New 2010 Ford Focus

Forums › Off topic › New 2010 Ford Focus

pebbles

741 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#26983 9-Oct-2008 12:30

Now I'm all for safety in cars, especially in us young ones as we're naughty drivers and all but...

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4720220a28.html <-- to me thats just a little too creepy what about all of you?

scottjpalmer

6032 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 790

Moderator

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#170126 9-Oct-2008 12:49

Not such a bad idea ;-)

alasta

6889 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3363

Trusted

Subscriber

#170140 9-Oct-2008 13:22

I have concerns about having a set limit on the vehicle's maximum speed as this could become a safety issue, for example increasing the time exposed to danger during a passing maneouvre.

We probably won't see this feature here anytime soon anyway as the Focus sold in the North American market is very different from the European models that are available in New Zealand.

StrangeOne

10 posts

Wannabe Geek

#170392 10-Oct-2008 11:28

This press release http://media.ford.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=29172 states the speed is limited to 80mph with use of the key - which is around 128km/h. That seems fair enough to me.

The volume limiter on the audio system would be more of an annoyance to me than the speed limiter. In fact, I wouldn?t mind if all cars were limited to 128km/h. Makes more sense than the ridiculously high limits of 180km/h for Japanese cars and 250km/h for European cars. I probably wouldn't even notice

I'd suggest that if you need to go that fast to pass someone, you should reconsider whether or not they need passing. :P

But, if I were a parent I'd rather shell out $1000 and get the kid a cheap runabout so that they could have their own personal freedom over having them borrow my car all the time. It sounds like a great product for corporate fleets and rental car agencies though.

alasta

6889 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3363

Trusted

Subscriber

#170407 10-Oct-2008 12:55

StrangeOne: This press release http://media.ford.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=29172 states the speed is limited to 80mph with use of the key - which is around 128km/h. That seems fair enough to me.

The volume limiter on the audio system would be more of an annoyance to me than the speed limiter. In fact, I wouldn?t mind if all cars were limited to 128km/h. Makes more sense than the ridiculously high limits of 180km/h for Japanese cars and 250km/h for European cars. I probably wouldn't even notice

I'd suggest that if you need to go that fast to pass someone, you should reconsider whether or not they need passing. :P

Nonsense. I regularly get up to 140km/h when passing another vehicle on a straight road with no other adjoining roads because under those conditions it is considered best practice to take any reasonable action to minimise the amount of time spent in the opposing lane.

How fast the other vehicle is travelling is irrelevant, because regardless of that passing at a higher speed will always make the passing maneouvre faster. With New Zealand drivers being as immature as they are I also find that often vehicles travelling at particularly low speeds will attempt to speed up as I'm passing them.

bazzer

3438 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 267

Trusted

#170419 10-Oct-2008 14:32

alasta:
StrangeOne: This press release http://media.ford.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=29172 states the speed is limited to 80mph with use of the key - which is around 128km/h. That seems fair enough to me.

The volume limiter on the audio system would be more of an annoyance to me than the speed limiter. In fact, I wouldn?t mind if all cars were limited to 128km/h. Makes more sense than the ridiculously high limits of 180km/h for Japanese cars and 250km/h for European cars. I probably wouldn't even notice

I'd suggest that if you need to go that fast to pass someone, you should reconsider whether or not they need passing. :P

Nonsense. I regularly get up to 140km/h when passing another vehicle on a straight road with no other adjoining roads because under those conditions it is considered best practice to take any reasonable action to minimise the amount of time spent in the opposing lane.

How fast the other vehicle is travelling is irrelevant, because regardless of that passing at a higher speed will always make the passing maneouvre faster. With New Zealand drivers being as immature as they are I also find that often vehicles travelling at particularly low speeds will attempt to speed up as I'm passing them.

Can I hit 200kph passing? That will certainly minimise the passing time. I would think if a car is travelling at the max legal speed (100kph) and you pass at 128kph, that is the equivalent of passing a stationary car at 28kph. You'll need an additional ~100m to pass that car (i.e. 2s each side) which you should be able to cover in 12s at that speed (compared to 9s at 140kph). If you need more than that, then as stated previously maybe you shouldn't be passing. I'm not sure which section of the Road Code advocates or condones breaking the legal speed limit in an overtaking manoeuvre.

I honestly can't believe you wrote that. Best practice by whom? Surely not the Police? In my example, why would you be passing a car travelling at 100kph anyway? So you can be at the "front" of the queue? I agree, NZ drivers are very immature.

38894

80 posts

Master Geek

#170439 10-Oct-2008 16:06

Well I bought my own first car with my own money (As my kids will also do) so this wouldn't have been an issue for me anyway, had it been there however I probably would have looked into the mechanics of it, disabled the device and bypassed it, somewhat the way I did the immobiliser that was on that same first car of mine but didn't have a key fob to disable it (And no I didn't steal it, the previous owner had lost the key fob for it). This ford device may well be controlled through a central cpu, in which case it would be less work and easier to do than the immobiliser was.

I think this might be a step too far, but in this world of "big brother is watching", it was only inevitable that someone would create it.

Considering I got a speeding ticket the other week, while on a straight road, in the dry, at night and with no other cars around, when I was barely over the legal limit and had just come down a hill, was photographed by an unmarked van at the side of the road with all it's lights off (A safety hazard in itself) I highly doubt NZ police are in a position to deem things safe or not when it comes to speed.

People should not be brainwashed by the speed kills campaign by the police, speed doesn't kill, the driver being irresponsible with their speed kills, a massive flash of light out of nowhere at midnight on a rural road because the police wanted to generate another $175 from an unsuspecting otherwise law abiding motorist could cause an accident and kill someone, overtaking at 140kmh on a straight piece of road to overtake someone doing 80kmh and make sure you're already past them and no longer on the wrong side of the road seems reasonable and in fact sensible to me. Let's not forget the drivers who go slow as hell round all the corners (And we have a lot here) and then speed up on the straights, they're advised not to do it in the road code, yet they do it, should they be exempt from the road code and yet everyone else has to stick to it like glue and suffer?

Speed Kills is like saying "Smoking causes Gangreen" No, it doesn't, not washing yourself, keeping your socks on for ten weeks, getting a cut and letting it get infected without cleaning it or seing a doctor, eating a crappy diet etc can cause the gangreen, smoking will just help it a long a little bit if you're stupid enough to have done everything else to cause the gangreen.

Samsung

Shop now on Samsung phones, tablets, TVs and more (affiliate link).

bazzer

3438 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 267

Trusted

#170448 10-Oct-2008 16:30

Hollow: overtaking at 140kmh on a straight piece of road to overtake someone doing 80kmh and make sure you're already past them and no longer on the wrong side of the road seems reasonable and in fact sensible to me

I suppose you can say that because you are such a good driver, but what about all the other idiots? If it's safe to drive 140kph in a passing manoeuvre, why limit it to that? Why can't I drive 140kph whenever I consider it safe and reasonable? It would get me off the roads quicker and lower my chances of an incident.

Hollow: Speed Kills is like saying "Smoking causes Gangreen" No, it doesn't, not washing yourself, keeping your socks on for ten weeks, getting a cut and letting it get infected without cleaning it or seing a doctor, eating a crappy diet etc can cause the gangreen, smoking will just help it a long a little bit if you're stupid enough to have done everything else to cause the gangreen.

I don't believe your analogy is remotely accurate. It doesn't take much to go wrong at 140kph for it to really make a difference and it doesn't have to be your fault.

If I had kids they should be driving responsibly. I like to think I could trust them to, but if I can't couldn't one of the conditions of using my car (or any car until they're 18 perhaps) be that they are subject to such a device.

38894

80 posts

Master Geek

#170450 10-Oct-2008 16:39

bazzer:

I suppose you can say that because you are such a good driver, but what about all the other idiots? If it's safe to drive 140kph in a passing manoeuvre, why limit it to that? Why can't I drive 140kph whenever I consider it safe and reasonable? It would get me off the roads quicker and lower my chances of an incident.

No I can say that because it's common sense period, good driver or bad driver. I made no comment on how good I am at driving and you don't know me well enough to comment on my driving so this is pointless other than to try and insult me, which you didn't.

bazzer:

I don't believe your analogy is remotely accurate. It doesn't take much to go wrong at 140kph for it to really make a difference and it doesn't have to be your fault.

And yet you think the slogans "Speed Kills" and "Smoking causes gangreen" are unquestionably accurate I assume?

bazzer:
If I had kids they should be driving responsibly. I like to think I could trust them to, but if I can't couldn't one of the conditions of using my car (or any car until they're 18 perhaps) be that they are subject to such a device.

Agreed but isn't that what the provisional and limited licenses are for? NZ has more cops on the road than I ever saw in the UK or the rest of Europe, period. I just don't see that this kind of measure is needed really, however the fact that it is there for parents to use if they so wish I suppose or as someone else suggested for corporate company cars etc, isn't too bad of an idea.

Batman

Mad Scientist
30014 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6217

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#170465 10-Oct-2008 17:55

just my 2 cents ... speed itself does not kill. things that predispose to an impact causes injury with rises exponentially in proportion to speed at impact due to deceleration x mass = force.

example: taking 20k corners at 60ks in a 50k zone will cause momentary loss of control which will probably result in a more serious loss of control unless you're greg murphy.
taking a 150k corner at 140k in a 100k zone will probably not do anything. taking a 75k corner at 120k in a 100k zone could.
crashing into a 100k car travelling at 1kmh will kill you.
crashing into a tree at 50k sideways will kill you.

alcohol predisposes to impacts - install breathalysers.
idiocy predisposes to impacts - no teen is to travel with another teen. (it does not matter what mom says "my child is a safe driver" - bollocks.)
cutting suspensions, replacing steering wheel with a home made device etc are.

ford's idea? if teens drive in there i dont think it will do much. in fact if you're trying to overtake a 90k 16 wheeler travelling at 100k ... seriously, if you EVER do that, and the road happens to take a 2 degree descent, you're going to hell. plain as that.

Batman

Mad Scientist
30014 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6217

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#170467 10-Oct-2008 18:04

I suppose you can say that because you are such a good driver, but what about all the other idiots? If it's safe to drive 140kph in a passing manoeuvre, why limit it to that? Why can't I drive 140kph whenever I consider it safe and reasonable? It would get me off the roads quicker and lower my chances of an incident.

there is no answer to a 140 overtake manouvre. i once overtook a 4wd doing 145k on my subaru impreza sti with a large wing in front of a cop with a radar gun. i was peeing in my pants. i slowed down to 100ks immediately post overtake. have been waiting for the ticket for 2 years now.i do hope cops understand the concept of "time exposed to danger" concept. that one certainly did.

why can't you drive at 140k whenever? well you can. may you? in the eyes of the law you may not. it's a game of "optimum". as i have said before, driving at 100ks in the snow is stupid. driving at 140ks whenever you like is probably stupid. which one will kill you?

plots graphs of danger vs speed, economic vs speed, public acceptance vs speed, etc etc and you'll get an optimum curve (graph). at the moment it's 100.

38894

80 posts

Master Geek

#170468 10-Oct-2008 18:08

Breathalisers in cars as standard, requiring that you blow into them before allowing to start the car. - AN EXCELLENT invention which DOES exist and SHOULD be a requirement in new cars instead of these STUPID side curtain airbags which just adds to your repair bill, is only going to be as reliable as your normal existing airbag and isn't going to make a blind bit of difference in the event you get hit by a Semi or a train.

Demolition Man Expanding foam - This SHOULD be invented and implemented but will only be pheasable once the world economy crashes so much that all things are traded for other items again instead of money, you know a turnip for a goat leg etc.

Sorry we seem to have gone somewhat offtopic here and it's partly my fault :D Whoops

As for all the deceleration x mass = force stuff, that's just another fancy way of saying "It's not the speed that kills you, it's the sudden stops" which is again true and again proving the phrase "Speed Kills" is not only innacurate it's technically slander on speed and were speed to take up a class action against the NZ police I would stand as a witness. Oh dear I've wandered off topic again.

I'll shut up now.

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

alasta

6889 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3363

Trusted

Subscriber

#170491 10-Oct-2008 20:08

bazzer: Can I hit 200kph passing? That will certainly minimise the passing time.

It depends on whether you have complete confidence that your vehicle can be kept under control at that speed which in turn depends on a number of factors surrounding the vehicle, driver and conditions. That's why I qualified my comment with the phrase 'any reasonable action'.

I'm not sure which section of the Road Code advocates or condones breaking the legal speed limit in an overtaking manoeuvre. I honestly can't believe you wrote that. Best practice by whom? Surely not the Police?

Exceeding the speed limit for any purpose in New Zealand is illegal, and when I saw a vehicle doing what looked like around 110km/h in a passing lane while passing me and got pulled over as a result it reinforced my long standing belief that the New Zealand police are completely clueless when it comes to road safety. If you want quality road safety advice then I suggest you refer to European sources.

In my example, why would you be passing a car travelling at 100kph anyway? So you can be at the "front" of the queue? I agree, NZ drivers are very immature.

Personally I wouldn't but if I'm sitting on 100km/h as I usually do and someone wants to pass me then I have no problem with that.

What amazes me is that most New Zealanders tailgate the vehicle that they're intending to pass immediately before pulling out. Ask any professional driver and they will tell you that you should leave a reasonable gap between yourself and the vehicle in front, accelerate quickly while still in the left lane as soon as a clear section of road appears, then make a decision as to whether to proceed or abort the maneouvre once your speed has increased, and only then pull out into the opposing lane to complete the maneouvre. Sadly driver testing in this country seems to be more focussed on things like parallel parking and three point turns which have little or no impact on safety.

We could also benefit from having a few educational ads like the ones that Peter Brock used to present years ago, rather than the constant onslaught of dead and dying road accident victims.

38894

80 posts

Master Geek

#170495 10-Oct-2008 20:22

Alasta you just became a god to me!

I have to say the Europeans are still pretty bad drivers but when it comes to road laws and the like they tend to make a lot more sense, for example

An unmarked vehicle which has no association with the police force, parked at the side of the road at night, with it's lights off and a big camera hanging out the back ready to unleash a huge blinding flash to all and sundry is not as safe as having marked cars parked at the side of the road, with lights on to indicate a vehicle/obstacle is there and using a night vision camera to capture the offending driver without blinding every other driver on the road and the cows in the next field as well. Considering I was given a parking ticket for being 97cm from someones drive instead of 100cm however and was told that the parking wardens SKETCH!!!!! was going to be more acceptable in court than my digital photo on my phone of where the vehicle was parked I doubt night vision cameras will be in the hands of NZ Police anytime soon.

Having clearly marked BRIGHT FLOURESCANT speed cameras (Static ones I mean) makes far more sense to road SAFETY!!!!!!!!!, did I say SAFETY!!!!!!!!!!!!, than having a very dull coloured, yet EXTREMELY well hidden camera behind a bush or a sign. The latter is purely a cash making exercise and has F*** ALL to do with safety, if you don't know it's there you won't slow down for it (If you're a fast driver that is of course, I never do more than 49KPH) yet if you can see it you'll actually slow down, rather than speeding up after it you're also more likely to stay slowed down as in the U.K. a speed camera actually DOES mean it's an accident blackspot, unlike the one near my house here which is on a piece of dual carriageway where only a 2 foot tall muppet who couldnt' see out the windscreen could have an accident, or the one further down the road that is hidden from view deliberately by a road sign which is on an even wider piece of STRAIGHT dual carriageway where even the 2 foot muppet would survive.

As for Joker97, if you're still waiting for a ticket it's probably not because he recognised your manouver was safe, he was more likely grabbing a kip in the back. From what I have seen of NZ Police speed traps they are not set up for safety reasons or for recognising common sense, they are simply there to prove a point and make cash. Sorry but it's true.