MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
That's just your manufacturer's choice, ossify. The Zoé races up to the set speed, often goes 1kmh over and then settles back to the limited speed.
In EVs the mode D/B motor braking keeps it down to the limit so you can feel some braking downhill. If anything it reduces in bends as tyre scrub provides a tiny amount of braking. If the D/B motor braking isn't enough to keep the car to the limit there's an audible warning.
around 26 or 27 mph.
This means you lose all fine control and acceleration if you’re driving along at just under the limit (ie most of the time), especially annoying and difficult in traffic.
I can't say I've ever noticed this and I use the limiter function a lot.
I don’t think it suddenly jams the brakes on, just stops you accelerating.
The various ones I've used haven't slowed the vehicle at all once you're above the limit, they simply provide a soft stop to your acceleration at that point, exceed the limit and it will behave exactly as if there were none set.
When this was mooted some years I was hoping it would introduce mandatory limits for all cars although reading this thread there are a number of issues that need overcoming first.
My car also has a speed limiter although I never use it but i do use the Sat Nav which indicates speed limits which is useful.
Bollocks. It’s far worse now that people seem terrified to over take anywhere other than the dual carriageway sections and then try and flight their way past each other on them.
Not my experience. But then I don't have a compulsion to "get to the front".
The different speed limit for trucks and cars doesn’t help.
Is the whole point not that trucks are exceptionally allowed to do 50 on the single c/way A9 to avoid this?
Having spent nearly 9 years driving commercial vehicles with 56mph limits I would happily welcome limiters for regular cars too. It's so much more pleasant driving with everyone at a similar speed, just look at areas with average cameras. I'd happily support the whole country being carpeted with average cameras too actually. And if you think that's anti Making Progress then anyone who drives for pleasure in a spirited manner knows full well that the most fun is always on a twisty B road that you'd struggle to hit the limit anyway so these limiters won't stop people having some fun in the right circumstances.
I think if you disable it, it should bing at you constantly until you re-enable it.
A safety light on the roof would be more effective, would help identifying the morons behind the wheel too. You could have a range of stupid colours depending on how long the limiter has been switched off for too.
If you set it to, say, 31mph, then it starts cutting in and limiting the engine power from around 26 or 27 mph.
This means you lose all fine control and acceleration if you’re driving along at just under the limit (ie most of the time), especially annoying and difficult in traffic.
Can't say I've noticed this on any of the cars I've driven with one. Certainly no loss of control - that sounds like "excuses" to me. A bit like the people who claim to accelerate out of danger.
have you been through any rural villages where the speed limit is 40 but some of the moany residents plaster their wheely bins with “20 is plenty” followed by a perfect replication of a UK street sign but with a 20 in it?
The potential for people to mess with this system is huge.
I think I've seen this once. Can't say I would lose sleep over it - if the problem is bad enough to put in that effort to slow the traffic down, its probably worth slowing down. Presumably anyone repeatedly doing it where it causes an actual issue would have some sort of enforcement action - local council removed private-parking signs erected next to adopted road here so they have the power.
It’s so much more pleasant driving with everyone at a similar speed
Yeah everyone loves the lorries with a 0.5mph speed differential taking up both lanes of a dual carriageway or motorway, never causes any grief at all! 😉
If EVERYONE is limited to the same speed itmakes more sense than just some of the people!
Mental note I realised last time I was there, US truckers are not limited as they are in the UK/EU!
Yeah everyone loves the lorries with a 0.5mph speed differential taking up both lanes of a dual carriageway or motorway, never causes any grief at all!
This isn't a speed limit issue, it's the drivers being dicks. If you are closing in behind another lorry that slowly you can just slow down and deal with the 0.5mph loss in speed. Hopefully when they get the ability to daisy-chain convoys the fuel reduction will be enough that companies will mandate it and we'll suddenly get an extra lane back on our motorways.
I don’t like the idea of a car just limiting it’s speed. It could potentially upset a car mid corner.
The hire car I had a few months ago had a speed limiter linked to the cameras. I used it as I was commuting on a section of motorway with 40/50/60/NSL sections and with the best will in the world I was always panicking when I passed one whether it was the 1st of that limit or if I'd missed one.
It doesnt cut the power, it's just like the cruise control but if you take your foot off the pedal it slows down.
Unless you're on the absolute limit of grip (which you shouldn't be, as that would mean you definitely can't stop in the distance you can see without ending up in the hedge/oncoming traffic) it's just gradually easing the throttle on/off.
It could be overridden by momentarily blipping the pedal to the floor (usefull if you pass a junction with an ambiguous speed limit sign).
eg an inability or unwillingness to obey the law is bad driving?
Absolutely no. You can safely drive above any speed limit if the conditions allow. I refuse to believe anyone doesn't get that.
Bad driving is nothing to do with speed limits, it's all to do with standards of driving and , where speed is involved, is about driving too fast for those conditions.
"Obey" is also a word I have issues with lol.
Yeah everyone loves the lorries with a 0.5mph speed differential taking up both lanes of a dual carriageway or motorway, never causes any grief at all! 😉
I'd happily trade you lorries in lane two for every driver oblivious to the existence of lane 1
followed by a perfect replication of a UK street sign but with a 20 in it
brilliant. I'm going to be all over that on our quiet residential street which is super narrow but people speed on.
Likes!
Absolutely no. You can safely drive above any speed limit if the conditions allow. I refuse to believe anyone doesn’t get that.
Bad driving is nothing to do with speed limits, it’s all to do with standards of driving and , where speed is involved, is about driving too fast for those conditions.“Obey” is also a word I have issues with lol.
so the logical extension of this is there should be no road laws at all and it should be entirely down to personal judgement?
Who said that ? That's kinda making things up to suit your narrative.
In the UK we have a 70mph limit. You're suggesting that going above that speed at any time is "bad driving"
In Germany they have (on similar roads) no upper limit but a very strong attitude towards bad driving standards.
People do 200mph , Are they bad drivers , or are they good drivers because they are not breaking a law?.
you said that. if you are free to ignore speed limits based on your judgement of the conditions, then why have them?
ps. have you ever driven on an autobahn with no speed limit? fairly intimidating as the speed differentials are massive.
Bollocks. It’s far worse now that people seem terrified to over take anywhere other than the dual carriageway sections and then try and flight their way past each other on them.
Which is a significant improvement on it before where their were serious crashes most weeks because folk were over taking in silly places on single carridgeways.
I was traveling it alot pre camerS and the number of near misses from folk in my lane was frightening. I have not experianced that since the ave cameras were put on it so improved imo.
Most folk it seems could do to just plan journeys better and allocate an appropriate time.
There is legislation in the pipeline to link the speed limiter to speed limits, the technology is there already (but not accurate enough, especially in roadworks and temporary speed limit areas). A combination of traffic sign recognition and GPS data will set the limit that the limiter will use.
It will become a requirement through the back door - the initial way is where manufacturers get NCAP points that will increase their NCAP rating, (this happens now for other features), then will be enforced by legislation.
Blimmin good idea, especially when you consider that many accidents involve excessive speed (for the conditions certainly, over the limit maybe)
People do 200mph , Are they bad drivers , or are they good drivers because they are not breaking a law?.
By your own argument their speed has absolutely no determination on their being good or bad drivers so it's impossible to tell.
Personally I'd tell you most of the folks I've been passed by doing 150+ on the autobahn are wombles. The others have been blue lighted siren totting womble catchers.
OTOH, here, in the UK, one of the road conditions is an upper speed limit, "Bad driving...
...where speed is involved, is about driving too fast for those conditions" so exceeding the condition of a speed limit is bad driving.
(See other conditions such as tax, insurance roadworthiness etc. all of which I assume you're happy for people to decide shouldn't apply to them today?)
Which brings us back to speed limiters. People can't and won't play nice so we have to take their toys away.
Are they bad drivers , or are they good drivers because they are not breaking a law?
Given it'll take nearly a km to stop I'm gonna go with lucky rather than good.
Depends how awesome they are I guess.
I have read through this thread carefully and diligently and thus feel it is important to offer the following considered contribution:
I am a better driver than all youse put together
In Germany they have (on similar roads) no upper limit but a very strong attitude towards bad driving standards.
People do 200mph , Are they bad drivers , or are they good drivers because they are not breaking a law?.
You can be a bad driver under the speed limits too, they don't have to be mutaly exclusive.
I hitchhiked arround Germany whilst at uni. I seem to recall it being a series of traffic jams as the emergency services swept up what was left of someone who's ego exceeded their luck.
I was going to write skill rather than luck, but really there's no ammount of skill that's going to save you when doing 155 on a public road.
followed by a perfect replication of a UK street sign but with a 20 in it
lets hope the chap at no88 doesn't get a new house sign made up....
so exceeding the condition of a speed limit is bad driving.
Nope, it really isn't. And "A condition" imposed is not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the conditions on the road at any given time, i.e traffic density, weather , temperature etc etc . And you know it as well.
you said that.
No, I didn't.
so you do believe in speed limits and road laws?
so you do believe in speed limits and road laws?
I believe to much onus is placed on blindly following a limit being "safe" over having good standards of driving.
You can be a bad driver under the speed limits too, they don’t have to be mutaly exclusive.
Which is pretty much what I've been saying and I agree with that.
In Germany they have (on similar roads) no upper limit but a very strong attitude towards bad driving standards.
The unlimited sections are getting rarer. It's only the "safe" sections. The thing is they kill and maim disproportionately more on those "safe" unlimited sections than on on the busy, dangerous sections. I detest the unlimted sections and just join the trucks doing 96kmh because messing around on other lanes with ridiculous speed differentials realy isn't my trip.
There are as many if not more arrogant, aggressive dick drivers in Germany than in the UK IME.
Bad driving is nothing to do with speed limits, it’s all to do with standards of driving and , where speed is involved, is about driving too fast for those conditions.
This is a logically flawed position.
A large part of road safety is drivers being able to anticipate what other drivers are likely to do. If are waiting to pull out, for example, in a 30mph area, and there's a car a couple of hundred metres away then you can pull out because you're fairly confident it's going to be doing 30mph ish and 200m is enough. But if that car were doing 60, then 200m isn't enough. It takes longer to assess the speed of an oncoming car than simply note its presence, so people will glance, see the car and pull out.
If you want to test this, start driving around really fast, and you'll find that suddenly people are "pulling out in front of you" all the time. But it's not their behaviour that's causing it, its yours, because you are acting outside what people are expecting of each other. I have a colleague who is absolutely the nicest bloke you'll meet, but he does a lot of walking for fitness and consequently walks really fast everywhere, including in supermarkets when we go for lunch. People are always nearly colliding with him, because he's going much faster than people expect. If you drive at 110mph on the motorway you'll get people pulling out in front of you all the time. It works better in Germany (although it's not a good situation) purely because people are expecting very fast drivers in the outside lane.
It's not just about you, your car, and the road; it's about how other people are interacting with you. Yes, you could claim that other people should watch what they're doing, but by driving as fast as you want you are making it much harder for other people to drive. And as we know, most people struggle with good driving at the best of times, making it even harder is a bad thing.
In short, speed limits are there to provide predictability for everyone, as much as to protect you.
It’s so much more pleasant driving with everyone at a similar speed
Not my experience. Where you have four lanes all going ~50 because there are road works and an average speed check, it can take a couple of miles to change lanes to get off at a junction.
No problem if you have a satnav counting down to the junction and you apply a little bit of forethought, but if you are navigating by road signs that give you 1 or sometimes even only 2/3 of a mile warning.
Edit- and consequently you have people cutting in to tiny gaps and forcing their way across, plus people who will just switch to the 51mph lane to undertake, that it’s a much more stressful experience than when you have the freedom to alter your speed relative to other vehicles.
lets hope the chap at no88 doesn’t get a new house sign made up….
By the time he does it'll have been there since before your parents met anyway.
I believe to much onus is placed on blindly following a limit being “safe”
I agree.
Too many drivers feel they must do at least or more than the speed limit all the time everywhere not to conditions. That is true.
How ever there's no set of conditions where 50/30 or 50/40 or 80/70 is "safer" than 30/30 40/40 70/70....and that's where the speed concept comes in.
Molgrips also makes. Good point
This is a logically flawed position.
Not really.
The example you followed with is exactly what I'm talking about. In it, the other traffic pose a risk to going above a certain speed, so you should drive accordingly. The traffic density is the condition you should take into account.
I agree with 20's in built up areas, but the question was "does exceeding set limits make you an automatically bad driver"
No it doesn't.
How ever there’s no set of conditions where 50/30 or 50/40 or 80/70 is “safer” than 30/30 40/40 70/70….
I agree, but at the same time doing say, 100 in a 70 is not automatically unsafe or make you a bad driver .
Not my experience. Where you have four lanes all going ~50 because there are road works and an average speed check, it can take a couple of miles to change lanes to get off at a junction.
That's entirely down to volume of traffic not speed. Entering and exiting a road is easier for a given volume of traffic the lower the speed of that traffic.
The bigger issue with "4 lanes of traffic" is people are driving* in the over taking lanes. You shouldn't need to change lanes to exit because, simply put, no one should be in 2 3 or 4 unless they're moving faster than traffic in 1 which, if its all doing 50, they're not.
*again mainly an issue of volume rather than poor driving. (though that's often the case too, how regularly do you see a huge queue in lane 2 or 3 with lane 1 empty because 2 miles up the road there's a lorry passing another)
It is however automatically less safe.
That is very useful for overtaking when your car can get in to triple digits very quickly
Sounds like a vehicle problem not speed limit problem.
It’s so much more pleasant driving with everyone at a similar speed, just look at areas with average cameras. I’d happily support the whole country being carpeted with average cameras too actually.
+1
There’s no reason with the GPS tech and black box type insurance why people shouldnt be discouraged from aggressive driving – repeated hard accelerations, braking, cornering and speeding by increased premiums. Instant deterrant and much more unavoidable than the chance of being spotted by a copper.
In my experience (Obviously, subject to some type of confirmation bias.), I see more dangerous driving at or below the legal speed limit. More dodgy overtaking, passing cyclists unsafely, pulling out with insufficient room, un-signalled lane changing into peoples braking distance, poor lane discipline etc…
+1 on these. Aggressive driving. Cars far too powerful for the road (eg my first quote above ^). Harshly critical black boxes and blanket average cameras across the entire road network really will be the only way to solve this, because most people are inherently selfish until forced not to be
I agree, but at the same time doing say, 100 in a 70 is not automatically unsafe or make you a bad driver .
You're stuck in the "it'll never happen to me" logical fallacy.
Doing 100 in a 70 means you're doing a lot more overtaking (each one with a risk attached to it).
It also means you have over double the kinetic energy (and therefore double the stopping distances, double the damage on impact, etc) compared to doing 70.
One person doing 100 may well survive to tell everyone how awesome they are.
50 million drivers in the UK, and some will die. Not all through lack of skill, or competence. Just because they got mashed into the dashboard when the car collapsed on impact, or because someone else pulled out when they passed their blindspot whilst overtaking.
The traffic density is the condition you should take into account.
Ah so you are talking about the hypothetical situation where there are no other cars or junctions and you can see perfectly for miles in every direction.
The problem with this is that you cannot let people make their own decision on that because people will make the wrong decisions. People always do. Even me, even you.
This just goes to show how subjective people's views are. Most people will agree that most drivers are rubbish - it's a popular topic; but when speed limits are discussed they come over all libertarian and trust these same drivers to make the right choices and give them the ability to slash safety margins because they're so capable.
Why is there such dissonance? Because people want to drive fast and they don't want to be told what to do. Well, tough. Roads are a complex system, complex systems need rules. If you don't like them, don't drive.
In my experience (Obviously, subject to some type of confirmation bias.), I see more dangerous driving at or below the legal speed limit. More dodgy overtaking, passing cyclists unsafely, pulling out with insufficient room, un-signalled lane changing into peoples braking distance, poor lane discipline etc…
All these things are bad. And given that they are going on, that's all the more reason we should be keeping a lid on people's speeds so that when these people cause accidents they aren't as bad, or there's more time for people to evade.
By driving fast, you are cutting everyone else's safety margins, you are requiring that they drive better (without them being informed), you are stressing everyone out more and you are increasing the consequences when something goes wrong.
It's a dick move, don't do it. And before you accuse me of being a boring grandad, I have done it, both UK and Germany, because I actually do enjoy speed and I do want to get where I'm going quickly. But I also appreciate how bad it is and I have at least some self control, because I'm a grown up.
In other news - all cars are compulsorily fitted with indicators and nobody seems to know how to use those.
Methinks the OP didn't read his linked article properly.
Sorry, driving gods continue your discussion.
Doing 100 in a 70 means you’re doing a lot more overtaking (each one with a risk attached to it).
Completely agree. I’d never approach 100 if there was other traffic around. You’re into bad driving there, due to conditions being unsafe for that speed.
Ah so you are talking about the hypothetical situation where there are no other cars or junctions and you can see perfectly for miles in every direction.
Pretty much. Any time I’ve been ata very high speed has been in a situation like you have described.
Going in circles here and it’ll keep going that way more than likely so I’ll leave it there.
Hopefully I’ve provoked a discussion at least.
Personally I don’t think it’s speed so much, inappropriate speed yes, aggressive driving yes, inconsiderate driving yes.
I think I agree with this. There are times when 20 in a 30 would be dangerous (school kicking out time being an obvious example) there are other times when 100 in a 70 is safe (motorway in the early hours provided you're not tired).
Do I think we need compulsory speed limiters? It undoubtedly would prevent some accidents, might make some people less attentive if they feel the car is doing the consentrating so they may be some offset there. Do I personally want one? No thankyou - just make everyone else get them...
you said that. if you are free to ignore speed limits based on your judgement of the conditions, then why have them?
ps. have you ever driven on an autobahn with no speed limit? fairly intimidating as the speed differentials are massive.
Good idea, let's get rid of any that aren't needed - such as open road NSL's and motorways.
Yes I have, and no I wasn't. I've lived in Germany and if you're doing +150mph (easy-peasy on a ZX9R) you need to be aware that someone could pull out to overtake a truck doing 50mph and vv. Maybe you need to take some lessons?
Doing 100 in a 70 means you’re doing a lot more overtaking (each one with a risk attached to it).
Depends how many other cars there are doesn't it. What about on an empty road?
Not ok because just it's "speeding"?
What about if the speed limit was 110, ok then?
Like trail_rat above I agree somewhat with what brads is saying - the fixation on speed limit alone is often irrelevant.
There's a road near me, 3 lanes on each side with a central reservation. Nothing residential nearby, no small side roads etc. It's got pavements at the side but very rarely pedestrians because it's doesn't really go anywhere people walk (motorway junction, large supermarket, large A-road junctions, not much else).
The speed limit is 30mph, or 40 on part of it.
It is perfectly safe to go above the speed limit when this road is clear. Within reason. Obviously that doesn't mean it's necessarily ok to do that, etc etc.
Are you a dangerous driver for going at 45 on this road? No IMO.
Can you complain if you get nicked for it? Also no.
Are you a bad driver for going at 45 on a tight country road where the limit is 60? Yes.
It depends on conditions, and a lot of things.
That said, there is NOTHING wrong with sticking to the limit as a maximum. So you'll get there 10 seconds sooner, who cares.
(FWIW, before anyone has a go at me I do try to stick to the limit everywhere anyway! Not everyone is capable of driving to conditions so there has to be some (sometimes seemingly arbitrary) legal limit. And yes, I am a better driver than everyone else of course 😉 )
Good idea, let’s get rid of any that aren’t needed – such as open road NSL’s and motorways.
Yes I have, and no I wasn’t. I’ve lived in Germany and if you’re doing +150mph (easy-peasy on a ZX9R) you need to be aware that someone could pull out to overtake a truck doing 50mph and vv. Maybe you need to take some lessons?
awesome.
Yes I have, and no I wasn’t. I’ve lived in Germany and if you’re doing +150mph (easy-peasy on a ZX9R) you need to be aware that someone could pull out to overtake a truck doing 50mph and vv. Maybe you need to take some lessons?
Take some lessons, because.. you're making life harder for everyone else and their job as a driver more difficult? Is this right?
I've lived in Germany too, and I drove a car that could 'only' do 130mph. You look in your mirror and you can see plenty of road, so you go to pull out into the one remaining lane to pass the lorry and instantly there's some dick in a flash car up your arse. Not good. If you think having traffic sharing lanes with nearly 100mph closing speed is a good idea, you're an idiot.
Compulsory speed limiters would force people to feel significantly less entitled to take away everyone else's safety margins, I think.
I remember driving back from Germany through France and remarking on what a wonderfully peaceful experience it was on the Autoroute (away from the cities!). Then I realised that not only was traffic light but everyone was doing the same speed. We were all floating along not gaining on each other so we could pass the lorries without any stress. The total opposite of Germany where every pull-out is a heart-stopping moment.
If, given the light traffic, you were bombing along at twice the speed, that would have made it difficult and stressful as I'd have had to be on constant lookout for you indulging your thrillseeking.
If you think having traffic sharing lanes with nearly 100mph closing speed is a good idea,
Between Berlin and Munich on a Friday evening there's a good number of exotoc things running 300kmh which is 204kmh faster than the trucks. It's ****ing nuts. The manufacturers all agree on 250kmh then all have special tuning units to produce cars that will do 300kmh.
There are noise regs but they have a button to press which opens the pipe so they fly past at 300kmh sounding more like a WWII plane than a car.
When I was driving lots for work I loved a speed limiter, great for motorways, or a roads where the limit would be easy to excess. Didn't get any speeding tickets over the 8yrs of company cars and 40-50k miles a year.
Now I'm self employed with a non particularly powerful car, I don't use it as much, unless I'm on the motorway. Can't see the point of cruise control on the UK congested motorways.
Can’t see the point of cruise control on the English congested motorways
FTFY, use it all the time up here, get up to 60, stick on CC, let the bawbags fly past, accelerating themselves to an early, stress induced grave.
My car has a speed limiter, a manual set one, I leave it on 30 (probably really 28) and flick it on whenever I am in a 30 limit.
I normally get tailgated by at least one angry arse. But it generally makes life much easier, I know I'm not going to get flashed by a camera and I can just trundle along all legally complaint...
The couple of hire cars I've had with automatic satnav linked ones seem like a good idea, except where the data fails and they don't know the limit and they seem to just offer a warning on motorways...
While I welcome their mandatory fitting, their use won't be a legal requirement will it? So I'm sure they'll be turned off by the majority of 'progress makers'...
that sounds like “excuses” to me. A bit like the people who claim to accelerate out of danger.
It's unusual but plausible, it's happened to me. Removing a choice of options in a sudden emergency is rarely a positive step.
If you want to test this, start driving around really fast, and you’ll find that suddenly people are “pulling out in front of you” all the time. But it’s not their behaviour that’s causing it, its yours,
Bollocks, you're just making excuses for poor observation. We've all done it, I've misjudged the speed of oncoming traffic both too fast and too slow, but that's my fault not theirs. No-one is making you pull out other than your own right foot. This is a stone's throw from "they just appeared out of nowhere" after you've just mowed down a cyclist, is "well, I wasn't expecting them to be there" a valid defence?
If you're on the road then no-one makes anyone do anything other than yourself. To suggest otherwise is a denial of responsibility with a side order of victim blaming. Because you cannot predict other people's behaviour, you just can't rely on that. A child runs out from behind a parked car, is it the child's fault or should you have been driving in a manner where you were considering that that might be an eventuality?
I use the cc on the car and van in town set at 20, the limit. Had a surprising number of professional drivers exhibiting aggressive behaviour based on what they think the limit is.
We'll be the first town the meet going north with a 20 limit.
Cougar - you do realise your two examples are at odds with each other.
Namely both situations don't happen if the car going along the road isnt traveling faster than they should be in the location or as it's known - driving with due care and attention and driving to conditions.
But yeah bad driving -its always someone else's fault.
It is very simple. Speed limit is 30, car is limited to max of 30. Not sure how anyone can have a problem with that. Who cares if accidents are not always speed related, the limit is 30 so that is the maximum you should be doing.
Bollocks, you’re just making excuses for poor observation.
Hmmm, It's maybe worth considering "poor observation" is quite easily compounded by excess speed, by booting in traffic you're simply increasing the chances that your poor observation will result in a collision rather than a near miss with a sharp jab on the brakes and a mouthed 'sorry' (or more likely shouted 'Gerrafucinmoveooon!')...
You are right of course, humans are all fallible, nobody is a perfect driver, so maybe pre-empting that fallibility with a feature incorporated into the 2 ton death boxes we insist on getting around in isn't such a terrible concept.
TBH a speed limited makes most sense in built up areas of towns, especially residential bits, on a Motorway or Dual Carriageway it's less of an issue. Yes speeds are 2-3 times higher but all the vehicles are going in the same direction, most vehicles are designed to protect the occupants, merging traffic normally has 1/4 to 1/3 of a mile to match speed and join safely and there aren't Peds/Ponies or bicyclists to squish, it's actually a "safer" environment in many ways... You could probably raise the NSL to 80 on British motorways and not see much difference to the annual road deaths figures (wild, uninformed speculation) because a good ~30% of drivers are probably already doing that speed already...
If you’re on the road then no-one makes anyone do anything other than yourself. To suggest otherwise is a denial of responsibility with a side order of victim blaming. Because you cannot predict other people’s behaviour, you just can’t rely on that. A child runs out from behind a parked car, is it the child’s fault or should you have been driving in a manner where you were considering that that might be an eventuality?
Indeed, or better yet you pre-empted your own and other's human flaws to some extent by turning on the speed limiter when you entered a residential area? I mean cars are already bristling with technologies for all sorts of things, why not add another to at least try and moderate dickheadish driving where you're most likely to encounter a child running out?
The worst it can do is delay you by 20 seconds getting to your next traffic queue, and if it prevents a few KSIs a year then job done.
As ever the proof will be in the stats, probably around 2025 at the earliest?
Bollocks, you’re just making excuses for poor observation.
No. It's obviously harder to assess the speed of a moving car than the simple fact there's a car there. You have to look at it for longer. Most people will just see a car and assume it's doing a sensible speed, think they have time, and pull out anyway.
If you're saying that everyone should observe better, and therefore be a better driver, then that's agreeing with my point. By allowing a much greater variance in speed, you're making everyone's job driving more difficult. Given how poor most people are, do you think we should be making driving more difficult and stressful, or easier and more relaxing?
I don't see how you can be arguing against behaving predictably doing a dangerous task?
If you’re on the road then no-one makes anyone do anything other than yourself. To suggest otherwise is a denial of responsibility with a side order of victim blaming.
By driving faster than expected you are making other people's safety margins smaller. You are interacting with everyone else on the road, you're not independent. Your actions have consequences for other people.
This is a stone’s throw from “they just appeared out of nowhere” after you’ve just mowed down a cyclist, is “well, I wasn’t expecting them to be there” a valid defence?
It's nothing to do with that. It's nothing to do with the law and the rules. It's about how we interact as humans and as drivers. I could run flat-out around Asda but I don't, cos it's obviously highly anti-social. So why do the same on the roads? People who drive fast don't see the anti-social side of it because they aren't the victims. When they meet someone else driving just as fast they generally shout and complain without realising they are also part of the problem.
I do 130k miles a year, i see plenty of ‘not very good’ driving, well below, at, or a little above, the speed limit. (I rarely see people speeding by a massive amount nowadays)
One of the problems with the ‘speed is dangerous’ message is that you are also (sort of) telling people that if they’re within the posted limit then they are automatically safe, experienced drivers know this isn’t necessarily the case of course.
Re: the A9, i drive between glasgow and Inverness regularly, imo (and many other professional drivers say the same) the ave speed cameras have made this a far nicer drive, while adding less than ten minutes to the total time it takes.
Speed limiters are a handy tool to make driving long distances a little easier.
I remember a vastly experienced manager telling me “most accidents are caused by distraction” I believe he’s correct.
Imo, driving is actually pretty easy, as long as the only thing you’re doing is ‘Driving’
There are times when 20 in a 30 would be dangerous (school kicking out time being an obvious example)
Why is 20 in a 30 dangerous, going past a school?....
Re: the A9, i drive between glasgow and Inverness regularly, imo (and many other professional drivers say the same) the ave speed cameras have made this a far nicer drive, while adding less than ten minutes to the total time it takes.
Absolutely this +1
It’s clearly not the whole story but it is a part of it and a part of it that can easily be controlled via speed limiters. Tackling drivers who dangerously overtake and the like is a lot harder but that doesn’t mean you should do the easy stuff.
I didn’t say we shouldn’t.
Why is 20 in a 30 dangerous, going past a school?
Because it's pissing with sleet, dark and there are kids jumping out from behind parked cars.
Obv
should you have been driving in a manner where you were considering that that might be an eventuality?
Yes.
Edited. Rule 1.
I can't believe there's any doubt about the improved driving on the A9 since the ASCs were installed. I live in Aviemore so use the A9 almost daily. Despite it being massively busier there is simply less poor driving. What we are currently left with is mostly bad junction design and intermittent dual carraigeway. The dualling program will (Green/SNP coalition willing!!) fix the latter and will remove many of the bad junctions.
I've said before that I'd be happy to have ASCs installed everywhere (especially as most of them are only installed to handle front number plates, making motorbikes exempt 😉 )
100 in a 70 is safe (motorway in the early hours provided you’re not tired).
Untill it's not safe.
Deer, broken down/crashed cars, spilt loads. All coming up a lot faster than dipped headlights and potentially sleep deprived brain can handle.
Arguably you should be driving more conservatively at night as you can only see what's in your headlights, which in the days of halogen bulbs at least we're aligned to hit the ground at the highway codes 30mph stopping distance.
It's also survivor bias. You can make the argument that any rational person can see an empty motorway is safe at 40% over the speed limit. But the person who found out it wasn't probably didn't survive to post a warning.
One of the problems with the ‘speed is dangerous’ message is that you are also (sort of) telling people that if they’re within the posted limit then they are automatically safe
I'm not convinced by that argument.
Our van (Peugeot Partner) has a speed limiter. I've not used it but with vans having a 50mph limit away from dual carriageways/motorways it could be useful to avoid drifting up to the 60mph limit especially on the A65 where the speed camera vans tend to move about a bit.
As for "making progress", in a car I'd get from home to J36 on the M6 via the A65 in an hour,+/- a couple of minutes. In the van it's about 5 minutes slower. Not really worth the hassle. Coming back this evening a guy was really keen to get past me, he did so just after Ingleton. By Gargrave he was still only three cars ahead of me.
It is very simple. Speed limit is 30, car is limited to max of 30. Not sure how anyone can have a problem with that. Who cares if accidents are not always speed related, the limit is 30 so that is the maximum you should be doing.
I have a problem with it as the idiots who seem to have no appreciation that bikes can travel at close to or above the speed limit will still try and overtake. I'd rather they can accelerate past at above the limit rather than pull into the side of me having tried to crawl past.
One of the problems with the ‘speed is dangerous’ message is that you are also (sort of) telling people that if they’re within the posted limit then they are automatically safe
I’m not convinced by that argument.
One thing it is.....is a terrible arguement for going above the speed limit.....
I’d rather they can accelerate past at above the limit rather than pull into the side of me having tried to crawl past.
As far as I know with these systems you can always override them by hitting the accelerator, so that shouldn't change
edit: a quick look at the legislation seems to suggest that manufacturers can pick one of 4 different systems
" Therefore, it is provided in the draft Delegated Regulation that vehicle manufacturers can choose one of the following four feedback methodologies to base their ISA systems on:
(1) the haptic feedback system which relies on the pedal restoring force:
–Driver’s foot will be gently pushed back in case of over-speed. It will help to reduce driving speed and can be overridden by the driver.
(2) the speed control system which relies on engine management:
–Automatic reduction of the propulsion power independent of the position of drive’s feet on the pedal, but that can also be overridden by the driver easily.
(3) the cascaded acoustic warning:
–1st step: flash an optical signal
–2nd step: after several seconds, if no reaction from the driver, the acoustic warning
will be activated
–If the driver ignores this combined feedback, both warnings will be timed-out.
(4) the cascaded vibration warning
–1st step: flash an optical signal
–2nd step: after several seconds, if no reaction from the driver, pedal will vibrate
–If the driver ignores this combined feedback, both warnings will be timed-out.
Despite the functional differences, ISA systems based on each of those four options are
considered equally safe and effective. "
Actually, this from the end of that draft legislation is a little scarier maybe:
1. Vehicle manufacturers shall provide the approval authorities with the following
information:
(a) ratios of the time driven or the distances that are travelled with the intelligent speed assistance systems switched on and switched off;
(b) ratios of the time driven or the distances that are travelled with the perceived speed limits being observed and being overridden, respectively;
(c) the average time elapsed between the switch-on and the switch-off of the intelligent peed assistance system by the driver, when applicable;
(d) The information referred to in the first subparagraph for the cascaded acoustic warning function, the cascaded vibrating warning function and the haptic feedback function shall be provided separately from the information for the speed control function.
2. The approval authorities shall aggregate the information received in accordance with paragraph 1 and provide it to the Commission on 7 July 2024 and every 6 months thereafter.
It's not just about safety.
The faster you are going the louder your car is and the more fuel it burns.
In some areas speed limits are set to reduce noise and air pollution.
My Mum lives about half a mile from the M2. It's noisy enough to be intrusive if you sit in the garden. For a few months there were road works with a 50mph limit. The difference in noise was staggering.
My car uses about 30% more fuel at 80mph than it does at 65mph.
If you care about the environment then slow down (or take public transport), you'll only get there about 8 seconds later anyway.
You have to remember that the severity of accidents increase hugely with speed. Hit a pedestrian at 20 mph they probably are only bruised, hit them at 30 mph they will be injured probably broken bones, hit them at 40 mph they will be lucky to survive
Braking and reaction distances go up as well
I’m not convinced by that argument
@molgrips
Perhaps i can rephrase, ‘one of the problems with the “speed is automatically dangerous”
May have been better.
Just for clarity, I’m not advocating speeding in any way, I’ve seen plenty of accidents in my time, some of them were caused by speeding.
f you care about the environment then slow down (or take public transport), you’ll only get there about 8 seconds later anyway.
Yeah, 8 seconds late and have to mix with the great unhosed.
1. Vehicle manufacturers shall provide the approval authorities with the following
information:
(a) ratios of the time driven or the distances that are travelled with the intelligent speed assistance systems switched on and switched off;
(b) ratios of the time driven or the distances that are travelled with the perceived speed limits being observed and being overridden, respectively;
(c) the average time elapsed between the switch-on and the switch-off of the intelligent peed assistance system by the driver, when applicable;
(d) The information referred to in the first subparagraph for the cascaded acoustic warning function, the cascaded vibrating warning function and the haptic feedback function shall be provided separately from the information for the speed control function.2. The approval authorities shall aggregate the information received in accordance with paragraph 1 and provide it to the Commission on 7 July 2024 and every 6 months thereafter.
This is very positive to hear! Coupled with Volvo's push of imminent implementing inward facing anti-distraction cameras, things could start getting much safer and less aggressive on roads well within the next decade
When the driving gods of STW assemble, 'tis quite incredible.
This is very positive to hear! Coupled with Volvo’s push of imminent implementing inward facing anti-distraction cameras, things could start getting much safer and less aggressive on roads well within the next decade
Or Volvo's market share rapidly declines based on the attitude against infringing their civil liberties
Nobeerinthefridge
When the driving gods of STW assemble, ’tis quite incredible.
Awesome is the word. ****ing awesome.
The A9 thing taught me a real lesson on this stuff. Going steady at the speed limit costs no significant extra time and is a lot less stressful
Just for clarity, I’m not advocating speeding in any way, I’ve seen plenty of accidents in my time, some of them were caused by speeding.
Whilst speeding was not the cause, speed was. If all cars drove at 5 mph how many accidents would there be compared to if all cars drove around at 100 mph. Clearly a compromise as driving around at 5 mph would be ridiculous but it makes the point that speed is a factor in pretty much every accident even when not going above a stated maximum for that road.
1. I've attended, investigated or reviewed thousands of RTCs. Inappropriate speed was a factor in the vast majority of them. More often than not, inappropriate speed is well above rather than within the posted limit. For various reasons, STATS19 Forms don't always accurately reflect this. Regardless of other factors such as impairment, impatience, illness, road/weather/traffic conditions, misjudgment, environment, or vehicle design / flaws, simple physics dictates that higher speed = more distance covered before a driver reacts. Less time to react = a greater likelihood of an impact occurring and that impact being more severe than if the vehicle was carrying less momentum.
2. Roads are public places, not personal race tracks. They have speed limits dictated by their design layout, sight lines, user type etc. These are arrived at using well established processes and governed by law for the greater good of all road users, not just motorists.
3. There is no such thing as an empty road, just more or less activity. The most serious of collisions tend to occur at quieter times and on rural roads. Over confidence through youth, peer pressure, impairment and high performance vehicles, all resulting in higher speeds, often feature in rural KSIs.
4. We're all very fallible and easily seduced by the concept of us being good drivers. Most drivers don't undertake driver training beyond their DVLA Cat B test. A tiny proportion of those who do undertake additional training will actually be trained to safely exceed posted limits. Nonetheless, most people not trained to drive at speed think it's okay for them to do so. Quite a happy delusion until the bad thing happens.
5. Limiters render the concept of 'making progress' pointless. Everyone is forced to treat the public road network for it's intended purpose, to drive within posted limits from A to B. Speaking as someone who has delivered many death messages due to drivers 'making progress', I can't wait for these things to become law.