And with some cars navigating it
My point is we are focusing on what happens after the impact rather than looking to prevent the impact. Probably because it’s easier to just impose speed limits and make money from them rather than actually prevent crashes in the first place
Speed limits aren't an imposition, they're a condition you comply with to keep your licence, they are well publicised, you're familiar with the consequences of breaking them and you must be able to do so if you managed to obtain a licence...
But if preventing (or at least mitigating) RTCs is a shared goal we all have then why not control the speeds and at least keep drivers to the posted limits. You reduce the probability of collisions by giving the stupid meat sack in control more reaction time, and reduce the consequences by cutting the kinetic energy involved.
It's all well and good say drivers should be trained better, but humans are just overemotional, flawed chimps that enjoy the sensation of being propelled a bit quick, and at least a few get a semi at the sound of a V10 revving. I think the clarksonites have sort of demonstrated they can't limit their bellendery to track days and still feel the need to mix it in with everyone else just trying to go about their business...
So sorry, but if technology provides some extra safeguards to limit the unthinking ease with which people already engage in automotive ****tery the arguments for not implementing it need to be more robust than "people should just drive betterer" and "what if I need to overtake fasterer?"...
Not read a lot of the comments, sorry. however my 2penneth.
Cars are way too nannying already. I drive a car that has more computers in it than a bloody spaceship and its 12 years old. I had a brand new electric car recently and it ws ridiculous the amount of distractions and things it did for you. Trying to change lanes for example. You move to the side to overtake a cyclist and the car says no and tries to move you back into the cyclist as it fears your crossing a white line.
Im all for saving people but the tech in cars is so crazy and distracting but the key thing for me is it seems to remove the responsibility. The car let me go 40mph into that group of children. It let me go 200mph....
Considering half of the people near me seem to have got their licences from the back of a box of cornflakes i would welcome 5 yearly reviews. i would also welcome limited power licences. i.e you can only drive up to 100bhp for the first few years and then have to take a "high power test"
I'm in favour of driving aids. Yesterday I approached a cyclist and just as I was about to pull out and pass the car started (gently) to slow down all on its own. It had clocked the cyclist and was making sure I wasn't going to hit it. So clearly, as a cyclist myself, I can appreciate that feature. Sure, it's slightly off-putting at first, but nothing we can't get used to.
Part of the issue is that there's a lot of bad implementations out there right now, fortunately Hyundai seem to be mostly on top of things involved in the actual driving. The rest of the stupid annoying alerts before you actually get going, not so much.
I got overtaken this morning in a 30 zone by a woman in her Beemer. I was doing 29-30mph at the time She must have been doing 50mph at some point during the manoeuvre. I caught up with her at the lights about 2 minutes later. I few miles down the road, I was held up crossing a junction despite having a green light becasue some guy had chanced his arm trying to cross a box junction and got trapped becasue of the weight of traffic.
Neither of them were life threatening, but show the sorts of petty law breaking and disregard for other road users Reduce the speed limit all you like, until you challenge the selfish behaviour of folks I doubt it'll improve much.
I’d be happy if it was lower. You save so much more fuel by doing 50 rather than 70 and it’s more relaxing.
Are you one of the annoying twunts that does 50 on the motorway causing all the LGV's to overtake - at least do 56 please?
Don't even get me started on the idiots that can't manage to merge in from an entry slip at the same speed as the rest of the traffic in lane 1
Don’t even get me started on the idiots that can’t manage to merge in from an entry slip at the same speed as the rest of the traffic in lane 1
Had one of those slam their brakes on in front of me once and actually stopped at the end of the slip lane. At least they were indicating I guess. I had to do double quick mirror check and just drove around them carrying on my way!
seems a bit pointless to me. youll still be able to drive far too fast in a 20, 30, or a 60.
The safest bits of road are the bits you can do 70 on: Flat, straight, wide, free of bloody horses and cyclists on their toys.
I mean, go for it, fine by me. theres no harm, i stick mine on cruise at 69 anyway (nice). i just dont see the point.
I’m in favour of driving aids
alright Chris Morris
Was this quote copied and pasted from 1890!? Perhaps we need a man with a flag walking in front of all cars!
nope, it’s just a fact. We’ve not evolved as a species since 1890. The faster you go, the more time it takes to react and stop. Simples!
Map databases aren’t much better, I’m on the latest map pack and it still has the wrong limits (or limits that never existed) for plenty of roads I drive along. Google is exactly the same.
There are at two or three different google systems running in parallel at the moment. Having the latest map pack doesn't help if you're on the "wrong" track. The latest and greatest is "smart" and learns new road layouts and limits from various inputs. So a month ago when my navi had a shit fit because i drove across a field it then took less than 10 days for google to populate the new sliproad, road, roundabout and three speed limit changes. I don't know all the details as i stopped working on it in detail ~3 years ago. Not all cars with android auto (of whatever version) will have it.
I am not sure the technology is there to allow cars with a speed limiter to ignore it on a track day or when driving in places where the limit is higher.
Track facilities can apply to have their area geofenced out, some of the players in this have already geofenced out test facilities to test the equipment. And to be honest, the latest versions of intelligent speed assist will handle speed limits well over the UK national limit, so technically, all you'd need to do is put a couple of "200mph" signs on the end of the pit lane (though you'd probably need to do the geofencing as well, just to cross the T's).
Oddly I was in Benidorm to recharge my Englishness this weekend and the there is some very interesting road layout stuff happening, it’s well mad but I kinda like it.
Quite common here to have a complete raised pavement and cycle lane right across the end of side road, not even a dropped curb, just a ~120mm ramp to get up and over the two lanes of VRU traffic. And they have priority. No nice curves to allow you to zip round either. So you have to go *slow* and be careful.
I'd be just as happy to see a maximum weight for cars. How many really need to tow a horse box? How many have the idea that the pavement is off road?
You move to the side to overtake a cyclist and the car says no and tries to move you back into the cyclist as it fears your crossing a white line.
Are there any cars that do this if the driver indicates before moving out? I don't think mine does, though I haven't had it long.
I know I haven't always indicated for minor manoeuvres when there's no-one else to see (this is before you overtake, before anyone mentions the cyclist...) but it's probably not a bad idea to do so.
That said, I do find the lane thing a bit annoying on the narrow twisty roads round here, and usually switch it off.
You move to the side to overtake a cyclist and the car says no and tries to move you back into the cyclist as it fears your crossing a white line.
Yeah you're meant to indicate. And a good system wouldn't steer you into the cyclist, it'd brake like you're supposed to until you do indicate.
That said, I do find the lane thing a bit annoying on the narrow twisty roads round here, and usually switch it off.
Yeah it doesn't really work on narrow roads with a white line, that's why they've given you a nice handy off button on the dash.
Don’t even get me started on the idiots that can’t manage to merge in from an entry slip at the same speed as the rest of the traffic in lane 1
There's few things I love less than someone trying to merge with 70mph traffic whilst doing 40. Motorway services are the worst for this, you invariably wind up behind some gibbon. I'll slow to a crawl at the start of the slip to put some real distance between us before attempting to accelerate up to the speed of the traffic flow.
Had one of those slam their brakes on in front of me once and actually stopped at the end of the slip lane.
That's what you're supposed to do if you can't merge safely.
What you're supposed to do next other than quietly starve to death was never clear.
Track facilities can apply to have their area geofenced out, some of the players in this have already geofenced out test facilities to test the equipment. And to be honest, the latest versions of intelligent speed assist will handle speed limits well over the UK national limit, so technically, all you’d need to do is put a couple of “200mph” signs on the end of the pit lane (though you’d probably need to do the geofencing as well, just to cross the T’s).
Thanks for that, appreciated. Looks like track days would be spared, which is a relief.
You reduce the probability of collisions by giving the stupid meat sack in control more reaction time,
Only if the object they hit is not moving if both are moving the speed doesn’t make any difference. If one party to the accident was going twice as fast the accident wouldn’t happen if they were going half as fast the accident wouldn’t happen. It’s all about 2 objects occupying the same space at the same time, not speed.
and reduce the consequences by cutting the kinetic energy involved.
agree
It’s all about 2 objects occupying the same space at the same time, not speed.
What happens immediately after two objects attempt to occupy the same space at 10mph? What happens immediately after two objects attempt to occupy the same space at 100mph? Is speed really irrelevant?
There are at two or three different google systems running in parallel at the moment. Having the latest map pack doesn’t help if you’re on the “wrong” track. The latest and greatest is “smart” and learns new road layouts and limits from various inputs. So a month ago when my navi had a shit fit because i drove across a field it then took less than 10 days for google to populate the new sliproad, road, roundabout and three speed limit changes. I don’t know all the details as i stopped working on it in detail ~3 years ago. Not all cars with android auto (of whatever version) will have it.
@mert cheers, it's the passive maps from Ford that are generally the issue here though.
Yeah you’re meant to indicate.
To start a manoeuvre, yes. There is no obligation to do so when you complete it but once again lane assist starts fighting and insists you should stay in the lane you're now in.
Goes to show how immature some implementations are and how smart they really aren't.
What happens immediately after two objects attempt to occupy the same space at 10mph? What happens immediately after two objects attempt to occupy the same space at 100mph? Is speed really irrelevant?
Im not disagreeing with the consequences of an accident being worse at 100mph than 10mph. Although once your much above 50mph it probably makes little difference in reality. I’m more interested in how you prevent the accident in the first place.
According to Rospa speed was only a factor in 13% of collisions https://www.rospa.com/road-safety/advice/drivers/speeding
That means it wasn’t in 87% of collisions. That’s where the real focus should be
Speed is always a factor. Things tend not to hit other things when they aren't moving. I bumped into someone in Tesco this afternoon, speed was a factor because I wasn't stood still (and they were gazing at their phone). Inappropriate speed is a different matter.
The RoSPA page talks about "Exceeding the speed limit and travelling too fast for the conditions" - they're two different things and I'd like to see the breakdown for that.
Then as they say, "Inappropriate speed also magnifies other driver errors, such as driving too close or driving when tired or distracted, increasing the chances of these types of behaviour causing a collision." is bang on the money.
"Yeah you’re meant to indicate."
"To start a manoeuvre, yes. There is no obligation to do so when you complete it but once again lane assist starts fighting and insists you should stay in the lane you’re now in."
Ah this may explain the increase in drivers indicating left after overtaking me when I am on my bike. I'd wondered why I'd started seeing it as it seemed a little pointless.
it’s the passive maps from Ford that are generally the issue here though.
And those maps won't be used for any smart speed assistance/limitation functions. There are a few accuracy requirements regarding sign recognition in the legislation. And (unsurprisingly) speed limits are the hardest to meet, those passive_but_updateable maps are way way off the targets and take months to get up to date and are invariably always slightly wrong. The basic online maps meet some of them, in certain markets/regions, but have horrific lag (weeks to months). The live HD mapping that google launched this year (that i have a version of) is pretty much reaching targets now, and updates rapidly based on road usage. More cars with online map systems => Quicker updates. It's probably why the roads round work get updated in a few days, we have several thousand cars with full online services activated and all the vision stuff switched on...
To start a manoeuvre, yes. There is no obligation to do so when you complete it but once again lane assist starts fighting and insists you should stay in the lane you’re now in.
Mine doesn't require you to indicate to move back in after an overtake unless it's changing lanes on a DC or motorway. TBH I've no problem with this. It may save my life one day.
Plus, it's not like it wrenches the wheel from your hands. It's just a little tug.
@mert fair enough, I know those maps are crap but it seems a bit of a wasted opportunity that I have a camera, a GPS and an on board modem and none of them talk to each other to provide live updates to the system.
Mine doesn’t require you to indicate to move back in after an overtake unless it’s changing lanes on a DC or motorway. TBH I’ve no problem with this. It may save my life one day.
Which still isn't a requirement if you're completing a manoeuvre. Now you could program that in if it was smart enough to see you've just driven around an object, if you have the extra radar sensors on the back that's even better as it could then stop you pulling in if you're too close.
Anyway, I find a shoulder check is more effective at avoiding trouble than relying on someone undertaking and lane diving even taking the time to look for never mind see an indicator.
Which still isn’t a requirement if you’re completing a manoeuvre.
I know, but it's how you stop the beeps and the wheel tugs. It's not actually a problem if you do. It just trains you to indicate more when you move sideways, which isn't necessarily a bad thing.
Anyway, I find a shoulder check is more effective at avoiding trouble than relying on someone undertaking and lane diving even taking the time to look for never mind see an indicator.
Yes in this scenario the indicator is for the car's benefit, not that of other drivers.
<p style="text-align: left;"><span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 14px; white-space: pre-wrap;"> https://twitter.com/ITVCentral/status/1671414120661254149?s=20</span></p>
It's sad that two young people were killed in a car crash.
There is no good reason any uk car should be capable of more than 70mph.
There is no good reason any uk car should be capable of more than 70mph.
Because it is not speed alone that kills people, it is the human error that kills people, so as to the first page shouldn't the speed restriction be 5mph?
Thats faster than a gentle walk so plenty fast enough
Restricting speed to 5mph is obviously absurd as it would have too great an impact on our lives. Staying at or below 70 would not have an impact. It may save a small number of lives but it would certainly make motorways much nicer places to be.
I’ll say it again.
Reduced emissions.
Reduced fuel consumption
Reduced noise pollution
It is not pointless.
It's almost impossible to argue against a limit set at the fastest speed limit of any given country a car is sold in.
That said, it's just another arbitrary measure, albeit one that's easy to execute. I'd rather see a motorway full of 1.25 tonne cars doing 80-90 than a motorway full of 2 tonne electric cars, SUVs and pickups doing 70mph. Reduced noise pollution, reduced rubber pollution*, reduced wear to the road...
It's easy to catch somebody doing 80, but the biggest problems I encounter on any motorway come from poor driving, lack of attention or lack of speed, rarely from speeding.
My much, much bigger concern is the number of 'everyday' electric cars on the roads, barrelling around country roads with 400 bhp+.
It’s almost impossible to argue against a limit set at the fastest speed limit of any given country a car is sold in.
No, it's not. We're already on page 6.
I reckon if someone could rope in some kind of Manx nationalist angle and explain why offshore wind is the underlying problem, we could easily make it to 15 pages.
My much, much bigger concern is the number of ‘everyday’ electric cars on the roads, barrelling around country roads with 400 bhp+.
Why?
Why?
Up until recently, there weren't that many 250-300bhp+ cars on the roads, and most of them were driven by people who knew what they had and most (in my experience) knew how and when to drive them*. Plus, you can hear them long before you see them.
It's a much, much bigger concern for me than people sticking to 70 on a motorway but given I have zero concern with that, a much bigger concern isn't especially noteworthy. I was being a bit obtuse, and probably should have worded it better.
The teenager who was killed was doing 120mph in a 60mph in a limit.
How was speed not a factor. If the car was restricted to 70mph it might have been different.
You can argue against restricting car speed to the speed limits but none of those arguments make any sense imo of course.
I have not seen a single reason that stands up on this thread
Really not understanding the argument that speed isn’t a factor. It’s not only a factor, it’s a multiplier. The outcome of any traffic incident is generally worse if one or more party’s are travelling at speed.
The old lady that casually reversed in to the front of my house at walking speed cracked a tiny bit of render and left some red paint on my wall. The guy that ploughed in to the side of my house left a hole in my living room and caused about £6k worth of damage. He even managed to write off one neighbours car and cause extensive damage to another. Yeah he was inebriated but if he’d been pootling along it would’ve been a very different story. I wonder what one of the main factors was in this 🤔
If the day ever comes that cars speeds can be adjusted automatically based on conditions I’d be happy. Until then I reckon we can get to twenty pages, three dead baby robins, eight packets of frozen Walls hammered in to various lawns, two flounces, a ban and people making progress.
I have not seen a single reason that stands up on this thread
TJ has spoken, back to school with the lot of you
You can argue against restricting car speed to the speed limits but none of those arguments make any sense imo of course.
An argument against is it's not practical to do, any restrictions could be circumvented, and the sort of person happy to do double the speed limit won't care about the legality of bypassing the restrictions.
I know, but it’s how you stop the beeps and the wheel tugs. It’s not actually a problem if you do. It just trains you to indicate more when you move sideways, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing.
Just buy a car that hasn’t got all that unnecessary crap glommed onto it.
The old lady that casually reversed in to the front of my house at walking speed cracked a tiny bit of render and left some red paint on my wall. The guy that ploughed in to the side of my house left a hole in my living room and caused about £6k worth of damage. He even managed to write off one neighbours car and cause extensive damage to another. Yeah he was inebriated but if he’d been pootling along it would’ve been a very different story. I wonder what one of the main factors was in this
Just out of interest, what’s the limit on your stretch of road, and how fast was the pissed-up driver going, exactly? If it’s a 40, and he hit your house at 40, the subsequent damage is clearly going to be significantly greater than the old lady who reversed into it at walking speed. Physics, innit - mass x velocity, or summink like that.
As far as writing off a car’s concerned, nowadays, once a car’s over a few years old, a smashed headlight can write it off. That’s not an exaggeration.
Up until recently, there weren’t that many 250-300bhp+ cars on the roads, and most of them were driven by people who knew what they had and most (in my experience) knew how and when to drive them*.
TBH, were I a man of considerable means, I'd want one of these -
Gribs. Thatcould apply to all sorts of regulation but we still regulate.
An argument against is it’s not practical to do, any restrictions could be circumvented, and the sort of person happy to do double the speed limit won’t care about the legality of bypassing the restrictions.
You sure?
My ~15 year old car has a manually set speed limiter, I've had rentals in recent years with GPS linked limiters, it's absolutely practical to implement.
Of course any safety feature can be circumvented, but you've got to make a conscious choice to do that and in doing so become more culpable for any collisions that might result. How frequently do you drive without your seatbelt or disable your airbag/traction control/ABS?
A few decades ago seatbelts were an impractical imposition, now they're the bare minimum standard in terms of safety technology in a car, and would you even consider buying a vehicle without ABS or airbags today? Passive safety systems have been in cars for ages and probably saved countless lives...
An argument against is it’s not practical to do, any restrictions could be circumvented, and the sort of person happy to do double the speed limit won’t care about the legality of bypassing the restrictions.
None of those are reasons not to do it.
any restrictions could be circumvented,
That's true. But only a tiny number of nobbers will actually go to the effort and expense of doing so.
