Wear Your Motorcycle Helmet

by Justitia Themis 106 Replies latest social physical

• 

  5go

  This speed limiting onmost cars is a great example of a topic I am so right on but I can't find a complete list to prove it.

  2.5.10 Q: What does the rev limiter do? What does the speed limiter do?

  A: The rev limiter interrupts fuel supply in order to bring the rpm below redline. Note that this works only while accelerating! The Neon's manual transmission is very strong, and can be forced into low gears at high speeds. The car's momentum will drive the engine past the redline, and the rev limiter will not help in this situation. Also, the fuel cutoff is relatively sudden, and can cause throttle-off oversteer if encountered while cornering near the limits of adhesion.

  As listed in the table for each engine, the SOHC rev limiter steps in at 6750 rpm, while the DOHC is set to 7250 rpm. Note that the DOHC is also rev limited at 6750 when coupled to the automatic transmission.

  The speed limiter operates in a similar manner, based on indicated speed rather than rpm. This is done to prevent consumers from exceeding the speed rating of the OEM tires. All Neons (except ACRs and R/Ts) are governed at 118 mph, the maximum speed allowed on a T-rated tire. '95 m/y ACRs have no speed limiter; newer ACRs and all R/Ts are governed at 130 mph. This is a moot point because the ACR tops out due to aerodynamic drag at about 130 mph anyway.

  Anyway an ACR is a special racing variant neon with higher rated tires and it is still limited to 118. Most cars and light trucks do not come with those tires. Which is why they get limited to lower speeds. This has been the practice of auto makers since the OBD computers were adopted.
• 

  5go

  Say I know what? I said it as plainly as could, and won't say it again, but I will say this 5go. The next time you have thought...just let it go.

  BTW stock Camaros with LS or LT motors will go way faster than 120 MPH

  I believe I stated Camaros eqipped with Z rated tires can go faster than that. And the same to you. You want personal freedom to express ideas then you will have to endure mine too.
• 

  PEC

  5go you have proven that when it comes to car speed limiters, you don't know what you are talking about. Do you even own a car?

  1980, Dodge Colt, 110+ mph.

  1981 Nissan 280ZX, 135+ mph.

  1985 Toyota Pickup, 110+ mph.

  1986 Honda Civic 4dr, 110+ mph.

  1986 Honda CRX, 115+ mph, in rush hour traffic.

  1995 Honda Odyssey, 120+ mph.

  1995 Nissan 300ZX, 145+ mph.

  1996 Nissan Pickup, 120+ mph. OBD2

  2005 Nissan Murrano, 140+ mph. OBD2

  2005 Nissan 350Z, 155+ mph. OBD2

  2007 Toyota Prius, top speed, don't know, I have been over 100 mph, didn't buy it to go fast, 55 mpg highway, filled up for $18 today @ $3.40 a gallon.

  From what I have seen, the speed limiters have gone up since OBD2 not down.

  Philip (of the unsafe at any speed class)
• 

  sooner7nc

  5go, The last word
• 

  hillbilly

  the Libertarian in me says... If I want to buy a car that will do 200 MPH I should be able to. It's up to me to control myself and that machine.

  I see a lot of folks who elect to wear helmets in a non helmet state. I wear mine 99% of the time. But that's my choice.

  I was not there..but that kid stuck to the trailer sure looks DOA to me. Not a MD ..but the angle on his neck sure looks broken....

  ~Hill
• 

  TD

  I was not there..but that kid stuck to the trailer sure looks DOA to me. Not a MD ..but the angle on his neck sure looks broken....

  His name was Brandon Lee White. He was 25 years old. HE WAS KILLED INSTANTLY

  (Not shouting at you, Hillbilly....)

  http://www.ultimatetributes.com/tributes/obituary.asp?ID=2442
• 

  hillbilly

  TD... I read the "instantly" part on snopes too. I was a little suprised that anyone could think that anyone could have survived something like that. The lead poster thought this cat had made it.

  (I just look slow)

  ~Hill
• 

  WTWizard

  I agree, but I don't think people should be forced to wear one. If they don't, it's their lives alone that are going to be ruined. I remember one campaign in the late 1970s where someone was protesting to legalize riding a motorcycle without a helmet. The leader of this was planning, upon repeal of the law forcing people to wear a helmet, to ride a motorcycle with a helmet. The principle was not that this person hated helmets, but wanted freedom to make stupid decisions for those that insisted.

  The same goes for bicycle helmets. I believe that it is best to ride a bicycle with a helmet, proper rear view mirrors, and lights (if at night) that are the best that technology has to offer regardless of the law. It is often the law that you have to be visible from 500 feet from the front and 300 feet from the rear. I have lights that are rated to be visible from half a mile to a whole mile on both sides (and two of each, so if the battery on one goes borderline, the other will be able to perform). I also use my helmet and rear view mirrors while on my bicycle, but I do not support laws forcing cyclists to use these. It's all about freedom, even freedom to do stupid things.
• 

  Caedes

  I agree, but I don't think people should be forced to wear one. If they don't, it's their lives alone that are going to be ruined.

  I don't agree that it is just the biker or cyclist who is going to have their lives ruined. If someone has an accident then there are lots of people who are going to have their lives impacted. From the ambulance crew that have to scoop the remains of your head off the road, to anyone who witnessed or was involved in the accident. Family members are going to be affected too. I ride a bicycle and a motorbike and I think personal protective equipment should be compulsory.

  Or perhaps police officers aren't affected when they have to wash gore off the road? What about other road users? If some idiot splashed his brains on your car in full view of your kids would that be his 'right'?

  Abiding by rules on a public road is not curtailing anyones freedom. Only being allowed to drive speed restricted vehicles on a public road is not curtailing freedom. I look forward to the day when all motorised transport on public roads is computer controlled because it's the only way we can really do something about road safety.
• 

  inkling

  I look forward to the day when all motorised transport on public roads is computer controlled because it's the only way we can really do something about road safety.

  Well, that would give a whole new meaning to the phrase "Awww, damn. The computer crashed."

  [inkling]