[Closed] Would you buy a speed limited car?

I 'never' speed 8) (no really I don't).

No

Happy with it anywhere other than a motorway.

but offered better economy (through lowered tax maybe), cheaper insurance and VED and still had the room and equipment of a normal car, just not the speed would you?

like a bus/coach or LGV then.

No.

My citroen has a limiter set a bit above 70 and funily enough i never notice it.

Nope I like speed , its not big or right but Somtimes well you know

Nope, its dangerous.

Would it have heated wing mirrors?

Yes!! I'd buy two!
🙂
Seriously I've been wishing somebody would make this car for years!

Yep, would probably like a +15% for x seconds for get out of shit situations.

Even on the motorway I do 60 most of the way anyway. I'm tight like that.

Nope, its dangerous.

Ha ha! There is always one. It's true, you do need a fast powerful car to be safe, that's why the side of every motorway is littered with burnt out carcasses of micras, smart cars and such. Too slow you see, not safe. 🙄

Yep, like the +15% for emergencies idea.
Happy with doing the speed limit, why not other than a bit of willy waving.
It will upset a lot of Audi drivers though. 😀

Despite what I typed above , I don't agree with the dangerous line
Spent 10 years with a 1960 landrover that would do 50 at best and that was fine
Even in our current defender I tend to be doing 50-55 and 60-65 on motorway
And that's not dangerous at all

No. Nononononononono. Current speed limits are antiquated and irrelevant. Better driver education and a higher level of social responsibility are what's required. Like that's going to happen.

All the people who drive at an unfluctuating 5mph less than the limit - take them off the road. Also the people who do a steady 40 everywhere (motorway, school driveway). Anyone who slows to 25 to pass a speed camera in a 40 limit. These people are clearly not sufficiently aware of their surroundings.

Speed limits are a nonsense but are a necessity because we let complete @@@@wits have a driving licence.

Can someone point me in the direction of some verified/reputable/authorised guidance that shows that going 15% above the speed limit helps in emergenices-escaping from flesh eating zombies excepted.

Speed limits are a nonsense but are a necessity because we let complete @@@@wits have a driving licence.

My car and the previous one is electronically limited to 85mph the GPS appears to indicate that it may do 93mph.
It's zero rated VED BTW.

As far as sitting below the limit I guess you have never driven a landrover lol

If I want to go slower I can, with a car like you describe I'd have no choice.

Imagine getting stuck behind a car doing 55mph on a single-carriageway road, the ability to overtake would be seriously limited. Nearest dual to me is 40 miles away.

And what if Molgrips is at the front of the overtaking queue? 🙂

My citroen has a limiter set a bit above 70 and funily enough i never notice it.

Even on the motorway I do 60 most of the way anyway. I'm tight like that and always in the middle lane as it saves wear on the tyres with less manoeuvres.

I rarely drive at motorway speed limit I the UK, in France I generally stick to the 130kmph / 84 mph on the auto routes - I don't mind all the speed cameras n France as the speed limit is a bit more realistic

My mate has a 2l diesel a3 with a stop/start thing so low/zero road tax. Best part is you can just switch it off. These artificial tax incentives are nuts

Can someone point me in the direction of some verified/reputable/authorised guidance that shows that going 15% above the speed limit helps in emergenices-

So you can't imagine a scenario where having two viable options (brake or accelerate) for avoiding an accident would be beneficial? Go read a book called Road Craft, the police driving manual. Then come back to us.

Nick I spent 4 years driving alarm response. I did an advanced driving day with a ROSPA ex-paramedic response driver who said speed was not an issue; it's about how you drive not how fast. And yes, I modified my driving for the better after that day. But I will still do 120mph when it is safe to do so, because in certain circumstances it is safe to do so, and the limit is irrelevant.

It amazes me that I am on a forum for people who like to throw themselves down a rocky hillside at 40 mph on a bicycle, wearing only a second skin of lycra, yet think that driving a modern car at 40+ mph is going to result in an apocalypse.

No it's pointless, it would have to be limited to 70mph for motorways, hence allowing you to speed in all the areas where 70mph just isn't safe.

How would said car work on the continent?

What about those silly 5mph and 10mph signs around main roads into supermarkets, would drive me insane. I don't think you can physically drive that slow!

Hell no. I'm not conflicted about my speeding.

Nope. Had a great drive over the Dalveen Pass at a pace I dictated last weekend - wouldn't want some hippy taking that away from me

Would be so much better if all cars had them rather than just a few people that chose to. I doubt the people that would buy such a system through choice are really the ones that need it the most.

Not a bleeding chance.

I've just driven 150 miles back from Bristol - M5 > M42 > M6 Toll > A38, getting home at 1am...

For probably 95% of the motorway/dual carriageway I had the cruise set to 75mph (so actually just under 70 according to GPS). 80+ would have presented no danger, but would have meant cancelling the cruise on more occasions, however...

At '75' the majority of the journey was possible in lane 1, with the obvious manoeuvres for LGV's and then into lane 3 for slower moving cars and vans - mostly still in 'cruise'.

There were (and always are) a few occasions though, when even with plenty of indication lane 2 drivers seem unwilling to move over to lane 3 to accommodate your move to lane 2 - yeah, I could (and often do) anticipate them coming and force them to pass wide by moving to lane 2 earlier than required - but just sometimes, it's great to have the power, acceleration and 'available speed' to build up some momentum before the vehicle is upon you and pull out, get past the wagon and back in, without impeding anyone.

Other times, it's just nice to knock it up to 90 on an empty M6 Toll...

Do people read the OP anymore?
Where did he say the current speed limit?
It said "the speed limit", that could be 80mph or 10mph, whatever was deemed correct.
And, it also stated that the speed limit would vary as you moved onto other roads using something such as the sat nav to identify the limit, which already identifies the speed for you now.
The arguments made about being a super driver who can judge the ideal speed on a road is just plain bollocks, it's the other people on the road who pull out, are stopped around the corner, the blow out, the pack of roadies riding 2 or 3 abreast just over the brow of the hill, etc.

I remember this idea being a feature on old top gear many moons ago. Presented by the vampireish second hand car sales man. I forget his name.

Anyhow, they trotted out the "but what if I need to accelerate out of danger because I is awesome" line. It was quickly debunked by some research that showed in the overwhelming majority of cases when confronted with an issue they brake.

Selfishly I don't want this as it would take me longer to get places. Practically is there evidence that speed is the root cause of many accidents? I thought it was either people not paying attention or being nobheads.

depends on what it is limited to. Fair few German cars are limited to 155mph i believe.

Personally cars are a tool to get from A to B not some ego extension. If there was a benefit of having a limiter fine, if compulsory fine, if they want a black box again fine. I really don't care, i have no right to drive.

Practically is there evidence that speed is the root cause of many accidents?

There are studies, and from memory, speed doesn't cause that many accidents in itself, speed however doesn't help when an accident does happen. Think of it like this hit a brick wall at 10mph, now hit it at 90mph, same accident but which do you think is going to hurt more.

Only concern i can think of, driving to the limiter and not actually bothering to look around. Too many car drivers don't actually bother to look out the window and realise that there are cars, bikes, lorries around them, they don't bother to think about what happens in Fog, heavy rain, snow etc etc.

[img] [/img]

I've personally not got a problem with driving a speed limited car. I also ride motorbikes as well, and my biggest complaint with it is that super sport 600 is too capable for the road and something half the size would probably be more fun, used to love my 125 as that was a chuck about and not be in danger of breaking many speed limits.

As for the takes me longer to get to places, how much time do you think you actually save? The amount of times overtaken by audi man on a mission, only to pull up behind them at the traffic lights 10 miles further up the road is crazy.

One thing that concerns me is if you deskill the driving process even further will drivers just switch off even more and actually become more dangerous.

JFletch the guy you are thinking of is probably Quintin Wilson.

As for driver training, definitely needed, the amount of peoples driving who is appalling and the amount of people who believe they are above average is ridiculous. Newly qualified drivers regularly say they are safe because they passed the driving test first time, no you just met the minimum standard and therefore scored a pass.

One more thing, I personally would like to see mandatory retests every five years, be fascinated to see what that did for the accident figures, along with you can only take a test three times before you have to a years cooling off period, to stop the people who take 20 tests to get through like maureen or whoever it was on telly.

Yes if it saved me money. I stick to 60 on motorways usually anyway as my car isn't very efficient if you rag it.

I wouldnt mind a system that limited me in posted areas ie 20, 30, 40, 50 but allowed me to have some extra zip to pass in the nationals, although to be fair I rarely overtake in the car down here in the crowded south. Often zip up to 75 to overtake on my bike and then back it down to the limit I'm a bit of a sticjler for limits. Can have great fun under 80 on my old 650 single cylinder bavarian tracktor.

As a family vehicle i would consider one. I'd still like my own form of transport too as i generally drive at a speed that i think is appropriate and this isn't always less than the speed limit.

Turn the limiter off and you can be breaking the speed limit with surprising ease and not even notice.

Mine's limited to 155mph. Never caused a problem.

GB

Who is this genghispod and where was he the last time we did this to death a few weeks ago?

To summarise:

Speed may cause some accidents and not others, but it makes some accidents mote likely and it makes every accident worse. Simple physics.

And there is no reason to speed other than impatience or simple desire. None at all. So get over yourselves.

And there is no reason to speed other than impatience or [b]simple desire[/b]. None at all. So get over yourselves.

There are other reasons to speed, but desire is a pretty strong one. What speed is the high horse limited to?

simple desire

Yup. Great innit? 🙂

yes.

i wouldn't go out of my way to buy one, but if it was a 'feature' on a car i was considering it wouldn't put me off in the slightest.

What about those silly 5mph and 10mph signs ... I don't think you can physically drive that slow!

it really isn't hard - cars have these things called accelerators, brakes, gears, and speedometers.

It wouldn't be a deal breaker.

I suppose I am richer in time and poorer in money so yes I would consider it if it was really cheaper in the real world. I already drive the t4 at 60 rather than 70 most of the time. The difference in consumption between 60 and 70, (and particularly between 70 and 80!) on a brick like that versus how much I am not usually in a hurry and how much that fuel saved is worth to me usually/often makes it feel worth it.

It would be even more worth it if car cost and insurance was [i]significantly[/i] cheaper. However in the real world, car manufacturers/dealers and insurers still want to make money. No car manufacturer would willingly take a hit on the profits of a car for the hassle of fitting it with a limiter so you would need to get it funded ultimately from the taxpayer whether that was through direct per-vehicle subsidy or tax breaks as encouragement for manufacturers who made such vehicles (guffaws at motorists hearing their taxes were being invested in encouraging them to drive more slowly!)

I have no doubt that an underwriter predicting, for example's sake a 40% saving in payouts from the 'safer'/slower driving of a speed limited car would somehow get nibbled back to a 15% at best saving in money to the policy holder after everyone else had their slice. 😕

Yeah I'd buy one....apparently I'm not welcome on the motorway though as I sit at 5mph below the speed limit constantly (not constantly in the middle lane). 25k miles a year mainly on the motorway with no accidents or endorsements in 10 years of holding a licence suggest that I'm not too unsafe.

No problem for me as long as acceleration is not reduced. I have had some interesting drives where I've observed the 30 and ns limits around here while the van/fiesta/corsa driver has caned it through the 30 to catch me up only to go backwards at each de-restriction.

I think it would depend on the reduction in tax and insurance that went with it. 10% Nope. 90% Yes. Not too sure where the maybe figure would be for me.

Nope, not even if it came with free insurance, VED and free petrol for life!

So you can't imagine a scenario where having two viable options (brake or accelerate) for avoiding an accident would be beneficial? Go read a book called Road Craft, the police driving manual. Then come back to us.

No I can absolutely not ever think of a situation where more speed would avoid a crash. More looking ahead and processing information correctly always works. If 15% extra speed would make a difference to your dodgy overtaking manoeuvre, to the point where it's crash or no crash, then it was never safe and you're an arse hole for trying it.

Julian W

Many(possibly even most) new cars already have all the technology installed to make this possible and insurance companies are falling over themselves installing thousands of black boxes every week.

Generally speaking the new technology creates new opportunities for companies like those providing the insurance . Car manufacturers are not so keen, their business is flogging cars many of which are sold on the promise they will improve your live by being faster than last years model.

That's why they are blocking the EU direct live to make installing black box and speed limiting compulsory.

It will eventually happen though..2018 at a guess.

One thing that concerns me is if you deskill the driving process even further will drivers just switch off even more and actually become more dangerous.

That is clearly bollocks! Just think about it.

25k miles a year mainly on the motorway with no accidents or endorsements in 10 years of holding a licence suggest that I'm not too unsafe.

Proves nowt. I drive at all sorts of speeds depending on the conditions, my mood and the time of day. Been driving 25 years and currently averaging 40k a year. In that time I had an SP30, 20 years ago - not speeding past a school, but 5mph over the limit in a line of traffic accelerating on the border of a 50mph zone and I've had 1 50/50 accident at 10mph.

People that bullishly sit at one speed regardless of their surroundings are not good drivers imo

*edit

And there are some right fannies in this thread 😉

The idea appeals to me completely. It depends on how much money you would save on tax and fuel efficiency because, at times, it is more convenient (and I mean convenient, not safer) to break the law and go over the speed limit. However if I saved a bunch of money and felt like I was driving more safely then yes I'd go for it. Why do you ask?

That is clearly bollocks! Just think about it.

I clearly had thought about as I had written about it, would love to be enlightened as to why you thought I was talking rubbish.

You are probably assuming that people will spend more time on making observations, unfortunately that probably won't be the case, and the misunderstanding of the public about what abs/eps/asc all actually do, is bewildering, they almost believe the car is non-crashable no matter what the road conditions.

Nope, not even if it came with free insurance, VED and free petrol for life!

Why not? You could have the limited, "free" car for every day stuff then have another unlimited fun car if you really need to speed everywhere.

And there are some right fannies in this thread

some right cocks too

Why not? You could have the limited, "free" car for every day stuff then have another unlimited fun car if you really need to speed everywhere.

2 cars!! Good god man wont someone think of the environment 😉

My OP really wasn't about speeding more about traffic jams. From my experience of driving a lot of congestion is caused by people getting up the arse of the car in front, having to brake, so the guy behind does and the guy behind and so on and that chain means that half a mile behind the traffic stops dead then takes a fair while to get going again. The reason the M25 has variable limits is more to manage bottlenecks than safety (think of a funnel being filled until the hole can't let out enough water, if you want the funnel to empty you have to pour in less water, seems obvious). It just struck me that if you want to manage traffic volumes the only way is to physically manage car speeds. It amazes me that so many people think the "slow down queue ahead" thing is just not applicable to them, it might as well say "keep going flat out then cut in at the last minute and then stop for 15 minutes you daft spanner". As for speeding in general terms seems as I've got older the desire to rip around like the road is a racetrack has diminished and I prefer spending less on 6.50 a gallon petrol.

There are loads of trackdays if you really want to drive properly but I get my jollies on the MTB mostly.

Seems good to me - as do the black boxes.

Also think the cameras, as used by the russians, are a bloody good idea - I think that they would settle more than a few insurance arguments swiftly

Telling we have to argue the merits of not breaking the law. 🙁

25k miles a year mainly on the motorway with no accidents or endorsements in 10 years of holding a licence suggest that I'm not too unsafe.

Was in NZ a few weeks back and there were some slow cars that I passed by hitting well above the limit but was back in the right lane and back at the limit within 30s, dangerous or safe - you wouldn't know as you were not there.

Tell a driver there car is safer because it's limited then they will pay less attention, a NSL does not mean it's safe to do 60mph etc. I'm not advocating metal spikes on the steering wheel either. Assessing the correct speed is a skill not a signpost.

No I can absolutely not ever think of a situation where more speed would avoid a crash. More looking ahead and processing information correctly always works. If 15% extra speed would make a difference to your dodgy overtaking manoeuvre, to the point where it's crash or no crash, then it was never safe and you're an arse hole for trying it.

So you come to overtake mr morrisons lorry on a nsl single carriageway. He's being a good boy and doing 40 as he should. You find a nice straight section, pull out and begin to pass. Mr chav in his scooby follows you, indicator and headlights on: he clearly is in a hurry and will probably come past you once you've completed your manouver.

Only you get 1/2 way past mr morrisons and you find out he's not such a good boy after all and being a typical uneducated arse he's decided to accelerate up to his limited 56 to block your overtake. He's empty, he's got 3000nm of torque, this happens pretty instantly. Your speed differential is now just 4mph. In the distance you see a headlight. Captain power-ranger on his gsxr thou. He's doing god knows what speed as they do. You can't brake cos you've got inadequate chav man 3" from your bumper, but you can't accelerate because you're at your limited speed. So you continue to bimble past completely in the right. You make it, just. Chav man doesn't, you've just arrogantly, self-rightously killed two people. Well done

jfletch - Member

That is clearly bollocks! Just think about it.

It's pretty much universally accepted that this happens tbh. Excessive road signs make people switch off, safer feeling cars make people drive less carefully. Hardly controversial to suggest that if a car can't speed the driver may think less about the speed they're doing, I'd say that's pretty much a given.

trying it.So you come to overtake mr morrisons lorry on a nsl single carriageway. He's being a good boy and doing 40 as he should. You find a nice straight section, pull out and begin to pass. Mr chav in his scooby follows you, indicator and headlights on: he clearly is in a hurry and will probably come past you once you've completed your manouver.Only you get 1/2 way past mr morrisons and you find out he's not such a good boy after all and being a typical uneducated arse he's decided to accelerate up to his limited 56 to block your overtake. He's empty, he's got 3000nm of torque, this happens pretty instantly. Your speed differential is now just 4mph. In the distance you see a headlight. Captain power-ranger on his gsxr thou. He's doing god knows what speed as they do. You can't brake cos you've got inadequate chav man 3" from your bumper, but you can't accelerate because you're at your limited speed. So you continue to bimble past completely in the right. You make it, just. Chav man doesn't, you've just arrogantly, self-rightously killed two people. Well done

Nail/head!

The system would have to cater for overtaking, obviously. It'd give you full power for 20s or so.

Very simple answer to a simple question, it didn't really need all that ridiculous hyperbole you posted.

I don't bullishly sit at one speed str....seen as I spend every week day in rush hour between j15-21 on the m6 so 65mph is a pipe dream much of the time. Even driving in light traffic I'd prefer to take it easy and let the people with a desire to drive like a nutter just get on with it. Does wonders for my stress levels....and fuel economy...and safety!

rogerthecat - Member

The arguments made about being a super driver who can judge the ideal speed on a road is just plain bollocks, it's the other people on the road who pull out, are stopped around the corner, the blow out, the pack of roadies riding 2 or 3 abreast just over the brow of the hill, etc.

And a speed limiter box would do absolutely nothing to prevent all of those.

It'd give you full power for 20s or so.

What and then randomly cut out? Yeah, that'd be safe!

The idea is a load of guff and will hopefully never be implemented.

hot_fiat - Member
...You can't brake cos you've got inadequate chav man 3" from your bumper...

I would, it's his problem.

Taking the responsibility from drivers is a terrible idea. Just because these things are possible doesn't mean they are a should be done.

I've just been given a new Vivaro in work and it's limited to 75mph (actually 72mph on the satnav). Pulling away is quick enough and it does go when you get your foot down, right until you hit 75 and it's like someone is easing the brakes on. I hated it at first, but done 6 weeks and 7k miles and I've just adjusted to it. The only time it gets annoying is when you pull out to overtake someone on the motorway who has been doing 60-65 for the last mile and as soon as you get alongside, their speed creeps up and you end up sitting next to them, both doing 72mph. But I just give up, back off and pull back in or they come up to a slower car/hgv and they have to slow down. No problems on single carriageway nsl roads so far, just have to time it and plan ahead abit more before overtaking. If I was buying for myself and had the choice... I probably wouldn't have it limited, I do about 50k miles a year and it really doesn't bother me just plodding along at 65 on the motorway.

A lot of drivers don't deserve responsibility though.

You have no justification to speed.

nail/head

Yeah, I sat there and thought for ages of a highly unlikely scenario where being able to accelerate myself out of a trouble would save my arse. I was going to type it out but I gave myself such an erection thinking about putting my foot down to leave the scooby driver in the shit, I simply had to go and do something about it. Tbh, I'm spent.

They tried this a few years back at the Transport Laboratory....
Tried it on bikes too.
It actually caused accidents!

Try diving my old van - it has exactly the same effect.

My work van is restricted to 70mph. It's no big deal and makes little difference to your typical journey time in weekday commuter traffic.

[quote=MarkLG ]My work van is restricted to 70mph. It's no big deal and makes little difference to your typical journey time in weekday commuter traffic.

and as pointed out is not what the OP was on about, in your limited van you can do 65 past a school in a 20 limit.

mikewsmith - Member

and as pointed out is not what the OP was on about, in your limited van you can do 65 past a school in a 20 limit.

You can? Bitchin! Complicated thing, the highway code.