Should cars be speed limited?

brokenarms

After reading the recent thread on the M50 it appears to me that some of the problems in our driving culture could be solved by limiting cars to the speed limits.
I would hate it on my car personally. But as a professional driver who drives a large speed limited van for a living I can see its advantages also.

It is part of a condition of my employment that our vans are restricted to 95kmh as the insurance company insists on it. I honestly never get into any trouble in the slow lane as there is loads of reaction time compared the the cars whizzing past me.

Is there really any need to drive over the speed limit lawfully?

I can only think of one instance where one may need a bit more speed to avoid a crash but that would be rare.

I have a pet hate of people who drive over the limit in built up areas personally simple because it is unfair of them to put pedestrians lives in danger.
Could a system like speed limiting via a GPS system ever work?
Do you think it may be a reality in the future as cars become ever more powerful?

Motorcycles are restricted already and have been for a longtime. Learners can't ride a powerful bike and liter bikes are restricted to a crazy 300kph by law. So seed have been sown.

Michael D Not Higgins

The problem with the GPS based system would be if there was an interruption to the signal, you would have to put an automatic raising of the limiter to, say, 100kph. People would become over-reliant on the car limiting their speed and could potentially drive at unsafe speeds in the case of a GPS signal loss. Alternatively, someone could block the GPS unit getting signal to prevent the limit in most cases.

brokenarms

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

The problem with the GPS based system would be if there was an interruption to the signal, you would have to put an automatic raising of the limiter to, say, 100kph. People would become over-reliant on the car limiting their speed and could potentially drive at unsafe speeds in the case of a GPS signal loss. Alternatively, someone could block the GPS unit getting signal to prevent the limit in most cases.

I guess it does have potential to be blocked . But the tech is advancing so much these days also.
Personally my garmin never loses touch unless i go underground. But I can relate to your statement about relaying on the limiter. On the motorway or even A roads. I just plant my foot down and the van slows itself to the limited speed.
Thats not to say I ignore my instruments though. Maybe pay a little less attention to them.

Michael D Not Higgins

Exactly, it would just add to the reverse tickerbell effect of safety devices for cars.

corktina

much as I love driving as fast as I can, my answer is YES.
It's not logical to have cars that can do twice the maximum speed limit (mine can)

R.O.R

No

pa990

i agree, they shoudl be limited to say.. a max of
267.8mph / 430.9km/h



http://www.motorauthority.com/news/1083532_bugatti-veyron-super-sport-is-once-again-the-worlds-fastest-production-car

ScumLord

I don't think it's necessary, the UK has some of the safest roads in the world because they actually enforce their traffic laws. You simply won't get away with breaking the rules of the road on most UK motorways and primary roads.

Cheensbo

Yes,

And also, all cars should be standardised.

I think the base should be the Dacia duster.

But with even less frills. And more dullness.

No
Proper driving and care is what we need, not more arbitrary semi-enforcements that will do SFA, and god help you if you need to get somewhere in an emergency

CianRyan

I was always under the impression that it wasn't the speed that caused the accidents, more so the big fleshy bit behind the wheel.

corktina

ScumLord wrote: »

I don't think it's necessary, the UK has some of the safest roads in the world because they actually enforce their traffic laws. You simply won't get away with breaking the rules of the road on most UK motorways and primary roads.

that's simply not the case. You can do 90mph+ on UK motorways with almost total immunity, I do and get car after car passing me out.

UK roads are safer because the general ethos is to drive properly and safely, having had proper training and being courteous and predictable. Irish drivers are truly awful in comparison

RobAMerc

we need to concentrate on teaching people to drive correctly first before encroaching their personal freedoms - this is just too much imo.

Anjobe

RobAMerc wrote: »

we need to concentrate on teaching people to drive correctly first before encroaching their personal freedoms - this is just too much imo.

Bit of a specious argument that, breaking the law is hardly a personal freedom!

However, in general I agree, start with improving driver education and enforcement of the law before resorting to the big brother stuff.

dgt

CianRyan wrote: »

I was always under the impression that it wasn't the speed that caused the accidents, more so the big fleshy bit behind the wheel.

This

Limiting won't do anything to educate the driver but harbor their stupidity and reliance on an electronic device.

So no, don't limit vehicles. Remove the stupid drivers and educate the rest

brokenarms

dgt wrote: »

This

Limiting won't do anything to educate the driver but harbor their stupidity and reliance on an electronic device.

So no, don't limit vehicles. Remove the stupid drivers and educate the rest

But we already have heavy reliance on electronic safety devices .

I personally think that we as a nation of drivers are beyond education.
I know very few people including myself who would regard themselves as bad drivers, yet there are so many bad driver out there. Things don't add up.

Be it tailgate Tom who insists in making progress into a wall of traffic or old man Michael who wears blinkers and fails to see the world other than what is 6 feet in front.
Both these drivers think they are doing a great job.

Maybe the state should intervene. Somehow.

I do know tailgate tom will not have the ability to make progress into a wall of traffic if you cut the nuts out of his motor.

BMJD

nanny state horse**** right here

dgt

brokenarms wrote: »

But we already have heavy reliance on electronic safety devices .

I go out of my way to make sure I keep them to a minimum. Keeps one alert. I am a dying breed mind you.

A lot of drivers don't take it seriously, don't care about anyone else, me me me me me. They're too thick to learn anything, too stupid to realize this.

Whilst I'm far from perfect myself at least I'm somewhat alert and observant while driving, without relying on electronic tat

brokenarms

BMJD wrote: »

nanny state horse**** right here

It is for sure, but an interesting thread all the same.

bennya

brokenarms wrote: »

Be it tailgate Tom who insists in making progress into a wall of traffic or old man Michael who wears blinkers and fails to see the world other than what is 6 feet in front.

So what's to stop Tailgate Tom from tailgating a car in front doing 80km/h or Old Man Micheal from pulling out in front of another car/cyclist?

mitosis

Absolutely not. But they should be fitted with a, say, 15 minutes retention black box for accident investigation purposes.

S28382

How dare they try and limit my speed to 140Kph or lower.:pac:

CianRyan

mitosis wrote: »

Absolutely not. But they should be fitted with a, say, 15 minutes retention black box for accident investigation purposes.

This is a great idea.
It's no invasion of privacy so long as it is only viewed after a serious accident that can't be otherwise resolved.

With basic telemetry and a crude microphone it could be a great insight into what happens just before a crash without being intrusive.

Gran Hermano

We'd be better off enforcing the laws which punish bad driving rather than imposing more nanny state controls on everyone.

Ash.J.Williams

i love driving and would hate to live in a land with restrictive driving..but when you think about it, why the hell are we driving cars that can do 200kph when the fastest we can possibly go is 120kph/

Yakuza

To quote Homer Simpson : "No way".

Joe 90

corktina wrote: »

that's simply not the case. You can do 90mph+ on UK motorways with almost total immunity, I do and get car after car passing me out.

UK roads are safer because the general ethos is to drive properly and safely, having had proper training and being courteous and predictable. Irish drivers are truly awful in comparison

Yes, I sit at a genuine 80 when I can on UK motorways and lots of cars pass me.

In fact the UK camera guideline is limit + 10% + 2 so a genuine 79 should be pretty much guaranteed to be OK.

wonski

Limits vary from country to country - how would you deal with that?

Joe 90

BMJD wrote: »

nanny state horse**** right here

Don't think that it's so much a nanny state thing as an economic thing. If you got rid of all the truly carp drivers you would loose an awful lot in various motor traffic revenues. I don't mean just Ireland, but here in the UK was well.

Michael D Not Higgins

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

i love driving and would hate to live in a land with restrictive driving..but when you think about it, why the hell are we driving cars that can do 200kph when the fastest we can possibly go is 120kph/

We've gotten used to the power of a car that can do those speeds but at the lower speeds.

Try driving a car that is only physically capable of 120kph and see how you get on.

wonski

Joe 90 wrote: »

Yes, I sit at a genuine 80 when I can on UK motorways and lots of cars pass me.

In fact the UK camera guideline is limit + 10% + 2 so a genuine 79 should be pretty much guaranteed to be OK.

Everyone knows people speed in UK too, and some are bad drivers too.
I am kind of surprised when people refer to UK when we are talking about enforcement - there is enforcement, there is also different country with different population, Ireland and UK are non-comparable, and given recent cuts in Garda recruitment/presence - i don't think we will get to their level. Ever.

wonski

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

We've gotten used to the power of a car that can do those speeds but at the lower speeds.

Try driving a car that is only physically capable of 120kph and see how you get on.

We are talking about limiting speed, not power...

sebastianlieken

No no no! Enough of this Health and Safety culture!!! I'm all for safe driving and personlly I don't speed but there is FAR too much Health and Safety in modern society!

Just today we got another email (of many) sent around from our company - We are no longer allowed into the company library by ourselves as it is deemed unsafe. A "Buddy-system" has now been implemented.

ffs. How will natural selection ever take place if the world is covered in bubblewrap!

Joe 90

wonski wrote: »

Everyone knows people speed in UK too, and some are bad drivers too.
I am kind of surprised when people refer to UK when we are talking about enforcement - there is enforcement, there is also different country with different population, Ireland and UK are non-comparable, and given recent cuts in Garda recruitment/presence - i don't think we will get to their level. Ever.

But in fact, if you lived in the UK you would see that the Irish are far from the worst group of drivers on the roads. In fact, at one point the ANPR cameras were turned off in East London because too many of those who voted for the then mayor were getting caught.

goz83

NO. Sure, where would the lads get their revenue streams from? The whole "Do you know what speed ye were goin boi" line would be a sorry thing of the past.

OldmanMondeo

Car's are already limited, I presume OP your talking about reducing the set limit?

I would say no. People will find a way around it anyway. You can still do a lot of damage at 30kph

Mycroft H

corktina wrote: »

UK roads are safer because the general ethos is to drive properly and safely, having had proper training and being courteous and predictable. Irish drivers are truly awful in comparison

You're either giving the english too much credit or ourselves too little. Driving standards aren't much better over there. I spent 4 months over there and I didn't notice much difference at all, which surprised me as they were hyped up to be better drivers.

You still get poor observation, aggressive driving and not having much clue in how to use a roundabout, idiots sitting in the outside lane etcetera.

Proper training? The theory test was only introduced in 1996 over there....

challengemaster

OldmanMondeo wrote: »

Car's are already limited, I presume OP your talking about reducing the set limit?

I would say no. People will find a way around it anyway. You can still do a lot of damage at 30kph

Aside from that, the speed is less important than the circumstances. Doing 100km/h in a housing estate or down single width country roads is far more dangerous than doing above the limit on 2-3 lane motorways. People overlook this far too often due to the "speed kills" message the RSA continually harp on about.

Despite the RSA's blathering on about speed kills every other second of every day, it's complete nonsense based on their own statistics. They've determined 84% of fatal collisions are due to the driver, with only 11% of those (not 11% total, 11% of the 84% - or 9.24% total) being due to "exceeding safe speed"

Again, using their own statistics, there was 172 fatal collisions in 2011. That means ~16 of these were deemed to be due to exceeding safe speed, while 130 were due to other driver errors, mainly going onto the wrong side of the road.

At the end of the day though, speed didn't kill anyone. Driver error did. And that can happen at any speed.


http://www.rsa.ie/Documents/Road%20Safety/Crash%20Stats/2011_Road_Collision_Fact_Book.pdf

Supergurrier

Nope, stupid idea.

Anyone who can't practise self control/common sense behind the wheel should just get the bus or if they live in the countryside ride a cow or something

discombobulate

Could pose a danger when your overtaking. I've often overtaken cars that seem to speed up a little as your going past them. If there was to be a limiter then you mightn't have that extra bit of push to get past them.

e.g. car going 90km/h with a speed restriction of 100km/h. If they go that little bit faster when you go to overtake then you could get stuck alongside them.

m.j.w

discombobulate wrote: »

Could pose a danger when your overtaking. I've often overtaken cars that seem to speed up a little as your going past them. If there was to be a limiter then you mightn't have that extra bit of push to get past them.

e.g. car going 90km/h with a speed restriction of 100km/h. If they go that little bit faster when you go to overtake then you could get stuck alongside them.

I was just gonna say this. Seems to be happening alot recently and especially on the motorways. People driving along good bit under the limit but when you go to overtake them they speed up. Not as bad on the motorway but the people who do it on normals roads are just *******

discombobulate

m.j.w wrote: »

I was just gonna say this. Seems to be happening alot recently and especially on the motorways. People driving along good bit under the limit but when you go to overtake them they speed up. Not as bad on the motorway but the people who do it on normals roads are just *******

Worst is drivers that speed up just for straights on roads where at all parts doing in or around the speed limit is no issue at all.

Mycroft H

discombobulate wrote: »

Could pose a danger when your overtaking. I've often overtaken cars that seem to speed up a little as your going past them. If there was to be a limiter then you mightn't have that extra bit of push to get past them.

e.g. car going 90km/h with a speed restriction of 100km/h. If they go that little bit faster when you go to overtake then you could get stuck alongside them.

well in that situation should you not just pull back in behind them if they wan't to play games?

discombobulate

BX 19 wrote: »

well in that situation should you not just pull back in behind them if they wan't to play games?

Well in that situation if there were restrictions on the car it'd either be that or go head on with the next car to come towards you!!! so yes I think i'd rather do that.

Without a restriction you can give it a little extra gas and finish off your overtake.

Boskowski

My car is speed limited. I tried and it wouldn't go past 225 km/h.

Pique

CianRyan wrote: »

I was always under the impression that it wasn't the speed that caused the accidents, more so the big fleshy bit behind the wheel.

The most important part in a car is the nut behind the wheel.

Also, as we're talking safety, somebody recommended removing all seatbelts, crumple zones, airbags etc, and just fitting a large sharp spike to the centre of the steering wheel. You'd drive a lot more carefully.
It's got some basis in fact too, as safety systems like airbags and abs etc give people an increased false sense of security and encourages (subconciously at least) riskier driving behaviour in (some) people.

Chris_Heilong

most of my cars are limited to 180 km/h already.

brokenarms

discombobulate wrote: »

Could pose a danger when your overtaking. I've often overtaken cars that seem to speed up a little as your going past them. If there was to be a limiter then you mightn't have that extra bit of push to get past them.

e.g. car going 90km/h with a speed restriction of 100km/h. If they go that little bit faster when you go to overtake then you could get stuck alongside them.

In the eyes of the coppers you should only overtake when it is safe to do so. So if you needed to exceed the speed limit of the road you are on to complete the maneuver , you would be very much in the wrong.
I had this argument with a cop when rode a sports bike fast to get past a car who speeded up. He let me go with a warning but was very clear on the fact that he could have nailed me over it. He said you have no right whatsoever to break the speed limit . Under any circumstances.
Which brings us back to the same question. Why have a car that can break the limit? Your will never be allowed to go over it . No matter how late you are.

Del2005

brokenarms wrote: »

After reading the recent thread on the M50 it appears to me that some of the problems in our driving culture could be solved by limiting cars to the speed limits.
I would hate it on my car personally. But as a professional driver who drives a large speed limited van for a living I can see its advantages also.

It is part of a condition of my employment that our vans are restricted to 95kmh as the insurance company insists on it. I honestly never get into any trouble in the slow lane as there is loads of reaction time compared the the cars whizzing past me.

Is there really any need to drive over the speed limit lawfully?

I can only think of one instance where one may need a bit more speed to avoid a crash but that would be rare.

I have a pet hate of people who drive over the limit in built up areas personally simple because it is unfair of them to put pedestrians lives in danger.
Could a system like speed limiting via a GPS system ever work?
Do you think it may be a reality in the future as cars become ever more powerful?

There's more to good driving than driving below the posted limit. If someone is driving a car which has auto speed limits, they'll do as you do and just floor it, the problem is that in some places 50km/h is wayy to fast to be driving yet that's the limit.

Also if your work van is restricted to 95km/h that means your allowed max speed is less than that, so by driving to your restrictor limit you are exceeding the limit as the restrictors are more accurate than speedo's.

brokenarms wrote: »

Motorcycles are restricted already and have been for a longtime. Learners can't ride a powerful bike and liter bikes are restricted to a crazy 300kph by law. So seed have been sown.

There's no law restricting the speed of bikes. The manufactures agreed to restrict the speed themselves.

There has never been any study done to proof that restricting learners to less powerful bikes is any saver than letting them on full powered.

muckwarrior

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

but when you think about it, why the hell are we driving cars that can do 200kph when the fastest we can possibly go is 120kph/

Because some people like to bring their car to a track or another country.

brokenarms

Del2005 wrote: »

There's more to good driving than driving below the posted limit. If someone is driving a car which has auto speed limits, they'll do as you do and just floor it, the problem is that in some places 50km/h is wayy to fast to be driving yet that's the limit.

That is correct . I agree. I never said otherwise. But I did say that I floored it on the laned traffic or the motorway . What else can one do when they are restricted 20kph below the rest of the traffic.

Del2005 wrote: »

Also if your work van is restricted to 95km/h that means your allowed max speed is less than that, so by driving to your restrictor limit you are exceeding the limit as the restrictors are more accurate than speedo's.

Not sure where you are going with this but anyways.
The vans are 100KPH restricted . On the garmin they go to 95kph . Our allowed max speed is the posted speed limit of the road we are on. Maybe you know of some other company that has a different policy? Im not sure I understand why you said your allowed max speed is less than the limiter.

Del2005 wrote: »

There's no law restricting the speed of bikes. The manufacturers agreed to restrict the speed themselves.

There is more to this than you think. I remember well when the Busa came out as I had just passed my bike test and was watering at the mouth at it. There was uproar in the european governments and politicians were up in arms about this new motorcycle being capable of such massive speed. Suzuki and the other big manufacturer were advised to restrict before they where made to. As far as I remember the second busa that came out was ECU restricted and very difficult to make faster than 300. If my memory and MCN at the time where accurate. [/QUOTE]

Del2005 wrote: »

There has never been any study done to proof that restricting learners to less powerful bikes is any saFer than letting them on full powered.

This to me as a seasoned biker is absurd . I don't really know of any study (there probably is. But i don't really want to look)

To think that an 18 year old who just passed his bike test should be able to jump on a 185BHP bike that weighed 190kg is utter sh1t. Thats like putting a 1500bhp engine in a mid sized family car. With two wheels to grip instead of 4 and falls over . And then passing it over to a lad full of hormones and wanting to race everything on the road. Come on will ya. Liter sports bikes are not for novice riders.
Learner restriction on bikes is all part of the learning process . It only for a couple of years. Life is long.

What is your argument on the issue?
Why are you picking at parts of my posts?