What's new

Road safety: UK set to adopt vehicle speed limiters. Should the rest of the world follow suit?

shaaik

First Class Star
Joined
Nov 14, 2010
Runs
3,984
Speed limiting technology looks set to become mandatory for all vehicles sold in Europe from 2022, after new rules were provisionally agreed by the EU.

The Department for Transport said the system would also apply in the UK, despite Brexit.

Campaigners welcomed the move, saying it would save thousands of lives.

Road safety charity Brake called it a "landmark day", but the AA said "a little speed" helped with overtaking or joining motorways.

Safety measures approved by the European Commission included intelligent speed assistance (ISA), advanced emergency braking and lane-keeping technology.

The EU says the plan could help avoid 140,000 serious injuries by 2038 and aims ultimately to cut road deaths to zero by 2050.

EU Commissioner Elzbieta Bienkowska said: "Every year, 25,000 people lose their lives on our roads. The vast majority of these accidents are caused by human error.

"With the new advanced safety features that will become mandatory, we can have the same kind of impact as when safety belts were first introduced."

What is speed limiting technology and how does it work?
Under the ISA system, cars receive information via GPS and a digital map, telling the vehicle what the speed limit is.

This can be combined with a video camera capable of recognising road signs.

The system can be overridden temporarily. If a car is overtaking a lorry on a motorway and enters a lower speed-limit area, the driver can push down hard on the accelerator to complete the manoeuvre.

The car will not brake automatically when the speed limit is reduced, but will give the driver a visual warning instead. It is the driver's responsibility to obey the warning.

How soon will it become available?
It's already coming into use. Ford, Mercedes-Benz, Peugeot-Citroen, Renault and Volvo already have models available with some of the ISA technology fitted.

However, BBC business correspondent Theo Leggett says there is concern over whether current technology is sufficiently advanced for the system to work effectively.

In particular, many cars already have a forward-facing camera, but there is a question mark over whether the sign-recognition technology is up to scratch.

Other approved safety features for European cars, vans, trucks and buses include technology which provides a warning of driver drowsiness and distraction, such as when using a smartphone while driving, and a data recorder in case of an accident.

The new measures also include improvements to the direct vision of bus and truck drivers and the removal of blind spots.

How has the idea been received?
The move was welcomed by the European Transport Safety Council, an independent body which advises Brussels on transport safety matters.

But it said it could be several months before the European Parliament and Council formally approve the measures.

UK statistics show more than 1,700 people are killed on UK roads every year, while Brake says speed is a contributory factor in about a quarter of all fatal crashes.

Brake's campaigns director, Joshua Harris, said: "This is a landmark day for road safety.

"These measures will provide the biggest leap forward for road safety this century."

The UK's Department for Transport said: "We continuously work with partners across the globe to improve the safety standards of all vehicles. These interventions are expected to deliver a step-change in road safety across Europe, including the UK."

What do critics say?
The AA thinks the system might have the unintended consequence of making drivers more reckless, not less.

AA president Edmund King said there was no doubt that new in-car technology could save lives, adding there was "a good case" for autonomous emergency braking to be fitted in all cars.

"When it comes to intelligent speed adaptation, the case is not so clear," he said. "The best speed limiter is the driver's right foot.

"The right speed is often below the speed limit - for example, outside a school with children about - but with ISA, there may be a temptation to go at the top speed allowed."

Mr King added: "Dodgem cars are all fitted with speed limiters, but they still seem to crash."

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-47715415
 
Not a fan of this.

What's the point of buying a 300k car if you are going to limit its functionality?

That's lying buying an airplane and letting it just run on the runway instead of ever taking off.
 
Not a fan of this.

What's the point of buying a 300k car if you are going to limit its functionality?

That's lying buying an airplane and letting it just run on the runway instead of ever taking off.

Most news outlets seem to have been pretty misleading on this. Essentially all they're doing is introducing something in cars that will tell you the speed limit, not actually limit you to it. it's a feature already present on most pieces of satnav software they're just implementing it in cars themselves.
 
Most news outlets seem to have been pretty misleading on this. Essentially all they're doing is introducing something in cars that will tell you the speed limit, not actually limit you to it. it's a feature already present on most pieces of satnav software they're just implementing it in cars themselves.

I already use a GPS for speed limit.

The speedometer of all these German cars is always a bit off.
 
Not a fan of this.

What's the point of buying a 300k car if you are going to limit its functionality?

That's lying buying an airplane and letting it just run on the runway instead of ever taking off.

99% of people do not own a 300k car. If you have one it still doesn't give you the right to drive at 250kph on public roads like some spoiled Arab kid. Take it to the race track.

Speed limiters should be set to 110% of the legal speed limit.
 
99% of people do not own a 300k car. If you have one it still doesn't give you the right to drive at 250kph on public roads like some spoiled Arab kid. Take it to the race track.

Speed limiters should be set to 110% of the legal speed limit.

If you can't bear the heat move to the right lane.

Why do you wanna drive at 100 km/h on the left lane oblivious to those around you...
 
If you can't bear the heat move to the right lane.

Why do you wanna drive at 100 km/h on the left lane oblivious to those around you...

That's not what he said he does thought is it. He stated he doesn't drive over the speed limit and that people should stick to it, not go over it and increase the risk on everyones life including their own. If you want to drive faster than that take it somewhere private where you're only increasing the risk on your own life or those that consent to it.
 
Last edited:
If you can't bear the heat move to the right lane.

Why do you wanna drive at 100 km/h on the left lane oblivious to those around you...

I'm referring to the UK here which is what the article is mostly about. The UK speed limit is 112kph and you stay on the left lane unless overtaking since you drive on the left side of the road. Going 5 or 10kph above the speed limit is not going to make a huge difference to your overall travel time and the risk is seldom worth it given the prevalence of speed cameras, radar guns, etc. Going 200kph+ on a 112kph motorway is just stupidity.
 
That's not what he said he does thought is it. He stated he doesn't drive over the speed limit and that people should stick to it, not go over it and increase the risk on everyones life including their own. If you want to drive faster than that take it somewhere private where you're only increasing the risk on your own life or those that consent to it.

But he's neither the police, nor are you, so why do people take it upon themselves to teach the law?

I am well aware that driving at 250 km/h increases the risk for everyone.

I merely mentioned that speed limiter is a ridiculous idea because I don't want to be limited by what others think is a safe speed.

If the road speed is 120 and I am driving 145, I am well within my rights to do so until a cop stops me or fines me for that behavior.
 
But he's neither the police, nor are you, so why do people take it upon themselves to teach the law?

Because they are the people you are putting at increased risk by breaking the law.


If the road speed is 120 and I am driving 145, I am well within my rights to do so until a cop stops me or fines me for that behavior.

No you aren't. You've agreed to adhere to the laws of that country therefore you are not within your rights to break them. Infact having the attitude that breaking the law is perfectly acceptable unless you get caught is pretty disgusting.
 
Because they are the people you are putting at increased risk by breaking the law.




No you aren't. You've agreed to adhere to the laws of that country therefore you are not within your rights to break them. Infact having the attitude that breaking the law is perfectly acceptable unless you get caught is pretty disgusting.

Its the job of the police to enforce the law.

Isn't that obvious?

Now you are trying to be a subconscious enforcer by telling me what's right and wrong even though you may not mean it.

Again let me put it in a different way.

Yes I've agreed to not break the laws of the country, but if I am breaking them, its STILL not your responsibility to make sure they are enforced, but its the responsibility of the law enforcement agencies.
 
Because they are the people you are putting at increased risk by breaking the law.

Exactly. If I have children in my car and you are deliberately putting their safety at risk because some other guy thinks he is Lewis Hamilton behind the wheel and knows better than roading experts what the speed limit should be then we have a problem.
 
Its the job of the police to enforce the law.

Isn't that obvious?

Now you are trying to be a subconscious enforcer by telling me what's right and wrong even though you may not mean it.

Again let me put it in a different way.

Yes I've agreed to not break the laws of the country, but if I am breaking them, its STILL not your responsibility to make sure they are enforced, but its the responsibility of the law enforcement agencies.

So you have no issues with increasing the chances of other innocent people losing their lives through your illegal behaviour, but have a major issue with me telling you that you shouldn't break the law? You've got some serious issues with your priorities.
 
Its the job of the police to enforce the law.

Isn't that obvious?

Now you are trying to be a subconscious enforcer by telling me what's right and wrong even though you may not mean it.

Again let me put it in a different way.

Yes I've agreed to not break the laws of the country, but if I am breaking them, its STILL not your responsibility to make sure they are enforced, but its the responsibility of the law enforcement agencies.

There is a thing called a citizen's arrest so yes I do have a right to enforce the law under certain circumstances.

24A
Arrest without warrant: other persons
(1)A person other than a constable may arrest without a warrant—
(a)anyone who is in the act of committing an indictable offence;
(b)anyone whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be committing an indictable offence.

(2)Where an indictable offence has been committed, a person other than a constable may arrest without a warrant—
(a)anyone who is guilty of the offence;
(b)anyone whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be guilty of it.

(3)But the power of summary arrest conferred by subsection (1) or (2) is exercisable only if—
(a)the person making the arrest has reasonable grounds for believing that for any of the reasons mentioned in subsection (4) it is necessary to arrest the person in question; and
(b)it appears to the person making the arrest that it is not reasonably practicable for a constable to make it instead.

(4)The reasons are to prevent the person in question—
(a)causing physical injury to himself or any other person;
(b)suffering physical injury;
(c)causing loss of or damage to property; or
(d)making off before a constable can assume responsibility for him.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/60/section/24A
 
There is a thing called a citizen's arrest so yes I do have a right to enforce the law under certain circumstances.

24A
Arrest without warrant: other persons
(1)A person other than a constable may arrest without a warrant—
(a)anyone who is in the act of committing an indictable offence;
(b)anyone whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be committing an indictable offence.

(2)Where an indictable offence has been committed, a person other than a constable may arrest without a warrant—
(a)anyone who is guilty of the offence;
(b)anyone whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be guilty of it.

(3)But the power of summary arrest conferred by subsection (1) or (2) is exercisable only if—
(a)the person making the arrest has reasonable grounds for believing that for any of the reasons mentioned in subsection (4) it is necessary to arrest the person in question; and
(b)it appears to the person making the arrest that it is not reasonably practicable for a constable to make it instead.

(4)The reasons are to prevent the person in question—
(a)causing physical injury to himself or any other person;
(b)suffering physical injury;
(c)causing loss of or damage to property; or
(d)making off before a constable can assume responsibility for him.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/60/section/24A

Lol @ this.

Try implementing this in real life.

Physical injury.

Driving fast now causes physical injury ? You can arrest me if I am physically injuring you or any other person, if I am causing loss of life or damage to property or if I Hit and Run.

But driving fast?

Meh.

Like to see you arresting me for that.
 
So you have no issues with increasing the chances of other innocent people losing their lives through your illegal behaviour, but have a major issue with me telling you that you shouldn't break the law? You've got some serious issues with your priorities.

I've got a major issue with anyone telling me not to speed other than the police.
 
Lol @ this.

Try implementing this in real life.

Physical injury.

Driving fast now causes physical injury ? You can arrest me if I am physically injuring you or any other person, if I am causing loss of life or damage to property or if I Hit and Run.

But driving fast?

Meh.

Like to see you arresting me for that.

You an advocate of hit and run?
 
Not a fan of this.

What's the point of buying a 300k car if you are going to limit its functionality?

Take it to a track day.

The speed limit in the U.K. is 70 mph so even the cheapest cars have limits imposed on their ‘functionality’.
 
But he's neither the police, nor are you, so why do people take it upon themselves to teach the law?

I am well aware that driving at 250 km/h increases the risk for everyone.

I merely mentioned that speed limiter is a ridiculous idea because I don't want to be limited by what others think is a safe speed.

If the road speed is 120 and I am driving 145, I am well within my rights to do so until a cop stops me or fines me for that behavior.

What kind of sick logic is that? I am well within my right to kill someone it's policenjob from stopping me?
As a citizen you should follow the laws, you are a doctor for Christ's sake. How can you even think in such a way?
 
It seems some of you are affronted by a fast driver.

Driving fast does not equal to killing someone, physically assaulting someone, murdering someone, or causing loss of life and property.

At best it constitutes breaking the speed limit and at worse "reckless endangerment" if it is proven that the driver was recklessly endangering by going WAY over the speed limit.

Some of you obviously haven't driven fast or haven't had a chance to sit in a sports car. The reason they make those cars is so you can drive fast. They don't make them, so you can amble along at 50 km/h on the road because that's the limit.
 
It seems some of you are affronted by a fast driver.

Driving fast does not equal to killing someone, physically assaulting someone, murdering someone, or causing loss of life and property.

At best it constitutes breaking the speed limit and at worse "reckless endangerment" if it is proven that the driver was recklessly endangering by going WAY over the speed limit.

Some of you obviously haven't driven fast or haven't had a chance to sit in a sports car. The reason they make those cars is so you can drive fast. They don't make them, so you can amble along at 50 km/h on the road because that's the limit.

Of course we're affronted by people breaking the law. I have had the opportunity to drive fast and sit in a sports car. On a track where I wasn't willingly endangering the lives of others.
 
It seems some of you are affronted by a fast driver.

Driving fast does not equal to killing someone, physically assaulting someone, murdering someone, or causing loss of life and property.

At best it constitutes breaking the speed limit and at worse "reckless endangerment" if it is proven that the driver was recklessly endangering by going WAY over the speed limit.

Some of you obviously haven't driven fast or haven't had a chance to sit in a sports car. The reason they make those cars is so you can drive fast. They don't make them, so you can amble along at 50 km/h on the road because that's the limit.

Drove an Aston V12 on a track once. Doesn’t make me want to do 100 mph on the motorway. It might be safe in the middle of the night on a well lit stretch, but never around other drivers.

I live in the countryside. There is always someone tailgating me. Totally irresponsible down winding lanes with hidden junctions and sometimes mud on the tarmac. I sit at the speed limit or below and hold them all up. I consider it my civic duty to do so - I am saving them from themselves.

A friend of mine was in a horror crash two weeks ago. Cracked sternum, broken ribs, broken arm, nicked bowel, internal bleeding. The other guy died at the scene.

Everyone slow down!
 
Lol @ this.

Try implementing this in real life.

Physical injury.

Driving fast now causes physical injury ? You can arrest me if I am physically injuring you or any other person, if I am causing loss of life or damage to property or if I Hit and Run.

But driving fast?

Meh.

Like to see you arresting me for that.

Actually citizen's arrest is very common in the UK. Check out pedophile vigilante groups, such as Dark Justice, on Youtube. These guys are doing the job that the police cannot due to lack of resource. They go round making citizen's arrest, then hand the suspect over to the police. This is just one example, then there are citizen's arrest after road rage, again plenty of videos on Youtube.

While it is true in Dubai a citizen's arrest is perhaps non existent, but in the UK, if you are a threat to society, you are pretty much toast.
 
It seems some of you are affronted by a fast driver.

Driving fast does not equal to killing someone, physically assaulting someone, murdering someone, or causing loss of life and property.

At best it constitutes breaking the speed limit and at worse "reckless endangerment" if it is proven that the driver was recklessly endangering by going WAY over the speed limit.

Some of you obviously haven't driven fast or haven't had a chance to sit in a sports car. The reason they make those cars is so you can drive fast. They don't make them, so you can amble along at 50 km/h on the road because that's the limit.

Driving fast may not always kill someone, but the risk of killing one (including the driver) increases because the reaction time decreases.
 
Good step, and will really help towards achieving Vision Zero (no fatalities or serious injuries involving road traffic). The warning for going over should be a bright visual indicator with annoying beeping sounds, that ought to keep people within the legal speed limit.
 
It seems some of you are affronted by a fast driver.

Driving fast does not equal to killing someone, physically assaulting someone, murdering someone, or causing loss of life and property.

At best it constitutes breaking the speed limit and at worse "reckless endangerment" if it is proven that the driver was recklessly endangering by going WAY over the speed limit.

Some of you obviously haven't driven fast or haven't had a chance to sit in a sports car. The reason they make those cars is so you can drive fast. They don't make them, so you can amble along at 50 km/h on the road because that's the limit.

Cars aren't made to be driven fast on a regular road or highway. If you want to drive fast, go to a racetrack, or a country with no speed limits on rural roads.

Roads are always designed for a certain speed. Going over the speed limit means that you are going beyond the scope of the road design, and are far less likely to stop your car in time. It is not just about your own life or your car, you are irresponsibly putting the lives of other drivers and pedestrians in danger.
 
Back
Top