Drivers oppose automatic speed control, says IAM

oh and as for the comments about speed on the motorway, if you see someone on a bike at risk from speed on the motorway I would contend that the problem then is a cyclist on the bloody motorway not the cars speed.
Sheesh get some persepctive this is about speeds on urban roads, towns and cities not the concrete highways.

if as has been claimed accidents are caused by poor human decisions then surely driving at slower speeds and giving yourself time to make better decisions is a must!?

besides which, whats the problem with making people drive 2 tonne metal boxes slower when its been proven that impacts at slower speeds are less likely to result in death?

So let's look at the premise that sometimes being able to exceed the speed limit helps to avoid an accident.

Let's say it happens x times in every 10,000 miles driving.

Now, let's say that y is the number of times that being able to exceed the speed limit contributes to an accident in 10,000 miles driving.

I would guess that y > x and I would think by some margin, so I think the overall affect would be safer roads.

Does anyone really think x > y?

It's just a meaningless bit of PR from a group with a vested interest.

IAM will, I'm sure, be fully aware that self-driving cars are on their way. This threatens their very existence so they'll be delivering preemptive strikes to try and turn public opinion against them.

I doubt they'll win, though. The benefits of self-driving cars in terms of savings to government and individuals, the reduction in avoidable death and injury, and increase in productivity and leisure time are very compelling. (We already know that people would rather text and call than focus on driving!...)

As both a driver and a cyclist, I can't wait...

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2013/oct/11/driver-less-cars-coming-bike-blog

http://www.kpmg.com/Ca/en/IssuesAndInsights/ArticlesPublications/Documents/self-driving-cars-next-revolution.pdf

Imagine you're trundling along a motorway or dual carriageway having mostly overtaken a lorry - which then starts indicating right.

You're free to experiment as to which is safer - accelerating past the cab, hope that they've seen you, or emergency braking to position yourself behind again - but could you please notify me in advance when and where you're planning this, so I can avoid it?

If the technology was available and affordable, id fit one of this voluntarily, and id hazard that id likely be able to command a reduced insurance premium if i did so....

I'm sure that if it was beneficial to peoples pockets It wouldn't then need to be mandatory...and with a significant proportion of people on the road sticking to the speed limit, life becomes significantly more difficult for those that are prepared to break the law as the bulk of traffic would be sticking to the legal speeds..

Kickstarter anyone ?

Automatic speed control is coming, eventually. As with all these in-car systems as people become more confident with it they become less advisory and more controlling.
Take for instance cruise control, it is great especially when there is not enough traffic to force you to go slowly, it also avoids the complaint of "having speed cameras forces you to look at the speedo rather than the road".
The first generation of assisted emergency braking was introduced many years ago, the premsie is that when people need to do an emergency brake they don't brake hard enough so the car increases the braking force when it thinks it is necessary, now we have cars that do that automatically, from the collision avoidance to the cars that stop you tail gating.
We have automatic windscreen wipers, automatic lights now ones that dip from full beam.
The technology to recognise speed signs exists and can be displayed on board, with audio warnings when you exceed it.

In terms of safety, if you accept the premise that the majority of road users drive in excess of the speed limit and that slow speeds reduce accidents (as purported by the 20 is plenty campaigns in their various guises) then mandatory speed enforcement must be a safe thing. Indeed, collisions rarely happen because of speed, it is the wide distribution of speeds that causes the issues.

I imagine that we will see pay per mile driving before we see this in cars.

I don't really agree with this as i think it would encourage people to drive even more on autopilot than normal. There are situations where the safer option is to accelerate around a problem than to emergency brake. but if you can't do that then you have no option but to brake and potentially that _could_ cause a bigger accident. The problem with this would be that it also wouldn't stop other dangerous driving, like tailgating, not leaving enough space when passing, not paying attention etc. I also wonder what will happen the the gps goes apesh*t like my garmin occasionally does and suddenly thinks someone is on a side road not a motor way and slams their speed down to 30 from 70...

Perhaps it could be mandatory for those with speeding and/or other driving offences.

Yeah, I mean heaven forbid drivers should actually have to obey speed limits...

I would prefer not to have in-car technology force drivers to obey the law but let's face it, many of them won't do it voluntarily.

Perhaps an alternative to speed control is to have a loud alert, like a persistent beeping tone that automatically adjusts so it it louder than any ambient noise. While you are speeding the annoying noise just keeps on going... do it with the windows down and everyone else knows you're doing it too.

"Any further deterioration in the good relationship between police and public is to be deplored, but it is difficult to see how this could be avoided."

Good relationship? So policing is determined by public pressure now! How about teaching people to respect the law? And what about the public who want more law-abiding drivers, lower vehicle speeds in urban areas and fewer fatalities?

Fifty-seven per cent of drivers feel that ISAs won’t have a positive impact on road safety

Why would they trot out this garbage? It's meaningless.

Inappropriate speed is the problem, I regularly ride country lanes with the national speed limit of 60mph. But, 40mph is as fast as anyone with any sense would go.

I think a better idea are the devices that monitor your driving style, and reward go driving with cheaper insurance etc. You could also use the data as evidence after an RTC; which could act as a deterent for bad / dangerous driving.

I'm not a fan of "big brother" style control, but am very in favour of anything that makes good, safety driving "the best option". May be ban Top Gear would be a good start. It promotes a very antisocial attitude and driving style. There are morons out there who think Top Gear is actually a senible way to drive. The small dick mob in my opinion!

thing is though mrmo even if they switch off if they are only travelling 20 or 15 mph then the end result will be a lot less damage.

Why do they sells cars that go much more than 70mph anyway?!

Mikeprytherch- when I was hit at 30 miles an hour I didnt give a damn how fast the car was actually travelling but the speed it hit me caused more damage than had it been travelling at 20 mph or 15 mph, anything that reduces the speed of large 2 tonne metal boxes on the roads is fine by me.

If its decision making thats the problem having more time to make a decision by travelling slower will benefit.

Until such a time as you can guarantee that all car drivers will drive in a safe and controlled manner around other vulnerable road users any measure to curtail the damage they can cause is ok in my books.

I disagree with this on the grounds of freedom. A system which limits you to a speed limit is not necessarily a bad thing, but it is more likely to assist people breaking the law than help others.

As Mr Mo says, it is the driving, not the speed that causes issues. So the decision making is the defective issue. Incidentally I keep making this point to my girlfriend when she descends hills, but she still descends while braking.....

Anyone who drives a car will realise that a system like this would be unworkable and dangerous. Imagine you have to take sudden avoiding action to get out of the way of an imminent collision, but are prevented from doing so because you were about to break the speed limit!

Until some point in the future when all cars are controlled using the same intelligent technology, then it might work I suppose.

McDuff73 - thank god you are not the decision maker then, mrmo is correct, its not outright speed that's the issue, its inappropriate speed, I would rather somebody came past me at 40mpg giving me 2 metres space than somebody restricted to 30mpg with 2 inches space.

shocker it wasnt true but its a damn good idea to get cars driving at the proper speeds dont understand why anyone would object to it unless they are all saying they want to break the law!?
This sort of thing would make the streets safer for vulnerable users by controlling speed in urban areas more effectively than speed cameras and police patrols have been able to do previously.