You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Why is that the starting point? Because it’s easy?
Sure. Nothing wrong with an easy solution to one problem. Once you've done it, it lets you solve other, more complicated ones.
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
You’ll never prevent all the impacts hence why reducing the speed at which they happen is a great starting point. It reduces the chances of serious injury and death. I also fail to see how making money from speed cameras is an issue.
Five pages on the simple premis of ensuring people don't brake the law
Seeing as the argument seems to be that the motorway speed limit is arbitrary and 50 years out of date, and that most deaths are caused by speeding in urban areas.. how about doing away with the mythical 100mph driving ban and bringing it in at a much lower level. 30mph in a 20mph has serious outcome implications in the event of a pedestrian impact.
Surely speed limit +30mph is irrelevant
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
Nothing wrong with a dedicated track car, that's an option. But not particularly a good one for most track dayers. It means two cars rather than one which is not very efficient. Trailering it is even worse. Circuits won't store your car cost effectively either. A trackable road car can be very efficient. My JCW returns 45mpg on the road, is only 1200kg, wears AD08s which are excellent both on the road and on track and are MOT friendly. Track cars rarely run loud exhausts as that will fail noise monitors.
Omelette / eggs.
No need for an omelette so no need to break any eggs.
But I can see why you say that if track days are of no interest to you.
Surely speed limit +30mph is irrelevant
Would you say that doing a ton on a motorway and doing 50 in a 20 are comparable?
I don't know if it still holds true, but the ACPO guidelines for prosecution used to be a percentage (10%+2) rather than an absolute figure.
But not particularly a good one for most track dayers.
There's about 40 million automobiles in the UK, of which 2.3 million were new in the last year. It'd be idiotic to put the interests of a few track day hobbyists ahead of everyone else.
There’s about 40 million automobiles in the UK, of which 2.3 million were new in the last year. It’d be idiotic to put the interests of a few track day hobbyists ahead of everyone else.
Thankfully no one is proposing to do that and I am sure there will solutions where track day enthusiasts' interests won't be incompatible with everyone's else as is currently the case.
Nice strawman though.
I don’t know if it still holds true, but the ACPO guidelines for prosecution used to be a percentage (10%+2) rather than an absolute figure.
ACPO is no more. Some modern speed devices are incredibly accurate, the days of pointing a hand-held radar that you'd checked with a 30mph tuning fork tapped on the heel of your shoe are few and far between.
Some forces don't publicise their policies and in theory could use the manufacturer's recommendations, but you don't know because it isn't publicised. There are also non-police speed cameras on motorways (168 in 2020) some of which will eventually record red-X offences as well
https://www.confused.com/car-insurance/guides/speed-camera-tolerances
Would you say that doing a ton on a motorway and doing 50 in a 20 are comparable?
As a broad principle no, but that's not the argument I'm making. I previously said that I would reduce the 70mph limit to reduce pollution and potentially reduce congestion.
There's a car sitting on my drive way that I'm fairly sure my 13 year old could drive semi safely on a motorway with about an hours training. It'll stop him changing lanes randomly and even brake for him.
Driving in an urban environment is a different thing altogether, and that's where I think enforcement and speed reduction should be targeted.
There's a much wider argument about the generally toxic relationship we all have with cars that really needs reset. But I don't know if I have the energy to get into that on a Sunday morning.
It's not really the relationship with cars that's the direct issue, it's just a symptom of a bigger problem.
Everyone wants and expects everything yesterday. We go round life rushing from one moment to the next feeling like we HAVE to be somewhere and as such get stressed out over any minor inconvenience. Plus driving is not in any way pleasurable due to congestion and generally poor driving standards, you just want it over and done with.
My rational for it is no, on basis that, as was brought up within about 2 posts, sometime speed is required to overtake safely
Now the counter argument to that is, well don’t overtake then if it’s not safe to do so. And I’m 100% in agreement with that logic.
But the issue is that the roads are clearly full of horrifically bad drivers and selfish baw bags. Some people will just make a misjudgment, others are impatient knobends who think they have a Divine right to be in front of you. People are still going to overtake, and if they do and I’m coming the other way, I want them to be off my side of the road as quickly as possible
I say the faster you go, the less time there is for an accident
Could I just take this opportunity to mention that on my last two rides this week I have been followed by 2 different Ferrari drivers who followed politely until a sensible overtaking point. I gave them a nice wave and a thumbs up and was rewarded by that lovely sound. Yesterday's was an 812 so that fabulous V12 sound.
So it's not necessarily fast cars that are the issue, it's the nobs driving.
I say the faster you go, the more opportunities there are for an accident
There, that’s better. Humans aren’t generally designed to tool about at high speeds. Not what our eyes or reflexes are for. Reaction times, stopping distanced etc. you get the picture. I know you were probably taking the piss or it was a poor attempt at trolling.
Humans aren’t generally designed to tool about at high speeds
But I thought we were all driving gods on STW.
So it’s not necessarily fast cars that are the issue, it’s the nobs driving.
absolutely. These same morons will try to overtake you regardless of speed limits, restricted speeds, or anything else. Driving down the A9 today, which has average camera limit of 60 and you saw the usual clowns trying to overtake at every opportunity. Yet by the time you’d get to a dual carriageway section of the road 3 miles later they would literally be 5 cars and less than 100 m ahead of you
There, that’s better. Humans aren’t generally designed to tool about at high speeds. Not what our eyes or reflexes are for. Reaction times, stopping distanced etc. you get the picture. I know you were probably taking the piss or it was a poor attempt at trolling
Was this quote copied and pasted from 1890!? Perhaps we need a man with a flag walking in front of all cars!
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 **** about derestricting a speed-limited bike?
Yep you’ve got laws for all this stuff,just needs enforcing.
There seems to be a lack of interest in enforcing stuff for some unknown reason.
Oddly I was in Benidorm to recharge my Englishness this weekend and the there is some very interesting road layout stuff happening, it’s well mad but I kinda like it.
This is actually some sort of junction complete with a seat 🙂
And with some cars navigating it
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
Speed limits aren't an imposition, they're a condition you comply with to keep your licence, they are well publicised, you're familiar with the consequences of breaking them and you must be able to do so if you managed to obtain a licence...
But if preventing (or at least mitigating) RTCs is a shared goal we all have then why not control the speeds and at least keep drivers to the posted limits. You reduce the probability of collisions by giving the stupid meat sack in control more reaction time, and reduce the consequences by cutting the kinetic energy involved.
It's all well and good say drivers should be trained better, but humans are just overemotional, flawed chimps that enjoy the sensation of being propelled a bit quick, and at least a few get a semi at the sound of a V10 revving. I think the clarksonites have sort of demonstrated they can't limit their bellendery to track days and still feel the need to mix it in with everyone else just trying to go about their business...
So sorry, but if technology provides some extra safeguards to limit the unthinking ease with which people already engage in automotive ****tery the arguments for not implementing it need to be more robust than "people should just drive betterer" and "what if I need to overtake fasterer?"...
Not read a lot of the comments, sorry. however my 2penneth.
Cars are way too nannying already. I drive a car that has more computers in it than a bloody spaceship and its 12 years old. I had a brand new electric car recently and it ws ridiculous the amount of distractions and things it did for you. Trying to change lanes for example. You move to the side to overtake a cyclist and the car says no and tries to move you back into the cyclist as it fears your crossing a white line.
Im all for saving people but the tech in cars is so crazy and distracting but the key thing for me is it seems to remove the responsibility. The car let me go 40mph into that group of children. It let me go 200mph....
Considering half of the people near me seem to have got their licences from the back of a box of cornflakes i would welcome 5 yearly reviews. i would also welcome limited power licences. i.e you can only drive up to 100bhp for the first few years and then have to take a "high power test"
I'm in favour of driving aids. Yesterday I approached a cyclist and just as I was about to pull out and pass the car started (gently) to slow down all on its own. It had clocked the cyclist and was making sure I wasn't going to hit it. So clearly, as a cyclist myself, I can appreciate that feature. Sure, it's slightly off-putting at first, but nothing we can't get used to.
Part of the issue is that there's a lot of bad implementations out there right now, fortunately Hyundai seem to be mostly on top of things involved in the actual driving. The rest of the stupid annoying alerts before you actually get going, not so much.
I got overtaken this morning in a 30 zone by a woman in her Beemer. I was doing 29-30mph at the time She must have been doing 50mph at some point during the manoeuvre. I caught up with her at the lights about 2 minutes later. I few miles down the road, I was held up crossing a junction despite having a green light becasue some guy had chanced his arm trying to cross a box junction and got trapped becasue of the weight of traffic.
Neither of them were life threatening, but show the sorts of petty law breaking and disregard for other road users Reduce the speed limit all you like, until you challenge the selfish behaviour of folks I doubt it'll improve much.
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.
Are you one of the annoying twunts that does 50 on the motorway causing all the LGV's to overtake - at least do 56 please?
Don't even get me started on the idiots that can't manage to merge in from an entry slip at the same speed as the rest of the traffic in lane 1
Don’t even get me started on the idiots that can’t manage to merge in from an entry slip at the same speed as the rest of the traffic in lane 1
Had one of those slam their brakes on in front of me once and actually stopped at the end of the slip lane. At least they were indicating I guess. I had to do double quick mirror check and just drove around them carrying on my way!
seems a bit pointless to me. youll still be able to drive far too fast in a 20, 30, or a 60.
The safest bits of road are the bits you can do 70 on: Flat, straight, wide, free of bloody horses and cyclists on their toys.
I mean, go for it, fine by me. theres no harm, i stick mine on cruise at 69 anyway (nice). i just dont see the point.
I’m in favour of driving aids
alright Chris Morris
Was this quote copied and pasted from 1890!? Perhaps we need a man with a flag walking in front of all cars!
nope, it’s just a fact. We’ve not evolved as a species since 1890. The faster you go, the more time it takes to react and stop. Simples!
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.
There are at two or three different google systems running in parallel at the moment. Having the latest map pack doesn't help if you're on the "wrong" track. The latest and greatest is "smart" and learns new road layouts and limits from various inputs. So a month ago when my navi had a shit fit because i drove across a field it then took less than 10 days for google to populate the new sliproad, road, roundabout and three speed limit changes. I don't know all the details as i stopped working on it in detail ~3 years ago. Not all cars with android auto (of whatever version) will have it.
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.
Track facilities can apply to have their area geofenced out, some of the players in this have already geofenced out test facilities to test the equipment. And to be honest, the latest versions of intelligent speed assist will handle speed limits well over the UK national limit, so technically, all you'd need to do is put a couple of "200mph" signs on the end of the pit lane (though you'd probably need to do the geofencing as well, just to cross the T's).
Oddly I was in Benidorm to recharge my Englishness this weekend and the there is some very interesting road layout stuff happening, it’s well mad but I kinda like it.
Quite common here to have a complete raised pavement and cycle lane right across the end of side road, not even a dropped curb, just a ~120mm ramp to get up and over the two lanes of VRU traffic. And they have priority. No nice curves to allow you to zip round either. So you have to go *slow* and be careful.
I'd be just as happy to see a maximum weight for cars. How many really need to tow a horse box? How many have the idea that the pavement is off road?
You move to the side to overtake a cyclist and the car says no and tries to move you back into the cyclist as it fears your crossing a white line.
Are there any cars that do this if the driver indicates before moving out? I don't think mine does, though I haven't had it long.
I know I haven't always indicated for minor manoeuvres when there's no-one else to see (this is before you overtake, before anyone mentions the cyclist...) but it's probably not a bad idea to do so.
That said, I do find the lane thing a bit annoying on the narrow twisty roads round here, and usually switch it off.
You move to the side to overtake a cyclist and the car says no and tries to move you back into the cyclist as it fears your crossing a white line.
Yeah you're meant to indicate. And a good system wouldn't steer you into the cyclist, it'd brake like you're supposed to until you do indicate.
That said, I do find the lane thing a bit annoying on the narrow twisty roads round here, and usually switch it off.
Yeah it doesn't really work on narrow roads with a white line, that's why they've given you a nice handy off button on the dash.
Don’t even get me started on the idiots that can’t manage to merge in from an entry slip at the same speed as the rest of the traffic in lane 1
There's few things I love less than someone trying to merge with 70mph traffic whilst doing 40. Motorway services are the worst for this, you invariably wind up behind some gibbon. I'll slow to a crawl at the start of the slip to put some real distance between us before attempting to accelerate up to the speed of the traffic flow.
Had one of those slam their brakes on in front of me once and actually stopped at the end of the slip lane.
That's what you're supposed to do if you can't merge safely.
What you're supposed to do next other than quietly starve to death was never clear.
Track facilities can apply to have their area geofenced out, some of the players in this have already geofenced out test facilities to test the equipment. And to be honest, the latest versions of intelligent speed assist will handle speed limits well over the UK national limit, so technically, all you’d need to do is put a couple of “200mph” signs on the end of the pit lane (though you’d probably need to do the geofencing as well, just to cross the T’s).
Thanks for that, appreciated. Looks like track days would be spared, which is a relief.
You reduce the probability of collisions by giving the stupid meat sack in control more reaction time,
Only if the object they hit is not moving if both are moving the speed doesn’t make any difference. If one party to the accident was going twice as fast the accident wouldn’t happen if they were going half as fast the accident wouldn’t happen. It’s all about 2 objects occupying the same space at the same time, not speed.
and reduce the consequences by cutting the kinetic energy involved.
agree
It’s all about 2 objects occupying the same space at the same time, not speed.
What happens immediately after two objects attempt to occupy the same space at 10mph? What happens immediately after two objects attempt to occupy the same space at 100mph? Is speed really irrelevant?
There are at two or three different google systems running in parallel at the moment. Having the latest map pack doesn’t help if you’re on the “wrong” track. The latest and greatest is “smart” and learns new road layouts and limits from various inputs. So a month ago when my navi had a shit fit because i drove across a field it then took less than 10 days for google to populate the new sliproad, road, roundabout and three speed limit changes. I don’t know all the details as i stopped working on it in detail ~3 years ago. Not all cars with android auto (of whatever version) will have it.
@mert cheers, it's the passive maps from Ford that are generally the issue here though.
Yeah you’re meant to indicate.
To start a manoeuvre, yes. There is no obligation to do so when you complete it but once again lane assist starts fighting and insists you should stay in the lane you're now in.
Goes to show how immature some implementations are and how smart they really aren't.
What happens immediately after two objects attempt to occupy the same space at 10mph? What happens immediately after two objects attempt to occupy the same space at 100mph? Is speed really irrelevant?
Im not disagreeing with the consequences of an accident being worse at 100mph than 10mph. Although once your much above 50mph it probably makes little difference in reality. I’m more interested in how you prevent the accident in the first place.
According to Rospa speed was only a factor in 13% of collisions https://www.rospa.com/road-safety/advice/drivers/speeding
That means it wasn’t in 87% of collisions. That’s where the real focus should be
Speed is always a factor. Things tend not to hit other things when they aren't moving. I bumped into someone in Tesco this afternoon, speed was a factor because I wasn't stood still (and they were gazing at their phone). Inappropriate speed is a different matter.
The RoSPA page talks about "Exceeding the speed limit and travelling too fast for the conditions" - they're two different things and I'd like to see the breakdown for that.
Then as they say, "Inappropriate speed also magnifies other driver errors, such as driving too close or driving when tired or distracted, increasing the chances of these types of behaviour causing a collision." is bang on the money.
"Yeah you’re meant to indicate."
"To start a manoeuvre, yes. There is no obligation to do so when you complete it but once again lane assist starts fighting and insists you should stay in the lane you’re now in."
Ah this may explain the increase in drivers indicating left after overtaking me when I am on my bike. I'd wondered why I'd started seeing it as it seemed a little pointless.
it’s the passive maps from Ford that are generally the issue here though.
And those maps won't be used for any smart speed assistance/limitation functions. There are a few accuracy requirements regarding sign recognition in the legislation. And (unsurprisingly) speed limits are the hardest to meet, those passive_but_updateable maps are way way off the targets and take months to get up to date and are invariably always slightly wrong. The basic online maps meet some of them, in certain markets/regions, but have horrific lag (weeks to months). The live HD mapping that google launched this year (that i have a version of) is pretty much reaching targets now, and updates rapidly based on road usage. More cars with online map systems => Quicker updates. It's probably why the roads round work get updated in a few days, we have several thousand cars with full online services activated and all the vision stuff switched on...
To start a manoeuvre, yes. There is no obligation to do so when you complete it but once again lane assist starts fighting and insists you should stay in the lane you’re now in.
Mine doesn't require you to indicate to move back in after an overtake unless it's changing lanes on a DC or motorway. TBH I've no problem with this. It may save my life one day.
Plus, it's not like it wrenches the wheel from your hands. It's just a little tug.
@mert fair enough, I know those maps are crap but it seems a bit of a wasted opportunity that I have a camera, a GPS and an on board modem and none of them talk to each other to provide live updates to the system.
Mine doesn’t require you to indicate to move back in after an overtake unless it’s changing lanes on a DC or motorway. TBH I’ve no problem with this. It may save my life one day.
Which still isn't a requirement if you're completing a manoeuvre. Now you could program that in if it was smart enough to see you've just driven around an object, if you have the extra radar sensors on the back that's even better as it could then stop you pulling in if you're too close.
Anyway, I find a shoulder check is more effective at avoiding trouble than relying on someone undertaking and lane diving even taking the time to look for never mind see an indicator.
Which still isn’t a requirement if you’re completing a manoeuvre.
I know, but it's how you stop the beeps and the wheel tugs. It's not actually a problem if you do. It just trains you to indicate more when you move sideways, which isn't necessarily a bad thing.
Anyway, I find a shoulder check is more effective at avoiding trouble than relying on someone undertaking and lane diving even taking the time to look for never mind see an indicator.
Yes in this scenario the indicator is for the car's benefit, not that of other drivers.
<p style="text-align: left;"><span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 14px; white-space: pre-wrap;"> https://twitter.com/ITVCentral/status/1671414120661254149?s=20</span></p>
It's sad that two young people were killed in a car crash.
There is no good reason any uk car should be capable of more than 70mph.
There is no good reason any uk car should be capable of more than 70mph.
Because it is not speed alone that kills people, it is the human error that kills people, so as to the first page shouldn't the speed restriction be 5mph?
Thats faster than a gentle walk so plenty fast enough
Restricting speed to 5mph is obviously absurd as it would have too great an impact on our lives. Staying at or below 70 would not have an impact. It may save a small number of lives but it would certainly make motorways much nicer places to be.
I’ll say it again.
Reduced emissions.
Reduced fuel consumption
Reduced noise pollution
It is not pointless.
It's almost impossible to argue against a limit set at the fastest speed limit of any given country a car is sold in.
That said, it's just another arbitrary measure, albeit one that's easy to execute. I'd rather see a motorway full of 1.25 tonne cars doing 80-90 than a motorway full of 2 tonne electric cars, SUVs and pickups doing 70mph. Reduced noise pollution, reduced rubber pollution*, reduced wear to the road...
It's easy to catch somebody doing 80, but the biggest problems I encounter on any motorway come from poor driving, lack of attention or lack of speed, rarely from speeding.
My much, much bigger concern is the number of 'everyday' electric cars on the roads, barrelling around country roads with 400 bhp+.
It’s almost impossible to argue against a limit set at the fastest speed limit of any given country a car is sold in.
No, it's not. We're already on page 6.
I reckon if someone could rope in some kind of Manx nationalist angle and explain why offshore wind is the underlying problem, we could easily make it to 15 pages.
My much, much bigger concern is the number of ‘everyday’ electric cars on the roads, barrelling around country roads with 400 bhp+.
Why?
Why?
Up until recently, there weren't that many 250-300bhp+ cars on the roads, and most of them were driven by people who knew what they had and most (in my experience) knew how and when to drive them*. Plus, you can hear them long before you see them.
It's a much, much bigger concern for me than people sticking to 70 on a motorway but given I have zero concern with that, a much bigger concern isn't especially noteworthy. I was being a bit obtuse, and probably should have worded it better.
The teenager who was killed was doing 120mph in a 60mph in a limit.
How was speed not a factor. If the car was restricted to 70mph it might have been different.
You can argue against restricting car speed to the speed limits but none of those arguments make any sense imo of course.
I have not seen a single reason that stands up on this thread
Really not understanding the argument that speed isn’t a factor. It’s not only a factor, it’s a multiplier. The outcome of any traffic incident is generally worse if one or more party’s are travelling at speed.
The old lady that casually reversed in to the front of my house at walking speed cracked a tiny bit of render and left some red paint on my wall. The guy that ploughed in to the side of my house left a hole in my living room and caused about £6k worth of damage. He even managed to write off one neighbours car and cause extensive damage to another. Yeah he was inebriated but if he’d been pootling along it would’ve been a very different story. I wonder what one of the main factors was in this 🤔
If the day ever comes that cars speeds can be adjusted automatically based on conditions I’d be happy. Until then I reckon we can get to twenty pages, three dead baby robins, eight packets of frozen Walls hammered in to various lawns, two flounces, a ban and people making progress.
I have not seen a single reason that stands up on this thread
TJ has spoken, back to school with the lot of you
You can argue against restricting car speed to the speed limits but none of those arguments make any sense imo of course.
An argument against is it's not practical to do, any restrictions could be circumvented, and the sort of person happy to do double the speed limit won't care about the legality of bypassing the restrictions.
I know, but it’s how you stop the beeps and the wheel tugs. It’s not actually a problem if you do. It just trains you to indicate more when you move sideways, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing.
Just buy a car that hasn’t got all that unnecessary crap glommed onto it.
The old lady that casually reversed in to the front of my house at walking speed cracked a tiny bit of render and left some red paint on my wall. The guy that ploughed in to the side of my house left a hole in my living room and caused about £6k worth of damage. He even managed to write off one neighbours car and cause extensive damage to another. Yeah he was inebriated but if he’d been pootling along it would’ve been a very different story. I wonder what one of the main factors was in this
Just out of interest, what’s the limit on your stretch of road, and how fast was the pissed-up driver going, exactly? If it’s a 40, and he hit your house at 40, the subsequent damage is clearly going to be significantly greater than the old lady who reversed into it at walking speed. Physics, innit - mass x velocity, or summink like that.
As far as writing off a car’s concerned, nowadays, once a car’s over a few years old, a smashed headlight can write it off. That’s not an exaggeration.
Up until recently, there weren’t that many 250-300bhp+ cars on the roads, and most of them were driven by people who knew what they had and most (in my experience) knew how and when to drive them*.
TBH, were I a man of considerable means, I'd want one of these -
Gribs. Thatcould apply to all sorts of regulation but we still regulate.
An argument against is it’s not practical to do, any restrictions could be circumvented, and the sort of person happy to do double the speed limit won’t care about the legality of bypassing the restrictions.
You sure?
My ~15 year old car has a manually set speed limiter, I've had rentals in recent years with GPS linked limiters, it's absolutely practical to implement.
Of course any safety feature can be circumvented, but you've got to make a conscious choice to do that and in doing so become more culpable for any collisions that might result. How frequently do you drive without your seatbelt or disable your airbag/traction control/ABS?
A few decades ago seatbelts were an impractical imposition, now they're the bare minimum standard in terms of safety technology in a car, and would you even consider buying a vehicle without ABS or airbags today? Passive safety systems have been in cars for ages and probably saved countless lives...
An argument against is it’s not practical to do, any restrictions could be circumvented, and the sort of person happy to do double the speed limit won’t care about the legality of bypassing the restrictions.
None of those are reasons not to do it.
any restrictions could be circumvented,
That's true. But only a tiny number of nobbers will actually go to the effort and expense of doing so.
I know people who hack cars professionally. Car security is generally up there with Chinese smart bulbs. The "effort and expense" isn't as great as you suggest.
The teenager who was killed was doing 120mph in a 60mph in a limit.
How was speed not a factor. If the car was restricted to 70mph it might have been different.
The key word here being, "might." Yes, it might. Would it? I don't know the incident you're referring to, but 40mph is sufficient to be fatal, potentially lower if you're unlucky.
If they were doing 70 in a 60 they were still above the limit and thus breaking the law. Which as some posters seem to assert, is all that matters. Would a collision at 70 be wildly different from a collision at 120? Might've had more time to avoid it in the first place I suppose.
Just out of interest, what’s the limit on your stretch of road, and how fast was the pissed-up driver going, exactly? If it’s a 40, and he hit your house at 40, the subsequent damage is clearly going to be significantly greater than the old lady who reversed into it at walking speed. Physics, innit – mass x velocity, or summink like that.
As far as writing off a car’s concerned, nowadays, once a car’s over a few years old, a smashed headlight can write it off. That’s not an exaggeration.
It’s a 30 but roundly ignored by a lot of drivers. By the time he hit the house he was going about 40. The car he hit slowed him down a tad. Definitely more than a smashed headlight. The first car he hit is what caused damage to the second one. The former didn’t look great let’s put it that way.
In the last week I have driven around 300 miles, most of which on A and B road with maybe 5 miles on a motorway.
I haven't gone above 70 at any time but have probably been above the speed limit for 50% of the time as I tend to go over the 40/50/60 limits when on very quiet roads. What can be done about people like me?
You may be need to think about your driving. One day you may drive round a corner on a quiet road and regret it.
So they are not quiet roads when you’re driving on them then
Kerley. A variable speed limiter that limits your car to the local speed limit as suggested.
Just buy a car that hasn’t got all that unnecessary crap glommed onto it.
Unnecessary? Because everyone's such a great driver they don't need any aids?
Seriously?
Of course any safety feature can be circumvented, but you’ve got to make a conscious choice to do that and in doing so become more culpable for any collisions that might result. How frequently do you drive without your seatbelt or disable your airbag/traction control/ABS
Eureka moment! Speed limiter that can be disabled but also disables the airbags and releases the seatbelt buckles if disabled
Would a collision at 70 be wildly different from a collision at 120? Might’ve had more time to avoid it in the first place I suppose
Around about triple the impact at 120 vs 70mph, so yes significantly different.
Big sharp spike on the steering wheel instead of an airbag? That would reduce the number of RTCs.
One issue with driver aids is risk compensation. This was seen with ABS. Drivers of cars with ABS were driving faster in poor conditions and leaving less braking distance.
This was seen with ABS. Drivers of cars with ABS were driving faster in poor conditions and leaving less braking distance.
When was that study done? Before all cars has ABS it was mostly fitted on big fancy cars which drive fast and close for other reasons.
You may be need to think about your driving. One day you may drive round a corner on a quiet road and regret it.
Duh - I don't drive around corners where I cannot see what is around the corner above the speed limit, hence the 50% of the time not 100% of the time.
Kerley. A variable speed limiter that limits your car to the local speed limit as suggested.
Great. That may be some time away especially as I am guessing it would only be on new cars from year n sometime in the future but is ultimately the answer.
That study was perhaps 15 years ago but was pretty rigourous.
Risk compensation is a real phenomenon and is seen in many many things.
Great. That may be some time away especially as I am guessing it would only be on new cars from year n sometime in the future but is ultimately the answer.
Posted 1 minute ago
I have driven hire cars with this system.( that you can switch off) Been available for 10 plus years. The tech is no problem. The political will is the issue.
Any attempt to get our obsession with cars under control and to stop the routine lawbreaking by car drivers is political suicide.