Speed Limit

[Delaney]

Vot

USA has worlds largest prison population historically and it's argued that it's a continuation of slavery; mostly black people on trivial offences, who were made available for work.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/sep/27/slavery-loophole-unpaid-labor-in-prisons

I bet you’d still vote for Kamala Harris though.

 

[jim1950]

do you end personal responsibility and ban every thing that can harm, a friend in the late 60s killing at less then 40mph on a scooter, a group of us was racing around Battersea park and yes your right to call us d//k heads, do we ban scooter?
I could put it that a family member was killed at walking pace early this year, he died of internal bleeding caused by over the counter pain killers he would walk into every high street shop that sold them, yes he had a problem, do we ban them?
its all down to personal responsibility and if you get that wrong you pay

 

[John Brown]

do you end personal responsibility and ban every thing that can harm, a friend in the late 60s killing at less then 40mph on a scooter, a group of us was racing around Battersea park and yes your right to call us d//k heads, do we ban scooter?
I could put it that a family member was killed at walking pace early this year, he died of internal bleeding caused by over the counter pain killers he would walk into every high street shop that sold them, yes he had a problem, do we ban them?
its all down to personal responsibility and if you get that wrong you pay

This thread was about whether it was right to sell cars capable of 150mph in a country where the maximum legal speed is 70mph. How does that equate with banning everything that can harm?
Knives, scooters, painkillers etc. all have legitimate uses. Cars that can do 150mph do not.

 

[John Brown]

Exactly the point I was going to make. The excessive nanny state regulation is why we have instructions on bottles of bleach saying 'do not drink'. Many people seem to have lost the ability to think for themselves.

Why would anyone have a problem with a "Do not drink" instruction on a bottle of bleach? It probably costs next to nothing to add, and if it saves one life, or serious damage, while at the same time allowing us to ridicule the ultra stupid people who need such a warning, then why not?
Who amongst us can say that they've never derived amusement from the "do not eat" warnings on the packs of silica gel nestling in the packaging of just about everything?
I think one needs to keep these things in perspective. You can still eat the silica gel and drink the bleach if you really want to, so your rights have not been infringed in any significant way. It's just a warning.

 

[Jacob]

Why would anyone have a problem with a "Do not drink" instruction on a bottle of bleach? ....

Because it's another thing to moan about. Keeps them happy!

 

[Lons]

This thread was about whether it was right to sell cars capable of 150mph in a country where the maximum legal speed is 70mph. How does that equate with banning everything that can harm?
Knives, scooters, painkillers etc. all have legitimate uses. Cars that can do 150mph do not.

The legal limit on motorways and dual carriageways is 70mph and other classes of vehicle less. Limiting them to that doesn't stop someone driving at 70mph in a 30 or 20mph zone so how does that help? Even worse a 40 tonne artic doing 50 in a built up zone or should all vehicles be restricted to the lowest limit of say 20mph, now there's a thought and put restrictors on bikes while we're at it so they can't do more than that.
Also remember that many owners take their vehicles into Europe where limits are different especially on some sections of the German autoban which are unrestricted.

The problem as already stated is stopping the di**heads behind the wheel rather than the vehicle and that's a far bigger and more difficult issue. We need to treat the cause not the symptom.
Lack of effective punishment that fits the crime and lack of respect for authority and the welfare of others won't change by banning vehicles that are able to exceed the limit by any amount. The number of such excessive speed incidents are unforgiveable but uncommon enough to get headline news reports when they do happen.

 

[John Brown]

The legal limit on motorways and dual carriageways is 70mph and other classes of vehicle less. Limiting them to that doesn't stop someone driving at 70mph in a 30 or 20mph zone so how does that help? Even worse a 40tonne artic doing 50 in a built up zone are should all vehicles be restricted to the lowest limit of say 20mph, now there's a thought and put restrictors on bikes while we're at it si they can't do more than that.
Also remember that many owners take their vehicles into Europe where limits are different especially on some sections of the German autoban which are unrestricted.

The problem as already stated is stopping the di**heads behind the wheel rather than the vehicle and that's a far bigger and more difficult issue. We need to treat the cause not the symptom.
Lack of effective punishment that fits the crime and lack of respect for authority and the welfare of others won't change by banning vehicles that are able to exceed the limit by any amount. The number of such excessive speed incidents are unforgiveable but uncommon enough to get headline news reports when they do happen.

I wasn't suggesting that we should, or shouldn't restrict the speed of vehicles. I was merely pointing out that it's a bit of an extrapolation to get from there to banning all knives, scooters, painkillers etc.
It reminds me of the old story about the super computer programmed to play chess, which resigned after one move, as it could foresee an inevitable checkmate after 129 moves.

But you are obviously right that some take their cars abroad, where the rules may be different. Personally, I'd be happy to drive a speed restricted car, especially if it involved a reduction in insurance premiums, but I seem to remember from previous threads that you lean the other way.

 

[Lons]

I wasn't suggesting that we should, or shouldn't restrict the speed of vehicles. I was merely pointing out that it's a bit of an extrapolation to get from there to banning all knives, scooters, painkillers etc.
It reminds me of the old story about the super computer programmed to play chess, which resigned after one move, as it could foresee an inevitable checkmate after 129 moves.

But you are obviously right that some take their cars abroad, where the rules may be different. Personally, I'd be happy to drive a speed restricted car, especially if it involved a reduction in insurance premiums, but I seem to remember from previous threads that you lean the other way.

You're completely wrong I certainly don't "lean the other way" and if you had read my comments properly in the old thread you would have seen that I don't, however your entitled to your opinion but that's all it is and doesn't bother me at all.
I'm perfectly happy to tootle along within the speed limits and am rarely in such a hurry that I would have any reason to exceed them. Yes my car is capable of much higher speeds but that isn't a reason to use its' capacity.
I also drive a 4.25 tonne motorhome at sensible speeds as well as two other cars in the same manner and while I don't see the need for speed restrictors in cars it certainly wouldn't affect me at all, but as I said it's the di**head drivers we should be targetting not the vehicles.

As far as a reductiuon in insurance prices, good luck with that one, it's driver age, mileage and postcode as well as vehicle parts prices that drive insurance costs rather than simply how fast a car is capable of reaching although it is of course a factor. My car insurance certainly isn't too bad compared to many others

 

[Terry - Somerset]

Any regulation needs to be materially beneficial. It needs to meet simple criteria:

• positively impacts outcomes - fewer less serious incidents, accidents, harm
• is both capable of, and actually policed
• punishment for non-compliance proportional to the risks of non-compliance
• protects the general public either directly, or inhibits inadvertent misuse by users

Obvious examples include sensible speed limits, drink driving, electrical safety, emissions, use of harmful materials, MoT tests etc.

All regulation requires effort and resources. There is zero merit in regulation which does not meet clear criteria - examples abound of that created to meet either a theoretical or very limited need, never policed, or the product of a small vocal single interest group.

It is the workshop equivalent of clutter and mess - finding the item you actually want involves wasting time digging through piles of sawdust and discarded tools. "Tidy desk, tidy mind"

The "don't eat" silica gel warnings fall in the trivial, pointless and unnecessary category:

• the cost of label printing is trivial,
• those who may genuinely be at risk from eating it likely can't read or are profoundly stupid,
• it is policed only by exception,
• manufacturers comply simply because it removes a very small risk at very small cost.

How do these thoughts impact car speed limits - bluntly it is the driver behind the wheel not the car manufacturer whose actions cause accidents - a car fitted with a maximum speed limiter would not eliminate excess speed in urban areas and driver stupidity generally.

The remedy is more effective detection (traffic police + cameras), and punishment which deters.

 

[paulrbarnard]

Any regulation needs to be materially beneficial. It needs to meet simple criteria:

• positively impacts outcomes - fewer less serious incidents, accidents, harm
• is both capable of, and actually policed
• punishment for non-compliance proportional to the risks of non-compliance
• protects the general public either directly, or inhibits inadvertent misuse by users

Obvious examples include sensible speed limits, drink driving, electrical safety, emissions, use of harmful materials, MoT tests etc.

All regulation requires effort and resources. There is zero merit in regulation which does not meet clear criteria - examples abound of that created to meet either a theoretical or very limited need, never policed, or the product of a small vocal single interest group.

It is the workshop equivalent of clutter and mess - finding the item you actually want involves wasting time digging through piles of sawdust and discarded tools. "Tidy desk, tidy mind"

The "don't eat" silica gel warnings fall in the trivial, pointless and unnecessary category:

• the cost of label printing is trivial,
• those who may genuinely be at risk from eating it likely can't read or are profoundly stupid,
• it is policed only by exception,
• manufacturers comply simply because it removes a very small risk at very small cost.

How do these thoughts impact car speed limits - bluntly it is the driver behind the wheel not the car manufacturer whose actions cause accidents - a car fitted with a maximum speed limiter would not eliminate excess speed in urban areas and driver stupidity generally.

The remedy is more effective detection (traffic police + cameras), and punishment which deters.

People are missing the point. The speed limiters are not for maximum speed they are for the posted speed limit. 30 limit, the car won’t exceed 30. Of course you can still drive too fast for the conditions but at least can’t exceed the limit.

 

[AJB Temple]

Limits are frequently arbitrary. 70mph is arbitrary. It would appear that many people think we should be told what to do by governments and civil servants and not question it and blindly obey their rules.

 

[Fergie 307]

Is there anything that you don’t agree with that you don’t ascribe to the right Jacob? You do seem to bring politics into every discussion.

I think dear old Jacob has a kind of left wing welding helmet. Anything appears in front of him that doesn't accord with his own view of the world and the screen goes black.

 

[Scruples]

This post is not meant to be inflammatory, it is purely my initial thought.

At what point does personal responsibility need to be considered?

Many companies sell many products that can be misused. If the desire is that a government should control/authorise/regulate any product that can be misused, then the door is open for us all to be living in a 'nanny state'.

Well, firstly, in my life I have met and observed many people and some, most, are considerate and responsible. But then, there are those who appear to be almost pathological in their behaviour and attitudes. This has been the same for many centuries. We are not all the same.

Secondly, I would ask what is a 'Nanny State'? Is it where society has decided that poor behaviour is intolerable? Is it when society puts the majority of good souls first? Is it when manufacturers take actions, as they have throughout the industrial age, to improve their products, not only to sell more products but to avail their customers with better and safer devices/machines etc?

Maybe we have our own individual idea of what a 'Nanny State' is, and I wonder if it's challenged more by those actually contributing to its development.

 

[John Hughes01]

The question of speed on our roads is a topical issue at the moment and there are pros and cons. In my area we are infested with 20mph roads. I quite agree that speed kills - this is borne out by many tests/videos. However,in my opinion (sorry IMO,we have a perfectly adequate variable speed system. All of our 30 mph roads are going to 20mph which is totally crazy as the law says that you should travel at whatever speed is safe within the 30mph limit. On our main road,pre-20mph ruling- most drivers did about 25mph but now we are so busy looking at our speedo that it is positively dangerous. My wife's Picanto has a speed limiter which also has to set thereby taking her eye and concentration off the road while she fiddles. Personally, I don't feel safe as you cannot have the power to get out of danger if needed. Also if you don't disengage the limiter you lose so much speed going up hills that you end up in first gear - automatic car. so poluting the air nicely. and using more gas! Most countries are "nanny states" to some extent and this is needed but to risk losing your licence by driving past a school at 3.00am for driving in excess of 20mph is silly - what about flashing lights when school is in like in other countries!

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Apparently it has been admitted secretly that the main reason isn't safety or pollution, it's to attempt to annoy people into giving up driving.
It's 20mph in towns and villages here - it's a bloody nuisance, and achieves very little. People drive with their eyes glued to the speedo, and that cannot be good.

 

[XTiffy]

The simpest way to cut speed problems would be for the Police to use "yellow cards" ie drive over the limit then you would have to sit in a layby for a specified time, thereby negating any benefit you might have by driving too fast and a fine. But that of course would need police actually on the roads rather than speed camera fines, so that would never happen!

 

[paulrbarnard]

The question of speed on our roads is a topical issue at the moment and there are pros and cons. In my area we are infested with 20mph roads.

The bolded word exposes your bias.
You are right the law requires you to drive at the appropriate speed for the road up to the posted limit. Unfortunately 40% of people admit to breaking limits at 20 and 30mph and up to 60% at 70mph RAC Survey
Far too many people simply consider their right to break the law above those the law has been put in place to protect.
Of course people will continue to drive faster than the conditions warrant, even in a 20mph zone but that’s where policing needs to come in. Let’s enable the police to focus on that by mandatory speed limiters or at least speed monitors fitted to cars removing the endemic problem of people seeing speed limits as a problem for them rather than a protection for others.

 

[Geoff_S]

Not sure if I’ve said this here, but here goes.

Prior to the bulk of roads being set from 30mph to 20mph, I would manage an average speed of 14mph doing 4000 miles a year.

Now the roads are mostly 20mph, I average 14mph.

Any thoughts?

 

[paulrbarnard]

Not sure if I’ve said this here, but here goes.

Prior to the bulk of roads being set from 30mph to 20mph, I would manage an average speed of 14mph doing 4000 miles a year.

Now the roads are mostly 20mph, I average 14mph.

Any thoughts?

You still drive too slow? Seriously though your post absolutely highlights the point that the reduction of speed limits in towns, residential areas and also to an extent rural roads has very little impact on actual travel times. That has been shown in study after study but continues to be the biggest concern people raise about reducing speed limits.
I would actually put limits up on some roads, three lane limited access highways for example, but would welcome all residential areas to be 20.

 

[Inspector]

The technology exists to limit speeds wherever the vehicle happens to be and could be reset to reflect deteriorating conditions. I use my iPhone map app as my navigation and when driving it shows the posted speed I should be observing as I drive. My older truck (2015 Nissan) did the same. It would barely be a doodle for manufacturers to apply the GPS location info to the throttle and limit the speed as it travels down the road adjusted for the conditions. You could still floor the car at an intersection but it won't let you go any faster than the posted speed. You can bet people will go nuts if their control is taken away from them but it would stop excessive speeding. And you would never have to look down at the speedo letting you watch for other potential hazards.

The funny thing about the human brain is when you are young nothing scares you so you drive like a bat out of h###. When you are an old fogey you drive slowly and cautiously. It is really opposite to the way it should work. Drive slowly when young in order to live a long time and like an lunatic when old because you don't have much time left. Maybe we need reprogramming of our little brains.

Pete