[Randamoozham]

Government is doing its part by making the continuous beep sound beyond 120 km/hr as well as making air bags mandatory. Interestingly I had came across an article in Hindu on installation of AI Cameras in India.

https://www.thehindu.com/news/nation...le66223108.ece

Forget about driving more than 80KM/HR in Kerala roads due to the Camera infrastructure. The traffic fines are awaiting for you if you are not careful. Having said that, I do not think it is a good idea to go with a blanket ban on the speed. I believe Self Restraint is the key.

[qaqa]

I agree that whether a given speed is "speeding" or not is dependent upon multiple factors including the nature of the road, the speed at which other traffic is moving etc. However, I very rarely have across situations where speeds of more than 120kmph do not constitute "speeding". My vote is therefore to have some sort of speed limitation system.

However, I do believe that the ability to drive at speeds faster than 120kpmh is essential for safety purposes. Some tight spots are best escaped by speeding out of them. Mistakes / incorrect judgement while overtaking can be mitigated to some extent by having the ability to speed-up.

If the only utility of > 120kpmh speeds is to address such emergency situations, why not have a system where -
a. There are continuous speed beeps at 120kmph (as mandated even now). The speed beeps can be made more irritating if possible
b. Speeds in excess of 120 kmph allowed only for brief bursts (20 sec? 30 sec?) so that it is only used for emergencies
c. Cool off period during which exceeding 120kmph once again is not permitted.
d. In certain situations which might indicate an emergency (say very rapid acceleration etc) the 120kmph cap is allowed to be breached.

[Arun Varma]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

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

That's quite the understatement!

I am always amazed at the whataboutism that follows a difficult suggestion! Yes, poor infra and road user behavior are also reasons and they too need to be fixed but that doesn't mean we ignore high speed as a (if not the) leading cause of accidents.

Irrespective of whether the speed limit should be 120 or 140, we need to talk about limiting speed on our roadways. This assumes even more importance especially considering the relatively poor infrastructure and road user behavior. The old adage of never adding speed to dysfunction stands good here. Furthermore, an ECU enforced speed limit is also more enforceable and controllable. The others, because of scale of implementation and the associated complexity, will take time (if at all).

Your other point - "Those highways 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." is also on the nose!

There are always race tracks for that! And lastly, there are too many exceptions being presented to make the rule, which to me doesn't make sense!

[qaqa]

Originally Posted by lina

Its funny this discussion is even taking place in a country where most roads have a speed limit of 80 or 100. Being in Bangalore and driving in South India I have not even seen a 120kmph speed limit board.

While this is somewhat off-topic, I recollect that NICE had a 120kmph speed limit until a couple of years ago. With 120kmph sign boards even. Now, it's down to 80kmph.

[dust-n-bones]

I agree there should be 'some' restraints on highway manners. Though a government mandated, ECU imposed limit seems a little harsh.

Am not sure why we want to re-invent what is already solved the world over with traffic challans. Look at what Bangalore police are doing for instance: https://economictimes.indiatimes.com...w/96131547.cms

Seems the right headed approach.

For this ECU mandate, a few problems for you to ponder over:
1. You may set the limit at 120 kmph, but you will not be able to stop a rash driver on a 2 lane country road with the speed limit at 60.
2. There are already highways in India where you would be 'under-speeding' if restricted at 120. https://mahasamruddhimahamarg.com/features-highlights/
3. We should always take a pause when recommending a 'ban', or baby-sitting from our mai-baap governments. Citizens in India need to take more responsibilities, and need less government in general. Think of our socialist decades of the 1970s.

[HowardRoark]

Originally Posted by tilt

Permit me to indulge in some reductio ad absurdum:

The limit is 80 like you recommend. If I drove at 81 I am technically overspeeding. Are you saying that the impact I have at 81 will kill me and the other guy and that both of us would have been saved had the impact been at 79 instead

This is a straw man. Yet yes you driving at 81 kmph will be more damaging than driving at 60kmph in case of an accident.

Let me come up with my own straw man argument... Since 1000 kmph will have same impact as 1001 kmph accident let us allow 1000 kmph vehicle on road? No one is asking for complete ban of vehicles not asking for unlimited speeding vehicles. Given our infrastructure, traffic conditions, animals and driver attitudes it seems like there should be a limit on the speed of a vehicle on the road. What that limit is upto the government and society to decide! I am okay with 80 or 120 or 140. Just like how I am okay with speed limit on roads I am okay speed limit on vehicle.

[alpha1]

Originally Posted by SS_36

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.

Very noble point, and the one that actually warrants a deep-thought answer.

In a similar fashion, I have never understood the point of allowing the sale of smoking tobacco product by the Govts when it has been clearly linked to cancers. Of course, just like in case of speeding, no one can with 100% accuracy predict the health issues based on smoking.

Similarly, in case of road accidents, several factors (unsafe roads, unruly behavior, and many more that can be gleaned from this thread) can be thrown in to contort the argument and divert the attention from the common cause in all accident caused mutilations & deaths - vehicle speed.

Some people like to answer that (tobacco question) by saying it is none of Govt's business to meddle with what choices I make in my life, and what action I take (e.g. smoking a cigarette). But these people forget that smoking caused health issue do not affect only the smoker but those who are in the vicinity (passive smoking), those who are related (health care cost burden on the entire family), on the entire country (govt hospitals are already burdened mercilessly). The same argument flows for the vehicle speed.

However, we all know the state of smoking ban (or shall I say prevalence).

[KL01toKA03]

A speed limit is already a ban on going above a certain speed. Since it has not been strictly/efficiently enforced, we are currently debating whether the government needs to enforce it by limiting the car.


I think that over the years with cars that are connected to the internet, it should be possible to enforce speed limits in a more efficient manner. I can think of the following possibilities:

1. Manufacturers working with the police to define the maximum speeds that their vehicles can achieve based on road conditions and traffic. This could mean different speed limits at different times of the day or dynamic speed limits based on real time conditions. If the vehicles are unable to go beyond a certain speed, then the infrastructure and personnel involved in enforcing speed limits could be avoided.

2. Law enforcement could rely on the data from the vehicles to issue speeding tickets.

Either way, I believe that technology could improve enforcement of speed limits.

[vamsi.kona]

The OP has raised a very interesting and valid point. Whether one agrees with the suggestions or not is quite another thing but to say we cannot/shouldn't do something about the point raised because we are also lacking in proper infra, driving manners etc may not be too apt. Actually those very reasons support the OP's point.

I am not sure if I want to go the same route as OP suggested, as I believe that we need to ensure speed limits but only limiting the top speed to 120 may still not achieve the actual target of reducing accidents as many roads in our country aren't even suitable for 80 Kmph leave alone 120. Very strict enforcement of speeds along with allowing for decent minimum speeds would go a long way. We can be a bit lax with minimum speeds but tops speeds have to be enforced very strictly. As MT_Hyderabad suggested once we have GPS capabilities in our vehicles proper enforcement will and can happen. Heavy monetary fines are very good at deterring people.

And I don't think that should be a big privacy issue as Google seems to track us even when you don't have location on.

PS-As a law abiding forum of very good standing, probably we shouldn't mention top speeds achieved in our reviews which are beyond the speed limits of the roads the vehicles are driven on unless the testing was done on a track.

[Bhargav7]

Originally Posted by alpha1

Some people like to answer that (tobacco question) by saying it is none of Govt's business to meddle with what choices I make in my life, and what action I take (e.g. smoking a cigarette). But these people forget that smoking caused health issue do not affect only the smoker but those who are in the vicinity (passive smoking), those who are related (health care cost burden on the entire family), on the entire country (govt hospitals are already burdened mercilessly). The same argument flows for the vehicle speed.

However, we all know the state of smoking ban (or shall I say prevalence).

I guess the need to have a speed limit, in general, is to save other road users and not the speeding vehicle alone. Considering that, comparing it with tobacco may not be accurate. Tobacco kills only the person who takes it. While a bad driver can take a handful of pedestrians along with him.

True - passive smokers can be harmed as well. To counter that, Government has banned smoking in public for a while now.

[tilt]

Originally Posted by SKC-auto

I support speed limits of 100kmph if that reduces accidents by 50%*SNIP*

I support any speed limit (even 40kph on a 6-lane highway) and any method of implementation/enforcement when it is backed by credible data. My point (and the rationale of my opinion" is only that restrictions are imposed based on "feelings".

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

Sir, your refugee in sarcasm and absurdity {by your own admission} is a reflection of an inability to accept that in a public forum there will be diverse views which each of us is welcome to agree or disagree with.

Oh, I certainly do accept that there are and will be opinions that differ from mine and I do welcome them. I also am perfectly willing and capable of changing my opinion based on credible information. It is just that I have yet to be provided with any.

I was hoping that you would counter my point with some, but all I see here is an opinion about my self rather than about the point I raised.

Cheers

Originally Posted by Bhargav7

*SNIP* While a bad driver can take a handful of pedestrians along with him.
*SNIP*

"Can'. not "will".

Plus, I am happy to see you said "bad" driver and not a "exceeding speed-limits" driver.

Cheers

[MyLife_MyCar]

Originally Posted by MT_Hyderabad

Few days back I shared my daschcam video. The bus was at a respectable speed for the narrow road on which it was, but still the lady wanted to overtake it!

https://Youtu.be/tITQ7M19Yrc

I can see a 2-wheeler in the opposite direction when this lady is tries to overtake and stops in the middle of road. Did she hit the 2-wheeler? I couldn't see 2-wheeler turning left or getting past the car.

[oakpr]

How about some creative solutions that'll allow to vent out road rage

• Designated rash driving tracks
• More and more recreational race tracks.
• Or combine the two concepts and let people have fun like they have on real roads today

Whenever one feels like, visit such tracks, pay the fees and clear your emotional channels by driving aggressively. They're back on real roads with a big grin of satisfaction and may actually show good road manners. It can be a very lucrative business to operate such tracks too!

For the excitement of technology based solutions, car companies can turn off all limiters when GPS indicates you're at such designated tracks. I remember Nissan GTR had such a feature.

[SilverHawk]

Even though all the above mentioned points are closely associated with facts, speed limit/lock enforcement isn't necessarily the best solution to the increasing no. of accidents, in general.

I believe, it is more about:
1) The road infrastructure (incl. of road signs, lights, banking of roads, overall road quality etc.)
2) Laws and their abidance (the overall execution and not just the fining stuff)
3) Issuance of licenses (the complete process)
4) General civic / social / moral sense

First 3 options are within transport department's control.

e.g. Recently I visited Tata Motors CVBU, Pune facility.
They have speed limit of 20 Km/Hr within the plant premises.
A digital board displays your current speed and cautions you to slow down if it is more than the permitted speed.
In case you overspeed 3 times, your vehicle would not be allowed in for a defined period.

Important part here is the speed limit warning is very clear and easily notable.
Plus the digital speed board kind of makes you think as if you are committing a crime.

This is not practically possible for on all the roads around, however, something similar could be worked out.

*PS: easier said than done, our transport authority is more keen on collecting fines than working out pragmatic solutions or improving the road infrastructure.
I personally don't drive beyond 120 km/hr for various reasons, however, I am of the opinion that imposing something mostly leads to provoke people in doing that exact stuff..!!

[MT_Hyderabad]

Originally Posted by tilt

Permit me to indulge in some reductio ad absurdum:

The limit is 80 like you recommend. If I drove at 81 I am technically overspeeding. Are you saying that the impact I have at 81 will kill me and the other guy and that both of us would have been saved had the impact been at 79 instead?
- -
OK, so let me give you some more sarcasm using public safety.

- Vehicles are dangerous, so all vehicles should have a pedestrian flag-bearer walking ahead
- Corollary to the above, no vehicle should be able to move any faster than a pedestrian.
- Most crashes in India are caused by women drivers, so women should not be permitted to drive. Source for this is the same source that cops use to claim speed as the cause for crashes.

Cheers

Oh, you caught my non-value adding sarcasm, take more of it.
I don't think an educated, well informed forum works like this.
Bringing women driving into this further drives us away from the topic. Sarcasm vs Hate speech vs Freedom of speech are well debated topics elsewhere, may not be a good place to discuss them here.

If you are interested to know how speed limits are created, may be you can create a separate thread(provided it doesn't exist already) and we all will contribute.

Originally Posted by tilt

I do not drive faster than 80, so nobody in India should need to.

Well...

I do not drive an automatic, so no one in India should need to.
I do not drink alcohol, so all alcohol should be banned in India...

It is the other way around. I follow traffic rules in India and everyone should follow traffic rules in India.
I dont murder anyone and follow the civil code of India, everyone should follow the same.

Speed limits are as per LAW. We all are bound to follow them, whether we agree to them or not.
Yes, courts allow full representation of the case and one can argue why 121 is not allowed and 119 is!? A 'like-minded' Judge may agree.

There are other places, where such Laws do not exist. One can drive an armored vehicle in some places on offer, at whatever speeds he/she likes. We don't have to feel caged in this set up!

Originally Posted by MyLife_MyCar

I can see a 2-wheeler in the opposite direction when this lady is tries to overtake and stops in the middle of road. Did she hit the 2-wheeler? I couldn't see 2-wheeler turning left or getting past the car.

The two wheeler was riding in the same direction as the red car; it turned right, into a petrol pump.