Speed governor

Sandwich · 17-09-2006 8:48pm #1

Re : speeding

why go to all the effort to encourage slower driving, cameras, garda checks etc.
Why are all cars not just fitted with speed governors/restrictor. (no good for keeping you at 50 in a 50 zone I know, but it would cut out the 120kph+ activity).

Does any one know if it exists in any country? Not that I know of. If not then is there some good reason for not using them. Technically there's no issue.

Anan1 · 17-09-2006 9:12pm

Sandwich wrote:

not then is there some good reason for not using them. Technically there's no issue.

Yes, they would be dangerous.

Sandwich · 17-09-2006 9:15pm

Dangerous because they impede you from doing 130????

NeMiSiS · 17-09-2006 9:24pm

Sure look how well the limiters on trucks work.. hahaha

TK

btkm8unsl0w5r4 · 17-09-2006 9:26pm

And prevent safe overtaking, accident avoidance and remove a valuable source of revenue for the government

oleras · 17-09-2006 10:58pm

Kaia Deafening Underclass wrote:

accident avoidance

And i was under the impression thats what brakes were for.....:D

maidhc · 18-09-2006 1:14am

Sandwich wrote:

If not then is there some good reason for not using them. Technically there's no issue.

Some reasons:

- Not everyone keeps their car in Ireland all the time.
- Driving at 100k in a 50k zone is a much bigger issue than doing 140k in a 120k zone.
- Speeding on motorways simply isn't a big enough issue to enforce speed limiters.
- Trucks have speed limiters because going over that speed can make them unstable (or so the reasoning goes), cars generally remain stable and controllable up to max speed.
- Limiting speeds may cause accidents due to people getting caught out during overtaking (e.g. car coming from nowhere... it happens)

Rovi · 18-09-2006 1:22am

oleras wrote:

Kaia Deafening Underclass wrote:

accident avoidance

And i was under the impression thats what brakes were for.....:D

Nope, that's what a brain is for.

Speed governors are dangerous for the reasons already stated, and also because people would treat them as a sort of 'poor man's cruise control'.

.

oleras · 18-09-2006 4:39am

Rovi wrote:

Nope, that's what a brain is for.

Speed governors are dangerous for the reasons already stated, and also because people would treat them as a sort of 'poor man's cruise control'.

.

WOW.....LADIES AND GENTLEMEN........A FIRST....SOMEONE WHO CAN STOP THEIR CAR WITH THEIR MIND !! I BOW AT YOUR MENTAL ABILITY.....:rolleyes:

Rovi · 18-09-2006 9:02am

oleras wrote:

Rovi wrote:

oleras wrote:

Kaia Deafening Underclass wrote:

accident avoidance

And i was under the impression thats what brakes were for.....

Nope, that's what a brain is for.

WOW.....LADIES AND GENTLEMEN........A FIRST....SOMEONE WHO CAN STOP THEIR CAR WITH THEIR MIND !! I BOW AT YOUR MENTAL ABILITY.....:rolleyes:

Where did I say anything about 'stopping the car?'

There's a lot more to 'accident avoidance' than jumping on the brakes.

.

oleras · 18-09-2006 9:27am

Rovi wrote:

Where did I say anything about 'stopping the car?'

There's a lot more to 'accident avoidance' than jumping on the brakes.

.

Ok, think about this for a minute........a car pulls out in front of you, what do you do ? a child runs out in front of you, what do you do ?....i know what i would do first and that would be jam on the brakes and if im still going to hit the car/child try and steer around it.....puting my foot down to try and accelerate from 120kph would not be option 1.
And its a gimmie that i have ESP.

WizZard · 18-09-2006 9:27am

oleras wrote:

WOW.....LADIES AND GENTLEMEN........A FIRST....SOMEONE WHO CAN STOP THEIR CAR WITH THEIR MIND !! I BOW AT YOUR MENTAL ABILITY.....:rolleyes:

Wow, I'm hoping that's sarcasm :rolleyes:

The previous poster meant that brakes are useful if you get into a sticky situation, but your brain should prevent you getting into that situation in the first place.

oleras · 18-09-2006 9:35am

WizZard wrote:

Wow, I'm hoping that's sarcasm :rolleyes:

The previous poster meant that brakes are useful if you get into a sticky situation, but your brain should prevent you getting into that situation in the first place.

me ? sarcastic ? never.......:D

and if our brains prevented us from getting in those situations we would not be discussing speed governers.

imo, there are very few arguments against them, maybe having to rush to a hospital with a choking child..... but argueing for them on the ground it makes overtaking safer ? cmon.... u shouldent break the limit overtaking, and i dont think you should be accelerating from max speed to avoid an accident either.

maidhc · 18-09-2006 9:43am

oleras wrote:

... but argueing for them on the ground it makes overtaking safer ? cmon.... u shouldent break the limit overtaking, and i dont think you should be accelerating from max speed to avoid an accident either.

It can happen, that say you are overtaking a truck on a single carriagway, a second car follows you to the wrong side of the road (shouldn'y happen, but does), and then say a third car joins the road and starts coming against you (againt it shouldn't happen but does).

In this situation braking isn't an option, and the best you can do is get to the right side of the road as fast as possible. When it comes to not breaking the law or not getting killed, not getting killed will be most peoples first choice.

oleras · 18-09-2006 9:52am

maidhc wrote:

It can happen, that say you are overtaking a truck on a single carriagway, a second car follows you to the wrong side of the road (shouldn'y happen, but does), and then say a third car joins the road and starts coming against you (againt it shouldn't happen but does).

In this situation braking isn't an option, and the best you can do is get to the right side of the road as fast as possible. When it comes to not breaking the law or not getting killed, not getting killed will be most peoples first choice.

like the choking child scenario, this is not something that happens in everyday life, thank goodness...there will always be extremes of situations.

WizZard · 18-09-2006 10:15am

oleras wrote:

like the choking child scenario, this is not something that happens in everyday life, thank goodness...there will always be extremes of situations.

So why choose to potentially get those people killed - especially when it'll not reduce the deaths caused by doing 80km/h in a 50km/h zone.

oleras · 18-09-2006 10:28am

WizZard wrote:

So why choose to potentially get those people killed - especially when it'll not reduce the deaths caused by doing 80km/h in a 50km/h zone.

choose ?..... choose what ? 80 in a 50 ? are you on the right thread, are we talking about speed limits or speed limitors ?......either way, time for my bed....long night, maybe im just not getting it cos im tired........

mloc123 · 18-09-2006 2:13pm

Oh ffs, what next? Why don't we just get trackers and barcodes on everyone in the country. That way we could all live in perfect harmoney :rolleyes:

JHMEG · 18-09-2006 2:31pm

And what happens the next time the powers that be want to raise the motorway speed limit like they did a while back (change to metric speed limits)?

Or for that matter if all cars were restricted to 120km/h, what use would it be if they decided to *lower* the motorway speed limit?

oleras · 18-09-2006 4:58pm

mloc123 wrote:

Oh ffs, what next? Why don't we just get trackers and barcodes on everyone in the country. That way we could all live in perfect harmoney :rolleyes:

you must have read my mind !! lol....:D

zilog_jones · 19-09-2006 12:21am

Aren't all cars in Japan limited to 180km/h?

I also remember our car in Saudi (1991 Mazda 323) used to start pinging if you went over 120km/h - that was just bloody annoying though

Sandwich · 19-09-2006 8:21pm

zilog_jones wrote:

Aren't all cars in Japan limited to 180km/h?

I also remember our car in Saudi (1991 Mazda 323) used to start pinging if you went over 120km/h - that was just bloody annoying though

OK so maybe it is at least possible, despite some of the views above. Any one for sure about Japan or Saudi? 180k still sounds to quick to me (unless the speed limit is really 180 then it sounds like the govt is saying 'yeh speed a bit, but not too much').

Why not 140kph or 120kph? ( The "I need to drive faster that that to escape danger" efforts above are just rediculous - no normal cars have safe handling if taking evasive action, at those speed, while accelerating!!!)

Of the stats on speeding causing accidents, anyone know whether it is the drivers doing 80 in a 50 zone, or the ones doing 140 in a 100 or zone contributing to the figures?

Anan1 · 19-09-2006 9:10pm

Sandwich wrote:

OK so maybe it is at least possible, despite some of the views above.

Of course it's possible, many German cars sold here are limited to 250km/h.

Sandwich wrote:

Why not 140kph or 120kph? ( The "I need to drive faster that that to escape danger" efforts above are just rediculous - no normal cars have safe handling if taking evasive action, at those speed, while accelerating!!!)

Maidhc has already explained why not for you.

Sandwich wrote:

Of the stats on speeding causing accidents, anyone know whether it is the drivers doing 80 in a 50 zone, or the ones doing 140 in a 100 or zone contributing to the figures?

There are no such stats, as nobody (with the possible exception of the occupants) knows how fast each car was going before it crashed.

Speed governor

Comments