[Closed] Speed limiters on cars

Thanks for that post downshep, it's quite hard to argue with.

it’s quite hard to argue with.

Are you new here? (-:

They have speed limits dictated by their design layout, sight lines, user type etc. These are arrived at using well established processes

Are they? Is this process documented in public anywhere? It'd be an interesting read.

My understanding was that the process was to stick (30) on a pole if there were houses about, stick (/) on a pole if there wasn't, and then revise down reactively when there's collisions. I'd love to be proven wrong.

Thanks for that post downshep, it’s quite hard to argue with.

Agree, although people will while using more and more bizarre outlying scenarios...

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

Isn't that what I wrote?

I appreciate that there's little consolation in being "right" when you're hospitalised or worse, and also that expecting 100% perfect driving from any human is a pipe dream. But drivers should be driving at an appropriate speed for the conditions and be able to stop in the distance they can see.

There's a new zebra crossing been placed in the town centre here and the local community Facebook group has gone Full Gammon about how dangerous it is. But the fact eluding these self-entitled quarterwits is, there could be children / dogs / cyclists / a skip / the TARDIS / gazelles / a hundredweight of mangos in the road regardless of whether there's a bit of white paint on the tarmac or not. If you can't stop in time to avoid a drive-by fruiting then you're either going too fast or not paying sufficient attention.

Are they? Is this process documented in public anywhere? It’d be an interesting read.

I guess it's covered in the subject of town planning in which you can do a degree.

My understanding was that the process was to stick (30) on a pole if there were houses about, stick (/) on a pole if there wasn’t, and then revise down reactively when there’s collisions. I’d love to be proven wrong.

Where did you gain that understanding? Pistonheads?

But drivers should be driving at an appropriate speed for the conditions and be able to stop in the distance they can see.

AND you also should behave in a way predictable to other road users. You aren't alone out there.

I’m not sure downshep understands how STW usually works.

Coming here with informed opinions, knowing what you are talking about…

AND you also should behave in a way predictable to other road users. You aren’t alone out there.

That's a hugely good point.  When you are about to cross a road and see a car coming you subconsciously estimate the time based on previous experience.  If that person is travelling at what they think is safe but haven't seen you because they aren't looking that far ahead or saccadic masking then you are screwed

I’m personally looking forward to these being introduced and in time wider technology enforcement of fast (ie too fast for the location and circumstance) and frankly crap driving.

I live on the outskirts of a big city on a main road, 30mph limit on a shallow bend. Two primary schools within a two minute walk. But as we’re the last houses before open countryside (albeit with a 40mph limit), the road is basically a racetrack heading in to and out of the Peak District. My house and neighbours combined have had our cars crashed in to a total of seven times so far this year and it’s frankly just depressing sitting in the front room watching cockwombles flooring it every day.

Somewhat perversely the council have put a pedestrian crossing in further down the road where a child was killed and painted double reds outside one of the schools and told me that they should slow drivers down. Cobblers.

Anyway, rant over, I can’t wait for a large number of drivers who don’t look beyond 5m of their front number plate to be dragged off the road.

It's staggering how many people on a cycling forum are willing to argue for antisocial driving. Bring on the restrictive technology.

It’s staggering how many people on a cycling forum are willing to argue for antisocial driving.

I do fins this quite astonishing on here the anti cyclist pro car attitude. Try suggesting we should join the rest of europe in having presumed liability for car drivers who drive into cyclists

do fins this quite astonishing on here the anti cyclist pro car attitude

It's not that mental when you consider that the majority on here believe the roads are too dangerous but in the same breath like to make progress on the way to the trail centre #irony

I do fins this quite astonishing on here the anti cyclist pro car attitude.

It's not specifically an anti-cyclist attitude. You're extrapolating that presumably because you want to argue about it, either consciously or not.

I think there are people who perhaps can only see driving issues from the behind the wheel perspective, and cycling issues from the in the saddle perspective; but it's pretty common for humans generally to be unable to join two different perspectices together, it happens in all areas but commonly in motoring. For example, people complaining about the traffic whilst sitting in traffic in their cars.

Anti road safety then .

+/- same thing just encompasses a wider group of vulnerable users.

For a huge number of folk who ride bikes, there is no more overlap between car driving and bike riding than there is between car driving and canoe paddling or skiing. They seem them as two quite distinct activities that take place in different environments.

Most people don't do things that they consider unsafe though. The problem is that they don't consider driving fast to be unsafe, despite the above.

Another key benefit to speed limits is that it's habit forming. If you always drive at 70 on motorways it becomes normal and you don't get impatient. If you think you can go faster whenever you want you start to look for opportunities to do so and you resent not being able to. And being impatient is a bad thing when driving.

I know this because I've been through it myself. But I realised that it's anti-social, more dangerous, and worse for the environment. So I stopped.

In a canoe on the river Tarn the other day I saw and was in as many collisions as in a lifetime of driving. In ski resorts you'll see the people skiing agressively getting into stereotypically aggressive driver cars and driving badly, just like an MTB trail center. Different activities but the same behaviour and attitudes from the same quite small number of people. And some of them post here. 🙂

Just my 2p, but I think that the more vociferously someone objects to a compulsory speed limiter the more likely they are to actually need it.

I know this because I’ve been through it myself. But I realised that it’s anti-social, more dangerous, and worse for the environment. So I stopped.

You seem quite happy to redline your Merc though 😉

I'd be perfectly happy if technology was put in place to limit vehicles to the speed limit for the road. It's not going to magically stop all accidents but would reduce them and reduce the severity of many too as well as having positive environmental benefits.

Edit
Oh, and if it's possible to override the technology have all instances where this happen centrally recorded. Do it x number of times, get a driving ban and be made to take your test again. Have some kind of biometric analysis in the car so there is no doubt who was driving at the time.

I knew someone would brinf that Merc thread up.

The thing is that if we're wrong and driving as fast as you see fit isn't dangerous, some people will be literally a few minutes slower at their destination. If we're right and it does cause accidents, then lives will be saved.

Where did you gain that understanding? Pistonheads?

And yet, I've wholly provided as much evidence to back up my understanding as you have yours.

I do fins this quite astonishing on here the anti cyclist pro car attitude.

For clarity,

I'm not anti- anything here (and I'm baffled as to why you think anyone is in this thread). I'm pro- any form of transport, in no particular order I'm variously a road cyclist, a mountain biker, a car driver, a pedestrian, a hiker. I'm a lapsed motorcyclist and a lapsed rock climber. I've piloted a helicopter. I've jumped out of aeroplanes. I haven't yet ridden a horse but I'd love to give it a go.

When I was young and stupid I drove everywhere like I'd stolen it, but these days I very rarely break speed limits. Doesn't mean I agree with them though, some seem ridiculously low and some seem ridiculously high. Which is why I asked the question, and I was then of course astonished to find that whilst plenty were quick to tell me I was wrong, no-one could actually answer it. Guess I must be new here too.

If we’re right and it does cause accidents

Cause and contribute are not synonyms. Speed is likely contributory in many collisions, but I expect it's considerably easier to measure and prove after the effect than "not paying attention" is.

Breaking a speed limit does not in and of itself cause "accidents," it's merely against the rules.

Driving inappropriately fast for the conditions and / or in excess of your skills or the ability of your car almost certainly will. Higher speeds will definitely make any collision exponentially worse. And people generally are poor judges of all those things, which is why we need numbers on poles.

I think that the more vociferously someone objects to a compulsory speed limiter the more likely they are to actually need it.

We've done this. It ignores the fact that law-breakers break the law, the people who "actually need it" will just knobble it.

in the same breath like to make progress

"Making progress" is driving effectively and optimally. It is what advanced driving courses teach. It is not weaving in and out of traffic with your foot to the boards as many would like to infer in order to try and win a non-existent argument.

We're getting weary of having to repeat the same justifications on every petrolhead thread, Cougar.

Limits in urban areas are based on pedestrian survivability which is why they are going down. More survive at 20mph so it's becoming the norm even in places as petrolhead as Paris.

Motorway limits are based on the speeds at which vehcicles tend to end up getting over the barriers except in Germany when the motor industry lobby prevails over sense.

Main road limits on the survivability of head ons and hitting solid objects.

Advanced driving courses no longer involves driving above the speed limit according to people on here who've been involved recently. "making progress" on STW is a euphamism for ignoring speed limits (and anything in the highway code) and you know it.

Sounds like you have your own meaning for it cougar.

Round here- both stw and in pub chat.... Making progress is driving at speed to make progress - as the two words in the phrase would suggest. As oppose to driving in a controlled manner accounting for obvioua external conditions and speed limits based on assessments by someone other than the party vested in making the progress.

"making progress" or also known as saving a couple of minutes over a 2 hr drive while pissing ever other road user. Yer a bunch of ****ing ****s. Compulsory speed limiter black boxes can't come in fast enough.

We’re getting weary of having to repeat the same justifications on every petrolhead thread, Cougar.

Stop doing it then. (-:

limits are based on

No they aren't.

Stop doing it then. (-:

The day you stop your petrolhead trolling. (tongue out smiley).

No they aren't

ARE
ARE'T
ARE
ARE'T
ARE
ARE'T

Well ROSPA say they are:

Yawn .

Part quoting out of context. Really.

Arbritrary number or not. They are based on an assessment by someone other than the person trying to justify driving over that limit.

(As per my original quote you part quoted to repeat your non point)

Advanced driving courses no longer involves driving above the speed limit according to people on here who’ve been involved recently.

It hasn't for a very long time, if ever. It certainly didn't when I did one.

“making progress” on STW is a euphamism for ignoring speed limits (and anything in the highway code) and you know it.

Only by people who like to create straw man arguments.

What goes on in your pub I have no idea. Can't say as it crops up much in everyday conversation personally. The only time I hear it is on STW and these days it's almost universally brought up by people who want to use it as a stick to batter down anyone who doesn't have a man with a red flag walking in front of their car. It's a bit like, you know that argument about preachy vegans, where the actuality is that the people making all the noise are the "yes but bacon" brigade?

I thought the stw specific version was

And I quote

"You are smurfhat and I claim my £5"

Haven't been in a pub in over 10 years. Read the ROSPA thing they do the right thing and aplogise for implying I'm a liar.

As for straw man, look at yourself, Cougar:

The only time I hear it is on STW and these days it’s almost universally brought up by people who want to use it as a stick to batter down anyone who doesn’t have a man with a red flag walking in front of their car.

The old red flag argument. No, we're just suggesting respecting a sensible limit on speed that made it into law.

Part quoting out of context. Really.

It's just a marker for convenience to help keep track of the conversation. I find forum quotes within quotes within quotes within... very tiring to read so I try to avoid it, this isn't new.
The full quote is available and it's really not very far away.

Arbritrary number or not.

So are they arbitrary or not, then?

They are based on an assessment

Are they?

by someone other than the person trying to justify driving over that limit.

Who's trying to justify that? You're responding to an argument that I'm not making.

Read the ROSPA thing? Cougar. And look at the graph. That's a graphical representation of factual information and not arbitrary. Nor are the numbers:

The results from one of these studies is presented in figure 1, which shows a fatality risk of
1.5% at 20 mph versus 8% at 30 mph.

In ski resorts you’ll see the people skiing aggressively getting into stereotypical aggressive driver cars and driving badly

You can't say for sure all of those people are drivers.

Who’s trying to justify that? You’re responding to an argument that I’m not making.

Tbh I've lost track of the point your trying to make it appears to be consistently variable / delivered piecemeal depending on the arguement.

You can’t say for sure all of those people are drivers.

I most definitley can when they get in a car and drive it away. I only have to use my eyes, plus I know some of them.

Where I live in west London, is on a fairly busy B road with residential properties, shops and commercial properties. The speed limit is 30, although most of the A roads nearby are 20. The road has a gentle bend on it. If I'm driving, cycling or walking to come out into/ cross the road feels like Russian roulette at times when people driving cars are going 10-30mph over the limit. It means that I have to drive aggressively to turn right onto the road because it's extremely hard to judge approaching car speeds and experience tells me that many drivers don't keep to the speed limit. Crossing the road as a pedestrian often results in having to run as an approaching car is over the limit, and cycling can be interesting again due to speeding cars and dangerous overtakes. Those people who exceed the limit when driving change the behaviours of everyone else, and it becomes annoying as well as being unsafe.

Tbh I’ve lost track of the point your trying to make it appears to be consistently variable / delivered piecemeal depending on the arguement.

Did I not just cover this?

singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/speed-limiters-on-cars/page/5/#post-12000494

I am not advocating breaking the law, despite a number of posters seemingly really wanting me to be so that they can argue against it. That's not what I'm saying.

I do however believe that there is little modern-day thought beyond "we've always done it this way" behind many limits (aside from 20s) unless there's been an incident which has caused a particular stretch to be reviewed. I believe that the current system is no longer fit for purpose and there are far too many roads which have inappropriate limits - both too low and too high. Have you ever crossed an NSL sign right before a twisty narrow country lane? That's insanity of the highest order. Yet the motorway limit of 70 was set like a century ago (1930s IIRC?) when the traffic flow was generally around 60mph.

I would argue vociferously against the removal of limits because, simply, people cannot be trusted. I just think they need an overhaul.

There is a difference between breaking the posted speed limit and driving too fast for the conditions. One is illegal, the other is dangerous. (And of course, either could also be both.) A road sign doesn't know if it's snowing.

And veering back on topic, I think some form of alerting system for exceeding limits is a brilliant idea. I think that a hard physical limiter that cannot be temporarily overridden is incredibly dangerous.

(1930s IIRC?)

You recall incorrectly. Google and Wiki are your friends. 😉 22/12/1965 it was trialled and became law the next year.

I do however believe that there is little modern-day thought beyond “we’ve always done it this way” behind many limits (aside from 20s)

Now you've accepted there's a logic to 20s we can work on 50/60:

The Parliamentary Select Committee for Transport Safety published a report entitled 'The Ending the Scandal of Complacency' in 2007 which highlighted how casualty levels rise with increasing speed and recommended reducing speed limits on streets with high pedestrian populations and on dangerous rural roads. The report highlights that when two cars crash head-on at 60 mph a driver has a 90% chance of dying which falls to 65% at 50 mph.

Edit
Oh, and if it’s possible to override the technology have all instances where this happen centrally recorded

That is exactly what is proposed as far as i understand

I think that a hard physical limiter that cannot be temporarily overridden is incredibly dangerous.

🤣

I most definitely can when they get in a car and drive it away. I only have to use my eyes, plus I know some of them.

Must be either a great many aggressive skiers, or you wouldn't have a beef, or an extremely small number as you would do what ? photograph each one then set up an observation perch over the car park ?.
You've seen one or two and that must mean everyone.

I've watched cyclists blatantly go through red lights....

Generally, I think the more a car becomes automated, the less the driver pays attention.

I'd be happy taking a refresher course, re-test every 5 years or so, including a road-safety awareness element. Wouldn't that be more effective than tracking everyone's cars if we want better drivers?

It's reasonable and normal to break the limit sometimes - overtaking caravans on the A470 for example.

It’s reasonable and normal to break the limit sometimes

I suspect there are many drivers that actually think that despite it being clearly nonsense. (I hope you've written it as parody)

What's your problem Dyna-ti?

Draw yourself some Venn diagrams for people you know well. People rarely restrict anti-social behaviour and attitudes to just one field IME. But maybe you know a wife-beating drunk who flicks cigarette butts out of the car window who is also a model driver and never drink drives or speeds.

Generally, I think the more a car becomes automated, the less the driver pays attention.

Seriously anecdotal but I've just switched to a car without cruise control for the first time in 4 years, did a few motorway miles today and it occurred to me how much extra time I spent monitoring my speed. Part of that is because I haven't had to do it for awhile, of course, but it did make me go "hmm..." (and look up retrofit cruise control).

And veering back on topic, I think some form of alerting system for exceeding limits is a brilliant idea. I think that a hard physical limiter that cannot be temporarily overridden is incredibly dangerous.

But don't all of the proposed flavours of speed limiter come with the facility to override them?

But also what is the compelling safety justification for needing to override that limiter? short of being chased by armed gangsters why exactly do you think you'll need to drive through residential streets at 40mph?

As someone who already drives a car with a "hard physical limiter" of sorts they're bloody excellent, I'm not peering at the speedo as I approach a camera, I am able to just look around me, I reckon it makes me a slightly more observant driver, I've yet to encounter a situation where I needed to suddenly turn it of to improve my safety.

I think that a hard physical limiter that cannot be temporarily overridden is incredibly dangerous.

If I can't rip the space/time continuum in my Nissan Robusto, how am I going to accelerate our of danger on the Norwich Ring Road?

Seriously anecdotal but I’ve just switched to a car without cruise control for the first time in 4 years, did a few motorway miles today and it occurred to me how much extra time I spent monitoring my speed.

I wholeheartedly concur. Cruise control also makes you aware of how poor many people are at maintaining a steady speed on the motorway. I've also found it's hard to maintain a steady speed on the motorway now I don't have cruise control in the mighty Panda 😁

Our current car (well van) is the first vehicle I've had with cruise control. I only use it on the motorway, I find it's fine up to a certain density of traffic, then it's a bit worrying. I'll use the +/- buttons to adjust for a while but then I knock it off.

There's also a speed limiter. This is absolute in that once you hit the defined limit the accelerator has zero effect, there's no slowing down of the effect of the accelerator - you can race to the limit and then there's nothing. Being a van with the lower limits away from motorways it's useful "just in case" you forget!

But also what is the compelling safety justification for needing to override that limiter?

Maybe if you do something stupid and dangerous and you end up in trouble you should be able to do something stupid, dangerous and illegal to get out of it.

But also what is the compelling safety justification for needing to override that limiter?

Again, I've already answered this. Removing options from drivers is not a good idea. Do you need examples?

As someone who already drives a car with a “hard physical limiter” of sorts they’re bloody excellent,

I have adaptive cruise control. It serves exactly the same purpose and doesn't prevent me from overriding it.

Maybe if you do something stupid and dangerous and you end up in trouble you should be able to do something stupid, dangerous and illegal to get out of it.

I know this is a flippant comment but, should you not?

If you - or as Molly will remind us, someone else - screws up, would you rather earn a speeding ticket in getting out of the way if that's your best option, or have a head-on at a combined closing speed of +120mph?

I've been here. I was once going through a traffic-light controlled crossroads on green when a car approaching from the left ran the red light at a not inconsiderable speed. If I'd dropped anchor or indeed just managed to magically stop dead he'd have taken out my front quarter, I was too far through the junction before I saw him; if I'd done nothing then I'd have been T-boned and praising your gods that I didn't have passengers; what I did instead was swing over onto the wrong side of the road to buy some space and stand on the loud pedal, with the outcome that he missed the back of my arse by really not much. With the benefit of hindsight I think it might've been a stolen car.

The take-away I had from this incident is that I no longer trust traffic lights and I always check both ways regardless of what colour they are, it was a learning experience. And it's served me well subsequently, particularly on those roundabout junctions where red and green switch simultaneously. But if instead I'd happened to have bounced off a physical speed limiter that day then I have 100% certainty that it would have been properly messy, there would've been two write-offs if we were both lucky.

Implement speed limiters if you like, I don't really care. As I said, I very rarely break the posted limits despite thinking that they're quite often mince. But if you're proposing to rob power from drivers in the rare split-second that they most need it then you're going to kill people. I've hit a (rev not speed) limiter during an overtake and it's scary as hell.

... and yes, I know that's an unusual scenario. But it absolutely exists, and I could relate a few others. Fit your limiters, allow a kick-down override and I'm happy.

The take-away I had from this incident is that I no longer trust traffic lights and I always check both ways regardless of what colour they are,

this is something you should always do anyway - and if you had been you would not have been in that position. so actually from your anecdote it was your lack of observation that created the space for the near miss and if you had been driving properly and observantly you would not have been in that position where you "needed" to accelerate out of trouble ( not that a speed limiter would have stopped you doing this)
So a very poor example. Better observation would have prevented you being in that position.

and I could relate a few others.

go on then cougar as I have NEVER seen a position car or motorbike where booting it is needed to avoid an accident

Like in the example above 0- better observation ( and you should have been taught to check at traffic lights and not to trust them) would have prevented the situation occuring

I’ve hit a (rev not speed) limiter during an overtake and it’s scary as hell.

more poor driving. Unaware of your revs / unable to change gear?

… and yes, I know that’s an unusual scenario.

Yep and falls into the comment I made about people coming up with more and more bizarre outlying scenarios. You don't stop the implementation of something because of a minority of what ifs and outliers when the implementation of it brings way more benefits.

I have been driving for almost 40 years and never needed to "speed my way out of trouble". Maybe I have just been lucky...

Generally, I think the more a car becomes automated, the less the driver pays attention.

Maybe, and I have felt that when I have had cruise control but speed limiting is not automation (i.e. if is not doing something for you like cruise control, self steering)

Now you’ve accepted there’s a logic to 20s we can work on 50/60:

By the time you've finished you'll have also banned any vehicle that can't stand up by itself..., dangerous things bicycles, folk can fall off them.

And motorcycles will be a total no/no.

And let's be clear, I live in the Scottish Borders where every town/village is now a 20 zone. I fully support this (and use cruise control to keep within these limits). But on the fast open rural roads we have, ought to just let folk drive to the limit of the road/weather/vehicle/ability - and based upon most folk it'd be 50ish anyway. Although the 40 anywhere crew are certainly still around.

... what I did instead was swing over onto the wrong side of the road to buy some space and stand on the loud pedal

Let's reframe this a bit. A child on a bicycle would not have that option. Or anybody on a bicycle for that matter. Or even anybody in an underpowered car. Why should you?

Conversely, if all cars were speed limited without an option to override, you may not have been in that position in the first place. The scenario you describe would almost certainly have been less dangerous for everybody involved.

But on the fast open rural roads we have, ought to just let folk drive to the limit of the road/weather/vehicle/ability – and based upon most folk it’d be 50ish anyway. Although the 40 anywhere crew are certainly still around.

A large proportion of fatalities happen on rural roads. When a collision occurs between oncoming vehicles at 60mph the chances of fatality are around 90%. It reduces to around 65% at 50mph.

car approaching from the left ran the red light at a not inconsiderable speed.

Can you see how speed limiters might have prevented this from happening rather than being a spurious way out it?

Brilliant thread, am I the only one who see’s the parallel between anti speed limiters and anti vaxxers?

And yet some of the same people that argue for vaccinations for the good of society as a whole argue against the introduction of speed limiters for the good of society as a whole......

This forum truly is eating itself.

I have been driving for almost 40 years and never needed to “speed my way out of trouble”. Maybe I have just been lucky…

Once, in a car park, as a car reversed out of a spot, if I hadn't moved out of the way sharpish, he'd have hit me at about C pillar point. But that's it in about the same length of time driver as you. Never on the open road.

But on the fast open rural roads we have, ought to just let folk drive to the limit of the road/weather/vehicle/ability

You're advocating giving all drivers the responsibility to choose their own speed? What planet are you on? Do you think they'll all make good choices? Do you think that they'll slow down for cyclists or bomb past at 100mph?

It’s reasonable and normal to break the limit sometimes

I suspect there are many drivers that actually think that despite it being clearly nonsense. (I hope you’ve written it as parody)

Nope, they tell you that when you take Motorbike lessons, I actually went over the limit on my test and still passed.

It's often taught as part of any post-test driving / riding course too.

We're talking about 5%-10% over the limit to make a safe over-take, not 130mph on the M1 because you're in a rush.

nickc - that example you could still do in a speed limited car

p- jay - lucky to pass your test. Breaking the speed limit is an instant fail and that is really bad teaching.

You’re advocating giving all drivers the responsibility to choose their own speed? What planet are you on? Do you think they’ll all make good choices? Do you think that they’ll slow down for cyclists or bomb past at 100mph?

And based on my 30 mile drive between posting that and now (to sort out my VPN) most folk run about 45-55 on the country roads - except the one I caught up doing 40 and braking for every corner, and then proceeded to maintain 40 through the 20 limit in the village...

You've lived/driven in Germany same as me, and you know that most people don't drive at 250kmh on unlimited autobahns - they drive at the speed they judge to be 'safe'.

And based on my 30 mile drive between posting that and now (to sort out my VPN) most folk run about 45-55 on the country roads

Most people don't rob banks or murder people either, and yet... That's really a ludicrous suggestion, honestly mate. What 'most people' do isn't the problem. If you think that people will always make sensible decisions I suggest you try the A417 in Herefordshire and Gloucestershire at commuting time.

you know that most people don’t drive at 250kmh on unlimited autobahns

A lot of people drive very fast. Enough (as I outlined earlier) to make pulling out a bit of a heart-stopping moment. Not to mention the aggro and flashed lights you get if you have the sheer audacity to want to overtake a lorry within 1/2 mile of a road god.

https://etsc.eu/autobahn-speed-limit-would-save-140-lives/

"Research by the German Road Safety Council (DVR), ETSC’s German member, has shown that there are, on average, 25% more deaths on sections of the autobahn without speed limits compared to those with a limit."

Having driven with a native between Bonn and Frankfurt in a Citroen Xara Picasso (IIRC) with 170bhp, he was always on one of the pedals. I can't imagine how much fuel he wasted. You don't want German style autobahns, you really don't.

they drive at the speed they judge to be ‘safe’.

People are a terrible judge of what's safe. That's why there are accidents. If you let them make bad decisions on speed as well then there'll be even more deaths.

Ever met an otherwise nice person who drives like a nutter? I have. How is this possible? It's because they don't see their actions from the point of view of others. That's the key issue here - driving fast is anti-social and unpredictable and consequently more dangerous. End of. People already do not make good decision on their speed, you don't want to give them legal protection to do so.

I’ve been here. I was once going through a traffic-light controlled crossroads on green when a car approaching from the left ran the red light at a not inconsiderable speed. If I’d dropped anchor or indeed just managed to magically stop dead he’d have taken out my front quarter, I was too far through the junction before I saw him; if I’d done nothing then I’d have been T-boned and praising your gods that I didn’t have passengers; what I did instead was swing over onto the wrong side of the road to buy some space and stand on the loud pedal, with the outcome that he missed the back of my arse by really not much. With the benefit of hindsight I think it might’ve been a stolen car.

while its nice to think your actions took control of this situation, they didn't. pure dumb luck you didn't get hit.

if it was that close, do you really think your car can accelerate fast enough to make a difference?

choosing not to brake will have changed your relative paths by a significantly bigger factor (ignoring the 1-2s it took you to register what was going on, make a decision etc etc...)

I thought about the maths of this more:

lets say you were driving at 30mph. ~13.5m/s.

reaction time from becoming aware to doing something ~1.5s, ~20m further travelled.

braking distance at 30mph, 14m. average car can brake at~0.8g, to make the sums simple I'll use a generous 1g.

so 20m from first awareness to doing something. braking to stationary takes you ~3s and 14m.

if the other cars path remained fixed, then impact at 4.5s and 34m from first awareness.

if you continued to drive at 30mph, in the same 4.5s you would be 61m down the road.

if you accelerated for one second at 1g (very generous) to 40 mph, you'd then be ~75m down the road.

I'd brake...

Have we discussed the phsycological effects of this making the limit the target. If it becomes all to easy to just bury your right foot and have the car drive at the speed limit, what happens to them in heavy rain, or the city dweller venturing out onto a twisty NSL b road?

I can also foresee that removing the ability to speed will lead to people getting their kicks in other, more dangerous ways. Hold 30 round the roundabout? no-brake it through the traffic lights? if there is a hard cap on top speed then the petrol head inclined will find other ways to have their fun.

Related question, are motorbikes included in this? How much is a direct access course these days?

I can also foresee that removing the ability to speed will lead to people getting their kicks in other, more dangerous ways. Hold 30 round the roundabout? no-brake it through the traffic lights?

Nah, people do that anyway. Won't make a difference. Last accident I saw was someone trying to rip round a corner at the lights and smashing into the bollard protecting the pedestrian island.

 they tell you that when you take Motorbike lessons

I was almost failed on my bike test for not filtering. My test instructor afterwards said always filter, even if it means breaking the speed limit on the road.

There was a thread on here a little while ago about pulling onto a major road from a blind junction. The OP had thoughtfully posted a google map link to the spot. It was the work of literally seconds to find the warning triangles on the major road to warn people of the junction, and still posters were arguing about some mythical RoW that users on the major road were entitled to. Giving people free reign to decide for themselves what speed to travel at would be idiotic

I have the limiter in my Disco that reads the road signs and adjusts. I HATE IT

It completely prevents you going with the flow of the traffic - which on the speedo may be just a couple of mph more than the limit (in reality with the innacuracies of speedos, will still be under the limit).

I'm pretty certain it brakes also at a reduction in the limit, making you look like a tool who slams the anchors on at the limit signs

I’d brake…

It's very easy to work all this out with the benefit of a calculator, a lot of assumptions and twenty years, isn't it.

The bottom line is, I reacted. I took the option I thought best in the split-second I had to try and avoid a collision.

So a very poor example. Better observation would have prevented you being in that position.

It would, but it was decades ago and I didn't know any better, and I learned from that incident as I said. Does everyone else check for crossing traffic on a green light? I rather suspect I'm in the minority in doing so.

more poor driving. Unaware of your revs / unable to change gear?

I was in a shitty courtesy car that I'd just got that day, it redlined at about twelve rpm and it instantly killed off what little power it had rather than merely limiting it.

Also, I'm not taking driving sermons from someone who doesn't drive, so shush. 😜

Let’s reframe this a bit. A child on a bicycle would not have that option. Or anybody on a bicycle for that matter. Or even anybody in an underpowered car. Why should you?

Oh, genius. So I should've just closed my eyes and braced for impact because it could've been a child's face, should I?

Can you see how speed limiters might have prevented this from happening rather than being a spurious way out it?

You're assuming he was breaking the speed limit. Sadly I failed to have a radar gun with me that day so whether a limiter would have prevented it or not would be pure speculation on my part.

For clarity: that situation occured because he ran a red light. I was not experienced enough to anticipate that. There is no doubt in my mind that if I had not taken the action I took then there would've been a collision.

Nope, they tell you that when you take Motorbike lessons,

Not when I took mine they didn't. Quite the opposite in fact.

My test instructor afterwards said always filter, even if it means breaking the speed limit on the road.

Again awful advice

yes you should filter but never at 30+ mph - thats just unsafe. You filter in stationary and very slow traffic only

filtering at 30+ mph is really really dangerous and should never be done

I was not experienced enough to anticipate that. There is no doubt in my mind that if I had not taken the action I took then there would’ve been a collision.

Proper observation would have prevented you being in that situation. You should always look up every crossroads at traffic lights and if your visibility / sight lines are poor slow. thats not to say you were in the wrong legally - you were not but proper observation and defensive driving would have prevented you being in that situation