[warrioraks]

Originally Posted by Arun Varma

But in the absence of an alternative that is more robust, and even accounting for massive amount of error in the data, and with due respects to the convenient anecdotes and recollections to the contrary, it still will be the number 1 reason.

As a person who works with data to earn his bread, I can assure you this statement is flawed in countless ways.
Absence of reliable data does not make crap data your number 1 alternate. The only option is to go back to the drawing board and collect the data again.

Basing decisions on garbage data is no better than going purely by instinct. In fact it is even worse, because it gives false sense of data based design making. Even when there is none.

[neofight6711]

I don't think it makes sense to limit the ability of the car to go above 120kmph just because our current conditions somehow don't allow for it which I don't agree. The car is going to be there for 10-15 years and if we continue the expressway development pace we would be driving in completely different road infrastructure. Once, the limit is enforce through law though, it would be an uphill battle to get rid of it.

Apart from that, from personal experience, I have many times felt safer driving at 120kmph+ compared to driving at even 60 or 70kmph depending on condition of traffic/road and service/safety level of the car. While that is just a feeling, main issue with high speed if driving on fairly empty and good road would be tyre burst or something similar. I don't think the risk is that higher when compared with 100 or even 80kmph. Beyond certain speeds, you have to have a good car and higher speed doesn't mean linearly higher risk.

The reason road safety conversation comes down to speed curbs is because speed is the easiest thing to measure. I suggest we introduce few more things that can be measured and can have thresholds similar to speed

1. There can be periodic test of reaction times of drivers. If you are below certain level, you will have to pay more insurance or have to follow more stringent test protocol.
2. While we are talking of having sensors in the car, why not make it mandatory to have sensors in heavy vehicles measuring brake sensitivity and life left in the braking system. Below a threshold no entry on expressway or even highway.
3. Mandatory air/tyre checks on expressways if not done for period of time from an authorized entity could help avoid tyre bursts.
4. Cars know when lane change happens or can be fitted to have them know it. There can be a counter with how many times a driver changed a lane without giving an indicator. That could come up when renewing registration or insurance settlement/premium.

While other people might have experienced rash drivers zooming past them with potential of an accident, I have had far more close calls with slow moving vehicles especially tractors carrying farm produce.

[theabstractmind]

Originally Posted by warrioraks

As a person who works with data to earn his bread, I can assure you this statement is flawed in countless ways.
Absence of reliable data does not make crap data your number 1 alternate. The only option is to go back to the drawing board and collect the data again.

Basing decisions on garbage data is no better than going purely by instinct. In fact it is even worse, because it gives false sense of data based design making. Even when there is none.

Though you make a fair point, the truth is that it is grossly naive to reject something altogether. As per the report, 74 percent of the accidents were due to overspeeding. Halve that number and still it is the cause for one-third of the accidents. That's a fair share. I am not saying it is because of speeds in excess of 120kmph, either. However, many a times, one needs to apply common sense beyond technicalities.

Even the link I shared from certain US attorney sites quote speeding as one of the top reasons along with reckless driving. And that, despite all the measures taken on education, enforcement.

Many of those who are asking for a limit are not arguing on a technicality. Neither They are advocating that speed limits alone will reduce accidents. They are introducing one among the many controls required to bring down the accidents. If limiting speed electronically is one of them, why not? There may be different modes of achieving it in a dynamic manner and not just limited to top speed. But that's not the crux of the discussion. After all every innocent life saved is worth more than the entitled driver who drives at a reckless speed.

Also, there are a few pilots on this forum and they might concur. Based on the numerous episodes of aircraft crashes, barring technical glitches which had an underlying maintenance error, many accidents are attributed to human or pilot error. And very often such pilots are experienced pilots. And many such accident results in a procedural update or the update of a feature in the cockpit where deemed necessary. I see driving on the roads as no different. If a change can be brought within the cockpit to avoid an unsavory incident, let's explore it. Driving is not just about a few entitled drivers. It is about the lives of many who are in the vicinity of the road. Many a times innocent bystanders or helpless passengers.

Note: Someone questioned if people supporting the limits were saints who had never exceeded the limits. I had mentioned it somewhere else, and again I mention it here. Driving is a learning process. We were all brought up on a wrong diet. We were taught to bully. Honk. Cut lanes. Etc. But that shouldn't stop us from unlearning it and transforming ourselves into defensive drivers. Especially in this era where so much information is available. But we have enough members who associate defensive driving with weakness or lack of reflex or old age, and so on. So until the mindset changes, believe me, no infrastructure improvements or enforcement can bring the change which everyone wants but nobody is willing to be. I sound preachy. But I practice what I preach.

[Mach_1590]

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

Then why allow car manufacturers to make and sell cars that can go faster than 120 kmph? Can the Govt. not mandate ECU controlled speed limit of 120 kmph on all new cars? This can be retroactively implemented on all cars already sold, at least those that have the ECU capability.

Cars can still have large engines and be sporty to drive; the thrill coming from high accelerations (0 to max 120 only) rather than high speeds.

Well, it is true that speed thrills but kills, but if you think rationally, there are highways with no or much higher speed limits which are much safer than our highways which are mostly limited to 80 kmph. So to say that the end consumer is at fault 100% of the time isn't the case at all. There are many contributing factors which makes our roads no less than a war zone. Starting from the poor quality roads which aren't designed keeping safety in mind, poorly built cars which are virtually saying "touch me not", poor driving etiquettes (imagine restricting cars to 120 kmph and people still driving at 90/100 kmph in 60 kmph zone), ease of obtaining DL(any tom, dick and harry can get a DL), law enforcement team busy chasing "targets".

[tsk1979]

Originally Posted by Turbohead

The reason why speeding happens to be the major cause of accidents is because the cops find it convenient to mark an accident like that so that they can call it a day. After all they're not paid enough for all the hardwork of investigating each and every accident.

I remember an accident on DND tollway in Noida where speed limit was 80. A car collided head on with an auto rickshaw which was going the wrong way. The cause of accident was determined to be high speed and speed limit was reduced to 70

That said if all vehicles are limited to 15kmph India can get rid of road fatalities. Maybe we should do that

[nathanjdias]

OPs views on speed seem to be fed by popular balcony gossips rather than any data driven or factual information. As mentioned by other members on the thread, blanket bans seldom manage to eliminate the issue at hand.

May I ask you where did you derive this magical number of 120 km/h under which driving apparently becomes safe?

I am of the opinion that a vehicle doing 120 km/h + may be a lot safer than an uncle doing 60 km/h who believes he owns all lanes of traffic and is a "safe" driver because he drives at that speed.

Instead of suggesting such bans maybe advocate for proper training and demonstrations for new drivers (and old ones too). Most people forget that these are a ton and a half to two tons+ of Solid Metal that we are commandeering. Until you get that into the minds of drivers, no amount of Speed Limit Enforcement is going to help.

[warrioraks]

Originally Posted by theabstractmind

Though you make a fair point, the truth is that it is grossly naive to reject something altogether. As per the report, 74 percent of the accidents were due to overspeeding. Halve that number and still it is the cause for one-third of the accidents. That's a fair share. I am not saying it is because of speeds in excess of 120kmph, either. However, many a times, one needs to apply common sense beyond technicalities.

Instead of halving that number (74), what if we reduce it to one fourth. What does common sense tell us then? People twist data to align with their beliefs all the time. Sometimes consciously, other times subconsciously. Not saying you are doing it, but stating what I see based on real life experience nearly every day.

Originally Posted by theabstractmind

They are introducing one among the many controls required to bring down the accidents. If limiting speed electronically is one of them, why not?

One among the many controls. This is what I call throwing sphagetti on the wall and hoping some of it sticks. Just for a conversation, this is a great rule to discuss. But implementing it without any proper reasoning based on anecdotal evidence is no different than government banning well maintained diesel vehicles. Just because few old diesel cars bring a bad name, anecdotally it becomes a no brainer to ban all diesel vehicles when AQI goes bad. We all know how that is taken on this forum.

Originally Posted by theabstractmind

If a change can be brought within the cockpit to avoid an unsavory incident, let's explore it.

And what if this change does not result in the desired effect? What then? It’s not a software fix we are talking about that reverts everything overnight and we happily move to the next set of experimentation.
Maybe someone can do a pilot study and tell us the real life results. Till that time, my null hypothesis (default action) will be to maintain status quo.

[Peaky_blinder]

In this context I would like to quote Jeremy Clarkson - "Speed has never killed anyone. Suddenly becoming stationary, that's what gets you."

[theabstractmind]

Originally Posted by warrioraks

Instead of halving that number (74), what if we reduce it to one fourth. What does common sense tell us then? People twist data to align with their beliefs all the time. Sometimes consciously, other times subconsciously. Not saying you are doing it, but stating what I see all time based on real life experience.


This is what I call throwing sphagetti on the wall and hoping some of it sticks. Just for a conversation, this is a great rule to discuss. But implementing it without any proper reasoning based on anecdotal evidence is no different than government banning well maintained diesel vehicles. Just because few old diesels cars bring a bad name, there is no point of banning anything and everything that rhymes with the word weasel.


And what if this change does not result in the desired effect? What then? It’s not a software fix we are talking about that reverts everything overnight and we happily move to the next set of experimentation.
Maybe someone can do a pilot study and tell us the real life results. Till that time, my null hypothesis (default action) will be to maintain status quo.

There is no end to a "What If" Scenario. That's where pragmatism overtakes theory. One doesn't seek absolute truth here. One seeks what's reasonable And logical. And yeah.. Even if the figure is brought down to one fourth, it is still a few tens of thousands of lives we are talking about. It is worth it. Every single innocent life saved due to an accident averted due to enforcement of a rule or following an etiquette however stupid it sounds, is worth more than the thrill some entitled driver derives by driving at an unmentionable speed.

In the given case, I already said just limiting the top speed may not help drastically. But ruling it out is equally naive. There could be ways to achieve the implementation of speed limit in a dynamic manner which may yield better results. Let's not rule out the idea.

As I said, people can endlessly argue on technicalities. That only helps in Status Quo. The biggest enemy of change.

[shaheenazk]

Originally Posted by RedTerrano

Do you have any scientific data to back these claims or is this just an opinion/feeling?

Expressways (not all) in India have a maximum ceiling of 120 kmph and not a minimum of 120 kmph.

[Tucker48]

Last time I checked, union ministry was talking about increasing the speeds in Expressways to 140 and 10 years down the line it might be 160.

BUT, these speed limits are to be followed on PUBLIC roads only and all roads are not public roads.

Also, in the case of electronically controlled speed scenario, any mass manufacturer will sell cars with puny powertrains which will not go past 120 so as to remove that extra part.

[warrioraks]

Originally Posted by theabstractmind

And yeah.. Even if the figure is brought down to one fourth, it is still a few tens of thousands of lives we are talking about. It is worth it.
….
In the given case, I already said just limiting the top speed may not help drastically.

Contradictory statements. This rule either will result in saving tens of thousand of lives OR will not have a drastic impact. Cannot be both.
My opinion (not backed by any data) is that the person who will crash at 125 km/hr wont be safe at at 120 km/hr as well. So this ECU thing is more or less redundant.

Originally Posted by theabstractmind

As I said, people can endlessly argue on technicalities. That only helps in Status Quo. The biggest enemy of change.

Yes change is good. But not on a whim!
What’s worse than status quo - a change for the worst.

PS: No chance we are coming on the same page. But I respect your opinion and humbly agree to disagree.

[SLK]

US hasn't been able to ban guns! And we are debating on banning engines over 70bhp.

Everything as a flipside, even democracy has its serious flaws!

I haven't read the entire thread, but I've definitely thought about it before and this is possible in our country too!

Two possible repercussions,

1) anything other than cheap cars won't have enough buyers. Industry/ manufacturing will take a BIG hit, there will be more poverty deaths than accidents!

2) 120 will become an entitlement and a false sense of comfort, even if you floor it. Traffic will be senseless with most people having little self control over their speeds. There would be enough people racing away to reach 120 the fastest, because once they do, no one in the country would be able to overtake them (just wow!). A BMW with 20 airbags and safety kits will be unable to over take an Alto, and the Alto will make sure that it drives at 120, so that the BMW can't overtake.

The (non)sense that often prevails in our democracy, this 120 limit can happen, but I just hope it doesn't.

[YK85]

All,

IMHO this is a valid and simple solution, one of many, to help curb our accident rate. No one solution be it better training, ...........
were made for safe & reasonable transportation of trucks, buses, cars and often other modes of wheeled transport. They were not built for the well off to seek the thrill of accelerating or driving fast.

These views are likely going to be deeply unpopular on Team BHP.

Peace.[/quote]

On the contrary, speed is not the issue at all. The major problems contributing to accidents are -
1, Majority of driving licences issued without even basic checks of driving skills, road sense, civic and traffic sense.
2, Allowing everything including bullock carts, autorickshaws, tractors, cows, dogs, bicycles, etc on the highway.
3, Negligible consequences for rash driving leading to accidents.
4, Complete lack of sense and logic in highway maintenance and law maintenance authorities. Eg, many times,there is no clear marking or even hazard lighting provided at road repair sites, lane speed not being enforced, poorly designed and maintained highways, etc

Basically, we suffer from "BAN"mentality. Simply put, we can't be bothered to make the effort required to properly study and resolve any issue so just take the shortcut of banning something or the other and relax. However, nothing really gets solved and problems just keep piling up.

[McLaren Rulez]

Originally Posted by RedTerrano

1) Huge majority of Indians, can safely control their vehicles at high speeds. Like everywhere else, there is a tiny percentage of rotten apples.

While I appreciate the sentiment, this is very very far from the truth. The way people learn to drive in India is completely unstructured so it's hardly surprising that there are glaring gaps in the knowledge of even the most experienced drivers.

Until driving theory is taught properly and tested before handing out a license, this will not change.