Calamity1971
If Mr Peanut says It's okay, then it is.
Oh, I thought they'd have to paint it lilac or something. Who's Trevor, is he a 'professional body' ?
Road safety: UK set to adopt vehicle speed limiters
- Thread starter editor
- Start date
editor
hiraethified
It's an invitation to prove the points wrong with actual research rather than individual anecdotes and opinions. I've backed up my points, many times.
So what have you got?
editor
hiraethified
Stop disrupting this thread with your boring, ad hominem cross-thread beef. And, no. Don't bother answering.
Wookey
Muppet is not a slur
He's my video game Doppleganger.
He has a special mad mode, and when he drives in mad mode it gets very fast and blurry. He has no speed limiters save for the fatigue of my thumb.
Saul Goodman
It's all good, man
I am absolutely going to answer, because IT'S A FACT! You spit your dummy out when things don't go your way, and issue warnings. Forums are supposed to be about debating, but whenever anyone puts forward a suggestion that you don't like, you shut them down with a warning or some other such petulant BS. We're supposed to be able to discuss things like adults, but when YOU are involved, there's only one outcome, either you 'win' or the ban hammer comes down.
I've been contemplating it for a while, but I've now made the decision. Congratulations for being the first person I have EVER put on ignore!
Edit: Don't bother answering, you're on ignore!
editor
hiraethified
OK and off you go for a week. You've been doing this on multiple threads and you've been warned enough times to stop.
Calamity1971
If Mr Peanut says It's okay, then it is.
Those individual anecdotes and opinions are from people who drive. As far as I'm concerned, that qualifies. Maybe not as a number cruncher but as a road user with valuable input on speed limiters and whether good or bad.
editor
hiraethified
Of course they count, but surely you'd agree that independent studies have to trump personal opinions and one-off anecdotes?
Calamity1971
If Mr Peanut says It's okay, then it is.
No. Independent studies? How independent are they?
editor
hiraethified
Well, go back and have a look and decide for yourself - I've posted up a multitude in this thread!
Here's one to start you off:
Speed and accident risk - Mobility and transport - European Commission
And:
https://www.rospa.com/rospaweb/docs/advice-services/road-safety/drivers/inappropriate-speed.pdf
Calamity1971
If Mr Peanut says It's okay, then it is.
Yes, I've read that. But GPS speed limiters is bollocks.
Let's talk about the knackers who drive at 50mph on the motorway as well. Sometimes driving slower is a bigger hazard.
To be honest, I gave up on this thread when it turned into a pollution argument rather than a speed issue.
Calamity1971
If Mr Peanut says It's okay, then it is.
That's not patronising at all.
editor
hiraethified
Well the increased speeds that some people have been arguing for does equal extra pollution.
editor
hiraethified
Sorry, it really wasn't meant to be but it is a bit frustrating to have spent time researching so many links in this thread and you not bother to look at any of them.
editor
hiraethified
Calamity1971
If Mr Peanut says It's okay, then it is.
Ask any driver on here. 60mph road, you go at say 50-60, over the brow of a hill you've got someone doing 30, you have to slam the brakes on. This is more dangerous! I've many more examples. It's not a simple solution, argue all you like, if you've got a dickhead at the wheel whether it be too fast or too slow, youve still got a dickhead.
I still think that this thread should be about speed limiters and not pollution as this complicates matters.
editor
hiraethified
I've no doubt that some slow drivers cause accidents. But studies seem to conclude that it's the speeding twats who cause the majority of them.
BigTom
Well-Known Member
That means you are going too fast. What if you went over the brow of that hill and a tree has come down, or there's an animal, tractor or some other obstruction?
Your speed should be dictated by the conditions which includes how much forward vision you have.
The danger in your example is not caused by the driver doing 30 in a 60 but by the driver who is going too fast to be able to slow down/stop in the distance they can see.
Speed limiters would have no effect on this situation obviously.
(I drive regularly)
People undoubtedly drive too fast and a speed limiter is a good idea in theory, but the technical challenge of the system getting confused suddenly should not be hand-waved away. If Boeing can make an aircraft that can’t tell the difference between a stall and non-stall in certain situations then I’m not convinced we’re yet at the point where a speed limiter won’t suddenly think I’m on the 30mph road that runs parallel to the motorway instead of the motorway itself. After all, my GPS frequently makes that exact mistake.
All the overrides in the world are no comfort if there is a sudden, potentially catastrophic, event such as the car hard braking me. The whole point if why high speeds are dangerous in the first place is that it takes a human 0.5 seconds to react to an event. In a complex situation like this, it will then take another 0.5 seconds to realise what is actually happening and do something about it. In that second, the car will already have slowed from 70 to 30 and somebody driving too close behind — a common occurrence, particularly if I’m actually driving at 70 rather than 80 — will already have gone into the back of me.
Saying “but studies!” doesn’t help resolve whether the risk is real until this thing has had significant real-world exposure, because a low probability event will not show up in studies. A 1-in-1000000 mile event will only have a 30% chance of showing up even once in 1000000 miles of study but will happen many times a day in reality due to the sheer number of miles driven. That’s a classic low power study error.
All the overrides in the world are no comfort if there is a sudden, potentially catastrophic, event such as the car hard braking me. The whole point if why high speeds are dangerous in the first place is that it takes a human 0.5 seconds to react to an event. In a complex situation like this, it will then take another 0.5 seconds to realise what is actually happening and do something about it. In that second, the car will already have slowed from 70 to 30 and somebody driving too close behind — a common occurrence, particularly if I’m actually driving at 70 rather than 80 — will already have gone into the back of me.
Saying “but studies!” doesn’t help resolve whether the risk is real until this thing has had significant real-world exposure, because a low probability event will not show up in studies. A 1-in-1000000 mile event will only have a 30% chance of showing up even once in 1000000 miles of study but will happen many times a day in reality due to the sheer number of miles driven. That’s a classic low power study error.
Bahnhof Strasse
Met up with Hannah Courtoy a week next Tuesday
Surrey Police are very much focused on people driving too slowly right now, especially those who leap in to the middle of three lanes of a 70 limit road and trundle along at 50, but also those in the ‘slow lane’ at 30-40 too. As it causes people behind to slow down, bunch up and squeeze past, all of which adds up to a massive risk to safety and an increase in pollution.
Last edited:
Steel Icarus
we move
This thread though 
It's strewn with the remains of so many crash-test dummies fashioned from straw
It's strewn with the remains of so many crash-test dummies fashioned from straw
Aka Enough with your facts, I’m done with experts here are some anecdotes ?
Are you Micheal gove ?
You have demonstrated that this is a toxic issue which pisses off everyone, which is probably why it’s still 70 fiftyish years later.
Alex
SpookyFrank
A cheap source of teeth for aquarium gravel
If you're going at sixty when you can't see what's ahead then that's you driving badly, not the person in front of you.
mauvais
on reddit or something
It's quite unlikely that limiters will brake the car, they don't do this now. There are at least two systems that do, however: adaptive cruise control, and autonomous emergency braking (collision avoidance).
I don't really worry about this but it does have significance. The set of capabilities that could be invoked means these things are safety critical. That in turn means things like we will probably never see retrofit even if the will was there (there is little/no retrofit precedent in law - only leaded petrol springs to mind).
The lack of braking doesn't get you out of the woods though, as disabled throttle is also dangerous, just less immediately disastrous.
Tankus
Amused OAP
.......back door to variable full journey road toll charges , automated national speeding and traffic offence fines ,national automated parking fines and governmental 100% 365day vehicle tracking....... its going to be linked to the now compulsory 112 emergency modems built into every new car .....an absolute government revenue stream .....
The speed limit restrictions are just the sell
The speed limit restrictions are just the sell
UnderOpenSky
baseline neural therapy
I'm pretty sceptical about taking more control off the driver with these new systems. Motorway driving when it's not busy is pretty untaxing anyway. Make it even easier and people are more likely to completely lose attention.
Why Tesla got slammed for calling them an autopilot.
SpookyFrank
A cheap source of teeth for aquarium gravel
If you've got your phone in the car when you drive they can already track you anyway.
BigTom
Well-Known Member
I don't think you are right about this but anyway...
Great, I am (in principle) supportive of variable road charging.
The speed limiters would in theory prevent speeding and automated traffic offence processes sound good to me - I don't think it'll work like that though, it'll be black boxes recording the vehicle's movements, similar to tachos, which will be used for evidence in the event of a collision. Personally I would like to see a lot more drivers being prosecuted for their driving and anything that helps with that is a good thing.
As above, I don't think it'll work like that but if every driver who blocked a pavement or parked dangerously got fined for it, they would stop and my journeys would be much improved and safer.
If you have a registered mobile phone, this is already in place. In any case ANPR already does a lot of this, vehicle movements are heavily tracked in cities. I don't like this stuff at all but I pretty much gave up on govt tracking movements when mobiles became ubiqituous.
Dunno what you are meaning with this to be honest.
Great, I am (in principle) supportive of variable road charging.
The speed limiters would in theory prevent speeding and automated traffic offence processes sound good to me - I don't think it'll work like that though, it'll be black boxes recording the vehicle's movements, similar to tachos, which will be used for evidence in the event of a collision. Personally I would like to see a lot more drivers being prosecuted for their driving and anything that helps with that is a good thing.
As above, I don't think it'll work like that but if every driver who blocked a pavement or parked dangerously got fined for it, they would stop and my journeys would be much improved and safer.
If you have a registered mobile phone, this is already in place. In any case ANPR already does a lot of this, vehicle movements are heavily tracked in cities. I don't like this stuff at all but I pretty much gave up on govt tracking movements when mobiles became ubiqituous.
Dunno what you are meaning with this to be honest.
editor
hiraethified
You've just given another reason why speeding drivers cause more accidents.
Similar threads
