When you say speed limiter are you referring to cruise control? Or an actual speed limiter that won't let you go over X kph with your foot on the pedal?
If the latter, it seems like a strange feature to have/want.
If the latter, it seems like a strange feature to have/want.
Seems dangerous - to not be able to accelerate out of a collision in an emergency if that is the safest thing to do.
I use it in 30 and 40mph zones, where there's a lot of traffic, speed cameras etc., and sticking the limiter on means you're not going to go over the limit.
"It is also possible to override the speed limiter by fully depressing the accelerator pedal beyond the resistance point."
But if your options are hard breaking or hard accelerating, it's easy to see when hard acceleration is better - when someone is immediately behind you and the road ahead is clear, and then for example someone swerving into your lane from the side
If someone swerves into your lane you accelerate... into them? Unless its a really wide road (12 lanes?) where you have plenty of time to see that person, and somehow know they're going to pull into your lane, but you can't pull into another lane because Theres too much traffic. As I said, contrived examples.
(wasn't quoting you btw, just put best in inverted commas, as there's a lot of different interpretations for best)
Obviously not. Accelerate out of their way.
Well I didn't think so either, I still don't see how it would work though, if they swerve into your lane ahead of you, you should brake, if they were behind you, you probably wouldn't see them, so there's a very narrow range where you can both see them and plausibly argue that accelerating is a reasonable option, and even then it seems to me at the very least, braking would be no worse.
I find lorries start broadcasting what they're going to do quite early, that doesn't mean they're going to pull into a space you're already occupying, otherwise I would be dead many times over.