Now you can't speed.....

[DanL]

I'd be interested to know how this is going to work in practice. Would I be forced to have one of these fitted? If so - am I going to have to pay for it?

What about people who just visit London? Will they need one as well?

My car's registered at my parents address (outside London), which matches the address on my driving licence. How are they going to tell that my car actually lives in London, anyhow? Does the insurance database show where my car is insured (which *is* in London), or just that I have insurance?

Dan

[The Wiz]

Of course you'll be forced to have one fitted and you'll have to pay for it and all cars that cannot be fitted with them will be banned from the road. And of course it'll be all cars in the country because you may want to visit London.

Moving to the US is looking more and more appealing ...

[bryan35]

you might find this intersting.........

www.its.leeds.ac.uk/projects/evsc/exec2.pdf

[Le TVR]

Streetcop said:

The satellite-controlled black box would "know" the maximum permitted speed at all points along a car's journey and prevent motorists from going too fast by limiting the response from the accelerator.

Galileo wont be working for a long time so...it must be GPS. Dont these morons understand how GPS works and who controls it?

And then to connect it to a safety critical part of the car control? Words fail me.

All future NIPs can be returned naming the US Dept of Defence........

[bad boy]

Streetcop said:

Less likely to kill em though......

but the thing is, at the moment i would slow down in areas where kids might be around. fit a speed limiter and you can guarantee 90% of the population will go around flat out on the limiter absolutly everywhere....

[safespeed]

mybrainhurts said:

What happens as you lean the bike over and the satellite applies the brakes and cuts the throttle....? The Good Prof Carsten at Leeds University is trialling a number of such cars. Launched some time ago, but still no story. Have they all been written off?

I had an anonymous phone call a year ago saying 5 out of the 20 had already been crashed. I think that was about 6 months into the trial. Of course they'll claim that all the crashes are due to other cars without the limiter fitted. Idiots.

[safespeed]

Streetcop said:

Less likely to kill em though......

What rubbish!

at present in 30mph and 40mph limits nationally just 0.4% of child pedestrians are killed. If we start hitting them at 30mph (never mind 40mph) the percentage would rise by two orders of magnitude to between 40% and 50%.

Instead of 58 deaths (out of 14,000 injuries) we'd have 7,000.

It's not free travelling speed that makes the big difference, it's driver response.

With "Zombie-Safe" (TM) speed limiters installed we wouldn't respond half as well and average impacts speeds would rise considerably.

[einion yrth]

safespeed said:

With "Zombie-Safe" (TM) speed limiters installed we wouldn't respond half as well and average impacts speeds would rise considerably.

Sorry Paul, but while I have a great deal of respect for your work, and hate the idea of external vehicle speed control, this is pure speculation, we quite simply don't know what the effects of universal enforced speed limit compliance would be.

[james_j]

safespeed said:

Streetcop said: Less likely to kill em though...... What rubbish! at present in 30mph and 40mph limits nationally just 0.4% of child pedestrians are killed. If we start hitting them at 30mph (never mind 40mph) the percentage would rise by two orders of magnitude to between 40% and 50%. Instead of 58 deaths (out of 14,000 injuries) we'd have 7,000. It's not free travelling speed that makes the big difference, it's driver response. With "Zombie-Safe" (TM) speed limiters installed we wouldn't respond half as well and average impacts speeds would rise considerably.

I'm not having a go just at Streetcop, but how many times does this have to be explained?

There must be some blockage somewhere in the understanding of this; perhaps there's another way of explaining it that will get through, but what is it?

[stooz]

In a statement today, Mayor Ken Livingstone confirmed his support for the scheme.


stop voting for him then!!!!!


I agree with zombie-speed (tm).
foot on the floor, everyone at the same speed. no one giving a monkeys about the speed, as the perception will be of no-one actually moving.

[safespeed]

einion yrth said:

safespeed said: With "Zombie-Safe" (TM) speed limiters installed we wouldn't respond half as well and average impacts speeds would rise considerably. Sorry Paul, but while I have a great deal of respect for your work, and hate the idea of external vehicle speed control, this is pure speculation, we quite simply don't know what the effects of universal enforced speed limit compliance would be.

It's not speculation - it's considered opinion.

However since I accidentally wrote it as if it were fact you're absolutely right to point it out. I should have written:

"I'm quite certain that with "Zombie-Safe" (TM) speed limiters installed we wouldn't respond half as well and average impacts speeds would rise considerably."

[cliffe_mafia]

You've also got to consider the effects of pedestrians taking more risks because they perceive that the roads are safer for them because the cars can't speed anymore.
It will be a vicious circle with pedestrians thinking this and drivers concentrating less.

[80Bob]

These limiters are also being seriously looked at in Australia and the Leeds trial is being used as an example of their success(?). On TV last week the claim was made by supporters of speed limiters that they guaranteed to cut deaths by 50%. Of course no evidence to back that up but the proponents of these things have obviously not bothered to look at the evidence showing that speed over the limit causes so few deaths. I suppose the only advantage of these things is that they'll prove once and for all that speed is not the problem it's made out to be.

[Peter Ward]

Streetcop said:

However, Jenny Jones, London Assembly Green Party spokeswoman, said: "We have to find a way of stopping speed-related injuries and deaths in London. If this technology works as well as we think it will, we have a duty to act quickly to stop the destruction of people's lives."

It's her "duty" of course. It's not what she wants to do, but she's being forced into it.

I thought that most "speed-related injuries" occurred below the speed limit? Therefore this will have no discernible positive effect in the known problem area, and could (as pointed out) have a significant negative effect in unknown situations (loss of concentration, lack of control over vehicle speed to get out of danger, etc).

Will Ken feel it's his "duty" to impose this? He'd be mad to because so much is unknown. A pilot with 20 volunteers' cars in Leeds is not quite the same as imposing it on the whole of London. He wants to be re-elected, so my guess he will talk about it but do nothing. It's a smokescreen to bring in other draconian, but less controversial, ideas such as lower speed limits, more speed humps and ever more cameras.

[DanL]

bad boy said:

at the moment i would slow down in areas where kids might be around. fit a speed limiter and you can guarantee 90% of the population will go around flat out on the limiter absolutly everywhere....

This is something that occurred to me, too. Can you imagine the road rage if someone in front of a numpty slows below the limit (when passing a school/ busy high street/whatever)? People *will* assume that because they're not speeding, they're safe, but they'll want to go as fast as allowable everywhere.

If I were to slow down because of a potential hazard, some fool would be leaning on their horn in seconds, unable to understand why I don't just let the autopilot do it's job.

Dan
edit: damn, can't even spell my name...

>> Edited by DanL on Friday 24th September 14:13

[superlightr]

but wouldnt the traffic light GP be fun! 1st gear everywhere, higher revs, more polution, more fuel... Great idea.

[jeremyadamson]

Guys - you're all worrying yourselves about nothing. They will never fit speed limiters to cars, because all the camera revenue would instantly stop.

J.

[deltaf]

Streetcop said:

Less likely to kill em though......

Whole idea is to avoid em altogether Street, not make it less likely to hurt em.

[mybrainhurts]

einion yrth said:

safespeed said: With "Zombie-Safe" (TM) speed limiters installed we wouldn't respond half as well and average impacts speeds would rise considerably. Sorry Paul, but while I have a great deal of respect for your work, and hate the idea of external vehicle speed control, this is pure speculation, we quite simply don't know what the effects of universal enforced speed limit compliance would be.

Oh, yes we do....

Look at the present crop of scooters. They get wound up to top whack, then continue on a open throttle......regardless of what's going on around them.

The same principle applies to any vehicle that can be driven up to a speed barrier....flat out everywhere.

Then we've got the boredom factor and consequent inattention.....number one collision culprit, according to our Leaders.

Did the Living Stone pass his test last year?

[Streetcop]

deltaf said:

Streetcop said: Less likely to kill em though...... Whole idea is to avoid em altogether Street, not make it less likely to hurt em.

Absolutely, and the slower you are travelling, especially on a residential street, the better your chances of doing just that...

Street