Speed Limiters On Cars

[jake-the-peg]

Considerations are afoot that could mean all cars would have their speed limited automatically depending on the speed limit in force.

http://news.sky.com/story/1135815/eu-may-order-speed-limiters-fitted-to-uk-cars

Early trials found the systems to be highly reliable technically and could cut accidents by nearlly 30%

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7803997.stm

Good thing? Bad thing ? or Good if it works?

Or should we be permitted to break the law?

[ToraToraTora]

It's not feasable to implement anyway, every single car would need a limiter. May be ok for newer cars but what about my old Moggy? Well that doesn't need it really I don't think it goes up to 70 but you get the point!

[joko]

but jj, if you cannot see far enough ahead to overtake - then you shouldn't overtake.
you shouldn't just try it and hope nothing appears.
if it does then you drop back and pull in behind again
but you attempt the manouvre because you know your car can speed if it needs to - if it couldn't, you wouldn't risk it...

and even in this incidence is there any need for a car to be capable of doing 100-120-140mph etc?

[ToraToraTora]

crazy talk no governement would do it, it'd be political suicide. Even if they managed to get past all the EU car makers, they'd have to force motorists to pay for the work as there is no way the government could afford it, that would be curtains politically.

[joggerjayne]

Joko ...

I know what I SHOULD do.

I should, we all should, drive like steady, speed limit obeying, motorists.

Quite often I do.

Sometimes I don't. I whizz around at more than the speed limit, and I overtake slower cars.

But I don't do it if it looks dangerous. I wouldn't want to kill anyone.

But the Govt. seem happy to kill me if I drive too fast.

Which might be considered a bit harsh.

[jno]

The penalty for breaking the speed limit is currently a fine and points. The penalty would become injury and death.

Self-imposed, though, JJ.

It's still in your hands: if the penalty changes, you can change your behaviour.

[jno]

But I don't do it if it looks dangerous. I wouldn't want to kill anyone.

Well, there you are then. You don't want to kill yourself. You know that your bike will brake if you exceed the speed limit. So you don't.

[tonyav]

Can't see it happening, the government makes to much money from speeding fines.

[joko]

thats the point thought - if you knew your car would not allow you to take the risk, you would not even try to take the risk ... you take the risk because your car allows you to.

in general terms though how often do we need to speed to get out of danger, really?
as opposed to swerving or just stopping?
I'd say its not that often the response people choose.

but i understand your point, even though i think its a flimsy reason so perhaps if they do do it, as someone else said, there should be a temporary 30-40 second boost of speed, where the limiter disengages momentarily, just when the person slams down on the accelerator - this would prevent speeding unnecessarily but give it when needed.
not sure if thats possible though, but im sure someone would figure it out

[IggyB]

I've got no problem with speed limiters in general, especially a simple one that just stops drivers going faster than 80 miles an hour for example. But what I don't like is the proposition of constant monitoring - I have nothing to hide however I have no trust of a company or government that wants to gather all of my location information which is exactly what this program would do via its inbuilt GPS.

[joggerjayne]

Look, this stupid idea was trotted out several years ago ...

... JUST for motorbikes.

The biking world, led I think by Motor Cycle News said ...

(1) Why just motorbikes??

(2) If you allow a satellite to take control of moving vehicles, there will be accidents, there will be crashes, and there will be deaths.

Dress it up how you like to pander to the "obey the speed limit" brigade ... the fact is, you are letting a satellite take control of moving vehicles. On a busy road, it will take control of hundreds of moving vehicles.

Eventually, the Govenment accepted that it was a stupid idea, and it was abandoned. If you only ever drove on empty roads, just a solo car, then it might work.

In busy traffic, when a satellite tries to slow down a line of cars, some of which have good brakes and slow down quickly, some of which have inefficient brakes and slow down less quickly, some of which have dodgy brakes and veer to one side, some have fuel injection and some have carbs, and will all slow down at different rates ...

... the last Government accepted that, in busy traffic, there would just be continual vehicle pile ups, multi car smashes, deaths, injuries, etc.

Lovely idea, blah, blah. But when a road goes from 60mph to 30mph, you cannot safely let a satellite take control of a line of twenty cars travelling at 60mph.

Quite simply ... lots and lots and lots of people will die.

Ignoring all this, the current Govt. is trotting out the same ludicrous idea.

There is no way around this simple fact. If you let a satellite physically control the speed of thousands of moving vehicles ... lots of people will die. Lots and lots of people will die.

The last Govt accepted it.

This Govt needs to accept it.

[joggerjayne]

It was abandoned for bikes.

It was ruled out for cars.

It's an absurd idea.

[joggerjayne]

Here's a link to when it was last raised, five years ago.

http://www.motorcyclenews.com/MCN/News/newsresults/mcn/2008/september/15-21/sep1908-speed-limiters-for-motorcycles/

[jno]

There is no way around this simple fact.

It is of course not a "fact" at all, it is a prediction of the future made by interested parties. The "don't-obey-the-speed-limit brigade", if you will.

[Old_Geezer]

Draconian control of the people by the elite.
This sort of thing has no place in a free society.
And in any case if one gets into trouble it is possible any restriction can be the cause of a tragedy.
I'm having to assume this is a silly suggestion that has no chance of getting far. Since anything else would mean we may as well give up considering ourselves to be worthwhile society.

[New Judge]

“I think New Judge is joking.”

No I was not, sp. I am absolutely serious. I have no wish to be subject to laws originating from anywhere other than Westminster. I have no wish to be governed by any organisation over which there is no democratic control.

“So your overiding assessment on whether something is good or not is whether it was devised by someone who's British! “

Not correct, jake. There may well be some good intentioned laws originating from the Brussels/Strasbourg politburo and some equally bad laws originating in Westminster. My objection to the former (good or bad) is that they are foisted on UK citizens by an unelected unaccountable body composed mainly of foreigners. The quality of such legislation is immaterial.

“A spokesman for the EC told the Mail on Sunday: "It is part of the Commission's job - because it has been mandated to do so by member states, including the UK - to look at….” etc.etc.

Exactly my point, Bazile. There is absolutely no justification for the UK to abrogate its responsibilities for framing legislation suitable for the UK by handing over that duty to unelected foreigners. Legislation such as is mentioned in this question will lead to penalties being imposed upon UK citizens as a result of laws dreamt up elsewhere. The UK Parliament is perfectly able to introduce any such legislation as it sees fit and should not rely on having to act under devolved powers from the EU as a parish council might.

In short, if you enjoy the idea of ending up in court as a result of laws the UK Parliament has been instructed to introduce by the EU, good luck to you. Incredible as it may seem, I don’t. There is precious little proper democracy contained in the UK's electoral and Parliamentary system. To hand what little there is to an unelected supranational body is scandalous.