Teen driver ask.....
08-24-13, 08:42 AM
#31
Out of Warranty
I owned a much-loved '72 Opel Rallye - that sported a flat-black hood, side stripes, real gauges, heavier sway bars, a lower ratio rear end, and a speedometer that read to 140 mph. Truthfully, the only way it could attain that speed was being launched into the Grand Canyon. (I actually got it to 100 once with 40# of air in the tires, windows closed tight, and the AC off. Took a couple miles to get there too. I suppose there's no denying the market value of a 140 mph speedometer, but from a practical standpoint, only the lower half of its calibration marks were useful.
It was the first of what C/D termed the "super coupes", and while it was not a pavement-ripper, it was a terrific little daily driver, a competent and reasonably comfortable long-distance runner, and a bag of fun to drive on a winding country lane. That car produced more entertainment per mph than anything I've driven since - and all while hardly attracting the attention of the local constabulary. There's just more entertainment available driving a 100 mph car at 95% than a 200 mph car at 50%. Why McLarens and Veyrons sell is a bit beyond me - you can't use half the performance built into them . . . unless you own your own track. That's kinda disappointing after spending upwards of the GNP of a small nation on them.
Few people can handle 100+ mph cars anyway, and headlines in the morning's papers seem to underscore that fact. For those bent on some kind of suicidal behavior, well, they got what they wanted - most fueled by adult beverages to the point of blissful unawareness of their doom. But then there's "the other guy", the target ball in this scenario, the one just driving home at the limit, secure on his side of the road, driving well within the limits of his headlights and driving skills. Why does HE have to suffer for the incompetence of another?
Now before you tag me as some kind of safety ****, I'm with Sammy Hagar here; I can't drive 55 either. Despite the "Gas Crisis" of the '80's when we were all supposed to limit our speed to save fuel, the savings were negligible because to people who had driven 70 for 20 years or more just couldn't abide crawling along the interstates that were designed for 70+ at 55. You felt like you could get out and walk faster. I just bought an Escort and burned up I-10 between Houston and points east with the Escort on and the CB on Ch 19, drafting impossibly large 18-wheelers who had the route spotted for Smokey.
I do think, however, that there should be speed limits. No we neither have the highways, mandatory driver skills, nor for the most part the cars to drive 140 on the freeway without killing ourselves and taking a number of others with us in the process, but given all the other "automatic" features of our technology that warns us of an impending collision and applies the brakes, or warns us (even corrects for us) of lane excursions, you would think that a GPS linked speed limit could be arranged. Not a cruise control, but a system that would limit your top speed to 50 on urban streets, maybe 75 on freeways and country roads, and 85 or so on the interstates. Of course there are fine details that would have to be worked out, but I don't think we have any kind of right to drive as fast as we want wherever we want. If we can't be responsible, we'll be regulated into compliance.
It was the first of what C/D termed the "super coupes", and while it was not a pavement-ripper, it was a terrific little daily driver, a competent and reasonably comfortable long-distance runner, and a bag of fun to drive on a winding country lane. That car produced more entertainment per mph than anything I've driven since - and all while hardly attracting the attention of the local constabulary. There's just more entertainment available driving a 100 mph car at 95% than a 200 mph car at 50%. Why McLarens and Veyrons sell is a bit beyond me - you can't use half the performance built into them . . . unless you own your own track. That's kinda disappointing after spending upwards of the GNP of a small nation on them.
Few people can handle 100+ mph cars anyway, and headlines in the morning's papers seem to underscore that fact. For those bent on some kind of suicidal behavior, well, they got what they wanted - most fueled by adult beverages to the point of blissful unawareness of their doom. But then there's "the other guy", the target ball in this scenario, the one just driving home at the limit, secure on his side of the road, driving well within the limits of his headlights and driving skills. Why does HE have to suffer for the incompetence of another?
Now before you tag me as some kind of safety ****, I'm with Sammy Hagar here; I can't drive 55 either. Despite the "Gas Crisis" of the '80's when we were all supposed to limit our speed to save fuel, the savings were negligible because to people who had driven 70 for 20 years or more just couldn't abide crawling along the interstates that were designed for 70+ at 55. You felt like you could get out and walk faster. I just bought an Escort and burned up I-10 between Houston and points east with the Escort on and the CB on Ch 19, drafting impossibly large 18-wheelers who had the route spotted for Smokey.
I do think, however, that there should be speed limits. No we neither have the highways, mandatory driver skills, nor for the most part the cars to drive 140 on the freeway without killing ourselves and taking a number of others with us in the process, but given all the other "automatic" features of our technology that warns us of an impending collision and applies the brakes, or warns us (even corrects for us) of lane excursions, you would think that a GPS linked speed limit could be arranged. Not a cruise control, but a system that would limit your top speed to 50 on urban streets, maybe 75 on freeways and country roads, and 85 or so on the interstates. Of course there are fine details that would have to be worked out, but I don't think we have any kind of right to drive as fast as we want wherever we want. If we can't be responsible, we'll be regulated into compliance.
09-02-13, 05:22 PM
#32
Out of Warranty
The Sunday Telegraph carried a headline back in the "Motoring" section, "EU plans to fit all cars with speed limiters". Uh-oh. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/...-limiters.html
Is Big Brother going to cap the speed capabilities of Europe's vehicles? Well, it's a thought. One of the methods would be to link the ECU to your GPS, setting an "appropriate" limit for the road you are on . . . another is some kind of camera arrangement that reads speed limit signs and limits your top speed accordingly. Some are advocating a top speed of 70 (mph) for passenger cars.
The article seems to ignore some of the basics: Yes, there are differences in the levels of fatalities among the EU, the UK, and the US, but look at the miles of highways, number of cars on the road, and the traffic engineering applied to the road's construction. You can't compare the fatalities on a modern motorway to those on country lanes.
If you look at road fatalities as a percentage of population (http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/c...nts/by-country) a couple of rather obvious facts emerge: in terms of deaths per 100,000 population, AFRICA has a horrific death rate, but it gets worse when you consider the proportionally smaller number of highways. While Rome is probably the most dangerous city to drive in, based on death rate, it doesn't account for jamming hundreds of thousands of tiny cars onto streets laid out for chariots. It's bound to be dangerous, and that doesn't even begin to consider cultural factors that affect road fatalities.
Here at home, look at the instances of traffic fatalities on roads across the nation . . . and those near you. http://map.itoworld.com/road-casualties-usa#fullscreen Between 2001 and 2009, we've lost a huge number of our citizens - primarily East of the Mississippi where our population centers are nearer to one another and roads were never "engineered" for the traffic they carry.
Needless to say, it's complicated. Does one scale of speed limits fit all? Not on your life. While 35 mph might be rather slow on America's broad suburban thoroughfares, it would be deadly in Rome or Bangkok. That computer analysis of map, time of day, weather, available light, traffic, and road conditions just got a whole lot more complicated.
There would obviously have to be a wide range of factors considered, to allow a burst of speed to maybe 80 or 85 for passing on some roads, but not cruising well above the limit. (Think IndyCar's "push to pass" feature you can use only so many times in a race to give you an additional 40 hp or so by cranking down on the wastegate for up to 20 seconds per usage.) There are non-technical deterrents to speeding as well, the most obvious being heavy fines and loss of both license and car for habitual offenders. We're not talking about the guy who gets caught 10 miles over the limit here, but the egregious offender who tops 100 on the interstate, or 65 on a city street. Those people need to be taken off the road for a couple of years - for their own safety AND ours. Think of the boon to public transit . . . .
Is Big Brother going to cap the speed capabilities of Europe's vehicles? Well, it's a thought. One of the methods would be to link the ECU to your GPS, setting an "appropriate" limit for the road you are on . . . another is some kind of camera arrangement that reads speed limit signs and limits your top speed accordingly. Some are advocating a top speed of 70 (mph) for passenger cars.
The article seems to ignore some of the basics: Yes, there are differences in the levels of fatalities among the EU, the UK, and the US, but look at the miles of highways, number of cars on the road, and the traffic engineering applied to the road's construction. You can't compare the fatalities on a modern motorway to those on country lanes.
If you look at road fatalities as a percentage of population (http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/c...nts/by-country) a couple of rather obvious facts emerge: in terms of deaths per 100,000 population, AFRICA has a horrific death rate, but it gets worse when you consider the proportionally smaller number of highways. While Rome is probably the most dangerous city to drive in, based on death rate, it doesn't account for jamming hundreds of thousands of tiny cars onto streets laid out for chariots. It's bound to be dangerous, and that doesn't even begin to consider cultural factors that affect road fatalities.
Here at home, look at the instances of traffic fatalities on roads across the nation . . . and those near you. http://map.itoworld.com/road-casualties-usa#fullscreen Between 2001 and 2009, we've lost a huge number of our citizens - primarily East of the Mississippi where our population centers are nearer to one another and roads were never "engineered" for the traffic they carry.
Needless to say, it's complicated. Does one scale of speed limits fit all? Not on your life. While 35 mph might be rather slow on America's broad suburban thoroughfares, it would be deadly in Rome or Bangkok. That computer analysis of map, time of day, weather, available light, traffic, and road conditions just got a whole lot more complicated.
There would obviously have to be a wide range of factors considered, to allow a burst of speed to maybe 80 or 85 for passing on some roads, but not cruising well above the limit. (Think IndyCar's "push to pass" feature you can use only so many times in a race to give you an additional 40 hp or so by cranking down on the wastegate for up to 20 seconds per usage.) There are non-technical deterrents to speeding as well, the most obvious being heavy fines and loss of both license and car for habitual offenders. We're not talking about the guy who gets caught 10 miles over the limit here, but the egregious offender who tops 100 on the interstate, or 65 on a city street. Those people need to be taken off the road for a couple of years - for their own safety AND ours. Think of the boon to public transit . . . .
Last edited by Lil4X; 09-02-13 at 05:27 PM.
09-02-13, 10:34 PM
#33
Lexus Fanatic
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Los Angeles/Vancouver
Posts: 6,231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i thought about this before
there is the problem of freedom of use and also the use of cars in emergency situations
lets say some one is trying to kill you and you are trying to get away in a car
you are in an M5, your chaser is in a Tesla S
M5 has higher top speed than Tesla S so you can still outrun the villain
but if the speed limit was enforced, Tesla wouldve probably end up taking out the M5 and...
or if the truck in front of you or car in front of you is leaking fluids or dropping its cargo and you need to overtake
or the road to overtake is really short so you need to get up to 85MPH to overtake 60MPH cars in a jiffy
if you were limited to 65MPH, it would take a lot longer to overtake, thus increasing your chance of fatality in hitting the oncoming traffic (on a 2-lane country road)
there are a lot of scenarios where limiting it wouldnt make much sense
but perhaps im making it too black and white
perhaps drivers should be allowed to go above speed limit for over 10 minutes max but will be limited after that
and every car in the future will be connected so if they sustain at least 10MPH over the speed limit for over 30 minutes, authorities would be informed (or On-Star will be informed)
there is the problem of freedom of use and also the use of cars in emergency situations
lets say some one is trying to kill you and you are trying to get away in a car
you are in an M5, your chaser is in a Tesla S
M5 has higher top speed than Tesla S so you can still outrun the villain
but if the speed limit was enforced, Tesla wouldve probably end up taking out the M5 and...
or if the truck in front of you or car in front of you is leaking fluids or dropping its cargo and you need to overtake
or the road to overtake is really short so you need to get up to 85MPH to overtake 60MPH cars in a jiffy
if you were limited to 65MPH, it would take a lot longer to overtake, thus increasing your chance of fatality in hitting the oncoming traffic (on a 2-lane country road)
there are a lot of scenarios where limiting it wouldnt make much sense
but perhaps im making it too black and white
perhaps drivers should be allowed to go above speed limit for over 10 minutes max but will be limited after that
and every car in the future will be connected so if they sustain at least 10MPH over the speed limit for over 30 minutes, authorities would be informed (or On-Star will be informed)
Last edited by UberNoob; 09-02-13 at 10:38 PM.
09-03-13, 09:18 PM
#34
ATTENTION Citizens- this could happen to YOU!
Unfreaking believable, you know they're going to try it here sooner or later. 
The link -
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/...-limiters.html
The text -
EU plans to fit all cars with speed limiters
All cars could be fitted with devices that stop them going over 70mph, under new EU road safety measures which aim to cut deaths from road accidents by a third.
Under the proposals new cars would be fitted with cameras that could read road speed limit signs and automatically apply the brakes when this is exceeded.
Patrick McLoughlin, the Transport Secretary, is said to be opposed to the plans, which could also mean existing cars are sent to garages to be fitted with the speed limiters, preventing them from going over 70mph.
The new measures have been announced by the European Commission’s Mobility and Transport Department as a measure to reduce the 30,000 people who die on the roads in Europe every year.
A Government source told the Mail on Sunday Mr McLoughlin had instructed officials to block the move because they ‘violated’ motorists’ freedom. They said: “This has Big Brother written all over it and is exactly the sort of thing that gets people's backs up about Brussels.
“The Commission wanted his views ahead of plans to publish the proposals this autumn. He made it very clear what those views were.”
The source claimed one of the reasons he was against the Intelligent Speed Adaptation (ISA) scheme is that the UK has a better road safety record than other European countries – with 1,754 people dying in road accidents last year compared to 3,657 in Germany.
The scheme would work either using satellites, which would communicate limits to cars automatically, or using cameras to read road signs. Drivers can be given a warning of the speed limit, or their speed could be controlled automatically under the new measures.
A spokesman for the European Commission said: “There is a currently consultation focusing on speed-limiting technology already fitted to HGVs and buses.
“Taking account of the results, the Commission will publish in the autumn a document by its technical experts which will no doubt refer to ISA among many other things.”
The link -
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/...-limiters.html
The text -
EU plans to fit all cars with speed limiters
All cars could be fitted with devices that stop them going over 70mph, under new EU road safety measures which aim to cut deaths from road accidents by a third.
Under the proposals new cars would be fitted with cameras that could read road speed limit signs and automatically apply the brakes when this is exceeded.
Patrick McLoughlin, the Transport Secretary, is said to be opposed to the plans, which could also mean existing cars are sent to garages to be fitted with the speed limiters, preventing them from going over 70mph.
The new measures have been announced by the European Commission’s Mobility and Transport Department as a measure to reduce the 30,000 people who die on the roads in Europe every year.
A Government source told the Mail on Sunday Mr McLoughlin had instructed officials to block the move because they ‘violated’ motorists’ freedom. They said: “This has Big Brother written all over it and is exactly the sort of thing that gets people's backs up about Brussels.
“The Commission wanted his views ahead of plans to publish the proposals this autumn. He made it very clear what those views were.”
The source claimed one of the reasons he was against the Intelligent Speed Adaptation (ISA) scheme is that the UK has a better road safety record than other European countries – with 1,754 people dying in road accidents last year compared to 3,657 in Germany.
The scheme would work either using satellites, which would communicate limits to cars automatically, or using cameras to read road signs. Drivers can be given a warning of the speed limit, or their speed could be controlled automatically under the new measures.
A spokesman for the European Commission said: “There is a currently consultation focusing on speed-limiting technology already fitted to HGVs and buses.
“Taking account of the results, the Commission will publish in the autumn a document by its technical experts which will no doubt refer to ISA among many other things.”
09-03-13, 09:34 PM
#36
Pole Position
The EU has confirmed that this is bogus in a blog post...
http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/...d-the-limit-2/
http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/...d-the-limit-2/
09-03-13, 09:54 PM
#37
That's not the EU, that is some blog written by who knows. Although certainly the British tabloids have a flare for the outrageous.
On the other hand, this is the way politicians plant the seed for what they are planning down the road. Float an idea, deny it, and then say they'll study it.
On the other hand, this is the way politicians plant the seed for what they are planning down the road. Float an idea, deny it, and then say they'll study it.
09-03-13, 10:01 PM
#38
Lexus Fanatic
I will believe it when it actually happens. I will admit if it would actually happen it would be in the UK. They are beyond obsessed with safety. Its over the top
09-04-13, 06:08 AM
#40
Pole Position
That's not the EU, that is some blog written by who knows. Although certainly the British tabloids have a flare for the outrageous.
On the other hand, this is the way politicians plant the seed for what they are planning down the road. Float an idea, deny it, and then say they'll study it.
On the other hand, this is the way politicians plant the seed for what they are planning down the road. Float an idea, deny it, and then say they'll study it.
09-04-13, 11:18 AM
#41
Lexus Fanatic
dont lose any sleep guys. This is not going to happen. If they really wanted to be safe they would mandate and accelerate the autonomous car so none of us would drive. Only our perfect little computers will drive us around
09-04-13, 02:12 PM
#42
Lexus Fanatic
iTrader: (20)
the nsa already knows how fast you go anyway. 
09-04-13, 05:22 PM
#44
You're right it is. Although they are only disputing the reporting of The Sun and The Mail (I don't know what they reported). They don't dispute the article in The Telegraph. That is the article I posted.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Overclocker
Car Chat
25
06-18-06 09:32 AM
