Why aren't cars speed limited?

Robisere

Op needs to use one or two of these options:
*Buy a car that cannot reach over 70 mph
(not easy today, they must be out there though)
*Use the speed limiter that a car capable of 155 mph almost certainly has fitted as original equipment.
*Employ some personal responsibility, as advised by RichardD, way back on Page1.

Nick_C

Robisere wrote: »

Op needs to use one or two of these options:
*Buy a car that cannot reach over 70 mph
(not easy today, they must be out there though)
*Use the speed limiter that a car capable of 155 mph almost certainly has fitted as original equipment.
*Employ some personal responsibility, as advised by RichardD, way back on Page1.

OP is a perfect driver. He never breaks the speed limit. He wants everyone else to do the same.

waamo

Deastons wrote: »

There are no stupid questions, only stupid answers.

Yes there are some very stupid questions.

In fact I'm not surprised such a stupid question as the opening post enters somebody's mind.
What does surprise me though is the fact someone wanted to share it.

d0nkeyk0ng

IanMSpencer wrote: »

The main problem on the roads is that people are not as good drivers as they believe they are.

I used to think that. But on the odd times there's a police car around, everyone suddenly remembers how to drive. In fact, more police cars on the road would probably remind people to drive properly.

zagfles wrote: »

In 1965 most people were restricted to probably not much more than 70 because that's all their car was capable of!

Given that cars are capable of a lot more, shouldn't the speed limit be raised?

zagfles

John-K wrote: »

Of course there are stupid questions. Any question that shows that the questioner did not even bother giving it a couple of minutes thought falls into this category.

You know full well why cars are not limited. People drive abroad in them, people take them to the track, people use them on private land. How could you not come up with these obvious reasons yourself?

Yeah, I heard some idiot suggesting having speed limiters on HGVs!! Don't these idiots realise that HGV speed limits are different in different countries? And that there are "track days" for HGVs?

It'll never work, and will obviously never happen. Anyone suggesting it must be stupid.

Deastons

zagfles wrote: »

Yeah, I heard some idiot suggesting having speed limiters on HGVs!! Don't these idiots realise that HGV speed limits are different in different countries? And that there are "track days" for HGVs?

It'll never work, and will obviously never happen. Anyone suggesting it must be stupid.

Thank you.

motorguy

d0nkeyk0ng wrote: »

Given that cars are capable of a lot more, shouldn't the speed limit be raised?

It absolutely should, however any attempt to get it increased usually falls at the final hurdle. I suspect its because its not seen as a vote winner and the first fatal crash there is where the driver is doing over 70MPH on the motorway will result in headlines and pictures in the tabloids of "Speed increase CARNAGE" and lots of hand wringing by do gooders, etc.

Herzlos

d0nkeyk0ng wrote: »

Given that cars are capable of a lot more, shouldn't the speed limit be raised?

But the drivers aren't, and the roads are a lot busier too.

Thinking/response time hasn't changed, just the top speed of cars and the time/distance it takes them to come to a standstill from the brakes being applied.

IamNotAllowedToUseMyName

Tarambor wrote: »

Really? Then how come every time they've shown them on TV they're out with a tape measure measuring the length of skid marks so they can work out what the stopping distance and therefore the speed when they hit the brakes was? The computer modelling of the scene they use will quite accurately plot the path and calculate the speed of all vehicles involved.

Just because you don't agree with the police's own investigations doesn't mean their conclusions are wrong.

I suspect that 99% of crashes aren't investigated at all - of course the police are not even involved in the majority. Where they are involved, they will not spend time investigating unless there are deaths or serious injury, their priority will be clearing the road and leaving it up to the insurance to sort out.

So, not disagreeing with the question of what the investigated cases might conclude, but then there are uninvestigated cases and ones that they are unaware of. I am suggesting that in reported incidents that are not investigated in detail, then police are not specifically going to cite speed if they haven't gathered evidence to support that conclusion. Remember that the CPS do not prosecute for dangerous driving and speeding, you get one or the other, so if the police have evidence of careless or dangerous driving, then they don't need to go down the path of spending time forensically gathering speed evidence (which may not have been part of the crash but may have been in evidence in events running up to the crash).

John-K_3

Herzlos wrote: »

But the drivers aren't, and the roads are a lot busier too.

Thinking/response time hasn't changed, just the top speed of cars and the time/distance it takes them to come to a standstill from the brakes being applied.

Where to start....

Cars sold in the U.K. are not only driven in the U.K., so limiting them to our speed limit makes no sense.