Whilst such a limit would never affect me becuase I would never drive that fast, regardless of the car I was in, I respect the wishes of those that do.
Would you be happy if you spent £80,000 on a BMW M6 so you can give it some beans at a track day? Perfectly legal to go as fast as you want - its a race track - but your car is limited to 110mph. Ooops.
So, you take your BMW M6 on a trip to the 'Ring. On the way you spend most of your time on the Autobahn sitting on the inside lane becuase your car is not fast enough to legally travel at the sort of speeds people do in the outside lane - it may have 500bhp, but its limited to 110mph.
Then you finally get to the Ring. What a fun day you'll have when you keep hitting the limiter the whole way round.
Don't say nobody does this becuase track days and continental trips are becoming more and more popular as we get more and more speed cameras.
|
Nah you want something like this for a track day, Oh and his driving ability. Manthey in a Manthey tuned Porsche at the ring...
www.manthey-motors.de/mainframe.asp?lang=de&e1=279
Jim
Jim, I've made your link non - clickable, so anyone wanting to see it will have to paste it into their browser. I'm not doing this to be a killjoy but links to videos etc seriously affects this site's bandwidth.
Nice link though, thanks!
Hugo - BR Moderator
|
tr7v8
Thanks for that link - absolutely fantastic to watch. What skill, especially passing all those other cars. Do you know where I can find other similar clips?
|
Not that I know of, came from Pistonheads.co.uk Porsche section which tends to be more Petrolhead than here. Might be worth trawl of some of those.
Jim
|
This is a joke. Right?
Let me ask those of you who want cars limited a question.
How many times have you been hurt/in a crash/know of someone who has been hurt in crash by someone going over 70mph?
If your answer was anything other than no, how many of these incidents would have been avoided had the person been doing 70mph?
I mean come on. Unless you've been in a smash whereby someone was doing 150, what should it matter if my car does 190 and yours only does 170? Even then, that's hardly a reason to limit everyone is it?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying we should all do 150mph. If people want to break the law and speed, fine. Let them. It's a choice. You either obey the law and live your life or don't, and risk getting punished.
If you seriously believe limiting cars to 110mph is going to avoid even one crash, then go ahead and put your case forward but when cars are limited to 1800cc because 2 litre's are just too large, you'll have forfeited your right to complain.
It's not all about going quick. If I went and bought a E55 AMG, then I want that car to be capable of doing the (ironically limited) 155mph - not the 110mph that my next door neighbour's Fiesta can do.
At the end of the day, if people want to speed, then they will. I'm pretty sure that they'll all sit at 110 if their cars were limited (the small amount of those that would go over 100mph anyway) which surely is wholly dangerous as much of you are claiming.
Make your mind up - if 70mph is the boundary, then is 71mph dangerous or not?
--
Adam
|
|
IIRC all cars in Japan are limited to 112mph, what are their accident statistics like?
|
Do I think car speeds should be limited? - No
Because this would remove the freedom of choice for responsible owners of performance cars to get the maximum benefit of their purchase in controlled conditions, like the safety of a race track etc, and education is to my mind a much better and wide reaching tool.
In addition, this would not deal with the chavs thashing their pesky little "customised" Novas at 60 in a 30 limit. This presents far more danger than someone doing 120 on a motorway.
There are also several other common scenarios that this would not help at all. Indeed such a move may be seen by some misguided politicians as a total panacia to combat irresponsible driving. That scares me more than anything!
Would it be a good idea to be able to disable a car remotely?
In principle, YES.
I have often pondered the advantages of the owner, on discivering his A6 has been nicked, being able to dial a number using GSM technology, getting a grid reference of the cars wareabouts and having the option of disabling or reprogramming the car's ECU to the extent where its speed and be controlled remotely.
At that point calling the police and handing them the control passcodes for use in recovering the car only.
Strict controls would need to be put in place for safegarding the freedom of the honest law abiding motorists though, for example, I would not advocate using such measures without first attemting to get a driver of his own car to pull over.
However the advantages of such systems being installed on top of the range cars are potentially immense.
- Avoidance of dangerous pursuits
- Reduction in time and costs to end a pursuit
- Reduction in resulting injuries and damage to property
H
|
|
|
IIRC all cars in Japan are limited to 112mph, what are their accident statistics like?
In Japan, there was one fatality per roughly 15300 people in 2003. In the UK, there was one fatality per 18000 people.
These statistics were calculated using figures available from a quick Google search, please take them with a pinch of salt. With a bit of time I could probably get them per number of car owners, rather than population.
|
Yes - definitely many cars are too fast these days.
True, if a car is to cruise comfortably at the legal speed limit of 70 mph, or even 80 or 90 overseas, a by-product of that is that it will also be capable of considerably higher speeds, say 120 mph.
The issue here, I think, is with the growing number of cars capable of 150 mph and more. These cars will increasingly work their way down the secondhand market towards the banger end.
Now, if someone lent me, say, a Bristol Fighter, which can exceed 200 mph, I doubt if I'd drive it any faster on the road than I drive my old Passat TDI and that would probably go for many other drivers. I'd have to say that one rarely sees the true high-performance cars like Ferraris, Porsches and TVRs being driven at excessive speeds on public roads.
I think I'd support the idea of speed limiters set at 150 mph being fitted to all new cars that would otherwise be capable of exceeding that speed.
Cars used for track days would be exempt from speed limiters, but their owners would have to prove they were bona fide track users and they would face confiscation and scrapping of the car (in addition to any other penalties) if they were caught exceeding 150mph on a public highway. Unworkable? Probably!
However, there should be more circuits where drivers can to play with their cars and work off their need for speed at a reasonable price.
Cheers, Sofa Spud
|
|
|
|
|
This is a joke. Right?
Nope. perfectly serious. what was there in my original post that made you think this was comic?
Let me ask those of you who want cars limited a question. How many times have you been hurt/in a crash/know of someone who has been hurt in crash by someone going over 70mph? If your answer was anything other than no, how many of these incidents would have been avoided had the person been doing 70mph?
I do. A number of years ago when I was parked in a layby for the night a merc whose speed was later estimated at 130+ smashed into my trailer. all 3 occupants killed instantly. you've obviously never seen a childs severed head crushed like an empty beer can.
I mean come on. Unless you've been in a smash whereby someone was doing 150, what should it matter if my car does 190 and yours only does 170? Even then, that's hardly a reason to limit everyone is it?
yes
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying we should all do 150mph.
I'm saying NO-ONE should do 150 on a public road.
If people want to break the law and speed, fine.Let them. It's a choice. You either obey the law and live your life or don't, and risk getting punished.
Dont be so infantile. Its rarely just YOUR life. Living your life as you see fit does NOT give you the right to endanger others.
If you seriously believe limiting cars to 110mph is going to avoid even one crash, then go ahead and put your case forward but when cars are limited to 1800cc because 2 litre's are just too large, you'll have forfeited your right to complain.
Separate issue, and not relevant, but as you've raised it I will answer. Larger engines do not pose a hazard to anyone, except possibly by means of pollution. There are already tax levy's on larger engines, and I can quite easily see it getting stricter.
It's not all about going quick. If I went and bought a E55 AMG, then I want that car to be capable of doing the (ironically limited) 155mph - not the 110mph that my next door neighbour's Fiesta can do.
Really? why? The only reason I can think of is ego. perhaps you can suggest another reason instead?
At the end of the day, if people want to speed, then they will.
They do.
I'm pretty sure that they'll all sit at110 if their cars were limited (the small amount of those that would go over 100mph anyway) which surely is wholly dangerous as much of you are claiming.
I'm pretty sure that if restricted to 110 then the anti-social high speed morons will indeed sit there with their foot to the floor anyhow. But thats got to be better than doing it at 120, or 130, or 140
Make your mind up - if 70mph is the boundary, then is 71mph dangerous or not?
I have made my mind up. I am proposing that the boundary between dangerous and outright stupidly dangerous is 110 mph. The reason I arrived at that figure was givenin a previous post.
I concede that some people use their cars on 'track days'. Although this argument is not without merit, and bears some looking into,it isnt reason enough to dismiss the entire argument on the grounds that a small percentage of car users will be inconvenienced. Anyhow, if all cars have the same top speed then wouldnt that encourage drivers skills more, to get the best out of a car?
WTM
|
I don't have any problem with the notion of limiting the damage and injury caused in crashes. For me, speeds much above 110mph are academic, my cars and driving style just don't go there.
However, I don't think that speed *alone* is a useful way of quantifying the safety, or damage potential, of a vehicle.
How about limiting the total amount of kinetic energy (0.5*effective_mass*velocity*velocity) a vehicle has?
Small cars could go faster, trucks, possibly, slower, such that the damage caused by any of them in a similar hypothetical accident would be comparable. (Obviously detailed constructional details of each type of vehicle would determine the exact type and extent of damage in any given crash, but, broadly, the concept of equal energy would result in comparable damage)
Perhaps, to penalise heavy vehicles less, this could be toned down by stipulating a maximum value for the vehicle's momentum (effective_mass*velocity)?
Implementing this suggestion might make the design, implementation and operation of scameras more difficult, but that is another debate!
number_cruncher
|
|
|
Much as I'd love to say I have better things to do with my Saturday night, I don't, so I can't.
Firstly, don't take it so seriously and I'll tell you why. It's an internet forum. Whatever I say isn't going to get made law. Tone isn't going to read my post and say "Gosh - better not limit the top speed of cars - this dashing young chap puts forward a good argument". It's nothing to get worked up over.
That being said, I am going to work myself up. Whatever I say now, don't take as a personal swipe at you. I'm merely replying to your lengthy post.
I do. A number of years ago when I was parked in a layby for the night a merc whose speed was later estimated at 130+ smashed into my trailer. all 3 occupants killed instantly. you've obviously never seen a childs severed head crushed like an empty beer can.
What is it with truckers asking me how many people I've seen smashed to bits? I think my question still stands to be honest. Would that crash have been avoided had they been doing 70? Perhaps. Would it have been avoided if their car had been limited and they hit you at 110mph? I doubt it.
I'm saying NO-ONE should do 150 on a public road.
Me too - but the choice should be there.
Dont be so infantile. Its rarely just YOUR life. Living your life as you see fit does NOT give you the right to endanger others.
- Not quite sure about you but I've not killed anyone recently by speeding so surely It's rarely anything but my life I'm endangering?
It's not all about going quick. If I went and bought a E55 AMG, then I want that car to be capable of doing the (ironically limited) 155mph - not the 110mph that my next door neighbour's Fiesta can do.
Really? why? The only reason I can think of is ego. perhaps you can suggest another reason instead?
Ego's exactly the reason. If I've spent 50 grand on a car, do you really think anything other than ego is going to make me want it go faster than a 5 grand car?
Separate issue, and not relevant, but as you've raised it I will answer. Larger engines do not pose a hazard to anyone, except possibly by means of pollution. There are already tax levy's on larger engines, and I can quite easily see it getting stricter.
Separate issue, yes. Not relevant, no. My point was that to limit car's speed would undoubtedly lead to engine sizes becoming more limited.
I'm pretty sure that if restricted to 110 then the anti-social high speed morons will indeed sit there with their foot to the floor anyhow. But thats got to be better than doing it at 120, or 130, or 140
Now you see, this is where you've inadventently agreed with me...in a roundabout way. How on earth is 110 infinitely safer than 150? Stopping distances, reaction times etc are increased I'll grant you but people seem to be under the impression of the magic 100 whereby anything less is totally safe. And while we're at it, why is 110mph anti-social?
I'm not attacking you personally WTM. I'm not attacking anyone. I just completely disagree with the idea of limiting cars to 100mph. Try not to take it so hard.
--
Adam
|
|
|
I repeat two of the points I made earlier in this thread:
1/ The problem with such an approach is responsibility is made to be collective meaning individuals take less responsibility for their own actions. I.e. "the state says my car should be restricted to 100 mph so it must be OK to do 100 mph". As opposed to "I know this car is capable of 150 mph, I have to take responsibility for how I use the performance within the bounds of the law".
2/ 30 years ago there were half as many cars on the roads, a standard 2.0 litre saloon (say mk III Cortina) would struggle to 100 mph yet alone the 130 + a 2.0 Mondeo can do today however there were more accidents and more fatalities in 1974 than 2004.
|
One thing does worry me is mid range high perfomance cars ten years down the road when they can be bought cheaply and the new owner will be mainly interested in maintaining the performance not neccessarally the fancy gimmicks for safe handling,and before someone mentions the MOT I see many cars on the road that may or may not be properly taxed and insured that look very doubtful to pass a proper thorough MOT.
Otherwise I think is right to be able to exercise choice and pride of ownership with resposibility.
ndbw
|
I just don't accept, as I believe Adam and others have in effect suggested, that law breaking by driving at 150mph should be optional and that we should therefore be given the choice - there are valid arguments against speed limiters but this isn't one of them.
Whilst not strictly related to speed, it is also clear to me that almost all cars are vastly more powerful than they need to be. The argument about using power to increase safety by accelerating out of trouble is frankly ludicrous and I'd be surprised if any of our advanced police drivers subscribe to it for everyday, public road motoring - though I have been surprised before.
|
>>I just don't accept, as I believe Adam and others have in effect suggested, that law breaking by driving at 150mph should be optional<<
Law breaking of any kind is optional. If I wanted to murder Al, then I have an option. To murder him, or not to. So now we have a problem. I have the ability to murder him just as I have the ability to do 150. You've limited my car to 110 so best limit me from murdering. May I recommend making all knives so blunt so that they can't be used for harm. Better make everything out of jelly too so that I can't bash poor old Al over the head with anything.
Silly I know but you see where I'm coming from. Do you really, honestly think I drive at 150mph everywhere? No. DO you think I'm suggesting all people should drive at 150mph? Of course not. But we're told speeding is just as bad as murder so surely we have the same choices?
To be honest, I'm just playing devil's advocate. I'm not even sure myself what I want out of this argu....sorry - debate. I do know that if cars were limited to 110 however, that would be the first step in what would become a whole host of silly restrictions.
--
Adam
|
>>. If I wanted to murder Al, then I have an option. To murder him, or not to.
Now you're worrying me.
A question for contributors to this thread: How does limiting cars to 110 make suburban and urban streets safer? Don't most fatalities occur on these streets?
|
I was just about to say that one can not move on my street for cars wizzing by at faster than 110mph. Its worse on the motorway, at 90 mph I cant get into the outside lane due to all the cars wizzing by at 150 mph...
>>. If I wanted to murder Al, then I have an option. To murder him, or not to.
Adam
Its not an option...........
Its mandatory.
|
Law breaking of any kind is optional.
No it's not: there are plenty of circumstances where it is illegal to be equipped to commit a crime.
May I recommend making all knives so blunt so that they can't be used for harm.
Good example: try carrying your sharp 8-inch kitchen knife with you when you walk around town, and you'll find yourself facing a charge. You are fully entitled to have it at home for chopping the veg, but not to carry it in a public place where it is useless for its legit purpose and could be used for a crime.
There are no circumstances in which it is legal for a private car to be driven at over 100mph on the public roads: the only vehicles allowed to travel faster than the speed limits are emergency services vehicles, and even then in limited circumstances.
NoDosh is right to point out that exceeding 70 isn't a factor in most accidents ... but it is relevant in some cases, and since it is always illegal I can't see any decent reason to allow cars to be capable of exceeding the limit. As Mark frequently points out, if you have a problem with speed limits, argue about the limits rather than their enforcement.
Track days? If you want to exceed the road limit on a track, use a car which isn't licensed for road use.
Bunching due to differences in limiter settings, like happens with trucks? Set the limiters to 75 rather than 70, so that no vehicle is constrained to less than the limit (and if the max speed limit is 80, set the physical limiter to 85 etc).
|
Well I must say I'm pretty upset that after typing a huge, smug reply to you NW, the firewall blocked this page when I went to post and basically lost it all.
Here goes part 2.
>>No it's not: there are plenty of circumstances where it is illegal to be equipped to commit a crime.<<
Nice random statement which has nothing whatsoever to do with what I just said. If I wanted to murder Al (sorry you're getting the raw deal here mate) with a gun. I go and buy the gun and make all these intricate plans. Let's say the cops bust me. I would probably get charged with some crime on the basis of me buying that gun. Relating your statement to cars, I am equipped to commit a crime. I could run a red light, speed, run someone over - anything yet here I am - unarrested. Your suggestion seems to be saying take cars off people altogether. It does 101mph just as easily as 50 so let's limit it. After all, 50mph is a very dangerous speed if I drive into a playground.
>>NoDosh is right to point out that exceeding 70 isn't a factor in most accidents ... but it is relevant in some cases, and since it is always illegal I can't see any decent reason to allow cars to be capable of exceeding the limit.<<
Wow - relevant in as many as some cases eh? I'll completely overlook the fact that you haven't backed up that statement with any figures which would probably prove elusive at the best of times. Socks. They're dangerous in some cases. Should we ban them?
>>Bunching due to differences in limiter settings, like happens with trucks? Set the limiters to 75 rather than 70, so that no vehicle is constrained to less than the limit<<
You haven't advocated breaking the speed limit there have you NW? Surely some mistake?
--
Adam
|
Socks. They're dangerous in some cases. Should we ban them?
You clearly don't understand the difference between banning a particular use of something, and completely banning its possession ... and you seem to be forgetting that driving in excess of 70mph on public roads us already illegal.
Take a car, fit a 75mph speed-limiter, and what's changed? The car may still be used lawfully on the public roads, as before. The only difference is that it becomes incapable of being used for one illegal purpose.
|
Look - I'm bored of this now. Whatever I say isn't going to change anyone's opinion.
>>Take a car, fit a 75mph speed-limiter, and what's changed? The car may still be used lawfully on the public roads, as before. The only difference is that it becomes incapable of being used for one illegal purpose.<<
I'm sorry. I foolishly prioiritised speeding in built up areas above expanses of long straight roads. Silly me.
--
Adam
|
>> Socks. They're dangerous in some cases. Should we Take a car, fit a 75mph speed-limiter, and what's changed? The car may still be used lawfully on the public roads, as before. The only difference is that it becomes incapable of being used for one illegal purpose.
Does your arguement for prevent cars travelling at 80mph extend any further than 'becuase its the law'?
I can think of no benefit of limiting cars to 75mph.
|
Does your arguement for prevent cars travelling at 80mph extend any further than 'becuase its the law'?
I can see some merit in extending the m'way limit to 80, tho I think the case fails as long as there are lots of trucks limited to 56, 'cos speed differentials become too wide.
But wherever the limit is fixed, traffic flows much more smoothly and safely if it is enforced, so that speeds are reasonably consistent. That's one of the big safety benefts of mways, with their grade-separated junctions etc. So I think it might be better to have a limit of 80 enforced with speed-limiters than the current limit of 70 with only occasional post-facto prosecutions.
As Mark repeatedly points out in relation to spd camras, if you disagree with the speed limit as currently fixed, then your argument should be with the limit itself rather than with the enforcement techniques.
|
I can see some merit in extending the m'way limit to 80, tho I think the case fails as long as there are lots of trucks limited to 56, 'cos speed differentials become too wide.
Lots of people say this but to be honest I do not buy it. A speed differential of 24mph is not that much. Infact, it's far less than differential most traffic driving around town under the speed limit in a 30 zone will experience when they come up behind a parked vehicle - infact, there is a differential of 60mph when you encounter a parked vehicle or stationary traffic on an NSL road.
So why is 24mph on a Motorway with no parked cars, no side roads, no kids about to run out, such an issue?
|
Bunching due to differences in limiter settings, like happens with trucks? Set the limiters to 75 rather than 70, so that no vehicle is constrained to less than the limit (and if the max speed limit is 80, set the physical limiter to 85 etc).
Sorry but this would not work, people would sit up against the limiter as it is easier then using a cruise control. How many trucks do you see on a dual carrigeway doing 50 - not many, most will sit up against their limiter.
|
Track days? If you want to exceed the road limit on a track, use a car which isn't licensed for road use.
Running a seperate car for track days introduces massive extra cost and provides a logistical nightmare if it isn't road legal.
Track days are becoming more and more popular and rightly so - a legal, safe way for people to get their speed kicks.
Its your car, you've bought it with your money so you should be able to do thus as you please with it on private land free from nannying interference.
|
The argument about using power to increase safety by accelerating out of trouble is frankly ludicrous
....Try pulling onto the A1 in the morning rush hour in a 1 litre Toyota Yaris and see if you think the above statement is true.
|
The argument about using power to increase safety by accelerating out of trouble is frankly ludicrous ....Try pulling onto the A1 in the morning rush hour in a 1 litre Toyota Yaris and see if you think the above statement is true.
OK, I'll concede that one!
|
|
Quite, cheddar, I would say that this is the most important point in the debate.
I would also ask WTM "How many lives per year do you think your proposals would save?"
Aliens do not visit earth but we do.
|
LOL, please ignore last sentence.
Aliens do not visit earth but we do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
