You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Slightly provocative title, but a genuine question.
The speed limit in the UK is 70mph.
Whilst there is the very rare occasion where the ability to speed up is useful to get you out of trouble, those occasions are vastly outnumbered by times when going faster gets you into trouble.
So, why are cars not restricted to a max speed of 70mph (or whatever the max speed limit is in the country the car is registered to)?
###Puts on flame proof suit and walks away###
I'd be happy if it was lower. You save so much more fuel by doing 50 rather than 70 and it's more relaxing.
You'll get people complaining that they need to be able to exceed the limit for a short time to overtake etc, and that's fine - so you could let it go over the limit for say 5 seconds.
That said, I think that people doing say 60 in a 30 causes a lot more deaths than 90 in a 70. So how about intelligent speed limit restrictions? Well, it's happening, sort of:
https://www.autotrader.co.uk/content/news/mandatory-speed-limiters-on-uk-cars-from-2022
But for now, you will still be able to disable it.
What they could do is have a free-for-all one day. No limits, do what you like. The result would be so terrifying and deadly I think it would subsequently create a lot more compliance. Death toll might be a bit high though.
You save so much more fuel by doing 50 rather than 70 and it’s more relaxing.
As a caravanner I can confirm that a steady 58 in the inside lane is superbly relaxing.
You'll get no argument from me
If they put even half as many security and safety measures into cars as they do on e-scooters, we'd cut road deaths by a massive % almost immediately.
Rental e-scooters and dockless e-bikes are geofenced so you can only ride/park them in certain areas, speed restricted in other areas (ride through a pedestrian precinct on an e-scooter and it cuts your speed automatically to 5mph). If you try and hire a Lime bike late at night the app makes you go through a safety and reaction speed check to make sure you're not pissed.
We could do all of this with cars very easily. It'd cut car theft, accidents, deaths/injuries instantly. If the speed was restricted, that'd cut pollution too. It should all be on the car manufacturers to do this but they've cleverly managed to outsource all the costs to councils / local authorities etc.
What was that, someone was doing 120mph in one of our cars?! Gosh, you should put some speed cameras and road humps in to fix that problem...
Rather than what it should be which is "oh sorry, we'll fit a speed limiter to the car"...
Disagree. Next?
Do most crashes happen on high-speed roads?
No. Approximately two-thirds of all crashes in which people are killed or injured happen on roads with a speed limit of 30mph or less.And in 2018, the majority of the 456 pedestrian fatalities and 5,782 serious casualties occurred on built-up roads. Cyclists are also vulnerable in built-up areas, with more than half of cyclist deaths (62 of 99) and serious cyclist casualties (3,402 of 3,707) occurring on built-up roads.
This is why the Department for Transport encourages traffic authorities to consider the introduction of more 20mph limits and zones, over time, in urban areas and built-up village streets that are primarily residential, to ensure greater safety for cyclists and pedestrians. RoSPA also encourages planners to pay attention to lower speeds in built-up areas, with active travel like walking and cycling promoted as a positive option.
People should learn to drive that is better than an out dated speed limit
Agreed. There's no flexibility on how much you can drink before driving a car so why is it the car that speeds are treated with a degree of flexibility?
Only when we've cracked...
Drink Driving
Drug Driving
Driving without tax and insurance
Driving without due care and attention
Driving a car not fit for the road
Driving like a complete and utter numpty who god only knows how they passed their test
Retesting every five or ten years
Actually have traffic police on the roads
...but it will come, but only when driving is fully autonomous.
Totally agree.
Irrespective of the safety consideration, the reduced emissions, lower fuel consumption and lower noise pollution would be massively beneficial.
15000 miles in my car and the fastest I've been is 68MPH. I also hit the claimed fuel consumption figs which is apparently impossible in real world conditions.
Imagine how much taxes would go up, if all those speeding fines stopped being collected, due to using modern tech to limit speeds to the various UK road speed limits.
@funkyDunc, can we not do both?
We should absolutely do more driver training, and look to improve the accident rates at slow speed.
But we can also stop people going to fast.
Because it’ll do nothing to prevent all the crashes that happen in 30, 40 or 50, or 60mph roads. (where most of the UK crashes happen)
No, but it will stop the ones that happen at 70mph+ with no other negative impacts.
Nah. Pointless.
As someone said up there ^^^ bad drivers kill most people at WELL below the speed limit.
You need geofenced speed limits, which, err, is being launched imminently, and will be rolled out and tightened up over the next few years as we get better at reading road signs and locating the car on a GPS map.
Volvo have already limited cars to 112mph/180kph globally, and took an absolutely massive amount of flack for it.
Sales went up though.
People should learn to drive that is better than an out dated speed limit
But they aren't exclusive. You can easily enforce or change a speed limit AS WELL as improving driver education.
as this would only apply to new cars (or some newer fancier electric things might get OTA updates) then it can't come in to force all at once, you'll have some cars with it, some without.
you know how you get stuck behind lorries trying to overtake eachother because one's limiter is 0.1mph faster than the other's.
Imagine that, but with every moronic driver in every lane of the motorway.
Seems inevitable that it will happen eventually, along with road pricing. The technology is there, we're just waiting for policy to catch up.
"I know what the law is, but I demand the opportunity to break it whenever I want, because I don't like it."
What?
Imagine that, but with every moronic driver in every lane of the motorway.
But they'd be doing 70 so what's the problem?
But we can also stop people going to fast.
Restrict cars to 70 fine, but they could still drive at 70mph in a 30mph zone.
Seems inevitable that it will happen eventually, along with road pricing.
Yep I can see a system that restricts speeds in 20-40 zones, using GPS and automatic driving when you're on a motorway. along with road-pricing in line to encourage alternative transport To me that would be a better solution than blanket restriction.
you know how you get stuck behind lorries trying to overtake eachother because one’s limiter is 0.1mph faster than the other’s.
Imagine that, but with every moronic driver in every lane of the motorway.
I find motorways a much more relaxing place to be when everybody is travelling the same speed under avg. speed cameras.
@funkyDunc, can we not do both?
We should absolutely do more driver training, and look to improve the accident rates at slow speed.
But we can also stop people going to fast.
No - unless you want a speed limit of 5-10 mph.
These conversations are always the same. Its not the speed that is the issue. Its going too fast for the conditions that you are in. Speed limits are used as a blunt tool as quite frankly most drivers are not fit to drive quickly and understand the implications.
I get the environmental impact bit though. However during lockdown though my mpg went up massively, as did my average speed.
In a weird way, I wonder whether these sorts of rules could make the situation worse. Fifty years ago, driving was an occasion. My grandfather would tell me he'd prepare the car in advance of long trips, check all the indicators and get a good night's sleep.
Nowadays, people hop in the car half-awake and doomscroll the Tik-Agram until some sensor beeps at them to inform them they've just maimed a cyclist.
Drivers need to be encouraged to take responsibility and actually concentrate. Perhaps having a car that half-drives itself and a load of enforced safety features takes away that responsibility?
I'll say it again.
Reduced emissions.
Reduced fuel consumption
Reduced noise pollution
It is not pointless.
Sounds good. Certainly no need for a car to go 150mph or anywhere near it.
Imagine how much taxes would go up, if all those speeding fines stopped being collected, due to using modern tech to limit speeds to the various UK road speed limits.
I imagine that once you take everything into account, not at all.
No complaints from me
70 top speed on all cars and intelligent speed control on new cars for 20/30 mph zones etc.
As a caravanner I can confirm that a steady 58 in the inside lane is superbly relaxing
What is this, amateur hour? You should weaving about in the rough vicinity of the middle lane at all times.
ayjaydoubleyou nails it
ayjaydoubleyou
as this would only apply to new cars (or some newer fancier electric things might get OTA updates) then it can’t come in to force all at once, you’ll have some cars with it, some without.you know how you get stuck behind lorries trying to overtake eachother because one’s limiter is 0.1mph faster than the other’s.
Imagine that, but with every moronic driver in every lane of the motorway.
I don't see the point in doing more than 70 on the motorway, it's too congested and too stressful. I'm fairly sure that average speeds have come down massively in recent years. It used to be that the outside lane was a constant stream of cars doing 80-85mph but I hardly ever see that these days. I think the rise in fuel prices and an increase in traffic are to blame.
A friend informed me that his Audi has the ability to read speed limit signs and the cruise control/ speed limiter can adjust accordingly. Surely this becoming the default setting would be a big step forward. Something you would have to manually disable, which could then be used if you were caught speeding, or were involved in an accident.
But also can't disagree that improving the general standard of driving would be a very good start. Regular, ongoing testing could be one aspect.
No, but it will stop the ones that happen at 70mph+ with no other negative impacts.
Which probably have a significantly higher ratios of fatalities to crashes.
Well, tbh the 70mph motorway/DC speed limit is outdated anyway, it was set back in the 60's for Christ sake.
You'd need GPS based restrictions depending on where you're driving too, not just a blanket limit based on where the car was registered.
Someone doing 75mph on a motorway isn't exactly killing all the children though, are they. People doing 40/50mph through 30 or 20 zones is another matter. So no, I don't see the point. It'd cost millions and let's face it, how often do you actually see someone doing stupid speeds on motorway?
as this would only apply to new cars (or some newer fancier electric things might get OTA updates) then it can’t come in to force all at once, you’ll have some cars with it, some without.
That's always been the way with tech though. Cruise control, airbags, seat belts (going way back with that one!), reversing sensors... There's always been and will always be a time where someone on the roads will have the latest tricked out car with all mod cons/safety features and someone will be in a Morris Minor with none of that.
You could improve driving standards dramatically by having proper enforcement and meaningful punishments as well. The ridiculous "exceptional hardships" loophole needs to go and it's time to start doling out some proper jail time and lifetime bans for killer drivers and persistent offenders. You could cut huge amounts of congestion and pollution by simply removing all un-roadworthy cars and drivers!
I agree.
But let's focus on where the injuries really do happen.
But also can’t disagree that improving the general standard of driving would be a very good start. Regular, ongoing testing could be one aspect
^ this too.
A friend informed me that his Audi has the ability to read speed limit signs and the cruise control/ speed limiter can adjust accordingly.
That system is incredibly inaccurate, around 20-25% false readings in some markets.
But as i said up there
You need geofenced speed limits, which, err, is being launched imminently, and will be rolled out and tightened up over the next few years as we get better at reading road signs and locating the car on a GPS map.
High definition maps, accurate GPS/GLONASS, better sign recognition etc.
It'll happen.
a light, efficient, aerodynamic car at 70mph will make less noise, emissions and have better braking and handling characteristics than a 2.2 tonne range rover...
so by the same argument, why don't we putting restrictions on those types of cars?
I agree to a degree that the world is doomed, at the hands of us, but i would imagine excessive motorway speed (in good conditions) would be one of the lower causes of accidents. I'm a massive advocate of scrapping all road going fees, and just put everything on fuel. I'm sure that would help the environment loads more if the costs were ridiculous for inefficient vehicles/ excessive speed. Biggest polluters = biggest fees
Can't come soon enough.
No need for a physical limiter, just add a black box. Can be fitted to every car. Go over the speed limit, any limit, pick up a penalty. Could be small, say 1 point. Beats the safety argument as if you genuinely need to speed then you can. For a one off, no big issue, find yourself needing to speed a lot then it's probably time for a driving refresher anyway.
unworkable - how else do you expect people to compensate for their inadequacies if they can't assert dominance by driving fast in an ultimate race-bred driving strap-on
It's a reasonable point, especially from a emissions point of view. Although as most people say motorways are some of the safest roads and the crap driving I see as a cyclist is on lower speed limit roads.
I recently was on a trip to Germany and the guy driving hit the limiter on the BMW. 155mph? Did it feel safe... no way!
Of course the issue is how to implement. I've had cars that read speed limit signs and occasionally it would get confused on the M-way when it read the 50mph speed limit signs on the back of lorries and hit the brakes. I had to stop using this function.
chart 5 - fatalities by road user type. pedestrian and cycle deaths are nearly equal to that of car occupants. None of these will have occured on motorways. Cars are pretty damn safe for their occupants these days.
(I'm gonna ignore motorbikes as mainly either being killed by innatentive motorists, or their own misplaced bravado)
I would be very happy with some form of speed limiter in cars, and agree with those who have said it is quite relaxing to drive slowly in the inside lane.
I would add, though, that something more developed than the current MOT system for making sure cars were fit for purpose could go a long way toward improving safety - on the motorways and on urban streets. Especially where tyres are concerned.
Restrict cars to 70 fine, but they could still drive at 70mph in a 30mph zone.
There's technology available to control the restriction to wherever you are driving.
I've always wondered for many years why cars that do 150mph are sold in this country (although I own one!) A lot of motorbikes will do in excess of 170mph. 20+ years ago a mate of mine had a Honda Fireblade and he said he could break the speed limit in 1st gear.
I just assume the money gained from speeding fines is vastly more important than the dangers of speeding.
A friend informed me that his Audi has the ability to read speed limit signs and the cruise control/ speed limiter can adjust accordingly
our volvo does that.
It can be a pain in the proverbial. Pootling along at 70 on the motorway, and it registers 30 on a side road. It slams on the brakes. It's done it a few times, and is the most disconcerting thing.
Or there's a road near us - one side of the road has a 30, the other side has a NSL. Same direction. Basically because the builders in the field next to it only had the one 30mph sign. That confuses the car.
So - whilst it will get there - it's not there yet.
As a caravanner I can confirm that a steady 58 in the inside lane is superbly relaxing.
What is this, amateur hour?
Clearly not towing a twin axle gin palace with a Discovery TDV8.
After as above drink drug no tax mot insurence dangerous wreckless driving has been sorted .
If the above were handed 5k plus fines and community service penilties then the world might start being a better place. Not just another ! 24 month ban which is ignored and a £250 court fine . Steve for chief dictotor !
I would be more in favour of having prove requirement* for a 4*4 SUV and being licenced accordingly.
*Like you work in Forestry or on a farm, or live down a miles long rutted track
Seems inevitable that it will happen eventually
On the contrary. It'll never happen. Not a chance.
Jeremy Clarkson, the 'motoring lobby', a press consisting of libertarian nutjobs and a country set up exclusively for car use that likes nothing more than to drive huge fuel-guzzling ****panzers around, running over small animals and burning oilfields worth of petrol, mean that if a government even tentatively suggested it then there would be absolute outrage
I know that the Just Stop Oil lot wont like it, but the reality of the UK is that the divine right to drive like a **** is one of the few things that would actually provoke a lot of people to protest (a la ****ryside Alliance)
I’ve always wondered for many years why cars that do 150mph are sold in this country (although I own one!) A lot of motorbikes will do in excess of 170mph. 20+ years ago a mate of mine had a Honda Fireblade and he said he could break the speed limit in 1st gear.
the problem with ICE cars and the power bands of the engines. make something that for example does 70 in an efficient way in top gear, and has good acceleration 30-70 in a lower gear; will be easily able to get well into triple digits unless artificially/electronically restricted. which probably no manufacturer will do, unless forced. the germans voluntarily agreed to limit most of their vehicles to 155mph
most electric cars seem to be limited to somewhere around 90-110. despite having quoted power figures that should easily match those high ICE speeds. suggesting that the motors are (quite rightly and sensibly) only designed for a certain speed that reflects normal driving.
There’s technology available to control the restriction to wherever you are driving.
In new cars maybe - there's millions of cars on the road that don't have that tech.
And be careful what you wish for. That same tech can just as easily be fitted to an eBike and restrict you to 15mph anywhere. Just wait for the red-sock brigade to start that petition.
Slightly off topic but I'm sure I read some car, I want to say it's nisaans latest incarnation of some bonkers skyline type thing, but I can't remember is geo-fenced.
so you can't turn off all the safety gubbins and speed limiters unless it knows you're on a race track.
The technology is there.
most electric cars seem to be limited to somewhere around 90-110. despite having quoted power figures that should easily match those high ICE speeds. suggesting that the motors are (quite rightly and sensibly) only designed for a certain speed that reflects normal driving.
The motors won't go any faster, the imbalance in the rotors means they'll start scraping the stator.
You either need a two speed box (Taycan) or a massively more expensive/heavy motor that can both develop the torque at low speed AND wang round at 20000 rpm cleanly. Which won't be an option for most cars.
On the contrary. It’ll never happen. Not a chance.
Already started... Even in Brexit britain
I agree to a degree that the world is doomed, at the hands of us, but i would imagine excessive motorway speed (in good conditions) would be one of the lower causes of accidents.
I think it's a symptom of something deeper - that people don't care about the rules so they will break them when they think they can get away with it. And the reason they don't care is that they don't think collectively. It's not about what's good for society, or those around us, it's about whatever THEY want right now. If we could change that, things would be a hell of a lot better all round.
most electric cars seem to be limited to somewhere around 90-110. despite having quoted power figures that should easily match those high ICE speeds
I think this is because they usually only have one gear, and the motors can only spin so fast. I think this is why a Porsche Taycan has a two speed transmission.
the reality of the UK is that the divine right to drive like a **** is one of the few things that would actually provoke a lot of people to protest
It's not just the UK. German governments keep trying to introduce speed limits but the motoring lobby won't let them.
Its all academic anyway.
The M6 toll at 3am is probably the only time you'll get to do much over 70mph on the UK road network. Pop on to the M60 in Manchester, any time of day and see if you ever get above 40. You won't.
ayjaydoubleyou
most electric cars seem to be limited to somewhere around 90-110. despite having quoted power figures that should easily match those high ICE speeds. suggesting that the motors are (quite rightly and sensibly) only designed for a certain speed that reflects normal driving.
Isn't that more to do with the fact that most electric cars (not all) don't have gearboxes like ICE cars? So, you get peak torque & great acceleration from zero, but by the time you are up at motorway+ speeds you are running out of motor rpm & your torque has fallen away, just at the point your drag is going through the roof.
Stick a 2-speed gearbox on them & they could go a lot faster and/or be more economical - like the Porsche Taycan
https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a28903274/porsche-taycan-transmission/
Regarding the speed restriction - it seems to me to be tinkering around the edges in terms of road safety & emissions.
If you are doing it for emissions, restrict it to 60.
And for safety, there are tons of other things to improve that will be less controversial & probably have more benefit to target first.
I do a fair amount of miles driving & don't really see people speeding particularly excessively & I can't remember seeing an accident that was speed-related. Just yesterday on the entrance to the Rotherhithe tunnel, a woman drove her SUV straight into another one, while having that me-me-me mentality & 'must get in front'.
molgrips
You’ll get people complaining that they need to be able to exceed the limit for a short time to overtake etc, and that’s fine – so you could let it go over the limit for say 5 seconds.
IMO this would be the worst thing to do. You'd just end up with no end of people being halfway through an overtake when their car limits the power/speed & their left in no mans land on the wrong side of the road with nowhere to go.
So, why are cars not restricted to a max speed of 70mph (or whatever the max speed limit is in the country the car is registered to)?
No individual car maker is going to volunteer to do this (slow cars don't sell). Governments pander to the motoring lobby (whether car makers, petrol producers, motoring groups, clarkson etc). There would probably emerge a black market in "hacked" cars - adding it now would actually make petrol heads stick to older vehicles without it - the very people who probably need to slow down would be inclined to use less safe and more poluting vehicles! In most of the UK we rarely cross borders so limits could make sense, but a unified approach would be needed in mainland Europe (and the island of Ireland). It would make it really hard to increase (or decrease) the limit in the future. The UK is too small to do it alone. Realistically stopping people doing 75 in a 70 is not the priority for road safety, an is not where most people break the limit: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/vehicle-speed-compliance-statistics-for-great-britain-july-to-september-2021/vehicle-speed-compliance-statistics-for-great-britain-july-to-september-2021
Imagine how much taxes would go up, if all those speeding fines stopped being collected, due to using modern tech to limit speeds to the various UK road speed limits.
If that was really the motivator we wouldn't have speed awareness courses as a first option - because that revenue doesn't go to government. A typical speeding fine of £100 isn't actually much for the effort and admin involved in setting up enforcement, processing payments, updating DVLA, dealing with people complaining, etc. There's about 800K fixed penalty notices issued for speeding in E&W each year
- so £80M of revenue. That sounds a lot - it's 0.5% of the entire police budget for E&W or about 0.008% of the total tax take of the UK!
Speeding fines are more than £100 - and now based on weekly salary for major infringements...
Never mind an enforced 70mph, after spending the last few hours on the M6, south, could we have middle lane hoggers removed by Flame Thrower, possibly flipped on to the verge by a giant Scalextric style catapult. 👍😜
I can’t remember seeing an accident that was speed-related.
Every accident is speed related. Speed acts like a damage multiplier, so whatever accident happens, more speed makes it much worse.
It would be a very interesting thought exercise to figure out how to make it work. I suspect tailgating is the biggest cause of accidents on the motorway. It's reasonably common for a middle lane hogger to subconsciously accelerate if someone is coming past them so I could easily see a situation where you have huge queues of tailgaters trying to get past one person. The 5 second grace period wouldn't necessarily help if the middle laner used theirs too. Would cost a lot to figure out the best and safest plan I think
Edit - I'm not saying the above situation is right, but it is how things are and there's not much going to change that
molgrips
Every accident is speed related. Speed acts like a damage multiplier, so whatever accident happens, more speed makes it much worse.
Sorry - I meant to say "excessive speed" related. But, yeah if you wanna go along the line of there must be some speed to have an accident because if the cars aren't moving, no accident can occur.....restrict the speed limit to 20mph? That's faster than a horse & carriage I would expect & they got on OK, didn't they?
Most accidents I see are because people aren't paying attention, or are driving too close together. I regularly see shunts (well, the aftermath) on the A1/A14 where people have clearly been driving too close together & not been able to react in time.
Sure, if they have been at the same distance apart but travelling at 5mph, then the accidents probably wouldn't have happened (speed related). But equally, if they had been travelling at the same speed with half a mile between them, then the accidents probably wouldn't have occurred.
The motors won’t go any faster, the imbalance in the rotors means they’ll start scraping the stator.
You either need a two speed box (Taycan) or a massively more expensive/heavy motor that can both develop the torque at low speed AND wang round at 20000 rpm cleanly. Which won’t be an option for most cars.
exactly - which they have chosen not to build/specify becuase its outside of the anticipated use case. (The taycan and model S plaid for example show it can be done if you have the desire and budget)
whereas with an ICE (a mid range normal car, say 120-200hp, appropriate gearbox), its an unavoidable, no cost side effect of having the desired, legal speed performance and efficiency.
Most accidents I see* are where someone on a main road kindly lets someone out of a side road. And the driver from the side road then just assumes the road is clear and pulls out failing to see the double-decker coming the other way.
(*this may be related to my office being on a busy junction! 🙂 )
Yep, less stress. In for me.
Let's think about job investment that you don't have to drive miles for too!
There's too much emphasis on how *things* are today as being the correct way to do things. And too many talk show hosts wailing their mouths off for the status-quo as being the only way.
Change it. Make it better for all.
relying on cars to 'read' signs seems such the wrong way to solve the problem. Just have a national mapping dataset, which contains speedlimits for all roads, and have that installed on every vehicle - mandatory
only issue I can seewould be stuff like temporary limits. so would need some workflow where applying for a temporary limit would update the dataset and trigger an update to all vehicles. That might be tricky.
I'm very much in favour of removing the choice to speed.
I'd also like something done about all these idiots with massive loud exhausts on bikes and cars, which shake the windows as they smash it past your house in a 30 zone. Seems to have massively increased round my way. Talk of changing to a 20 will be nice, but these guys are already ignoring 30s so it;ll make no difference. Take the choice away from them.
relying on cars to ‘read’ signs seems such the wrong way to solve the problem. Just have a national mapping dataset, which contains speedlimits for all roads, and have that installed on every vehicle – mandatory
You mean like i said near the bottom of the last page?
Because,
a) It's actively dangerous.
b) You're addressing the wrong problem. Dynamic limiting linked to a system which reads speed limit signs would make far more sense.
c) It'd encourage people to lazily drive flat out everywhere. No need to think about limits or road conditions anymore, just put your foot to the boards, job jobbed.
d) The people who most need limiting would bypass the system and to hell with the consequences. There are balaclava-clad youths riding on the roads round here on motorbikes with no licence plates, often up on one wheel. Do you suppose they'd give the slightest of ****s about derestricting a speed-limited bike?
But, yeah if you wanna go along the line of there must be some speed to have an accident because if the cars aren’t moving, no accident can occur…..restrict the speed limit to 20mph?
That is a logical fallacy known as 'reductio ad absurdum'
I’d also like something done about all these idiots with massive loud exhausts on bikes and cars, which shake the windows as they smash it past your house in a 30 zone. Seems to have massively increased round my way.
Same.
There's a lad on a scooter with L-plates here, it sounds like he's got a straight-through exhaust. He does laps around the block all day and he can't leave the bloody throttle alone. I'd cheerfully kick the noisy bastard under a bus.
molgrips
That is a logical fallacy known as ‘reductio ad absurdum’
You started it 😉 with the comment that every accident is speed related.
"If there's no speed, there can be no accident"....sounds a lot like reductio ad absurdum, to me.
tbh an even more progress thought would be to try and solve the reason why everyone needs to drive around so much in the first place if the goals are safety, improved air quality etc...
Like maybe public transport provision that is cheap, comfortable and effective
Even more working from home policies
Reducing the amount of delivery drivers (maybe something like your deliveries are all delivered on one or two days of the week rather than every day)
Tax the crap out of high mileage users or users who use vehicles to do multi short journeys, to try and curb the behaviour. With exceptions for genuine reasons like disability or age
Make active travel as attractive as possible through sensible infrastructure and dropping VAT of anything related.
And geofence the speeds, I am all for fully autonomous as soon as possible
That is a logical fallacy known as ‘reductio ad absurdum’
No, it was literally your point. I'd typed "well, stationary cars tend not to crash" as a reply before seeing someone else had said pretty much the same thing.
There is always going to be a compromise, and we've had this conversation before. Restricting cars to 4mph and having a man walk in front waving a little red flag would dramatically reduce both incidence and severity of RTAs. But that's blatantly unrealistic so we need to work out what is.
We - as in, the country, not you and me - need to have a grown-up discussion around speed limits. 30mph in a heavily built-up area is too fast, 70mph on a deserted motorway is too slow. But that'll never happen because proponents on both sides won't listen to the other.
I’d also like something done about all these idiots with massive loud exhausts on bikes and cars, which shake the windows as they smash it past your house in a 30 zone.
I believe acoustic cameras are being trialled. The sound levels proposed are unrealistically low from what I heard.
If anyone can persuade my employer to let me WFH more, please do
If anyone can persuade my employer to let me WFH more, please do
https://www.gov.uk/flexible-working
Approximately two-thirds of all crashes in which people are killed or injured happen on roads with a speed limit of 30mph or less.
but are the people who crash driving at or below the speed limit?
if cars are going to have speed restrictors, they need to restrict the car to the speed limit that they are being driven in.
30mph in a heavily built-up area is too fast,
The Welsh Government has thoughts on that.
I dispute that 70 mph on a deserted motorway is too slow though. Too slow for what? Your impatience? Driving at 80 wastes fuel, and that's not a good thing. 70 is quite fast enough, you can deal with it.
I would be more in favour of having prove requirement* for a 4*4 SUV and being licenced accordingly.
*Like you work in Forestry or on a farm, or live down a miles long rutted track
What would you do with saloons, estates or sports cars that use more fuel and emit more CO2 than those SUVs that you happen not to like?
Intolerance and hypocrisy at its finest. With a lack of critical thinking too.
I am not sure the technology is there to allow cars with a speed limiter to ignore it on a track day or when driving in places where the limit is higher.