Speeding On The M5 & M7

I have some doubts about just how much difference speed limiters would make.
They only come into effect at 120 or 130 or whatever speed they are set at. They have no effect at lower speeds, yet there are plenty of situations where 100, 80 or even 60 is way too fast.
I know a lot of accidents are caused by people driving too fast, but what constitutes excessive speed varies according to the prevailing conditions.
Don't a lot of accidents, injuries and fatalities occur at speeds below 100?
I also wonder how many people would believe that a speed limiter made their car safer and would consequently drive more dangerously. What prompts me to suspect that might happen is a memory I have of my own experience from 1963. I had just got my licence and was driving very cautiously, but when I came to a corner, I went around it faster than was comfortable. The problem was that I had a false sense of security because I was driving slowly, probably about 40mph, but I should have slowed to about 30mph to negotiate the corner.
I can imagine a similar false sense of security being induced by a speed limiter with some people just keeping "on the limiter" when they should slow down a bit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ben

Driver days at Eastern Creek would be a little less thrilling when you're crawling down the straight at 120km/h.

---

It would make sense to have concessions for clubs etc. But once again, if you have an older, non-limited car you get three strikes before you are forced to have one fitted.

And in response to vnx205's comment about how much good it might actually do - well it sure as hell can't hurt. At least there will be fewer 200kph brain-dead idiot single car smashes like we get on the Pacific Motorway. Sure, the dangers of exceeding lower speed limits are relative to the prevailing conditions, but on the open highway we see far too many high-speed crashes where some sh*t-for-brains decides his new Commodore or Falcon is good for the double-ton and ends up in a tree with his girlfriend in the passenger seat decapitated!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vnx205

I can imagine a similar false sense of security being induced by a speed limiter with some people just keeping "on the limiter" when they should slow down a bit.

---

Of course the existing enforcement of lower limits would have to stay - this is just an idiot-proof backstop.

Speed cameras havent reduced the road toll. I dont feel limiting a vehicles speed will lower the road toll either.

No doubt if it was introduced and the road toll kept climbing there would be no reversal of the speed limiter, they would be there to stay.

I hope they dont get introduced.

I can't see limiters being effectively introduced either. As soon as there's a techno thingy built to do something, another techno thingy is built to over-ride it. It would be almost impossible to regulate nationwide. Imagine a 900cc (plus) roadbike ? it would only have 1st gear.

No, I think all Land Rover owners should be exempt from rego and given the Order of Australia for services to reducing the road toll...or not speeding (much).

Speed Cameras:mad: Since when to they detect a driver who is unlicensed, disqualified, suspended, unregistered, uninsured, p#ssed or driving a stolen car etc..rant, rant , rant. They're crap and do NOTHING to help reduce road trauma.

G'day Folks :)

I have been reading this thread with interest, and am of the conclusion that there is no substitute for VISABLE POLICE PRESENCE ON THE ROAD as that is the only thing some drivers recognise.:nazilock:

Speed cameras have no effect on someone that earns $1000 a day, but are searched for by somebody on say $450 a fortnight, who drive looking anywhere but the road.

cheers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UncleHo

G'day Folks :)

I have been reading this thread with interest, and am of the conclusion that there is no substitute for VISABLE POLICE PRESENCE ON THE ROAD as that is the only thing some drivers recognise.:nazilock:

Speed cameras have no effect on someone that earns $1000 a day, but are searched for by somebody on say $450 a fortnight, who drive looking anywhere but the road.

cheers

---

yes rocket... visible police presence didnt slow you down :P

sorry, couldnt resist, i will crawl back under my rock now...

Of course there will be people who would get around the mechanics of a speed limiter, but I come back to my main point - it can't hurt to have them! There is simply no logical reason to have cars for sale that are capable of 200+kph when the legal maximum (except NT) is 110kph. It defies logic.

It's got to be relatively easy to do and, like I have said all along, for existing cars without limiters, you get three strikes then pay to have one fitted or lose the vehicle.

All over the news and current affairs programs the last couple of nights has been the story of the drag racers on the Great Western Highway who took out an elderly couple. You can't tell me that 120kph limiters mightn't have changed the outcome of that tragedy. Who knows, with limiters the concept of street drags might eventually disappear.

My other car, an Alfa, is ten times more fun going around corners than flat out in a straight line anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mudmouse

Imagine a 900cc (plus) roadbike ? it would only have 1st gear.

---

It would make them cheaper then too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by solmanic

My other car, an Alfa, is ten times more fun going around corners than flat out in a straight line anyway.

---

You've just unravelled all your hard fought campaigning..