FORD to release 'nanna state' limited cars 2010

[flappist]

Originally Posted by BionicGT

Seeing the legal speed limit for red P plate drivers (ie P1 drivers) is 90kph - yes I would as would the majority of people who don't ignore speed limits (unlike some on this forum)

There is no special speed limit for P platers in most states. The biggest problem I see here is that many only concider what is appropriate for their local area but want the restriction to cover all.

The "holier than thou" attitude is the most amusing with people crying "burn the witch" over one law yet quite happy to disobey others.

e.g. It is far more illegal to modifiy a motor vehicle so it no longer complies with Euro3 or whatever ADRs yet those who have flash tunes in BF-BF2 & FG made after 1/2006 don't care.
Exhausts that exceed sound limits, wheels that are too wide, BOVs and whatever else are also quite illegal but it seems that only law you agree with must be obeyed at all times. How many have driven after taking medication? Is your tyre tread depth legal? Is you windscreen completely clear with no mud or bugs on it?

Of course you can lie about it, it is only the internet e.g. "I gave up speeding/have not exceeded a speed limit for whatever years" but anyone who drives at all knows that it is not true, even if you try as hard as possible you will always exceed a limit or two at the entrance or exit of a road works, when the limit changes several times in a kilometre, when the trafic flow is pushing you along, when you missed a sign for whatever reason.

Of course the truth should never get in the way of a good story, should it.

[leadfoot]

Does anyone know if speed limiting trucks has reduced the amount of fatalities? Would be interesting know

[flappist]

Originally Posted by leadfoot

Does anyone know if speed limiting trucks has reduced the amount of fatalities? Would be interesting know

It is impossible to know for sure.

If the fatalities lowered was it because of the limiting or other factors.

If they stayed the same was then because it actually worked but the were additional factors that increased it.

If it increased was it because the limiting worked but again other factors were involved.

The proponents will tell you the above is the case, the opponents will say the reverse it true. Each will offer compelling arguements to support their position. Truth is often a view rather than a fact.

It is a FACT that since the NT speed limits were introduced the road toll has gone up. The spin doctors are on overtime making up excuses as to why. Would it have been more or less if there were still open limits. The only way to find out, remove the limits. But then it the toll drops it will undermine the income stream for several state governments and sho several highly paid and powerful "experts" to be wrong and that can never happen can it.

Time is a quatam event and like all quantam events it cannot be viewed or measured without changing it

[Rodp]

Originally Posted by leadfoot

Does anyone know if speed limiting trucks has reduced the amount of fatalities? Would be interesting know

I don't know who's looking after the speed limiters in trucks but they're either often tampered with or my speedo in my car is significantly out.

Travelling along the Hume, I'm often overtaken or barely inching on a truck and I'll routinely sit ~120kph as indicated by my speedo.

Speed limiters in trucks is a whole other issue, IMO to this one. We're talking about limiting the speed of new drivers. Truckies are career drivers and if anything, limiting their speed to 100kph ensures they spend more time behind the wheel of a truck (fatigued) and I'll guarantee their deadline isn't compensated to reflect that.

[Clint Eastwood]

Originally Posted by flappist

"I gave up speeding/have not exceeded a speed limit for whatever years" but anyone who drives at all knows that it is not true, even if you try as hard as possible you will always exceed a limit or two at the entrance or exit of a road works, when the limit changes several times in a kilometre, when the trafic flow is pushing you along, when you missed a sign for whatever reason.

The situations you have listed above are due to not paying attention,which may result in you marginally exceeding the speed limit, slightly differant to pulling onto the wrong side of the road, overtaking a truck (that is probably doing the speed limit) with a hill approaching, and going 200kph,that is a premeditated act,not the result of being inattentive.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by Clint Eastwood

The situations you have listed above are due to not paying attention,which may result in you marginally exceeding the speed limit, slightly differant to pulling onto the wrong side of the road, overtaking a truck (that is probably doing the speed limit) with a hill approaching, and going 200kph,that is a premeditated act,not the result of being inattentive.

You mean like spending the money from a wallet with no ID found on the ground is not really stealing, not like robbing a bank.

[Clint Eastwood]

Originally Posted by flappist

You mean like spending the money from a wallet with no ID found on the ground is not really stealing, not like robbing a bank.

In both those situations you have made a conscience decision,so they are both stealing.

Unless you are going to come up with responses relative to the thread title,you may aswell take it to PM or preferably dont bother replying.

I would definately support any car maker who introduces this technology.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by Clint Eastwood

In both those situations you have made a conscience decision,so they are both stealing.

Unless you are going to come up with responses relative to the thread title,you may aswell take it to PM or preferably dont bother replying.

I would definately support any car maker who introduces this technology.

Well good for you. A man of principles. Actually to quote you above:

Originally Posted by clint eastwood

Sounds like a great idea to me,I think it is quite strange that we make high performance cars available in a country with 110k speed limits,130 in NT.

Although I am a car enthusiest,if governments were serious about the road toll they would limit the top speed of cars,a good deal of fatalitys on rural roads are caused by impatient morons overtaking in dangerous situations,half of these impatient morons wouldnt have been tempted to overtake in the first place if they new the car wouldnt exceed a certain speed.

Overtaking a truck that is doing the speed limit is totally pointless,unless of course you have a complex about being stuck behind a truck,a complex that quite alot of drivers seem to be a afflicted with,if a vehicle is going below 100k's then 130k's should give you more then enough speed to overtake,if a hill or corner is approaching then why are you considering overtaking in the first place?

The sort of rock ape's that overtake because they can,will continue to cause crashes that kill and mangle people,maybe one day when they kill someone or someone they love is affected by this attitude they will wake up.

AND of course:

Originally Posted by clint eastwood

That is the point I was making,there is no way australians are ready for higher speed limits,not until a big change in attitude takes place,most australians act like children when they are driving,so thats how governments treat us.

Then you are going to limit your car to 130km/h tomorrow aren't you? To make Australia safer of course. Or does this only apply to OTHER PEOPLE.

In other words PUT UP OR SHUT UP.........

Strange you think that the government has determined that there are too many drivers acting like children on the roads now and that is why all these restrictions and limits are being brought in.

There were very few before YOU got YOUR drivers license.
Are you admitting that it is all YOU and YOUR generation's fault?

Or are you just going to blame everyone else again.....

[Clint Eastwood]

Originally Posted by flappist

Well good for you. A man of principles. Actually to quote you above:

AND of course:

Then you are going to limit your car to 130km/h tomorrow aren't you? To make Australia safer of course. Or does this only apply to OTHER PEOPLE.

In other words PUT UP OR SHUT UP.........

Strange you think that the government has determined that there are too many drivers acting like children on the roads now and that is why all these restrictions and limits are being brought in.

There were very few before YOU got YOUR drivers license.
Are you admitting that it is all YOU and YOUR generation's fault?

Or are you just going to blame everyone else again.....

I already have a tune in my car limiting it to 115kph for road use. (something my tuner offers)

Government's introduce rules and regulations in a vain attempt to control and educate people like YOU,not me.

Is this my generations fault? To some extent yes,but overall it is just people with your attitude.

What problem exactly would you have with being able to control the speed your inexperienced son or daughter could drive a car?

[flappist]

Originally Posted by Clint Eastwood

What problem exactly would you have with being able to control the speed your inexperienced son or daughter could drive a car?

And this is where you just don't get it. If there is a hard limit then the following WILL take place.

1) As they CANNOT speed they will just drive up to the limiter and not worry about it then as soon as they are "unlimited" they will not realise they are speeding because they are used to not having to worry about it. Pavalov proved this long ago.
Like an auto driver getting into a manual, it is a disaster for quite a while.
If a driver cannot control their speed then they do not know how to drive and therefore should not have a licence. They are adults and can vote on how the country is run, if they are not mature enough to understand or at least learn what the consequences of their actions are they sho;d not have a license.
If they do 200km/h in silly places the car is not the problem, the brain is.

2) If it is set for P platers is will be deployed to everyone in a short time, this is how the government works, always has, always will. How much do you now pay for your premix Jim Beam and coke (or whatever) just to save the underage binge drinkers?

There is no way to legislate against stupidity, a 100km/h limiter will allow 100km/h in a school zone and despite all the evidence to the contrary most young people are actually not stupid.

The more people do not have to make decisions, the less capable they are of doing it even remotely well.

The power limit is a good idea as it makes things happen more slowly, it is hard to do 150km/h from a set of traffic lights in a low powered car but quite easy in a high powered one and therefore can happen without the driver realising they are doing it until too late.

Why not support mandatory advanced driving courses every year or 6 months for the P plate period. Make them learn to drive and make decissions not learn to rely on big brother holding their hand so they can blame someone else when it all goes wrong.

In the early 70s the government stepped in to ban high performance cars to cut the road toll. The effect was.......NOTHING AT ALL. The open limits were removed from NSW, the effect was.....NOTHING AT ALL.
Legislation was introduced to make cars safer by making seat belt mandatory, roads were improved, drink driving was dropped from .15 to .05 and licenses were made more difficult to get and guess what......THE ROAD TOLL DROPPED.

Learn from history......

[ltd_on20s]

Originally Posted by auslandau

If it is proven to work for one group .... it should be law across the board. Whats good for one should be for everyone else.

There is more of a problem with twits loosing control of there cars at lower speeds in the city because of inability to handle any sort of power than cars on a highway momentarily speeding over 100 km/hr.

I beleive there is a direct association between high powered cars and speed limiting ..... I cannot see how anyone can say ....... "Cars should be limited to save lives but its OK to have as much power as they like ...... even though I dont use it on the street!" Why have that much power but dont use it? Obviously its not required then so why have it? It can be just as bad as over 100km's?

I have 240rwkw's but I dont use it on the street?
My car goes over 100km/hr BUT I dont use it on the street?


As FC said .......... around we go .......

does this mean that we should speed limit all the cars we build up also? would this mean that all older cars like the one we have seen in the buildups page should have speed limiters fitted also?

also your saying theres a direct link between high powered cars and speeding.....do i take it that all the people with monstrous cleveland buildups or moderators in here speed just because they have 300 rwk??

[Auslandau]

Must be the way I write things .......

1. I dont agree with speed limiting
2. If it is proven to work for one group, why not everyone?
3. If you limit cars .... a natural step would be to limit power?
4. This law will never ever happen
5. I was writting alot more things here but cant be bothered



| [/url] |

[Keepleft]

Australia's "speed-limit conditioning" = poor driver attitude.

[Trevor 57]

Sorry, I have been sitting back reading your dribble and I just have to respond

Originally Posted by flappist

And this is where you just don't get it. If there is a hard limit then the following WILL take place.

1) As they CANNOT speed they will just drive up to the limiter and not worry about it then as soon as they are "unlimited" they will not realise they are speeding because they are used to not having to worry about it. Pavalov proved this long ago.
Like an auto driver getting into a manual, it is a disaster for quite a while.
If a driver cannot control their speed then they do not know how to drive and therefore should not have a licence. They are adults and can vote on how the country is run, if they are not mature enough to understand or at least learn what the consequences of their actions are they sho;d not have a license.
If they do 200km/h in silly places the car is not the problem, the brain is.

And this is not a perfect world, and all is not rosey, our licencing system is shyte and will be for a long time. The Government, through aggressive policing is taking a "risk managment" approach, not ideal, but it was they are doing.

Originally Posted by flappist

2) If it is set for P platers is will be deployed to everyone in a short time, this is how the government works, always has, always will. How much do you now pay for your premix Jim Beam and coke (or whatever) just to save the underage binge drinkers?

There is no way to legislate against stupidity, a 100km/h limiter will allow 100km/h in a school zone and despite all the evidence to the contrary most young people are actually not stupid.

The more people do not have to make decisions, the less capable they are of doing it even remotely well.

The power limit is a good idea as it makes things happen more slowly, it is hard to do 150km/h from a set of traffic lights in a low powered car but quite easy in a high powered one and therefore can happen without the driver realising they are doing it until too late.

I am a long time advanced driver trainer, and spent over 10 years pulling live and dead bodies from cars, something needs to be done and now. Speed limiting cars will work, just like seat belts and air bags do.

Originally Posted by flappist

Why not support mandatory advanced driving courses every year or 6 months for the P plate period. Make them learn to drive and make decissions not learn to rely on big brother holding their hand so they can blame someone else when it all goes wrong.

No it doesn't, in fact some studies have proven that people are higher risk takers after doing some these high profile 'defensive driving' programs. People between 15 and 25 are high risk takers and until this is identified and systems put in place to manage it, then our young will continue to die. I still can't believe that the authorities aren't talking about risk taking, it is the single most significant issue for young drivers.

Originally Posted by flappist

In the early 70s the government stepped in to ban high performance cars to cut the road toll. The effect was.......NOTHING AT ALL. The open limits were removed from NSW, the effect was.....NOTHING AT ALL.
Legislation was introduced to make cars safer by making seat belt mandatory, roads were improved, drink driving was dropped from .15 to .05

Vehicle design is the ONLY way to protect people from themselves. Design is what is used in industry to protect people from themselves, refer to the Heirachy of Controls (OHS lingo), and this is no different. You are right, air bags, seat belts, road design, crumple zones. cars can still be made a lot safer, but people don't want to pay for that.

Originally Posted by flappist

and licenses were made more difficult to get and guess what......THE ROAD TOLL DROPPED.

Learn from history......

And where was that done - LOL

IMHO, make them wait until 25, who came up with 17/18 anyway?

[ltd_on20s]

Originally Posted by Big Trev

IMHO, make them wait until 25, who came up with 17/18 anyway?

goodwork, dont you think then they will just do what they are doing now at 25 instead of 18? either way they they ares just learning still, be it 16/18/20/25 etc
plus how many kids now between 16-25 do we have that work as apprentices or labourers now? lot more then 15-20 years ago. plus not that long ago, 18 year olds were leading armies and platoons in wars. good enough to fight but not good enough to drive?

1. so as your saying the govt is taking "risk management" and using those to minmise impacts, why dont they model and adapt our rules to whats in other countries with bigger popluations and less deaths from accidents?

2. "speed" is a "Factor" in 40% of crashes, however 95+% of all accidents happen at the posted speed limit or below it. the other factors are your usual Fatigue/drowsiness/not driving to the conditions etc.

3. people shouldnt have to pay too much extra for new saftey designs in cars. with the amount of money we pour into tax/rego/petrol etc it should be subsidised from that by the govt. your right they do things to minimsie harm to ourselves

4. why should the govt talk about risk taking when they know we are all too stupid to ask them the tough questions, making money and telling people "speed kills and slow down" is easier and cheaper, and the fact that not one of them has the balls to stick up for drivers and say "hang on, we need to revisit all of this, we need to fix this system up"??

[flappist]

Originally Posted by Big Trev

I am a long time advanced driver trainer, and spent over 10 years pulling live and dead bodies from cars, something needs to be done and now. Speed limiting cars will work, just like seat belts and air bags do.

No it doesn't, in fact some studies have proven that people are higher risk takers after doing some these high profile 'defensive driving' programs. People between 15 and 25 are high risk takers and until this is identified and systems put in place to manage it, then our young will continue to die. I still can't believe that the authorities aren't talking about risk taking, it is the single most significant issue for young drivers.

So in your many years of advanced driver training you have found it does not work and makes drivers more dangerous?

WHY DO YOU DO IT THEN?

[Trevor 57]

I didn't say MY training, read it again, I said "No it doesn't, in fact some studies have proven that people are higher risk takers after doing some of these high profile 'defensive driving' programs"

I thought you might pick that, you are so predictable.

BTW, after 20 years I have no studies to say that my training works, other than a coupe of phone calls telling me it did.

But in my heart I believe my training is far more valuable than those "high profile" courses.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by Big Trev

I didn't say MY training, read it again, I said "No it doesn't, in fact some studies have proven that people are higher risk takers after doing some of these high profile 'defensive driving' programs"

I thought you might pick that, you are so predictable.

BTW, after 20 years I have no studies to say that my training works, other than a coupe of phone calls telling me it did.

But in my heart I believe my training is far more valuable than those "high profile" courses.

So you then agree that driver training is the answer. I suspect you misread my referal to "advanced driver training" as "porsche day" or "JB race school" or whatever. I was refering to the type of drivng taught at places like Roadcraft in Gympie. Maybe "defensive driving" may be closer although "defensive" implies there is also an "offensive" involved..... Ah that would be ME

[Marduk]

Originally Posted by Big Trev

Speed limiting cars will work, just like seat belts and air bags do.

No it wont if the car is speed limited at 110 they can still do 110 in a 40 zone or a 60 zone or an 80 zone ect... It's just a quick and easy thing to do that makes it looks like someone is actually doing something when infact the system is useless.

IMHO, make them wait until 25, who came up with 17/18 anyway?

Yes that would work great. Hey but wait a second what happens if my parents aren't available to give me a lift to work. What happens if they have there own lives and there own places to be? What happens when there is no public transport in my area? Are you going to come to my house and give me a lift to work?
Very poorly thought our idea.

[BionicGT]

Originally Posted by flappist

There is no special speed limit for P platers in most states. The biggest problem I see here is that many only concider what is appropriate for their local area but want the restriction to cover all.

The "holier than thou" attitude is the most amusing with people crying "burn the witch" over one law yet quite happy to disobey others.

e.g. It is far more illegal to modifiy a motor vehicle so it no longer complies with Euro3 or whatever ADRs yet those who have flash tunes in BF-BF2 & FG made after 1/2006 don't care.
Exhausts that exceed sound limits, wheels that are too wide, BOVs and whatever else are also quite illegal but it seems that only law you agree with must be obeyed at all times. How many have driven after taking medication? Is your tyre tread depth legal? Is you windscreen completely clear with no mud or bugs on it?

Of course you can lie about it, it is only the internet e.g. "I gave up speeding/have not exceeded a speed limit for whatever years" but anyone who drives at all knows that it is not true, even if you try as hard as possible you will always exceed a limit or two at the entrance or exit of a road works, when the limit changes several times in a kilometre, when the trafic flow is pushing you along, when you missed a sign for whatever reason.

Of course the truth should never get in the way of a good story, should it.

That's right - take the tread off in another direction as usual.

We are talking about speed limiting and its a proven fact that many (not all) young drivers (usually male) habitually speed - whether its to impress their mates or to see how fast their vehicle goes. It's also a proven fact that, due to brain development, young people are more susceptible to engaging in risky or dangerous behavior and that educational interventions alone are unlikely to be effective.

Speed limiting inexperienced drivers is a good idea IMO. Just might stop them wrapping themselves and their friends around a tree.

By the way, now you drive a rice burner, why are you still on AFF :

[GasoLane]

Having had speed limiters in Trucks for many years I can say thats its a PITA..... but I'm just a revhead

The worst part of speed limiting anything is on the open road with single lanes.

At the moment if I overtake another Truck and there is only a 2-3 kmh difference in top speed, the other truck will (usually) back off.

Whilst speed limiting could save some people I shudder at the thought of 2 cars side by side -on a normal country road- with neither one willing to back off!!

[burnz]

that's because truck driver's know/undestand what they are doing

[GasoLane]

Originally Posted by burnz

that's because truck driver's know/undestand what they are doing

No. It's because we're scared and hate all the paperwork that goes with bumping into other traffic

[89.SVO]

Originally Posted by XRQTR

Seeing as most road deaths and accidents involving younger drivers have speed/concentration as a major contributing factor I really don't see an issue with taking speed out of the equation. Also by limiting the sound level from the stereo maybe they will actually hear the Ambo's behind them trying to get past.

I mean the power restrictions that were supposed to stop young drivers from driving high powered cars obviously haven't worked as so many use the "only car" exception.

what a load of crap. then there is the other side of the scale. old pricks going to slow and not paying attention. old people can't drive for

[burnz]

Originally Posted by GasOLane

No. It's because we're scared and hate all the paperwork that goes with bumping into other traffic

life's mistery's
1/ a car will sit behind a truck goung uphill doing 40, but will only overtake when the left lane end's.
2/ a car overtaking a truck on duell lane will slow to check why the truck tire's are flat on the bottom.
3/ a car will slow when a truck is useing the engine brake.
4/ a car will slow on a single lane.
5/ a car will ride the brake's for no reason.
6/ a car will panic brake when a radar is present.
7/ a car will never maintain constant road speed, even if fitted with cruise.

[Smoke Pursuit]

Originally Posted by Marduk

No it wont if the car is speed limited at 110 they can still do 110 in a 40 zone or a 60 zone or an 80 zone ect... It's just a quick and easy thing to do that makes it looks like someone is actually doing something when infact the system is useless.

But in saying that some will do 180 in a 60 zone.. so if they can only do 110 then the adversity is going to be much smaller...

At the end of the day you will never completely stop speeding and loss of life thru that, but you can damn well minimise it!

There are so many variables and truely it comes down to a case by case situation, we have kids driving unroadworth cars, we have kids that think its okay to drink and drive, we have kids that think its okay to speed... You will never get a solution to every variable that can go wrong, but if you can physically enforce speed limiting even at the top level of our speed limits then surely some lives will be saved...

As for the dangers in overtaking on highways I personally dont think inexperienced kids should be doing that neways, speed and distance don't come naturally, and as ive already stated most of our highways have overtaking lanes designed for people who don't think they have the skill / power to overtake on a single lane highway.

Truck drivers can negotiate obsticles on the road with trucks that are A) speed limited and B) have stuff all acceleration, so why a 17 year old cannot safely drive on the road in a car that is speed limited to say 10% over the maximum speed limit in their particular state / area is beyond me..


Sad part is the bigger offenders are usually the ones in the older cars with less respect for them, therefore it will be another 20 years before they will ever see technology like this.

[Smoke Pursuit]

Originally Posted by BionicGT

That's right - take the tread off in another direction as usual.

We are talking about speed limiting and its a proven fact that many (not all) young drivers (usually male) habitually speed - whether its to impress their mates or to see how fast their vehicle goes. It's also a proven fact that, due to brain development, young people are more susceptible to engaging in risky or dangerous behavior and that educational interventions alone are unlikely to be effective.

Speed limiting inexperienced drivers is a good idea IMO. Just might stop them wrapping themselves and their friends around a tree.

By the way, now you drive a rice burner, why are you still on AFF :

Some actual common sense thank god! Wheres the Datsun club of qld....

[flappist]

Hmmm, running out of insults are you? I would STRONGLY recommend you look up what vehicles the site owner and some of the admins drive before going too far down that track.......

At the moment I only own 3 Fords, A BA2 XT, ED and Laser, along with a Navara and Avalon and of course the dreaded datsun Z.

How many do either of you born again crusaders own?

[Marduk]

Originally Posted by bfiipursuit

But in saying that some will do 180 in a 60 zone.. so if they can only do 110 then the adversity is going to be much smaller...

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/...189565133.html

He was doing 90km/h when he killed himself. A 110 speed limiter wouldn't have helped him at all. Drivers who speed need a lot more then a speed limiter they need there heads checked.
If this was to be implemented I can see a whole lot of P platers just sitting on the speed limiter for shits and giggles and in situations where they normally wouldn't speed or to that extent anyway. That's just going to result in deaths in itself

[Smoke Pursuit]

Originally Posted by flappist

Hmmm, running out of insults are you? I would STRONGLY recommend you look up what vehicles the site owner and some of the admins drive before going too far down that track.......

At the moment I only own 3 Fords, A BA2 XT, ED and Laser, along with a Navara and Avalon and of course the dreaded datsun Z.

How many do either of you born again crusaders own?

Wasn't an insult, it was a joke... I have 2 Fords (as per sig), my old mate Geoff has 2 (that i know of) and probably another soon on the way, not that this is relevant to the thread... Do you have some constructive criticism or are you still flapping around the bush.