New Cars to have Speed Limiter

[headinhands]

And the first thing I thought of was the many speeding MNees who'll be frothing at the mouth at this.

Don't new cars already have this or would it be an automatic speed limiter?

Most used control on my car. My only annoyance is (a) it needs to be explicitly set every time the car is started and (b) no-one has ever managed to explain (a) to me with anything remotely resembling a good reason.

Aren't all cars "speed limited" anyway ? Mine doesn't really go much more than 120 - can't be safe if you need to over take .

The Ford S-Max courtesy car I had for a week last year had an automatic speed limiter that read the road signs and set itself. It also chimed when it saw warning signs.

I have mixed feelings on this.
Ultimately, we're heading towards autonomous cars anyway, so it's only really an issue that'll exist between then and now.
But, we undertake training to drive a car, have to pass (multiple) test(s), and develop our skills thru experience. Yet, there has long been this pervasive desire to remove the control/responsibility from the driver, under the claims of protecting people from the negligent. But, I'm not so sure that this constant drain of responsibility doesn't just encourage people to be more lacksadaisic - bimbling along in a bubble of assumption that the car would tell them if something was awry, placing the task of driving way down the list of their current priorities.
Surely the safest drivers are those who are attentive and reactive to their environment, not just those who simply waft along under whatever the posted speed limit happens to be.

On the other hand, my current car has a voluntary limiter that you can set so you don't creep over the limit on those average speed check 50s, etc. But, again, going thru un-staffed roadworks at 2am at 60 instead of 50 I don't see as any more dangerous that staring intently at speedometer when the lanes are busy and the workers are out.

It's a step closer to big brother.

Yet, there has long been this pervasive desire to remove the control/responsibility from the driver, under the claims of protecting people from the negligent.

1. what's so bad about obeying the law anyway ?
2. Having seen a traffic census recording that showed 2 cars doing over 90 along a 30mph road between 2pm and 3pm past a school, I think the argument is made.

Surely having a limiter is no different to the age-checks for adult websites ?

How will that affect things like having to speed up/down for obstructions, i.e someone drifting towards you on the motorway when you're level with them/just in front of them so you need to speed up to pass them without causing accidents? Otherwise you need to brake heavy and hope that the person behind you isn't a-too close and b- is paying attention.

The proposal is for voluntary tech although it’s easy to see how insurance companies will very soon abuse it.

If they try to make it compulsory, the market for old cars will be very healthy.

1) what's so bad about obeying the law anyway ?

Largely nothing. But in activities like driving, unexpected circumstances frequently occur that are not anticipated by blanket rules like speed limits. There are a variety of situations where an accident may be better avoided by an action that would not ordinarily regarded as legal. The point and purpose to the lessons and the test is to create drivers who are capable and able to use their judgement to resolve the situation.
I'm a bit wary of things that intervene in the judgement of a driver - a computer says no moment - that could worsen a situation.

2) Having seen a traffic census recording that showed 2 cars doing over 90 along a 30mph road between 2pm and 3pm past a school, I think the argument is made.

Some people will stab someone with a kitchen knife. Doesn't mean we should blunt all the knives just in case.

I'm not sure that anything that encourages drivers to be more passive and complacent is a good thing. Driving through long sections of restricted roadworks is a higher risk because it's monotonous, the stopping distances are reduced and it can delay reactions to changes in circumstances on the road ahead. Busy conditions on smart motorway are hellish where it can take many miles to safely change lanes ready for a junction ahead as all lanes are fixed at the same speed with smaller gaps to safely pull into.

There are times when the ability to put on a burst of speed is the safer option, avoiding a drifting car, accelerating out of a slow turning onto a busy road, passing a cyclist before a bendy section of road while the visibility is good for a short while before easing back the speed to the flow of traffic. Driving safely to the road conditions is not exactly the same thing as sticking rigidly to speed limits.

I registered that a tree was falling infront of my car once. I was doing 40 in a 40. I was sufficiently spaced from it to stop with 10m to spare. Had I have been a little more than a few meters closer at the point of registering the hazard, fucking the 40mph limit and jamming my foot down on the accelerator may have spared my car whereas an emergency brake would have resulted in the car being crushed containing me, my 2yo and 6wk baby.

I don't think that it helps that Speed Limits and their placement are a response to political desire more than sound evidence. When speed cameras hit in the 90s, there were a lot of roads that were suddenly dropped from 60 to 50 or 40, etc, with cameras dotted about. There is a lot of influence in local elections from anti-speeding (and anti vehicle) groups that goes unchecked because no one else cares about local elections. They also take little account for vehicle type. I have a slow motorcycle (Harley), my neighbour has a 2+ tonne 4x4. I'd have to do something like 180mph to hit with the same force as him at 35mph; yet we have the same limit. Being clipped by a double decker at 30 would be worse still.

So, essentially, we're talking about a technology that helps people comply with an arbitrary, centrally set figure, that takes no account of circumstances, and is proliferated by low level political gain.

The point and purpose to the lessons and the test is to create drivers who are capable and able to use their judgement to resolve the situation.
I'm a bit wary of things that intervene in the judgement of a driver - a computer says no moment - that could worsen a situation

Yeah what to experts know. Pah.

I'm an avid watcher of Air Crash Investigation. The airline industry is increasingly seeing a problem of increased automation de-skilling Pilots, who no longer have the ability to fly out of emergency situations. I believe this will happen with increased automation of cars too. We'd just be replacing one risk with another.

I'm not naming names as that would be unfair but certainly one of the big car GPS automatic speed readers in the last two years had the wrong information input on a local road (it read it as national speed limit where it was in fact a 30 and school zone (20 at times). We are breeding a generation who won't actually know how to drive, just like the heartbreaking death of a young driver who didn't understand her sat nav. It said continue for the next X miles and she didn't realise that it included various junctions and cross roads, ran through a red light and unfortunately that was the end of her life.

I don't know about frothing MN'ers but the AA president has come out against this too.

I'd rather they built cars that wouldn't start until you'd passed a breath test.

I'm really not happy about it for several reasons.
Firstly, the phrase 'speed kills' annoys me. Speed doesn't kill, bad driving does. If speed kills then we'd have deaths on Formula One tracks every weekend.

Secondly, this technology is flawed technology. We have a heads-up display in our car and so I can see the speed limit for the road change. Quite frequently it is incorrect and changes to a lower limit (possibly for historic roadworks?). I can see this 'black box' technology being used to fine us even though we are not actually committing an offence and it then being extremely difficult to prove otherwise.

I have 2 recent examples of this:

1. Last year I was giving my mother a lift home. With age she has become a lot more stressed about driving fast and, because she had had an extremely stressful day (whole 'nother story!), I was trying to make the drive as smooth as possible. I was using the speed control with the +/- buttons on the steering wheel, so that there was no sharp accelerating or braking. The traffic was very light, but apparently on the approach to the Dartford Tunnel I was caught speeding despite setting the limit to the road signs. I can only think that the "smart" technology had lowered the speed limit for when there is heavy traffic. The photos do not prove exactly where I was on the road, just that it was me driving. My DH was of the opinion that it wasn't worth my time trying to fight this, just do the speed awareness course. 🙄
2. Last year I got stuck in a traffic jam. It turned out that someone was threatening to throw themselves off a multi-storey car park, so the police had cordoned off the whole road and were directing us through the normally bus lane only high street. I received a ticket for going in a bus lane, so off I trotted to the police station to ask them about this and they gave me an incident number. I appealed based on the fact that we were directed that way by the police and provided the incident number. It was rejected. If I wanted to appeal further I would have had to go to court in Nottingham (I'm SE London, the incident was in SE London). Again DH says it's not worth your time and effort, just pay the fine.

I'm lucky enough to be in a position to be able to afford these fines, not everyone is.

I also agree with others that this taking away our ability to think and make decisions. We would be better off going all the way to driverless cars at this rate, then we can completely pass the blame when something goes wrong!

I'd rather they built cars that wouldn't start until you'd passed a breath test.

"The mandatory speed limiters will be introduced at the same time as a raft of other safety equipment, which includes data loggers, autonomous emergency braking, lane keep assist, a driver fatigue detection system, reversing sensors or cameras, and pre-wiring for alcohol interlock devices. All new models given type approval from May 2022 onwards will be required to have these systems, while models on the market prior to that date must have them by May 2024."

www.autoexpress.co.uk/car-news/103530/uk-set-to-adopt-eu-mandated-speed-limiters

People are so incredibly naive about the implications of such tech.

Lets look at the numbers.

Aprox 500 million EU citizens. And juat shy of 300 million cars.

The EU estimate that such tech will save 25,000 lives per year.

That is marginally less than 1% of the population.

Ask yourselves this. Why would a government or ruling authority, mandate the mass roll out of such intrusive tech, based on a percieved problem, which at most, affects less than 1% of the electorate?

Clearly this isn't about road safety. It's about mass surveillance. There has been no mention of how, where, or for how long the data from the vehicle will be held. Who can access it. (It will log each and every single journey, record max and min speeds, G-forces, and most intrusive of all, it will record the sound from within the vehicle.) This is seriously concerning. The implications for abuse is huge.

There is no reason for this (as proposed) tech to exist. I can understand the benefit of a "blackbox" style record of the last 30 seconds of a vehicles speed, braking, G-force. But nothing else.

A car is a place, like a home, people spend hours of their day driving. I don't want my every move logged and recorded (get enough of that at work).

If they were honest. And stated the real reason why they want this tech introduced, then we could at least have an open discussion.

Anybody who thinks this is a road safety initiative is delusional.

Fish

The alcohol interlock wiring is so that the EU can introduce "alcolock" devices. These are very common in the US. A convicted drink driver will be court ordered to have an "alcolock" fitted to their car. This would be for a period of a year or more and may be in addition to, or instead of, a driving ban. It would require the driver to blow into a hand held device which is hard wired to the vehicle electrics.

The devices are fitted by private companies and you have to drive to their "service centers" once a month to have the data from the machine downloaded to check for compliance.

There has been no mention of how, where, or for how long the data from the vehicle will be held

It's kept on the vehicle surely? I've not seen anything which suggests a two-way data stream at all.

I agree with a PP, there is no way they would do this without some way to monetise the data.

The data will be accessable. That's the whole point of the system. There will be two way communication, in exactly the same way as current insurance black boxes work.

Data will be stored on board the vehicle also. But if the owner can delete the data then the system is pointless, so therefore who, how, and under what circumstances can the data be accessed.

Can your local back street mechanic download a copy of your journeys, conversations, and such.

What about when you sell the vehicle, how much information will the new owner be able to pull from the system. Insurance companies WILL without question lobby government for unrestricted access to this data.

Also, nobody has explained what happens if a GPS signal is lost. Will the vehicle shut down? There are two long tunnels on my commute, rush hour some times involves a half hour or more, sitting inside the tunnel, not even the radio works! If the vehicle can be driven without an active "ping", then a piece of tin foil stuck to the "shark fin" would render the whole scheme pointless.

They are mandating the tracking, recording and sharing the data of every single journey you make and every conversation you have in your car.

They are mandating the tracking, recording and sharing the data of every single journey you make and every conversation you have in your car.

Well, if it saves one child ....

Hate the idea. Agree this is absolutely nothing to do with road safety, and everything to do with data mining and control of even more of our our behaviour.

Depressed to see so many suckers falling for this 'it will save lives' crap. I heard this woman talking on the radio promoting her book, it looks like more of you really need to read it. Surveillance Capitalism