Speed Limiting Cars

[mike142sl]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7803997.stm

Well I probably like the idea of this, but then again I'm amongst those who tend to follow speed limits anyway although occasionally creep above them by a few mph. I also use my cruise control to maintain speed limits through villages so in a way I already have one of these.

It will be interesting to see what happens next.

[zebidee]

Our Merc has a speed limiter as part of its cruise control.

Things it's handy for:

1) Going through speed cameras
2) Going through average speed zones
3) Um ... that's it.

No seriously - I've tried using it in towns and villages - but the problem is that everyone else drives at 35mph so you end up with some muppet sitting 6" off your bumper.

I wouldn't think of using it on the open road - the last thing I want trying to overtake someone who's doing 50mph on a country road is the car to crawl past at 60.

Actually - going through average speed zones is quite nice cause you can set the speed and then overtake everyone else cause you know you can't be going too fast. That's until you catch up with the people sitting 10mph below the max speed in the overtaking lane.

Z~

[Mark_Solesbury]

I dont know really...

Ive got a speed 'bong' on my golf when it goes above 75
I use cruise control on the motorway

But ;)

Ive found that in 6th gear on tickover on my Golf GT (Diesel Torque rules) it does about 33mph 

[mudmuncher]

I think its a good idea, trucks already have limiters and they are accepted now. Not sure if they will reduce  road deaths though.

[Big Watty]

Interesting the comment about 6th gear and doing 33mph.

I recently attended a "speed awareness course" (yes I was speeding) and one of the things I learnt was that it's not an offence not to be in the highest gear when travelling through a restricted area - in fact your car may run more efficiently if you use a lower gear - I'm old school and always attempted to get the car into top gear asap but since the course I've stopped doing it and it seems to work

Just a thought - no offence intended or I hope taken

Chris

[Mark_Solesbury]

None taken!

I dont know about economical... it does struggle a bit, especially when a hill comes! However it does stop me speeding though - and I have to admit, until I actually started doing something about it I used to do it a lot.

It wont stop me speeding, but I do have more of an awareness now!

[Mark_Solesbury]

Having just re-read the article, im not sure about 'Applying the brakes if necessary' NOTHING does my nut more than somone in from who seems unable to keep a constant speed and has to keep braking every 100meters for no apparent reason!

[zebidee]

Interesting the comment about 6th gear and doing 33mph.

I recently attended a "speed awareness course" (yes I was speeding) and one of the things I learnt was that it's not an offence not to be in the highest gear when travelling through a restricted area - in fact your car may run more efficiently if you use a lower gear - I'm old school and always attempted to get the car into top gear asap but since the course I've stopped doing it and it seems to work

I think people get confused between what you're meant to do to pass your test (drive in as high a gear as you can which is appropriate for the conditions in order to maximise fuel efficiency & minimise wear-n-tear on the car was my understanding) and what you have to do legally.

When I sat my test (6 or so years ago now) I was told I should drive in built up areas at 30mph in 4th gear.

In fact in one part of the test route I was told by my instructor "there's enough room down this stretch of parked cars for two cars to get through ... if you're not doing 30 you'll get a mark against you."

Z~

[zebidee]

Having just re-read the article, im not sure about 'Applying the brakes if necessary' NOTHING does my nut more than somone in from who seems unable to keep a constant speed and has to keep braking every 100meters for no apparent reason!

Actually that's a damn good point ... our merc's an automatic which is how it manages to apply the limiter - it just gears down and engine brakes if it needs to.

Could this end up stalling cars with manual boxes? Say your car can't cope with being in 5th at 30mph and the limiter applies ... suddenly you've got a car dead in the water in the middle of 30 mph traffic?

How do the limiters in HGV's cope with htis?

Z~

[zebidee]

I think its a good idea, trucks already have limiters and they are accepted now. Not sure if they will reduce  road deaths though.

IIRC there've been various threads on here about how hacked off the truckers get with their limiters stopping them from overtaking other trucks without holding up traffic.

Not sure just how aware car drivers are of trucks having limiters.

Z~

[V8MoneyPit]

The proposal is that it would be voluntary. The suggestion is that it might be suprising just how many people would fit them. It would also be switchable in the car so you can turn it off if you need a little extra to overtake a car safely.

Personally, I would consider it simply as a 'cruise control' in average speed camera zones, etc. I've made my views on speeding perfectly clear before and I maintain that speed in its own right is not dangerous. It's the use of excessive speed in the wrong places that is. 30mph in a 30mph zone is not always appropriate. Often it is better to be going rather slower. Equally, it could be perfectly safe to do 70mph in some 60mph zones. The 60mph limit is simply there because it's the national speed limit for a single carriageway.

I can't help thinking that some poeple might use the limiter to just do 30mph in a 30mph zone regardless of whether it's appropriate or not. It could have the effect of switching off the brain which is the most dangerous thing you can possibly do when driving.

[Mark_Solesbury]

It could have the effect of switching off the brain which is the most dangerous thing you can possibly do when driving.

Indeed.

[Disco Matt]

No problem with it being voluntary, however I'd find it very insulting if we were forced to have them (as would probably be the next step with the current bunch in power). My view is that I've passed my test and avoided any points, so why can't I just be trusted to obey laws? Mind you, innocent until proven guilty has taken a bit of a battering in recent years...

I've driven with cruise control and tend to use it for those long sections of roadworks with reduced speed limits. It can be dangerous though as it means that your natural tendency to lift off when you notice a hazard doesn't make any difference - you have to either tap the brake or switch it off.

[V8MoneyPit]

One of the safest things the government could enforce would be the removal of all 'safety' devices fitted to modern cars. In the extreme fitting a blade to the centre of the steering wheel would stop anyone having a crash. They would all drive *very* carefully!

Over the top, but my point is that modern cars take any feeling of vulnerability away giving the occupants a false sense of security. And there is no question that this affects the way people drive. If we all drove round in old Minis or 2CV's, the roads would be a much safer place because we would be more aware of the world around us and not cacooned in our own little padded cell.

It never ceases to amaze me how many people think that crashing is almost an inevitibility and buying a 'safe' car filled with airbags, etc is a good thing. If they didn't crash in the first place, they wouldn't need all this junk in their cars and nobody would be proposing the use of speed limiters. A bonus would be dramatically reduced fuel consumption too because you're not carrying around all that extra junk.

The general public have been brainwashed into believing they need secondary safety devices in their cars instead of having to maintain their driving skills to a higher standard. Nobody in governement or the motor industry seems to talk about primary safety much. There are a few primary safety devices in common use like ABS and that's great. But the majority of what is banded about relates to secondary safety (i.e. after you crash).

Sorry. This has been one of my pet niggles ever since my days at Lotus. I'll get of my soapbox now.  :lol:

[auf_wiedersehen_pet]

One of the safest things the government could enforce would be the removal of all 'safety' devices fitted to modern cars. In the extreme fitting a blade to the centre of the steering wheel would stop anyone having a crash. They would all drive *very* carefully!

My thoughts exactly! Bumper sensors mounted to a glovebox of TNT.

As V8MoneyPit says, They would all drive *very* carefully!

[thermidorthelobster]

On the radio they were talking about having an override button in case you needed it.  The example the interviewer gave was say you were overtaking somebody in a 40 limit and they sped up;  you'd press the button and the limiter would go off so you could complete the manoeuvre safely.

I'd welcome it personally.  I drive within the limits as I don't want to pick up points, and I don't want to kill anybody much either;  having a device like this would be a handy way of not accidentally straying above the limit.  On the whole I don't approve of speeding, on the basis that speed limits save lives in the event of an accident.  If people don't like the limits then they should campaign to have the limits changed, but I don't agree with ignoring laws that you just happen to disagree with.  That said, I'd suggest an 80mph limit on the motorway would be a good idea, as that's what everybody does anyway, but I could live without it.

I reckon one of the most successful safety devices is the fact that your insurance becomes a nightmare if you have a crash.

[littlepow]

They have speed limiters fitted to the landies down the falklands, it is amazing the lengths people will go to not to slow down!!! Just because they cant go over 30mph. I think it is time to reinforce drivers standards instead of making cars hide driver incompetence.

[Lord Shagg-Pyle]

I think it is time to reinforce drivers standards instead of making cars hide driver incompetence.

I totally agree with what has been said by LittlePow. So limiters are fitted; how long would it take before someone finds a way to get round them? Will motorbikes have to be fitted with them as well?
As for it being voluntary, I don't believe that. It will be the case of 'If you don't have one, your car won't pass the MoT'. How long before cars have to be fitted with locator systems, for 'anti theft measures'?
The main common denominator in all road traffic prangs is human error; that needs to be addressed.

[Disco Matt]

I have long held that the driving test process needs to be longer. "Intensive Courses" cannot be considered safe as they simply don't give the new driver enough experience. I would suggest that rather than a big test they change to a system where you demonstrate competence in various areas to an instructor. This would also enable them to gauge attitudes and behaviour - it would be harder for the morons to behave themselves for hours than for the current test.

There should also be a mandatory refresher course at 70, including a medical. The vast majority of evasive action I need to take locally is due to the ancient and confuddled who apparently have a Disco-shaped blind spot!  :lol:

[Range Rover Blues]

If I've got a device on my cart that limits my speed and knows the speed limit appropriate to where I am, does that mean I won't ever get prosecuted for speeding ever again?  guarantee that and I might be interested.

[waveydavey]

I do have a device that is 100% capable of knowing all the speed limits and making sure the car sticks to them; it can avoid traffic, control the car and even anticipate problems instead of having to react to them after the event. It sits just behind the steering wheel with feet on the pedals.

OK I don't claim to be 100% reliable 100% of the time but the truth is I should be.

Is the application of speed limits not the responsibility of the driver? If 'machines' take over why do we have a driver?

[nellyscossy]

the spotlight is always on the speeders !!!

now i tend to drive around the limits almost all of the time although like most i can and do drift over..

statistics say that of all road deaths on our roads less than a third are caused by excess speed

i believe more needs to be done to make the layout of roads/junctions etc.  and more importantly to change driver attitudes

[mike142sl]

I suspect after a time of the 'voluntary' fitting, it will become compulsory for those convicted of speeding i.e. part of the day course they have to attend.

[pux]

i think it will never be forced on us by the government think of all the money they would lose if no one was caught speeding :roll:

[V8MoneyPit]

i think it will never be forced on us by the government think of all the money they would lose if no one was caught speeding :roll:

Cynic  :lol:

[mudmuncher]

After reading all the fors and against limiters being fitted I still think its a great idea.
For one reason only.......... Then Golly, my little 1000cc mini would beable to keep up with all the big boys  :clap: :clap: :clap:

[Lord Shagg-Pyle]

i think it will never be forced on us by the government think of all the money they would lose if no one was caught speeding :roll:

Cynic  :lol:

Tsk tsk tsk! :roll: Cynic is such a dirty word! Try 'realist' instead! :twisted:

[Range Rover Blues]

statistics say that of all road deaths on our roads less than a third are caused by excess speed

In fact the Gov't own statistics state that in 1/3 of all road accidents exfess speed is a factor and of those 5% are caused by loss of control due to excess speed.

Sp 1.6% of accidents are caused by speed and another 32%ish are casued by stupidity but could have been avoided/less severe if people were teavelling less quickly.

Thereofre 65% of accidents have nothing whatsoever to do with speeding :-k

The gov't also claims that speed cameras have single handedly lead to a reduction in road accidents, they give no credit whatsoever to improved road design, improved car safety/handling/braking or to the increasing standard demended of new drivers on the road.

Tha said the rate of reduction of raod accidents has slowed if not stalled since they decided to replace real coppers with cameras and that is by far the most telling story

[carbore]

Expect "black boxes" before this, the technology for this is really really cheap, in fact your sat nav can already do it and your ECU knows enough about your driving to do EBD etc so adding some RAM on a loop would be easy.

 Expect insurance discounts if you have one or some EU legislation. Speed limiting would be a step to far and hard to implement (Eg. how would my track day car cope?)

I agree the HGV limiting issue is an interesting argument but so is the fact that Tiredness is a factor in lots of night time accidents yet "driving through the night" gets hero status but driving whilst having two pints, rightly gives you plonker status, yet all night diving is worse than "minor" drink drive  issues (I believe). So why do only HGV have Tachos and Hours limits etc.

[littlepow]

Expect insurance discounts if you have one or some EU legislation. Speed limiting would be a step to far and hard to implement (Eg. how would my track day car cope?)

This style of speed limiting is already fitted to the new skyline. It can tell when you have entered a race track and removed the power and speed limiter on the vehicle. This is done via the gps system having a location database of every track, so theoretically it could be updated for this country too!