Autonomous is the only way it will work - limiting "driven" vehicles won't.
Fully automated cars with all the safety features they could cram into them? Ideal, but it's a long way off on anything other than small scale and between times could prove interesting. Wish that guy would hurry up and invent his teleporter.
There's a lot of naivety on this thread, which I can't be arsed to comment on directly, but for speed limiting to work *safely, we'd need reliable and accurate GPS.
We don't have reliable and accurate GPS.
*That's ignoring the overwhelming evidence that speed limited vehicles (such as HGVs) are more likely to be driven at that limit, no matter what the circumstances, and lead to increased tail-gating, et cetera.
I'm sure many HGVs are driven badly, but is that because they are speed limited, or for some other reason?
I'm sure many HGVs are driven badly, but is that because they are speed limited, or for some other reason?
Well, frequent tailgating, and overtakes at 54.0000000000001 mph blocking a carriageway for miles do seem the de riguer. If they they weren't limited, the futile overtaking wouldn't happen, and id bet there would be less tailgating. My reason for this supposition is that if 54 is as fast as they can go, they'll damn well go that fast. Unlimited, they may well just hang back knowing they can make the time up on the next dualled section. Perhaps.
Speeding HGVs would be worse than limited ones. Just go to America and find out. HGV drivers need to stop being idiots, nothing to do with limiting speed.
[i]I wouldn't be remotely surprised if it comes in via voluntary black boxes for cheaper and/or PAYG insurance, [/i]
Indeed, and then what will happen is loads of accidents will be attributed to them for the reasons people have highlighted (shit driving) and the speed freaks (more melodrama) will jump on on this victoriously to point out how dangerous limiting is.
