UK set to adopt vehicle speed limiters

[Guest]

14 hours ago, Linas.P said:

Secondly, just for a record - the proposal is not simply to install speed limiters, it I comprehensive list to make cars safer... which in my book is a good thing ~overall. I do not agree with speed limiting, nor pedestrian safety (if they stupid enough to wonder on the road it should be their price to pay), but overall there are many thing which I would like to see as a standard.

Here is what is in proposal:

👍 Advanced emergency braking (cars, vans)
👎 Alcohol interlock installation facilitation (cars, vans, trucks, buses) - I personally dislike because it could be argued what the limit should be.. and I don't exactly agree with common 0.2 - 0.4 promille across EU. Some countries now have 0.0 etc.
👍 Drowsiness and attention detection (cars, vans, trucks, buses)
👍 Distraction recognition / prevention (cars, vans, trucks, buses) - generally good... just cannot see this working right.
👍 Event (accident) data recorder (cars, vans, trucks, buses) - most cars already have it, the problem is how it can be used legally and who has right to see data.
👍 Emergency stop signal (cars, vans, trucks, buses)
👍 Full-width frontal occupant protection crash test – improved seatbelts (cars and vans)
👎 Head impact zone enlargement for pedestrians and cyclists -safety glass in case of a crash (cars and vans) - don''t want to pay single penny for this.. you cross my way without way of right you die! Look where you going, especially if it involves crossing the road.. simple  
🤙 Intelligent speed assistance (cars, vans, trucks, buses)
👍 Lane keeping assist (cars, vans)
👍 Pole side-impact occupant protection (cars, vans)
👍 Reversing camera or detection system (cars, vans, trucks, buses)
👍 Tyre pressure monitoring system (vans, trucks, buses)
👎  Vulnerable road user detection and warning on the front and side of the vehicle (trucks and buses) - don't make yourself vulnerable. Why choose to be Vulnerable and then blame others? 
👎 Vulnerable road user improved direct vision from the driver’s position (trucks and buses)

1700 UK deaths on road (estimate 300 involve excess speed) - 5800 people kill them selves and over 1000 from accidental poisoning. I think you're looking at as many people dying from falls but couldn't find a UK number. 

I'm not saying safer cars are a bad thing - I just don't understand the focus on controlling every aspect of driving when 1700 is a very good stat compared to the amount of drivers & cars.

It's worth noting that safer impact protection and strength requirements are have what LED to the need for cameras due to all the blind spots created by large A pillars and small windows.

 

 

 

 

[NemesisUK]

Speed limits are exactly that, a limit, not a target.

Drive to the conditions

[LexusPartsDirect]

We won't really be affected, due to our speed limits

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/27/all-new-uk-cars-to-have-speed-limiters-by-2022-under-eu-plans

[Linas.P]

12 minutes ago, NemesisUK said:

Speed limits are exactly that, a limit, not a target.

Drive to the conditions

2 issues with that:

1. Some limits are too low and conditions permits higher speeds.

2. Some roads now so bad (not maintained, overcrowded, not designed well) that basically no speed is safe there. What is your suggestion - drive at 10MPH everywhere?

If what you saying would be true we would not need speed limits at all - "everyone would just drive based on conditions".

Secondly, specifically to this topic - speed limiter would make no difference. It would only limit to the posted speed, which we all can agree with, might not be right speed for the situation. 

[Verbout]

Duct tape over the sensor.

[dutchie01]

 Head impact zone enlargement for pedestrians and cyclists -safety glass in case of a crash (cars and vans) - don''t want to pay single penny for this.. you cross my way without way of right you die! Look where you going, especially if it involves crossing the road.. simple  

Vulnerable road user detection and warning on the front and side of the vehicle (trucks and buses) - don't make yourself vulnerable. Why choose to be Vulnerable and then blame others? 

 

Keep it friendly we will not accept insults no matter different your thinking is to another member.

[dutchie01]

I dont think this will be about max speed only. The technology is now there to be used so it will be upon us faster than we all think. Vmax is only part of it. You can count on automaticreduction of speed to the set max speed on that particular road, propably will start at schools/hospitals as that will be more accepted by the public but why not use it in reduced speed zones at highways on ringroads etc, then in inner cities ( that you can only enter driving a full EV!). How about taxing? will be easy to implement a tax by use system or roadpricing whereby tariffs can be altered depending on time of use. i.e. on busy times twice the price!

[Lexus Owners Club]

Speed limiting technology looks set to become mandatory for all vehicles sold in Europe from 2022, after new rules were provisionally agreed by the EU

Do you agree with this or not, will it save lives? 
Have your say now....vote in the poll 

 

 

[NemesisUK]

Big discussion here 

 

[Linas.P]

1 hour ago, dutchie01 said:

 Head impact zone enlargement for pedestrians and cyclists -safety glass in case of a crash (cars and vans) - don''t want to pay single penny for this.. you cross my way without way of right you die! Look where you going, especially if it involves crossing the road.. simple  

Vulnerable road user detection and warning on the front and side of the vehicle (trucks and buses) - don't make yourself vulnerable. Why choose to be Vulnerable and then blame others? 

Keep it friendly we will not accept insults no matter different your thinking is to another member.

3

If you have a problem with my opinion that doesn't make me an idiot. What I am saying - there are 2 sides of the story when the pedestrians head hits the bonnet and the story is not always about drivers fault. Why nobody talks about pedestrians responsibilities when they cross the streets without looking at any time they pleased or cyclists when they pretend not to recognise red lights? Why should I be paying for any of that?

Secondly, nobody forces people to cycle or ride a bike... that is their choice... their choice to be vulnerable. I am getting A license soon... my answer to that is - don't be vulnerable, be careful. This is some sort of victimhood, choice of being a victim ... "ohh I am going to get on a bicycle get under a bus and score million victim points for being disabled for the rest of my life! Hooray!"

[Bluesman]

Keep it friendly. You can have a discussion between forum members without lowering the tone of your posts to include insults and just because you don't agree with anothers ideas and mindset.

 

[Linas.P]

3 hours ago, dutchie01 said:

I dont think this will be about max speed only. 

It quite clearly states ISA or intelligent speed assistance is only "glorified speed limiter", which will look at GPS and dynamically sets your limit to that of posted limit on particular road. There are discussion including signs recognition, but still that is only about posted speed limit and not about conditions.

If you want more, then we are talking about full autopilot like in Tesla and others, not ISA which will be required by law.

[Guest]

Yeah, like income tax was a temporary measure. Chip chip chip.

Sent from my BV5800 using Tapatalk

[Linas.P]

14 hours ago, Comedian said:

Yeah, like income tax was a temporary measure. Chip chip chip.

Or speed limits... 

[Linas.P]

Statistic speak for itself from 1700 deaths which is very small number only 300 were deemed to be speed related. Your terminology here is correct - these includes both above speed limit and speed inappropriate for the situation. Sadly these are not split further, but I reckon from 300 larger part would simply not suitable speed for situation and not actually speeding (just a stab in the dark).

I don't want to repeat myself again, but if you would have red my post till the end, I specifically said speed limiters won't help because they will only enforce posted speed limits. Specifically, in UK I find a lot of roads not suitable for even those limits posted, hence I consider this new requirement not beneficial.

1. if you have issue with me watching dashcam videos on youtube I am sorry (not) to broker the news for you that these are ones of the most watched videos on the internet... perhaps only second to cats videos 🙂 People watch all sorts of things - horror and gore movies, series about murdering people (heard of Dexter?), how does it surprise you somebody watch dashcam videos?

2. "legal" is not equal "good idea" and "sharing" is not equal being "stuck behind". Yes it is technically legal to cycle on the road but become an obstacle for others isn't good idea... Secondly, legitimacy can be argued - I consider that anyone who uses the road should meet minimal requirements - know the rules (license), have insurance and have a valid MOT. If that doesn't sound reasonable for you, then you should know that "rule of law" is based on rights and responsibilities, cyclists have no responsibilities, hence I see all "road using cyclist thing" as a rights without responsibilities aka loop hole in the law/not legitimate.

3. yes the taxes motorists pay are not spent on "improving" the roads, even if you consider cycling lanes and public transport infrastructure an improvement. Directly motoring related taxes - £37bn last year, expenditure and roads only ~ £4bn, of which £2.2bn are public transport "subsidies" (meaning that private capital companies literally getting paid billions for providing consistently terrible service), ~1bn were things which I do not consider improvements i.e. pavements, cycling lanes, bus shelters, bus lanes and only ~1bn was spent "on the roads" i.e. building new roads, fixing potholes (maintenance, not an improvement), making roads "safer" etc. That leaves £33bn not spent on transportation at all and whatever little has been spent doesn't improve the roads i.e. from ~£1bn spent on the "improvements" that could include things like speed bumps, speed cameras or other infrastructure which have not contributed in any direct way to "improve" the road.

Now importantly, the government knows that people are ignorant and they do not look into the facts and numbers. For the government, it is easy to play this "bad motorist game". What they achieve is that cyclists and pedestrians find justification not to spend money on improving the roads where the money is spent on improvements for them (selfish but natural), what they fail to understand however is that we are still just fighting for "bread crumbs" whereas government can keep the cake. If cyclists and pedestrians would look at the wider picture and get behind spending all amount for road improvements we all perhaps would have £37bn to spend.

Finally, what makes the road suitable for use? There are many things, but one of them is "designed for traffic loads and volume". This means that there should be no traffic jams on the road, no obstacles on the road, no potholes and one should reasonably expect to be able to drive safely at the posted speed limit for prolonged periods of time (this literally makes most of London roads during the day are "unsuitable for use"). There are obviously exceptions to that - severe weather conditions, traffic lights, pedestrian crossings, accidents etc. where one would need to slow down - however that is "exceptions". At the traffic lights - as long as all cars waiting can cross during single green signal it is not considered traffic, if after green signal there are still cars waiting, this is already traffic and means road/crossing does not meet the "volume" requirement. As we all know the UK has worst traffic jams in Europe and it is not "normal" for the road to have traffic on it continuously - such roads should be deemed "unsuitable to use". I reckon extra £33bn would help with that a little bit (considering it is 33 times more then is currently spent).

Now obviously, I am 100% sure you won't read all above and continue to claim I am just cyclist hating weirdo... I am fine with that.. 

[Guest]

France is installing these: 

 

 

[scudney]

Makes you wonder why other countries seem to be so far ahead in implementing new road technology eg smart roads,smart cameras etc etc lol 😁

[Linas.P]

4 hours ago, scudney said:

 new road technology eg smart roads,smart cameras etc etc lol 😁

Because it is good source of money, "dumb" smart motorways just makes traffic worse, but what they generate instead is massive income. It is a fact that average free-flowing traffic speed now is 82MPH on motorway (or was in 2016 anyway, ONS). 82 is generally fine where limits are 70, but when those limits suddenly changes to 40MPH without any valid reason.. that makes a massive fine!

When M1 was "upgraded" to be dumb... I mean "smart" the number of fines increased 6 fold. Before they installed the new cameras there were 1700 fines issues a month, after installation 8300, 91% of which were for speeds between 40-70MPH. Obviously, when you read news articles they fail to note that before introduction of such cameras 7500 of those fined would have been driving below national limit. What they quote instead? The single instance where the guy was prosecuted for doing 128MPH.. and then they claim cameras are there "not to generate revenue"... yeah sure.

1:19 in the video is the most ridiculous example. The green car is hogging the outside lane in 4 lane motorway doing 120km/h, which is offence in itself - clearly driving in wrong lane. The yellow car have to brake to avoid collision, but it is instead done for tailgating, and the grey SUV doing legal 130km/h is done for illegal overtaking. What they suppose to do in this situation - all stick in the outside lane at 120km/h, or make a wall of car moving at 120km/h... ?!

I think soon the only solution not to feed the vultures is going to be this:

or this:

[doog442]

16 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

On 3/31/2019 at 12:45 PM, Linas.P said:

2. "legal" is not equal "good idea" and "sharing" is not equal being "stuck behind". Yes it is technically legal to cycle on the road but become an obstacle for others isn't good idea... Secondly, legitimacy can be argued - I consider that anyone who uses the road should meet minimal requirements - know the rules (license), have insurance and have a valid MOT. If that doesn't sound reasonable for you, then you should know that "rule of law" is based on rights and responsibilities, cyclists have no responsibilities, hence I see all "road using cyclist thing" as a rights without responsibilities aka loop hole in the law/not legitimate.

 

 

The rule of law is based on rights and responsibilities? 

Where did you dream that one up? As you quite correctly pointed out it is legal to cycle on the road, not just technically legal...but properly legal (not withstanding roads where cycling is banned)

Now please point me towards this thing on rights and responsibilities that make road users that don't fit your imaginary law illegal ? 

[doog442]

I would also add that this thread has been heavily moderated. Posts have disappeared yet posts are still being quoted by a certain poster.

If you want to read a balanced debate on the issue of speed - then clearly you won't see it here !

[Linas.P]

39 minutes ago, doog442 said:

The rule of law is based on rights and responsibilities? 

Where did you dream that one up? As you quite correctly pointed out it is legal to cycle on the road, not technically legal...just properly legal (not withstanding roads where cycling is banned)

Now please point me towards this thing on rights and responsibilities that make road users that don't fit your imaginary law legal ? 

I said not that legality can be argued, but legitimacy... if you don't know the difference between the two then what can I say... Technically legal or legal is the same thing. I use the term "technically legal" when the action is not in "spirit of law" i.e. speeding fine cannot be enforced because penalty charge notice has not been issued in time.

Or that cyclist can still cycle on the road even in cases where there is dedicated and segregated cycling path on the side...

Or that cyclist cannot be prosecuted for causing death due to dangerous and careless driving, because dangerous and careless driving only applies for motorised vehicles. Instead cyclist has to be prosecuted based on some archaic law meant for horse and carriage.

Other part of rule of law is that law should apply equally... As judge in the case pointed out:

“This case has clearly and evidently demonstrated there is a gap in the law when it comes to dealing with death or serious injury by dangerous cycling.To have to rely on either manslaughter at one end, or a Victorian law that doesn’t even mention causing death at the other end, tells us there is a gap.”

... driver in comparable case for "causing death by dangerous driving" would have received immediate sentence of ~4-6 years and there are now proposals to make it life sentences ,not 18 months. That doesn't sound equal for me... death is death in the end, doesn't matter you killed person whilst cycling or driving.

The reason I am not ashamed posting burning speed cameras which is "technically criminal damage" is because I do not see their use as legitimate - they are just legal. Legitimacy of of them has been argued on the basis of making roads safer and reducing deaths, but the statistics has shown that there are no links between introduction of speed cameras and reduction of deaths, neither on the particular road, nor overall. This can be easily explained by camera placements - they are never installed in the places where roads are narrow and dangerous, because drivers do not speed on these roads, instead they are placed on the wide, straight roads where speed limits are set unreasonably low thus guaranteeing "good returns on investment". Obviously, this not reduces death or accidents  - because it never meant to do it, it has only ever meant to generate revenue. Nowadays we have enough evidence to prove speed cameras does not work, but goverment keeps installing them - that for me is definition of "illegitimate" use. The online article title where I have taken the picture from reads - "Public Applauds Speed Camera Burning"... well I guess I am not the only one doubting their legitimacy. 

 

[doog442]

Your are quoting some random pieces of legislation but answer me this. After you casually fobbed off 1700 road deaths as if they were inconsequential :

How many people are killed by cyclists ?

[doog442]

You keep adding to your post  so I will comment on the last bit.

Mobile speed cameras were originally placed where there more than average instances of road traffic collisions. Static cameras were positioned in areas where road safety was paramount, outside schools etc.

This is one area I agree with you to an extent. Without doubt cameras are now being used to generate funds rather than the original purpose of reducing road accident casualties. However I still believe the current speed limits are appropriate to the road conditions and sheer volume of traffic on the roads (sadly).

The country is overcrowded and the recent expenditure on smart roads is simply aimed at keeping traffic moving, not at speed as you would like but safely.

[Linas.P]

29 minutes ago, doog442 said:

Your are quoting some random pieces of legislation but answer me this. After you casually fobbed off 1700 road deaths as if they were inconsequential :

How many people are killed by cyclists ?

Doesn't matter - death is death. The question - is the law equal and fair here? And the answer is - NO!

1700 road death is not equal 1700 people killed by motorist - this is just the number of people who died, some of them due to their own fault. Furthermore, this is not even comparable because cars covers 78% of distance travelled, whereas bicycles covers only 1%. Putting this in perceptive 3 pedestrians killed by cyclist on average would be comparable to 234 death caused by cars and the number has double in last 10 years:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/07/number-pedestrians-fatally-seriously-injured-cyclists-has-doubled/

This just proves cycling offences is not currently treated same as driving offences and that is wrong:

"Given recent cases, it is only right for us to look at whether dangerous cyclists should face the same consequences and that is why we are carrying out a review to improve all elements of cycle safety, including looking at the case for a new offence, equivalent to causing death or serious injury by careless or dangerous driving."

What I am NOT saying is that cycling is as dangerous as driving, however that does not justify applying double standards. Obviously, if cyclist would have to have insurance it would not cost £700 like for the driver, it may be £45 or something like that i.e. relative to the risk they pose, but nevertheless they should be treated the same.

15 minutes ago, doog442 said:

Mobile speed cameras were originally placed where there more than average instances of road traffic collisions. Static cameras were positioned in areas where road safety was paramount, outside schools etc.

I do agree as well, in theory the speed cameras can reduce the deaths on the roads, but I haven't seen speed camera near the school for a long time, most of them are on motorways - specifically the safest roads there are.

15 minutes ago, doog442 said:

The country is overcrowded and the recent expenditure on smart roads is simply aimed at keeping traffic moving, not at speed as you would like but safely.

Either they fail miserably, or they never mean to make traffic moving. Kind of logical - same road with 70MPH limit will have higher capacity than with 40MPH limit. Take for example same M1 I used previously - look at junctions where "smart" motorway starts and you will see that during rush hours they are always marked as yellow/red compared with the junctions without "smart" motorway. The only time "non-smart" junctions are marked as yellow/red is when there is an accident or closure.

Secondly, going back to my quote of "fit for volume and purpose" - "smart" motorway is kind of way to play this around i.e. "this is road with variable speed"... NO! It is 70MPH motorway which doesn't meet the "volume and capacity" criteria, hence you have to limit the speed on motorway leading towards it to 40MPH to keep it moving. Again 33 extra billions would be enough to clear all the bottlenecks for years to come.

 

 

[doog442]

Thanks

In 2016 there were 1792 road deaths of which 102 were cyclists. 18477 cyclists were Injured (many more as all don't get reported)

In 2016  3 people were killed by cyclists....did you read that.....that was THREE

 

If you are seriously making an issue out of these figures and claiming the law is skewed then as I said you have a disproportionate issue with other legitimate road users.