Poorly informed feed-back from other speed limiter sites

As a post-script to our article "Other Speed-Limiter Information on Internet" we bring readers attention to the many comments, by ill-informed people, that intriguingly abound on sites such as www.UK-asks/are-speed-Limiters-a-good/idea- >.

While many of the comments are endorsing the use and obvious benefits of ESL, it is clear there are those - (dissenters) - who simply conjure up any-old fallacious type argument in an attempt to advocate doing NOTHING...-...

Many of the (posted) "ideas?" of these dissenters follow a common theme that is based on a misconception of how the ESL would be deployed, sensibly.  They will say that restricting the vehicles power, or "Taking away some of the Control of the driver... could lead to danger..."??.
A particularly classic (for its misconception value) quote, is "...the limiters are not and cannot be set to absolutely accurate speeds...-...".  And thus, the commenter goes on, will cause drivers to "simply press the throttle to the floor, on the motorway or fast dual carriage-ways, and let the limiter cut-in and hold vehicle at the rated speed..." The very slight variations in the 'set' speed will then cause gradual 'bunching'. . ." says David Price of UK. 
This is truly "remarkable" and staggering insight by David Price?! - as it probably would cause bunching; that is, if the set speed [see:/activation margin] were to be within +/-0.5 mph or whatever ridiculously small margin Mr Price seems to think it would be employed- for cars that is.

Though it is pointed out quite emphatically on several occasions through the information in this website, we would expect that an experienced truck driver, as Mr Price claims to be, would have enough road-craft intelligence to see that any practical deployment needs to have an 'activation margin' - of around 20km/h - to accommodate such aspects as variations in wheel diameters, and to prevent (God forbid!) "bunching"! 
For greater clarity on the 'activation margin' aspect, refer to our About Us section (page 4).

In Australia and New Zealand (as similarly in UK) many trucking firms have had their vehicles 'top-speed-limited' since 2002 or earlier - such as Fontera, Smi [NZ] and many others.
This has typically included an activation of about 96km/h (in as accurate per-form as the mechanics/technicians can effect it) and gives around a 5km/h margin.   NB. It is assumed, that in regards heavy transport drivers, such as David Price of UK, they are skilled enough not to be afflicted with any "syndrome" associated with bunching - or such like!  And, have the trucks David Price has been driving not been equiped with cruise control?
Another notably ill-informed comment that David Price makes is that ESL will do nothing to prevent crashes that occur at speeds below the open highway maximum. He's, of course, staggeringly correct on this also?; and top-speed ESL will assuredly only prevent those crashes that would [otherwise] happen at 140km/h, or greater. (So lets not do anything, seems to be his attitude - despite there being a cost effective remedy available!!).

This website clearly points out that top-speed ESL will only have an effect for about 18 to 26 percent of road trauma - being those crashes where one or more of the vehicles (would otherwise have) had a speed greater than the activation (say, 80mph) margin.  We haven't done the stats for UK but we imagine that if an as described set margin were somehow implemented "overnight" [re; in September 2011] then for the 2011/2012 period the number of fatalities prevented would be in the vicinity of 140 at least - (Not really worth it I suppose Mr Price!?).

Worth it, or not, the 18 to 26% reduction is a potentially compounding saving:  Though only about 8 to 14 percent of crashes involve a speed above 80mph, some of the cars have several occupants - meaning a higher percentage of actual casualties.  In terms of cost savings for tax-paying truck drivers, it is the people who are seriously injured - but not killed - that pose the greatest impact regarding financial gains.  The fatalities reduced by ESL might only be 12 to 14% (of all road fatalities) but the serious/permanent injuries reduction comes in addition to those lives saved.

Further complementing these reductions is an unprovable, yet quite probable secondary aspect, associated with an "inducement factor".  It is possible that some, generally law-abiding family type drivers have caused serious crashes whilst attempting to use some of the totally excessive ESL activation - that cars are currently restricted to at this point.  This 'inducement' relates to the knowledge by the driver, that he/she is able to use a very high speed - albeit only briefly - to achieve a given manoeuvre.  The Question for David Price, is, how high should that activation be?- given the statistics relating to those drivers who do crash (have killed themselves and others...) at excessive velocities.  Refer to our article: Combined Speeds and associated ESL Statistics.

...This might all be getting a little 'too complicated' and technical for people such as Jonathan Arr (UK) and David Price [www//UK/asks-are/speed-limitrs/a/good/idea] and it might be easier for them to simply read some of the main information on this NZ speed-limiter-organisation website; such as ESC & speed-limiting and Overtaking Analysed.

...additional content is pending on this page >>->