Speed Limiters

[mustang1]

If you're gonna do it, then it needs to be GPS controlled. There's no point having a 70mph limiter fitted in a car if the driver spends most time in 20 and 30mph zones.

And I'm against it.

Edit typo

 

[C R]

But in the new scenario if there’s a crash the insurance company would by default look at the new log of what happened. Should the logging of data be disabled or the log show it was travelling at greater than allowable speed the insurance would be invalidated.

This potentially opens a different can of worms. Who pays after the accident? Does the insurance company still pay and then go after the miscreant, or is the not at fault party left to their own devices?

 

[classic33]

This potentially opens a different can of worms. Who pays after the accident? Does the insurance company still pay and then go after the miscreant, or is the not at fault party left to their own devices?

You, if the not at fault party, are left to your own devices in this situation at present.

That needs addressing now, not after any change has been brought in.

 

[dodgy]

But in the new scenario if there’s a crash the insurance company would by default look at the new log of what happened. Should the logging of data be disabled or the log show it was travelling at greater than allowable speed the insurance would be invalidated.

I don't think that's how insurance works. Look at the vast number of insurance payouts, there is always someone at fault (apart from the tiny number of times when, say, a braking system failed). But the insurance still pays out when it's obvious the insured was at fault. The police can easily prove that a vehicle was travelling at excess speed when a collision occurs, does the insurance still pay out? You bet.

 

[Markymark]

This potentially opens a different can of worms. Who pays after the accident? Does the insurance company still pay and then go after the miscreant, or is the not at fault party left to their own devices?

I would assume it’s like it is now if you have invalidated your insurance. If you have a car invalidated by insurance and crash, your insurance would pay 3rd party. It wouldn’t cover costs to your car. They would also cone after you to recoup what they paid to 3rd oarty

 

[Smokin Joe]

I have no data to support this but I suspect that most chipped/remapped car owners do not inform their insurers. They are relying on the fact that they will never be challenged, and even if involved in a collision, their insurance company will not investigate the cars software. I base my suspicions purely on banter on various motoring message boards, when I have been seeking advice on remapping cars I have owned.

That's quite simple. If the technology is there for smart monitoring of cars it could also be made to flag up immediately if a vehicle is being used that isn't taxed, insured or doesn't have an MoT.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

I'm worried that too many Herbert's will put an undue level of faith in the tech and drive everywhere with their foot planted to the floor "safe" in the knowledge that the car won't exceed the limit,

If you read the article again you'll see that the driver can override the limiter simply by pressing harder on the accelerator, so your scenario isn't valid.


From the article:
"It is there to encourage them to do so, and to make them aware of what the limit is, but it can be overridden."

 

[lazybloke]

If you're gonna do it, then it needs to be GPS controlled. There's no point having a 70mph limiter fitted Tina car if the driver spends most time in 20 and 30mph zones.

And I'm against it.

Have a look at the news articles , they mention various technologies being used to establish the limit as it changes.

 

[lazybloke]

I've been driving with a speed limiter on (70mph) and pulled out to overtake a slow lorry. When I got to 70 the power was cut, it's not a nice feeling to be accelerating and then to be stuck in lane 2 or 3 with no power. Driving instructors teach that you can exceed the 70mph limit by 5mph in order to overtake safely, similar to what the AA were suggesting in the article. I think it's a bit over the top to compare safe overtaking to blitzing down lane 2 at 120!

Mrs L's car has a speed limiter (but activated and adjusted manually). There's no abrupt loss of power, just a gentle tailing off as you approach the limit.

 

[mustang1]

Have a look at the news articles , they mention various technologies being used to establish the limit as it changes.

Undoubtedly they will have the limit set a little above the actual speed limit so that the speed cameras can continue generating revenue.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

Undoubtedly they will have the limit set a little above the actual speed limit so that the speed cameras can continue generating revenue.

I recently read of a simple trick that prevents speed cameras from generating any speeding fines against me.

"A motorist from Southend has revealed the one simple trick that she has been using for the last ten years that she claims has helped her to avoid speeding tickets and penalty points on her driving licence.

32-year-old Melanie Milfridge told our Chief Reporter that she has managed to drive since passing her test in 2006 without being caught for a single motoring offence."

It's brilliant, everyone should try it!

 

[Brains]

I've been driving with a speed limiter on (70mph) and pulled out to overtake a slow lorry. When I got to 70 the power was cut, it's not a nice feeling to be accelerating and then to be stuck in lane 2 or 3 with no power. Driving instructors teach that you can exceed the 70mph limit by 5mph in order to overtake safely, similar to what the AA were suggesting in the article. I think it's a bit over the top to compare safe overtaking to blitzing down lane 2 at 120!

You get used to it.
I've been driving vans with speed limiters (usually around 60mph) for years.
I can go faster than a lorry by about 3-5mph which is enough to ensure you are not stuck with them

I think a speed limiter with an over ride facility is not a speed limiter

 

[Markymark]

I think some cheeky sod has fitted one to my bike over winter.

 

[Proto]

That's quite simple. If the technology is there for smart monitoring of cars it could also be made to flag up immediately if a vehicle is being used that isn't taxed, insured or doesn't have an MoT.

The police already use such equipment in their patrol cars. It instantly flags lack of MoT, insurance and MoT, yet it doesn’t seem to prevent huge numbers of drivers (10% in London?) flouting the law. The likelihood of being caught seems to be very small.

 

[lazybloke]

I think a speed limiter with an over ride facility is not a speed limiter

A limiter with no override is fine if it only enforces a single (upper) limit, but this new technology has to adjust to different limits.

Mrs L's car has a camera based speed limit recognition system (not enforced, information only). It occasionally misses a sign, so potentially it could state a 20 limit after you've driven from a town onto a motorway. Imagine that being enforced with no override!


Seems to be the limiter is a great idea (albeit with override). It also helps build the case for zero tolerance enforcement.
It also seems to me that a compulsory black box is going to make the most difference.