 | |
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 |
#21
 
| ||||
| ||||
|
Re: Should all new cars have electronic speed limiters? -
05-07-2007
, 07:07 AM
|
alexterrellwrote: 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. On given road types, higher speed is closely correlated with accident |
Quote:
|
2. Lower emissions and fuel usage Un-proven - in fact the reverse has been shown as cruise controls use more fuel. I tried measuring fuel consumption of a diesel at different speeds. At |
bad above 90 mph. At about 120mph, it was over double the litres per
100 km of 60mph.
I'm interested in your statement on cruise control. Agreed over hilly
terrain but on a flat motorway steady speed is best?
Quote:
|
3. The promotion of greener vehicles that might not be able to achieve 100 miles per hour (e.g. electric cars will easily match conventional car for acceleration, but not top speed). Electric cars "Dust to Dust" carbon footprint is higher than conventional cars. There was one report showing Prius was worse than a Hummer, but the |
may be worse than an Audi A2 1.2 tdi.
Quote:
|
SNIP People are more likely to be persuaded to go carbon neutral by education than by force. |
on German Autobahns.
#22
| |||
| |||
|
|
In article <f1l437$4b... (AT) energise (DOT) enta.net>, Sla#s says...> 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 vehicles going slower than them. 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 shit about them. It seemed a strange comment to me. 55 mph seems to be a very |
Quote:
|
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. |
help. I've seen comment that they cause bunching. However, setting the
car limit about 10mph above the speed limit might solve that problem.
(Speed cameras cause bunching, especially as most people aren't aware
of the error in their speedometer).
#23
| |||
| |||
|
|
"Sla#s" <p... (AT) KNOTslatts (DOT) net> wrote in message news:f1kn43$2e6b$2 (AT) energise (DOT) enta.net... alexterrellwrote: 3. The promotion of greener vehicles that might not be able to achieve 100 miles per hour (e.g. electric cars will easily match conventional car for acceleration, but not top speed). Electric cars "Dust to Dust" carbon footprint is higher than conventional cars. The majority (57%) of the states electricity comes from coal. Producing 1 kwh of electricity from coal equates to: Water usage (litres): 1.26 Coal burnt (kg): 0.50 Ash emitted (g): 0.31 SO2 emissions (g): 7.91 NOx emissions (g): 3.61 CO2 emissions (kg): 0.89 (figures from Eskom) So based on 57% from coal a full charge of a Tesla EV would be: Water usage (litres): 41.66 Coal burnt (kg): 16.53 Ash emitted (g): 10.25 SO2 emissions (g): 261.5 NOx emissions (g): 119.35 CO2 emissions (kg): 29.42 That's assuming that the remaining 43% of electricity is zero emissions. (Lets face it that won't be true) With a 250 mile range each mile equates to a band F car for VED in CO2 at 188.3g/km and if the range were to drop below 210 miles per recharge then it would be into band G. The lotus Exige S dose 0-60 in 4.1 seconds, 0-100 in 9.98 and tops out at 148mph so slightly faster than the Tesla and fit's nicely into the band F as well.but has a 300 mile range and can be filled up in 10 mins at thousands of stations across the country. So they both burn fossil flues, both produce realistically the same CO2 for the same distance driven, so can someone point out why the one that needs Li-Ion batteries is better fro the environment other than at a very local level? |
100%.
Typical figures show electric vehicles get 10km / KWhr / ton.
Including transmission and charging losses, in the UK, a 1 ton PHEV
would emit about 62g per km. In the USA this would be about 90g. So
not much improvement on the Audi A2 1.2 Tdi, but better than most
cars. And the rest of the emissions are cleaner.
#24
| |||
| |||
|
|
alexterrell<alexterr... (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote: 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? Why should my car be limited to 150km/hr when I can legally drive at 240km/h? |
#25
| |||
| |||
|
|
"alexterrell" <alexterr... (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote in message news:1178458077.894932.151600 (AT) q75g2000hsh (DOT) googlegroups.com... 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. ************************************************** * Any limiter would only be on my car till I got it home. Along with the engine management system? |
#26
| |||
| |||
|
|
"alexterrell" <alexterr... (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote in message news:1178458077.894932.151600 (AT) q75g2000hsh (DOT) googlegroups.com... 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. ************************************************** * Any limiter would only be on my car till I got it home. |
which set the maximum speed, it's my understanding that replacement
chips without such a limit are readily available and are routinely
fitted immediately after purchase, rather like changing the SIM card
in a cell phone!
#27
| |||
| |||
|
|
Why should my car be limited to 150km/hr when I can legally drive at 240km/h? Where is there a 240km/hr speed limit? |
But there are places within the EU where it is legal to drive at 240kph on
the public road.
#28
| |||
| |||
|
|
On 7 May, 01:40, "Iridium" <iridium... (AT) googlemail (DOT) com> wrote: "alexterrell" <alexterr... (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote in message news:1178458077.894932.151600 (AT) q75g2000hsh (DOT) googlegroups.com... 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. ************************************************** * Any limiter would only be on my car till I got it home. Along with the engine management system? |
idea was implemented.
--
Dan
#29
| |||
| |||
|
|
On 6 May, 23:58, %ste... (AT) malloc (DOT) co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote: alexterrell<alexterr... (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote: 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? Why should my car be limited to 150km/hr when I can legally drive at 240km/h? Where is there a 240km/hr speed limit? |
#30
| |||
| |||
|
|
Think that one through - Very dangerous unless all vehicles have it fitted. Why? People currently are capable of slowing down when they come across vehicles going slower than them. Actually, in light of the two stupid twats who rearended lorries this |
--
Conor
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright
until you hear them speak.........
|
« 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.