FORD to release 'nanna state' limited cars 2010

[Smoke Pursuit]

Originally Posted by flappist

And based on your post history you are a holier than thou wowser keyboard warrior. You talk the talk but do you walk the walk?

You have a new Pursuit with a 250km/h limiter, have you lowered it to 110, the maximum limit in your state? Or 130 even, the max limit in Australia?

I suspect not. Why not? It is easy to do and causes no damage whatsoever. If you truly believe what you are saying will make you and the rest or the road users in Australia safer then why not?

I do what I say and say what I do. Do the same and you may gain some credibility.

Or to state it more simply PUT UP OR SHUT UP...........

Thats a huge revelation... I was just stating the fact that you are a law breaker and therefore you wouldnt agree with such a device... I say if doing this saves 1 life then thats 1 life worth saving, maybe you don't have a whole lot to live for...

Whats it got to do with credibility? Are you proud that you speed and break laws to satisfy your ego?

Truck drivers seem to survive with a limiter of 100 kms an hour, so I cant see why car drivers couldnt survive with 130, which i state again is ILLEGAL neways.

[GK]

I don't see the big deal.

How many blokes have a flash tuning unit with a "Valet tune"?

GK

[burnz]

Originally Posted by GK

I don't see the big deal.

How many blokes have a flash tuning unit with a "Valet tune"?

GK

i see you point, limit the "P" plate car to 90k's

me personaly, limit the friends to a girl friend and remove the yobbo you can do it peir pressure adittude, from "mate's"

[flappist]

Originally Posted by bfiipursuit

Thats a huge revelation... I was just stating the fact that you are a law breaker and therefore you wouldnt agree with such a device... I say if doing this saves 1 life then thats 1 life worth saving, maybe you don't have a whole lot to live for...

Whats it got to do with credibility? Are you proud that you speed and break laws to satisfy your ego?

Truck drivers seem to survive with a limiter of 100 kms an hour, so I cant see why car drivers couldnt survive with 130, which i state again is ILLEGAL neways.

Yep just as I suspected, all talk.

The whole "if it saves one life it is worth it" emotional rubbish.

How many lives could have been saved by letting Hitler invade europe or Japan invade Australia?

How many live could be saved by banning all motor vehicles and walking everywhere?

More than one? Would it be worth it?

This crap sounds just as stupid, illogical and emotional as your posts, treat it the same way......

As far as THE LAW. I remember a few years ago a car was searched by Police in Pialba and an unlicensed CB radio found in boot along with an unlicensed semi automatic .22 rifle. The CB was confiscated and the driver charged, convicted and fined $1000, the rifle was ignored as CBs were illegal, guns weren't.

If it were not for ordinary people applying pressure against unjust or inappropriate laws we would still have conscription, you would be paying a license for your television, you would be imprisioned for 15 years for possession of a small amout of cannibis, pubs would not be open on Sunday, machine guns would be for sale to anyone, we would have a white Australia policy, slavery would be legal etc etc etc.

All these were Australian laws that had strong support from minority group who thought they were doing "The Right Thing" and making Australia a better, safer place. Others disagreed and disobeyed thoses laws until they were removed or change to suit the whole of society, not just a minor group.

The hypocrits are the ones who say one thing and then do another.

[ltd_on20s]

Lol fair enough I used that stupid people comment in jest, should have put a funny face after it.

It seems maybe we need a system whereby you scan your DL into the car and the car cuts power and limits speed accordingly? \

E.g.
On your L’s car power is cut by 40% and limited to 90 kph?
On your p’s car power is reduced by 30% and limited to 120?

Etc etc.

Would a logical mixture of less power and speed restrictors work?

What would the cost of something like that be tho….

But of course you would need the car manufactures in on it, govt, rta, studies etc etc etc…

[flappist]

Originally Posted by ltd_on20s

Lol fair enough I used that stupid people comment in jest, should have put a funny face after it.

It seems maybe we need a system whereby you scan your DL into the car and the car cuts power and limits speed accordingly? \

E.g.
On your L’s car power is cut by 40% and limited to 90 kph?
On your p’s car power is reduced by 30% and limited to 120?

Etc etc.

Would a logical mixture of less power and speed restrictors work?

What would the cost of something like that be tho….

But of course you would need the car manufactures in on it, govt, rta, studies etc etc etc…

I wonder how insurance companies will view these "safety restrictions". They are the ones who pay out the money when it all goes wrong so they will look at the REAL effects not the political and emotional ones.

[ltd_on20s]

Originally Posted by flappist

I wonder how insurance companies will view these "safety restrictions". They are the ones who pay out the money when it all goes wrong so they will look at the REAL effects not the political and emotional ones.

anything to make people less prone to having accidents and dying must be good.......... i work for SGIC. you know the funny thing? you cant deny a claim based on someones stupidty. for example. if i do 100 kph an hour in a 60 zone and someone comes out of a side street, that person is at fault. wether the guy gets a fine or loses his license or whatever, the insurance company has to cough up to the guy travelling straight with right of way

[flappist]

Originally Posted by ltd_on20s

anything to make people less prone to having accidents and dying must be good.......... i work for SGIC. you know the funny thing? you cant deny a claim based on someones stupidty. for example. if i do 100 kph an hour in a 60 zone and someone comes out of a side street, that person is at fault. wether the guy gets a fine or loses his license or whatever, the insurance company has to cough up to the guy travelling straight with right of way

So why do you not cover insured vehicles when the driver is practicing safe recovery from dangerous and loss of control situations by driving on skid pans or race tracks?

[ltd_on20s]

Originally Posted by flappist

So why do you not cover insured vehicles when the driver is practicing safe recovery from dangerous and loss of control situations by driving on skid pans or race tracks?

dont ask me thats the companys decision

im pretty sure most defensive driving courses and instructors have their own vehicles to use.
im also pretty sure if your vehicle is being used for a defensive driving course it is covered as well

you also have to tell your insurer everything you are doing with your vehcile so the policy can be noted accordingly.. i know of a couple of people who have noted on their policys that their vehciles will be used in drag racing. their premiums are much higher but if they have an accident on the track their car is covered.

also depends of course who you take ur insurance out with, and what kind of policy you take.

EG. SGIC veteran and vintage will cover your vehicle while its in the build if you advise them your doing it up.

[henry 351]

Originally Posted by bfiipursuit

I travel country highways on a regular basis, if you need to do over 130 to safely overtake a truck then your trying too hard my friend... Laws are laws and while i doubt any of us stick to 100 exceeding 130 is overkill as you are not giving yourself enough space...

Enough space...eh?

I understand a B double is up to 26 metres long. Lets say he's is travelling at 105-110kph. You overtake from 10m behind him, and pull back in 10m in front of him.

To actually overtake him (accelerating to a maximum of 130kph) you would need to be on the funereal side of the road for almost 10 seconds... far to long (and unsafe) from my perspective.

I respect your opinion, but do not share it.

[prydey]

on my daily trips to work i go through a 50, 60, 70, 80 and 100km/h speed zones. therefore if i was to limit the speed of the vehicle it would have to be for the highest speed zone, would it not. this still allows me to do 100km'h in a 50 zone.

obviously that is safe because my car was limited. :

[Smoke Pursuit]

Originally Posted by henry 351

Enough space...eh?

I understand a B double is up to 26 metres long. Lets say he's is travelling at 105-110kph. You overtake from 10m behind him, and pull back in 10m in front of him.

To actually overtake him (accelerating to a maximum of 130kph) you would need to be on the funereal side of the road for almost 10 seconds... far to long (and unsafe) from my perspective.

I respect your opinion, but do not share it.

If hes doing 105 - 110 then you shouldnt be overtaking him in the first place.. :

Anything over 130 is dangerious in this situation neways, you have a tyre blow out on the truck smash across your windscreen and you lose control doing 160? youve got alot less chance then if you were doing 120 ish.. and its happened before.

Excessive speed overtaking is dumb and unsafe.. as ive already said, if you havent got the room to do it safely, dont go out on the "funeral side of the road", grow some patience and wait.

If blokes in B Doubles can legally overtake caravans and do it in a safe manner with trucks that are speed limited to 102 kms an hour, dumb **** car drivers surely can do the same in cars that are limited to 130...

[Trevor 57]

Round and round, where it stops no one knows - LOL

I am so over this debate.

[ltd_on20s]

Im trying to work this out……
Forgive me if I am wrong…

Lets say grey nomad is travelling along at 95 kph

1000m per klm

95000 meters per hour / 60 mins / 60 sec = 26.38 metres per second


Truck doing102 kph

102000 meters per hour / 60min / 60 sec = 28.33 metres per second

Grey nomad 12 metres long (car/caravan)

Truck 20 meters long

Truck would start overtaking safely lets say 15 meters behind grey nomad and goes back into lane 10 meters ahead

So we add 15+10+8 = 33 meters

Speed difference in metrs 28.33 – 26.38 = 1.95 meters per second in difference in speed

So if we take 33 and divide by 1.95 we get a total of 16.92 seconds truckie being on the wrong side of the road……

We can use that kind of formula to extrapolate any scenario with regards to length and speed………… lets switch it. IM doing 102 and the truck is doing 95. I don’t wanna spend 20 seconds on the wrong side of the road…….

If my figures are out let me know…. I didn’t do too well at maths lol

[Clint Eastwood]

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

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

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

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

[uranium_death]

Originally Posted by Clint Eastwood

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

Some would try though.
The issue is not the speed of cars. It's impatient morons making stupid decisions.
People who wield knives and threaten policemen, people who traffic drugs and people who drink and drive then get caught get no sympathy from me, because they make those decisions knowing there are risks involved. Whatever you get as a result is what you deserve. Unfortunately, others are affected...

On my first day of grade 6, the first thing my teacher wrote on the board was, 'The decisions we make dictate the life we lead."

I will never forget it.

[ltd_on20s]

Originally Posted by Clint Eastwood

Sounds like a great idea to me,I think it is quite strange that we make high performance cars available in a country with 110k speed limits,130 in NT.
Although I am a car enthusiest,if governments were serious about the road toll they would limit the top speed of cars,a good deal of fatalitys on rural roads are caused by impatient morons overtaking in dangerous situations,half of these impatient morons wouldnt have been tempted to overtake in the first place if they new the car wouldnt exceed a certain speed.
Overtaking a truck that is doing the speed limit is totally pointless,unless of course you have a complex about being stuck behind a truck,a complex that quite alot of drivers seem to be a afflicted with,if a vehicle is going below 100k's then 130k's should give you more then enough speed to overtake,if a hill or corner is approaching then why are you considering overtaking in the first place?
The sort of rock ape's that overtake because they can,will continue to cause crashes that kill and mangle people,maybe one day when they kill someone or someone they love is affected by this attitude they will wake up.

what? 99% of these rural highway accidents dont happen because of speed or overtaking maneuvers.

THIS is what kills people
AN unlicensed South Australian man has been caught driving in peak freeway traffic at almost 200km/h and more than twice the blood alcohol limit.
The Mt Barker man, 27, was driving a white Honda Prelude at 191km/h when pulled over by police on the South Eastern Freeway at 6.35pm last night.
The man allegedly had a blood alcohol reading of .103
Police said they were relieved they were able to stop the man before he caused a horrendous accident.
Police said it was everyone's responsibility this Christmas to prevent loved ones from drinking and driving.
The man has been arrested and charged with drink driving, driving at a dangerous speed and driving without a licence.
He was bailed to appear in Mount Barker Magistrates Court on April 1 and has been automatically banned from the road for 12 months.

hope he gets shafted wildly

[mr smith]

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

Spot on.
The attitudes of some of the clowns here will ensure we will see speed limited cars. The facts are people cant be trusted to do the right thing and take it easy, so the Government will eventually do it for us.

[cs123]

Originally Posted by Clint Eastwood

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

There was a little spat up in QLD a few years ago where a cop was sitting with a speed gun pinging people trying to get past cars on the overtaking lane. I think this was around Gympie.

The cop's argument was that you can't speed, no matter what. Fair enough... that's the law. The newspaper did some checks, I seem to recall that on the lane in question if the car was doing 90 and you did 100, then you couldn't get around it.

I think what I'm trying to say, in a round-about-way ... is that sometimes a little speed is required to be safe... even though I agree with the "parental controls"... I wouldn't allow my P plate daughter to drive on those roads in the first few years.

[Marduk]

Originally Posted by ltd_on20s

Lol fair enough I used that stupid people comment in jest, should have put a funny face after it.

It seems maybe we need a system whereby you scan your DL into the car and the car cuts power and limits speed accordingly? \

E.g.
On your L’s car power is cut by 40% and limited to 90 kph?
On your p’s car power is reduced by 30% and limited to 120?

Etc etc.

Would a logical mixture of less power and speed restrictors work?

What would the cost of something like that be tho….

But of course you would need the car manufactures in on it, govt, rta, studies etc etc etc…

Why not make it a blanket limit to all drivers of 120? If it's going to make P platers safer surely it will make fully licensed drivers safer aswell.

[flappist]

I find it confusing but not surprising that almost all the the vehemently supportive posters drive high performance high speed modified vehicles on the road and have not yet shown any logic or even anecdotal evidence to support their cases.

[ltd_on20s]

Originally Posted by flappist

I find it confusing but not surprising that almost all the the vehemently supportive posters drive high performance high speed modified vehicles on the road and have not yet shown any logic or even anecdotal evidence to support their cases.

agreed.

problem is you cannot legislate against idiocy.

[burnz]

Originally Posted by ltd_on20s

agreed.

problem is you cannot legislate against idiocy.

of course you can, those who are smarter than stephen hawking can drive,
those who are not, are hood ornaments.

[Marduk]

Originally Posted by flappist

I find it confusing but not surprising that almost all the the vehemently supportive posters drive high performance high speed modified vehicles on the road and have not yet shown any logic or even anecdotal evidence to support their cases.

Most of them probably spend there time driving in congested traffic and will never know about situations where breaking the speed limit is the SAFE thing to do.
What I fail to understand is why the people who support it somehow think that it shouldn't then be applied to fully licensed drivers. If in there eyes a P plater doesn't need to go faster then 110 then a fully licensed driver should either. The traffic conditions and laws are still the same regardless of what licence you hold.

[jakkes]

Originally Posted by bfiipursuit

yet again.. 95% of the trucks on our roads today are speed limited to 100..

those limits where not around when this happend.

Originally Posted by bfiipursuit

while some transport companies think it is okay to wind them out to 110 you would be pushing to get much more out of most of them without over reving with the way they are configured.. Therefore that still gives you a 20 km an hour margin to over take... Unless its a B tripple or a Road train then i cant see the issue with being able to safely overtake at 130 kms an hour (which is still illegal regardless of how you look at it), providing you have enough distance and you are doing it in a legal area (that is not double lines).

P.s Overtaking a truck down a hill is a dumb idea, we see it happen all the time, truck goes over hill, gains speed at rapid rate, dipshit in car who thinks hes as tough as nails goes out into god speed, trucks got 90 tonne pushing it down, ofcourse its going to go with him!

read my post. was going UP HILL!

think people need to accept that as long as there are cars on the road there will be death's


i only posted that message to point out what can sometimes happen, i take it that in your post you are comparing me to a dipshit far from it buddy
maybe i took your post the wrong way?

[Stattic]

Originally Posted by Ohio XB

Ford has been getting a lot of positive feedback on this feature. It only limits top speed (to my knowledge) and does not hamper acceleration for when it is needed.


How many here are parents of teenagers? I think I might have used this technology if it was available when my son was a teenager.

Steve

if it is so, then that is just ridiculous. to simply limit the speed is not good enough, i could simply jump in a car and do the maximum speed limit in a school zone at 3pm, have a kid run in front of the car without looking and run that kid over. even if it did hamper acceleration it still wouldnt stop someone from doing 130 in a 40 or 60 zone if they so chose to. for something like this to be effective you would need a satellite communicating with each and every car taking its position and limiting its speed for the road being used. of course this is a ridiculous idea but when you think about it, it is logical. even then, there are those times where you just need to put your foot down for one reason or another for safety.
a few weeks ago in the car with my girlfriends mother, she entered a roundabout without noticing a car coming from the right and if she didnt floor the car then we would have been hit. people make mistakes like that and its acceleration that can get you out of problems. if we were all perfect drivers then a perfect system as such could be developed.
leave cars the way they are.
if p platers or anyone else want to drive like tools then they are going to suffer the consequences, loss of license, car impound etc.
for the amount of drivers on our roads, the amount of deaths is really quite low when you look at it. sorry if that sounds insensitive to anyone who has lost someone on the road but in general i think things are ok the way they are, there are always going to be accidents because once again we are only human.

also sorry about the wall of text, i tend to waffle sometimes

[Stattic]

Originally Posted by ltd_on20s

what? 99% of these rural highway accidents dont happen because of speed or overtaking maneuvers.

THIS is what kills people
AN unlicensed South Australian man has been caught driving in peak freeway traffic at almost 200km/h and more than twice the blood alcohol limit.
The Mt Barker man, 27, was driving a white Honda Prelude at 191km/h when pulled over by police on the South Eastern Freeway at 6.35pm last night.
The man allegedly had a blood alcohol reading of .103
Police said they were relieved they were able to stop the man before he caused a horrendous accident.
Police said it was everyone's responsibility this Christmas to prevent loved ones from drinking and driving.
The man has been arrested and charged with drink driving, driving at a dangerous speed and driving without a licence.
He was bailed to appear in Mount Barker Magistrates Court on April 1 and has been automatically banned from the road for 12 months.

hope he gets shafted wildly

if we want to talk limiters in cars, how about a mandatory breathaliser test in order to start the car? sober people are less likely to speed than drunk people and are less likely to want to hoon and show off. drunk drivers are a bigger menace on the road than p platers will ever be.

edit: ok they did mention this so i would give this full approval
the phone blocking thing is stupid, you can pull over to use your phone or you can use bluetooth. to say bluetooth is unsafe is to also say that having any passenger at any time who is not a mute is also unsafe.

[Clint Eastwood]

Originally Posted by flappist

I find it confusing but not surprising that almost all the the vehemently supportive posters drive high performance high speed modified vehicles on the road and have not yet shown any logic or even anecdotal evidence to support their cases.

I stopped speeding on public roads when I was about 20,you know some people actually go to off street race tracks if they want to speed,sounds fairly logical to me.

You are about 50 years old and obviously dont have issues with speeding on public roads,grow up.

Have you not worked out in your 30 odd years of driving that you dont have to thrash your car just because it is a "high performance high speed modified vehicle"?

[Smoke Pursuit]

Originally Posted by flappist

I find it confusing but not surprising that almost all the the vehemently supportive posters drive high performance high speed modified vehicles on the road and have not yet shown any logic or even anecdotal evidence to support their cases.

Shows how stupid and arrogant you really are... Just because we drive High performance cars does not mean we A) have the right to abuse the road rules or B) are stupid enough to think that we are above the rest of the population, unlike yourself ofcourse....

Last time I checked this was a forum, not a court room... We dont need evidence to support our cases, its pretty black and white, speed kills....

[Smoke Pursuit]

Originally Posted by jakkes

those limits where not around when this happend.




read my post. was going UP HILL!

think people need to accept that as long as there are cars on the road there will be death's


i only posted that message to point out what can sometimes happen, i take it that in your post you are comparing me to a dipshit far from it buddy
maybe i took your post the wrong way?

wasnt calling you a dipshit... Was making reference to the idiots that decide to overtake trucks going down hills!