Speed limiter

[Whippy]

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.

It'll happen. We can all be perfect little euro drones in our perfect little plastic euro milk floats. Also available in beige, for people who like porridge.

[MikeGMT]

Originally Posted by Whippy

It'll happen. We can all be perfect little euro drones in our perfect little plastic euro milk floats. Also available in beige, for people who like porridge.

Couldn't agree more. It's coming. Resistance is futile.
However I love porridge, and will fight tooth and nail to not, as The Big Yin would say, Go Beige. Oh no, no way Hosè.

[id5]

Originally Posted by biggbn

Now, Willy waving is only an expression but you know that
...
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

I do know it is only an expression but why use it unless you were trying to promote the thought that only males with an ego problem need to speed which is simply not true.

Why should the speed of the car not be left to the operator. There are times I like to dawdle and see the scenery. There are others when I do not want to waste unproductive time traveling, and no, there are no direct trains between where I normally am and where I often need to go, nor are there busses. I could get a taxi or a chauffeured limo and work whilst they are driving but not on my budget.

There are areas where speeding should be restricted, such as outside schools when children are moving about but, on a motorway, or good dual carriageway then why not faster. Why not faster at night through certain areas or along certain roads.

[biggbn]

Originally Posted by id5

I do know it is only an expression but why use it unless you were trying to promote the thought that only males with an ego problem need to speed which is simply not true.

Why should the speed of the car not be left to the operator. There are times I like to dawdle and see the scenery. There are others when I do not want to waste unproductive time traveling, and no, there are no direct trains between where I normally am and where I often need to go, nor are there busses. I could get a taxi or a chauffeured limo and work whilst they are driving but not on my budget.

There are areas where speeding should be restricted, such as outside schools when children are moving about but, on a motorway, or good dual carriageway then why not faster. Why not faster at night through certain areas or along certain roads.

Because it's against the law, archaic as that law might be?

My Willy waving analogy was not suggesting only males with an ego speed it was suggesting that essentially a car with a high top speed is just a status symbol, a tangible top trumps game...who cares?

Even for arguments sake, why not limit cars to say, 90mph. This still allows you the frisson of speed and putting two fingers up to the man, but limits the vehicle to a reasonable speed. A lot of what am saying is devils advocacy here but am still waiting on a logical, good reason why cars need to be able breach the speed limits in the country they are sold...?

[ThomasG]

In response to biggbn, mostly..

I think..

The reason no one is answering your question is that (its a guess!) everyone is taking time trying to think up a reason, good reason, to keep the cars unrestricted.
Let's face it- no one likes to be licked up in a cage, no matter how plush and big. A cage is a cage, and a limiter is limiter.

Technically, there is no reason for civilian cars to retain ability to go over the speed limit.
Here. I said it.

It is a very very difficult task to think up a set of circumstances where civilian would genuinely have to go these 100mph or more.

But then, there also is no reason not to improve roads, not to train drivers to better standards, not to raise the national limit.
No reason othervthan greed, of course.
Greed and tendency to covering own asses at the expense and inconvenience of others.

Reading some posts here may bring that feeling that obeying the law universally equals to doing "good" things, to doing things properly.

Tell you what. When I see a system of law applied to a distinct section (make it highway code, property law, employment law and so on) that is just and logical and doesn't cause avoidable losses in any possible circumstances, I'll shave my 00 and smear chilli on them.

Law is made to cover the butts of people who made that law.
Not for your safety.
Not for your convenience.
Not for general good of folk.
Its only because someone "up there" was complained to too much and he/she/they decided to form it in such a way that he/she/they cannot be held responsible if it goes wrong.

[biggbn]

Originally Posted by ThomasG

In response to biggbn, mostly..

I think..

The reason no one is answering your question is that (its a guess!) everyone is taking time trying to think up a reason, good reason, to keep the cars unrestricted.
Let's face it- no one likes to be licked up in a cage, no matter how plush and big. A cage is a cage, and a limiter is limiter.

Technically, there is no reason for civilian cars to retain ability to go over the speed limit.
Here. I said it.

It is a very very difficult task to think up a set of circumstances where civilian would genuinely have to go these 100mph or more.

But then, there also is no reason not to improve roads, not to train drivers to better standards, not to raise the national limit.
No reason othervthan greed, of course.
Greed and tendency to covering own asses at the expense and inconvenience of others.

Reading some posts here may bring that feeling that obeying the law universally equals to doing "good" things, to doing things properly.

Tell you what. When I see a system of law applied to a distinct section (make it highway code, property law, employment law and so on) that is just and logical and doesn't cause avoidable losses in any possible circumstances, I'll shave my 00 and smear chilli on them.

Law is made to cover the butts of people who made that law.
Not for your safety.
Not for your convenience.
Not for general good of folk.
Its only because someone "up there" was complained to too much and he/she/they decided to form it in such a way that he/she/they cannot be held responsible if it goes wrong.

So, in summary...you agree🤔😅

[ThomasG]

With the fact that there is no need to use 100mph speed, on the roads as we have them right now? Yes, I agree. Its a bl.ody suicide.

With the speed limits set as they are, due to state of roads, incompetence of some drivers, and politicians covering for these incompetents and own butts- I do not agree.

With the mentioned politicians NOT doing anything to improve driving standards, to improve roads, instead choosing the "safe" route of limiting the speeds even more- I do not agree.


Its not a progress we're experiencing.

Its a regress.

[biggbn]

Originally Posted by ThomasG

With the fact that there is no need to use 100mph speed, on the roads as we have them right now? Yes, I agree. Its a bl.ody suicide.

With the speed limits set as they are, due to state of roads, incompetence of some drivers, and politicians covering for these incompetents and own butts- I do not agree.

With the mentioned politicians NOT doing anything to improve driving standards, to improve roads, instead choosing the "safe" route of limiting the speeds even more- I do not agree.


Its not a progress we're experiencing.

Its a regress.

But they are not limiting speeds even more, it's a corporate decision and the Volvo limiter is considerably higher than our limit?

[ThomasG]

Then that corporation, whatever the setting on the limiter is, is doing itself a really bad favour.

There is a number of drivers that don't want to think, they just want to get from A to B without engaging a single brain cell. Personally I hate them.
But that's the sort that will welcome limiters, lane assists, self driving cars.. Whatever. Just not to be bothered with thinking.

There's another sort.
Ines that I call "in possession of a brain".
It is my belief that they see that UK gas possibly slowest motorways in Europe.
They see that the limiter is just a tool to achieve other things.
They are likely to either move to different make, or to try and disable the limiter.

In the end, the corporation is likely to loose quite a number of potential clientele.

So I wouldn't think that is a corporate (aka- gain oriented) decision.
Its a political one.

Here's my reasoning.

A pretty " ancient" way of altering a wrong law is to disregard it.
If done by many enough and proper fuss is thrown into it, it simply needs to be corrected.

So how about a stretch of a clear, 4 lane, motorway, that all of a sudden gets imposed 40mph limit?
As yet, one has the ability to go faster and complain about wrong limit being set by highway agency.

And with limiter?

--------------------------

Now.. I don't see the idea of it as something "whole" (this is the point where I may became bit short on proper vocabulary to express what I'm thinking, so I'll try to cut it short)

Its not a thing that was made up for itself, for its own sake.
Its just a piece, a pawn, in much bigger game.

To limit peoples ability to criticise laws.

That's why it is perceived, even if subconsciously, as a set of shackles.
No matter is there actual need to go faster than official limit or not.
And especially, as the official limit may and may not be adequate to road conditions. "Smart" motorways as an example.

With this..
I actually change the stance I worded before.

There IS a need to go faster than limit!
But only when safe to do so, of course

Who do you think will.be in control of settings of that limiter?
I can easily imagine it with ability to be set remotely, even whilst in motion.
Will it be someone concerned with smooth and safe flow of traffic?
Or someone tasked with "make us money!"?
I think smart motorways and highway agency already are showing true colours..

And in there, we end up as these cows, destined to be milked.



Daily.

[GMcL]

I think the 180kph limit is tied in to the move to electric.

They cannot make an electric car comparible with today's petrol or diesel for range and performance so hamstring the opposition to help the switch over.

Most electric cars have a limiter to extend the life of the battery. Battery capacity will get marginally better until a new tech breakthrough.