The scamera partnerships have been trying to push that little agenda for many years, but with very little success. In fact about the same amount of success they've had in reducing accident/death rates above the rate it was already falling.
New MG restricted to 120mph, gets lower group rating, thoughts?
- Thread starter Mr_Sukebe
- Start date
The scamera partnerships have been trying to push that little agenda for many years, but with very little success. In fact about the same amount of success they've had in reducing accident/death rates above the rate it was already falling.
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 8,968
- Location
- UK
That's gash, they might have strong anti speeding police, laws and fines, but it doesn't rank with drink driving in terms of public hatred, I doubt it would anywhere.
I'd go for it. Even driving in Germany, trying to 'cruise' at 100+ isn't fun or easy (in the car I was in/would be in anyway) so 100 would be enough.
Mike: why is 100 not ok, but 120 ok for you? epeen?
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 May 2008
- Posts
- 4,094
- Location
- North Wales
100 would be fine on the road as i'll never get close to that as i need my licence!
BUT i can regularly touch 120 when i take my car to the track so it would be an issue for me
But you're right as in all Japanese cars are required by law to limit themselves to 180KPH or 112MPH, i had a little device called an 'HKS Speed Limit Defencer' fitted to my old Teg, presumably when it was still in Japan as there's no need in the UK because as soon as it gets converted to MPH the speed limiter is now at 180MPH!
BUT i can regularly touch 120 when i take my car to the track so it would be an issue for me
But you're right as in all Japanese cars are required by law to limit themselves to 180KPH or 112MPH, i had a little device called an 'HKS Speed Limit Defencer' fitted to my old Teg, presumably when it was still in Japan as there's no need in the UK because as soon as it gets converted to MPH the speed limiter is now at 180MPH!
[TW]Fox;19252523 said:
Overtaking can be a weak point here. I don't generally play leapfrog in traffic queues because there's always some idiot who closes up the gap or thinks it's a race, so I overtake everyone in one go - or certainly several vehicles at once. I'm not going to say how fast that can leave me going, but it would certainly make me unhappy about a limiter, which might delay the time before I could pull in again.
M
(for when late for dinner etc)
Because 100 is a limit I'd hit, whereas I'd be happy to stay inside 120 as it's rare that I'd ever hit it.
[TW]Fox;19253789 said:You'd need to have properly misjudged the overtake to need in excess of 100mph to complete it
So what? It happens. Having your car limit itself when you need that extra few MPH when a car is rapidly approaching you in the oncoming lane is far more dangerous than you just pottering along at around 100MPH on a motorway.
What's wrong with a bit of self control? And if that fails and you get caught putting your hands up, having a bit of a moan and getting on with it?
I'd love to see the statistics behind just how many more accident occur at 110MPH as opposed to 100MPH, or at 130MPH opposed to 120MPH.because I've got my doubts that it'll be enough to put a serious dent in premiums.
Associate
- Joined
- 21 Jan 2003
- Posts
- 2,499
- Location
- Farnborough, Hants
Is it just me but I can't see why restricting the top end to 120 would have any effect on insurance anyway ?
How many accidents are caused by people travelling at that sort of speed !
How many accidents are caused by people travelling at that sort of speed !
I would never want a speed limiter. I can set a warning to go off if I go over a speed limit I set and that's more than enough to prevent occasionally drifting over. I'd much rather have full speed capability for whatever reason I may want to use it. I can't imagine a speed limiter being a convenience.
Last edited:
If you want to overtake with minimum risk then yes.
Yep. Clarkson talked about it on Top Gear. I reckon that'd be a good way to do things. Limit the car's speed based on the road it knows your on, plus a bit of headroom for all these mythical scenarios when you need a bit more oomph.
I'd never do such a thing until it's worthwhile, but then again the insurance bonus wouldn't work for me because my insurance company through work only cares about the weight of the car for the 3rd party insurance, a 500bhp 900kg pocket rocket would be cheaper to insure for me than a 1.5 tonne diesel...
And I do ride high speeds occasionally, 100 mph is too low though, the ''lose license'' border for being caught is 111mph at the 130 kph zones in Holland, and at night I usually do just under the speed required to lose my license.
120 mph would be an acceptable limit, as long as it is gps based like some people say and turns off on the autobahn or tracks.
And I do ride high speeds occasionally, 100 mph is too low though, the ''lose license'' border for being caught is 111mph at the 130 kph zones in Holland, and at night I usually do just under the speed required to lose my license.
120 mph would be an acceptable limit, as long as it is gps based like some people say and turns off on the autobahn or tracks.
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 37,804
- Location
- block 16, cell 12
Not a problem really. Like they put naff stereoes in to reduce insurance and we all live with that. 120mph in the UK - you probably wont ever need to do more than that anyway.
Associate
- Joined
- 15 Jan 2011
- Posts
- 1,838
- Location
- Midlands!
had to have my bike restricted until 19...asked if it would affect my insurance price if i kept it restricted and they said no.
I now like 160mph too much to restrict it
I now like 160mph too much to restrict it