I suppose I am richer in time and poorer in money so yes I would consider it if it was really cheaper in the real world. I already drive the t4 at 60 rather than 70 most of the time. The difference in consumption between 60 and 70, (and particularly between 70 and 80!) on a brick like that versus how much I am not usually in a hurry and how much that fuel saved is worth to me usually/often makes it feel worth it.
It would be even more worth it if car cost and insurance was [i]significantly[/i] cheaper. However in the real world, car manufacturers/dealers and insurers still want to make money. No car manufacturer would willingly take a hit on the profits of a car for the hassle of fitting it with a limiter so you would need to get it funded ultimately from the taxpayer whether that was through direct per-vehicle subsidy or tax breaks as encouragement for manufacturers who made such vehicles (guffaws at motorists hearing their taxes were being invested in encouraging them to drive more slowly!)
I have no doubt that an underwriter predicting, for example's sake a 40% saving in payouts from the 'safer'/slower driving of a speed limited car would somehow get nibbled back to a 15% at best saving in money to the policy holder after everyone else had their slice. 😕
Yeah I'd buy one....apparently I'm not welcome on the motorway though as I sit at 5mph below the speed limit constantly (not constantly in the middle lane). 25k miles a year mainly on the motorway with no accidents or endorsements in 10 years of holding a licence suggest that I'm not too unsafe.
No problem for me as long as acceleration is not reduced. I have had some interesting drives where I've observed the 30 and ns limits around here while the van/fiesta/corsa driver has caned it through the 30 to catch me up only to go backwards at each de-restriction.
I think it would depend on the reduction in tax and insurance that went with it. 10% Nope. 90% Yes. Not too sure where the maybe figure would be for me.
Nope, not even if it came with free insurance, VED and free petrol for life!
So you can't imagine a scenario where having two viable options (brake or accelerate) for avoiding an accident would be beneficial? Go read a book called Road Craft, the police driving manual. Then come back to us.
No I can absolutely not ever think of a situation where more speed would avoid a crash. More looking ahead and processing information correctly always works. If 15% extra speed would make a difference to your dodgy overtaking manoeuvre, to the point where it's crash or no crash, then it was never safe and you're an arse hole for trying it.
Julian W
Many(possibly even most) new cars already have all the technology installed to make this possible and insurance companies are falling over themselves installing thousands of black boxes every week.
Generally speaking the new technology creates new opportunities for companies like those providing the insurance . Car manufacturers are not so keen, their business is flogging cars many of which are sold on the promise they will improve your live by being faster than last years model.
That's why they are blocking the EU direct live to make installing black box and speed limiting compulsory.
It will eventually happen though..2018 at a guess.
One thing that concerns me is if you deskill the driving process even further will drivers just switch off even more and actually become more dangerous.
That is clearly bollocks! Just think about it.
25k miles a year mainly on the motorway with no accidents or endorsements in 10 years of holding a licence suggest that I'm not too unsafe.
Proves nowt. I drive at all sorts of speeds depending on the conditions, my mood and the time of day. Been driving 25 years and currently averaging 40k a year. In that time I had an SP30, 20 years ago - not speeding past a school, but 5mph over the limit in a line of traffic accelerating on the border of a 50mph zone and I've had 1 50/50 accident at 10mph.
People that bullishly sit at one speed regardless of their surroundings are not good drivers imo
*edit
And there are some right fannies in this thread 😉
The idea appeals to me completely. It depends on how much money you would save on tax and fuel efficiency because, at times, it is more convenient (and I mean convenient, not safer) to break the law and go over the speed limit. However if I saved a bunch of money and felt like I was driving more safely then yes I'd go for it. Why do you ask?
That is clearly bollocks! Just think about it.
I clearly had thought about as I had written about it, would love to be enlightened as to why you thought I was talking rubbish.
You are probably assuming that people will spend more time on making observations, unfortunately that probably won't be the case, and the misunderstanding of the public about what abs/eps/asc all actually do, is bewildering, they almost believe the car is non-crashable no matter what the road conditions.
Nope, not even if it came with free insurance, VED and free petrol for life!
Why not? You could have the limited, "free" car for every day stuff then have another unlimited fun car if you really need to speed everywhere.
And there are some right fannies in this thread
some right cocks too
Why not? You could have the limited, "free" car for every day stuff then have another unlimited fun car if you really need to speed everywhere.
2 cars!! Good god man wont someone think of the environment 😉
My OP really wasn't about speeding more about traffic jams. From my experience of driving a lot of congestion is caused by people getting up the arse of the car in front, having to brake, so the guy behind does and the guy behind and so on and that chain means that half a mile behind the traffic stops dead then takes a fair while to get going again. The reason the M25 has variable limits is more to manage bottlenecks than safety (think of a funnel being filled until the hole can't let out enough water, if you want the funnel to empty you have to pour in less water, seems obvious). It just struck me that if you want to manage traffic volumes the only way is to physically manage car speeds. It amazes me that so many people think the "slow down queue ahead" thing is just not applicable to them, it might as well say "keep going flat out then cut in at the last minute and then stop for 15 minutes you daft spanner". As for speeding in general terms seems as I've got older the desire to rip around like the road is a racetrack has diminished and I prefer spending less on 6.50 a gallon petrol.
There are loads of trackdays if you really want to drive properly but I get my jollies on the MTB mostly.
Seems good to me - as do the black boxes.
Also think the cameras, as used by the russians, are a bloody good idea - I think that they would settle more than a few insurance arguments swiftly
Telling we have to argue the merits of not breaking the law. 🙁
25k miles a year mainly on the motorway with no accidents or endorsements in 10 years of holding a licence suggest that I'm not too unsafe.
13 years since my last brush with the law, 25k/year easy lots of motorways until I left the UK, know every dip/bump/corner on the M6 and nothing on my license with a less than strict regard for the speed limit. High regard for safety but a common sense approach to the speed limit.
Was in NZ a few weeks back and there were some slow cars that I passed by hitting well above the limit but was back in the right lane and back at the limit within 30s, dangerous or safe - you wouldn't know as you were not there.
Tell a driver there car is safer because it's limited then they will pay less attention, a NSL does not mean it's safe to do 60mph etc. I'm not advocating metal spikes on the steering wheel either. Assessing the correct speed is a skill not a signpost.
No I can absolutely not ever think of a situation where more speed would avoid a crash. More looking ahead and processing information correctly always works. If 15% extra speed would make a difference to your dodgy overtaking manoeuvre, to the point where it's crash or no crash, then it was never safe and you're an arse hole for trying it.
So you come to overtake mr morrisons lorry on a nsl single carriageway. He's being a good boy and doing 40 as he should. You find a nice straight section, pull out and begin to pass. Mr chav in his scooby follows you, indicator and headlights on: he clearly is in a hurry and will probably come past you once you've completed your manouver.
Only you get 1/2 way past mr morrisons and you find out he's not such a good boy after all and being a typical uneducated arse he's decided to accelerate up to his limited 56 to block your overtake. He's empty, he's got 3000nm of torque, this happens pretty instantly. Your speed differential is now just 4mph. In the distance you see a headlight. Captain power-ranger on his gsxr thou. He's doing god knows what speed as they do. You can't brake cos you've got inadequate chav man 3" from your bumper, but you can't accelerate because you're at your limited speed. So you continue to bimble past completely in the right. You make it, just. Chav man doesn't, you've just arrogantly, self-rightously killed two people. Well done
jfletch - MemberThat is clearly bollocks! Just think about it.
It's pretty much universally accepted that this happens tbh. Excessive road signs make people switch off, safer feeling cars make people drive less carefully. Hardly controversial to suggest that if a car can't speed the driver may think less about the speed they're doing, I'd say that's pretty much a given.
trying it.So you come to overtake mr morrisons lorry on a nsl single carriageway. He's being a good boy and doing 40 as he should. You find a nice straight section, pull out and begin to pass. Mr chav in his scooby follows you, indicator and headlights on: he clearly is in a hurry and will probably come past you once you've completed your manouver.Only you get 1/2 way past mr morrisons and you find out he's not such a good boy after all and being a typical uneducated arse he's decided to accelerate up to his limited 56 to block your overtake. He's empty, he's got 3000nm of torque, this happens pretty instantly. Your speed differential is now just 4mph. In the distance you see a headlight. Captain power-ranger on his gsxr thou. He's doing god knows what speed as they do. You can't brake cos you've got inadequate chav man 3" from your bumper, but you can't accelerate because you're at your limited speed. So you continue to bimble past completely in the right. You make it, just. Chav man doesn't, you've just arrogantly, self-rightously killed two people. Well done
Nail/head!
The system would have to cater for overtaking, obviously. It'd give you full power for 20s or so.
Very simple answer to a simple question, it didn't really need all that ridiculous hyperbole you posted.
I don't bullishly sit at one speed str....seen as I spend every week day in rush hour between j15-21 on the m6 so 65mph is a pipe dream much of the time. Even driving in light traffic I'd prefer to take it easy and let the people with a desire to drive like a nutter just get on with it. Does wonders for my stress levels....and fuel economy...and safety!
rogerthecat - MemberThe arguments made about being a super driver who can judge the ideal speed on a road is just plain bollocks, it's the other people on the road who pull out, are stopped around the corner, the blow out, the pack of roadies riding 2 or 3 abreast just over the brow of the hill, etc.
And a speed limiter box would do absolutely nothing to prevent all of those.
It'd give you full power for 20s or so.
What and then randomly cut out? Yeah, that'd be safe!
The idea is a load of guff and will hopefully never be implemented.
hot_fiat - Member
...You can't brake cos you've got inadequate chav man 3" from your bumper...
I would, it's his problem.
Taking the responsibility from drivers is a terrible idea. Just because these things are possible doesn't mean they are a should be done.
I've just been given a new Vivaro in work and it's limited to 75mph (actually 72mph on the satnav). Pulling away is quick enough and it does go when you get your foot down, right until you hit 75 and it's like someone is easing the brakes on. I hated it at first, but done 6 weeks and 7k miles and I've just adjusted to it. The only time it gets annoying is when you pull out to overtake someone on the motorway who has been doing 60-65 for the last mile and as soon as you get alongside, their speed creeps up and you end up sitting next to them, both doing 72mph. But I just give up, back off and pull back in or they come up to a slower car/hgv and they have to slow down. No problems on single carriageway nsl roads so far, just have to time it and plan ahead abit more before overtaking. If I was buying for myself and had the choice... I probably wouldn't have it limited, I do about 50k miles a year and it really doesn't bother me just plodding along at 65 on the motorway.
A lot of drivers don't deserve responsibility though.
You have no justification to speed.
nail/head
Yeah, I sat there and thought for ages of a highly unlikely scenario where being able to accelerate myself out of a trouble would save my arse. I was going to type it out but I gave myself such an erection thinking about putting my foot down to leave the scooby driver in the shit, I simply had to go and do something about it. Tbh, I'm spent.
They tried this a few years back at the Transport Laboratory....
Tried it on bikes too.
It actually caused accidents!
Try diving my old van - it has exactly the same effect.
My work van is restricted to 70mph. It's no big deal and makes little difference to your typical journey time in weekday commuter traffic.
[quote=MarkLG ]My work van is restricted to 70mph. It's no big deal and makes little difference to your typical journey time in weekday commuter traffic.
and as pointed out is not what the OP was on about, in your limited van you can do 65 past a school in a 20 limit.
mikewsmith - Memberand as pointed out is not what the OP was on about, in your limited van you can do 65 past a school in a 20 limit.
You can? Bitchin! Complicated thing, the highway code.
I don't drive above the speed limit, so you're basically asking me if I'd like to save a pile of cash. Yes, I would. I'd be quite happy for everyone else to have this car, too.
molgrips - Member
A lot of drivers don't deserve responsibility though.
You have no justification to speed.
If they don't deserve the responsibility - they should not have a license.
I'm not sure that: -
1). I was justifying speeding
2). I was seeking a repeat of your position on speeding
3). I was asking you to accept whether I choose to speed or not
4). That considering your immovable position on motoring practice that it is worth discussing with you..? You have some great opinions on other stuff but when it comes to driving you don't seem willing to accept others may have a valid perspective
5). Considering your car woes - could you speed if you wanted too? 😉
I wasn't addressing you specifically, jam.
If they don't deserve the responsibility - they should not have a
license.
Quite.
when it comes to driving you don't seem willing to accept others may have a valid perspective
I'm always willing to accept valid perspectives, I just don't think the speeders have one.
Let's just clear a few things up, see if we can neutralise some straw men.
1) I don't think you are guaranteed to be safe if you stick to the limits
2) I don't think that speed itself is going to kill anyone.
3) Just because I advocate sticking to the speed limits does NOT mean that I think people who drive badly under the speed limit are good drivers.
Reasons to stick to limits:
1) Simple physics - accidents are less severe
2) Your actions are more predictable to other people
3) Other people have more time to react to what you do
4) If you or someone else makes a mistake you have more time to correct it
5) It saves fuel. Let's face it, this is always a good thing.
6) Traffic flows more smoothly on motorways
Reasons to speed:
1) It's fun
2) You're in a hurry
Given that lives are at stake here, I don't think that the pros outweigh the cons.
PeterPoddy - Member
simple desire
Yup. Great innit?
Given how many people die - no, it's not great.
7) Never have to even think about where speed cameras might be.
I drive a speed limited company car and I have an unlimited bandit 1250.
I know which I feel safer riding.
the limited car is not the problem, its the ****wits on the motorways that:
1: overtake you and then slow down in front to about 69.95 mph. you can't get past them without blocking the middle lane for miles.
2: the bastards who sit on your shoulder in the middle lane, you cant speed up and get away from them, they've spotted your 'limited to 70' sticker and think if they will get caught for speeding if they overtake.
3:trucks overtaking trucks is just a nightmare if you are in a car limited to 70. you go in the outside lane at 72 or whatever and ****ing crawl past the bloody lorry in the middle lane. dangerous.
4: in order to actually overtake something going 68 or whatever, you have to tailgate them right up their ass before you can pull out to overtake, as it takes too long to get by and tuck back in if you don't, causing a hold up.
I would sooner walk than buy a limited car by choice.
I've owned several cars that were limited to 155mph, and I only felt the need to delimit one of them.
😀
1. I hate people overtaking and then slowing down to slower than my speed, but if you say a car limited to 70mph is not a problem then what's the problem with sitting behind someone doing 69.95mph?
2. So? Don't forget the alternative is to ease off the gas a bit and then slip out behind them.
3. Dangerous how? (Especially if everyone else were to have a limited car.)
4. Again, if this is the sort of thing that's getting in the way of accepting driving at 70, what's the problem with doing 68? Why's the extra 2mph such a big deal?
molgrips - Member
I wasn't addressing you specifically, jam.
Apologies chap - your post seemed to reflect a direct response to mine. Some of it was also tongue in cheek - you have been shall we say dogmatic on driving threads before. I think I recall one regarding overtaking...?
I would agree to most of your post actually - but would suggest their are a couple of reasonable exceptions. One for me would be the three occasions where I was speeding to reach a hospital where a close relative had either been in a serious accident or whose health had taken a significant turn for the worse and they were not expected to survive.
I'm not sure you would agree with my justification - but I would do exactly the same again. I would also say I believe I was still very much adjusting my driving to the conditions and actively managing risk.
Double post.
Triple post.
