Road safety: UK set to adopt vehicle speed limiters

[neonwilderness]

It reads to me like it’s taking the onus away from the driver to be aware of their surrounding and what the speed limit is. Some drivers may just end up becoming complacent and relying on the limiter rather than judging what’s appropriate for themselves.

Anyone who wants to speed is just going to turn it off anyway

 

[Saul Goodman]

No. Any more stupid questions?

It looked like that's what you were saying. No need to be a dick about it.

 

[Saul Goodman]

It reads to me like it’s taking the onus away from the driver to be aware of their surrounding and what the speed limit is. Some drivers may just end up becoming complacent and relying on the limiter rather than judging what’s appropriate for themselves.

Anyone who wants to speed is just going to turn it off anyway

Exactly.

Anyway, it doesn't apply to motorbikes, so that's good news.

Don't panic! New EU vehicle regulations don't apply to motorbikes

 

[8ball]

For the reasons I already explained
.

It’s utterly futile to fight this kind of burning self-righteous ignorance.

 

[Humberto]

It’s utterly futile to fight this kind of burning self-righteous ignorance.

No, he's alright.

 

[dessiato]

The one word that is too often missing from the speed kills argument is "inappropriate."

Speed by itself does not kill, otherwise everytime we fly, every motorsport rider/driver, every military pilot etc would be dead.

It is driving at an inappropriate speed for the conditions that causes accidents, injury and death.

I've no problem with people driving fast, in safe conditions. I like to do it. But I am strongly against dickheads driving at thirty past an emptying school. The limit might permit it, but it's unsafe. I am not against someone doing 100 on an empty motorway late at night. Even though the law doesn't allow it.

I think it is much more important that people are educated to drive at an appropriate speed at all times rather than put gadgets into vehicles to control them.

Will these gadgets know that it's foggy, snowy, raining and make adjustments so that, although the speed limit is 70, a safe speed is 40? Will the device know that there's a lot of people about and 30 is dangerous, even though the speed limit is 40?

Educate the driver/rider.

 

[Rosemary Jest]

The one word that is too often missing from the speed kills argument is "inappropriate."

Speed by itself does not kill, otherwise everytime we fly, every motorsport rider/driver, every military pilot etc would be dead.

It is driving at an inappropriate speed for the conditions that causes accidents, injury and death.

I've no problem with people driving fast, in safe conditions. I like to do it. But I am strongly against dickheads driving at thirty past an emptying school. The limit might permit it, but it's unsafe. I am not against someone doing 100 on an empty motorway late at night. Even though the law doesn't allow it.

I think it is much more important that people are educated to drive at an appropriate speed at all times rather than put gadgets into vehicles to control them.

Will these gadgets know that it's foggy, snowy, raining and make adjustments so that, although the speed limit is 70, a safe speed is 40? Will the device know that there's a lot of people about and 30 is dangerous, even though the speed limit is 40?

Educate the driver/rider.

Nice sentiment, but Range Rover Sports, and their drivers, exist.

 

[mauvais]

...assuming you'd forgotten that you had the limiter onboard. Doh!

But so everyone who is recommending this system is wrong, in your opinion, yes?

I do forget that I've enabled the limiter, or set it to a particular speed, so yes, exactly that.

As for everyone being wrong, of course not - I don't need to view things as absolutes. The system is useful and I already use limiters most of the time. However, as I've made clear, it has its risks.

 

[dessiato]

Nice sentiment, but Range Rover Sports, and their drivers, exist.

They need re-educating.

 

[mauvais]

It reads to me like it’s taking the onus away from the driver to be aware of their surrounding and what the speed limit is. Some drivers may just end up becoming complacent and relying on the limiter rather than judging what’s appropriate for themselves.

Anyone who wants to speed is just going to turn it off anyway

Like all driver assistance systems or even regulations, you have to decide if it's enabling the diminishing of driver responsibility, or a reaction to already poor driving standards. It can be both but in its total effect at any one time it probably falls more on one side than the other.

You can make the same argument about speed limits themselves. It means the driver delegates much of the responsibility for choice of speed to an external authority. But that's probably mostly OK as it turns out people aren't that good or that interested in doing that well themselves.

I think ISA is probably a good thing overall, not least because it offers safety value whilst not getting anywhere near as close to 'why not have a nap' redundancy of the driver as other autonomous things like adaptive cruise control do. It diminishes the need to observe signage but on the other hand it encourages compliance where there might not have been any.

 

[SpookyFrank]

The one word that is too often missing from the speed kills argument is "inappropriate."

Speed by itself does not kill, otherwise everytime we fly, every motorsport rider/driver, every military pilot etc would be dead.

It is driving at an inappropriate speed for the conditions that causes accidents, injury and death.

I've no problem with people driving fast, in safe conditions. I like to do it. But I am strongly against dickheads driving at thirty past an emptying school. The limit might permit it, but it's unsafe. I am not against someone doing 100 on an empty motorway late at night. Even though the law doesn't allow it.

I think it is much more important that people are educated to drive at an appropriate speed at all times rather than put gadgets into vehicles to control them.

Will these gadgets know that it's foggy, snowy, raining and make adjustments so that, although the speed limit is 70, a safe speed is 40? Will the device know that there's a lot of people about and 30 is dangerous, even though the speed limit is 40?

Educate the driver/rider.

Nobody needs to go anywhere at 100mph. Just because some twat thinks his reactions are good enough to respond to hazards at that speed, doesn't make it so. Arrogance does not trump the laws of physics.

 

[mauvais]

Nobody needs to go anywhere at 100mph. Just because some twat thinks his reactions are good enough to respond to hazards at that speed, doesn't make it so. Arrogance does not trump the laws of physics.

Sure, but you could say this about any number, 70 or 56 or 5. What if anything is special about what we've currently got as legal limits, other than history?

 

[SpookyFrank]

I still think the best approach is ruinous penalties and merciless enforcement. I'm not a law-and-order type generally but I am massively more interested in the rights of kids not to get run over than the rights of fuckwits to hurtle around public places for their own pathetic amusement.

 

[SpookyFrank]

Sure, but you could say this about any number, 70 or 56 or 5. What if anything is special about what we've currently got as legal limits, other than history?

Well at some point you need to pick an arbitrary number and stick to it. Speed limits have changed though (eg 20 limits are now ubiquitous) and those changes are evidence-based. 100mph, the thinking and stopping distance combined with potential force of an impact do not make a pretty sum.

The 70mph limit on motorways has endured for a long time because it's actually pretty sensible.

 

[dessiato]

I still think the best approach is ruinous penalties and merciless enforcement. I'm not a law-and-order type generally but I am massively more interested in the rights of kids not to get run over than the rights of fuckwits to hurtle around public places for their own pathetic amusement.

Which echoes what I said. Speed doesn't kill, inappropriately driving is the problem. A legal 30mph outside an emptying school can be far more dangerous than an illegal 100 on an empty motorway late at night. The former should looked on with more loathing than the latter. It's a question of appropriateness.

 

[mauvais]

I still think the best approach is ruinous penalties and merciless enforcement. I'm not a law-and-order type generally but I am massively more interested in the rights of kids not to get run over than the rights of fuckwits to hurtle around public places for their own pathetic amusement.

I tend to agree tbf, but within a narrower context. Driving standards round my way, in the city, are best described as dogshit. I've a great deal of hatred for these people.

Autonomous vehicles are the future and there's little point fighting a belated battle over standards now. But it is a failure and has consequences beyond transport. We should have tried harder to make people responsible for their actions and to hold them accountable. Part of that would have been giving them the freedom to make decisions. That's what driver education has traditionally been about with a fair degree of success. That model is coming to an end in several ways, for reasons that are now legitimate but perhaps could have been avoided.

 

[alex_]

I still think the best approach is ruinous penalties and merciless enforcement.

Which the little black box/flight recorder in every car will be the basis of.

This will be the basis of manslaughter charges for dangerous drivers, the evidence that you were ignoring the limiter and regularly did so.

Alex

 

[SpookyFrank]

Which echoes what I said. Speed doesn't kill, inappropriately driving is the problem. A legal 30mph outside an emptying school can be far more dangerous than an illegal 100 on an empty motorway late at night. The former should looked on with more loathing than the latter. It's a question of appropriateness.

There's a busy road near me that runs alongside a primary school. It's a cut-through between major roads and it's wide and straight so it's the sort of road people want to drive quickly down, but the limit is 20 because there's a school. Outside of school run times if you drive at 20 there you'll invariably get some dickhead tailgating or overtaking. I've had people shouting out their windows at me, deliberately cutting me up, all for driving bang on the speed limit. While I can see the argument for that road being 30 except school run times, I also think fuck making allowances for people who are so entitled they don't give a shit about a measure that is clearly in place to protect small children.

If I saw everyone driving down that road at 20 for a whole year, giving way at the zebra crossings without fail, generally being vaguely decent, then maybe I'd say mankind has earned the right to have that speed limit raised. Until that day, it should stay 20 and anyone going faster than 25 should have their vehicle crushed.

 

[mauvais]

Which the little black box/flight recorder in every car will be the basis of.

This will be the basis of manslaughter charges for dangerous drivers, the evidence that you were ignoring the limiter and regularly did so.

Alex

I doubt it. Accountability and punishment is limited by many other things before a lack of evidence ever becomes the problem.

 

[SpookyFrank]

Which the little black box/flight recorder in every car will be the basis of.

This will be the basis of manslaughter charges for dangerous drivers, the evidence that you were ignoring the limiter and regularly did so.

Alex

Fine by me. At present you can basically get away with killing people so long as you use a car to do it, that's got to change somehow.

 

[cheesethief]

Which the little black box/flight recorder in every car will be the basis of.

This will be the basis of manslaughter charges for dangerous drivers, the evidence that you were ignoring the limiter and regularly did so.

Alex

I hope this turns out to be true. I really believe the only thing that will tame the worst drivers is the knowledge that all their driving history will be taken into account, not just the 5 seconds leading up to a fatal accident...

 

[alex_]

I hope this turns out to be true. I really believe the only thing that will tame the worst drivers is the knowledge that all their driving history will be taken into account, not just the 5 seconds leading up to a fatal accident...

Insurers will want to see it too, that’ll be it’s impact upon most people.

Alex

 

[BigTom]

BMW drivers facing speed limiters promise they’ll still be wankers

BMW drivers facing speed limiters promise they’ll still be wankers

 

[dessiato]

There's a busy road near me that runs alongside a primary school. It's a cut-through between major roads and it's wide and straight so it's the sort of road people want to drive quickly down, but the limit is 20 because there's a school. Outside of school run times if you drive at 20 there you'll invariably get some dickhead tailgating or overtaking. I've had people shouting out their windows at me, deliberately cutting me up, all for driving bang on the speed limit. While I can see the argument for that road being 30 except school run times, I also think fuck making allowances for people who are so entitled they don't give a shit about a measure that is clearly in place to protect small children.

If I saw everyone driving down that road at 20 for a whole year, giving way at the zebra crossings without fail, generally being vaguely decent, then maybe I'd say mankind has earned the right to have that speed limit raised. Until that day, it should stay 20 and anyone going faster than 25 should have their vehicle crushed.

I agree with you. But it's not the speed, it's the dickheads which are the greatest problem.

Why can't there be variable speed limits on urban roads, outside schools? It works in many places, it could in the UK. Especially if rigidly enforced.

 

[cheesethief]

I agree with you. But it's not the speed, it's the dickheads which are the greatest problem.

Why can't there be variable speed limits on urban roads, outside schools? It works in many places, it could in the UK. Especially if rigidly enforced.

Most arguments reduce down to "It's the bad drivers that are the problem".

Which is nothing but a truism, obvs. I'd argue that there will always be bad drivers, nothing will ever change that, but slower moving bad drivers are less dangerous than faster moving ones.

If all the blameless, good drivers (every single driver on this site, of course) have to suffer the indignity of enforced speed control in order to mediate the risk posed by all the bad drivers (absolutely none of whom post on here, of course), then I consider it a trivial price to pay.

 

[editor]

Sure, but you could say this about any number, 70 or 56 or 5. What if anything is special about what we've currently got as legal limits, other than history?

Quite a lot actually. The motorways were built with 70mph as the top speed and while cars may be better engineered, humans are not.

The faster you go the greater chance of injury yourself and others. Several studies see 70mph (or thereabouts) the best compromise for motorways although some think that is too high. I've already posted many links on this.

"the relationship between speed and road accidents has been studied extensively and is very clear: the higher the speed, the greater the probability of a crash and the severity of the crashes."

Using the most widely accepted statistical model, drawn up by a Norwegian academic using data from 100 studies in more than a dozen countries, an increase in average traffic speeds of just 3mph – a typical change for a 10mph rise – would be expected to cause more than 25 extra deaths a year on motorways and more than 100 serious injuries.

Speed and the injury risk for different speed levels - Mobility and transport - European Commission
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0386111214000235
Do speed limits reduce the number of road deaths?

 

[editor]

I agree with you. But it's not the speed, it's the dickheads which are the greatest problem.

Why can't there be variable speed limits on urban roads, outside schools? It works in many places, it could in the UK. Especially if rigidly enforced.

Who's going to pay for all that 'rigid enforcement'? And given the unpopularity of speed cameras, so you think it would go down well politically? A lot of car drivers don't like being told to slow the fuck down.

 

[souljacker]

The motorways were built with 70mph as the top speed

The first ones weren't. They were unrestricted.

Although, after a bunch of crashes, the govt decided to implement the 70mph limit we have now.

 

[editor]

The first ones weren't. They were unrestricted.

Although, after a bunch of crashes, the govt decided to implement the 70mph limit we have now.

I think everyone knows that. And it was a bloke in a sports car who decided it, according to a shaky rumour.

According to rumour, the introduction of the 70mph limit was actually precipitated by American racing driver and tuner Carroll Shelby, who conducted a high-speed run of his Shelby AC Cobra on the M1 motorway back in 1964.

Shelby specifically took the car to Britain due to the fact that it had derestricted limits, and test driver Jack Sears recorded a top speed of 185mph on the motorway during the early hours of June 11th.

Technically the team had done nothing wrong as there was no limit, but when it was accidentally leaked over a lunchtime discussion in a Fleet Street bar, the press caught wind of it and sparked outrage, claiming that it was irresponsible and unsafe.

Although it makes for a good story, the Minister for Transport at the time, Barbara Castle, claimed that Shelby’s testing had no influence on the introduction of the law, and that it instead came as a result of research from the government’s Road Research Laboratory.
Should the UK speed limit be raised to 80mph? - Car Keys

And, again, here's why raising the limit is a shit idea:

Between 1995 and 2005, the study estimates that 12,545 deaths and 36,583 injuries in the US could be directly attributed to speed limit increases, while the number of deaths on rural roads jumped by 9.1 per cent when speed limits were raised.

In spite of any benefits to the economy, raising the speed limit would come with a fairly significant upfront cost as well. For a start, the entire motorway network would need repainted and to have its road signs changed, while infrastructure improvements would be necessary to facilitate faster speeds.

The bill could easily run into billions of pounds, and would also mean that major routes would need to be heavily disrupted to accommodate roadworks. Faster cars means that maintenance costs will increase too, particularly given Britain’s unique climate necessitating road repairs more often anyway.

Driving faster means that drivers will go through fuel quicker as well, with some estimates claiming that upping the limit to 80mph co

 

[editor]

And here's the size of the environmental problem caused by traffic:

Residents told to stay on polluted street