Well, this device, as you put it, that is used on F1 cars is just a rev-limiter that is driver controlled. You can hear it come into play upon entering and exiting the pits. As far as it being made automatic, I doubt it will see the light of day anytime soon. There are alot of factors to look at. You should hear the stink that is raised here in the states about the Black Box that has been fitted in some GM cars. I can hear the lawyers licking their chops.

Lovejoy

 

Nothing really that new Racelogic have been doing trials of a system in Leeds for a while now they where using a differential GPS system with the differential part being carried by Classic FM. This was needed to get the level of accuracy to allow it to kick in and limit cars as they went past speed limits.

 

reported in todays paper......A DEVICE that limits the speed of Formula One cars could be installed on millions of vehicles in Britain to improve road safety.
An "electronic brain" in Grand Prix cars limits the flow of forcing drivers to slow to 50mph as they enter the pits. The system is undergoing tests in private vehicles amid claims that it could cut road deaths by hundreds each year.

Ministers in Britain are awaiting the results of trials in The Netherlands and have made clear their interest in harnessing technology to limit excessive speed, which is thought to be a factor in about one third of the 3,423 road deaths in Britain last year.

The main use of roadside transmitters would be around schools or in densely populated urban areas, where the accident rate involving children is particularly high. Tony Blair pledged this year to halve the number of children killed or injured within ten years.

The technology was devised by the Federation Internationale de l'Automobile, Formula One's ruling body. Each of the 22 drivers at the French Grand Prix yesterday had to hit a button on their way into the pits to prevent their cars from exceeding the speed limit.

The FIA, which also represents motorists worldwide, wants governments to develop the technology so that roadside transmitters could tell a computer in cars to limit speed. The organisation is sensitive to accusations that motorists face interference from a "Big Brother" device but said that trials in Holland and Sweden are proving successful.

 

I, for one, would be all in favour of a device that physically limits us to appropriate speed in built up areas, around schools and hospitals, etc. but for the life of me I cannot see the Government going for it for the following controversial reasoning.

Whilst the Government harp on about road safety they are in fact not interested in it, they believe that a couple of deaths are justifiable against the huge revenue they claim from motorists caught speeding. A device to limit speed means no more speeding therefore no more fines and thus increased taxes making the Government very unpopular and almost unelectable.

I apologise to anyone who might be offended by this point of view and have deepest sympathy for anyone involved or affected by death on the road but I was just trying to play devils advocate and mean no offence whatsoever.

 

And a day later, someone will develop a bypass to the CPU.

Dont worry

robski

 

>>> Maxwell,

I'd be interested to hear the evidence you base your assertion on. Personally, I can't believe that the revenue generated from speeding fines is anything other than a miniscule part of HM Treasury's income.


>>> Robski,

I wouldn't be too sure. If legislation was introduced whereby anybody deliberatly tampering with the device received a life driving ban and/or car confiscation, people would think twice before getting out the soldering iron!


I had a discussion about such devices with a guy at work a few weeks ago. I put forward all the usual "arguments" why they are bad. But at the end of the day, on a rational level it is extremely difficult to come up with any argument which is not ultimately based upon a desire to retain a "right" to speed.

 

Another point to bear in mind is acceleration/braking. I live in "roundabout kingdom" (aka Milton Keynes) and with the Scoob I can get from one side to the other (without breaking the speed limit) in a much quicker time than someone in a Golf GTi thrashing the nuts off of it (one of my previous cars).

Thanks

Gavin

 

The government are not complete plonkers - there is obviously a lobby for "road safety" which needs to be appeased. Add to that the desire to be seen to be doing modern high tec things.

However if enough people get disaffected with TB's/2jags' policies and make their feelings known - well then all things are possible.

JD

 

What worries me is the so called presure group Transport 2000 will get hold of this and get it passed into law. The interfering plebs are going to the courts or the House of Commons over something else. Why can't these busy body, kill joy, A5se hole morons pi5s off and anoy someone else. Oooh your going too fast, oooh you can't overtake there, AAAAHHHHHHH makes my blood boil.

Sorry, rant over, It winds me up when other people try to force their beliefs on others just cause they want the moral highground.

P.

P.S. Appols if I misinterpreted the thread.

 

84% of pedestrian accidents are due to the pedestrians' own fault. People are still going to die if they persist in stepping out in front of cars, even at 30mph. The 3 E's of road safety dictate that Education and Engineering have as important a role to play as Enforcement. What about railings outside all schools? Properly teaching kids about the Green Cross Code?

If these devices had a little thought applied to them, then I would be all for it. A box that stopped you from doing above 30 outside schools during the pertinent 2 hours a day, would be fine. A box that stopped people from doing more than 70 in fog would be fine. A box that the police could use to control the speed of a stolen vehice would be excellent. A box that unwaveringly limited your speed 24 hours a day would be a 24/7 sledge hammer solution to a problem that doesn't exist. Poor driving occurs at all speeds. See the Mr Felstead's post "I nearly got killed yesterday... "
KF

EDIT: seems I can't spell pedestrian properly.

[This message has been edited by KF (edited 03-07-2000).]

 

Have a look at http:\www.racelogic.co.uk for their device the biggest problem is what do you do if the system doesnt get a signal if the answer is fail to no speedlimit which the system must have an option of for people who travel in Europe then the simple answer is a little bit a ilver foil over the GPS receiver and it would stop working. The other big problem is that the GPS signal is blocked by trees and buildings.

What happens when you want to do something that is legitimate to speed such as a trackday. If this was seen as such a big issue then why not just fit all cars with Tachographs and have random stops of the cars then you will show if you have been speeding.

The more concerning thing is that everyone is seeing speed as being the cause of accidents when acording to several different reports that I have seen this is not the case at all and in the majority of accidents speed played no part in it.

On a personal point of view I feel that when travelling down roads with traffic calming measures you spend far too much time watching the traffic calming measures whereas if there where none there I would be spending more time observing that pair of legs that appeared behind that parked car and is abouts to run out in front of you.

At the end of the day it comes down to driver education and continuing training. Perhaps we should have a driving licence that runs out more frequently and you have to undergo a certain number of training days before you are allowed to renew it.

Just my 2p worth!

 

As I've said in previous posts....

I think (if I recall correctly) that speed is the primary cause in 4% of accidents. A simple multiplication would indicate that that equates to over 100 road deaths per annum, and many more injuries. Given that the government has totally banned hand guns because of several killings by madmen every few years, why should they treat speeding any differently?

We all like to moan and rant about it, because it spoils our "fun", but at the end of the day there is absolutely no rational justification for speeding on the public roads. It can hardly be argued that driving faster is somehow safer, or that accidents occuring at a higher speed are likely to be less severe. Arguments such as "most" road deaths aren't caused by speeding don't really cut much ice (okay, so a hundred or so deaths a year is acceptable then?) In fact I have not heard even one reasoned argument from the "it's okay to speed" camp, which is not ultimately based on wanting to preserve the enjoyment and kicks that driving quickly can give.

I'm not saying it isn't fun to drive fast in the right circumstances, and I enjoy it as much as probably anyone on this board. But from what I've seen and heard over the last few years, I believe that this is the beginning of the end of being able to even reasonably exploit modern high-performance cars on the public roads. The future of driving for enjoyment probably lies in track-days, and in cars whose limits are far lower than the impreza, and which can give similar kicks at much lower speeds.

Gary.

 

Hi,

The original research programme at Leeds university indicated that drivers frustrated by speed limiting devices followed each other more closely, drove faster in hazardous conditions (foggy motorway sim), and ran more red lights than unlimited drivers. Unsuprisingly they also crashed their simulated cars more often than unrestricted drivers too. Hmmm... doesn't sound like a stunningly obvious candidate for road safety improvement to me!.

It will not be existing limits that are enforced by these new devices. The leader of this Leeds University project, Oliver Carsten, has stated that, in his view, the optimum speed for built up areas is 12kph - a sedentary 7.5mph. I hope you all have plenty of time to get where you're going.

The main argument against a total focus on speed in connection with transport safety is that the Government is ignoring the factors which cause most accidents because they are more 'difficult' to implement (although hugely more effective), and don't generate income for the Tresuary. I hope this strategy may now be changing as indicated by the introduction of the more sophisticated 'Think' advertisements. Now there is a message we should all be able to support.

Cheers,

Alex

P.S. This info came from the ABD website

 

Not this old chesnut again!

Just do a search and it will come up with the numerous times this stupid idea comes up.

IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN!

Chris

 

Ok so your wife/friend stranger whoever is seriously hurt/ill and there is no phone or other houses nearby so you cannot call for an ambulance or get any help, but right behind you is your car and you have minutes to get them help, you know where the nearest hospital is and that if you was to drive at the speed limit the person would surely die so you have no choice but to drive beyond the limit posted to save there life. Now if there was some kind of remote speed limiter fitted the person is dead and what for because some bright spark thinks it is better to remote control your speed than to spend the money invested in the system in better driver and pedestrian education.

Speed does kill but it is not the biggest contributer to deaths on the road by a long shot and the driver is the easy target because if pedestrians had number plates they would be focusing more efforts on bringing in laws relevant and then catching and convicting them for some nice revenue for the pot!

 

I Agree with CharleyWhiskey.

Not in our lifetime....

 

It's an interesting one this.

For example, I recently had to drive from Farnham to Lancashire up the motorways and I wasn't exactly hanging about, but I do like to drive motorways at licence friendly speeds. Ignoring traffic such as trucks etc. I reckon I was still overtaken by more than I overtook.

Whereas I find that on perfectly good A roads in good conditions most people don't want to go much faster than 40 (whereas I do!). The same self folk will then quite happily drive through a 30 at 40 (whereas I tend to err towards 30).

There are two points here. Assuming people vote with their feet as to their assement of acceptable risk, clearly motorway speed limits are too low, maybe A road limits are too high. As for 30's, see my later points.

I think the other issue is that speed limits are oriented at the lowest common denominator. Me and my scoob are far safer at 60 on an A road than a 17 year old in clapped out Nova.

Personally, I think, the true problem is twofold. Firstly the driving test is far too easy to pass. I have a friend who has just passed her test and frankly I was stunned she passed, she just isn't ready. She is now a very nervous driver, whereas if she'd been made to wait a bit she'd probably been much more confident.

Secondly, once you've passed yout test that's it. Forever. There's no retesting, or requirement to pass harder tests as your experience grows.

From my point of view, I regard myself as an ok driver, one no fault accident in 18 years of driving is not a bad record. But now I've got the scoob I've become aware of the need of more responsibility, so I'm looking for more training, just as I did when I got a potent motorcycle.

So back to why people drive down A roads at 40 and then through 30's at the same speed, I think the secret is that is the speed most modern cars will take 5th gear. They don't have the confidence to go much faster on roads with bends in, but don't want to change down in 30's. They are simply unaware of the extra risks they are taking.

Unfortunately it's all about votes. Speed kills appeals to the Daily Blah voter.

Making the driving test tougher, compulsory retesting etc. does not. Which is a shame because I think it would make the world a safer place.

Cheers

Simon


[This message has been edited by simes (edited 03-07-2000).]

 

GCollier,

the current sped limits are based on old technology cars. Ive seen a prog where 3 new and old cars were compared not just for 'hard' facts like stopping distance, but driver confidence. All were more confident with the newer cars, and because of this drove them better.

A proper review needs to be made of speed limits. I know a lot of police think that 70 is too slow for modern cars.

Speed limiting devices will work the same as everything else that removes the need for driver concentration, they will increase the number of accidents.

robski

 

GCollier,

I think Maxwell's point is that the revenue is easily created. I agree that as a percentage of the total teasury income it wouldn't amount to much, but stick a camera in a potentially high revenue area, (as opposed to an accident blackspot), and let the cash roll in.

I would be interested, (if anyone knows), as to exactly how much is generated in fines from static camera's throughout G.B.

I think it would be a huge amount. The one roadworks camera on the M6 has reputedly, (according to the sign), generated 25,000 fines if I remember correctly. That's just one camera.

I completely agree with speed camera's, but can see no evidence locally to me that they have been used to protect school pick up areas, accident blackspots, busy pedestrian high streets etc. Until they are used with common sense and with the public interest in mind, I will stay totally opposed to them.

blubs.

 

Simes is right. I got my licence 13 years ago. It is valid for another 40 years. I don't need to take a test until I'm old and grey. I can buy a McLaren 240mph car if I want - It's simply my own financial choice (I wish ).

Why are car licences not viewed in the same way as bikes, i.e. you've passed your test-Here's a Metro 1.0. If you want to get progressively higher performance cars you need to take a further test(s). You can't pass a bike test on a 125 and then jump on a 1200cc monster, so why can you do this with cars.

Why not restest everyone every 5 or 10 years. If your job relies on your ability to drive then you should be able to do it properly so there is no excuse for lost employment because of failed tests.

Cheers
Joolz

 

I was intrigued by Alex's comments about driver frustration with speed limiting devices leading to poorer driving standards and more crashes.

I'm old enough to remember driving during Ted Heath's "Winter of Discontent", with the 50 mph speed limits in 1973. During the early days of this, when motorists were keeping to the limit, the motorways in particular were highly dangerous places to be. This was partly due to frustration I'm sure, but an additional factor was simply boredom. People were driving much slower than they normally would, and as a result weren't concentrating on what they were doing, and accidents occurred as a result.

Pete

 

I know a drving instructor instructor (ie the guy who teaches driving instructors), he rekons that 5 year tests are on the way.
They will start with the over 60s and work down

they are currently trying to recruit massive amounts of new instructors in all areas to meet the massive surge in tests

robski

 

Ideal opportunity to go back to my TR7V8...Twin SU carbs.

Limit that yer B*S*A*DS...Ha ha ha

It'll never happen anyway, chums.