Advocacy & Safety - Remote speed limiters for cities.

An idea that I think would revolutionize the safety of motor vehicles is to install radio frequency emitting antennas within cities so that cars are speed limited to the pre-programmed speeds. :D

For instance, the downtown miami area would be blanketed at 25 mph . All cars entering the downtown area would automatically max out at 25 mph. (except for police and rescue vehicles) .. =)

Mall parking lots can be set to 5 mph. AWESOME !

Think of the savings in fuel economy alone ! :eek:

Highways can be set to the maximum safe speeds, the reduction in fatalities would be enormous.

All new cars would be fitted with the receiver unit from the manufacturer, therefore guaranteeing that they will operate within the guidelines of the speed control system.


YES!

Yes Indeed. The free market would settle that one quickly. I and just about everyone else would go somewhere else to shop or whatever. The mayor/councilperson/whatever that rammed that one through would face a recall by vote/court/or Colt. Yes, I know you put a smiley face on it. Some things are not funny to me.

If the speed limit is 10 mph in a parking lot, then the car should go no faster than 10 mph ... lol

This would ensure that the posted speed is the max that cars can travel at.

As good of an idea as this sounds, too many people would see it as an infringment on their right to drive at what ever speed they please regardless of danger to others. Even though driving is a privilage, not a right. Also the liberals who would see it as "big brother" controlling what they do even if it would make things safe for others which would be intolerable, especially to the morons at the ACLU.

This would work if it was installed in ALL areas where motor vehicles operate. No location could be left untouched by the technology.

BTW there is already a similar technology in place. Semi-trucks have something similar that controls when the truck is in operation & when it is not. This ensures the truck is not in operation & the driver can not start the truck until he has had enough down time & rest in accordance with the federal law that says drivers have to be off the road for a certain amount of time. Not all trucks have this yet, only certain newer models do. There is a retro-fit kit that can be installed on trucks that it was not built into.

It uses GPS & other remote control navigation technology. If the driver is in a situation like a traffic jam on a busy freeway & his truck is due to be shut down it can be overridden until he reaches a place where the truck can be automatically shut off, then restarted after the driver has had rest. Another thing this technology does is informs the company the driver works for what is going on with the truck. Things like oil pressure, tire pressure, fuel economy, how the engine & brakes are performing, etc. Also the engine can be tweaked to perfom better in flat areas & mountains, depending on where the driver is at. And it can govern the engine as well. So the driver is not flying down the road too fast or too slow.

With this sort of thing already in place for large commercial trucks it would not take much of a jump to include this sort of speed control with regular motor vehicles.

The interesting thing is the ACLU did not jump on this to prevent it with the trucking industry. I wonder why. Granted it is not required & the companies have to pay a fee to utilize the service, plus the service is modular. Companies can subscribe to use only certain parts of the service. Like just the GPS tracking only & engine monitoring but not the remote engine control.

If the feds did make it a requirement I imagine the ACLU would then jump all over it.

Oh & when it comes to doing this in commercial shopping areas. I do not think it will fly because the feds. could probably only make it a requirment on public roadways. Shopping center parking lots are not considered as such even though they do have stop or yield signs & have to follow ADA requirements.

so what happens when there is an emergency? your wife/you are pregnant and giving birth, your son/daughter broke their leg/arm/head open...are you supposed to cruise to the hospital at a speedy 55mph? The ambulance excuse doesn't work here...if people called the ambulance every time a woman was giving birth or for relatively minor emergencies, taxes would skyrocket. it's a bad idea. people are going to speed, you can't stop it from happening.

this discussion reminds me of the movie "Minority Report" where the government started arresting people for what they called something like futurecrimes, or some variance of that, based on the predictions of three clairvoyant people. you can't prevent people from breaking the law - if there's a law, people will find a way around it.

i'll ignore the fact that you attack the ACLU and liberals for something they haven't even taken a position on - way to go.

I'm sure in emergency situations exceptions could be made and an override to the speed control could be granted. It could probably be tied into the 911 system.

In most communities the ambulance service is NOT paid for by taxes. Most of them are private companies that bill your insurance company. Those that are not private companies are paid for by grant money.

I take it you're a card carrying member of the ACLU. The key word here is yet. they have not taken a position on it, yet. Give it time, if something like this is attempted they will take a position on it. Some things I agree with the ACLU, others I do not.

I have serious doubts anything like this will even happen. For one the cost would be astronomical. Second it would probably be a voluntary thing for people to have the technology installed on their vehicles, like it is with the trucking industry. If it is installed in newer vehicles it would be voluntary to have it activated like with the trucking industry.

The technology already exists somewhat. GM calls it ONSTAR. It is an optional service that GM vehicle owners subscribe to but the technology is installed on most of not all of the new GM vehicles now. I think we have all heard the commercials about the keys locked in the car or the person is in a car accident & they call ONSTAR for help. I do not know if the ONSTAR service is modular but it does sound like it is a good idea to have. I think Chrysler & Ford have & offer similar services as well.

If memory serves when ONSTAR was first introduced the ACLU had concerns about the govt. bodies using it to monitor where people are in their vehicles & taking it over to use it.

A few years ago there was a brutal murder in Norfolk, Nebraska. During a bank robbery people were shot & killed. After the killers left the bank they went to someones house & stole their car. The car was an ONSTAR equipped GM. That is how the police found, captured & arrested them. Through the GPS tracking ability ONSTAR has.

The ACLU left that one alone because it helped capture bad guys who shot & killed people during a bank robbery. Though the killers tried to claim their civil rights were violated, etc for various reasons.

Had the ONSTAR technology had the ability to allow control of car engines they may have been found sooner.

About five minutes after they do this to my car, I'll be loading my rifle, and counting my ammo.

I guess your post can be summrised as: "To ensure public safety some freedoms must be sacraficed." :rolleyes: Little here little there, little everywhere it adds up.


A few years ago there was a brutal murder in Norfolk, Nebraska. During a bank robbery people were shot & killed. After the killers left the bank they went to someones house & stole their car. The car was an ONSTAR equipped GM. That is how the police found, captured & arrested them. Through the GPS tracking ability ONSTAR has.

The ACLU left that one alone because it helped capture bad guys who shot & killed people during a bank robbery. Though the killers tried to claim their civil rights were violated, etc for various reasons.

Had the ONSTAR technology had the ability to allow control of car engines they may have been found sooner.

Hey they do it in pit lanes so it is safe for the driver and crews. If the law is 30 Mph is it right to drive 45 mph because I can? I don’t think soooo….. I can also load my gun and count my ammo.... Like that will help. Seatbelt usage is mandatory in most states. Air bags are in all new cars, all to keep you safe. So if they limit speed in a car......not much of a jump. Would be nice not to have cars tailgate you. Now when you turn on a road and no cars are in sight and are going the limit, soon you have A##holes within feet of your bumper in half a mile. Cause they have the right to go 45 and then tailgate? Lock and load! Yea that is a solution….NOT!

As noted tehy do this in semis and it is not a good thing in some situtions.
The mopst notable is hills. A truck need momentum to get up and getti9ng up speed before a hill is considered acceptable spo they can maintain theiur speed.
Another issue is passing: Speedos are not accurate. You'll have one car maxed out a 34.5 and one car at 35.5. If they want to pass it will take forever.
FInally, there is safety. If you know what you're doing, the gas pedal can be very good for accedent avoidance. If you're ina four lane divided road and something falls out of a truck in front of you, there is a car to your rear-right. You don't have enough distance to stop. You quickly floor it and dart in front of that car. If the limiter is at 35 and your at 35, you're boned.
There's also malfunctions. WHat if it screws up and limits you to 25 right as you merge on a 65mph freeway? Boom.
We have enough electronics in our cars. They limit drivers feel for the road and allow them to drink coffee and talk on the phone. Now they won't even have to monitor the speed. They can just floor it and steer.

As good of an idea as this sounds, too many people would see it as an infringment on their right to drive at what ever speed they please regardless of danger to others. Even though driving is a privilage, not a right. Also the liberals who would see it as "big brother" controlling what they do even if it would make things safe for others which would be intolerable, especially to the morons at the ACLU.


Those 'morons' at the ACLU are one of the reasons we are only partialy a fascist state today instead of wearing brown shirts and being forced to genuflect to images of Benny Hinn.
When people in charge of deciding these things have for any number of reasons or financial motiviations determined that the car is what we will base our society around, driving becomes a right, not a priviledge. When you (Govt.)determine this then limit operating abilities and create hardships it does become a rights issue. Since we are in the beginning throes of becoming a fascist state its too bad the ACLU doesnt have more power than they do. The way things are going there will probably be check points for fatherland security every mile or so, so you safety Neo-zi's might get your way after all.
The only thing intolerable to me is other people assuming I need someone to think for me and then legislate it.

What a dumb idea! Not a single city, village, township etc would ever implement such a thing for the simple reason ... $$$. Speeding tickets are a major part of city budgets. They count on this money. Speeding tickets are issued to create revenue, not save lives. You know they will not reduce their income so they will need to RAISE TAXES. Great, now I pay more in taxes and can't get to work on time.

If everyone on the highway maintained the same speed, there would be no traffic jams.

The yoyo effect slows people down on highways because some people go much faster than others...

Sustained speed actually gets you there faster because you encounter less traffic jams.

So, that could be considered a bonus for this system.

I'm sure in emergency situations exceptions could be made and an override to the speed control could be granted. It could probably be tied into the 911 system.

In most communities the ambulance service is NOT paid for by taxes. Most of them are private companies that bill your insurance company. Those that are not private companies are paid for by grant money.

I take it you're a card carrying member of the ACLU. The key word here is yet. they have not taken a position on it, yet. Give it time, if something like this is attempted they will take a position on it. Some things I agree with the ACLU, others I do not.

I have serious doubts anything like this will even happen. For one the cost would be astronomical. Second it would probably be a voluntary thing for people to have the technology installed on their vehicles, like it is with the trucking industry. If it is installed in newer vehicles it would be voluntary to have it activated like with the trucking industry.

The technology already exists somewhat. GM calls it ONSTAR. It is an optional service that GM vehicle owners subscribe to but the technology is installed on most of not all of the new GM vehicles now. I think we have all heard the commercials about the keys locked in the car or the person is in a car accident & they call ONSTAR for help. I do not know if the ONSTAR service is modular but it does sound like it is a good idea to have. I think Chrysler & Ford have & offer similar services as well.

If memory serves when ONSTAR was first introduced the ACLU had concerns about the govt. bodies using it to monitor where people are in their vehicles & taking it over to use it.

A few years ago there was a brutal murder in Norfolk, Nebraska. During a bank robbery people were shot & killed. After the killers left the bank they went to someones house & stole their car. The car was an ONSTAR equipped GM. That is how the police found, captured & arrested them. Through the GPS tracking ability ONSTAR has.

The ACLU left that one alone because it helped capture bad guys who shot & killed people during a bank robbery. Though the killers tried to claim their civil rights were violated, etc for various reasons.

Had the ONSTAR technology had the ability to allow control of car engines they may have been found sooner.

how will the car know that it's truly an emergency situation? if you think 911 should have the technology to override it, what do you do about communities that won't pass tax levies to support 911 (and yes, there are some out there)? you're talking about huge upgrade in technology for government - that costs you and i money, and i don't know any two people that'll pay increased taxes so the government can monitor and control their driving habits.

i don't know to what communities you're refering to where ambulance service is provided by a private company - in every city/town/village that i've been to/through/lived in, it's been a municipal/township service paid for by tax dollars, just like fire and police protection. regardless of that - either way you count it, a hospital visit will cost that much more, and i don't think health care costs should be (or could be) any higher either.

as to your little quip about the ACLU - no, i'm not a cardcarrying member, but i agree with the checks on government they make 75% of the time (e.g. Alabama federal judge with 10 commandments posted in the courtroom) and i'll also direct you towards a move called "The American President" which includes a nice little rant about why the ACLU is good, for the most part.

finally, regarding ONSTAR, you're comparing apples to oranges. onstar is an optional service, provided by the manufacturer that helps people in troubling situations, what you're proposing is a government mandated, tax-payer funded control on our "privileges."

An idea that I think would revolutionize the safety of motor vehicles is to install radio frequency emitting antennas within cities so that cars are speed limited to the pre-programmed speeds. :D

For instance, the downtown miami area would be blanketed at 25 mph . All cars entering the downtown area would automatically max out at 25 mph. (except for police and rescue vehicles) .. =)

Mall parking lots can be set to 5 mph. AWESOME !

Think of the savings in fuel economy alone ! :eek:

Highways can be set to the maximum safe speeds, the reduction in fatalities would be enormous.

All new cars would be fitted with the receiver unit from the manufacturer, therefore guaranteeing that they will operate within the guidelines of the speed control system.


YES!

They should also be installed on bikes. I regularly ride my bike on roads with a 30 MPH speed limit and occasionally hit 31 or 32. Parking lots are another thing. 5 MPH on a bike is pretty slow. Maybe bikes should be made to have the wheels lock up when in parking lots and riders should be required to carry them instead.
We could have unannounced bike inspections given by the new "Bureau of Bicycle Safety" to ensure these devices are not being tampered with. :eek:

The only thing intolerable to me is other people assuming I need someone to think for me and then legislate it.
Relax £em in Pa; don't take seriously the posts that come from obvious candidates and camp followers of the tin foil hat club. These characters are no more bicycle or safety advocates than nut cases baying at the moon. Really, don't take these fools seriously; and hope nobody mistakes their cookoo ideas as being representative of the aims of people interested in bicycling.

As noted tehy do this in semis and it is not a good thing in some situtions.
The mopst notable is hills. A truck need momentum to get up and getti9ng up speed before a hill is considered acceptable spo they can maintain theiur speed.
Another issue is passing: Speedos are not accurate. You'll have one car maxed out a 34.5 and one car at 35.5. If they want to pass it will take forever.
FInally, there is safety. If you know what you're doing, the gas pedal can be very good for accedent avoidance. If you're ina four lane divided road and something falls out of a truck in front of you, there is a car to your rear-right. You don't have enough distance to stop. You quickly floor it and dart in front of that car. If the limiter is at 35 and your at 35, you're boned.
There's also malfunctions. WHat if it screws up and limits you to 25 right as you merge on a 65mph freeway? Boom.
We have enough electronics in our cars. They limit drivers feel for the road and allow them to drink coffee and talk on the phone. Now they won't even have to monitor the speed. They can just floor it and steer.

The hill-climbing truck excuse is lame. So what if it takes an extra few minutes to make the delivery? Without all the traffic jams the overall time will probably be shorter anyway.

The speedometer would have nothing to do with this system. It would all have to be by satellite so assuming all vehicles were governed by the same satellite, they'd all be going the same speed. The speedometer simply tells the driver about how fast they are going. Even when in cruise control, the speedo is simply a gauge with no control over speed.

If you are concerned about this system failing, I'm surprised you drive any new car. Drive-by-wire throttles, electronic stability control, ABS, airbags, etc. All of these system are electronically controlled and if they failed could have disastrous results. Yet I see a whole lot of people driving these cars without a second thought.

God forbid you attempt to control one small aspect of someone's PRIVILEDGE and everyone freaks out.

I guess your post can be summrised as: "To ensure public safety some freedoms must be sacraficed." :rolleyes: Little here little there, little everywhere it adds up.


The idea would never work any how (to easy to bypass) But where exactly does it say any where that you have a right or freedom to speed and break the laws of the road??

Again such a system would never work as simply putting a bit of aluminum window screen over the antenna would disable it.

Id like to see virtual road signs though where a radio transmitter broad casts the speed limit to your car and your car tells you that the speed limit in this area is xx mph and this cities laws diffier from the last ones laws in that they ___________. Maybe addresses for local services post office fire police etc.


As for the whole public safty and rights being sacraficed deal. Laws have always been put in place to restrict freedoms.

Hey! I like it.

If we put tracking devices directly into people, cameras in thier homes and implanted electrical stun chips in everyones spinal columns, we could prevent all crime, everywhere, all the time. There would be no crime, ever! We could only go where and when government regulations said we could. Bring it on!

As noted tehy do this in semis and it is not a good thing in some situtions.
The mopst notable is hills. A truck need momentum to get up and getti9ng up speed before a hill is considered acceptable spo they can maintain theiur speed.
Another issue is passing: Speedos are not accurate. You'll have one car maxed out a 34.5 and one car at 35.5. If they want to pass it will take forever.
FInally, there is safety. If you know what you're doing, the gas pedal can be very good for accedent avoidance. If you're ina four lane divided road and something falls out of a truck in front of you, there is a car to your rear-right. You don't have enough distance to stop. You quickly floor it and dart in front of that car. If the limiter is at 35 and your at 35, you're boned.
There's also malfunctions. WHat if it screws up and limits you to 25 right as you merge on a 65mph freeway? Boom.
We have enough electronics in our cars. They limit drivers feel for the road and allow them to drink coffee and talk on the phone. Now they won't even have to monitor the speed. They can just floor it and steer.

The 'horsepower = safety' idea is one of the biggest myths sold to you by Big Auto. I guarantee you 99.99% of the time, the brakes are better than the gas. Particularly in your scenario. If you have time to accelerate and 'shoot the gap' in that situation, you have time to brake, and you won't take out other cars in the process.

As for trucks barreling down the highway at 85mph to build up momentum for the next hill. Well, I don't appreciate 18-wheelers riding my tuckus trying to do this. It's a good way to make a Toyota sandwich.

Finally, to the OP, there are a number of research groups who work on 'smart cars' that, through computer control, will allow denser amounts of traffic on a given road. Not quite what you're talking about (it's geared more towards moving more people faster, not safety), but it's interesting. I know Virginia Tech (www.vtu.edu) has a research group.

Ive seen arguments against it stating emergencies etc. Funny thing about that here where i live doing the speed limit with out hittng red lights it takes about 5 to 10 minutes to get to the hospital. With a complex automatic trafic control system (driving your car for you etc) Traffic jams would be over.Even with auto adjusted speed there would be far fewer waits at red lights because your speed could be adjusted up a few mph or down a few mph.

.
I think for a remote speed control system id much prefer see somethign along thse lines. Where the system adjusts your speed for you if turned on to help you decrease your red light wait times.

How many here who drive have gotten to the point where they can beat stop lights on a given stretch of road just by increasing or decreasing your speed by say 3 or 4 mp (can do it on bikes to but bikes wouldn't b eable to use such a system). Its really easy to do drivers do it all the time. Would be so nice to be able to do this when taking a trip to your parents house out of state to their new home or what ever.

I think systems like that would cut way down on speeding on their own. The time it would save would have most people simply letting the system run.

The Autobahn has an ingeniuos solution. As you know, parts of the Autobahn have no speed limit and you had better be going well in excess of 100 mph in the left lane.

But traffic congestion has also hit the autobahn. So to maximize speeds and flow, traffic is regulated by a computer controlled system that posts variable speed limits so that during rush hour, cars are slowed down as they approach congested areas, reducing bottlenecks, and the speed and flow of cars is maximized.

I can live with being told to slow down for a while if I know it will get me through traffic at the fastest speed, and then I can go as fast as I want on the unregulated sections.

And to those that are yelling "Big Brother" about limiting your speed, if you have any modern car, they are all top speed limited by a chip in the FI system.

so what happens when there is an emergency? your wife/you are pregnant and giving birth, your son/daughter broke their leg/arm/head open...are you supposed to cruise to the hospital at a speedy 55mph? The ambulance excuse doesn't work here...if people called the ambulance every time a woman was giving birth or for relatively minor emergencies, taxes would skyrocket. it's a bad idea. people are going to speed, you can't stop it from happening.

this discussion reminds me of the movie "Minority Report" where the government started arresting people for what they called something like futurecrimes, or some variance of that, based on the predictions of three clairvoyant people. you can't prevent people from breaking the law - if there's a law, people will find a way around it.

i'll ignore the fact that you attack the ACLU and liberals for something they haven't even taken a position on - way to go.


So are you saying ambulances regularly speed? It is my understanding that they drive the speed limit when responding to calls... they just clear the streets and roads to do so.

OK for academic reasons alone...

Can anybody tell me why their passenger car can do 110MPH+ and perhaps has the ability to hit 60 in 4-6 seconds?

Where are these speeds and this ability to accelerate needed, or legally used?

I understand the need for power in towing, but why speed and the ability to accelerate. (I just heard a car ad that touted 0-60 in 4 seconds... why?).

BTW there is a very good chance that in the not too distant future, when your family vehicle is equipped with "AutoDrive," it will be automatically controlled in a manner suggested by the OP and more... and oddly enough, everyone will accept it as the best, latest, greatest, thing. Anyone see "I Robot," and the auto controlled cars in that movie? That technology was tested here in San Diego several years ago... and it worked quite well. Wanna pack more cars onto the freeway... that is the technology that will allow it. Tired of bumber to bumper slow traffic... then you too will clamor for "AutoDrive." It is amazing what people will buy into when marketing works right.

So are you saying ambulances regularly speed? It is my understanding that they drive the speed limit when responding to calls... they just clear the streets and roads to do so.


Yeh right heh. Ive seen them doing 65+ in a 25 quite allot

OK for academic reasons alone...

Can anybody tell me why their passenger car can do 110MPH+ and perhaps has the ability to hit 60 in 4-6 seconds?

Where are these speeds and this ability to accelerate needed, or legally used?

I understand the need for power in towing, but why speed and the ability to accelerate. (I just heard a car ad that touted 0-60 in 4 seconds... why?).


Because it's what sells cars.

OK for academic reasons alone...

Can anybody tell me why their passenger car can do 110MPH+ and perhaps has the ability to hit 60 in 4-6 seconds?

Where are these speeds and this ability to accelerate needed, or legally used?

I understand the need for power in towing, but why speed and the ability to accelerate. (I just heard a car ad that touted 0-60 in 4 seconds... why?).

Mostly marketing hype. often times under normal conditions theres no chance the car could ever do this.

You could lowe a cars gearing way down but make it take minutes to get to 60 mph and have a msive ammount of towing power.with fewer hp and lower top speed. Or you can pour in the horse power and keep the same gearing resultign in faster acel and top end speed and keep the same ability to tow/haul is the main reason for fast acel fast top speed.

Big Brother is watching!

If slowing down traffic helps save lives, then its worth it.

Of the zillions of people that speed, how many of them cause deaths on the roads ?

How many of those deaths could be avoided by using electronic speed limiters ?



I also like the idea of proximity sensors. For instance, if you drive your car within 10 feet of another car, the system beeps and warns you to back off, if within 3 seconds you are not 10 feet or more back, the system will decellerate you and force you to keep a safe gap.

=)

I was commenting to N_Cs post on ONSTAR and it's tracking capabilities, and how it's a great idea not the speed limiting sensor. :rolleyes:


The idea would never work any how (to easy to bypass) But where exactly does it say any where that you have a right or freedom to speed and break the laws of the road??

Again such a system would never work as simply putting a bit of aluminum window screen over the antenna would disable it.

Id like to see virtual road signs though where a radio transmitter broad casts the speed limit to your car and your car tells you that the speed limit in this area is xx mph and this cities laws diffier from the last ones laws in that they ___________. Maybe addresses for local services post office fire police etc.


As for the whole public safty and rights being sacraficed deal. Laws have always been put in place to restrict freedoms.

If slowing down traffic helps save lives, then its worth it.

Of the zillions of people that speed, how many of them cause deaths on the roads ?

How many of those deaths could be avoided by using electronic speed limiters ?


1/3 of the approx. 45,000 annual auto traffic deaths are attributed to speeding... So about 15,000 people would live each year if motorists did not exceed safe speed limits.

1/3 of the approx. 45,000 annual auto traffic deaths are attributed to speeding... So about 15,000 people would live each year if motorists did not exceed safe speed limits.


Good quote !

If slowing down traffic helps save lives, then its worth it.

Of the zillions of people that speed, how many of them cause deaths on the roads ?

How many of those deaths could be avoided by using electronic speed limiters ?

I don't think zillion is a number. :) Anyway good questions, and untill there is a study done about it, this conversation is nothing more then speculations. What kills more people, speeding, tailgating, drive driving?

If slowing down traffic helps save lives, then its worth it.
=)


This is why we have National speed limit laws of 55 MPH, seatbelt laws and helmet laws.

Just think how many lives we could save if we outlawed coitus. If everyone that is born, dies. Then outlawing births would prevent deaths.

Sounds like a plan to me! :rolleyes:

I don't think zillion is a number. :) Anyway good questions, and untill there is a study done about it, this conversation is nothing more then speculations. What kills more people, speeding, tailgating, drive driving?


Tailgaiting just increases the risk of a rear end collision ...

My theory is that if you can't easily tailgate, then you reduce the possibility of rear end collisions....

This is why we have National speed limit laws of 55 MPH, seatbelt laws and helmet laws.

Just think how many lives we could save if we outlawed coitus. If everyone that is born, dies. Then outlawing births would prevent deaths.

Sounds like a plan to me! :rolleyes:


I was wondering when you would chime in and give us your anticipated opinion !

=)

Also, in the part of the nation I live in, the speed limit is 65 mph .. lol

Some parts are 65, others 70, others 55 ...

I was wondering when you would chime in and give us your anticipated opinion !

=)

Also, in the part of the nation I live in, the speed limit is 65 mph .. lol

Some parts are 65, others 70, others 55 ...


Glad I could end your antici...





































pation.

Seems the national speed limit expired about 10 years ago, and I didn't get the memo... again! Well, lets reinact, think of all the lives we could save. :)

If slowing down traffic helps save lives, then its worth it.

Of the zillions of people that speed, how many of them cause deaths on the roads ?

How many of those deaths could be avoided by using electronic speed limiters ?



I also like the idea of proximity sensors. For instance, if you drive your car within 10 feet of another car, the system beeps and warns you to back off, if within 3 seconds you are not 10 feet or more back, the system will decellerate you and force you to keep a safe gap.

=)

Beleive it or not they already have them. They don't slow you down but they do give a alert beep.

Glad I could end your antici...





































pation.

Seems the national speed limit expired about 10 years ago, and I didn't get the memo... again! Well, lets reinact, think of all the lives we could save. :)


LMAO stacey. I think there is a national guideline still inplace that says all speed limits should be kept to 75 or below or some such.

Never really checked

I was wondering when you would chime in and give us your anticipated opinion !

I was wondering when you and the other anti-automobile/anti-motorist ranters are going to chime in with something that ties your wishful conjuring and over-the-top rhetoric into bicycle safety OR bicycling advocacy?

An idea that I think would revolutionize the safety of motor vehicles is to install radio frequency emitting antennas within cities so that cars are speed limited to the pre-programmed speeds. :D

For instance, the downtown miami area would be blanketed at 25 mph . All cars entering the downtown area would automatically max out at 25 mph. (except for police and rescue vehicles) .. =)

Mall parking lots can be set to 5 mph. AWESOME !

Think of the savings in fuel economy alone ! :eek:

Highways can be set to the maximum safe speeds, the reduction in fatalities would be enormous.

All new cars would be fitted with the receiver unit from the manufacturer, therefore guaranteeing that they will operate within the guidelines of the speed control system.


YES!

This is so bad on so many levels that I can't even begin to describe. Imagine driving down a two lane highway where the posted limit is 45 mph, and running into a car doing 40, and trying to pass. Now imagine how long it will take to pass that car while being unable to go above 45, and a semi coming down the road in the opposite direction.

Consider the 25 mph onramp that feeds a 70 mph freeway. Do you really want to wait until you are actually ON the freeway before accelerating into traffic, or do you want to build up to that speed beforehand?

Imagine driving at 64mph to the right of a driver in the left lane who wants to move merge into a right hand exit. Instead of hitting the brakes to go behind you, he accelerates to 65 mph and tries to merge into your lane to go onto the exit. Er, he accelerates to 65mph, and can't accelerate above that, so he merges right into your left quarter panel.


As far as maximum safe speeds is concerned, The autobahn is one of the safest highways in the world, and a large portion has no speed limit at all, and interstate highway deaths here in the US have declined dramatically after the national 55 mph speed limit was removed.

I like the idea. I don't know why anyone would think "liberals" would object to it. Sounds like people are getting their ideas of "liberals" from drug-enhanced talk show hosts. It would be the "good old boys" that would object. The idea that people would "take their business elsewhere" is also false, since there won't be anywhere to take your business that doesn't have the same controls.

The ACLU worked to end the McCarthy era of terror and intimidation -- that's a good enough endorsement for me.

Speed control might be too controversial. But how about a remote activated kill switch that will allow officers to shut down vehicles eluding pursuit? It would end these crazy high-speed chases which kill and maim innocent bystanders. It would also allow you to shut down your vehicle within minutes of discovering that it has been stolen. Probably a gradual shutdown in case the thief is in the middle of a traffic lane.

Big Brother is watching!
Hey, pipe down. My tax dollars are being spent on watching people like you...

As far as maximum safe speeds is concerned, The autobahn is one of the safest highways in the world, and a large portion has no speed limit at all, and interstate highway deaths here in the US have declined dramatically after the national 55 mph speed limit was removed.

Has anyone shown a connection between increased speed limits and reduced fatalities, or is it just that safety features have become so much better?

Not trying to be one of those people who scream "Source! Show me a source!" But you have to admit this seems counter-intuitive. Well, to me, at least.

I was wondering when you and the other anti-automobile/anti-motorist ranters are going to chime in with something that ties your wishful conjuring and over-the-top rhetoric into bicycle safety OR bicycling advocacy?

Perhaps you can tell us why cars can do 110MPH+ or what the reason is for 0-60 in 4 seconds.

Like I said earlier, I understand the need to pull trailers, but the reasoning behind speed capability for vehicles well beyond the speed limits (and handling ability) of most roads just escapes me.

Perhaps you can tell us why cars can do 110MPH+ or what the reason is for 0-60 in 4 seconds.

Like I said earlier, I understand the need to pull trailers, but the reasoning behind speed capability for vehicles well beyond the speed limits (and handling ability) of most roads just escapes me.
Because they can.

Now your turn; explain the significance of the obsession with the top speed/acceleration capabilities of automobiles on bicycling advocacy/safety issues.

Has anyone shown a connection between increased speed limits and reduced fatalities, or is it just that safety features have become so much better?
Even better yet, show the coorelation between increased highway speed limits and bicycling safety and/or advocacy.

There is a way to regulate traffic so the maximum number of people can get to work or wherever as efficiently and quickly as possible.... They are called trains and we used to have lots of them. Nowadays, we are too busy ripping up 'surplus' tracks all over the place and laying down asphalt to carry all the vehicle traffic. Individual motorised vehicles, especially single occupant cars, are the most inefficient way of moving people about and no amount of speed limiting will change that fact.

Because they can.

Now your turn; explain the significance of the obsession with the top speed/acceleration capabilities of automobiles on bicycling advocacy/safety issues.

Sure, no problem... inexperienced motorists mashing down hard on gas pedals of high performance vehicles tend to lose control of said vehicles.

Cyclists on roads where motorists lose control are at the mercy of said inexperienced motorists.

Frustrations brought on by motorists perceiving cyclists as "blocking traffic" can also drive motorists to push the limits of their ability to control vehicles in their frustrations to "get around" said cyclists... "at any cost," resulting in loss of control and again putting cyclists at their mercy.

The National Highway Safety Administration says 1/3 of the approximately 45,000 accidents are due to excessive speed... another 1/3 are due to alcohol related incidents, and the final 1/3 are due to reckless driving/unsafe conditions.

So perhaps 15,000 motorists die each year due to pushing their cars past the safe operating limits...

So now what are the reasons that autos have been mandated to have seatbelts and airbags, yet still have the ability to reach speeds beyond the legal limits of all states... at acceleration abilities that can make the vehicle difficult to handle? Somehow it seems the legal beagles that pushed for seatbelts and airbags forgot the fundamental operating charateristics of the auto in the first place.

Originally Posted by genec -
"Perhaps you can tell us why cars can do 110MPH+ or what the reason is for 0-60 in 4 seconds.

Like I said earlier, I understand the need to pull trailers, but the reasoning behind speed capability for vehicles well beyond the speed limits (and handling ability) of most roads just escapes me."

Can someone tell me why bikes need to be made of Carbon Fiber (with its latent obsolecence factor)with brifters etc, when there are steel fixies and 3speeds to be had ?