> I don't recall saying any artificial limit is less safe
Your devil's advocate position was "if you limit the speed for your teen and then need to accelerate to get out of a dangerous situation, what will happen" further clarified as "You should probably start funeral planning anyway if you can’t trust your kid in a vehicle without artificially limiting their speed.".
Had the original limit been 70 mph, I assume you would have said the same thing, as your comment didn't suggest any artificial limit was reasonable.
If you got the same training, does that mean there would be fewer situations where you need to exceed 65 mph on the motorway? Since you asked what could make things safer, it sounds you think additional mandatory training would help.
> should we start including GPS limiters as well just incase your kid thought they knew better?
No clue. That's a far more complicated question which I am ill-informed to answer.
I can make some obvious comments: Exposing the controls for an existing and well-tested speed limiter seems a lot easier than creating an entirely new geofence input system and adding GPS, to say nothing of the more complicated set of failure conditions. The geofence mapper needs to stay up-to-date because road change, so someone has to pay for that service. Most parents who want GPS tracking can already ask their teens to keep their phone on while the car is in use, for viewing aftewards, so the differential safety improvement of a built-in system - if it exists - seems rather low.
But I don't care to defend all conjectural possibilities, only to point out that electronic speed limits for teen drivers is not unreasonable, and already exists for some places, so if it were dangerous we should see that already.
Your devil's advocate position was "if you limit the speed for your teen and then need to accelerate to get out of a dangerous situation, what will happen" further clarified as "You should probably start funeral planning anyway if you can’t trust your kid in a vehicle without artificially limiting their speed.".
Had the original limit been 70 mph, I assume you would have said the same thing, as your comment didn't suggest any artificial limit was reasonable.
Hence my devil's advocacy.
> we can drive tractors
While the name comes from farm tractor use some 50 years ago, a Swedish A-tractors is not farm tractor like what you are thinking of. See for examples https://www.curbsideclassic.com/automotive-histories/regiona... and https://www.archivish.com/epas-and-a-tractors-the-slow-swedi... for examples. They can be can be a regular car modified to limit the speed, take out the suspension, shorten the length, and have max two seats. See those links for some images.
> with a different class of licence ...
If you got the same training, does that mean there would be fewer situations where you need to exceed 65 mph on the motorway? Since you asked what could make things safer, it sounds you think additional mandatory training would help.
> should we start including GPS limiters as well just incase your kid thought they knew better?
No clue. That's a far more complicated question which I am ill-informed to answer.
I can make some obvious comments: Exposing the controls for an existing and well-tested speed limiter seems a lot easier than creating an entirely new geofence input system and adding GPS, to say nothing of the more complicated set of failure conditions. The geofence mapper needs to stay up-to-date because road change, so someone has to pay for that service. Most parents who want GPS tracking can already ask their teens to keep their phone on while the car is in use, for viewing aftewards, so the differential safety improvement of a built-in system - if it exists - seems rather low.
But I don't care to defend all conjectural possibilities, only to point out that electronic speed limits for teen drivers is not unreasonable, and already exists for some places, so if it were dangerous we should see that already.
reply