[M1fortyeye]

http://rt.com/news/eu-compulsory-speed-limiters-554/

I think it will be a no go..
If they succeed I'm (we're) in deep shit

[ovekvam]

I could live with that for road driving, but it would make track days rather boring...

[Math]

Well, that would make it simple for car makers. Only 2 engines for all models. A 114d and 114i. They reach 115kmh good enough. Then they can put that engine in everything from the 1 series trough the 7 series and M-cars.

[AAddict]

The EU sucks arse, and dirty arse at that.

[orcomma]

the vast majority of fatalities in the UK occur at speeds below 115kph.

many are at 40-50mph on roads that are appropriate for 30.

This will solve little except make overtaking dangerous if the car beside you decides they don't want you overtaking them

[Vervain]

Originally Posted by orcomma

the vast majority of fatalities in the UK occur at speeds below 115kph.

many are at 40-50mph on roads that are appropriate for 30.

This will solve little except make overtaking dangerous if the car beside you decides they don't want you overtaking them

Exactly. There has also been countless studies that revealed that increased speed limits reduced road carnage..

[vladberca]

Ok, so everyone will try to buy a helicopter

[ovekvam]

Originally Posted by Anodite10

Exactly. There has also been countless studies that revealed that increased speed limits reduced road carnage..

In Norway, there has been some studies that shows that the number of fatalities is reduced with lower speed limits. The number of accidents stays pretty much the same, but the consequences are less severe. Based on this knowledge, the Norwegian government has set the speed limits very low, and this seems to work. Last year, only around 120 people were killed in traffic. Ten years ago, there was less traffic, higher speed limits, and close to 300 fatalities.

It has to be said that there are very few fatalities on our best roads with highest speed limits, though.

Today I drove a rental car at around 150 km/h on the German Autobahn. I saw some Audi lights coming up very fast from behind, and went into the right lane to let it pass. When it came flying past me, I noticed an F20 M-Sport behind it, wanting to pass the Audi!

[ttimbo]

Originally Posted by ovekvam

In Norway, there has been some studies that shows that the number of fatalities is reduced with lower speed limits......Ten years ago, there was less traffic, higher speed limits, and close to 300 fatalities.

It has to be said that there are very few fatalities on our best roads with highest speed limits, though.

This is an area that requires very close examination of the evidence. Also, what other factors are in play? For example, is the government considering the introduction of speed cameras? If so, then very great care needs to be taken with the data, as the underlying motive is usually revenue raising, and the cameras are often provided by commercial firms on a turnkey, revenue sharing basis. To justify the investment, these are typically located, not in accident black spots, but in areas where motorists speed! These areas are usually quite safe.

And, yes, ten years ago, there were more road fatalities. Nearly everywhere (but excluding those emerging middle class economies with immature driving capabilities). But what, exactly, was the correlative causal factor? Was it speed? (But cars, generally, were slower then) Was it the active safety features of the cars of the day? (Much less than the cars of today) Was it the passive safety features? (again, there were far fewer). Or perhaps road design? Alcohol and drug influence was not as well enforced, perhaps? Or drivers were less aware of the consequence? (Considerable effort has been made on all these in the last ten years).

Lies, damned lies, and statistics!

Hence the importance of examining the data with a critical eye to discover true cause and effect.

[ovekvam]

It is also interesting to see that summer nights is the most dangerous time out on the roads. Lots of young people speeding around with limited experience as drivers. In the winter, with slippery roads, people drive slower, and the traffic is safer.

I agree that there are other factors at play here, but it seems to be rather safe to assume that lower speeds will reduce the amount of fatalities. It also reduces the energy spent, so it is good for the environment.

I still feel that it is the wrong way to go to technically limit the cars.

[vladberca]

In my country it's a problem of infrastructure: respecting the speed limits will elongate to much the time to cover the distances: not enough motorways.
On the other hand I've seen in this morning on news a huge car accident in Belgium on a motorway, more than 100 cars were involved. I'm not sure about the causes...
So speeding it's a factor, but not the main one.
Also I'm sure that this speed limitation can't be put in practice as the automotive industry will be destroyed

[dape90]

Thing is you can limit motorway speeds, make 20mph zones outside schools and in town centres. Even put speed cameras up on every road!
However, it will never address the biggest issue of them all!
The fact that 90% of drivers should not be allowed on the road on the first place. And that goes to the stupid w@nk3r ( and I hate to swear, it's the lowest form of communicating, but needs must!) who very nearly took out 5 cars in front of me on the M25 in his van!
Such an unnecessary way to drive!
And if by chance van man on the M25 near junction 17 at about 4pm in a grey VW T 150 you are a member of this forum you need a flaming slap!

I will put soap box away now.

[ovekvam]

Originally Posted by dape90

The fact that 90% of drivers should not be allowed on the road on the first place.

I think it is less than 10 percent of the drivers who cause more than 90 percent of all problems on our roads. Most people drive just fine.

[Math]

Actually I dont think limited cars will be on the roads any time soon. As @vladberca said, it would ruin the car industry. Second, the governments everywhere are counting too much on all the money coming in from speeding people. I just think its big business for them, as @ttimbo already mentioned.

@vladberca, the accident here in Belgium yesterday was due to very severe mist and very localised. To give you an idea, I work in aviation and the pilot of my incoming plane could clearly see town but could'nt make out the airfield wich is located only 1,5 Km away! They had to evade to another airport..

[vladberca]

@math: thanks for the details of the accident: this kind of weather is indeed the most dangerous for any kind of traffic

[ttimbo]

Originally Posted by ovekvam;15070112....

It also reduces the energy spent, so it is good for the environment.

Today's cars are much more energy efficient and less polluting than 10 years ago. To bring the discussion to today's cars, especially BMWs, I'm amazed about the efficiency of my M135i, which has an average fuel consumption of 8.03L/100 k over nearly 12,000k, and typically delivers 6.7L/100k on motorway trips,w here my average speed is around 105kph for a 300k trip

By comparison, 10 years ago, I owned a Mazda RX-8 (ok, no econocar) and fuel consumption while I owned it averaged 12.2L/100k (over 40,000k), with both cars driven more or less the same way, same trips.

[johnnydad]

In Victoria (Australia) they have this system already. With a 110km/h limit, a 3km/h tolerance, and hidden speed cameras scattered about, all drivers apply their brakes before 115km/h.

This leads to frustration, boredom, and potentially dangerous bunching and tailgating. The EU would be best advised not to go there.

Ovekvam - I suppose in Norway, a lot of your roads and conditions mean that a 110km/h would be appropriate. That said, when I was there a couple of years back, I frequently cruised at upwards of 140km/h on the smaller main roads and rarely saw any traffic policemen.

[ovekvam]

Originally Posted by johnnydad

Ovekvam - I suppose in Norway, a lot of your roads and conditions mean that a 110km/h would be appropriate. That said, when I was there a couple of years back, I frequently cruised at upwards of 140km/h on the smaller main roads and rarely saw any traffic policemen.

Our best highways in the country have 100 km/h now. In my area the best highway has 90. If you should happen to get caught doing 140, you will not only lose your driver's licence, but you would also be sentenced to jail and have to pay around 1000 euros.

[M1fortyeye]

Originally Posted by ovekvam

Our best highways in the country have 100 km/h now. In my area the best highway has 90. If you should happen to get caught doing 140, you will not only lose your driver's licence, but you would also be sentenced to jail and have to pay around 1000 euros.

:O and I thought Slovenians have strict law about speeding..
You lose licence if you go 50kph above the limit in city and out of the city (where there is no highways - limit 90kph) and pay 1200€ (if we pay in 8 days we always get 50% discount ), no jail.
Actually you can't lose licence by one-time speeding on highway.. if you go more than 60kph above limit (limit is mostly 130kph) you "just" pay 1200€ and get 9 points (at 18 you're out )
But if you're unexperienced driver (under the age of 21 or having licence for just 2 years), you lose licence already by going 30kph above limit in city..

[ovekvam]

In Norway they take your licence if you go 26 over the speed limit in the city, and 41 over on the highways.

[johnnydad]

In NSW (Australia) we have an automatic suspension at 30km/h over, but on Motorways if you exceed 130km/h (20km/h over) you can lose your licence.

[ttimbo]

Just a point of clarification: it's not automatic, it's discretionary if handled by Roads and Maritime Services, but mandatory if you are convicted by a Court. Despite this, the advice for these higher speed transgressions is to throw yourself before the court and seek mercy, rather than have the matter dealt with by RMS. I dunno