Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

Speed limiting cars by 2022

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

Speed limiting cars by 2022

Old 12th Jul 2019, 13:47
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 15,961
Speed limiting cars by 2022

With black boxes as well to say if you were speeding. which we will all end up paying for.

I for one could never understand the time, up-heaval and expense being inflicted on us all with those concrete monstrosities along our motorway system called smart motorways... why?, it looks like GPS and your car will make all that expense redundant in 2 years time, but they are still building the damned stuff... is it me or does it not seem stupid to be building something that prevents road widening at a later date to add extra lanes., I said it when they started doing it, roll out the technology into the car with warnings on screen or voice, you then do not need to produce all this environmentally unfriendly concrete....... jeez, I AM GOING GREEN....... I need to go hug a lampost.....

Deaths on UK Roads 2017 1793, speed related 1/4 = 448 Overkill or what...

Deaths related to Alchohol 7697,

Deaths by Drug Abuse 2504



Sometimes on wonders if resources are being channelled at the right targets


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47715415



https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulat...gisteredin2017


https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/deathsrelatedtodrugpoisoninginenglandandwales/2017registrations

..

Last edited by NutLoose; 12th Jul 2019 at 15:05.
NutLoose is online now  
Old 12th Jul 2019, 14:09
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Near the coast
Posts: 1,615
Nutty

Capital infrastructure projects create and sustain employment. They’re also very visible and assure the public that our tax pounds are not being wasted on MPs allowances.

Cynical. Moi?!

BV
Bob Viking is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2019, 14:12
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: No longer in Jurassic Park eating Toblerone....
Posts: 2,652
To take up the topic of "all running lanes" that are spreading like an expensive rash along our motorway system, I saw a nasty accident on the M1 Northbound last weekend.
Battered car right way up on the inside lane (lane 1, formerly known as the hard shoulder), upside down car further back up the road blocking lanes 2,3 & 4.
All people seemingly OK standing outside the vehicles.
Some vehicles slowly trickling through the 50 yard gap between the two crashed vehicles.
As we progressed Southbound it was obvious that the accident was recent as the tailback was only 2 miles of stationary traffic at that point.
Now all 4 lanes are completely solid with no opportunity or space to let emergency services through.
What happens next?
Do the police risk life and limb by travelling against the normal flow (albeit very limited) to attended the scene and block further traffic to allow the rest of the emergency services to attend?

I was on the back of a breakdown truck a few months previously (thanks waterpump) and the driver was scathing about the lack of a hard shoulder for this very reason and I was massively grateful to the presence of a hard shoulder at Junction 23A as I rolled to a standstill just before it ran out...…

How long before people's blood is used to re-write the rule book and bring back the hard shoulder, as all lane running is surely one of the most ill thought, finance driven driving decision made for decades.
LowNSlow is online now  
Old 12th Jul 2019, 14:29
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Near the coast
Posts: 1,615
Smart Motorways

I am in complete agreement that they are a terrible and dangerous idea.

To relate this to aviation if I may? We live in a world now where someone has to be accountable. Aircraft crashes now can end up in jail terms if people are shown to have been negligent.

So who is accountable when, inevitably, people can be proven to have died because of smart motorways?

They’re a crap idea and quite frankly they terrify me.

BV
Bob Viking is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2019, 14:46
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Sunnydale
Posts: 140
They’re a cheap way to increase traffic on a motorway. The widening isn’t significant and restricting of speed should invariably increase flow rate. I read somewhere that the “ideal” speed for max flow was 28mph.

However its a bandaid on the overcrowded road network that is completely nixed by middle lane Malcolm’s or any minor bump that doesn’t happen near the emergency cut out.

Better education and alternatives (like a decent reliable affordable train network for both people and freight) are the only real solution.
back to Boeing is online now  
Old 12th Jul 2019, 17:18
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 2,269
On Motorways speed does not kill.it is the accident caused by speed,. you can skid off at 70mph and slide to a halt, unlucky if there us a concrete bridge support etc. The accidents are caused however by excess speed and drivers that are not aware. Now my suggestion would be average speed cameras just after each junction and again just before each junction.
These will keep the speeders in check and does sharpen up everyone's attention
I am happy with all lanes running. Hard shoulders are / were for unreliable cars of old
Kiltrash is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2019, 17:24
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,426
Originally Posted by NutLoose View Post
Sometimes on wonders if resources are being channelled at the right targets
It's the control thing, innit - we're prepared to spend much more preventing a death that isn't within the control of the victim.

So, preventing deaths in plane crashes (zero control) we spend vastly disproportionate amounts of money per life saved.

Deaths that could be argued by some to be self-inflicted due to alcohol and drug misuse, not so much.

Road deaths, somewhere in between - not all the people who die are the ones who are driving badly.
Gertrude the Wombat is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2019, 20:22
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Posts: 225
It seems to me that a lot of the victims around my part of the world are not innocent victims but quite often users of alcohol and drug. Disqualified drivers and/or registration and stolen cars comes up regularly too. Distracted drivers are a rapidly rising number in the statistics too. I do not see these victims as purely blameless. Their passengers (especially children with no option) and the people they plough into are the victims.
My standard 1 year old Toyota has a data recorder buried within it somewhere. It is a small statement within the handbook and states that Toyota and the relavant authorities can access it if required. I'd also like to see manufacturers make crash cams as standard fit out as most cars have a fair percentage of the equipment already onboard.
Part of the road statistics is not the deaths, it's also the vast number of injuries.
clark y is offline  
Old 13th Jul 2019, 00:23
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Surrey
Age: 62
Posts: 89
Originally Posted by Kiltrash View Post
On Motorways speed does not kill.it is the accident caused by speed,. you can skid off at 70mph and slide to a halt, unlucky if there us a concrete bridge support etc. The accidents are caused however by excess speed and drivers that are not aware. Now my suggestion would be average speed cameras just after each junction and again just before each junction.
These will keep the speeders in check and does sharpen up everyone's attention
I am happy with all lanes running. Hard shoulders are / were for unreliable cars of old
Speed does not kill,but extreme deceleration does,as you come to an abrupt stop!There used to be a large illuminated sign,where theA34 joined the M40,saying"speed Kills".Every time I drove past,and read it ,I wondered why so many people were willing to fly on Concorde.
ex82watcher is offline  
Old 13th Jul 2019, 02:40
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Asia
Posts: 523
With turbochargers, fuel injection and electronic engine management, sporty cars today are capable of the sort of performance which would have required an exotic super car back in the 1970s. A Ford Focus RS can do 0-60 in under 5 seconds and has a top speed of 165mph. Forty years ago you would have needed a Porsche Turbo for these kind of figures which even second hand would be beyond most peoples reach, where as a used Focus RS can be had for around £15 000.

Putting a car like that in the hands of someone in their early 20s is going to have predictable results, especially if alcohol is involved. It’s not just the top speed either, the car can easily out accelerate a young drivers brain and mow down a pedestrian before he knows what’s happened.

Black boxes are already standard on new cars in the USA https://eu.usatoday.com/story/tech/c...vate/20609035/

Alcohol interlocks may be mandated in some countries for repeat drink drivers, if they were installed on all new cars there wouldn’t be drink driving in the first place and police resources could be better used.

All this technology is available now but could be made outdated by self driving cars and ride sharing services such as Uber.

I can foresee some form of “air traffic control” for vehicles in the future with speeds being assigned and routes being given based on current conditions. Emergency services could be given priority when responding to an accident by clearing lanes and getting green lights at intersections.
krismiler is offline  
Old 13th Jul 2019, 03:43
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 1
Originally Posted by back to Boeing View Post
Better education and alternatives (like a decent reliable affordable train network for both people and freight) are the only real solution.
Will never happen, simply because the government will lose all the fuel excise and road taxes.
Lantern10 is offline  
Old 13th Jul 2019, 04:48
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Balikpapan, INDONESIA
Age: 67
Posts: 517
Originally Posted by Lantern10 View Post
Will never happen, simply because the government will lose all the fuel excise and road taxes.................
.......... which they use for damned near anything except road building / upgrading / maintenance.

WingNut60 is offline  
Old 13th Jul 2019, 07:30
  #13 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 15,961
Dashcams are possibly the next manufacturers standard fit, I've added one to mine incidentally, there should be an insurance benefit for having one if I had my way.
I was looking at the new Audi all electric SUV thing while awaiting to pick mine up and they have got rid of the wing mirrors and have a slim stalk with a camera in it with LCD monitors inside the doors..
i agree with what is said about youngsters owning high powered cars, it should be BHP limited by age, though that could work both ways as reaction times reduce with age.......
NutLoose is online now  
Old 13th Jul 2019, 07:53
  #14 (permalink)  
Paid...Persona Grata
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Between BHX and EMA
Age: 73
Posts: 236
Deaths on UK Roads 2017 1793, speed related 1/4 = 448 Overkill or what...
Don't know where you get that from, the Gov't report (Sect RAS50002) says:-

Travelling too fast for conditions - 7% (which may or may not be exceeding the speed limit)
Exceeding sped limit - 5%

This being a causal factor (not necessarily the only or major one) for all crashes reported.

Table RAS50001 gives 25% fatal crashes caused by ALL types of driver behaviour, of which 17% are defined as driver "careless, reckless or in a hurry" which presumably involves going too fast.
UniFoxOs is offline  
Old 13th Jul 2019, 09:39
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Schofields
Posts: 61
Originally Posted by NutLoose View Post
Dashcams are possibly the next manufacturers standard fit, I've added one to mine incidentally, there should be an insurance benefit for having one if I had my way.
I was looking at the new Audi all electric SUV thing while awaiting to pick mine up and they have got rid of the wing mirrors and have a slim stalk with a camera in it with LCD monitors inside the doors..
i agree with what is said about youngsters owning high powered cars, it should be BHP limited by age, though that could work both ways as reaction times reduce with age.......
My 2019 Lexus LC500 Owner's Manual has a warning that recorded data including images may be downloaded, but I've not yet located where the camera is exactly. I suspect it might be co-located with the lane-assist technology.
PinkusDickus is offline  
Old 13th Jul 2019, 13:21
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,426
Originally Posted by ex82watcher View Post
Speed does not kill,but extreme deceleration does,as you come to an abrupt stop!There used to be a large illuminated sign,where theA34 joined the M40,saying"speed Kills".Every time I drove past,and read it ,I wondered why so many people were willing to fly on Concorde.
It remains the case that the number of people killed in a motor accident when all the vehicles involved were travelling at 0mph is quite small.

It is indeed not absolute speed that kills, but speed that is too high for the conditions. It's not difficult to agree that all accidents result from at least one party travelling too fast for the conditions.
Gertrude the Wombat is offline  
Old 13th Jul 2019, 13:55
  #17 (permalink)  
Paid...Persona Grata
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Between BHX and EMA
Age: 73
Posts: 236
all accidents result from at least one party travelling too fast for the conditions.
If it is the result of a road user doing something stupid it is not an accident. We should start always calling them crashes. True accidents are very rare, and the use of that word implies no blame on anyone.
UniFoxOs is offline  
Old 13th Jul 2019, 15:14
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: South Oxfordshire
Posts: 596
I've always interpreted "accident" as "unintentional", rather than no-one being at fault.
The fashion these days is to call them "collisions"... which they are.
Blues&twos is offline  
Old 13th Jul 2019, 15:18
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,426
Originally Posted by Blues&twos View Post
I've always interpreted "accident" as "unintentional", rather than no-one being at fault.
The fashion these days is to call them "collisions"... which they are.
That's a sensible change actually. Before the change, we reported a collision to the police. They kept asking us questions about "the accident" despite the fact that we'd told them several times that it was blindingly obvious that the other driver had driven into our car deliberately.
Gertrude the Wombat is offline  
Old 13th Jul 2019, 15:54
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: God's Country
Posts: 111
Originally Posted by UniFoxOs View Post
If it is the result of a road user doing something stupid it is not an accident. We should start always calling them crashes. True accidents are very rare, and the use of that word implies no blame on anyone.
Thank you, it isn't just me then. I can't think of many cases where there is no one or nothing that cannot be blamed.
That is why I wish it was the Highway LAW not merely a code.
People being held responsible for their actions would improve driving IMHO.

The Nip is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.