advertisement


Is it time for speed limiters on cars?

miktec said:
Still not a convincing argument.

<snip>
Whether some motorists would 'behave' in a certain manner after the change is of course pure speculation either way - unless there have been controlled experiments in this area that prove conclusively otherwise, but there is a level of common sense and logic that can be applied ;)
Click to expand...
There have been lots of studies that show that people are less alert and less engaged with the tasks of driving if they are isolated from the experience. So quieter, modern cars with greater degrees of automation. Since automatic lights became a thing, I see a lot more people driving without lights at all, for example. And also studies which seem to indicate that the concentration on speeding offences (cameras, etc) leads people to assume that if they aren't breaking the limit, they are a good driver. They even renamed them 'safety' cameras, for heaven's sake. If that doesn't send out a message that if you're not speeding, you're golden, I don't know what message it does send out.

So, in summary, it's not an outlandish suggestion that if people are no longer required to take responsibility for their speed, they'll just drive at the speed the vehicle permits them to.
 
gintonic said:
and we are not disagreeing. Yes drivers should cede the correct amount of space when passing. Equally cyclists should jump red lights with the regularity I see them.

I have alesys all road users should obey the rules- and be treated with parity when they don't
Click to expand...
I was actually meaning cede space in terms of infrastructure, if we want safe active travel then cars will need to make way in some areas. I’ve actually watched a few cars jump red lights this week, I doubt they will prosecuted. We should tackle the big problems first.
 
Woodface said:
I was actually meaning cede space in terms of infrastructure, if we want safe active travel then cars will need to make way in some areas. I’ve actually watched a few cars jump red lights this week, I doubt they will prosecuted. We should tackle the big problems first.
Click to expand...

no we should tackle all problems first.

You are effectively saying it is ok for a cyclist to jump a red light.

I'm out
 
gintonic said:
some links please? I feel more in control. my car never fails to turn on the lights or wipers automatically when I would
Click to expand...
You're in a 911 though. The whole purpose of that car is driver involvement. Automation, per se, isn't the problem, it's the fact that it divorces the operator from the act of operating, which in a car designed for mass transport rather than driver involvement, is definitely a thing.

And the lights don't fail to come on, it's just when they get into a car which doesn't have automatic lights, it just doesn't even occur to them. I see cars like Astras, Focuses, etc, which didn't have them, driving without lights. The last one was a couple of days ago while out walking the dog for her constitutional last thing at night, around 22:00.
 
Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
There have been lots of studies that show that people are less alert and less engaged with the tasks of driving if they are isolated from the experience. So quieter, modern cars with greater degrees of automation. Since automatic lights became a thing, I see a lot more people driving without lights at all, for example. And also studies which seem to indicate that the concentration on speeding offences (cameras, etc) leads people to assume that if they aren't breaking the limit, they are a good driver. They even renamed them 'safety' cameras, for heaven's sake. If that doesn't send out a message that if you're not speeding, you're golden, I don't know what message it does send out.
Click to expand...

So basically - some vague anecdotal stuff.
Fair enough ....
 
miktec said:
Whilst agreeing with your conclusion I totally disagree with the first point there ... it is simply an illogical fallacy bordering on nonsense.

Whether or not a limiter is applied absolves the driver of nothing - they are still required to drive responsibly and safely in respect of the prevailing conditions. The fact that they cannot mechanically exceed local speed limits does not alter that basic requirement in any significant way - although might actually have a positive effect as there is no longer the anxiety associated with exceeding posted limits, thus increasing the ability to concentrate on other crucial areas.

To put it bluntly - It's not an argument.
Click to expand...

If you place a speed limiter on the pretext of “safety” and reducing accidents with no change to driver training you further reduce responsibility. If followers of the mantra of speed is bad, speed kills, speed is the great satan succeed and legislate with hard limiters you further transfer that thinking to the public. You make speed control the single most important element of driving when it is demonstrably not, driver skill around observation and engagement is.

I simply do not believe legislation on limiters will improve driver ability or materially improve the accident stats. I think it is a distraction and simplistic thinking.
 
This is the weird thing in all this that I can't quite get my head around.

Despite the very significant rise in road traffic and vehicle ownership across all areas in my lifetime, accidents involving death and injury have dramatically declined year on year since their post war peak in 1966. OK, they have more or less plateaued over the last ten years but this seems to fly in the face of all logic unless:

1. Road infrastructure conditions have significantly improved over the period
2. Road safety 'restrictions' have significantly increased over the period
3. Car safety has significantly improved over the period
4. Driving standards have significantly improved over the period
(I would argue that all the above have played their part - and more aspects that I haven't mentioned)

Perversely there are many here who seem to be arguing that any more additions to 2. and 3. are actually likely to cause MORE accidents and that the real way to improve matters is to concentrate on 4.

Sorry - but to me that just don't add up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reported_Road_Casualties_Great_Britain

800px-Killed_on_British_Roads.png
 
Last edited:
Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
You're in a 911 though. The whole purpose of that car is driver involvement. Automation, per se, isn't the problem, it's the fact that it divorces the operator from the act of operating, which in a car designed for mass transport rather than driver involvement, is definitely a thing.

And the lights don't fail to come on, it's just when they get into a car which doesn't have automatic lights, it just doesn't even occur to them. I see cars like Astras, Focuses, etc, which didn't have them, driving without lights. The last one was a couple of days ago while out walking the dog for her constitutional last thing at night, around 22:00.
Click to expand...
I have a 2010 Focus that has automatic lights, automatic wipers, auto dipping mirror...etc.
 
Woodface said:
I never said that.

How can you tackle all problems first? That’s illogical?
Click to expand...
Tackling cyclists who jump red lights is an important and dangerous misbehaviour that needs to be tackled. The nutter I saw this morning also needs sorting.

Note: I know I’m wasting my time. :D
 
miktec said:
This is the weird thing in all this that I can't quite get my head around.

Despite the very significant rise in road traffic and vehicle ownership across all areas in my lifetime, accidents involving death and injury have dramatically declined year on year since their post war peak in 1966. OK, they have more or less plateaued over the last ten years but this seems to fly in the face of all logic unless:

1. Road infrastructure conditions have significantly improved over the period
2. Road safety 'restrictions' have significantly increased over the period
3. Car safety has significantly improved over the period
4. Driving standards have significantly improved over the period
(I would claim that all the above have played their part - and more aspects that I haven't mentioned)

Perversely there are many here who seem to be arguing that any more additions to 2. and 3. are actually likely to cause MORE accidents and that the real way to improve matters is to concentrate on 4.

Sorry - but to me that just don't add up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reported_Road_Casualties_Great_Britain

800px-Killed_on_British_Roads.png
Click to expand...
There are far too many variables (many more than 4) to be able to reach conclusions from your 4 points.
 
miktec said:
This is the weird thing in all this that I can't quite get my head around.

Despite the very significant rise in road traffic and vehicle ownership across all areas in my lifetime, accidents involving death and injury have dramatically declined year on year since their post war peak in 1966. OK, they have more or less plateaued over the last ten years but this seems to fly in the face of all logic unless:

1. Road infrastructure conditions have significantly improved over the period
2. Road safety 'restrictions' have significantly increased over the period
3. Car safety has significantly improved over the period
4. Driving standards have significantly improved over the period
(I would claim that all the above have played their part - and more aspects that I haven't mentioned)

Perversely there are many here who seem to be arguing that any more additions to 2. and 3. are actually likely to cause MORE accidents and that the real way to improve matters is to concentrate on 4.

Sorry - but to me that just don't add up.
Click to expand...

Straw man argument I am afraid. The list is your proposal not the real reasons. I completely disagree that driving standards have improved, the test has remained unchanged essentially and I see just as many idiots as I have ever seen.

The single biggest change have been car safety and next is probably road design and infrastructure where huge changes have been made reducing blind corners, junctions and other poor design. Cameras and active limits, chicanes and other element will have had an impact but not even close to these.
 
cutting42 said:
Straw man argument I am afraid. The list is your proposal not the real reasons. I completely disagree that driving standards have improved, the test has remained unchanged essentially and I see just as many idiots as I have ever seen.

The single biggest change have been car safety and next is probably road design and infrastructure where huge changes have been made reducing blind corners, junctions and other poor design. Cameras and active limits, chicanes and other element will have had an impact but not even close to these.
Click to expand...

Nah - not buying it ... and no straw involved on my part either, possibly plenty you are clutching at though ;)
 
clivem2 said:
There are far too many variables (many more than 4) to be able to reach conclusions from your 4 points.
Click to expand...


I did say there were more in my post - please feel free to add as many as you like ... anything that would help explain such a dramatic decrease set against the huge increase in vehicle ownership and resultant traffic density during that period (which logically should have led to an extremely dramatic rise in serious accidents rather than the opposite)

But please not the argument that tries to reduce it to just two things, that simply does not compute.
 
miktec said:
Nah - not buying it ... and no straw involved on my part either, possibly plenty you are clutching at though ;)
Click to expand...

You don't "buy" that the biggest contributions to improved safety are car safety and road improvements? What do you think are the biggest contributors then? Increase in driver skill maybe? Please provide some sources and evidence. There is plenty on the rest but I have seen no evidence on driver skills improving.

You try to say I am trying to reduce the points to "just two things", absolutely not, as clivem2 pointed out there are many. You seem rooted to your mantra and you are just ignoring facts. Lets not ignore the fact that we have about the safest roads in the world and to achieve that we have improved all aspects of roads, cars even enforcement but nothing on driver training. If we want to improve more then we pick the most likely to succeed ie the thing not tackled yet.

We have not yet mentioned the highly successful re-education of the public that drink driving is a bad thing. Many of us on here will remember themselves or their parents drinking 3-4 pints and still driving home from the pub. The penalties have always been there but what really made the difference was making it socially unacceptable and educating people it was a terrible idea. That's what I am arguing for not some speeding free for all but to not get distracted with specious legislation unlikely make a difference and continuing to ignore the potentially most impactful element.
 
clivem2 said:
NCAP rate cars with lower levels of assisted driving as safer than the those with higher levels (eg Tesla). This is because staying more connected to driving keeps you alert.
Click to expand...

Having just looked through the finer points of NCAP methodology in detail and the grading system for cars with Assisted Driving I am really curious how you come to such a bold conclusion.
There is nothing I could find (including individual car reports from the likes of BMW and Tesla) that supports your claim at all - in fact quite the opposite.

If you can cite the actual findings on the NCAP site where you got this information and provide a link I would be most grateful :)
 
FWIW, my anecdotal view is; looking at the phone, speed in context with road conditions and tailgating, The 3rd appears endemic, especially with younger drivers and has been getting worse.
Perhaps a system that enforces distance relative to speed should be enforced, I know some cars have variations of it so not to difficult to put on new cars?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top