Should a speed limiter be mandatory now?

#1
As cars get more and more powerful, not to mention full of gizmos to improve braking and control are we cultivating morons who can't drive for a toffee?

Two men killed in M1 crash in collision that closed five motorway junctions | Mail Online

The most recent but we've all seen the reports int eh papers, not long back I linked to some tw4t who rolled his car through a front garden for example.

So, should we be looking at fitting 'limiters' to ALL vehicles blockiing them to the maximum mandated speed limit?

More advanced versions could limit cars to 20mph outside schools, or perhaps the ability to go past 55mph could be mandated by taking a second, 'speed driving test'.
 
#5
There is a chod at the end of my street with an scooby who is convinced that he is a "natural" because it will go around corners at 50mph...he doesn't believe me when I say that he would be lucky to manage the same corner at 20 in a ford capri without any training, hasn't got a clue and he is not alone. I pray for snow around here because the chaos it causes is truly epic.
 
#7
In short no, it's like telling everybody they can only drink 2 pints because of the idiots who get pissed and cause loads of trouble.
No. Brains should be mandatory. Apparently there's a batch every now and then who didn't get issued with them.
But is there not a fair risk that other people will get seriously hurt? More so than your 2 can van Dammes?
 
#9
I don't think its a way forward; each safety feature reduces the 'perceived risk' so drivers go faster to compensate. Stick a limiter on and drivers who currently speed, will just put foot down all the time as 'the car decides how fast to go' You cannot make life safe at all levels.

As a thought, which would be driven with more care, a Volvo awith all safety features, or any car, no safety belt, and a 10" dagger attatched to the steering column pointing towards the driver's chest?
 
#10
No, for some of the reasons stated above. But also there are occasions where it goes wrong and it's possible to find yourself in a position where you need to accelerate to get yourself out of it. I know it should never happen, but there are very few drivers out there who have not found themselves in the overtaking lane when they spot something that they didn't see at the start of the overtake.
 
#12
True, you can't stop every fool. However, removing the speed from crashes that involve speed and lack of capability at that speed must be a step in the right direction surely?

We've had a tiered motorcycle licence for some time, surely cars should follow?
 
#13
No, for some of the reasons stated above. But also there are occasions where it goes wrong and it's possible to find yourself in a position where you need to accelerate to get yourself out of it. I know it should never happen, but there are very few drivers out there who have not found themselves in the overtaking lane when they spot something that they didn't see at the start of the overtake.
Do you mean 'in an overtaking position'?

In either case slowing down is the better option, at the very least you are reducing the speed of impact and in time tw4ts stop taking risks.
 

jarrod248

LE
Gallery Guru
#14
I thought motorways were the safest place to drive and accidents reduced. I'd like no limits on motorways and much lower speed limits around schools and hospitals oh and housing estates.
 
#16
I think part of the problem is the fact as soon as you pass your test ...any car theoretically is available to you,
my first car was an A35 van which I bimbled about in thus gaining a bit of road savvy and experience, so by the time I got something half decent I had a bit of experience, today it's a case of first car being a 24 valve double turbo nutter bastard, and the first corner it's 'hello tree'.
 
#17
In either case slowing down is the better option, at the very least you are reducing the speed of impact and in time tw4ts stop taking risks.
No it isn't, if you can accelerate past a vehicle and regain your own lane, it's better than trying to gamble if the car being overtaken will brake as you do. As I originally said, it shouldn't happen, but there will be very few drivers who have never been caught out by the unexpected.

P.S. let's try and not be overly pedantic, it's very clear from the context of what I wrote, exactly what I meant.
 
#18
True, you can't stop every fool. However, removing the speed from crashes that involve speed and lack of capability at that speed must be a step in the right direction surely?

We've had a tiered motorcycle licence for some time, surely cars should follow?
Surely by that logic, just forbid the use of motors with a top speed of 70mph. Possibly a man with a flag in front of the said vehicle?

Or in my view a much better idea; no car licence until you have passed your full bike test. This has two distinct advantages, firstly many speed freaks will wrap themselves before getting hold of a bigger projectile. Secondly the survivors will have experience of being a motorcyclist, and may be more aware of them, and road conditions in general.
 
#19
I've always maintained that better lane discipline coupled with maintaining a decent gap between cars will reduce accidents & congestion massively. Speed limiters have their place but they will make no difference on a motorway at peak time with an average flow of 50-60mph with traffic up each others arses meaning that the slightest brake leads to phantom traffic jams a mile back or an accident leading to more traffic jams at best!
 
#20
I think doing my HGV driving after passing in a car dramatically improved my driving as you have to be far more aware of what is going on around you.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top