their propaganda machine, and then use that to justify more revenue raising antics.

Anyway, back to the main point of the thread, I think the current way things are done is fine. Give people some credit, the problem doesn't lie in having a car that can do 250+ kph, it lies in the attitude and capability of the driver. Let's not go aiming at the wrong target here.

bladeXR8 · 11-08-2004, 15:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Casper

Speed limiting cars is bad as it:
1. Is an expense that would have to be carried by the purchaser
2. Is pointless as it only looks at an extreame minority of fatalities
3. Does not address the major issues of fatigue and inexperiance
4. Will have virtually no effect on the road toll..thereby being another knee jerk reaction that is aimed at votes not saftey
5. will actually, in some cases, expose drivers to greater danger such as overtaking trucks and being exposed to oncoming traffic for a greater period of time

Theres just a few.

6. Will mean less revenue for Bracks' speed cameras...

Black EX-R6 · 11-08-2004, 15:56

1. Isnt this expense worth saving lives. I have heard of plenty of accidents where people have been killed because of excessive speed. 20 deaths a year is a gross underestimate. Ive heard of accidents that have such huge impact people are decapitated just by the force. Ive heard of accidents that kill 4-6 people in one car from excessive speed.

2. Yes, it looks at extremem minorities. But these people are killing their fare share of humans. Are they not worth saving?

3. No it dosnt, as I have said, it is part of a broad solution. There is no one simple solution. Never has been, never will be.

4. Bullsh!t. It isnt a knee jerk reaction at all. It is simply sensible. Roads have legal limits, yet car manufacturers make cars that excede these limits by double. Not very hard to work out what to do here is it?

5. If a car is limited to 130km/h, they can still overtake another car doing ten under the maximum limit at a rate of 30km/h. Not the crawl you are making it out to be. As for using the cars speed to escape an accident, if you are driving in 5th gear and an accident happens traveling at 110km/h. The time needed to accelerate to 130km/h or more to avoid it would be longer than the accident actually happening. Way more people would be killed by excessive speeding, than would be saved by it.

Black EX-R6 · 11-08-2004, 15:57

Bladexr8.....more nonsensical argument for the pro side of speed limiting.

dave_au · 11-08-2004, 15:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by bladeXR8

6. Will mean less revenue for Bracks' speed cameras...

Which is exactly why it would never happen anyway. I can't see governments introducing legislation that would actually lower their revenue flows from TIN activities.

gsw · 11-08-2004, 15:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by Casper

Speed limiting cars is bad as it:
1. Is an expense that would have to be carried by the purchaser
2. Is pointless as it only looks at an extreame minority of fatalities
3. Does not address the major issues of fatigue and inexperiance
4. Will have virtually no effect on the road toll..thereby being another knee jerk reaction that is aimed at votes not saftey
5. will actually, in some cases, expose drivers to greater danger such as overtaking trucks and being exposed to oncoming traffic for a greater period of time

Theres just a few.

Sorry I would have to disagree.
1. It's an ECU program, it would not cost anymore to write than the program for any car.
2. Even if it is a minority it will add up over years and save the idiots from themselves as well as other people who get caught up with these idiots.
3. No it doesn’t but that falls into a different catagory, driver education.
4. But it will save lives even if it is a few.
5. How ? I have never had to go higher than the speed limit to get out of danger. A limit of 130km should be more than enough to get a person out of danger.

biomechanic · 11-08-2004, 15:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by ianmcginley

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.

Yes you make excellent points :) My suggestion obviously isn't the be all and end all to eliminating accidents, it's just one small part of a greater solution that should definitely incorporate education - education being the #1 priority. Ideas being discussed here need to have a long term focus, with an emphasis on discussion between vehicle manufacturers, government, and user groups.

dave_au · 11-08-2004, 16:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by Black EX-R6

Yes, it looks at extremem minorities. But these people are killing their fare share of humans. Are they not worth saving?

No, I believe in Utilitarianism, the greatest good for the greatest number of people. This however, is placing a burden on the majority of the community due to the actions of a few. Sure, it sounds selfish, but think about it on the bigger scheme of things - should all (insert point/person/lifestyle here) be banned/limited just because a very small minority does (insert other negative point here). Its unequitable and unjust.

Quote:

As for using the cars speed to escape an accident, if you are driving in 5th gear and an accident happens traveling at 110km/h. The time needed to accelerate to 130km/h or more to avoid it would be longer than the accident actually happening.

When i'm not driving an auto, I certainly won't overtake using 5th ! I also don't concern myself too much with what my speedo reads while I find myself in this position. I do my overtaking at about 10-15km/h above the speed limit. Fact - the longer you on the wrong side of the road, the longer you are in danger.