[olduser]

I can never understand why?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cqjvz79d079o

OK go to a track day or go to a disused airfield, I suppose it serves as a good argument for some form of onboard speed limiter, though I can and do argue that they can be dangerous.

[Drivingforfun]

Maybe there's an argument for a Japanese-like (112mph) limiter, it still allows for a reasonable 60% exceed, more than enough to boot it up a slip road or make an overtake or whatever other justification (or indeed "justification") someone might have???

It still allows some driving for fun as well, there's the elephant in the room that lots of cars (which contribute to GDP and taxes) are pointless if limited to 70mph ... I won't attempt to lie and say I never speed but I've never touched 112mph or even 100, on a public road anyway

[Nick]

It baffles me too! Zero awareness of the devastating impact that they could cause, or perhaps it's more of a case of zero cares! Either way it's terrifyingly dangerous!

[Rolebama]

I used to live in a world where there was a seemingly endless supply of common sense. Not so much now, in fact I have to agree with the adage of; common sense is the least common of all the senses. Why? Because there are so many 'nanny rules' people don't think for themselves, they are not allowed to. So on an empty road or motorway and a vehicle in good condition, at 3am, why shouldn't I be allowed to travel at a speed I see fit?
Over the last relatively few years I have seen just about every local NSL reduced to 30 or 40 limits, I used to be surrounded by them, now there are none local. Has there been an increase in accidents - no. Speed to me is similar to the gun adage, speed like guns don't kill people, it's the people who pull the trigger or press the accelerator at the wrong time.

[Nick]

Originally Posted by Rolebama

So on an empty road or motorway and a vehicle in good condition, at 3am, why shouldn't I be allowed to travel at a speed I see fit?

I'm not sure I entirely agree here - these kind of laws help to protect us from ourselves too. There's just too many variables and subjectivity for that kind of thing to ever be considered safe, when evidence suggests it's just not.

Another article on the BBC today suggests that 314 people died in RTAs in 2023 where exceeding the speed limit was deemed to be a contributing factor.

[Rolebama]

I do not argue that speed is not a contributary factor, but, more often than not, it is distraction of one kind or another a contributing factor. Whether that distraction is passenger conversation, a mobile phone, maybe paying more attention to another 'hazard', or, in these times, roadside furniture. We have another thread on this Forum re placement of pedestrian crossings. There are so many contributing factors to any accident/collision, but speed will, and always has been a contributing factor, even when it is two pedestrians colliding walking round a corner, a kid running into the road, and in some cases, a lack of speed can be a factor. Why else did we have crawler lanes installed on some of our motorways? I would suggest that some of our road layouts could also be held as contributary factors, or motorways with no drainage. Speed is too often the target, when all too often it is pure thoughtlessness or sheer stupidity.

[olduser]

I think Rolebama makes a valid point, drivers tend to be force fed too much irrelevant information in signage and road markings.

Several places in the UK have run trials in creating free space environments, and these proved the point.
Such environments force all road users to pay attention to the road as they all have to negotiate their way.

Places like;

"

Poynton, Cheshire: In 2012, the town of Poynton removed road markings, signs, and other traffic controls from its main street, Park Lane. The trial was designed to reduce congestion, improve safety, and enhance the overall quality of the environment. The results showed a significant reduction in traffic speeds, a decrease in accidents, and an increase in pedestrian and cyclist activity.
2. Ashford, Kent: In 2008, the town of Ashford removed traffic signals, road markings, and signs from its town centre. The trial, known as the "Shared Space" scheme, aimed to create a more pedestrian-friendly environment and reduce congestion. The results showed a reduction in traffic speeds, a decrease in accidents, and an increase in footfall and local trade.
3. Bristol: In 2011, the city of Bristol introduced a "shared space" scheme in its central area, which included the removal of road markings and signs. The trial aimed to create a more inclusive and accessible environment for all users. The results showed a reduction in traffic speeds, a decrease in accidents, and an increase in cyclist and pedestrian activity.
4. London's Exhibition Road: In 2012, a section of Exhibition Road in London was redesigned to create a "shared space" environment, with the removal of road markings, signs, and other traffic controls. The trial aimed to improve the quality of the environment and reduce congestion. The results showed a reduction in traffic speeds, a decrease in accidents, and an increase in pedestrian and cyclist activity. In general, the trials have shown that removing road markings and signage can lead to:

• Reduced traffic speeds
• Decreased accident rates
• Increased pedestrian and cyclist activity
• Improved quality of the environment
• Increased footfall and local trade"

[olduser]

Originally Posted by Drivingforfun

Maybe there's an argument for a Japanese-like (112mph) limiter, it still allows for a reasonable 60% exceed, more than enough to boot it up a slip road or make an overtake or whatever other justification (or indeed "justification") someone might have???

It still allows some driving for fun as well, there's the elephant in the room that lots of cars (which contribute to GDP and taxes) are pointless if limited to 70mph ... I won't attempt to lie and say I never speed but I've never touched 112mph or even 100, on a public road anyway

I can't remember where I read, some top end cars can be arranged to link the satnav to a speed limiter so in a speed restricted zone it will only permit the restricted speed, I assume this will be true speed rather than indicated speed.
In my view, this and other driver aids are dangerous because it is another step in the direction of the driver paying less attention to driving.

Another problem with speed restrictors' is they will make safe overtaking almost impossible.
I was taught, once committed (safely) to overtaking, don't dwell get on with it quickly to keep the time in the danger zone as short as possible.
This may well result in reaching speeds above the limit (60 or 70) for a very short time.
Of course, that is for the open road, in built-up areas overtaking is different if ever.

[NMNeil]

Originally Posted by olduser

I can never understand why?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cqjvz79d079o

OK go to a track day or go to a disused airfield, I suppose it serves as a good argument for some form of onboard speed limiter, though I can and do argue that they can be dangerous.

So true.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...egas-rcna14246
After this there were calls to have speed limiters installed or the sale of such cars banned, but the auto industry pushed back and it never happened.
After all who would buy one of these cars if it's top speed was the same as a Prius?
https://www.dodge.com/ae/en/challenger/performance.html

[olduser]

Trump is using tariffs to try and protect USA motor industry but it is living in the past, that is why people in US buy cars from other countries.
Tariffs, spur the targeted nation to reduce the tariffs effect by producing what people want to buy at a lower production cost.
Americans, on the whole, buy none American cars because they do the job more efficiently, they go, stop, use less gas, and go around corners.
More US women are having a say in what car is bought, and they don't have to prove they have hairs on their chest.

[NMNeil]

Originally Posted by olduser

Trump is using tariffs to try and protect USA motor industry but it is living in the past, that is why people in US buy cars from other countries.

When performing the emissions tests back in Vegas I would use the bar code reader to get the VIN number from the label on the door jamb, and a quick check to verify the dashboard VIN was the same.
While testing a newish VW the owner kept going on about quality German engineering and how much better German cars were then US cars. I pointed out the label on the door jamb that said "Hencho en Mexico" (Made in Mexico)
The owner apparently took it back to the VW dealership demanding her money back as it was a Mexican car, not German as advertised. 🤣

[olduser]

Here in the UK owners of mostly German and subsidiaries cars and vans, I think French models as well could claim money back due their fiddling the emission tests, I am not sure about Jap cars.
I think the payback ran into millions €, there were companies advertising on the TV offering to do the claiming for you, for a fee of course.