Should road cars be speed limited?

[pottery beige]

4.11 gears my old bomb is speed limited....

[Ducati888]

There's no point in putting in speed limiters. Electronic gadgetry can always be played with.

I reckon just put in speedos that don't read over 140kph. Once over that the needle just stops even though you might only be changing in to second gear. If you are truly interested in speed, you'd be more interested in lap times than kph.

On the open road, if you are chasing anything over 140 (even overtaking shouldn't get you up to here), then you're a tool anyway.

Only problem with my plan is Sat Nav gives you your speed anyway, but while you are squinting at it to see whether you've gone over the two tonne, you might plow yourself in to a tree, which wouldn't be a great loss to society if that's what you are regularly doing for kicks.

[Keepleft]

Originally Posted by Ducati888

There's no point in putting in speed limiters. Electronic gadgetry can always be played with.

I reckon just put in speedos that don't read over 140kph. Once over that the needle just stops even though you might only be changing in to second gear. If you are truly interested in speed, you'd be more interested in lap times than kph.

Joan Claybrook tried that in Mericah - epic fail. Drivers of such equipped delights simply drove their speedometers flat on the interstates. Didn't achieve anything useful, so that idea stopped.

On the open road, if you are chasing anything over 140 (even overtaking shouldn't get you up to here), then you're a tool anyway.

Meh, quite a few times when 140-180km/h was uber safe and quite legal, triple digit speeds can be quite safe, still, but Labor, once again - killed off (//) in NT as they did in all other states. Prevailing circumstances matter.

[steve.zissou]

Firstly - Doing 160 or 200 or 250 kmph isnt evil - is it more dangerous than 60kmph, but 60 kmph is more dangerous than 30kmph and so on.
In germany, if its safe to do so (light trafic good weather), you can drive at 400kmph if you want on many freeways. (I have done 250kmph for over 3 hours straight over there).
Germany has a death rate of 8 people per 100,000 cars - Australia Has a death rate of 10 people per 100,000 cars. So using Australian state government logic, it must be safer to have unlimited speed limits. But there are obviously more factors involved.

So we can go two ways:
1) the current australian way. Regulate and reduce speed limits. So one day we will have a GPS that will fine us every time we speed and all cars will be speed limited. We will have a video camera on every cm of road and you will get fined for doing anything wrong (cliped that solid line = $100 bucks). Then the govt will reduce speed limits to stupid levels - 60kmph on the M4 because if it saves just one life we have to do it (it will happen)- you can easily die in a 60kmph accident though. After all this we might get down to Death rates of germany but Aussie drivers will have the ability of a muppet (litterally).
2) we could learn from the germans and teach and educate our drivers some skills and responsibility, and we could travel even faster than we are now and still reduce the death rates to the same level.

Given your going to get the same result, which path should we take?

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by jrckelley

Firstly - Doing 160 or 200 or 250 kmph isnt evil - is it more dangerous than 60kmph, but 60 kmph is more dangerous than 30kmph and so on.
In germany, if its safe to do so (light trafic good weather), you can drive at 400kmph if you want on many freeways. (I have done 250kmph for over 3 hours straight over there).
Germany has a death rate of 8 people per 100,000 cars - Australia Has a death rate of 10 people per 100,000 cars. So using Australian state government logic, it must be safer to have unlimited speed limits. But there are obviously more factors involved.

So we can go two ways:
1) the current australian way. Regulate and reduce speed limits. So one day we will have a GPS that will fine us every time we speed and all cars will be speed limited. We will have a video camera on every cm of road and you will get fined for doing anything wrong (cliped that solid line = $100 bucks). Then the govt will reduce speed limits to stupid levels - 60kmph on the M4 because if it saves just one life we have to do it (it will happen)- you can easily die in a 60kmph accident though. After all this we might get down to Death rates of germany but Aussie drivers will have the ability of a muppet (litterally).
2) we could learn from the germans and teach and educate our drivers some skills and responsibility, and we could travel even faster than we are now and still reduce the death rates to the same level.

Given your going to get the same result, which path should we take?

Great post, option 2 thanks.

[GTP owner]

In answer to the OP, there is no good justifiable reason for a car to do 160km/h.
BUT....
New car sales at the high end of the market would almost cease immediately (I know I would not buy a new gt if it only did 110km/h). Fleet buyers would not be that fussed, but remember that fleet sales don't make for profits - the private ones do. Private buyers would just hang on to their older cars, at least for 5 years plus until they really wear out.

Used cars before the limiters would go up in price, reflecting the general dislike of them. That makes it hard for the working people to afford a newer, but still second hand car that may be safer for them.

Governments would stand to lose significant amounts of revenue. Both from the cameras and the loss in new car sales.

Government noddies would be very very cautious to put their faith in the "speed kills" mantra because the limiters would have to be associated with a reduction in deaths....which it would not, so they look bad.


I actually think it is inevitable that they will come in. History repeats itself, and I can see a day when the new GTH falcon produces 350+kw and Holden retaliates with a new GTS with 400kw. The media grab a hold of these missiles capable of 300km/h and screams for the supercar madness to stop.....and the government will bring them in. (supercar scare 2)

[flappist]

Originally Posted by GTP owner

In answer to the OP, there is no good justifiable reason for a car to do 160km/h.
BUT....
New car sales at the high end of the market would almost cease immediately (I know I would not buy a new gt if it only did 110km/h). Fleet buyers would not be that fussed, but remember that fleet sales don't make for profits - the private ones do. Private buyers would just hang on to their older cars, at least for 5 years plus until they really wear out.

Used cars before the limiters would go up in price, reflecting the general dislike of them. That makes it hard for the working people to afford a newer, but still second hand car that may be safer for them.

Governments would stand to lose significant amounts of revenue. Both from the cameras and the loss in new car sales.

Government noddies would be very very cautious to put their faith in the "speed kills" mantra because the limiters would have to be associated with a reduction in deaths....which it would not, so they look bad.


I actually think it is inevitable that they will come in. History repeats itself, and I can see a day when the new GTH falcon produces 350+kw and Holden retaliates with a new GTS with 400kw. The media grab a hold of these missiles capable of 300km/h and screams for the supercar madness to stop.....and the government will bring them in. (supercar scare 2)

So if\when the CLP get back in and open up the (//) again ........

[GTP owner]

Originally Posted by flappist

So if\when the CLP get back in and open up the (//) again ........

Not going to happen. Too much pressure from the states raping us with the cameras, and they themselves will be enjoying the windfall from the voluntary taxation on the road.
There will also be ramifications if the road toll goes down after reintroducing open speed limits. Politicians are lie, but they hate getting caught.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by GTP owner

Not going to happen. Too much pressure from the states raping us with the cameras, and they themselves will be enjoying the windfall from the voluntary taxation on the road.
There will also be ramifications if the road toll goes down after reintroducing open speed limits. Politicians are lie, but they hate getting caught.

What you mean like the mining tax and carbon tax were a fait acompli?

NT is not Tasmania nor Victoria.......

[mrbaxr6t]

you ask why should we make cars that are capable of exceeding the speed limit? heres why in a nutshell if cars are limited in some way to the maximum allowable on any given stretch of road the revenue stream from speed cameras would run dry how are they going to fill up the multi billion dollar hole in their budgets?

as for having better driver training and open limit roads again no more speed camera happy snaps and a great big multi billion dollar hole in state budgets

do you guys really think the ones in charge of these things give a flying crap about how many die on the roads or about how many are injured most of the ones that are "in power" have the sole priority of remaining in power and collecting their tax payer funded retirement packages they don't care and they never will

[Revolver]

One thing that was covered briefly here was driver education. Drivers need to be educated more on what cars (& types of cars) can do. High performance, Standard bog stocks, hatch backs, utes, vans, etc. Not just this one way nonsense of just strapping a teenager in a car & "teaching" them how to drive. Now bare with me, this could be long-winded.

Now this is taken straight off Top Gear, however in Finland it takes 3 years to get a licence, you have to spend 6 hrs on a skid pan, driving lessons in the dark, different whether conditions, etc.

How many people have experience in all whether conditions (minus snow, how often does it snow in most parts of QLD, NT, WA). Its all very serious stuff over there. This would eliminate straight away some of the mistakes made by all drivers. Now I may be stereo-typing here, but this is just an example. The same arguement can be made for any age group/sex/race etc, but to me this is usually the worst.

I dont know how many 17-25 year old women know how to control their car. I mean REALLY control their car. This was highlighted this week by my (only) ex-girlfriend. Some how she lost control of her KIA RIO, spun around into the other lane, & rollled the nose of the car along the concrete barriers at Redbank. It put the cars nose out of joint, & bent the drivers guard but thats it. All the other cars, & truck managed to stop behind her safely.

She is fine, the airbags didnt deploy, but she has a little bruising from the seatbelt if you get my drift, however I cannot remember accuratley the amount of times I got a call from her in rain saying that she was scared to drive... She doesnt know what under or oversteer is, drives pretty much mindlessly along with her radio at full volume... Now Im not judging, because I wasn't there. I have given her the benifit of the doubt on this one... The accident was just one of those things that can happen.. There's a number of scenarios that could have played out. But It has got me thinking. How one earth did she loose control THERE?

Education would be a damned good start. So that people straight on their "p's" know what kind of car they are driving, be it theirs, or the families transport or treasure. Now due to this education, they understand as to what a car does at whatever speed. This in turn (in theory) should give a better quality of driver on our roads, better drivers, better conduct, higher speeds (if road quality improved first).

Now, another arguement can be said on the other side of the fence on this one. "Ive been through 100hrs of certified driver training, skid pan, car control technique... I can handle any car in any condition, i can do whatever speed I want." Giving drivers that over confident feeling, & *bang*, back to square one, beause they are driving too fast for road/traffic/wheather conditions.

Not to mention who is going to foot the bill for this training? The facilities, training cars, the actual training costs. Now it may be decent for Finland, but in each state, there are how many drivers? Thats alot of infrastructure & time & therefore money to educate drivers. The good ol speed camera revenue would be a good source of income for this programme, but I doubt each state will give it up for this... But hang on, using same philosophy behind the Flash for cash operations, if it only saves one life, its worth it isn't it? (Maybe that paragraph is borderline political).

I suppose in a nutshell what I'm trying to say is that IF a proper (uniform across all states) driver education progamme was to be implemented it should in theory give way to better driver quality. Better driver quality means more people can handle high speed limits & varying conditions. Higher spped limits, no real need for limiters.... So in some ways echoing XRsex's comments.

BBII

[AussieAV]

I know this is a complex problem with no simple solutions, but from the responses, a few simple truths do seem to be standing out.

Firstly, governments are addicted to the revenue stream that infringements provide, probably because it's something they don't have to class as a "tax" in their budgets. Getting them to kick the habit is going to be hard, very hard, although the actions of a few local councils in the UK maybe gives us hope.

Secondly, they are always going to be people who do not care how their actions affect others, sometimes not even how they affect themselves. No laws are going to change this. They will always be present in society somewhere. Also, sometimes good people have momentary lapses and make horrible, ill-considered decisions. In these moments, it can be hard to distinguish them from the complete idiots.

Maybe the fact that in a nation of nearly 22.5 million people, 1 guy in a WRX doing 222 km/h at 12:30am is newsworthy, means that we are not too far off having it pretty close to right after all.

I get the feeling that many years ago, he probably would have been applauded as a rebel hero by a reasonable percentage, and not so widely condemned for his actions as he been now. I take this as a positive sign, a glimmer of hope that the attitudes of the driving public might be improving (I know that we on AFF are the elite pointy end of the spear , but I think its flowing through to Joe Public a bit too).

Hopefully as our driving attitudes mature, it will eventually become impossible for the government to any longer justify the ridiculous zero tolerance approach of fining us for just a few kays over the limit (no matter how badly they want to keep it). - call me an eternal optomist.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by AussieAV

I know this is a complex problem with no simple solutions, but from the responses, a few simple truths do seem to be standing out.

Firstly, governments are addicted to the revenue stream that infringements provide, probably because it's something they don't have to class as a "tax" in their budgets. Getting them to kick the habit is going to be hard, very hard, although the actions of a few local councils in the UK maybe gives us hope.

Secondly, they are always going to be people who do not care how their actions affect others, sometimes not even how they affect themselves. No laws are going to change this. They will always be present in society somewhere. Also, sometimes good people have momentary lapses and make horrible, ill-considered decisions. In these moments, it can be hard to distinguish them from the complete idiots.

Maybe the fact that in a nation of nearly 22.5 million people, 1 guy in a WRX doing 222 km/h at 12:30am is newsworthy, means that we are not too far off having it pretty close to right after all.

I get the feeling that many years ago, he probably would have been applauded as a rebel hero by a reasonable percentage, and not so widely condemned for his actions as he been now. I take this as a positive sign, a glimmer of hope that the attitudes of the driving public might be improving (I know that we on AFF are the elite pointy end of the spear , but I think its flowing through to Joe Public a bit too).

Hopefully as our driving attitudes mature, it will eventually become impossible for the government to any longer justify the ridiculous zero tolerance approach of fining us for just a few kays over the limit (no matter how badly they want to keep it). - call me an eternal optomist.

Without a doubt the best post so far.

[Auturbo6]

As u Aussie AV, i don't agree with it, but can come up with no relevant arguement against such legislation. I really must be getting old. 33 going onto 50. LOL.

[302 XC]

So speed limit cars
Is this seriously just to funny for words ???
Mates mum has a VZ commondore,it is designed to NOT accelorate when the pedal goes down hard
When you need to pull out to overtake or get out of a situation,it WONT do it
Unless you have a big stretch of road
There have been a few situations (when i have been in the car)where people have pulled in front of her ,shes gassed up to reduce a collision and nothin happened
So having a limiter of sorts,is that better or worse ???
We ALL have been young once,we ALL have done some bad
We pay the price and HOPEFULLY learn from this
But it seems the generation now,(not ALL but quite ALOT)
Are unstopable,unbreakable over and beyond any rules/laws that the rest of us have to live by

Crushing the cars, well thats another desk jockey unintelligent thought process
What if its your car, the hoon is caught in,wanna crush it then ???
What if theres money owing on it,who pays that ???
Up go our insurance premiums

Its not the car that does the damage ,its the idiot behind the wheel
Its not the gun that does the damage its the bloke firing the bullets
They had a big gun ban didnt they

Whats next ban anything that does more than 110Kmh
Resort to riding pushies like japan/china

Then what ban 12 speed malvern stars ?????

[Romulus]

What scares me is emergency vehicle drivers saying 140-160km/h is fast

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by GT Falcon

What scares me is emergency vehicle drivers saying 140-160km/h is fast

Why is that, what inspired you to say that?

[Romulus]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

Why is that, what inspired you to say that?

Some rediculous comments I've read in the newspaper not long ago.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by GT Falcon

Some rediculous comments I've read in the newspaper not long ago.

Fair enough.

Our policy within Queensland Ambulance is the maximum speed you are allowed to go over the posted limit is by 30 km/h, according to our own code of driving practice. Any speed camera activation higher than 30 km/h over the posted limit will result in a please explain from the assistant commissioner. Any activation at higher than 40 km/h over the posted speed limit will result in a formal review by the driving standards committee and potentially referral to the police for legal action. To be honest, I support that as there are not many places in QLD that driving at over 150 km/h would be considered safe and with "due care and attention" in the glorified delivery vans that our ambulances are. The same must be said for the fire service as they are not high performance vehicles, they are trucks. The police are a little different as the vehicles they operate are different and their operational requirements are different but they have very stringent guidelines too.

Even in the NT where it is now 130 limits in some places, 170 is too fast for an ambulance (I don't think they would get that fast) but 160 would be fine and yes I have driven those roads so I know what they are like.

So in answer to your initial post, under our guidelines in a 110 zone 140 is the limit but 160 is too fast and I completely agree.

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

Fair enough.

Our policy within Queensland Ambulance is the maximum speed you are allowed to go over the posted limit is by 30 km/h, according to our own code of driving practice. Any speed camera activation higher than 30 km/h over the posted limit will result in a please explain from the assistant commissioner. Any activation at higher than 40 km/h over the posted speed limit will result in a formal review by the driving standards committee and potentially referral to the police for legal action. To be honest, I support that as there are not many places in QLD that driving at over 150 km/h would be considered safe and with "due care and attention" in the glorified delivery vans that our ambulances are. The same must be said for the fire service as they are not high performance vehicles, they are trucks. The police are a little different as the vehicles they operate are different and their operational requirements are different but they have very stringent guidelines too.

Even in the NT where it is now 130 limits in some places, 170 is too fast for an ambulance (I don't think they would get that fast) but 160 would be fine and yes I have driven those roads so I know what they are like.

So in answer to your initial post, under our guidelines in a 110 zone 140 is the limit but 160 is too fast and I completely agree.

In the latter circumstance, you would definitly want a police escort and patrol bikes
clearing the road in front of you. I can't see that happening and that 30 kph limit seem
like the most practical measure.

[BOSHOG]

Originally Posted by GT Falcon

What scares me is emergency vehicle drivers saying 140-160km/h is fast

so are you saying 160km/hr on our pathetic public roads is safe?

[Romulus]

Originally Posted by BOSHOG

so are you saying 160km/hr on our pathetic public roads is safe?

It was in the NT with the (//) speed limits, but since the introduction of 110km/h speed limits those same roads are now unsafe? How does that work? With the ever increasing improved safety features of new cars those roads become safer to travel on.

Yes I certainly advocate speeds in excess of 160km/h on certain public roads. Drive in the outback and you'll discover what I mean.

[dylancox]

Originally Posted by GT Falcon

It was in the NT with the (//) speed limits, but since the introduction of 110km/h speed limits those same roads are now unsafe? How does that work? With the ever increasing improved safety features of new cars those roads become safer to travel on.

Yes I certainly advocate speeds in excess of 160km/h on certain public roads. Drive in the outback and you'll discover what I mean.

Why cant all the money being put into a National Broadband Network be put into a National High Speed Road Network.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by dylancox

Why cant all the money being put into a National Broadband Network be put into a National High Speed Road Network.

Because your car won't fit in the optic fibre trench....duh.....

[flappist]

Originally Posted by BOSHOG

so are you saying 160km/hr on our pathetic public roads is safe?

Not everyone lives in Newcastle.....

We have many roads in Australia that are designed for or can be adapted for high speed.

[BOSHOG]

Originally Posted by flappist

Not everyone lives in Newcastle.....

We have many roads in Australia that are designed for or can be adapted for high speed.

its not just the roads, its other people on the roads that become hazards when youre traveling at those speeds.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by BOSHOG

its not just the roads, its other people on the roads that become hazards when youre traveling at those speeds.

So what you are saying is that you should only travel at 160km/h on roads where it is legal and when it is safe?

Have you ever actually driven on roads that have limits above 110 or none at all?

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by flappist

Not everyone lives in Newcastle.....

We have many roads in Australia that are designed for or can be adapted for high speed.

Sad part is they don't have to be high speed, most people West of the Great Dividing Range
would be happy with 120-130 kph limit under certain circumstances. Pitty our pollies are so inept......

[paule11]

We should have roads that are safe for a decent speed limit the amount of money that has been wasted on other things by governments.

I was only talking to an old ex military guy last week about roads he told me how the American government offered after ww2 to build a six lane concrete highway Adelaide through to Dawin I think it was and our govenment Knocked it back.

Should be six lanes Cairns to Brisbane with a 160kph limit

[flappist]

Originally Posted by paule11

We should have roads that are safe for a decent speed limit the amount of money that has been wasted on other things by governments.

I was only talking to an old ex military guy last week about roads he told me how the American government offered after ww2 to build a six lane concrete highway Adelaide through to Dawin I think it was and our govenment Knocked it back.

Should be six lanes Cairns to Brisbane with a 160kph limit

Actually it was just at the end of WW2 the US offered to build a 4 lane freeway from Sydney to Brisbane to Cairns as a thankyou for our involvement in war against Japan. It would not have been difficult as they had huge amount of road building equipment already here, would have taken 3 years and they only wanted it to be a toll road for 20 years then freehold for us after that.

It was knocked back by the federal government which was mostly controlled at the time by politicians from Victoria.
And rightly so.....a 4 lane freeway from Sydney to Cairns in 1950 would have ensured that Melbourne would have had focus taken away and become the smallest and most insignificant capital city in the country as the cities on the northern coast developed.

Just think how many speed camera manufacturers would have gone broke if Melbourne was smaller than Hobart....