Enforced Speed Limits...thoughts?

[Tumble]

digital speedos would solve the difference issue - if the speed is controlled by GPS, why not get the actaul speed from it too....

[Rave]

Well, since you seem to be keen that someone criticise the actual article, I'll give it a pop.

Indeed, with the minimum of political pressure, it could become an almost cost-free product of quite another scheme.<snip>To turn it into a road safety device, you need only add the local speed limits and connect it to the engine management system. When the box detects that the speed limit has dropped, it warns the driver, blocks the accelerator

Right, well that's the first thing. It's actually far from trivial to retrofit a speed limiter to a car. If the car has a mechanically actuated throttle, you'd need to fit a servo motor strong enough to physically lift the driver's foot off the pedal. Cutting the fuel would make the car run very lean which kills engines in short order. If the car is fly-by-wire, I'd suggest it's even more complicated, as you'd need to make a different box for every different make of car on the market. It would be easy enough to insist that every new car is fitted with a standard device of this type, but then a sizeable proportion of drivers will simply stop buying new cars. Even though (apparently) 51% of drivers don't mind speed limiters, they may well still be unwilling to buy a car that will have a pretty low resale value should they want to sell it. Now, I personally do think that we buy too many new cars in this country, and scrap too many perfectly usable old cars, but OTOH new cars continue to get safer and more fuel efficient as time goes on. The number of smoky, badly maintained old bangers on the roads will increase hugely some way down the line.

Then there's the fact that the throttle affects more than just the speed of the vehicle. Cutting the throttle in mid corner in a 911 for example can have serious consequences; motorcycles are prone to run wide on corners if the throttle is closed halfway round. Yes, he reckons that the system will be so accurate that it can even adjust speeds for corners etc, but then braking into corners is often unsafe too, as I found out the first time I rode a motorbike on tarmac (off road, thankfully). What about swerving to avoid an accident? Or suddenly realising you've missed the sliproad and doing a hard turn across the hatchings? Just the kind of time the system might be cutting the throttle or putting on the brakes.

Finally, the system relies on computers. Computers go wrong, as we all know. What happens to the poor sod whose system has a brainfart and cuts his speed to 20mph in the fast lane? O.K., it's not going to be as fast a fast lane as it was, but 70-20 still equals a 50mph collision.

Really, the way to cut accidents is more and better policing. The bit where he goes on about deaths being cut by 58% or whatever is a bit spurious. Sure, the faster the crash, the more likely it is to be serious, but the fact is that most accidents are caused by bad driving. Speeding inappropriately is a form of bad driving. Doing 90 on an empty motorway is (I believe) not bad driving, while weaving in and out of heavy traffic and undertaking at 70 most definately is. I see the latter increasingly frequently, but the police are far more likely to fine the guy doing 90 as far as I can tell (although in fairness I have read about some police forces using unmarked cars to catch people who ignore the basic rules of the road).

I personally drive at a speed I think is appropriate and safe. Often that's above the speed limit, but equally often it's below it. I have a clean licence, and the one accident I've ever caused happened in a queue of traffic at 5mph.

Rich :¬)

[Nox]

Nobody is putting anything in my car that takes control of it out of my hands.

PERIOD!

likewise. well, someone can put it in, but i would be expecting it to fall off within a few hours...

the only redeeming feature is telling your insurance company the reason you crashed was the governments/fords fault so make it affect their no claims, not mine.

Nox

[[GSV]Trig]

Really, the way to cut accidents is more and better policing.

Doing 90 on an empty motorway is (I believe) not bad driving, while weaving in and out of heavy traffic and undertaking at 70 most definately is. I see the latter increasingly frequently, but the police are far more likely to fine the guy doing 90 as far as I can tell (although in fairness I have read about some police forces using unmarked cars to catch people who ignore the basic rules of the road).

I personally drive at a speed I think is appropriate and safe. Often that's above the speed limit, but equally often it's below it. I have a clean licence, and the one accident I've ever caused happened in a queue of traffic at 5mph.

Rich :¬)

I agree with this chap...
Many have heard about my driving, yet I've never caused an accident and have a clean licence....
I agree with speed cameras in the RIGHT PLACES.
I agree with 20 limits and humps outside of schools.

[Dreamscape]

the only redeeming feature is telling your insurance company the reason you crashed was the governments/fords fault so make it affect their no claims, not mine.

All Joking aside, is this not a more serious side affect? Surely to a certain degree a system such as this would remove resposability from the driver of the car, ie as above wasn't my fault it's the systems?

[dkmech]

I am sure there'd be 500 pages of disclaimers in the car manual telling you that it is you as driver who is responsible. The system is made to not let you speed, not to be a panacea from every type of accident.

[Big RICHARD]

I am sure there'd be 500 pages of disclaimers in the car manual telling you that it is you as driver who is responsible. The system is made to not let you speed, not to be a panacea from every type of accident.

People get complacent very quickly.

[dkmech]

I am sure they do, but it won't be car manufacturers held responcible. I did say myself that the proposed system will cause a lot of problems with concentration.