Reading the sad case of the multi-car pile up in Birmingham at the week-end, it seems that excess speed was the cause of the crash (Audi S3 lost control at speed and hit taxi coming the other way). It is reported that one of the victims in the Audi had previously served a sentence for excessive speed in a car chase with the Police.
So, should cars have speed limiters? And if so at what speed? When the national speed limit is 70 mph, why are manufacturers spending vast resources creating cars that can go several times that speed? And with ever tightening restrictions on vehicle emissions, how can speeds of this type be allowed under Type Approval Regulations?
I say that cars should be speed limited to no more than 85mph. What do others in the (virtual) bar say?
|
Completely disregarding my own views on whetner they should be limited I find the figure of 85MPH odd, BB
It is 15 MPH above the legal speed limit anywhere in this country so if we're going down the route of speed limiters then it has to be set at the maximum legal limit of 70MPH.
Anything other than that is a conflict of cause and purpose.
Pat
|
>> It is 15 MPH above the legal speed limit anywhere in this country so if
>> we're going down the route of speed limiters then it has to be set at
>> the maximum legal limit of 70MPH.
The problem with a 70 limiter would be everybody being on the limiter, leading the the same nonsense as with lorries.
|
Exactly...level playing field then:)
But by going above the legal limit it could be seen to be encouraging speeding!
Pat
Last edited by: Pat on Tue 19 Dec 17 at 17:50
|
|
Sounds a bit like driving in Belgium.
|
>>
>> The problem with a 70 limiter would be everybody being on the limiter, leading the
>> the same nonsense as with lorries.
>>
That's only a problem because other vehicles are permitted to travel faster.
|
"It is reported that one of the victims in the Audi had previously served a sentence for excessive speed in a car chase with the Police."
IMHO, anyone caught throwing heroin out of a car window at 130mph should be restricted to a bicycle for the rest of their lives.
|
I do so agree with you Haywain.
Pat
|
>> I do so agree with you Haywain.
>>
>> Pat
Me too, but it would be shame not to get castration in there somewhere.
|
Steady on. Poor chap was possibly just an innocent passenger.
And tomorrow I’m going to wake up to 3†of fresh snow on the beach here in El Medano ( Tenerife)
|
The answer is not restricting vehicles, afterall what's to stop the scrotes driving at 85mph in a 20 limit ...
The answer is massively restricting the number of people licenced to drive by making the test tougher and assessing attitude as much as ability. Making driving a privilege and not a right as some view it.
|
HC... the scroats who drive unlicensed, banned, no tax... impossible to stop them. They steal cars, drive around on false plates, goad the police into high speed chases for fun. Banning them doesn’t stop them one little bit. Eventually they get sent down for three years, out in half that time or less, no chance of insurance, so just continue in the same cycle.
I don’t have an answer.
Well I do. Buts it not going to happen
|
>>I don't have an answer.
Here fines accumulate against a car, not a person, and the registered owner of that car must pay them. No matter what.
If the car is stolen, then any offences committed with that car are yours until you have reported it stolen, in person at a Police Station.
The only way to stop being the registered owner of a car is to prove the identity and address of the person buying the car and have their agreement to the transfer made in the presence of a notary.
For the law abiding this process is an utter a***.
For the scroats its actually quite effective in making them traceable and aware that they are traceable.
Third party insurance is compulsory, on the car, no driving restrictions, and cheap. £30 a year, or thereabouts. You cannot get your Revision Tecnica (MOT) or Permission de Circulacion (Road Tax) without proof of insurance. For all document offences the car is impounded and the driver detained.
Drive too fast, drive stupidly, drive drunk, no problem. Have an accident or get caught in a road block and the sticky stuff hits the whirly thing.
|
Thanks but I won’t be buying a second home. At any price. I’ve often considered buying a 50% or 33% share in various properties with friends, but never done it. Prefer to rent and move around....sponging off friends of friends as we did last month in Moraira. Fantastic 3 bed 3 bath villa for £17 pppn minutes from beach. Next Feb we’re paying £16 pppn in Moraira for 6 weeks. Lovely 2 bed attached bungalow. At those prices it’s pointless buying a second home and I’m too old to look at appreciating values. Or not.
Mind you... I blew a fantastic chance of a deluxe condo in Northstar ( ski resort near Tahoe) 12 years ago when the exchange rate was $2.04/£. Kicked myself ever since.
|
>>Prefer to rent and move around
Yep, tis best IMO, especially at your/our age, plus yoos can do other things with the spondulics, like investments etc.
Knew a chap in Tenerife who worked for Blackstone Franks - now Blevins Franks www.blevinsfranks.com/
[I knew Bill Blevins too so that's another claim-to-fame :)] He would only rent properties, mainly oop North near Puerto, and use his money to make even more of the blimming stuff.
|
"...tomorrow I'm going to wake up to 3" of fresh snow on the beach here in El Medano..."
Seriously - more likely it'll be blowing a gale.
We could hardly stand up when we were there earlier this year; it's not called the surfing centre for nothing.
|
No. Sat on my balcony looking out to sea at the moment! I’ll be there in 30 minutes.... I’ll give you a wave.....morning constitutional over Montana Roja then a late morning cerveza overlooking the harbour at Los Abrigos before walking back up the coast.
I could be on a plane today flying out to Dubai with the current gf of LL who is spending Christmas with family who live there. I declined the offer. Home to the land of sheep, mud & drizzle tomorrow. Need my head examining.
|
>> I'll give you a wave
10:10am then.
>>Need my head examining.
Not in my opinion. D'you ever do any walking up in the hills at all at all? I used to luv walking up Guaza from Los Cris + the BIG hill/montana above Adeje.
I also used to regularly drive my little LHD diseasel Citroen AX up Teide and walk for hours around Montana Blanca.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEGYLFpabH0
|
In reply to the OP, it does often seem silly and pointless that car makers still display top speeds for cars especially where those speeds are well in excess of 100 mph. On our increasingly busy, overcrowded roads no-one needs to drive a car which can do twice the legal limit.
I'd be perfectly happy with a small engined car with good torque and quick acceleration limited to 85 mph.
That said, you could still speed in a 30 limit so unless cars come with electronic limiters triggered by smart road signs, then a blanket ban is not the way forward.
|
"silly and pointless that car makers still display top speeds for cars"
Yeah, but we're men. We like to brag.
I have 11 inches (but I only use the top half).
|
"I have 11 inches "
I have two feet, but don't brag about it.
|
>> In reply to the OP, it does often seem silly and pointless that car makers
>> still display top speeds for cars especially where those speeds are well in excess of
>> 100 mph. On our increasingly busy, overcrowded roads no-one needs to drive a car which
>> can do twice the legal limit.
>>
Remember cars are designed for other markets where limits are different though the German manufacturers apply a 250kph limit even though some sections of their autobahns are unlimited.
Also a car that is capable of, say, 150mph is likely to be safer at 70mph than one that is designed to do 85mph. For instance my (limited to) 155mph M135i has bigger brakes than our (claimed) 135mph 120i and would surely stop quicker from 70mph than something like a 90 mph flat out basic Up on skinny tyres etc.
|
>>Also a car that is capable of, say, 150mph is likely to be safer at 70mph than one that is designed to do 85mph.>>
That has always been the argument I've made - along with recognising the higher speed limits in some other countries - whenever people ask why manufacturers make or offer vehicles that can handsomely exceed our national maximum speed limit?
The safety margins are immense as a result if you own such a vehicle; much safer than for those drivers looking to drive flat out on a motorway in a modest hatchback, fully laden and with a small capacity engine which, as most are aware, is observed far too often.
|
>> The safety margins are immense as a result if you own such a vehicle;
No they aren't. It just feels as if they are. It's the same sort of rubber on the same tarmac.
They are likely to be more stable perhaps but the driver of the little hatchback will be much more aware of their speed and vulnerability which will go some way to keeping them more careful. Conversely the feeling of relative invincibility in a big powerful car could well lead to complacency.
Any car at 70mph will quickly become an unguided missile with very little provocation in bad conditions especially.
As for big brakes - they are no better than little brakes for a single use provided that the little brakes can lock the wheels. Fatter tyres will make more difference.
|
>>No they aren't. It just feels as if they are. It's the same sort of rubber on the same tarmac.>>
I don't really think you've thought that one out too logically.
Any additional measures of safety can only be of immense benefit and not just in the case of being a motorist.
|
>> I don't really think you've thought that one out too logically.
>>
>> Any additional measures of safety can only be of immense benefit and not just in
>> the case of being a motorist.
Maybe not, but the biggest contributor to safety is not crashing - if you can do that, the rest is far less relevant.
Faster cars, all too often, are just going faster when they hit something.
|
I agree Manatee, it is hitting something that hurts, not speed itself so efforts to reduce collisions don't have to focus solely on speed.
In fact speed is positive in many respects, it shortens journey times so reduces stress, increases productivity and reduces the number of vehicles on the road at anyone time so lessens the number of possible things to hit.
|
>> I agree Manatee, it is hitting something that hurts, not speed itself so efforts to
>> reduce collisions don't have to focus solely on speed.
>>
>> In fact speed is positive in many respects, it shortens journey times so reduces stress,
>> increases productivity and reduces the number of vehicles on the road at anyone time so
>> lessens the number of possible things to hit.
That has to be the wildest conclusion ever offered.
|
>>
>> That has to be the wildest conclusion ever offered.
>>
It's simplistic though the principal is clear.
|
|
The principal is very clear as to the principle...:-)
|
>> In fact speed is positive in many respects, it ...reduces the number of vehicles on the road at anyone time so
>> lessens the number of possible things to hit.
Genius! BRAKE have never considered that one!
|
>> Genius!
>>
Gee, thanks Manatee !
|
>>
>> In fact speed is positive in many respects, it shortens journey times so reduces stress,
>> increases productivity and reduces the number of vehicles on the road at anyone time so
>> lessens the number of possible things to hit.
>>
It reduces journey times by very small amounts.
Why should a faster speed be less stressful?
I thought it was established that a lower speed was more efficient, vehicles can be closer together, so number of vehicles per hour increases? Higher speeds are the converse.
2 second gap at 60 mph = 176 feet
2 second gap at 30 mph = 88 feet
Doubling the speed halves the number of cars on the road?
|
>> It reduces journey times by very small amounts.
>>
>> Why should a faster speed be less stressful?
>>
>> I thought it was established that a lower speed was more efficient, vehicles can be
>> closer together, so number of vehicles per hour increases? Higher speeds are the converse.
>>
>> 2 second gap at 60 mph = 176 feet
>> 2 second gap at 30 mph = 88 feet
>>
>> Doubling the speed halves the number of cars on the road?
I thought HC was being satirical. Maybe not!
|
>>
>> It reduces journey times by very small amounts.
>>
Depends on the speed differential clearly.
>> Why should a faster speed be less stressful?>>
Less time travelling, less tired, more time at work or at home etc etc.
>> I thought it was established that a lower speed was more efficient, vehicles can closer together, so number of vehicles per hour increases? Higher speeds are the converse.
>>
Yes at higher speeds on congested roads with multiple junctions.
>> >> Doubling the speed halves the number of cars on the road?
>>
>> I thought HC was being satirical. Maybe not!
>>
Not entirely, if the average speeds across the road network could be safely doubled (unrealistic of course) the it would halve the number of vehicles on the road at any one time.
Or put it another way, if the average speeds across the road network was halved it would double the number of vehicles on the road at any one time - until we all got totally fed up with it of course ...
|
>> Or put it another way, if the average speeds across the road network was halved
>> it would double the number of vehicles on the road at any one time -
>> until we all got totally fed up with it of course ...
>>
Only if that many people wished to travel on said roads at any one time, the number of vehicles / drivers is not infinite.
The only realistic basis to make the twice the speed half the time argument is that supply of roads never exceeds the demand, an unrealistic assumption.
Higher speeds are only possible safely if every driver on the road is capable of a suitable standard of driving, clearly an equally unrealistic assumption.
|
>> >> Or put it another way, if the average speeds across the road network was
>> halved it would double the number of vehicles on the road at any one time
>> -
>> >> until we all got totally fed up with it of course ...
>> >>
>> Only if that many people wished to travel on said roads at any one time,
>> the number of vehicles / drivers is not infinite.
>>
No, it's not a matter more people wanting to travel at all, it's simple mathematics, if the same number of people want to travel over the same routes though the average speeds are halved then their journey times would be doubled and on average there would be twice as many vehicles on the road at any one time.
|
How can there be twice as many vehicles on the road if everyone who wants to travel was already on the road? There would be the same number of vehicles, just spaced out a bit more in that case. It's only simple mathematics if you have included all the variables in the sum.
|
CD - you and I both have a 50 mile journey that will take an hour at 50mph, I need to be there are 10 and you need to be there at 11. So I will arrive at 10 and therefore am not on the road at the point you hit the road at 10 for your 50 mile/1 hour journey.
However if our 50 mile journeys will take us two hours at an average of 25 mph then I will have to leave at 8 to be there at 10 and you will have to leave at 9 to be there at 11 so we will both be on the road at between 9 and 10.
It's a matter of extrapolating that across the whole road network.
|
>> It's a matter of extrapolating that across the whole road network.
>>
to include every driver who wants to do every journey, if you originally had the (say) million people who want to do journeys that dat and time on he road at 50 then at 25 you will not have any more people who want to do journeys at that time you will still have the same number of vehicles on the road.
Anyway it is all hypothetical and getting silly.
|
>> if you originally had the (say) million people who want to do journeys that dat and time on he road at 50 then at 25 you will not have any more people who want to do journeys at that time you will still have the same number of vehicles on the road.>>
No you wouldn't, for the reasons given. If you halve the speed and the same journeys are undertake then over any given period of time you would have on average double the number of vehicles on the roads.
>> Anyway it is all hypothetical and getting silly.
>>
It's not at all hypothetical - a slight decrease in the average speed causes a slight increase in the number of vehicles on the road (traffic density) and a slight increase in the average speed has a corresponding effect.
|
|
So reducing the maximum speed necessarily reduces average speed?
|
>>I thought it was established that a lower speed was more efficient, vehicles can be closer together, so number of vehicles per hour increases? Higher speeds are the converse.>>
This is precisely why variable speed limits were introduced on the M25 in the 1990s - at peak times traffic could be kept moving even though the road capacity was increased.
Mind you some people found it difficult to grasp the concept at the time.....
Last edited by: Stuartli on Thu 21 Dec 17 at 11:14
|
>> This is precisely why variable speed limits were introduced on the M25 in the 1990s
>> - at peak times traffic could be kept moving even though the road capacity was
>> increased.
>>
>> Mind you some people found it difficult to grasp the concept at the time.....
It did work very well for a while, but on a rare trip to Heathrow recently I noticed a significant number of vehicles ignoring the 60/40 posted limits, only slowing for the gantries with the cameras on. They got to the back of the queue first of course.
|
>> It did work very well for a while,
I have extensive working experience of it, and it never did work really, even when new and people thought it was enforced.
>> recently I noticed a significant number of vehicles ignoring the 60/40 posted limits, only slowing
>> for the gantries with the cameras on.
O f course you also need to know which one work and which ones dont. Only the HADECS work, and there are only 4 of them (two each way) between J15 and 11
|
Well it seemed to work better when it wasn't ignored...
I don't know where the cameras are or which work; it's not important to me, I just accept that I will get there when I get there; the speeders seemed to think they knew when to slow down but from what you say they were probably wrong.
|
>> I have extensive working experience of it, and it never did work really, even when
>> new and people thought it was enforced.
Seems to work OK on the M42 and on elevated section of M6. Early days yet but M1 16>18 runs much better than it did before the works started.
The western side of the M25 is a rule unto itself
|
|
M42 never seemed any better, throw in the smart motorway rubbish when a car breaks down and its a dogs breakfast.
|
>>>>Also a car that is capable of, say, 150mph is likely to be safer at 70mph than one that is designed to do 85mph.>>
And presumably the safest of all would be a car capable and designed for 150mph that is restricted to, say, 70mph?
|
It's simply not about the car, dumbing down does not improve safety, it simply bring everyone down to the lowest common denominator meaning that scrotes still have the same ability as anyone else to make mistakes or to blatant do 70mph in a 30 etc.
Training and empowerment drive safety in the air and at sea, that philosophy needs to be applied to the roads if we want to make a step change in safety.
That being said we have some of the safest roads globally.
|
>> It's simply not about the car, dumbing down does not improve safety, it simply bring
>> everyone down to the lowest common denominator meaning that scrotes still have the same ability
>> as anyone else to make mistakes or to blatant do 70mph in a 30 etc.
Not sure I understand that, but I would say that much of the safety margin that better tyres, brakes, suspension, ABS, DSC etc would otherwise confer is taken as a performance benefit - my blood runs cold sometimes when cars pass me at 80+ on the motorway in dreadful conditions for which the driver appears to be making no allowance.
I also wonder if ACC / AEB just reduce the attention level of some drivers - at least it should stop the, tailgating.
>>
>> Training and empowerment drive safety in the air and at sea, that philosophy needs to
>> be applied to the roads if we want to make a step change in safety.
Training and a no-blame culture - not sure about empowerment. Airlines take a dim view of pilots who disregard SOPs.
>> That being said we have some of the safest roads globally.
>>
|
>>And presumably the safest of all would be a car capable and designed for 150mph that is restricted to, say, 70mph? >>
Depends on the driver.....
My Sports Jetta is a 140mph capable vehicle and I'm well aware of the safety margins compared to a lot of other vehicles.
|
Brakes are almost irrelevant for emergency stops - tyres are the limiting factor.
Of course if one were to repeatedly emergency stop then I'm with Cheesey.
My car is limited to 100mph - it can reach it quite rapidly and would probably max out at 130mph if it was allowed.
Would it bother me if it was limited to 85mph?
Not in the slightest.
I think having a buffer above the limit is necessary for safe overtakes if one were to apply limiters - perhaps HGVs should have a 60-second override where they could do 70mph to get past crap on motorway hill sections?
|
>> Brakes are almost irrelevant for emergency stops - tyres are the limiting factor.
>>
>> Of course if one were to repeatedly emergency stop then I'm with Cheesey.
>>
Braking a fully loaded car from m/way speeds or downhill, the more powerful the brakes the better, yes tyres are the limit in respect of adhesion though a more powerful car with bigger brakes generally had larger tyres with larger contact patches so can make use of the more powerful brakes.
|
The best way to avoid accidents is to avoid accidents. It can be done, quite easily in fact, my grandfather started driving in the very early 1900s, my father began in the 1920s, and I got my licence in the 1970s. All of us have had lifetimes of high mileage driving by the standards of our generations and none of us have ever crashed a car. Well, I haven't so far anyway. I suppose there's still time.
My wife however...
;-)
Last edited by: Runfer D'Hills on Wed 20 Dec 17 at 19:49
|
>>.. so can make use of the more powerful brakes. >>
...and, indeed, of ABS. Cadence breaking technique applied to a more definitive level...:-)
|
>> So, should cars have speed limiters?
No, the criminal should have put on jail longer and tagged on release.
One can drive below speed limit and still crash.
|
£5k/mth in jail then another £1k/mth to G4S to pretend to tag them.
Smart thinking Batman.
|
How far away, I wonder, is the tech that ids you as you get in the car in some manner, looks in a cloudy database somewhere and then allows/disallows the drive, or modifies the performance of the car accordingly?
Putting aside the "that wouldn't work because, and anyway, you'd get round it by" stuff; if such a thing were available for your car, would you opt for it? I think I would.
|
>> How far away, I wonder, is the tech that ids you as you get in the car in some manner, looks in a cloudy database somewhere and then allows/disallows the drive, or modifies the performance of the car accordingly?
>>
Like sod off, you've been in the pub ...
Last edited by: Hard Cheese on Fri 22 Dec 17 at 12:21
|
There seems to be some scepticism about the relevance of speed, and its enforcement, to safety.
This link supposedly sheds some light:
www.racfoundation.org/research/safety/effectiveness-of-speed-cameras
Yes, I did recently attend the speed awareness course kindly offered to me by the local police.
|
That's an interesting subject buried in a terribly written article ON, for which thanks. And incidentally, I for one welcome our new robot overlords.
|
Speed limits? - Pat
