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.

Dolph said:
Yay! Just what we need, more zombie drivers on the road...
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
I can't see this ever being fitted to all new cars like some people think it will. The government knows that this will cripple car market far too much as one of three things could happen:

1. Top manufacturers stop producing cars for the UK as they don't want these technical interferences in their products.
2. Most people who buy expensive sports cars such as a Ferrari, do enjoy the odd spirited drive now and then, which wouldn't be possible with this. Would mean massive drops in sales.
3. Loss of expensive car sales means less money for the government.

Obviously I'm talking about expensive sports cars but I reckon this is a very real issue.


Anyone else agree or am I just talking rubbish again :p
 
Just something else to consider if its going to use satellites. I was going up the A12 yesterday and there are a number of flyovers for the local towns that have a speed limit of 30. As I went under them it beeped stating that the speed limit was 30.

So unless they improve the tech (may have already happened).... potentially in the example above you could have cars braking as they go under bridges. I can imagine the "system" getting rather upset if you enter a perceived 30 at 70.
 
Doesnt the Nissan R35 have something like this already with it's speed limiter. When it deactivates when the gps recognises you are at a circuit/track. Perhaps they need to rethink things a bit. Doing 80mph hardly means your going to kill someone on a motorway, however 100mph+ can be rather dangerous depending on road conditions. So why not allow us to break the limit but just not by too much. IMO 90mph limit would suffice, almost all modern cars could quite easily stop from 90mph faster than those around when the speed limit was introduced from 60/70. yeah yeah there's reaction times etc.
I also agree with the comment about about manufacturers. What would be the point in having cars capable of more than the speed limit if they were required to have the limiter by law. The only different models would be trim specs, and every car would end up being no more than 2000cc's (thats being generous)
Everyone knows that you don't buy a performance car and drive sensibly within the speed limit, hell you can't even accelerate hard upto the speedlimit without getting charged with careless driving (happened to a friend)
So will it ever happen? no...
They could save millions on the NHS by banning tobacco... they could "save the planet" if they made ethanol available at every forecourt. But doing both of those would loose them money in taxes, and **** off their friends in the oil/tobacco industry.
Serisouly they can forget this, it wont happen, at least not while we still drive cars powered by combustion engines.
 
realscot said:
... Doing 80mph hardly means your going to kill someone on a motorway, however 100mph+ can be rather dangerous depending on road conditions. So why not allow us to break the limit but just not by too much. IMO 90mph limit would suffice ...
Click to expand...
Presumably if the Government were to raise the speed limit on a motorway to 90mph, you wouldn't have a problem if people "break the limit but just not by too much" . . . say driving at 100mph + a little bit? ;)
 
I love all the posts suggesting ousting Brown as a means of avoiding this sort of control. You really don't think the next buffoon to take the seat won't continue down exactly the same path?

My objections are two-fold.

1. I don't like being told what to do as if I'm some sort of idiot that can't make decisions for myself.
2. I enjoy driving/riding. I sometimes break the speed limit. I take that risk based on my assessment of current conditions and the possibility of getting caught.

I suspect that many will take the "Internet Forum" moral high ground regarding those two objections, but I further suspect that most here also know that they are really the crux of the matter.

What I further object to is our government's overall policy of removing choice, offering no alternatives, and punishing everyone at the same time. For example: Too much traffic in towns? Charge everyone, knowing full well that many are forced to drive in towns. Result- everyone is punished.

Personally, on the subject of speed, I'd rather see a scheme where we pay per mile for motoring. You pay more in a town, less on the open road, so the congestion lobby are kept at bay. You are charged a lower amount when you drive within the speed limit, and a higher amount when you exceed it. Perhaps even extend it to charge a further discounted amount when you drive at your vehicle's most efficient speed, and that way the green lobby are kept happy at the same time. That way, there is a tangible incentive to stay within the speed limit, and a tangible penalty when you don't, but above all the choice rests with you. Meanwhile the law stays the same, so if you're caught speeding by a patrol, you face the same penalties as are currently in effect. The system should not be useable as evidence in a speeding conviction.

Yes it's not perfect, yes it would cost slightly more to implement, but at least it'd be "fair".
 
CGrieves said:
Personally, on the subject of speed, I'd rather see a scheme where we pay per mile for motoring. You pay more in a town, less on the open road, so the congestion lobby are kept at bay. You are charged a lower amount when you drive within the speed limit, and a higher amount when you exceed it. Perhaps even extend it to charge a further discounted amount when you drive at your vehicle's most efficient speed, and that way the green lobby are kept happy at the same time. That way, there is a tangible incentive to stay within the speed limit, and a tangible penalty when you don't, but above all the choice rests with you. Meanwhile the law stays the same, so if you're caught speeding by a patrol, you face the same penalties as are currently in effect. The system should not be useable as evidence in a speeding conviction.

Yes it's not perfect, yes it would cost slightly more to implement, but at least it'd be "fair".
Click to expand...

that my friend is called petrol* ;p the quicker you drive the quicker you use it, if you drive at the vehicles most efficient point you'll use less of it, drive around town you'll use more of it!

*replace with appropriate fuel be it diesel LPG etc
 
Kitchster_uk said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well Said
 
stockhausen said:
Presumably if the Government were to raise the speed limit on a motorway to 90mph, you wouldn't have a problem if people "break the limit but just not by too much" . . . say driving at 100mph + a little bit? ;)
Click to expand...

You misunderstand me, I was refering to an electronic limit of 90mph, not changing the speed limit.
If it had to happen I could live with never going above 90mph, but I wouldnt put up with only being able to do 70mph.
 
Won't happen anyway.
Would cost billions more than it should and be years late (like everything else this government tries to implement).
Then the company would leave the codes for the satellites on a train or somewhere and the fun would begin:p
 
rG-tom said:
that my friend is called petrol* ;p the quicker you drive the quicker you use it, if you drive at the vehicles most efficient point you'll use less of it, drive around town you'll use more of it!

*replace with appropriate fuel be it diesel LPG etc
Click to expand...

Welll, yes.... and no. We already make lifestyle decisions on the cars we drive, I chose a 4L V8, because I wanted one. Some choose a Hybrid for economy. This "extra" tax would be at the same level across the board no matter what car you drive. Perhaps it should be zero at below the speed limit, the actual system and implementation is moot.... the real point I am making is:

Encouraging use to stick to the rules would limit the need to punish us when we don't. And either are better than removing all choice in the matter!
 
Hxc said:
What if some angry guys chase after you with guns and you can't go more than 70...:o
Click to expand...

What if someone has planted a bomb on your vehicle and you can't drop below 50mph?



Also, Gordon Brown can KMA. Way to go in moving one step closer to nanny state!
 
CGrieves said:
1. I don't like being told what to do as if I'm some sort of idiot that can't make decisions for myself.
Click to expand...
I'm sure that most criminals make the decision for themselves to commit crime ;)

CGrieves said:
2. I enjoy driving/riding. I sometimes break the speed limit. I take that risk based on my assessment of current conditions and the possibility of getting caught.
Click to expand...
Such selfish attitudes aren't unique to you. Fortunately, I really don't think that legislators put individual people's selfish considerations very high up their list of priorities :p
 
Actually I know the real reason why Gordon wants to do this. It's so that he can have a massive Hornby-railway-style rotary speed control installed at No 10. He can then crank it up and down and laugh manically while watching all the cars respond.

You mark my words.
 
stockhausen said:
I'm sure that most criminals make the decision for themselves to commit crime ;)
Click to expand...

Precisely my point! I could go out into the street and punch someone in the face, but the fact is I won't. I choose not to. Gordon Brown shouldn't choose for me by chopping my hands off!

stockhausen said:
Such selfish attitudes aren't unique to you. Fortunately, I really don't think that legislators put individual people's selfish considerations very high up their list of priorities :p
Click to expand...

Yeah but the fact is, the Government is there to work for US. It's not some autonomous organisation set up to dictate every facet of our lives. They work for US! We Brits seem to lose sight of that so easily. If the voting public don't want something, then it shouldn't happen, and I'm willing to bet that there isn't a majority that want speed control devices. Therefore they should NOT HAPPEN.
 
It will get shot down by invasion of privacy and human rights lawyers long before it gets off the drawingboard.

Nobody has my permission to track my vehicles movements 24/7 unless they suspect I'm doing something illegal.
 
If it reduced insurance on a city runaround then I'd be all for it. It would have to be a system which was easily switched off anyway. Have it fitted to the car, and hopefully insurance companies would reduce the premium in a similar way to some immobiliser/tracker systems.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom