[Closed] Would you buy a speed limited car?

Not using cruise doesn't make you think any more. Hardly anyone thinks about their speed on motorways anyway, that's obvious. They slow down when something is in front of them. You still have to do this with cruise, otherwise you hit the first lorry you come to.

molgrips - Member

Not using cruise doesn't make you think any more.

Apart from those folks in the studies, apparently.

Living in Australia, with plenty of long quiet roads, cc concentrates on my speed so that I can concentrate on other things, like looking where I'm going and trying not to drive into kangaroos or being sideswiped by fish tailing road trains. But, in busier areas I find it a pain in the arse. Last time I drove in the uk I had a hire car with it, and tbh it was a pita. Constant on/off, and far easier to regulate my speed with my right foot.

Right, I might regret this 🙂

I got interested in speed limiters- after all, they already exist, we don't need to conjecture. And found quotes from research by Leeds University which found that drivers with speed limiters fitted were less likely to reduce speed for adverse driving conditions- for example, when driving in fog in a 70 limit, drivers of unlimited vehicles dropped to an average of 55mph, while limited drivers dropped to 60. Limited cars had a large increase in tailgaiting, and were almost twice as likely to decide to drive through an amber rather than stop.

So, all leading to the same conclusion, that drivers of speed limited cars are less keen to slow down than drivers who have no restriction on their speed.

Problem with this is that I can't get back to the original study- all I have is an extract, in a terrible anti- piece from the Association of British Drivers. So it's a bit suspect. But at the same time- it's a pretty reasonable outcome. Everyone's seen trucks doing ridiculous creeping overtakes with neither prepared to slow down from their max for a moment. Tell some people they can't go as fast as they want, and they will go as fast as they're allowed, right?

Also a recurring theme is that vehicles with a crude max speed limiter (ie, not a location sensitive one) seem to increase the incidence of speeding below the limit to a higher level than is seen in equivalent vehicles without limiters (lots of US stuff on this) Again, quite rational, people are inclined to speed when they have the opportunity, when they know it'll be taken away. (so here, you've got an impact of reducing speeds on the safest roads and increasing speeds on less safe roads)

Yes, and?

You haven't answered the question. Who or what is maintaining the speed? The car or the driver? And who or what is maintaining the speed of the car when it's on cc? In which scenario is the driver more engaged with driving?

Who or what is maintaining the speed? The car or the driver?

The engine

HTH

I see little difference between cruise and limited, if anything I think limited would be more dangerous as you do not have to make any active decision as to what speed to set, just shove your foot to the floor.

I also think it would make a % of people driver FASTER in 30 or 40 zones, Im am not talking about all the impeccable drivers above, but mummy on the school run who would rather talk to their kids, and chav Dave in his Corsa who will be in a rush keep the foot planted every where.

Who or what is maintaining the speed? The car or the driver?
The engine
HTH

🙂

Knew [i]someone[/i] would say it.

Apart from those folks in the studies, apparently

And who were they?

The ones jn the study I saw a reference to were off the street, and were likely not used to cruise. There is a small learning curve, when you see a hazard and your brain tells your foot to lift off but nothing happens and you realise you have to brake. That could easily account for their half a second reaction time or whatever the figure was.

And for those who currently drive speed limited cars - professional drivers? Who could be more likely to tailgate and drive badly anyway?

Lots of questions.

Have you ever tried driving with a car on cruise control in this country?

Yes.

Every day, and for large amounts of my journeys.

And I do a LOT of miles.

....It's a bloody scary experience

I [b][i]think[/i][/b] you might be doing it wrong 😐

I agree with neal, I use cruise all the time. Only time I turn it off is when it's really busy.

Not sure how it can be scary.. It is really easy to disengage.. Did you know it disengages?

I have a motorbike capable of 150mph. However I don't see the need to get anywhere near its top speed on public roads. The accleration though has helped in sticky situations when other drivers decide their coming into my lane without looking. A quick blast of the throttle and I'm in front of them.

In my car it's generally a quick dab of the brakes, but the proposed system would still allow you to break the limit for a moment.

I'm a bit non-plussed about some tech in cars. Cruise control is OK but cruise control that automatically adjusts your speed if you come up in front of slower cars is better, just very little use when using the UK's busy motorways.

My car has a sort of drowsiness awareness tech. If it detects that you are tired is gives an alarm. It's only gone off once (8hours driving in heavy rain on busy M-way). It made me consider how tired I was (it's non-subjective) even though you can convince yourself that you aren't. I stopped and took a break even though I was near home.

Automatic collision prevention tech is also good IMO.

Speed limiters. Completely non-fussed about. Just press the loud pedal less.

but the proposed system would still allow you to break the limit for a moment.

You're making this up (badly) as you go along. How long is this 'moment'? Long enough to overtake a car? Two cars? A 40 footer? Two or three in a row (they sometimes travel in packs)?. What if the vehicle you're overtaking speeds up? So many possibilities to throw a spanner in the works. Unless every vehicle on the road is fitted with your imaginary safety system (ISS) then it's a dumb idea. Anyone who thinks it's not should be made to take the bus or train.

Molgrips, you can dab your brakes and thats probably the safer option in a car. But, and its really childish attitude. But you shouldn't have to brake. Because their to incompetent to use their bloody mirrors or even to look in whats next to them. I don't ride in peoples blinds spots, but on a motorway there is gonna be a miniscule time when im in a blind spot, so they should be checking over their shoulder.

And if they do that, i don't want them in front of me.

But, and its really childish attitude

I don't think you undetrstand. I meant, if I'm alongside someone and they start to change lanes into me, I brake rather than accelerate. I can brake much quicker than even your fast bike can accelerate.

My god, there are a load of holier than thou dogooders on this thread.
Why don't you have a nice sit down, slip off your sandals, enjoy some nice vegan falafel while watching the lib dem conference.
Meanwhile, the roads will be safer for the rest of us.

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?

Doesn't this disprove your own hypothesis? You speed will still drop when you get tired as it's still your foot maintaining the speed. This whole limit=cruise control is spurious in the extreme.

And found quotes from research by Leeds University which found that drivers with speed limiters fitted were less likely to reduce speed for adverse driving conditions- for example, when driving in fog in a 70 limit, drivers of unlimited vehicles dropped to an average of 55mph, while limited drivers dropped to 60. Limited cars had a large increase in tailgaiting, and were almost twice as likely to decide to drive through an amber rather than stop.

This is what happens in an environment where there are few speed limited cars and it's not the norm. What happens where everyone is limited?

Also these effects are interesting but also meaningless. What we really need to know is if speed limited cars result in less accidents? Any figures? They must exist from insurance companies?

Unless every vehicle on the road is fitted with your imaginary safety system (ISS) then it's a dumb idea. Anyone who thinks it's not should be made to take the bus or train.

This isn't even close to being a dumb idea (apart from being able to break the limit for a moment, that is dumb). How can stopping things from going to fast ever be dumb?

People who think this will make things more dangerous. They are the ones who should be off the roads, I don't trust their judgement. There is not a single dangerous situation that couldn't be improved by braking, not one and nobody is going to fall asleep just because their car won't do 80.

There is not a single dangerous situation that couldn't be improved by braking

I can think of a few.... aquaplaning starters

There is not a single dangerous situation that couldn't be improved by braking
I can think of a few.... aquaplaning starters

Or a tyre blow out

Likewise braking mid corner unsettles the vehicle. Much better to maintain a constant speed through a bend even if you've gone in too fast.

There is not a single dangerous situation that couldn't be improved by braking

or driving away from impending nuclear explosion.

There is not a single dangerous situation that couldn't be improved by braking, not one

I'll add ice and diesel/oil spills. That's four without too much effort. So you're right there's not one.

So long as the speed limiter is aware of overseas speed limits (or lack thereof), i might consider it.

But if it's GPS based, there'll be plenty of situations where it won't work at all, or won't work properly. Several bits of autobahn where there's a parallel section with a totally different speed limit to the main section. Mine is always telling me I'm speeding in an 80km/h zone, but I'm on the 120km/h lanes. heck there's even some bits with a 100km/h in lanes 2+3 and 40km/h in lane 1 for trucks and caravans only. Yes 40.

And roadworks? school zones with part time 20mph zones? Assume my ECU or black box will be aware of school terms and teacher strikes and inset days?

And I regularly accelerate out of danger. Even my driving instructor taught that exceeding the speed limit briefly is safer than braking in many instances. Same with passing trucks in rain. If you can't pass them quickly, everyone will be stuck at 56mph 100m behind them because of the spray (grandad/grandma passing trucks in rain and scared to go a little bit faster is one of my pet hates - put yer foot down, and in 5 second you'll be out of the spray! nope they'll stick to slower speed in middle lane and be getting stressed for kilometres).

Accelerating to passing speed isn't the quite the same as accelerating out of danger in practical terms.

Passing the truck with the spray is just passing. I've done it countless times (of course) in my non-fast cars, as have most people.

Ha - Google will have our cars driving themselves soon, you won't even be paying attention to what speed you are going - too busy doing other stuff (probably working!)

I'd love a self driving car on dull motorway slogs. Brilliant.

deadlydarcy - Member

You haven't answered the question. Who or what is maintaining the speed? The car or the driver?

I have several times, clearly it's the speed limiter. Have you ever driven a vehicle with a speed limiter, or a car that isn't capable of 70mph? I think you might get this a bit easier if you had. You put it to the stops then you forget about it.

jfletch - Member

Doesn't this disprove your own hypothesis? You speed will still drop when you get tired as it's still your foot maintaining the speed.

Same question for you. Your speed doesn't drop unless you actively do something to change it.

molgrips - Member

I'd love a self driving car on dull motorway slogs. Brilliant.

Me too. Or train-drive, that'd be mint.

I'd love a self driving car on dull motorway slogs. Brilliant.

Me too. Or train-drive, that'd be mint.

This is closer than you'd think. Daimler's [url= http://technicity.daimler.com/en ]tech magazine[/url] is usually stuffed full of info about how they're trying to [url= http://technicity.daimler.com/en/whittaker-en/?tcitywall%5Bcategories%5D%5B0%5D=safe ]automate driving[/url].

As an aside, this month's joke feature is on fat suits & the ergonomics of getting the average trucker behind the wheel.

I have several times, clearly it's the speed limiter. Have you ever driven a vehicle with a speed limiter, or a car that isn't capable of 70mph? I think you might get this a bit easier if you had. You put it to the stops then you forget about it.

Nope, the speed limiter is limiting the speed. Not maintaining it. The clue is in the name.

I think I'd like to know a bit more about failsafes... I had a Focus with an iffy crank sensor, once in a long while the engine'd just switch off while driving. Surprising enough when you're driving manually but I can see it being a bit more troublesome if you've engaged the autopilot and fallen asleep. And the list of options when you're in the fast lane of a crowded motorway with a dead engine is long and not easily programmed.

deadlydarcy - Member

Nope, the speed limiter is limiting the speed. Not maintaining it. The clue is in the name.

Ach, you know what, I give up. I don't think you can genuinely be failing to understand. Playing with words doesn't stand up against how things actually work in the world.

fast lane of a crowded motorway

What lane? 😀

aquaplaning starters

Or a tyre blow out

Likewise braking mid corner unsettles the vehicle.

I'll add ice and diesel/oil spills

Well done for winning the pointless pedant awards, but you would have be pretty dumb to actually speed up in those situations either so your special skills will be ok with a limiter.

Same question for you. Your speed doesn't drop unless you actively do something to change it.

Ahh, I can see where you are getting confused now. You see your speed will drop if you fail to keep your foot on the throttle. You have to actively keep it pressed to maintain your speed. This is how a car works, if you let go the car will coast to a stop.

Playing with words doesn't stand up against how things actually work in the world.

I'm not playing with words. But fairy nuff, if you can't prove your point, then tell me I just don't understand. 🙂

glupton1976 - Member

What lane?

Excuse me, the outside lane 😉

jfletch - Member

Ahh, I can see where you are getting confused now. You see your speed will drop if you fail to keep your foot on the throttle

And as discussed at horrible length, that's not something you have to think about doing. Where is your foot right now? Are you consciously keeping it there? Or did you put it where you wanted it then just leave it there?

Neither of you answered the question- ever driven a vehicle with a limiter (or, equivalent, a vehicle that can't go at the speed limit?)

Neither of you answered the question- ever driven a vehicle with a limiter (or, equivalent, a vehicle that can't go at the speed limit?)

I don't remember you asking. Yep, a hire car in the USA. Tbf, it was limited to something like 75 or 80 and that was the only limit. It also had cruise control. Why?

[b]couldn't be improved by braking[/b]

Well done for winning the pointless pedant awards, but you would have be pretty dumb to actually [b]speed up[/b] in those situations either so your special skills will be ok with a limiter.

try reading your own posts!

deadlydarcy - Member

I don't remember you asking.

You did quote me asking, so that's weird.

"Neither of you answered the question- ever driven a vehicle with a limiter (or, equivalent, a vehicle that can't go at the speed limit?"

french toll road in a vehicle that did 80 max ....

a vehicle that when going uphills had to get into the truck lane because the french would just drive into you otherwise regardless of lane.

i have decided that if i go to france again im taking a car at least capible of the speed limit and enough power to climb hills.....

taking a nice powerful vehicle and limiting it is just idiotic- it creates ALOT more problems than it solves.

and saying its GPS based - well if i drove at the speed limit my GPS tells me half the time - id be limited to go through roadworks far too fast hitting NSL's at 30 and it would just be chaos.

You did quote me asking, so that's weird.

Jeez...

Did I answer or was I addressing something else in the quote? Sometimes I just copy a whole paragraph (as it's easier on a jellybone rather than pinching fingers all night, I dunno... Anyway, I've answered now. Why?

It's clear why I was asking when you read what I wrote (I generally do that before responding to people or quoting them, fwiw). If you've driven a limited vehicle, you must know how you can use it to set the speed at the limiter, and how that's different from constantly controlling the speed yourself.

Again...Jeez. I explained myself and answered. Why labour on it dude?

Anyway...it was quite different driving the car on cc rather than using the limiter. As the limiter only kicked in at a top end whereas with cc, the car was being maintained at a constant speed by a combination of engine braking and acceleration. I guess I wasn't driving to the limit constantly and maybe fall outside that particular subset of road users.

FWIW I agree with NW.

No practical difference between a speed limited car and cruise control.

On the speed limited car you are just using the accelerator as a foot rest rather than the foot rest.

Once you are at maximum speed you aren't thinking about controlling the speed of the car anymore.

Ok, how about an annoying warning bing that you can't disable when you go over the limit?

Ok, how about an annoying warning bing that you can't disable when you go over the limit?

I have one of them already fitted to the passenger seat, called the wife

in a way (bit of a reach here) my car already has something similar.

you'd need to be deaf to ignore the excessive revs required to go much over 30 in 2nd gear.

Had a nice succinct answer typed out but this shoddy hotel wifi lost it an I can't be arsed to type it all again.

Gist was black doesn't equal white... Pissing in the wind... Yes, a Morris Minor 1000

ahwiles - Member

in a way (bit of a reach here) my car already has something similar.

you'd need to be deaf to ignore the excessive revs required to go much over 30 in 2nd gear.

I've owned two cars that could break the national speed limit in 2nd gear. 🙂

What a sad little thread. No because of the question but because of the obvious blood spitting anger that occurs when someone suggests we might limit top speeds.

It should be part of the test, ask someone the question, if they get angry they're not ready to drive a vehicle. Give 'em a bike and let them experience speeding idiots for a while, then ask them the question again.

As for the original question. It's unworkable at a voluntary level and would make more problems than it solves. It'd need to be mandatory, across the board, which would be impossible.

What a sad little thread. No because of the question but because of the obvious blood spitting anger that occurs when someone suggests we might limit top speeds.

As for the original question. It's unworkable at a voluntary level and would make more problems than it solves. It'd need to be mandatory, across the board, which would be impossible.

Agree with this completely.

I've read the thread and i didn't notice any blood splitting anger. A bit of frustration from some quarters at the lack of understanding or foresight from some posters and that's it. Maybe i'm not melodramatic enough.

Perhaps I'm good at reading undertones, but a bit of melodrama is good too.

Not sure it would be impossible. Most cars don't last much more than a decade. Anything over three years needs an MOT. MOTs could include GPS based limiters in a few years. All new cars currently require ABS and DRLs, neither of which were around a while ago. Most new large goods and PCVs have simple, not GPS, limiters installed. Legislation requiring GPS based limiters on new build private vehicles isn't much of a leap. GPS detectors at every speed limit sign is technologically achievable.
The stumbling block is a UK Legislature having the balls to pass the legislation, which would be political suicide. Ultimately, this will probably come from the EU.

Current speed limits are antiquated and irrelevant.

Its not just safety. The speed of car contribute significantly to the noise pollution as well as air pollution traffic makes. Something most people who talk about driving fast on public roads seem to forget.

well as someone who has just moved onto 9 (nine) points I think it might not be such a bad idea! I'm actually thinking of buying an even less powerful car next time as mine does get to 70 mph v quickly and when the dual carriageway is 40 or 50 that is trouble.

I rather assume that in 20 years time all cars will be GPS / computer driven and at that point will be programmed to follow the precise speed limit. The technology for this must exist already?

If every vehicle on the road was automatic, it might work.

Again - the Transport Lab tried all this several years ago and walked away after it increased accidents.
Imagine having the power cut mid corner because the gps says it must do so? Bikes actually tucked the front and crashed because the throttle was cut, cars ran wide when the same happened and the power came back in!

Imagine having the power cut mid corner because the gps says it must do so?

What would happen then? You would adjust speed limit points so that didn't happen, and you wouldn't have it slam on the anchors obviously. You also would not have it change speed automatically - just stop you driving over a certain speed.

Crap implementation doesn't mean it's a bad concept.

Auto driving completely autonomous cars would be perfect as far as I'm concerned. I've got better things to do than drive I just want to get where I'm going cheaply and in comfort and hopefully without delays caused by the incompetence of "better drivers than me".

Whilst I know you lot are probably arguing about the colour of stitching on the steering wheel by now. Could I just point out (again) that cars WILL be speed limited within the next ten year.

Reason being only cocks and those trying to sell cars think differently.

Anyway... Carry on.

Autonomous is the only way it will work - limiting "driven" vehicles won't.
Too many variables.
Molgrips - they tried multiple implementations of it and it still posed dangerous problems.
The gps files only give certain points, limits, etc. they can't allow for variables or other drivers for example.
Whether it will or won't happen in the near future is irrelevant - unless it is automated they have already proved it is unsafe even using the best technology available allowing a human to still have an element of control.

"[i]As for the original question. It's unworkable at a voluntary level and would make more problems than it solves. It'd need to be mandatory, across the board, which would be impossible.[/i]"

I wouldn't be remotely surprised if it comes in via voluntary black boxes for cheaper and/or PAYG insurance, and AFAIK the EU is looking at a mandatory approach anyway.

Molgrips - they tried multiple implementations of it and it still posed dangerous problems.

Again, just because they couldn't solve the problems doesn't mean they were insoluble.

Autonomous is the only way it will work - limiting "driven" vehicles won't.

Fully automated cars with all the safety features they could cram into them? Ideal, but it's a long way off on anything other than small scale and between times could prove interesting. Wish that guy would hurry up and invent his teleporter.

There's a lot of naivety on this thread, which I can't be arsed to comment on directly, but for speed limiting to work *safely, we'd need reliable and accurate GPS.
We don't have reliable and accurate GPS.

*That's ignoring the overwhelming evidence that speed limited vehicles (such as HGVs) are more likely to be driven at that limit, no matter what the circumstances, and lead to increased tail-gating, et cetera.

I'm sure many HGVs are driven badly, but is that because they are speed limited, or for some other reason?

I'm sure many HGVs are driven badly, but is that because they are speed limited, or for some other reason?

Well, frequent tailgating, and overtakes at 54.0000000000001 mph blocking a carriageway for miles do seem the de riguer. If they they weren't limited, the futile overtaking wouldn't happen, and id bet there would be less tailgating. My reason for this supposition is that if 54 is as fast as they can go, they'll damn well go that fast. Unlimited, they may well just hang back knowing they can make the time up on the next dualled section. Perhaps.

Speeding HGVs would be worse than limited ones. Just go to America and find out. HGV drivers need to stop being idiots, nothing to do with limiting speed.

[i]I wouldn't be remotely surprised if it comes in via voluntary black boxes for cheaper and/or PAYG insurance, [/i]

Indeed, and then what will happen is loads of accidents will be attributed to them for the reasons people have highlighted (shit driving) and the speed freaks (more melodrama) will jump on on this victoriously to point out how dangerous limiting is.