The Nanny State is Coming: Europe to Make GPS-Controlled Speed Limiters Mandatory
- Thread starter GTPNewsWire
- 101 comments
- 7,654 views
- 66
- Memphis 10
- BeetDemHoseDown
Yea the insane "new green deal" proposal in 'Merica is the licensing of farts extreme. I wonder how long good v10s and v8s will be around before the new age tries to take them away
- 179
- Cyprus
- apocalypxoticnow
That's true but tuners worked around that limit. I can't really say how many owners did that (no idea).
The question that comes to my mind is that if there is still a way to override the GPS based system, will the drivers be fined for over speeding since the cars will supposedly be equipped with the Data Event Recorders? The other question is how many people with sports cars actually take their cars to tracks? Well I do not defend public speeding but personally I believe sales will take a hit in such a case.
Edit: Who knows may be just may be there will be a boom in race tracks all around EU
- 290
- Belifant
Why not? Trains are already allowed much greater speeds than cars. Fully autonomous highway "driving" will very much work like a train. And even those "evil" environmentalists and regulators will be in favour of more efficient and time saving methods of travelling, given safety and environmental issues are solved.
- 17,185
- United Kingdom
- 87,159
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
Anyone who cares about fuel economy and their ears.
A car that's maxed out at 70mph is an absolute nightmare at 70mph compared to one that will hit 155mph with room to spare.
- 17,185
- United Kingdom
- 11,258
- Sweden
- eran0004
I’m not going to dispute that it’s the number one reason, but I don’t think that kind of accident lead to a lot of deaths. Speeding on the other hand does. It gives you less time to react, a much longer stopping distance and more crash violence.
If you need to exceed the speed limit while overtaking, then you don’t need to overtake.
And if you’d rather risk the life of your family than arrive a minute later to your destination (or arrive at all) you can always disable the limiter.
- 17,185
- United Kingdom
- 12,389
- Betelgeuse
- Beeblebrox_237
Hmm. I'm in two minds on this. One one hand, I'm against it for several reasons. I enjoy driving quickly, and the limiters would make that more difficult. I also think that, to some extent, it's tackling a symptom rather than the root cause. It's much easier to force private companies to fit safety devices to consumer products than it is to use public money to maintain and enforce higher standards for users of those products. I'm also not convinced that it will work well everywhere. GPS signals aren't perfect, so what happens if you're in a city and the motorway you're on is next to a 30 mph road and the GPS thinks you're on the parallel road? Additionally, it assumes that the speed limit is always a safe limit. I learned the hard way that it's not when I rolled my first car at ~55 mph on a country road where the limit was 60. That speed might have been safe in certain conditions, but it was night, the corner was damp, and I didn't know the road. Sometimes speeds in excess of the speed limit can be safe, and sometimes the speed limit is far too fast for the conditions.
On the other hand, I can see that this might potentially reduce the number of fatal accidents, since I assume that most fatal accidents happen at higher rates of speed. People not dying is good. There's also a way of turning it off, and that's naturally a pretty important aspect in helping ensure that it's not too restrictive. It's also somewhat difficult to justify speeding in general. Yeah, most of us have done it at one point or another, but at the end of the day was it really necessary? A lot of what we would call spirited driving still carries a higher than normal risk to both ourselves and the public around us, so I find it difficult to defend my right to endanger others.
On the other hand, I can see that this might potentially reduce the number of fatal accidents, since I assume that most fatal accidents happen at higher rates of speed. People not dying is good. There's also a way of turning it off, and that's naturally a pretty important aspect in helping ensure that it's not too restrictive. It's also somewhat difficult to justify speeding in general. Yeah, most of us have done it at one point or another, but at the end of the day was it really necessary? A lot of what we would call spirited driving still carries a higher than normal risk to both ourselves and the public around us, so I find it difficult to defend my right to endanger others.
- 87,159
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
When you say "can", it does.
As British schoolteachers are fond of pointing out "Can I go to the toilet?" is merely an enquiry of your capabilities, rather than seeking permission.
You need a car that can exceed 70mph, even if it has a physical limiter preventing it, as one that cannot will be awful at 70mph.
Joey D
Premium
- 47,434
- Lakes of the North, MI
- GTP_Joey
- GTP Joey
- 27,387
- Toronto
- NewAesthetic
- SlipZtrEm
That's true but tuners worked around that limit. I can't really say how many owners did that (no idea).
The question that comes to my mind is that if there is still a way to override the GPS based system, will the drivers be fined for over speeding since the cars will supposedly be equipped with the Data Event Recorders? The other question is how many people with sports cars actually take their cars to tracks? Well I do not defend public speeding but personally I believe sales will take a hit in such a case.
Edit: Who knows may be just may be there will be a boom in race tracks all around EU
I don't doubt that there will eventually be a time where yes, the data recordings will be used to retroactively fine you if you were speeding. I'm sure the insurance companies will start making it more and more of a financial penalty to not have them, either.
Most sports car owners probably never take them to the track, no. But it's certainly possible to have fun in a car at speeds below the posted limit.
Nailed it. There was an op-ed from Dickie Meaden in Evo a while back that summed it up so well: blanket, posted speed limits are an outdated method for us. 100kph is hilariously slow in Canada on our 400-series highways, and the general cruising speed of 115–120 still is, but it's the tailgating and poor lane discipline that contribute to the danger on those. Or, as is the case for a solid chunk of the year, inclement weather.
Meanwhile, someone motoring through a residential area near a school at a solid 50kph, just because that's the posted speed, is just as dangerous if it's right around the end of the day. People blindly following the posted limits is a bad thing, as it minimizes critical thinking.
Cars are so capable these days, arguably more so than their drivers. I was on a launch recently where the car naturally settled into a nice rhythm on a very empty, well-sighted back road. It felt completely within its limits, yet I looked down and found it was 50% faster than the posted limit. In 15 minutes I saw less than 10 cars go by me, half of which were on the same launch! Those limits were undoubtedly settled upon decades ago.
- 48
- United States
And, if your hypothetical bridge has been built in the last decade or so, it was probably constructed using technologies to make the process more efficient and safer, to include the safety of the end product.
Now, I'm not saying I like all the side effects (I love driving my highly analog and manual transmission vehicle how I see fit) but autonomy is being pushed in all aspects of our lives. Fewer manual processes means a deminished potential for human error. To think that the proposals outlined in the article are leading to a more autonomous driving experience is not too far fetched.
Last edited:
- 179
- Cyprus
- apocalypxoticnow
Those who over speed in public roads. Don't just think of motorway speed limits. It could be 30 mp/h for the residential areas and one could end up with a fine for going 35 mp/h because the GPS would be able to tell which road someone was on. I don't really know the extend to how much in detail this can be enforced but one day it could be done. While this might be the correct thing to do, there sure will be a huge impact on our daily lives. Not to justify over speeding but if motorists obey every single speed limit, there surely will be a lot of congestion than ever before.
- 17,185
- United Kingdom
According to GOV vehicle speed compliance statistics, In 2016, 8.7% of fatal car accidents had exceeding the speed limit as contributory factor... which equates to 144 accidents where at least 1 person was killed out of 1657 fatal accidents in total.
I can't speak of 'excessive' speed, but for cars in the UK, in 20mph speed limits 83-94% of cars speed (% is dependent on time of day), in 30mph areas its 48-80%, on single carriageway main road/NSL roads it's 6-29%, and on Motorways, it's 41-55%. From that I take that residential areas are those most affected by speeding, where the driver may feel physically the safest, and least patient... or maybe just that people are more aware of ATC's on main roads...
When it comes to speed, congestion can just as much (if not more so) be caused by a mismatch in speed as it can simply slower driving... people not matching, or over reacting to the speed of the car in front....
gifs from... http://trafficwaves.org/tanim.html
- 48
- United States
I'm pretty sure this statement defies the laws of physics. If two or more objects are moving at the same, constant speed in the same direction of travel, they can never collide or congest. It's the slowing or stopping of one of those objects that creates the congestion ... you know, like merging.
I'm an advocate for going fast. But, I also understand the complications of a speedy car encountering a limit-abiding car. If we all were traveling at the same speed and in a carefully orchestrated flow of commuters, congestion is eliminated.
Last edited:
- 179
- Cyprus
- apocalypxoticnow
We have lots of it. Double lanes dropping to single because one of the lanes (although double yellow) suddenly become parking spaces (poor governance) or they physically drop to single (just plain horrible infrastructure). One double lane road I personally commute everyday drops to single because of the potholes. Only pickup trucks and buses dare use it now.
- 11,258
- Sweden
- eran0004
It doesn’t feel like a risk, because you have been fine so far. But the day something does happen you’ll find that it gives you less time to react, an exponential increase in braking distance and an exponential increase in crash violence.
For example: say that your car can brake at a rate of 1g and that your reaction time is 0.5 seconds. If you drive at 100 km/h and an obstacle appears 50 meters ahead of you, you would hit it at 29 km/h. If you drive at 110 km/h you would hit it at 57 km/h. At that speed you carry nearly 4 times as much kinetic energy as you do at 29 km/h. Meanwhile, the time you would gain over a distance of 100 km is about 5 minutes.
- 29,996
- Cuddington, Cheshire
- JDA1982
Interestingly (or perhaps not to some), some councils have discovered that introduction of 20mph speed zones has increased the number of collision and deaths compared to when the same zones were 30mph. There is also an argument for removing pedestrian barriers as a number of areas where those have been installed have seen increases in pedestrian deaths.
Part of the reason is perceived safety, drivers will approach a crossing where pedestrians are stood with no barrier more cautiously than where a barrier is present and if a pedestrian steps out the drivers tend to be more alert to the danger. The same perception of safety on the part of both drivers and pedestrians is thought to be responsable for the increase in injuries and deaths in 20mph zones.
Making driving "too safe" is a dangerous move, drivers should be alert, should be in control and should be aware of the risks of thier actions. The more we take away thier control the less people will be aware of the risks of the speed they are doing. They will say "the car let me do 50mph" after skidding off a wet corner into a helpless pedestrian. It's an issue of responsability and training not semi-autonomy.
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
- 3,053
- England
- kilesa4568
My missus needs this. A couple of years ago, she picked up 3 speeding tickets in just over a month and is now 3 points off a ban. She simply can't be trusted to have full control of the accelerator...
I'd be happy to have it on my car for myself too. Speed checks (and numerous Gatso's) regularly happen in our area and knowing my luck, I'll get a toss pot young copper happy to flag me for 32 in a 30. I don't want to give them that satisfaction.
I'd be happy to have it on my car for myself too. Speed checks (and numerous Gatso's) regularly happen in our area and knowing my luck, I'll get a toss pot young copper happy to flag me for 32 in a 30. I don't want to give them that satisfaction.
- 29,871
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
Must one possess a license for the neighboring area in the event of outdoor outgassing on windy days? And what of multiple classifications to suit diet and gastrointestinal issues?
Similar threads
