Fitting a speed limiter on our cars
Discussion
http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/arti
This is the latest in how the goverment and the politicians want to control you. Sad and scary at the same time.
One has to wonder when there will be a genuine rejection of such policies and way of thinking...
A67
This is the latest in how the goverment and the politicians want to control you. Sad and scary at the same time.
One has to wonder when there will be a genuine rejection of such policies and way of thinking...
A67
Where do they get their statistics from? Do they make them up as they go along?
The original statement was that 33% of all accidents are caused by 'excessive or inappropriate' speed. Then it turned out that this included 'being in a hurry', driving too close to the vehicle in front', failing to correctly judge the speed of other vehicles', etc.
A figure of between 5% and 7% of accidents involve (not necessarily are caused by) vehicles exceeding the posted limit seems to be generally accepted as correct.
Thus, speed limiters can address, at most, 5% to 7% of all accidents.
But, who will tell those in charge that this is so when it can be seen that speed controllers will increase the control over individuals, which is the main object of so much legislation these days.
Thank goodness these devices can't/won't be fitted to older cars - or will older/classic vehicles be banned completely?
The original statement was that 33% of all accidents are caused by 'excessive or inappropriate' speed. Then it turned out that this included 'being in a hurry', driving too close to the vehicle in front', failing to correctly judge the speed of other vehicles', etc.
A figure of between 5% and 7% of accidents involve (not necessarily are caused by) vehicles exceeding the posted limit seems to be generally accepted as correct.
Thus, speed limiters can address, at most, 5% to 7% of all accidents.
But, who will tell those in charge that this is so when it can be seen that speed controllers will increase the control over individuals, which is the main object of so much legislation these days.
Thank goodness these devices can't/won't be fitted to older cars - or will older/classic vehicles be banned completely?
This is being looked at seriously in TfL although I have yet to see a real justification considering the staggering cost and complexity of the project. I'm in no doubt that this will be implemented against our wishes and London will be the guinea-pig for forced usage.
The majority of accidents that cause KSIs are in urban areas and occur at or below the posted limit. Of the KSIs that occur above the limit not all would have been avoided by travelling at or below the limit.
I have yet to see a cogent argument for limiters.
Other ideas being mooted are warning devices that either sound a buzzer, make a light come on or add resistance to the accelerator. Not too invasive and make compliance a matter of choice.
The one word I've heard used most here is not safety nor speed but compliance. It's a control thing.
The majority of accidents that cause KSIs are in urban areas and occur at or below the posted limit. Of the KSIs that occur above the limit not all would have been avoided by travelling at or below the limit.
I have yet to see a cogent argument for limiters.
Other ideas being mooted are warning devices that either sound a buzzer, make a light come on or add resistance to the accelerator. Not too invasive and make compliance a matter of choice.
The one word I've heard used most here is not safety nor speed but compliance. It's a control thing.
How's this for some twisted logic:
Since only 5-7% of accidents involve vehicles travelling at a speed in excess of the speed limit why not require all vehicles to speed, thus eliminating 93-95% of all accidents?
It is about as sensible as the arguments presented by the SCPs and their ilk (oh no not again, please ignore the ilk).
Since only 5-7% of accidents involve vehicles travelling at a speed in excess of the speed limit why not require all vehicles to speed, thus eliminating 93-95% of all accidents?
It is about as sensible as the arguments presented by the SCPs and their ilk (oh no not again, please ignore the ilk).
Cooperman said:
Where do they get their statistics from? Do they make them up as they go along?
The original statement was that 33% of all accidents are caused by 'excessive or inappropriate' speed. Then it turned out that this included 'being in a hurry', driving too close to the vehicle in front', failing to correctly judge the speed of other vehicles', etc.
A figure of between 5% and 7% of accidents involve (not necessarily are caused by) vehicles exceeding the posted limit seems to be generally accepted as correct.
Thus, speed limiters can address, at most, 5% to 7% of all accidents.
But, who will tell those in charge that this is so when it can be seen that speed controllers will increase the control over individuals, which is the main object of so much legislation these days.
Thank goodness these devices can't/won't be fitted to older cars - or will older/classic vehicles be banned completely?
Less than that - they say further down in the article;
"The researchers found that three serious crashes a year would be prevented for every 1,000 vehicles fitted with ISA."
So, 3 in a 1000 or 0.3%
What's the old saying - Figures can't lie but liars can F.....
it's all marketing, and electronics companies looking for gaps in it.
Using apparant safety as the key marketing drive is in itself a bit sick if you ask me.
speed limiters 'could' save lives,
they probably can, just as they 'could' end lives as well, as is the case with speed humps hindering ambulances.
Big contract if you can swing it though, look at the manufacturers of speed guns and speed cameras - what an earner. Do they care when a gatso gets torched? - like hell they do, that's another 40k earned!. The senior chaps of these companues must be laughing to themselves as they winter on a private yacht, sipping cool beer in the carribean, while we all bicker at each other, police, SCP's, public et al.
Using apparant safety as the key marketing drive is in itself a bit sick if you ask me.
speed limiters 'could' save lives,
they probably can, just as they 'could' end lives as well, as is the case with speed humps hindering ambulances.
Big contract if you can swing it though, look at the manufacturers of speed guns and speed cameras - what an earner. Do they care when a gatso gets torched? - like hell they do, that's another 40k earned!. The senior chaps of these companues must be laughing to themselves as they winter on a private yacht, sipping cool beer in the carribean, while we all bicker at each other, police, SCP's, public et al.
..Oh FFS I've have just about had enough of this political BS...
1) Can't even remember last time was able to speed anywhere in London, normally nose to tail gridlock.
2) How many accidents are gonna be caused by someone accellerating slamming into the speed governor, the guy behind not having a governor then hitting guy in front.
3) Accidents caused by guy pulling out to overtake, then finding speed governor stops his progress when facing another car head on.
4) Since most modern cars have a form of cruise control, if somebody really wants to be speed restricted then set the cruise control accordingly.
....so will Mr Blair or his sidekick Brown have speed limiters fitted?.... like F
k they will
1) Can't even remember last time was able to speed anywhere in London, normally nose to tail gridlock.
2) How many accidents are gonna be caused by someone accellerating slamming into the speed governor, the guy behind not having a governor then hitting guy in front.
3) Accidents caused by guy pulling out to overtake, then finding speed governor stops his progress when facing another car head on.
4) Since most modern cars have a form of cruise control, if somebody really wants to be speed restricted then set the cruise control accordingly.
....so will Mr Blair or his sidekick Brown have speed limiters fitted?.... like F
k they will robbie_toys said:
1) Can't even remember last time was able to speed anywhere in London, normally nose to tail gridlock.
An interesting myth, but given that I drive round London as part of my job, not one that I have found to be true. I cannot think of a journey where the opportunity to break the speed limit has not presented itself.
7db said:
1) Can't even remember last time was able to speed anywhere in London, normally nose to tail gridlock.
An interesting myth, but given that I drive round London as part of my job, not one that I have found to be true. I cannot think of a journey where the opportunity to break the speed limit has not presented itself.
You're probably right
, but given that it normally takes me longer to get to my office in Hammersmith from Heston (about 5 miles) than it does the previous 25 miles or in the evening longer to get to the end of the M4 elevated section than it does the balance of the journey, it's a myth I'm happy to perpetuate!! 
Time to see more people travelling full throttle to try make up time, where previously they may have slowed down because they could make it up elsewhere.
People being more pig-headed regarding right of way.
Less natural gappage(a word?) of traffic so people can get out of junctions. All traffic moving AT 30mph (admit that 90% of people would just plant it and turn their brain off) with no gaps opening up for junctions etc.
Why don't they just model it on a transport/road modeller thing they use, it's got to be bad for traffic flow!
Overtaking a car that speeds up, but can't exceed the limit? That would be bloody dangerous!
Dangers policies and decision makers everywhere. Usual DfT and TfL ideas then
Dave
People being more pig-headed regarding right of way.
Less natural gappage(a word?) of traffic so people can get out of junctions. All traffic moving AT 30mph (admit that 90% of people would just plant it and turn their brain off) with no gaps opening up for junctions etc.
Why don't they just model it on a transport/road modeller thing they use, it's got to be bad for traffic flow!
Overtaking a car that speeds up, but can't exceed the limit? That would be bloody dangerous!
Dangers policies and decision makers everywhere. Usual DfT and TfL ideas then
Dave
aston67 said:
http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/arti
This is the latest in how the goverment and the politicians want to control you. Sad and scary at the same time.
One has to wonder when there will be a genuine rejection of such policies and way of thinking...
A67
A device that warns drivers they are exceeding a set limit? Not sure about now, but all cars in Dubai used to have one which used to go off at 70 mph, you couldnt turn it off, just had to put up with it.
I am sure I hired a Merc a couple of years ago in the UK, with a speed limiter, whatever speed you were doing, if you pushed this little lever up, it wouldnt exceed the set speed, not very good if you forgot it, and tried to pass someone, and whooooooooops?
Anyway, why on earth would you need a speed limiter in LONDON,
>> Edited by vipers on Friday 17th February 16:59
aston67 said:
http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/arti
This is the latest in how the goverment and the politicians want to control you. Sad and scary at the same time.
One has to wonder when there will be a genuine rejection of such policies and way of thinking...
A67
I don't know what constitutes rejection, but I reject the idea.
The world is full of this bull.
Technology is about enabing bigger and better things. Allowing greater opportunity, and empowering the majority. Why is it that we are using technology, increasingly to constrain and limit what is possible?
It makes me sick, but if this is what technology has become, I'd rather stack shelves in a supermarket.
The report said that the greatest safety benefits would come from a system that automatically applied the brakes or blocked acceleration.
The study found that ISA was preferable to using speed humps to control speed and that speed cameras had only a limited impact on speeding.
A survey by MORI in 2001 found that 51 per cent of drivers believed limiters should be compulsory on all cars. After trials in Sweden, two thirds of the 10,000 drivers involved said that they would like to keep the system. However, 30 per cent reported increased irritation when driving with ISA.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think the first statement about automatically appling the brakes etc is a lot of bollex, what for example if you see the car in front suddenly break, and you try to stear past it? and with reference to the survey carried out in 2001, do any of our members recall being involved in this survey?
The study found that ISA was preferable to using speed humps to control speed and that speed cameras had only a limited impact on speeding.
A survey by MORI in 2001 found that 51 per cent of drivers believed limiters should be compulsory on all cars. After trials in Sweden, two thirds of the 10,000 drivers involved said that they would like to keep the system. However, 30 per cent reported increased irritation when driving with ISA.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think the first statement about automatically appling the brakes etc is a lot of bollex, what for example if you see the car in front suddenly break, and you try to stear past it? and with reference to the survey carried out in 2001, do any of our members recall being involved in this survey?
i dunno, there are starving kids, terrorism and wierdo's on the internet, not to mention people being held at gun point in the middle of night to hand over their keys to their sports cars becuase some scum broke into their house to steal their cars....... and yes the useless government we have wastes time and resources on this bollox.
its a crying shame these tools in power can't prioritse their recources and funds in a more logical manner.
and thats coming from some overgrown kid who plays computer games for a living .. .. .. .. .. for f*** sake sort it out!
its a crying shame these tools in power can't prioritse their recources and funds in a more logical manner.
and thats coming from some overgrown kid who plays computer games for a living .. .. .. .. .. for f*** sake sort it out!
DucatiGary said:
i dunno, there are starving kids, terrorism and wierdo's on the internet, not to mention people being held at gun point in the middle of night to hand over their keys to their sports cars becuase some scum broke into their house to steal their cars....... and yes the useless government we have wastes time and resources on this bollox.
its a crying shame these tools in power can't prioritse their recources and funds in a more logical manner.
and thats coming from some overgrown kid who plays computer games for a living .. .. .. .. .. for f*** sake sort it out!
spot on where's the common sense goneBigBob said:Is that the net figure? or haven't they added the 0.7% extra it will kill, to come up with a net figure of 0.4% extra killed overall. Or did they not think to work out how many more it would kill? having no concept of how it could do so?
"The researchers found that three serious crashes a year would be prevented for every 1,000 vehicles fitted with ISA."
So, 3 in a 1000 or 0.3%
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff