Should a speed limiter be mandatory now?

Discussion in 'Cars, Bikes 'n AFVs' started by chocolate_frog, Dec 3, 2012.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. As cars get more and more powerful, not to mention full of gizmos to improve braking and control are we cultivating morons who can't drive for a toffee?

    Two men killed in M1 crash in collision that closed five motorway junctions | Mail Online

    The most recent but we've all seen the reports int eh papers, not long back I linked to some tw4t who rolled his car through a front garden for example.

    So, should we be looking at fitting 'limiters' to ALL vehicles blockiing them to the maximum mandated speed limit?

    More advanced versions could limit cars to 20mph outside schools, or perhaps the ability to go past 55mph could be mandated by taking a second, 'speed driving test'.
    • Like Like x 4
  2. There is a chod at the end of my street with an scooby who is convinced that he is a "natural" because it will go around corners at 50mph...he doesn't believe me when I say that he would be lucky to manage the same corner at 20 in a ford capri without any training, hasn't got a clue and he is not alone. I pray for snow around here because the chaos it causes is truly epic.
    • Like Like x 3
  3. No.
  4. But is there not a fair risk that other people will get seriously hurt? More so than your 2 can van Dammes?
  5. Apparently they wanted a Darwin Award that badly they went for it!
  6. I don't think its a way forward; each safety feature reduces the 'perceived risk' so drivers go faster to compensate. Stick a limiter on and drivers who currently speed, will just put foot down all the time as 'the car decides how fast to go' You cannot make life safe at all levels.

    As a thought, which would be driven with more care, a Volvo awith all safety features, or any car, no safety belt, and a 10" dagger attatched to the steering column pointing towards the driver's chest?
    • Like Like x 1
  7. No, for some of the reasons stated above. But also there are occasions where it goes wrong and it's possible to find yourself in a position where you need to accelerate to get yourself out of it. I know it should never happen, but there are very few drivers out there who have not found themselves in the overtaking lane when they spot something that they didn't see at the start of the overtake.
  8. Erm... E-Types? 170mph?
  9. True, you can't stop every fool. However, removing the speed from crashes that involve speed and lack of capability at that speed must be a step in the right direction surely?

    We've had a tiered motorcycle licence for some time, surely cars should follow?
    • Like Like x 1
  10. Do you mean 'in an overtaking position'?

    In either case slowing down is the better option, at the very least you are reducing the speed of impact and in time tw4ts stop taking risks.
  11. I thought motorways were the safest place to drive and accidents reduced. I'd like no limits on motorways and much lower speed limits around schools and hospitals oh and housing estates.
    • Like Like x 2
  12. You're not wrong - My Ford Anglia had a valve radio that took 15 mins to warm up - most of the journeys in it were over before the ICE kicked in.