Speed limiters for cars
View Full Version : Speed limiters for cars
Cars should have speed limiters fitted that restrict them to 30mph in towns, then I can annoy the
drivers by passing them on stretches of near empty road.
Rant over.
--
Ian
http://www.catrike.co.uk (http://www.catrike.co.uk/)
Ian wrote:
> Cars should have speed limiters fitted that restrict them to 30mph in towns, then I can annoy the
> drivers by passing them on stretches of near empty road.
>
They do but they don't work. They are called "drivers complying with the speed limits".
Tony
"Ian" <spamandchips@greasy.joes> wrote in message news:BBD25CF5.16516%spamandchips@greasy.joes...
| Cars should have speed limiters fitted that restrict them to 30mph in
towns,
| then I can annoy the drivers by passing them on stretches of near empty road.
But then you'd be as bad as they are.
Budgie
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com (http://www.grisoft.com/)).
Version: 6.0.537 / Virus Database: 332 - Release Date: 06/11/2003
Tony Raven must be edykated coz e writed:
> Ian wrote:
>> Cars should have speed limiters fitted that restrict them to 30mph in towns, then I can annoy the
>> drivers by passing them on stretches of near empty road.
>>
>
> They do but they don't work. They are called "drivers complying with the speed limits".
>
> Tony
>
>
>
>
No I was talking about using an INTELLIGENT device.
--
Ian
http://www.catrike.co.uk (http://www.catrike.co.uk/)
"Ian" <spamandchips@greasy.joes> wrote in message news:BBD25CF5.16516%spamandchips@greasy.joes...
> Cars should have speed limiters fitted that restrict them to 30mph in
towns,
> then I can annoy the drivers by passing them on stretches of near empty road.
>
This (thankfully) should arrive in our lifetimes. There is already the technology to do it. Mercedes
already build into their cars a variable speed limiter and a GPS system which displays the speed
limit. The driver still has (unfortunately) the choice of whether to engage the speed limiter. There
is also some lobbying in EC to make such devices compulsory.
Ric wrote:
>
> This (thankfully) should arrive in our lifetimes. There is already the technology to do it.
> Mercedes already build into their cars a variable speed limiter and a GPS system which displays
> the speed
> limit. The driver still has (unfortunately) the choice of whether to engage the speed limiter.
> There is also some lobbying in EC to make such devices compulsory.
I would be strongly against compulsion. There are rare circumstances where I would break the speed
limit. Two examples are getting someone to hospital in an emergency and I have been in a situation
where being able to accelerate above the speed limit allowed me to avoid a collision that could not
have been avoided by braking or evasive action.
Tony
"Tony Raven" <junk@raven-family.com> wrote in message
news:boifg0$1eehe9$1@ID-178940.news.uni-berlin.de...
> Ric wrote:
> >
> > This (thankfully) should arrive in our lifetimes. There is already the technology to do it.
> > Mercedes already build into their cars a variable speed limiter and a GPS system which displays
> > the speed
> > limit. The driver still has (unfortunately) the choice of whether to engage the speed limiter.
> > There is also some lobbying in EC to make such devices compulsory.
>
> I would be strongly against compulsion. There are rare circumstances
where
> I would break the speed limit. Two examples are getting someone to
hospital
> in an emergency and I have been in a situation where being able to accelerate above the speed
> limit allowed me to avoid a collision that
could
> not have been avoided by braking or evasive action.
>
I too am against automatic speed limiters. Most people would simply drive at the limit, and fall
half asleep.
Additionally, the OP should reconsider his stance. If it's dangerous for a motorist to break the
speed limit, how does it become safe for a cyclist?
Nathaniel Porter must be edykated coz e writed:
>
> "Tony Raven" <junk@raven-family.com> wrote in message
> news:boifg0$1eehe9$1@ID-178940.news.uni-berlin.de...
>> Ric wrote:
>>>
>>> This (thankfully) should arrive in our lifetimes. There is already the technology to do it.
>>> Mercedes already build into their cars a variable speed limiter and a GPS system which displays
>>> the speed
>>> limit. The driver still has (unfortunately) the choice of whether to engage the speed limiter.
>>> There is also some lobbying in EC to make such devices compulsory.
>>
>> I would be strongly against compulsion. There are rare circumstances
> where
>> I would break the speed limit. Two examples are getting someone to
> hospital
>> in an emergency and I have been in a situation where being able to accelerate above the speed
>> limit allowed me to avoid a collision that
> could
>> not have been avoided by braking or evasive action.
>>
>
> I too am against automatic speed limiters. Most people would simply drive at the limit, and fall
> half asleep.
>
> Additionally, the OP should reconsider his stance. If it's dangerous for a motorist to break the
> speed limit, how does it become safe for a cyclist?
>
>
I was having a rant about car drivers speeding just because I can do 30mph on the trike, the clue
was when I said "rant over", hello?
--
Ian
http://www.catrike.co.uk (http://www.catrike.co.uk/)
"Ian" <spamandchips@greasy.joes> wrote in message news:BBD25CF5.16516%spamandchips@greasy.joes...
> Cars should have speed limiters fitted that restrict them to 30mph in
towns,
> then I can annoy the drivers by passing them on stretches of near empty road.
So not only do we all ride on pavements, never use lights and run red lights with impunity we'll
also be able to exceed the limit when persecuted taxed and insured perfect motorists can't. Hmm,
sounds good to me, nothing like winding up predjudiced narrow minded twats ;-) Might even get me
photo published in the Daily Wail (downhill of course:).
Lycra Lout First Class Pete.
In message <boijc9$map$1@news-reader2.wanadoo.fr>, Ric <spam@off.com> writes
>
>"Tony Raven" <junk@raven-family.com> wrote in message
>news:boifg0$1eehe9$1@ID-178940.news.uni-berlin.de...
>>
>> I would be strongly against compulsion. There are rare circumstances
>where
>> I would break the speed limit. Two examples are getting someone to
>hospital
>> in an emergency
>
>Illegal. It is not an excuse to break the speed limit.
Ambulance drivers do it all the time.............
>
>and I have been in a situation where being able to
>> accelerate above the speed limit allowed me to avoid a collision that
>could
>> not have been avoided by braking or evasive action.
>
>Only because of poor anticipation in the first place. You shouldn't have let yourself get into that
>situation. Besides, I find it difficult to believe that you can be in a situation where speeding up
>is better than slowing down. I've never once in twenty-five years of driving found myself in such a
>situation.
>
I think it is uncommon/unnecessary in general, but I accept there might be the odd occasion.
I have once accelerated hard on a motorway when it looked like a HGV which I was mostly passed was
going too pull out on me- I was on a motorbike with ludicrously quick acceleration though.
Yes I could have braked hard but I ran a real risk of being hit from behind .
However, even if there was the odd occasion, I suspect the benefits of the speed being limited would
outweigh the dis-benefits.
I suspect we will see increasing amounts of automated control in cars in the future, but I think the
impact on the sense of responsibility etc. of drivers is an important aspect.
--
Chris French, Leeds
Peter B wrote:
>
> So not only do we all ride on pavements, never use lights and run red lights with impunity we'll
> also be able to exceed the limit when persecuted taxed and insured perfect motorists can't.
<pedant>
We do not exceed the speeed limit since there is no speed limit for us.
</pedant>
Tony
"Tony Raven" <junk@raven-family.com> wrote in message
news:boifg0$1eehe9$1@ID-178940.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
> I would be strongly against compulsion. There are rare circumstances
where
> I would break the speed limit. Two examples are getting someone to
hospital
> in an emergency
Illegal. It is not an excuse to break the speed limit.
and I have been in a situation where being able to
> accelerate above the speed limit allowed me to avoid a collision that
could
> not have been avoided by braking or evasive action.
Only because of poor anticipation in the first place. You shouldn't have let yourself get into that
situation. Besides, I find it difficult to believe that you can be in a situation where speeding up
is better than slowing down. I've never once in twenty-five years of driving found myself in such a
situation.
"Nathaniel Porter" <nathaniel.porter@warwick.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:boil7j$t32$1@wisteria.csv.warwick.ac.uk...
>
> "dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers" <wafflycathcs@aol.comcomcom> wrote in message
> news:20031108064236.23681.00000351@mb-m17.aol.com...
> > >Additionally, the OP should reconsider his stance. If it's dangerous
for
> a
> > >motorist to break the speed limit, how does it become safe for a
cyclist?
> >
> > As has been shown on many a thread here, the speed limit does not apply
to
> > pedal cycles. Whether it is safe to cycle at a speed above the speed
limit
> for
> > a motorised vehicle is an entirely different matter altogether.
> >
>
> Legal != Safe. But, legalities aside, if you're going to take the stance
the
> stance that to drive above the speed limit is dangerous/irresponsible, how can you take the stance
> that breaking the speed limit on a bike is fine
and
> dandy simply because it's legal.
>
> To put it another way, its not illegal (yet) to drive whilst operating a mobile phone. Does that
> make it acceptable?
>
It is illegal if the use of the phone constitutes DWDCA - The introduction of the specific offence
is intended to raise the issue in the motoring public's collective unconscious - and make it easier
to nick them.
"Nathaniel Porter" <nathaniel.porter@warwick.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:boil7j$t32$1@wisteria.csv.warwick.ac.uk...
> Legal != Safe. But, legalities aside, if you're going to take the stance
the
> stance that to drive above the speed limit is dangerous/irresponsible, how can you take the stance
> that breaking the speed limit on a bike is fine
and
> dandy simply because it's legal.
To do with mass and manouvrebility mainly. At least that seems to be the logic behind relative speed
limits applied to cars and lorries.
Pete
"Tony Raven" <junk@raven-family.com> wrote in message
news:boimdj$1enfe5$2@ID-178940.news.uni-berlin.de...
> Peter B wrote:
> >
> > So not only do we all ride on pavements, never use lights and run red lights with impunity we'll
> > also be able to exceed the limit when persecuted taxed and insured perfect motorists can't.
>
> <pedant>
>
> We do not exceed the speeed limit since there is no speed limit for us.
>
> </pedant>
*We* know that but I'm guessing the persecuted motorist doesn't, or if they do they will perceive it
as another unfairness. Anyway, I was (trying) being jovial, I know it's gloomy out but lighten up (I
find yellow lenses fitted to my glasses help no end).
Pete
Tony Raven <junk@raven-family.com> wrote in message
news:boifg0$1eehe9$1@ID-178940.news.uni-berlin.de...
> Ric wrote:
> >
> > This (thankfully) should arrive in our lifetimes. There is already the technology to do it.
> > Mercedes already build into their cars a variable speed limiter and a GPS system which displays
> > the speed
> > limit. The driver still has (unfortunately) the choice of whether to engage the speed limiter.
> > There is also some lobbying in EC to make such devices compulsory.
>
> I would be strongly against compulsion. There are rare circumstances
where
> I would break the speed limit. Two examples are getting someone to
hospital
> in an emergency and I have been in a situation where being able to accelerate above the speed
> limit allowed me to avoid a collision that
could
> not have been avoided by braking or evasive action.
>
How about an irritation-based limiter? One that cuts power to the radio & fag lighter socket,
and turns on a loud beeper if over the limit. MOT failure if not working, criminal offence to
disable it.
On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 10:38:15 +0000, Nathaniel Porter wrote:
> Additionally, the OP should reconsider his stance. If it's dangerous for a motorist to break the
> speed limit, how does it become safe for a cyclist?
'Cos there's no speed limit for a cyclist. Its been discussed on this group before. Speed limits do
not apply to pedal cycles - as they do not carry a speedometer.
And you should know that a car's speedometer is legally required to have a certain accuracy and must
not under-read. So replying 'everyone should get a bike computer' is meaningless, as these aren't
properly calibrated, legal devices.
"Nathaniel Porter" <nathaniel.porter@warwick.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:boigqc$rtr$1@wisteria.csv.warwick.ac.uk...
> I too am against automatic speed limiters. Most people would simply drive
at
> the limit, and fall half asleep.
Well they shouldn't be allowed to drive then. Moreover, these are the exact people who should be
limited, because they clearly currently drive above the speed limit. My car (Mercedes) has a
variable speed limiter and it is fantastically useful. I never fall asleep.
Ric wrote:
>
> Illegal. It is not an excuse to break the speed limit.
>
Agreed but there are some things where I would be prepared to break the law and take the
consequences rather than live with my conscience afterwards
>
> Only because of poor anticipation in the first place. You shouldn't have let yourself get into
> that situation. Besides, I find it difficult to believe that you can be in a situation where
> speeding up is better than slowing down. I've never once in twenty-five years of driving found
> myself in such a situation.
Crossing a traffic light junction to see a car coming at high speed through a red light. If I had
braked or carried on at the same speed he would have t-boned the rear of the car where my young
daughters were sat. I make no apologies for putting my foot down and he skimmed past the rear of the
car. IMO it was good anticipation and observation that prevented the accident. I am sure thought you
would have stopped at the line on a green light and looked both ways before proceeding.
Tony
Peter B wrote:
>
> *We* know that but I'm guessing the persecuted motorist doesn't, or if they do they will perceive
> it as another unfairness. Anyway, I was (trying) being jovial, I know it's gloomy out but lighten
> up (I find yellow lenses fitted to my glasses help no end).
>
Perhaps we need to wear t-shirts with "Speed limits don't apply to cyclists" on the front and
back. Probably do more to get us noticed on the roads than any amount of invisible flouescent
yellow gear ;-)
Tony
Automatic Translations (Powered by
):
vBulletin, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by
vBSEO 3.3.0
