ADUK Archive

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7803997.stm

I know trials of this technology have been done before, but this looks like a more widespread rollout. One interesting thing to watch will be how they propose to update the devices once fitted, given councils propensity for changing/reducing limits on a regular basis.

Anyone wonder if the encouragement will be through tax incentives (or just higher road tax for those who don't have one fitted)?

From the video with the article "It's almost like someone else is driving". Doesn't inspire me with confidence that I'd want to share the road with someone driving with that mentality. Later on he says "Some motorists will enjoy not having to think about [staying within the speed limit] too much". What about chosing a safe speed within that?

I wonder how they arrived at the 29% reduction in injury accidents figure?

I think this would just give people another excuse to say "it wasn't my fault - the speed limit system was switched on when I hit him".

i immeadiatly thought to myself when i read the story - what happens when the system goes wrong? does the driver have the ability to alter the speed or will the system malfunction potentailly causing a far worse situation to arise?

why is it that governments have such a blinkerd view when it comes to speed? according to them if we all went back to driving with someone walking in front waving a red flag - there wouldn't be any accidents!

jont wrote:What about chosing a safe speed within that?

I was surprised that not one of the opposing groups mentioned that! Maybe this is the IAM's opportunity to do some lobbying

Chris

ScoobyChris wrote:

jont wrote:What about chosing a safe speed within that?

I was surprised that not one of the opposing groups mentioned that! Maybe this is the IAM's opportunity to do some lobbying

Chris

No such luck.
I've just got a circular email from the IAM on this subject.

"The IAM, contributors to the government's Motorists' Forum, has backedthe scheme but would like to see new digital speed maps at the heart ofthe ISA system prioritise potentially lethal rural roads."

I am very surprised that the IAM is in favour of such policies. It's making me question my membership, which I need to continue Observing...

However, it does also say this

"Drivers could keep their foot firmly on the accelerator, secure in theknowledge that they cannot exceed the maximum permitted speed - so theycould fail to drop their speed to below the limit when conditionsrequire it," said Mr Greig. "That abdication of driver responsibilitywould not be helpful to road safety in the long run."

I still think they are on the wrong side of the fence on this one.

ScoobyChris wrote:

jont wrote:What about chosing a safe speed within that?

I was surprised that not one of the opposing groups mentioned that! Maybe this is the IAM's opportunity to do some lobbying

Chris

One could hope they would sieze the opportunity, but based on their track record so far I'm not optimistic, but let's see.

....and any body called the Motorists' Forum ought to be giving this the thumbs down pretty clearly, although they did seem to want it to be a voluntary thing. I'm not volunteering.

....and it sounds like another load of expenditure by the government, assisting LAs to produce their speed limit database, or whatever they call it.

Seldom in the field of human conflict has so much money been wasted by so few idiots in attempts to be a PITA to road users!

Best wishes all,
Dave.

I wonder if all of the people advicating this technology already stick religiously to speed limits.
I also wonder in what way British Gas have noticed a reduction in incidents due to limiting their vehicles to 70mph.

Regards
Brian Haddon

brianhaddon wrote:I also wonder in what way British Gas have noticed a reduction in incidents due to limiting their vehicles to 70mph.

I suspect the reduction may be incidents at filling stations....

Custom24 wrote:"The IAM, contributors to the government's Motorists' Forum, has backedthe scheme but would like to see new digital speed maps at the heart ofthe ISA system prioritise potentially lethal rural roads."

Those dangerous roads again!!!! Add them all up and you could consider them to be weapons of mass destruction!

Custom24 wrote:

ScoobyChris wrote:

jont wrote:What about chosing a safe speed within that?

I was surprised that not one of the opposing groups mentioned that! Maybe this is the IAM's opportunity to do some lobbying

Chris

No such luck.
I've just got a circular email from the IAM on this subject.

"The IAM, contributors to the government's Motorists' Forum, has backed the scheme but would like to see new digital speed maps at the heart of the ISA system prioritise potentially lethal rural roads."

I am very surprised that the IAM is in favour of such policies. It's making me question my membership, which I need to continue Observing...

Oh, so it's the government's Motorists' Forum is it? I've never heard of the MF, but I was thinking it was akin to the ABD, but obviously it is not.

....and what exactly are "potentially lethal rural roads"....? Are these not roads that are quite safe, until some road user comes along with a mistake of his own making? I still don't get this 'dangerous roads' business.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

TripleS wrote:I still don't get this 'dangerous roads' business.

The 'dangerous road' is defined by EurRAP as being unforgiving if your skills are not as good as your intentions, eg unprotected hard objects near to the roadside (eg trees and telegraph poles).

Maybe we should ban unskilled drivers from certain roads? A bit like the ban on Learners on motorways.

Edit>>
Dangerous road features here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/nor ... 797467.stm
"He had been driving on the A97 Huntly to Banff road, near the Cobairdy Junction, on 8 August last year when he lost control while attempting to negotiate a series of bends.

The vehicle mounted a verge and hit trees at the side of the road. "

Any money put into this would be better spent on compulsory driver education and ongoing assessing.

ROG wrote:Any money put into this would be better spent on compulsory driver education and ongoing assessing.

I'm sure it would. What is going on here is another disgraceful misuse of power and resources by the government. All they seem to be interested in is more and more monitoring and control. It will have to stop, and the sooner the better.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

ROG wrote:Any money put into this would be better spent on compulsory driver education and ongoing assessing.

Safety by Numbers again. When are they going to realise it is responsible attitude and skill being applied by those in control of a potentially lethal device that is needed.
Tighten up on the driving test, make compulsory refresher training and put traffic cops back out on the roads instead of relying on cameras.