EU May Order Speed-Limiters Fitted To UK Cars

Haggisman · 2 Sep 2013 at 14:54

Glaucus said:
And this is a point hero?

It's a point hero because you're comparing completely different scenarios. Planes don't fly in highly congested situations, surrounded by unskilled drivers and other countless outside influences.

Glaucus said:
If you thin accidents would rise in a automated system, you are lying to yourself.

I never said it would rise, just that there would be different kinds of accidents.

Glaucus said:
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.

As long as the events taking place are within the computer's parameters. If something happens that the computer doesn't know how to react to, you end up with an accident, whereas a human can reason and adapt.

Glaucus said:
In An automated system cars 10 or so cars behind will know the front car is doing an emebergcy brake.

Assuming the front car is also fully automated. What if it isn't? Or what if there's a fault with the communication system? Then you get 10 cars piling into the back of each other because none of them got a signal to stop.

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

Glaucus said:
Now going back to just speed limiting to the actual speed limit, none of that applies anyway.

Speeding doesn't kill. Inappropriate speed does. Inappropriate speed can be far below the posted speed limit. This system will do nothing to prevent inappropriate speed. Please go ahead and justify it?

Freefaller · 2 Sep 2013 at 15:10

wingman said:
Of course not, I didn't suggest it did, but it would stop people breaking the law.

'Tis all pie in the sky anyway.

1 law - but it's not an absolute either.

There are hundreds of others that it doesn't prevent.

wingman · 2 Sep 2013 at 15:14

Stopping people breaking one law at a time is better than none. Baby steps.

Freefaller · 2 Sep 2013 at 15:29

I know I'm repeating myself - but discretion and mitigating circumstances > automated blanket laws and punitive fines. And speed != instadeath/destruction.

Educating drivers so as to take better calculated risks, and minimise poor decisions will result in not only better drivers, but safer roads, for what the satellites, and automated systems cannot stop.

why does it have to be so complicated? All this because some jobsworth wants to justify his/her existence.

Rilot · 2 Sep 2013 at 15:53

This isn't going to happen for a long time anyway.
But I think it's inevitable. Just like air-bags, mandatory seat-belts, helmets on bikes, anti-lock brakes and other safety features. And yes I did say safety features.
If you look at each of those items above and the history of their adoption, you will see that there were lots of people who claimed that the adoption of those technologies would cause accidents or deaths. I remember my dad refusing to wear a "baby harness" in the 80s when the seatbelt law first came in. We now accept them.

Like it or not, cutting road deaths is a priority for governments in Europe and the reduction of impact speeds (not necessarily travelling speeds) is one tool they can use to cut deaths.
I also believe that vehicle automation is inevitable as populations rise. This is a baby step towards it.

Haggisman · 2 Sep 2013 at 15:55

Rilot said:
This isn't going to happen for a long time anyway.
But I think it's inevitable. Just like air-bags, mandatory seat-belts, helmets on bikes, anti-lock brakes and other safety features. And yes I did say safety features.
If you look at each of those items above and the history of their adoption, you will see that there were lots of people who claimed that the adoption of those technologies would cause accidents or deaths. I remember my dad refusing to wear a "baby harness" in the 80s when the seatbelt law first came in. We now accept them.

Like it or not, cutting road deaths is a priority for governments in Europe and the reduction of impact speeds (not necessarily travelling speeds) is one tool they can use to cut deaths.
I also believe that vehicle automation is inevitable as populations rise. This is a baby step towards it.

How many of those examples take control away from the driver - other than ABS?

Rilot · 2 Sep 2013 at 16:02

Haggisman said:
How many of those examples take control away from the driver - other than ABS?

Helmets - They restrict the rider's vision making him/her more likely to crash.
Seat-belts - They restrict the wearer's ability to exit the vehicle in an emergency or be "thrown clear" of the car in a crash.

Both of those are arguments I have heard in the past against those systems. Both of which could be classed as removing control.

The simple fact of the matter is, how much abstraction of control can you have before it's considered removing control?
Most cars now have drive by wire throttles. Does this remove control because you, the driver aren't actually rotating the butterfly valve by means of a cable?
How about brake by wire systems that have a load cell and then actuators?
Steer by wire systems are coming along soon too.

Django x2 · 2 Sep 2013 at 16:06

Hardly, Helmets is a no brainer (excuse the pun), as are seatbelts. I don't necessarily think it's a bad thing to limit the top speeds of a car, just not to the speed limit.

Phemo · 2 Sep 2013 at 16:12

I don't think it's a bad thing as such. It would suck a little bit in many ways but there aren't really any arguments not to do this.

However they'd have to speed limit to at least around 80mph in reality - the speed limit on some French motorways is 130kmh which is 80mph so our cars would need to at least be capable of doing this if we're going to be able to drive in Europe.

Rilot · 2 Sep 2013 at 16:13

Django x2 said:
Hardly, Helmets is a no brainer

You say that now but back in 70s it absolutely wasn't. There were marches on London and protests. Many were very much of the opinion that although it might save you from the odd knock, a helmet would cause the rider to break his neck. In fact, there are still protests against their mandatory introduction in the US even now.

Rich_L · 2 Sep 2013 at 18:38

Thanks to this thread in hindsight I now realise I was dicing with death when I hit the limiter at 110mph (didn't know it was there!) in my 2-ton car (on a private road of course) especially as at the time it just felt like the throttle eased off until the speed dropped.

I now know better

Scania · 2 Sep 2013 at 19:00

ubersonic said:
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"

Yes, I've driven speed limited cars ( the last was an e39 M5 ) upon reaching its limit, it behaved just like the trucks, I.e. it simply would not go any faster, I recall thinking it was exactly the same in principle as in the HGV's - no fuss or drama, no shunting no sudden loss of power nowt.

If anything, it sounds to me like JDM cars have the issue rather than speed limiters in general.

Not that I advocate the things nor would I like to see this enforced.

Zeed · 2 Sep 2013 at 19:17

Well my ITR is limited to 100mph or something. I dont complain cause..... You lose licence if you go faster anyway

Kenai · 2 Sep 2013 at 19:23

Scania said:
Yes, I've driven speed limited cars ( the last was an e39 M5 ) upon reaching its limit, it behaved just like the trucks, I.e. it simply would not go any faster, I recall thinking it was exactly the same in principle as in the HGV's - no fuss or drama, no shunting no sudden loss of power nowt.

If anything, it sounds to me like JDM cars have the issue rather than speed limiters in general.

Not that I advocate the things nor would I like to see this enforced.

Something like an E39 though, I would guess has it's limiter at 155mph? It's rate of acceleration is going to be pretty low by that point, much as a truck has a pretty low rate of acceleration at 56mph.

Going from a low rate of acceleration to no acceleration isn't going to be particularly noticeable.

Going from a high rate of acceleration (such as an old Evo or GTO at 112mph for example) to no acceleration is going to be much more dramatic in terms of the transition. I don't think it would quite feel like slamming on the brakes but it would probably feel almost like the engine had just died.

Reaching a 70mph limiter at WOT on anything vaguely pokey would be a pretty blunt and forceful occurance, certainly nothing like reaching 155mph in an M5.

Scania · 4 Sep 2013 at 00:20

Kenai said:
Something like an E39 though, I would guess has it's limiter at 155mph? It's rate of acceleration is going to be pretty low by that point, much as a truck has a pretty low rate of acceleration at 56mph.

True with the e39 at its limited speed, yes, that said, a 730bhp Scania @56mph is barely into its stride, especially unladen, yet the limiter is still very soft in its action.

Difficult to say much more re cars, the only limited car I've driven was the M5, I still feel it shouldn't be particularly more dramatic though in any other vehicle.

NathWraith · 4 Sep 2013 at 09:38

I can confirm 112MPH limiters make you drop many bricks if you forget about them

Janesy B · 4 Sep 2013 at 09:44

Scania said:
True with the e39 at its limited speed, yes, that said, a 730bhp Scania @56mph is barely into its stride, especially unladen, yet the limiter is still very soft in its action.

Difficult to say much more re cars, the only limited car I've driven was the M5, I still feel it shouldn't be particularly more dramatic though in any other vehicle.

Probably because of the weight and momentum of the truck, it would take something pretty violent to jerk a big truck around.

Eliot · 4 Sep 2013 at 10:09

Scenario one:
I'm being chased on a road by a lunatic in a 80's car that's slightly slower than my 2020 whatever spec car but can do a lot more than 70 miles per hour

I hit my limiter, He barges me off the road because hes mental

Scenario two:
I want to go to a race track. WTF 70mph?

Cars should be able to do more than the limit. We should be punished if driving too fast, Just like we are currently. This would basically kill of the sports car market, Which is why its obviously not going to happen, But also, Why on earth does everything have to have something to force you not to do something these days?
The next decade might be ****

Also:
http://jalopnik.com/the-eu-isnt-really-planning-to-limit-all-cars-to-70-mp-1246413214
If no one has yet...

Scania · 4 Sep 2013 at 14:44

Janesy B said:
Probably because of the weight and momentum of the truck, it would take something pretty violent to jerk a big truck around.

True to a degree, but you can get the thing to lurch quite wildly in lower gears if your on & off the throttle in a harsh manner.