[Closed] Would you buy a speed limited car?

I don't drive above the speed limit, so you're basically asking me if I'd like to save a pile of cash. Yes, I would. I'd be quite happy for everyone else to have this car, too.

molgrips - Member
A lot of drivers don't deserve responsibility though.
You have no justification to speed.

If they don't deserve the responsibility - they should not have a license.

I'm not sure that: -

1). I was justifying speeding
2). I was seeking a repeat of your position on speeding
3). I was asking you to accept whether I choose to speed or not
4). That considering your immovable position on motoring practice that it is worth discussing with you..? You have some great opinions on other stuff but when it comes to driving you don't seem willing to accept others may have a valid perspective
5). Considering your car woes - could you speed if you wanted too? 😉

I wasn't addressing you specifically, jam.

If they don't deserve the responsibility - they should not have a
license.

Quite.

when it comes to driving you don't seem willing to accept others may have a valid perspective

I'm always willing to accept valid perspectives, I just don't think the speeders have one.

Let's just clear a few things up, see if we can neutralise some straw men.

1) I don't think you are guaranteed to be safe if you stick to the limits
2) I don't think that speed itself is going to kill anyone.
3) Just because I advocate sticking to the speed limits does NOT mean that I think people who drive badly under the speed limit are good drivers.

Reasons to stick to limits:

1) Simple physics - accidents are less severe
2) Your actions are more predictable to other people
3) Other people have more time to react to what you do
4) If you or someone else makes a mistake you have more time to correct it
5) It saves fuel. Let's face it, this is always a good thing.
6) Traffic flows more smoothly on motorways

Reasons to speed:

1) It's fun
2) You're in a hurry

Given that lives are at stake here, I don't think that the pros outweigh the cons.

PeterPoddy - Member
simple desire
Yup. Great innit?

Given how many people die - no, it's not great.

7) Never have to even think about where speed cameras might be.

I drive a speed limited company car and I have an unlimited bandit 1250.

I know which I feel safer riding.

the limited car is not the problem, its the ****wits on the motorways that:
1: overtake you and then slow down in front to about 69.95 mph. you can't get past them without blocking the middle lane for miles.

2: the bastards who sit on your shoulder in the middle lane, you cant speed up and get away from them, they've spotted your 'limited to 70' sticker and think if they will get caught for speeding if they overtake.

3:trucks overtaking trucks is just a nightmare if you are in a car limited to 70. you go in the outside lane at 72 or whatever and ****ing crawl past the bloody lorry in the middle lane. dangerous.

4: in order to actually overtake something going 68 or whatever, you have to tailgate them right up their ass before you can pull out to overtake, as it takes too long to get by and tuck back in if you don't, causing a hold up.

I would sooner walk than buy a limited car by choice.

I've owned several cars that were limited to 155mph, and I only felt the need to delimit one of them.
😀

1. I hate people overtaking and then slowing down to slower than my speed, but if you say a car limited to 70mph is not a problem then what's the problem with sitting behind someone doing 69.95mph?

2. So? Don't forget the alternative is to ease off the gas a bit and then slip out behind them.

3. Dangerous how? (Especially if everyone else were to have a limited car.)

4. Again, if this is the sort of thing that's getting in the way of accepting driving at 70, what's the problem with doing 68? Why's the extra 2mph such a big deal?

molgrips - Member
I wasn't addressing you specifically, jam.

Apologies chap - your post seemed to reflect a direct response to mine. Some of it was also tongue in cheek - you have been shall we say dogmatic on driving threads before. I think I recall one regarding overtaking...?

I would agree to most of your post actually - but would suggest their are a couple of reasonable exceptions. One for me would be the three occasions where I was speeding to reach a hospital where a close relative had either been in a serious accident or whose health had taken a significant turn for the worse and they were not expected to survive.

I'm not sure you would agree with my justification - but I would do exactly the same again. I would also say I believe I was still very much adjusting my driving to the conditions and actively managing risk.

Double post.

Triple post.

Quadruple post.

Arghhhhhhh! I only clicked the button once! Mods please delete the duplicate posts.

B

OP's idea is flawed.

There are too many Muppets driving on the road as it is, give them a car that limits the speed to the given speed limit then they will drive around every at that limit, which could often be too fast and dangerous.

The safest cars ive have driven have always been those with the most power, as they let you over take safely and brake, steer, handle better than slower cars.

Speed isn't the problem, its the person driving too quick for the conditions at that time, and that often happens not even breaking a speed limit.

I do not agree with funkydunc's assertion. An argument based entirely on conjecture isn't worth much.

As for cheez0's point 4) why do you need to overtake someone doing 68?

And it's quite true that speeding isn't THE problem, but it is A problem. And it's the problem that's easiest to measure and should be easiest to control too.

I do not agree with Molgrips assertion.

Most research actually supports the fact that speed isn't the major cause of accidents, its just the easiest label to apply.

Crap driving is the cause of most accidents, speed just makes the accident worse

[img] [/img]

Why do i need to overtake someone doing 68?

Because in a few mins they will be doing 65, then 63.. when my car is capable of doing 70 legally why SHOULDN'T i overtake?

And generally speaking, people travelling at 68/65/63 are not safe to be sharing the same bit of tarmac with (motorway)IMO.

Why?

1. Old dodderers. Unsure of the capabilities of the car or their own skill.
2. Not paying attention. Cos 68 is ALWAYS safe, right?
3. Slowing down because they are on the phone or some other distraction.
4. Car full of women shoppers yapping. Not paying attention.
5. MLS. Lazy, not thinking about whats going on.

At least when i'm on my bike i can quickly get past people who i think are more of a hazard.

Interesting seeing all the people saying you need the extra speed to overtake. If you can't overtake keeping within the speed limit then you should not be overtaking!

I know this as the only 2 speeding tickets I have were got when overtaking. Both times I was overtaking a vehicle doing 50-55 in a 60 on a long straight. Didn't see the camera van till I was overtaking as they were both big vehicles so they blocked the view of the camera van. Result was speeding tickets, one for doing 74 in a 60 and one for doing 67. Overtake was safe both times as had about ½ mile if clear straight road.

I now turn the speed limiter on in my car for this section of road and leave it on even when I overtake.

Out of curiosity, what's doing the limiting? The car's own notoriously accurate sense of speed? If so I look forward to being stuck behind a Suzuki that thinks it's doing 70 when it's actually doing about 58.

Danbarker, ah but the fact you didn't see the van meant it wasn't safe to overtake!

I would, it's his problem.

It would become yours if he rear ended you wholly you're both mid overtake on the wrong side of the road

Fair few German cars are limited to 155mph i believe.

Everybody's favourite, the Smart is limited to 140kmh, even the Brabus. That should be enough to safely overtake on most roads or motorways anywhere, apart from the Nurburgring.

Didn't see the camera van till I was overtaking as they were both big vehicles so they blocked the view of the camera van. Result was speeding tickets

I would be slightly concerned about your observation skills.

If you can't what's going on in front, maybe it wasn't safe to overtake ??

If the car was invented today that sort of technology would be a basic part of the design, you'd also be unable to jump traffic lights or drive too close to the car in front. The technology exists to do all those things rather cheaply. The barrier to their introduction is people who believe they are better than average drivers. The whole concept of 1.5 ton metal boxes flying around only controlled by a person is inherently unsafe! We are really not that far off from automated vehicles (pedestrians and cyclists etc) seem to be the major challenge.

Interestingly I remember seeing some preliminary data from someone doing a PhD on traffic modelling. His data showed (IIRC) that if [u]everyone[/u] drove at 10% below the speed limit average journey times were actually shorter than real life conditions where the average person was doing 10% over the limit (his model included braking waves, lanes merging, congestion, traffic light sequences etc). His poster was titled "More haste, less speed" which I think our grand mothers all told us without the need for massive computing power!

Crap driving is the cause of most accidents, speed just makes the accident worse

That's what I said above. But surely making accidents worse is a bad thing?

But anyway it's more complex than you think. The only incident I have been involved in, a girl pulled out in front of me. 100% her fault, nothing to do with speed. However, had I been going faster, it would have been a big smash. Had I been going slower, there would have not been an accident at all.

So speed did not cause the accident, but less speed would have saved it. I would be a little concerned that you as a qualified driver don't seem to understand how this works, but I know realy that you are just finding ways to justify doing what you want to do. I don't know if you really know this deep down or are fully in denial.

cheez0, you seem to be very good at generalising. All these people who don't break the speed limit seem to be very poor drivers and, I'm convinced, that 2mph to prove you can drive well is very important. Have you thought of sharing this view more widely by perhaps seeing if one of the Sunday papers needs an opinion writer? People need to hear these progressive theories on road safety.

molgrips - Member

However, had I been going faster, it would have been a big smash.

Or, she might not have pulled out because it would have been more obvious that there wasn't space. Or, you might have passed her before she even got to the junction 😉 You can't really change just one factor.

All other things being equal, yes you want your crashes to happen at lower speed. But crashes are actually very rare, and high speed crashes even more so. Inattention's a greater killer than excess speed, so is it really so simple that taking away a driver's control of speed will reduce risk?

Bez,

generalising on the roads keeps me alive.

how about this for a generalisation?

All other road users are idiots and should be treated as such.

If the speed limits were raised by 20mph would drive/ride at 80 on a wide and empty winding country road if conditions and visibility were good? What about motorways, would you sit at 90 on the inside lane? Is it the speed that scares you or the fear of breaking the 'law'?

Inattention's a greater killer than excess speed, so is it really so simple that taking away a driver's control of speed will reduce risk?

Such a device would not take away a drivers control of speed significantly though, only limit it in appropriate areas. As such, all other things being equal, your accidents caused by inattention and carried out at speeds above the limit would have a reduced risk 🙂 Also, people could spend less time worrying about the speed limit and more considering whether their speed is appropriate for the conditions/

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

Only I haven't just killed two people. I've seen that the Subaru driver has been too close behind me and aborted the overtake before it becomes an issue - knowing that if I was to continue it and somebody else did something stupid I wouldn't have an escape route.

The other option there would be to hold back from the lorry and take a run up so that I don't have any acceleration time to take into account as I would if I had been closer to the lorry before starting my overtake. This would probably ensure that the Subaru driver had overtaken me first before we got to overtaking the truck.

Surely the question is; If GPS limiter and dash cam technology exists, why are devices that require the driver to comply with legal limits and to have their skillful driving filmed not compulsory? Something to hide? 😉

Must say glupton1976's solution to the overtake scenario was the one that occured to me . I have rarely used speed to get out of trouble when I have it has been speed and lack of forethought that got me there in the first place also even then reducing speed or braking may well have been a better solution.

If the Subaru is 3 foot off your back why not progressively brake let the now rapidly moving lorry shoot ahead and tuck back in .?

If the speed limits were raised by 20mph would drive/ride at 80 on a wide and empty winding country road if conditions and visibility were good? What about motorways, would you sit at 90 on the inside lane? Is it the speed that scares you or the fear of breaking the 'law'?

And the fuel bill would rocket! I'll stick to 70 and not burn quite so much fuel.

Speed isn't really an issue, differentials are. NSL roads, tractors doing 15-20mph and cars doing 80 is only going to end badly. We all know many drivers drive to the limit not to the conditions.

Inattention's a greater killer than excess speed, so is it really so simple that taking away a driver's control of speed will reduce risk?

Taking away the potential for massive speed differentials is good.

What is really needed though is for drivers to see a car as a way of getting around nothing more. If you want to race do a track day. For all drivers to be regularly retested, the highway changes for a start. Then you have the development of Trams, roundabouts! What is it about roundabouts that so many drivers can't cope with them!!!!!

RichPenny - Member

Also, people could spend less time worrying about the speed limit and more considering whether their speed is appropriate for the conditions

You'd hope so. Do you believe it though? I am skeptic. IMO people use driving aids as ways to think less about driving, not to think about different things while driving.

"[I]Inattention's a greater killer than excess speed[/i]"

Inattention might be the greater contributing factor to the [i]occurrence[/i] of an incident, but speed is (as well as being a strong contributor to the occurrence - braking distances being a facile example) the key to the [i]severity[/i] of an incident.

Pull out of a supermarket aisle with a basket and bump into someone else with a basket and you'll probably both get out alive. Make the same mistake walking in front of someone doing 60mph and you probably won't. Exact same causal factor, but it's speed that makes the difference.

It's like the "guns don't kill people, people do" argument: The gun helps. Arm fanatical idiots with boxing gloves instead and the problem kind of goes away.

FWIW - Euro NCAP is giving credits for automatic speed limiters in a few years time. The first wave is a speed limiter that asks the driver whether he wants to comply - the second wave forces the car to comply. It'll take a few years for it to become a standard feature, but then in 15 years time 90% of cars on the road will have them fitted.

Look on the bright side, if you don't have to watch for speed limits, you can spend more time on the phone or internet. Plus you can chat to the others in your car without having to look at the road very often.

Soon we'll all be passengers!

Bez - Member

Inattention might be the greater contributing factor to the occurrence of an incident, but speed is (as well as being a strong contributor to the occurrence - braking distances being a facile example) the key to the severity of an incident.

Of course. But not crashing is better than crashing slower.

It's quite a leap from "doesn't have to worry about speed limit" to "stops paying attention" what is the casual factor which means that constantly having to check our speedos is the key to staying alert? Seems kinda crazy when you think about it.

jfletch - Member

It's quite a leap from "doesn't have to worry about speed limit" to "stops paying attention"

If you take it to silly extremes, sure. But it's accepted that cruise control can reduce driver concentration rather than letting them pay more attention to other safety factors- why is this any different?

Of course. But not crashing is better than crashing slower.

If you can think of a way of eliminating crashes whilst letting people drive as fast as they like - please share!

Inattention might be the greater contributing factor to the occurrence of an incident, but speed is (as well as being a strong contributor to the occurrence - braking distances being a facile example) the key to the severity of an incident.

Exactly. Speed also makes it easier to avoid accidents if one or more people make mistakes, or something mechanical goes wrong say.

OP - yes would live to own one. Wouldnt want them to be compulsory but would love to see the option. Might help with insurance premia as well.

I "justify" an unnecessary engine choice on the "get me out of jail occassionally" card but that is trumped by the unnecessary speed and associated increase in risk for me and for others.

But it's accepted that cruise control can reduce driver concentration rather than letting them pay more attention to other safety factors- why is this any different?

Because cruise control sets a constant speed but a limit just caps your top speed. That was simple!

Next

[i]Don't get me wrong, I don't want this tech in my car but I'm man enough to admit that is for the selfish reason that I like to drive at 90mph on the motorway some times so I can get home quicker. Not some faux concern about driving standards[/i]

molgrips - Member

If you can think of a way of eliminating crashes whilst letting people drive as fast as they like - please share!

Missing the point entirely- inattention causes crashes, driver aids can increase inattention, so it's silly to say that a change like this would be purely positive. At what point does the potential decrease in speed get outweighed by the potential impact on driver attention?

jfletch - Member

Because cruise control set a constant speed but a limit just caps your top speed.

...and? Think about the practical differences.

...and? Think about the practical differences.

Ok

With cruise control a driver can take their foot off the accelerator and drive in a different way.
A limit means they still have to drive in the normal way but they are prevented from going too fast.

Done.

How next are you going to try to argue that preventing something dangerous happening will make it more dangerous?

jfletch - Member

With cruise control a driver can take their foot off the accelerator and drive in a different way.
A limit means they still have to drive in the normal way but they are prevented from going too fast.

Eh, no. With cruise control or with a speed limiter, the driver can forget about speed control and just let the car take care of that. There's no difference in the result- brain disengaged from speed management. Whether your foot is on the pedal or not isn't important to that.

Speed limiting does not disengage you from speed control in the same way that cruise control does. You can keep saying it all day, but it won't make it true Northwind.

I don't think that increasing driver aids decrease attention necessarily. It's a big leap Imo.

it's also ironic or perhaps contradictory that the anti speed limit lobby cite the requirement to watch out for limit signs and your speedometer as a major disadvantage of speed limits. They say that having to watch your speed means you can't pay attention to the road. Well, this idea would solve that problem, and yet they are still complaining.

There's no difference in the result- brain disengaged from speed management.

A lot of people seem to drive like that already so I can't imagine it would make much difference

Also the causation that makes cruise control more dangerous is actually the thing that makes people engage it in the first place. They have already made a conscious decision to lapse their concentration, they have decided the road is benign enough that they don't need to control their speed. No wonder their concentration lapses.

A hard limit is nothing like the same mechanism.

Cruise control does not mean inattention. You have to watch for your car driving into the back of people in exactly the same way as you do normally.

As neal says most people are unaware of their speed or the limit anyway, so it's not going to make a difference.

I do find it ironic that drivers are universally condemned as being useless on cycling threads, but as soon as speeding is discussed all drivers are perfectly responsible. I wonder why that could be.. Hmmm...

Cruise control does not mean inattention.

Maybe not for [i]you[/i] because you are special. But for [i]everyone else[/i] it means they have thought "this is pretty safe here I can switch of for a bit and just cruise"

But for everyone else it means they have thought "this is pretty safe here I can switch of for a bit and just cruise"

Everyone?

Sure about that?

I still have to do a lot of things whilst on cruise control, so I'm surprised if other people don't. I'd expect more people rear ending lorries tbh.

"[I]Of course. But not crashing is better than crashing slower.[/i]"

This is true, and of course sounds glib and winning, but its truth is only skin deep. This simply doesn't work as a systemic solution.

To make that philosophy work you need to engineer in the "not crashing" bit. Which is why we can very safely travel at 200mph by train.

To apply it to the roads - the attitude that speed is fine provided you don't crash - is hugely problematic, because it's well documented that people think they're better drivers than they are and that things don't happen to them; and they're also pretty poor at anticipating certain things or considering others' potential behaviour.

That attitude is why people pass cyclists on the road with inches to spare.

And that attitude is precisely what killed Denisa Penirova.

There's a lot if supposition on this thread. A lot of opinion presented as fact, a lot of assumptions dressed up as certainty.

There are a few facts only...

- Everyone of us makes mistakes as a driver, pedestrian or cyclist on the highway
- None of us are perfect
- Lack of care and attention costs lives
- Recklessness cost lives

Rather than arguing about cruise control, speeding and overtaking - why do we not agree to take a little more care tomorrow and the next day, the day after that etc... You get the picture.

We might then actually achieve something in this thread, more than classic passive-aggressive behaviour or dick measuring anyway...?

molgrips - Member

Cruise control does not mean inattention.

It doesn't automatically mean inattention, do you mean? That's true but the link between cruise control and careless driving's been studied and seems pretty well accepted. (and is not in the least bit surprising)

deadlydarcy - Member

Speed limiting does not disengage you from speed control in the same way that cruise control does. You can keep saying it all day, but it won't make it true Northwind.

How on earth does it not? It is 2 slightly different ways to achieve the exact same result, steady speed with no driver thought.

Bez - Member

To apply it to the roads - the attitude that speed is fine provided you don't crash - is hugely problematic,

I never said it does. The point I'm making is that this isn't as simple as reducing speed without any possible ill effects. If it were, it would be easy to argue for. But it's entirely possible, and previous studies suggest it's likely, that it will decrease driver's attention and therefore increase the risk of accidents.

That's true but the link between cruise control and careless driving's been studied and seems pretty well accepted

Well I'm sceptical. All cruise control does is save you having to keep your foot in a fixed position. It's just as easy to drift off with your foot on the pedal.

Very sceptial of that conclusion and of your assertion. Especially as pointed out, it's not really like cruise control anyway.

How on earth does it not? It is 2 slightly different ways to achieve the exact same result, steady speed with no driver thought.

Er no, you still control your speed, you just can't go faster than a set ammount.

molgrips - Member

Er no, you still control your speed, you just can't go faster than a set ammount.

You control your speed with cruise control too! But don't tell me you don't think people would just cruise at the limit. That's the important bit- foot on pedal, car on limit, brain in same mode as cruise control. Setting CC to 70 is no different from letting the car's limiter carry you along at 70.

Have a quick google if you like- University of Strasbourg says drowsiness increased by 25%, reaction times by 1 second. The German Department of Traffic and Engineering Psychology also finds delayed reaction times.

Considering that 3/10 road deaths in France are sleep or drowsiness related, that 25% sounds like it's something to worry about. And needless to say, delayed reaction times will both cause crashes, and increase the speed at the point of collisions.

I call bollocks. That's ridiculous. So cruising along a motorway with my foot on the pedal is somehow more engaging and stimulating than without?

Personally I would say of course it is. Keeping speed steady isn't just a case of setting your foot and leaving it there for hours. Perhaps on a completely flat, straight road with no changes in weather conditions. And a robot leg.

It's not the foot on the pedal that matters, of course, that's all just hardware.

You still have to drive when using cruise. Isn't that obvious?

I could only find one reference on Google and it left loads of unanswered questions.

But for [b]everyone else [/b]it means they have thought "this is pretty safe here I can switch of for a bit and just cruise"

Balls.

If anyone thinks they can 'switch off' when driving, they are a crap driver and will crash, cruise control or not.

Driving is like making love to a beautiful woman.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.

You'd be a crap shag molgrips 😀

molgrips - Member

You still have to drive when using cruise. Isn't that obvious?

Of course that's obvious, and beside the point. I don't see what's so hard to believe tbh... It's not that it forces you to be instantly inattentive or drowsy, that'd be ridiculous. But it's one less thing to think about. And that means it's one less thing to keep you sharp, and it's one less thing that can make you notice when your attention wavers.

Arguendo... You're driving along, fully under your own control. You're feeling tired, one of the things you may notice as a symptom of your unwitting loss of focus is wavering steering or speed. Take one of those away, and you have less warning signs. Is that controversial?

Not juggling doesn't cause you to fall asleep, but good luck falling asleep while juggling.

But it's one less thing to think about

No it's not!

Unless the motorway is completely 100% empty, in which case what are you gonna crash into?

Take one of those away, and you have less warning signs. Is that controversial?

Seems far fetched. That you'll notice how you're not noticing things... If you're tired enough to be that crap at driving, you're tired enough to be a liability with or without cruise. I can't see it.

Whenever I get tired driving I'm well aware of it, on account of feeling really tired. I then try to take steps to fix the situation. Cruise control doesn't enter into it imo.

Cruise control still doesn't control a car's speed in the same way as speed limiting. You can still keep saying it, but it's still not true.

Just in case it's not clear:

Cruise [b]Control[/b]
Speed [b]Limiting[/b]

molgrips - Member

Seems far fetched. That you'll notice how you're not noticing things...

Doesn't seem at all farfetched to me tbh. Nor to these two institutions investigating it, obviously. I see no reason to doubt it. The entire point of loss of focus and judgement is that you've lost your focus and judgement. "Oh I feel tired but I'm driving fine" is probably exactly what everyone who's too tired to drive safely tells themselves. I think maybe you're seeing this too much from the perspective of a conscientious driver?

molgrips - Member

Unless the motorway is completely 100% empty, in which case what are you gonna crash into?

Oh I don't know... Not the motorway? Nodding at the wheel isn't that good an idea even on an empty motorway I reckon. But this isn't right in any case, you can easily cruise on the motorway when it's not empty.

deadlydarcy - Member

Cruise control still doesn't control a car's speed in the same way as speed limiting. You can still keep saying it, but it's still not true.

Just in case it's not clear:

Cruise Control
Speed Limiting

DD, you don't actually seem to be saying anything? Cruise control at 70mph, speed limiter at 70mph, tell me why are these different other than the fact that you've put some words in bold? The foot on the accelerator, forgotten about, is no different to the foot on the floor, forgotten about- what's doing the speed control is not the driver, it's the car.

Mines limited.

To 155mph

If you read your last paragraph there Northwind, you've nearly answered your own question.

Oh go on DD, you've made 3 different posts and not actually said anything other than "no it isn't". I've done you the courtesy of explaining my reasoning, is it too much to ask you do too?

Something very tragic about this thread still being on the front page.

I have a Citroen C1. Surely it qualifies for speed limited.

I'm with Molgrips on this one.

Have you ever tried driving with a car on cruise control in this country? It's a bloody scary experience and your hand is never off the button which changes the speed. It is impossible to drive in this country at a set speed for any distance because the rest of the muppets on the road are doing a yoyo drive.

molgrips - Member
Unless the motorway is completely 100% empty, in which case what are you gonna crash into?

Hold onto that thought for a second. Now, imagine conditions are ideal with excellent visibility and no wind. Would you exceed the speed limit? Even just by 5mph? What about 10 (too much)? Go on...Ok, that's enough. Back down to 70 again, and breathe. That wasn't so bad was it?

Oh go on DD, you've made 3 different posts and not actually said anything other than "no it isn't". I've done you the courtesy of explaining my reasoning, is it too much to ask you do too?

Oh steady on petal, don't go getting all sensitive one me. 🙂

Right, in your last paragraph, you say:

The foot on the accelerator

So tell me, what is maintaining the car at 70mph? (leaving aside any philosophical argument about whether it's the engine or fuel or whatever) Is it the car? No. There's some trickery [b][i]limiting[/i][/b] the car to 70mph. It is still the driver's foot on the pedal that is maintaining the car at 70mph. What happens if the driver lifts his foot? Don't need to answer that do we?

As for CC, the driver just has his foot resting in the footwell, neither engaged with the brake pedal or the accelerator. Hell, he can have his both knees up under the steering wheel if he wants. Which is what I do if I'm driving on the motorway when it's very quiet and I'm not likely to have to make quick decisions about altering my speed. Yes, I'm slightly disengaged from the act of driving, but only because the road conditions allow me this luxury. As I was taught in my driving lessons, I still keep checking my mirrors, but y'know, rolling a ciggie or pouring a cup of coffee from my flask is a little easier. 🙂 If the road gets busy, I switch the CC off and re-engage my foot on the accelerator or brake (of course, I don't know of any CC systems that don't switch off when the brake is engaged anyway, but that's another discussion.)

You're making the assumption that someone driving a speed-limited vehicle will always drive to the limit. Why do you make this assumption?

Something very tragic about this thread still being on the front page.

We all know what's even more tragic don't we?

glupton1976 - Member

Have you ever tried driving with a car on cruise control in this country? It's a bloody scary experience and your hand is never off the button which changes the speed.

I use it often 😕 Nothing scary about it unless you use it at silly times.

deadlydarcy - Member

You're making the assumption that someone driving a speed-limited vehicle will always drive to the limit.

No, I'm obviously not- I'm making the assumption that some people will. Or rather, stating the inevitable fact that some people will. Speed limit's a target don't you know?

deadlydarcy - Member

What happens if the driver lifts his foot? Don't need to answer that do we?

Yes, and? You can turn off cruise control with a movement of the foot, you can turn off the accelerator with a movement of your foot. With a speed limiter, you can plonk your foot on the accelerator, unthinking, and you hold a steady speed.

As I said about a page ago. Your brain's exactly as involved whether your foot's plonked heavy on the pedal or on the floor. Your brain's more involved if your foot is constantly controlling the speed. It's pretty simple.