A good day to bury bad news?

[MGF]

If we accept the majority of drivers as being disinterested, they may be outwardly 'helped' but once responsibility is abdicated to satellites, that majority will inevitably crash into scenery/other vehicles through lack of involvement in the driving task.
S

This implies that speed limits, and our attempts to comply with, them sharpen our focus on the general task of driving.

Furthermore, take away responsibility for complying with speed limits 'inevitably' results in drivers crashing as it follows they will also not bother to concentrate on other aspects of driving.

It's an interesting assertion but one that is at odds with many who oppose speed limits. Therein lies a school of thought which claims that focusing on complying with the limit reduces focus on other, more important, aspects of driving, which in turn makes drivers less safe

I wonder which assessment is correct?

This link might provide an insight into other EU countries' approach to it.

Info here on the relationship between speed and accidents.

I would be interested to hear comments on this as inevitably it involves maths and physics which aren't my strong point

[waremark]

The other piece of buried news was the intention to increase the number of SPECs cameras throughout the country.

I did not see this Susie. What was this news item?

[waremark]

I think waremark was being ironic.

No - I may be wrong but I was not being ironic. I was remembering that Bryan Lunn drove an ISA equipped car as part of the Leeds University project and did not think it was a good idea.

[Porker]

This implies that speed limits, and our attempts to comply with, them sharpen our focus on the general task of driving.

Furthermore, take away responsibility for complying with speed limits 'inevitably' results in drivers crashing as it follows they will also not bother to concentrate on other aspects of driving.

It's an interesting assertion but one that is at odds with many who oppose speed limits. Therein lies a school of thought which claims that focusing on complying with the limit reduces focus on other, more important, aspects of driving, which in turn makes drivers less safe

I wonder which assessment is correct?

This link might provide an insight into other EU countries' approach to it.

Info here on the relationship between speed and accidents.

I would be interested to hear comments on this as inevitably it involves maths and physics which aren't my strong point

I suspect the thinking follows the following line:

i) Complying with a speed limit when being constantly coerced to do so requires particular attention to the act of keeping within the limit but close to it, in order to ensure reasonably optimum progress. This need to spend extended periods on the cusp of the limit uses concentration which could otherwise be diverted to other, arguably more important, driving tasks.

ii) Removing some of the decision-making process from the driving act (with reference to speed) arguably increases the amount of concentration available for other driving tasks. However, this concentration may be dissipated by either or both of:

a) the extra risks created by having all traffic running at very similar speeds, with no opportunity to create space behind you by altering speed, and;

b) the reduction in stimulation caused by the removal of the need to think about speed at all* causes attention to wander.

* Recall that we are considering our typical driver here, who spends as little effort as reasonably possible on the driving task. I could foresee a situation where drivers routinely drive with their foot on the floor and let the car sort out the speed except in circumstances where an obviously-lower speed is required.

P.

[PeterE]

I could foresee a situation where drivers routinely drive with their foot on the floor and let the car sort out the speed except in circumstances where an obviously-lower speed is required.

I think it is pretty inevitable this will be the result.

This will then lead to yet further ratcheting-down of speed limits, so they are safe for the least competent driver in the worst handling car in the heaviest rain.

Also remember that at present the fact that unreasonable limits are likely to be generally ignored acts as something of a disincentive to reducing them. If councils can make entire towns 10 mph and be assured of 100% compliance then rest assured they will

[martine]

I think waremark was being ironic.

No - I may be wrong but I was not being ironic. I was remembering that Bryan Lunn drove an ISA equipped car as part of the Leeds University project and did not think it was a good idea.

My apologies Mr. Waremark and now you mention it, I remember the article in the IAM magazine.

[MGF]

a) the extra risks created by having all traffic running at very similar speeds, with no opportunity to create space behind you by altering speed,

I am trying to think of a realistic situation where I increase speed to avoid risks behind me. In any event if you are travelling at the speed limit you cannot increase your speed without breaking it.

b) the reduction in stimulation caused by the removal of the need to think about speed at all* causes attention to wander.

I don't don't see that having a limiter based on the speed limit completely removes the need to think about speed at all. That doesn't necessarily follow and I suggest this presumption is a mistake.

Drivers will still need to make a judgement as to an appropriate speed within the limit, just as they do now. I see no reason why this will make drivers less likely to think about appropriate speeds below the limit.

I could foresee a situation where drivers routinely drive with their foot on the floor and let the car sort out the speed except in circumstances where an obviously-lower speed is required.

P.

Isn't that what most drivers already do? Accelerate upto the limit until an obviously-lower speed is required. The 'average' driver can be distinguished from an advanced driver by not making small but significant changes to speed or position. Most drivers deal with hazards as they meet them.

I still cannot see how having limiters reduces concentration unless the only way one can maintain concentration is to break the speed limit.

If this is the case then that is an argument against having the speed limit in the first place rather than having technology that keeps drivers within it.

If the limit is innapropriate then the appropriate course of action is to change it rather than arguing against enforcing it which I suggest is the case.

[MGF]

Also remember that at present the fact that unreasonable limits are likely to be generally ignored acts as something of a disincentive to reducing them. If councils can make entire towns 10 mph and be assured of 100% compliance then rest assured they will

That is a good point but has nothing to do with drivers driving less safely if there are limiters in their cars.

I am not sure 10mph is allowable yet but 20mph certainly is and I agree some authorities would be quite happy to impose this limit (although in many parts of urban areas this is more than enough).

[Gareth]

I don't don't see that having a limiter based on the speed limit completely removes the need to think about speed at all. That doesn't necessarily follow and I suggest this presumption is a mistake.

I wonder if there is already evidence relating to this point. Anecdotally, at least, and as has been discussed here a number of time, many of us know of cases where reduced speed limits lead some drivers to treat the limit the safe speed, and it doesn't seem unreasonable to predict that as limits are reduced further this tendency will increase.

If the limit is innapropriate then the appropriate course of action is to change it rather than arguing against enforcing it which I suggest is the case.

I don't know how much success you have had when arguing that a particular speed limit is inappropriately low, and I've only heard rumours of instances where speed limits have been reassessed and increased by local authorities, so I don't think this argument has use.

The 'mood' amongst those setting speed limits appears to be for lower and lower limits, and indeed local authorities are allowed to use mean measured speed as a limit instead of the 85th percentile rule which appears to lead to results more in keeping with most drivers' assessments.

And after all that it's interesting that drivers are 'trusted' to choose an appropriate speed below the limit, while at the same time the range of choices available for selecting an appropriate speed is being reduced.

[TripleS]

I don't mind a driver aid being made available such as an in-car display of the speed limit applicable to the road on which I'm driving, and me having the option of using that feature, but the actual choice of speed used will be mine, and I don't want that interfered with.

What on earth makes you think you will have any choice about any of this.

It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that control of these matters could remain in the hands of the individual, which in my view is what should happen.

I appreciate it is a big 'if' - but if the electorate at large becomes aware of how things are shaping up, and decides we do not want this level of control and interference, we need not have it. We could reject it and tell the government to p155 off - and that is exactly what I would like to see us doing.

As with all these things a few individuals making their own protests will get nowhere - they would get ground into the dust of the government machinery - and that would be the end of it; but it needn't be like that.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[TripleS]

Fellow IAM Members, I expect the IAM will lobby government against this move. Please remember that when deciding whether you are happy to pay your new increased subscription.

Really? From the tone of recent press releases I think they're more likely to welcome it as an excellent safety initiative

Well if that is the attitude of the IAM, they might as well shut up shop now.

IMHO the IAM should have been vigorously campaigning about this sort of cr4p for many years, but they seem to have been toeing the government line all the way along. It's a pretty dismal show really.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[TripleS]

I don't mind a driver aid being made available such as an in-car display of the speed limit applicable to the road on which I'm driving, and me having the option of using that feature, but the actual choice of speed used will be mine, and I don't want that interfered with.

What on earth makes you think you will have any choice about any of this.

Fellow IAM Members, I expect the IAM will lobby government against this move. Please remember that when deciding whether you are happy to pay your new increased subscription.

But we don't currently have a choice to exceed the speed limit do we? Unless you are saying we should be free to break the speed limit and the authorities should give us a sporting chance of evading detection.

If a vehicle is limited to the prevailing speed limit then this takes the stress out of having to comply with the limit using acceleration sense and braking, the stress of not knowing what the limit is and of course the stress of looking out for speed cameras.

Those are stresses I am happy to cope with. Please don't trouble to remove them on my account.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[TripleS]

Fellow IAM Members, I expect the IAM will lobby government against this move. Please remember that when deciding whether you are happy to pay your new increased subscription.

Really? From the tone of recent press releases I think they're more likely to welcome it as an excellent safety initiative

I think waremark was being ironic.

Wouldn't it be good though if the IAM stood up and was vocal about something other than dangerous rural roads, eco-driving, cyclist safety...I can dream...

Well get in there and tell them what you want. If you're in doubt as to what your message to them should be, just let me know.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[TripleS]

....it's interesting that drivers are 'trusted' to choose an appropriate speed below the limit....

I know this chap who insists that we're all 'certified' to choose our own speed up to - but not exceeding - the limit.

Above the limit we're all deemed to be incompetent - or so it would appear.

I did try questioning the logic of this, but I didn't seem to get anywhere.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[MGF]

I don't don't see that having a limiter based on the speed limit completely removes the need to think about speed at all. That doesn't necessarily follow and I suggest this presumption is a mistake.

I wonder if there is already evidence relating to this point. Anecdotally, at least, and as has been discussed here a number of time, many of us know of cases where reduced speed limits lead some drivers to treat the limit the safe speed, and it doesn't seem unreasonable to predict that as limits are reduced further this tendency will increase.

If this is the case there may well still be an overall benefit from the decreased limit. It's a bit like identifying certain situations where wearing a seatbelt increases the severity of injuries in the event of an accident. It is the net result that is important.

Anywaym this isn't the point Susie and Porker are making. They are claiming that a vehicle that is limited to speed limits will inevitably lead to serious accidents due to a presumed consequential lack of attention to driving.

If it is accepted that attempting to comply with the limit and looking out for speed traps is also a distraction then this technology would clearly help and maybe offset the claimed negative effect of automated speed control.

It is very difficult to argue that attempting to comply with the limit has a net adverse affect on road safety and automated speed control upto the limit will do so also.

I just wondered whether those who oppose automated speed limit control on the basis it takes away concentration also claim that concentrating on manually complying with the limit distracts drivers from the job of driving?

People need to offer more than wheeling out tired and unconvincing hypotheses claiming that reduced responsibility necessarily results in a net loss in terms of road safety.

Indeed, it is worth noting that speed limits are not set by the EU, nor indeed central government but by local authorities (in general) so perhaps Porker would be best advised to 'get out' of the jurisdiction of his LA and move to a more enlightened one.

If the limit is innapropriate then the appropriate course of action is to change it rather than arguing against enforcing it which I suggest is the case.

I don't know how much success you have had when arguing that a particular speed limit is inappropriately low, and I've only heard rumours of instances where speed limits have been reassessed and increased by local authorities, so I don't think this argument has use.

What makes you think you will have more success in preventing enforcement than reducing the limit? There is no evidence to suggest this is the case.

If you don't believe the limit is dangerously low then you have no basis on which to claim enforcement will cause more accidents unless manual compliance with the limit improves concentration and so is safer.

It appears to me that most of these arguments against speed control are rationalisations of a particular perspective. That is that people don't want to be told at what speed they should drive.

I can understand people not wanting to be told what speed to drive at especially when spurious safety claims are made to justify this but concocting equally spurious theories to counter this seems pointless to me.



I have an open mind about this. If it works fine, if not then no thanks. I suspect it may be useful in urban areas (where hazard density should be sufficient to maintain ones concentration)

One advantage may be that speed limits could be created over much shorter distances eg in the vicinity of a junction. Obviously I wont hold my breath that the technology would be used to increase limits.