Speed limiters on high performance cars? - Page 3

4Vman · 19-04-2006, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Walkinshaw

Speeding does not = exceeding posted speed limit
Speeding = exceeding a speed which is responsible for a particular situation.

Its a shame that we have to make laws for the lowest common denominator.

That's the problem, how do you get around the moron factor associated with accidents?
Give it 3 months and some computer guru will brake the speed limit code, and lets face it, it would take 15 years for these limited cars to filter down to the problem area.
Laws and rules are there to guide the honest, the morons will allways brake the rules regardless, i really don't know what anyone can do to stop the road toll, stricter rules, education, fines and continual advertising doesn't seem to work. Its quite depressing when you think about it....

Walkinshaw · 19-04-2006, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 4Vman

That's the problem, how do you get around the moron factor associated with accidents?
Give it 3 months and some computer guru will brake the speed limit code, and lets face it, it would take 15 years for these limited cars to filter down to the problem area.
Laws and rules are there to guide the honest, the morons will allways brake the rules regardless, i really don't know what anyone can do to stop the road toll, stricter rules, education, fines and continual advertising doesn't seem to work. Its quite depressing when you think about it....

Random public executions of people who exibit such "moronic" tendencies. Would quickly reduce the number of morons.

**ebxr8240** · 19-04-2006, 02:52 PM

I can see it now, if limiters come in....Headline..
A 21 year old and passengers where killed on head on accident while overtaking a bus said to be traveling at 120 kph.. The speedo on the WRX wreck was stuck at 120 when police arrived.!!!!!!!
Maybe these cars should have restrictors on inlet, Nascar or WRC style but limiting speed is very dangerous...

Walkinshaw · 19-04-2006, 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ebxr8240

I can see it now, if limiters come in....Headline..
A 21 year old and passengers where killed on head on accident while overtaking a bus said to be traveling at 120 kph.. The speedo on the WRX wreck was stuck at 120 when police arrived.!!!!!!!
Maybe these cars should have restrictors on inlet, Nascar or WRC style but limiting speed is very dangerous...

Its good to know you can still make 700bhp through the nascar restrictors

al9 · 19-04-2006, 04:24 PM

Hmmm my bike has a electronic limiter of 300 kph already. hope this rule doesnt apply to bikes in the future

fmc351 · 19-04-2006, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AUII_SE_Ute

When you step on the road, do you think two white painted lines are going to save your life? No matter what speed anyone is going, they're not life saving items. That may be so, but if im doing 50 Ive got a lot more chance of stopping, or at least hitting them at a speed likely to be survivable. Yeah they should look where they are going, but kids for example make poor decisions, and Ill be damned if the idea they stepped in front me would help me live with myself if I was doing 5 k over, let alone 50. The one in Townsville is disgraceful. The lad shouldnt see the outside for years to come, 100 in a 50. As the ad says thats no accident.

Two ways I think this will determine good drivers...

(Learners wanting to go onto Provisional) - Do two driving tests instead of one, with two different testers, an hour or so after the first one. Traffic conditions could have changed in that hour, and who says they could safely get home without having an accident? If they only pass one, too bad.

(Provisional wanting to go Open) - Take another driving test after they have done the provisional period. As above, if they fail, too bad. These probably arent that bad an idea. Except that people pass the test as it is, obviously the testers arent seeing their normal driving habits, they just need to fake it twice

I think advanced driver training should also be taken in that provisional period.

However, after saying that, instead of governments using shock tactics to scare people into obeying the speedo, why don't they help subsidise costs of doing an advanced drivers course? I enquired into doing a course at the Holden Performance Driving Centre and was ready to book myself in until I found out the price. IIRC, it was around $350 for one day.

I see this as being of benefit to those who already see the wisdom of traffic laws. However, its like putting convicted theives through basic military training, or boot camps. All it does is make them fitter so next time they get away. IMO, the law needs to get serious and penalise people who endanger others. Actually act on the laws that exist now, and enforce them fully and with full weight.

HOON69 · 19-04-2006, 06:41 PM

if you want a track car buy a track car
you want a road registered vehicle then why not have them cap'd to a certain speed?

only makes sense doesnt it?

WILDTRAKPX2 · 19-04-2006, 06:51 PM

The major problem is speeding in built up areas... so, like I asked on the first page:
How will speed limiting cars to 120km/h prevent some moron from doing 120km/h in a 60 zone?

When the powers to be can solve this problem, I will take this more seriously.

The Monty · 19-04-2006, 07:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HOON69

if you want a track car buy a track car
you want a road registered vehicle then why not have them cap'd to a certain speed?

only makes sense doesnt it?

I see what you are getting at, but I cant afford two cars. I can afford to have a car that is able to do both, but why should I be persecuted by speedlimitting my car to not be able to go to track/drag days, just because Im not rich ?

fmc351 · 19-04-2006, 07:12 PM

It doesnt make sense to apply this universally. Im not sure it makes sense full stop.

Repeat serious offenders when they get their licence back its probably a good idea though.

muppet · 19-04-2006, 08:20 PM

people believe they are safe in cars . They believe that because cars have air bags and crumple zones that they are safe . I once saw a show on TV (so it must be true lol) it was about the history of car safety . At the end of this show a guy got on there and said that people are driving more dangerously the more safety features they put on cars because they think they are safe. He said imagine how safely you would drive if you had a big steel spike sticking out of the middle of your'e steering wheel . The point he was trying to make was that people need to respect cars and realize that they can and will kill you if you dont drive carefully. Of course I am not trying to say that safety gear on cars is a waste of time far from it . But if every time you got in your'e car you thought how unsafe you are rather than how safe you are then you might just live longer than someone that thinks they are safe. I think everyone with a car licence and I mean everyone should have to watch 3 hours of videos of dead bodys being cut out of cars . It sure scared the crap out of me and I only watched an hour long video.

**ebxr8240** · 19-04-2006, 09:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Walkinshaw

Its good to know you can still make 700bhp through the nascar restrictors

Amm ?? Not too sure about 700 h.p but the events that run restrictors take nearly two laps to get up to speed on some tracks..
WRC are limited to just over 300 h.p though much more torque ...
The gov has to be seen to be trying to be doing something about this...

Panda · 19-04-2006, 11:19 PM

I've had a look at a lot of statistics from the Beauro of Statistics website (I know....I need to get a life)

Some of the more interesting trends I have found are these

All sorts of data on this website Australian Beauro of Statistics . Keeps me awake on boring night shifts anyway.

Panda

LTDHO · 20-04-2006, 08:22 AM

It would be good if performance cars were speed limited.
Then a GT with big brakes and sports suspension and goot tyres can only do 120kph but a Corolla with small brakes, soft suspension and thin tyres can do 180+kph.
It makes type government sence.
In theory a V8 falcon will go faster than a GT!!
No how about a XT I6 on gas will go faster than a GT!!

[/sarcasm]

DivHunter · 20-04-2006, 10:14 AM

So the manuacturers said hell no we won't limit our cars further so they want to do something aftermarket? Funny.

Quote:

Originally Posted by EDManual

Just ignore the our government!

Higher speeds are safer, so the italian goverment says. Drivers concentrate rather than doze off or fidddle with things in their cars like mobile phones, radios,..... I'll take their opinion :-)

Not only the italians, the US did a 10 year study that showed lowering the speed limit increased the number of fatalities.

Limiting to 120 is pointless if you look into car safety devices you go from safe to lucky ~80

Is there a point? No. More people kill themselves (probably over rediculous speeding fines) than die on the roads. Moving fast in a tin can isn't particularly safe, sometimes people will die. The government will continue to ignore road safetly facts as long as they don't earn them $. The old people will take out their anger at 103 in a 100 zone fines on young people and how imature and dangerous they are to make themselves feel better.

DivHunter · 20-04-2006, 10:18 AM

You know what would be a 100% sure fire way of making the roads safer?

A 15 year rule, all cars over 15 years old are crushed into a cube, go buy a new one.

Perana · 20-04-2006, 10:27 AM

Seeing most accidents involve cars under 15years old....

DivHunter · 20-04-2006, 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Perana XR8

Seeing most accidents involve cars under 15years old....

What the hell has that got to do with it? Old cars don't have the same level of safety as new ones. Ofcourse there are more accidents with under 15y/o cars there are a whole lot more of them.

According to that maybe all new cars shuld be destroyed and we should go back 10-20 years in design. Yeah that makes sense...

Perana · 20-04-2006, 10:34 AM

Not what im saying at all.. Yes new cars are safer... but crushing all old cars wont fix the problem like you say.... I would hardly call a late 90's Hyundai Excel safer than for example an XW Falcon though...

CARS are NOT what cause accidents... drivers cause accidents... education is the only way to fix the road toll

Falcon_Phill · 20-04-2006, 10:46 AM

and how many xw's do you see crashing anyway?

LTDHO · 20-04-2006, 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fairmont99

What the hell has that got to do with it? Old cars don't have the same level of safety as new ones. Ofcourse there are more accidents with under 15y/o cars there are a whole lot more of them.

According to that maybe all new cars shuld be destroyed and we should go back 10-20 years in design. Yeah that makes sense...

Are you serious???
The whole purpose is to save lives!
Just because a car is over 15 years, doesn't make it unsafe!

Driver education is the only way to fix this. People are still dieing in new cars.

merlin · 20-04-2006, 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LTDHO

Are you serious???
The whole purpose is to save lives!
Just because a car is over 15 years, doesn't make it unsafe!
.

Going by the Japanese model they would argue against this....if all cars had airbags, abs, stabilty control ect (almost standard features nowadays) it is hard to argue that there would be no decrease in fatalities? And of course much cleaner emissions...

Rev28K · 20-04-2006, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HOON69

if you want a track car buy a track car
you want a road registered vehicle then why not have them cap'd to a certain speed?

only makes sense doesnt it?

Not to me. All of my road cars (5 in total) have been regular track day weekend warriors as well. I'd rather be doing 190 at PI than 190 on the Eastern. I am building up a race car for when I get more serious about sprints. But until that is ready my ABS/Airbag/PULP road car will have to do double duty. Theoretical 220kmh top speed - but i've only seen 200ish on a circuit. There are very few times where you are at full throttle and near your top speed on a circuit (end of PI (200ish), Sandown (190ish), Calder (190ish) straights. Winton (only 170ish))

As for new cars being safer. There was a bit in The Age a year or so ago with a car company safety engineer saying that the maximum safe speed for surviving a side impact (Australian car Falcon/Commodore) being roughly 80kmh – even with side airbags, anti-intrusion bars, deformable crush and stronger A, B & C pillars. Apparently there is only so much you can do with current technology/pricing in a side crash with only 300mm to cushion the blow (as opposed to metres in a longitudinal crash). Something to think about when you start fanging around the twisties on the road…..