governors to limit motor vehicles speeds to speed limits

[[XAP]Bob]

The system isn't meant to react to weather, that's out of scope (although possibly a useful future addition).

It just ensures that the posted limit is actually observed by the vast majority of people.

Several friend wouldn't be affected at all - they're profoundly deaf.

[AlaninWales]

In France I am led to believe the speed limits change according to weather conditions.

Much of the technology discused on this thread is eminently achievable and (given sufficient drive to nanny the plebs) could be implemented. I'm sure the concomitant privacy issues would provide welcome reasons for protesting by those who fear state intervention and reassurances from others that the 'powers that be' would never dream of misusing all that lovely data about where you travelled; of course since it would naturally only apply to users of motor vehicles, that might be acceptable to all here.

Technically achievable? Yes, but it would cost. The database used by all sat-nav integrated systems designed to implement these controls would need to be kept faultlessly up to date with all necessary changes (perhaps it would be better to have a single systems supplier - another large IT project that will make money for some lucky IT firm). The updates would need to be downloaded immediately so that all cars in a particular location would have them, otherwise an updated car might brake, causing a non-updated car to collide with it (you cannot expect the 'driver' to suddenly realise they have to make decisions regarding safety if you are taking these out of the driver's remit - airline pilots struggle to do so and they are far better trained and work in teams). These dynamic updates would need to happen when cars are in poor reception areas as well as in the open. It would (with today's technology) be expensive, but like I said some obviously believe it worth the whole price.

Compared to today's sat-navs for example, my Garmin (a year old) has 'lifetime updates'. I have connected it online to update the latest mapping twice since I bought it, it still says there are NSLs where three years ago the limit was reduced to 50 (and in two cases where it is now 40). I can be travelling within the limit and without changing speed, it will suddenly put me at 20mph over; this mostly happens on winding roads where it has lost reception for a while, it can also happen on wide open roads, where the mapping data don't match the actual location of the road - in either case, to have got from where it 'thought' I was to where it 'thinks' I am, I must have sped up. Imagine that happening and jamming the brakes on: Not only collisions, but passengers (there will only be passengers in such vehicles) thrown about and injured - and 'someone' will be to blame.

Oh it's coming all right "and roll on the day" many will say. 1984 didn't bring Big Brother so 2540 won't bring 'Brave New World' (let alone it arriving sooner), but making the technology affordable and reliable is being worked on and still faces challenges.

[CJ]

Oh it's coming all right "and roll on the day" many will say. 1984 didn't bring Big Brother so 2540 won't bring 'Brave New World' (let alone it arriving sooner), but making the technology affordable and reliable is being worked on and still faces challenges.

Being worked on but how hard? I reckon only in a desultory fashion, pushed by the engineers (doing it because they can) but not pulled by the marketing department, because customers aren't much bothered about such a feature and legislators lack the cojones to make them bothered.

If people were seriously bothered by their GPS buzzers going off when they shouldn't, Garmin would be so bombarded with complaints that they'd be a darned sight quicker to update everyone's database! So long as you can turn the thing off, why bother? The main challenge is apathy, fix that and the rest will rattle into place pronto!

[Bicycler]

I don't think anyone is suggesting that we allow gps control of the brakes, merely the speed limiter. Therefore unanticipated decelerations would be gradual and annoying rather than abrupt and dangerous. Anyway, an audible warning system would avoid issues of gps errors leading to cars behaving erratically on auto-pilot. What is the problem with the audible alarm proposal?

[Tonyf33]

Far and away it isn't the speed that is the problem that was hinted at upthread, it is the attitude, plus mental/physical ability to observe/rationalise and act and thus control the vehicle that has by far the largest influence on incidents..speed is way down on the list.

I am prepared to accept that is very likely to be true. Someone with the skill, reactions and training of a fighter pilot, combined with the social conscience of a charity worker, could very well be trusted to drive at whatever speed they think fit for the conditions.

Do you have a suggestion for what psychological and physiological tests should be added to the driving test (to be re-taken at what intervals?) and any estimate of how few might yet be permitted to drive under such an exemplary regime? Personally I would welcome such a thinning out of the ranks of those permitted to drive, leaving only those sufficiently skillful, alert and socially responsible to regulate themselves. I reckon that would take at least half the drivers off the road and cut the volume of traffic to 1950s levels!

Those who cannot be trusted to drive without limits are unfortunately NOT so stupid as to vote for their own loss of freedom to drive at all, which is why that's never going to happen - or not so long as fuel remains cheap enough for private motoring to a remain a reasonable aspiration for most UK adults, which is probably the rest of my lifetime and yours.

I think it' s more likely that the equipment of cars with artificial intelligence will instead be used to offset the manifest lack of intelligence on the part of so many of those presently permitted to operate such dangerous machines in a public place. Limits will nevertheless continue to be necessary, to regulate those driving older vehicles, who would not seem likely on the balance of probabilities to be especially skilfull or conscienscous. And if a simple device can be added to such vehicles to ensure compliance, what's not to like?

Enhanced learning, more awareness/re-training & re-enforcement, proper policing & harsher punishments(which means better prepared & trained CPS/Plod/Judges on all things dangerous), all far far easier to introduce, all less restrictive, all reach far further than a blanket speed limit restriction imposed on a motor vehicle (one that could easily be bypssed..not to mention retro-fitting to older cars, and many other things that will mean it just won't happen in any case)
The major contributing factor with regard to incidents/crashes is not speed over a speed limit, not even close & that is a fact that can be found anywhere you bother to look. Certainly when it comes to interaction with cyclists 'excessive' speed is oft a factor but there are many more factors that caused the problem before you get to driving over the speed limit.

It absolutely removes an aspect of thought process that is hugely important, it puts a reliance on equipment & takes driving judgement/speed away from the human(which I know isn't fantastic as the stats clearly show), however it creates a put your foot down as hard as you like at any one time & you are safe because you'll never exceed the limit. if you cannot see how other risk compensation so called safety aids have devolved driving skill then you're blinded by the reduce speed = reduce accidents mantra which just isn't an absolute that you & others are making it out to be..that just isn't so and never has been.

[reohn2]

Enhanced learning, more awareness/re-training & re-enforcement, proper policing & harsher punishments(which means better prepared & trained CPS/Plod/Judges on all things dangerous), all far far easier to introduce, all less restrictive, all reach far further than a blanket speed limit restriction imposed on a motor vehicle (one that could easily be bypssed..not to mention retro-fitting to older cars, and many other things that will mean it just won't happen in any case)

I agree whole heartedly but(and there always is one)the major problem with minimising(it'll never be wiped out) is that most people drive and almost all drivers are(potential)voters and politrickians are s*** scared of upsetting drivers.
You only have to look at the postponement of fuel taxes.
So we're stuck between a rock and a hard place with not a feather pillow in sight.

The major contributing factor with regard to incidents/crashes is not speed over a speed limit, not even close & that is a fact that can be found anywhere you bother to look. Certainly when it comes to interaction with cyclists 'excessive' speed is oft a factor but there are many more factors that caused the problem before you get to driving over the speed limit.

The major factor in RTI's is a lack attention and a bad attitude,along the lines of invincibility, the stupidity I witness daily on M/ways(our safest roads) at 70mph and more(where it's easily observed) is frankly beyond belief,it's a wonder some drivers make their destination.
When that kind driving is exercised on other less safe roads(oxymoron I know) I find it really worrying as a cyclist.
Only on Thursday this week i followed a driver into a pub car park who'd overtaken me with a lot less than 300mm at a speed differential of about 25mph.
When asked why he said ''where was that'' ?
He didn't even recall it and it happened less than 1/2 a mile back on a straight road where the three cars in front of him had given me plenty of space.
TBH driving attitude and standards in the UK are sinking like a lead balloon IMHO and no one is prepared to do a thing about it because the stats say it's a safe country in which to drive,though IMO quantity never betters quality where life in concerned

[CJ]

Enhanced learning, more awareness/re-training & re-enforcement, proper policing & harsher punishments(which means better prepared & trained CPS/Plod/Judges on all things dangerous), all far far easier to introduce, all less restrictive...

Less restrictive on you and me perhaps, since we are both confident of our ability to pass those tests and never transgress under such a regime, but much more restrictive on all those who would totally lose the freedom to drive. I agree they should lose that freedom. But it won't happen.

Too many of the decision-makers are thinking "there but for the grace of God go I", whenever they hear of a driver who, dazzled by low sun, did not slow to a speed that matched their ability to stop in the distance they could now see to be clear, and so killed a cyclist who just happened to be in front. Two recent cases have gone before juries and neither would convict. In another case I know about the CPS did not even try. Until juries DO convict in such straightforward cases of dangerous but commonplace driving practice, there is no hope of the British public voting for the things that would make roads REALLY safe.

We do not live in a just or logical society. It's all about power relationships and cyclists don't have much. The powers that be do nevertheless have some appetite for setting lower speed limits. So I'll settle for that - and NEVER ride into low sun on a high-speed road without a mirror.

[Cyril Haearn]

CJ wrote: I agree they should lose that freedom. But it won't happen.

Why not? No answer required!

"Impossible" things have happened before, like in Germany in 1989. Or the smoking ban in pubs (pubs?!) and trains.

..
For example with brutal adverts showing what happens in "accidents". Dying is bad enough, but many who are "only seriously injured" are crippled and ruined for life, they can't cycle, work, read or go to the toilet without help. Many have constant pain but can not even communicate their wish to die. Many of these are drivers!

Richard Brunstrom (North Wales Police) had the right idea, he used photos of the severed head of a motorcyclist.

Adverts could show the daily "life" of someone living in a wheelchair.

With modern technology it is quite possible to force drivers to obey the law.

[reohn2]

CJ wrote: I agree they should lose that freedom. But it won't happen.

Why not? "Impossible" things have happened before, like in Germany in 1989.

I believe it is possible!

I think CJ explained why.
It would need for the majority of drivers to actively want that to happen,unlike the wall coming down, the majority don't.
I think we have to face it we live in an increasingly lawless society,especially on the road,where politrickians and judiciary have decided that we can't afford law and order,so it's left to road users to sink to a lower standard than desired for vulnerable road users.
Other European mainland countries are of a more inclusive social persuasion where all of society is taken into consideration,unlike our class ridden two or even three tier system of society,where you are what you have,and not valued as a human being unless you can afford to be.

[Cyril Haearn]

to CJ, reohn2 and the other pessimists: your views almost make me sick (I'm trying to be polite )

It is already happening here in Germany:

Finanztest (the equivalent of money which) reports that insurance companies are "spying on drivers". Cars are fitted with sensors that register, for example, speeding or sudden braking. If the driver is "good" he gets a small discount. Just needs the system to be modified a bit so that illegal behaviour is not possible. There could be a rain sensor too, or a "low-sun-dazzle" sensor.

Let's hope the insurance companies concentrate on their business (reducing costs, reducing claims). Then it might hardly matter if the police continue doing next to nothing.

[TonyR]

It is already happening here in Germany:

Finanztest (the equivalent of money which) reports that insurance companies are "spying on drivers". Cars are fitted with sensors that register, for example, speeding or sudden braking. If the driver is "good" he gets a small discount.

Nothing new there. That's been available in the UK as an option, particularly for young drivers, for quite a few years now. See e.g. http://www.moneywise.co.uk/insurance/tr ... -insurance

All the technology to limit speeds exists except there is no national database of the speed limits of road segments. Try one of the speed limit apps and you'll soon see how wrong whatever databases out there are. And getting one together and getting the errors out would be a massive task of trawling filing cabinets across the country. Unlike the Open Data Government release of e.g. bus stop locations data which found many of them had been recorded in the wrong place once users started using it, you cannot crowd source the corrections for data like this with legal consequences to errors.

[reohn2]

to CJ, reohn2 and the other pessimists: your views almost make me sick (I'm trying to be polite )

Sorry if you can't stomach reality,but the reality is that unless the law is enforced it won't upheld and unfortunately it isn't being upheld.And so whatever tinpot politrickal party happens the be in power and whatever laws are passed unless there are police with an interest and the manpower to enforce those laws nowt will happen.
Take some Gaviscon to settle you stomach if it's that bad(just trying to help )
Sorry for the acidic wit but you started it

It is already happening here in Germany:

Germany most certainly isn't the UK,in that the UK is a feel for all and Germany is a more law abiding socialist society,but then if you live there you'll know that.

[Cyril Haearn]

it is already happening in Britain, the aa offers pay how you drive insurance.

reohn2 thinks Germany is a socialist society!

In fact it is ruled by a grand coalition, the CDU/CSU (=conservatives) is by far the largest party.

I am sure not going to accept the situation now ("stomach reality"), over here, or over there! I will continue fighting for change.

[[XAP]Bob]

Overheard a conversation at work today, people discussing cruise control and adaptive cruise control.

Of particular note was the "it's disconcerting" when you have had ACC for a couple of years, then got a car without it and "have to remember to brake".

[reohn2]

reohn2 thinks Germany is a socialist society!.........

You'll note it was with a small 's' and not a politrickal statement.