As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

Driving, speed limits, and new tech

189101214

Posts

  • matt has a problemmatt has a problem Points to 'off' Points to 'on'Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    So say speed is mechanically limited on cars. What happens in states with different speed limits? What happens if the government decides to play silly buggers and reinstate the national 55 mph highway speed limit? Do you really expect hundreds of millions of cars to be retrofitted?


    There is no reason to mechanically limit the speed of a car. You can kill just as many people going 55 as you can going 80. A semi going 55 will do more damage than a car going 80. It would be completely useless and nigh unenforceable bureaucracy. Plus, say every car in the country was mechanically limited to a federally-mandated 60 mph limit. Are we still going to have state troopers patrolling the highways for speeders?

    matt has a problem on
    nibXTE7.png
  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited June 2010
    So say speed is mechanically limited on cars. What happens in states with different speed limits? What happens if the government decides to play silly buggers and reinstate the national 55 mph highway speed limit? Do you really expect hundreds of millions of cars to be retrofitted?


    There is no reason to mechanically limit the speed of a car. You can kill just as many people going 55 as you can going 80. A semi going 55 will do more damage than a car going 80. It would be completely useless and nigh unenforceable bureaucracy. Plus, say every car in the country was mechanically limited to a federally-mandated 60 mph limit. Are we still going to have state troopers patrolling the highways for speeders?

    Going slower than traffic is dangerous. Reducing the speed of traffic is not. Going faster outside of context is also more dangerous because it reduces the driver's ability to control the car and the ability of the car to stay on the road.

    The rest of your concerns could be allayed by setting it to the fastest roads in the country. For example, are there any roads in the US that allow faster than 80? Do we want people driving faster than 80 anywhere?

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • Diomedes240zDiomedes240z Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Scalfin wrote: »
    Scalfin wrote: »
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    Al_wat wrote: »
    Peccavi wrote: »
    Al_wat wrote: »

    Yeah. Some people like to race their cars.

    Mind blowing, I know.

    And they're assholes if they're doing it on public streets. Take it to the track.

    Yep.

    However it is an argument for why mechanically or electronically limiting cars to say... 80mph is stupid.

    However, it is not a very good argument.

    I am utterly unconcerned with the plight of such people weighed against the road toll. Even had you a less cavalier approach to people whose interests do not coincide with your own than mine, it's indisputable that the detriment is tiny - the small number of people who are into racing are inconvenienced as opposed to non-trivial numbers of people dying people dying.

    The argument that has real legs is that there are a number of times when it is speeding up to ludicrous speed is the safe option for avoiding issues.

    From the Australian Beaureau of statistics:

    Transport accidents (all kinds, speed or otherwise), 1.0% of all deaths
    Falling over (again, all kinds), 0.9% of all deaths.

    Mandate walking frames for everyone. Don't like walking in a walking frame? I don't care. I am utterly unconcerned with the plight of such people weighed against the falling over toll. Even had you a less cavalier approach to people whose interests do not coincide with your own than mine, it's indisputable that the detriment is tiny - the small number of people who are into unassisted walking are inconvenienced as opposed to non-trivial numbers of people dying people dying.

    Because falling down endangers everyone around you. Sure.

    We put rails up around areas we don't want people going (including some roads). I don't see why we shouldn't put similar physical prevention techniques in place against flagrantly illegal cases of public endangerment like speeding.

    Edit: I also love that this post is in response to the terrible insistence that preventing people from racing down city streets full of bystanders is not a bad thing.

    Who said racing only happens on public roads? Lots of people take their STREET CARS to the track where it's LEGAL AND SAFE to race them, and you're now saying that they should have to buy a large second car and trailer and tow their race car to the track to do this with because their street car will be speed limited.

    We were talking about street racing. Besides, wouldn't speed limiters be good because it would allow skill to take precedent over being able to afford the most engine enhancements?

    Doesn't matter what you were originally talking about; the ramifications of the system you advocate still affect other people.

    And while some kinds of motorpsport would remain completely unaffected (motorkhana, some small hillclimbs), I can't image a 1/4 mile race being interesting when all cars are limited to 80. Try to think about all of the ramifications, not just the first one that jumps to mind.

    Diomedes240z on
    fdod80.jpg
  • matt has a problemmatt has a problem Points to 'off' Points to 'on'Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Scalfin wrote: »
    So say speed is mechanically limited on cars. What happens in states with different speed limits? What happens if the government decides to play silly buggers and reinstate the national 55 mph highway speed limit? Do you really expect hundreds of millions of cars to be retrofitted?


    There is no reason to mechanically limit the speed of a car. You can kill just as many people going 55 as you can going 80. A semi going 55 will do more damage than a car going 80. It would be completely useless and nigh unenforceable bureaucracy. Plus, say every car in the country was mechanically limited to a federally-mandated 60 mph limit. Are we still going to have state troopers patrolling the highways for speeders?

    Going slower than traffic is dangerous. Reducing the speed of traffic is not. Going faster outside of context is also more dangerous because it reduces the driver's ability to control the car and the ability of the car to stay on the road.

    The rest of your concerns could be allayed by setting it to the fastest roads in the country. For example, are there any roads in the US that allow faster than 80? Do we want people driving faster than 80 anywhere?
    If you're governing all cars to 80, including ones in states with limits lower than 80, what's the point? Also I don't know if it's still the case but there have been states with no speed limit stretches of highway, Montana and Idaho are the two I remember.

    matt has a problem on
    nibXTE7.png
  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited June 2010
    Scalfin wrote: »
    Scalfin wrote: »
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    Al_wat wrote: »
    Peccavi wrote: »
    Al_wat wrote: »

    Yeah. Some people like to race their cars.

    Mind blowing, I know.

    And they're assholes if they're doing it on public streets. Take it to the track.

    Yep.

    However it is an argument for why mechanically or electronically limiting cars to say... 80mph is stupid.

    However, it is not a very good argument.

    I am utterly unconcerned with the plight of such people weighed against the road toll. Even had you a less cavalier approach to people whose interests do not coincide with your own than mine, it's indisputable that the detriment is tiny - the small number of people who are into racing are inconvenienced as opposed to non-trivial numbers of people dying people dying.

    The argument that has real legs is that there are a number of times when it is speeding up to ludicrous speed is the safe option for avoiding issues.

    From the Australian Beaureau of statistics:

    Transport accidents (all kinds, speed or otherwise), 1.0% of all deaths
    Falling over (again, all kinds), 0.9% of all deaths.

    Mandate walking frames for everyone. Don't like walking in a walking frame? I don't care. I am utterly unconcerned with the plight of such people weighed against the falling over toll. Even had you a less cavalier approach to people whose interests do not coincide with your own than mine, it's indisputable that the detriment is tiny - the small number of people who are into unassisted walking are inconvenienced as opposed to non-trivial numbers of people dying people dying.

    Because falling down endangers everyone around you. Sure.

    We put rails up around areas we don't want people going (including some roads). I don't see why we shouldn't put similar physical prevention techniques in place against flagrantly illegal cases of public endangerment like speeding.

    Edit: I also love that this post is in response to the terrible insistence that preventing people from racing down city streets full of bystanders is not a bad thing.

    Who said racing only happens on public roads? Lots of people take their STREET CARS to the track where it's LEGAL AND SAFE to race them, and you're now saying that they should have to buy a large second car and trailer and tow their race car to the track to do this with because their street car will be speed limited.

    We were talking about street racing. Besides, wouldn't speed limiters be good because it would allow skill to take precedent over being able to afford the most engine enhancements?

    Doesn't matter what you were originally talking about; the ramifications of the system you advocate still affect other people.

    And while some kinds of motorpsport would remain completely unaffected (motorkhana, some small hillclimbs), I can't image a 1/4 mile race being interesting when all cars are limited to 80. Try to think about all of the ramifications, not just the first one that jumps to mind.

    Plenty of people seem interested in the Tour de France and Epsom Derby.

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited June 2010
    Scalfin wrote: »
    So say speed is mechanically limited on cars. What happens in states with different speed limits? What happens if the government decides to play silly buggers and reinstate the national 55 mph highway speed limit? Do you really expect hundreds of millions of cars to be retrofitted?


    There is no reason to mechanically limit the speed of a car. You can kill just as many people going 55 as you can going 80. A semi going 55 will do more damage than a car going 80. It would be completely useless and nigh unenforceable bureaucracy. Plus, say every car in the country was mechanically limited to a federally-mandated 60 mph limit. Are we still going to have state troopers patrolling the highways for speeders?

    Going slower than traffic is dangerous. Reducing the speed of traffic is not. Going faster outside of context is also more dangerous because it reduces the driver's ability to control the car and the ability of the car to stay on the road.

    The rest of your concerns could be allayed by setting it to the fastest roads in the country. For example, are there any roads in the US that allow faster than 80? Do we want people driving faster than 80 anywhere?
    If you're governing all cars to 80, including ones in states with limits lower than 80, what's the point? Also I don't know if it's still the case but there have been states with no speed limit stretches of highway, Montana and Idaho are the two I remember.

    Because it stops retards from trying to fly down the highway at Texasmph.

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • JokermanJokerman Everything EverywhereRegistered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Scalfin wrote: »
    Scalfin wrote: »
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    Al_wat wrote: »
    Peccavi wrote: »
    Al_wat wrote: »

    Yeah. Some people like to race their cars.

    Mind blowing, I know.

    And they're assholes if they're doing it on public streets. Take it to the track.

    Yep.

    However it is an argument for why mechanically or electronically limiting cars to say... 80mph is stupid.

    However, it is not a very good argument.

    I am utterly unconcerned with the plight of such people weighed against the road toll. Even had you a less cavalier approach to people whose interests do not coincide with your own than mine, it's indisputable that the detriment is tiny - the small number of people who are into racing are inconvenienced as opposed to non-trivial numbers of people dying people dying.

    The argument that has real legs is that there are a number of times when it is speeding up to ludicrous speed is the safe option for avoiding issues.

    From the Australian Beaureau of statistics:

    Transport accidents (all kinds, speed or otherwise), 1.0% of all deaths
    Falling over (again, all kinds), 0.9% of all deaths.

    Mandate walking frames for everyone. Don't like walking in a walking frame? I don't care. I am utterly unconcerned with the plight of such people weighed against the falling over toll. Even had you a less cavalier approach to people whose interests do not coincide with your own than mine, it's indisputable that the detriment is tiny - the small number of people who are into unassisted walking are inconvenienced as opposed to non-trivial numbers of people dying people dying.

    Because falling down endangers everyone around you. Sure.

    We put rails up around areas we don't want people going (including some roads). I don't see why we shouldn't put similar physical prevention techniques in place against flagrantly illegal cases of public endangerment like speeding.

    Edit: I also love that this post is in response to the terrible insistence that preventing people from racing down city streets full of bystanders is not a bad thing.

    Who said racing only happens on public roads? Lots of people take their STREET CARS to the track where it's LEGAL AND SAFE to race them, and you're now saying that they should have to buy a large second car and trailer and tow their race car to the track to do this with because their street car will be speed limited.

    We were talking about street racing. Besides, wouldn't speed limiters be good because it would allow skill to take precedent over being able to afford the most engine enhancements?

    Actualy, in races with restrictor plates, it usualy causes the drivers to bunch together, leading to greater wrecks.

    Jokerman on
  • matt has a problemmatt has a problem Points to 'off' Points to 'on'Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Scalfin wrote: »
    Scalfin wrote: »
    So say speed is mechanically limited on cars. What happens in states with different speed limits? What happens if the government decides to play silly buggers and reinstate the national 55 mph highway speed limit? Do you really expect hundreds of millions of cars to be retrofitted?


    There is no reason to mechanically limit the speed of a car. You can kill just as many people going 55 as you can going 80. A semi going 55 will do more damage than a car going 80. It would be completely useless and nigh unenforceable bureaucracy. Plus, say every car in the country was mechanically limited to a federally-mandated 60 mph limit. Are we still going to have state troopers patrolling the highways for speeders?

    Going slower than traffic is dangerous. Reducing the speed of traffic is not. Going faster outside of context is also more dangerous because it reduces the driver's ability to control the car and the ability of the car to stay on the road.

    The rest of your concerns could be allayed by setting it to the fastest roads in the country. For example, are there any roads in the US that allow faster than 80? Do we want people driving faster than 80 anywhere?
    If you're governing all cars to 80, including ones in states with limits lower than 80, what's the point? Also I don't know if it's still the case but there have been states with no speed limit stretches of highway, Montana and Idaho are the two I remember.

    Because it stops retards from trying to fly down the highway at Texasmph.
    Of course, because every other law has had 100% success as soon as it was enacted. The percentage of people who drive fast enough to get a reckless driving charge were they to be caught (usually 15 over the limit) is so minuscule you're killing a flea with a nuke here.

    matt has a problem on
    nibXTE7.png
  • Diomedes240zDiomedes240z Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Scalfin wrote: »
    Scalfin wrote: »
    Scalfin wrote: »
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    Al_wat wrote: »
    Peccavi wrote: »
    Al_wat wrote: »

    Yeah. Some people like to race their cars.

    Mind blowing, I know.

    And they're assholes if they're doing it on public streets. Take it to the track.

    Yep.

    However it is an argument for why mechanically or electronically limiting cars to say... 80mph is stupid.

    However, it is not a very good argument.

    I am utterly unconcerned with the plight of such people weighed against the road toll. Even had you a less cavalier approach to people whose interests do not coincide with your own than mine, it's indisputable that the detriment is tiny - the small number of people who are into racing are inconvenienced as opposed to non-trivial numbers of people dying people dying.

    The argument that has real legs is that there are a number of times when it is speeding up to ludicrous speed is the safe option for avoiding issues.

    From the Australian Beaureau of statistics:

    Transport accidents (all kinds, speed or otherwise), 1.0% of all deaths
    Falling over (again, all kinds), 0.9% of all deaths.

    Mandate walking frames for everyone. Don't like walking in a walking frame? I don't care. I am utterly unconcerned with the plight of such people weighed against the falling over toll. Even had you a less cavalier approach to people whose interests do not coincide with your own than mine, it's indisputable that the detriment is tiny - the small number of people who are into unassisted walking are inconvenienced as opposed to non-trivial numbers of people dying people dying.

    Because falling down endangers everyone around you. Sure.

    We put rails up around areas we don't want people going (including some roads). I don't see why we shouldn't put similar physical prevention techniques in place against flagrantly illegal cases of public endangerment like speeding.

    Edit: I also love that this post is in response to the terrible insistence that preventing people from racing down city streets full of bystanders is not a bad thing.

    Who said racing only happens on public roads? Lots of people take their STREET CARS to the track where it's LEGAL AND SAFE to race them, and you're now saying that they should have to buy a large second car and trailer and tow their race car to the track to do this with because their street car will be speed limited.

    We were talking about street racing. Besides, wouldn't speed limiters be good because it would allow skill to take precedent over being able to afford the most engine enhancements?

    Doesn't matter what you were originally talking about; the ramifications of the system you advocate still affect other people.

    And while some kinds of motorpsport would remain completely unaffected (motorkhana, some small hillclimbs), I can't image a 1/4 mile race being interesting when all cars are limited to 80. Try to think about all of the ramifications, not just the first one that jumps to mind.

    Plenty of people seem interested in the Tour de France and Epsom Derby.

    And plenty of people like me don't give a fuck about either. We acknowledge that other people have their interests and we respectully tend to our own.

    Diomedes240z on
    fdod80.jpg
  • Apothe0sisApothe0sis Have you ever questioned the nature of your reality? Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    Al_wat wrote: »
    Peccavi wrote: »
    Al_wat wrote: »

    Yeah. Some people like to race their cars.

    Mind blowing, I know.

    And they're assholes if they're doing it on public streets. Take it to the track.

    Yep.

    However it is an argument for why mechanically or electronically limiting cars to say... 80mph is stupid.

    However, it is not a very good argument.

    I am utterly unconcerned with the plight of such people weighed against the road toll. Even had you a less cavalier approach to people whose interests do not coincide with your own than mine, it's indisputable that the detriment is tiny - the small number of people who are into racing are inconvenienced as opposed to non-trivial numbers of people dying people dying.

    The argument that has real legs is that there are a number of times when it is speeding up to ludicrous speed is the safe option for avoiding issues.

    From the Australian Beaureau of statistics:

    Transport accidents (all kinds, speed or otherwise), 1.0% of all deaths
    Falling over (again, all kinds), 0.9% of all deaths.

    Mandate walking frames for everyone. Don't like walking in a walking frame? I don't care. I am utterly unconcerned with the plight of such people weighed against the falling over toll. Even had you a less cavalier approach to people whose interests do not coincide with your own than mine, it's indisputable that the detriment is tiny - the small number of people who are into unassisted walking are inconvenienced as opposed to non-trivial numbers of people dying people dying.


    Edit: Link so you can check the stats yourself: http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Products/BBE22D7978806FDBCA2576F600124132?opendocument

    Interestingly, inhalation of gastric contents causes a significant number of deaths each year, perhaps it's from closed-minded people choking to death on their own bile?

    Firstly, I do not support mechanical speed limiters, so well done you.

    Secondly, everyone has a walking frame != small number of people inconvenienced. Your ability to craft an analogy is spectacularly poor.

    My argument is that IF the only thing that could potentially stop us from implementing such a system, the abloobloobloo of racing enthusiasts is essentially irrelevant.

    Apothe0sis on
  • Nova_CNova_C I have the need The need for speedRegistered User regular
    edited June 2010
    A lot of cars coming out are already speed limited. My '09 Impreza is limited to 180kph. Uh, about 110 mph I guess. Anyone out there saying cars should be further limited got any evidence to show any lives at all are going to be saved by dropping the limiter 30mph?

    Nova_C on
  • ronzoronzo Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Nova_C wrote: »
    A lot of cars coming out are already speed limited. My '09 Impreza is limited to 180kph. Uh, about 110 mph I guess. Anyone out there saying cars should be further limited got any evidence to show any lives at all are going to be saved by dropping the limiter 30mph?

    Mine's limited to around 105mph, and that puts me at right about 4.5k rpm, with my redline being around 6.5. My guess is that the limiter is there to stop me from maxing out the engine in the highest gear and potentially damaging it

    ronzo on
  • Diomedes240zDiomedes240z Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    Al_wat wrote: »
    Peccavi wrote: »
    Al_wat wrote: »

    Yeah. Some people like to race their cars.

    Mind blowing, I know.

    And they're assholes if they're doing it on public streets. Take it to the track.

    Yep.

    However it is an argument for why mechanically or electronically limiting cars to say... 80mph is stupid.

    However, it is not a very good argument.

    I am utterly unconcerned with the plight of such people weighed against the road toll. Even had you a less cavalier approach to people whose interests do not coincide with your own than mine, it's indisputable that the detriment is tiny - the small number of people who are into racing are inconvenienced as opposed to non-trivial numbers of people dying people dying.

    The argument that has real legs is that there are a number of times when it is speeding up to ludicrous speed is the safe option for avoiding issues.

    From the Australian Beaureau of statistics:

    Transport accidents (all kinds, speed or otherwise), 1.0% of all deaths
    Falling over (again, all kinds), 0.9% of all deaths.

    Mandate walking frames for everyone. Don't like walking in a walking frame? I don't care. I am utterly unconcerned with the plight of such people weighed against the falling over toll. Even had you a less cavalier approach to people whose interests do not coincide with your own than mine, it's indisputable that the detriment is tiny - the small number of people who are into unassisted walking are inconvenienced as opposed to non-trivial numbers of people dying people dying.


    Edit: Link so you can check the stats yourself: http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Products/BBE22D7978806FDBCA2576F600124132?opendocument

    Interestingly, inhalation of gastric contents causes a significant number of deaths each year, perhaps it's from closed-minded people choking to death on their own bile?

    Firstly, I do not support mechanical speed limiters, so well done you.

    Secondly, everyone has a walking frame != small number of people inconvenienced. Your ability to craft an analogy is spectacularly poor.

    My argument is that IF the only thing that could potentially stop us from implementing such a system, the abloobloobloo of racing enthusiasts is essentially irrelevant.

    You argument is difficult to read.

    The impression I get from you and a lot of other people in this thread is that it doesn't matter who it inconvieniences as long as it's not *you.* This collective responsibility crap where large segments of the population have to be restricted because of a few bad eggs tends to shit off people like me with personal responsibility and a "live and let live" mentality.


    Changing tack, I'd like to ask a question to the people in this thread that demand Something Be Done:

    Since it's foolish to take any form of action (on any issue, in any circumstance) without a definite goal in mind. What is the acceptable number of deaths on the road?


    For reference, at the moment, in Australia, Road toll is at about 1.0% of all deaths, with suicide at 1.5%, falling over at 0.9% and disease at 73.3%

    Diomedes240z on
    fdod80.jpg
  • NatheoNatheo Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    i'm having a hard time distinguishing between someone flying into a guard rail at 75mph and 85mph. There has to be someway to just make this particular individual not hit another object with his automobile regardless of speed.

    Natheo on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • The Black HunterThe Black Hunter The key is a minimum of compromise, and a simple, unimpeachable reason to existRegistered User regular
    edited June 2010
    The idea of cars being strictly transportation appliances sickens me

    Cars are, to me, the pinnacle of human achievement. Transportation for the masses, easy and quick, long trips or short, with no-one to count on but yourself and a fine piece of engineering beneath you.

    They shouldn't be relegated to a position equivalent to an expensive magic powered toaster. I believe they should be explored, interacted with and at times, intelligently pushed to their limit, along with the person driving them.

    Sure, the world would be a better place if we all drove automatic econoboxes, but we are human beings and should revel in some slight chaos. The government and relevant institutions should be a safety net, not a one way rail. I believe cars are the greatest gesture of this freedom.

    The Black Hunter on
  • FyreWulffFyreWulff YouRegistered User, ClubPA regular
    edited June 2010
    You can go do that on a racetrack. We could save loads of energy and spend less money building superwide roads if the general transportation car were to become completely automated. And not only that, but greatly improve the travel times and greatly reduce fatalities.

    I imagine people said the same thing when horses started being replaced by cars. Nothing like being able to control a horse however you want, interact with, pushed to it's limit, etc.

    "Freedom" in a car only amounts to not having to wait for the bus to show up. You're still stuck on the same roads the bus can go down. That's like saying I have more freedom riding a bike than walking around - I can still go to the same places, just slower. Paying for a car means you want the convienence of schedule.

    Let me punch up a destination and sit back and relax with the windows down or roll them up and chill out with my family in the car, without worrying about the steering column impaling me if I get hit in the front too hard.

    Also we've done more impressive stuff than cars.

    FyreWulff on
  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited June 2010
    Kalkino wrote: »
    I made a general observation about my urban friends vs myself, rather than specific anecdotes about particular events or friends, in a manner alike to your own. Maybe my conclusions are wrong, but how am I going to ever test that? Besides, you are the one who started off by observing your rural/small town friends as having poor general driving skills, so I don't see that I have "cherry picked" anything, at least in comparison to your own comments to which I responded. So perhaps you can point out exactly how I've done that in comparison to your own personal testimony. You also use terminology like "city slicker", which sounds mildly disparaging and I for one have never heard anyone say that in real life (iirc we used to say "townies" if we wanted to be dicks about it). Perhaps this is a Queensland thing?

    Wasn't running them down, it was a statement of fact. And they're mostly not from Queensland. So, is it a UK thing to take mildly amusing colourful rhetoric entirely literally and far too personally, or is that just you being deliberately obtuse?
    To go to your substantive comments, yes, it is certainly possible that on balance the risk at letting a youth drive on a farm is greater than the net benefits to their later driving skills. It is also quite possible that the actual techniques they learn could be quickly picked up by a mature adult learner in a far less risky manner. I'm not so sure about your comments about youth vs say general farm related accidents but I do concede the later are usually rather high (so far as I've seen in NZ, Australia's figures are unknown to me) and it could well be that the former are too. It really scares the crap out of me sometimes to think of the risks that a farmer and his helpers put themselves to sometimes, but I don't really see how a lot of that can be mitigated, but that is a question for a different thread.

    However, the fact is that a lot of farmers need the help their children can give, whether it be rather light work (say driving a motorbike to a particular paddock to open the gates), or heavier, more involved work (say more than paddock driving - heavy trucks, tractors etc). Most farms that I knew growing up tended to be run by single adults, with assistance from their partners who usually work elsewhere full time and by their children and seasonal workers. So long as that is the economic model there is going to be a huge amount of health and safety risk to all parties involved. Further, farmer's children need to get to school, after school activities and to socialise generally, which can be rather difficult given the added distance and given their parents are usually very busy (just like any other parents I guess).

    To tie that back into driving - most farming family children are going to have a basic need to drive very early on, whether it is safe or not, so they are going to develop basic driving skills. Whether these driving skills are just driving on a paddock or not will depend on the individual circumstance. For you to assume that these skills are at best barely useful is a generalisation on your part, based on your own personal experience. From my personal experience I can only recall country friends being injured by drunk driving, rather than say accidents due to carelessness. The former of which is a very serious but unrelated to your OP problem.

    Yeah, this is all stuff I don't really have a problem with, although I maintain that farm driving isn't all that. And I have driven on farms. I recognise that sometimes taking risks is necessary due to circumstances, and rural life will never be all that safe. So I'm not arguing that farm kids shouldn't be able to drive, but I am arguing that its a) not the best of all possible situations and b) doesn't confer much of an advantage vis a vis street driving. I think we're roughly on the same page, here.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • Diomedes240zDiomedes240z Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    The idea of cars being strictly transportation appliances sickens me

    Cars are, to me, the pinnacle of human achievement. Transportation for the masses, easy and quick, long trips or short, with no-one to count on but yourself and a fine piece of engineering beneath you.

    They shouldn't be relegated to a position equivalent to an expensive magic powered toaster. I believe they should be explored, interacted with and at times, intelligently pushed to their limit, along with the person driving them.

    Sure, the world would be a better place if we all drove automatic econoboxes, but we are human beings and should revel in some slight chaos. The government and relevant institutions should be a safety net, not a one way rail. I believe cars are the greatest gesture of this freedom.

    I agree so hard that it hurts.

    The most complex piece of machinery that we humans make, short of a jumbo jet or space shuttle can be had by almost any person living in a third world country. It's an engineering feat that not many people seem to appreciate. When you consider the amount of engineering and man hours that have gone into every stage of the design and manufacture process... From the fluid dynamics of combustion chamber, intake runner and cam profile design, to the materials engineering involved in making aluminium conrods that can withstand over 700MPa of stress, to production design that enables us to make a crankshaft by slamming two massive pieces of metal around a red hot one and then twisting it to the right shape, to the control system design of automatic transmissions, ABS and ESC... and it comes with heated fucking seats! It almost seems unfair that all this can be bought for less money than any one person earns in a lifetime. In terms of engineering accomplishments, it's up there with the lunar landing.

    It also represents the extent of an individuals freedom. I can drive to the other side of the country tomorrow if I want. I can take the scenic route, too. I can pull over and buy fruit that people grow at home and are selling on their front lawn. It's sad that people want to automate this as much as possible so they can ignore the freedom that they have. How much of our freedom should we abandon, how much of our lives should we automate for the sake of safety? What's a fair tradeoff? I see that nobody has stated what their goal is in the process of advocating the loss of such freedoms, either.

    I can excercise my skills as an engineer by modifying my car. Do I understand helmholtz vibration well enough to tune the length of my intake and exhaust runners to the same RPM that my camshaft causes my engine to reach peak volumetric efficiency? Were my assumptions of coefficient of friction and weight transfer good enough that I could upgrade by brake package for better cooling without messing up the brake bias? It's sad that people don't want this either.


    I'll ask the question again: What is an acceptable road toll?

    Diomedes240z on
    fdod80.jpg
  • ueanuean Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    So I've read a few pages of this thread and counted one motor enthusiast. Is that all PA has to offer?

    I don't even know what to say here. Why would you want to hand control over to a computer? Why would you want the government to decide what's best and force it on you en masse? Giving the mechanical or electrical regulation's job over to something would mean that the failure rate is going to have to be better than the death rate in order for it to be a success, and in a world where all vehicles are governed to a specific speed, even a speed difference (due to error) of 5kmh is going to be very noticeable and screw everything up. People are all going to be cruising around with their mind numbed even more than normal, not paying attention because the computer's got it under control and then something goes wrong...

    What's going to govern the speed? All I have to do is slap on ginormous monster truck tires onto my car to dupe the speedo into reading 20% too slow and there we go, I've beat the system.

    People hate being controlled. There are also a fantastic number of people who are passionate about cars and motors in general. Then there's those who hate big brother dipping his little fingers into everything.

    uean on
    Guys? Hay guys?
    PSN - sumowot
  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited June 2010
    Again, go to a racetrack if you want to hoon. More power to you! Its fun times.

    A top-speed governor, however, doesn't do shit to remove control from the driver. The only thing you can't do is drive really fast on publicly owned roads. Everything else is still on you.

    That publicly owned part is actually a big deal that we haven't really talked about, but I figure we've moved on from teens, so what the hell. Every time there's a prang, we all pay - for lost time, for extra fuel, for emergency services, and even for damage to the road and its supporting structures - signs, barriers, etc (especially where trucks crash and spill chemicals - a whole on-ramp near my place had to be scraped back and resurfaced recently after copping a full load of conc NaOH). Some kind of speed governing, while annoying, would probably save us all a bunch of money and wasted time.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • Diomedes240zDiomedes240z Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    I do go to the race track. You're forcing me to tow my car there rather than drive it there, though.


    Your contention that speed governers will save money assumes that:

    1) Speed governing will reduce the road toll
    2) Speed governing will not be circumvented by the majority of users
    3) Speed governing will not cost a huge amount of money

    I can't proce or disprove point 1 for lack of data, though I suspect it won't.

    Point 2, though... According to a previous poster, the government planned on doing it by limiting the fuel pump. This is incredibly easy to circumvent. All a fuel pump needs to operate is 12 volts from the battery. My fuel pump's circuit once has problems while I was 100km from home. I hotwired it using the power source to my CD player's amplifier in 20 minutes using nothing but a pocket knife.

    Point 3... Probably cost at least $100 per car... will add up quickly.

    Diomedes240z on
    fdod80.jpg
  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited June 2010
    Bollocks, all you have to do is drive it at the speed limit (bear in mind, I don't really think mechanical limiters are practical - too much cost to the owners). I reckon point 1 is a foregone conclusion to anyone who knows anything about road accidents, Point 2 is...well, beside the point (you can drive without a dang license pretty easily, but the vast majority of people have one), although I am glad to hear that you are MacGuyver, and Point 3 probably has merit, but only for retrofits. Most newer cars have a chip capable of being programmed to handle speed limiting. So it may not be a practical idea now, but in 20 years? I think its an acceptable alternative to freaky flying remote-controlled people pods.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • The Black HunterThe Black Hunter The key is a minimum of compromise, and a simple, unimpeachable reason to existRegistered User regular
    edited June 2010
    I am absolutely uncomfortable with that sort of control over both myself and an object I own.

    If you don't love cars, I don't know how I could possibly turn your opinion

    If this doesn't raise your hairs and set your nerves into a frenzy, there is nothing I can do to explain how much I love cars to you:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZMPDCNyQxE

    The sheer fury of the engine, the speed of what is happening inside that engine and how man has built the metal and machination to constrain and direct it, amazes me. The fact that, should I dig in, I could also rebuild something like that, I could buy an old musclecar and through some grit and determination, give it life, it is something I dream about every day.

    The Black Hunter on
  • Diomedes240zDiomedes240z Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    "I reckon point 1 is a foregone conclusion to anyone who knows anything about road accidents"


    In 2007, the Northern Territory removed all unlilmited speed limits on roads and replaced them with 130km/h limits. Here's some numbers for you.

    2002: 55 fatal, 1120 non-fatal
    2003: 53 fatal, 1167 non-fatal
    2004: 35 fatal, 1081 non-fatal
    2005: 55 fatal, 1056 non-fatal
    2006: 45 fatal, 1012 non-fatal
    2007: 57 fatal, 1087 non-fatal

    Data from subsequent years is unavailable.



    edit: Source is again, the Australian Beaurau of Statistics.
    edit 2: more years

    Diomedes240z on
    fdod80.jpg
  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited June 2010
    That's super awesome, but you still don't need it to go buy milk or visit your gran.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited June 2010
    "I reckon point 1 is a foregone conclusion to anyone who knows anything about road accidents"


    In 2007, the Northern Territory removed all unlilmited speed limits on roads and replaced them with 130km/h limits. Here's some numbers for you.

    2005: 55 fatal, 1056 non-fatal
    2006: 45 fatal, 1012 non-fatal
    2007: 57 fatal, 1087 non-fatal

    Data from subsequent years is unavailable.



    edit: Source is again, the Australian Beaurau of Statistics.

    I'm not sure how that has any relationship to the vast majority of roads in Aus that aren't in the middle of the freaking desert.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • Diomedes240zDiomedes240z Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    The Cat wrote: »
    "I reckon point 1 is a foregone conclusion to anyone who knows anything about road accidents"


    In 2007, the Northern Territory removed all unlilmited speed limits on roads and replaced them with 130km/h limits. Here's some numbers for you.

    2005: 55 fatal, 1056 non-fatal
    2006: 45 fatal, 1012 non-fatal
    2007: 57 fatal, 1087 non-fatal

    Data from subsequent years is unavailable.



    edit: Source is again, the Australian Beaurau of Statistics.

    I'm not sure how that has any relationship to the vast majority of roads in Aus that aren't in the middle of the freaking desert.

    Well, you said that it was a foregone conclusion that limiting speed equals a reduction in the road toll. I just proved otherwise. It's clearly not a foregone conclusion at all, because there are other factors at play. You want to limit all cars, prove why we should. Rebut my stats with some kind of figures or facts, rather than ill-informed opinions.

    Diomedes240z on
    fdod80.jpg
  • The Black HunterThe Black Hunter The key is a minimum of compromise, and a simple, unimpeachable reason to existRegistered User regular
    edited June 2010
    The Cat wrote: »
    That's super awesome, but you still don't need it to go buy milk or visit your gran.

    There are many many things that we don't need, and to me, cars take precedence over the lot.

    The Black Hunter on
  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited June 2010
    The Cat wrote: »
    "I reckon point 1 is a foregone conclusion to anyone who knows anything about road accidents"


    In 2007, the Northern Territory removed all unlilmited speed limits on roads and replaced them with 130km/h limits. Here's some numbers for you.

    2005: 55 fatal, 1056 non-fatal
    2006: 45 fatal, 1012 non-fatal
    2007: 57 fatal, 1087 non-fatal

    Data from subsequent years is unavailable.



    edit: Source is again, the Australian Beaurau of Statistics.

    I'm not sure how that has any relationship to the vast majority of roads in Aus that aren't in the middle of the freaking desert.

    Well, you said that it was a foregone conclusion that limiting speed equals a reduction in the road toll. I just proved otherwise. It's clearly not a foregone conclusion at all, because there are other factors at play. You want to limit all cars, prove why we should. Rebut my stats with some kind of figures or facts, rather than ill-informed opinions.
    Well no, you're taking a truism and using an edge case to try and disprove it. The rule applies most to speeds between 40 and 80, there are massive differences in lethality in that range. Aside from only discussing the death rate at very high speeds compared to normal roads, you're also discussing the death rate in an isolated area of the country with patchy medical services at best, and one where the vehicles are mostly either enormous trucks or ancient shitbombs whose owners may or may not have once carved a replacement diff out of a tree. Its not exactly situation normal out there! Find some real stats.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited June 2010
    uean wrote: »
    So I've read a few pages of this thread and counted one motor enthusiast. Is that all PA has to offer?

    I don't even know what to say here. Why would you want to hand control over to a computer? Why would you want the government to decide what's best and force it on you en masse? Giving the mechanical or electrical regulation's job over to something would mean that the failure rate is going to have to be better than the death rate in order for it to be a success, and in a world where all vehicles are governed to a specific speed, even a speed difference (due to error) of 5kmh is going to be very noticeable and screw everything up. People are all going to be cruising around with their mind numbed even more than normal, not paying attention because the computer's got it under control and then something goes wrong...

    What's going to govern the speed? All I have to do is slap on ginormous monster truck tires onto my car to dupe the speedo into reading 20% too slow and there we go, I've beat the system.

    People hate being controlled. There are also a fantastic number of people who are passionate about cars and motors in general. Then there's those who hate big brother dipping his little fingers into everything.

    We think the government should be deciding what's best in this case because anybody who disagrees that flying down the road at 90mph is a bad idea is a retard who shouldn't be behind the wheel in the first place.

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • Diomedes240zDiomedes240z Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    The Cat wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    "I reckon point 1 is a foregone conclusion to anyone who knows anything about road accidents"


    In 2007, the Northern Territory removed all unlilmited speed limits on roads and replaced them with 130km/h limits. Here's some numbers for you.

    2005: 55 fatal, 1056 non-fatal
    2006: 45 fatal, 1012 non-fatal
    2007: 57 fatal, 1087 non-fatal

    Data from subsequent years is unavailable.



    edit: Source is again, the Australian Beaurau of Statistics.

    I'm not sure how that has any relationship to the vast majority of roads in Aus that aren't in the middle of the freaking desert.

    Well, you said that it was a foregone conclusion that limiting speed equals a reduction in the road toll. I just proved otherwise. It's clearly not a foregone conclusion at all, because there are other factors at play. You want to limit all cars, prove why we should. Rebut my stats with some kind of figures or facts, rather than ill-informed opinions.
    Well no, you're taking a truism and using an edge case to try and disprove it. The rule applies most to speeds between 40 and 80, there are massive differences in lethality in that range. Aside from only discussing the death rate at very high speeds compared to normal roads, you're also discussing the death rate in an isolated area of the country with patchy medical services at best, and one where the vehicles are mostly either enormous trucks or ancient shitbombs whose owners may or may not have once carved a replacement diff out of a tree. Its not exactly situation normal out there! Find some real stats.

    Cat, I've yet to see you cite *any* facts.

    Diomedes240z on
    fdod80.jpg
  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited June 2010
    The Cat wrote: »
    That's super awesome, but you still don't need it to go buy milk or visit your gran.

    There are many many things that we don't need, and to me, cars take precedence over the lot.

    So a pollution box takes precedent over sustenance and seeing aging family members? You're a lovely person, aren't you?

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited June 2010
    Natheo wrote: »
    i'm having a hard time distinguishing between someone flying into a guard rail at 75mph and 85mph. There has to be someway to just make this particular individual not hit another object with his automobile regardless of speed.

    Reducing speed is one of the best ways to avoid hitting the guardrail.

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited June 2010
    Cat, I've yet to see you cite *any* facts.

    You're the one making a claim that flies in the face of common sense and basic physics. Go log on to the ABS and dig something up. They're very good at counting things, it shouldn't be that difficult.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • Diomedes240zDiomedes240z Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    The Cat wrote: »
    Cat, I've yet to see you cite *any* facts.

    You're the one making a claim that flies in the face of common sense and basic physics. Go log on to the ABS and dig something up. They're very good at counting things, it shouldn't be that difficult.

    No, I'm not. I'm saying that there's more to road safety than high school physics. Like fatigue. And I proved my point by highlighting a situation where the point is made abundantly clear. In NT, speed wasn't the killer everybody thought it was, since they eliminated speed and nothing changed.

    Any fool can see that reducing speed reduces impact energy and therefore, work done on the vehicle and occupants in question. However, you made the claim that speed limiting people's cars will reduce the road toll. That's a very different statement. With what do you back up that claim?

    Diomedes240z on
    fdod80.jpg
  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited June 2010
    That said, my reading has indicated that speed limit reductions are sometimes only a stopgap while one waits for appropriate road upgrades. Elimination of black spots, surface and signage improvements, etc also make a massive difference.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • Diomedes240zDiomedes240z Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Scalfin wrote: »
    uean wrote: »
    So I've read a few pages of this thread and counted one motor enthusiast. Is that all PA has to offer?

    I don't even know what to say here. Why would you want to hand control over to a computer? Why would you want the government to decide what's best and force it on you en masse? Giving the mechanical or electrical regulation's job over to something would mean that the failure rate is going to have to be better than the death rate in order for it to be a success, and in a world where all vehicles are governed to a specific speed, even a speed difference (due to error) of 5kmh is going to be very noticeable and screw everything up. People are all going to be cruising around with their mind numbed even more than normal, not paying attention because the computer's got it under control and then something goes wrong...

    What's going to govern the speed? All I have to do is slap on ginormous monster truck tires onto my car to dupe the speedo into reading 20% too slow and there we go, I've beat the system.

    People hate being controlled. There are also a fantastic number of people who are passionate about cars and motors in general. Then there's those who hate big brother dipping his little fingers into everything.

    We think the government should be deciding what's best in this case because anybody who disagrees that flying down the road at 90mph is a bad idea is a retard who shouldn't be behind the wheel in the first place.

    Who in this thread said that flying down the road at 90mph is a good idea?

    Diomedes240z on
    fdod80.jpg
  • Diomedes240zDiomedes240z Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    The Cat wrote: »
    That said, my reading has indicated that speed limit reductions are sometimes only a stopgap while one waits for appropriate road upgrades. Elimination of black spots, surface and signage improvements, etc also make a massive difference.

    This is a statement I can get behind. I agree 100% here.

    Diomedes240z on
    fdod80.jpg
  • The Black HunterThe Black Hunter The key is a minimum of compromise, and a simple, unimpeachable reason to existRegistered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Scalfin wrote: »
    Natheo wrote: »
    i'm having a hard time distinguishing between someone flying into a guard rail at 75mph and 85mph. There has to be someway to just make this particular individual not hit another object with his automobile regardless of speed.

    Reducing speed is one of the best ways to avoid hitting the guardrail.

    Not being a fuckwit remains the best of the lot though. As for you quoting me, you really stretched that as far as you could didn't you?

    The fact is cars are the biggest investment someone can make besides a home and possibly surgery and medicine. Their emotional attachment can sometimes rival the former, but you'll never find someone who values it over the latter when a loved one is in charge.

    Cars can be like a religion to some, and like religion, the attachment just can't be conveyed

    The Black Hunter on
  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited June 2010
    The Cat wrote: »
    Cat, I've yet to see you cite *any* facts.

    You're the one making a claim that flies in the face of common sense and basic physics. Go log on to the ABS and dig something up. They're very good at counting things, it shouldn't be that difficult.

    No, I'm not. I'm saying that there's more to road safety than high school physics. Like fatigue. And I proved my point by highlighting a situation where the point is made abundantly clear. In NT, speed wasn't the killer everybody thought it was, since they eliminated speed and nothing changed.

    Any fool can see that reducing speed reduces impact energy and therefore, work done on the vehicle and occupants in question. However, you made the claim that speed limiting people's cars will reduce the road toll. That's a very different statement. With what do you back up that claim?
    What? those last sentences are in no way unrelated, and I fail to see how you can possibly deny that. Less speed = less dead folks. Especially since it isolates the highest and therefore most likely to be lethal events. You don't actually need to shave a great amount off the top end of the car's possible speed to do it. No more than 10 or 20 over the local limit should be fine.

    edit: which is why I actually prefer the RFID tag thing, despite the expense and sabotage issues. At least it isn't a heavy handed blanket kind of approach.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
Sign In or Register to comment.