NationStates Jolt Archive

Speed-limiting devices should be fitted to cars on a voluntary basis to help save lives and cut carbon emissions, according to a new report.

The government's transport advisers claim the technology would cut road accidents with injuries by 29%.

The device automatically slows a car down to within the limit for the road on which it is being driven.

But charity Safe Speed says the devices are dangerous because they encourage drivers to enter a "zombie mode".

Motoring journalist Quentin Wilson said he also believed taking away driver control was a "really, really bad thing".

"Remotely policing the roads from satellites in the sky - I would worry about it an awful lot."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7803997.stm

This strikes me as an utterly idiotic idea. Aside from the fact that it is inviting Big Brother into the car to drive for us, there is an obvious and very real safety risk - what can you do it you actually need to get above the speed limit in an emergency?

If you're caught on the wrong side of the road with traffic coming at you, I very much doubt anyone is going to want to put their foot down and find that there isn't any more power.

Real bad idea...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7803997.stm

This strikes me as an utterly idiotic idea. Aside from the fact that it is inviting Big Brother into the car to drive for us, there is an obvious and very real safety risk - what can you do it you actually need to get above the speed limit in an emergency?

If you're caught on the wrong side of the road with traffic coming at you, I very much doubt anyone is going to want to put their foot down and find that there isn't any more power.

Seat belts under certain conditions can cause death too, does that mean we should get rid of them?

Seat belts under certain conditions can cause death too, does that mean we should get rid of them?

Depends what you mean by 'certain conditions'. As far as I'm aware, they should only cause harm if they aren't being used properly.

Seat belts under certain conditions can cause death too, does that mean we should get rid of them?

No we don't need to get rid of seat belts. I don't like the idea of installing a computer chip that makes cars though; too easy to abuse.

Why do cars need to go faster than the speed limit?

Why do cars need to go faster than the speed limit?

To get away from the cops! Duh!

Depends what you mean by 'certain conditions'. As far as I'm aware, they should only cause harm if they aren't being used properly.

My point is that while I'm not sure where I stand on the issue, I don't think your point is a logical one, if more accidents are prevented by the technology than could be caused by it. Especially if that difference is very high.

I like the idea a lot.
I've seen speeding behaviour that has actually scared me into dropping my latest attempt of learning how to drive.

And what kind of emergency would EVER require you to go at more than 120 km/h? And what if you found yourself in that kind of emergency in a car that it too old to go faster than that? That argument is just pointless and silly.

To get away from the cops! Duh!

So there would be no more programmes of the kind 'The Worlds most amazing police pursuits' - a win win situation surely.

My point is that while I'm not sure where I stand on the issue, I don't think your point is a logical one, if more accidents are prevented by the technology than could be caused by it. Especially if that difference is very high.

I see what you mean, but if a seat belt does fail then that is because of a fault with the belt itself - it hasn't actually caused the accident. In the case of speed limiting cars, you could find that the very device that is installed to prevent the accident is the cause of it.

There are other knock on effects, as well. If you can't overtake, then the traffic will end up travelling at the speed of the slowest vehicle, bunching the traffic up and increasing the chances of a accident.

I agree. Limit cars to speeds equivalent to the fastest legal limit in the state - there simply isn't any good reason to be going faster.

I like the idea a lot.
I've seen speeding behaviour that has actually scared me into dropping my latest attempt of learning how to drive.

And what kind of emergency would EVER require you to go at more than 120 km/h? And what if you found yourself in that kind of emergency in a car that it too old to go faster than that? That argument is just pointless and silly.

I think what you say in the first paragraph explains the second.

I'm not talking specifically about motorway driving, although there may be problems with that as well. It's single carriageway driving, when the guy in front of you is plodding along at 50mph. You either try getting past, at which point you might not have enough power to complete the pass, or you get stuck behind him, with a queue of impatient drivers forming behind.

I see what you mean, but if a seat belt does fail then that is because of a fault with the belt itself - it hasn't actually caused the accident. In the case of speed limiting cars, you could find that the very device that is installed to prevent the accident is the cause of it.

There are other knock on effects, as well. If you can't overtake, then the traffic will end up travelling at the speed of the slowest vehicle, bunching the traffic up and increasing the chances of a accident.

While in a few circumstances, a speed limiter might keep you from preventing an accident, the actual cause would be something else. I can't think of a single accident that could be caused by it.

So there would be no more programmes of the kind 'The Worlds most amazing police pursuits' - a win win situation surely.

Where is your sense of humor man?


For real reasons, medical emergencies, you have someone in your car who's severely injured and there is no ambulance around, your wife (Or hell you) is in labor and need to get to the hospital.

Passing those assholes that travel 20 miles under the speed limit, stuff like that.

I think what you say in the first paragraph explains the second.

I'm not talking specifically about motorway driving, although there may be problems with that as well. It's single carriageway driving, when the guy in front of you is plodding along at 50mph. You either try getting past, at which point you might not have enough power to complete the pass, or you get stuck behind him, with a queue of impatient drivers forming behind.

Then you learn a little patience. If you're in a hurry, you didn't plan your trip well enough.

I agree. Limit cars to speeds equivalent to the fastest legal limit in the state - there simply isn't any good reason to be going faster.

If my dad hadn't broken the speed limit one evening back in the 70s, I'd have been born in the back of a car.

Then you learn a little patience. If you're in a hurry, you didn't plan your trip well enough.

Well, I'm sure if we just explain that to all the impatient drivers out there, they'll suddenly realise how stupid they've been all these years and accident rates will vanish overnight.

Well, I'm sure if we just explain that to all the impatient drivers out there, they'll suddenly realise how stupid they've been all these years and accident rates will vanish overnight.

I totally agree with the "Stupid" part. They certainly are.

If my dad hadn't broken the speed limit one evening back in the 70s, I'd have been born in the back of a car.

And? Chances are, you'd be none the worse for wear.

And? Chances are, you'd be none the worse for wear.

Just because I happened to be born without the umbilical cord round my neck doesn't mean nobody else ever has been or will be. And while 'woman giving birth' might not be a medical emergency in itself, there are plenty of other things which can happen that are, and that require immediate treatment in a hospital. We call them 'accidents'. They are quite common - I'm surprised you've not heard of them.

And? Chances are, you'd be none the worse for wear.

The carseat might be though. ;)

Sorry, that was needlessly snide. But my point remains valid.

Add in an override for the speed limiter that turns on two videocameras (one front, one back) and notifies the authorities so they can investigate. If they have a verified alibi (e.g. wife is in labor) or the videocameras record something (e.g. bridge is about to collapse), they're off the hook. If not, they face fines both for speeding AND for misuse of the override.

Just because I happened to be born without the umbilical cord round my neck doesn't mean nobody else ever has been or will be. And while 'woman giving birth' might not be a medical emergency in itself, there are plenty of other things which can happen that are, and that require immediate treatment in a hospital. We call them 'accidents'. They are quite common - I'm surprised you've not heard of them.

Sure I have. I've also heard of little things called "Ambulances" - which are a type of vehicle that should NOT be speed-limited.

Sorry, that was needlessly snide. But my point remains valid.

No prob.

Sure I have. I've also heard of little things called "Ambulances" - which are a type of vehicle that should NOT be speed-limited.

Not always available.

silly idea...take away speed limits altogether!

a new law of the road will sort itself out pretty easily,over a relatively short amount of time.

anarchy is the only way to solve things like this..people will have to be trusted by their governments sooner or later

Sure I have. I've also heard of little things called "Ambulances" - which are a type of vehicle that should NOT be speed-limited.

Rural places tend to have wider-spaced hospitals. If someone's having (say) a heart attack, the three-minute difference between rushing them to the hospital and waiting for an ambulance to arrive and then rushing them to the hospital could mean life or death.

This is a dangerous and highly retarded measure. I can only assume it was thought up by someone who cannot drive, or is scared of driving.

In any event, it will lead to many more accidents and mass congestion.

My more sensible proposal is to ban any car that is not capable of reaching at least 150 mph on the flat. That would thin the herd, and make driving safer and more pleasurable. It would also reduce carbon emissions.

Those who cannot afford such vehicles should have to walk. It would do the fatties good.

Not always available.

That is a problem for local government - and that means you and me, most places. Demanding an adequate ambulance service is not unreasonable.

Also, most places speeding to the hospital won't get you there any quicker - and might mean you never get there at all. Calm, safe driving is the most efficient method.

Sounds like a good idea only for parents to control underage drivers. Not that it would work, parents too stupid, like did the "v chip" work? (is it even still made?)

Sure I have. I've also heard of little things called "Ambulances" - which are a type of vehicle that should NOT be speed-limited.

Posing the question: Is the nearest ambulance nearer than the nearest car?

Rural places tend to have wider-spaced hospitals. If someone's having (say) a heart attack, the three-minute difference between rushing them to the hospital and waiting for an ambulance to arrive and then rushing them to the hospital could mean life or death.

I'd rather rely on a CPR trained relative or friend, actually. They have an excellent chance of keeping you alive while the ambulance gets to you, even in rural areas.

Mind you, I'm typing this from a country where the most common rural ambulance is a plane.

That is a problem for local government - and that means you and me, most places. Demanding an adequate ambulance service is not unreasonable.

Also, most places speeding to the hospital won't get you there any quicker - and might mean you never get there at all. Calm, safe driving is the most efficient method.

Some places can't afford a decent Ambulance service, and worse yet some places privatize them. I would rather drag my bleeding half dead body to the hospital on foot, or drive over the speed limit than pay the outrageous cost for service they demand.

Add in an override for the speed limiter that turns on two videocameras (one front, one back) and notifies the authorities so they can investigate. If they have a verified alibi (e.g. wife is in labor) or the videocameras record something (e.g. bridge is about to collapse), they're off the hook. If not, they face fines both for speeding AND for misuse of the override.

*Shudders*

Posing the question: Is the nearest ambulance nearer than the nearest car?

Probably not. But if you have the time to drive the person to the hospital, in a vehicle with no emergency equipment save possibly a first aid kit, you have time to wait for an ambulance full of life-saving equipment and medical professionals.

Wonderful idea as it was first proposed, ie against teenagers who are the most likely to have testosterone or Estrogen based speed racing bouts. Of course the real worst drivers would never allow this, though we can control dangerous teens [ie teens who do not understand they are riding in one ton plus steel object that will cave in on them] we cant control the people that have been driving 2+ years.

Personally I simply propose that drivers licenses must be tested every single year, you fail, you lose the license. That would make the truly dangerous baby boo- i mean drivers think twice before driving like they did thirty years ago. Truth is, the best idea is to have cars that are driven by computer. Much like voting, driving is too complicated for your average north american to do properly. Much like voting, driving should be a priviledge, and not a right. IQ test, as well as tests to see if you are even paying attention should be taken every year. But hey, thats never going to happen. *sigh* oh for the days of constitutional monarchy, when driving would not have been allowed for any jackass teen or middle aged rage case.

Also for lefties or righties who are about to go anti-fascist crazy, let me state for the record i worked customer service, at a gas station for two years. Your average person is not intelligent enough to pump their own gas, in fact in many occasions pump stops became necessary as they broke every rule, at once. If anyone knows the great bulk of humanity, or should be able to have an opinion on the issue..its me. People are dumb, driving should not be a right.

Mind you, kudos to the idiot faux-socialists in GB who continue to construct their little safety-nazi police state. I've no doubt when the real fascists come to power in a few years (and they will) they'll find all this stuff very handy.

Some places can't afford a decent Ambulance service, and worse yet some places privatize them. I would rather drag my bleeding half dead body to the hospital on foot, or drive over the speed limit than pay the outrageous cost for service they demand.

Well, as a citizen, I'd make it a priority to change that. Local government is pretty much the one place they really do have to listen to you.

I think what you say in the first paragraph explains the second.

I'm not talking specifically about motorway driving, although there may be problems with that as well. It's single carriageway driving, when the guy in front of you is plodding along at 50mph. You either try getting past, at which point you might not have enough power to complete the pass, or you get stuck behind him, with a queue of impatient drivers forming behind.

And that is exactly the kind of behaviour I've seen. Getting impatient with the guy in front going slower than the guy behind wanted to, and the guy behind getting up to a speed and overtaking in a way that nearly caused 4 cars to crash.

If you can't overtake inside the speed limit, don't overtake.

If you can't overtake inside the speed limit, don't overtake.

You can get stuck behind someone going a lot lower than the speed limit, though. When you overtake someone like that you don't need to cruise past at 100mph, but you might need a brief burst of speed over the limit to get safely by. If you can't make it, you're stuck; unable to get past, and probably unable to drop safely back in behind either.

If you can't overtake inside the speed limit, don't overtake.

Rubbish. That's clearly dangerous.

Probably not. But if you have the time to drive the person to the hospital, in a vehicle with no emergency equipment save possibly a first aid kit, you have time to wait for an ambulance full of life-saving equipment and medical professionals.

That's a common mistake. The purpose of an ambulance is to get you to hospital, not to act as a mobile treatment room. (I'm talking about the UK, by the way - might be different where you are, especially with a light aircraft to lug useful stuff about.)

Sorry, that was needlessly snide. But my point remains valid.

It doesn't. What if your dad's car at the time would have been an old Rover, capable of no more than 60mph?
Should we make it illegal to sell cars that don't go over a certain speed, just for medical emergencies like that, then?

Well, as a citizen, I'd make it a priority to change that. Local government is pretty much the one place they really do have to listen to you.

Oh believe me I try but all the local cows around here just go "Oh but we already have such a lovely Ambulance service, don't you think?"

Rubbish. That's clearly dangerous.

What, overtaking while sticking to the speed limit?
That's news to me...

I
Should we make it illegal to sell cars that don't go over a certain speed, just for medical emergencies like that, then?

Yes. But not for medical emergencies. Underpowered cars are a menace.

It doesn't. What if your dad's car at the time would have been an old Rover, capable of no more than 60mph?

Then he wouldn't have been able to break the speed limit, so the issue of speeding does not arise.


Should we make it illegal to sell cars that don't go over a certain speed, just for medical emergencies like that, then?

What?

Add: Ah, I think I get you now.
No, I am saying that there are certain situations where a person has to be got to hospital very quickly, and that this should be done with whatever resources are available. That doesn't mean that every car should be fitted with a jet engine, just in case. Though that would be cool...

What, overtaking while sticking to the speed limit?
That's news to me...

Yah. You don't want to go for hang time in the oncoming traffic lane. Get the job done.

If they are doing say, 25, and you are overtaking, a delta of 5 mph, just isn't safe. You should look to be doing about 40 when you pull out to pass to minimize the time in the wrong lane.

Oh believe me I try but all the local cows around here just go "Oh but we already have such a lovely Ambulance service, don't you think?"

The answer being, of course, "No, not in the least."

More seriously, I find I get a better result going for the male of the species. Sad and sexist it may sound, but they just seem to be willing to put more effort in. And yeah, my local government dislikes me intensely. I make them get off their asses and do their jobs.

What, overtaking while sticking to the speed limit?
That's news to me...
Its usually a good idea to surpass the speed limit and move on passed them quickly. Leaves less chance of getting hit by incoming traffic that you may not see.

Yah. You don't want to go for hang time in the oncoming traffic lane. Get the job done.

If they are doing say, 25, and you are overtaking, a delta of 5 mph, just isn't safe. You should look to be doing about 40 when you pull out to pass to minimize the time in the wrong lane.

If they're doing 25 in a 30, you shouldn't be passing them anyway if you know your car can only do 30. Why would you try? On the other hand, if they are going 25 in a 40 and you know that's enough, then where's the problem?

And yeah, my local government dislikes me intensely. I make them get off their asses and do their jobs.

Good God, how?

The answer being, of course, "No, not in the least."

More seriously, I find I get a better result going for the male of the species. Sad and sexist it may sound, but they just seem to be willing to put more effort in. And yeah, my local government dislikes me intensely. I make them get off their asses and do their jobs.

Perhaps I am bitter but around here most of the people are senior citizens who don't give two shits because they will be dead soon anyway and the rest are fucking bums.

You can get stuck behind someone going a lot lower than the speed limit, though. When you overtake someone like that you don't need to cruise past at 100mph, but you might need a brief burst of speed over the limit to get safely by. If you can't make it, you're stuck; unable to get past, and probably unable to drop safely back in behind either.

Where does it say that just because you can't get over speed limit, your car won't have enough energy to get you to the speed limit quickly? :confused:

Good God, how?

By actually showing up at their "public" meetings and demanding entrance, as I'm allowed to do under the town charter (and which they were unaware of before I started doing it - they were used to meeting behind closed doors). By using my charter-endowed right to question decisions.

Oh, and by running a "kick the bastard out" campaign against the town treasurer last year. Which worked.

Yah. You don't want to go for hang time in the oncoming traffic lane. Get the job done.

If they are doing say, 25, and you are overtaking, a delta of 5 mph, just isn't safe. You should look to be doing about 40 when you pull out to pass to minimize the time in the wrong lane.

Well, what would you assume the speed limit to be in this case? 30?
No need to overtake them then, is there, for a difference of 5mph?

Its usually a good idea to surpass the speed limit and move on passed them quickly. Leaves less chance of getting hit by incoming traffic that you may not see.

It usually isn't. If you can't overtake safely within the speed limit, do NOT overtake.

Where does it say that just because you can't get over speed limit, your car won't have enough energy to get you to the speed limit quickly? :confused:

Exactly. Speed limiters only limit maximum speed, not acceleration.

If they're doing 25 in a 30, you shouldn't be passing them anyway if you know your car can only do 30. Why would you try? On the other hand, if they are going 25 in a 40 and you know that's enough, then where's the problem?

If they are doing 25 in a 30, and I am behind them, then I most likely want to get in front of them. (Assuming it's not a residential street or such).

It's safer to do that by going 40 than by going 30.

Anyway, outside of urban/suburban streets I always add 10 to the speed limit to calculate the 'real' speed limit. Most of these things are revenue traps anyway.

Well, what would you assume the speed limit to be in this case? 30?
No need to overtake them then, is there, for a difference of 5mph?

Yes there is.

By actually showing up at their "public" meetings and demanding entrance, as I'm allowed to do under the town charter (and which they were unaware of before I started doing it - they were used to meeting behind closed doors).

A law making body that wants to meet in private? Dodgy.

Oh, and by running a "kick the bastard out" campaign against the town treasurer last year. Which worked.

Hehe, good work. Where can we get more members of the public like you?

If they are doing 25 in a 30, and I am behind them, then I most likely want to get in front of them. (Assuming it's not a residential street or such).

It's safer to do that by going 40 than by going 30.

Anyway, outside of urban/suburban streets I always add 10 to the speed limit to calculate the 'real' speed limit. Most of these things are revenue traps anyway.

Sounds like you're one of those drivers that scared me off the road for now.... I just hope you never kill anyone but yourself.

Where does it say that just because you can't get over speed limit, your car won't have enough energy to get you to the speed limit quickly? :confused:

I didn't mean in terms of acceleration, although that is of course important too. I mean that there are times when you need a brief burst above the speed limit in order to get past. Passing someone doing 50 at 60 takes longer than passing them at 70. Then, when you're past, you can drop safely back and continue on your way.

Yes there is.

No, there simply isn't.

Even the law in Germany, restrictive as it is on going below the speed limit, will always allow you to go around 10kmh below.
So in this case, you would be entirely at fault for trying to overtake in an unsafe way.

A law making body that wants to meet in private? Dodgy.



Hehe, good work. Where can we get more members of the public like you?

Unfortunately, I feel I am unique.

Equally unfortunately, that may be a GOOD thing...:eek2:

If they are doing 25 in a 30, and I am behind them, then I most likely want to get in front of them. (Assuming it's not a residential street or such).

It's safer to do that by going 40 than by going 30.

Anyway, outside of urban/suburban streets I always add 10 to the speed limit to calculate the 'real' speed limit. Most of these things are revenue traps anyway.

On behalf of everyone around you, I thank you for taking it upon yourself to risk not just your own safety but all of ours by driving in a less safe manner. Your complimentary scrotum-seeking attack weasels will arrive shortly. :)

I didn't mean in terms of acceleration, although that is of course important too. I mean that there are times when you need a brief burst above the speed limit in order to get past. Passing someone doing 50 at 60 takes longer than passing them at 70. Then, when you're past, you can drop safely back and continue on your way.

Again, a difference of 10kmh hardly justifies speeding and unsafe driving.

Why do cars need to go faster than the speed limit?

Because speed limits differ from one country to another!:rolleyes:

Because speed limits differ from one country to another!:rolleyes:

Not all that massively, I think you'll find.
They're pretty much the same all over the EU, for example.

Because speed limits differ from one country to another!:rolleyes:

Go back to sleep.

Again, a difference of 10kmh hardly justifies speeding and unsafe driving.

But the point is that in a situation like this, not breaking the speed limit could be considered unsafe driving.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7803997.stm

This strikes me as an utterly idiotic idea. Aside from the fact that it is inviting Big Brother into the car to drive for us, there is an obvious and very real safety risk - what can you do it you actually need to get above the speed limit in an emergency?

If you're caught on the wrong side of the road with traffic coming at you, I very much doubt anyone is going to want to put their foot down and find that there isn't any more power.


Yep good idea, only if made compulsory though. I'm not sure about other parts of the world but here in the UK there is far too much traffic on our roads(escpecialy in the cities), so I welcome any measures to cut this number even measures that try to make it too expensive.

But the point is that in a situation like this, not breaking the speed limit could be considered unsafe driving.

What, staying behind the other guy until it's actually safe to overtake is dangerous?
You've got a very strange perception of what constitutes dangerous driving... strange and highly scary.

Why do cars need to go faster than the speed limit?

If the speed limit is 70 and a car is capable of achieving 70 then the engine is going to be screaming and therefore less efficient. A car capable of 150 will be far more efficient at 70.

Can we limit the speed of a car to Mach 3?

Sounds like you're one of those drivers that scared me off the road for now.... I just hope you never kill anyone but yourself.

Nah, I'm not worried. My cars one of those really safe ones. I'll be fine.

This strikes me as an utterly idiotic idea. Aside from the fact that it is inviting Big Brother into the car to drive for us
Huh? There's no BB in that.


, there is an obvious and very real safety risk - what can you do it you actually need to get above the speed limit in an emergency?
If you're caught on the wrong side of the road with traffic coming at you, I very much doubt anyone is going to want to put their foot down and find that there isn't any more power.

That's stupid.
1.Are you the police? Or an ambulance? So, what kind of emergency could require you to get above the speed limits?
2.Why should one be on the wrong side of the road?
3.Assuming that, do not accelerate... SLAM YOUR BRAKES and go back on the right side!

Can we limit the speed of a car to Mach 3?

Won't that make them very hard to get into and out of?

If the speed limit is 70 and a car is capable of achieving 70 then the engine is going to be screaming and therefore less efficient. A car capable of 150 will be far more efficient at 70.

That is: no need for limiting engine power, limiting top speed is enough.

If the speed limit is 70 and a car is capable of achieving 70 then the engine is going to be screaming and therefore less efficient. A car capable of 150 will be far more efficient at 70.

Do you not understand the concept of a speed limiter? It does not mean the car only has sufficient power to only go 70mph - the car could have an engine powerful enough to go 120mph but its speed is limited to 70mph.

Nah, I'm not worried. My cars one of those really safe ones. I'll be fine.

Yes, I suspected that, actually.

You can get stuck behind someone going a lot lower than the speed limit, though. When you overtake someone like that you don't need to cruise past at 100mph, but you might need a brief burst of speed over the limit to get safely by. If you can't make it, you're stuck; unable to get past, and probably unable to drop safely back in behind either.

? Slow down, the drivers behind you will have to slow down too.

It's a very pickled onions idea. One the one side, aye it would probably reduce the lethality of any accidents to occur, on the other, people might have more accidents because they would be less careful.

Another advantage to this plan is that it would throw Jeremy Clarkson into a fit of apoplectic rage that would make for a veritable feast of televisual entertainment.

Another advantage to this plan is that it would throw Jeremy Clarkson into a fit of apoplectic rage that would make for a veritable feast of televisual entertainment.

I would pay good money to see that, actually. :D

anyone remember when driving was fun? also how on Earth will this work on a motorway :confused:

Can we limit the speed of a car to Mach 3?

so I'm not the only one thinking about the mischief you could cause by hacking this >.>

Another advantage to this plan is that it would throw Jeremy Clarkson into a fit of apoplectic rage that would make for a veritable feast of televisual entertainment.

*watches the top gear topple the government special*

There doesn't seem anything morally wrong with this idea. It would presumably save lives and make us all safer from the lunatics who drive around at silly speeds. But installing equipment in all cars would be very expensive and the government would lose money from all the speeding fines, so how practical it is I don't know.

What, staying behind the other guy until it's actually safe to overtake is dangerous?
You've got a very strange perception of what constitutes dangerous driving... strange and highly scary.
This attitude is just as much a danger as speeders - people who think "if I drive slowly, I must be safe."

Driving slowly has its own dangers, particularly what the people behind you will do as they get more and more impatient. If you don't like that, you can find a country full of saints and live there. If you're staying in the real world, though, you'll have to get used to it; I don't want to sit behind you as you dawdle along.

Huh? There's no BB in that.
Computer monitored speed limits controlling your car? You don't see a problem with that?

That's stupid.
1.Are you the police? Or an ambulance? So, what kind of emergency could require you to get above the speed limits?
2.Why should one be on the wrong side of the road?
This has all been discussed already.
3.Assuming that, do not accelerate... SLAM YOUR BRAKES and go back on the right side!
This has also been discussed, but, since you asked, where exactly would you like the car to go? Back into the traffic that has presumably bunched up behind the slow driver? Perhaps backwards into the other car behind you that's also trying to overtake?

Ahem...
Speed-limiting devices should be fitted to cars on a voluntary basis to help save lives and cut carbon emissions, according to a new report.

Reading comprehension is my friend.

I'd not mind seeing it compulsory though.

If you need to drive fast get into a rallye management.
That way you get to drive for fun on a nicely powered car on a CLOSED road. Or, even better, you could get to do navigator for a professional driver on recon drive.

Ahem...


Reading comprehension is my friend.

You make a brilliant point!

Or you would, if (a) that was even remotely relevant to a discussion on whether these devices are a good idea (b) anyone had said something that made you think that we weren't all aware of that.

This attitude is just as much a danger as speeders - people who think "if I drive slowly, I must be safe."

Driving slowly has its own dangers, particularly what the people behind you will do as they get more and more impatient. If you don't like that, you can find a country full of saints and live there. If you're staying in the real world, though, you'll have to get used to it; I don't want to sit behind you as you dawdle along.

If they can overtake safely, they can do so. If they decide to engage in dangerous behaviour, that's their own fault.


This has also been discussed, but, since you asked, where exactly would you like the car to go? Back into the traffic that has presumably bunched up behind the slow driver? Perhaps backwards into the other car behind you that's also trying to overtake?

I can see you would assume that the traffic behind you would creep up the slow driver's back as soon as you start to overtake, but if anything you are projecting this from your own behaviour.
Safe driving means staying well back until the car in front of you has completed overtaking. Then you can drive up to the slow car, not before.

I can see you would assume that the traffic behind you would creep up the slow driver's back as soon as you start to overtake, but if anything you are projecting this from your own behaviour.
Safe driving means staying well back until the car in front of you has completed overtaking. Then you can drive up to the slow car, not before.

I accept that we project our own driving habits onto those around us, but you are doing this just as much as me. Indeed, your assumption that everyone else is safe and it's just a few people who are not is probably more dangerous: if I assume the worst of drivers I am much more able to anticipate what they are going to do. It's no good shouting at the people who won't let you back in "you shouldn't have done that!" as you plow into oncoming traffic.

It's all very well saying what 'should happen', but it doesn't work like that. And short of giving computers complete control over our cars, it never will.

Driving slowly has its own dangers, particularly what the people behind you will do as they get more and more impatient. If you don't like that, you can find a country full of saints and live there. If you're staying in the real world, though, you'll have to get used to it; I don't want to sit behind you as you dawdle along.


And here ladies and genteelmen is a handy example of why I say if they made it compulsory it would be a great idea.

This poster not only advocates that we should all somehow just get used to bad drivers with bad habits, but see's nowt wrong in breaking the law just because he does not want to sit behind somebody driveing slowly.

We already have laws in effect that penilise those impatient people stuck behiond, wether we know what they are going to do or not, it is not supprising however the amount of drivers that see nowt wrong with their own driving whilst contiuning the shouting and road rage brought on by those working within the laws and limits of the road.:D. I guess it's always somebody elses fault huh!

I accept that we project our own driving habits onto those around us, but you are doing this just as much as me. Indeed, your assumption that everyone else is safe and it's just a few people who are not is probably more dangerous: if I assume the worst of drivers I am much more able to anticipate what they are going to do. It's no good shouting at the people who won't let you back in "you shouldn't have done that!" as you plow into oncoming traffic.

It's all very well saying what 'should happen', but it doesn't work like that. And short of giving computers complete control over our cars, it never will.

And yet, assuming the worst of all drivers, you would object to a measure that would remove a good bit of their unsafe behaviour? How do you work that out?

And here ladies and genteelmen is a handy example of why I say if they made it compulsory it would be a great idea.

This poster not only advocates that we should all somehow just get used to bad drivers with bad habits, but see's nowt wrong in breaking the law just because he does not want to sit behind somebody driveing slowly.

We already have laws in effect that penilise those impatient people stuck behiond, wether we know what they are going to do or not, it is not supprising however the amount of drivers that see nowt wrong with their own driving whilst contiuning the shouting and road rage brought on by those working within the laws and limits of the road.:D. I guess it's always somebody elses fault huh!

And here is a good example of the kind of danger posed by people who are determined to be the traffic police.

Unless you're planning to drug people or surgically alter their personalities, people are always going to get impatient. And it's not just people who suffer from 'road rage' - why should I sit behind a tractor doing 15mph or a lorry that can't get above 25 up a hill for mile after mile?

And here is a good example of the kind of danger posed by people who are determined to be the traffic police.

Unless you're planning to drug people or surgically alter their personalities, people are always going to get impatient. And it's not just people who suffer from 'road rage' - why should I sit behind a tractor doing 15mph or a lorry that can't get above 25 up a hill for mile after mile?

What kind of scenario would not allow you to overtake a tractor without breaking the top speed limit? I'm really curious about this one now...

And yet, assuming the worst of all drivers, you would object to a measure that would remove a good bit of their unsafe behaviour? How do you work that out?

It won't remove their unsafe behaviour. It will make their unsafe behaviour even more unsafe.

Incidentally, it is you who have attached the label 'unsafe' to the practice of overtaking. Done properly, there is nothing unsafe about it at all - presuming you can use your car properly.

What kind of scenario would not allow you to overtake a tractor without breaking the top speed limit? I'm really curious about this one now...

You've never tried overtaking on a single carriageway, have you?

It won't remove their unsafe behaviour. It will make their unsafe behaviour even more unsafe.

Incidentally, it is you who have attached the label 'unsafe' to the practice of overtaking. Done properly, there is nothing unsafe about it at all - presuming you can use your car properly.

I don't label overtaking as unsafe.
I simply stated that any overtaking that imvolves breaking the speed limit is bound to be extremely unsafe.

How will not being able to break the top speed limit of a country make people's driving more dangerous than it is at the moment?

You've never tried overtaking on a single carriageway, have you?

I have. Your point?

I don't label overtaking as unsafe.
I simply stated that any overtaking that imvolves breaking the speed limit is bound to be extremely unsafe.

How will not being able to break the top speed limit of a country make people's driving more dangerous than it is at the moment?

These devices don't limit the car to the top speed of the country, they limit it to the speed of the road you're on at the moment. If you're in a 60 zone with a lorry doing 50 in front of you, you're going to need a lot of space and a very clear stretch of road to get past it if you absolutely can't go any faster. So, you either have a go and risk getting caught out, or you have a very long line of very unhappy motorists bunching up behind.

I have. Your point?

I'm not sure I believe that, to be honest, especially if you don't even have a licence. Who on earth is teaching you?

Overtaking is a skill that requires practice and experience. It takes a lot longer than you think it will and requires a lot more room. If you're making one of the more difficult things you can do while driving even harder, you're going to cause accidents.

These devices don't limit the car to the top speed of the country, they limit it to the speed of the road you're on at the moment. If you're in a 60 zone with a lorry doing 50 in front of you, you're going to need a lot of space and a very clear stretch of road to get past it if you absolutely can't go any faster. So, you either have a go and risk getting caught out, or you have a very long line of very unhappy motorists bunching up behind.

Even better. I assumed it would be tuned to the top speed in the country only.

Again, I'd like you to give a scenario where you cannot overtake a tractor going at 15mph. I believe the lowest speed limit in Ireland and the UK is 25mph.

I'm not sure I believe that, to be honest, especially if you don't even have a licence. Who on earth is teaching you?

Overtaking is a skill that requires practice and experience. It takes a lot longer than you think it will and requires a lot more room. If you're making one of the more difficult things you can do while driving even harder, you're going to cause accidents.

I'm on a provisional license, and either my driving instructor or my BF was sitting next to me.
Yes, it does require skill, but it's not exaclty rocket science either. Complete idiots manage it.

Even better. I assumed it would be tuned to the top speed in the country only.

Again, I'd like you to give a scenario where you cannot overtake a tractor going at 15mph. I believe the lowest speed limit in Ireland and the UK is 25mph.

To get from a 15 mph starting speed, past the length of a tractor (which is still travelling forwards), is going to take a certain distance. The lower the speed you can do, the longer that distance will be.

Can we drop the tractor now? It was an example, not the sole reason why these things are a bad idea.

And here is a good example of the kind of danger posed by people who are determined to be the traffic police.

Unless you're planning to drug people or surgically alter their personalities, people are always going to get impatient. And it's not just people who suffer from 'road rage' - why should I sit behind a tractor doing 15mph or a lorry that can't get above 25 up a hill for mile after mile?

Heh, let me plainly state my position. Whilst I agree that car ownership represents freedom of movement, somthing that is very important to the realm of indivual freedom, we do in the UK have far too many cars on the road with no respite nor drop in numbers forthcoming, in fact clearly the opposite is true.

I therfore agree on general principle that would serve to decrease the ammount of traffic around, yes even those ideas whos aim seems to be to price people out of car ownership.

So while I do see your argument, really it's bad one I mean a really bad one. We can eqatute it with any illeagal act of violence, why can't I stab that fuckin' doorman for not letting me in the club?

Well the answer would be similar to the answer to the question you have just asked.

Depending on the circumstance of this tractor, it may at the time of your takeover attempt be illeagal for you to do so. Certianly though leaning on that horn, getting yourself workedup until you are leagaly able to pass does what sort of good?

Of course another and perhaps more relevent answer to your question, is simply because you choose to drive that route at that time, and if you find yourself stuck in traffic then as a car owner you must share the blame for the amount of traffic on the roads.

You've never tried overtaking on a single carriageway, have you?

I think the point was rather what is a tractors top speed? even on a single carriage way, you'll not have to top 40 to pass it.

99% of driving safely is situational awareness and the ability to anticipate traffic. That's something that only comes with experience and a certain amount of native skill.

People who feel obliged to tootle along below the speed limit at all times in order to be safe most likely aren't and shouldn't be driving.

Also, it's all very well saying that people should keep back and not bunch up &c. only overtake at the speed limit. But that overlooks the fact that there are a very limited number of safe passing places and the rest. If you are driving somewhere rural with only single lane roads for miles and miles, the idiot chugging along at forty five will inevitably cause tailbacks, simply because people don't have six hours to waste getting from Newcastle to Edinburgh.

Frankly, slow drivers are selfish. They value their time more than anyone else's. If they aren't comfortable with driving at the speed of regular traffic, then they shouldn't be driving. The world shouldn't have to rearrange itself on their behalf.

Of course I am talking about single lane (single carriageway for teh brits) here. Two lane highways are something else. In that case, the vast, vast, vast majority of them are designed for speeds well in excess of the posted limits, so any attempt to limit the car to the speed limit on those is just petty minded safety nazism.

(In fact, I am pretty sure most speed limits on empty interstates are there owing to a sad combination of government highway robbery and the petty nature of the average voter).

Hmm... what about partial speed limiting? Like only limiting the speed of the car for 30mph or less zones(urban/suburban areas), and not limiting other areas (country side/motorway).

It's always seemed to me that speed limits of 30mph or less have less to do with reducing accidents and more to do with reducing the fatality rate of any accidents that do occur.If you hit a pedestrian:

At 20 mph 5% will die

At 30 mph 45% will die

At 40 mph 85% will die

Why do cars need to go faster than the speed limit?

Do you want the funny answer, or the real one?

Let me give you a short example-you're on two-lane State highway, pavement dry, light oncoming traffic. The car in front of you has just dropped ten MPH without hitting his brakes, and the car behind you is an eighteen wheeler. You have two choices-apply your brakes and hope the semi's driver (probably been up since yesterday, has slowed reactions and blurry visions, or he's hopped up on ephedrine and overloaded) can slow his rig before he plows into you (because, y'know, he's been driving like he's on a schedule and really WAAAAYYY too close), or accellerate around the car in front of you as he starts belching the black smoke 'cause his engine went tits-up three seconds ago. Trying to risk the pass at the speed limit is, frankly, suicidal. The semi, without you between him and mister "I don't need to change my oil-oops" has enough room to avoid ramming the guy in front. He doesn't have enough room to avoid making you an accordion if you stay where you're at. at the Speed Limit, you're not going to get out of eighteen-wheeler's way in time. Above it, you can.

This type of shit happens frequently. There are times when you need that extra bit of speed to avoid an accident. Poking at fifty when you've got no shoulder, a drop, and an asshole out-of-control behind you, or an accident suddenly in front, is bad news-speed, handled properly, keeps you OUT of accidents.

Second scenario- your wife is having a heart-attack in the passenger's seat, you don't have time to stop and phone an ambulance, and she doesn't have time for you to wait for assistance. (substitute stroke if you want, or the tasty life-threatening, yet rather common occurance of your choice. I drove a guy from a site once who was holding a bleeder caused by a chainsaw. There was no cell-phone coverage there, and the nearest ambulance was longer away than the trip to the nearest clinic. Snake bites are also fun, not to mention certain arthropods...)

There are times and places where you NEED to go faster than the posted limits-not because you're an idiot street-racer or criminal, but because you NEED TO.

The only way I would support this measure is if the government were much harsher on people going under the speed limit. I'm tired of getting behind people who lack the proper reaction time to handle driving at the speed limit. If you can't control the vehicle, given clear conditions, at the printed speed limit, then you have no business driving.

*lives in an area with many old people*

You know how to cut road accidents? Stop shitty road designs.

People who feel obliged to tootle along below the speed limit at all times in order to be safe most likely aren't and shouldn't be driving. Driving is voluntarily giving up an amount of your safety to get from point A to point B a little faster.

I would be more supportive of measures that mandated a device that could measure blood-alcohol content be installed in cars. That would be worthwhile. If your B-A count is above the limit installed in the car, it won't start. Drunk driving solved in one go.

99% of driving safely is situational awareness and the ability to anticipate traffic. That's something that only comes with experience and a certain amount of native skill.
Situational awareness is something many drivers lack.

Putting a speed limiter on a car is a waste of time. People will just remove them. (And for whoever suggested placing cameras in a car, that would be the first thing to go if I was driving it.)

Well I think the idea is stupid. I'm from Southern California and even if the posted speed limit is 65-75 mph the flow of traffic (including Cops) is generally 80-95 mph. If someone has one of the "altered cars" and is going 65 mph when everyone else is going 95 that seems a BIT like a serious danger.

You know how to cut road accidents? Stop shitty road designs.

Heh or take cars off the road, strengthen what is required to pass your test, raise the age of licence to at least 25, give a mandotory retest to anybody over the age of 60, make drink driving 100% illeagal(or what ever your drug of choice is) and bar those caught for life.


There is plenty we can do about our road problems.

make drink driving 100% illeagal(or what ever your drug of choice is) and bar those caught for life.This, unfortunately, does not help at all. Zero Tolerance policies don't stop drunk drivers before the act. Just during the middle of it.

Lucky for me, my dad is very knowledgeable about cars, he can get it out! :D

Lucky for me, my dad is very knowledgeable about cars, he can get it out! :DMy point is proven. :D

People can, and will, remove the speed limiter. Why make it mandatory? To do what, drive the price of the car up? :p

My point is proven. :D

People can, and will, remove the speed limiter. Why make it mandatory? To do what, drive the price of the car up? :p

Well, people can and do ignore their seatbelts, or even to put their kids in adequate seats.
So why were seatbelts and child seats made mandatory?

So why were seatbelts and child seats made mandatory?Because they might do something that could help save a life. Possibly. Maybe. (I didn't say that it was necessarily a bad idea in concept. Just not a good idea in practice. Hence my suggestion of the B-A device.)

This, unfortunately, does not help at all. Zero Tolerance policies don't stop drunk drivers before the act. Just during the middle of it.

Not that I'm a propnante of the death pentalty but it's advocates would more than likely tell you that at least that person wont be doing that anymore.

Yes of course we will never stop drink driving, but the more of those that we do catch and ban for life from driving then the safer our roads will no doubt be huh?

So far from not helping at all, it will in fact help quite a lot.

Because they might do something that could help save a life. Possibly. Maybe. (I didn't say that it was necessarily a bad idea in concept. Just not a good idea in practice. Hence my suggestion of the B-A device.)

Which people can't or wont be able to remove?

Not that I'm a propnante of the death pentalty but it's advocates would more than likely tell you that at least that person wont be doing that anymore.

Yes of course we will never stop drink driving, but the more of those that we do catch and ban for life from driving then the safer our roads will no doubt be huh?

So far from not helping at all, it will in fact help quite a lot.For ever idiot we catch...
Sound familiar to you?

For ever idiot we catch...
Sound familiar to you?

Umm no not in the slightest?

Which people can't or wont be able to remove?It depends on how they use it to stop the ignition of the car. It could be either very easy or very difficult to remove.

Umm no not in the slightest?For every idiot we catch, there are always more willing to replace him/her.

For ever idiot we catch...
Sound familiar to you?

I think the trick here is not increasing the penalty, but increasing the likelihood of being caught.
Knowing there's a fair chance of being punished helps more than knowing there's a small chance of facing harsh punishments.
Everybody's a gambler.

You subjects seem to really like your subjection, but you might consider leaving free men and women alone.

People, people... the source of the debate is ofcourse the car
Banning the cars = end of this discussion.

You subjects seem to really like your subjection, but you might consider leaving free men and women alone.

Your freedom ends where the freedoms of others start.
Driving in an unsafe way is not a human right, and for good reason.

For every idiot we catch, there are always more willing to replace him/her.

So because we can't stop people breaking laws we should not have them?

It depends on how they use it to stop the ignition of the car. It could be either very easy or very difficult to remove.

Like perhaps a speed limiter?

People, people... the source of the debate is ofcourse the car
Banning the cars = end of this discussion.

Heh yes, I like the cut of your gib sir!:D

So because we can't stop people breaking laws we should not have them?Did I say that? No. Implication is your fault, not mine. :rolleyes:

Like perhaps a speed limiter?The current generation of speed limiters are on the very easy end of the scale to remove. If they have a new way to limit speed, by all means. It'll give me something else to do.

Did I say that? No. Implication is your fault, not mine. :rolleyes:

It is true that you did not actualy say that, you sure did imply it though, are you now saying that all of your words up to now did not imply this?

It is true that you did not actualy say that, you sure did imply it though, are you now saying that all of your words up to now did not imply this?

This, unfortunately, does not help at all. Zero Tolerance policies don't stop drunk drivers before the act. Just during the middle of it.I'm guessing you're ignoring the part where I said that they actually stop crimes?
I believe there is a difference between the words stop and prevent. Wouldn't you say?

I'm guessing you're ignoring the part where I said that they actually stop crimes?
I believe there is a difference between the words stop and prevent. Wouldn't you say?

Isn't it tricky to tell how many people a zero tolerance policy PREVENTS from getting behind the wheel drunk?

Isn't it tricky to tell how many people a zero tolerance policy PREVENTS from getting behind the wheel drunk?More like bordering on the impossible.

Speed-limiting devices should be fitted to cars on a voluntary basis to help save lives and cut carbon emissions, according to a new report.
I highlighted the important bit.

Your freedom ends where the freedoms of others start.
Driving in an unsafe way is not a human right, and for good reason.

Which has nothing to do with legally mandated speed limits. There are plenty of 30 mile an hour zones where actually going 30 will almost certainly result in a bad accident. On the other hand many motorways and interstates were designed for traffic going at speeds considerably above the currently mandated limits.

You just cannot take a black and white "if I obey the speed limit I am a safe driver" approach to it.

Nanny state speed limiters have nothing to do with safety and everything to do with power crazed busy bodies wanting to stick their noses into everyone else's business.

Further, in parts of the US where they raised the speed limit from the positively glacial 55 to more sensible speeds like 75, the number of accidents has actually declined. Proving, if nothing else, that slow people on fast roads are safety problem themselves.

Like I said, slow drivers = selfish drivers. They expect the majority of everyone else to arrange their lives around them for no reason other than personal preference.

And frankly, the whole thing is an outgrowth of the primary school morals which are ruining our once great liberal democracies.

More like bordering on the impossible.

Then what do you base the assumption that the policy only stops the crime but doesn't prevent it on?

I highlighted the important bit.

Yeah, it always voluntary at first. Until the government declares it a smashing success and decides everyone should do it.

Anyone who gets one of these things on a voluntary basis should have their tires slashed.

Then what do you base the assumption that the policy only stops the crime but doesn't prevent it on?The fact that I know that it does stop crime, and the fact that I cannot realistically measure if it prevents crime or not. If it does prevent a statistically useful amount of crime, which it most certainly has the ability to, then I can be wrong and have no problem with it.

Wait, are you saying that I said that it prevents no crime at all?

Which has nothing to do with legally mandated speed limits. There are plenty of 30 mile an hour zones where actually going 30 will almost certainly result in a bad accident. On the other hand many motorways and interstates were designed for traffic going at speeds considerably above the currently mandated limits.

You just cannot take a black and white "if I obey the speed limit I am a safe driver" approach to it.

Nanny state speed limiters have nothing to do with safety and everything to do with power crazed busy bodies wanting to stick their noses into everyone else's business.

Further, in parts of the US where they raised the speed limit from the positively glacial 55 to more sensible speeds like 75, the number of accidents has actually declined. Proving, if nothing else, that slow people on fast roads are safety problem themselves.

Like I said, slow drivers = selfish drivers. They expect the majority of everyone else to arrange their lives around them for no reason other than personal preference.

And frankly, the whole thing is an outgrowth of the primary school morals which are ruining our once great liberal democracies.

I see it more as "if I break the speed limit, I'm a bad driver".
Mind you, I don't want to defend people driving too far below the speed limit, but driving above it is far more dangerous. I've seen too many accidents in Germany and known too many vicitms that could have lived if other drivers hadn't overestimated their driving abilities and underestimated their speed.

The fact that I know that it does stop crime, and the fact that I cannot realistically measure if it prevents crime or not. If it does prevent a statistically useful amount of crime, which it most certainly has the ability to, then I can be wrong and have no problem with it.

Wait, are you saying that I said that it prevents no crime at all?

Er... that was your claim.

Er... that was your claim.Then it's my fault for wording what I said wrong. I am evidently wrong. Thanks for pointing it out.

I'm guessing you're ignoring the part where I said that they actually stop crimes?
I believe there is a difference between the words stop and prevent. Wouldn't you say?

There certianlty is, but the important bit of what you quote must be this bit:

'This, unfortunately, does not help at all. Zero Tolerance policies don't stop drunk drivers before the act. Just during the middle of it. '

Which makes a clear statment that you do not belive it would not help at all. Then you carry on in a similar vein, basicly telling us all that 'for ever idiot...' which can be read as the laws don't work, there will always be somebody who breaks the law, hence my question(and remember it was a question) to you.

I see it more as "if I break the speed limit, I'm a bad driver".
Mind you, I don't want to defend people driving too far below the speed limit, but driving above it is far more dangerous. I've seen too many accidents in Germany and known too many vicitms that could have lived if other drivers hadn't overestimated their driving abilities and underestimated their speed.

But that's my point. Many speed limits are just arbitrary and have nothing to do with good/bad, safe/unsafe.

Given road design and modern cars, quite often they are far too low.

Germany is an outlier here because there are no speed limits. Even then, I don't see why cars should have a set maximum (though the reality is nearly every car outside high performance is limited to about 155) as long as people drive accordingly to the conditions. Emphasis on properly evaluating the driving conditions instead of actually fixating on a number pulled from thin air would do more to reduce traffic accidents.

*snip*Look at the post above yours.

Germany is an outlier here because there are no speed limits. Even then, I don't see why cars should have a set maximum (though the reality is nearly every car outside high performance is limited to about 155) as long as people drive accordingly to the conditions. Emphasis on properly evaluating the driving conditions instead of actually fixating on a number pulled from thin air would do more to reduce traffic accidents.
You don't have faith in the government to keep it voluntary, but you do have faith in the ordinary motorist to "drive accordingly to the conditions"?

They don't even do that with speed limits anyway!

But that's my point. Many speed limits are just arbitrary and have nothing to do with good/bad, safe/unsafe.

Given road design and modern cars, quite often they are far too low.

Germany is an outlier here because there are no speed limits. Even then, I don't see why cars should have a set maximum (though the reality is nearly every car outside high performance is limited to about 155) as long as people drive accordingly to the conditions. Emphasis on properly evaluating the driving conditions instead of actually fixating on a number pulled from thin air would do more to reduce traffic accidents.

I don't see the 30MPH speed limit near schools for example as arbitrary, I can see clearly that it is set at that in order ot save pedestrian lives, can you not see this, or did it just leave your mind for a sec there?:D

But that's my point. Many speed limits are just arbitrary and have nothing to do with good/bad, safe/unsafe.

Given road design and modern cars, quite often they are far too low.

Germany is an outlier here because there are no speed limits. Even then, I don't see why cars should have a set maximum (though the reality is nearly every car outside high performance is limited to about 155) as long as people drive accordingly to the conditions. Emphasis on properly evaluating the driving conditions instead of actually fixating on a number pulled from thin air would do more to reduce traffic accidents.

Personally, having lived in Germany and now living in Ireland, it's my impression that speed limits are way, WAY too liberal given the conditions of some roads and considering the skills of the average driver.
I've seen roads were even my instructor said she can't understand how they gave that road a limit of 100kmh, she wouldn't even advise people to go 80 on it due to its condition and bends.

I do agree with you that the limits need looking at again and adjusting regularly.

Look at the post above yours.

Ohh well fair doo's then.:D

Add in an override for the speed limiter that turns on two videocameras (one front, one back) and notifies the authorities so they can investigate. If they have a verified alibi (e.g. wife is in labor) or the videocameras record something (e.g. bridge is about to collapse), they're off the hook. If not, they face fines both for speeding AND for misuse of the override.

Why stop there? Video cameras should be installed in every car and every home and the State should be able to to investigate any potential wrong doing by reviewing your bedroom tapes.

I do agree with you that the limits need looking at again and adjusting regularly.

If you do have a genuine concern about it, have a chat with one of your local Councillors. They set the limits and review them regularly (obviously with great input from the Engineers and Planning departments), at least once a year at Council meetings - which are open to public attendance. :)

If you do have a genuine concern about it, have a chat with one of your local Councillors. They set the limits and review them regularly (obviously with great input from the Engineers and Planning departments), at least once a year at Council meetings - which are open to public attendance. :)

In Ireland? I doubt they're that highly organised ;)

In Ireland? I doubt they're that highly organised ;)

Tell me about it :rolleyes:

It just let people who are learning to drive a more likely to pass their test even if they a rubbish driver. Won't it just be as safe if we make driving tests harder and as well if people become zombies on the road, we all know that more people are going to be knocked down what will just increase the number of exidence on the road. Already in the U.K we have one of the best road safty, if you just go into France you are 75% more likely to die in a car exident but you don't sea them making this stupid suggestions. I know this is no exerse to stop being safer on the roads but don't you think we could do easier and cheaper ideas like teaching the green cross code in every classroom everyday, until a surton age. That will in the future and the present stop people getting ran over by cars will just as easily stop road exidence.

Ohh well fair doo's then.:DI like admitting to being wrong. :D

It throws people off track, for some odd reason.

It usually isn't. If you can't overtake safely within the speed limit, do NOT overtake.

Do you have an actual drivers license?

Do you have an actual drivers license?

I've got a provisional license. I did my theory test a few months back, and questions about overtaking were part of it.

Do you have a license?

Sounds like you're one of those drivers that scared me off the road for now.... I just hope you never kill anyone but yourself.

Oh your an old grey haired lady who barely sees above the steering wheel, i get it now , never mind.

Oh your an old grey haired lady who barely sees above the steering wheel, i get it now , never mind.

Wow, your - what? 4th post in the thread, and you're already reduced to attacking the posters rather than the argument? Pitifull....

I've got a provisional license. I did my theory test a few months back, and questions about overtaking were part of it.

Do you have a license?

Yea i think the opinions on this board should be restricted to people that actually drive. Ive been driving since before you were born.

Yea i think the opinions on this board should be restricted to people that actually drive. Ive been driving since before you were born.

Erm, Provisional means you can legally drive.

Wow, your - what? 4th post in the thread, and you're already reduced to attacking the posters rather than the argument? Pitifull....

I wouldnt listen to your opinion on launching a spaceship to Mars if you wernt a scientist any more then i would listen to your opinion on safe driving if you dont drive.

Erm, Provisional means you can legally drive.

Yea but it also means you still dont know shit about driving. There is a perfectly good reason its called provisional.

Yea i think the opinions on this board should be restricted to people that actually drive. Ive been driving since before you were born.

Why? This is one of my biggest things about drivers, are you unaware that we all use the roads, yes even us pedestrians use the roads, when we venture out we place our lives in the hands of you drivers, and we should not have an opinion because?

Yea but it also means you still dont know shit about driving.

Says.....you.

Oh right, sorry, I thought you had something authoritative to say.

You don't have faith in the government to keep it voluntary, but you do have faith in the ordinary motorist to "drive accordingly to the conditions"?

They don't even do that with speed limits anyway!

Right. Obviously people are always going to find ways to kill themselves. You could mandate cars that don't go faster than five mph and someone will still slot himself.

What I am saying is that there is too much emphasis on the headline number. I understand that people are dumb, so I am suggesting that instead of focusing on the speed limit they should be taught to focus on the actual conditions. Once explained, any desire for self preservation should take care of the rest. I know countless people who've had stupid accidents and told me that it wasn't their fault 'because they were going the speed limit' as if that made it not their fault. If this principle can be used to improve manufacturing at car plants I am sure it can be used to make roads safer.

There will always be dickheads. That's just a cost of doing business.

Says.....you.

Oh right, sorry, I thought you had something authoritative to say.

If you dont believe me, ask any insurance company. Compare the rates of young drivers vs the rest of the population. Is that authoritative enough for you?

Im sorry but children who dont even drive trying to dictate what is safe and what isnt while driving is slightly irritating.

If you dont believe me, ask any insurance company. Compare the rates of young drivers vs the rest of the population. Is that authoritative enough for you?

Im sorry but children who dont even drive trying to dictate what is safe and what isnt while driving is slightly irritating.

Most does not indicate all.

If you dont believe me, ask any insurance company. Compare the rates of young drivers vs the rest of the population. Is that authoritative enough for you?
Sorry, I thought your "provisional drivers don't know shit about driving" was based on you being a tester or an instructor.

Im sorry but children who dont even drive trying to dictate what is safe and what isnt while driving is slightly irritating.
So all provisional drivers are young, and all full licence holders are old?

Sorry, I thought your "provisional drivers don't know shit about driving" was based on you being a tester or an instructor.

What my job is is irrelevant to the simple and indisputable fact that children are on the whole terrible drivers. I didnt invent the need for far far higher insurance premiums on children then adults.


So all provisional drivers are young, and all full licence holders are old?

There is not one full license holder that isnt older, by the very definition of the law that restricts its usage to a minimum age, so you are correct.

I've got a provisional license. I did my theory test a few months back, and questions about overtaking were part of it.


Would you let a surgeon operate on you who had never actually performed the operation before but took a theory test on it a few months ago?

Me either.

There is not one full license holder that isnt older, by the very definition of the law that restricts its usage to a minimum age, so you are correct.

Erm no.

Would you let a surgeon operate on you who had never actually performed the operation before but took a theory test on it a few months ago?

Me either.

No, but I would let them take part in a theoretical discussion on it. And again, provisional means you can drive, you just need an adult in the car with you.

And again, provisional means you can drive, you just need an adult in the car with you.

Ok now keep following the logic path...just exactly why do you think an adult needs to be there?

Ok now keep following the logic path...just exactly why do you think an adult needs to be there?

Licences aren't given out based on age, but on skill [as in 'have you passed your test'] - this is especially relevant to Cabra.

Furthermore, like the above, you don't need an "adult", you need a driver with a full licence.

Licences aren't given out based on age, but on skill [as in 'have you passed your test'] - this is especially relevant to Cabra.

Partially incorrect. You need the age first, then the skill. I dont care if your Mario Andretti, if your 11 years old your not getting a license period.

Furthermore, like the above, you don't need an "adult", you need a driver with a full licence.

Which ironically is an adult.

While we're at it, we should introduce breathalizers for all cars. Cut drunk driving down to nothing.

With no speeding and and drunk driving laws, some districts will soon find themselves cash strapped, they'll increase taxes on nicotine and we'll soon be living in a world where the marijuana is the most popular drug.

Which ironically is an adult.

Is 17 an adult?

Is 17 an adult?

Different States/Contries have different rules, where i am its 18.

Not in my books.

There is no "theory test" that gives you a good feel of when to safely pass a slow moving driver. Its all about experience experience experience experience.

Different States/Contries have different rules, where i am its 18.

Would you like to hazard a guess at what age one can get a full licence in the country Cabra is in? Because a hint is: You don't have to be an 'adult.'

Would you like to hazard a guess at what age one can get a full licence in the country Cabra is in? Because a hint is: You don't have to be an 'adult.'

Still doesnt alter the fact that if you dont have experience driving you probably still dont have a clue what your talking about and have no business talking about how safe it is or isnt to pass someone while never going above the speed limit.

The truth of the matter is, the less time you spend in the oncoming lane the safer your going to be, this means going faster.

Ok now keep following the logic path...just exactly why do you think an adult needs to be there?

The problem with your statement is that provisional licences don't come automatically, you have to apply for them. There are pensioners with provisional licences.

And as PM says the person needs a full licence, in practice that tends to be an adult though.

Personally, I find it more entertaining to scare them into moving faster. Ride their bumper and flash your high beams.

It's a fun game when you need something to keep yourself entertained on long car drives.

And there is a "theory test", its simple if the passing lane is open and you have a safe distance to pass the slowly moving automobile, then you pass. Experience only lets you pass sooner. Newer drivers will wait till the lane is nearly empty, experienced drivers will gauge the speed of the cars in the passing lane the acceleration of their current car and make a solid judgment call.

And there is a "theory test", its simple if the passing lane is open and you have a safe distance to pass the slowly moving automobile, then you pass. Experience only lets you pass sooner. Newer drivers will wait till the lane is nearly empty, experienced drivers will gauge the speed of the cars in the passing lane the acceleration of their current car and make a solid judgment call.

Agreed, but do you know of a single person that has driven over 100k miles that thinks its a good idea to pass traffic while never exceeding the speed limit?

Agreed, but do you know of a single person that has driven over 100k miles that thinks its a good idea to pass traffic while never exceeding the speed limit?

You couldn't point me to the part of the law about speeding that say "it's ok if you do it to overtake" could you?

Yeah, it always voluntary at first. Until the government declares it a smashing success and decides everyone should do it.
The Neighbourhood Watch is voluntary, but they've yet to conscript us into a slave labour police force. You can apply that slippery slope argument to anything if you want to. Doesn't mean that it isn't a waste of time, mind you.

Anyone who gets one of these things on a voluntary basis should have their tires slashed.
I may not be the best driver in town, but I know how to watch a needle on a dial.

You couldn't point me to the part of the law about speeding that say "it's ok if you do it to overtake" could you?

The guy who thinks its a good idea to pass while going the speed limit must be holding that page of the law. Again i challenge you to point to one person here who has driven over 100,000 miles who would disagree.

Going faster than the speed limit to pass is not legal, but it is unquestionably safer.

The guy who thinks its a good idea to pass while going the speed limit must be holding that page of the law. Again i challenge you to point to one person here who has driven over 100,000 miles who would disagree.

Given it's voluntary I suspect the answer would be anyone who gets one.

Off the top of my head, doesn't Japan already have a version of this?

Unfortunately I lack the knowledge of who on here has driven over 100k miles and what their opinions are on this matter. My files are clearly not detailed enough.

I can see you would assume that the traffic behind you would creep up the slow driver's back as soon as you start to overtake, but if anything you are projecting this from your own behaviour.
Safe driving means staying well back until the car in front of you has completed overtaking. Then you can drive up to the slow car, not before.

Or maybe its based on experience and observation of what happens in the real world...

Or maybe its based on experience and observation of what happens in the real world...

Dont argue with Cabra, he/she has a provisional license so can totally school you on the topic.

If you dont believe me, ask any insurance company. Compare the rates of young drivers vs the rest of the population. Is that authoritative enough for you?

Im sorry but children who dont even drive trying to dictate what is safe and what isnt while driving is slightly irritating.

Cabra is not a child though...

Cabra is not a child though...

Regardless, provisional license = dont know squat about driving. Its all about experience experience experience. When you have logged 3/4 of a million miles on the road then come back to me and tell me how you only pass cars while going the speed limit.

The guy who thinks its a good idea to pass while going the speed limit must be holding that page of the law.
It is a good idea, assuming that space allows for you to do so.
Going faster than the speed limit to pass is not legal, but it is unquestionably safer.
It depends upon the circumstances, sometimes it is safer, sometimes it is not.
Again i challenge you to point to one person here who has driven over 100,000 miles who would disagree.
I have driven well over 100,000 miles, hell I drove more than that in the last 5 months and while I do not disagree with you completely, nor do I agree with you completely.

Regardless, provisional license = dont know squat about driving. Its all about experience experience experience. When you have logged 3/4 of a million miles on the road then come back to me and tell me how you only pass cars while going the speed limit.

Agreed, although to meet the requirements in your second sentence I'd have to go back in time since I have driven about a million miles just in the last 6 years. :p

Yea i think the opinions on this board should be restricted to people that actually drive. Ive been driving since before you were born.

That would mean you're in your sixties, then, right? :rolleyes:

Would you let a surgeon operate on you who had never actually performed the operation before but took a theory test on it a few months ago?

Me either.

Yes. They have to learn it at one point. Otherwise I guess we'd run out of surgeons before long.

I wouldnt listen to your opinion on launching a spaceship to Mars if you wernt a scientist any more then i would listen to your opinion on safe driving if you dont drive.

You're not very good at reading comprehension, are you? I do drive.

Ok now keep following the logic path...just exactly why do you think an adult needs to be there?

Erm... I don't know where you are, but I don't need an adult in the car with me. I need a person with a full license. It doesn't have to be an adult.

You're not very good at reading comprehension, are you? I do drive.

I was under the mistaken impression you were in early 20s. Regardless, if im correct in the fact that you have a provisional license and have very little actual milage logged in your life then my remaining points remain valid.

Erm... I don't know where you are, but I don't need an adult in the car with me. I need a person with a full license. It doesn't have to be an adult.

Who in almost all cases (some States/Countries are 17 however) are adults.

The guy who thinks its a good idea to pass while going the speed limit must be holding that page of the law. Again i challenge you to point to one person here who has driven over 100,000 miles who would disagree.

Going faster than the speed limit to pass is not legal, but it is unquestionably safer.

*points to her BF*

He says it's been 5 cars, each sold on after ca. 100 000km. Do not speed, if you can't overtake without don't overtake.

Yes. They have to learn it at one point. Otherwise I guess we'd run out of surgeons before long.

Then you can volunteer to be his learning curve, not me.

I was under the mistaken impression you were in early 20s. Regardless, if im correct in the fact that you have a provisional license and have very little actual milage logged in your life then my remaining points remain valid.

Well, you know, funnily enough, the traffic police among others seem to agree with me... odd, isn't it?

Then you can volunteer to be his learning curve, not me.

So anytime you've seen a doctor you've asked how long he/she has been practicing, and if he's seen less than 100 000 patients you walked right out again, didn't you? :rolleyes:

So anytime you've seen a doctor you've asked how long he/she has been practicing, and if he's seen less than 100 000 patients you walked right out again, didn't you? :rolleyes:

Oh my god yes, in fact my gf just had major back surgery and we shopped/interviewed extensively for the best doctor. I can assure you she was well experienced, highly regarded in her field and didnt just finish a theory test on it a few months ago.

Well, you know, funnily enough, the traffic police among others seem to agree with me... odd, isn't it?

Lets get down to brass tacks, what makes your opinion on this topic worth anything? What is your expertise in this field? Not driving?

Oh my god yes, in fact my gf just had major back surgery and we shopped/interviewed extensively for the best doctor. I can assure you she was well experienced and didnt just finish a theory test on it a few months ago.

Let the daughter of a nurse and the neice of a doctors tell you something about doctors: There are 3 kinds.

The first kind are about average. They are about average while learning, and get a bit better with practice. They don't get above average, though.
The second kind are gifted. They have a talent for it, a feeling and the right touch. They are brilliant while they learn, and they remain brilliant.

And then there's the worst kind : The one who have no feel for anything, manage to pass tests and get worse from then on, because they rely on experience.

There's a lot to be said for practice, but people trusting experience, and only experience are flat-out dangerous. They are the people that make my driving instructor wish that people had to re-take their tests every 5 years, to weed out those who think they know but don't.

Lets get down to brass tacks, what makes your opinion on this topic worth anything? What is your expertise in this field? Not driving?

I am driving, and I have been participating in traffic on road since I was 6 years old, on bikes and motorcycles.

Let me put it to you: why do you assume your opinion is worth more than mine and that of lawmakers and traffic police on 5 continents?

I am driving, and I have been participating in traffic on road since I was 6 years old, on bikes and motorcycles.

Let me put it to you: why do you assume your opinion is worth more than mine and that of lawmakers and traffic police on 5 continents?

I hope your not comparing riding a bike to having the ability to judge vehicles coming head on at each other at a combined 120 mph or more.
I have news for you, traffic police and lawmakers also exceed the speed limit when in an oncoming traffic lane as well. Because its usually far more dangerous not to.

I was under the mistaken impression you were in early 20s. Regardless, if im correct in the fact that you have a provisional license and have very little actual milage logged in your life then my remaining points remain valid.

If I recall, you can drive for about 3-4 years on a provisional licence. 3-4 years driving experience is plenty to have formed an opinion.

I hope your not comparing riding a bike to having the ability to judge vehicles coming head on at each other at a combined 120 mph or more.
I have news for you, traffic police and lawmakers also exceed the speed limit when in an oncoming traffic lane as well. Because its usually far more dangerous not to.

Trust me, it's much more vital on a bike than it ever is on a car. One thing you learn is to be careful... very, very careful.

Trust me, it's much more vital on a bike than it ever is on a car. One thing you learn is to be careful... very, very careful.

When do you find the need to be in the middle of oncoming traffic coming the other way on a bike? Are you passing golf carts or farm machinery on the road or something? Bikes have low visability to other drivers and because of this are more dangerous but isnt really germane to the topic.

When do you find the need to be in the middle of oncoming traffic coming the other way on a bike? Are you passing golf carts or farm machinery on the road or something?

Usually when you're turning off on a junction on the other side of the road.

When do you find the need to be in the middle of oncoming traffic coming the other way on a bike? Are you passing golf carts or farm machinery on the road or something?

Ever tried taking a right turn off a country road in traffic?

But you know what? If your entire argument consists off a weak attempt of discrediting other posters due to (assumed) age and (again assumed) driving experience, I think I'll just leave you to it. This isn't much of a discussion any more, seeing as there hasn't been any rational argument for the last two or three pages any more.
Let me know when you've got anything of substance to contribute again.

Ever tried taking a right turn off a country road in traffic?

But you know what? If your entire argument consists off a weak attempt of discrediting other posters due to (assumed) age and (again assumed) driving experience, I think I'll just leave you to it. This isn't much of a discussion any more, seeing as there hasn't been any rational argument for the last two or three pages any more.
Let me know when you've got anything of substance to contribute again.

Challenging the expertise of someone with an opinion is a perfectly valid and legitimate defense. I accept your surrender ;)

Another advantage to this plan is that it would throw Jeremy Clarkson into a fit of apoplectic rage that would make for a veritable feast of televisual entertainment.
I can practically hear him dying inside already.
Computer monitored speed limits controlling your car? You don't see a problem with that?
What? Is the government randomly going to decide that today the speed limit is 0.5km/h everywhere?
I would be more supportive of measures that mandated a device that could measure blood-alcohol content be installed in cars. That would be worthwhile. If your B-A count is above the limit installed in the car, it won't start. Drunk driving solved in one go.
You know, if someone started selling these things(you know, after inventing them) and getting some insurance companies to give people a discount for installing them in their cars........
Putting a speed limiter on a car is a waste of time. People will just remove them. (And for whoever suggested placing cameras in a car, that would be the first thing to go if I was driving it.)
And they'll fail their next MOT.
People can, and will, remove the speed limiter. Why make it mandatory? To do what, drive the price of the car up? :p
See above, also it's voluntary.
Like I said, slow drivers = selfish drivers. They expect the majority of everyone else to arrange their lives around them for no reason other than personal preference.
No more so that fast drivers, who are risking their own lives and the lives of others for no reason other than personal preference.

I'm sure you can tell me how you're a wonderfully safe driver and what not, and your cars has more safety features than the batmobile. Great. But the simple, mathematically inarguable fact of the matter is that the faster you are going, the less time you have to react to...anything.
Yea i think the opinions on this board should be restricted to people that actually drive. Ive been driving since before you were born.
Didn't you just call Cabra an old woman? Dude, at keep your insults consistent.
What my job is is irrelevant to the simple and indisputable fact that children are on the whole terrible drivers.
Good thing children on the whole aren't allowed to drive. Only a small fraction of them are.
There is not one full license holder that isnt older, by the very definition of the law that restricts its usage to a minimum age, so you are correct.
So if someone gets a provisional license at, say, 30 then somehow, by definition, there can be no full license holder younger than them?
Would you let a surgeon operate on you who had never actually performed the operation before but took a theory test on it a few months ago?

Me either.
So how are we to ever get new surgeons? Someone has to be operated on first.

Not that this thread is really comparable. Talking about driving =/= driving.
No, but I would let them take part in a theoretical discussion on it. And again, provisional means you can drive, you just need an adult in the car with you.
Well, full license holder with two years experience. Which is always an adult, but that's just a coincidence.
Which ironically is an adult.
That's not ironic at all......
Is 17 an adult?
You need to have had a full license for 2 years to count when sitting beside someone with a provisional license.
Different States/Contries have different rules, where i am its 18.
Which is irrelevant since you're talking about Cabra's provisional license. An Irish one.
Lets get down to brass tacks, what makes your opinion on this topic worth anything? What is your expertise in this field? Not driving?
What makes you think yours is worth anything? Sure, you can wave your great big driving dick around, but I could just as easily tell you I have a masters degree in Timey-Wimey Ball studies.
Trust me, it's much more vital on a bike than it ever is on a car. One thing you learn is to be careful... very, very careful.
You don't have big steel box around you on a bike, for one.

That's not ironic at all......



I was using the word ironically sarcastically ;) It just takes practice.

I wonder what they base the claim that it will cut down on accidents by 29% on, but assuming that's correct, the arguments against this seem irrational to me.

The "inviting Big Brother into the car to drive for us" complaint basically equates having the speed limits being automatically enforced (rather than being enforced through ticketing after you break them) with the government driving your car; it's not like they're steering it.

The "what can you do it you actually need to get above the speed limit in an emergency" complaint sounds a bit more appealing, but rather than just fighting this technology we need to think of a way to work the answer into it. Maybe if you dial 911 and say you need an exception for your emergency. I'm not sure. But to some extent, there being an emergency for which you can't call an emergency vehicle instead would be a problem in itself already...

Some vehicles have had speed inhibitors built in for years, and I've never encountered reports of upswings in accidents because of it...

I see no real problem with speed limiting cars.

(As an aside - the best argument I've seen gainst speed limiting, is the 'what do I do if I find myself in the wrong side of the motorway' kind of argument.

Of course, that's not a great argument because it's a) in credibly rare, and b) actually a problem solvable by the technology in question. If you've got a car moving down the wrong lane, you could slow or stop ALL the opposing traffic until the vehicle makes it out of the way.

I also often exceed the speed limit on highways to get past 18 wheelers in the lane next to me. If you stay behind them they kick up excessive dirt,dust,stones, water,snow, deadly tire tread missles etc and if you drive along side of them its dangerous because the trucks are very wide and often have a tendency to sway and weave into your lane and even more importantly your in their blind spot. So it makes every bit of sense to temporarily go faster than the speed limit to pass a semi to create a safer situation in the long term.

I also often exceed the speed limit on highways to get past 18 wheelers in the lane next to me. If you stay behind them they kick up dirt,dust,stones, water,snow, tire treads etc and if you drive along side of them its dangerous because the trucks are very wide and often have a tendency to sway and weave into your lane. So it makes every bit of sense to temporarily go faster than the speed limit to pass a semi to create a safer situation in the long term.

No, it doesn't, and that's a bullshit argument.

Speed limits are calculated on risk factors. They are based on entryways into roads, hazard values (like hills, blind curves, merging lanes) etc, and traffic density.

What they are NOT calculated on, is adverse road, weather, light, or traffic conditions. The speedlimit as posted is supposed to be a reasonable maximum based on perfect visibility, perfect surface, linear flow of traffic, and no additional hazards.

Which means, if it's raining, and you're on a 65 mph road, and you're DRIVING at 65 mph, you're an idiot.


Interestingly, in your example, you cite snow, gravel, water, road and vehicle debris, and dangerous behaviour of other vehicles, as reasons why you need to drive FASTER than the limit.

You need to learn to drive.

Ah, Big Brother strikes again. They're talking about doing this here in America too. It would be hell for the sports car industry. And I don't know about the rest of you, but on a deserted stretch of road, I like to kick my Mustang up to 130mph simply because it's fun.

Regardless of whether or not it could save lives, a police state simply isn't worth it. I feel sorry for any nation (including my own) that values security before freedom.

I also often exceed the speed limit on highways to get past 18 wheelers in the lane next to me. If you stay behind them they kick up excessive dirt,dust,stones, water,snow, deadly tire tread missles etc and if you drive along side of them its dangerous because the trucks are very wide and often have a tendency to sway and weave into your lane and even more importantly your in their blind spot. So it makes every bit of sense to temporarily go faster than the speed limit to pass a semi to create a safer situation in the long term.
Dirt, dust, stones, water, snow and gunk that gets into tyres are all reasons to drive slower. If you're getting stuff kicked up onto your windscreen, don't drive so close to the vehicle in front.

No, it doesn't, and that's a bullshit argument.

What part of my argument is bullshit? That trucks kick up alot of potentially dangerous road debris and other vision obscuring detritus? Even in otherwise perfect conditions? Or was it the part about it being dangerous to be in a trucks blind spot or that trucks take up a full lane and even a little swaying encroaches on your lane? Was that the bullshit part of my argument? Or that getting far away from said trucks would be safer? Is that the bullshit part? Give me a break.

Ah, Big Brother strikes again. They're talking about doing this here in America too. It would be hell for the sports car industry. And I don't know about the rest of you, but on a deserted stretch of road, I like to kick my Mustang up to 130mph simply because it's fun.

Regardless of whether or not it could save lives, a police state simply isn't worth it. I feel sorry for any nation (including my own) that values security before freedom.

Did you read the OP, or the article? Where it said 'voluntary'?

There's no such thing as a deserted stretch of road.

People like you are the reason we need mandatory speed control.

What part of my argument is bullshit? That trucks kick up alot of potentially dangerous road debris and other vision obscuring detritus? Even in otherwise perfect conditions? Or was it the part about it being dangerous to be in a trucks blind spot or that trucks take up a full lane and even a little swaying encroaches on your lane? Was that the bullshit part of my argument? Or that getting far away from said trucks would be safer? Is that the bullshit part? Give me a break.

If you read my post, it was carefully explained.

Learn to drive. Seriously. Call up and book courses tonight. Ask about 'defensive driving' while you're at it, and then you'll never have to ask these questions again, because you'll actually be fit to be on the road.

...It would be hell for the sports car industry...

The US sports car will be going to the wall anyway.

Strange how this thread has just brought out a lot of excuses as to why some people feel they are right to break the law. Seems to me that that kind of arrogance is probably the most dangerous thing on the roads.

If you read my post, it was carefully explained.

Learn to drive. Seriously. Call up and book courses tonight. Ask about 'defensive driving' while you're at it, and then you'll never have to ask these questions again, because you'll actually be fit to be on the road.

Ive been driving 25 years and had one fender bender with no ticket issued in that entire time. My driving record has no reason to be called into question.

If you read my post, it was carefully explained.



No you carefully avoided my point. Without question, the absolute safest place to be when a large truck is on the road is in front of it. Period.(Highway driving ie your not going to get rear ended by a huge truck at a stop sign or anything)

Ah, Big Brother strikes again. They're talking about doing this here in America too. It would be hell for the sports car industry. And I don't know about the rest of you, but on a deserted stretch of road, I like to kick my Mustang up to 130mph simply because it's fun.
You want to drive for fun, go to a race track. Other people have places to be and you're in the way.

Regardless of whether or not it could save lives, a police state simply isn't worth it. I feel sorry for any nation (including my own) that values security before freedom.

Freedom comes with responsibility. If everyone on the road was a safe and responsible driver then this and any other measure to reduce traffic accidents would be an exercise in futility.


And please, speed limiters = police state? That's a great big leap there. Try the grand canyon next, it's about the same size.

Ive been driving 25 years and had one fender bender with no ticket issued in that entire time. My driving record has no reason to be called into question.

You have admitted to regularly breaking the law, you claim you drive dangerously, and have only offered complete ignorance of how to actually drive, as your defence.

Your driving record has every reason to be 'called into question'.

No you carefully avoided my point. Without question, the absolute safest place to be when a large truck is on the road is in front of it. Period.(Highway driving)

Actually, that's at least as dangerous as immediately behind it, depending on road conditions, and a host of other factors. It's amusing that you've phrased it as a dichotomy, though... you either have to be driving dangerously close behind, or you have to be in front. Very telling.

Without question in YOUR mind, perhaps. Which is why you shouldn't be on the road.

You have admitted to regularly breaking the law, you claim you drive dangerously, and have only offered complete ignorance of how to actually drive, as your defence.

Your driving record has every reason to be 'called into question'.

I claimed I drove dangerously? Cite please? In fact my entire argument is that in fact sometimes exceeding the speed limit is SAFER.

I claimed I drove dangerously? Cite please? In fact my entire argument is that in fact sometimes exceeding the speed limit is SAFER.

You said you regularly exceed the speed limit.

Here, if you really need a citation: "I also often exceed the speed limit".

You said you regularly exceed the speed limit.

Here, if you really need a citation: "I also often exceed the speed limit".

Nice way to segment my quote, now how does that fit if you dont automatically equate exceeding the speed limit with danger as you seem to be doing when i have now repeatedly attempted to demonstrate exceeding the speed limit does not automatically equal dangerous driving and in fact can lead to safer driving in the bigger picture. Speeding up to get out of a drivers blind spot = good, speeding up because you see a tire tread flapping on a tire or its breaks starting to smoke = good plus many many other examples that do not automatically equate speeding up to dangerous driving.

Nice way to segment my quote, now how does that fit if you dont automatically equate exceeding the speed limit with danger as you seem to be doing when i have now repeatedly attempted to demonstrate exceeding the speed limit does not automatically equal dangerous driving.

The fact that you claim to be unaware that driving too fast IS 'dangerous', is not my problem.

What you are doing is a crime (if not more than one). You are driving at a speed and in a manner that are not suitable for the road conditions. You have admitted you do so especially when other risk factors are present - thus, I would argue you are also driving without due care and attention.

The fact that you are (or claim to be) ignorant of road safety, not to mention road LAW, is not my concern. The fact that you trot out your bullshit where other people could read it and think it legitimate, is.

Seriously. That thing about calling and booking driving lessons tonight? Do it.

No you carefully avoided my point. Without question, the absolute safest place to be when a large truck is on the road is in front of it. Period.(Highway driving ie your not going to get rear ended by a huge truck at a stop sign or anything)

So you've never encountered a traffic jam on a highway?
When you pass a rig, do you wait until there is a safe distance between you before pulling in?
Do you even know what said safe distance is?

The fact that you claim to be unaware that driving too fast IS 'dangerous', is not my problem.

What you are doing is a crime (if not more than one). You are driving at a speed and in a manner that are not suitable for the road conditions. You have admitted you do so especially when other risk factors are present - thus, I would argue you are also driving without due care and attention.

The fact that you are (or claim to be) ignorant of road safety, not to mention road LAW, is not my concern. The fact that you trot out your bullshit where other people could read it and think it legitimate, is.

Seriously. That thing about calling and booking driving lessons tonight? Do it.


Oh please, next time you think you see a drunk driver weaving on the road let me know if you dont speed up to get past him. Cause i guarantee you thats the reaction of 99% of the people who encounter that situation. If your that 1% freak well then there is nothing i can do for you.

So you've never encountered a traffic jam on a highway?
When you pass a rig, do you wait until there is a safe distance between you before pulling in?
Do you even know what said safe distance is?

No i usually stay in the left lane long enough that the truck isnt even in my vision anymore its so far back so its really not an issue.


Exceeding the speed limit is not inherently dangerous, whats actually far more dangerous is having a different speed then the rest of the "flow" of traffic regardless if that flow is going 55 or 75mph. Everyone sort of spaces themselves out and gives themselves a safety sphere and if everyone travels at the relative same speed regardless what that actual speed it is the safest driving situation. This is why people who are driving 40 mph on a highway are just as dangerous as someone driving 95mph.

Oh please, next time you think you see a drunk driver weaving on the road let me know if you dont speed up to get past him. Cause i guarantee you thats the reaction of 99% of the people who encounter that situation. If your that 1% freak well then there is nothing i can do for you.

When I see a drunk driver weaving on the road I don't attempt to overtake because that would be insane. You are SERIOUSLY saying you should attempt to pass a vehicle that is weaving erratically?

What I do, is try to get his number (at the next light, junction, etc whenever it is safe to approach the vehicle) and I call it in.

The argument (which you can't support) that 99% of drivers would foolishly attempt to pass such a driver doesn't interest me. If 99% of drivers are incompetent, incompetence shouldn't become the new acceptable level.

I kind of hope you're trolling the thread, to be honest. If you really drive the way you claim you do, you really need those driving lessons.

Oh please, next time you think you see a drunk driver weaving on the road let me know if you dont speed up to get past him. Cause i guarantee you thats the reaction of 99% of the people who encounter that situation. If your that 1% freak well then there is nothing i can do for you.

Well if you say that 99% of people do it then it must be the safest thing one could possibly do. :rolleyes:

This is why people who are driving 40 mph on a highway are just as dangerous as someone driving 95mph.

This I agree with