[CarNerd]

Originally Posted by AJ56

Some people here want government mandated GPS in every drivers car, all in the interest of public safety of course.

I suspect personal freedom means nothing to such folks and they’d support a complete ban on gun ownership as well.

How is limiting speed or banning guns equal to invading privacy?

You should compare gun violence related deaths in the US to Japan to understand why banning guns makes sense. It's about safety not privacy. Unlike Cars which are made to transport people, Guns are made to kill people. There is a difference between the two.

This logic of limiting speed to increase safety is inherently flawed, unless we limit it to 10-15 km/hr, as anything above that can easily kill a person. And if we did it would reduce road fatality to zero, but at what cost? The economy of such a nation would collapse.

What's the logic behind NCAP testing at 64kmph? Why not 120 or 180 kmph? What's the logic behind wearing helmets? What's the logic behind low beams in city limits? What's the logic behind silent zones around schools and hospitals?

Talking about the economy, the World Bank estimated that accidents cost Rs 5.96 lakh crore or 3.14 % of India's GDP: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ind...dp-573844.html

To me, saving lives is more important than economy.

And why stop at speeds, let’s ban electricity as well. Clearly we don’t want any deaths from electrical fires every year. What about sugar, alcohol and junk food? These 3 kill more people every year than roads every could. Ban them all, or better yet have government mandated foods we are allowed to consume. Clearly it’s for the public good, why should others’ health insurance premiums rise due to your poor food choices?

We are talking about limiting speed not banning cars! You are again confusing the two. Most electrical fires are caused by faulty wiring, bad quality fittings or poor maintenance. Don't we know about electrical hazards and safety measures to prevent accidents?

The FSSAI has restricted the sale of junk food in school and college canteens as they are unhealthy. It doesn't mean they are banned altogether.

Speed never kills, incompetent drivers do. An idiot at 50 can cause a fatal crash.

Correct and therefore speed limits are required to prevent incompetent drivers from crashing into others. The possibility of a fatal crash at 120 kmph is far higher than at 50 kmph. If you remember, 4 people were killed in a BMW where the driver who was a doctor tried to reach 300 kmph. If the car had such ECU restricted speed, the outcome might have been different.

[AJ56]

Originally Posted by MT_Hyderabad

In Hyderabad, we already have automated speed detecting cameras and challan are issued without any human intervention.

My and your child's school bus is having an upper limit of 80km/hr. We were silent when this was imposed, why make a noise now? The driver's personal freedom was of no concern then.

Personal freedom ends when public safety is endangered. Djokovic had to leave Australia for lack of vaccination. Govt. can inject a half tested vaccine in everyone's body on the pretext of saving the general public; implementing a good enough speed limit is a piece of cake for them.

I have no issue with speed cams, they don’t invade my privacy like an onboard GPS does. The amount of cams needed to accurately trace someone’s location even inside city limits will be impossible to implement by most governments.

I don’t have kids, and I wouldn’t support it even if I did as it’s useless. If the school has drivers hitting even 80 inside the city with a bus full of kids you need to look at better schools. Also, comparing buses to sports cars is apples to oranges, in addition buses are commercial vehicles where rules are very different compared to private vehicles. There is no parallel.

First, no civilised country forced vaccines into people except China. They did try to coerce people by limiting access to certain places/travel, which I hold to be a gross violation of civil liberty and fundamental rights.

Mandating a half tested irreversible medical procedure onto anyone is a crime and freedom oriented society’s around the world had a major issue with it, you’re forgetting all the protests in US alone, in addition to other countries.

If speed locking cars is so great then why hasn’t any country done it yet? Not even EU with its rabid environmentalism has managed to yet.

[GeeTee TSI]

Passionate discussion, especially in times of what we can call the golden era of Indian highways and expressways. We never had roads this good (nor cars this good) and we are in the cusp of really going world class in highway travel. And before it all falls in place to be experienced, here we are downgrading speeds (and ICE cars too, soon)

An ECU derived cap for all its good intent only applies to new vehicles which are better endowed and engineered, whereas; the older, suspect vehicles go scot free (or should I say limit free).This does not postively impact the population of traffic at large

Further, I would like to drive more often on highways rated at 120 with my cruise control set at 120 (or slightly lesser). Hence capping at 120 doesn't make sense (we all need a buffer) but I am all for an absolute cap of x% beyond the highest national limit (national limit itself a figure which could progressively be revised). If this approach is followed then there should also be an effective and transparent process to ascertain the road worthiness (like UK's MOT) following which eligible vehicles could have higher speeds unlocked in the future should the national limit be revised upwards

I agree we need to do something right now (and not just sit and watch the accidents statistics) and we can start by instilling the fear of God in all traffic violaters (any sort of speeding, any sort of dangerous loading, any sort of compromised automobile, any sort of excuse for not belting up/wearing helmets)

[ValarMorghulis]

I have no issues with the privacy argument here. ECUs don't invade privacy.
I also don't have issues with 120kmph limit.

My issue is with the government overreach under the guise of safety.
Fine and punish folks who break the law but don't overreach. No ECUs limiting speed.

Today it is high speed. Tomorrow it can be:
1. High acceleration (densely populated places & sudden acceleration can be fatal)
2. Big engines (more polluting. Higher power, so unsafe in an accident. Should be limited to 1500CC for all passenger cars)
3. Gross weight (heavier cars can be fatal. Should be limited to 1200kgs)
4. Big Tyres (bigger tyres can cause more damage. To be limited to 175/60 R15)
5. Sunroof (dangerous in case of toppling). Total ban
6. Maximum allowed passengers (limit to 4. More passengers can be fatal in case of an accident).

There is no dearth of laws for the "safety and security" of the people.

What next?
1. Ban ghee & oils
2. Ban smoking in even smoking designated places?
3. Ban FPS games (promote violence?)
4. Specify weight categories for health and safety of the folks?
5. Specify limits to sugar intake?

There is no end to making laws. Today you support which you think is OK, tomorrow there will be 50 new laws to "take care of you".

[AJ56]

Originally Posted by CarNerd

How is limiting speed or banning guns equal to invading privacy?

You should compare gun violence related deaths in the US to Japan to understand why banning guns makes sense. It's about safety not privacy. Unlike Cars which are made to transport people, Guns are made to kill people. There is a difference between the two.

Cars can very easily be made to commit multiple homicides if one is so inclined. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wauk..._parade_attack 6 killed and 62 injured.

For civilians, guns are used to protect yourself and your family. 99.9% of use falls under this case, mass murders are less than 0.01% of use cases, criminal use is immaterial as criminals will always have guns, whether you ban them or not.

If you had read what I said, I was talking about the dangers of mandated gps devices in private cars, which was followed by the points about an over zealous government that monitors everything.

I will add guns are the single best defence against a tyrannical government, how ignorant of 20th century history can one be to state otherwise. Every time a free people are to be suppressed the first thing a dictator does is ban private guns, take Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot the list is endless.

Why do you think China doesn’t allow its people to have guns, even back home you’ll know the first thing that the British did was to ban Indians from owning firearms. The number of lives saved by defensively using a handgun against a home invader/attacker/rapist is massive every year in the US alone. In your world all these people would be hapless victims of their attackers.

Used some 1.67 millions times in self defence in 2021- https://amp.washingtontimes.com/news...e-than-crimes/

Fun fact: can you guess the second country after US to have the largest civilian gun ownership? It’s India. A free people will always be armed, anyway I’m done here.

[Neversaygbye]

Considering that it is anyway almost impossible to drive at speeds of 120+ on most roads in India for a prolonged period of time, I have no issues with an ECU enforced speed limitation of 120 kmph, provided it is applied uniformly and in a foolproof way.

Also, even on highways, the speed limit is 100 kmph, which I think is a decent limit considering Indian road conditions. We are not Germany. I am sure Germany doesn't have bikes climbing over the median, vehicles coming at full pelt from the wrong side on a divided carriageway, two slow moving trucks trying to overtake one another while blocking all the lanes, cows dogs humans et al crossing the road at random, cyclists changing lanes without looking over their shoulder, bikers and cars weaving through traffic, slow moving rickshaws and totos on a national highway, illegal motorized vans, unpredictable road surface and design and sundry other things that make driving on our roads such a challenge.

However, just enforcing speed limits in isolation without addressing the other issues mentioned above is hardly likely to make our roads any safer.

[CarNerd]

Originally Posted by AJ56

Cars can very easily be made to commit multiple homicides if one is so inclined.

Yes they can be deadly but Cars are not built to kill people, Guns are. It's silly to compare the two. Many household items can be deadly if used in the wrong way. Does that mean we shouldn't have any guidelines to use them?

For civilians, guns are used to protect yourself and your family. 99.9% of use falls under this case, mass murders are less than 0.01% of use cases, criminal use is immaterial as criminals will always have guns, whether you ban them or not.

Protect from whom? How do people in countries like Japan, Singapore, England, etc protect themselves? Why should we have the Police? Let's all keep guns and be safe! By your logic, the ban on over-the-counter sale of acid by Supreme Court is wrong because acid doesn't harm anyone, people do right? That doesn't work like that!

If you had read what I said, I was talking about the dangers of mandated gps devices in private cars, which was followed by the points about an over zealous government that monitors everything.

Limiting speed is different from govt mandated GPS. I support speed limit but I oppose any govt monitoring.

I will add guns are the single best defence against a tyrannical government, how ignorant of 20th century history can one be to state otherwise. Every time a free people are to be suppressed the first thing a dictator does is ban private guns, take Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot the list is endless.

Why do you think China doesn’t allow its people to have guns, even back home you’ll know the first thing that the British did was to ban Indians from owning firearms.

Pakistan, Iraq, Venezuela have more guns per 100 people than Japan, Singapore and England. Does that mean people in those countries are more free? I don't see any link between gun ownership and freedom.

The number of lives saved by defensively using a handgun against a home invader/attacker/rapist is massive every year in the US alone. In your world all these people would be hapless victims of their attackers.

That's just a myth: https://www.latimes.com/opinion/stor...n-defense-myth

Fun fact: can you guess the second country after US to have the largest civilian gun ownership? It’s India. A free people will always be armed, anyway I’m done here.

There's no fun in knowing that India has the largest illegal gun ownership in the world: https://www.news18.com/news/immersiv...-in-india.html

Free people don't keep deadly weapons like guns. More guns mean more deaths.

[Amey Kulkarni]

Originally Posted by AJ56

Speed never kills, incompetent drivers do. An idiot at 50 can cause a fatal crash.

Just back from Goa to Pune. MH honestly needs to learn from Goa. I was pleasantly surprised to see proper road signs, markings on roads (dotted, solid lines), maintained road conditions and much more which reminds me of Dubai roads.

Irony!!! Anmod Ghat speed limit Vs our famous NH4 speed limits at places both at 50.

God Bless Maharashtra!



Cheers
Amey

[Jeroen]

Just a small comment on these speed limiters in the EU. They can be overridden at any time, but there will be annoying beeper going all the time. So stick a screwdriver into that pesky little speaker if you will!

I have seen various members commenting how a car with power and speed can get you out of trouble by stomping on the accelerator.

But if you don’t have a powerful car you don’t have that option and your driving becomes much more defensive. When I drive my Jaguar with its 400 BHP supercharged 4.0l V8 I know I can outaccelerate just about anything on this planet. So it will show in my driving.

On the other hand, when I drive my 40 year old Mercedes W123 and it’s anemic 2.0 100BHP engine I take a much more careful and defensive approach. Just about anything on the road, even some trucks and certainly vans out accelerate me!

So you adapt your driving style accordingly.

If you ever get the chance to drive the Citroen 2CV in heavy modern traffic please do. You feel hugely exposed, this thing is tiny and feeble and comes with 40 BHP engine. Glaciers accelerate faster than a 2CV.

Insurance companies love small, light weight little feeble cars. Statistically they are less involved in heavy crashes. The owners know that whatever happens, accident wise, they will always get the short end of the stick! So they drive very carefully!

Strangely, this mechanism does not apply to people buying motor bikes. They all believe themselves to be completely invincible, whilst in fact they are even more vulnerable to come to harm than a 2CV driver. Whether they drive a sloppy 75cc or a massive 3.5l motor bike!

So:
EU speed limiters can be overridden
Small feeble heavily underpowered cars are less likely to be involved in major accidents.

Take your pick!
One disclaimer though, not wanting to offend anybody, but I sometimes think that Indian car drivers believe they are invincible, just as the two wheeler pilots. That is lack of basic common sense.

Neither speed limiters or any kind of rule, regulation or law is going to change that.

Jeroen

[Sankar]

Originally Posted by Jeroen

One disclaimer though, not wanting to offend anybody, but I sometimes think that Indian car drivers believe they are invincible, just as the two wheeler pilots. That is lack of basic common sense.

That's because most Indians graduate from being a two wheeler pilot to a car driver. This is changing albeit slowly.

This is opposite to EU/USA where motorcycles and scooters are the exception rather than the norm. There most people start driving before they start riding (only a minority).

[bkc]

Sometimes, I agree, that speed is the cause of several accidents, but, it can be controlled by some reasonable ideas, rather than banning entirely.

Few points I can think of:
1) Some newbie drivers, drive very fast, without even having complete hold of the car's capabilities, Is there any way to judge experience and then permit speed?

Generally, responsibilities in any organisation, is offered based on experience of the candidate, why not have the same for drivers?

2) Second, car speed, based on the car's capabilities, like 100-0 kmph distance, safety features.
Ex: Never allow any car without ABS and airbags, to go above certain speed.

3) Penalise people, who drive, way below the speed limit.

4) Have stringent driving license test, may increase the LL tenure for the same.

5) Penalise authorities, for having caused accidents, due to bad road conditions.

These are just my opinions, and solutions may be better than this.

[giri1.8]

Originally Posted by ValarMorghulis

My issue is with the government overreach under the guise of safety.
Fine and punish folks who break the law but don't overreach. No ECUs limiting speed.

+1

When I pay for something, I should be allowed to use it without anyone else having power over it. What am I supposed to do with 120kmph limit if I am going to hit the race track Or private roads?

In the other thread about poor NCAP results, people want the government to ban cars with poor safety. If a guy decides to buy an unsafe it's his own risk, not sure why people are extremely triggered about someone else's decision. Yes we need to test all cars for safety by an unbiased organization, test results should be published.

At the end of the day more government intervention = less power to the common man, anyone who has some knowledge about history knows how this goes.

[tilt]

Originally Posted by MT_Hyderabad

I never knew perfectionists existed until now.

They find faults in general statements, for example someone wrote:

"I do not drink alcohol, so all alcohol should be banned in India"

Is he sure that he do not drink alcohol? Really? With no exceptions?

*SNIP*

I realise that I (mistakenly) presumed that people would understand nuance. I should learn to communicate in an unambiguous manner.

The word "intentionally" should have been there in my question to you about breaking rules.

And I do drink alcohol and I do smoke. My list there was merely to show how ridiculous each of those statements is, same as people here claiming that sincd they have no need to drive faster than the limit, there's no need for others to either.

Originally Posted by CarNerd

Global NCAP awards safety ratings to cars with a maximum speed of 64 km/h not 120km/h. So 120km/h is more than reasonable. *SNIP*

So logically then, speeds should be capped at 64kph instead of 80 or 120, no? How is 120 "reasonable"?

*SNIP*

There is a study done in Michigan which found that increased speed limits caused increased accidents:
https://www.bridgemi.com/michigan-go...crashes-deaths

Please do go through a study that I posted earlier that has a different outcome.

It is common sense that higher speed has a higher risk of accidents. Are you saying that we shouldn't have any speed limits because they are pointless?

I wasn't saying that earlier, but now that you suggest it, I do think it is a very good idea.

Finally, who is banning women from driving?

No one is. It was, once again, me trying to show you how I too can make absurd points like some others had made before, here.

Cheers

[CCRider]

Originally Posted by SS_36

Given the following:
1. Poor self-control of speeds by drivers of India
2. Little to no speed enforcement on highways
3. Large % of accidents on highways linked to speeding
4. Highest speed limit anywhere in the country is 120 kmph
5. We don't have Autobahns like in Germany
6. Cars have advanced ECUs today

Disappointed to see the quality of discourse dropping to Twitter levels what with trolling and mocking the OP for asking what is a very valid question/suggestion - If the max speed limit across the country is 120 KMPH and there exists technology to limit it why not enforce it

As far as I am concerned people who exceed speed limits are no different than people who drink and drive or drive on the wrong side or jump traffic signals - they are breaking the law.

It is wrong to compare India's situation with countries like Germany or US. Others have pointed out that we are poles apart when it comes to infrastructure, driving discipline, basic road manners and law enforcement.

I fully support enforcement of such a hard speed limit for reasons stated by OP with some additional data points

- Data shows Clearly that "Speed Kills"

The following documents
2020 Accident Stats
2019 Accident stats from the "Ministry of Road Transport" have very detailed statistics and analysis on yearly accidents.

Page 48 (for 2020 ) has a break up of accidents / causes of accident

-As per this , OverSpeeding is the cause of around 70% of the accidents and fatalities - by far the biggest share, and is more or less same for 2019 and 2020. Even if we assume 50% of the cases are categorized incorrectly (though I personally don't believe the error to be so large), it still represents a significant number of fatalities.
- the break up between types of vehicles involved in accidents/deaths is 38% for 2 wheelers, 17 % for LMVs and 14% trucks + Buses.

- The following paper Relation Between Speed and Crashes by US Dept of transportation talks about how speed affects accidents.
Higher Speed increases risk in two ways

Higher speed increases chances of accidents due to lesser available time to react / more breaking distance . Fatality and accident risk increase with speed is in fact exponential as indicated in the paper.

Higher speed increases severity of the accident. It is common sense that the faster a vehicle moves at time of impact the higher the damage and more chance of crossing the threshold impact level for causing fatality. Conversely if we can reduce the speed at impact, it will reduce the chance of serious accident by at least some level.

- We have to admit that everyone likes to go fast - fast is fun and it's hard to resist the temptation now and then (I have done it too). All the more reason to enforce it mechanically.

- Finally if you can maintain an average speed of 80 kmph, you can cover around 650-700 KM in a full day of driving (10-11 hours) including breaks. That's a pretty good distance to cover in a day which would get most people to their destination (looking at the average distances between different cities across India).

Couple of reasons why I think this enforcement may not work

- The offspring and brethren of our politicians and other people in power will find a way to hack this
- People who are under time pressure to reach their destination and impatient drivers will end up driving rashly to make up for lost time thereby increasing the chance of accidents.

But on the whole I believe it will make the roads safer.

[shankar.balan]

@ccrider
To your point below;
Finally if you can maintain an average speed of 80 kmph, you can cover around 650-700 KM in a full day of driving (10-11 hours) including breaks. That's a pretty good distance to cover in a day which would get most people to their destination (looking at the average distances between different cities across India).

I submit the following;
1. In the generally unpredictable Indian driving conditions, inconsistent roads and unruly traffic, frankly it is almost impossible to achieve average speeds of more than 50kmph.
2. Its never a good idea to drive more than 7-8 hours at a stretch, especially in conditions like we have in India. This is because of general fatigue which impairs concentration and increases risk.

While the government can make laws, it is near impossible to enforce them. This stems largely from our attitude. Even if we have these speed limits enforced systemically on all vehicles, there will be some way to circumvent the software and remove the limiter.

(For example, even on this August Forum, there is a whole thread dedicated to how to remove the Government Imposed speed limiter warnings in cars at 80kmph and 120kmph!)