A red rag to the motoring lobby

[Bmblbzzz]

This seems like lies, in that anyone who has ever looked at the options list for new cars will see that 'speed limit sign recognition' is already a selling point for cars, and not at all 'anti-motorist' - in fact it helps in that if you are in say a 40mph zone, it will tell you, rather than braking to 30mph when you see a camera ahead on the off chance you didn't see the sign.

There are no speed limiters at all, just a better form of cruise control.

This (though this could of course be a step to bringing in actual speed limiters in the future).

The real issue is not the 'speed limiter', but the black box. These are already feared by new drivers in that if you go out at the wrong time, or don't drive very gently, they will cancel your insurance.

Whereas with normal insurance you can drive how you like.

One presumes that the black box data will be automatically used in accidents, which can only be a good thing, so that leaves the question of whether it will routinely be required by insurers, and hence the insurers would take over road policing in large regard. I doubt it somehow but who knows?

And this to the max.

Perhaps some of us have paid too little attention to European elections.

All of us, for various reasons.

The speed limiters in HGVs and PCVs, which are actual speed limiters rather than the warning/cruise control systems known as Intelligent Speed Adaptation, were originally a UK idea. They were then taken up by the EU and made compulsory Union-wide at common EU speed limits, 90km/h for HGVs and (I think) 100km/h for PCVs, compared to 60mph and 70mph in the UK legislation. But yes, the idea was taken from the UK.

[tim-b]

Hi
I'd rather drivers concentrated on what they were supposed to be doing, i.e. looking (including for signs), thinking and driving, rather than relying on gadgets. I know that there's a flaw in my argument in that many don't think particularly well, but a reduction in the need to be looking and thinking can only be a bad thing and will lower driving standards even further
Poor driving is the killer and a vehicle hitting a pedestrian at any speed over 30, within the speed limit will likely kill. Inappropriate speed is a cause in twice as many collisions as speeding
IMHO this is manufacturer-led to boost sales
Regards
tim-b

[fastpedaller]

The real issue is not the 'speed limiter', but the black box. These are already feared by new drivers in that if you go out at the wrong time, or don't drive very gently, they will cancel your insurance.

Whereas with normal insurance you can drive how you like.

One presumes that the black box data will be automatically used in accidents, which can only be a good thing, so that leaves the question of whether it will routinely be required by insurers, and hence the insurers would take over road policing in large regard. I doubt it somehow but who knows?

When we added our Daughter (newly passed test at the time) to the insurance of my Wife's car as a named driver (along with myself, previously named) it came with a price hike and a black box. This causes some intrigue and enjoyment as we looked at the records after a drive to see who could get the highest score - steadiest driver was myself (being the cyclist ). Strangely (due to gps?) it sometimes located us as parking in somewhere we've never been! One day my daughter said "it doesn't think much of your cornering Dad!" .... It was a result of going around a multi-storey car park . I think (as they asked where Wife worked, and where Daughter went to college) that the black box is more to do with the issue of 'fronting' (ie a named driver may be the main driver) to reduce insurance cost, than anything else. After 3 years it was then cost-effective to move to a different insurer, and interestingly no need for a black box - and in fact with the same insurer with a black box it was lot more expensive. I can only conclude that the groups insured with black boxes have had claims and thus choosing the black box route isn't necessarily cheaper.

[ThePinkOne]

Quite a bit to be sorted first.

(1) The SatNav maps. Even though I update mine regularly, there's a couple of places I pass through regularly where the 50mph limit (in real life) has not made it onto SatNav mapping- and it's by no means a new limit.

(2) The ability to retrofit to older vehicles. In a sort of way that if the sensors detect you are going faster than the speed limit, the fuel is cut off or similar. For fairly new cars using electronic ignition already I can see 3rd party interface units quickly being available..... but it's much more difficult for mechanically controlled ICE vehicles or for that matter other vehicles permitted to use the road such as road-going steam traction engines. (There is some parallel here to when they brought in TPWS to the GB mainline railway locomotive/unit fleet, works OK for the diesel and electric traction but poses some issues when retrofitting to steam traction). Perhaps some older "classic" vehicles will be allowed exemptions in the same way as "classic" vehicles don't pay road fund licence and when insuring are often mileage-limited.

(3) Defining use of the data from the black box- who can access it, in what circumstances and what it can be used for. I gather that the tacho on a commercial vehicle curently cannot be used to prosecute a diver for speeding, even if it's clear from the distance/time chart they were speeding. I wonder if the same compromise would be required of telematics black boxes (data not to be used to prosecute an accident) to gain acceptance? Also remember black-box data used as evidence for civil claims (decided on grounds of probability) may not be of sufficient standard for a criminal burden of proof (beyond reasonable doubt).

I think it's the way to go, but there's water to go under the bridge before it happens.

In addition, an important issue with lane assist (also in the BBC article) needs to be addressed- i.e. the risk to vulnerable road users such as cyclists if the driver of a vehicle with lane assist doesn't indicate when overtaking.

TPO

[Bmblbzzz]

It's worth distinguishing between the data trackers currently demanded by some insurance policies and those to be legislated for under the proposals. The new ones will be accessed by police, emergency services, etc. Quite likely also by insurance but nothing to stop insurers requiring their own black boxes too.

[thelawnet]

In addition, an important issue with lane assist (also in the BBC article) needs to be addressed- i.e. the risk to vulnerable road users such as cyclists if the driver of a vehicle with lane assist doesn't indicate when overtaking.

I only have one car with lane assist, but it essentially keeps you in the lane by sort of nudges, and beeps loudly if you start to go over the line. If you signal before leaving the lane, it doesn't beep.

[Mick F]

That encourages "auto indicating".
No need to indicate if no-one is there. Every action should be a deliberate purposeful action, not an automatic one or a pointless one.

What always amuses me, that if I'm cycling along an empty road and a car comes up from behind, indicates right to overtake, then indicates left to pull in after passing me.

No-one is the slightest bit interested in the indication. The driver was doing it without thinking.
What else does the driver do without thinking?
Perhaps he doesn't think?

[kwackers]

That encourages "auto indicating".
No need to indicate if no-one is there. Every action should be a deliberate purposeful action, not an automatic one or a pointless one.

What always amuses me, that if I'm cycling along an empty road and a car comes up from behind, indicates right to overtake, then indicates left to pull in after passing me.

No-one is the slightest bit interested in the indication. The driver was doing it without thinking.
What else does the driver do without thinking?
Perhaps he doesn't think?

99% of driving doesn't involve thinking, it's all pre-programmed autonomous response - which is just as well, such response exists because thinking is far too slow for a lot of what's necessary when driving.

The other problem with thinking is when you "think" there's nobody around to appreciate your indication and it just so happens there is but you didn't spot them.
(There's also the assumption that the rider doesn't have mirrors and wouldn't appreciate knowing they'd been seen and you were moving out).

It's a somewhat bizarre thing to criticise people for indicating too often when the real problem isn't someone indicating when they don't need to but not indicating when they should...

[thelawnet]

The other problem with thinking is when you "think" there's nobody around to appreciate your indication and it just so happens there is but you didn't spot them.
(There's also the assumption that the rider doesn't have mirrors and wouldn't appreciate knowing they'd been seen and you were moving out).

It's a somewhat bizarre thing to criticise people for indicating too often when the real problem isn't someone indicating when they don't need to but not indicating when they should...

Quite.

One thing that enrages me when cycling is when for instance I am waiting to turn into a road and there is a car approaching that doesn't signal, or doesn't signal till the last minute, that they are turning into your road, and hence you could have pulled out.

[mjr]

That encourages "auto indicating".
No need to indicate if no-one is there. Every action should be a deliberate purposeful action, not an automatic one or a pointless one.

What always amuses me, that if I'm cycling along an empty road and a car comes up from behind, indicates right to overtake, then indicates left to pull in after passing me.

No-one is the slightest bit interested in the indication. The driver was doing it without thinking.
What else does the driver do without thinking?
Perhaps he doesn't think?

If I had a fiver for each time a motorist has cut me up (in car or on bike) when I could have sounded a horn or bell or shouted to warn of my presence if they'd bothered to indicate, I could buy a very nice new titanium touring bike! Better safe than sorry on this one - it seems no-one is infallible.

[mjr]

One thing that enrages me when cycling is when for instance I am waiting to turn into a road and there is a car approaching that doesn't signal, or doesn't signal till the last minute, that they are turning into your road, and hence you could have pulled out.

Some people advocate not signalling major-to-minor left turns because they feel it encourages the following driver to overtake unsafely. (I disagree and would make it a shooting offence... )

[thirdcrank]

The "indicating only when necessary" thing seems to be from police driver training techniques which were continued in the Institute of Advanced Motorists (whose examiners were all police driving trainers.)

It's one of the things that's easy to test so it became accepted as good driving.

[Mick F]

The indicating thing is a good example of "thinking driving".

You could argue that auto indicating is a Good Thing or a Bad Thing. I prefer Bad Thing, but I know many of you lot in CTCWorld do not.
I would actually like a non-cancelling indicator, as they often cancel before I want them to, plus many people come off roundabouts still indicating right and not cancelling or indicating left.

If they were all non-cancelling, people would cancel deliberately and not automatically ...... which only works properly on right-angle junctions.

The lane assist issue is a case in point, and that's why I raised this subject. Sometimes people indicate to no-one but themselves and lane assist only encourages it.

[mjr]

The "indicating only when necessary" thing seems to be from police driver training techniques which were continued in the Institute of Advanced Motorists (whose examiners were all police driving trainers.)

It's one of the things that's easy to test so it became accepted as good driving.

IMO it demonstrates a complete ignorance of the potential error types and consequences:
• false negative error = don't indicate when it is necessary = cut someone up and possibly collide;
• false positive error = do indicate when it is unnecessary = no harm.

It's baffling how anyone can think it's good driving to adopt a process prioritising reducing false positives at the risk of more false negatives.

[Mick F]

I cannot object to your clinical logic.

BUT, it's not like that at all.
A good driver will always be in control. Everything he does is definite and deliberate and considered.