Speed limiters will be made compulsory fitted to all new vehicles in 2022 under proposals put forward by the European Union and this will be copied by the UK Government, as confirmed by the Department of Transport. The official purpose of the speed limiters is that it will reduce road deaths by 20%, however drivers can still override the stated speed limit if they need to in case of an emergency manoeuvre.
This is the first step towards the gradual full automation of all vehicles. Driver safety and the reduction in road deaths is being used as the justifiable reason to impose it, but this is only the beginning of a set of rules that will eventually lead to all vehicles driving themselves.
The driving Nanny
New European legislation is to come in to force for 2022, in which all new cars will be fitted with ‘Intelligent Speed Assistance’; a system that automatically restricts power when it recognises, you’re speeding, thereby slowing the vehicle down to the limit.
This isn’t really about the kind of unobtrusive technology being used to monitor our daily movements though, we’re now talking about technology that interacts with our surroundings to physically prevent us from taking part in any ‘wrongdoing’.
And in this case, ‘wrongdoing’ isn’t robbing a bank, flashing an innocent bystander or physically harming someone, wrongdoing is all about the evils of speed, for no matter what the reasoning, you’re the Devil Incarnate should you allow your speedometer to creep above the permissible limit; this is speed enforcement en masse.
And it gets worse.
Given the fact that it uses a combination of GPS-tracking black box technology, sign-reading cameras, and connectivity, it’s entirely possible for the system to tag your time, location, and speed to send off a detailed report about your nefarious activities, all ready for prosecution. And while that sounds extreme, think of this: with Intelligent Speed Assistance, revenue from convicting speeders will be down, and relying on safety cameras alone to make the difference just won’t cut it.
No obvious reduction in deaths per year
These new proposals are down to the fact that for the last decade, fatalities and casualties from road accidents have remained pretty constant – around the 1,700 per year mark. And yet the number of cars has increased by around 2m in the last decade, and so while the numbers are similar, the percentages are smaller – a fact not mentioned by the government.
Further still, much of the in-action with road safety comes down to budget cuts and a drop in the long-term spending; there’s no road safety expertise at local council level, and no long-term strategies in place to reduce accident numbers.
With an estimated price of £2,000 added to each new car (for the incorporation of the system), it’s the motorist (once again) that’s been tasked with footing the bill.
Safest roads in Europe
And yet still there’s another question. Is this really about road safety? Are our roads dangerous enough to warrant the actual physical interference of the government in our daily driving activities?
According to a new European Commission study, Britain has the safest roads of any European country, so while we’re a country (apparently) full of speeders and hooligans, we’re doing OK.
Of course, it’s easy to blame this at the feet of the Eurocrats, and thank all things holy that Brexit is happening, but despite it being a European Commission approved legislative act, we’re set to follow the legislation with or without Brexit. This is most definitely happening.
I’m not against measures that work to reduce inappropriate speeding, I don’t see my local ring-road as my own personal racetrack, and as an automotive engineer, I’d argue that ‘speeding’ in one car could be a completely different experience to breaking the law in another. And what does this mean for high performance cars, sold by all the main automotive brands? Does that mean that a shiny top of range Bugati Veyron can only pootle along at 70 MPH in the UK? It seems almost laughable, but this is the imminent reality we all face.
But what I do object to, is the physical interaction, taking control away from the motorist, and wresting it in the hands of a government think tank that tells us they know best. It’s allowing the government to take drastic measures to force us to comply with the lowest standard of driving permissible, while I’ve spent a lifetime improving, learning and demonstrating courteous & respectful driving, albeit with the occasional burst of speed. What is point of Advanced Driving Courses anymore if this happens?
More accidents not less?
Finally, we’ve already learnt that reducing the speed limits to 20mph has the opposite effect; accident statistics rise, and it’s proven to be down to lack of concentration or complacency for the lower speed. What happens when the driver must concentrate less because the car will automatically monitor & adjust the speed? We could actually see more accidents because the drivers think, ‘the car has this under control’ and increases in accidents caused by driver distraction could skyrocket.
What do you think to the new speed limiters? Will they be a good thing for road safety? Or is this a step closer to being forcibly stopped from controlling our vehicles? Let us know in the comments below please.
Yet more Nanny State interference in our lives, in the form of politicians who are renowned for making a mess of almost everything they touch. This will be no exception and it beggars belief that, despite the fact that Brexit is looming, they are still dancing to the EU tune. The sad part about is when accident figures actually rise for the reasons outlined above, they will go through the sackcloth and ashes routine admitting they made a mistake by which time it will be too late
Guy Fawkes come back-your country needs you!
I’m with you , BRING BACK GUY FAWKES.
Sounds good to me, driving is an absolute chore these days. I’d much rather just sit there and get where I need to be than wrestle with the car surrounded by idiots. I only enjoy riding my motorcycle these days and even then I pick the best time of day to do it.
if self drive becomes compulsory it will be for all vehicles, you may find you can n o longer buy motorcycles! I am surprised anyone who “finds driving surrounded by idiots a chore” would even dare to get on a bike ‘surrounded by idiots’..
I see more idiots on two wheels than four
most of the idiots are on the two wheels anyway regardless of what they say. It also goes for Shredded Wheat powered two wheel bikes too.
And even more idiots are on push bikes
I’m an idiot on 2 wheels and 4! Passed my IAM bike test about 25 years ago and have an (almost) faultless record for both vehicles.
Advanced training teaches loads and should be compulsory with regular retests, accident rates would drop dramatically cos people would be more aware of their surroundings. There are loads of idiots on the roads who never reach the speed limits, but haven’t got a clue what is going on around them!
Good idea. But only if they were compulsory for everyone. So fat chance of that happening. Lovely in theory but it is never going to happen.
Amongst the most important pieces of advice my Grandad ever gave me was this: “Every one else on the road is an idiot and you must treat them as such”.
Sound advice – always expect stupid things from other drivers and you’ll considerably lower your risk of being in an accident.
My dad said similar, but added and you are one of them! It’s worked for me.
Politicians admitting their mistakes? Dream on…
They did in the expenses scandal a few years back.
Because the were INDIVIDUALLY found out. And apologised because they were caught and not sorry.
We would all behave like the HGV lorry drivers do today, take 10 minutes to overtake another lorry going 1/4mph slower than they are. Imagine if that was translated to cars. Traffic jams and queues galore!! Bring it on, we can all die of nox poisoning whilst waiting to move again. …..Did someone say stop, start technology? Freeze to death in winter and die of heat stroke in summer, where’s the power for those ‘luxuries’ going to come from with no engine running.
IT HAPPENS BECAUSE HGVS HAVE SPEED LIMITERS!
It happens because some inconsiderate drivers are driving without consideration for other road users.
We’re already getting there, courtesy of “smart” motorways and drivers being too scared to put their foot down to overtake or avoid trouble by getting out of the way for fear of being caught on camera and fined.
I travel often on ‘Managed Motorways’, speed reduced to 60, 50, 40 due to ‘congestion’, caused by all the traffic being slowed down. Result, when speed go up again, the lorries feel the need to overtake each other, effectively reducing the number of lanes available for other motorists and, causing congestion again.
Sounds unnecessary,expensive and intrusive to me..you did not mention how you can ”override” the system ?? This could well affect new car sales into the bargain..I would never buy one,especially if it monitors my our my families movements .
I agree. I shall retain my current car, which is already bossy regarding the wearing of seat belts and open sun roofs…
Your movements are being monitored by your mobile phone and anpr cameras.
that is why i switch off all the GPS locations etc.
im aware you can be tracked by the signal towers you are using but its MUCH less precise!
Your phone is already monitoring your family’s movements.
Only if it is turned on. You can also disable most in Privacy settings
If it’s turned off, you can’t use it and as soon as you turn it on again, they know where you are. I’m re-reading 1984 and it’s pretty dark!
SHOULD HAVE WATCHED THE TV SHOW- THAT WAS DARKER THAN THE BOOK!
You’ll be able to override the system by pressing a bit harder on the throttle. The manufacturers will have several phases of rollout. At first, you’ll just get a beep and probably a dashboard warning. After that, the throttle pedal is supposed to “push back” at you. The article is a bit hysterical for the short term, but in the longer term, yeah, it’s pretty bleak.
pedal wont need to push back as its connected electronically. it can just release itself, if so programmed.
i think there will be a big upsurge in aftermarket ECU sales, if this does happen, to get rid of the nanny add ons for everyday useage.
And what happens when technology goes wrong. Look at recent events with BA – software issues…banks with software stopping access to money…and even more scary are the hackers who cause destruction for fun. It is clear that security measures be they locking security or safety security, they are not reliable. Keys are now cut by thieves by cloning the car bios…latest one I know of only had car a week before it was stolen. Speed limiters will go wrong…..everything else does in a car at some point.
If it goes wrong, it won’t limit your speed. That would be terrible….! Remember, all these comments were made when “throttle-by-wire” systems first started appearing, and it hasn’t been a problem even though pretty much every new car now has such technology.
And what if iflt does wrong by limiting you to 30mph while you’re on thr motorway? You’d better hope all those other drivers who aren’t watching their speed are still looking where their going.
hasnt it? what about the Toyota issues where the car would decide to suddenly accelerate to max engine speed?
Actually, the system going wrong and suddenly not limiting speed would be bad – all the lazy drivers in the world will come to depend on the limiter and drive with their accelerator constantly to the floor, being unable to judge and control their own speed.
EVEN WORSE ON BOEINGF 737 AIRCRAFT AND STILL NO SING OF THEM COMING BACK IN SERVICE.
Yes, maybe they can ask Boeing to design the software and control system, NOT!
Whenever I see these biased reports about speed control, it ignores the fact that speed limits need to be enforced to stop the idiots who regularly exceed them. You imply that the state should not enforce speed limits and it should be left to the judgement of the (skilled?) driver to decide when it’s safe to exceed the limit. What utter baloney! With that argument, we should totally abolish speed limits and leave it to individual judgement to decide a safe driving speed. Or is this whole article just click bait?
Yes bernard, throw all speed limits away apart from 30 mph, works very well on the isle of man because you can go fast an let of steam you then are more likely to stick to 30 limit in town. You should also know that speed limit devices like these can’t be used on motorcycles? They did try but you can’t control a bikes speed with the throttle because you use it to stay in control, if you close the throttle mid corner because the computer thinks you’re doing 32, you’ll crash as the bike drops into the corner without the power pushing you forward.
lets get rid of bikes then, they are noisy annoying death traps anyway
Bike’s themselves are not death traps. I was nearly killed in a rta because an idiot car driver wasn’t paying due care and attention when crossing a dual carriageway in rush hour. Not the bikes fault.
If people stuck to speed limits such technology would not be needed. If you break the law you are a criminal. Every vehicle is a dangerous weapon and needs to be treated as such. There is a mentality of getting right up someone’s rear end and trying to force them to move over on motorways which many do and cut up the car they have just passed. Also, as driving faster used more fuel, it helps keep prices high.
and what about all the bikes who , as a percentage, are the biggest culprits for IGNORING the speed limits?
Race bikes already have speed limiters for use in the pit lane. Alot of new bikes also have traction control that will activate in a corner or straight line. Then there is wheelie control which will activate to keep the front wheel down. It does not have to cut the throttle just not allow you to increase speed.
Not that I’m in favour of speed limiters or other tracking devices for use by a government department.
The throttle control argument is a good one, but actually that applies to cars to an extent too.
It’s more clickbait from petrolprices.com in the hope that it boosts traffic to the site. Sad really in the context of 1700 deaths each year.
1700 deaths per year out of a population of nearly 70 million is trivial in the wider context. It is terrible for people directly affected, as with most deaths, but it shouldn’t guide ever more restrictive laws. There will never be zero deaths due to road transport – have you ever looked at the death rate on the roads before cars? Speeding does not necessarily kill, otherwise we would all be either dead or responsible for deaths.
Effectively, that’s exactly what gives us the safest (or one of the safest – I’m not sure the article is correct) roads in Europe, with speed limit enforcement being subject to a tolerance as it is. People always seem to try and make out that if we didn’t have speed limits, everyone would do 100 MPH everywhere. Such people should maybe look at how speed limits were first determined….
Thank goodness I shan.’t be around much longer to endure this idiocy.
People already have little sense of personal responsibility, which is a poor way to live
are you saying you’d rather be dead than abide by the speed limit? Interesting.
I think the way everything including thought is being slowly and methodically taken off us, 1st it was common sense with the introduction of overzelus H&S, now its saving the planet which enables the policy makers to remove the ability to think for ourselves now, we may as well be dead, as we now all just follow like sheep without question.
Maybe she is going to emigrate? Although I rather think that she, like many of us over 60s, is totally fed up with the increasing amount of interference, from the State, in our daily, (already miserable), lives.
Oh how I wish I could emigrate, but I’m too old. Just seen on TV how we are being told to cut back eating red meat as we are contributing to climate change. You are slowly being brainwashed people.
All climate change is driven by an increasing human population. Officialdom accepts it, but doesn’t even talk about limiting it. Having more than 2 children should be considered as unacceptable as not wearing a seat belt. When are we going to start the discussion?
It isn’t the only solution and we shouldn’t stop doing all the other things to reduce climate change.
i think im on the fence with this one, yes it the state yet again nannying, and taking control away from the driver, but in certain situations it could be beneficial. North Wales for example has some of the strictest speed limits you can go from 50 to 20mph in a matter of feet all on the same A road, so in that type of situation it could help: but on Mways and Dual Carriage ways leave the driving to the driver. My opinion it may or not count but there you go.
bit scary to be fair. sign post recognition not that good and not infallible in most cars, auto braking again not that good and navigation as we all know can be rather useless, dependant on updates and local councils keeping up to date records. and my biggest issue with this is concentration! the less you give the driver to do the less they concentrate so when that moment comes when driver intervention is required…. will they be up to speed with the situation?
Get used to it. Driverless cars are coming. The writer seems to think that 1700 lives a year is a reasonable price to pay for “the freedom” of being able to drive round at what speed we like. Isn’t one death too many? Just because we have the safest roads in Europe doesn’t mean that we can’t or shouldn’t improve it. The Police have already virtually moved all the speed limit signs to just in front of a speed cameras and the de-restriction signs to just beyond with this euphemism “Safety Cameras”. Otherwise you can drive at whatever speed you like with impunity. The present system of speed limit signs is antiquated and disrespected.
How many of those 1700 are people who drive like idiots,, or as i followed the other day using a hand held mobile? Pedestrians who are too busy looking at their phones before stepping out into the path of an oncoming vehicle? Or cyclists with headphones on who suddenly manoeuvre across the road without looking and have no awareness of what’s happening around them?
Limiting speed is a sticking plaster, everyone has a responsibility to make sure that they are using the road correctly, speed limiting technology will not help when some idiot decides it’s a great idea to cross a dual carriageway when traffic ic is moving at 60mph.
problem you have, most other road users have more rights than the car. cyclists have no accountability for their actions, motor cars have, pedestrians even worse, they step out with out looking, run up to crossing and do a direct 90degree turn and run across with out any acknowledgment of their actions, put restrictions in these areas and make people more aware of the car on the road like the old green cross code you would find accidents would come down, its a bit like swimming in a lake of piranha and complaining you’ve been bitten, you can’t put ALL the onis on the car. people mentality is also to blame and needs adjusting somehow it can’t be everyone’s right to do as they please other wise you get carnage. I drive a killing machine as do us all but I really don’t understand why people feel they can chuck themselves out in front of it as its their right some times its way beyond me why you would use a child in a pushchair as a traffic stopper usually when there is a crossing 20 feet away but nope I’ll just push child out from between these two parked cars, no thought for anyone not even the child even at 20mph I’ll kill it and all because “it’s might right to cross where I want”
And rock climbing? Base jumping, skiing, sub aqua, most sports, etc, etc – ban the lot??
So you’re saying that we should all sacrifice our freedoms where they may potentially kill someone until we have eliminated all accidental deaths, however impossible that is? This would eventually eliminate all freedom as we pursue this unrealistic utopia.
1700 deaths per year is not ideal, but put it into perspective – it’s a tiny proportion of the population and indeed of the total number of deaths by any cause.
While the majority of drivers are reasonably responsible, a significant minority disregard speed limits. I think that 70 mph is fast enough on public roads: even if some cars and drivers can be safe much faster, they have to share the roads with those less capable.
While our roads may be relatively safe, there are still far too many people killed or maimed on them. We all make mistakes. Speed is a factor, especially for pedestrians and cyclists., and some drivers blatantly ignore limits, even in residential areas. I have seen the speed logs from a residential road near my home.
I write as a driver but also a cyclist and pedestrian. It seems fair to me that those who own lethal machines should pay for technology to make them as safe as possible. And those who don’t concentrate should not be driving.
The concern is that the driver should have the ability to adjust to driving conditions and use their judgement. By drivers ‘switching off’ this could lead to unintended consequences. Consider also the Boeing 737 Max as a prime example of how a ‘Nanny’ knows best approach can go horribly wrong….
This is not nanny stating, this driver compliance with the law, which at present is being ignored by minority of drivers usually drivers that show off in overpowered High performance vehicles including motorcycles, what really gets me especially in debates such as these, the choice to speed is ultimately the drivers, but why should others have to suffer. I ask this to all on here, would your reactive driving attitudes change if it was your child run over, killed or maimed by a speeding motorist. I think all should agree proaction has to be the way forward, otherwise the only other alternative would be for manufacturers to make only models that comply and can not exceed the country they selling in, speed limits. People only by these over priced High performance vehicles, as a sign of vanity and prestige, which somehow gives the belief “I have a bought a car that can 200mph, and I should be able to do it”
The statistics in this article just show ratio, over a period of time, we should remember that the reason why road traffic injuries are constant yet the amount of vehicles has risen, is simply down to vehicle technology getting better, but these enhancements can not take away the idiots that take unnecessary chances with speed just for the sake of a car length.
depends on where the child was when killed, all can have a holly than thou attitude but last year I passed 3 small children in the central reservation of an expressway??? a fourth one running across the carriage way back to the holiday camp, QUESTION: Why are parents allowing their children to roam around and run across roads like this when all these hunks of hurtling metal WILL KILL THEM from the glimpse I caught they looked around 6 or 7 maybe slightly younger so where are the parents, drinking portably in their caravan at a guess, We don’t teach our children road safety anymore we are to rapped up in our own rights to do as we please, I think an awful lot of people need to take responsibility for their actions and the actions of their children. Roads are dangerous places always have been its just people have lost their fear of them, the reality of it is it does not matter how right you think you are, that car WILL kill you.
You have every right to stick your fingers in a wall socket…… Would you ?
Neil, most people think speeding in a 30 or 20 were young kids an old people move/ play is stupid and irresponsible, but 100 on motorway? 80 on unrestricted country lane? I regularly see the police van in a 50 mph limit duel carriage way in a morning when just 300 ft away on the other side of a fence is a primary school on a 20 mph, why the f$#k is he in the 50 mph an not outside the school booking silly 4×4 drivers speeding an parking on school crossing dropping Little Johnny off? That’s what cheeses people off.
Do you feel that limiting UK-spec cars to 70 MPH will save many lives round schools?
While the 737 Max is an example of tech gone wrong, airlines have hundreds of similar safety systems which contribute to commercial airlines being the safest form of transport, many imposed by the “nanny” state.
I read somewhere a while back that speed is a contributing factor in only 5% of accidents. So once again we have I’ll informed politicians pushing this stuff onto us. The only hope we have is that speed limits will go up when the AI computers take over. That will scare the living daylights out of the 40mph mobile chicane drivers that cause most of the accidents.
Inappropriate speed contributes to around 11% of all injury collisions reported to the UK police, 15% of crashes resulting in a serious injury and 24% of collisions that result in a death. 4 Jun 2018
In the USA they estimate 31% of all road accident deaths are caused by excessive speed.
Yes Hugo, but the report went on to say that in most of the accidents where speed had been an issue, so had alcohol. The real percentages of speed speed alone being a contributing factor, in the UK at any rate, is only about 2%. So perhaps we ought to have breathaliser controlled cars first before speed restrictions.
So 11%, 15%, and 24%are all the figures they can come up with where speed is involved.
I would be VERY worried about the other 75% of accidents. What caused them?
Seems to me that speed is the least of your problems.
Leave motorists alone.
idiots will think they dont need to consider speed, the car has it. If the car lets me take this bend at 60 it must be safe to do so – bang another death….
It’s just big brother brought another step closer. It has never been speed that causes accidents (oh! I’m not allowed to use that word anymore) it’s inappropriate speed that causes incidents. No matter what car one drives you cannot get around the law of psychics. Drive too fast around a bend and you will fall off the road, drive too close to the person in front and you are likely to rear end them if they stop. Drive too fast around country lanes when one cannot see around the bend means you is likely to rear end a tractor or herd of sheep etc.
I am fed up with motorists being blamed for all the ills of society. The motor vehicle has brought nothing but prosperity to modern society and they are so clean compared to older vehicles and so efficient.
I retired recently and always said I would by as a retirement present a decent new car. Now I have to pay extra tax and road tax because the list price (not what i paid for it) was over £40,000. Only the second new car I have bought in my life. Is that fair after 45 years of paying National Insurance and contributing to Society.
Will not be buying another with big brother watching my every move, if that’s not a breach of my human rights i don’t know what is.
PS I am also fed up with the masses blaming people of my age for all the ills in society. The people who worked hard all their lives and saved for their retirement. With us and our parents they would not have the freedoms they freely enjoy in our society but watch out cars monitored 2022 humans by 2025. What a thought.
“With us and our parents they would not have the freedoms they freely enjoy in our society ”
here, here, and its the younger generation that’s going to allow our society to be constantly monitored 24/7, the freedom your grandparents fought for is being thrown away, with the lies of modern day life using words like Safety to make sure you are watched by cameras everywhere, encourage people to video each other using their phones, cameras in cars, CCTV every where even door bells now, now in the name of Global warming we are told not to eat red meat, have our cars changed to battery and charge them from home, wonder where all the power to do this is coming from? until then control our cars for us. In this wonderful utopia none of us are allowed to think or question, once we get to 2050 they will probably be sending over 30’s to a special place where they can live in peace and harmony at present we call it death.
1 To say that the car has brought nothing but prosperity isn’t true. It has caused the death of tens of millions and kills 1.25 million per year.
2 If you think that cars will be monitored by 2025, it just shows your lack of understanding of tech in 2019. Every time you drive you are monitored by your phone, as well as the police’s silent number plate logging system which is ubiquitous.
Sadly it is simply the “few” who abuse the speed limits which are bringing this on. I’m all in favour of limiting our speeds but not sure if the cost is worth it. Perhaps those who are persistent “speeders” should have the limiters fitted to their cars; not all of us.
It is always the few who abuse any system that succeed in spoiling it for everyone when the authorities adopt a knee-jerk reaction solution to prevent the effects happening again.
No, it’s the compliant, risk adverse majority who feel the need to impose their xenophobic views on everyone else. These are the people who do not agree that legislation is enough so they feel the need to have everyone prevented from any chance of making an error. It suggests more about the views of those who complain about people having a lack of responsibility than any actual lack of responsibility.
Why is legislation not enough for some people?
The sooner we move to driverless cars the better, simply because cars then can be utilised 24 hours a day rather than an hour here or there. It has every advantage except personal ownership and Im sure that option won’t be taken away from people.
There would be less cars on the road causing less pollution, accidents and traffic jams making it quicker to get around. It would cost less for those who would carshare ownership. That ‘less pollution’ includes all those noxious fumes young children breathe in when cars go past.
The planet is very close to critical overheating according to over 90% of the scientists worldwide so drastic change is needed and this way we might still get to keep a relatively flexible and affordable transport system rather than nothing at the worst or something medieval at the best.
Your comments are utterly warped. You need help.listening to too much media CHH. get a grip on reality.
Wow, you are totally nuts. 90 % of scientists? You mean 90% of scientists in the world agree about climate change? Even the neuroscientists?
Critical over heating? The earth has been far hotter than this in the past. They used to grow grapes in Yorkshire. It’ll get hotter, but it’ll cool again.
Climate change is very real and it’s tough, you can’t do much about it, but mans contribution is total b****cks.
You really are crazy indeed. Don’t fall for the idiot students that block London to ‘save the world’ when they know nothing about actual climate change. They should all of been arrested. Disruption the UK economy is an offence I believe.
Instead we have politicians with no backbones kowtowing to these lunies. Just tell then to get back in daddies V8 range rover and go home
Climate change is happening and will continue to happen even if every human left the planet and had no more effect on it. Our contribution to it is relatively insignificant compared with what the rest of nature does.
I detest the idea of putting my life solely in the hands of machines and computers unless it’s a medical emergency. I insist on being responsible for my own life, thank you very much, and if that includes taking the risk of driving myself amongst other people who drive like idiots, I’ll take that chance rather than lose all my personal freedom to yet another misguided government initiative. Besides, what is idiocy to one person may well be competence to another. If we need all these “driver assistance” gizmos, then we’re competent to drive properly ourselves and shouldn’t be on the road in charge of a vehicle. I agree wholeheartedly with those who say that if drivers are given less and less to do, concentration will drop below the level needed to react to a situation that requires immediate human intervention. The standard of driving has declined terribly since I first learned to drive 45 years ago, and its that that should be addressed, but not by replacing human decision making with machine “assistance”. That’s a thoroughly dangerous and stupid path to go down and will reduce us all to the level of robotic sheep eventually, controlled by those who are somehow in “authority”. Living life is a risk. If risk is removed, we fail to learn survival instincts and without survival instincts we will surely die (of total boredom of nothing else).
So with a national fpeed limit of 70 mph why do we continue to manufacture vehicles that can exceed it by a significant margin?
I personally believe it is one step too far, an infringement of civil liberties and a preposterous notion to remove the control of a vehicle from its driver irrespective of the circumstances. We all know that even the 70 mph speed limit on motorways is a false target imposed in a different driving period with the object of fuel economy. Using reduction of road deaths is the wrong argument and potentially misleading. If Government are serious about reducing road fatalities they should not be blindly following the extreme notions of the European Union and have the common sense to think things through to a more logical conclusion – starting with a driver education campaign.
Do you really think that driver education is going to work with a testosterone driven 19 year old at 2 am after a beer?
maybe the car should also include breathalisers too, before the car starts. seriously. how will speed limiter help if a 19year old is drink driving at 2am. even at the speed limits he is going to injure or worse kill someone.
Also motorways, the speed limit of 70 mph was brought in, when morris miners and hunters were around and braking distance was rubbish. The stopping distance on the new cars is incredible. the speed limit should be increased on the motorways
I (possibly incorrectly) suspect that the way an electric motor works (high torque but reduces with motor speed) will largely have the effect that cars will retain acceptable levels of acceleration but not have the ability to have high speed. The differences whereby internal combustion engines are most effective at certain engine speeds (roughly 1500-5000rpm) also differs from the high efficiency of electric motors at low speed so I think new power plant technology will have a certain governing effect anyway.
This is true only in some cars. Mini’s use a separate motor that doesn’t go through a gearbox, so limits electric speed to under 100mph. VW runs the motor through a gearbox, increasing top end but also increasing weight and lowering efficiency.
I wouldn’t be surprised if in the near future electric cars limit top end though.
Appears that after all those wars it’s dictators that have won.
I have driven most roads in the IK and in the last 30 years the majority of serious road accidents were with motorbikes. Sometimes their fault sometimes not. The lasting memory for me is of way more motorbikes passing at much greater speeds than any car. The results are such speeds make it impossible to stop when a motorist pulls out in front of them. The thing is no matter how good the bikes brakes are, at those speeds it’s impossible to stop in time. So the car driver shouldn’t have pulled out but the car driver after seeing the bike didn’t expect him to arrive so fast.
What I’m getting at is that they cannot implement such technologies in cars alone.
If it happens it has to be across the board.
If it is implemented it still won’t be infallible because of the millions of used vehicles without that technology will still be on the road and then there’s the hackers who will always find a way around such devices.
And of course we cannot forget the fatality when an autonomous car killed a pedestrian. What was the person behind the wheel doing, trusting that the system was better at driving than she was when in actual fact if she was in full control she would have seen the pedestrian and the pedestrian would still be alive today.
21% of road deaths involve motorbikes.
What ever happened to leaving the decision up to the individual? I’ve ridden motorcycles on the road since I was 18 ( 32 years for those interested ). I accept the risks and dangers involved. I DO NOT need some namby pamby idiot to decide what I can and cannot do. Just because they think the risk involved may be too great. It’s my life and I will live it my way. I don’t ride in a manner that will put others at risk. Same as I don’t drive my car in a manner that will put others at risk. I may ride fast sometimes but only when there are no other vehicles within a mile of me so why can’t I take a risk if I choose to? Politicians sticking their noses in where they are not needed instead of dealing with the really important issues !
But it’s not just about you. There are a lot of people that think this way but behave irresponsibly. It’s them that they are targeting.
Also it may be your life, but what about killing yourself hitting a car travelling at a normal speed. Yes, you may die, but their car is written off and they could be prosecuted for causing the death. It’s the same argument with seat belts. If I do something silly and cause a crash and you’re wearing a seat belt it’s an insurance job. Not wearing a belt? I’m prosecuted.
We also have to factor in the cost of ambulances, police, fire crews, etc., that have to mop up after a motorcycle death even if no-one else is involved.
Yes, but motorbikes are way less than 21% of vehicles and the rider is much more vulnerable. Perhaps involvement in accidents would be a better statistic.
All right enough, IMHO but although motorbikes are much more accelerative they are better able to avoid accidents on account of them being much smaller. Obviously accidents still happen but I think much of that is due to the number of people who simply drive too close to the centre line and thus negate the safety attributes of a wide road.
Join the discussion…
My VW Tiguan has Road Sign recognition and ‘Pings’ at me when I am exceeding that (displayed) speed limit, but I am becoming increasingly concerned as to how many ‘side-road’ signs it detects (on a national speed limit for example) and incorrectly reminds me it’s a 30mph limit. If the speed limiting tech was installed, I am guessing it would limit my speed by reducing power until there was another sign displaying the national speed limit and would allow me to resume back to the correct speed.
That would be scary and downright dangerous!
No, it will “ping” at you AND the throttle pedal will push back at your foot a bit. You’ll be able to overcome it and maintain speed. (That’s the “driver override” that was mentioned). It’s exactly to get bugs like that out of the system that the requirement isn’t (at this stage!) for the limiter to “hard limit” the vehicle’s speed.
This is nothing to do with safety, it is about CONTROL. This dictate has come from the EU, which is a Socialist/Communist Dictatorship and of course those in the British Establishment who enforce these regulations are in fact bordering on Communism and, like the EU, want to control our lives.
Adding these ridiculous controls to vehicles will increase their price and Normal people will not be able to afford them, just like Electric Cars, so instead of reducing the number of old vehicles on our roads this will increase the number of old polluting cars on our roads, how sensible is that.
looks a lot like more government control and monitoring. Plus with eventually that you could get an automated fine for exceeding just a little bit where conditions are good and you’re not causing any danger to other road users.
I think the government are especially loving this feature of automated fines…
Could this be made to control the opposite and make really slow drivers drive at the max legal speed ?
as many speeding and risk taking instances are caused by others just wanting to get a safe and reasonable quick and economic drive done, but don’t understand how to overtake safely.
and the slow drivers often think they are being extra safe driving slowly !
This would be really welcome feature, I doubt it though.
plus I’ve seen road sign speeds lowered everywhere over the last 10 years, with a lot more cars. 60s have become 50s and 40s even 30s, Town 30s to 20s on arterial routes.
With the thousands or million more cars on the roads these days this is really slowing the whole traffic flow and making people annoyed , distracted and bad impatient drivers.
I believe the thought , current movement by councils to slow road speeds for safely is actually having a detrimental effect in the majority of roads.
I am all for 20 zone in city centres and outside schools and busy shopping streets but many have blanket 20 zones where there isn’t a need for them. just because theres a pavement next to road, in an urban setting people have to learn and think for themselves to be safe too.
And you need to get traffic moving to clear the congestion quicker.
I”ve seen pedestrians getting fustrated and mis judging slow moving cars when crossing the road.
Money would be much better spent educating drivers to some form of advanced motoring course.
Then they can learn to read the road and situations, and understand the impact on driving carelessly, too slow or too quickly in situations. plus the limitations of the conditions and their car.
Well said Steve Reid.
well said, i know if im traveling at a decent safe speed on he motorway, i’m awake and alert, but all the fake road work notices and nothing happening and speeds dropped to 30 / 50 on motorways , i for 1 start to feel sleepy and have to open windows, drink water to stay away. Oh whoops, drinking water is banned whilst driving too, but not cigeretes. Figure that out. Its all messed up.
I do nog approve of complete restriction of speed, In fact it should rise to 80mph in the uk to bring us in line with Europe and it has been proposed by TWO Prime Ministers so it will happen. Furthermore we speed at 80mph NOW!
Corbyn Raving Looney Bin party. Who’s going to believe anything attached to Corbyn. He has all but ruined the once proud Labour Party with his lies Cheating ways not to mention supporting some of the worst murdering Terrorist groups known to man.
Surely the mans sanity is very questionable!
The easiest way to reduce accidents is to educate drivers better. What other area can you pass a test of competence T say 17 and at 70 never have had a retest or refresher? If you have an accident that is your fault you should have to re sit a driving test again to prove your fit to drive. Also councils should be forced to cut back bushes and trees so drivers can actually see the signs.
Lots of tests of competence don’t require refresher courses! (I’d guess at most of them, in fact). I took my cycling proficiency test when I was a kid. Nobody’s ever asked me to take that again! I took my O and A levels as a teenager. Nobody’s threatened to take those off me if I don’t pass a periodic refresher course either! (and so on). (And there are already plenty of serious (fault) accidents which require the guilty party to re-take his or her test)!
I’m with James, the only joy I get from motoring is on my 58 year old motorcycle (which doesn’t pootle all the time, I can tell you). Car driving is a practical, boring, and often infuriating experience as the roads are clogged and so many don’t seem to know what they’re doing. I hate the way our lives are being controlled more and more, and I will rebel against it. The only time I’ll stop burning super unleaded with a lead additive and octane booster on my old bike is when I’m threatened with jail for using it. Until then, the bureaucrats, politicians and ‘w**ktanks’ can kiss my hairy ***
There can be no doubt about it, we as a country are governed by 650 absolute bloody king-sized idiots.
Everything they propose is never for the ‘good of the people’ merely a way to ‘jump on the bandwagon’ for their very own self interest. Lead by example- why should the PM have a chauffer driven car and a 6-10 police escort to get from No 10 to the palace at speeds greater that that allowed to ‘Joe Public’ ?
Let’s have a General Election with the prior ruling that this time no existing MP nor anyone previously holding such a position can be allowed to stand ever again. Succesful candidates will be paid the average living wage plus a very carefully monitored expense account.
By the way 650 MPs for Britain’s small Isle yet only 500 needed for the Vast United States. I reckon on a pro rata basis 99 MPs will be more than sufficient for the UK- it has to be an odd number for voting purposes
The United States DOESN’T only have 500 politicians controlling it. There are 535 in Congress. Every state has its own legislature which are at least as powerful as the Congress. Eg Texas has 131 member parliament and even little Rode Island with under 2 million population has a 113 member parliament.
The PM has an escort thanks to diversity and the terror threat. As to being driven at illegal speeds – I doubt it as the distance is only hundreds of metres.
Don’t you think MPs should have longer holidays? Since 95% of their decisions are bad, giving them 375 days off a year, would improve things dramatically!
Oops that should have been 365 days off!
Fantastic idea clearly not shared by the author of this rant. Our roads are dominated by speeding traffic with speed limits routinely being ignored and large numbers of people being killed and injured as a result. Automation / AI provides a simple means to solve this problem. Even if the government didn’t implement this technology the insurance companies will increasingly requure it.
Like it does with speed-limited lorries, you mean? Yeah…. never see those involved in fatalities, do we…?
I’ve had this system fitted to my car for three years. Use is optional and there is no requirement to use it. I use it almost all the time, especially now that speeding tickets are being issued just for marginal infringements. I have no doubt it has saved me from getting three tickets when I would otherwise marginally over the limit and encountered mobile police cameras.
It’s nonsense to suggest it’s likely to contribute to more accidents and I’ve certainly never encountered any scenario that supports this suggestion.
The question is – will it REDUCE accidents by the claimed 20% though?
and will it reduce the insurance premiums by a similar amount?
So, we’re going to have fossil free cars, and now speed limiters. Fine in theory, but where’s the massive shortfall of Government revenue going to come from. Sounds like this was one of Failing Grayling’s ideas, before Boris put him out to grass.
Nothing to do with Grayling. Did you read the article!?? It is EU legislation.
We’re constantly preached to about democracy. Isn’t that about choice? So why can’t the damned euro trash put this to a euro wide vote and see if what the whole public think about this. I offer my services to develop a euro wide survey form to test public opinion.
Isn’t imposition of law dictatorial.
Imposition of law by a democratically elected body is not dictatorial, no.
Get out of my car and out of my life, comrade. Add this to the Labour “think tank” (oxymoron of the week) that proposes all private use of cars should be banned (will that include the Secretariat’s Zill limos?) and you have a vision of the future that anyone with an ounce of self-respect and free will must fight to overcome.
It’s not speed wats a problem it’s lane hoggers and phone drivers get rid of these and we can all safely drive at 100mph
We can all safely drive at 100 mph lol.
Was that a joke?
well said. accidents are caused by the idiots that lane hog and idiots that cut lanes without indicators or looking and idiots on phones. sort this issue out, i can bet accidents on the motorways will go down a fair bit
All irrelevant, it will only be days before you can have the restriction removed. Just like they remove speed limiters, rev limiters etc today.
Much ado about nothing chaps…
The principle behind the idea is good, but as a driver that does in excess of 40K miles per annum, this is already under threat due to global warming, energy costs, etc. One life saved is enough of a “driver” for me, but how often do you see drivers exceeding speed limits and not having the skill set or knowledge to cope with a high speed reactionary incident. Currently I have not had a speeding ticket in any shape or form despite my annual mileage in a company car, being above the speed limit is more to do with how we operate our lives today-with little consideration of other road users.
You can override it in an emergency situation! Great, as well as steering, braking,using horn, you now have to find a fiddly button or go into the labourious screen menu to turn it off. All in the blink of an eye. People who say the most ridiculous things should have their mouths sewn up and banned from road use forever. Let’s have shackles on our ankles so we can all goosestep in sync.
If you find your car too complicated for you, buy a bicycle.
No, you just press the throttle a bit harder. The way they work, is that if you exceed a limit, you’ll get a dashboard warning at first. If you continue, you’ll get the throttle pedal pushing back gently on your foot. You can easily (and instantly) over-ride it by pressing a bit harder. That said, in an emergency situation, most drivers will be going for the brake, not the throttle!
Are they not taking our civil rights away and saying we don’t know how to drive and if so then we shouldn’t have to pay road tax or have driving lessons or test or a driving licence as we would not truly in full control of our own cars
If people didnt bresk the law in the first place we wudnt need this
No point if it can be overridden, stupid waste of money. Cruise control is already on cars which if used properly prevents speeding and is overidden easily but touching brake or accelerator
As is this system.
I see by your article , you are one who has total disregard for the law of this land. The speed limit is there for a reason , whether you, or your maniac driving mates agree or not. If you had to spend time in an A & E unit and watch the broken bodies appear from fatal car accidents , due to excessive speed , you would soon change your thinking. Take the advanced driving test and learn to drive correctly.
well wont be buying a new car in 2022 I think it will be dangerus
Forgive my language, but only a very biased person could have written this diatribe. Look on the bright side – you won’t be able to moan about justified speeding fines any more.
Why spend twenty grand on a temperamental money losing new car to be told what to do. Buy a forty year old classic, no tax no mot drop a big v8 in it and drive to your hearts content.
A new peripheral business for the automotive sector then…..
Specialists in “chipping”, Dpf removal and other performance/ car tarting up enterprises can add ‘’Speed limiter Overide” to their business models.
At my age I am now tempted to hang onto the Jag until I get ‘boxed’!
join the communist state because thats what we are becoming , we are giving away our freedom every day to some thing or other ,
and are being brain washed very surely and sutterly by the people who think they know what is best for us . well i for one have my own
opinions and do not need some person trying to turn this country into a nanny state.
The government will miss the revenue raised from speeding motorists
This is not about safety for the UK, it’s putting a policeman in your car. Big Brother is a step closer but it won’t stop criminals or ner do wells. They will have someone reprogramme the system. Who would be to blame in the event of an accident between two vehicles fitted with this autocop?
Breaking speed limits is not the problem. Bad driving is and making lower and lower speed limits only exacerbates the problem because concentration goes. Education and enforcement are the answers. When do you ever see a police car patrolling these days. They should be out there stopping lane hogger’s, mobile phone users etc.
EU rules once again ,rules that are not needed or wanted again
You can thank our very own Transport Research Laboratory for that! They got a big chunk of EU money to research this (and other) road safety aspects and make proposals that informed EU policy. In fact, the UK was a key player when it came to drafting the legislation.
If you have an accident when the car is being controlled by technology will we be able to sue the technology supplier? In other words, “not my fault mate”.
Leave us all alone. If this does come into effect where will the government get the money from next that they will loose from speeding motorists. It will be another tax on the motorists they will think of