EU plan to fit cars with speed limiters could be UNSAFE

Cars were not internet accessible in the late 90s, early 2000s, nor were they fly by wire.... you needed physical access to the vehicle to mess with it so its not even remotely the same thing.
It's good that you argue a completely different point, but why? The question was whether the speed limiter makes the cars more hackable : It does not, because the devices that make it possible are already there in modern cars.
 
Last edited:
The problem with your theory is accidents are investigated, they can determine with fairly decent accuracy the speed of impact. So the thought that someone was not actually speeding according to a police report, does not help the case where the data is derived from accident reports. You can contrive all the scenarios where there are outliers, but that is the problem, they are outliers. There would have to be a massive conspiracy to falsify so many reports on accidents to change the data significantly to fit your claims.
Nothing is falsified, that's the magic of statistics. You can use the same data to prove a point, and to prove the opposite of the same point, by slightly adjusting the presentation.
Every accident where they can determine that the speed was over the limit will get the "caused by speeding" stamp. Regardless of other contributing factors.

But as I've said, wait and see if physically preventing speeding will make accidents significantly less likely. I firmly believe that the same dumb people will get into the same dumb situations, and crash just as if there were no limiter.
 
Nothing is falsified, that's the magic of statistics. You can use the same data to prove a point, and to prove the opposite of the same point, by slightly adjusting the presentation.
Every accident where they can determine that the speed was over the limit will get the "caused by speeding" stamp. Regardless of other contributing factors.

That is actually not true.

But as I've said, wait and see if physically preventing speeding will make accidents significantly less likely. I firmly believe that the same dumb people will get into the same dumb situations, and crash just as if there were no limiter.

There have been numerous studies that show reducing speeds actually does significantly reduce accidents, especially fatal accidents. That is one of the reasons for speed limits in the first place...
 
It's good that you argue a completely different point, but why? The question was whether the speed limiter makes the cars more hackable : It does not, because the devices that make it possible are already there in modern cars.


I was not arguing a different point, I was pointing out that your comparison to cars of the late 90s, early 2000s is not a valid comparison as the cars today are completely different .
 
remember all those movies and books depicting what the EU would become in the future and everyone said it was bullshit fiction? yeah... bet they aren't thinking that now are they.
Many of those writers were young idealistic people who believed in certain thing they later rejected or decided weren't practical. They took what their saw from the people they hung out with and ran it forward and where it would lead. The weren't pulling random Dystopias out of their behinds.
 
He is trying to state that speeding is never the cause for an accident. Which is fairly dumb. If you exceed what is safe for road conditions, thus causing you to lose control, what was it that caused the person to lose control? Speeding.
Another scenario. If you speed up to either overtake someone or just because you want to get someone sooner, but the person in front of you all of a sudden breaks and you hit them, what is the cause of the accident? Speeding.
I could go on, but my point is the same, speeding is definitely a cause for accidents, and even more so for more extensive damage in accidents. Data and statistics show this.

Now, do I think some people have greater control at higher speeds than others? Yes. I own a sports car, I have owned sports cars for most of my driving days. I have taken courses and practiced maneuvers and control at higher rates of speed. But I still understand the inherent dangers of speeding.
Speed is never the cause of an accident. Bad driving is. Speeding to unsafe speeds is a consequence of bad driving. You wanna know why i say that, because by your own admission, driving to the point where you lose control is obviously the result of awful driving. Driving to the point of losing control isn't because of speeding, it's merely a consequence.

If you speed up to overtake someone (there are legitimate reasons for this btw) or just because you want to get someWHERE (capped to show my correction, fairly sure you meant this instead of what you wrote) sooner can be done and is done all the time safely. It's merely making sure there is enough room when you overtake someone. That's the correct way of driving, to the point where you always have enough room to stop no matter if the person in front of you slams on the breaks.

Greater control at higher speeds than others? Again, it depends on what speeds you're talking about. If i'm going 70 in a 65 zone... like... why even bring this up? If you're talking about going 120 in a 65, then you're an awful driver for doing that no matter if you're using a sports car or any other type of car. You should never have to take courses and practice maneuvers at high speeds because they literally have no place in driving on the road. So it really depends on what you're talking about specifically. If you're going 20-30 mph more than the average speed of traffic and weaving in and out of traffic like a moron, i don't care how many courses you've taken, it's dangerous and you should never do that.
 
I had another thought on this last night. This is basically attempting to apply positive train control to cars; but the thing is train speed limits are set based on actual safety needs, so they're important to follow, and a train doesn't really have the option to go a little bit faster or swerve a bit to avoid an obstacle, or really to slow down quickly either.
 
Speed is never the cause of an accident. Bad driving is. Speeding to unsafe speeds is a consequence of bad driving. You wanna know why i say that, because by your own admission, driving to the point where you lose control is obviously the result of awful driving. Driving to the point of losing control isn't because of speeding, it's merely a consequence.

That is completely inaccurate. You know how I can say that? Even trained racers and stunt drivers know that driving at higher speeds increases the likelihood of problems. No matter how good a driver you are, there is only so much you can account for or do, and at higher speeds, you have less options to recover or avoid problems. So yes, speed is very definitely a cause. :rolleyes:
 
That is completely inaccurate. You know how I can say that? Even trained racers and stunt drivers know that driving at higher speeds increases the likelihood of problems. No matter how good a driver you are, there is only so much you can account for or do, and at higher speeds, you have less options to recover or avoid problems. So yes, speed is very definitely a cause. :rolleyes:
So race car drivers and stunt drivers is your go to when discussing speed as a possible issue? It's simply put that there's less reaction time when traveling at higher speeds. However if you adjust your driving when at higher speeds in relation to giving yourself more room between cars, that would directly mitigate necessary reaction times. That's the part you're not getting.

It's quite simple. If you need 3 car lengths at 30 mph to stop completely or at least to slow down so much you don't harm yourself of the other driver, if you need 6 car lengths at 50 mph, 8 at 60, and lets say 15 at 90... if you decide you're going to do 90 mph with 3 car lengths which is insufficient to react/slow down in time then it's not the speed, it's your driving which is at fault.

Also the discussing before lent itself to absolute or relative speeding. I tried to get a gauge at which point you think the cut over is by saying if i'm doing 70/80 in a 65 zone if you would consider that a problem speed or not to determine exactly what levels of speeding you're discussing.

I don't think you should be doing more than 80 in a 65 in most cases, 90+ is definitely off the table in terms of being safe as you're fairly exceeding most traffic on the road. 120mph in a 65 zone is just plain retarded and you shouldn't have a license.
 
So race car drivers and stunt drivers is your go to when discussing speed as a possible issue? It's simply put that there's less reaction time when traveling at higher speeds. However if you adjust your driving when at higher speeds in relation to giving yourself more room between cars, that would directly mitigate necessary reaction times. That's the part you're not getting.

No, the part you are not getting is there are many variables when driving a car. There are things that are out of your control. The faster you drive, the less time you have to adjust to those, and its not just distance from the car in front of you. Many of those things if you are driving at a slower speed, you can recover from, or possibly avoid. So speed is the the variable causing the ultimate problem.

For instance:

A deer all of a sudden jumps infront of your car. Following the speed limit, it may only do minimal damage, at higher speeds, you are dead.
There is black ice or an oil slick or something else on the road, at normal speeds, you may be able to recover from that, at higher speeds, your car will lost control.
Someone turns into your lane because you are in their blind spot, at normal speeds, less damage, at elevated speeds, could be fatal.
etc, etc, etc.

So speed is directly related to the outcome. It IS the difference. Despite who may be at fault, or how the incident may have started. Now some of those would not ultimately even be listed as caused by speed, like someone turning into your lane, obviously they would be at fault there. But speed would still be directly related to the fatality in the accident. This is why there is a difference in the number of accidents caused by speed and the number of fatal accidents due to speed.

You can try to come up with tons of arguments to try and minimize it, but there are tons of studies equating rate of speed as both a cause for accidents in general and especially as a leading cause for fatal accidents. As governments are prone to want to keep their citizens alive so they can continue collecting money from them, they take both into account.
 
No, the part you are not getting is there are many variables when driving a car. There are things that are out of your control. The faster you drive, the less time you have to adjust to those, and its not just distance from the car in front of you. Many of those things if you are driving at a slower speed, you can recover from, or possibly avoid. So speed is the the variable causing the ultimate problem.

For instance:

A deer all of a sudden jumps infront of your car. Following the speed limit, it may only do minimal damage, at higher speeds, you are dead.
There is black ice or an oil slick or something else on the road, at normal speeds, you may be able to recover from that, at higher speeds, your car will lost control.
Someone turns into your lane because you are in their blind spot, at normal speeds, less damage, at elevated speeds, could be fatal.
etc, etc, etc.

So speed is directly related to the outcome. It IS the difference. Despite who may be at fault, or how the incident may have started. Now some of those would not ultimately even be listed as caused by speed, like someone turning into your lane, obviously they would be at fault there. But speed would still be directly related to the fatality in the accident. This is why there is a difference in the number of accidents caused by speed and the number of fatal accidents due to speed.

You can try to come up with tons of arguments to try and minimize it, but there are tons of studies equating rate of speed as both a cause for accidents in general and especially as a leading cause for fatal accidents. As governments are prone to want to keep their citizens alive so they can continue collecting money from them, they take both into account.
Again, you're simplifying all cases.
I don't care what speed you're traveling at, avoiding a deer that jumps out at you will be very difficult. I never once questioned that at higher speeds it's more difficult to avoid injuries. It's just basic physics. But no matter what, you're shifting goal posts when discussing this. The deer jumping out and you driving your car means no matter what speed the accident isn't avoidable, speed has nothnig to do with this.
Black ice or an oil slick... well black ice is hard to detect other than it should be winter and there should have been snow and other visible things on or off the road which which dictate that someone should be careful. Again, not driving cautiously when appropriate was the problem. The black ice issue can cause an accident below speed limit so yet again, speed is not the issue.
An oil slick is hard to run into and hard to determine... so... i dunno why this is even brought up. You playing too much spy hunter or something?

The someone turns into your lane again... if it's avoidable it won't be because of speed, it'll be reacting to it. The severity of damage in an accident isn't what's being discussed, rather if the accident was caused by speed.

So yeah, again we come up with totally different conclusions. In all your examples, speed is irrelevant. Accidents will happen no matter what. When you start discussing severity of accidents you're really discussing something else. You again arent providing concrete examples of what you consider to be speeding or not. Also that's a false conclusion about governments wanting to keep their citizens alive. I'm not too sure the german government wanted to keep jews alive during ww2. I could use a bunch of different other examples that aren't that severe but i think you get the picture.
 
Again, you're simplifying all cases.

No, I am not. Nowhere did I simplify all cases, in fact I said the exact opposite. I even explicitly cited the difference between causes of accidents and causes of fatality. This leads me to believe you are either not reading what I am writing or just cannot comprehend a chain of events and the differentiator. I specifically cited examples where speed was the cause of excessive damage. I also explicitly stated that is a main factor in how governments determine laws. It isn't just to stop accidents, it is to stop fatal accidents.

But just to give examples of those same things. At lower speeds, you have more time to correct in case of something popping up before you. #FACTS.
In the case of oil slick, you have more control of the vehicle at slower speeds to recover from the slipping. #FACTS.
In the case of someone turning into your lane, at slower speeds you are more likely to be able to react, you are correct. But reaction isn't the differentiator, the rate of speed is. Slower speed, you can react in time, faster speed you cannot. In addition, your vehicles braking ability, which has nothing to do with your reaction time, is also affected by the rate of speed. Speed is the difference. #FACTS.
 
In what universe has anyone on the 401 driven 100? You go 120 on average or get slammed from behind. Hell, the OPP roll at 130 because there's too much distance to cover to waste that much time.
There is a distinct difference between going 130 and 200-220. I stated what the posted speed limit is for the 401.
 
If people actually followed the speed limit, many of the rides home that are crowded and easily turn into a Jam will be a Jam all day everyday. We have to remove the Highway Lane Expansion Restrictions imposed by the Environmentalists.
 
If people actually followed the speed limit, many of the rides home that are crowded and easily turn into a Jam will be a Jam all day everyday. We have to remove the Highway Lane Expansion Restrictions imposed by the Environmentalists.

Huh? Speed isn't really a determining factor on traffic jams, it is congestion. Especially at particular times of the day due to rush hour (the time when most people get off work and are commuting). In fact, studies show that if everyone is going the same speed limit, and more so, if their vehicles actually were automated, there would likely be less traffic jams as those cars would be following the rules of the road and letting other cars in. Jams typically happen and/or get worse when people don't follow the rules and try to prevent others from merging properly. It is a cascading effect considering the amounts of ramps or intersections involved.
 
Again, you're simplifying all cases.
The deer jumping out and you driving your car means no matter what speed the accident isn't avoidable, speed has nothnig to do with this.

This doesn't even make sense. Do you even drive?

The deer I hit if I'd been going 10 mph less I could have stopped in time, if I'd been going 20 mph more he maybe would have come through the windshield and kissed me. Speed had everything to do with it.
 
I was not arguing a different point, I was pointing out that your comparison to cars of the late 90s, early 2000s is not a valid comparison as the cars today are completely different .
He was saying that if the throttle can be controlled electronically then the car becomes a weapon. I said that the throttle can be controlled electronically in some cars from the 90s. Only you're giving words in my mouth that they're exactly the same.
You're just being a contrarian for the sake of being a contrarian. As this is irrelevant to the point.
 
This doesn't even make sense. Do you even drive?

The deer I hit if I'd been going 10 mph less I could have stopped in time, if I'd been going 20 mph more he maybe would have come through the windshield and kissed me. Speed had everything to do with it.
By that logic you shouldn't drive at all, since if you never even started rolling you'd have avoided all crashes -> proof that all crashes are caused by speed. This is your logic applied, not mine.
 
He was saying that if the throttle can be controlled electronically then the car becomes a weapon. I said that the throttle can be controlled electronically in some cars from the 90s. Only you're giving words in my mouth that they're exactly the same.
You're just being a contrarian for the sake of being a contrarian. As this is irrelevant to the point.

those other cars from the 90's aren't able to be hacked remotely and as i said this is just another vector of attack on an already proven insecure system.
 
those other cars from the 90's aren't able to be hacked remotely and as i said this is just another vector of attack on an already proven insecure system.
So it doesn't matter, if the system is already unsecured does it? And what vector of attack that would be? Spoofing a GPS signal? That takes military grade equipment. And jamming it won't do shit, otherwise cars would stop in tunnels. At best you can fool the car to think there is a different speed limit in effect than what actually is, but it still takes the driver to accelerate to that speed. You can't just make the car accelerate to 100 in a 20 area.
 
This doesn't even make sense. Do you even drive?

The deer I hit if I'd been going 10 mph less I could have stopped in time, if I'd been going 20 mph more he maybe would have come through the windshield and kissed me. Speed had everything to do with it.
Really? Doesn't it depend on how close the deer jumps out at your car and then calculating the speed at which you're going to determine if you have enough time? You can't just assume 10mph is a safe speed that will avoid accidents if the deer jumps in front 5 feet away you'll still hit it and have an accident.

Again one side is talking about fatalities and the other is talking about accidents. They're not the same thing. Putting a blanket statement like 10 mph is safer than 30 mph is stupid. It doesn't matter what speed someone is going at if they're distracted and looking at their cellphone or tail gaiting someone, there's still going to be an accident at any speed.

Most people at 30mph who are actively paying attention will spot a deer from a distance and slow down if they're on the side of the road. It's different for a bad driver who's got tunnel vision and not paying attention to factors like deer and reacts only when a deer jumps in front of their car.
 
So it doesn't matter, if the system is already unsecured does it? And vector of attack that would be? Spoofing a GPS signal? That takes military grade equipment. And jamming it won't do shit, otherwise cars would stop in tunnels. At best you can fool the car to think there is a different speed limit in effect than what actually is, but it still takes the driver to accelerate to that speed. You can't just make the car accelerate to 100 in a 20 area.
.....
spoofing a GPS signal takes military grade equipment? :p https://www.rtl-sdr.com/tag/gps-spoofing/
 
Speed certainly changes everything. Once fast enough that time dilation gets factored in, you simply cannot ignore it.
 
No, I am not. Nowhere did I simplify all cases, in fact I said the exact opposite. I even explicitly cited the difference between causes of accidents and causes of fatality. This leads me to believe you are either not reading what I am writing or just cannot comprehend a chain of events and the differentiator. I specifically cited examples where speed was the cause of excessive damage. I also explicitly stated that is a main factor in how governments determine laws. It isn't just to stop accidents, it is to stop fatal accidents.

But just to give examples of those same things. At lower speeds, you have more time to correct in case of something popping up before you. #FACTS.
In the case of oil slick, you have more control of the vehicle at slower speeds to recover from the slipping. #FACTS.
In the case of someone turning into your lane, at slower speeds you are more likely to be able to react, you are correct. But reaction isn't the differentiator, the rate of speed is. Slower speed, you can react in time, faster speed you cannot. In addition, your vehicles braking ability, which has nothing to do with your reaction time, is also affected by the rate of speed. Speed is the difference. #FACTS.
Speed and distance, distance caused by safe driving. If someone slams on their brakes half a mile ahead and i'm zooming at 250mph i have 14 or so seconds to apply the brakes and slow down to a stop in which i won't hit someone. If i'm traveling at 5mph and i'm 2 inches away from the car ahead of me, if they slam on their breaks then i will hit them and cause an accident.
Thus proving that no matter the speed at which you travel down the road, if you do it safely and smart you should avoid all accidents.

Screaming speed and putting hashtags is uhhh... i dunno... an interesting way to get your point across i guess?
 
Creating authentic GPS signals, yes. It's called a GPS simulator and it costs millions.
ehhh.... not too sure about that. There are gps repeaters that are available and this spoofer which can transmit a gps signal and trick cars costs 225$. It's not really as impressive as you would think.
 
So it doesn't matter, if the system is already unsecured does it? And what vector of attack that would be? Spoofing a GPS signal? That takes military grade equipment. And jamming it won't do shit, otherwise cars would stop in tunnels. At best you can fool the car to think there is a different speed limit in effect than what actually is, but it still takes the driver to accelerate to that speed. You can't just make the car accelerate to 100 in a 20 area.

no the driver is now not needed to accelerate.

By sending carefully crafted messages on the vehicle's internal network known as a CAN bus, they're now able to pull off even more dangerous, unprecedented tricks like causing unintended acceleration and slamming on the car's brakes or turning the vehicle's steering wheel at any speed./QUOTE]

https://www.wired.com/2016/08/jeep-hackers-return-high-speed-steering-acceleration-hacks/
 
He was saying that if the throttle can be controlled electronically then the car becomes a weapon. I said that the throttle can be controlled electronically in some cars from the 90s.


yes, from inside the car...not from anywhere else on cars from that era since they are not bluetooth capable nor are they internet connected vehicle .....this is the part you dont seem to understand.

You're just being a contrarian for the sake of being a contrarian. As this is irrelevant to the point.

No,Im telling you where your analogy fails, youre just not getting it.
 
I wonder if this will apply to trucks
In UK the national speed limit on single carriageway roads is 60 mph for cars and 40 mph for trucks
What could possibly go wrong...
 
I'm going to get rich off of defeating these little gems! For many years I have specialized myself in defeating these systems (OnStar here in the US for example) while fooling them into thinking they are active as a hobby. This is nothing that can't be fixed with some time, my laptop, and my trusty Fluke 190 SII. Oh, and my contacts over in Japan, China, and a few others when I need boards made. The fact it has to be universal to all makes and models actually makes it easier to defeat.

The only thing this is going to do is make grey area operators like myself a whole shitload of money.
most of today's speedometers are electronic. they measure magnetic pulses. id just remove half of the magnets. should do the trick.
 
Here they say "speed kill" and urge people to not do the speeding we all know we do, so campaigns urge us to take a little off the top.
And it is true, that the more you go over some limit the less chance you have to react / recover, and of course your stopping distance go up with speed.

And yeah you might be a kick ass driver, i feel that about myself too, as in over 30 years of driving i have never ruined a car, and my worst boo-boo was in my first car reversing out of a garage and turning the steering-wheel too early, resulting in me almost tearing the front fender off my Volvo 121.
And to be honest the reason i have not ruined any cars of mine are probably just luck, hell i have driven on 2 wheels in a mid 80ties German 3 Door hatchback, that be the 2 left wheels as i cut the curb on a right turn going too fast, so was kicked up on 2 wheels.
And my driving in the 90ties was pretty horrendous, and its also just pure luck i have never gotten a speeding ticket.

Anyway you and your car can be "all that" but that don't mean squat when some idiot busy liking pictures of cupcakes T-bone you, only thing that can better the outcome of that is the speeds are low.

Thats why traffic rules are communal and apply for everyone, and if you and everyone else play by those rules, driving a car could be just as safe as taking a plane.
 
Haha the EU, what a joke. Supercar sales will be great in 2021!
 
Speed and distance, distance caused by safe driving. If someone slams on their brakes half a mile ahead and i'm zooming at 250mph i have 14 or so seconds to apply the brakes and slow down to a stop in which i won't hit someone. If i'm traveling at 5mph and i'm 2 inches away from the car ahead of me, if they slam on their breaks then i will hit them and cause an accident.
Thus proving that no matter the speed at which you travel down the road, if you do it safely and smart you should avoid all accidents.

Screaming speed and putting hashtags is uhhh... i dunno... an interesting way to get your point across i guess?

Again this is simply false and proven by tests. This is why there are ratings for various roads and ratings for breaks, etc. The faster you go, the less control you have because the car can only handle so well at that speed. So yes, speed absolutely matters. Also your claim becomes even more ridiculous when you include the impact damage and injury. At 5mph, if the car infront of you slams on their brakes, you are running into them at most 5mph. If you are traveling at 70mph and a car 2 inches infront of you slams on their brakes, its a whole different story. Your anecdote about distance is irrespective of what others do on the road. If you give the appropriate amount of distance (provided you actually know how much distance you need at 250mph, which you likely don't), likely someone will move into that space. In addition, if you are going 250MPH, and you slam on the brakes to avoid a collision, there is a FAR higher chance of your car spinning out. You also have to account for road conditions, weather, other drivers, etc. The higher the speed, the far riskier every maneuver you do with the car, and the far more hazardous every additional condition is.
 
Again this is simply false and proven by tests. This is why there are ratings for various roads and ratings for breaks, etc. The faster you go, the less control you have because the car can only handle so well at that speed. So yes, speed absolutely matters. Also your claim becomes even more ridiculous when you include the impact damage and injury. At 5mph, if the car infront of you slams on their brakes, you are running into them at most 5mph. If you are traveling at 70mph and a car 2 inches infront of you slams on their brakes, its a whole different story. Your anecdote about distance is irrespective of what others do on the road. If you give the appropriate amount of distance (provided you actually know how much distance you need at 250mph, which you likely don't), likely someone will move into that space. In addition, if you are going 250MPH, and you slam on the brakes to avoid a collision, there is a FAR higher chance of your car spinning out. You also have to account for road conditions, weather, other drivers, etc. The higher the speed, the far riskier every maneuver you do with the car, and the far more hazardous every additional condition is.
Your speeding examples matters on the speeds you're talking about. 50 mph vs 70 has no bearing or difference in handling on the highway when driving safely and is done practically all the time. 90 mph+ is dangerous no matter what. Arguing about how 150mph is highly dangerous and most cars aren't designed with the required aerodynamic downforce at high speeds is a moot point. I showed the absurd example of 250mph without going into physics about handling to show that if you have enough room to react, then you should be safe at any speed. if you want to poke holes at that and say in a ford pinto, going 300mph is impossible and the car would lift off the ground, then sure, we can discuss that absurd example.

However if you go back down to basics, standard speeds such as 50-60-70-80 mph on a highway rated for 65 happens on a daily basis and the difference between 60-70 is almost trivial in terms of reaction time and space needed to safely stop. If accidents happen at such a speed, it's typically the result of bad driving such as distracted driver (cell phone), driver that's falling asleep, adverse weather conditions (ice, fog, snow, rain) and not adjusting to it (bad driving again), not giving enough space in front (bad driving), cutting people off (bad driving), side swiping people because you're not looking (bad driving), ect.

I don't see any condition in which going at 50mph will be safe in any of those conditions described above where going 70 would make a difference, especially if you give yourselves those extra car lengths of space to react and slow down/stop.
 
… when driving safely ...

Yes, very true. In many cases speed signs are an indication of the speed it is safe to travel at. That's why the max speed can be variable on the same road depending on the local situation (crossing, parked cars allowed, school nearby, ...).
In road design, speed is a very important factor. Roads are designed with a specific maximum speed in mind.
Viewing distance along bends in the road for example:
When traveling at 90kph (60mph), clear viewing distance should be at least 100m (300ft), so at this speed the driver will always have 4 seconds of visible road in front of him (not actual numbers, just an example).
At a point where the visibility would be less then 100m, the speed limit should be lowered to indicate the safe maximum speed (for that criterium).
Same for elevation differences like hills/bumps in the road … when going to fast, your visible road time becomes shorter, and will reach a point where you will not be able anymore to avoid an accident (because you will have used up your free road distance before you had the time to react). A little over the top, but it's clear that this can happen to the best drivers :), credit goes to the original Mad Max.

Another thing about speed limit is, that it gives the road users an indication of when it is safe to do a certain maneuver/action.
As a pedestrian, I know I have to be very careful when crossing a road where the speed is 90kph (60mph), and it is also the reason you should never try to cross a highway.
And this is where it gets very important: on a road where the speed is 50kmp (30mph), I will should be able to cross safely when I don't see a car for 100m (example), because it will take about 7sec to be at my location at the rated maximum speed and I will cross the road in +/- 3 sec.
But when the car is speeding, the situation can be very different. Imagine also that the speeding car could not even be visible behind a bend in the road.
This also is a common cause for accidents when cars from a side road try to insert the main road: They check is the road is safe, they have maybe 100m visibility which should be fine for cars going at the rated speed, but might not be enough when suddenly a speeding car pops up …

Same for the example of overtaking a slower vehicle:
Yes, you want to quickly take over the slower vehicle, and normally, you would do that with oncoming traffic in mind. So you can assess if this would be a safe moment or not …
What is the assessment based on ? It takes into account the speed of the oncoming traffic, so you can guess if you have enough time/road to take over. If the oncoming traffic is also speeding, your assessment might be very wrong.

Normally, speed limits are there to make to roads safer "in general". Most people don't like them, but they have their use … or at least "should" have (meaning they should be in the right place with the right speed).
A large goal is to have less accidents with fatalities or grave injuries. Which is why you can go 120kph (80mph) on the highway, where there are only cars going in the same direction, and should go a lot less in a city center where there are kids crossing the road to go to school.
 
most of today's speedometers are electronic. they measure magnetic pulses. id just remove half of the magnets. should do the trick.
Speedometers read from wheel speed and or output shaft speed ....changing the value of either of those would render half the systems in the car car inoperable.... if not completely undrivable
 
The hot rodders will disable this. That's how it's been for decades. Hotrods always went faster than speed limits.
 
Your speeding examples matters on the speeds you're talking about. 50 mph vs 70 has no bearing or difference in handling on the highway when driving safely and is done practically all the time. 90 mph+ is dangerous no matter what. Arguing about how 150mph is highly dangerous and most cars aren't designed with the required aerodynamic downforce at high speeds is a moot point. I showed the absurd example of 250mph without going into physics about handling to show that if you have enough room to react, then you should be safe at any speed. if you want to poke holes at that and say in a ford pinto, going 300mph is impossible and the car would lift off the ground, then sure, we can discuss that absurd example.

However if you go back down to basics, standard speeds such as 50-60-70-80 mph on a highway rated for 65 happens on a daily basis and the difference between 60-70 is almost trivial in terms of reaction time and space needed to safely stop. If accidents happen at such a speed, it's typically the result of bad driving such as distracted driver (cell phone), driver that's falling asleep, adverse weather conditions (ice, fog, snow, rain) and not adjusting to it (bad driving again), not giving enough space in front (bad driving), cutting people off (bad driving), side swiping people because you're not looking (bad driving), ect.

I don't see any condition in which going at 50mph will be safe in any of those conditions described above where going 70 would make a difference, especially if you give yourselves those extra car lengths of space to react and slow down/stop.

70 vs 50 definitely matters. I don't think you understand all the physics or variables involved even though you seem to want to say "without going into the physics". "Physics" is what they use to test out the various theories and why they choose certain speeds for certain roads. You also are not at all considering the variable of the different drivers. You really aren't considering any variables at all other than straight line speed in a controlled scenario.
 
What if there is a temporary speed restriction at the time of surveying? And who will keep the speed limit database for all roads up to date, constantly? It's completely unfeasible. Europe has millions of miles of road, no database will have the speed limit for all of them up to date.

In that case you will receive a double fine for driving over the posted speed limit in a construction zone.

Just wait until someone dies because they couldn't be rushed to the hospital in time due to the limit on the car's speed.
Or when someone dies because they couldn't speed away from someone trying to kill them.
etc. etc. etc.
 
Back
Top