Omega Owners Forum
Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: STEMO on 24 July 2017, 21:32:39
-
Watching traffic cops on CH5, trying to catch a golf that's doing 150 on the motorway and up to 80-90 round the streets of Bradford. Futile.
The fastest any car can legally travel in this country is 70mph, apart from overtaking for a short distance and, no doubt, a few other scenarios. Why can't cars sold in this country be limited to, say, 100mph? What use to an every day driver is 150mph?
Police cars, of course, would not be limited.
-
Agreed for the most to be honest
I think manufacturers should just fit something to cars so police can turn them off with a remote control in the event they fail to stop :y
-
The technology must be there to do that James, but some lawyer will come along to bleat about civil liberties etc.
-
Even my poxy 1.4 astra will do over 100, why?
-
The technology must be there to do that James, but some lawyer will come along to bleat about civil liberties etc.
That and it'll take scrotes about a week to figure out how it's done and then start doing it for sh!ts and giggles. ::)
-
Because we still live in a partially free country. So we have the right to break the law, and the powers that be have the right to punish us if we get caught. Thas how a free society works.
-
The technology must be there to do that James, but some lawyer will come along to bleat about civil liberties etc.
That and it'll take scrotes about a week to figure out how it's done and then start doing it for sh!ts and giggles. ::)
They could still be limited though.
-
Agreed for the most to be honest
I think manufacturers should just fit something to cars so police can turn them off with a remote control in the event they fail to stop :y
That would have unintended consequences.
Cars in Japan are all limited to something like 130kmh...
-
A plonker of a White Van Man pulled out in front of me on the M49 today to overtake the car in front, but of course his van was limited to 60mph and the car he was trying to overtake sped up to 60mph and then sat there..... ::)
So if vans were limited to 100mph that would be a good thing IMO. :y ::) ;D
-
Wont be long before the speed you drive, acceleration is logged and charged. Speeding will be a think your dad did. Ironically the technology might, just might, then allow faster cruising speed.
Enjoy the speed and freedom while you can.
-
Watching traffic cops on CH5, trying to catch a golf that's doing 150 on the motorway and up to 80-90 round the streets of Bradford. Futile.
The fastest any car can legally travel in this country is 70mph, apart from overtaking for a short distance and, no doubt, a few other scenarios. Why can't cars sold in this country be limited to, say, 100mph? What use to an every day driver is 150mph?
Police cars, of course, would not be limited.
I've been batting on about this for ages. A few points.
1. Ego. People (blokes!) like the ability even if they never use it. Just having the badge on the back
2. Germans. With autobahns, some of which still have no speed limit, and the German car industry being such a global influence. If cars were not stupidly fast there would be little reason to buy a high end BM or Merc or whatever.
3. Genitals. Blokes drive with their cocks not with their brains
There ya go . . . .
-
Watching traffic cops on CH5, trying to catch a golf that's doing 150 on the motorway and up to 80-90 round the streets of Bradford. Futile.
The fastest any car can legally travel in this country is 70mph, apart from overtaking for a short distance and, no doubt, a few other scenarios. Why can't cars sold in this country be limited to, say, 100mph? What use to an every day driver is 150mph?
Police cars, of course, would not be limited.
The best thing that can be done for Bradford is to flatten the place along with 80% of it`s inhabitants and start again :-X
It`s not a place I ever take my car, way too many people driving uninsured and just do a runner in the event of an accident and most are never caught >:(
-
The traffic cop programmes should be banned too as no one ever seems to be suitably punished.
Jeremy Kyle for blokes.....
-
The car makers can then add another premium to the right hand drive cars >:(
Any retired folks would have an OAP plate :P deffo stay off the roads during peak hours.
Unemployed folks still takin the michael after 12 months, get to swop their cars for a bike.
They will also qualify for a bus pass, to be used for job seekin only :y
There you go, I`ve just sorted traffic congestion & the long term unemployed.
while we`re at it, second & third cars owned by a family will automatically qualify for higher VED rates if they buy diesel powered cars
Dead easy ;D that`s the air quality issue solved too .........next :D
-
I think manufacturers should just fit something to cars so police can turn them off with a remote control in the event they fail to stop :y
You'll love that when someone other than the police turns it off! And don't say "It'll be secure" because, well.. have you looked at the Internet lately? ;)
Actually the technology already exists, I believe, in current OnStar vehicles, and has already been compromised. Ah, yes: https://www.wired.com/2015/09/gm-took-5-years-fix-full-takeover-hack-millions-onstar-cars/
For the short of attention span: GM took 5 years to stop a criminal being able to remotely activate the brakes & transmission and, y'know, potentially kill you.
The technology must be there to do that James, but some lawyer will come along to bleat about civil liberties etc.
That and it'll take scrotes about a week to figure out how it's done and then start doing it for sh!ts and giggles. ::)
See above ;D I particularly like the fact that the researchers followed responsible disclosure (full disclosure: this stuff is my job) and GM effectively ignored them until someone went public, four years later. Of course, it's possible that GM were told to ignore it by, say, the US intelligence service, because you'd never see the NSA sitting on unpublished 0-days for.. oh, wait, you do.
-
This would be a pointless exercise as the age of the internal combustion engine for cars is coming to an end. In 25 years time all new cars will be electric.
In the meantime why waste money on fitting technology to a car to restrict speed (which as a licence holder you have "agreed to" legally as a condition of holding a licence) when the cars so fitted are soon to be obsolete? Electric cars will no doubt be driverless, so big brother will control everything the car does.
Finally, as Migv6 says, this is still a free country and so you should be free to choose if you are going to speed or not. Or do we want a nanny state to tell us what to do now rather than in the future? ::)
-
We are also free to take our cars to the Isle of Man, Germany, or anywhere else where there isn't a speed limit on certain roads.
And that's before you consider private roads, test tracks and every race track in the country which hold track days.
Then theres the moral as opposed to the legal question. Is there any good reason why you shouldn't do whatever speed you want to on a a long clear stretch of motorway at say, 5am in the morning ?
The "solutions" being suggested don't amount to a nanny state, they amount to a police state.
-
While we're at it, why don't we ban knives, and all wear government-mandated chastity belts, to be released only on production of evidence that the lady of your intentions is not your sister? (we'll have to come up with some other criteria to cover the fens, obviously). ;)
-
Watching traffic cops on CH5, trying to catch a golf that's doing 150 on the motorway and up to 80-90 round the streets of Bradford. Futile.
The fastest any car can legally travel in this country is 70mph, apart from overtaking for a short distance and, no doubt, a few other scenarios. Why can't cars sold in this country be limited to, say, 100mph? What use to an every day driver is 150mph?
Police cars, of course, would not be limited.
Boll*cks to that. That is the work of the 'nanny state' where nanny knows best. It is also the thin end of the wedge.
-
We are also free to take our cars to the Isle of Man, Germany, or anywhere else where there isn't a speed limit on certain roads.
And that's before you consider private roads, test tracks and every race track in the country which hold track days.
Then theres the moral as opposed to the legal question. Is there any good reason why you shouldn't do whatever speed you want to on a a long clear stretch of motorway at say, 5am in the morning ?
The "solutions" being suggested don't amount to a nanny state, they amount to a police state.
[/quote
This is the second time today I have agreed with Albitz. Highly unusual. :)
-
While we're at it, why don't we ban knives, and all wear government-mandated chastity belts, to be released only on production of evidence that the lady of your intentions is not your sister? (we'll have to come up with some other criteria to cover the fens, obviously). ;)
Yes......hand over total control and responsibility to 'the state' because whatever they do they do it for our own good.
-
Driver-less cars is the answer, that way when you get caught doing 150mph on the Motorway...... you respond, "wasn't me Officer, wasnt even looking out the window, was reading my Paper".
-
Reading through the handbook my car has something called an Event Data Recorder or EDR.
I presume this to be similar to the black box on a plane.
Not happy with this. :(
-
The EDR has data which shows....
Whether or not the driver and passenger seat belts were buckled.
How far the accelerator was being pressed by the driver.
How fast the car was travelling.
Jaguar say that if the police ask for the data they will provide it.
-
While we're at it, why don't we ban knives, and all wear government-mandated chastity belts, to be released only on production of evidence that the lady of your intentions is not your sister? (we'll have to come up with some other criteria to cover the fens, obviously). ;)
Yes......hand over total control and responsibility to 'the state' because whatever they do they do it for our own good.
This is what is known as Socialism. Deep down, you aren't one because you believe in freedom of the individual. ;)
-
While we're at it, why don't we ban knives, and all wear government-mandated chastity belts, to be released only on production of evidence that the lady of your intentions is not your sister? (we'll have to come up with some other criteria to cover the fens, obviously). ;)
Yes......hand over total control and responsibility to 'the state' because whatever they do they do it for our own good.
This is what is known as Socialism. Deep down, you aren't one because you believe in freedom of the individual. ;)
I believe socialism in the form of helping people in need and not allowing the powerful to take physical and financial advantage of the weak. Socialism in this form is a force for good. :y :y
I certainly do not believe in a totalitarian state of any description. Freedom to make our own choices is paramount. :y
-
The EDR has data which shows....
Whether or not the driver and passenger seat belts were buckled.
How far the accelerator was being pressed by the driver.
How fast the car was travelling.
Jaguar say that if the police ask for the data they will provide it.
Would you have purchased it with that knowledge?
-
The EDR has data which shows....
Whether or not the driver and passenger seat belts were buckled.
How far the accelerator was being pressed by the driver.
How fast the car was travelling.
Jaguar say that if the police ask for the data they will provide it.
Would you have purchased it with that knowledge?
Probably not, Al. But I imagine there is a similar device fitted to every recently manufactured Audi, BMW, Merc.....etc...etc. :-\
-
The EDR has data which shows....
Whether or not the driver and passenger seat belts were buckled.
How far the accelerator was being pressed by the driver.
How fast the car was travelling.
Jaguar say that if the police ask for the data they will provide it.
Would you have purchased it with that knowledge?
Probably not, Al. But I imagine there is a similar device fitted to every recently manufactured Audi, BMW, Merc.....etc...etc. :-\
There is a section on something similar in the back of the wife's Renault handbook.
-
The EDR has data which shows....
Whether or not the driver and passenger seat belts were buckled.
How far the accelerator was being pressed by the driver.
How fast the car was travelling.
Jaguar say that if the police ask for the data they will provide it.
Would you have purchased it with that knowledge?
Probably not, Al. But I imagine there is a similar device fitted to every recently manufactured Audi, BMW, Merc.....etc...etc. :-\
There is a section on something similar in the back of the wife's Renault handbook.
[/highlight]
Big brother is watching us all. :(
-
While we're at it, why don't we ban knives, and all wear government-mandated chastity belts, to be released only on production of evidence that the lady of your intentions is not your sister? (we'll have to come up with some other criteria to cover the fens, obviously). ;)
Yes......hand over total control and responsibility to 'the state' because whatever they do they do it for our own good.
This is what is known as Socialism. Deep down, you aren't one because you believe in freedom of the individual. ;)
I believe socialism in the form of helping people in need and not allowing the powerful to take physical and financial advantage of the weak. Socialism in this form is a force for good. :y :y
I certainly do not believe in a totalitarian state of any description. Freedom to make our own choices is paramount. :y
That isn't Socialism. Its fairness and basic human decency. The left would like us all to believe that they have ownership of this, but it doesn't take a sharp mind or a masters on history to demonstrate this to be completely untrue. ;)
Socialism and individual freedom are incompatible. Socialism is about society as opposed to individuals. I cant think of any country which has had a socialist system which hasn't greatly restricted the rights of individuals, which is why I'm am utterly opposed to it.
Remember that Jeremy Corbyns first response to the Grenfell fire was to demand the state confiscate private property in the form of seizing empty homes in the area. ::)
-
Well, when you put it like that...
-
While we're at it, why don't we ban knives, and all wear government-mandated chastity belts, to be released only on production of evidence that the lady of your intentions is not your sister? (we'll have to come up with some other criteria to cover the fens, obviously). ;)
Yes......hand over total control and responsibility to 'the state' because whatever they do they do it for our own good.
This is what is known as Socialism. Deep down, you aren't one because you believe in freedom of the individual. ;)
I believe socialism in the form of helping people in need and not allowing the powerful to take physical and financial advantage of the weak. Socialism in this form is a force for good. :y :y
I certainly do not believe in a totalitarian state of any description. Freedom to make our own choices is paramount. :y
That isn't Socialism. Its fairness and basic human decency. The left would like us all to believe that they have ownership of this, but it doesn't take a sharp mind or a masters on history to demonstrate this to be completely untrue. ;)
Socialism and individual freedom are incompatible. Socialism is about society as opposed to individuals. I cant think of any country which has had a socialist system which hasn't greatly restricted the rights of individuals, which is why I'm am utterly opposed to it.
Remember that Jeremy Corbyns first response to the Grenfell fire was to demand the state confiscate private property in the form of seizing empty homes in the area. ::)
Up to a point yes.
Generally speaking Conservative governments are unconcerned with high unemployment. Thatcher averaged around 3 million during the eleven years she held the reins.
They are relaxed because this gives 'unscrupulous private business' an easy ride. An opportunity to take advantage of it's workers. The higher the unemployment the more that people are worried about their jobs. The less likely they are to stand up for workers rights.
The same applied during the great depression in the 1930's. Huge unemployment meant that people put up with shit they shouldn't have to. Rogue employers took advantage of this.
-
The less they pay you the worse they treat you the more they expect of you. :)
-
Funnily enough I have just spent an hour watching a fascinating interview with Nigel Lawson where he was aked about unemployment during the Thatcher years.
He explained that had they not taken on the very difficult task of reshaping the economy and industry of the country, unemployment would have not only been higher, but would have been permanent.
We were the sick man of Europe (which is why it made some sense to join the common market when we did) with huge overmanning in both the public and private sectors. The situation was completely unsustainable and had to change.
They came up against the miners first. Joe Gormley (Scargills predecessor) and moderate Labour MP,s warned Lawson that Scargil was a Marxist, who was even too far left for the British Communist party. His only aim would be to bring down the elected Govt.and he would use the Union and its members to try to do this.
As we know, they took on Scargill and beat him, which killed off militant unionism in the private sector and allowed for the British economy to be completely reshaped.
This resulted in high unemployment, which caused much consternation and argument within the Govt. but Thatcher and Lawson knew there was no real alternative, and within 5 years we had one of the strongest economies in the world, and unemployment falling sharply.
What was done, wasn't nice or pleasant, but due to the unions being allowed to virtually run the country (and run it into the ground) during the 70,s, it was absolutely necessary.
If only we had someone in Govt. now with the vision and guts to do what really needs doing, rather than pandering to every bleeding heart liberal pressure group.
-
And lastly (maybe ;D) substitute high unemployment, for mass uncontrolled immigration and you get the same result on wages and job security, plus all the other consequences on culture, social cohesion etc. it brings.
Remind me which Govt. did this ? :)
-
As well as being an arsehole Scargill was an agitator who was drunk on his own importance. I believe many miners have the same view of him.
Thatcher took too much glee and pleasure from destroying the mining industry.
-
That's just a subjective view, which I doubt is true. Although I'm sure she took great satisfaction from beating Scargill. If she hadn't, the country was probably doomed.
Interestingly, Norman Tebbit said about five years ago, that with hindsight, his only big regret is that they didn't do a lot more to rebuild industry in the North, once they had curbed the unions.
-
That's just a subjective view, which I doubt is true. Although I'm sure she took great satisfaction from beating Scargill. If she hadn't, the country was probably doomed.
Interestingly, Norman Tebbit said about five years ago, that with hindsight, his only big regret is that they didn't do a lot more to rebuild industry in the North, once they had curbed the unions.
The North.... northern powerhouse. Yes the mistake was concentrating on London.
-
Rumour has it that Maggie, Dennis, and Cecil Parkinson danced naked around a fire in the woods after the last of the miners returned to work. :)
-
Isn't this supposed to be a thread about modern motor cars being too fast for dear old STMO? :)
-
I think we put that argument out of its misery on page one. ;D
-
Isn't this supposed to be a thread about modern motor cars being too fast for dear old STMO? :)
Don't worry. It's quite entertaining listening to two old farts going on about prehistoric politics. ;D
-
You don't know where your going, unless you know where you've been. ;)
-
The EDR has data which shows....
Whether or not the driver and passenger seat belts were buckled.
How far the accelerator was being pressed by the driver.
How fast the car was travelling.
Jaguar say that if the police ask for the data they will provide it.
Would you have purchased it with that knowledge?
Probably not, Al. But I imagine there is a similar device fitted to every recently manufactured Audi, BMW, Merc.....etc...etc. :-\
As do 15yr old Omegas....
-
This would be a pointless exercise as the age of the internal combustion engine for cars is coming to an end. In 25 years time all new cars will be electric.
In the meantime why waste money on fitting technology to a car to restrict speed (which as a licence holder you have "agreed to" legally as a condition of holding a licence) when the cars so fitted are soon to be obsolete? Electric cars will no doubt be driverless, so big brother will control everything the car does.
Finally, as Migv6 says, this is still a free country and so you should be free to choose if you are going to speed or not. Or do we want a nanny state to tell us what to do now rather than in the future? ::)
.......and to prove my point about all cars becoming electric:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40718892
;)
-
Easily the worst news I've read in a while.
-
.......and to prove my point about all cars becoming electric:
The policy is all electric or hybrid. Hybrid = burns petrol to generate electricity to drive the motors. By that definition my omega is hybrid, it burns petrol to charge the battery and power the (heater blower fan) motor. Happy days ;D
-
...l
The fastest any car can legally travel in this country is 70mph, apart from overtaking for a short distance and, no doubt, a few other scenarios. Why can't cars sold in this country be limited to, say, 100mph? .
Because fast cars are safer .... :D https://youtu.be/KGkKDaYd3Mo
I knew the video was around somewhere .......
-
Of course here we are being all protective of our diesel or petrol cars when the reality is to cut pollution there will have to be a big reduction in car numbers. That will be popular.
Interesting video. I used to have an Anglia. ;D
-
...l
The fastest any car can legally travel in this country is 70mph, apart from overtaking for a short distance and, no doubt, a few other scenarios. Why can't cars sold in this country be limited to, say, 100mph? .
Because fast cars are safer .... :D https://youtu.be/KGkKDaYd3Mo
I knew the video was around somewhere .......
I remember this.
An Anglia would be the perfect car for STMO.
75 MPH on a good day and enough room on the back seat for a thermos flask, tartan picnic rug and whippet. :y
-
Soon, cars will "know" where they are and limit your speed based on GPS or RFI tags on the road signs.
I very rarely rarely achieve the speed limit in my 150 Mph car, because pessimitic regarding my life expectancy, were I to be involved in an accident, and because I actually seem to make faster progress, by being in the correct lane at the right time.
-
So you're the sod ahead causing all the sudden braking with your random lane changes... ::)