CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » General Edinburgh

Britain fights EU's 'Big Brother' bid to fit every car with speed limiter

(33 posts)

No tags yet.


  1. Calum
    Member

    See how Britain's lawless drivers react to the news that the EU might force them to obey the speed limits by way of BIG BROTHER BLACK BOXES and the tortured logic they use to come to the conclusion that this will cause more "accidents":

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2408012/Britain-fights-EUs-Big-Brother-bid-fit-car-speed-limiter.html

    Note also the airheaded comments about Britain supposedly having safe roads. Any cyclist knows the roads are full of danger, that the cycling KSI rate is amongst the worst in Europe, and that the only reason fewer drivers are being killed is because tank-like 4x4s and airbags shield them from the consequences of their recklessness.

    I think this is a great idea - it would stop them using my street as a racetrack - but it won't happen under any mainstream party. The killing and maiming is tolerated for the sake of them and their "rights".

    Posted 11 years ago #
  2. gibbo
    Member

    For years I've wondered why cars aren't fitted with gps which would flag up any speeding.

    That way, if you have to speed, you can speed. You just get the fine/points.

    PS My favourite comment from the comment sections:

    "Whatever next from the EU? ........... A breathing limiter to be worn by people to measure how much oxygen we are breathing in?"

    Yes, because that's the same thing... people going around endangering the lives of others by consuming more than the legal limit of oxygen... ha, ha

    Posted 11 years ago #
  3. davey2wheels
    Member

    The article quotes an AA spokeman "If you were overtaking a tractor and suddenly needed to accelerate to avoid a head-on collision, you would not be able to."
    Hello? You should be overtaking only when it is safe to do so and surely you should brake to avoid a head-on.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  4. Tulyar
    Member

    Most vehicles driven by vocational drivers have, as a minimum, an electronic tachograph, and on may the data from the tacho and vehicle condition monitoring can be remotely downloaded, as it is happening. A few vehicles on 'local work and registered local bus services under 50Km etc can operate without a tacho but often have GPS tracking anyway.

    Moving to private cars, many now have datalogging already, and can be downloaded, and remotely monitored just as the commercial fleet, indeed this has been used to identify some hit & run vehicles. So for all dear Patrick's fizzing and hopping about, it is but a small bit of blustering about something already largely in place on many vehicles.

    I hired a car 18 months ago with a GPS system that annoyingly confused a dual carriageway with a 70mph limit with the occasional road going over or under it and bleating out a standard message that I was exceeding the speed limit!

    Posted 11 years ago #
  5. gibbo
    Member

    The article quotes an AA spokeman "If you were overtaking a tractor and suddenly needed to accelerate to avoid a head-on collision, you would not be able to."

    Hello? You should be overtaking only when it is safe to do so and surely you should brake to avoid a head-on.

    Not just "safe", but "legal".

    "These limiters would prevent drivers from breaking the speed limit after they perform dangerous overtaking maneuvers".

    Posted 11 years ago #
  6. Instography
    Member

    It seems unlikely that an installed limiter wouldn't be able to be over-ridden in precisely that scenario. It would just need to be chosen.

    But let's say it can't and someone misjudges the space for overtaking or just fails to see that behind that tree some way down the other carriageway there's a car and they pull out. Depending on the position relative to the vehicle being overtaken it's debateable whether it's safer to accelerate or slow down. There's a real risk that the vehicle you're overtaking will also slow down leaving you stuck out in the wrong lane. What are you saying: that those drivers (and the luckless sod coming the other way) should just die?

    Posted 11 years ago #
  7. rust
    Member

    it's debateable whether it's safer to accelerate or slow down

    I'm not convince many people in that situation are accelerating OUT of that scenario.

    I would imagine most are dangerously overtaking by breaking the speed limit throughout the manoeuvre and purposely leaving too little margin for error.

    Certainly if I'm overtaking someone at 70 or 80 there is no way my car is achieving a suitable amount of acceleration to get me out of trouble.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  8. Morningsider
    Member

    Actually a very interesting subject this. The European Commission has been funding lots of research into Intelligent Speed Adaptation (plus lots of other road safety initiatives) for a number of years. More information at:

    http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/specialist/knowledge/speed/new_technologies_new_opportunities/intelligent_speed_adaptation_isa.htm

    In essence, there are three versions of this system. One warns you that you are over the limit, one applies pressure against the accelerator as you go over the limit - making it harder to speed and leaving you in no doubt that you are - and the other prevents you from going over the limit. There have been on-road trials in Sweden and the Netherlands and Leeds University has played a key role in the research and development of such systems.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  9. cc
    Member

    This reminds me of a bit in a William Gibson book, "Idoru". Some Americans and a Japanese man, in a slightly future Tokyo, are urgently exceeding the speed limit in their van while having a conversation:

    "I guess it must be capable of it," Laney said, as something under her seat began to clang, loudly and insistently. "But I don't think that means it'll necessarily happen. What the hell is that?"
    "I'm exceeding the speed limit", she said. "Every vehicle in Japan is legally required to be equipped with one of these devices. You speed, it dings."
    Laney turned to Yamazaki. "Is that true?"
    "Of course", Yamazaki said, over the steady clanging.
    "And people don't just disconnect them?"
    "No," Yamazaki said, looking puzzled. "Why would they?"

    Posted 11 years ago #
  10. I can see where Insto is coming from on this. You fit the limiters and yes, hurrah, it stops people speeding. But people will still take risks. They'll think 'that gap is big enough', or try to overtake before a curve in the road or before a blind dip. In the past they'd have accelerated to 90 and been gone. Now please, please, please, I AM NOT SAYING THAT IT IS RIGHT FOR THEM TO DO SO!

    So with a limiter they go for the same gap, only they hit the limiter, and suddenly that gap isn't as big as it seemed, or a car 'appears' from round the corner or in the dip. Braking is definitely the only solution as you can't speed up - and having seen many many cases with people cutting it fine accelerating out of that situation seems to be the default, it's up to tghe other person to brake, but now they have to brake, but it takes a second longer for the brain to compute, and the vehicle being overtake brakes in panic (because that's the default for the driver in that position).

    Of course after a while people will learn and realise, and it's something that could, should, would get into the psyche of every driver and make the majority actually think before making such an overtake. But before we reach that tipping point there genuinely IS the chance that it could increase the number of incidents.

    We do have to realise that there's a fundamental fallability in human nature that means we make mistakes, we can't eradicate them all. We can make things better, but you'll never get rid of every single SMIDSY, or daft overtake, or close pass, no matter how much you legislate, enforce or require through technology.

    Of course the majority of the shouty people complaining about it simply want to be able to drive fast, the 'more accidents' is probably a convenient excuse that they haven't actually thought through.

    And despite the above I'd have no problem with them bringing these in (they were actually covered on Top Gear or Drive about 15 years ago and the same overtaking query was raised, but it shows how long the technology has been around). Have to make sure the technology does really work if it's a genuine limiter that will slow you down - as mentioned above GPS has its quirks and there could be trouble if you're on a 70mph motorway and pass under a bridge that has a 40 limit and the computer hits the brakes.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  11. cb
    Member

    Whatever system is used, I doubt the car will "slam on the brakes" as described in the first sentence of the Daily Mail article.

    That article also mentions a potential system of using a camera to read the speed limit signs - which would lead to the potential for some jolly japes with some guerrilla speed sign erecting.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  12. I'd be surprised if technology couldn't be 'intuitive' and detect a rapid/sudden acceleration for a short period of time (such as when overtaking) and know to ignore it, but yet physically slow the vehicle down once it realises that the speed limit is being exceeded in a general/sustained driving sense.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  13. PS
    Member

    There was a piece on the Today programme this morning on this, which was basically an interview with an academic involved in the study IIRC.

    I think the gist of this was that the study involved drivers receiving some sort of notification that they had gone over the speed limit. It didn't limit the speed of the car or "slam the brakes on", but just let the driver know. I can't remember the stats, but the results sounded pretty impressive - a significant reduction in the time that drivers spent above the speed limit.

    Sounds like an ideal solution for all those EEN commentators who are concerned that 20mph zones will cause drivers to crash everywhere because they are too busy staring at their speedometers.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  14. cb
    Member

    I thought the guy on the Today programme said that it could potentially limit the speed of the car?

    I think the stats were a reduction in deaths by 20% and serious injuries by 14%. Not sure if that was for car occupents of all road users. The bit I heard was a very short piece, less than one minute.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  15. PS
    Member

    I'm sure the techniology could potentially limit the speed of the car, but my point was that the study showed significant results even when it didn't limit speed.

    If nothing else, it removes the driver's excuse of "I did't realise that this was a xxmph limit" or "I didn't realise I was going so fast".

    Posted 11 years ago #
  16. tarmac jockey
    Member

    Should the Insurance Companies not be lobbying to have black boxes fitted to road vehicles. If nothing else, the information would be extremely useful in the event of accident settlements, thefts etc. The Police would be able to report accurately on speed etc...

    Posted 11 years ago #
  17. amir
    Member

  18. Coxy
    Member

    We have these at work. I regularly get emails with spreadsheets showing when the staff I manage are caught speeding.

    Such things as:
    34mph in a 30mph zone for 4 seconds....

    A warning for 20 offenses in a rolling quarter. 3 warnings and it's a safe-driving course for them!

    Posted 11 years ago #
  19. shuggiet
    Member

    Interesting Coxy! That would imply that employers who have this information, and fail to act on it ,would be very liable if their employee subsequently causes an accident, whilst speeding driving a company vehicle. That could a be a substantial stick to force change for many of the corporate fleets of vehicles out there.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  20. Coxy
    Member

    The information is only passed on to the police if there is a legal requirement - ie. an accident.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  21. Baldcyclist
    Member

    Really, 60 offences before they are sent on a course?

    Posted 11 years ago #
  22. gkgk
    Member

    Not persuaded by the idea of accelerating away from trouble. Locking down speeds (which is where this'll get to, eventually, I hope) would save 10 innocent fellows for every one amber gambler it kills. Imagine if the cars were all limited to 20 in town! It's telling that that is a pipedream but, my goodness, I can't wait!

    Posted 11 years ago #
  23. cc
    Member

    @gkgk agreed. This is reminiscent of when the wearing of seatbelts was made compulsory in cars. The opposition to it kept going on about those car crashes where people survive by being "thrown clear". ISTR such crashes did happen but of course they were vastly outnumbered by the crashes where people were horribly injured just by being "thrown" at all.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  24. Dave
    Member

    A warning for 20 offenses in a rolling quarter. 3 warnings and it's a safe-driving course for them!

    I suppose the limit has to be set somewhere, but is the company not opening themselves up for corporate liability by knowingly having drivers going around with 40, 50 offences every 12 weeks and not passing that information on to the police (or letting them go)?

    Suppose there was a serious collision and it came out after the police sub the data that the driver was a serial lawbreaker and the company knew.

    On the other hand, I suppose it's better to know at all than incentivise fleets not to monitor their drivers because they might become liable for knowing they break the law.

    Tricky.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  25. Instography
    Member

    If 4 seconds at 34mph in a 30 zone counts as an offence then I'm not surprised it takes 20 to get a warning. It's often interesting watching how long it takes a TomTom to recognise that it is now on a road with a different speed limit just because of the inherent inaccuracy of GPS receivers. Between that and the tendency for people to drift around the speed limit, even when they're trying to drive to the limit makes me think that it should be pretty easy to rack up 20 'offences' a day. Maybe a higher threshold for an offence and fewer offences before action would be better.

    "Locking down speeds (which is where this'll get to, eventually, I hope) would save 10 innocent fellows for every one amber gambler it kills."

    The logic of the argument - as it was set out above in relation to overtaking is that it should kill one 'innocent fellow' for every overtaking gambler it kills. That'll learn 'em.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  26. rust
    Member

    "Such things as:
    34mph in a 30mph zone for 4 seconds...."

    Now while in an ideal world where a speed limit was a limit and not an average then 60 such offences would be an issue, but do we maybe have to accept that we're not yet in a position where we can discipline drivers for briefly going over the speed limit?

    I actually like the idea of an audible noise for breaking the limit, if only because there would be no excuse for a driver if they caused an accident and claimed they weren't aware of their speed.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  27. "I suppose the limit has to be set somewhere, but is the company not opening themselves up for corporate liability by knowingly having drivers going around with 40, 50 offences every 12 weeks and not passing that information on to the police (or letting them go)?

    Suppose there was a serious collision and it came out after the police sub the data that the driver was a serial lawbreaker and the company knew"

    Depends on so much. The 'black box' isn't mandated by law; presumably while it's technically accurate does it have regular calibration tests carried out by the police; would it be possible to use the spreadsheet of data in a court of law if you have something that's not official kit and not subject to such tight scrutiny but is merely a tool for a company to keep tabs on its employees (I'd have serious doubts the 'evidence' of the spreadsheet could be relied on in court); and finally, if someone has a crash through their innattention (SMIDSY for example), does having 60 instances of going 4mph over the limit in 9 months, registered on a non-official uncalibrated optional system point to someone being more liable to SMIDSY?

    I do like the idea of the buzzing or bleeping sound when the car is over the limit.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  28. rust
    Member

    "I do like the idea of the buzzing or bleeping sound when the car is over the limit."

    My gps does this - and to be honest I turn it off. There are two reasons for this. Firstly it's really annoying! Secondly it tends to get the position of the change in speed limit wrong, so it'll beep at you despite the limit having changed - which is when it's annoying.

    It's only set to trigger when you go 10mph over the speed limit, so it only gets triggered if the limits change and it's not noticed yet.

    It does make you very aware though. And actually last week in France was great as they don't seem to put signs up for the speed limits in a lot of places???

    Posted 11 years ago #
  29. gkgk
    Member

    @instography

    "The logic of the argument - as it was set out above in relation to overtaking is that it should kill one 'innocent fellow' for every overtaking gambler it kills. That'll learn 'em. "

    Yes, not sure about 1:1 or teaching people but I think forced lower speeds would save lives overall and would to some extent also help move the risks over towards those creating the danger. Fewer panicked drivers accelerating into passers-by.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  30. cycletrain
    Member

    This is old technology. My car has a speed limiter that works on a combination of location, reading signs, assessing levels of danger and keeping within the legal requirements for road use.
    It was installed in 1987 for a "provisional" period and after testing was was fully operational. This device can drive the vehicle safely, smoothly, progressively and well although can be prone to the odd glitch. However, it has been further adapted to do numeorus other tasks (although not when controlling a vehicle).

    I would like to think that all other vehicles have similar devices but sadly I suspect not to the same quality. ;)

    Posted 11 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin