Enforced Speed Limits...thoughts?

[DaBeeeenster]

Sort of belongs in Question Time, but I wanted to get the views of peeps over here...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/transport/...269740,00.html

Thoughts?

[Stoo]

It'll never work, and it'll be dangerous anyway.

Imagine you need to accelerate out of danger, or you're manouvering and it slaps the brakes on for you, or any one of a thousand different incidents, it's going to cause even more accidents..

Hair-brained schemes like this are always knee-jerk reactions by do-gooders, just because something is technically possible, doesn't always mean that we should do it.

Lunacy!

[DaBeeeenster]

I disagree with Monbiot in that I dont think the brakes should EVER be applied automatically, but this isn't to say the proposal could be tweaked somewhat.

Firstly, "accelerating out of danger" - the system could allow a speed increase (over and above the limit) for a limited amount of time, if the driver hits the accelerator. This would solve that problem.

Secondly, with respect to decelerating cars when moving from a 60 to 40 mph limit, this could be done very gradually, over the period of maybe 500 yards. Again, I think this would solve any potential safety issues. The car would simply feel like is was very gradually losing power.

[dkmech]

Well, if you are all going at the same speed you won't be able to start overtaking to start with, or even won't need to 99% of the time, so you won't have to accelerate to fit into a closing gap. However, there will still be those drivers who drive at 40 in a 60 zone for no good reason. They will still have the freedom to do that. And its them who it will be a pain to overtake. Its not just the fast driving that can be moronic.

In any case people still will be able to tailgate. if you take a different line through a corner you might win a meter or two on the car in front. Or just take a spirited start from a traffic light and you are right behind someone. Plus cars will still have different performance so you can always accelerate faster and catch up the car in front if you want to if you have a more powerful or lighter car.

[TeePee]

The result of so much speed enforcement publicity, is that the inattentive drivers[1] are often unsure of what the speed limit is, and so drive everywhere at 40-45mph. If a system were implimented as above, these drivers will simply drive everywhere with their foot on the floor, paying even less attention, happy in the knowledge that they are now 'safe' drivers.
Better driver education is the answer to saving lives on our roads. Mandatory retesting would be the cheapest way to accomplish this. People need to learn that speed limits are limits, not targets.

[1] A DoT study found inattention to be the greatest cause of accidents, 25.8% compared with 12.5% for excessive speed.

[Stoo]

Yup, limiting power won't solve the problems, people will still be able to drive like idiots and cause accidents..

What other schemes will they implement? Deem that driving is actually are too dangerous, and make everthing computer controlled?, or that you have to take a test every year to ensure that you are fit to drive? How about limiting everyone to cars that can only do 0-60 in 20 seconds or slower, or even making the cars out of cushions?

[DaBeeeenster]

Yup, limiting power won't solve the problems, people will still be able to drive like idiots and cause accidents..

What other schemes will they implement? Deem that driving is actually are too dangerous, and make everthing computer controlled?, or that you have to take a test every year to ensure that you are fit to drive? How about limiting everyone to cars that can only do 0-60 in 20 seconds or slower, or even making the cars out of cushions?

I dont think that your responses are very well thought through tbh. No-one is suggesting that the measures would eliminate road accidents. What makes you think they are?

Secondly, no-one is suggesting any other schemes. Is there a reason for this rhetoric?

Did you actually read the article?

The system - called Intelligent Speed Adaptation - has been tested by Leeds University's Institute For Transport Studies. When the system is mandatory (in other words, when the driver can't override it) and can take account of the weather, itcould reduce serious accidents by 48% and deaths by 59%.

[Stoo]

No-one is suggesting that the measures would eliminate road accidents. What makes you think they are?

Because getting as close as possible to eliminating road accidents was the thrust of the story..

Secondly, no-one is suggesting any other schemes. Is there a reason for this rhetoric?

Yes, TeePee suggested mandatory retests for one, and you know that once one thing tends to get through, it expands (creeping pointless speed limits, revenue generating speed cameras.. bus lanes on the M4?)..

[megah0]

Thing is with the way the press works in this country, even if this system saves thousands of lives they will fixiate on the half dozen cases where if the motorist had been able to speed out of danger an accident would not have happened.

Personally I think its a good idea but with some reservations.

A manual override say for 20 seconds at a time would allow motorists to accelerate should the need arise but only on areas like a motorway or particularly busy stretches of road.

The brakes should never be automatically applied, instead as someone already said the engine should just gradually lose power.

I am sure there are things I have missed but I think managed properly it would be a good thing

[DaBeeeenster]

Because getting as close as possible to eliminating road accidents was the thrust of the story..

But no-one is suggesting that the scheme would eliminate road accidents, are they?

Yes, TeePee suggested mandatory retests for one, and you know that once one thing tends to get through, it expands (creeping pointless speed limits, revenue generating speed cameras.. bus lanes on the M4?)..

"Pointless" speed limits? How does that work?

What do you have to say about the figures that I posted?

[[GSV]Trig]

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

PERIOD!

[DaBeeeenster]

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

PERIOD!

Even if it saves lives?

[sdp]

I don't like the idea because it just wouldn't work - I'd bet there'd be ways of disabling it anyway - but it could be cut down so that it simply displays what the speed limit is, and maybe beep a warning on blind hairpins and roadworks, I think that would be more sensible.

I'd like to see them try to wire it up to my 'engine management system' though

[DaBeeeenster]

Are the statistics that I posted not showing up on other people's browsers?

[dkmech]

They are showing up, don't worry.

[Stoo]

"Pointless" speed limits? How does that work?

What do you have to say about the figures that I posted?

They're figures that have been quoted from a study, I don't see how you could possibly take the figures as gospel without reading the full text of the study for yourself.
After all, one sure fire way to reduce road deaths and injuries would be to cover all road traffic in 2 feet of cotton wool, you could even prove it with a limited study, but that doesn't mean that the figures would translate, or it would ever work in the real world..

You've never seen a pointless speed limit, or a badly placed one in your life?
How about a large section of dual carriageway limited to 40MPH for no reason, other than the fact that it's on one side of a county boundry where they like making money from traffic cameras?

Or a nice long straight country road limited to 40 for no reason at all (no houses, very little traffic etc etc), but with a gatso hidden behind a large bush?