NSW Speed limiters in cars (2 Viewers)

[puffafich]

putting a speed limiter in a car wont stop shit, people will find ways around it they will buy 2nd hand cars take out the standard engine and replace it with a more powerful engine, it will also put a strain on compaines like holden and ford because of there performance cars.

 

[Riet]

if you are driving the speedlimit 80% of the time and speeding 20%, no shit

unless you cruise around all the time like its the end of days

No, I'll rephrase that, drivers at the median speed on a road are more likely to be involved in an accident then those at the 85th percentile.

Speed Limits

 

[Kwayera]

putting a speed limiter in a car wont stop shit, people will find ways around it they will buy 2nd hand cars take out the standard engine and replace it with a more powerful engine, it will also put a strain on compaines like holden and ford because of there performance cars.

Um. What?

 

[pman]

Stuff this.

Any more of this crap and I am reverting to 60's cars with carbs and no electronics.

I can also sense these things coming eventually:

- Car that parallel parks for you
- Car that advises you that you drank too much today and not allowed to drive until you sober up
- Remote car tracking so parents can watch where their teen daughter is. (Lookup Toyota Link. Lol)
- Banning of manual transmissions

There is gotta be a line drawn in regards to these inventions.

Honda have already made one of these.
If I have one of these speed limiters, what stops me taking it straight out, i pay an extra grand to put it in and a bit to take it out but i end up the same, seems a waste of money but better than nothing

 

[Graney]

If I have one of these speed limiters, what stops me taking it straight out[

Your car will be defected the first time you get stopped by police.

Even if you don't get stopped by police, you'll have to reinstall it annually to pass rego.

 

[pman]

Your car will be defected the first time you get stopped by police.

Even if you don't get stopped by police, you'll have to reinstall it annually to pass rego.

If newer cars need it to pass rego, then older cars should have to as well, seen they say they won't make us put it in older cars, not having it cannot be classed as a defect

 

[Graney]

If newer cars need it to pass rego, then older cars should have to as well, seen they say they won't make us put it in older cars, not having it cannot be classed as a defect

They're saying it'll be mandatory, so there'll have to be some penalty attached to non-compliance for new cars.

If you have a car that's old enough, an ancient classic. you don't legally need indicators or seatbelts. You only need the safety equipment that was standard on the vehicles introduction. It'll be the same deal I imagine.

I imagine they'll say all cars manufactured after X date must comply at all times on the road.

Enforcement will be a nightmare though.

 

[Woteva636]

- Banning of manual transmissions

manual is cheaper to buy, cheaper to run and safer becasue you pay attention to whats going on around you

theres a reason that on red ps you can drive any car if you get your license in a manual, but are restriced to autos if that what you got your lisence in.

PS, i learnt to drive a manual aged 10

 

[Riet]

I'm sure they'd figure out a way to software hack it in like, a month, and then you would be able to pass rego and still exceed the speed limit.

 

[Uncle]

speed limiters are stupid sometimes you just need to speed.

.
.
.
.

oh crap when gangstas shoot up mah car how am i gonna get out of there with a speed limiter on my ass?

 

[russs]

manual is cheaper to buy, cheaper to run and safer becasue you pay attention to whats going on around you

theres a reason that on red ps you can drive any car if you get your license in a manual, but are restriced to autos if that what you got your lisence in.

PS, i learnt to drive a manual aged 10

Manual transmissions have a lot of advantages compared to Auto.

What I am saying, is that eventually the government bodies might consider automatics safer than manuals by analyzing some sort of statistics /or criteria in the future.

Even though manuals are "safer" because of the superior control of the car and the attention they force you to pay on the road, this only applies to people very skilled at operating them. Furthermore, people who are driving manual cars are likely to be more skilled at driving overall anyway - I know at least a few people around that are incapable of driving manuals and barely able to drive (steer) automatics as it is.

Moreover, I just switched from 2 years of driving a manual car with busted syncros (i.e. double clutching, truck style) to an automatic and there is no freaking way that a non-syncro manual is safer than an automatic, at least for the average person.

 

[pman]

With the microsleeps thing, i wanna no if auto clutch, that is, cars that you have to change gears but the clutch is auto, fall under manual or auto, I know they count as auto fro licensing but you have to think about what your doing, and has anyone ever seen an auto clutch car with a non-sequential gearbox?

 

[thisnameistaken]

piss off i dont want one of these

 

[pman]

piss off i dont want one of these

Thats why we're complaining about them!

 

[Hagaren]

man they won't give up that kind of revenue easily.

If they really cared about speeding they would have put 110km/h speed limiters in all new cars years ago.

 

[Serius]

i dont think there should be any limit.




Seriously though, upgrade our fucking useless goat trail style roads into something half decent so we can have a no limits national expressway. Foreigners must lol all day at our roads, theres like a huge fault in the tarmac on the princes highway outside my house and when you drive over it at 60 you nearly hit your head...thats at 60, its not fast.

At the very least stop decreasing speed limits, up them to a max of 150 and stick that on any expressway thats currently at 100 or 110. Anything at 80 should be at 100 right now anyway.

These speed limits and the quality control on our roads was designed in the 50's when cars were fucking shitbox deathtraps, today we have a whole host of safety features, breaks that are 10x better, traction control and shit like that so we can handle the faster speeds, speed limits should reflect this.

 

[pman]

The problem is, some people still drive old deathtraps and just bcan't do over 110 but still, speed lim its should be increased

 

[Graney]

At the very least stop decreasing speed limits, up them to a max of 150 and stick that on any expressway thats currently at 100 or 110. Anything at 80 should be at 100 right now anyway.

Speed limits are set at the level scientifically determined by experts in engineering to provide safety for the majority of people in a range of conditions. Most of the major roads around Canberra are 80 limit. These roads have frequent braking for lights and intersections, and sections where 2 lanes must merge to become 1. I can confidently say the limit is extremely appropriate.

These speed limits and the quality control on our roads was designed in the 50's when cars were fucking shitbox deathtraps, today we have a whole host of safety features, breaks that are 10x better, traction control and shit like that so we can handle the faster speeds, speed limits should reflect this.

Putting aside the fact that there has been revision of road speed limits since the 50's, the road toll has also dropped a great deal since the 50's. Perhaps speed limits were relatively too high in the 50's.

Not all vehicles on the road have a raft of safety features. Far from it. When maintenance is neglected, as it so often is, with bald tyres and pads worn flat, any braking advantage of a modern car quickly evaporates.

I don't know the figure for higher speeds or other collisions, but last months motor magazine says that in 3/4 of all nose to tail accidents at <30km/h there is no braking at all.

I think it's a safe assumption that a large proportion of all accidents, at all speeds, occur with zero braking. Drivers just don't pay attention. Increasing the speed limits would only have the effect of giving drivers less time to observe and form a reaction and increasing the speed at which collisions occur.

I don't think it's for the average punter with no background and study of road engineering to be able to say what speed limits should be. Like climate change and brain surgery, I'm happy to defer to expert opinion. I can no better judge what speed limit is appropriate for a given road than I can judge the merits and appropriateness of the engineering in the construction of a new skyscraper.

 

[Serius]

Speed limits are set at the level scientifically determined by experts in engineering to provide safety for the majority of people in a range of conditions. Most of the major roads around Canberra are 80 limit. These roads have frequent braking for lights and intersections, and sections where 2 lanes must merge to become 1. I can confidently say the limit is extremely appropriate.


Putting aside the fact that there has been revision of road speed limits since the 50's, the road toll has also dropped a great deal since the 50's. Perhaps speed limits were relatively too high in the 50's.

Not all vehicles on the road have a raft of safety features. Far from it. When maintenance is neglected, as it so often is, with bald tyres and pads worn flat, any braking advantage of a modern car quickly evaporates.

I don't know the figure for higher speeds or other collisions, but last months motor magazine says that in 3/4 of all nose to tail accidents at <30km/h there is no braking at all.

I think it's a safe assumption that a large proportion of all accidents, at all speeds, occur with zero braking. Drivers just don't pay attention. Increasing the speed limits would only have the effect of giving drivers less time to observe and form a reaction and increasing the speed at which collisions occur.

I don't think it's for the average punter with no background and study of road engineering to be able to say what speed limits should be. Like climate change and brain surgery, I'm happy to defer to expert opinion. I can no better judge what speed limit is appropriate for a given road than I can judge the merits and appropriateness of the engineering in the construction of a new skyscraper.

You are right good sir! it is all hard science! theres no, no politics going on there, is there!

Canberra is a nice city, i go there often but their roads are a bit different to where i live, like you said lots of merging and traffic lights, i would prefer to raise the speed limit on our expressways which have no lights, dual carriageway etc to something half decent like 150 [still a lot lower than many european roads]. Even then, those roads should be able to easily handle 100, depending ofcourse on traffic conditions etc, i very much doubt going at 100 on these roads is more dangerous when theres little traffic i.e at night.

The road toll could have dropped for any number of reasons and have nothing to do with speed, increase in safe driving awareness, changes in licensing, increases in fines, crackdown on drunk driving, IMPROVEMENT in road quality [still shit though, but compare the M5 to old roads and its obvious they are doing something better now] and most imporantly, car safety features.

The majority of accidents have very little to do with going faster than the speed limit, infact there is substantial evidence that suggests going about 10% faster than the speed limit is actually SAFER and yes you are right, some people do not maintain their vehicles correctly, that is going to be true at any speed and they are always going to have a higher chance of crashing, whats your point.

If 3/4 of accidents are occuring at less than 30km than what the fuck is the point in lowering the speed limit? it obviously doesnt effect these types of crashes, its just people following too closely or braking suddenly or losing concentration or whatever, nothing to do with traveling higher than the speed limit.

The last bit is the only thing that makes sense, neither of us are road engineers but that doesnt mean we cant comment and debate on the current situation. The fact is that speed limits are more political than hard science. If the point of speed limits is to save lives why not make a uniform 20kmph speedlimit? after all you said yourself that most accidents occur at less than 30kmph! think of the lives we could save! but that wouldnt be convenient would it? the argument of safety and trying to save lives is a joke.

Speed limits are always going to be political and a balance of human cost vs convenience, in the 50's sombody decided that X amount of lives was acceptable for traveling at Y speed so you can arrive at your destination in an acceptable amount of time, with so many different improvements since then and a huge lowering of the road toll why dont we increase the speed limit on roads than can handle it for increased convenience!

After all, many many other countries do it, they build great roads and have high or no speed limits with a low fatality rate that is obviously acceptable to them, we are such a large country, much larger than most of these other countries and we need to travel in less time than we currently do, so if a higher speed limit works for say germany, why cant we do it here?

 

[Graney]

You are right good sir! it is all hard science! theres no, no politics going on there, is there!

All I'm saying is, we have no ability to make a judgement either way. You're being reductionist to what is a complex engineering problem. When I hear from a group of specialist Australian road engineers calling for higher road speed limits, then I would pay attention.

Canberra is a nice city, i go there often but their roads are a bit different to where i live, like you said lots of merging and traffic lights, i would prefer to raise the speed limit on our expressways which have no lights, dual carriageway etc to something half decent like 150 [still a lot lower than many european roads]. Even then, those roads should be able to easily handle 100, depending ofcourse on traffic conditions etc, i very much doubt going at 100 on these roads is more dangerous when theres little traffic i.e at night.

The road toll could have dropped for any number of reasons and have nothing to do with speed, increase in safe driving awareness, changes in licensing, increases in fines, crackdown on drunk driving, IMPROVEMENT in road quality [still shit though, but compare the M5 to old roads and its obvious they are doing something better now] and most imporantly, car safety features.

The majority of accidents have very little to do with going faster than the speed limit, infact there is substantial evidence that suggests going about 10% faster than the speed limit is actually SAFER and yes you are right, some people do not maintain their vehicles correctly, that is going to be true at any speed and they are always going to have a higher chance of crashing, whats your point.

If 3/4 of accidents are occuring at less than 30km than what the fuck is the point in lowering the speed limit? it obviously doesnt effect these types of crashes, its just people following too closely or braking suddenly or losing concentration or whatever, nothing to do with traveling higher than the speed limit.

The last bit is the only thing that makes sense, neither of us are road engineers but that doesnt mean we cant comment and debate on the current situation. The fact is that speed limits are more political than hard science. If the point of speed limits is to save lives why not make a uniform 20kmph speedlimit? after all you said yourself that most accidents occur at less than 30kmph! think of the lives we could save! but that wouldnt be convenient would it? the argument of safety and trying to save lives is a joke.

Speed limits are always going to be political and a balance of human cost vs convenience, in the 50's sombody decided that X amount of lives was acceptable for traveling at Y speed so you can arrive at your destination in an acceptable amount of time, with so many different improvements since then and a huge lowering of the road toll why dont we increase the speed limit on roads than can handle it for increased convenience!

After all, many many other countries do it, they build great roads and have high or no speed limits with a low fatality rate that is obviously acceptable to them, we are such a large country, much larger than most of these other countries and we need to travel in less time than we currently do, so if a higher speed limit works for say germany, why cant we do it here?

Wank and groundless speculation. You want to believe something, so you say it is the case, but where's the proof?

after all you said yourself that most accidents occur at less than 30kmph!

No I didn't.

If 3/4 of accidents are occuring at less than 30km than what the fuck is the point in lowering the speed limit?

Read what I posted again.

After all, many many other countries do it, they build great roads and have high or no speed limits with a low fatality rate that is obviously acceptable to them... so if a higher speed limit works for say germany, why cant we do it here?

Germany's road toll of 11.3 per billion veh-km exceeds Australia's road toll of 9.1 per billion veh-km.

Their road system is also relatively expensive iirc.