Limiting cars top speed. Arguments for and against - Page 8 - Ford Forums

sourbastard · 11-08-2004, 17:54

Speed limiting a car at 130kmh is pointless, in a school zone you can still cause plenty of damage at 130kmh, and anywhere else in most major cities.

Zoned/Mapped Speed limiting through GPS systems are in the works, there is a company trying to do just this in Melbourne, and the biggest problem they have encountered is the fact that roads are built faster then the mapping systems can keep up to date. If you dont believe it, purchase a new UBD/Melways/Whatever and then travel to a new housing estate. Even the online versions such as whereis.com.au suffer from this problem, they just cant be updated fast enough. Consider how often speed limits change and throw that into the pot. I'd be pissed if i was driving down a 100 signed highway at 80 because the map speeds werent up to date.

Now lets throw in some more variables, the wireless communication medium to set this up nationwide will be astronimic in size and cost, not to mention high maintainence, and there is no way around it, if you have a central cluster server(and a f**king big one at that) you need to communicate with it for updated mapping(when it happens), if you have a stand alone map in the car, when you travel outside of the map, you are outside of the rules. You would need to download updates at regular intervals, great! one more thing i need to remember. Lets also remember that this no doubt will be a subscription service, built into our already high registration costs. Noones going to build this system out of the goodness of their heart.

If you want to make speed limits inside a specific radial zone from the CBD, thats fine, but if its under 100 you wont be travelling down any highways inside the city at the right speed, make it 100 and you can still cause plenty of damaged in that before mentioned school zone.

Also consider, collisions do not always occur with stationary objects, often they include moving objects, when you consider impact speeds combined, a speed limiter is pointless. At 60 if you hit an oncomming car, you have a combined impact speed of 120. Consider accident geometry(Angular collisions) has a large amount to do with spinal injuries/head injuries, which often lead to death, this is why we see racing professionals wearing the Hanns Device which limits head movement both forward and back and to a certain degree sideways. In such cases your speed limiter would have remained very inert, and would not have done a thing for those in the car(s). At 130 & 60 at a combined impact speed of 190, everyones dead, so lets go home. At 260 not only is everyone dead but parts of the car are raining on the neighbourhood.

If you want to save people on the roads, and of course we all do, then it is better to address the problems we can solve today, with todays technology, without spending more then the accidents themselves cost yearly.

You want improved safety on the roads for collisions, consider why sports cars sell better then cars that promote safety as their primary feature. How many volvo's are sold, how many monaro's and xr6's and 8's were sold. The car industry here and in the US considers safety a cost that can be kept down to market a car at a cheaper price. Not everyone drives an F6 with all those comfy nosebreaking airbags, joe average and his litter of children drives a standard VT/AU/Magna/Camry because its what he could afford. They are the demographic that should concern us, as they are the majority, and as such are most at risk of being ill educated on the road, and not driving cars built around safety first. Speed limiting is not a factor of safety as its relative to the area you drive in, and other methods have as yet proved hard to maintain and not cost effecient.

Now lets throw in some points; inattentive driving, through whatever reasons, fatigue, stupidity, mobile phones, children screaming, whatever, is the leading cause of road fatality. These are all problems with WHO steering the car, not the CAR itself.

Cost vs benefit vs Implementation, your idea does not hold enough merit to implement due to cost and technology restraints, compared to increasing the safety inside the cars themselves through better(and current) engineering and better education of the often faulty software that is behind the wheel with their foot on the pedal.

Black EX-R6 · 11-08-2004, 17:58

Quote:

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?

You show me where in our constitution or anywhere for that matter that it states it is your right to drive over the speed limits. Or over 130km/h. Or at 200km/h on our public roads? What about the people who choose to speed over 130km/h in inapropriate areas that kill your mother, sister, brother, father, friend etc. did they choose to die at the hands of a maniac driver?

Quote:

eventual death of the local car manufacturers.

How would it be the death of local car manufacturers. It would be law that all new cars on roads be limited the same. Imports AND local produce. Cars already have to conform to australian standards. Making the 130km/h limiter part of the australian standards would mean BMW etc would have to modify them if they want to sell cars here.

JG33PY · 11-08-2004, 18:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Black EX-R6

Casper: This IS a debate on limiting cars. Nothing more.

Nak302: If the truck is doing 120 then you dont need to overtake at all do you?

i do if i live in the NT. some of you interstate folk will never understand the logic of open speed limits.
have YOU ever overtaken something WITHOUT exceeding the speed limit? think about it.

Casper · 11-08-2004, 18:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Black EX-R6

You show me where in our constitution or anywhere for that matter that it states it is your right to drive over the speed limits. Or over 130km/h. Or at 200km/h on our public roads? What about the people who choose to speed over 130km/h in inapropriate areas that kill your mother, sister, brother, father, friend etc. did they choose to die at the hands of a maniac driver?

People dont choose to die in plane crashes either. It is unavoidable but, if the pilot is responsible and makes a mistake or the groundcrew are incompetent and cause the failure through stupidity, should the entire airline industry be punished and forced to impliment proceedures that cost money and hamper their business that has no proven reason and will, for the majority of cases, have absolutely no impact on the safety of passengers?
And can you show me somewhere in our constitution that allows for minority to dictate to the majority? Thats what you are trying to support. Basically, just one step closer to a government controlled state.....communism.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Black EX-R6

How would it be the death of local car manufacturers. It would be law that all new cars on roads be limited the same. Imports AND local produce. Cars already have to conform to australian standards. Making the 130km/h limiter part of the australian standards would mean BMW etc would have to modify them if they want to sell cars here.

Yeah, right. Goodbye imports. Fact is that if MB or BMW or any other company see that the costs of trying to remain competative in Aust are too high they will simply pull out. Aust is an automotive backwater. They simply will not do it. That leaves 2 choices. Allow them not to and keep all the jobs they create at the expense of the local manufactures or tell them to shove it. Either way, your looking at massive job losses across the board.

donno · 11-08-2004, 18:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Black EX-R6

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.

Has speed camera's stopped people speeding? Once people drive past a highway patrol or speed camera, they just speed up again. What else are they going to do? Strap it to a dyno on the side of a road?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Black EX-R6

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.

So effectively sacrificing someones life who does the right thing to save the life of one whom doesn't is just? Yes I agree, education is the key. Instead of spending millions researching and producing limiters, why not put it into education and attack a larger range of issues?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Black EX-R6

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.

Well if they caused an accident at 160kmh I doubt they'd be alive to have the stiffer penalties enforced on them. And again, see my first reply to policing.

Black EX-R6 · 11-08-2004, 18:13

I never said top speed limiting cars was THE answer. I said it was part of the answer. It will not affect local zones as much. But will to an extent. It will lower the road deaths for those cases that involve higher speeds. That is all.

I agree with what sourbastard said mostly. The solution is a many facited solution. No quick fix. Education is high in the list. But then you will have people who think they are great drivers until an accident happens and they have not the skill to avoid it. For every argument there is the flip side.

Zoned/mapped speed limiting is very cost prohibitative. And is hard to maintain the correct speeds.

Making cars safer is a great start, it has been happening for years and the road toll keeps increasing.

Who is steering the car will always be a problem. No amount of education/limiting etc will ever accomodate the negligence of some.

My 130km/h idea is not a solution to fatigue. Not a solution to 40km zones, not a solution to alcohol and drug related accidents. It is a solution for reckless high speed driving on our roads. That is all I ever siad it was. It is part of a broad picture.

Currently we can drive at 180km/h or 210km/h or whatever the limitation is. WHY? our roads maximum speed is limited to 110km/h on freeways. Exempting certain bush roads that are unsignposted. but these roads are not a licence to speed over 130km/h anyway. This is my argument.

Whilst car manufacturers continue being able to make cars top speed double what is legally driveable on public roads people will continue to drive them at double the top speed limit.

bladeXR8 · 11-08-2004, 18:15

Funnily enough it seems that some users of a car enthusiasts site object to having speed limits placed on their cars. Big surprise!

Just out of interest BLACK-EXR6, if you do indeed drive an AU XR6 (going by your username and avatar) isn't it quite capable of exceeding 130 km/h by a considerable margin? And I also assume you have never exceeded 130 km/h because that would be socially irresponsible and if you have your way, illegal. Why not trade in the XR6 and get a "sporty" little Toyota Prius or Echo fart cannon? Likely to fall apart at 130 km/h and economical as well...

donno · 11-08-2004, 18:16

You would have to be a dead set dickhead to drive at 180kmh, so wouldn't you think those guys would be the sort whom would remove the limiters?

Black EX-R6 · 11-08-2004, 18:18

Quote:

And can you show me somewhere in our constitution that allows for minority to dictate to the majority?

Yep. its called government. We elect em on their policies. They implement policies.

Quote:

Yeah, right. Goodbye imports. Fact is that if MB or BMW or any other company see that the costs of trying to remain competative in Aust are too high they will simply pull out. Aust is an automotive backwater. They simply will not do it. That leaves 2 choices. Allow them not to and keep all the jobs they create at the expense of the local manufactures or tell them to shove it. Either way, your looking at massive job losses across the board.

The cost will not be so high they can not be competative. As all car manufacturers would have the same cost added on. Hence the same competition. End of that argument.

Casper · 11-08-2004, 18:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Black EX-R6

My 130km/h idea is not a solution to fatigue. Not a solution to 40km zones, not a solution to alcohol and drug related accidents. It is a solution for reckless high speed driving on our roads. That is all I ever siad it was. It is part of a broad picture.

So, at massive cost to civil rights, car manufactures, peoples jobs and major economic flow through effects, your idea may save a few people that actually choose to travel at an inappropriate speed and kill themselves and others? Unless its in an area where 130kph or less is totally inappropriate anyhow...and has nothing in it to stop the real cause of 90%+ of road fatalities? That is of course until the element of people that this is supposed to save work out a way to remove the limiter and do it anyhow.

Yeah, I think I can see logic there....somewhere....

Nope, sorry, cant see it