Surely you can imagine a situation in which if travelling at the speed limit the rear of the car gets hit, and breaking to slow down would just cause the front of the car to be hit instead?
Yeah, and it's not one I'd base any type of legislation on. I mean what if the inverse is true and somebody speeds up instead of braking because they can, and then they get hit? Good argument for limiters, there. Or what if you both accelerate and you now turned this 45mph t-bone into a 55mph t-bone
I’m not saying most evasive manoeuvres require speeding, speed should be the last choice, most problems are solved by slowing, however there are situations where speed is the only choice for avoiding accident.
And it absolutely pales in comparison towards how many people you'd save by having hard limiters. At it's core this is a very car brained argument to make in the sense of that it presupposes some absolute edge case hypothetical scenario as how a single person might be saved by speeding and and completely disregards any other consequences of this choice. Sure, thousands may get injured and die, but it'll have all been worth it for that one time one guy speeds out of a t-bone successfully.
Hey, I don’t think we’re going to agree. Maybe I’m too car brained, I used to drive a heck of a lot for work. Maybe the damage is done!
I stand by my thoughts that I think a soft limit with punitive fines and a mechanical hard limit above the speed limit to allow for safety cases seems like best of both worlds. I think that the safety benefit of slowing down through cars automatically ticketing drivers would be realised pretty quickly as drivers see fines rack up, negating the need for the hard limiter in 99% of cases. But I get your argument that on balance a hard limit may be better overall. I dunno, I don’t think either of us can know which system would prove better without trialing both and some statistical analysis.
Yeah, and it's not one I'd base any type of legislation on. I mean what if the inverse is true and somebody speeds up instead of braking because they can, and then they get hit? Good argument for limiters, there. Or what if you both accelerate and you now turned this 45mph t-bone into a 55mph t-bone
And it absolutely pales in comparison towards how many people you'd save by having hard limiters. At it's core this is a very car brained argument to make in the sense of that it presupposes some absolute edge case hypothetical scenario as how a single person might be saved by speeding and and completely disregards any other consequences of this choice. Sure, thousands may get injured and die, but it'll have all been worth it for that one time one guy speeds out of a t-bone successfully.
Hey, I don’t think we’re going to agree. Maybe I’m too car brained, I used to drive a heck of a lot for work. Maybe the damage is done!
I stand by my thoughts that I think a soft limit with punitive fines and a mechanical hard limit above the speed limit to allow for safety cases seems like best of both worlds. I think that the safety benefit of slowing down through cars automatically ticketing drivers would be realised pretty quickly as drivers see fines rack up, negating the need for the hard limiter in 99% of cases. But I get your argument that on balance a hard limit may be better overall. I dunno, I don’t think either of us can know which system would prove better without trialing both and some statistical analysis.