Road safety: UK set to adopt vehicle speed limiters

[T & P]

Inappropriately slow speed is as dangerous, and certainly as wrong, as inappropriately high speed. And the police already take a dim view on it, though it should certainly stamp on it more thoroughly still.

 

[Chz]

All the overrides in the world are no comfort if there is a sudden, potentially catastrophic, event such as the car hard braking me.

While all my instincts tell me to keep out of this, I just have to state that no-one is proposing this. The proposed system will limit acceleration to a defined speed, unless overridden. As a regular driver, I think this can only be a good thing.

 

[editor]

Inappropriately slow speed is as dangerous, and certainly as wrong, as inappropriately high speed. And the police already take a dim view on it, though it should certainly stamp on it more thoroughly still.

How do you feel about thundering up the brow of a hill at 60mph when you can't see what's ahead?

 

[T & P]

How do you feel about thundering up the brow of a hill at 60mph when you can't see what's ahead?

I wasn't talking specifically at that incident, but a overcautions/ excessively slow drivers in general. They are a risk to other users just as overspeeders can be.

 

[editor]

I wasn't talking specifically at that incident, but a overcautions/ excessively slow drivers in general. They are a risk to other users just as overspeeders can be.

That's great but what about answering the question?

 

[2hats]

Inappropriately slow speed is as dangerous, and certainly as wrong, as inappropriately high speed. And the police already take a dim view on it, though it should certainly stamp on it more thoroughly still.

Assuming everyone is going to drive at or close to (or indeed, in excess of) the speed limit is dangerous. Vehicle components fail and they lose speed. People fall ill. People need to execute manoeuvres. The only assumption should be that all other road traffic can and will change speed and direction with little or no warning, and that if your field of view is less than your braking distance then you need to reduce speed to reduce your braking distance to match said field of view.

A solid blanket limit of 70 is fine. No more is needed. Arguably 60-65 to reduce pollution. Need to speed to 'get out of a situation' is one of those delightful pistonhead delusions, conveniently forgetting that they themselves created the situation in the first place.

Roll on self driving vehicles.

 

[T & P]

That's great but what about answering the question?

It depends on the extent of the gradient and how much one can see ahead. In many circumstances 60 mph seem inappropriately fast of course.

You do however agree with the principle that driving too slowly in the right circumstances and visibility is potentially dangerous and such driving should be condemned not encouraged, right?

 

[editor]

It depends on the extent of the gradient and how much one can see ahead. In many circumstances 60 mph seem inappropriately fast of course.

You do however agree with the principle that driving too slowly in the right circumstances and visibility is potentially dangerous and such driving should be condemned not encouraged, right?

I've already clearly stated that I think driving too slowly can be dangerous, but - to repeat - studies show that far more accidents are caused by people driving too fast. Like someone hurtling up a brow of a hill and not being able to see what's directly ahead.

 

[8ball]

How do you feel about thundering up the brow of a hill at 60mph when you can't see what's ahead?

I tend to think "well, there's no chance of me getting any air at this speed".

 

[editor]

A solid blanket limit of 70 is fine. No more is needed. Arguably 60-65 to reduce pollution. Need to speed to 'get out of a situation' is one of those delightful pistonhead delusions, conveniently forgetting that they themselves created the situation in the first place.

Roll on self driving vehicles.

Spot on, sir.

 

[T & P]

A solid blanket limit of 70 is fine. No more is needed. Arguably 60-65 to reduce pollution. Need to speed to 'get out of a situation' is one of those delightful pistonhead delusions, conveniently forgetting that they themselves created the situation in the first place.

Roll on self driving vehicles.

Well, I myself experienced one such situation and I was not speeding, nor am I a pistonhead.

The situation was created by the driver who was coming from behind on a dual carriageway at a speed that I was able to estimate when he overtook me at no less than 120 mph.

It is very difficult to judge the speed of a car travelling behind you in the same direction. A car travelling at the m-way speed limit, or even slightly faster, would have taken much longer to reach my position. I did nothing wrong by any stretch of the imagination or indeed any Highway Code rule book in the entire world by initiating that particular overtake, since the car behind me was considerably far away.

But the problem many people forget is that real life situations cannot be accounted for or regulated successfully by any regulation book or law. An idiot doing 120 mph and not slowing down because he's either high as a kite, running away from the police, or just being a cunt, will continue to accelerate towards other objects at the same speed regardless of the Highway Code might claim.

 

[binka]

I wish more could be done about distracted drivers. I ride a motorbike where I'm not listening to music, not fucking around with a phone/GPS/radio, not eating. Instead I actually pay attention to what's happening round me, check my mirrors, don't drift over lanes or go through red lights.

 

[2hats]

The situation was created by the driver who was coming from behind on a dual carriageway at a speed that I was able to estimate when he overtook me at no less than 120 mph.

Congratulations on making the argument for universal speed limiters.

 

[editor]

Well, I myself experienced one such situation and I was not speeding, nor am I a pistonhead.

The situation was created by the driver who was coming from behind on a dual carriageway at a speed that I was able to estimate when he overtook me at no less than 120 mph.

It is very difficult to judge the speed of a car travelling behind you in the same direction. A car travelling at the m-way speed limit, or even slightly faster, would have taken much longer to reach my position. I did nothing wrong by any stretch of the imagination or indeed any Highway Code rule book in the entire world by initiating that particular overtake, since the car behind me was considerably far away.

But the problem many people forget is that real life situations cannot be accounted for or regulated successfully by any regulation book or law. An idiot doing 120 mph and not slowing down because he's either high as a kite, running away from the police, or just being a cunt, will continue to accelerate towards other objects at the same speed regardless how the Highway Code might claim.

If only drivers could just slow down a bit. Oh. wait...

 

[editor]

I wish more could be done about distracted drivers. I ride a motorbike where I'm not listening to music, not fucking around with a phone/GPS/radio, not eating. Instead I actually pay attention to what's happening round me, check my mirrors, don't drift over lanes or go through red lights.

The amount of twats I see around Brixton chatting on their phone as they drive by.

 

[T & P]

Congratulations on making the argument for universal speed limiters.

That however dismantles your claim that needing to accelerating to get out of a dangerous situation is a myth, does it not?

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

. Vehicle components fail and they lose speed. People fall ill.

Your vehicle MUST be in a roadworthy condition and so should the driver. Basic stuff, these people need stiff sentences.

 

[2hats]

That however dismantles your claim that needing to accelerating to get out of a dangerous situation is a myth, does it not?

No. The 'need' is only created by those who drive too fast in the first place.

 

[T & P]

If only drivers could just slow down a bit. Oh. wait...

What is your opinion of the claim some people make that needing to accelerate to get out of trouble in some situations is a myth?

 

[8ball]

Need to speed to 'get out of a situation' is one of those delightful pistonhead delusions, conveniently forgetting that they themselves created the situation in the first place.

I've had a few cases where it definitely would have been useful to have a sharp burst of speed to avoid iffyness.
Not that it was an option in my 20 year old Micra (and I probably wouldn't have gone over the limit anyway in the situation), but the principle sometimes holds, even if it is exaggerated by the pistonheads.

It's no biggie if this tech can be overridden where appropriate, though. mauvais thoughts about cognitive load are relevant, though. If you can override it, why not just have something mildly attention-getting/annoying, such as a vibration from the steering wheel to let you know you've passed the limit.

 

[2hats]

Your vehicle MUST be in a roadworthy condition and so should the driver. Basic stuff, these people need stiff sentences.

Bit difficult to maintain instantaneously though.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

Bit difficult to maintain instantaneously though.

We expect it in the aviation world, why so different in the automotive field?

 

[8ball]

We expect it in the aviation world, why so different in the automotive field?

All cars to have dual controls and a co-driver by law in case of seizures / heart attacks / sudden explosive diarrhoea.

 

[T & P]

No. The 'need' is only created by those who drive too fast in the first place.

But the driver who is not at fault still needs to accelerate out of trouble in certain situations.

Again, what should be and what is on the roads are two separate things. That does not mean we should give up and not try to stop such behaviour. But it also means in real life situations perfectly sensible drivers who have not done nothing wrong might sometimes need the extra speed to get out of a spot of bother. So needing to accelerate to get out of trouble is very much a reality, no matter how much of a problem some people appear to have with a simple factual statement like that.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

All cars to have dual controls and a co-driver by law in case of seizures / heart attacks / sudden explosive diarrhoea.

Health checks for all drivers, currently there are none beyond being able to read a number plate. Anyone in less than perfect fitness can join editor on the bus. Reducing congestion and pollution

 

[UnderOpenSky]

Health checks for all drivers, currently there are none beyond being able to read a number plate. Anyone in less than perfect fitness can join editor on the bus. Reducing congestion and pollution

My Dad who has quite severe Parkinsons has only just given back his license. Obviously he chose not to drive, but it's rather scary that he could have done.

 

[8ball]

Health checks for all drivers, currently there are none beyond being able to read a number plate. Anyone in less than perfect fitness can join editor on the bus. Reducing congestion and pollution

I think cyclists should be included in the health checks really, what with the extra load on their system.
Are we also doing IQ and emotional stability tests?

 

[2hats]

We expect it in the aviation world, why so different in the automotive field?

It can't be maintained instantaneously in the aviation field either. You can minimise it - so two drivers per vehicle and triplication of all components - fine by me. Might make your motoring hobby a tad more expensive though.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

I think cyclists should be included in the health checks really, what with the extra load on their system.
Are we also doing IQ and emotional stability tests?

All good. Really what needs to happen is we whittle down the acceptableness of drivers to me. Everyone one on the fucking bus you go. Beep, beep!

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

It can't be maintained instantaneously in the aviation field either. You can minimise it - so two drivers per vehicle and triplication of all components - fine by me. Might make your motoring hobby a tad more expensive though.

We can subsidise the extra cost from the greater revenue received from bus fares