advertisement


Is it time for all motor vehicles to be fitted with a black box?

I don't see how a black box can tackle antisocial driving. I'm perfectly capable of being a complete arse within the letter of the law. In my youth my car was impeccably maintained as I would argue the point with my local plod regularly, and could not afford anything they could do me for.

Antisocial driving is an attitude problem, not some measurable technicality you can monitor and prosecute against.

You can measure speed, but it has nothing to do with how safely your driving.
 
Puggie said:
You can measure speed, but it has nothing to do with how safely your driving.
Click to expand...

So >>60MPH is safe in a 30 limit?

When I was in the land of no mistakes, I did 250KPH (on a sat nav) on the Autobahn. I consider myself a safe driver, but I knew there was a significant risk involved - especially when I realised just how long it takes to stop from that speed.

Anyway, enough of the subjective stuff. I believe it has been proven that "speed kills".
 
S-Man said:
So >>60MPH is safe in a 30 limit?
.
Click to expand...

I can think of a couple of 30mph limit areas where over 60mph in the correct conditions would be perfectly safe. Like wise I can think of a couple of 60mph limit areas where 30mph would be IMHO reckless.

So no I do not feel speed is a particularly good method of measuring safety.

Speed never killed anyone, it was the abrupt stopping that caused the injury!

The controversial example would be the IOM TT.
 
CHE said:
In my county the limit in villages is 20mph, and in the local city many roads are also limited to 20mph. I don't see that 'holding people up' as you state is as important as improving road safety, which is the aim in reducing the maximum speed from 30mph. I personally don't have an issue with it - I assume you would ?

CHE
Click to expand...
I don’t think you are in the UK? No country I’ve visited outside the UK has similar levels of congestion. So you can have sensible journey times even when restricted to 20mph for part of them.
 
Speed doesn't kill -it just drastically ramps-up the collateral damage for otherwise lesser mistakes.

I.e it's shit judgement that is the problem - in the driver, not the car.

(that includes the need to romp around obnoxiously in something like a Ranger 'pickup' /or gigantic german-built suv-cum-urban assault vehicle that boasts 'high performance' yet weighs the same as a small moon/ that you can't park/ that is blatantly obnoxiously loud and deliberately craply driven [ragged to get it to pop and bang - those crappy, obvious, same-every-time snap-crackle-pop maps in many recent cars - including the hilariously-awful, unnecessary, tuned-in DSG 'fart' exhibited esp by the quicker VAG group cars under load] - things mostly observed only around town centres, etc etc... oh - tick the boxes that apply; I've a very long list.)
 
Last edited:
Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
I think it depends what limit you refer to. 5mph below the 70 limit is a lot less disruptive than 5mph below the 30 limit. 25 mph is really pretty slow. Round here, buses do 20, and Uber Priuses often do 25 and it definitely holds people up, to see the tails they collect.
Click to expand...

Exactly - there is absolutely no reason people shouldn't be up to speed on any road if conditions allow. I commute at 5.30 am and regularly find myself behind police, ambulances doing 35 through a '20' and 49 through the '30's ... because it's safe to do so. Would you stick to the 20 limits if you were the last person earth? It's a number on a stick. If you have any ability of freedom of thought you should assess the situation and realise how insanely low most of these speed limits are. Motoring legislation has been dumbed down so much over the last 25 yrs, and if they really think speed limits are right for the abilities of the average driver today, most shouldn't hold a license. Imo of course
 
The London Borough of Lewisham is almost entirely 20mph. When I drive there, I stick to the limits but its bloody difficult & you tend to get people overtaking you on the wrong side of islands; it's madness.
 
Paul L said:
Law abiding citizens generally have nothing to fear from surveillance or national identity cards and are grateful for it in anticipating or following up on crime…
Click to expand...
Well, yes, if you trust not just the present government, but the one that comes after it, and the one that comes after that. Once a system is in existence it's open to abuse.
 
robbyd said:
Exactly - there is absolutely no reason people shouldn't be up to speed on any road if conditions allow. I commute at 5.30 am and regularly find myself behind police, ambulances doing 35 through a '20' and 49 through the '30's ... because it's safe to do so. Would you stick to the 20 limits if you were the last person earth? It's a number on a stick. If you have any ability of freedom of thought you should assess the situation and realise how insanely low most of these speed limits are. Motoring legislation has been dumbed down so much over the last 25 yrs, and if they really think speed limits are right for the abilities of the average driver today, most shouldn't hold a license. Imo of course
Click to expand...
Speed limits, and urban limits in particular, are set party on a political basis (nobody wants to be the person who signed off on a limit that might mow down a child), and partly with an eye on the worst case scenario - old, badly maintained car, inattentive or elderly driver, bad weather conditions, dark. Logically then, in good weather, alert driver in a well maintained modern car, higher speeds are as safe as somebody driving at the limit in that worst case scenario condition. So speed limits should not be the be all and end all that they have become. They have become the default benchmark by which people define their driving - ‘I obey the limit, therefore I’m a good driver’ whereas in reality speed limits are enforced because they can do it with cameras. Bad driving, however, requires a person to witness and some objective evidence, so is much harder to pursue.
 
The tech has to be available to limit the speed of cars as per the relevant limits. I see no problem with this. The ‘war on motorists’ is a complete myth we have everything we require & more.
 
Woodface said:
The tech has to be available to limit the speed of cars as per the relevant limits. I see no problem with this. The ‘war on motorists’ is a complete myth we have everything we require & more.
Click to expand...
Absolutely some of the quick Nissan auto disable their speed limiters when the GPS detects they are not on public roads.

The move to electric could make this a whole lot easier to police. Plug in to charge at a public charge point, the machine downloads your driving history since the last charge and refuses you any more electrons if you have been a naughty boy/girl.
 
Puggie said:
Absolutely some of the quick Nissan auto disable their speed limiters when the GPS detects they are not on public roads.

The move to electric could make this a whole lot easier to police. Plug in to charge at a public charge point, the machine downloads your driving history since the last charge and refuses you any more electrons if you have been a naughty boy/girl.
Click to expand...
Even simpler than that. Smart phone app, car won’t start unless it detects a phone usb connection. Warning notices for speeding followed by automatic fines via Apple Pay. It’s a brave new world;)
 
Ian G said:
I fully agree with you, our roads are narrow and the lanes more so, general pleasure cyclists are more aware and pull over to allow passing. The speed racing ones in their unnatural fibre slick garments with twatty helmets are the worst, riding 2 & 3 abreast so they straddle the middle of the road around bends, they won't get out of the way and expect cars to follow them for miles without a chance to pass. They also think it's sensible to try and pass tractors with implements on the back.
Click to expand...
Utter tosh. What is wrong with wearing a helmet & appropriate clothing? Cricketers do it. Most sports require specialist equipment. Cyclists are entitled to ride two abreast & deserve to be treated with respect by other road users. Cyclists expect to be given room & not close passed by inconsiderate motorists who are too lazy to enjoy the benefits of exercise through active travel.

I mean, how dare these cyclists cycle on county roads?
 
robbyd said:
Exactly - there is absolutely no reason people shouldn't be up to speed on any road if conditions allow. I commute at 5.30 am and regularly find myself behind police, ambulances doing 35 through a '20' and 49 through the '30's ... because it's safe to do so. Would you stick to the 20 limits if you were the last person earth? It's a number on a stick. If you have any ability of freedom of thought you should assess the situation and realise how insanely low most of these speed limits are. Motoring legislation has been dumbed down so much over the last 25 yrs, and if they really think speed limits are right for the abilities of the average driver today, most shouldn't hold a license. Imo of course
Click to expand...
Cars are driven by people, people are often morons who have no idea of braking distances or perception of speed. We have not evolved at all in this respect, sorry.
 
Funk said:
20mph speed limits are a joke; thankfully my town listened when a 20mph limit was considered and overwhelmingly rejected by the residents.
Click to expand...
No they arent. 20 outside a primary school at 8am or 3pm is plenty. The same place at 10pm? Well, that's not the same tbing, is it?
 
Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
So speed limits should not be the be all and end all that they have become. They have become the default benchmark by which people define their driving - ‘I obey the limit, therefore I’m a good driver’ whereas in reality speed limits are enforced because they can do it with cameras. Bad driving, however, requires a person to witness and some objective evidence, so is much harder to pursue.
Click to expand...

I very much agree with this point of view; 'excess speed' is demonised- mostly because it is so arbitrary, and easy to measure. But mostly - I suggest -it's only additive to the thing that are prime drivers to serious incidents - poor judgement, poor observation, distraction, all the things we exhibit as drivers first.

Oh, and modern cars/technology that all seemed aimed at requiring no skill/de-skilling driver involvement in the first place - so that the only sensation/sense of involvement left to the curious is 'how fast will it go'- all while distracted to find out how to do that thing there used to be a dedicated button for - but is now buried 3-layers deep in a touchscreen menu that isn't actually in front of the driver! That crap trend is actually dangerous.

(tbh - speed as a one-dimensional metric actually isn't much fun; cars that fully-involve the driver, that present a balance of mental & physical workload and feedback to those inputs are - even when driven 'slowly'. My POV)
 
I also think that driving at speed on the motorway is, conditions permitting, no more dangerous than driving below the limit. On reason being that if you’re doing 90 you’re going to be alert, paying attention, adequately stimulated so as to be properly responsive. Drive at 60 in the same conditions and it is so easy to switch off, zone out, so if something unexpected happens, you have a problem. There are, of course, reasonable limits to this argument, I’m not arguing for silly speeds, anything that creates a significant closing speed on other traffic isn’t big and it isn’t clever.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top