Should road cars be speed limited?

[XR6TCraig]

No doubt, it is expensive to set up and maintain these kind of venues, but these venues also have the ability to generate revenue for the local area in the form of state/national race events, as well as a training facility and track day venue.

It is also expensive to set up and maintain sporting fields, skateboard parks, MX tracks, Olympic Pools, Indoor Sports centres, go kart tracks, etc,etc.
The set up and running costs of these all vary of course but they all have the same public liabilty insurance and running cost issues that a track would. In fact, after the initial set up, a basic tracks running costs could be less than something like a large indoor pool.

The QLD government is currently setting up a 750 Hectare facility in the SE corner of QLD specifically for trail bike use. This type of facility, while welcomed by people in SEQ who ride dirt bikes, will only be used by a minority. Despite building this facility, there will still be guys who ride around unregistered dirt bikes in the outer suburbs of Brissy in paddocks, public land and along railway tracks illegally, so it wont stop that behaviour, yet the government will end up spending similar coin to what you are talking about to buy the land and set the thing up. Its going to consist of Conservative estimates for this facility at this early stage are $5 million, but what could this blow out to ?

Why is this type of investment valid while a bitumen track that could be utilized for multiple uses is seen as not a valid use of taxpayer money, even here on a car enthusiusts forum?

[Trevor 57]

Firstly, all modern cars are already speed limited out of the factory.

Secondly, I believe all cars should be speed limited to 120 km/h.

I have given my reasons heaps of times on here and I will not go into them again, suffcie to say. If you need to go over 120 to overtake, then you are taking far too many risks, you must have pulled out when it was unsafe to do so - FACT!!!, the speed limit is either 100, 110 or 130 (NT) and that includes overtaking, there is no special limit for overtaking.

If people are doing 95 and the limit is 100, what is the rush to overtake them? Putting people at risk to get to your destination 5 minutes quicker - whoopee in the big scheme of things.

Truck drivers (and I was one) do it everyday, car drivers can too

[chevypower]

I think all cars should be speed limited. I see no logical reason to drive over 400km/h on a public road. Seriously though, Australia needs some 130km/h speed limits.

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by Big Trev

If people are doing 95 and the limit is 100, what is the rush to overtake them? Putting people at risk to get to your destination 5 minutes quicker - whoopee in the big scheme of things.

+1
It is now a common and disturbing belief in our community that speed limits are too low and there fore should be ignored / considered optional. Anyone seen obeying the speed limit is obviously an inferior form of life incapable of traversing the road at perceived acceptable limits and should have their licenses restricted to lowly forms of transport like Corollas and Camrys....

Until we change the perception of aggressive drives that other drivers
have a right to use the road, then no change is possible.

[Seduce XR6]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

It is times like that that it would be nice if the other cars had some consideration for other road users. Sure if you want to sit 20 kmh under the limit that is your right, but if you are traveling with 2 other cars doing the same and have no intention of overtaking, double space so other cars can leap frog you all as it is safe to do so. It would be better and safer overtaking 3 individual cars one at a time rather than 3 cars occupying the length of a road train.

There is no logical reason why three cars in a group with no intention of overtaking can not spread the spacing enough for other road users to do this safely.

I agree with this 100% however we both know we would do this but we also know most people are not as reasonable as us


I get this almost everyday as I travel a 20k section of local hwy between towns & back again, so what is it I do well if it is safe to do so I pass all 3 but more often these days I will sit 3 or 4 car lengths back from them & just go slower as it does not make a huge difference to my ETA

What happens then however is I get cars behind me sitting inches off my rear thinking somehow I am the slow driver when they can see I am simply matching the speed of the 3 or 5 cars ahead of me while leaving a safe gap & also safe from stonechips lol

So then after trying to push me along the car behind me passes as I have left a nice gap only for them to get stuck behind the same 3 or 5 cars as they have no gaps lol

Me I then sometimes get gravel from the car passing & abuse & then have to slow to maintain gap once again.

Vehicles are meant to leave a gap for safety & so cars can leapfrog in safety so why don't they?

I said yes to speed limiting vehicles & said 160 kmh to allow for NT speed limits & passing however think it should be 140 kmh in hindsight & the NT should fall in with other states & set at 110.

Yes I love the feeling of giving my car a bit on a nice bit of open road but I am not talking about top speed as what does that prove anyway?
We all know these days what our cars can do, not like the old days when you were a hero to crack a ton lol

The car makers could set the gearing of gearbox & diff to limit vehicles also to this 140 kmh while giving better acceleration to that speed

Then you could have a small direct injection engine with fantastic economy giving ok acceleration.

It will happen is just a matter of time, oh love the spell-check feature

[flappist]

Originally Posted by Big Trev

Firstly, all modern cars are already speed limited out of the factory.

Secondly, I believe all cars should be speed limited to 120 km/h.

I have given my reasons heaps of times on here and I will not go into them again, suffcie to say. If you need to go over 120 to overtake, then you are taking far too many risks, you must have pulled out when it was unsafe to do so - FACT!!!, the speed limit is either 100, 110 or 130 (NT) and that includes overtaking, there is no special limit for overtaking.

If people are doing 95 and the limit is 100, what is the rush to overtake them? Putting people at risk to get to your destination 5 minutes quicker - whoopee in the big scheme of things.

Truck drivers (and I was one) do it everyday, car drivers can too

I reckon we should all eat whale blubber and raw fish, eskimos do it every day.....

[302 XC]

I think NOONE is saying of street events dont work
Majority are all for it
But who pays for it ???
It would cost ALOT more to start, maintanin than a mota x trac

Remember the people who steer this country arent really that interested in some thing along these lines
Where does the revenue go for speed cameras ???
Doesnt go into educating "US" to be better drivers
Revenue 1st and formost
So getting people of the streets for illegal racing,burnouts whatever,limits revenue
Noone is gunna spend millions (atleast)to get hoons onto a track and then get no revenue for busting them on the street

NOONE is against it,its not the first time it has been discussed
Maybe instead of bagging on about "its a good idea"
Do a bitta leg work yourself and look into it

FYI,
Where i grew up,riding mota bikes out the bush was never an issue
Then the population grew,with it bought the whingers,more bikes,more noise
Theres probably thousands of acres of unused land near me,rather than encourage the bikes
Roads are blocked Big signs are errected ,with "huge"on the spot fines
Even with that people still ride there

Putting the words rape and brothel in the same demograph as an example is just WRONG
Just because a brothel charge "X"amount,doesnt mean it fine to commit the rape

Its how we deal with problems that make us who we are
So all i can afford is an XY falcon 500,so it fine to help myself to someones GT
This is the dumb logics people are arguing about

[castellan]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

.

I am I the only one that can see the contradiction here?

Ok, couple of issues here.

1. By the time someone has consumed enough alcohol to hinder them in traditional sobriety tests, they are considerably intoxicated. It is not about finding the rolling drunk, it is about finding those that have excessive degradation to their driving ability due to alcohol. This is a point that occurs long before a sobriety test would be failed.

2. You suggest we go back to the sobriety test, how do we do that in random "booze bus" programmes? A breath test takes all of a minute to do, a sobriety test takes about 5. In a booze bus setup we can experience some traffic delays but the general public see it as necessary. According to your idea we would have traffic delays 5 times longer, I am tipping your idea would not be popular.

3. Yes it is possible that someone that is exceptionally sensitive to the effects of alcohol may not be safe below 0.05, but I fail to see how your idea picks them up either. Perhaps we should drop it down to 0.02 just to be sure we get those ones too. How about zero tolerance, I live with it and so do many others so why not (not my actual opinion, I am happy with things the way they are). I have been to many prangs and very regularly the driver is breath tested in my ambulance, I have never once seen anyone below 0.05 show any physical signs of intoxication, but that is my experience so what would I know?

4. Breathalysers are calibrated and they have to be a good indicator of BAC. What you need to remember is the roadside test is a preliminary test, the test that results in a charge of DUI is done on another machine that has a higher level of accuracy.

There is no contradiction 'Some' do think if you are drunk at 0.05
1. like durr
2. I believe laws should have a firm foundations and people accused should have rights.
How about nowadays if you blow over 0.05 then you have the right to sobriety test.
Now take two people the same size and weight and muscle tone.
One does not drink or very rarely and the other is a regular drinker.
Now is not it a fact that a regular drinker can have a far greater tolerance to alcohol.
The Law is supposed to be fair and just, is it not.
Could it be conceded a prejudges view of how the Law is set up as it is now. I would give leeway to people of alcohol tolerance up to 0.08 before passing sentences on them as long as they pass the sobriety test.
And i am not supporting drunk drivers at all but just what is fair and reasonable.
I was busted at 0.05 about 3 months after the Law changed from 0.08 to 0.05
Old Brocky went over to Europe racing in about 1985 with the VK and he found the top racing drivers over there were drinking and racing he sacked them on the spot and they thought he was being unreasonable.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by castellan

How about nowadays if you blow over 0.05 then you have the right to sobriety test.
Now take two people the same size and weight and muscle tone.
One does not drink or very rarely and the other is a regular drinker.
Now is not it a fact that a regular drinker can have a far greater tolerance to alcohol.
The Law is supposed to be fair and just, is it not.
Could it be conceded a prejudges view of how the Law is set up as it is now. I would give leeway to people of alcohol tolerance up to 0.08 before passing sentences on them as long as they pass the sobriety test.
And i am not supporting drunk drivers at all but just what is fair and reasonable.
I was busted at 0.05 about 3 months after the Law changed from 0.08 to 0.05
.

Obviously you did not read my post. There is sound evidence as a result of response times and reflex testing that even though someone may not appear intoxicated and could pass a sobriety test, with a BAC >0.05 they have sufficient degradation of both reaction and reflex times to present a limitation to their driving ability. That is why the law came in for a limit for a low grade DUI at >0.05 and <0.08, >0.08 is considered intoxicated. Selected professions (bus drivers, truck drivers, emergency services etc) are considered to have an even higher need for reflexes and ability to repond to events and therefore their BAC limit is 0.0 because it is considered there is too much degradation of drivig ability at any level of BAC for these professions. Think yourself lucky you are not in my job, at least you get to have a beer or two without the fear of showing a positive BAC the next day whilst at work.

Not sure I can make it any clearer than that.

[Romulus]

Originally Posted by jpd80

+1
It is now a common and disturbing belief in our community that speed limits are too low and there fore should be ignored / considered optional. Anyone seen obeying the speed limit is obviously an inferior form of life incapable of traversing the road at perceived acceptable limits and should have their licenses restricted to lowly forms of transport like Corollas and Camrys....

Until we change the perception of aggressive drives that other drivers
have a right to use the road, then no change is possible.

Perhaps if the speed limits were set based on the 85th percentile method less people would "ignore/consider optional" posted speed limits.

It is estimated 90,000 Perth motorists will be caught with the new fixed/red light camera for speeding infringments this year alone. This excludes multi nova "mobile camera's", laser and mobile radar detection methods.

Now either us Perth motorists (and this applies throughout the country) have a blatent disregard for the the law or speed limits are simply too low. It is well know most speed limits are set based on the 65th percentile, or speed limits are simply imposed based on political pressure.

Here's a fact; the lower the speed limits become the more motorists will be caught speeding.

[prydey]

Originally Posted by GT Falcon

Perhaps if the speed limits were set based on the 85th percentile method less people would "ignore/consider optional" posted speed limits.

It is estimated 90,000 Perth motorists will be caught with the new fixed/red light camera for speeding infringments this year alone. This excludes multi nova "mobile camera's", laser and mobile radar detection methods.

Now either us Perth motorists (and this applies throughout the country) have a blatent disregard for the the law or speed limits are simply too low. It is well know most speed limits are set based on the 65th percentile, or speed limits are simply imposed based on political pressure.

Here's a fact; the lower the speed limits become the more motorists will be caught speeding.

maybe it just means there is a lot of people that have issues with authority and being told what to do!

[RedHotGT]

First Post of mine to this thread...

Firstly, can anyone actually post a logical reason why ANY vehicle on the road should be able to do more than 121km/h on a public road? (10% higher than 110km/h max speed limit in most states bar NT) I don't think that there really is one?

I don't like to be told what I can and can't do... as I am an adult that can make decisions all by myself...

I've driven cars well above speed limits before, and done silly things on the road, and been very lucky that nothing has gone wrong and that i've never been caught...
I was young and stupid... but did I enjoy it?? Hell yes...

My feeling is that the penalty for excessive speed... (and speeding in general) should be higher... much higher...

I was always taught that the idea of a punishment was actually to act as a deterrant to others that could make the same decision... make it such a severe punishment that someone who was considering breaking the law - would think twice before acting...

If you think about this... Speeding can cause death... You're more likely to have an accident if you speed... you're going to hit harder when you speed... you're going to take longer to stop if you speed... and you are going to increase the chances of serious injury of death if you speed...

So make the penalty for speeding reflect it...

Our society unfortunately has the mentality that borderline law breakers are okay... and maybe thats not such a bad thing... but you won't lose your license for borderline speeding anyways... (unless you've been previously fined for it 11 times)...

So... back to the topic.. and the OP...
Top speed restrictions are a great idea - and will never happen...
Zone speed restrictions are a great idea - and will never happen...

Bit like banning Cigarettes... great idea... but it will never happen...

[data_mine]

Originally Posted by prydey

maybe it just means there is a lot of people that have issues with authority and being told what to do!

That, or maybe, the community as a collective is smart enough to determine a sensible speed to travel along at.

It's been studied (and I've seen it first hand myself) in the US, speed enforcement appear more lax than here, instead of hitting up everyone that exceeds the posted limit, the coppers target those that are driving excessively/aggressively in comparison with the norm. I was in California/Michigan/Illinois last year (November/December), travelling the highways, posted limit is 55mph (90kph), the norm everyone is doing is about 80mph (130kph), the coppers on the side of the road wouldn't blink at that, because everyone is doing it. They do however target the driver weaving in and out of traffic trying to get ahead. I, used to following the posted limits here, became a rolling hazard on the roads - took all of about 10 minutes to figure out I'd better keep up or catch a truck up the back.

Personally I found it very interesting, how left to sort things out themselves, the Americans flow along at 130kph on highways.

[XR6TCraig]

Originally Posted by loftie

Firstly, can anyone actually post a logical reason why ANY vehicle on the road should be able to do more than 121km/h on a public road? (10% higher than 110km/h max speed limit in most states bar NT) I don't think that there really is one?

Unlike Vic, there are major national highways in other states that have large volumes of traffic but are only one lane each way, and due to no upgrades being done, these roads have few overtaking lanes and muh more traffic than they were originally designed to carry. Take the Bruce HWY as a good case in point. Its part of HWY 1, running north from Brisbane and servicing all of the cities along the east coast of QLD and it is a joke for a national hwy.

To have a car speed limited to only 120kph on a road like the Bruce would cause major havoc, increased accidents and fatalities, caused due to frustration in not being able to get passed slower moving traffic ( read caravans with vic rego), cars being left to hang out in the right lane in front of oncoming trafic for much longer, etc,etc. This would create many more dangerous issues ( head ons and near misses) than having a vehicle that could occassionally do a higher speed ( if neccesary) would ever create.

Now on a major multi lane FWY like the one between Melbourne and Geelong, or Melbourne and Woodonga I would agree with you. There is no real reason to go over 120 as you can comfortably pass multiple cars, trucks, etc.

[302 XC]

Is the main issue for say speeding up the highways ,because people dont keep left ?

Same as merging,if everyone does it and does it properly the traffic flows
But there are always those that dont,will fly up the inside or just cause issues
Because they wanna be up the front
IF all the road rules are met and people thoroughly understand them
(not peoples percept of right or wrong)
Will there be less road rage,carnage,less agro and issues out there
You wanna beleive it
Years ago people were kind and curtious on the roads,not nowadays
Everyones in a hurry ,with the "Get outta my way" attitude

As for some wombat speeding well inexcess,well he will probably loose his licence(wont stop him driving)
Cop massive fines, payem back at $5 a week (major punishment)
And generally wont care
Some are just indestructable,(hard to destruct grey matter if there is none)
Oh until someone hurts them,then they want to sue the world

[castellan]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

Obviously you did not read my post. There is sound evidence as a result of response times and reflex testing that even though someone may not appear intoxicated and could pass a sobriety test, with a BAC >0.05 they have sufficient degradation of both reaction and reflex times to present a limitation to their driving ability. That is why the law came in for a limit for a low grade DUI at >0.05 and <0.08, >0.08 is considered intoxicated. Selected professions (bus drivers, truck drivers, emergency services etc) are considered to have an even higher need for reflexes and ability to repond to events and therefore their BAC limit is 0.0 because it is considered there is too much degradation of drivig ability at any level of BAC for these professions. Think yourself lucky you are not in my job, at least you get to have a beer or two without the fear of showing a positive BAC the next day whilst at work.

Not sure I can make it any clearer than that.

I understand what you are saying.
Now i am off to see the QLD premier to see if i can get rid of all the licenced drivers that have slow reaction and reflex times. and that could be about half the population.

[XR6TCraig]

Originally Posted by 302 XC

Is the main issue for say speeding up the highways ,because people dont keep left ?

If that is in reply to my post, there is only one lane going each way so if you dont keep left you are involved in a head on with cars coming at you.

If I am driving to Brisbane in a day ( its a 1000klm trip and only the last 100klm of it is dual carriageway), I like to sit on 110, which while technically speeding in some sections ( the speed limit is 110 in some of the longer more isolated stretches) is not what I would call dangerous, just moving at a good clip that ensures that including toilet stops and lunch, I still cover roughly 100 klm per hour on the road.

There are lots of people who do less because either they aren't up to it or there old vehicle isn't. Perhaps they are towing a huge van ( you'd be suprised how many grey nomads we get up here), or the vehicle in question is an old bus or truck, or they are 85 and think that 90kph is plenty fast enough. Thats fair enough, as long as I dont get held up for excessive periods of time, as I really dont want to have to stop in a motel room for the night.

Its funny how if you do decide to sit behind someone for 30klm until you come across a passing lane, instead of passing at the first opportunity, they always seem to speed up once they have a passing lane next to them, making it harder to get past as it is without having a limiter on your car. Thats why a 120kph limit would not be a good thing in these instances, as the long lines of traffic behind the slow poke in the van could never get past.

[302 XC]

I know where your comin from
Mainly for the dual lane highways
I mean seriously how many morons sit in the right lane,for no reason ???
Do your thing , then get back in the left lane
If they monitored this more often and book people rather than signs threatening that,it would reduce undue stress
Nothin annoys me more than some one who thinks when overtaking
"i think i can,i think i can"
If ya cant do the job let the next one do it
My 3 tonne 4x4 mite not be the fastest,but when i pull out to overtake i got the power to do it
You would be surprised how many wombats,cut us of goin up hills on dual lane roadways,thinking "oh its only a 4x4"
Grey nomads pulling vans or really any long,large heavy trailer mandatory licence of sorts
You would be surprised how many think a single axle 6 x 4 trailer is the same as a 26 foot tandem trailer

Speed limiters ???
Did they work for trucks ???
Did it reduce the carnage relating to truck accidents ???
Hang on, were all the truck accidents really related to over speeding trucks ???
Getting hit by a 40 tonne vehicle at any speed will hurt

Maybe what should happen with these speed freaks,is mandatory service to the medics ect and see first hand what speeding accidents do
If i had to do something like that,it would put the wind right up me

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by castellan

Now i am off to see the QLD premier to see if i can get rid of all the licenced drivers that have slow reaction and reflex times. and that could be about half the population.

Good luck with that.

Originally Posted by Craiginmackay

If that is in reply to my post, there is only one lane going each way so if you dont keep left you are involved in a head on with cars coming at you.

If I am driving to Brisbane in a day ( its a 1000klm trip and only the last 100klm of it is dual carriageway), I like to sit on 110, which while technically speeding in some sections ( the speed limit is 110 in some of the longer more isolated stretches) is not what I would call dangerous, just moving at a good clip that ensures that including toilet stops and lunch, I still cover roughly 100 klm per hour on the road.

There are lots of people who do less because either they aren't up to it or there old vehicle isn't. Perhaps they are towing a huge van ( you'd be suprised how many grey nomads we get up here), or the vehicle in question is an old bus or truck, or they are 85 and think that 90kph is plenty fast enough. Thats fair enough, as long as I dont get held up for excessive periods of time, as I really dont want to have to stop in a motel room for the night.

Its funny how if you do decide to sit behind someone for 30klm until you come across a passing lane, instead of passing at the first opportunity, they always seem to speed up once they have a passing lane next to them, making it harder to get past as it is without having a limiter on your car. Thats why a 120kph limit would not be a good thing in these instances, as the long lines of traffic behind the slow poke in the van could never get past.

I agree with you, I used to do the drive from Perth to Karratha frequently and it is amazing how many people will sit on 100 in a 110 zone for 30 km but the moment you go to pass them they speed up to 120, it used to drive me nuts.

[data_mine]

A few people here are forgetting, you're not allowed to speed when overtaking anyway, so a 120 limiter, should cause no problem to anyone outside of NT.

Note. I'm not supporting limiters at all.

Driving is not the god given right many seem to believe it is, but a privilege that ought to be more stringently handed out. Who should pay? The drivers. You want to drive, you better pay for it. The fundamental problem we have in Australia is poor quality drivers.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by data_mine

A few people here are forgetting, you're not allowed to speed when overtaking anyway, so a 120 limiter, should cause no problem to anyone outside of NT.

Note. I'm not supporting limiters at all.

Driving is not the god given right many seem to believe it is, but a privilege that ought to be more stringently handed out. Who should pay? The drivers. You want to drive, you better pay for it. The fundamental problem we have in Australia is poor quality drivers.

That is very true, but it would be nice if those that are happy to sit 10 km under the limit for km after km, if they could keep that speed when being overtaken. It was a speed good enough for them before, what changed when someone is overtaking? It used to happen a dozen times over the 1500 km from Perth to Karratha.

[AussieAV]

Not trying to defend the "go slows", bug the hell out of me too, but part of the problem now is the speedos.

IIRC manufacturers have always been allowed a 10% deviation from actual speed in the accuracy of speedos. That used to be interpreted as within + or - 5% of actual speed, but since they started fining us for going only a couple of km/h over the limit, they changed that to -10%.

That is they still can be up to 10% inaccurate, but can't show an indicated speed that is lower than your actual speed. So basically in most new cars, when the speedo is showing 110, they are most likely actually doing around 105, or as low as 100. A new car actually doing 110 at an indicated 110 would be a rarity nowadays.

Having said that, there is absolutely no excuse for speeding up when being overtaken. In fact anyone with half a brain would gently ease off the gas if there was oncoming traffic while they are being overtaken by someone.

Personally, I've checked my car against 2 different portable GPS units, which both said its a flat 2 km/h under indicated speed at all speeds (from 60-110). So that means my speedo its actually calibrated near perfectly, but they put in a 2km/h buffer to ensure it didn't break the current design regs.

[Romulus]

Originally Posted by data_mine

A few people here are forgetting, you're not allowed to speed when overtaking anyway, so a 120 limiter, should cause no problem to anyone outside of NT.

Note. I'm not supporting limiters at all.

Driving is not the god given right many seem to believe it is, but a privilege that ought to be more stringently handed out. Who should pay? The drivers. You want to drive, you better pay for it. The fundamental problem we have in Australia is poor quality drivers.

There's a lot of things you're not allowed to do....ever cheated on your tax return, looked at another woman when your in a relationship, looked at porn?

I'll get my overtaking done as quickly and safely as possible to reduce the time spent in the other lane. If it mean a quick stint up to 100mp/h then slow down back to 110km/h so be it.

[data_mine]

@AussieAV, New Falcons (BA+) are 4km/h faster than road speed. So they're good enough.

@GT Falcon, I agree 100% I'm not going to be on the wrong side of the road any longer than I have to - that has on occasion resulted in the GT-P getting a boot full to pass some slowpoke. I generally wait for overtaking lanes though. I was merely pointing out, overtaking is not an excuse for speeding - that's the law. Any reasonable person would realise, speeding a little to pass someone, is safer than spending 5 minutes in the wrong lane.

[RedHotGT]

Originally Posted by Craiginmackay

There are lots of people who do less because either they aren't up to it or there old vehicle isn't. Perhaps they are towing a huge van ( you'd be suprised how many grey nomads we get up here), or the vehicle in question is an old bus or truck, or they are 85 and think that 90kph is plenty fast enough. Thats fair enough, as long as I dont get held up for excessive periods of time, as I really dont want to have to stop in a motel room for the night.

I do take your point Craig... but for an example... If said Grey Nomad or Slowcoach is doing 90km/h... and you pass at the restricted speed of 120km/h... are you saying that the 30km/h difference is not fast enough to make a safe pass??

[mrbaxr6t]

Originally Posted by zdcol71

Not really sure I follow this real well, but one thing I will say,I haven't seen anywhere on this forum, or in any particular thread, where anyone has complained ,cried ,whined or otherwise about being fined for not wearing a seat belt

I am not saying that what I am saying is that making seatbelts mandantory not only saved lives but generated a revenue stream THIS IS THE REASON IT WAS MADE SO! fines are still issued for not wearing of seatbelts.

revenue is still being made from seatbelts, speedlimiting cars on the other hand may or may not reduce fatalities, but it sure as hell will reduce speeding infringement notices, and hence revenues, it will never ever ever happen. If you cannot see my point after this well I give up.

[wrongwaynorris]

Originally Posted by loftie

I do take your point Craig... but for an example... If said Grey Nomad or Slowcoach is doing 90km/h... and you pass at the restricted speed of 120km/h... are you saying that the 30km/h difference is not fast enough to make a safe pass??

In some instances NO . The least amount of time spent on the wrong side of the road the better . Add to this 90 % of drivers penchant for being happy to hold you up for kilometre after kilometre after kilometre until you do that most heretic of things imaginable , pull alongside to " PASS THEM " then all of a sudden these XXXXwits discover the throttle pedal . Given todays roads and even with older cars if someone is incapable of sustaining 100 KPH on the open road they quite simply have no place being on the road , PERIOD . They are a danger to themselves which I dont really give a rats **** about but tragically they usually end up taking out an innocent family.

[aussie muscle]

how about, if you agree to have a speed limiter, you are exempt from any speeding fines as long as your limiter was working.

wrongwaynorris, i agree to many people are "overtake adverse" when you try and get in front of them (as if it makes any difference to them). another issue is when someone doesn't want to overtake, but sits right behind the caravan (giving no space to 'hop').

Also, most of the roads around here are windey and there are zero overtaking lanes. often roads are bendy for no apparent reason.