Road safety: UK set to adopt vehicle speed limiters

[editor]

Thought not.

See above (it's from the OP link). And then maybe read some of the many, many, amply researched links already posted.

 

[8ball]

I hope they bring this in very soon. I'll be working on kits to bypass it as soon as it comes out, and they'll be for sale on ebay shortly after.
There's no better feeling than making money from circumventing stupid nanny-state legislations.

You'll make a decent few quid until they ban your kits.

 

[farmerbarleymow]

I'm guessing the tech that needs fitting would be worth considerably more than my 03 ibiza.

You could ditch the car and get a pushbike - Durham isn't that hilly.

Public transport is so appalling outside London, everyone needs a car sadly.

That's nonsense - I live outside of London and don't have a car. Granted, I live in a city rather than out in the sticks.

 

[Calamity1971]

You could ditch the car and get a pushbike - Durham isn't that hilly.



That's nonsense - I live outside of London and don't have a car. Granted, I live in a city rather than out in the sticks.

Ive got one, and it is
Not sure about Manchester, but Liverpools bus and rail network is fantastic.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

It doesn't work though, as I've said. The A1 Durham to Newcastle is now set at 50mph. People either drive up your arse or overtake aggressively. Especially locals who know where the camera traps are.

So, again, make the entire network average speed enforced.

 

[Calamity1971]

So, again, make the entire network average speed enforced.

At what speed would you set it?

 

[8ball]

So, again, make the entire network average speed enforced.

Good excuse to stop for a pint...

 

[littlebabyjesus]

But you understand that by increasing the maximum car speed, you make rail journeys seem less attractive and this increase pollution and congestion? And all these extra cars don't just magically stop driving when they get off the motorway: they continue driving and polluting away into all those urban areas where you want fewer cars on the road. So we get more urban traffic too - something you said you were against.

And then there's the matter of lorries and freight...

The two aren't mutually exclusive, though. What is badly needed is an integrated approach to everything - planning, capacity, speeds, pricing. On pricing, for instance, it needs to be worked out that an average person driving an average car averagely well will pay more in petrol driving to a place on their own than they would have paid for a train ticket. Two people in a car, ok, but one person - public transport needs to always be cheaper. That's how you get people out of their cars, no?

 

[8ball]

The two aren't mutually exclusive, though. What is badly needed is an integrated approach to everything - planning, capacity, speeds, pricing. On pricing, for instance, it needs to be worked out that an average person driving an average car averagely well will pay more in petrol driving to a place on their own than they would have paid for a train ticket. Two people in a car, ok, but one person - public transport needs to always be cheaper. That's how you get people out of their cars, no?

The "making things shitter" argument, laced with dusting of economic illiteracy and a spritz of unicorn fart.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

At what speed would you set it?

Whatever its set to at the time, exactly as the current areas work.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

At what speed would you set it?

130mph, and you must go at exactly that. If you or your car can't manage that, you can take the bus with editor. Would clear congestion and reduce pollution in one swoop

 

[Calamity1971]

The two aren't mutually exclusive, though. What is badly needed is an integrated approach to everything - planning, capacity, speeds, pricing. On pricing, for instance, it needs to be worked out that an average person driving an average car averagely well will pay more in petrol driving to a place on their own than they would have paid for a train ticket. Two people in a car, ok, but one person - public transport needs to always be cheaper. That's how you get people out of their cars, no?

Costs me 30quid for a return journey to Liverpool in my car. Train 72 quid, plus another train to final point. Would also have to get a taxi to station in the first place, or the little bus that does the rounds thrice a day. Local fares here are expensive compared to other parts of the UK.

 

[Calamity1971]

130mph, and you must go at exactly that. If you or your car can't manage that, you can take the bus with editor. Would clear congestion and reduce pollution in one swoop

I think the doors would fall off the ibiza at that speed. That's why I have a motorbike as well .

*scarpers*

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Costs me 30quid for a return journey to Liverpool in my car. Train 72 quid, plus another train to final point. Would also have to get a taxi to station in the first place, or the little bus that does the rounds thrice a day. Local fares here are expensive compared to other parts of the UK.

That's where integrating things is needed - so you drive to the station initially, where there is ample free parking. But yes, why wouldn't you drive when it is so much cheaper?

 

[Flavour]

From a pollution pov maybe this could be a good thing, but it's not the only pov. There'll be errors and hiccups and inevitably deaths. Anyway if it can be disabled manually then whatever, everyone will just switch it off. Waste of money even developing it.

 

[farmerbarleymow]

From a pollution pov maybe this could be a good thing, but it's not the only pov. There'll be errors and hiccups and inevitably deaths. Anyway if it can be disabled manually then whatever, everyone will just switch it off. Waste of money even developing it.

They could implement harsh penalties so anyone who had disabled it and had an accident would be fed to the lions at the nearest zoo.

 

[8ball]

They could implement harsh penalties so anyone who had disabled it and had an accident would be fed to the lions at the nearest zoo.

Well, assuming the disabling had contributed to the accident.

People may have disabled it in an attempt to *avoid* an accident.

 

[alex_]

They could implement harsh penalties so anyone who had disabled it and had an accident would be fed to the lions at the nearest zoo.

The harsh penalty will be if you were speeding your insurance is third party only, your policy is now cancelled and if you want to insure your new car the 25cc lawn mower starts at 30k

Alex

 

[editor]

People may have disabled it in an attempt to *avoid* an accident.

They'd have to work mighty quick.

 

[bellaozzydog]

I agree it will save lives and is sensible but I can help feel like it’s been rolled out as an “EU MESSING WITH OUR LAWS AND FUN” style headline at a fairly critical point in brexshit

 

[8ball]

They'd have to work mighty quick.

Indeed. But with the current state of certain road setups it will still be necessary sometimes, and in certain places people will know they need to disable it to stay alive.

With our current lot of incompetent twats in Government, they’d be less likely to fix things than put up “disable speed control now” signs.

If they do anything at all.

 

[editor]

Indeed. But with the current state of certain road setups it will still be necessary sometimes, and in certain places people will know they need to disable it to stay alive.

Oh come on. You're going right over the top here. Why on earth would anyone need to disable speed-limiters to "stay alive"?

 

[Cid]

Not at all, the entire motorway network needs to be made variable speed limit, enforced with average speed cameras.

Yep, I suspect that would have more effect than anything else. Very rare to see someone speeding when it's averaged... Even on the tedious as fuck M1 roadworks (50mph for around 20 miles). On a more permanent basis it seems to work pretty well on the A14 near Cambridge, though that's not variable.

 

[8ball]

Oh come on. You're going right over the top here. Why on earth would anyone need to disable speed-limiters to "stay alive"?

It’s been explained to you at least twice on this thread now.

And anyway, did we ever track down that ‘Danny’ character?

 

[editor]

It’s been explained to you at least twice on this thread now.

And anyway, did we ever track down that ‘Danny’ character?

Oh OK. You're just going to post up nonsense.

 

[8ball]

Oh OK. You're just going to post up nonsense.

 

[editor]

Yep, I suspect that would have more effect than anything else. Very rare to see someone speeding when it's averaged... Even on the tedious as fuck M1 roadworks (50mph for around 20 miles). On a more permanent basis it seems to work pretty well on the A14 near Cambridge, though that's not variable.

Going to cost a fucking bomb to introduce variable speeds across the network and with every piece of research showing that increasing the speed over 70mph will result in more fatalities, I'm not sure if it's worth the money.

I'd rather the investment goes into public transport.

 

[Cid]

But you understand that by increasing the maximum car speed, you make rail journeys seem less attractive and this increase pollution and congestion? And all these extra cars don't just magically stop driving when they get off the motorway: they continue driving and polluting away into all those urban areas where you want fewer cars on the road. So we get more urban traffic too - something you said you were against.

And then there's the matter of lorries and freight...

I agree broadly in terms of pollution etc, but this is a stretch. No-one is going to look at the marginal gain from a 10mph speed increase and think 'oh, well I'll get a car then'. I'm making assumptions myself here of course, but patterns of behaviour don't tend to work like that... You'd need a substantial change for driving to become more appealing. That choice is likely to be based on things like practicality and cost... And the norms of whatever culture you grow up in.

 

[Cid]

Going to cost a fucking bomb to introduce variable speeds across the network and with every piece of research showing that increasing the speed over 70mph will result in more fatalities, I'm not sure if it's worth the money.

I'd rather the investment goes into public transport.

I've got little interest in what the speed limit is, just backing up that ime average speed limit systems are by far the most effective at keeping people in the legal range.

I'd love to see a public transport network that effectively served the entire country, linking small driverless units to large mass transit systems. But it's a long way off and would require a huge restructuring of infrastructure. Until then, to one degree or another, we're stuck with roads and their drivers.

 

[editor]

I agree broadly in terms of pollution etc, but this is a stretch. No-one is going to look at the marginal gain from a 10mph speed increase and think 'oh, well I'll get a car then'. I'm making assumptions myself here of course, but patterns of behaviour don't tend to work like that... You'd need a substantial change for driving to become more appealing. That choice is likely to be based on things like practicality and cost... And the norms of whatever culture you grow up in.

Well, whenever new motorways were built to get rid of congestion they swiftly filled up with drivers keen to take advantage of the improved roads. I don't think it's too much of a stretch to suggest that if speeds were increased on motorways, more people would seek to take advantage of it.

When a new road is built, new traffic will divert onto it. Many people may make new trips they would otherwise not make, and will travel longer distances just because of the presence of the new road. This well-known and long-established effect is known as ‘induced traffic’.

New roads create new traffic