Speeding campaigns

[prizrak]

These kind of statistics assume all cars are the same, especially the ones dealing with stopping distances.

Hell, surely hitting a kid at 30-40 (mph?) would assume you didn't even see the kid so I think you've got bigger problems than breaking the speed limit.

Compare 2 cars, one big, old, heavy tank with balding retreads and obviously no ABS, and a Porsche 911. The driver of the Porsche could brake and steer around the kid while the other driver would probably plough through it. If they didn't see the kid and ended up hitting it at speed, the lower Porsche would probably flip the kid over the bonnet while the tank would hit it at head height and force it under the car.

These kind of stats are arbitrary in my opinion.

Well the problem is that you can't have speed limits for different cars. Granted a 911 would stop and steer much better than a Roadmaster. However a great driver in a Roadmaster is much less likely to hit someone than a retard in a 911. Basically you have to consider the lowest common denominator, a horrible drive in a pile of crap car. My beef lies more with the fact that drivers are the only ones held responsible in most countries rather than urban speed limits. However I do believe that speed limits on highways should be outlawed.

 

[Nabster]

Around here by law any motorist (or bicyclist for that matter, they are considered vehicles on the roads and must obey all roadway laws as do cars) must yield right of way to any pedestrian already in the road, regardless if the vehicle would have right of way otherwise. I'd be willing to bet it's the same in alot of other places, hence why the motorist is responsible in the event of an accident.

 

[prizrak]

Around here by law any motorist (or bicyclist for that matter, they are considered vehicles on the roads and must obey all roadway laws as do cars) must yield right of way to any pedestrian already in the road, regardless if the vehicle would have right of way otherwise. I'd be willing to bet it's the same in alot of other places, hence why the motorist is responsible in the event of an accident.

Which is why we hate those laws

 

[hansvonaxion]

Well the problem is that you can't have speed limits for different cars.

Obviously, but a blind man could see that there is a problem with laws that haven't changed for the minority driving 30-50 year old deathtraps dictating how the rest of us have to drive. Some trucks, buses, commercial vehicles are speed-limited, maybe there should be different limits for older cars.

And when they base advertising campaigns on these outdated laws and highway codes it does nothing for their argument.

Granted a 911 would stop and steer much better than a Roadmaster. However a great driver in a Roadmaster is much less likely to hit someone than a retard in a 911. Basically you have to consider the lowest common denominator, a horrible drive in a pile of crap car.

Well, consider that new cars are coming out with systems to detect pedestrians and avoid collisions so the driver is even being taken out of the equation and the disparity between the levels of safety of different cars is becoming even more pronounced.

 

[Ottobon]

Not my actual position, but why not!

Not my actual position, but why not!

Didn't vikings throw spears at each other as kids? And didn't that make them some of the most fearsome and revered in the ancient time? I say let the stupid kids who can't compute that moving car=death get run over, then when all the dumb kids have died off the world can be filled with intelligent people and we can finally be truly happy as a planet.

Disclaimer:The only places i drive under the speed limit are in school and construction zone. Just saying, why fight evolution?

 

[prizrak]

Obviously, but a blind man could see that there is a problem with laws that haven't changed for the minority driving 30-50 year old deathtraps dictating how the rest of us have to drive. Some trucks, buses, commercial vehicles are speed-limited, maybe there should be different limits for older cars.

And when they base advertising campaigns on these outdated laws and highway codes it does nothing for their argument.



Well, consider that new cars are coming out with systems to detect pedestrians and avoid collisions so the driver is even being taken out of the equation and the disparity between the levels of safety of different cars is becoming even more pronounced.

That all still falls under lowest common denominator. There are a few people on these forums with pretty nice cars but I highly suspect that over 90% of them do not have pedestrian collision avoidance systems. We are talking here people who like cars and are more than willing to pay a premium on them. Take into account the fact that a huge number of people buy econoboxes that do nothing more than taking them from A to B and the fact that new cars get all these advanced features (that I'm sure are extra) is kinda pointless.

P.S. Believe me I'm the last person in the world to defend speed limits but in this particular case there is nothing wrong with them. For the most part you couldn't travel faster than the posted speed limit in urban areas anyway, lots of traffic light.

Didn't vikings throw spears at each other as kids? And didn't that make them some of the most fearsome and revered in the ancient time? I say let the stupid kids who can't compute that moving car=death get run over, then when all the dumb kids have died off and the world can be filled with intelligent people and we can finally be truly happy as a planet.

Disclaimer:The only places i drive under the speed limit are in school and construction zone. Just saying, why fight evolution?

Take the warning labels off of everything and let the problem solve itself

 

[Ottobon]

Not exactly. I'm completely against lead paint and whatnot, but if a huge car bearling down on you doesn't trigger a survival instinct then somethings wrong with you. And yes i know children are stupid and we have to protect them, but more then anything that means the parents are liable for if there kids are dumb or not. I say if your kids are ignorant and get killed by a car the parents should serve time for being too dumb and negligent for not having taught there children the most basic of survival skills.

 

[prizrak]

Not exactly. I'm completely against lead paint and whatnot, but if a huge car bearling down on you doesn't trigger a survival instinct then somethings wrong with you. And yes i know children are stupid and we have to protect them, but more then anything that means the parents are liable for if there kids are dumb or not. I say if your kids are ignorant and get killed by a car the parents should serve time for being too dumb and negligent for not having taught there children the most basic of survival skills.

The above statement was meant more for stupid warning labels such as these

Obviously things that warn you not to take 3 pills in 12 hours and toxicity warnings are necessary and useful as even the smartest person won't be able to know all of those.

 

[hansvonaxion]

That all still falls under lowest common denominator. There are a few people on these forums with pretty nice cars but I highly suspect that over 90% of them do not have pedestrian collision avoidance systems.

I understand the concept. All I'm saying is, as technology improves, making cars safer for occupants and pedestrians alike, there will eventually need to be some kind of a review/overhaul of the way we legislate for road safety. You might recall the Top Gear episode where they showed how ridiculously outdated the highway code is (stopping distance)? Well if the Gov were serious about road safety they would create a new retroactive code which would in effect take a large number of old, underperforming vehicles off the road (I would never advocate it, though).

Another problem with speed limits is that drivers almost never adjust their speed according to the road conditions.

 

[GraemeH]

I'm all about personal accountability, so whilst I don't mind passive measures to make sure stupid people that stumble into the road in front of cars are safe, I don't accept being hindered in order to make up for someone elses stupidity. Not only shouldn't the majority be inconvenienced for the sake of removing the consequences of the minorities stupid actions, I don't believe even the minority should be inconvenienced for the sake of removing the consequences of the majorities stupid actions.

If I stumble into the road without looking where I was going, I accept the consequences. Whether what hits me is doing 30 or 90, has a square or rounded front, has one or five euro whatevercap stars for things it hits, I don't blame the driver of it. I stumbled my ass on to the road.

In the last 20 or so years people seem to have lost so much of their sense of personal accountability as governments seek to wrap the world around them in cotton wool for their own safety.

 

[prizrak]

I understand the concept. All I'm saying is, as technology improves, making cars safer for occupants and pedestrians alike, there will eventually need to be some kind of a review/overhaul of the way we legislate for road safety. You might recall the Top Gear episode where they showed how ridiculously outdated the highway code is (stopping distance)? Well if the Gov were serious about road safety they would create a new retroactive code which would in effect take a large number of old, underperforming vehicles off the road (I would never advocate it, though).

Another problem with speed limits is that drivers almost never adjust their speed according to the road conditions.

If governments were serious about safety they would have implemented wireless speed limiter devices. With all the new cars having electronic speed limiters it would be very simple to mandate manufacturers to install recievers into cars that would adjust the ECU limiter to specific speed. It would also be pretty cheap/simple to install a transmitter at the beginning of each speed zone that would dynamically change the cars speed limit.

The reason we don't have that is because there is way too much money made off of speeding tickets.

 

[Ottobon]

I'm all about personal accountability, so whilst I don't mind passive measures to make sure stupid people that stumble into the road in front of cars are safe, I don't accept being hindered in order to make up for someone elses stupidity. Not only shouldn't the majority be inconvenienced for the sake of removing the consequences of the minorities stupid actions, I don't believe even the minority should be inconvenienced for the sake of removing the consequences of the majorities stupid actions.

If I stumble into the road without looking where I was going, I accept the consequences. Whether what hits me is doing 30 or 90, has a square or rounded front, has one or five euro whatevercap stars for things it hits, I don't blame the driver of it. I stumbled my ass on to the road.

In the last 20 or so years people seem to have lost so much of their sense of personal accountability as governments seek to wrap the world around them in cotton wool for their own safety.

thank you for saying what i wanted to say, 1,000 times better then i said it

 

[hansvonaxion]

The reason we don't have that is because there is way too much money made off of speeding tickets.

Now you're starting to get it.

Last shot: And what about the other 90 or so % of cars that don't have that technology built in? And why should a brand new car with pedestrian avoidance, ABS, ESP, infra red HUD etc etc, be limited when a 40y.o. 3 tonne monster with no brakes and a bull bar on the front isn't? Its like banning handguns yet allowing machine guns.

GraemeH: Agree with you.

 

[Vector]

I wonder if anybody has ever tried arguing relativity with a cop to get out of a speeding ticket?

No officer, from my perspective I was stationary and you and everything else were moving past me at 80mph.

 

[prizrak]

Now you're starting to get it.

Last shot: And what about the other 90 or so % of cars that don't have that technology built in? And why should a brand new car with pedestrian avoidance, ABS, ESP, infra red HUD etc etc, be limited when a 40y.o. 3 tonne monster with no brakes and a bull bar on the front isn't? Its like banning handguns yet allowing machine guns.

GraemeH: Agree with you.

Oh believe me I always got it. It's easy enough to install such technology in older cars as well. We have to pass emissions after all, so it can just be another requirement. We all know that the government couldn't care less about our safety even if it wasn't paid good money for it.

 

[hansvonaxion]

Pass emissions? I don't know about the US, but in most places cars only have to pass the emissions standards that were in place when the car was produced. And how do you retroactively fit an ECU controlled speed limiter to a car with no ECU?

Anyway, my point was that there is way too much focus on the idea that going 5-10km/h over the limit is the greatest cause of deaths on the road.

Differences in cars: take older cars off the road
Differences in drivers: improved driver training

TS was right in being skeptical, you simply can't quantify chance of death as a percentage like that with so many variables.

 

[prizrak]

Pass emissions? I don't know about the US, but in most places cars only have to pass the emissions standards that were in place when the car was produced. And how do you retroactively fit an ECU controlled speed limiter to a car with no ECU?

Actually I'm not sure about how the emissions is handled, obviously no old school muscle car would pass emissions nowadays. I doubt it would be all that difficult to install a remote fuel cut off that takes info from the speedo sensor. Doesn't really matter hopefully we are about 200 years away

Anyway, my point was that there is way too much focus on the idea that going 5-10km/h over the limit is the greatest cause of deaths on the road.

Differences in cars: take older cars off the road
Differences in drivers: improved driver training

TS was right in being skeptical, you simply can't quantify chance of death as a percentage like that with so many variables.

I absolutely agree with you. Speed limits is the absolute easiest way to appear to look like you give a damn about safety, there is also all that money they are making.