Calls for car speed limits in the UK

[Dogbert]

But that massive chunk of income from speeding fines would be gone.

The massive chunk of expense from speed cameras would be gone, though, too. Probably not enough to offset the cash cow that is speeding tickets, but...

 

[BlaRo]

Oh, I'm well aware that speed limits/tickets/etc. are just revenue generators... even though someone should tell the UK that, because it seems they genuinely believe the propaganda. The notion of compulsory speed limit compliance is completely absurd and I hate it with every fiber of my body, but on the other hand, it keeps me from getting speeding tickets.

Exactly. You know what'd be great? If they raised the speed limit to 75mph and limited all cars to that top speed. I could actually get somewhere within the same month AND not have to be constantly looking over my shoulder for the fuzz. Voila, more people pay attention to their driving instead of lamenting how they wish they had 500 bucks for a Valentine One radar detector (like me), and more cops can be used to solve crimes and do actual police work instead of generating revenue with radar guns. Besides, it's not often that a Gumball race plows through your local morning commute. I doubt the politicians are clever enough to figure out acceleration yet.

But I'm confident that this will never be implemented. Governments on both sides of the pond fiercely need their speeding ticket revenue, right? As long as they don't kill that cash cow then we won't have to worry about this being implemented (because then who's going to actually be speeding?), no matter how many people are willing to drink the hilarious "global warming" Kool Aid.

 

[Dogbert]

Exactly. You know what'd be great? If they raised the speed limit to 75mph and limited all cars to that top speed. I could actually get somewhere within the same month AND not have to be constantly looking over my shoulder for the fuzz.

Or even 100. In the boonie areas of I-70 (which last for a long time, at least in MO), traffic will often flow at about 90mph. On the NJ turnpike (NJ drivers scare the hell out of me, by the way), it's the same story. Even on the highways inside St. Louis, normal traffic is doing 10 over. Oftentimes the old farts who can't see over the steering wheel and do 55 (rolling chicanes) pose a bigger hazard than people following traffic flow exceeding the speed limit.

Somewhat relatedly, they've instituted a "variable speed limit" on a local highway here (I-270) that varies anywhere between 60mph and drops down to as low as 45 mph during rush hour... in the name of "easing congestion".

 

[mu51im]

if they do put this system in, they will, as the other person said, get less money from speed cameras, actually they would get absolutely no, money from speed cameras. the system wouyld just limit the speed of your car to be wihin the speed limit, it wouldnt be possible to speed anymore. then when they find out that they are going bankrupt they will look at all the complaints and look who they are from and fine the people for telling them they usually speed. because come on, if the speed limit is 30mph and this system is in place, and you go calling up the government and saying, oh you're not letting me go over 30, you are literally telling them that before this system you used to go above 30.
Sorry but if this comes, its here to stay. unless someone comes up with a hack. i hope he does. then we shall kill the government.

 

[NooDle]

It'll never happen, not in the UK at least. The amount of money they make from speedcameras is just SO high that this'll never get to become a reality

if this system becomes active here I'd sell my car and buy a tiny ecobox that can't go faster than the speedlimit anyway...and even THEN there'll be people doing 10-20 kph below the speedlimit

 

[pepitko]

Don't get me wrong, every bit of me hates this idea. But it really isn't anything new, they have such system in the middle east, right? Every car sold must be fitted with a GPS device, which tracks your speed and if you exceed the speed limit it automatically sends a speeding ticket. This way it wouldn't send the ticket but limit your speed..

The problem is that speed isn't the problem. Ok, fair enough, you need speed limit in towns, but anywhere else its pretty much up to the car and the capabilities of the driver. I've just driven through Germany two weeks ago and the unlimited motorway works brilliantly (little tailgating, traffic flows at 150-160kmh, lane discipline is excellent). Don't see why to force people to obey the speed limit, which was set a hundred years ago anyway..

What about things like driver education, or even drunk driving, which still causes like 30% of all accidents. Why is alcohol still allowed to be sold to truck drivers at petrol stations is beyond me.

 

[Dogbert]

Don't get me wrong, every bit of me hates this idea. But it really isn't anything new, they have such system in the middle east, right? Every car sold must be fitted with a GPS device, which tracks your speed and if you exceed the speed limit it automatically sends a speeding ticket. This way it wouldn't send the ticket but limit your speed..

What about things like driver education, or even drunk driving, which still causes like 30% of all accidents. Why is alcohol still allowed to be sold to truck drivers at petrol stations is beyond me.

Because all those things that you just stated cost money, but speeding tickets make money. Notice how the system that you even cited doesn't control speed, it just ensures that you'll get a ticket.

 

[NooDle]

Notice how the system that you even cited doesn't control speed, it just ensures that you'll get a ticket.

true. Also, if you're getting a fine, doesn't that mean you're more likely to drive dangerously? As in "fuck I just did 121 kph in a 120 kph zone. Now since i'm fucked anyway, I'll drive 180 through there, I have to pay for the ticket anyways..."

(Ok, Ok, I may be oversimplifying things but you get the gist of it...)

 

[Cobol74]

Right, if this were compulsory on all cars then no speed cameras or fines would therefore occur = good.

If this were compulsory and the death toll does not drop and the mantra of "speed kills" (As we all know speed does not kill, coming to an uncontrolled stop - usually suddenly, does) is proven to be rubbish = good.

But in the mean time all the cameras would disappear and the Islingtonistas would have to come up with something else.

So, go on then, try it make my day - to quote a fictional Policeman.

BTW (OT) this is all EU bollocks again, there is an in-appropriate target set for the whole EU, if you have one of the safest road networks in the EU you will be struggling to make the percentage drop, if you are, say Portugal or Greece then quite easy to make the improvements.

Its the same as the CO2 targets, France with their extensive Nuclear Power programme it is difficult for them to save the CO2 where as us with our coal it should be easy - just build more lethal and expensive nuclear power stations.

 

[Matt2000]

Those bastards will never fit a device that limits speed to my car!

Mainly because the electrics wouldn't support the extra load from it but partly because I can't go fast enough for it to ever be needed.

Cutting carbon emissions is nothing to do with it either.

 

[Dsemaj]

It'll never happen. Who is going to pay for it? It'll cost millions, forgetting what it'll cost in lost revenue...

 

[Susurrate]

Somewhat relatedly, they've instituted a "variable speed limit" on a local highway here (I-270) that varies anywhere between 60mph and drops down to as low as 45 mph during rush hour... in the name of "easing congestion".

Too bad lowing the speed limit has the opposite effect. You're input rate remains the same, but you're flow rate is reduced which directly effects your output rate meaning that is reduced too thus creating congestion on your highway. Maybe this is offset by people not crashing into each other, but I doubt it.

 

[chaos386]

^ Actually, now you mention the financial side of it, such a system could have an amusing side-effect. It won't have much effect on the accident rate, so the financial costs to society of road trauma will be unchanged. But that massive chunk of income from speeding fines would be gone. But I'm sure they'd just recover those funds with congestion charges or something equally as anti-motorist.

Oh, I'm sure they'll find a way to continue making money from speeding. Like, say, "accidentally" entering in the wrong data so that a 30 zone is marked as a 45 zone, raking in fines from drivers who thought their car wouldn't let them speed.

Don't get me wrong, every bit of me hates this idea. But it really isn't anything new, they have such system in the middle east, right? Every car sold must be fitted with a GPS device, which tracks your speed and if you exceed the speed limit it automatically sends a speeding ticket. This way it wouldn't send the ticket but limit your speed..

If we do, it's the first I've ever heard of it. :?

 

[pepitko]

If we do, it's the first I've ever heard of it. :?

I thought you guys did , if not than I apologize, my memory is probably playing tricks with me :lol:

 

[klankymen]

Or even 100.

100 is pretty fast.

Here in Germany, there's a thing called a Richtgeschwindigkeit, so basically a recommended speed limit, of 130km/h (80mph) at all times on the Autobahn, and if you have an accident over that speed, it is (partially at least) your fault.

I was driving around at night, in the winter, the other day, going 100mph (160km/h) in my Golf the other night, and I had to say, even though there was no problem with traffic getting in my way or anything, I started to feel a bit uncomfortable with the speed, and slowed down to 90mph (145ish).

Now imagine if there were an official speed limit saying "100mph", how many idiots would be driving around at 100, just because "the government says we are allowed to"

So, in conclusion, I think 100mph is a quite dangerous speed (at times), whereas at other times I drive around at 130mph.



As for the topic? Fuck speed nazis!

 

[otispunkmeyer]

good thing this is voluntary


i know its a bit freedom restricting....but i do see a good use for this. Parents, whos child has just passed his/her test and been given the keys to their first car.

i know for a fact my mother would of rested a little easier knowing that i couldnt break the speed-limit on a given road thanks to one of these devices.

I say these things have a use..... just so long as its not a requirement for everyone.

another idea would be, maybe, to install these on peoples cars who are prolfic/dangerous speeders as a kind of lesson teacher or just to keep them from being that daft again. drink drivers should obviously be banned... for life because thats just not on.

one problem i do see is that on motorways, 70mph can sometimes be a bit doddery and perhaps dangerous. on some parts of the M1 if you do 70 you'll be lucky to keep up in the slow lane while everyone else whooshes past at 85 or more. i mean on my way home from uni this christmas my dad was doing a ton and we werent overtaking anyone really....that was just the speed everyone else seemed to be doing as well.

 

[otispunkmeyer]

You have no idea how many times that line has been trotted out for funding requests here.....

heh your practically guaranteed money if you get "protection of the environment" in your research paper title.

"investigating the use of lasers to weld ceramics in aid of protecting the environment"

"here's your funding sir"

 

[katwalk]

What's next with that, banning all sharp things? Arresting people for carrying toothpicks?
Absolutely ridiculous.

I was looking up the knife laws for my state, found out these are illegal:

Yes I am totally serious. Pointy gothic cuffs are illegal in my state. Next they'll outlaw my pocketwatch because I might hurt someone with the chain

 

[vegasrebel29]

I think you're all giving the British government too much credit. Once they've installed them on all cars and the infraction revenue disappears, I imagine the conversation will go something like this:

"Aw crap, boys, where are we--" "ROAD PRICING" "FUEL DUTY"

 

[Dogbert]

100 is pretty fast.

I wasn't trying to say "everyone should go 100", because everyone should most definitely not go 100. What I'm trying to say is that if you're going to have a "ceiling speed", make it at least reasonably high.

The 90mph car trains I'm referencing for my argument are always well-spaced, always in the fast lane, and always in completely unpopulated areas where the road is just straight and level for miles and miles on end (think "the loneliest road in America" from TG, except in the midwest US).

Do you really think instituting a high speed limit will just cause people to drive too fast? You would just get laughed at if you tried to make the argument that "the speed limit was too high" when you got into an accident, because the first thing anyone would say is "well, why were you going that fast?". It's a speed limit, not a speed recommendation.