Safe Speed Forums

All of it. Re-read mine and notice that the 50mph bit was a nod to the crazy proposals of the aforementioned campaign, and the rest of the tale still holds water without it!

Eh!?

So suppose they do already, how is it a wrong to oppose measures that will encourage them to do so further?

Basic logic, innit!

Not necessarily.

if they do it already, and then they do it after an accelration limiter has been fitted, they are doing nothing different, so it can't really be said they have been encouraged to do anything more than they did already.

In fact, looking at it from your perspective, then already where they may be doing it, they are being encouraged to do it, aren't they ?...

Okay, you're working at the problem the wrong way round. Prescriptive this and minima that, no.

They put themselves in a sticky situation, and the car has the acceleration to get them out of it, but its limited, so dead kids. Sure, another car may never have had the acceleration to get them out of it regardless of the limiter, so dead kids anyway, but why increase the dead kids through some misguided attempt to limit them?

Given no acceleration limiter at all they will no doubt only be risky at a higher speed later in the journey when they come up against an even faster car they choose to overtake.

When this inexperienced driver came upon the hazard how fast were they travelling at ?
Obviously, if they had been limited by acceleration it is quite feasible to say that they would be approaching the hazard at a lower speed than if no acceleration limiter were fitted in the first place. Therefore they could not possibly carry more speed through the hazard even if they wanted to.

But is that being safe enough ?. Surely if you are that concerned you might think we should consider not letting new drivers on the road at all until they have sufficient experience

Again, you said earlier that top speed wasn't limited in this scenario.

Yes precisely. And I asssumed you had understood that what was being inferred was that the driver could not accelerate to higher speed in the first instance, and met the oncoming vehicle due to the acceleration limiter stopping them from reaching that higher speed in the time available.

Thats the physics sorted, back to the driver. We are talking about a risk-taker. Somebody who overtakes when they haven't got at their disposal the means to accelerate. WHen you accelerate you tend to get a feel for a car. It is certainly pointless to base your judgement on the power of a vehicel, or it's torque, as written in the sales brochure. What does a 100HP feel like exactly , and doesn't it always feel different in every car that has a 100HP engine. And the same applies to torque, given that it is the torque which does the true accelerating. But factor in the gearbox rations, the friction, how well the car is running and the fuel then it becomes more in keeping with reality if we say that you accelrate not because you know you have 100Nm of torque from the engine at 3500rpm, but because it 'feels' like you will be able to succeeed safely.

Regardless of which car you drive, you feel how well it accelrates and adjust your driving to suit the ability of the vehicle. To limit the acceleration of a car is no different than driving another car with less torque, and when driving that car the driver would need to adjust his style to suit it anyway.

I don't see any difference. I am tending to give the new driver the benefit of the doubt I think it would appear, and I asume they might be better judges than you would give them credit for.

You are Forrest Gump and I claim my prize!

You have made a ludicrous suggestion that the kids, which at this point in time are just figments of an imagination, did actually die.
Although this accident was ficticious, you did raise an important notion. You have pointed out that these were kids involved in the accident. You were either doing that to play for the heartstrings, or you have done it because you feel that kids are more likley to be involved in risk taking.

We know already that kids take risks behind the wheel, so , is it right that they should have enough acceleration to hand which would allow them to take such risks in the first place ?

Okay, you've tried to be all clever here, but lets look at how an overtaking manoeuvre works, and skim over such minor technicalities as the spelling of assumed, vehicle, accelerates or succeed.

To overtake a vehicle at a given speed, you must accelerate to a speed greater than it and, pulling to the other side of the road, maintain that speed or greater at least until you are able to pull back to the correct side of the road for onward driving. The magnitude of this acceleration is not paramount, as long as a greater speed is achieved, the overtake can be accomplished.

Now lets suppose that a hazard presents itself during the manoeuvre, and the quickest escape route, given the positioning at the time, would be to accelerate such that the manoeuvre can be completed in a shorter space of time. An inexperienced driver may not judge the power available accurately, and their vehicle may or may not have the power available to get them out of trouble. Supposing it does, however, wouldn't it be tragic if they were killed due to some box of electronic trickery limiting it's availability?

No, I did it because the issue at hand pertains to the under-25-year-old victims of the aforementioned campaign.

Whilst the accident may be fictitious, there is no denying that adequate power can be applied to avoid a sticky situation. So is limiting the acceleration available to young, or inexperienced, drivers going to be a valuable addition to road safety, or is it from the same school of worthless gut-shots that brought us "Speed Kills"? Is "excess acceleration" an over-arching theme in reports of accidents involving young, or inexperienced, drivers?

Well now, excuse my wireless keyboard first of all, it has crumbs between the keys and a slowly depleting battery.
Perhaps it is amusing to you to point out spelling mistakes, but you are a dying breed, and those ideas are best left on the back of a lovenote tucked away in your handbag.

I would still like to know the nature of such a situation, if you don't mind elaborating. I cannot think of such a situation which is not already part of another driving skill. That is to say that I can't see it happening in any other way than you had already made a mistake beforehand, can you ?

No, I did it because the issue at hand pertains to the under-25-year-old victims of the aforementioned campaign.

Whilst the accident may be fictitious, there is no denying that adequate power can be applied to avoid a sticky situation. So is limiting the acceleration available to young, or inexperienced, drivers going to be a valuable addition to road safety, or is it from the same school of worthless gut-shots that brought us "Speed Kills"? Is "excess acceleration" an over-arching theme in reports of accidents involving young, or inexperienced, drivers?