Crap driver tells Jeremy Vine to “Fuck off”; Geraint Thomas’s season over; Demare wins again at Giro; 100 miles at 42.6mph (while drafting); Car tech preventing speeding mandatory in EU from 2022; Muddy Classics; + more

94 thoughts on “Crap driver tells Jeremy Vine to “Fuck off”; Geraint Thomas’s season over; Demare wins again at Giro; 100 miles at 42.6mph (while drafting); Car tech preventing speeding mandatory in EU from 2022; Muddy Classics; + more”

1. Remember everyone: don’t feed
   Remember everyone: don’t feed the gulls on the beach, the pigeons in the park (unless following in the footsteps of Tom Lehrer) or the animals in the zoo (they are not all the gnicest work of gnature, according to Flanders & Swann).

   We need a circuit-breaker.

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • I know if the creatures are

     I know if the creatures are around because my computer slows down – it’s like a black hole sucking in bandwidth and all rationality

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • I’ve built a handy detection

       I’ve built a handy detection device

        

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • So glad you’ve used dB as
         So glad you’ve used dB as that’s definitely the right unit. All these rock stars talking about going up to 11, when + 6 dB is so much louder.

         Years ago a pal of mine bought a hifi amp with the volume going from minus infinity dB to zero. He carefully turned the volume to zero before switching on for the first time… Never made that mistake again.

         Log In or Register to post comments

         • TheBillder wrote:

           So glad you’ve used dB as that’s definitely the right unit. All these rock stars talking about going up to 11, when + 6 dB is so much louder.

           Years ago a pal of mine bought a hifi amp with the volume going from minus infinity dB to zero. He carefully turned the volume to zero before switching on for the first time… Never made that mistake again.

           — TheBillder

           A logarithmic scale was the only way to deal with the stupidity we’ve been seeing around here lately.

2. No contest over the speed

   No contest over the speed restrictor, pedal all the way.

   The pedal actually prevents you going over the speed limit, the beeping only warns once you’ve exceeded it.

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • Quote:

     Oliver Carsten from Leeds University trialled the “Intelligent Speed Assistant” accelerator pedal and said: “It gave us a massive improvement in speed compliance with UK drivers, especially on urban roads.

     So the best way of improving compliance with speed limits is to physically stop the drivers being able to break the speed limit?  Who would have thought it!

     Log In or Register to post comments

3. Not sure how I feel about

   Not sure how I feel about that speeding tech. For one, if it’s basing speed limits off sign recognition, it’s going to be massively innacurate. It’d probably be easier to soft limit cars to 78mph or the likes.

   There will be positives, for sure, but it’ll also lead to a lot of misjudged overtakes, when the car refuses to accelerate.

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • I’m undecided too. I

     I’m undecided too. I certainly think that cars have no need to be capable of going over 70. In addition torque and output could also be limited.

     Variable limiters though encourage pedal to the metal, and give an excuse that “the car made me do it” where it is not engaged

     Log In or Register to post comments

   • Toffee wrote:

     Not sure how I feel about that speeding tech. For one, if it’s basing speed limits off sign recognition, it’s going to be massively innacurate. It’d probably be easier to soft limit cars to 78mph or the likes.

     There will be positives, for sure, but it’ll also lead to a lot of misjudged overtakes, when the car refuses to accelerate.

     — Toffee

     The car I’ve got at the moment does sign recognition and has a pedal based speed restrictor – but the two are not linked up!

     I actually really like driving with the speed restrictor, there’s a bit of a flat spot in the accelerator travel as you hit the speed limit, but if you continue to push the pedal down it then overrides it. So no problem with overtakes – if you’re flooring it, then the limiter is completely disabled.

     For the speed limit recognition, it’s generally really good, using a combination of GPS database and image recognition of roadside signs. There are just a couple of junctions, where the speed sign is at an odd angle to the road where it’s picked up the wrong limit. But it reverts to the GPS database limit value if you keep the speed (or if linked, the pedal pushed) past the override point for a few seconds.

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • I too have one of these

       I too have one of these systems on my car. As you stated you can push through it but the pedal offers resistance so it like pushing a still button, you can’t do it subconsciously, and if you do go over it will start beeping at you.

       It isn’t a full blown automated system, you have to set it, but there is functionality to set it your the recognised speed limit with a double press of a button and a volumn style toggle button that can move the limit up and down. Overall both me and my wife really like it and use it whenever we are driving, it removes the stress of constantly checking the speedo once set and allows you to stay focused on the road. The car is an EV which I’d say these systems are a must, the lack of engine noise does give a distrubed sense of speed, and the response of the vehicle means it doesn’t take much to be speeding unintentionally in a 30.

       The one limitation I do see with the system is that it can get a bit confused with the road you are on if you have adjacent roads, so being able to manually set it useful for me personally, so there is some developement required until this is ready as a standard system.

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • Totally agree with you. The

         Totally agree with you. The only reason to look at the speedo is to make sure you’re not over the limit. Having a restrictor means it’s one less thing to look at and you can concentrate more on the road ahead.

         It won’t stop a determined speeder, only those who drift over the limit unintentionally.

         It will also help with 20mph limit habit breaking. It’s tough to keep at 20mph if you are used to driving down that road when it was a 30. There’s a road near me that used to be 60mph, but now has a 40mph limit. It feels so slow, so I find the limiter (or cruise control) helpful in keeping within the limit.

         Log In or Register to post comments

   • Soft limiting cars will not
     Soft limiting cars at the maximum speed permissible on a motorway without prosecution will not prevent people from speeding in residential areas, which is the major problem. Localized speed restriction will also force people to obey 20mph limits, as well as removing the need to trash suspensions with speed humps everywhere.

     Breaking the speed limit to overtake is still breaking the law. Speed restrictors are the only way forward, optimally based on GPS data with various fallback measures, as driverless cars will inevitably be. Then in the cases where people speed, analytics can be performed on the car, and if there was interference, a specific charge can be introduced of tampering with the safety features of a motor vehicle, which helps to remove the “But for the Grace of God Go I” mindset from driver-juries, as most people won’t tamper with the car.

     It’s disappointing to see the car lobby trying to push for a useless measure (light + beep) to “warn” people that they’re speeding. The kind of people who speed don’t give a single damn that they’re speeding, and it will be [disabled/ignored/bypassed] as soon as they have the opportunity.

     Presumably the car lobby are absolutely terrified that people will no longer buy cars with performance far in excess of what is legal or useful on any UK road if speed restrictors are introduced. I’m sure they’ll bring their might to bear and we’ll get useless beeping garbage, though!

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • Back in the 80s Japanese

       Back in the 80s Japanese sports cars had beeping speed warning chimes above 100kph, they’re seriously annoying and one would hope with modern ECUs much harder to disable than they were back then. I had a Japanese import for a while and the first thing I did was pop the instrument cluster out and desolder the chime. On some cars it got progressively faster as speed increased which was surprisingly effective. Personally, I’d like cars to have those “whoop whoop whoop pull up” loops you hear on cockpit voice recorders.

       Log In or Register to post comments

     • I don’t think that the driver

       I don’t think that the driver should be warned of themselves breaking the speed limit, I think that everyone around them should be warned of the illegal and often dangerous driving.

       Log In or Register to post comments

4. It could be fun if they do

   It could be fun if they do intorduce ‘intelligent’ speed restrictors that read the signs. Computer based vision can be quite easily tricked, so locals could have fun with nearby signs.

   https://arstechnica.com/cars/2017/09/hacking-street-signs-with-stickers-could-confuse-self-driving-cars/

   Log In or Register to post comments

5. Except it does not limit the

   Except it does not limit the speed, merely at best,  puts a blip in the pedal response.  So actually the worst option of all, since it won’t deter overtakes, but make them more lethal. 

   Been looking forward to this for years, but this is 1st time I’ve heard it won’t actually be a hard limit. What a total, auto car makers arse licking disaster 🙁

   The best system would be one that drained the drivers bank account % of income per mph over limit every second.  That’d sort it out!

    if it’s basing speed limits off sign recognition,

   — Toffee

   Surely it will be going off gps and a resource that has mapped all the roads speed limits, one that may not be complete but quickly will be (dose of optimism here).
    

   Log In or Register to post comments

6. As it is the EU rule, I

   As it is the EU rule, I suspect it won’t be applied in the UK nowadays. 

   Log In or Register to post comments

7. I really don’t see why the

   I really don’t see why the speed restrictor should allow the driver to override it – why would we deliberately allow people to break the law?

   • Started an overtake and can’t complete it? Use the brake pedal, not the accelerate!
   • GPS error has you trundling along at 20 in a 30 zone? Unfortunate but necessary to save lives.
   • Bought a 500hp sports car and can’t thrash it around your local area? That was silly wasn’t it.

   The only reason the car lobby is pushing back on this is that they profit from selling fast, powerful cars in the full knowledge that people will use them to exceed the speed limit. Take away the ability to go faster than other people and people don’t have an incentive to buy those cars.

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • OnYerBike wrote:

     I really don’t see why the speed restrictor should allow the driver to override it – why would we deliberately allow people to break the law?

     — OnYerBike

     The technology is not there to enforce the law, it’s more of a ‘driver aid’. It’s not perfect, so on the occasion it gets it wrong, it needs to be easily overridden.

     There may be occasions where exceeding the speed limit can be justified. Such as driving someone to hospital in an emergency or to avoid a collision.

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • I wasn’t aware that the law
       I wasn’t aware that the law granted provision for those who are not driving EMS vehicles to break the speed limit. As for “avoiding a collision”, it seems to me that the effect of governors on reducing the potential for collisions by preventing dangerous driving likely to result in a loss of control would far exceed that of these spurious cases that are cited every time about needing to accelerate to avoid a collision.

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • I believe there is a

         I believe there is a provision for exceptional circumstances you can claim to allow you to break a speed limit,though obviously the clue is the name “exceptional” its not carte blanche to just drive over the speed limit.

         But Im not a fan of the idea of limiting vehicles speeding like this as I dont feel the technology in the GPS accuracy and handling is mature enough or safe enough to have that kind of control in a vehicle, hands up who would trust their bike computer to govern the speed of their car ? anyone who has used one has experienced the random crashes, the loss of signal, the inability of it to work out which road you are even on sometimes, those are annoyances riding a bike, they could be lethal in a vehicle.

         and it drives a set of behaviours, the like of which we are already seeing as a flaw in the self driving cars,and with lorry drivers currently, drivers pay less attention, concentrate less because they have less to focus on to drive, they just put the foot to the floor let the speed limiter sort things out for them, their mind wanders, maybe they start playing with their mobile phone more, tailgate more because they are all doing the same speed, try those overtakes at 0.1mph faster, all of which when something unexpected they need to react to means their reaction times will be greater. plus there are considerations that its perfectly safe to drive near the speed limit in perfect conditions, but same road with ice, fog, heavy rain ?

         ultimately this really isnt a problem needing a tech solution,thats just the polticians/bureaucrats solution to everything more tech, often after theyve been lobbied by tech companies selling such solutions. But we already have the solution, its give more funding to the police to carry out more traffic related crime prevention.

         people habitually speed in vehicles not because they arent all driving some modern equivalent of a Knight Industries Two Thousand , its because they know the chance of the being caught doing it, is tiny, and everyday they speed and dont get caught it reinforces that message to them.

         Log In or Register to post comments

         • Awavey wrote:

           But Im not a fan of the idea of limiting vehicles speeding like this as I dont feel the technology in the GPS accuracy and handling is mature enough or safe enough to have that kind of control in a vehicle, hands up who would trust their bike computer to govern the speed of their car ? anyone who has used one has experienced the random crashes, the loss of signal, the inability of it to work out which road you are even on sometimes, those are annoyances riding a bike, they could be lethal in a vehicle.

           and it drives a set of behaviours, the like of which we are already seeing as a flaw in the self driving cars,and with lorry drivers currently, drivers pay less attention, concentrate less because they have less to focus on to drive, they just put the foot to the floor let the speed limiter sort things out for them, their mind wanders, maybe they start playing with their mobile phone more, tailgate more because they are all doing the same speed, try those overtakes at 0.1mph faster, all of which when something unexpected they need to react to means their reaction times will be greater. plus there are considerations that its perfectly safe to drive near the speed limit in perfect conditions, but same road with ice, fog, heavy rain ?

           — Awavey

           The technology is there and it’s robust. For autonomous vehicles it’s not quite there as the lack of human interface cannot replicate unexpected occurences. What is being discussed is limiting the speed, which, while it may be a step towards autonomous driving we are not talking about taking car control from a driver, attention would still need to be paid to the road, but in theory you wouldn’t need to add in the extra thought process about what speed they were doing, if anything I think that would make people more attentive, rather than less attentive.

           You need not ‘rely’ on GPS to track speed limits, my car ‘reads the road signs’ and uses GPS alongside it, the speed limit for that road is displayed upon my dashboard, it’s quite clever and I often find myself testing it, I reckon it’s easily 95% accurate. http://www.kceed.com/speed_limit_information_function_slif_-544.html

       • Luca Patrono wrote:

         I wasn’t aware that the law granted provision for those who are not driving EMS vehicles to break the speed limit.

         — Luca Patrono

         The police have discretion on whether to apply the law or not. They may choose not to enforce a speeding offence if there’s a justifiable reason.

         The technology isn’t quite reliable enough yet for it to be used as an enforcement tool. But that doesn’t mean there’s no benefit in having it as a driver aid.

         Log In or Register to post comments

     • HoarseMann wrote:

       The technology is not there to enforce the law, it’s more of a ‘driver aid’.

       — HoarseMann

       Why not use it to enforce the law? If we can prevent people from breaking the law, surely doing so is the right thing to do?

       It’s not perfect, so on the occasion it gets it wrong, it needs to be easily overridden.

       — HoarseMann

       If it can be overridden, then I believe in the vast majority of cases that feature will be used to override the device when it is working properly, rather than due to the device being wrong. If the device is wrong and restricts you to slower than the speed limit, you don’t “need” to override it; it’s just an inconvenience.

       There may be occasions where exceeding the speed limit can be justified. Such as driving someone to hospital in an emergency or to avoid a collision.

       — HoarseMann

       If someone needs to get to hospital in an emergency, phone 999. You should never “need” to break the speed limit to avoid a collision – if you find yourself in that position it’s almost certainly because of a preceeding lack of judgement and impatience. Finally, such situations where speeding is “justified” are likely to be exceesingly rare in comparison to the very regular deaths and injuries that are caused by breaking the speed limit.

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • Umm, the initial press report

         Umm, the initial press report was about a decision whether a beep/flashing light or a pedal feedback was the most appropriate driver warning.

         I just wanted to share my personal experience from using both methods. Not have a debate about zero tolerance speeding enforcement!

         (I did once phone 999 in an emergency and they had no ambulances available, the dispatcher advised driving the casualty to A&E!)

         Log In or Register to post comments

         • I know what the initial press

           I know what the initial press report was about, my comment was that if you’re going to introduce tech with this sort of capability why not use it to its full advantage?

           There’s a big difference between zero tolerance policing and using tech to prevent law breaking in the first place. I’m all for not prosecuting every Tom, Dick and Harry for the slightest misdemeanor, but I question the logic and morals of deliberately undermining technology that could prevent criminality, especially when excess speed is a contributing factor to a huge number of collisions.

           It is unfortunate that ambulances aren’t always available. Of course there’s a legal argument that driving to A&E still doesn’t give you an excuse for speeding but I think the stronger argument is still that such incidents – and any benefit from getting to A&E a few minutes sooner – are easily outweighed by the harms from speeding.

         • OnYerBike wrote:

           I know what the initial press report was about, my comment was that if you’re going to introduce tech with this sort of capability why not use it to its full advantage?

           — OnYerBike

           My opinion from having experience of driving a new car with traffic sign identification, is the technology is not reliable enough for the driver to relinquish total control of the vehicle’s speed (I accept you have a different view, but you did ask the question and I replied).

           I would welcome a future where all cars are self-driving, there are zero-road death/injuries and a racetrack is the only place a human can get behind the wheel. I’m sure it will happen, but the steps to get us there will be small and incremental.

8. I did read about some chap in

   I did read about some chap in a Merc who passed a golf club entrance and his car then went 10 mph as it picked up the golf club speed sign !

   Since people complain that they speed by accident, the pedal thing seems a good idea. Not sure about a GPS tech solution having taking my car back for a product recall for a software update for the accelerator/EMS. I’d need a very high level of confidence that any solution would not cause other equally serious issues.

   Log In or Register to post comments

9. That Cllr Jon Burke is a bit

   That Cllr Jon Burke is a bit of a legend I reckon. He’s fully committed to a greener agenda and actually appears to have done something about it!

   Well done sir, chapeau!

   Log In or Register to post comments

10. I’d love to see speed limits

    I’d love to see speed limits being hard enforced. I also have mixed feelings ref not being able to accelerate when safety would suggest otherwise.. or being in control of my own speed on the road….  but isn’t that more down to our perceptions of how things have been, rather than how things could or should be?

    If we ‘couldn’t’ speed then we might all change our behaviours to account for that. No speeding to work, no overtaking someone doing the speed limit, once we’ve adjusted, it should cause less overall anxiety to car journeys and more awareness to surroundings. It could change the whole road infrastructure in time, imagine no solid white lines being required, or take it a step further and if cars are looking at or for signs it’d be a short jump for those vehicles to react to stopping at junctions or slowing in time for roundabouts. It’s possibly a step towards truly autonomous vehicles without taking away human judgement aspect or overhauling our whole road infrastructure. 

    I suggest combo of hard speed limiting and sign reading / gps tech (which seems to be very good on my car BTW, seems to work instantly 95% of the time) would be enough. Black boxes in new driver cars seem to manage to gather the same info for insurance purposes, I can’t see it being much of a jump to connect it to the engine.

    I don’t doubt that it’ll be ruled out of this EU meeting pretty quickly.. but it’s good sign that they are talking about it.

    Log In or Register to post comments

    • Of course motorists will
      Of course motorists will always want to “accelerate out of trouble”. They just need to understand that, in the lexicon of dynamics, the definition of “acceleration” includes standing on the brake.

      Log In or Register to post comments

      • Quite . In a dangerous

        Quite . In a dangerous situation brought about by excess speed and kinetic energy, the clear solution is…. er…. increase the speed and kinetic energy!

        Log In or Register to post comments

    • I would think that it would
      I would think that it would be very much like setting the speed limiter on most current cars. If you need power then you can access it by pressing hard on the accelerator. The only difference will be that the speed limiter will activate by default, the driver would have to actively disengage it and the telemetry data will be recorded for analysis should that prove necessary for some lawful investigation.

      Speaking as a habitual non speeder I cannot legitimately see any downsides to the use of this technology, but on the flip side I am of a generation to whom the motor car represents freedom, control and an extension of personal space. Whilst I see this as a huge step towards improving road safety and the eventual delegation of driving to autonomous vehicles I’ll definitely be hanging on to at least one of my old fashioned vehicles besides probably signing up to a driverless hire scheme at some point. I’ll be properly sad when the same tech gets applied to motorcycles, but I guess that like the days of horse and cart some things will be become part of history and Grandad’s rambling stories.

      Log In or Register to post comments

      • Mungecrundle wrote:

        I would think that it would be very much like setting the speed limiter on most current cars. If you need power then you can access it by pressing hard on the accelerator. The only difference will be that the speed limiter will activate by default, the driver would have to actively disengage it and the telemetry data will be recorded for analysis should that prove necessary for some lawful investigation.

        — Mungecrundle

        That is very much how it will be.

        https://etsc.eu/intelligent-speed-assistance-isa/

        Log In or Register to post comments

    • My mother came to visit a few

      My mother came to visit a few weeks back and part of her journey was on a bit of motorway with enforced average speed limits.  She told me that it was a lovely way to drive, everyone doing exactly the same speed, nobody racing up behind her, most important – no aggression.

      Log In or Register to post comments

      • She’s very lucky then (& not
        She’s very lucky then (& not just that she’s your mum). My experience of average speed cameras in roadworks is that keeping any sort of distance goes right out of the window, particularly HGVs. If your speedo over reads (as most do) then someone with an accurate one (e.g. in a sat nav) will be right up your arse in case you delay them for a second or two in a 3 hour journey.

        They do help reduce accidents according to stats (e.g. A77, A9) but I wish there was some way to enforce safe distances).

        Log In or Register to post comments

        • If someone is “right up your

          If someone is “right up your arse” just slow down. They will eventually back off or overtake and you can resume your journey. This is the recommended course of action on a speed awareness course.

          Log In or Register to post comments

          • Or they’ll just try and drive

            Or they’ll just try and drive over you because they have a Right To Drive (allegedly…).

11. BBC segment, where? I’m gonna

    BBC segment, where? I’m gonna KOM that corporate ass.

    Log In or Register to post comments

12. I’m always a little puzzled

    I’m always a little puzzled when some folk argue against built-in speed limiters because they claim they might need to accelerate to avoid a collision. Even with almost 30 years of varied and extensive driving experience I struggle to concieve any circumstance where ‘adding speed’ would be the correct course of action. Accelerating away from a stationary position to avoid an oncoming vehicle is something I would agree with, but then when would you need to accelerate over even the lowest (20mph) speed limit in the space of a couple of seconds? At the other extreme, everyone rolling along at 70mph on the motorway, how could going faster ever be the best tactic to avoid a collision?

    In reality of course this would presumably only apply to new vehicles, and unless it was enforced as a retrofit to older vehicles then it would take years for it to really start to take effect.

    Log In or Register to post comments

    • I dunno, I can frustrate the

      I dunno, I can frustrate the whole neighbourhood pootling about at 20mph everywhere

      Log In or Register to post comments

    • Dicklexic wrote:

      At the other extreme, everyone rolling along at 70mph on the motorway, how could going faster ever be the best tactic to avoid a collision?

      — Dicklexic

      Passing a HGV on a dual carriageway at 70, with traffic behind you, when it starts to move into your lane.

      Log In or Register to post comments

      • That is what I was going to

        That is what I was going to post.

        A friend was on a 2 lane dual and a lorry did that and he floored his large engined merc and avoided it.

        I don’t know what the other options were in terms of braking and adjacent vehicles.

        Also seems a pretty rare event to cater for.

        Log In or Register to post comments

        • Lorries will have to learn to

          Lorries will have to learn to slow down then or wait. 

          The excuses I would use for needing to speed should be so David Beckham can escape the press, Alex Ferguson can get home and crap and any other reason Loophole Larry used to get famous people off. I mean if those reasons are legal reason for speeding then they are valid reasons for being able to override a limiter. 

          Log In or Register to post comments

      • In those circs I think I’d

        In those circs I think I’d prefer to brake and risk a rear end shunt than risk a side-swipe by an artic. 

        Log In or Register to post comments

        • quiff wrote:

          In those circs I think I’d prefer to brake and risk a rear end shunt than risk a side-swipe by an artic. 

          — quiff

          Fair doos, but I’d want the ability to choose.

          Log In or Register to post comments

    • Agreed. None but the very top

      Agreed. None but the very top end vehicles are capable of the acceleration for this to be a credible option, and certainly none but the very top end drivers. Even then I’d argue that the proportion of circumstances that this would be appropriate is so small as to be labelled as “freak”.

      Log In or Register to post comments

      • Captain Badger wrote:

        Agreed. None but the very top end vehicles are capable of the acceleration for this to be a credible option, and certainly none but the very top end drivers. 

        — Captain Badger

        So some sort of exception will be required for high performance vehicles driven by advanced drivers. 

        Log In or Register to post comments

        • HoarseMann wrote:

           

          So some sort of exception will be required for high performance vehicles driven by advanced drivers. 

          — HoarseMann

          You mean like thee and me? I’ll get that supercharger fitted to the i10!

          Log In or Register to post comments

13. I’m totally against manditory

    I’m totally against manditory speed limiters fitted to cars, not because I’m against safety, or because I want to speed, but it’s the whole principle. It’s the same reason I point blank refuse to use a GPS tracking device to lower my car insurance, I simply have no interest in someone knowing where I am or what I’m doing at all times, or trusting them to keep my data and thus privacy secure. It’s not like I have anything to hide, but it just screams totalitarian state control. 

    I’m also not a fan of taking away driver awareness as frankly I think, unless we go to fully autonamous transport, thats only going to increase collisions. Look at it this way, if you no longer have to be aware of what speed your doing, looking out for cars going slower or faster, no more changing lanes as everything will be doing the same speed, adaptive crusise control, how long before people switch off completely and stop paying attention to whats around them. 

    I’d much rather speed limits were more rigerously enforced by the police, where fines and prosecution are used to disuade drivers. In Scotland for example, where speeding fines are much more Draconian, even for relatively minor offences, I’ve found I’m much less likely to speed than in England. If it has to be automatically enforced, I’d rather see it in built up areas only. 

    We are, after all, adults who are responsible for our own actions and their consequences. Taking that away and shifting the responsibility onto technology is just another way of shifting blame. “oh sorry officer, I didn’t mean to plough through the crossing full of children, my car didn’t spot and alert me to their presence”. It’s happening already. Someone reversed into the side of my friends car recently, and the offending driver came out with “oh sorry, the beeps didn’t go off’, failing to register that they do in fact have two eyes! 

    Also, I’m also cautious because what comes next? Bicycles limited to 15kph like E-bikes because of risks to pedestrians. Mandatory alcohol blood level monitoring – ‘oh sorry sir, you can’t visit the doctor this year as our records show you got pissed on october 7th and thus forefitted any right to medical treatment’ 

     

    Log In or Register to post comments

    • So on the first paragraph,

      So on the first paragraph, you never have a mobile phone, sat nav in your car or on your bike, or any other GPS enabled trackable device?

      Log In or Register to post comments

      • AlsoSomniloquism wrote:

        So on the first paragraph, you never have a mobile phone, sat nav in your car or on your bike, or any other GPS enabled trackable device?

        — AlsoSomniloquism

        I do, but on the mobile phone front, I get to choose who has access to the GPS data, and as far as I’m aware, if you want to track mobile phone locations via phone masts, that has to be done with a court order/warrent with resonable ground to suspect a crime has been committed. I can also choose not to carry a mobile phone if I wish, or turn it off. On the bike front, I actively use GPS tracking as a safety feature when riding alone so my other half or chosen person knows where I am in case of emergency. 

        WRT numberplate recognition, again, thats used by law enforcement agencies. Insurance companies aren’t law enforcement, but are publically traded corporations, and your data is a valuble tradable commodity. I also question the motives as another way in which they can find a reason to decline paying a claim. 

        Maybe it’s irrational, but if I recall we still had a choice as to whether we want people tracking us or not, albeit privacy is an increasingly difficult concept in the modern age. Maybe I just have an entrenched distrust or dislike of insurance companies, who knows, those were just my opinions on the matter, right or wrong. 

        Log In or Register to post comments

        • So I would guess you will be

          So I would guess you will be against I.D cards, DNA database etc? Me, i dont give a rats arse. If you don’t do anything wrong, you dont have anything to fear.

          Log In or Register to post comments

    • “They” already know where

      “They” already know where your car has been – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_number_plate_recognition_in_the_United_Kingdom

       

      Log In or Register to post comments

      • Very true. ANPR cameras are

        Very true. ANPR cameras are everywhere. If the police are after a particular vehicle, all they need to do is punch in the registration number and the ANPR cameras will tell them exactly which roads the vehicle has used. I think it’s a great tool for catching the bad folk.

        Log In or Register to post comments

    • MoutonDeMontagne wrote:

      We are, after all, adults who are responsible for our own actions and their consequences.

      — MoutonDeMontagne

      Whilst that is true, it is also true that it is not the motorist that has to live with consequences of their actions. 

      So yeah, I’m all for this. 

      Log In or Register to post comments

      • TheLonelyOne wrote:

        We are, after all, adults who are responsible for our own actions and their consequences.

        — TheLonelyOne

        Whilst that is true, it is also true that it is not the motorist that has to live with consequences of their actions. 

        So yeah, I’m all for this. 

        — MoutonDeMontagne

        I appreciate this and I agree. My point was if the laws are enforced and applied as they should be, the motorist would have to live with the consequences – i.e. the realisation that their actions took a life and as a result they spend a life sentance at HMP, without the freedoms they took for granted. 

        Log In or Register to post comments

        • I’d sooner see no one having

          I’d sooner see no one having to learn that  lesson, expensive as it is to the victim and wider society

          Log In or Register to post comments

        • [quote=MoutonDeMontagne
          [quote=MoutonDeMontagne

          I appreciate this and I agree. My point was if the laws are enforced and applied as they should be, the motorist would have to live with the consequences – i.e. the realisation that their actions took a life and as a result they spend a life sentance at HMP, without the freedoms they took for granted. 

          [/quote]

          I think it’s much better if the life doesn’t get taken and society doesn’t have to spend a small fortune keeping someone incarcerated.  Win, win for speed limiting.

          Log In or Register to post comments

    • I agree with you in principle

      I agree with you in principle, but it may turn out to be the most effective way of preventing speeding.

      In general, I don’t like using technology to prevent bad behaviour as the tech can always be thwarted if it goes against what people want to do – the way to prevent bad behaviour is to provide a disincentive (fines etc) and make it likely that people will be caught.

      Log In or Register to post comments

      • hawkinspeter wrote:

        I agree with you in principle, but it may turn out to be the most effective way of preventing speeding.

        In general, I don’t like using technology to prevent bad behaviour as the tech can always be thwarted if it goes against what people want to do – the way to prevent bad behaviour is to provide a disincentive (fines etc) and make it likely that people will be caught.

        — hawkinspeter

        That’s very much my feeling and more eloquently put than my rambling. Although I’d go a little further in saying I don’t like using technology, nor sweeping government interference to curb peoples actions beyond enforcing the laws as written as there’s always a ‘but’ or a case that falls into a grey area. Speeding is a case in point. Why are we desperate to prevent speeding, when speeding in total isolation (read as 75mph on a totally empty motorway as an example) isn’t really an issue? It’s the consequence that speeding can contribute to that we’re trying to prevent, such as road deaths, collisions etc. 

        Cracking down on excessive speed may help counter one of the contributing factors to RTC’s but will not stop them all. Arguably, bad driving is the root cause of most collisions, and bad driving is just as prevalent within the speed limit as it is above it, and thus automatic speed limiting wouldn’t prevent this. An automatic life sentence for anyone found causing death/life changing injury by dangerous driving would IMHO be much more of a discentive, as would an automatic 6 month ban for using a mobile phone while driving, or being fined a % of your salary along with points (as is the Scotland rule) for speeding. People generally don’t go around murdering people, partly because it’s seen as a henious crime and the consequences are severe. Why should killing someone with your actions be seen differently? 

        To me it’s the same logic as why I get frustrated by alot of the corporate H&S culture thats creeping in everywhere. People should be required to use their own common sense and awareness to perform a risk assessment as to what is a suitable action and be held accountable if they get it wrong. I find that people are often now blindly following the instructions in an android like fashion without any thought as to why something may be a risk. Then, when something happens, the go to response is ‘but there wasn’t a rule to cover this eventuality’ or ‘nobody told me this was a risk’ even when it’s fairly obvious with a little common sense applied. Again, the blame and responsibility is shifted in true slopey shouldered style. 

        Any life lost on the roads is a life too many, I just think the responsibility to prevent it should be on the individual, not the machine. Guns don’t kill people, wrappers do and all that.

        It’s also not the job of car manufactures to police the laws, same as bike manufactures or phone manufacturers, but the job of the police. One of those requires government funding however, one is completely free to the state and makes it the private sectors problem! 

        Log In or Register to post comments

    • MoutonDeMontagne wrote:

      I’m totally against manditory speed limiters fitted to cars, not because I’m against safety, or because I want to speed, but it’s the whole principle. <SNIP>

      I’d much rather speed limits were more rigerously enforced by the police, where fines and prosecution are used to disuade drivers. In Scotland for example, where speeding fines are much more Draconian, even for relatively minor offences, I’ve found I’m much less likely to speed than in England. If it has to be automatically enforced, I’d rather see it in built up areas only. 

      We are, after all, adults who are responsible for our own actions and their consequences. <SNIP>

      — MoutonDeMontagne

      We’ve had a hundred years of speed limits enforced by the police already…. how is that working out for us? I’m pretty sure there’s some shocking driving in taking place in Scotland as well as England (Wales on the other hand never fails to amaze me, no F’s given in Wales, man or boy).

      Oh you mean more rigorously enforced..  okay who’s paying for that then? 1) how do you propose to catch the speeders? (extra speed cameras*) 2) Who do you propose does the predicted extra administration of said fines? 3) What about all the additional prosecuting admin for those who miss paying their fines.. 4) Ultimately where’s the money coming from to do all this? We have a lot of roads.

      Drivers cannot be trusted not to speed, so why not turn it on it’s head and just stop the vehicles from speeding. (Don’t worry, it’ll only apply to new cars, you’ll still be able to drive an old Capri round like DCI Gene Hunt.)

      *Speed cameras – The average fixed cost per site for a speed camera was £12,500 and average recurrent costs were just over £8,500 per annum for each site. – 68% of the fixed costs for speed cameras were met by local authorities and 20% were met by the police service. The police service also met 64% of the recurrent costs associated with speed cameras. (Magistrates’ courts accounted for over 30% of these recurrent costs.) – Each site generated an average of 316 speed related prosecutions per annum, although there was considerable variation between sites. The average cost per prosecution was £27. (86% of these offences were dealt with by way of fixed penalty.) – Referenced from an old Home Office Police Research Group, and I’m pretty sure the costs wouldn’t have gone down.

      Log In or Register to post comments

      • If the political will was

        If the political will was there, the money would be found.

        Personally, I don’t see why you can’t fund a lot of the trivial things like speeding cameras with the fines from people caught speeding. If it were privatised, it’d be a doddle for a company to set up some digital cameras, do a bit of average speed calculations, a dash of ANPR technology and there you go – free money.

        Log In or Register to post comments

      • peted76 wrote:

        We’ve had a hundred years of speed limits enforced by the police already…. how is that working out for us?

        — peted76

        It was working quite well in the 2000s when police and local authorities were encouraged and empowered to do it. Then the Tories got back into power and replaced the war on the motorist with a return to the previous licence to kill regime and it all went to shit.

        

        https://www.citymetric.com/transport/why-it-acceptable-kill-someone-mysterious-history-britain-s-road-death-toll-4852

        Log In or Register to post comments

        • Nice graph, though the y-axis

          Nice graph, though the y-axis starting at 1,500 is exaggerating the decline.

          Log In or Register to post comments

          • True, poor representation of

            True, poor representation of the data there, CityMetric should know better.

            If the decline had continued at even hald of the 2006-2010 rate they’d have had no choice but to extend the y-axis down to zero.

        • My point was not that

          My point was not that speeding is getting higher. But that a hundred years of the car being limited mainly by sign posts and fines has not made speeding socially unacceptable for most people. Not sure why your graph is depics 1782 deaths on the road a year as a good thing, was your point purely political?

          Log In or Register to post comments

          • peted76 wrote:

            My point was not that speeding is getting higher. But that a hundred years of the car being limited mainly by sign posts and fines has not made speeding socially unacceptable for most people. Not sure why your graph is depics 1782 deaths on the road a year as a good thing, was your point purely political?

            — peted76

            My point is that when the police and local authorities were enabled and encouraged to enforce speed limits, the road toll plummeted. That decline stopped when the political stance of the government changed.

            So yes, of course there’s a political ppoint here: the Tories don’t care who they kill as long as they can drive their Mercs around as fast as they like. 

            I have no idea where you get the idea CityMetric’s graph depicts 1782 deaths as a good thing. The good thing is the huge decline that got the road toll down to that number; it’s apalling that the progress was halted and the ministers responsible should be treated as war criminals.

          • MiserableBastard wrote:

            So yes, of course there’s a political ppoint here: the Tories don’t care who they kill as long as they can drive their Mercs around as fast as they like. 

            …. the ministers responsible should be treated as war criminals.

            — MiserableBastard

            LOL ?

        • Those evil Tories also
          Those evil Tories also managed to stop road deaths falling in many other European countries.

          Is there no end to their dastardly wickedness?

          From your own link

          Log In or Register to post comments

          • Good point – the article is

            Good point – the article is assuming that it’s down to the tories, but the other countries are strangely flattening off at the same time. I’d still blame the tories, though, but that’s just me.

          • Austerity is a worldwide norm

            Austerity is a worldwide norm.

          • Bmblbzzz wrote:

            Austerity is a worldwide norm.

            — Bmblbzzz

            It’s a worldwide something…

          • Oh no, there are a

            Oh no, there are a significant number of people who have no experience of it at all……

          • I blame Thatcher.  But that’s

            I blame Thatcher.  But that’s just me…

          • Look, let’s just all agree to
            Look, let’s just all agree to leave cider out of this.

          • While I do feel any road

            While I do feel any road death is too many, I wonder if the flattening off is almost getting down to the “As Low as Reasonably Possible” levels given the current infrastructure, number of journeys and current technology. i.e. very few new measures are in place, thus we’ve reached the natural slow down in reductions. 

          • I doubt it. There’s very few
            I doubt it. There’s very few road fatalities that couldn’t have been prevented by either paying better attention or driving to the conditions.

          • That might be the case if as

            That might be the case if as much as possible is being done. This clearly is not the case

          • Both Helsinki and Oslo have

            Both Helsinki and Oslo have both managed very well.

            It just take effort.

        • That link is really
          That link is really interesting. Thanks for sharing it

          Log In or Register to post comments

      • Appreciate your point Pete,

        Appreciate your point Pete, and it’s totally valid. Scotland is a case in point, where the harsher speeding fines were a consequence of frankly dreadful and dangerous driving. Although speaking personally in my previous post about the harsher punishments being a disincentive to speed, the standards of driving I witness on a weekly basis are shocking. 

        With regards who’s paying for it, thats a different conversation, and arguably one that drifts into politics, austerity and slashing of police budgets. In the 20 years I’ve been driving, the number of police patrol cars, unmarked cars, PC Smith sat on motorway bridges or PC Davis stood behind a hedge by the post office has decreased dramatically, to the extent that it is a rarity that I see any form of law enforcement on the road, nor do I see a bobby on the beat on the high street. As such, driving standards, along with an increased battle for road space are going in the wrong direction.

        My argument was more in relation to this statement of yours:

        “Drivers cannot be trusted not to speed, so why not turn it on it’s head and just stop the vehicles from speeding.” 

        While thats a valid argument, where do we stop? Registration for bikes so they can be punished for road traffic offences? Manditory Hi-Vis? Stopping phones from working if they detect movement? If we take away all responsibility for keeping people from harm from the individuals, I fear we’re setting a dangerous precedent where many of us may find that we can no longer do many of the things we enjoy, such as exploring the mountains (People can’t be trusted to be sensible and equipped to lets ban that).  If people can’t be trusted not to hurt themselves or others, lets take away any freedoms and opportunities for them to do so. I appreciate some of the examples I’ve used are extreme verging on ludicrous, but they’re there to illustrate the point.

        And who’s going to pay for it. In the case of the cars, its the car manufactures, and as such the consumer. If its the government, then it’s us the tax payer. So in many case (Yes I know not everyone drives a car but going with the average person) it’s effectively the same. 

        I just sometimes feel, that as speeding and road safety is a passionate topic here on road.cc (rightly so), people may jump to support something, but then rail against something that they don’t like (see the comments about mandatory helmet use or bike registration or E-bike speed limiters) which comes as the next step. Just to clarify again, I’m not condoning nor championing speeding, but the role of the individual to take responsibility. 

        Log In or Register to post comments

        • MoutonDeMontagne wrote:

          While thats a valid argument, where do we stop?

          — MoutonDeMontagne

          I agree with you the danger is that we could happily skip towards a rabbit hole of media led, nanny-state and evil corp control as seen in the heady 1987 film Robocop.

          In my eyes, to wit, the world is already heading towards the embrace of evil corp.

          Log In or Register to post comments

    • Intelligent speed assistance

      Intelligent speed assistance does not actually prevent speeding. It does make it harder; in effect, you have to do it deliberately and you’ll know you’ve crossed the limit (literally). 

      https://etsc.eu/intelligent-speed-assistance-isa/

      Log In or Register to post comments

    • MoutonDeMontagne wrote:

      I simply have no interest in someone knowing where I am or what I’m doing at all times

      — MoutonDeMontagne

      Well, that’s fine then because there’s no need for that in order to implement automatic speed control. If the system knows where it is via GPS, looks up the speed limit in its map data and acts accordingly, there is no interaction with any external system that gets your location. Despite the way it’s often treated by cop shows, GPS is recieve-only; your device knows where you are, but the satellites don’t.

      Alternatively, a camera-based system could read read limit signs and control the car’s speed accordingly. 

      Or short-range roadside transmitters could broadcast the local speed limit. 

      Log In or Register to post comments

      • Yep – I realise my dislike of

        Yep – I realise my dislike of the principle of gps tracking for insurance is different from the implimentation of speed limiting and thus was a flawed example. 

        Log In or Register to post comments

        • MoutonDeMontagne wrote:

          Yep – I realise my dislike of the principle of gps tracking for insurance is different from the implimentation of speed limiting and thus was a flawed example. 

          — MoutonDeMontagne

          Congratulations on a mercifully brief post.  Do try to keep it up.

          Log In or Register to post comments

    • MoutonDeMontagne wrote:

      Also, I’m also cautious because what comes next? Bicycles limited to 15kph like E-bikes because of risks to pedestrians.

      — MoutonDeMontagne

      Eh? E-bikes aren’t limited to 15kph. They’re not limited to anything. The assist can’t apply over 15 mph (not kph) unless you’re prepared to jump through the hoops of registration, licensing, etc., but you can ride them as fast as you like (or are able to).

      Log In or Register to post comments

    • You use public roads, there

      You use public roads, there is no right to privacy. That said, ISA is not tracking you. It’s just using a GPS receiver to trilaterate your vehicle’s position and referencing that to mapping data of speed zones. It does not transmit your location because it doesn’t need to. Some may add in speed sign recognition and live traffic for roadworks zones etc but again that is receiving, not broadcasting your location to anyone.

      All this really does is use an existing technology, adaptive cruise control, and expands on it. It’s not something we should object to, it’s just a better use for the tech already fitted to motor vehicles.

       

      Log In or Register to post comments

14. Are these speed limiting

    Are these speed limiting proposals intended for new cars, or are they asking for them to be retrofitted?

     

    (Asking for a friend…) 😉

     

    My car doesn’t even have a tape player, radio, or cigarette lighter…

    Log In or Register to post comments

    • I’ve got a ’63 Triumph Herald

      I’ve got a ’63 Triumph Herald Coupe and a ’67 VW Beetle that likewise lacks those mod cons 😉

      They’re both speed limited though 😉

      Log In or Register to post comments

15. I am clearly coming to this

    I am clearly coming to this debate later, but whenever the band does a gig out of town, we borrow a minibus to cart ourselves and all our gear. Said minibus has a speed limiter restricting it to no more than 62mph (in reality it maxes out at around 61). At no point while driving that have I felt in danger because I couldn’t speed up on the motorway, or felt frustrated that I couldn’t overtake something (given that once at 62 I know I can’t travel any faster anyway, so why would the inability to overtake be any kind of issue. 

    If cars had speed limiters like this, it really wouldn’t take long for drivers to get used to it. The issue for me is just that this only applies to the overall maximum speed (I can still pound through a 20mph limit at 62 if I was so minded … which I am not), and would need to be allied with something more complex to limit based on different limits for different parts of the journey. 

    But definitely doable. Might even make driving a more civilised experience. 

    Log In or Register to post comments

    • The technology exists to

      The technology exists to automatically restrict your vehicle’s speed to the road’s speed limit. This was available, definitely in 2007 when Transport for London mapped all the roads (I think in the whole UK) for this purpose. Boris Johnson scrapped the project when he became Mayor in 2008.

      Log In or Register to post comments