 | |
Should all new cars have electronic speed limiters?
Miscellaneous UK car topics Other UK car topics (uk.rec.cars.misc)
 |
| | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
#111
 
| |||
| |||
|
Re: Should all new cars have electronic speed limiters? -
05-13-2007
, 06:53 AM
|
In article <3eq143d7c4487pdo13jdghr0vrr7g3156s (AT) 4ax (DOT) com>, Ed Chilada says... On Mon, 7 May 2007 20:28:51 +0100, Conor <conor.turton (AT) gmail (DOT) com wrote: In article <08iu33117jbarel9plkbn3i1av0rn0d4vu (AT) 4ax (DOT) com>, Ed Chilada says... On Sun, 6 May 2007 14:58:02 +0100, "Sla#s" <phil (AT) KNOTslatts (DOT) net wrote: Not in my experience - cruise control keeps the MPG higher. What's this research ("has been shown"), you're referring to? Try the Top Gear programme where J Clarkson takes an Audi A8 from London to Edinburgh and gets better MPG than the cruise control. Yes I recall that, but surely it's hardly scientific unless he did the exact same journey twice? What other method do you suggest other than driving and measuring the MPG with and without? |
validated data as opposed to a piece of theatre done for TV ?
Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore
#112
| |||
| |||
|
|
I don't think so, but sure, I appreciate that some of the petrol saving effect of CC is how it modifies your driving patterns to maintain more constant speeds. |
Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore
#113
| |||
| |||
|
|
Conor wrote: In article <3eq143d7c4487pdo13jdghr0vrr7g3156s (AT) 4ax (DOT) com>, Ed Chilada says... On Mon, 7 May 2007 20:28:51 +0100, Conor <conor.turton (AT) gmail (DOT) com wrote: And when you consider that the stretch the CC was on was the one that would return higher MPG because it was a fairly even motorway as compared to twisty A roads, it is more than relevent. IME cruise is heavier on the throttle on inclines as it insists on trying to keep a speed absolutely steady. Drivers, if being careful, tend to allow a little deceleration uphill, |
output of the engine is doing necessary work.
Within reason it's hard to see the problem here.
Quote:
|
whilst enjoying a higher speed "for free" downhill. |
work [a higher proportion of the engines mechanical work] on the
atmosphere'. Better to cut the engine, coast down, and loose a minimum
of engine power to the atmosphere.
Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore
#114
| |||
| |||
|
|
On Sun, 06 May 2007 18:04:24 -0500, Tunku stuartggray-nospam (AT) dsl (DOT) pipex.com> wrote: Why should my car be limited to 150km/hr when I can legally drive at 240km/h? Because speed kills, apparently. I've never been sure quite what it kills, except for the insects on my visor or windscreen, but more learned men than me have stated it as fact, so it must be true, like man-made global warming. The point is that any given accident is going to be worse when the speed is higher. The faster the speed, the bigger the mess, as this chilling ad puts it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZOODBmM2Zc |
is, should society
a) treat each of us like idiots and micro-manage every action the
driver takes,
or
b) train drivers to drive in ways that are appropriate to the
circumstances in which they find themselves ?
I know which kind of world I'd rather live in, and could rather bring
myself to resist the former.
Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore
#115
| |||
| |||
|
|
Ed Chilada (nospam (AT) nospam (DOT) com) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying : 1. The speeds shown in that ad looked to be within NSL. 2. The crash wasn't caused by excessive speed. It was caused solely by the overtaking driver swerving to avoid an animal. The manouvre wasn't exactly sensible in the first place - especially with the oncoming car - but it was the unnecessary swerve which was the primary cause. |
primary cause to the systemic context in which the event occurred.
In the case of road accidents,
driver training,
road design and layout,
surface quality,
road conditions, wet / frost etc,
policing strategies,
car maintenance levels,
and even
peer groups and societal norms
all play a part.
The point is, it's not too sensible to try and make an accident the
fault of an individual when other people and circumstances co-cause or
facilitate the process.
Your wording "It was caused solely by..." suggests that you've totally
missed the point.
Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore
#116
| |||
| |||
|
|
The faster the speed, the bigger the mess, as this chilling ad puts it. |
wetting yourself because an Asteroid might plough into the earth?
I've seen film of that happening as well.
#117
| |||
| |||
|
|
Couple of slight drawbacks with using that in this context... |
#118
| |||
| |||
|
|
Your wording "It was caused solely by..." suggests that you've totally missed the point. |
fine if the fuckwit hadn't tried to swerve to miss the animal.
#119
| |||
| |||
|
|
In message <3a11$46442033$3e18e6cb$11976 (AT) news (DOT) vispa.com>, Richard Polhill <richard.news (AT) polhill (DOT) vispa.invalid> writes Conor wrote: In article <3eq143d7c4487pdo13jdghr0vrr7g3156s (AT) 4ax (DOT) com>, Ed Chilada says... On Mon, 7 May 2007 20:28:51 +0100, Conor <conor.turton (AT) gmail (DOT) com wrote: And when you consider that the stretch the CC was on was the one that would return higher MPG because it was a fairly even motorway as compared to twisty A roads, it is more than relevent. IME cruise is heavier on the throttle on inclines as it insists on trying to keep a speed absolutely steady. Drivers, if being careful, tend to allow a little deceleration uphill, Hmmm... Going up hill is when the biggest proportion of the mechanical output of the engine is doing necessary work. Within reason it's hard to see the problem here. |
more variance would make for lower MPG, but I can't prove it. yet.
Quote:
|
whilst enjoying a higher speed "for free" downhill. But it's not 'for free'. If you speed up, you'll probably just 'do more work [a higher proportion of the engines mechanical work] on the atmosphere'. Better to cut the engine, coast down, and loose a minimum of engine power to the atmosphere. |
the engine to overrun, which will cut the fuel to *zero*. If you are driving
well manually, you can allow that spped to be kept for the next incline with
very light throttle, whereas the cruise will let the stored energy bleed off
and then have to work harder to get up the next hill.
#120
| |||||||
| |||||||
|
|
In message <fia1h4-eh4.ln1 (AT) sirius (DOT) tg00suus7038.net>, The Ghost In The Machine <ewill (AT) sirius (DOT) tg00suus7038.net> writes In sci.environment, Sla#s phil (AT) KNOTslatts (DOT) net wrote on Sun, 6 May 2007 14:58:02 +0100 f1kn43$2e6b$2 (AT) energise (DOT) enta.net>: alexterrell wrote: Should all new cars have electronic speed limiters? Something like: All new cars sold in the UK / Europe must either: 1. Be electronically limited to travel at no more than 140 / 150km/hr 2. Be fitted with a GPS based speed limited limiting its speed to 15km/ hr above the prevailing speed limit. Almost everyone's first reaction to this idea is strongly negative. But is seems most of the arguments against are emotional. What are the rationale arguments against? Method 2 above would still allow people to travel at higher speeds on German Autobahns and on racing tracks. Method 1 would be very cheap to implement. Some cars (e.g. Police Cars) could be exempt The advantages would be: 1. Fewer deaths caused by high speed accidents Un-proven assumption. Speed does not equal death. It is inappropriate speed that is dangerous. Correct. The speed limiters would respond to local transponders, which would effectively tell the car to slow down around such things as curves. The transponders would also be hooked to law enforcement officials and weather systems. Backup monitors would also be hooked to the former, so that a cruiser can be dispatched to deal with the offending automobile, which obviously doesn't have a working limiter under certain observation patterns. I think most drivers would feel this to be excessive micro-management. |
to also be excessive micro-management.
Quote:
| Electric cars are not the most efficient. That might go to a Stirling engine. I'm not convinced unless so have some very good on board use for low grade heat ? |
and I'm not sure how "low grade" one is discussing here. Most likely
the heat will simply be rejected to the car following. :-)
Quote:
|
What give you the idea these would be efficient in an automotive context ? |
apprehension that they were more efficient than the current
reciprocating piston affair.
Quote:
| I'm hoping for a continously variable transmission at some point, which would eliminate the need for batteries in a post-hybrid car. Hmmm... Sounds more like the variable speed drive systems that are probably already in hybrid cars. |
understanding that many hybrid cars use electric drive. Electric
motors need no tranny. :-)
Quote:
| People are more likely to be persuaded to go carbon neutral by education than by force. There are some problems with education, as it's based on trust. There are also a lot of problems with institutional mistrust. How do we know they're not trying something? For all we know it's a gigantic conspiracy for those in the environmental movement to deny everyone their rightful dollop of fuel, as opposed to any concern regarding increased average global temperatures, weather instability, food losses, etc. Maybe you should learn some environmental science then ? |
precisely what we can do about it. (Never mind whether it's
human-caused. It's happening. Can we cool the Earth back to a
comfortable level?)
Quote:
| I would hope otherwise, but someone will bring that up -- in fact, many oil companies apparently shill to indicate that AGW is a hoax, much like the Holocaust or the moon landings. (In another corner, "astroturfing" is frequently claimed to "prove" Microsoft Windows is cheaper than Linux. Similar psychology.) ? |
[1] The Holocaust is routinely denied. Apparently it's a combination
of what some consider over-rich Jewish bankers, and general
frustration.
[2] The "Moon Hoax" looks much the same as Holocaust denial, though
of more recent vintage.
[3] A fair number of astroturfers -- or trolls --
wander into comp.os.linux.advocacy and indicate that
Windows is better than Linux. It is better in one
thing: revenue for Microsoft. The reasons are many.
Quote:
|
Cheers, J/. |
--
#191, ewill3 (AT) earthlink (DOT) net
Useless C++ Programming Idea #10239993:
char * f(char *p) {char *q = malloc(strlen(p)); strcpy(q,p); return q; }
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
« Previous Thread
|
Next Thread »
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
Linear Mode
| |
Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.