Crap driver tells Jeremy Vine to “Fuck off”; Geraint Thomas's season over; Demare wins again at Giro; 100 miles at 42.6mph (while drafting); Car tech preventing speeding mandatory in EU from 2022; Muddy Classics; + more

Look, let's just all agree to leave cider out of this.

While I do feel any road death is too many, I wonder if the flattening off is almost getting down to the "As Low as Reasonably Possible" levels given the current infrastructure, number of journeys and current technology. i.e. very few new measures are in place, thus we've reached the natural slow down in reductions. 

I doubt it. There's very few road fatalities that couldn't have been prevented by either paying better attention or driving to the conditions.

That might be the case if as much as possible is being done. This clearly is not the case

Both Helsinki and Oslo have both managed very well.

It just take effort.

That link is really interesting. Thanks for sharing it

Appreciate your point Pete, and it's totally valid. Scotland is a case in point, where the harsher speeding fines were a consequence of frankly dreadful and dangerous driving. Although speaking personally in my previous post about the harsher punishments being a disincentive to speed, the standards of driving I witness on a weekly basis are shocking. 

With regards who's paying for it, thats a different conversation, and arguably one that drifts into politics, austerity and slashing of police budgets. In the 20 years I've been driving, the number of police patrol cars, unmarked cars, PC Smith sat on motorway bridges or PC Davis stood behind a hedge by the post office has decreased dramatically, to the extent that it is a rarity that I see any form of law enforcement on the road, nor do I see a bobby on the beat on the high street. As such, driving standards, along with an increased battle for road space are going in the wrong direction.

My argument was more in relation to this statement of yours:

"Drivers cannot be trusted not to speed, so why not turn it on it's head and just stop the vehicles from speeding." 

While thats a valid argument, where do we stop? Registration for bikes so they can be punished for road traffic offences? Manditory Hi-Vis? Stopping phones from working if they detect movement? If we take away all responsibility for keeping people from harm from the individuals, I fear we're setting a dangerous precedent where many of us may find that we can no longer do many of the things we enjoy, such as exploring the mountains (People can't be trusted to be sensible and equipped to lets ban that).  If people can't be trusted not to hurt themselves or others, lets take away any freedoms and opportunities for them to do so. I appreciate some of the examples I've used are extreme verging on ludicrous, but they're there to illustrate the point.

And who's going to pay for it. In the case of the cars, its the car manufactures, and as such the consumer. If its the government, then it's us the tax payer. So in many case (Yes I know not everyone drives a car but going with the average person) it's effectively the same. 

I just sometimes feel, that as speeding and road safety is a passionate topic here on road.cc (rightly so), people may jump to support something, but then rail against something that they don't like (see the comments about mandatory helmet use or bike registration or E-bike speed limiters) which comes as the next step. Just to clarify again, I'm not condoning nor championing speeding, but the role of the individual to take responsibility. 

MoutonDeMontagne wrote:

While thats a valid argument, where do we stop?

I agree with you the danger is that we could happily skip towards a rabbit hole of media led, nanny-state and evil corp control as seen in the heady 1987 film Robocop.

In my eyes, to wit, the world is already heading towards the embrace of evil corp.

Intelligent speed assistance does not actually prevent speeding. It does make it harder; in effect, you have to do it deliberately and you'll know you've crossed the limit (literally). 

https://etsc.eu/intelligent-speed-assistance-isa/

MoutonDeMontagne wrote:

I simply have no interest in someone knowing where I am or what I'm doing at all times

Well, that's fine then because there's no need for that in order to implement automatic speed control. If the system knows where it is via GPS, looks up the speed limit in its map data and acts accordingly, there is no interaction with any external system that gets your location. Despite the way it's often treated by cop shows, GPS is recieve-only; your device knows where you are, but the satellites don't.

Alternatively, a camera-based system could read read limit signs and control the car's speed accordingly. 

Or short-range roadside transmitters could broadcast the local speed limit. 

Yep - I realise my dislike of the principle of gps tracking for insurance is different from the implimentation of speed limiting and thus was a flawed example. 

MoutonDeMontagne wrote:

Yep - I realise my dislike of the principle of gps tracking for insurance is different from the implimentation of speed limiting and thus was a flawed example. 

Congratulations on a mercifully brief post.  Do try to keep it up.

MoutonDeMontagne wrote:

Also, I'm also cautious because what comes next? Bicycles limited to 15kph like E-bikes because of risks to pedestrians.

Eh? E-bikes aren't limited to 15kph. They're not limited to anything. The assist can't apply over 15 mph (not kph) unless you're prepared to jump through the hoops of registration, licensing, etc., but you can ride them as fast as you like (or are able to).

You use public roads, there is no right to privacy. That said, ISA is not tracking you. It's just using a GPS receiver to trilaterate your vehicle's position and referencing that to mapping data of speed zones. It does not transmit your location because it doesn't need to. Some may add in speed sign recognition and live traffic for roadworks zones etc but again that is receiving, not broadcasting your location to anyone.

All this really does is use an existing technology, adaptive cruise control, and expands on it. It's not something we should object to, it's just a better use for the tech already fitted to motor vehicles.

I dunno, I can frustrate the whole neighbourhood pootling about at 20mph everywhere

Dicklexic wrote:

At the other extreme, everyone rolling along at 70mph on the motorway, how could going faster ever be the best tactic to avoid a collision?

Passing a HGV on a dual carriageway at 70, with traffic behind you, when it starts to move into your lane.

That is what I was going to post.

A friend was on a 2 lane dual and a lorry did that and he floored his large engined merc and avoided it.

I don't know what the other options were in terms of braking and adjacent vehicles.

Also seems a pretty rare event to cater for.

Lorries will have to learn to slow down then or wait. 

The excuses I would use for needing to speed should be so David Beckham can escape the press, Alex Ferguson can get home and crap and any other reason Loophole Larry used to get famous people off. I mean if those reasons are legal reason for speeding then they are valid reasons for being able to override a limiter. 

In those circs I think I'd prefer to brake and risk a rear end shunt than risk a side-swipe by an artic. 

quiff wrote:

In those circs I think I'd prefer to brake and risk a rear end shunt than risk a side-swipe by an artic. 

Fair doos, but I'd want the ability to choose.

Agreed. None but the very top end vehicles are capable of the acceleration for this to be a credible option, and certainly none but the very top end drivers. Even then I'd argue that the proportion of circumstances that this would be appropriate is so small as to be labelled as "freak".

Captain Badger wrote:

Agreed. None but the very top end vehicles are capable of the acceleration for this to be a credible option, and certainly none but the very top end drivers. 

So some sort of exception will be required for high performance vehicles driven by advanced drivers. 

HoarseMann wrote:

 

So some sort of exception will be required for high performance vehicles driven by advanced drivers. 

You mean like thee and me? I'll get that supercharger fitted to the i10!

Of course motorists will always want to "accelerate out of trouble". They just need to understand that, in the lexicon of dynamics, the definition of "acceleration" includes standing on the brake.

Quite . In a dangerous situation brought about by excess speed and kinetic energy, the clear solution is.... er.... increase the speed and kinetic energy!

I would think that it would be very much like setting the speed limiter on most current cars. If you need power then you can access it by pressing hard on the accelerator. The only difference will be that the speed limiter will activate by default, the driver would have to actively disengage it and the telemetry data will be recorded for analysis should that prove necessary for some lawful investigation.

Speaking as a habitual non speeder I cannot legitimately see any downsides to the use of this technology, but on the flip side I am of a generation to whom the motor car represents freedom, control and an extension of personal space. Whilst I see this as a huge step towards improving road safety and the eventual delegation of driving to autonomous vehicles I'll definitely be hanging on to at least one of my old fashioned vehicles besides probably signing up to a driverless hire scheme at some point. I'll be properly sad when the same tech gets applied to motorcycles, but I guess that like the days of horse and cart some things will be become part of history and Grandad's rambling stories.

Mungecrundle wrote:

I would think that it would be very much like setting the speed limiter on most current cars. If you need power then you can access it by pressing hard on the accelerator. The only difference will be that the speed limiter will activate by default, the driver would have to actively disengage it and the telemetry data will be recorded for analysis should that prove necessary for some lawful investigation.

That is very much how it will be.

https://etsc.eu/intelligent-speed-assistance-isa/