Speed limiters to be fitted on all new cars by 2022

I drive to how I feel like driving in all conditions, never mind signs and road warriors, if I feel like wandering along on a curly 60mph country road at 45 then so be it, I am safe and looking after myself and other road users, thats the end of the story for me. If someone says I am then putting the guy behind at a disadvantage thane I am happy with that, number 1 priority in life look after yourself and your family.
 
Pound Coin said:
Can't see where you have got the "35" from. Probably just fulfilling some weird reinforcement for your views.

I've highlighted bits where you accept that, as I said, "you are supposed to drive to the conditions".
Click to expand...

I use the B4260 between Banbury & Kidlington daily, and it's mostly national speed limit - this used to be the main Oxford-Birmingham road, previously an A road until the M40 was built. Pre-lockdown it was not unusual to have a driver at the head of a queue sawing up & down between 35mph and 45mph in daylight with good visibility & dry roads. Typically when a car is coming toward them on the opposite side of the road they will slow to 35, then accelerate to 45 after it has passed, however there's usually enough traffic coming the other way that overtaking is difficult and the speed is never constant.
 
It seems that some people still need one of these

red-flag-laws.jpg
 
Last edited:
ancient_mariner said:
I use the B4260 between Banbury & Kidlington daily, and it's mostly national speed limit - this used to be the main Oxford-Birmingham road, previously an A road until the M40 was built. Pre-lockdown it was not unusual to have a driver at the head of a queue sawing up & down between 35mph and 45mph in daylight with good visibility & dry roads. Typically when a car is coming toward them on the opposite side of the road they will slow to 35, then accelerate to 45 after it has passed, however there's usually enough traffic coming the other way that overtaking is difficult and the speed is never constant.
Click to expand...

Maybe help by defining 'not unusual'.Every hour? Every day? Once a year? I saw an idiot do it once and have never forgotten? I read about it on a motorist forum and agree?

Still, it's a good anecdote to get some froth going. ;)
 
Pound Coin said:
Maybe help by defining 'not unusual'.Every hour? Every day? Once a year? I saw an idiot do it once and have never forgotten? I read about it on a motorist forum and agree?

Still, it's a good anecdote to get some froth going. ;)
Click to expand...

Once or twice a month a month. Why not just say that you think we're all lying and reinforcing our fake outraged beliefs?
 
ancient_mariner said:
Once or twice a month a month. Why not just say that you think we're all lying and reinforcing our fake outraged beliefs?
Click to expand...

Oh, it is just interesting that you don't appear to put weight on the remaining 29 or so days of the month, when that doesn't happen.

I think that on average, at least 1 in 30 times I go on a motorway I get held up by traffic, slow overtaking, build up behind a crash or two. That's what it is like driving on roads in this country. There are other vehicles besides mine, and I should expect to drive accordingly. The other drivers should too, but may not...
 
Pound Coin said:
Maybe help by defining 'not unusual'.Every hour? Every day? Once a year? I saw an idiot do it once and have never forgotten? I read about it on a motorist forum and agree?

Still, it's a good anecdote to get some froth going. ;)
Click to expand...
I see two or three people a day drive like that on my commute to and from work and no it isn't the same people each time, unless they have an unlimited number of different cars. It's only a ten minute journey too.
 
Pound Coin said:
Oh, it is just interesting that you don't appear to put weight on the remaining 29 or so days of the month, when that doesn't happen.
Click to expand...

OTOH I spend a 48th part of a day on that particular bit of road and yet I seem to encounter people driving like that frequently enough to notice.

Out of interest, you're not a blood relation of Nilagin are you? He seems to niggle and niggle like this too.
 
Last edited:
I remember years ago on a TV program, something like "Tomorrow's world" that a system was possible for any car to be limited to the local speed limit, basically it was a Satnav and when plugged into the cigarette lighter it it reacted to reduce the car speed locally and no matter what you done with the accelerator the speed could not be increased, the only way to get around it was to unplug it from the cigarette plug. But it worked.
 
Graham said:
I remember years ago on a TV program, something like "Tomorrow's world" that a system was possible for any car to be limited to the local speed limit, basically it was a Satnav and when plugged into the cigarette lighter it it reacted to reduce the car speed locally and no matter what you done with the accelerator the speed could not be increased, the only way to get around it was to unplug it from the cigarette plug. But it worked.
Click to expand...
It would have to plug into more than just a cigarette lighter. That is just a 12V power supply. It would need to be connected to the accelerator pedal or throttle body, brake pedal or ABS and possibly clutch pedal, just like a cruise control.
 
Pound Coin said:
Can't see where you have got the "35" from. Probably just fulfilling some weird reinforcement for your views.

I've highlighted bits where you accept that, as I said, "you are supposed to drive to the conditions".
Click to expand...

:banghead: Have you considered that, although the roads are twisty, it's still a NSL, and the weather is fine. In these circumstances driving that slowly may be considered dangerous.

AndrewFlannigan said:
Yes.

The bit that too many people forget is that those conditions include the skill of the driver, the comfort of the passengers and the perception of risk. Roads are for getting safely from A to B and not for acting out some fantasy of being James Bond or Juan Manuel Fangio.
Click to expand...


If they don't have the skill, what are they doing driving?
 
Jelster said:
:banghead: Have you considered that, although the roads are twisty, it's still a NSL, and the weather is fine. In these circumstances driving that slowly may be considered dangerous.
Click to expand...

Are you seriously suggesting that out on the roads the aim is to drive at NSL?

Wow.
 
Pound Coin said:
Are you seriously suggesting that out on the roads the aim is to drive at NSL?

Wow.
Click to expand...

No, but why would you drive at around 50% of the allocated speed limit in good weather in a modern car? The speed limits we have were based on traffic & car design from the 1960's. Modern cars and roads are far safer than they were 60 years ago. What we lack in this country is a decent driving test, and decent training to go with it. Learners are taught how to pass the test, not how to drive.

When you see that little old lady in her Nissan Micra or Honda Jazz, you know that there's a good chance they are not confident of their driving, and that they may look, but don't always see. Believe me, I've witnessed it first hand.

I love driving, I love cars, and I don't need to break the speed limit to enjoy my driving; however, the phrase "appropriate speed" works both ways.
 
Jelster said:
No, but why would you drive at around 50% of the allocated speed limit in good weather in a modern car? The speed limits we have were based on traffic & car design from the 1960's. Modern cars and roads are far safer than they were 60 years ago. What we lack in this country is a decent driving test, and decent training to go with it. Learners are taught how to pass the test, not how to drive.

When you see that little old lady in her Nissan Micra or Honda Jazz, you know that there's a good chance they are not confident of their driving, and that they may look, but don't always see. Believe me, I've witnessed it first hand.

I love driving, I love cars, and I don't need to break the speed limit to enjoy my driving; however, the phrase "appropriate speed" works both ways.
Click to expand...
Physics and human response times haven't changed since the 1960s, and cars are far heavier. Humans too...

You probably won't ever be a little old lady, but a significant proportion of the population has the opportunity to. The roads aren't just for you.
 
Last edited:
Pound Coin said:
Physics and human response times haven't changed since the 1960s, and cars are far heavier. Humans too...
Click to expand...
Regardless of modern cars being heavier, their braking systems, tyres and suspension, are by far better than a 60's car and will stop from a greater speed in a shorter distance.
 
Mr Bump said:
I drive to how I feel like driving in all conditions, never mind signs and road warriors, if I feel like wandering along on a curly 60mph country road at 45 then so be it, I am safe and looking after myself and other road users, thats the end of the story for me. If someone says I am then putting the guy behind at a disadvantage thane I am happy with that, number 1 priority in life look after yourself and your family.
Click to expand...

Then you are a dangerous driver and putting others at risk as they will overtake you. People hogging the middle lane at 60 probably feel the same.
 
nilagin said:
Regardless of modern cars being heavier, their braking systems, tyres and suspension, are by far better than a 60's car and will stop from a greater speed in a shorter distance.
Click to expand...

And people are more used to driving now, covering longer distances than before so more experienced.
 
cambsno said:
Then you are a dangerous driver and putting others at risk as they will overtake you. People hogging the middle lane at 60 probably feel the same.
Click to expand...

doesn't bother me mate they can take the risks, as long as i'm ok.
 
Pound Coin said:
Physics and human response times haven't changed since the 1960s, and cars are far heavier. Humans too...

You probably won't ever be a little old lady, but a significant proportion of the population has the opportunity to. The roads aren't just for you.
Click to expand...

spot on mate, some of the road warriors on here will be old at some time.
 
Mr Bump said:
doesn't bother me mate they can take the risks, as long as i'm ok.
Click to expand...
Highway Code rule 169 states you should not hold up traffic, you should frequently use your mirrors to check you aren't. You should also move over as soon as it is safe to allow others to pass. This rule is not exclusive to naturally slow moving vehicles, which are incapable of moving faster, but all motorists in (on) any vehicle.
 
Pound Coin said:
Physics and human response times haven't changed since the 1960s, and cars are far heavier. Humans too...

You probably won't ever be a little old lady, but a significant proportion of the population has the opportunity to. The roads aren't just for you.
Click to expand...

What a load of bo******. The fact that cars are heavier means nothing. It was very rare for a car in the 60's to have over 100HP, they nearly all had drum brakes, anti-lock brakes and traction control didn't exist. Cars of today stop quicker and safer than they ever did 50 years ago. And as you say, the roads just aren't for little old ladies either.

Mr Bump said:
doesn't bother me mate they can take the risks, as long as i'm ok.
Click to expand...

"I'm alright Jack, F*** everyone else"...... Lovely attitude to take. And we wonder why we have very few communities these days.
 
Jelster said:
What a load of bo******. The fact that cars are heavier means nothing. It was very rare for a car in the 60's to have over 100HP, they nearly all had drum brakes, anti-lock brakes and traction control didn't exist. Cars of today stop quicker and safer than they ever did 50 years ago. And as you say, the roads just aren't for little old ladies either.



"I'm alright Jack, F*** everyone else"...... Lovely attitude to take. And we wonder why we have very few communities these days.
Click to expand...

I think you'll find that "Physics and human response times haven't changed since the 1960s, and cars are far heavier. Humans too..." is not a load of b*****ks. So you could correct your intemperate post. :)

Cars are heavier, so the KE in a crash is more. Also speeds are faster (60's cars often struggled to get to 60) KE is proportional to the square of the speed. So there's a hell of a lot more KE out there...

It has less effect on car occupants because of crumple zones, seat belts and so on. The effect is far, far worse for things outside the car. It's huge reason why we have fewer pedestrians, horses, bicycles - and follows on nicely to your last point - cars are a huge reason why we have very few communities there days. Cars insulate you from your community, both physically, economically and socially.
 
Pound Coin said:
I think you'll find that "Physics and human response times haven't changed since the 1960s, and cars are far heavier. Humans too..." is not a load of b*****ks. So you could correct your intemperate post. :)

Cars are heavier, so the KE in a crash is more. Also speeds are faster (60's cars often struggled to get to 60) KE is proportional to the square of the speed. So there's a hell of a lot more KE out there...

It has less effect on car occupants because of crumple zones, seat belts and so on. The effect is far, far worse for things outside the car. It's huge reason why we have fewer pedestrians, horses, bicycles - and follows on nicely to your last point - cars are a huge reason why we have very few communities there days. Cars insulate you from your community, both physically, economically and socially.
Click to expand...

But you're neglecting the fact that cars stop and handle much better than the 60's. In fact, we have far more cars on the road and far less fatalities.

"Since records began in 1926, reported road fatalities have fallen by almost 80 per cent, with steady falls since the peacetime in 1966. Motor traffic levels have more than doubled since recording began in 1949, which means the relative risk of road deaths has fallen significantly."

 
Yup I've already answered that. You just have to read my post.

Oh, and cars stopping and handling better doesn't change the fact that Kinetic Energy has increased greatly, sorry.
 
Pound Coin said:
I think you'll find that "Physics and human response times haven't changed since the 1960s, and cars are far heavier. Humans too..." is not a load of b*****ks. So you could correct your intemperate post. :)

Cars are heavier, so the KE in a crash is more. Also speeds are faster (60's cars often struggled to get to 60) KE is proportional to the square of the speed. So there's a hell of a lot more KE out there...

It has less effect on car occupants because of crumple zones, seat belts and so on. The effect is far, far worse for things outside the car. It's huge reason why we have fewer pedestrians, horses, bicycles.
Click to expand...
Again yet more rubbish.
Speed limits on a lot of roads are now lower than they were in the 60's, some 70mph roads are down to 50mph, even some national speed limit roads have been reduced to 40mph.
As far as crash protection, around 20yrs or more ago, all car manufacturers have had to provide crash protection for pedestrians etc.
 
Pound Coin said:
Yup I've already answered that. You just have to read my post.

Oh, and cars stopping and handling better doesn't change the fact that Kinetic Energy has increased greatly, sorry.
Click to expand...


The advances in brake and tyre technology have made the dissipation of that kinetic energy far better than it was. Simple physics at work.
 
Pound Coin said:
Yup I've already answered that. You just have to read my post.

Oh, and cars stopping and handling better doesn't change the fact that Kinetic Energy has increased greatly, sorry.
Click to expand...

Just because kinetic energy has increased, it can still be handled better on modern cars than less kinetic energy on older cars.
Tyres are now wider, the most popular tyre width is currently 225mm wide, back in the 80's that was probably 175 or 185mm wide, even an E Type Jag in the 60's only had 195mm wide tyres.
Tyre construction, tread design and grip has greatly improved consistently since then. Brakes have improved greatly, moving from drum brakes to disc brakes, with vented disc brakes. Wheel and bodywork design to provide cooling to the brakes. More effective brake pad materials, more effective brake fluid, ABS is now a standard requirement on all new cars since 2004.
Already being fitted to alot of new cars 20 or more years ago Electronic Stability Control became standard figment on all new cars in 2012.
 
Nod said:
The advances in brake and tyre technology have made the dissipation of that kinetic energy far better than it was. Simple physics at work.
Click to expand...

If the brakes and tyres are used as they are supposed to be.

In a crash, not so much.
 
Pound Coin said:
If the brakes and tyres are used as they are supposed to be.

In a crash, not so much.
Click to expand...
But there is less likelihood of a crash because of modern brakes and tyres, because of the shorter braking distances. Even 60's cars being used today on modern brake materials, brake fluid and tyres will stop alot better than they did when they were new in the 60's.
Cars and tested so that tyres and brakes will work beyond normal road speeds. For instance my tyres are rated upto speeds of 186mph, yet my car tops out at 168mph.
Just the other day, I was travelling at 70mph on a dual carriageway with another vehicle was in the right hand lane but just behind me, a van driver decided to pull out onto the road ahead from a standstill, unable to move to the outside lane I had to brake heavily down to around 40mph, and then move into the outside lane to avoid the van. A much lighter 60's car, even if travelling slower, without ABS, wider tyres, etc would likely have slammed straight into the back of the van as it wouldn't have the ability to brake heavily and move around the van.
Regardless of speed, most accidents will as already pointed out be due to other factors, lack of observation, driving to close to the vehicle in front, possibly even someone else doing something stupid, like the van driver i mentioned.
 
nilagin said:
But there is less likelihood of a crash because of modern brakes and tyres, because of the shorter braking distances. Even 60's cars being used today on modern brake materials, brake fluid and tyres will stop alot better than they did when they were new in the 60's.
Cars and tested so that tyres and brakes will work beyond normal road speeds. For instance my tyres are rated upto speeds of 186mph, yet my car tops out at 168mph.
Just the other day, I was travelling at 70mph on a dual carriageway with another vehicle was in the right hand lane but just behind me, a van driver decided to pull out onto the road ahead from a standstill, unable to move to the outside lane I had to brake heavily down to around 40mph, and then move into the outside lane to avoid the van. A much lighter 60's car, even if travelling slower, without ABS, wider tyres, etc would likely have slammed straight into the back of the van as it wouldn't have the ability to brake heavily and move around the van.
Regardless of speed, most accidents will as already pointed out be due to other factors, lack of observation, driving to close to the vehicle in front, possibly even someone else doing something stupid, like the van driver i mentioned.
Click to expand...
Yes I agree with you most accidents as far as I know are caused by lack of observation carelessness or just aggressive drivers such as tailgating
Modern vehicles are safer but also there’s a lot of idiots on the road
 
Whilst everyone here are talking the truth regarding new brakes, etc, people have shut into their own bubbles and forgot Pound Coin is talking about the damage to everything else in the event of a crash.

It started here, where there is talk of (usually old) person's lack of confidence/ability in driving and reaction time, which is unfortunately true most of the time:
Jelster said:
When you see that little old lady in her Nissan Micra or Honda Jazz, you know that there's a good chance they are not confident of their driving, and that they may look, but don't always see.
Click to expand...
Pound Coin said:
You probably won't ever be a little old lady, but a significant proportion of the population has the opportunity to. The roads aren't just for you.
Click to expand...
Then people seems to have glossed over the following, only concentrating on the car's abilities. Not thinking of accidents as a system with emergence property
Pound Coin said:
Cars are heavier, so the KE in a crash is more. Also speeds are faster (60's cars often struggled to get to 60) KE is proportional to the square of the speed. So there's a hell of a lot more KE out there...

It has less effect on car occupants because of crumple zones, seat belts and so on. The effect is far, far worse for things outside the car. It's huge reason why we have fewer pedestrians, horses, bicycles - and follows on nicely to your last point
Click to expand...
Pound Coin said:
If the brakes and tyres are used as they are supposed to be.
Click to expand...

The point isn't newer or older car is safer to drive, that is a very selfish view of the world. The point is that in the event of a crash, where human driver were not able to react in time, current heavier cars carry more kinetic energy and thus will do more damage to the trees, pedestrian, buildings, anything it hits.

There's also the dangerously high grills in today's most popular car shape: SUV's.
 
wyx087 said:
Whilst everyone here are talking the truth regarding new brakes, etc, people have shut into their own bubbles and forgot Pound Coin is talking about the damage to everything else in the event of a crash.

It started here, where there is talk of (usually old) person's lack of confidence/ability in driving and reaction time, which is unfortunately true most of the time:


Then people seems to have glossed over the following, only concentrating on the car's abilities. Not thinking of accidents as a system with emergence property



The point isn't newer or older car is safer to drive, that is a very selfish view of the world. The point is that in the event of a crash, where human driver were not able to react in time, current heavier cars carry more kinetic energy and thus will do more damage to the trees, pedestrian, buildings, anything it hits.

There's also the dangerously high grills in today's most popular car shape: SUV's.
Click to expand...
Current cars being heavier will only do more damage if there is no attempt to disperse the increased kinetic energy, which would be don't brake.
Because older lighter cars didn't have crumple zones, you are more likely to hurt someone inside and outside an older lighter car than a newer car.
As for dangerous high grills on SUV, as I wrote before, the front of all cars have to meet certain standards for pedestrians since at least 2000.
On cars prior to that, the highest source of injury to pedestrians, was head injuries from the pedestrian crumbling the bonnet and as good as hitting their head on the engine.
Since the new legislation all cars have a higher bonnet line to make a bigger gap between the bonnet and engine and the front has to meet certain criteria as far as pedestrians etc are concerned.
As an example a BMW 3 series has a pedestrian safety rating of 78%
Whilst the X3 SUV has a rating of 70%. Earlier NCAP ratings were just given star ratings rather than including a percentage rating, but a 1997 BMW 3 Series rated just 2 out of 4 stars for pedestrian impact safety, which I am assuming is around 50%. Which gives an indication of how much difference has been made since 97. A 1960's car will rate far worse.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top