Limiting cars top speed. Arguments for and against - Page 7 - Ford Forums

Mr Sparkle · 11-08-2004, 17:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Black EX-R6

Speed limiting cars would only affect those people who lack the social responsibility. Everyone else wouldnt drive above the 130km/h limit i proposed and therefore wouldnt be affected.

I'm sorry but that is the most naive thing I have read in this thread.

Casper · 11-08-2004, 17:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Black EX-R6

Nope none at all, but there is proof it will reduce excessive speed related deaths, injuries, and insurance payouts.

Considering that the VAST majority of deaths claimed on "excessive speed" occur under 130kph (doing 90kph in a 40 zone is excessive speed in my books) then I challenge your statement. It wont do jack for the road toll, injuries or insurance payouts.

Black EX-R6 · 11-08-2004, 17:40

Fair enough. People can still speed excessively under normal slower speed limits. But not at such higher speeds.

90km/h in a 40 zone etc is still a 90km impact. Not 130+. you can not argue you have more chance surviving a 90km/h crash than a 130km/h plus crash. Maybe it wont have a huge impact on the road toll. But i can think of atleast 14 people who would be alive today if it were not for speeds over 130+km/h. To you these people are acceptable deaths so you can fell like you are free.

bladeXR8 · 11-08-2004, 17:42

I said:

Quote:
Let's assume we go with the idea of speed limiting vehicles to 130 km/h. Is there any proof that quantifies that this will reduce speed related deaths?

You said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Black EX-R6

Nope none at all, but there is proof it will reduce excessive speed related deaths, injuries, and insurance payouts.

I'm sorry, I don't follow your logic... If you can't quantify something you have no proof...

Black EX-R6 · 11-08-2004, 17:44

Quote:

I'm sorry but that is the most naive thing I have read in this thread.

How so mr sparkle?

It would stop those people from speeding in excess of 130km/h which is the point of limiting cars to 130km/h. Sure some would still manage it via modifying their cars, but another percentage would not have the technical know how to modify their car and would be stuck with the 130km/h limit. Sure, they could buy an older car and speed away. But what I am saying is start phasing out older cars non speed limited by making speed limited cars from factories.

How is this naiive?

donno · 11-08-2004, 17:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by Black EX-R6

From my understanding, trucks were never actually limtied to 100km/h. They has a unit installed that measured their speed and if they went over it they got in trouble from thier employer or the rta or something.

I'm pretty sure they had hard limiters installed. The story come up every 6 moths or so on current affairs shows of them being tinkered with.

Also with my situation before, can you see anyway how a 130kmh limiter would have kept me safe? I certainly can't, only it could have gotten me killed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Black EX-R6

There will always be the idiots out there that modify their car to go faster than the limiter. That will always be the case no matter what the solution is. But part of the law change should be if a car is found to have its limiter disabled they can have their car impounded indefinately.

But what if they cause the accident before they get impounded? What if they never get caught? I've had mates at home who in their younger stupider days often travelled at 160 for a period of over a year, and never got caught on even on major highways.

Black EX-R6 · 11-08-2004, 17:47

Quote:

I'm sorry, I don't follow your logic... If you can't quantify something you have no proof...

I said excessive speed. Tims friends were killed due to excessive speeds over 130km/h. I readily recall hearing about many other car accidents were people were killed due to excessive speed above 130km/h. One was in gorokan, 4 killed, another was in southern highlands, again 4 killed, Tims friends, 3 killed. How many need to be killed in this way for you to accept there are deaths happening due to excessive speeding above 130km/h.

Casper · 11-08-2004, 17:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by Black EX-R6

Fair enough. People can still speed excessively under normal slower speed limits. But not at such higher speeds.

90km/h in a 40 zone etc is still a 90km impact. Not 130+. you can not argue you have more chance surviving a 90km/h crash than a 130km/h plus crash. Maybe it wont have a huge impact on the road toll. But i can think of atleast 14 people who would be alive today if it were not for speeds over 130+km/h. To you these people are acceptable deaths so you can fell like you are free.

Those people that chose to travel faster than 130kph in an inappropriate place made their own decisions.
No death is acceptabel HOWEVER, the death of these people, making their own decisons, should not be used to force the million or more drivers on the road today to have their rights compromised. Regardless of if they travel over 130kph or not, why should they be punished for others failings?

As someone said, we better limit everything if that is the case. Where does it stop? More importantly, where is the proof that it would be worth the cost, the loss of personal liberty and the eventual death of the local car manufacturers.
Death of the manufactures? You bet. They will be the only ones that have to do it as there is no way someone like MB or BMW are going to do it. Eventually the performance car group will head to imports and, with that, the "image group" of the manufactures will die. At that point, with falling sales, the local manufatureing will simply be stopped and all Fords and GM's will be imported. Nothing like killing of a few thousand jobs for the sake of a few. Wonder if the suicide rate caused by economic hardship will be more or less than the deaths caused by speeds in excess of 130kph??

Black EX-R6 · 11-08-2004, 17:52

Quote:

I'm pretty sure they had hard limiters installed. The story come up every 6 moths or so on current affairs shows of them being tinkered with.

Well, that is a policing problem. There is absolutely no point reducing the speed of trucks/cars if the police and rta are not going to vigilantly police it. They may as well not bother in the first place.

Quote:

Also with my situation before, can you see anyway how a 130kmh limiter would have kept me safe? I certainly can't, only it could have gotten me killed.

Fair enough it got you out of trouble. To that though I would say the limiting of cars would save more lives from reckless driving than would be lost by your situation. Furthermore the losses by your situation could be avoided somewhat by education.

Quote:

But what if they cause the accident before they get impounded? What if they never get caught? I've had mates at home who in their younger stupider days often travelled at 160 for a period of over a year, and never got caught on even on major highways.

If they cause accident prior to being caught then they can expect higher criminal charge to go with it. Your mates are lucky, this comes down to policing the policies again. If rules are not policed, they may as well not exist.

XRated · 11-08-2004, 17:54

You keep questioning the pros as to why people don't want to be totally controlled by the government, but I don't see many coming from your side of the argument.

States in the US, Italy (130-150km/h), China (110-120km/h), UK and Germany to name a few have increased speed limits in the past decade (or less) and have not had any increase in the number of fatalities. Rather a decrease.

Quote:

Originally Posted by http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/departments/nrd-30/ncsa/

When the US Congress allowed states to increase their maximum speed limits in December 1995, the insurance/safety lobby protested that these moves would result in horrific carnage -- 6,400 more fatalities each year (a 15% increase). Actual fatalities and injuries fell, despite significant increases in total miles travelled and small increases in average speeds!

Not to mention a decrease in the cost of insurance.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Times (02/09/2003)

IN A novel road safety measure Italy aims to raise the speed limit on some motorways to 93mph (YES, that's 150km/h), despite having one of Europe’s worst records for accidents. The transport ministry says higher speeds improve traffic flow and help motorists pay attention.

“All psychologists and doctors say people who go faster drive better and are more careful,” said the transport minister Pietro Lunardi. Only 9% of fatal accidents were caused by speeding, he noted. “Where it is safe to go faster, it is the right thing to do.”

I'm getting quite disturbed at the amount of the Australian public that believe everything the government and media tells us. Doesn't anyone care to get facts and figures first? How about using a common-sense approach? Look at the underlying problems first. Are we the only country NOT thinking for ourselves?