RE: Volvo to fit all cars with 112mph speed limiter
Discussion
RemyMartin81D said:
Let's not get too frothy.
Japan limits everything , including GT-Rs don't hear people crying about that.
If you want to get snitty. No one NEEDs to do more than 112mph on the public road...I get why people would get upset about the whole nannying aspect.
Nothing that some ECU software can't fix :-)Japan limits everything , including GT-Rs don't hear people crying about that.
If you want to get snitty. No one NEEDs to do more than 112mph on the public road...I get why people would get upset about the whole nannying aspect.
Arogant of Volvo, Nanny state and stupid. An easy way to alienate customers without producing any tangible benefits. In France if you go over 180kph you lose your licence so I wonder if they have been asked to do this by the EU!!
Certainly this means that I'll be buying a BMW X3/X5 rather than a XC60/90.
Certainly this means that I'll be buying a BMW X3/X5 rather than a XC60/90.
kambites said:
sgtBerbatov said:
Why would you want to buy or even drive a car that doesn't trust you to drive it?
So you don't want/have ABS or traction control or parking sensors or... in your car then? All systems which exist to help drivers not to make mistakes which they really shouldn't. Why would you want a Volvo which is capable of doing more than 113mph? I don't want a speed limiter, but I can't see any particular reason to object to one either in this sort of car.
Edited by kambites on Monday 4th March 15:01
As for the parking sensors etc, I don't have them and I haven't reversed in to a lamppost or child or anything like that. How many cars on the road have TCS and ABS yet still manage to end up smashing in to the car in front? These things don't help the driver they make the driver lazy.
sgtBerbatov said:
You've never driven in Germany.
Not a significant amount, like 99% of Volvo customers I suspect. sgtBerbatov said:
As for the parking sensors etc, I don't have them and I haven't reversed in to a lamppost or child or anything like that. How many cars on the road have TCS and ABS yet still manage to end up smashing in to the car in front? These things don't help the driver they make the driver lazy.
You miss my point. I'm not saying such systems are necessary, my car has none of them. I'm saying they are not automatically bad. I simply cannot see a reason that a 100+mph speed limiter on a mainstream road car would be relevant to any but an absolutely tiny handful of buyers. Edited by kambites on Monday 4th March 15:20
A 112mph limit on a road car wouldn't bother me - still plenty flexible enough to perform an A road overtake and most people are unlikely to cruise at more than 90mph and usually a lot less.
On balance I think i'd rather have a car with a top end limit than one that forced a limit based on GPS and the road I'm on.
The cynic in me think manfucatures have been preparing us for electronic drivetrains - auto gearboxes with loads of gears (they could never quite get the CVT idea to fly), limited top speeds, electronic synthesied sounds in the cabins, even the modern dsg gearboxes drop to idle whilst coasting to get people used to limited engine braking.
I'll stick with my 24 year old petrol powered manual car I think.
On balance I think i'd rather have a car with a top end limit than one that forced a limit based on GPS and the road I'm on.
The cynic in me think manfucatures have been preparing us for electronic drivetrains - auto gearboxes with loads of gears (they could never quite get the CVT idea to fly), limited top speeds, electronic synthesied sounds in the cabins, even the modern dsg gearboxes drop to idle whilst coasting to get people used to limited engine braking.
I'll stick with my 24 year old petrol powered manual car I think.
Edited by pfnsht on Monday 4th March 15:35
I've got a Volvo XC60 at the moment, generally a lovely car but rather than stop me trying to do 113mph in it, if Volvo really want to reduce accidents and make the roads a safer place they need:
1. to revisit the woeful touchscreen which controls everything, it's impossible to perform basic functions like adjusting heating etc without taking your eyes off the road for some time.
2. Improve the semi auto Intellisafe stuff. It fairly frequently gets confused by dirt/leaves/parked cars and does it's best to perform and emergency stop without you.
Pretty sure helping drivers keep eyes on the road will have more impact to safety (in the UK at least) than preventing cars theoretically doing more than 112mph.
1. to revisit the woeful touchscreen which controls everything, it's impossible to perform basic functions like adjusting heating etc without taking your eyes off the road for some time.
2. Improve the semi auto Intellisafe stuff. It fairly frequently gets confused by dirt/leaves/parked cars and does it's best to perform and emergency stop without you.
Pretty sure helping drivers keep eyes on the road will have more impact to safety (in the UK at least) than preventing cars theoretically doing more than 112mph.
k right off you patronising fOnce gain, the point is missed. Excessive speed is a symptom, not a cause and breaking speed limits is often because the limits themselves are too blunt.
There is no such thing as an accident, just collisions with driver ability at the root of all of them. Driving is almost the only activity we do (where there are serious implications when we get it wrong) with no planned upskilling/development. We just get a licence after a few hours training and that's it for life. In what other profession where lives are at stake would that be accepted?
Speed limits are therefore set at the lowest common denominator - what speed is "safe" for a just qualified driver. In reality, any stretch of road can be safe at 20mph over the limit, or dangerous at 20mph below the limit, depending upon weather, light, vehicle, other traffic, driver awareness (self awareness) etc. These all vary, and so therefore does the safe speed.
The police rightly castigate drivers who drive too fast in fog as they expect drivers to "use their judgement", then why can't "use your judgement" be used the other way in bright, clear, low traffic conditions.
The answer is all in driver ability, which means training. The police keep citing safety as their key objective, but increasing driver ability is the only true route to safety, about which they do nothing (accepting they aren't budgetted for that, but neither do i see them putting forward alternatives)
In my view, the answer is that drivers who complete advanced training (RoSPA etc.) are allowed to drive 20mph over the limit. If police stop them (and they haven't been dangerous) then its a "good day sir, drive carefully". For speed cameras it is the same as at present, the owner declares who was driving in response to the NIP, but the penalties for lying should be much stiffer.
Just for once, let's have a carrot, not just endless sticks.
There is no such thing as an accident, just collisions with driver ability at the root of all of them. Driving is almost the only activity we do (where there are serious implications when we get it wrong) with no planned upskilling/development. We just get a licence after a few hours training and that's it for life. In what other profession where lives are at stake would that be accepted?
Speed limits are therefore set at the lowest common denominator - what speed is "safe" for a just qualified driver. In reality, any stretch of road can be safe at 20mph over the limit, or dangerous at 20mph below the limit, depending upon weather, light, vehicle, other traffic, driver awareness (self awareness) etc. These all vary, and so therefore does the safe speed.
The police rightly castigate drivers who drive too fast in fog as they expect drivers to "use their judgement", then why can't "use your judgement" be used the other way in bright, clear, low traffic conditions.
The answer is all in driver ability, which means training. The police keep citing safety as their key objective, but increasing driver ability is the only true route to safety, about which they do nothing (accepting they aren't budgetted for that, but neither do i see them putting forward alternatives)
In my view, the answer is that drivers who complete advanced training (RoSPA etc.) are allowed to drive 20mph over the limit. If police stop them (and they haven't been dangerous) then its a "good day sir, drive carefully". For speed cameras it is the same as at present, the owner declares who was driving in response to the NIP, but the penalties for lying should be much stiffer.
Just for once, let's have a carrot, not just endless sticks.
Slippery Slope - I was looking at an XC60 to replace the Merc but decided an XC90 was a better bet. Liked the new upgrades and I can guarantee that I would never have gone over 112mph in it but I won't buy one now. Not for practical reasons but just on principle - where does this stop if they get away with it?
LordHaveMurci said:
RemyMartin81D said:
If you want to get snitty. No one NEEDs to do more than 112mph on the public road...I get why people would get upset about the whole nannying aspect.
No one NEEDS fast cars, full stop.Doesn't stop us wanting them & more importantly, enjoying them.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff