Reply to: Calls for 'speed-limiting' cars

[ace00]

Why do we have to keep stepping backwards in the name of safety?

Good point. We seem to be stuck in societies that assume we should always aim for the lowest common denominator.
And specific to this thread, further action to reduce speeds is subject to the law of diminishing returns. I doubt there's many in the government who would even understand that simple concept.

[Mich the Tester]

Given that cars are getting more powerful, more efficiënt, less polluting and safer all the time, why not redesign major roads and driver education to allow for higher speeds?

Why do we have to keep stepping backwards in the name of safety?

[Spacecadet]

when you hear of motorway deaths they're nearly always down to HGV drivers who are already restricted to 56.

And pissed up footballers

I'm all for speed limiters on younger drivers, perhaps the insurance companies could pressure the under 25's to use them in return for cheaper car insurance.

BMW's should have them fitted as standard and be electrified to prevent tampering

(Now i sound like a right old twat)

[VectraMan]

GPS based limiters sound far too complicated.

Not really. The GPS end is well proven with all the zillions of sat nav devices out there, and speed limiters are compulsary in Japan (not to mention on lorries). In fact my S2000 is limited to 180mph.

If anything, it makes more sense to use technology to enforce 30mph or 40mph limits, and not anywhere else. Motorways are the safest roads by far, despite the high speed, and when you hear of motorway deaths they're nearly always down to HGV drivers who are already restricted to 56.

[vetran]

80mph speed limiter

Why not a mechanical speed limiter that cuts in at 80mph. Forcing a maximum speed on motorways etc and a good chance the police can catch the joy riders. Technology is established and proven.

GPS based limiters sound far too complicated.

Speed is only really a major cause in a small number of accidents but it keeps the fines rolling in.

[d000hg]

On TopGear recently didn't they say Japan already has this system, and it is sophisticated to detect when you drive onto a race track and disengage the limiter?

[minestrone]

But as Clarkson & co never tire of pointing out, if a car can't go above 70 MPH either by power or design then its designers will ease off on brake quality.

That is a bit like saying if we never had guns then we would not have the benefit of gun laws.

Anyway the guy is a choob, he used to belt on about 2 joggers produced more CO2 that a VW Golf which was total mince, or the time he handed out his bank details in the paper to prove the was no such thing as ID theft.

Guy talks pish for a living.

[AtW]

A powerful car needs powerful brakes, and these probably save more accidents (or their worst effects) than high speeds cause.

Is it a good idea to have some cars that can stop in much shorter distance, imagine you are on motorway and keep normal distance between you and car in front of you and then that car starts braking and since it got better brakes your normal distance won't be enough and you'd get into back of it - dangerous IMO.

[OwlHoot]

Prevention from speeding will reduce the number of serious accidents on the roads, and increase survivability rates...

But as Clarkson & co never tire of pointing out, if a car can't go above 70 MPH either by power or design then its designers will ease off on brake quality.

A powerful car needs powerful brakes, and these probably save more accidents (or their worst effects) than high speeds cause.

But you're dead right about introducing this as voluntary, and it soon morphing into something compulsory. Those EU functionaries must think the public are completely thick.

[OwlHoot]

I already have a speed limiting device.

It's called a Renault

Me too - Mine's called London.

[Board Game Geek]

As usual, it's being touted as a voluntary option, however, that's the usual tactic to appease the libertarians, until last minute changes make it compulsory.

That said, I don't have a problem with this legislation for a number of reasons.

Prevention from speeding will reduce the number of serious accidents on the roads, and increase survivability rates.

With a de-emphasis on speed, the manufacturers will have to refocus their vehicle design on comfort, safety, efficiency.

With the roads so congested these days, driving is not the pleasure it once was, and the days of taking to the wheel and zooming along to your heart's content are long over.

We need to maximise the efficiency of travel, and if that means all vehicles being essentially controlled by a global navigation and control system, I don't think it's a small price to pay. Call it an "evolution of travel" if you will.

Also, if it does start as voluntary, then I'd expect the insurers to offer suitable discounts for insurance, and to rack up the premiums on non-limited vehicles accordingly.

Finally, you have nothing to worry about from speeding fines, since by virtue you should always be within the speed limit for the area you are in.

The only losers will be the high performance car makers, but they need to realise that by producing vehicles which are capaple of exceeding the speed limit, they are party to the problem.

[PAH]

Personally I’d love a car that braked for me. In fact I want it to brake, accelerate, monitor the vehicle in front and obstructions in the road, steer and prevent lane drift. In fact I want a car that takes me from A to B and does everything for me, whilst I sit and read the FT for cheap bargains and sip tea. A light chiming noise when arriving at B would be good as well.

James May tested one in California on one of his Big Ideas programs a few weeks ago. I say bring it on.

Top Gear also had a beemer that could drive itself around their track once it'd learnt the way using GPS.

I wonder if we'll be able to use them to drive us home from the pub. One less thing we'll need women for!

[chicane]

A taxi?

Most taxi drivers round here have got the hang of "brake" and "accelerate" - it's just the other things mentioned that seem to elude them.

[deano]

A taxi?

God no! Why on Earth would I want to share my journey with anyone. A chauffeur with one of those partitions would be acceptable, providing they were instructed not to try to communicate with me at all.

Besides, such things as taxi's and chauffeurs all cost money. I want it to be my own vehilde that vbasically drove itself, containing me and no-one else but me. Except the family when I let them in.

[gingerjedi]

Personally I’d love a car that braked for me. In fact I want it to brake, accelerate, monitor the vehicle in front and obstructions in the road, steer and prevent lane drift. In fact I want a car that takes me from A to B and does everything for me, whilst I sit and read the FT for cheap bargains and sip tea. A light chiming noise when arriving at B would be good as well.

James May tested one in California on one of his Big Ideas programs a few weeks ago. I say bring it on.

A taxi?