Why aren't cars speed limited?

iolanthe07

You'd also need a pretty powerful car to be able to accelerate away from an otherwise imminent collision!

It was a Mazda MX5, so not especially fast, but quick enough and highly maneuverable.

benten69

Deastons wrote: »

Because 99% of drivers aren't interested in track days etc. And if speeding is as dangerous as we're told it is, it amazes me why technology hasn't been used to prevent it.

I wonder if anyone has ever tried to sue the manufacturer for allowing the car to go so fast when they get done for speeding.

So you can speak for 99% of all drivers?? There is not just track days....what if I go to Germany in my car for a trip where some parts of the autobahn are unrestricted....should I be limited to 77mph or some other arbitrary number in that situation? Should the manufacturer's be forced to stump up money in adding limiters when the reality is people need to start taking responsibility for their own actions.

Also, the bit I highlighted in bold is key....speeding is NOT as dangerous as the government keep banging on about. Speed in itself is not inherently dangerous. If it was then every single MotoGP rider who has had an accident would be dead, but they are not, and why is that...because of GOOD SAFETY DESIGN in the tracks, leathers, helmets, etc, etc.

The problem isn't speed, the problem is that there is such poor safety design developed within the current roads infrastructure and also the fact that some people drive like idiots with no sense of lane discipline, spacial awareness, skid control (in snowy conditions or if you hit a diesel spill, etc). All these things make it safer for people to drive at a proper speed, but alas all these things cost money! Even the driver training to make people safer on the roads.

So what is the cheap fix....tell everyone that speed is bad, that anything over the speed limit will result in your car spontaneously combusting, targeting the motorist at every possible opportunity and brainwashing people into believing this drivel is actually true.

Deastons wrote: »

I see - so if a member of your family needs to get to hospital, everyone else's lives suddenly matter less.

Thing is, there is a part of the law called "Dueness of necessity" which basically means ANYONE can break the speed limit if there is a genuine valid reason. Rushing home to catch up on Celebs Go Dating is not one of those valid reasons though.

However if you have someone in your car who URGENTLY needs medical attention and would otherwise die if you had to wait for an ambulance or didn't break the speed limits then you have just as much right to travel at speed in excess of the limit as an ambulance, etc. If you were to be stopped then the police have as much of a duty to get the person to hospital immediately and not hold you up just to give you a ticket, etc.

A persons life comes before an arbitrary speed limit which was made up in the 70's and luckily the law does recognise that.

zagfles

benten69 wrote: »

Thing is, there is a part of the law called "Dueness of necessity" which basically means ANYONE can break the speed limit if there is a genuine valid reason. Rushing home to catch up on Celebs Go Dating is not one of those valid reasons though.

However if you have someone in your car who URGENTLY needs medical attention and would otherwise die if you had to wait for an ambulance or didn't break the speed limits then you have just as much right to travel at speed in excess of the limit as an ambulance, etc. If you were to be stopped then the police have as much of a duty to get the person to hospital immediately and not hold you up just to give you a ticket, etc.

A persons life comes before an arbitrary speed limit which was made up in the 70's and luckily the law does recognise that.

Indeed, and so it should, just like you can do all sorts of normally illegal things in extreme circumstances, eg injure or even kill someone if in self defence.

But of course the vast majority of speeding isn't done for such reasons. It's done because the driver is an impatient t**t who thinks they're above the law.

Whether cars should have limiters or not is a similar argument to the guns argument going on in the USA. Yes guns are usually used harmlessly for recreation, and sometimes having a gun will save your life, but other times the availability of them will kill you.

d0nkeyk0ng

Tarambor wrote: »

These are the official figures collated from the Police's own accident investigation reports and make interesting reading.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/665190/ras50008.ods

In 2016 Exceeding the speed limit was a contributory factor for just 5% of all accidents. Contributory, not even the primary cause. In fact "Travelling too fast for the conditions" was a cause of 6%, higher than exceeding the speed limit and a speed limiter, even one which kept you within the posted limits for that road wouldn't have prevented people from doing that.

Read this official government information from 2014 which shows driver error is the largest cause at 73%.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/463043/rrcgb2014-02.pdf

This is the important bit. Speeding doesn't kill so much as inappropriate speed for the time and place. As already pointed out, doing even 60mph on the motorway in thick fog is more hazardous than doing 80mph on a clear, dry day with excellent visibility and road conditions.

As for accelerating out of trouble, I've had to that several times. Typically when some berk on the motorway doesn't look before moving into my lane. Quite a few times I've had lorries move from the left lane of the motorway into the middle lane, where I am overtaking. Putting my foot down has meant I've accelerated out of a situation and avoided a collision, rather than do nothing or brake and get squished.

Finally, look at why motorways are limited to 70mph rather than "unrestricted" as they were originally intended.

A number of car crashes during the foggy autumn of 1965 led the government to hold consultations with the police and the National Road Safety Advisory Council. They concluded the crashes were caused by vehicles travelling too fast for the conditions. It was suggested that a speed limit be used during periods when the road was affected by fog, ice or snow, and that an overall maximum speed limit of 70 mph should be tested out. The four-month trial began at midday on 22nd December 1965.

https://www.historyhit.com/1965-introduction-of-70mph-speed-limit-in-uk/

IamNotAllowedToUseMyName

The stats on speeding don't really tell the story - for a start the police often don't do the work to find out the speed in an accident so they cannot attribute speed as a cause, even if they suspect it. The other element is speed, and relative speed, do increase the energy of the accident so the slower people drive, the less they are injured - ask the family in Birmingham who were hit at 100mph whether speed kills.

The main problem on the roads is that people are not as good drivers as they believe they are. I notice that there are less drivers doing excessive speed on the motorway now, but it is usually combined with an aggressive driving style - the sort of mentality that says that as they are driving 20mph faster than you, you should not be in their way, even though you are driving legally past a slower moving vehicle.

I use cruise and speed limiter almost permanently. A modern torquey diesel with good sound insulation has very little feedback as to speed (1700rpm at 70mph - 25rpm per mph, you are not going to hear much difference between 70mph and 80mph), and around town, its pretty hard to hit 30 and stay on it in an auto - easier in a manual using the appropriate gear.

I agree speed is not the main problem, incompetence (mainly through disinterest in driving and distraction) is, however, speed is a symptom of poor driving and without other simple ways of getting poor drivers under control I'd say that keeping speeds down is a compromise that I'm happy to put up with.

zagfles

d0nkeyk0ng wrote: »

This is the important bit. Speeding doesn't kill so much as inappropriate speed for the time and place. As already pointed out, doing even 60mph on the motorway in thick fog is more hazardous than doing 80mph on a clear, dry day with excellent visibility and road conditions.

As for accelerating out of trouble, I've had to that several times. Typically when some berk on the motorway doesn't look before moving into my lane. Quite a few times I've had lorries move from the left lane of the motorway into the middle lane, where I am overtaking. Putting my foot down has meant I've accelerated out of a situation and avoided a collision, rather than do nothing or brake and get squished.

Finally, look at why motorways are limited to 70mph rather than "unrestricted" as they were originally intended.


https://www.historyhit.com/1965-introduction-of-70mph-speed-limit-in-uk/

In 1965 most people were restricted to probably not much more than 70 because that's all their car was capable of!

The French system of lower speed limits when raining is quite sensible. Fog's a bit harder as it depends on the thickness of it...

zagfles

IanMSpencer wrote: »

The stats on speeding don't really tell the story - for a start the police often don't do the work to find out the speed in an accident so they cannot attribute speed as a cause, even if they suspect it. The other element is speed, and relative speed, do increase the energy of the accident so the slower people drive, the less they are injured - ask the family in Birmingham who were hit at 100mph whether speed kills.

<In a drawly southern US accent> Speed doooeeesn't kill peeeple. Peeeple kill peeeple.

The main problem on the roads is that people are not as good drivers as they believe they are. I notice that there are less drivers doing excessive speed on the motorway now, but it is usually combined with an aggressive driving style - the sort of mentality that says that as they are driving 20mph faster than you, you should not be in their way, even though you are driving legally past a slower moving vehicle.

I use cruise and speed limiter almost permanently. A modern torquey diesel with good sound insulation has very little feedback as to speed (1700rpm at 70mph - 25rpm per mph, you are not going to hear much difference between 70mph and 80mph), and around town, its pretty hard to hit 30 and stay on it in an auto - easier in a manual using the appropriate gear.

I've only had a limiter in a hire car and it was very useful in 50(kph) zones where you need to concentrate on the road not the speedo.

System

IanMSpencer wrote: »

The stats on speeding don't really tell the story - for a start the police often don't do the work to find out the speed in an accident so they cannot attribute speed as a cause, even if they suspect it.

Really? Then how come every time they've shown them on TV they're out with a tape measure measuring the length of skid marks so they can work out what the stopping distance and therefore the speed when they hit the brakes was? The computer modelling of the scene they use will quite accurately plot the path and calculate the speed of all vehicles involved.

Just because you don't agree with the police's own investigations doesn't mean their conclusions are wrong.

Car_54

Tarambor wrote: »

Really? Then how come every time they've shown them on TV they're out with a tape measure measuring the length of skid marks so they can work out what the stopping distance and therefore the speed when they hit the brakes was?

Because the cases where they don't would make less interesting TV.

John-K_3

Deastons wrote: »

There are no stupid questions, only stupid answers.

Of course there are stupid questions. Any question that shows that the questioner did not even bother giving it a couple of minutes thought falls into this category.

You know full well why cars are not limited. People drive abroad in them, people take them to the track, people use them on private land. How could you not come up with these obvious reasons yourself?