Road Car Speed Limiters

[Steven Scala]

So I heard last week that some politician's been lobbying to have new cars limited to something like 180kph for road use in Canada. Considering where oil prices are going, I guess this might be a move to save our wealthiest 1%, since the rest of us won't be doing much more over 110kph, but as for the safety aspect, consider what happens in a road car crashing at 200k.

Anyway, I personally am not opposed to seeing road cars subjected to speed limitations. The cost of the stand-alone ECU's required to circumvent these systems for race use would mostly be borne by those who can afford to race a brand new car; and with such a program in place, I'd imagine that the cost of said ECU's would probably come down after a few years as a result.

Thoughts? Opinions? Craziness? What'chu think?

[thgear]

might as well put it up to 130-40 to have a real social impact

hell i'd live with 100

[racecartech]

many cars have been already set from 160 - 190 in the past.

My 1992 Nissan 240sx had a cut ut at 190km/hr.

Being as our laws take your cr away for speeds in exxess of the max of 150, they might as well put it at 140.

The people bringing these cars to the track will get around this feature as they have in the past.

I did

[TheJuggernaut]

Originally Posted by racecartech

The people bringing these cars to the track will get around this feature as they have in the past.

I did

Not that this will ever get a green light but something to consider is that if it goes ahead, it will be different than an arbitrary limiter from the factory. This is now a legal matter so if you disable the limiter for the track, you better have it back on before you go back on the road... But then that raises many other questions (which contribute to my feeling that this is all just posturing), such as how you'd even know if anyone has it disabled, and what about cars that can't support it (eg carbs).

I generally do about 105 on the highway so I often drive around semis. The speedo on my 4Runner is incredibly accurate, verified by several GPSs, and based on my extensive anecdotal evidence, many if not most trucks have circumvented the 105 limiter. So even that didn't work.

[Doug Stark]

Why stop at speed limiting cars? Just get rid of cars. Wait. While we're at it; lets ban ciggies as they kill more people then cars. Hey, I know... lets outlaw fast food - you know what that does to your health. No stopping now: Lightning. Yup. Kills 10'000 people annually. No golfing, corner working, fishing in aluminum boats or generally going outside. Hey, fishing. Actually swimming or lack of swimming SKILLS to be more accurate. Australia. Just because. It's that shark thing. Oh and poison snakes, crocodiles and just about everything else. Girls there are nice. Don't think they bite...

Drugs? No thank you. Can't speak for the rest of the world however. Drinking? Oh yeah - THAT kills millions. So much for the LCBO profits.

Can't even THINK about airplanes between them crashing on top of you or them taking you down with them. 1200 a year world wide. I'd mention autoerotic accidents but that only kills 600 world wide and none of you around here abuse yourselves right?

I'd ban eating hotdogs as between the sodium content and choking on them they're dangerous as hell.

A lot of people fall out of bed and kill themselves. Some get killed in bed but I don't know if thats a partner selection issue or a box spring warranty issue?

Roller coasters killed 6 people last year in North America. Can't have that. Ban them.

Don't live near a volcano or I'd ban them too.

Tar Sands are said to harm us. No gas for you!

Politicians are the ultimate threat in my view which leads me back to Nanny boy from Scarborough. I'd ban HIM. In fact, considering where he is from - can we ban Scarborough? (Lead poisoning issues!)

I'll live my life as I please and let Darwin take care of the self abusers thank you.

[Adam Lipcsey]

Doug, it can be argued how society wants to evaluate the use of private cars:

1. Appliances to facilitate transportation and right of use: No need for higher top speed than 140km/h.

2. Expression of freedom: No need to limit top speed.

The roads are becoming oversaturated and the resources limit to satisfy both.

[Adam Lipcsey]

I would say that government first should stop issuing new licence plates if the resources become overstretched.

[3wheeler]

Originally Posted by Doug Stark

Why stop at speed limiting cars? Just get rid of cars. Wait. While we're at it; lets ban ciggies as they kill more people then cars. Hey, I know... lets outlaw fast food - you know what that does to your health. No stopping now: Lightning. Yup. Kills 10'000 people annually. No golfing, corner working, fishing in aluminum boats or generally going outside. Hey, fishing. Actually swimming or lack of swimming SKILLS to be more accurate. Australia. Just because. It's that shark thing. Oh and poison snakes, crocodiles and just about everything else. Girls there are nice. Don't think they bite...

Drugs? No thank you. Can't speak for the rest of the world however. Drinking? Oh yeah - THAT kills millions. So much for the LCBO profits.

Can't even THINK about airplanes between them crashing on top of you or them taking you down with them. 1200 a year world wide. I'd mention autoerotic accidents but that only kills 600 world wide and none of you around here abuse yourselves right?

I'd ban eating hotdogs as between the sodium content and choking on them they're dangerous as hell.

A lot of people fall out of bed and kill themselves. Some get killed in bed but I don't know if thats a partner selection issue or a box spring warranty issue?

Roller coasters killed 6 people last year in North America. Can't have that. Ban them.

Don't live near a volcano or I'd ban them too.

Tar Sands are said to harm us. No gas for you!

Politicians are the ultimate threat in my view which leads me back to Nanny boy from Scarborough. I'd ban HIM. In fact, considering where he is from - can we ban Scarborough? (Lead poisoning issues!)

I'll live my life as I please and let Darwin take care of the self abusers thank you.

Single best post I have read on this forum.

[Cap'n Pete]

I'm STILL WAITING for the government issued "bubble-wrap suit of armour" and house-arrest for everybody . Nobody moves, nobody gets hurt.

Cycling is arguably the most "efficient" means of "green friendly" commuting, but even bicycles A) require manufacturing (possibly in an un-eco-friendly fashion?) and B) lead to several injuries and even deaths, so perhaps we should reconsider allowing people to own or ride bicycles? (... and they thought that issuing "LICENSES" for cyclists was going to fix anything?!?).

Walking is arguably the SAFEST and "greenest" mode of transportation, but people slip, trip and fall all the time (... the #1 cause for lost-time accidents, according to my employer), so walking can't even be considered perfectly "safe".

So yeah, protective bubble-wrap, please .

OR:

Put government regulated speed limiters on all new cars, and watch the USED CAR market soar!!!

[h-bomb]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Pete

So yeah, protective bubble-wrap, please .

Think of all of the increase in skin disease from wrapping people up...

I keep saying there's no cure for stupid.

[quickshift]

I'm not quite sure what the political or practical purpose would be for this legislation. While there is no rational case to be made for speed on a public road in excess of 180kph, there are laws in place currently to address this. I wasn't aware that there are a statistically significant number of accidents involving speeds above 180 that demand that resources be spent to force this change at the manufacturing level (motorcycles may be an exception, but that's a seasonal thing).

The "slippery slope" argument presented is farcical (and I'm sure was presented as such), but there have to be other more pressing matters to occupy the interests of Transport Canada.

[darcyw]

Originally Posted by h-bomb

I keep saying there's no cure for stupid.

I'm going to make bumper stickers and t-shirts with that quote on it.

I wrote my member of parliament when this was out in the media about 2 years ago. It's just a member trying to get face time in the media. The immense cost to do this would be prohibitive as canada is a very small world market for automobiles...compared to our neighbours down south where 10x the vehicles are sold.

I agree that we can't be driving super fast on the highways, but my freedom to do so will be in jeopardy. Does my car already have a speed limiter? I have no clue, but I have a problem with more big brother electronic nannies.

...oh, and we also need to ban tornadoes as well.

darcy

[Ujjwal]

I'd be pro for putting a very low speed restriction on cars. The roads are a public place, and the laws exist for the safety of all. I don't care who you are, you can't predict a mechanical failure going at 170 and end up careening across the highway into a minivan filled with a family. The speed restriction on cars should be set at whatever the highest industry wide speed is for satisfactory crash tests.

Go to the racetrack for your need for speed.

Call the cops or ambulance if it's an emergency.

Buy a second alarm clock so you're not late for work.

[George]

Originally Posted by darcyw

... It's just a member trying to get face time in the media.

Exactly, just another self serving jackass in the government trying to move himself ahead.

[Doug Stark]

Originally Posted by Ujjwal

I'd be pro for putting a very low speed restriction on cars. The roads are a public place, and the laws exist for the safety of all. I don't care who you are, you can't predict a mechanical failure going at 170 and end up careening across the highway into a minivan filled with a family. The speed restriction on cars should be set at whatever the highest industry wide speed is for satisfactory crash tests.

Go to the racetrack for your need for speed.

Call the cops or ambulance if it's an emergency.

Buy a second alarm clock so you're not late for work.

Statistically speaking... Big Mac's kill more people then your 170kph mechanical failure scenario. Would you like fries with that?