PDA

View Full Version : Speed limiters for cars


anotherthing
30th Dec 2008, 10:04
The latest idea from HMG:

BBC NEWS | UK | Calls for 'speed-limiting' cars (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7803997.stm)

...The speed-limiting devices will then use satellite positioning to check a vehicle's location and when its speed exceeds the limit, power will be reduced and the brakes applied if necessary...

When will the powers that be get it into their heads that speeding is not the only cause of accidents?

On many roads, speed limits are outdated - not having kept up with the progress made in car design. Indeed, many accidents are caused by idiots who drive along paying no attention whatsoever - those who drive on the middle lane, drive slowly, drive with fog lights on etc.

The way to reduce accidents is to invest in more road traffic police on the roads instead of trying to implement a system which will make those drivers, who pay little enough attention as it is, even less involved with driving their car :ugh:

ShyTorque
30th Dec 2008, 10:18
Can you imagine what chaos might occur if a driver was overtaking or lane-changing when "Big Brother" blindly decided to apply the brakes?

How about the present system in some GPS based nav systems where the driver can elect to be warned by a chime if exceeding the speed limit? Far safer, imho, because he can make his own decisions.

Standard Noise
30th Dec 2008, 10:24
I thought we had speed limiters already.

Aren't they more commonly called 'pensioners'?

Bye!

Lon More
30th Dec 2008, 10:28
Actually they're called Chavs; morons who in an attempt to make their 1.2 litre Chavmobiles go faster/noisier have managed to reduce the power output to suvh a level that they can hardly get out of their own way

Avitor
30th Dec 2008, 10:37
I thought we had speed limiters already.

Aren't they more commonly called 'pensioners'?

Bye!

I think you should grow up.....perhaps you will! Giving it more thought (which you decline to do) you WILL grow up and you Will, eventually, become a pensioner. :cool:

Avitor
30th Dec 2008, 10:42
On the subject of car limiters, it is probably the most dangerous [email protected] spewed out by this awful British (or is it Scottish) administration.

Romeo India Xray
30th Dec 2008, 10:43
No, but it's one of the causes. Plenty of idiots out there who think the speed limit shouldn't apply to them because they're dumb enough to think they're skilled behind a wheel.

And before someone chimes in with that tired old nonsense argument about "71 being no more dangerous than 70", the speed limit doesn't define a safe speed. It defines the law. Ignore it and you belong in jail. :ugh:

I agree with this 100%. The driver in the Merc, BMW 7 Series or XJR is probably older with 20+ years driving experience. The chav in his Corsa "Sport" is likely to have 1 year or less experience. Either can kill an inattentive pedestrian at 40-50 in a 30, while I suspect it is the chav that is more likely to cause the fatal pile up with his inability to equate speed with conditions and car/driver abilities.

It is regrettable that you cant really restrict one without the other. I do however think it would be better to have the tracking linked to a GB taxation device, have certain limits allowed for exceedences (safer to push a little on a motorway than outside a school), and then fines distributed accordingly. There would be a lot of Corsas for sale on the market!

RIX

The Trappist
30th Dec 2008, 10:45
Standard:

You've got the right idea, however, they're called caravans! :eek:

anotherthing
30th Dec 2008, 10:49
Gobonastick

I agree entirely, however I would argue (driving on motorways, dual carriageways and A and B class roads every day as I do to get to and from work), that the biggest danger is from people pootling along, totally unaware of what is going on around them.

These people are totally obvious to anyone who has half an iota of wherewithal.

The law is the law - indeed I would advocate slower speeds than 30 in many built up areas (a few already have 20mph limits), but 70mph is out of touch with reality on a dry, moderately busy motorway.

We have variable speed limits on some motorways to reduce congestion - we could easily do the same for all motorways, but instead of just stipulating slower speeds in heavy traffic, the signs could be used to allow drivers to drive above 70mph depending on traffic levels and prevailing conditions.

Similarly these signs could be used to reduce traffic speeds in bad weather (they are not used in this way at the moment).

Of course that would mean the traffic control operators would need to update the speeds in a timely manner - which they don't do at the moment when it comes to signs warning of fog etc.

What we need are sensible speed limits, and more traffic police on the road.

Automating yet another piece of motoring may reduce accidents through one cause, but I bet you any money accidents cauced by people who already do not pay attention will increase because they will pay even less attention if this comes in.

Tougher driving tests, more cops, sensible application of technology (variable speed signs) and sensible laws. The only proper way to reduce accidents.

I bet if you were to ask any Traffic Police if they agreed with the last sentence above - the vast majority would agree.

De-skill drivers - increase accidents. Not rocket science. What the law can't advocate for are the idiots that will always be there - that's what a better police presence is required for.

Standard Noise
30th Dec 2008, 10:55
Avitor, are you a 'speed limiter'?:E

parabellum
30th Dec 2008, 10:55
There are already bits of kit under trial that enable police in hot pursuit to shut down the engine of the car being chased, to be used when safe to do so.

To enable a system to bring about a slowing down and/or application of brakes when the offending car is exceeding the speed limit and involved with other traffic is likely to be bloody dangerous.

Sufficient for 'The System', whatever form it takes, to be able to sound an alarm in a vehicle that is consistently exceeding a speed limit and if that alarm is ignored then a 500 pound fine is automatically issued, since the transponder in the car will carry all registration and contact details and will be able to forward a where, when and how often the limit was exceeded. It might also help if some drivers realised that limits are just that, not targets. The ability to drive a car fast on a motorway is minimal, the ability to stop/slow a car travelling at speed and avoid and not cause a collision whilst still maintaining full control often requires a skill that many drivers think they have but actually don't.

Capot
30th Dec 2008, 11:00
I already have a built-in speed limiter. It is installed in the forward left-hand section of the passenger compartment, from where it monitors the speedo and issues timely warnings about driving at 1 mph over the prevailing limit, driving too fast at any time, not driving in the exact centre of the lane, driving too close to the vehicle in front, swearing, not responding to a warning, and other misdemeanours, frequently moving on from driving offences to other minor behavorial offences of all kinds, especially in the domestic context.

Pointing out that I manage to drive 30,000 accident-free miles a year without the benefit of advice from the limiter achieves nothing.

This limiter is not equipped with the "Sound Off" button that the TomTom has, except perhaps in the form of a .45 automatic like the one I lost some years ago.

anotherthing
30th Dec 2008, 11:05
Capot

:ok::ok:

Beatriz Fontana
30th Dec 2008, 11:20
When will these un-elected, do-gooding special-interest advisory bodies consult with the public and understand that far from a debate you're just going to get everyone's back up!! Is this the same bunch that last week came up with a list of things you can't do at the wheel?

There was a phone in about this topic on the radio (I know, it's great rant material). And everyone said this was a barking idea. Even a traffic copper reckoned he couldn't think of a time speed was truly to blame in an accident. It's not speed, it's inexperience and inattention that causes the problems. You can be doing 20mph on the M1 and there'll be a multiple pile up.

How about auto distance readers that work out the speed you're doing and yells at you when you get too close to the vehicle in front? Or driving tests every five years? This is all getting a little too Big Brother for my liking.

yellowperil
30th Dec 2008, 11:23
For all the safespeeders out there....

Think of the speed limit, speed cameras, and traffic police etc as another hazzard on the roads, just like blind bends, adverse cambers, black ice, freezing fog, children running out from behind parked cars near schools etc.

If the driver can't avoid the 'hazzard' of the current speed limit, why should they be allowed to drive any faster than at present? Their so-called 'superior judgement' is clearly flawed, and their "speed" not "safe"

Excessive speed, both in absolute and relative terms still kills far too many people per year. Until these figures fall significantly, the legal speed limits should not be allowed to rise; indeed steps ought to be taken to reduce them by any means necessary.

Sallyann1234
30th Dec 2008, 11:24
Or driving tests every five years?

:ok:
:ok:
:ok:

anotherthing
30th Dec 2008, 11:45
Yellowperil

That's a great idea, why didn't I think of it...

Instead of trying to improve driving standards, just reduce all speed limits to a point where people will not be killed or injured.

Same number of accidents caused by idiots who would be dangerous at any speed, just not fatal :ugh:

How about greatly increasing the speed limits on the motorways so that we can kill off these idiots - a kind of natural selection? Not a good reason at all to increase the limits, but only as flawed as your simplistic idea.

Give it a few years of huge motorway speeds and all the inattentive drivers will die off...

Some accidents are totally unavoidable, however If the driver can't avoid the 'hazzard' of the current speed limit, why should they be allowed to drive any faster than at present? Their so-called 'superior judgement' is clearly flawed, and their "speed" not "safe"
if these people are to blame at 30mph or even 20mph, better driving skills are required, not a dumbing down of laws to cover the very people you allude to!

yellowperil
30th Dec 2008, 11:57
anotherthing,

Of course not - better driver training is clearly the way forward. However, until driving standards can be shown to have risen, speeds should not be allowed to rise.

Mac the Knife
30th Dec 2008, 12:12
Mind control
Thought control
Internet control
and now car control....

I'm bl**dy glad I don't live in the UK anymore!

Actually I think it is AWFUL to see how meekly English men and women these days submit to being spied on the whole time, told what to think, told what to do, told how to behave and spy on their neighbours.....maybe the chavs are the last holdout of English independence and rebellion?

Mac

Dushan
30th Dec 2008, 12:17
Isn't this waht happens when computers know better than the human driving?

Airbus A320 computer controlled crash (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxP8LwSArYA)

denis555
30th Dec 2008, 12:39
Speed-limiting devices should be fitted to cars on a voluntary basis to help save lives and cut carbon emissions, according to a new report.


Oh yes I can see it now, thousands of drivers queueing up to pay (£400??) to have this fitted to their cars. Think of what it could add to the resale value!

BombayDuck
30th Dec 2008, 12:47
Dushan, you picked a really bad example.

PS: I hope you have never flown in a single airbus built from the late eighties or a Boeing 777 and don't plan to fly on the A380 or B787 :rolleyes:

----

Was listening to the radio - they had a debate between two women, one of whom was one of those rabid "speed kills" type who kept harping about "lives lost due to speeding".

How many lives have been SAVED by being able to nudge the car over the limit to get out of the way? Or rush someone to a hospital on time? We'll never know, will we? :ugh:

future.boeing.cpt
30th Dec 2008, 13:05
Exactly,

but no doubt the chavs in their escorts would find a way to bypass this so they can be 'cool' again.

:ugh:

CUNIM
30th Dec 2008, 13:07
This speed limiting device is very old hat. We once had a bloke with a red flag walk in front of the cars.

This is yet another stupid idea from a group of stupid people. The only safe way to improve road safety is through better education and testing, perhaps on a five year renewal for licences.

Speed does not kill, inappropriate speed kills.

So you fix a speed limiter and then we can all drive at the limited max speed even in fog DOH:ugh:

BarbiesBoyfriend
30th Dec 2008, 13:25
This idea is a load of crap and everyone knows it. First driver to have an accident due to the car refusing to accelerate could sue those responsible for the policy.

Can you imagine pulling out to overtake- and yes folks, that's still a legal manoevre although rarely seen nowadays-only to have the car decide that although another 5 mph will get you past safely, you're not allowed to go that fast so will have to have a head on with a car coming the other way!

My real complaint is that our 'goverment', instead of working out all the details of a policy like this, you know, thinking it through, considering the technology required and the cost to benefit angles. nah! too much trouble!

Just try it out on the Today programme and see if the clots will buy it or not.

So if any 'government' types are out there looking for feedback on their 'proposals', here's mine.

Stick your speed control ideas up your ar$e!

Storminnorm
30th Dec 2008, 13:52
I think that the Government have done enough to limit MY speed.
Bl**dy price of fuel!!!!
Enough to make anyone slow down! :ugh:

Being a pensioner doesn't help either :ok:

Avitor
30th Dec 2008, 13:52
Avitor, are you a 'speed limiter'?:E

No, I regularly travel to the continent via the tunnel. You can have a race anytime you like but, you will need to restrict your speed to 70 on the MWays, I will do the same and beat you home every time.

My perception and awareness will scupper your indignation and superior attitude. :ok:

Standard Noise
30th Dec 2008, 14:02
What are you banging on about now?:confused:

I'm not a speed freak, doesn't quite fit with a diesel Discovery, I'm more of an off road type you know the stuff, slow, steady and highly skilled. But I did send Shewhomakesmyearsbleed on a track day earlier this year and I think it has improved her driving skills. She's not turned into a girl racer, but has a better understanding of what she and the car are capable off. Oh, and she doesn't get on like Capot's Mrs anymore when I do the driving.

But you go ahead plodding across Europe if you want, each to their own I say.

I just hate the nanny state we have these days.

ShyTorque
30th Dec 2008, 14:16
And before someone chimes in with that tired old nonsense argument about "71 being no more dangerous than 70",

This does often apply to some pensioners though....

Those going 71 mph on the motorways do NOT belong in jail, except perhaps in the mind of irresponsible holier than thou types who would rather cause a major motorway hold up than go 1 mph over the nominal 70 mph speed limit. On a speedometer that might read up to 7 mph fast, of course.... :rolleyes:

ChristiaanJ
30th Dec 2008, 15:26
Just my twenty centimes worth.....

Here in France we have:
130 km/h on the motorways when dry
110 km/h on the motorway when it rains
110 km/h on dual carriageways with a central divider
90 km/h everywhere else, unless further limited by road signs to:
70 km/h on the approach to roadabouts, or to crossroads with insufficient visibility
50 km/h in built-up areas
30 km/h in residential areas, often with speedbumps as well.
Plus, of course, temporary speed limits, e.g. during roadworks.
So that's already 6 different speeds.
IIRC the UK is very similar, except for lacking the 130 km/h = 81 mph limit on the motorway.
So that's one reason why a speed limiter as such is nonsense, and why one based on GPS would be madness.

What I would like to see is an updated version of the good old "cruise control", with all those limits pre-set, so I could just "blip up" and "blip down" to the right speed, without even having to take my eyes off the road (and the mirror), and without having to worry about being just a few mph too fast and getting caught by a speed camera.

Secondly, whenever the "speed kills" litany comes up, what I usually miss is a simple discussion of the notion of "safety distance".
If you can't stop in the free distance ahead of you, you're too fast. Period.

I don't know if "tailgating" is as bad in the UK as it is here in the South of France. But when I get yet another idiot following me at about a car length at 55mph, I first tap my brake lights, and if he/she doesn't get the message, I slow right down and let him/her past, rather than have him/her up my rear end if I suddenly have to brake for something unforeseen.

Maybe everybody should be shown and taught real emergency stops, not the fake ones at 25 mph during a driving test? It would make people more aware of how much free space they need in front of them...

CJ

Storminnorm
30th Dec 2008, 15:52
I'm just going to stay at home I think! :confused:

foresight
30th Dec 2008, 16:21
My Citroen has a speed limiter. Didn't used to bother with it, then got caught doing 36 in a 30 limit. Could not afford any more points so attended a 'speed awareness course'.
I now always set it - easy to set the speed and can easily be flicked off with the thumb. Also flooring the throttle overrides it. All part of the cruise control system. It makes driving more relaxing as you know you cannot exceed the limit without positively disabling it.
Incidentally the course was interesting and not at all patronising.

Overdrive
30th Dec 2008, 16:30
Of course not - better driver training is clearly the way forward. However, until driving standards can be shown to have risen, speeds should not be allowed to rise.



How about raising them back to where they were as a start? Accident figures have not reduced since they were cut to slow motion levels.

Overdrive
30th Dec 2008, 16:44
More snooping, nannying, money-earning unnecessary electronics in my private vehicle... and for what? No.

A simple and well functioning (until recent years) system of road travel that needed no tinkering will be turned into yet another chaotic mess if this continues.

This seeming dedication to anti-progress in the face of so many other real problems just doesn't warrant time and attention IMO, except to say "enough".

dazdaz
30th Dec 2008, 16:54
Calm down, calm down, let us re-read the original BBC news item. I quote, "The government's transport advisers claim the technology would cut road accidents with injuries by 29%"

Point 1: Who are the 'government transport advisers' ? This is a non elected quasi organisation made up with Chief police Constables, transport managers, bus/coach companies and input from County council councillors.

Point2: This is the norm when the labour party have new ideas, lets throw(leak) the idea to the press and monitor the feedback. I'll never happen.

fireflybob
30th Dec 2008, 17:06
So what alternatives to road transport are HM Government providing on a comprehensive basis so that we don't have to use motor cars?

ChristiaanJ
30th Dec 2008, 17:09
dazdaz,

Point3: Didn't you notice the "29%"? Hence data used in the "study" presumed to be accurate to just about a 3% error margin.

"There are lies, damn lies, and statistics"

It was St. Augustine (the author, not the saint :) ) who taught me that the number of figures behind the decimal is usually inversely proportional to the accuracy of the figure.

CJ

dazdaz
30th Dec 2008, 17:17
Fireflybob
No dear boy, come 2012 where all going to be fcked. No answer from me, although I'm working on it..

SilsoeSid
30th Dec 2008, 17:50
There are already bits of kit under trial that enable police in hot pursuit to shut down the engine of the car being chased, to be used when safe to do so.

In addition to having ANPR and a laser (to help directing officers on the ground) in the camera set-up, I believe there is an air unit somewhere in the country that is trialing a directed EMP that will cause a car engine to stop.

'Apparently', being able to control the decamp/stop location has ensured a 100% capture rate. Mind you elevated sections of motorways, country roads and industrial areas of town have few places to hide.

"Firing now!"....Most excellent. ;)

Krystal n chips
30th Dec 2008, 17:59
Dear Patronising non elected Govt't F$%^wits,

Thank you for your advice. I am pleased to inform you that I already have the Mk1 version installed in my vehicle. The core components are :

The Mk1 eyeball.
A functioning brain
The ability to use my right foot to control the speed to suit the road conditions and comply with speed restrictions.
Situational and spatial awareness.
Defensive driving
Self-preservation instinct
A full clean licence with no points / accidents in my 30+years of driving.


Please explain to me why I should endanger my life by volunteering to fit a device which would have no benefit, other than for those who wish to poodle along using cruise control and remain blissfully unware there are others on the road besides themselves as they are too damn lazy to DRIVE THE CAR. Please note the use of the word DRIVE, here. It has a certain significance you appear to have overlooked, probably deliberately as this concept would compromise your plans to control individuals capabilities which is what your proposal amounts to under the cosmetic guise ( as ever ) of "safety".



Now p$%s off.

Yours sincerley,

A member of the thinking public.

Squeegee Longtail
30th Dec 2008, 18:40
Please all, don't go justifying or objecting to the merits of speed controllers/limiters. This is a disguised tax collecting scheme, the old "safety" justification again, nothing more.

You speed, we automatically deduct speeding fine. That's it. Think of the revenue that will bring in for HMG.

stagger
30th Dec 2008, 18:57
Can you imagine pulling out to overtake- and yes folks, that's still a legal manoevre although rarely seen nowadays-only to have the car decide that although another 5 mph will get you past safely, you're not allowed to go that fast so will have to have a head on with a car coming the other way!

Indeed - and there are various other situations in which someone who normally abides by the law might wish to decide that breaking this particular law (and paying the appropriate fine) is preferable to alternatives...

- Medical emergency
- Fleeing from a source of danger

Also - the scope for malfunction is worrying. There can be considerable differences in speed limits between roads that are in very close proximity.

What if you're joining a motorway - trying the accelerate to 70mph on the slip road to merge with the traffic and the system decides you're still on the adjacent parallel service road only 5 meters away?

Remember the GPS controlled train doors that wouldn't open when a train was in fact in a station?

The Argus - Satellite system traps passengers on trains (http://archive.theargus.co.uk/2004/8/24/110345.html)

Capot
30th Dec 2008, 19:02
Slightly off-thread, but since someone mentioned Government statistics, especially Dept for Transport ones.......

In a conversation with the Dept about the useless and pointless MIDAS system I was informed that "careful long-term studies had shown" that this system prevents 9 fatal accidents, 47 serious injury accidents, and 363 slight injury accidents every year.

I enquired how that figure - a precise number of events that do not happen - can possibly have been calculated. I was informed with some asperity that the study was an extremely accurate statistical analysis of 10 years worth of observations. I was sent the report, entitled "Evaluating MIDAS", written by someone from the Highways Agency and someone from TRL, which I have now read. It covers about 3 sides of A4, together with a map of the M-way sections studied.

What they did was guess, of course. Firstly the report blithely sets out 8 variables that can affect the accident rate, apart from the MIDAS system, and says that the effects of these were "estimated". Thus the effect of the remaining variable, MIDAS, is simply the result of all these guesses.

But an even greater guess is summarised succintly. It's worth reading, because millions of pounds of tax-payers cash are being wasted every year on this ridiculous system. It's a chilling insight into how the UK Government works today. Here it is;

"The number of accidents that occurred during the periods when MIDAS was operated is known. This must be compared with the number of injury accidents that would have occurred if MIDAS had not been operated. This latter number is not known and can only be estimated. Thus the benefits of MIDAS in terms of accident reduction are estimates and there is some uncertainty in the estimated values."

Now when a Civil Servant says "some uncertainty" he means a figure plucked from the air to suit whatever his Minister wants. The precise figures for "accident prevention" that I quoted above are from a table in the same report, entitled "Estimated annual benefits of MIDAS for 800Km of route" and these are the figures that the Department invariably quotes without mentioning the "estimated uncertainty".

My estimate is that the range of uncertainty in the table's figures is +/- 75%.

The same shoddy, puerile standard of work is used in all the "studies" quoted by the DfT to support whatever driver-harrassment campaigns they are running, speed limits, speed traps, ANPR, etc etc. Buried in the publicly quoted statistics the words "estimate" and "uncertainty" will always be found.

It's just all lies, in other words.

Squeegee Longtail
30th Dec 2008, 19:25
...because it's nothing to do with "safety", but MONEY - Justification to spend it and to collect it.

419
30th Dec 2008, 21:25
If this system were to ever be implemented, it would probably cost a fortune to set up and run.

There is already something in place which works far better in that it can differentiate between a car safely doing 70 mph in a 60 limit on a clear bright traffic free day, (which the new system would cause you to slow down) and another car doing 50mph whilst tailgating 10 feet from the car in front, (which the new system would totally ignore, but which is far more dangerous).

What is this system?
Traffic police. An almost unseen sight on many of our major roads and motorways.
Instead of wasting £millions on new fangled crap, why not improve on what is already being used.

SilsoeSid
30th Dec 2008, 22:25
Has anyone that agrees with this scheme ever overtaken anyone?
I guess they never had that person that decides to accelerate slightly just when you're level then :eek:

Mind you, that will be a great new sport, ...as someone with a limiter draws level with you, accelerate to match their speed, and cause them to be forced to pull back in.
A bit like chicken with oncoming traffic but you will be a spectator. The daily commute will be so much more entertaining than listening to Sarah Kennedy and will compliment Liz Kershaw perfectly.
One could have little markers for your car door to have a tally. :E


Please implement this scheme immediately. :ok:

ChristiaanJ
30th Dec 2008, 22:45
...poodle along using cruise control ...I totally agree with the "defensive driving" and all the other points you're mentioning in your post. I try to practise that as much as possible too, and it's basically kept me out of trouble for the last forty years (touch wood, as always).

But I think you missed my point about cruise control... it's not to "poodle along" but on the contrary being able to put my full attention on the road and on the traffic, without having to waste part of my 'attention span' on checking that I'm not above the current speed limit.

I detest having to do that, actually.... every time you go a bit downhill for instance....
It's so easy to implement... cruise control exists for I don't know how many years. Unfortunately it's not very common in Europe, and hideously expensive to retrofit if your car doesn't have it from the start (mine unfortunately doesn't).

CJ

Dushan
30th Dec 2008, 23:27
What I would like to see is an updated version of the good old "cruise control", with all those limits pre-set, so I could just "blip up" and "blip down" to the right speed, without even having to take my eyes off the road (and the mirror), and without having to worry about being just a few mph too fast and getting caught by a speed camera.

The new, 2009, BMW 750Li has something like that. It has a camera that recognizes European speed limit signs and alerts you if you are going faster. Also BMW has in all models, I think, a way of setting a certain speed warning. When you reach it a gong goes off and the speed set is displayed on the dashboard. Sort of like "Woop, Woop, Terrain, Terrain, Pull Up, Pull up"

I don't know if "tailgating" is as bad in the UK as it is here in the South of France. But when I get yet another idiot following me at about a car length at 55mph, I first tap my brake lights, and if he/she doesn't get the message, I slow right down and let him/her past, rather than have him/her up my rear end if I suddenly have to brake for something unforeseen.

For the last 20 years I've installed, in every car I've owned, a button that turns on the brake lights without actually slowing down .
Gets those tailgater off your back in a hurry.

Pappa Smurf
30th Dec 2008, 23:54
Speed limiters,
Many cars with them now,but set at 250kph.Japan did have a 130kph limiter once,probably still do even on those wild turbo things that have to be changed when imported into other countries.
Now how would the revenue making departments make money if a car couldnt speed?
I can see a valid point in it but would have to be GPS activated to cover the areas defineing city and country etc.
Also limiter set at 15kph above limit in built up areas and 30kph in country areas.
Probably wouldnt have much effect on the average accident anyway,but im sick of seeing cars ripped into 2 sections around a tree or telegraph pole in 60kph zones.The damage involved would put the speed well over 120kph.
Of course,they are all the young guys.

Amazingly ,yesterday did a little 400k jaunt some on a 2 lane motorway(110limit) and the inside lane were doing 100 and the outside lane no one was doing over 115.Later on a 100kph country road top speed was 105kph.OK,the road was reasonably busy and everyone knew the cops were out and about,but still a surprise there wasnt even one braindead yahoo out there doing the mad thing.Just struck a lucky day i think.

Theres speeding ,then theres the straight out high speed,the latter being the problem

Avitor
31st Dec 2008, 00:18
Mr Plod would not be much pleased, the thrill of the chase gone. No more need to teach them to drive at F16 speeds, no more speeding fines, in fact, they may be issued with roller skates with which to catch cripples speeding on mobility scooters.
I like the bit about 29%, why not 30%?
I drive at 70, but there are times I need more speed to get out of numerous situations that present themselves.

Silly idea! :=

Dushan
31st Dec 2008, 00:28
Speed limiters,
Many cars with them now,but set at 250kph.Japan did have a 130kph limiter once,probably still do even on those wild turbo things that have to be changed when imported into other countries.


Well yes, but they are not mandated by law. Go to your nearest tuner store and it will be off in a few minutes. Dinan and Snitzer have a whole line of products that improve performance by changing chips or altering the firmware in the computer for BMWs.

What this thread is talking about is government mandated and monitored speed limiters. I think NY state already has a "black box" kind of law that makes it illegal to wipe the contents of the data recorder in cars that have them (a lot of them do these days). The data is used only in case of a collision, but it belongs to the state not the car owner. I don't know if it can be used to charge someone for exceeding the speed limit, but it is only a matter of time before someone tries; and someone challenges it all the way to the Supreme Court.

Bronx
31st Dec 2008, 09:36
Dushan For the last 20 years I've installed, in every car I've owned, a button that turns on the brake lights without actually slowing down .
Gets those tailgater off your back in a hurry.

Weird.

Have you thought of just moving over to let folks in a hurry go by? :confused:


B.

CUNIM
31st Dec 2008, 09:50
I adopt the following:

"Rules are for the blind obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men"

There are occasions where I will accelerate out of a potentially unsafe situation, most likely when overtaking a vehicle doing less than my cruise speed. Then I put my foot down, but reduce immediately afterwards to the limit plus 10% in normal conditions as I don't have one of those special cards that some people seem to have which permits them to blindly refuse to recognise limits.

The ones around here will do 45 mph whether they are in a 40, 30 or unrestricted road. I get fed up of people tailgating me doing 30 in a 30 zone, often overtaking only to get in my way when they are at 40 - 45mph on a country road.

ChristiaanJ
31st Dec 2008, 10:36
Weird.
Have you thought of just moving over to let folks in a hurry go by?I would say both Dushan and I are talking about the typical country road, one lane each way, with oncoming traffic, so one has nowhere to move over to... and the twit behind can't overtake anyway.

CJ

Storminnorm
31st Dec 2008, 10:45
I once got nicked for riding my cycle " furiously".
Fined £2, and they said they'd confiscate my bike
if I did it again!

zab
31st Dec 2008, 12:05
One wonders how many accidents have been caused by people watching their speedometers instead of the road.

Dushan
31st Dec 2008, 12:16
I would say both Dushan and I are talking about the typical country road, one lane each way, with oncoming traffic, so one has nowhere to move over to... and the twit behind can't overtake anyway.

CJ

Spot on, ChristiaanJ. I am very disciplined when it comes to lanes. I mostly drive on a multi-multi lane highway and there are a lot of merges where I go every day. There would be 3-4 lanes of heavy traffic on each side of me. There is inevitably an idiot, in a pickup truck, on a phone that comes from a merge lane and kinda floats up to my bumper. He is usually on the phone or doing some other activity in addition to driving.

The other situation is what ChristiaanJ describes. Country road, oncoming traffic, doing speed limit or just above, and Mr. Important, in a hurry tries to force you to go faster. I try to pull over and let him pass as soon as safe, but if the opportunity does not present itself, I hit the button to let him know he is too close, It works 90% of the time the first time and 100% of the time the second.

Happy New Year all!

Dushan
31st Dec 2008, 12:21
One wonders how many accidents have been caused by people watching their speedometers instead of the road.

Or watching the road, immediately in front of the car, rather than 50-100m ahead.

Flying Lawyer
31st Dec 2008, 12:25
The obsession with even stricter enforcement of speed limits is curious given that the annual number of road deaths in Britain is now the lowest since 1926 when records began.

The 1960s and 1970s saw the highest number of deaths with fatal accident figures routinely reaching 7000, but the number has reduced significantly over the past 25 years and is now less than 3000.
Fatalities per kilometre have fallen for nearly all modes of transport. (For some reason, the UK government measures distance in km.)
Rates for car/van users have fallen by more than 50%.
Fatality rates for motorcyclists have remained fairly constant at 40-60 times greater than car users.

2007 compared to the 1994-98 average:
Killed/seriously injured 36% lower.
Children killed/seriously injured 55% lower.
Slight casualty rate 32% lower.
NB: This is despite traffic volume having increased by about 16% in the same period.

2007 compared to 2006:
Fatalities 7% lower
Seriously injured, 3% lower
Slight injuries 4% lower.

On one view, even a single death is unacceptable but, from a more practical/realistic perspective, if we are to travel by road then fatalities are inevitable.

Far too much attention is paid to pressure groups who want even more cameras, and the use of increasingly sophisticated technology, to enforce speed limits instead of focusing upon the prime cause of road accidents: Bad driving.
Bad driving obviously includes unsafe speed, but some drivers who never/rarely break a speed limit are a menace on the roads. eg Not using mirrors and/or pulling out regardless of what they see in the mirror, hogging middle/outside lanes usually through incompetence but sometimes deliberately to prevent others passing etc.
It's curious how many drivers who are so self-righteous about always adhering strictly to speed limits, and condemn those who don’t, appear to think it's quite acceptable to drive their entire motorway journey in the middle lane.
The same applies to drivers who think it's perfectly acceptable to drive for miles at the same or virtually the same speed as traffic in the lane to their left.

IMHO, there should be a sensible reappraisal of speed limits. Some are too high (eg near schools) but many are too low. If limits were more sensible, I believe fewer drivers would exceed them. Laws are most effective when they are respected: It's not the risk of being caught/punished that stops most people committing offences - it's a combination of an acceptance that certain behaviour is wrong and an acceptance that the law is there for a good reason. One of the unfortunate bi-products of the increasing use of speed cameras is the undermining of respect for the law by ordinarily law-abiding people.

A significant majority of drivers (correctly IMHO) regard the blanket 70 mph limit on motorways, regardless of conditions, as unreasonable. They don't respect that law and don’t abide by it. Most people drive at 75-80 mph. I suspect in many cases it is the fear of being caught/incurring penalty points that deters them from exceeding the speed limit by a greater percentage, even when it would be perfectly safe to do so.

I'd also like to see a radical reappraisal, by a truly independent body on which both sides of the ‘speed’ argument are represented, of what types of driving really cause accidents, and whether too much emphasis is currently placed on speed at the expense of ignoring other factors. Unfortunately, it's unlikely to happen.



Tailgating?
It takes two to tailgate.
There are occasions when a following driver is unreasonable but there are also many occasions when the driver in front unreasonably and selfishly refuses to move over when he/she easily could. I encounter lane hoggers frequently and tailgaters only rarely.

G-CPTN
31st Dec 2008, 12:55
if we are to travel by road then fatalities are inevitable.I don't dispute the fact, but the acceptance that it should be so . . .

Storminnorm
31st Dec 2008, 13:47
I've long been under the impression, perhaps mistakenly,
that the roads in Britain were amongst the safest in the
World.
What's happened to that statement, or have things got
a LOT worse recently?

ChristiaanJ
31st Dec 2008, 14:32
Storminnorm,
How do you define "...the roads are among the safest.." ?
Are you simply talking about accident statistics, or the roads themselves?

My point being, that a certain percentage of accidents happens because the road itself (or a particular point on it) is unsafe.
There are known "black spots" where accidents are frequent.
Usually it's cheaper to blame it on "speed" or "bad driving" rather than actually do something about it.

Between where I live and the local hypermarket 10 km away over country roads, there are two such "black spots" (both T-junctions). How do I know? Simple, I just look at the glass and debris swept to the side of the road at those spots.
Most are probably just material damage, but the ambulance going and coming back to the nearest location drives past the house on average once a fortnight....

CJ

Dushan
31st Dec 2008, 15:18
Tailgating?
It takes two to tailgate.
There are occasions when a following driver is unreasonable but there are also many occasions when the driver in front unreasonably and selfishly refuses to move over when he/she easily could. I encounter lane hoggers frequently and tailgaters only rarely.

Well, yes it does, but when there is no room to move, we are talking single lane roads, or multi lane with heavy traffic then the onus is on the guy behind not to tailgate. Even if I moved, all he is going to do is tailgate the next guy in front. Part of what these people do is try to push you ahead, because in their opinion, there is too much room between you and the next car ahead. They want you to tailgate. I always make sure I have enough room ahead, should a panic braking situation ensue, I have enough room to stop but also have enough room to "escape" from the possibility of being rear-ended by someone tailgating.

Driving requires a lot of attention...

Storminnorm
31st Dec 2008, 15:36
Sorry Christiaan, I was really just thinking aloud.
I never know what to believe about traffic figures,
but I am convinced that U.K. plc is quite a SAFE
place to drive around in, and NOT get killed by
maniac drivers.
But the Government seem to be obsessed by
constantly coming up with NEW ways to try to
gain the upper hand against the, "apparently"
suicidal motorists.
This country MAY be on a rapidly tightening
downward spiral of economic disaster caused by
the crap economic situation that the World is
involved in, but STILL we get the latest "Nanny
knows Best" attitude thrown out of government
to the masses to cause even more DOOM & GLOOM.
We'll all have to buy cycles before too long.

As for tailgateing, try leaving a space between you
and the vehicle in front of you, and some idiot
will overtake you and fill it!

Dushan
31st Dec 2008, 16:05
As for tailgateing, try leaving a space between youand the vehicle in front of you, and some idiot
will overtake you and fill it!

Absolutely, and as you fall back to allow for a safe gap, the idiot behind is getting closer. You cannot win.

Except perhaps...

http://www.qv500.com/jbdb5%204.jpg

ChristiaanJ
31st Dec 2008, 16:06
As for tailgateing, try leaving a space between you
and the vehicle in front of you, and some idiot will overtake you and fill it!
Weird you should mention that....
If an idiot overtakes me, I slow down for a moment and recreate the gap.
I learned to do so from my father, who always did that.
I'm now talking 50+ years ago, him driving, me in the front passenger seat.
One-plus-one lane country road. Small lorry insisted on overtaking us, so my father let him, and re-created the gap. Just after, a sharp right-hand bend, with no visibility. The lorry enters the bend.... and the next moment there is an almighty bang. The lorry continues straight, off the road and there in the middle of the road is the wreck of the car who had stupidly tried to 'cut the corner'.
Thanks to my father's 'gap' we stopped, rather than smashing into the wreck.
A lesson never forgotten.

(The rest of the story is secondary. We could ease past the wreck. We found the lorry driver dazed but not really injured; the man in the car was in a pretty bad state. By then, other cars had stopped, totally blocking the road, and we were the only ones that could drive on to the next village to phone the police... which we did.)

Since I started to drive myself, I've always tried to keep that gap. If somebody else wants it, feel free, I'll make another one.
Ever seen a semi suddenly swerve across the road after a couple of tyres explode? I have.

CJ

west lakes
31st Dec 2008, 16:20
The Gap

And anyone who takes the time & trouble to do a UK advanced driving course will have that beaten into them. (it can reduce insurance premiums as well)

The posters that have been around say it all. In dry conditions leave 2 seconds between you and the car in front, poor conditions up to 4 or 5. If someone tailgates drop back,
and don't start complaining about someone filling the gap - if that is an issue consider your own driving standards!

Krystal n chips
31st Dec 2008, 16:32
Hmmm !..on the subject of lane hogging and speed, there is another form that really do need to be educated.....notably when you encounter a queue in the middle lane, usually induced by an HGV ( note, this is not a dig at HGV's here ) and traffic behind refuse to overtake in the third lane....so, get in the third lane, and guess what, as you start to pass the queue, the HGV pulls over and oh look !...the queue suddenly starts to, erm, accelerate away !

Speed. I can freely admit that, like every driver, at times over the years I have broken the speed limit from time to time....it's impossible not to plus in some cases, the reduction in speed sign is simply not displayed and some roads have long stretches with no signage at all. However, the obsession with speed would seem to be that it is a simple way for the Gov't to "communicate" with the public..everybody knows what speed is after all. So, does anybody know, or indeed are any records actually kept ( probably not ) as to how many accidents have been caused purely by speed alone ?..i.e, speed was the prime causal factor rather than, as in most accidents, a contributory causal factor. And at what point does the term "excessive speed" become relevant...would say, 37mph in a 30mph zone be deemed "excessive" simply because this took place in a 30mph zone. How many accidents I wonder, involve poor vehicle condition, road conditions, lack of experience, driver impairment plus speed as a minor factor when in fact any or indeed all of the short list (out of potentialy many others ) were the main cause(s).

Schools and the 20mph limit.....perfectly logical...kids today have NO road sense whatsoever..however, it would also be a good idea to educate Mummy poohkins that (a) parking where she wishes simply to drop the little darlings off as near as possible to the gate and (b) extracting them via the off-side door is as much a hazard as the moron who does 40+.

Just as an aside, I learnt my road skills many years ago on a cycle...it was the only means of transport (other than public ) we had.

Then we have the aspect of being monitored everywhere we go...which is another element that frankly angers me..(OK it extends to other areas of my life as well because I am not inclined to criminality in any form and my private lfe is my own, nothing to do with the Gov't)...it's hardly a deterrent to the lawless / couldn't care less brigade is it?....not to mention the fact that, in two recent and tragic fatal accidents, both drivers had covered a considerable mileage before they had the accidents.....so why, if the surveillance is promoted as being so widespread and effective, weren't they stopped long before the accident?.

And on that note, as one is not driving again until early Friday evening, one is off to immerse oneself in a bottle of red...or two!.

ChristiaanJ
31st Dec 2008, 17:34
So, does anybody know, or indeed are any records actually kept ( probably not ) as to how many accidents have been caused purely by speed alone ?..i.e, speed was the prime causal factor rather than, as in most accidents, a contributory causal factor?

Quite .......

According to a recent news item, this year there were about 600 fatalities in aircraft accidents worldwide - IIRC this was in air transport, not including GA.

In the UK alone, about 3000 people get killed on the roads each year, in France (with a similar population) the figure is somewhat higher.

Just about every fatal air accident is examined in detail by such organisations as the AAIB, BEA, NTSB, etc. for a 'probable cause'.

One could wish that was the case for road accidents too.... Instead, it's the local Mr Plod or the local gendarme, who is investigator, judge and jury, and just scribbles "excessive speed" or "drunk driving" as the 'probable cause' at the bottom of his report.

Never yet heard of an organisation (that could be financed by the millions that come in from the "speed" cameras) that seriously examines enough accidents to be able to seriously advice the government on serious measures.
Hum, not quite true... the French have an organisation called "Sécurité Routière", but whether they have any clout is an open question.

As somebody said earlier, fatalities are inevitable, but accepting the current levels should not be.

CJ

Rwy in Sight
31st Dec 2008, 18:29
A thought that just cross my mind: if in aviation every accident is due to a series of mistakes/issues why in road all accidents are due to speed (according to some observers)?

Rwy in Sight

west lakes
31st Dec 2008, 18:37
R in S

It's fair to say that all accidents are due to a combination of reasons, vehicle one's being no different.
Example though
Car leaves the road on a slippery bend and crashes

1
The driver lost control due to travelling at too high a speed due to the conditions
So the report in the papers mentions speed first so that is the cause!! any others get ignored
or
2
The road surface was slippery owing to mud, the driver failed to slow down enough to control the car sufficiently.
Causes were, the mud, poor driving (and digging further whoever deposited the mud on the road in the first place)

But the second doesn't make good headlines even though it is nearer the truth.

barit1
1st Jan 2009, 01:42
Why does some idiot always insist on driving so close in front of me?? :ouch:

Fark'n'ell
1st Jan 2009, 05:27
Best speed limiter you can get.

YouTube - caravan crash (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJJkjT7VB8k)

Underpowered car. Heavy caravan. Only the poms do this.:D

Storminnorm
1st Jan 2009, 11:34
Only a certain sector of the Pom population do it.
Usually the ones that are tired of living.

Flying Lawyer
1st Jan 2009, 12:46
As somebody said earlier, fatalities are inevitable, but accepting the current levels should not be. The current UK levels are the lowest they have ever been, and amongst the lowest in the world.

If the current levels aren't acceptable, what's the answer?

G-CPTN
1st Jan 2009, 13:13
I wonder how many deaths are attributed to vehicles when, in fact they are due to 'natural causes' (such as heart attacks). Such occurrences are, of course, largely unavoidable and would probably have happened anyway - though may have been accelerated because of circumstances encountered whilst driving.

ChristiaanJ
1st Jan 2009, 14:23
If the current levels aren't acceptable, what's the answer?The answer IMHO is not to become complacent about the current levels, but to continue striving to reduce them even further.

One question I find myself asking is how much of the gradual drop is due to things having been made safer, and how much is due to the ever-increasing congestion? I would think that in a traffic jam crawling along at 30 mph, there was less risk of fatal accidents than on an 'open' road at 70 mph.

CJ

frostbite
1st Jan 2009, 14:35
to continue striving to reduce them even further.


That's easily done by imposing yet more and more restrictions.

But at what point do you draw the line and decide the end doesn't justify the means?

G-CPTN
1st Jan 2009, 14:58
There are a number of crashes that involve commercial vehicles (ie trucks) and passenger cars where the occupants of the smaller (lighter) vehicle(s) come off badly. Is there perhaps a case for segregating them (maybe by time - 'curfew')?

It would be interesting to analyse whether the cause is because the driver(s) of the cars failed to allow adequate 'clearance' for the trucks or whether the truck driver(s) failed to control their vehicle adequately and safely.
Also, whether any of the drivers were fatigued or inattentative.

I'm afraid I'm not a great believer in 'accidents' . . .

And then there's foreign drivers 'unfamiliar' with UK driving behaviour.

Storminnorm
1st Jan 2009, 15:04
I don't know how certain this info is, but don't the French
already have restrictions on HGV vehicles driving in the
DAYtime? Many HGV movements being restricted to nights?

Flying Lawyer
1st Jan 2009, 15:04
frostbite hits the nail on the head. But at what point do you draw the line and decide the end doesn't justify the means?

eg If (assume it can be for the purpose of the question) it could be demonstrated that reducing all speed limits by 50% would reduce annual road deaths by 50%, would that be a reasonable course?

ChristiaanJ
1st Jan 2009, 15:47
eg If (assume it can be for the purpose of the question) it could be demonstrated that reducing all speed limits by 50% would reduce annual road deaths by 50%, would that be a reasonable course?Since that cannot be demonstrated the question remains hypothetical....
Speed limits that are arbitrarily set far too low only will lead to a further reduction in the respect the average driver may still have for the law, and an increase in people disregarding said speed limits.

I was more thinking of dealing far more pro-actively with some of the best-known hazards, such as drunk driving, cell phone use while driving, accident black spots... you can probably think of a few more.

I don't know how certain this info is, but don't the French already have restrictions on HGV vehicles driving in the DAYtime? Many HGV movements being restricted to nights?Negative, unfortunately.
What IS restricted, though, is HGV traffic during the weekends (Saturday and Sunday). Only perishables and a few other high-priority products are allowed.

CJ

Storminnorm
1st Jan 2009, 15:49
Thanks for that Christiaan. :ok:

Vee1Kut
1st Jan 2009, 18:24
Why don't they simply allow those with special licenses and applicable vehicles to drive in the fast lane a little faster, those that don't rate stay on the right side(US). Total idiots drive the slowest, maybe even slower then everyone..put a little colored tag on the car, let's the cops know who's who.

National Satelite tracking is coming. If you have Onstar it's already happening to you...and most cell phones can be tracked down to a few feet. Probably in short course, if you have a car, speed will be monitored by from above, and get this, the info from all your travels will be automaticaly downloaded to a server to find out at ANY time, where you were, and how fast you were going.

You can already put this on your kids car.