Let Gordon Brown control your speed

I think it's a good idea, except the braking bit.
But I don't want it.

I also think a lot of people are not giving much thought to it, like this guy here.

Really, all the research begs to differ, there's been plenty of it relating to lorry drivers...

Zombie drivers, how? Seriously.

1:The truck driver part on the news article..how about blame it on driving for hours and hours and hours instead of limiters?
2: What about automatic cars? They are almost as bad..
3: Cruise control....same thing isn't it, set speed and drive.

Limiting speed will do just that, limit.. why it would make people zombie drivers...wow, sure ok.
If they are useless drivers to begin with, they will always be.

Because the government insists on presenting a false road safety message, namely that if you drive at or below the speed limit, you are a lot less likely to be involved in an accident. This is in spite of their own research clearly demostrating that it's a load of balls. Exceeding the speed limit can be attributed to approximately 5-9% of all accidents, whereas driver inattention is responsible for around 30% of all accidents. Limiting people to the speed limit does nothing to deal with most accidents, it's pointless and irrelevant.

I don't want it for the fact I do sometimes go over the limit, you all do and that's why you don't want it.
Which is being a hypocrite.

I want road safety policies that save lives, this doesn't achieve that, therefore it's completely pointless and unnecessary.

http://www.abd.org.uk/pr/209.htm

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/
 
Last edited:
...
Exceeding the speed limit can be attributed to approximately 5-9% of all accidents, whereas driver inattention is responsible for around 30% of all accidents.
...
I am not at all convinced that these statemnts are meaningful and they are certainly irrelevant.
  • How exactly, after an accident do you reliably prove that it was due to exceeding the speed limit?
  • How exactly, after an accident do you reliably prove that it was due to driver inattention?
  • I think that the Government are far more concerned about accidents that result in serious injury or death than damage to vehicles in what you dismissively refer to as their "false road safety message"
 
I am not at all convinced that these statemnts are meaningful and they are certainly irrelevant.
  • How exactly, after an accident do you reliably prove that it was due to exceeding the speed limit?
  • How exactly, after an accident do you reliably prove that it was due to driver inattention?
  • I think that the Government are far more concerned about accidents that result in serious injury or death than damage to vehicles in what you dismissively refer to as their "false road safety message"

Well, you'll have to ask TrL (Transport research lab) because the figures come from their reports, unfortunately they won't actually publish them online, you have to buy them, so most of the analysis comes second hand.

Take a look at this one, for example.

http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2007/0709-commonspeed.asp

2.5 In 2005, for the first time, the Department collected data on contributory factors to road traffic accidents. Several of these factors are attributed to drivers up to the age of 25 in much higher proportions of cases than for older drivers. These factors were reported for the following proportion of drivers in casualty accidents—

Driver 17-19 Driver 17-25 Driver 26+

Loss of control 19% 14% 6%
Careless, reckless or in a hurry 14% 12% 7%
Travelling too fast for the conditions 14% 11% 5%
Slippery road (due to weather) 12% 10% 5%
Exceeded the speed limit 8% 6% 2%
Impaired by alcohol 4% 5% 2%
Aggressive driving 4% 4% 1%

Once again, we clearly see how the speeding breaks down, remember, this is in the research the government is paying for, and subsequently ignoring, or fudging by grouping strange things together...

Edit: Actually, lets add some more data into the mix.

http://www.speedcameras.org/speed_camera_facts.php

And just in case you think the sources are biased.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/safety/2749419/Speed-cameras-the-twisted-truth.html

From then on, despite a continuing rise in the number of vehicles, the fatal accident figure steadily dropped, at an average rate of more than five per cent a year. By 1980 it had fallen to slightly more than 6,000. By 1993 it was below 4,000. Britain's roads were the safest in Europe. In France and Germany, the annual death toll was more than 9,000. In Portugal it was well over three times as high.

Then the rate of decline suddenly slowed. Over the next decade the total fall was smaller than in any of the years between 1990 and 1993. Four times the yearly figure actually rose. So what had changed?

The most obvious difference in the mid-1990s was a radical shift in road safety policy. Ministers and officials had become persuaded that by far the most important single factor in causing accidents was speed. The main focus of police road safety strategy, designed to cut the accident rate further, now became the rigorous enforcement of speed limits, backed by a growing army of speed cameras.

Yet it was at this very time that the fall in the accident rate markedly slowed. Although millions of motorists were caught by the new "safety cameras", which were soon costing them more than £100 million a year in fines, the number of people dying on Britain's roads was no longer declining at anything like the same rate as before.

Inevitably road-safety experts connected the two. Had this slowing of the decline in deaths been caused by the switch in policy? If the policy had not been changed, they asked, might 7,000 lives have been saved? Had not this new fixation with "speed", to the exclusion of almost everything else and supported by highly dubious statistics, taken on many of the familiar characteristics of a scare?
 
Last edited:
My main concern is what the research showed towards the end of the clip "a surprising number will enjoy not having to think about it so much".

You're driving a 1 and a half tone piece of metal covering 100 feet/second. I'd rather know people were thinking and aware of what they are doing. Enough people already seem to be oblivious to what goes on around them, introducing this will just mean that it is one less factor of driving that they aren't paying attention to.

I know it's possible for people to miss a change in speed limit, so I'd say the money would be better spent having the signs that flash up if you are over the speed limit saying what the limit is, and leave it to the driver to be aware of what they are doing.
 
Well, you'll have to ask TrL (Transport research lab) ...
I wasn't actually questioning the integrity or independence of the TRL. I can accept that they may be able accurately to measure the age of a driver involved in an accident, whether his/her driving was "Impaired by alcohol" or that the road was "Slippery".

I really can't see how they can sensibly identify such things as "Loss of control", "Careless, reckless or in a hurry", "Travelling too fast for the conditions", "Exceeded the speed limit" and/or "Aggressive driving" as being a cause . . . and do many people have an accident whilst "in control" of their vehicle :confused:

I suspect that the only way that speed can reliably be shown as being a factor is if the accident happens just after a speed camera and that these statistics are based on what can not be disputed - hence the pretty meaningless "Loss of control".
 
I wasn't actually questioning the integrity or independence of the TRL. I can accept that they may be able accurately to measure the age of a driver involved in an accident, whether his/her driving was "Impaired by alcohol" or that the road was "Slippery".

I really can't see how they can sensibly identify such things as "Loss of control", "Careless, reckless or in a hurry", "Travelling too fast for the conditions", "Exceeded the speed limit" and/or "Aggressive driving" as being a cause . . . and do many people have an accident whilst "in control" of their vehicle :confused:

I suspect that the only way that speed can reliably be shown as being a factor is if the accident happens just after a speed camera and that these statistics are based on what can not be disputed - hence the pretty meaningless "Loss of control".

How do the police determine causes of accidents, whether people were driving too fast etc? Because generally that's where the TRL information starts from. The answers lie in things like measuring skid marks, calculating impact velocities and so on...

Like I said, if they would publish their full reports, it would be much easier to examine their methodology. Ironically their reports and data gathering generally seems to be pretty good, it's the conclusions drawn from their reports by the government that usually hold no relationship whatsoever to the research that causes the problem.

The bottom line is that there is no benefit to the excessive focus on speed, it's causing a decline, not an improvement in road safety. Further compounding this problem is not the solution.
 
My opinion is summed up nicey in a quote i heard on the radio by someone who apparently tested an aproves the system. Basically, he said that not having to worry abotu your speed allowed you to concentrate on other things such as looking out the window!.

I think id like to stay concerned with my driving thanks.
 
I love the provocation invoked by this topic. The commission for integrated transport are a joke. Every so often they try to justify their existance and cost to taxpayers usually when they get a new chief exec. This being one of those times. They are only as good as the consultants undertaking their commission. Which from experrience i know can result in absolute garbage being produced.
 
Zombie drivers, how? Seriously.

1:The truck driver part on the news article..how about blame it on driving for hours and hours and hours instead of limiters?
2: What about automatic cars? They are almost as bad..
3: Cruise control....same thing isn't it, set speed and drive.

Limiting speed will do just that, limit.. why it would make people zombie drivers...wow, sure ok.
If they are useless drivers to begin with, they will always be.


I don't want it for the fact I do sometimes go over the limit, you all do and that's why you don't want it.
Which is being a hypocrite.



Nail & Head mate. :)
 
Another pathetic idea aimed at spoiling motorist's 'fun'. How would they go about implementing this on an older car anyway, say something like a '78 Chevette HS?
 
Before we do this, how about only selling blunt knives? I have 10 knives in the kitchen capable of killing people, lets ban them!!! And whilst we're at it, let's ban chocolate for making people fat (adding cream cakes, rich food, alcohol, fags), porn, violent movies, dangerous sports and activities - hell, anything remotely fun.

How about Mr Brown ****s off back to Scotland tbh.

Carbon Dioxide damages the enviroment, so lets ban breathing!!!!!!!!! :D
 
Instead of controlling speed , can we control Gordon Brown and make him walk off the nearest cliff?.

Not usually a violent person but anybody else feels the need to punch gordon brown ? :p
 
Why do this government (maybe even all politicians for that matter) view cars purely as A-B tools. Do they not realise the majority of drivers enjoy driving.

Placing too much control on the driver will take the fun out of driving. The motor industry will pay the true price when consumer demand plummets.
 
Where would they get they revenue from if speeding is abolished?

What about driving in severe weather conditions??? Are they going to limit our speed to 25% slower to accompany for ice etc?

How exactly would busy motorways work if everyone was doing the same speed? Surely trying to take an exit from the outside lane would be very difficult and insight road rage/further lorry cutting up major accidents?
 
I can't see how that's going to work from a technological perspective. If it uses GPS to calculate location, do you have to wait for it to get a strong enough signal before you can drive? What if you can't get a signal?

I imagine they would have to configure it so that no GPS signal = no speed limit. GPS is quite easy to jam so that would be the way around it.
 
Just like to join the people pointing out that it's not a government plan at all, it's a nonsense report from a do-nothing advisory group, not a legislative planning group. It's not even within their remit, as the name suggests their role is to work on integrated transport, which has no connection to this report at all. So in other words, it's just total nonsense spun up out of next to nothing by the press, and run with by overexcited people.

Sometimes, I think democracy isn't a very good idea :D Remember the "track and tax" petition where 1.8 million people signed up to "scrap the planned vehicle tracking and road pricing policy", when there was actually no such policy, just one idiot and 1.8 million uninformed bandwagon jumpers? Just more of the same.
 
[TW]Fox;13186971 said:
Gordon Brown works for the Comission for Integrated Transport? And there was me thinking he had a different job to that :confused:
Yeah, completely different Gordon Brown; people have got confused ... may be due to overindulgence over the festive period ;)
 
Back
Top Bottom