 | |
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 |
#1
 
| |||
| |||
|
Should all new cars have electronic speed limiters? -
05-06-2007
, 08:27 AM
|
100 miles per hour (e.g. electric cars will easily match conventional car for acceleration, but not top speed). |
The UK Government has no intention of implementing this, believing it
to be a vote loser, though they are building an electronic database of
speed limits. However, it might come in as:
1. A restriction on drivers convicted of speeding offences.
2. A means of getting lower insurance premiums, especially for younger
drivers. (Norwich Union are already restricting hours of driving by
charging £1/mile for young drivers at night).
#2
| |||
| |||
|
|
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 |
#3
| |||
| |||
|
|
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 |
It is inappropriate speed that is dangerous.
Quote:
|
2. Lower emissions and fuel usage |
fuel.
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). |
cars.
<SNIP>
People are more likely to be persuaded to go carbon neutral by education
than
by force.
#4
| |||
| |||
|
|
Should all new cars have electronic speed limiters? The UK Government has no intention of implementing this, believing it to be a vote loser, |
--
Conor
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright
until you hear them speak.........
#5
| |||
| |||
|
|
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 No, what would be the point in a Grand Vitara ? |
Exceptions for under powered cars?
#6
| ||||||
| ||||||
|
|
1. Be electronically limited to travel at no more than 140 / 150km/hr |
There are no speed limits in place in other places in the EU.
Quote:
|
2. Be fitted with a GPS based speed limited limiting its speed to 15km/ hr above the prevailing speed limit. |
is not accurate enough.
Quote:
|
The advantages would be: 1. Fewer deaths caused by high speed accidents |
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). |
is range and refuelling time.
Oh, and they aren't "greener", viewed in the round, unless electricity
grows on trees where you are.
Quote:
|
The UK Government has no intention of implementing this, believing it to be a vote loser, though they are building an electronic database of speed limits. |
national register of all rights of way. Each county council has a
definitive map for their area, which is often incorrect and usually on
paper.
Quote:
|
(Norwich Union are already restricting hours of driving by charging £1/mile for young drivers at night). |
wildly over-priced when you actually bother to look at the detail.
#7
| ||||
| ||||
|
|
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. |
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.
Quote:
|
2. Lower emissions and fuel usage Un-proven - in fact the reverse has been shown as cruise controls use more fuel. |
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. :-)
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. |
to a Stirling engine. I'm hoping for a continously
variable transmission at some point, which would eliminate
the need for batteries in a post-hybrid car.
Quote:
|
SNIP People are more likely to be persuaded to go carbon neutral by education than by force. |
on trust. 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.
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.)
--
#191, ewill3 (AT) earthlink (DOT) net
Error 16: Not enough space on file system to delete file(s)
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
#8
| |||
| |||
|
#9
| |||
| |||
|
|
alexterrell wrote: 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. |
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?
#10
| |||
| |||
|
|
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. |
<SNIP>
Quote:
|
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. :-) |
heavy goods ones.
<SNIP>
Quote:
|
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. |
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
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!
Slatts
|
« 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.