News4 mins ago
Speeding cars
71 Answers
Why are cars just not made to be unable to go past the speed limit except from emergency vehicles ?
Would save a few lives i bet xx
Would save a few lives i bet xx
Answers
i think its a good idea and have wondered it myself in the past - nothing to do with being a nanny state - anymore than being madeto wear a seatbelt or not use a mobile is being a nanny state - speeding is a problem so why not try to solve the problem at the start - obviously education, awareness courses etc etc dont work...
20:39 Tue 12th Jun 2012
i think its a good idea and have wondered it myself in the past - nothing to do with being a nanny state - anymore than being madeto wear a seatbelt or not use a mobile is being a nanny state - speeding is a problem so why not try to solve the problem at the start - obviously education, awareness courses etc etc dont work...
what is the point of having a fiat punto or something that can do speeds of 140mph or whatever? you are never going to use that, most people will never get faster than 80 so why not do something simply to stop the idiots that do think its cool to speed - the satnav control idea is a good one as it would tailor the speed to the local limits.
what is the point of having a fiat punto or something that can do speeds of 140mph or whatever? you are never going to use that, most people will never get faster than 80 so why not do something simply to stop the idiots that do think its cool to speed - the satnav control idea is a good one as it would tailor the speed to the local limits.
As I said before, the technology is already available, with a sat nav connected to the ECU. Trouble is, if it were only on new cars, sales of new cars would plummet for several years, jobs would be lost worldwide, and a large slice of tax to the government would disappear.
No matter how much safer the worlds roads would be, it would be unacceptable to any government.
No matter how much safer the worlds roads would be, it would be unacceptable to any government.
It most certainly is a valid question, but personally I think it is a bad idea.
For a start the current limit is too low - 70mph was the limit set when we were driving around on rubbish rubber and drum brakes: cars are now so much more safer than they once were: some people will nasally whine that that may be so, but it doesn't make drivers better than they were many years ago: possibly, but I think not, as people naturally adapt to their surroundings.
People, by and large, know how to drive sensibly: should we punish those perfectly safe drivers who regularly, and safely, drive at 80mph on a motorway by electronically limiting their cars just because of a few idiots? Seems unfair to me.
Restricting everybody to the same limit is what happens now - break the limit and you are breaking the law - and there are sanctions in place should this happen. Therefore, is it really necessary to go a step further and electronically govern the speed of cars? I personally don't think so - this would be nannyning gone mad.
Joko believes people speed because they think its 'cool'. I don't think she could be further from the truth - in the vast majority of cases people speed because speed is fun: otherwise why would people go on rollercoasters. They certainly don't do so to demonstrate coolness.
Jake says "I'm surprised you haven't been told that it's not speed but bad driving that kills". He obviously thinks this is a trite comment - but it doesn't take away from the fact that ultimately it is, to a large degree, true.
For a start the current limit is too low - 70mph was the limit set when we were driving around on rubbish rubber and drum brakes: cars are now so much more safer than they once were: some people will nasally whine that that may be so, but it doesn't make drivers better than they were many years ago: possibly, but I think not, as people naturally adapt to their surroundings.
People, by and large, know how to drive sensibly: should we punish those perfectly safe drivers who regularly, and safely, drive at 80mph on a motorway by electronically limiting their cars just because of a few idiots? Seems unfair to me.
Restricting everybody to the same limit is what happens now - break the limit and you are breaking the law - and there are sanctions in place should this happen. Therefore, is it really necessary to go a step further and electronically govern the speed of cars? I personally don't think so - this would be nannyning gone mad.
Joko believes people speed because they think its 'cool'. I don't think she could be further from the truth - in the vast majority of cases people speed because speed is fun: otherwise why would people go on rollercoasters. They certainly don't do so to demonstrate coolness.
Jake says "I'm surprised you haven't been told that it's not speed but bad driving that kills". He obviously thinks this is a trite comment - but it doesn't take away from the fact that ultimately it is, to a large degree, true.
flip-flop - fun or cool? does it matter?
split hairs and phrase it anyway you like, it amounts to the same thing... people speed because it makes them feel good.
so you're suggesting that some of the better drivers should be allowed to speed - because its not fair to spoil their fun??
well i like shoplifting, and i'm good at it - so should i get away with it?
its not a case of 'stopping' their fun' - its a case of saving lives.
..."by electronically limiting their cars just because of a few idiots?" - you seem not to realise that the 'speeders for fun' and 'the few idiots' are the same people...and believe me they are not just a 'few'
split hairs and phrase it anyway you like, it amounts to the same thing... people speed because it makes them feel good.
so you're suggesting that some of the better drivers should be allowed to speed - because its not fair to spoil their fun??
well i like shoplifting, and i'm good at it - so should i get away with it?
its not a case of 'stopping' their fun' - its a case of saving lives.
..."by electronically limiting their cars just because of a few idiots?" - you seem not to realise that the 'speeders for fun' and 'the few idiots' are the same people...and believe me they are not just a 'few'
I'm not suggesting anything of the sort joko.
What I am suggesting is that we already have laws in place and sanctions if caught, and that electronically limiting cars to, presumably, 70mph is nannying in the extreme - and unnecessary.
We have laws against shoplifting, and sanctions if caught. Presumably, therefore, even though you enjoy shoplifting and are good at it, would you be happy if a device was installed that automatically chopped off your hands to prevent you from shoplifting? (I can use absurd examples as well).
What I am suggesting is that we already have laws in place and sanctions if caught, and that electronically limiting cars to, presumably, 70mph is nannying in the extreme - and unnecessary.
We have laws against shoplifting, and sanctions if caught. Presumably, therefore, even though you enjoy shoplifting and are good at it, would you be happy if a device was installed that automatically chopped off your hands to prevent you from shoplifting? (I can use absurd examples as well).
flipflop - thats exactly what you said... you said some perfectly safe drivers regularly drive at 80, so its unfair to electronically stop them! - 80 is illegal and no-one should be driving at that speed.
you are saying that because they go 80 and are safe that they should be allowed to with being penalised by bad drivers...!
problem is everyone 'thinks' they are safe...dont they...? you use 80 as an exampl - what about the ones who go 90...100, 110 etc and 'think' they are safe...?
i assume every person crushed in a wreck 'thought' they were 'perfectly safe'...
my 'absurd' example was not absurd because it involves someone being allowed to break the law - because they are good at something ... which is what you have said should happen with people driving at 80
the point is, nowhere in this country is it acceptable to travel at 80 - so whats the probelm with limiting peoples vehicles to that speed?
if the device sensed the speed limits and driving on tracks etc would not be affected as they dont have limits...
you are saying that because they go 80 and are safe that they should be allowed to with being penalised by bad drivers...!
problem is everyone 'thinks' they are safe...dont they...? you use 80 as an exampl - what about the ones who go 90...100, 110 etc and 'think' they are safe...?
i assume every person crushed in a wreck 'thought' they were 'perfectly safe'...
my 'absurd' example was not absurd because it involves someone being allowed to break the law - because they are good at something ... which is what you have said should happen with people driving at 80
the point is, nowhere in this country is it acceptable to travel at 80 - so whats the probelm with limiting peoples vehicles to that speed?
if the device sensed the speed limits and driving on tracks etc would not be affected as they dont have limits...
It has recently been proposed that the limit be raised to 80, so somewhere in the country would be safe to driver in at that speed,joko.
Speed limits are pretty arbitrary. There are plenty of places with 40 mph or 50 mph limits where the limit itself is not safe most, or many, times and equally some where some mph faster is safe. That's the trouble with speed cameras; they don't distinguish between a 40 mph limit at 3 am in a deserted town and the same limit at 4pm when shoppers and schoolchildren are about. The police would distinguish between the two.
Speed limits are pretty arbitrary. There are plenty of places with 40 mph or 50 mph limits where the limit itself is not safe most, or many, times and equally some where some mph faster is safe. That's the trouble with speed cameras; they don't distinguish between a 40 mph limit at 3 am in a deserted town and the same limit at 4pm when shoppers and schoolchildren are about. The police would distinguish between the two.
Latest Posts
Fairer Sex Getting Involved Now; Us...
News9 mins ago
Crosswords12 mins ago
Body & Soul22 mins ago
