 | |
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 |
#11
 
| |||
| |||
|
Re: Should all new cars have electronic speed limiters? -
05-06-2007
, 02:31 PM
#12
| |||||
| |||||
|
|
The Ghost In The Machine wrote: SNIP>>>> 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. Think that one through - Very dangerous unless all vehicles have it fitted. |
and on at least one stretch of roadway -- it was a 4-lane affair -- it
led to some "blockages" (not major ones) as some people drove at the
speed limit, and some drove over it.
On 2-lanes it would be even worse. Even 6-lane affairs had problems.
Quote:
|
SNIP The speed limit would be 55 mph uniformly in the US (88.5 or so kph in the EU, though it might be lowered to 85 or even 80). There is precedent here -- and it worked for awhile, though it annoyed the hell out of the citizenry. :-) 55 is a very inefficient speed for most European vehicles - particularly heavy goods ones. |
Quote:
|
SNIP 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. 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. If you can explain how mankind is causing Mars and Pluto to warm up, then I will believe that mankind are causing it on Earth. http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...ng_021009.html http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...ge_031208.html |
Quote:
|
Not that I am against being carbon neutral. To clarify - I am against "speed limiters" they are dangerous unless set well above the normal driving speed (i.e the current 150mph+ for most performance cars). But I am all for "automatic pilots" - I would love to be able to get on the motormay at Glasgow and arrive in London 7 hours later with out any input from me! |
would be able to compute various issues such as kitty cats
crossing the road, getting run over, driver loses control
and ploughs into another vehicle to his side, for example.
But at least a human driver might have a fighting chance,
though we do lose 30,000-40,000 people on US highways and
byways every year, many of them because of inattentiveness
(though alcohol does play a role).
Trains also have drivers -- and they're on rails.
Plus, autodriving technology, last I looked, wasn't too bright. Of
course one would retrofit the roads but until all roads are in fact
retrofitted things get very interesting at the transitions.
Quote:
| Slatts |
--
#191, ewill3 (AT) earthlink (DOT) net
Linux. Because it's not the desktop that's
important, it's the ability to DO something
with it.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
#13
| |||
| |||
|
|
Trains also have drivers -- and they're on rails. |
Chris
--
Remove prejudice to reply.
#14
| |||
| |||
|
|
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? |
240km/h?
#15
| |||
| |||
|
|
Why should my car be limited to 150km/hr when I can legally drive at 240km/h? |
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.
--
Tunku
"Caution : traces of irony and other metallic objects may be present in the
above post"
#16
| |||
| |||
|
|
The Ghost In The Machine wrote: SNIP>>>> 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. Think that one through - Very dangerous unless all vehicles have it fitted. Why? People currently are capable of slowing down when they come across |
Quote:
|
SNIP The speed limit would be 55 mph uniformly in the US (88.5 or so kph in the EU, though it might be lowered to 85 or even 80). There is precedent here -- and it worked for awhile, though it annoyed the hell out of the citizenry. :-) 55 is a very inefficient speed for most European vehicles - particularly heavy goods ones. I suggest you don't post about HGVs because you obviously know jack |
Quote:
|
To clarify - I am against "speed limiters" they are dangerous unless set well above the normal driving speed |
HGVs have had speed limiters mandatorily fitted for nearly a decade and
a half. HGVs have the lowest accidents per km by road user type.
Explain.
--
Conor
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright
until you hear them speak.........
#17
| |||
| |||
|
|
In article <f1l437$4bv$1 (AT) energise (DOT) enta.net>, Sla#s says... The Ghost In The Machine wrote: To clarify - I am against "speed limiters" they are dangerous unless set well above the normal driving speed Really? HGVs have had speed limiters mandatorily fitted for nearly a decade and a half. HGVs have the lowest accidents per km by road user type. Explain. |
Unless Maureen in the canteen has extra eggs on the go the fuckers just want
to spend all day seeing whos speed limiter is 0.000001 mph faster than
everyone elses.
Put it all back on the rail network and use 7.5 tonners for distribution.
--
Pete M - Using the Scouse Side of the Force -
Golf GTi Mk2 2.0 8v
Wood and Pickett Range Rover V8 Turbo
Golf GTi Mk1 (For Sale)
OMF#9
Currently listening to The White Stripes
#18
| |||
| |||
|
|
%steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote in news:1hxpu9s.1ga30emmyr615N%% steve%@malloc.co.uk: 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. |
#19
| |||
| |||
|
#20
| |||
| |||
|
|
Should all new cars have electronic speed limiters? |
Hope that's cleared that up for you.
--
Ian D
|
« 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.