h a l f b a k e r y
Outside the bag the box came in.

meta:

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.

 user: pass:
register,

# mandatory acceleration limit

Enact a law limiting the rate of acceleration on all cars
 (+6, -38) [vote for, against]

A law that would limit the rate of acceleration on all internal combustion vehicles would reduce the need for horsepower and so save fuel as well as lives. Electric and other low emission vehicles could be exempted from the law to encourage their production. Older cars could be retrofitted with speed governors and heavy fines could be levied on offenders. Offenders could be detected with radar.
 — amyoke, May 14 2002

4 Most Dangerous Cars http://moneycentral...ure/basics/8135.asp
"The Camaro, the Corvette, the Firebird and the Mustang". From MSN. [pottedstu, May 15 2002]

Quantitized Speed for Cars http://www.halfbake...0Speed_20for_20Cars
link for [bungston]'s comment [krelnik, Oct 19 2002]

Wouldn't limiting *acceleration* just limit how quickly your vehicle could attain top velocity? You can theoretically accelerate at a constant speed of 1 km/h for a year or so and get up to about 60,000 km/h. Assuming no air resistance, that is. Or gravity. And unlimited fuel. And completely straight roads. And no friction. But you get the idea. <g>
 — jester, May 14 2002

"I saw that he wasn't going to stop but I couldn't get out of his way."
 — bristolz, May 14 2002

"Ma'am, do you know why I stopped you today? I clocked you doing 10 miles per hour per second in a 5 mile per hour per second zone."
 — half, May 14 2002

I think a mandatory minimum acceleration would be a good thing, too. "I'm sorry sir, but your LeCar is just going to have to be impounded because it's just too pathetic."
 — RayfordSteele, May 14 2002

 If you would like to experience what an implementation of this idea would be like, borrow someone's old diesel powered Mercedes. If you're a real glutton for punishment, run the A/C.

If you're the type that likes to drive with your foot to the floor then this is the car for you. You'll have no choice.
 — half, May 14 2002

Hah! Slower in molasses in January those are.
 — bristolz, May 14 2002

A top speed governor would be good too. (80 mph). I chose a limit to acceleration (and not horsepower or torque) to increase safety and save fuel to accomodate different shape cars and motorcycles. Top speed is already limited by law and enforced by radar. But the rate at which you get to top speed is not limited at all and that is what I would like to see addressed. A low horsepower car can break the speed limit if given enough time. Corvettes are the most dangerous car you can own. If the Corvette was limited to the same rate as everyone else it would be a much safer car and consume much less fuel. Limiting the rate of acceleration of all cars to a rate slightly lower than the present average would make most large engines redundant. If only horsepower were limited, you would still have the problem of smaller, lighter cars and motorcycles zipping around dangerously. Police cars would of course be exempt. By the way, horsepower = torque x rpm divided by 5252
 — amyoke, May 15 2002

The US Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, based on many years of study, reckons the most dangerous cars in the US are the Camaro, the Corvette, the Firebird and the Mustang, with the Corvette worst of all. However, this is explained as being due to the sort of driver they attract, rather than any quality or flaw of the vehicle itself. (See links)
 — pottedstu, May 15 2002

 If the stats were adjusted for losses due to the value of semi-tractors, diesels are probably a safer place to be. In many ways I'm making the statement without justification, so feel free to criticize my point of view.

<rant>BTW, I nearly had a GMC 2500 passenger door flung open into my passenger side windscreen yesterday and that was an unnerving experience. Seems that a youngster (I'd guess 25 y/o F, about 5'5") popped the door from inside because she had to walk aroung the thing to remove some personal items from her passenger compartment floor. I'm filling in detail, but the implication was that her door was so high for her that all that stepping up was too annoying to do. Guess if I'm collecting her insurance it should be worth it!</rant>
 — reensure, May 19 2002

 Unless your intention is that at a traffic signal everyone should be able to floor it and have their cars accellerate in unison I'm not quite sure what you're aiming to accomplish.

 If someone accellerates faster than the car in front of them and thereby causes a collision, that person should obviously be held responsible. But if someone accellerates faster than the car behind them, how is anyone hurt? Is your complaint that the driver of the car behind will be made to feel inferior because of the large gap in front of him?

As for complaining about fuel economy, attaching an accelleration-limiter to a sports car would not improve fuel economy. Internal combustion engines are by their nature most efficient at producing power when operated at wide open throttle and moderately high RPM's. The reason that cars with larger engines are often less efficient than those with smaller engines is that larger engines, when operated at peak efficiency, would produce more power than is needed to keep the vehicle traveling at uniform speed. Throttling the engine reduces fuel consumption per second, but not as much as it reduces power.
 — supercat, May 20 2002

Mandatory underwear.
 — entremanure, May 20 2002

'vettes are unstable at high speeds as - how do I put this - their rear ends wag a bit.
 — thumbwax, May 20 2002

what is wrong with going from 0-speed limit as fast as possible?... if you want to keep people from speeding where they shouldnt ... aka 70 in a 25 with small kids playing .. then perhaps a gps with a speed control system would be better .. but then again you can't asume that a system in a car can acount for every situation that could arise .. and not being able to control the car if its nessisary could be just as dangerous... hell while we are at it .. why not have a car that wont start unless you give it a nice wiff of your breath to make sure your not drunk?...eh? ... eh?
 — Speed8500, May 20 2002

 ¯Speed8500: /…gps with a speed control system would be better …/ is a good implementation of GPS. Modify the feature slightly to include manual override (or police-via-spaceshot override) to cover driver liability in special situations. Also, if you have time, search for *Halfbaked* suggestions that fit this concept and post your thoughts there as annotations or links here. ;-)

BTW, Welcome to Halfbakery.
 — reensure, May 20 2002

This would be completely unsafe. watch a NASCAR race. the cars are all "equalized," to keep the race interesting. when they don't get spread out and one driver wrecks, he takes out 30 other cars with him. some of you have to drive tiny, slow cars so the rest of us will be safe.
 — efarns, May 20 2002

I agree that we should limit mandatory acceleration.
 — beauxeault, May 20 2002

I'll tell you what's mandatory. Speed up, or get the hell out of my way.
 — thumbwax, May 20 2002

Amyoke I am positive you are one of those people I was just talking about. You know, a "know-it-all"-I.Q. of 79, ego of 79,000,000- who needs to keep their thoroughly idiotic ideas to themselves. You are about....please let me know before you get on the road. Anyone who thinks a Corvette is the most dangerous car on the road has to be....well...simply a moron. The Corvette has four wheel independent suspension so it absorbs bumps quite well without throwing you all over the road. The Corvette has some of the best brakes of any American car. The road holding ability is excellent. That dangerous acceleration you speak of-you don't drive much, huh?-could very well save your life by getting you out of the way of an oncoming, out of control, car. I'll be praying for you-you need it-you have obviously smoked too much crack cocaine and killed what little I.Q. you had.

 [imzadi]- "The US Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, based on many years of study, reckons the most dangerous cars in the US are the Camaro, the Corvette, the Firebird and the Mustang, with the Corvette worst of all."

And as pottedstu also pointed out, this is probably due to the kind of person who drives a corvette. Nevertheless, you should always read the whole post before calling people nasty names- if you can't manage that, you should keep your "thoroughly idiotic ideas" to yourself.
 — timo, Aug 18 2002

 If you stop at a red light on a 60-mph road and nobody is around, then going from 0-60 in .25 seconds is not illegal unless you go over the speed limit or your car is out of control.

 Also, the most dagerous car in the world is the one with the lowest saftey rating. You can drive a corvette like a crown vic, just don't floor it.

It would be a better idea just to require lawn mower engines on all cars
 — dtstyle, Aug 18 2002

There is currently no way of telling how fast the car accelerates at present. Imagine all the acceleration tickets that there would be as a result: so it would just be good luck without being deprived of your hard earned \$\$\$.
 — smokeyjohnson, Aug 19 2002

 Actually, I think this is a good idea. May be impractical, but if possible it would have several benefits.

 Reduce noise pollution in residential areas (from the moron who likes to tear around at 2 am on empty streets, reaching the speed limit as quickly as possible after each turn)

 Reduce fuel consumption. It was claimed otherwise above, yet I've heard from someone who rode on a car with miles per gallon indicator that increasing the revs had a drastic effect.

All those complaining seem to be assuming it would be incredibly restrictive, yet it could be set at a point where careful drivers could continue as normal. If you're not a careful driver then I have no sympathy, you shouldn't be driving.
 — Loris, Aug 19 2002

Why dont we just teach people how to drive?
 — rBg, Aug 20 2002

 Why don't we licence drivers of passenger cars the way that we licence pilots ?

 For instance, a Class A PPL entitles you to fly a single engine aircraft up to about 2500 Kg in most jurisdictions. If you want more engines, more power/weight/speed, you have to convert to a higher rating.

 Ditto driving licences. Passing a basic driving test entitles you to drive a small, low powered car (or "target" as they will become known). Passing successively higher levels of test entitles you to drive successively more powerful and capable vehicles. No age limits; if you can demonstrate the skill and (importantly) the maturity to drive a fast car at age 19 then this should be permitted - all the young driver has to do is find the money for the insurance. Importantly, the rating would also include details of the roads and conditions you would be permitted to drive in.

 Driving a vehcle in a class you were not rated for would incur a severe penalty, unless it was a demonstrable emergency, or you were "converting" under supervision of a rated driver.

 Speed limits would become advisory; however, if the driver were shown to be travelling at a speed inappropriate to the prevailing conditions, the penalties would be more severe than at present.

I don't think derating vehicle performance will either save fuel or improve road safety.
 — 8th of 7, Aug 20 2002

So, what would the automotive equivalent of an unlimited low level waiver be?
 — bristolz, Aug 20 2002

High acceleration is safer than low acceleration. Anything that gets me out of the way of a red Mustang is ok in my book. BTW, don't get in front of an old Volvo. Those guys are fearless.
 — drdan, Aug 21 2002

To invoke a rule to this effect is really shameful. I also agree that Interstate speed limits are equally useless. I'm not saying change city speed limits or where it creates a hazardous situation. If someone wants to drive 95 on a frozen highway, let em.. we need to weed out the gene pool some anyways. You're asking them to yet again take away more of our freedom. Hell why bother driving at all. Why not make everyone ride public transit. Uniform acceleration and speed. What if your vehicle becomes stuck.. Oh i'm sorry my 4x4 can't pull you out, cause of the acceleration governor they require now. All of you in favor of such a blatent freedom hacking need to get on your knees and tell me you love me. *ZIP*
 — TIMV, Sep 20 2002

Huh? Just because you are afraid of velocity, doesn't mean it should be against the law.
 — bspollard, Sep 20 2002

If anything, there needs to be a law enforcing a MINIMUM acceleration rate. Have you ever been behind a cement truck?!
 — jamesxi, Sep 20 2002

What about a monday to friday acceleration limiter (rush hour traffic 'n' all) with a weekend minimum acceleration limiter (it's time to play!)... mmm GTi (This system should incorporate the GPS system as suggested by Speed8500 that can limit muppets who think its clever to speed in residential areas and 8th tiered license system)
 — Sunshine, Sep 21 2002

 I misread this as mandatory accelleration _unit_. Now there is a fine idea. People drive in a lane on the interstate with no idea of how fast or slow they should be going - holding up traffic or flying along at unsafe speeds. With mandatory accelleration units, each lane would be like a row of cars on a train. When you wanted to kick it up or down 10 mph, you would just switch lanes to one faster or one slower. No-one would overtake you and you would overtake no-one. The farthest left lane would be reserved for those using speed units over the limit. People driving in this lane would automatically be ticketed by hidden camera-bots.

Well, there is a whole seperate idea, I guess. But I already posted a car idea today so I will leave this down here. Don't want to wear you folks out.
 — bungston, Oct 19 2002

And I misread this as some sort of mandatory minimum acceleration -- a more interesting concept than governors. I had some salient points to make, but after I'd read halfway through, I couldn’t for the life of me remember what they were.
 — ldischler, Oct 19 2002

[bungston] The idea "Quantized Speed for Cars" which is pretty close to what you mentioned there. See link.
 — krelnik, Oct 19 2002

Limiting acceleration is as simple as limiting throttle travel. It can also be programmed into a car's ECM PROM chip. Going to a "taller" final drive ratio would also serve to limit acceleration, while also possibly increasing mileage. The idea is certainly "doable," which makes it all the more sinister. If this becomes a trend, we'll all be driving dayglo orange 4-door Mercedes diesel sedans.
 — whlanteigne, Oct 26 2004

This one's a definite bone. Apart from taking all the fun out of driving (next you will be proposing G-Limits for corners), the acceleration of cars is much more at nearly standstill. To keep the acceleration the same at higher speeds would require much higher torque than most cars have at present.
Consider also that a human can out accelerate a car from a standing start. Imagine being pulled over at pedestrian crossings for stepping out too quickly.
 — Ling, Oct 26 2004

You went from 20 to 22 miles per hour a little too fast Ma'am. Hand over your driving licence.
 — bookends, Jun 09 2005

There's some real merit to this basic idea. I recently test drove a Prius. It displays the "real time" mileage, i.e. the actual mileage at any given instant. When you press the gas pedal the mpg drops to something like 8!! In a Prius! Now, convert that to the wanton guzzling that takes place in ordinary cars when the light turns green. Conversely, imagine how much fuel would be saved if folks were incented not to tromp the gas pedal.
 — crater, Jun 09 2005

 // I'll tell you what's mandatory. Speed up, or get the hell out of my way.

 I intentionally drive slowly when one of you shows up behind me, just to piss you off. For every honk I'm gonna slow down another 5.

Yes, we do exist, but you created us.
 — omegatron, Jun 10 2005

No, you created your selfish selves.
 — bristolz, Jun 10 2005

 [annotate]

back: main index