Like to see how they are going to fit it to classics with carbs and totally unreliable speedos! Wouldn't work in tunnels either. Or very mountainous areas with poor gps signals. It's just a load of nonsense and they will spin to try and placate all those done by cameras who were driving safely at the time. If they were on new cars only new car sales would plummet. It would be childs play to fiddle around with the gps system to get it to either report a different limit to the car or if they were monitoring it a different location. If my car consistently tells them it is in on my drive, how are they going to know unless they physically go there? They'd probably try anpr but that can be confused with mud so that wouldn't provide proof either.
|
If this was introduced, people would just buy the car that was the cheapest to run with the least amount of depreciation.
Takes the fun out of driving doesn't it!?
|
What about bringing restrictions in on roads where there is a potential hazard i.e. near schools, or on motorways, but leave open roads free without any restrictions so that there is still a duty of responsibility with the driver?
|
|
|
|
Assuming this becomes reality, and i'm one who thinks it will together with road pricing, together with the speed fine toll that accompanies your statement (they'll already have taken the money by direct debit), then the roads will become unbelievably congested and much more dangerous than they already are.
As a truck driver of more years than enough, i've lived with speed restrictors of various types for many years.
I foretold it and i saw it happen, the bunching and the severe tailgating and the consequential concertina accidents, the pushing and shoving and the general degradation in truck and bus/coach driving standards, drivers wholly incapable of controlling their own vehicles by their own skill.
You've all cursed truck drivers for making an overtake last several miles, well welcome to that scene, you'll be happily cruising up the dual carriageway at your limited 70 and you'll come up behind someone doing 65, so you go to overtake, and he speeds up to 70.01 (the limiter can be precise, but with tyre wear etc), so keeps you out there, so you drop in behind and he slows down to 68 and on it goes.
Now imagine the joys when the numpty does that to you when you are overtaking on a 2 way road.
Hence this goes on and inevitably severe bunching starts and we travel down the road in little clumps of vehicles (if you take note you'll often see trucks in this situation unable to separate), then if you want to get by you'll have to take the roundabout faster or have more power to outacclerate the other driver and on it goes.
As said, it takes all responsibility away from the driver and yet again we are reduced to the lowest common denominator, or in this case treated as only capable of driving as the biggest fool they can find to standardise on.
HJ's right about one thing, the idiots really are in charge, unfortunately i can only see their equivalents in the main 3 parties.
|
Lots of people here making good strong arguments, but they will simply be discounted. I'm old enough to remember the impassioned arguments against compulsory seatbelt use (might trap you in an accident etc.). We had all the civil liberty arguments then too.
Don't just blame the lawmakers - tempting though that is. Blame our fellow drivers whose irresponsible speeding has made it into an issue that the lawmakers have consequently taken interest in.
|
"Don't just blame the lawmakers - tempting though that is. Blame our fellow drivers whose irresponsible speeding has made it into an issue that the lawmakers have consequently taken interest in."
Alan, while I completely agree that idiotic drivers cannot help the situation, we have a government ADDICTED to legislation, an EU initiating arbitrary controls to pay for its pet projects and, of course, millions of "safety cameras" which do what exactly? Some authorites are removing them altogether citing very poor PR for a method which raises an awful lot of money inconsistent with their reduction in road deaths.
The government recently SHELVED a report into speed cameras because the conclusion didn't prop up the NGOs' oft-quoted "reduces road deaths" argument. A government argument doesn't need to be true for many folk to be propagandised into believing it after all.
|
|
|
|
Barney, if you've bought a new car in the last two or three years, it's likely that it has a black box installed somewhere.
All General Motors passenger vehicles have them, for example. Ford, Toyota and other manufacturers have been including these devices in their cars for years.
I've not heard civil liberties folk raising any alarm about these. Do you know what they do?
|
I heard this on JV today and the clue was in the first 30 seconds.
The researcher who tried the limiter said ''Oh, it feels like someone else is driving the car''
Now as soon as we all start feeling that ,we lose the ability to think for ourselves, part of our brain stops working when we get into a car, and we forget how to do it.
This is what's happened with cruise control and it becomes very boring.
I fully support the point that has been made before that it will cause so much 'bunching' of cars just as it does in lorries now, that we'll all be reduced to a crawl.
Interesting to see that BRAKE fully support it while SAFESPEED don't want it at any price.
I'm with SAFEPEED!
Pat
|
I am surprised that this is voluntary and doubt it will remain so if Labour stay in power. Yet another sinister intrusion of big brother.
All this satellite monitoring is deeply sinister. Quite frankly I don't want the "machine" to always know where I am. This speed limiting, road pricing, tracking is just te start of the slippery slope.
There is no way I would sign up for this. I am not a speeder but sometimes you need a quick burst of speed to overtake for example and this could be potentially dangerous.
Edited by mattbod on 30/12/2008 at 22:05
|
Discussions about speed cameras always include several posts from drivers complaining that it's terribly difficult for them to both drive and monitor their speedometer. Seems daft to me, but if drivers really have that much difficulty in staying within the limits, then they could use the driver-controlled limiters which have been available for several years in Renaults and Citroens.
Why aren't all manufacturers either fitting those devices as standard or offering them as extras? Simple: they would rush to fit them if customers demanded them, but not enough drivers actually want to deprive themselves of an excuse for speeding, preferring to spend the money on a car with alloy wheels than on one with these gadgets.
So self-discipline doesn't work, and enforcement causes howls of protest, and drivers don't bother using the technologies under their own control ... and what happens? In steps Big Bother, rubbing his hands with glee at the opportunity given to him, as I predicted here nearly four years ago:
www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?v=e&t=31...#
The writing has been on the wall for speeding motorists for years: use self-restraint or we'll use enforcement, and if enforcement isn't enough we'll use control. The ABD, the so-called Safe Speed bunch, and all the rest of the refuseniks are the people creating the situation where all the snoop-state technology will be rolled out sooner or later.
|
Hello NowWheels - I couldn't disagree more.
The "writing on the wall" of which you speak has certainly not been couched in the terms you use. Road pricing and speed limiting are provided for in the European Lisbon Treaty. So whether you're (rather boldly) blaming 450 million people for being morons or you didn't know I'm not sure. Certainly it's a bit lofty in my eyes to blame drivers for something politicians have been dying to enact for about 10 years. Not only that, but they are doing so in breach of their own regulations since the LT has not yet been ratified by all member states. Yet they plough on. That's how desperate they are to have your money. And if you don't go 32mph in a 30 zone, they'll have you for something else, namely road pricing. In fact, I'd go as far as to suggest that it is precisely because people tend NOT to speed inappropriately that lawmakers feel it necessary to garner revenue by some other way in the guise of "Green".
What you say makes sense however. IF we lived in a world where only necessary laws were made. Without wanting to sound like the jumped-up idiot I suspect I'm already sounding like(!), I strongly recommend reading on the subject of Galileo, the EU satellite Project. It's illuminating reading, though you won't find very much in the web pages of the BBC, which of course receives EU funding...
|
The "writing on the wall" of which you speak has certainly not been couched in the terms you use. Road pricing and speed limiting are provided for in the European Lisbon Treaty.
FocusDriver, you miss my point. Of course Gallileo and and all that stuff has been in preparation for years, but the speed merchants give government the perfect excuse to use these Orwellian monitoring techniques.
It's like what happened after 9/11 and 7/7: the Home Office gleefully dusted off every plan it had ever had for decimating civil liberties, and set to work like a bull in a china shop because it had been given the perfect pretext.
|
OK NowWheels, I did miss your point. I couldn't agree more when you mention the stuff about "pretext" for government/EU action. A good point! I do like a rant, however ill-placed though. I admit it.
Anyway, until the EU clamps down on people like me typing whtever they want on internet forums, I'm afraid you'll just have to ignore me. The good news is that they DO want to clamp down on blogs and forums which contain material running counter to EU "wisdom"!
|
|
|
|
Road pricing and speed limiting are provided for in the European Lisbon Treaty.
FocusDriver:
Where does the Lisbon Treaty provide for road pricing and speed limiting?
I've scanned through the treaty and couldn't find reference to either.
|
Bagpuss, the Treaty doesn't mention "road pricing" or "speed limiting" in these easy to understand terms. It is also a "self-amending" Treaty and these are, as I said, "provided for" in this Lisbon Treaty.
Mr Giscard d'Estaing, the architect of the Treaty itself says the "proposed institutional reforms" of the rejected constitution can still be found in the new treaty. More importantly, it remains "impenetrable" to ordinary voters; exactly the way they want it.
|
Bagpuss the Treaty doesn't mention "road pricing" or "speed limiting" in these easy to understand terms.
Well I don't need easy to understand terms, I'm a grown up educated person and can also deal with difficult to understand terms. So if you could point me towards your difficult to understand terms in the treaty regarding road pricing or speed limiting I would be grateful.
It is also a "self-amending" Treaty
Which still means that any changes have to be authorised by the relevant governments. But that's not a discussion for a motoring forum.
More importantly, it remains "impenetrable" to ordinary voters; exactly the way they want it.
No I don't find it impenetrable, just astonishingly long winded and boring.
|
Bagpuss. Thank you for your question. I was wrong. The road pricing scheme is not part of the Lisbon Treaty. It is FAR, FAR WORSE!!
In fact, it's a plain, simple directive:
DIRECTIVE 2004/52/EC
It came into force in the UK on 12th February 2007. So it's now enshined in UK law.
Thanks for bringing this to my attention.
On your other point, about changes needing to be "authorised by relevant governments"
These governments will be duty bound to promote the objectives and serve the interests of the European Union. In strict terms, if revising the treaties is couched in terms of advancing the objectives of the Union (or serving its interests) the European Council will be obligated under the terms of the TREATY to approve any moves proposed. The veto, therefore, is of only symbolic effect.
Lastly, if you don't find the Lisbon Treaty impenetrable, then I'm afraid I don't believe you. The legalese used is, according to Giscard d'Estaing "unnecessary" and a "smokescreen". If you can understand it then that's great but would you, in the same breath, argue that it's been designed for ordinary people to vote on? Given the interests at play with regard to Giscard d'Estaing, I have to take his word over yours. I can't see how you could counter this without entering the realm of Euro-fantasy which seems to be where most Europhiliacs live.
|
In fact it's a plain simple directive: DIRECTIVE 2004/52/EC
Nice try:-)
That directive is regarding technical interoperability of road tolling equipment. It defines transmission frequencies, communication protocols and that sort of stuff. That means if a country introduces a tolling system it should conform to this directive in order to prevent drivers having to have 4 different black boxes in their vehicles if they travel to 4 different countries. It's particularly relevant for HGV drivers because Germany, Austria and Italy all have automated road tolling for HGVs.
It is not a directive to force countries in the EU to introduce road tolling, so no conspiracy there.
Excuse me for not answering your other points as that will lead to a political debate which is not why I visit a motoring forum. I would only say I don't think it's necessary that the Lisbon Treaty should be formulated in mickey mouse language so that people can read it without falling asleep. It is the job of our politicians to explain it in an honest way and then explain and debate openly what the consequences are. That they don't do this is criminal. You can speculate on why they don't but it's at least partly, I believe, because it gives them a useful scapegoat for when they make bad decisions. So people get their views from the Mail and Express instead.
|
Bagpuss, it's my immense displeasure to acknowledge your response! I'll do some more research on this based on what you've said. I sincerely don't wish to misinform.
While your point stands tall, the question I'm immediately left asking is "what's the point of an entirely optional framework" for road pricing? Similarly, and along my established line, what about the government's lofty attitude to the Mancs vote? It's clear to see from this example that government is pushing hard for it. Fishy but very DENIABLE. Perfect for slippery Europhiles?
|
Bagpuss. Thank you for your question. I was wrong. The road pricing scheme is not part of the Lisbon Treaty. It is FAR FAR WORSE!! In fact it's a plain simple directive: DIRECTIVE 2004/52/EC It came into force in the UK on 12th February 2007. So it's now enshined in UK law.
FocusDriver, did you actually read that Directive before denouncing it? It's I suspect not, because it's a very different document from what you suggest: see the PDF at tinyurl.com/7vmfd8
What the Directive does is to establish a framework for road-charging, by ensuring that the technologies in use are interoperable. That means that drivers won't have to have a different device for every single bit of tolled road, and that people can be charged electronic tolls when outside their own country. That'll mean, for example that foreign HGVs in the UK can't dodge any electronic tolls on UK roads, and it'll also mean that the 27 EU member states don't spend their time reinventing the wheel by developing incomptaible systems to do the same job.
But it the Directive does not require any member state to impose a toll on any of its roads, and it is quite explicit about that:
(23) This Directive does not affect the Member States' freedom to lay down rules governing road
infrastructure charging and taxation matters
This looks to me like the beginnings of another of those Euromyths, and it'll be interesting to see how far it goes.
|
"This looks to me like the beginnings of another of those Euromyths, and it'll be interesting to see how far it goes. "
A fair point NowWheels, see above as I intend to delve deeper into the hideous realm of European legislation. In the meantime I'm happy to stand corrected :)
Edited by FocusDriver on 31/12/2008 at 18:47
|
|
|
Suggest you spend some time talking to police drivers and police driver trainers. They are closer in beliefs to safespeed as they believe in proper education and enforcement. They also believe that it is perfectly safe for an advanced driver to exceed posted limits. Class 1 police drivers are the best trained and best able to handle higher speeds. Their observational skills are far higher than the average motorist so are better placed to judge whether exceeding a set limit is safe or not.
If limits were set correctly in the first place ie not so damn low then you'd find that drivers wouldn't disagree with the limits and would stick within them.
Driving at an appropriate speed for the prevailing conditions is the only speed drivers should worry about. Unfortunately you nannying types have made people pay more attention to the speed on the sign rather than think what is safe and appropriate. Just because your driving skills aren't up to the task of being able to exceed a limit safely doesn't mean no-one elses are.
|
Teabelly, well put.
This is NOT about "speeding" inappropriately. The law's the law's the law...but if the law consistently fails to recognise what everyone else does, then why should we have confidence in an irrational system?
In Holland, trials of a new method have drastically cut pedestrian deaths. What they've done is to remove ALL street furniture, including white lines in the middle of the road. Apparently, it seems motorists who have to think for themselves can do so. They're not being told "30mph" but choose to do less than that.
It's a bit of an old Fashioned Tory idea, but what happened to individual responsibility?
NowWheels, apologies if I sound angry. I'm possessed by a long-dead Tory MP worse luck.
|
It's a bit of an old Fashioned Tory idea but what happened to individual responsibility?
FocusDriver, I'm all in favour of individual responsibility, but if motorists were indeed exercising individual responsibility, we wouldn't be in this mess. I can point you to countless residential streets where drivers zoom through at 40mph rather than the 15-20 they should be doing, and similarly to village main streets where even 20mph is pushing it but most drivers are still doing 30 and some are doing 40.
It's the same pattern in so many areas of life: when enough people stop exercising individual responsibility, the state starts to enforce penalties or controls, or both.
Teabelly's point about police drivers and police driver trainers entirely misses the point, and suggesting that their approach to driving is suitable for everyone is a bit like suggesting that people should enter other folk's houses they way that a fireman would (climb ladder, smash window with axe, etc).
Police driving is a specialised skill for a specialised purpose, and the objectives of a police driver are entirely different to those that an ordinary driver should consider following. The number of accidents each year involving police drivers is completely disproportionate to the number of miles they travel, precisely because they are trained to take exceptional risks in order to arrive quickly at a place where others are at risk. That extreme balance of risks is not what any ordinary driver should be applying to their use of the roads, and ordinary drivers who try those techniques quite rightly find themselves in a lot of trouble.
Police drivers, being focused on getting to an emergency situation ASAP, quite rightly set their priority as minimising the risk of an accident whilst driving with far lower safety margins than would be tolerated for non-emergency purposes. But because their driving purposes are exceptional, they quite rightly don't factor all the speed-related issues which apply to cars in general, such as the disruption caused by road noise and the very serious displacement effect which vehicle speed has on non-vehicular road-users.
|
NowWheels teabelly was not suggesting you drive like police response drivers but rather experience it if you can. Not the same thing. But you do make a good point all the same.
The only thing that doesn't sit well with me is the notion of "if drivers exercised individual responsibility there would be no need for these measures" (paraphased in my own words). Individual responsibility doesn't only apply to inconsiderate / dangerous drivers. It applies equally to the law and how they treat transgressions.
I keep seeing oiks on awful programmes like "Police, camera, action" being "released without charge" for offences committed on recorded media. Individual responsibility applies as much to punishment (and it will not be collective if it is individual) as it does to drivers themselves.
The people you mention who travel at 40mph where 15-20 mph would be sensible - should be punished. I don't do that because I'm both wary of the law and apply sense to my own driving (or at least try my best to). These people doing 40 in a 20 should be punished, NOT the rest of us.
But this leads back to what you said about "pretext" - a brilliant point which can't be disputed in my view!
So I think that, although I'm full of hot air which doesn't help in a debate, we're in rough agreement. I think.
|
Some inaccurate figures bandied about at times also to justify this.
On the Jeremy Vine show yesterday the "Brake" spokeswoman said several times that "20 to 30 people are killed on our roads every day because of accidents caused by excessive speed". I make that between 7300 and 10,950 people killed on our roads per year " because of excessive speed".
Don't seem right to me - yet she was not challenged in her assertion.
Phil
|
|
PhilW do you really expect intervention from the BBC on a matter such as this?
|
"PhilW do you really expect intervention from the BBC on a matter such as this?"
No matt, I don't, but I was surprised that the "Safespeed" woman didn't pick up on it (especially since I was shouting at the car radio very loudly at the time!!) She (Safespeed) was pretty ineffective since the only argument she put forward was that you sometimes needed to exceed the speed limit to effect an overtaking manouevre safely. "Brake" replied that you shouldn't get into that situation in the first place if you are driving properly.
It also occurred to me while in Norwich today that satellite technology doesn't work well in cities - my signal was blocked several times by (I presume) high buildings. Wonder what it is like in Central London? Bit ironic if the only place you could "speed" would be in city centres! Or would you automatically be reduced to, say, 20mph max?
|
|
Excactly Phil but I am sure ideas such as this are dreamed up "in the bath" rather than being carefully considered. It all sounds like the thin end of the wedge to me unless the people in this country rail up against such measures. They are an insult to people. As I say below, policing is the only answer. At the moment people are prosecuted for going a few miles an hour over the limit but how often is the dangerous little muppet (normally in a pimped up Saxo) who screams through town centres at 60-70 mph brought to book?
|
"I am sure ideas such as this are dreamed up "in the bath" rather than being carefully considered"
I agree matt - whilst this is off topic, the same thought crossed my mind (OK,I was shouting at the car radio again!!) when the government announced also this week that it was going to "rate" internet sites in the same way as films are rated (to protect children"!!)
Purely in the interests of research you understand, I googled a certain word to find out about a type of bird found in great profusion on our bird table (Great, Blue, Coal, LongTailed - you get the idea) and google found 93million references to this type of "bird". Surprisingly, not all were suitable for children to view!! Do they really think they can "rate" all websites? Do they really think a foolproof way can be found to limit speeds on all road vehicles - old and new?
They can't even catch all the tax and insurance avoiders, or the drunk drivers.
Maybe ID cards will make it easier!!!
Regards,
Cynical Phil
|
It was also pretty obvious which side JV was one :)
Pat
|
We don't need speed cameras or big brother gizmos we need more road traffic cops who are highly trained and can make sound judgments. I have been stopped twice in my driving career. The first one booked me and he had every right to as I was taking the micky. The second I was only a few mph over the limit and I got a ticking off and sent on my way. However policemen cost money and their ability to make decisions goes against the "Big Brother" control mentality that is taking over this country. It really is frightening how Orwell's grim prophesy is becoming a reality.
Unfortunately it is arrogant hectoring no it alls such as an individual that appears regularly on this site to "flame" that are currently running this country and that s why we are in the mess we are in.
We need proper policing and informed judgment not arbitrary edicts from left wing nannying bullies.
|
|
P.S if this ever came to pass the geeks with the laptops would do a very brisk trade. I would be at the front of the queue.
|
|
GM in the US offered a device on the Corvette at one time;one key for the owner of the car and a different key for servicing and the rest of the owner's family(restricted performance).However they spoilt the system by telling dealers to check the red wire at the back of the engine compartment at every service.Dicconnecting it restored all the performance with either key.
|
I'm all for drivers obeying speed limits and a GPS real-time speed restrictor that knows the limit on any stretch of road is a good idea.
There is a disadvantage if such a device actually limits your speed, with no over-ride - you can't speed up to avoid danger from behind, as might be necessary in an emergency - or you can't speed up to get out of a dangerous situation you might have created for yourself (shouldn't happen in first place, but sometimes does). Also there's a problem if some vehicles have a 'smart' speed limiting device and others don't.
So what would be good would be a switchable speed limiter that can be over-ridden in an emergency (e.g. by flooring the accelerator) and that can be turned off too. With such a device all those drivers who claim that speed cameras are dangereous because they make people watch at their speedometers would be able to avoid speeding!
|
Labour will be telling me when I can go to the toilet next.
Btw, theres evidence if you read one of the stop/no ID card forums that the chips in the cards will be able to be picked up by cameras/sensors on motorway bridges to tell the government who is in the car.
I find it incredible they dont find this to be an infringement on your privacy.
All in the name of crime/terrorism/fraud/immigration (delete where applicable).
|
So what would be good would be a switchable speed limiter that can be over-ridden in an emergency
When trials for this system were announced, it was said:
"Each time the limit on the road changes, the driver will be alerted to that change.
The accelerator pedal then vibrates when the limit is reached and the car cannot exceed the limit - unless the driver opts out of the system by braking, stopping or accelerating.
Driver opt-outs are allowed by using buttons on the steering wheel of using an over-ride kick down on the accelerator pedal. "
I have not been able to find details of the system referred to in the first post here, though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
