You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
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.
Have a manual over-ride, but if you are caught with it switched off on a public highway it's an offence.
Wouldnt bother me. I'd rather we had France style motorway speed limits, i.e. 80 in nice dry conditions and effectivley 60 in the wet.
I also rather see madatory speed limiters on ALL cars for any road. The technology is there.
Cougar has it.
Also
If every car was going the exact same speed, (ignoring trucks for a second) perception of speed would fall even more than it has already.
I find motorways a much more relaxing place to be when everybody is travelling the same speed
Being overly relaxed behind the wheel is a reason for accidents.
A car could lurk in a blind spot (or a not paying attention spot) for miles. Accident rates would soar.
Like it or not light commercials have some massive blind spots and mirrors can filth up pretty quickly in the winter
Any stats showing accidents above 70mph ? Crap driving is the biggest problem we have not speed but that would take too much solving. Driving should be a privilege not a right and should have regular retests. Speed on its own just isn’t the issue people seem to think it is,
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.
Dispute what you like, it's my money that's paying for my fuel. Driving at 70mph still "wastes fuel," why not drive at 60, or 40, or 4? What about an EV?
The 30mph limit was brought in in the 1930s. Today we have a far better understanding of the impact of, uh, impact at different speeds (and there's various other considerations such as noise). It's too fast.
The 70mph motorway limit was a figure Barbara Castle pulled out of her arse as a temporary measure in the 1960s. It's completely arbitrary and I'm not driving an Austin Morris. If you can't drive in a straight line on an empty 3-lane highway at (say) 80mph without spontaneously combusting you should probably take the bus.
From my observation the majority of accidents on roads with 70mph limits are lane changing into an occupied lane and failing to notice traffic slowing.
Another observation, aside from the M40, which seems to be an anomaly. Speeds have dropped massively in recent years with trackers in company vehicles, average speed cameras and not so smart motorway’s.
The 40mph everywhere muppets are still out in force everywhere else though.
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.
Nissan GTR
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.
Well since the GTR came out in 2007...
Also agree that the sign reading AI needs massive amounts of work, my Focus had a shitfit when I drive past a slip road restricted to 30mph, if I had "intelligent" cruise on that would have been seriously dangerous.
Map databases aren't much better, I'm on the latest map pack and it still has the wrong limits (or limits that never existed) for plenty of roads I drive along. Google is exactly the same.
Dispute what you like, it’s my money that’s paying for my fuel. Driving at 70mph still “wastes fuel,” why not drive at 60, or 40, or 4? What about an EV?
Happy for the limit to drop to 60mph tbh. There's a climate crisis and nobody wants to change anything that actually impacts them.
Me doing my recycling is not going to help really. Me not flying anywhere probably will. I dont like it, but that's the choice I've made.
Some people are less selfish and do drastically less driving than me.
Others take multiple flights a year purely for leisure because <insert excuse>.
So unless people are forced to do something, they wont.
Tbh, your attitude to excessive fuel consumption (for no REAL benefit) sucks. "I can afford it so it's nobody elses business". Just like all the rich ****s flying in their private jets to go watch a football game etc.
But anyway - enforcing speed limits is a good idea. More so 20, 30, 40 etc than on motorways. It will happen and it will take time for the majority of cars to have the tech, but I wont be shedding any tears for people that cant just do whatever speed they like when the fancy takes them.
I think everyone on the motorway should have to actually do 70mph and keep a 2 second gap, I would be happy. The motorway would just flow rather than all this stopping and starting and lane changes etc. A volvo I had about 6 years ago, had a feature so that it would limit to the road speed unless you "really" pushed on the accelerator. If you know that your speed is limited to the max for the road, then you can spend more time looking out the front window than not at the speedo.
Speeds have dropped massively in recent years with trackers in company vehicles, average speed cameras and not so smart motorway’s.
I think the increase in electric vehicles driven by company car drivers is a major part of the speed drop on motorways
The 70mph motorway limit was a figure Barbara Castle pulled out of her arse as a temporary measure in the 1960s.
She didn’t introduce the 70mph limit, she just made the call to keep it once the temporary period was up… because collisions were down, injuries were down, fatalities were down… all of which made it popular, so it stayed. It should probably be 80mph now, with everything that’s improved and so many miles of motorway now having variable limits to use when busy… but if that resulted in more collisions, more injuries and more fatalities… would you want to be the minister that was responsible for all that… just to… well… what would be the beneficial trade off really…?
The 40mph everywhere muppets are still out in force everywhere else though.
Monospeeders are some of the worst drivers on the road. They're likely the same ones who think the middle lane of the motorway is the "cruising" lane. They terrify me.
Happy for the limit to drop to 60mph tbh. There’s a climate crisis and nobody wants to change anything that actually impacts them.
So you'd prefer doing 80mph in an EV rather than 60mph in an ICE vehicle?
Tbh, your attitude to excessive fuel consumption (for no REAL benefit) sucks. “I can afford it so it’s nobody elses business”.
Who defines "excessive"? EV's, then?
It's a complex question. Me doing 60 rather than 70 down the motorway isn't going to save the whales any time soon, and look at all that lovely taxation I'm pumping back into the economy! But if burning fossil fuels is a problem - and it is - then the solution is to stop doing that en masse.
But, that requires investment in infrastucture when we're still playing VHS vs Betamax over charging standards. When on holiday in Cornwall a little while back, even armed with GPS I genuinely thought I was going to run out of fuel before I found a petrol station let alone an EV charging point.
she just made the call to keep it once the temporary period was up… because collisions were down, injuries were down, fatalities were down… all of which made it popular, so it stayed.
Yet average motorway speeds went up not down.
Which rather suggests that absolute speed wasn't the issue, but rather speed differential. And Ford Cortinas. 😁
Speed limits reduce the speed differentials. As do minimum speeds as well of course. And reduced mixing of vehicle types.
Back on topic… restricting new cars to the same max speed would reduce speed differentials long term. Eventually.
I suspect tailgating is the biggest cause of accidents on the motorway.
that and those inexplicable **** bags that brake for no reason causing a tail of panic where everyone then brakes for no reason. Whilst you ease off whilst feeling smug because you have the ability to think and look ahead.
The whole drive to the conditions argument is a nonstarter because most people aren’t capable of doing so. Just have to be on any dual carriageway or motorway in torrential rain or fog and watch dickheads going at 70.
Speed on its own just isn’t the issue people seem to think it is
Nobody is saying that. There is no argument that speed plays a role in road safety though and it's very easy to control through existing technology, so why not do it?
<p>My car will drive itself for a period time and adapt to speed limits whilst also steering itself. It can change lanes by itself so long as you put the indicator on. With cruise control on it will automatically slow down for roundabouts and control your speed going round them. If you put it in eco it does all that slower than if you put it in sport mode</p><p> </p><p>You can pretty much switch off if you want.</p>
Nobody is saying that.
Plenty of people argue "but there's a number on a pole!" every time this discussion rolls around. It's braindead.
The whole system needs reviewing, it's half a century out of date. How often have you left a built-up area to drive into a twisty narrow single-track country lane with passing places only to have the car limit jump from 30 to 60?
There is no argument that speed plays a role in road safety though and it’s very easy to control through existing technology, so why not do it?
Existing technology is getting there but it's not quite at the point yet that you think it is, as several other posters have exampled.
In any case, what does "plays a role" mean? Speed is a factor as soon as you move. Excessive/inappropriate speed is a different matter. There's a world of difference in driving past a school at 4pm or 4am, or down the motorway on a clear day or in a blizzard. None of this gets taken into consideration, doing 70 in inches of snow and ice is perfectly fine but 71 in perfect conditions is breaking the law, it's madness.
Its hard to argue against automatic variable speed limits on cars or motorbikes. It would reduce deaths I am sure.
Would be very irritating tho. there is no reason other than fun to break speed limits.
As a cyclist zero tolerance for road crime would be great. Cars drivers might behave themselves and if they didn't they would be off the road.
Excessive/inappropriate speed is a different matter. There’s a world of difference in driving past a school at 4pm or 4am, or down the motorway on a clear day or in a blizzard.
Indeed, if there are any particular hazards, such as bad weather, or children leaving school, then you should be driving below the speed limit. The limit is the absolute maximum in best conditions. These individual interpretations of the law and justifications for breaking it, only emphasise the need for better enforcement.
So you’d prefer doing 80mph in an EV rather than 60mph in an ICE vehicle?
Probably. I dont own an EV and cant see that changing any time soon though. Currently (haha!) I suspect that range anxiety is probably why I dont see many go blasting past me at 80mph plus but I could be totally wrong.
Maybe you're on to something there though - if you have an EV with all the saftey features that prevent you crashing into other vehicles (yes, that pre-supposes they actualy work) then your vehicle can do 80mph on motorways IF all those safety features are engaged, if ot then it limits itself to 60 like the rest of us plebs.
If you drive an old diesel (like me) then you get limited to 60.
Then all those that NEED to go faster than 60mph have to pony up and buy a zero emission vehicle that is less likely to be subject to huan error causing an accident.
Then it's just* the small detail of the embedded environmentla cost of those vehicles.
*Yeah, that's a huge 'just'.
Who defines “excessive”? EV’s, then?
Good question - not me. Maybe some form of central authority could tax the shit out of luxury and status evs that are super inefficient and take up stupid amounts of resoure to produce.
It’s a complex question. Me doing 60 rather than 70 down the motorway isn’t going to save the whales any time soon, and look at all that lovely taxation I’m pumping back into the economy! But if burning fossil fuels is a problem – and it is – then the solution is to stop doing that en masse.
Of course it's a complex question when you look at EVERY single argument.
I disagree with the attitude that "me doing this wont fix the whole problem". No, it wont. But will 41 million people (number of UK residents that hld a driving license, roughly) being forced to do so have an impact? I suspect so.
Would it also maybe push people to think about all the other things that they have a god given right to do that aren't actually essential and cause massive harm? Like flying to ****ing Disneyland every year? Nah, probably not but I can dream!
Your taxation point - I'll refer you to my earlier argument about being able to buy a right to polute. I'll also add that I wonder how much monet would be saved on road maintenance, dealing with the total cost of accidents and delays etc that would be reduced by the reduction in speed limits (which we dont know the value of) and the reduction in hospital adissions etc due to poor air quality affecting people with breathing problems etc.
None of the above is something I can put any values on but I dont think I'm being totally off the mark in saying that there would be an impact.
But the govt (any govt) is never gonna reduce the speed limit so it's all achademic (if interesting).
Nah. I'm happy that folk wanting past me can accelerate to create a big enough speed difference rather than creep past at 1-2 mph.
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.
Citation needed.
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…
However, an electric, aerodynamic car at 70mph will make less noise, but will weigh 2 tonnes, and have greater tyre wear and produce more particulates than an ICE. It’s all swings and roundabouts.
My Ford is a 19-plate, and has satnav, but doesn’t have speed-sign recognition, or adaptive cruise control, and no way of fitting them, because they require specialised sensor suites that are designed specifically for individual car models - not just radar systems built into the front of the car, but sets of cameras and other sensors built into an array behind the mirror facing out through the screen.
There are hundreds of thousands of cars, possibly millions, that will be on the roads for probably another couple of decades, and which cannot be retrofitted with the sort of sensor systems people are talking about here.
Tbh having added to my carbon footprint by going to the USA for 2 weeks it’s utterly irrelevant what we do in this country, the USA will be the country that goes down in history as destroying the earth as we know it. China comes close but only because it produces loads of shit for the USA. Anything we do in this tiny country makes no difference, speed buy a V8 enjoy your fuel 👍
if there are any particular hazards, such as bad weather, or children leaving school, then you should be driving below the speed limit. The limit is the absolute maximum in best conditions.
Yes, but people are idiots, which is why we need limits in the first place. Maybe the 'smart motorway' idea needs to extend beyond motorways. A 10mph limit outside a school during operating hours and 40mph when it's closed sounds like a great idea to me. Hell, I'd be in favour of an exclusion zone at school start / finish times. If you're not a resident or a school bus then bugger off.
These individual interpretations of the law and justifications for breaking it, only emphasise the need for better enforcement.
It's perfectly possible to drive at legal but wildly inappropriate speeds. Driving without due care / reckless / dangerous is much harder to enforce than sticking up a Gatzo that's as much use as tits on a fish when it's snowing.
Its hard to argue against automatic variable speed limits on cars or motorbikes
Either the car drives itself or the driver has full control. A halfway measure is dangerous in my opinion
It’s bad enough already with the lack of attention.
Inattentive drivers picking up speeding tickets at least get a wake-up call or better banned by being caught.
Would be very irritating tho. there is no reason other than fun to break speed limits
There are plenty of other reasons.
Late.
Not paying attention.
To see how bad you can get the fuel consumption.
Broken speedo, mine currently under reads by 11mph.
Medical emergency.
Being halfway through an overtake and the nodder in the electric car with instant torque wakes up.
Thinking you’re still in France where it’s perfectly safe to do 80mph, whereas it’s terribly dangerous in the UK.
Personally I do large miles and keeping good lane discipline and concentrating on my surroundings helps make long journeys tolerable.
Being very aware of speed limits means I keep my job and sanity.
it’s utterly irrelevant what we do in this country, the USA will be the country that goes down in history as destroying the earth as we know it. China comes close but only because it produces loads of shit for the USA.
Why do you think China is developing so fast? Cos they are getting richer making the shit we buy. Not just the USA. Saying "yeah but look at them" is just stupid. And wrong.
The UK and USA would be in dodge without China making their stuff.
Imports are a net benefit to an economy like ours. I'm not saying this overall is a good or bad thing - just remember the way our economy is structured relies on China to do things cheaper than we can, without it we would collapse.
(CO2 Per Capita puts China below lots of big economies.)
Restrict cars to 70 fine, but they could still drive at 70mph in a 30mph zone.
So what? No-one said it would solve anything.
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.
So what? The number of people that affects is statistically insignificant. Don't care.
Hell, I’d be in favour of an exclusion zone at school start / finish times. If you’re not a resident or a school bus then bugger off.
Well done, you've invented School Streets.
https://www.sustrans.org.uk/our-blog/projects/2019/uk-wide/sustrans-school-streets
Bring back hanging
So what? The number of people that affects is statistically insignificant. Don’t care.
I can see why you don't care if you don't do track days.
On the other hand, thousands of people do them and it's an industry that also employs quite a few people either directly or indirectly.
But if you aren't affected...
Reduce motorways speed limits to improve congestion and reduce pollution through increased fuel efficiency.
Reduce urban speed limits to save pedestrian lives
Reduce country speed limits to stop 17 year olds impaling themselves on trees/fence posts with depressing regularity.
The national speed limit on country lanes is the most bonkers one for me. If the driving Gods want to "make progress" just try keeping it between the hedges on a twisty bit of broken tarmac at the speed limit.
None of this gets taken into consideration, doing 70 in inches of snow and ice is perfectly fine but 71 in perfect conditions is breaking the law, it’s madness.
That's taking speeding in isolation. There are other laws to cover doing 70 in inches of snow and ice
The national speed limit on country lanes is the most bonkers one for me. If the driving Gods want to “make progress” just try keeping it between the hedges on a twisty bit of broken tarmac at the speed limit.
We have lots of comparatively wide and well-maintained A-roads restricted to 50, but look into any of the minor roads as you pass and you'll see NSL signs. Now that's bonkers, not least because of the environmental and financial cost of additional 50 signs and 50 repeaters. Either make the NSL 50 or don't bother because PCVs and LGVs in E&W are restricted to 50 in NSL, so the large vehicles naturally restrict the speeds on A-roads.
...I wonder how much monet would be saved on road maintenance...
By painting fewer lines presumably 🙂
It could be Claude back by the treasury
Reduce country speed limits to stop 17 year olds impaling themselves on trees/fence posts with depressing regularity
You can reduce the speed limit to walking pace if you like, but Baz and Tommo in their Corsa’s don’t give a flying ****, laugh in the face of your speed limit and reserve their god-given right to wrap themselves round a tree.
Think of it as Darwinism. I don’t know what you were like, but christ only knows how I made it to 25 alive, given my propensity for lobbing motorbikes down the road when I was young and stupid. A right of passage innit?
I can see why you don’t care if you don’t do track days.
Omelette / eggs.
Either make the NSL 50 or don’t bother because PCVs and LGVs in E&W are restricted to 50 in NSL, so the large vehicles naturally restrict the speeds on A-roads.
And 40mph on every single carriageway in Scotland bar one. Oh look, inconsistency already and we've not even got going.
How many RTA's involve impatience and inappropriate overtakes (coupled with no existent verge maintenance such that there are no sight lines where there used to be plenty)?
Compare that to fatalities caused by wildly excessive speed excluding those self inflicted and I know where I'd rather be focusing my efforts, Smokey Nagata isn't my first concern.
there is no reason other than fun to break speed limits
I’ve just paid a speeding fine. One I was more than happy to.
I incurred said speeding fine driving my Father to hospital.
Because he was having a heart attack. And we were told that an ambulance would be over two hours to reach us. I got to the hospital in under twenty minutes because I broke the speed limit.
He arrested within a minute of us getting to the hospital, and was resuscitated twice. He’s only alive because I broke the speed limit.
I’d do it again.
Oh, and the offence? 44 in a 30. A 70mph limiter would have made bugger all difference.
That’s taking speeding in isolation.
Of course it is. That's what these threads always do. I'm surprised it took three pages for the idiotic but wholly predictable "making progress" snipe to make an entrance. If you're travelling faster than a number on a pole that was considered sensible half a century ago then you're literally worse than Hitler, the fact you couldn't get a Kraft Single between your bumper and the car in front is neither here nor there.
There are other laws to cover doing 70 in inches of snow and ice
Which laws are you referring to?
He arrested within a minute of us getting to the hospital, and was resuscitated twice. He’s only alive because I broke the speed limit.
That's shit. How's he doing?
TBH I'm in favour of GPS based speed limiters across all new vehicles (underpinning maps/data need to be maintained of course) and use of those limiters being the "expected standard" for all drivers so it holds you to 30 in a 30, 40 in a 40 and so on. But their use wouldn't be mandatory, at least not at first...
I do think the facility to override should be included, for edge cases like the one described above or others, but it all comes with a caveat that if you are caught speeding or involved in a collision and it is disclosed that you chose to turn off the limiter (or the telematics tell the truth) then that should factor in any sentencing decisions (other mitigations not withstanding)...
I do think, however, on a test drivers should be able to demonstrate they can control the vehicle's speed, within the posted limit, without relying on a limiter...
Basically all circumstances need to be considered, but overall any technology that reduces the probability of speeding is mostly beneficial, so implement it.
timba
Free Member
…I wonder how much monet would be saved on road maintenance…By painting fewer lines presumably 🙂
It could be Claude back by the treasury
This needs recognition. Particularly as it was my typo!
Interesting (to me) how many of the coutenr points seem to be variations of "yeah, but this is bad too" or "this has a bigger impact".
Starting with one thing doesnt mean we cant address another.
Start with limiting cars to 70mph on motorways.
Then look at the infrastructure needed to geofence schools during the relevant times of day to allow a lower limit when children are arriving / leaving - say 15mph?
Once that's available and proven that same tech can be used to geofence villages to stop bellends / inattentive drivers blasting through at 50 as they dont give a shit about the 30 signs and so on and so forth.
Track days? Keep your inefficient car purely for the track, then you can fit stupidly loud exhausts, non road legal whatever and inappropriate-for-the-road tyres etc without worrying abotu an MOT. Either store it at the track or trailer it there and back.
I know some guys who do just that with their track bikes and am aware of a couple of folks with cars that do the same - worked out cheaper to do that and they then didnt have to drive a car that they'd compromised for track performance on the road.
I also agree very much with what cookieaa posted above.
Anyone else remember the outrage and dire predictions of the death of pubs when the smoking ban was announced? Some of the same arguments too like tax income falling etc. But that's probably a little off topic.
Start with limiting cars to 70mph on motorways.
Why is that the starting point? Because it's easy? What problem are you attempting to address here?
Motorways are statistically the safest roads in the country. We need to worry about them after we've tackled people steaming past schools (or outside my front door for that matter) at 40mph+.
A person hit by a car traveling at 35 miles per hour is five times more likely to die than a person hit by a car traveling at 20 miles per hour. Speed is very much a factor and anyone that claims otherwise is, quite frankly, an idiot.
My older brother was killed and speed was the main factor. His height, combined with the speed the vehicle was traveling at meant his skull connected with part of the A frame. A couple of mph slower and this wouldn’t have been the case. I know this because I spent hours listening to testimony in court and had conversations with the people who work out this shit for a living.
Speed limits do need updating, are wrong in some areas and aren’t the only answer. However, they are all we have at the moment. Technology will hopefully alter this given time. Until then people will continue to die or suffer life changing injuries because others think they have a right to do as they please.
The car is king and punishments for causing untold grief with them are exceedingly light. I had a drunk, uninsured driver plough in to my house a couple of years back. Big hole in my living room, structural damage and expensive repairs.
He fled the scene, got banned for 12 months, some community service and had to pay me £150. My insurance excess was £300 and I occasionally get £5 in my account towards the £150. I laugh about it now because that’s the only option.
And apart from anything else people should know by now that anything involving IT and the car industry is going to be as secure as a paper bag in a monsoon. Yet more shit for folk to hack, probably with a ****ing Flipper Zero. Imagine how many TikTok views you'd get standing on a bridge forcing the cars below you to brake for no reason, christ you can already hack digital signs with them.
A person hit by a car traveling at 35 miles per hour is five times more likely to die than a person hit by a car traveling at 20 miles per hour. Speed is very much a factor and anyone that claims otherwise is, quite frankly, an idiot.
Nobody is claiming that isn't the case but the discussion was about 70mph+ which, last I checked, was pretty much a death sentence for any pedestrian.
In fact the argument is they should be addressing speeds/roads where cars are mixing with vulnerable users rather than concentrating on a vanishingly small amount of road users.
But you know the only way that's going to work? More traffic police. Relying on tech just doesn't work as it only catches speeders in one spot rather than the dangerous muppets everywhere else.
Perhaps not in this thread yet but in every other thread of this nature it happens. I know this because I’ve had to tell this story a number of times on here. I’ve even had posters tell me I’m wrong about why he died, so there is that.
Cars should be limited according to the conditions. How we do this, **** knows! Speed limits are the best thing we have at the moment but they are ignored or seen as mandatory minimums by a troubling percentage of drivers. There’s clearly a lot of people unable to judge conditions or drive in a way that takes others in to account.
I answered in my edit whilst you were posting - more traffic police.
Totally agree. Hopefully one day the tech will advanced to the degree where it can help but until then more visible dotters tsunami are needed
WTF - that is a fantastic autocorrect 🤣 deterrent
Speed is very much a factor and anyone that claims otherwise is, quite frankly, an idiot.
whilst I agree speed is a factor in the outcome of a crash the laws of physics show that speed has nothing to do with preventing the crash in the first place. A crash only happens when 2 objects occupy the same space at the same time. That has nothing to do with speed
Thanks for the primary school physics lesson there. What’s your point exactly? The outcome is what matters when it comes to cars and what they hit. Slower speed means less chance of life ending or life changing scenarios.
the laws of physics show that speed has nothing to do with preventing the crash in the first place
No I think they do. Because the faster you are going the more time and space you need to stop.
But it's not just about simple physics, it's about the reality of cars and humans operating them. The faster cars are going, the smaller the effective gaps are between them. One thing that pisses me off is people approaching roundabouts too fast, because they are just driving around too quickly generally. A space that would have been plenty big enough to pull out into now no longer is because of the excessive speed of the approaching car. Given that humans are human, people will pull out anyway when they see a gap, and the faster driver is now going to experience someone 'pulling out in front' of them, without realising that their own speed has contributed to that problem.
Sensible speed should be a habit. In other words, chill the **** out. If you are allowed to drive at 100mph at certain times, then 70mph will seem incredibly slow and make people feel impatient, so they'll want to go faster all the time.
Dropping 30 to 20 and 40 to 30 and 60 to 50 would save more lives, motorways are the last problem.
What needs to happen is a fundamental shift in the atttitude to cars and their status. Cars are a real menace there are too many of them, they are to powerful, to fast, to big and too distracting to drive. Ditch all the info-tainment crap on the dash board, the sat nav and render phones unusable in the car while moving.
Lovely sane driving recently include some one approaching a bend with a phone held up in front of his face.
Being overtaken in a urban congested 30mph zone while I was doing 30 mph.
Drivers are out of control and given a portion of the population being unable to resist behaving like a petulant teenager are causing problems.
Lower all speed limits and enforce them. Reduce distractions and the roads might be safer.
There will be no change, instead of imprisoning dangerous drivers the govt are victimising just stop fuel protestors.
Being overtaken in a urban congested 30mph zone while I was doing 30 mph.
This has nothing to do with the car, and everything to do with prevailing attitudes in society.
But cars are sold on images of speed uncongested open streets and rural roads they are seen going fast and free, they are selling a dream and we get to cope with the reality.
This is reinforced by programs like Top Gear etc when actually they are causing polution, danger to other people and the climate we need a shift in attitudes.
It needs people to protest and shift attitudes but the motoring lobby are powreful and have deep pockets.
This forum has about 20 posts on a cycling inferstucture structure artic;e and thousands on motoring threads, grrr
Of course it is. That’s what these threads always do
I think that we're in agreement about inappropriate speed and that it's clearly a bigger problem if on the excessive side, but I'd missed an earlier post by you
"None of this gets taken into consideration." Absolutely. In an ideal world everyone would consider their manner of driving and speed limits could be deleted. Unfortunately society reflects that the publicity is about the "Fatal Four" and providing that you're not drunk/drugged, not distracted, wearing a seatbelt and not speeding then their perception is that other offences are somehow less important, which isn't the aim at all.
I don't bother counting the number of motorists overtaking me while I'm cycling towards a left-hand bend with insufficient view any more, but they all overtake within the speed limit and the 40mph speed differential isn't the issue either. You've already referred to the offences, but dangerous, careless and inconsiderate were on my list as alternatives
It’s really not hard. Discreet (so it’s not unsightly) average speed cameras on every single residential road in the country. For the most part: hacking solved and speeding solved.
That coupled with cars that are designed to accelerate significantly slower than they are capable of today. No one needs more than 150bhp. Cars [power/acceleration as an extension of your own brain] make people feel athletic and powerful - that’s *BAD*
edit: forgot to say, all residential areas blanket 20mph. It’s safer, quieter, much much much more enticing for cycling, smoother / faster, easier to cross, blah blah blah
You're tackling the wrong problem. What is needed is a VAST improvement in driving skills and decision making behind the wheel. Make having a driving licence harder to get on skill levels, and force regular reassessment. But the Daily Heil readership that Governments unfortunately listen to would be up in arms about it (because it would remove sh1t drivers of BMWs, Audis and other such middle class middle England gammon ****ermobiles from the road where they currently have a seemingly god given right).
I know this because I’ve had to tell this story a number of times on here.
You have. And I sincerely have every sympathy for your loss, it must have been horrific. But a physical 70mph limiter - the point of this thread - would have changed nothing, nor would it have stopped a pissed cretin from driving into your house.
Because the faster you are going the more time and space you need to stop.
By that logic, The more time and space you have to stop, the faster you can go. 😁
What is needed is a VAST improvement in driving skills and decision making behind the wheel. Make having a driving licence harder to get on skill levels, and force regular reassessment.
Bingo.
No one needs more than 150bhp.
No-one needs a considerably lower figure than that. 1hp transport exists, it's called a horse. 😁
Back in the day I had a Cavalier SRi. It was considered a fast car and it was IIRC 130bhp. The car I drive today is a mundane Seat Arona, it's a mini-SUV version of the Ibiza and its 1L engine kicks out 110PS. Sure, cars have got heavier, power-to-weight and all that, but if you're arguing about "need" my first car was 54bhp (and I was still dropping BMWs at traffic lights).
I'd like to see speed limits on roundabouts! Some appear to be designed to allow traffic on the major routes to treat them as a race track while requiring multiple Gs of acceleration from drivers coming from minor routes.
Cougar wrote
That’s shit. How’s he doing?
He’s recovering well, thank you for asking. Had emergency surgery that night and was in for a couple of weeks.
And I sincerely have every sympathy for your loss, it must have been horrific. But a physical 70mph limiter – the point of this thread – would have changed nothing, nor would it have stopped a pissed cretin from driving into your house.
with how the thread is progressing some sort of limiter that takes road type and condition in to account would stop these sorts of things from happening or potentially vastly lower the outcomes to bruising in the former and cracked render in the latter. Just like when a crazy old lady slowly reversed in to my house because the camera told her it was okay 😂
Speed limits don’t work, some people are utter throbbers and I hope one day we have technology that removes the need for the first and mitigates the second. Imagine a car that locks in the driver and then calls the police if they’re pissed. That would be great.
What is needed is a VAST improvement in driving skills and decision making behind the wheel. Make having a driving licence harder to get on skill levels, and force regular reassessment.
Is the answer, together with enough traffic police to enforce the current rules. Never going to happen though.
TBH I’m in favour of GPS based speed limiters across all new vehicles (underpinning maps/data need to be maintained of course) and use of those limiters being the “expected standard” for all drivers so it holds you to 30 in a 30, 40 in a 40 and so on.
You can buy a GPS blocker for under £10, used by lots of people with Black Box policies. A GPS signal is incredibly weak so really easy to do.
We have the rules in place to prevent a lot of accidents happening, what we don't have is effective policing of the roads. It's also actually rather hard to lose your 'entitlement' to drive, with even 12+ points rarely leading to a loss of your license due to Hardship exemptions. That absolutely has to change, and that's said by someone who relies on their license to earn a living.
May be if you get convicted of speeding or other driving offences you should be suspended from driving until you retake your test.
Not a punishment just to make sure you can remember how to drive safely.
Perhaps it's some drivers who need chipping so they can't exceed 30mph.
Speed limiters are a blunt tool I agree, but if geo-fencimg can be done correctly then I can't see it doing any harm.
Maybe we should geo-fence slightly above the speed limit for reasons discussed so people could only tear through a 30mph zone at max of 45 or someting if they really felt the need to on an emergency.
I don't think that would really hurt and may well prevent a fair few incidents.
It’s not a golden bullet by any argument though, as said, a vehicle being driven recklessly under the speed limit is probably much more dangerous than a vehicle going slightly too fast but with a very conciensious driver.
We've all seen oblivious drivers not concentrating on a daily basis I'm sure.
To be honest I think the only final solution to the human error factor is fully autonomous vehicles.
I think any in between measures are just going to help a little bit in some circumstances.
What is needed is a VAST improvement in driving skills and decision making behind the wheel. Make having a driving licence harder to get on skill levels, and force regular reassessment.
I don't know why they don't implement that. As long as those already with licenses were free from restriction I'm sure it would be a vote winner.
What is needed is a VAST improvement in driving skills and decision making behind the wheel. Make having a driving licence harder to get on skill levels, and force regular reassessment.
I don't think many disagree with this, but in reality if you're banking on driving standards improving, I fear you'll be waiting a very long time. It's a much more difficult problem to solve, and in a society where owning a vehicle has virtually become a requirement for the minimum standard of living for the majority of people, it's a political disaster. I think we're already in the mindset of managing the danger through technology.
Interesting thread having just spent a week in the fatherland of the automobile (Germany). A strange contrast between the all out speed and driving gods on the autobahn (speed limits published and widely ignored) and the country roads, towns etc which are fairly bike/ pedestrian friendly, 20kph limits etc.
I can’t remember the stats, but believe they have fewer accidents on the autobahn, but higher % of fatalities. Obviously not ideal, and would love to know how this translates to pedestrians/bikes in urban areas as a contrast to UK.
Their society is very driving focused, and rules of the road quite well policed by Polizei and other Audi/BMW drivers horns/ flashing lights. They seem to value driving, and (as a passenger) it’s very rare to see drivers doing other things at the wheel (makeup etc is a common sight on UK motorways).
Thanks for the primary school physics lesson there. What’s your point exactly?
My point is we are focusing on what happens after the impact rather than looking to prevent the impact. Probably because it’s easier to just impose speed limits and make money from them rather than actually prevent crashes in the first place
Because the faster you are going the more time and space you need to stop
Very true. But that assumes you are crashing into a fixed object. People crash into parked cars at walking pace in car parks. Are you suggesting the crash wouldn’t happen if they went any slower. If the object hit is moving then you are just as likely not to crash if you were going faster as if you were going slower.
The problem is poor driving, poor hazard perception by both drivers and pedestrians. How many close encounters do you have on your bike with those plugged into headphones wandering around more interested in their phones than anything else
I have always thought this. Ulez seems to be a tax for everyone who isn’t rich.
Put it on fuel, use more pay more.
i can’t wait for auto speed restrictions electronically based on the speed limit. Traffic near me in KT7 is miserable