Why Aren't Cars Limited To 70mph?

nighoftheeighth · 24 Jul 2006 at 10:31

Surely it's possible...

I can't think of any reason as to why this would be a bad thing. Ambulances and Police Cars etc... wouldn't need them. The cost of implementing this is probably the main reason we don't have them.

Cost Of Restrictors > Cost Of Lives

...per 70+ mph crash of course.

It's just bugging me and I'm bored at work. Damn Capitalism.

Raumarik · 24 Jul 2006 at 10:34

If it was done at the factory then the cost would probably be fairly minimal. I too have wondered by they're not limited to perhaps 75/80 to allow for overtaking, there's certainly no need for cars capable of 160+ MPH on our roads.

Yes I drive every day and yes I speed, doesn't mean I think it's a great idea though

basmic · 24 Jul 2006 at 10:34

How will it save lives, restricting their speeds to 70mph? Do you know many people who cross the motorway? :rolleyes:

It's not the cars that need restrictions, it's the drivers. We need to filter out the numpties who do 50mph on the motorway, and wonder why road rage exists.

iCraig · 24 Jul 2006 at 10:36

What about when on you're on the motorway and in order to get out of a dangerous situation, you'll need to increase your speed to 75/80mph and avoid the danger?

fatmas · 24 Jul 2006 at 10:38

What if you drive to say Germany and go on the Autobahn?
Cars in this country are restricted. I thought High performance cars were restricted to 150mph or something.. It got mentioned on Top Gear a while ago..

Beansprout · 24 Jul 2006 at 10:40

nighoftheeighth said:
.....

Cost Of Restrictors > Cost Of Lives

...per 70+ mph crash of course.
....

Damn Capitalism.

Wtf are you on?

nighoftheeighth · 24 Jul 2006 at 10:41

basmic said:
How will it save lives, restricting their speeds to 70mph? Do you know many people who cross the motorway?

It's not the cars that need restrictions, it's the drivers. We need to filter out the numpties who do 50mph on the motorway, and wonder why road rage exists.

There's nothing wrong with doing 50 on a motorway. I thought legally it was 40 to 70. People just have the need for speed for no reason.

Gilly · 24 Jul 2006 at 10:42

iCraig said:
What about when on you're on the motorway and in order to get out of a dangerous situation, you'll need to increase your speed to 75/80mph and avoid the danger?

Bingo.

Plus the natural cruising speed for a typical modern car is above 70. You'd be using more fuel by being limited to 70.

Then what would happen if the speed limit (as it should be) is raised? What would happen to all those cars that were limited?

nighoftheeighth said:
There's nothing wrong with doing 50 on a motorway.

Yes there is. IMO its worse than 90.

"andy" · 24 Jul 2006 at 10:42

didnt the top motorbike companys all get together and decide to limit the top speeds from now on.............. they choose 186mph IIRC

fatmas · 24 Jul 2006 at 10:43

Also, using My Dads Alfa 147 1.9TD as an example.
On the motorway he gets FAR better Miles per gallon doing 70 than he does at any lower speed.
He gets even better at 75, but then it drops after 80.

So that's a reason to be pushing 70 on the motorway..

[SKR]Phoenix · 24 Jul 2006 at 10:44

I do feel you are going to become very unpopular in this thread.

I once had a lorry start to jack-knife in front of me. The only thing that saved my backside was the fact that my car accelerates from 70-90 quite quickly compared to my old car. Seeing the backend of a lorry stepping out in my direction was damn scary, but OMG, I broke the speed limit!

Also, it sounds like you believe all that rubbish about speed kills. It doesn't, directly. There's many factors, not just the speed.

"If you hit me at 40mph, there's a 80% chance I'll die"

"If you hit me at 30 mph, there's a 80% chance I'll live"

"If I had been educated properly and stayed out of the road, there's a 100% chance I'll live"

My Dad once hit a girl, through no fault of his own. She ran out, he was doing the speed limit. As it happens, she ran into the side of the car. Now think what would have happened if he had been doing 5mph under the posted speed limit. In that instance, would it have been the speed that killed, or the stupidity of the girl running across a busy road?

Important question, do you drive?

Le_Petit_Lapin · 24 Jul 2006 at 10:44

nighoftheeighth said:
There's nothing wrong with doing 50 on a motorway. I thought legally it was 40 to 70. People just have the need for speed for no reason.

Its fun.

You might want to put this on by the way...

Raumarik · 24 Jul 2006 at 10:44

Can someone tell me a situation where you'd have to increase your speed to escape? This isn't terminator 2 and your not being chased by a large lorry driven by a T1000

I think his point is why do you have a card able to go more than twice the highest speed limit in OUR COUNTRY. We shouldn't have this ability and as far as german roads are concerned.. they're for german cars we shouldn't set our laws to take into account other countries

Dolph · 24 Jul 2006 at 10:45

You do realise that by the government's own statistics, excessive speed (which includes speeding and inappropriate but legal speeds) accounts for approximately 6% of all accidents...

Inattention, bad driving technniques and poor observation make up the majority of accidents, and your idea to make driving even less of an active situation will only ever make this worse.

Speed cameras don't actually work, the rate of decrease in death and injuries has actually slowed dramatically since their introduction, despite cars getting safer...

If you want to improve accident and injury statistics, then address things that actually cause accidents, rather than looking at more pointless legislation that will serve no useful purpose and give no useful result.

iCraig · 24 Jul 2006 at 10:46

nighoftheeighth said:
There's nothing wrong with doing 50 on a motorway. I thought legally it was 40 to 70. People just have the need for speed for no reason.

Depends. There's nothing wrong with doing 50mph on the motorway when it's lashing down.

Doing 70mph isn't 'speeding'.

If you're doing 50mph on a clear day, and your car is capable of 70+ you have no reason for holding up the inside lane, especially when lorries overtake you and restrict traffic in both lanes, just because you can't be bothered to drive at a more optimum speed.

Gilly · 24 Jul 2006 at 10:46

Kami said:
Can someone tell me a situation where you'd have to increase your speed to escape?

You have a car close behind you and someone drifts across the road. If you slam on you get rear-ended. If you speed up you're fine.

Simon · 24 Jul 2006 at 10:46

Kami said:
Can someone tell me a situation where you'd have to increase your speed to escape? This isn't terminator 2 and your not being chased by a large lorry driven by a T1000

To overtake safely for one.

FTM · 24 Jul 2006 at 10:46

because then if you go elsewhere its no use whatsoever

and anybody else coming to this country wouldnt be restricted

and if you made it switchable the first thing people would do would be to switch it off

its already illegal to speed and people do so, so they would have no qualms about switching off a limiter even if it was illegal..you already take a chance now when speeding so why bother to restrict it?

fatmas · 24 Jul 2006 at 10:46

No I understand that, I was using it as an example.
But People Can't be expected to fork out for limiters on their current cars and the government sure aren't going to pay for them.
It would only work on new cars.
And then People will just get them illegally removed.

[Edit] What about people who take their cars to tracks etc..?[Edit]

Dolph · 24 Jul 2006 at 10:48

[SKR]Phoenix said:
Also, it sounds like you believe all that rubbish about speed kills. It doesn't, directly. There's many factors, not just the speed.

"If you hit me at 40mph, there's a 80% chance I'll die"

"If you hit me at 30 mph, there's a 80% chance I'll live"

"If I had been educated properly and stayed out of the road, there's a 100% chance I'll live"

Even more to the point, the research that lead to that campaign is a load of misrepresented dingo's kidneys.

The actual research measured impact speeds, not free travelling speeds, and impact almost never happens at free travelling speed because people brake. Impact speed is very much dependant on car, braking, road surface, how fast the driver reacts etc etc.

Hence the advertisement is blatant misrepresentation of the research, but it makes for a nice headline, even if it's total testicles.