EU May Order Speed-Limiters Fitted To UK Cars

Glaucus said:
I understand, I don't agree, their arguments aren't arguments.

As I've pointed out there are a large amount of reason for such a system.
An argument going I like to break the law, isn't really a reason against a system is it? And that is the only reason people have managed to state so far. With many acting in a totally blind state to support their view this isn't a good idea, despite in other threads going enforcement etc should be lower.

If you don't agree that's fine, but don't expect to post things like, such people can use trains, or it solves no issues etc and expect it not to be pointed out you are wrong.
Click to expand...

Trains are quicker - and if we improved the infrastructure so that transport to train stations were better we wouldn't even need cars! The roads would be emptier, and therefore, the need for automation is no longer necessary, leaving petrolheads to roam the streets! :D

<this is meant to be a lighthearted post FYI>

I don't break the law, but I do exceed the speed limit when I have to (in case of emergency, overtaking, or something similar). Automation will either render people lazy and complacent, which is dangerous, or people will find other ways of doing things which are dangerous.

Furthermore, these black boxes limiting speeds will also no necessarily improve road safety as people will be more careless on the roads be less attentive and heck, if you do a 40mph in a 40mph limit and run a child down, it's no different if you're doing the speed limit or not - if you drive like a **** you still end up causing issues.

Why not just improve the standard of driving rather than automating people? Isn't it better to upskill people than to cater for the lowest common denominator? That's why I get my staff trained where I can, I want an improved, pro-active and innovative, creative and enthusiastic workforce, not all doing the bare minimum.

Improve standards, dont' accept mediocrity.
 
Last edited:
Glaucus said:
I understand, I don't agree, their arguments aren't arguments.

As I've pointed out there are a large amount of reason for such a system.
An argument going I like to break the law, isn't really a reason against a system is it? And that is the only reason people have managed to state so far. With many acting in a totally blind state to support their view this isn't a good idea, despite in other threads going enforcement etc should be lower.

If you don't agree that's fine, but don't expect to post things like, such people can use trains, or it solves no issues etc and expect it not to be pointed out you are wrong.
Click to expand...

One major flaw in your argument though. I can drive better than any automated system. So that make the roads slightly more dangerous for everyone...
 
jigger said:
One major flaw in your argument though. I can drive better than any automated system. So that make the roads slightly more dangerous for everyone...
Click to expand...

No it doesn't, yet more short sighted rubbish.
So you can, so how about all the accidents created by poorer drivers.
An automated system would be far safer. So no you are totally wrong.
 
Glaucus said:
No it doesn't, yet more short sighted rubbish.
So you can, so how about all the accidents created by poorer drivers.
An automated system would be far safer. So no you are totally wrong.
Click to expand...

Yeah alright.


Lets not forget who will be programming the automation, Humans. Humans are dumb, and the system will only be as smart as the people designing it.

"Sorry Sir, your Son was killed by a drunk driver" will be replaced with "Sorry Sir, your Son was catapulted into a bridge because of a firmware error".
 
Yet more rubbish.
Was that the one they forgot to switch on by any chance.

You do realise google has cars driving around, you do realise planes are automated for large parts of the flight.

Any accident caused by automation, will be a number of factors caused by human errors.
So although. Won't be accident free, you will have far far less and you can't argue otherwise.
 
paradigm said:
Surely though, breaking the speed limit where the limit is already 70 is a lot more "public" friendly than breaking the speed limit where the limit is 20?
Click to expand...

Then to beat this, I suggest a system wherein the car knows what road it's on, and limits the car to the speed limit that's legal to that particular road.
 
Yes but there is still a pilot required to take over if the computers fail - that happens more times than is reported as I'm sure your pilot friends will tell you. :)
 
Yeah automation failing because of human error. So it's not really perfect is it? Then what happens if the automation fails?

You can enjoy your dystopian version of Britain where your Corsa will drive you to the benefits office for you, I'll stick to reality. It's not happening in my lifetime.
 
Last edited:
Freefaller said:
Yes but there is still a pilot required to take over if the computers fail - that happens more times than is reported as I'm sure your pilot friends will tell you. :)
Click to expand...

And current self drive car licenses require a driver in the seat.
Seeing as this is only limiting speed to the speed limit it still requires a driver.

And do you k wo what planes have got safer since it was introduced. So yes accidents still happen due to computers, the accidents are far less often.
 
Glaucus said:
And current self drive car licenses require a driver in the seat.
Seeing as this is only limiting speed to the speed limit it still requires a driver.

And do you k wo what planes have got safer since it was introduced. So yes accidents still happen due to computers, the accidents are far less often.
Click to expand...

Right ok, but a pilot is far better trained than most car drivers. That's the reason too. People get used to their driver aids thinking they can get away with it - cars have ABS now, people don't know what cadence breaking is - traction control, people drive too fast (under the speed limit) for the conditions and the car saves them. What if those items go wrong? People still get hurt - isn't it better to address the root cause, rather than fitting a plaster over it?
 
Scania said:
I think you'd find no matter how hard the acceleration once you hit the limiter, the effect is no more dramatic than gently lifting off the throttle.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing you haven't driven a car with a limiter? it basically feels like the throttle has slammed shut and all power as been cut, if your nailing the throttle when it happens it is indeed quite a force/shock* and depending how powerful the car is can resemble an emergency stop for G-forces.

*It has happened to many a fool who has bought a JDM car and not known about the limit before taking it on the track lol.

-----------

It is quite lol looking at all the arguments against this, its pretty funny when you know people are trying to find ways to phrase "I don't like the idea because I wan't to break the speed limit" :P
 
Last edited:
Glaucus said:
And current self drive car licenses require a driver in the seat.
Seeing as this is only limiting speed to the speed limit it still requires a driver.

And do you k wo what planes have got safer since it was introduced. So yes accidents still happen due to computers, the accidents are far less often.
Click to expand...

And how well trained are professional pilots compared to your everyday driver?

How many planes are there flying around in close proximity to each other compared to your average road?

How thorough are pre-flight checks on planes compared to the checks you do every time you get in your car?
 
Haggisman said:
And how well trained are professional pilots compared to your everyday driver?

How many planes are there flying around in close proximity to each other compared to your average road?

How thorough are pre-flight checks on planes compared to the checks you do every time you get in your car?
Click to expand...

captain question mark strikes again
 
Haggisman said:
And how well trained are professional pilots compared to your everyday driver?

How many planes are there flying around in close proximity to each other compared to your average road?

How thorough are pre-flight checks on planes compared to the checks you do every time you get in your car?
Click to expand...

And this is a point hero?
If you thin accidents would rise in a automated system, you are lying to yourself.
It simply wouldn't as most crashes are human error. Humans also can't measure and adjust like computers, computers have far better reactions times, more predictable and safe reactions and are far more connected.
In An automated system cars 10 or so cars behind will know the front car is doing an emebergcy brake.

There really isn't any argument, an auto aged system WILL be safer than humans.

Now going back to just speed limiting to the actual speed limit, none of that applies anyway.
 
Glaucus said:
And do you k wo what planes have got safer since it was introduced. So yes accidents still happen due to computers, the accidents are far less often.
Click to expand...

This is actually in dispute, automation has avoided a lot of near misses and accidents however it has also cause its fair share of each.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom