Forum menu
If you could buy a car that was incapable of breaking the speed limit (perhaps linked to devices on signage or something) but offered better economy (through lowered tax maybe), cheaper insurance and VED and still had the room and equipment of a normal car, just not the speed would you?
I 'never' speed 8) (no really I don't).
No
Happy with it anywhere other than a motorway.
but offered better economy (through lowered tax maybe), cheaper insurance and VED and still had the room and equipment of a normal car, just not the speed would you?
like a bus/coach or LGV then.
No.
My citroen has a limiter set a bit above 70 and funily enough i never notice it.
Nope I like speed , its not big or right but Somtimes well you know
Nope, its dangerous.
Would it have heated wing mirrors?
Yes!! I'd buy two!
🙂
Seriously I've been wishing somebody would make this car for years!
Yep, would probably like a +15% for x seconds for get out of shit situations.
Even on the motorway I do 60 most of the way anyway. I'm tight like that.
Nope, its dangerous.
Ha ha! There is always one. It's true, you do need a fast powerful car to be safe, that's why the side of every motorway is littered with burnt out carcasses of micras, smart cars and such. Too slow you see, not safe. 🙄
Yep, like the +15% for emergencies idea.
Happy with doing the speed limit, why not other than a bit of willy waving.
It will upset a lot of Audi drivers though. 😀
Despite what I typed above , I don't agree with the dangerous line
Spent 10 years with a 1960 landrover that would do 50 at best and that was fine
Even in our current defender I tend to be doing 50-55 and 60-65 on motorway
And that's not dangerous at all
No. Nononononononono. Current speed limits are antiquated and irrelevant. Better driver education and a higher level of social responsibility are what's required. Like that's going to happen.
All the people who drive at an unfluctuating 5mph less than the limit - take them off the road. Also the people who do a steady 40 everywhere (motorway, school driveway). Anyone who slows to 25 to pass a speed camera in a 40 limit. These people are clearly not sufficiently aware of their surroundings.
Speed limits are a nonsense but are a necessity because we let complete @@@@wits have a driving licence.
Can someone point me in the direction of some verified/reputable/authorised guidance that shows that going 15% above the speed limit helps in emergenices-escaping from flesh eating zombies excepted.
Speed limits are a nonsense but are a necessity because we let complete @@@@wits have a driving licence.
Sounds like you would know 😉
My car and the previous one is electronically limited to 85mph the GPS appears to indicate that it may do 93mph.
It's zero rated VED BTW.
As far as sitting below the limit I guess you have never driven a landrover lol
If I want to go slower I can, with a car like you describe I'd have no choice.
Imagine getting stuck behind a car doing 55mph on a single-carriageway road, the ability to overtake would be seriously limited. Nearest dual to me is 40 miles away.
And what if Molgrips is at the front of the overtaking queue? 🙂
My citroen has a limiter set a bit above 70 and funily enough i never notice it.
That's frickin hilarious! I bet it's top speed is 65. You're not gonna are you?
Even on the motorway I do 60 most of the way anyway. I'm tight like that and always in the middle lane as it saves wear on the tyres with less manoeuvres.
fixed it for you ...
I rarely drive at motorway speed limit I the UK, in France I generally stick to the 130kmph / 84 mph on the auto routes - I don't mind all the speed cameras n France as the speed limit is a bit more realistic
My mate has a 2l diesel a3 with a stop/start thing so low/zero road tax. Best part is you can just switch it off. These artificial tax incentives are nuts
Can someone point me in the direction of some verified/reputable/authorised guidance that shows that going 15% above the speed limit helps in emergenices-
So you can't imagine a scenario where having two viable options (brake or accelerate) for avoiding an accident would be beneficial? Go read a book called Road Craft, the police driving manual. Then come back to us.
Nick I spent 4 years driving alarm response. I did an advanced driving day with a ROSPA ex-paramedic response driver who said speed was not an issue; it's about how you drive not how fast. And yes, I modified my driving for the better after that day. But I will still do 120mph when it is safe to do so, because in certain circumstances it is safe to do so, and the limit is irrelevant.
It amazes me that I am on a forum for people who like to throw themselves down a rocky hillside at 40 mph on a bicycle, wearing only a second skin of lycra, yet think that driving a modern car at 40+ mph is going to result in an apocalypse.
No it's pointless, it would have to be limited to 70mph for motorways, hence allowing you to speed in all the areas where 70mph just isn't safe.
How would said car work on the continent?
What about those silly 5mph and 10mph signs around main roads into supermarkets, would drive me insane. I don't think you can physically drive that slow!
Hell no. I'm not conflicted about my speeding.
Nope. Had a great drive over the Dalveen Pass at a pace I dictated last weekend - wouldn't want some hippy taking that away from me
Would be so much better if all cars had them rather than just a few people that chose to. I doubt the people that would buy such a system through choice are really the ones that need it the most.
Not a bleeding chance.
I've just driven 150 miles back from Bristol - M5 > M42 > M6 Toll > A38, getting home at 1am...
For probably 95% of the motorway/dual carriageway I had the cruise set to 75mph (so actually just under 70 according to GPS). 80+ would have presented no danger, but would have meant cancelling the cruise on more occasions, however...
At '75' the majority of the journey was possible in lane 1, with the obvious manoeuvres for LGV's and then into lane 3 for slower moving cars and vans - mostly still in 'cruise'.
There were (and always are) a few occasions though, when even with plenty of indication lane 2 drivers seem unwilling to move over to lane 3 to accommodate your move to lane 2 - yeah, I could (and often do) anticipate them coming and force them to pass wide by moving to lane 2 earlier than required - but just sometimes, it's great to have the power, acceleration and 'available speed' to build up some momentum before the vehicle is upon you and pull out, get past the wagon and back in, without impeding anyone.
Other times, it's just nice to knock it up to 90 on an empty M6 Toll...
Do people read the OP anymore?
Where did he say the current speed limit?
It said "the speed limit", that could be 80mph or 10mph, whatever was deemed correct.
And, it also stated that the speed limit would vary as you moved onto other roads using something such as the sat nav to identify the limit, which already identifies the speed for you now.
The arguments made about being a super driver who can judge the ideal speed on a road is just plain bollocks, it's the other people on the road who pull out, are stopped around the corner, the blow out, the pack of roadies riding 2 or 3 abreast just over the brow of the hill, etc.
I remember this idea being a feature on old top gear many moons ago. Presented by the vampireish second hand car sales man. I forget his name.
Anyhow, they trotted out the "but what if I need to accelerate out of danger because I is awesome" line. It was quickly debunked by some research that showed in the overwhelming majority of cases when confronted with an issue they brake.
Selfishly I don't want this as it would take me longer to get places. Practically is there evidence that speed is the root cause of many accidents? I thought it was either people not paying attention or being nobheads.
depends on what it is limited to. Fair few German cars are limited to 155mph i believe.
Personally cars are a tool to get from A to B not some ego extension. If there was a benefit of having a limiter fine, if compulsory fine, if they want a black box again fine. I really don't care, i have no right to drive.
Practically is there evidence that speed is the root cause of many accidents?
There are studies, and from memory, speed doesn't cause that many accidents in itself, speed however doesn't help when an accident does happen. Think of it like this hit a brick wall at 10mph, now hit it at 90mph, same accident but which do you think is going to hurt more.
Only concern i can think of, driving to the limiter and not actually bothering to look around. Too many car drivers don't actually bother to look out the window and realise that there are cars, bikes, lorries around them, they don't bother to think about what happens in Fog, heavy rain, snow etc etc.
[img] 
[/img]
I've personally not got a problem with driving a speed limited car. I also ride motorbikes as well, and my biggest complaint with it is that super sport 600 is too capable for the road and something half the size would probably be more fun, used to love my 125 as that was a chuck about and not be in danger of breaking many speed limits.
As for the takes me longer to get to places, how much time do you think you actually save? The amount of times overtaken by audi man on a mission, only to pull up behind them at the traffic lights 10 miles further up the road is crazy.
One thing that concerns me is if you deskill the driving process even further will drivers just switch off even more and actually become more dangerous.
JFletch the guy you are thinking of is probably Quintin Wilson.
As for driver training, definitely needed, the amount of peoples driving who is appalling and the amount of people who believe they are above average is ridiculous. Newly qualified drivers regularly say they are safe because they passed the driving test first time, no you just met the minimum standard and therefore scored a pass.
One more thing, I personally would like to see mandatory retests every five years, be fascinated to see what that did for the accident figures, along with you can only take a test three times before you have to a years cooling off period, to stop the people who take 20 tests to get through like maureen or whoever it was on telly.
Yes if it saved me money. I stick to 60 on motorways usually anyway as my car isn't very efficient if you rag it.
I wouldnt mind a system that limited me in posted areas ie 20, 30, 40, 50 but allowed me to have some extra zip to pass in the nationals, although to be fair I rarely overtake in the car down here in the crowded south. Often zip up to 75 to overtake on my bike and then back it down to the limit I'm a bit of a sticjler for limits. Can have great fun under 80 on my old 650 single cylinder bavarian tracktor.
As a family vehicle i would consider one. I'd still like my own form of transport too as i generally drive at a speed that i think is appropriate and this isn't always less than the speed limit.
Turn the limiter off and you can be breaking the speed limit with surprising ease and not even notice.
Mine's limited to 155mph. Never caused a problem.
GB
Who is this genghispod and where was he the last time we did this to death a few weeks ago?
To summarise:
Speed may cause some accidents and not others, but it makes some accidents mote likely and it makes every accident worse. Simple physics.
And there is no reason to speed other than impatience or simple desire. None at all. So get over yourselves.
And there is no reason to speed other than impatience or [b]simple desire[/b]. None at all. So get over yourselves.
There are other reasons to speed, but desire is a pretty strong one. What speed is the high horse limited to?
simple desire
Yup. Great innit? 🙂
yes.
i wouldn't go out of my way to buy one, but if it was a 'feature' on a car i was considering it wouldn't put me off in the slightest.
What about those silly 5mph and 10mph signs ... I don't think you can physically drive that slow!
it really isn't hard - cars have these things called accelerators, brakes, gears, and speedometers.
It wouldn't be a deal breaker.