Speed limiter

[MikeGMT]

Originally Posted by ThomasG

Appropriate use of speed requires thinking, which authorities don't like. And there's no "golden rule" to govern it, which authorities love..

Not happening.

Golden Rule. 'Always be able to stop on your own side of the road in the distance you can see to be clear'. Now link that to speed. If you can't stop in the distance you can see to be clear then you are travelling too fast, wether it be 10mph or 100mph. As you say it requires 'thinking'. Something that is sadly missing in a lot of cases.

[S60RDesign]

Originally Posted by Whippy

If you don't agree with Volvo, it appears that your just out of luck.

https://www.evo.co.uk/news/22326/man...in-three-years

I hope if we actually leave the EU this means we're exempt, but I despair for the future of driving. You can see the way technology will be used to completely kill driving pleasure. To me the biggest issue isn't speed but most people have no interest in driving so they drive accordingly poorly.

[MikeGMT]

Originally Posted by Whippy

If you don't agree with Volvo, it appears that your just out of luck.

https://www.evo.co.uk/news/22326/man...in-three-years

Originally Posted by S60RDesign

I hope if we actually leave the EU this means we're exempt, but I despair for the future of driving. You can see the way technology will be used to completely kill driving pleasure. To me the biggest issue isn't speed but most people have no interest in driving so they drive accordingly poorly.

And then you read to the bottom of the link, and low and behold, in a article about speed limiting cars.

Experience the thrill of driving every month with evo magazine, devoted exclusively to the greatest performance cars in the world. If you're passionate about performance cars then evo is your ultimate monthly

Dinosaurs in the not too distant future.

[Whippy]

Originally Posted by MikeGMT

And then you read to the bottom of the link, and low and behold, in a article about speed limiting cars.



Dinosaurs in the not too distant future.

The irony meter went to eleven, then blew.

[MikeGMT]

Originally Posted by Whippy

The irony meter went to eleven, then blew.

Oh indeed, think I'll save my £5 subscription.

[biggbn]

Originally Posted by S60RDesign

I hope if we actually leave the EU this means we're exempt, but I despair for the future of driving. You can see the way technology will be used to completely kill driving pleasure. To me the biggest issue isn't speed but most people have no interest in driving so they drive accordingly poorly.

I have just driven to work in foul conditions on a winding A road , briskly, but never above 60mph. I love my cars handling, it's poise, it's feel. Speed does not interest me. I have driven at over 150mph when I was young and stupid, then I realised I would like to be given the opportunity to be old and stupid One day...im getting there...at 55/60mph....

[id5]

Originally Posted by biggbn

Any answers for this? Top speed is just a Willy waving exercise for bar room boasting. For what its worth am no fan of politicians but would have no problem with their vehicles, emergency services, doctors etc.. being exempt from restrictions for obvious reasons

It's not willy waving, about a third of all people breaking the speed limit are women.

If the aim really was to reduce deaths then they would ban motorcycles and pedal cycles as they cause more road deaths and injuries than anything else. But that doesn't align with the anti-speed story that they are trying to promote.

Look behind the curtain. Ask yourself why they want to sell this story. What tax could be gained by prompting all manufacturers to fit black boxes into cars. What tax will governments not be able to collect when cars are electric.

Lambs to the financial slaughter, every time.

[biggbn]

Originally Posted by id5

It's not willy waving, about a third of all people breaking the speed limit are women.

If the aim really was to reduce deaths then they would ban motorcycles and pedal cycles as they cause more road deaths and injuries than anything else. But that doesn't align with the anti-speed story that they are trying to promote.

Look behind the curtain. Ask yourself why they want to sell this story. What tax could be gained by prompting all manufacturers to fit black boxes into cars. What tax will governments not be able to collect when cars are electric.

Lambs to the financial slaughter, every time.

Now, Willy waving is only an expression but you know that. I do not necessarily believe this move would save lives...i am just asking the question, why do cars need to be able too double our limit and more?

Think of the collective fuel saving, for instance,,if they were limited to 70mph? With today's Tech cars could be limited by using sat navs to whatever the limit is in the area where they are operating.

Incidentally the argument that this does not cover driving too quickly for the conditions is perfectly valid, but then this is a problem with or without limiters surely?


If anyone can give me a good, logical reason why the speed of a car should be left up to its operator and the car should have the temptation of doubling the speed limit i retain an open mind...its just I can't think of any

[m0bzy]

HGV's have been fitted with limiters for years, that is why they are never involved in accidents.!!!!!
When limiters were introduced I left the industry,I found it a very frightening experience.

[biggbn]

Originally Posted by m0bzy

HGV's have been fitted with limiters for years, that is why they are never involved in accidents.!!!!!
When limiters were introduced I left the industry,I found it a very frightening experience.

Again am not sure if everyone is deliberately misunderstanding my question. Whether it would save lives of not, and that is debatable, why do cars need to retain the ability to allow their drivers to break the law?