Who'd have though Donald Tusk could reach JFK's 'Ich bin ein Berliner' levels of solidarity with his appeal to British Europeans. Listening to a phone-in people are saying they were in tears when they heard what he said
Movements start with the most unlikely beginnings. Could this be the start of a beautiful friendship.....
I am a European - in the true sense of the word. But as a remain voter who would now vote otherwise, I am anti-EU - at least in the current form. A form that is not going to change in the short-medium term as far as I can see.
Are you in favour of customs barriers between the countries that are currently in the EU? If not, then whatever you replace the EU with would need to look remarkably like the current EU.
I am perfectly happy to have a well-constructed trading bloc with reciprocal arrangements - what I object to is everything that has been loaded on top of that. The 'European Project' has moved beyond trade and the necessary structures to support and facilitate that into areas that really should be left to the nation state.
It would have been preferable if the EU had stayed as the Western European Union; the original six, plus us, Austria and Iberia and maybe Scandinavia. However, thanks in no small part to Mrs T, we are where we are. The culture in the East, for historic reasons is, it seems to me, somewhat different.
There is a problem with this thinking though. Lets take a look back to the end of 1989. Imagine the screen blurring wibbling from left to right
Every one in the West wants the DDR to join unify with the BRD. It will show that capitalism has won the cold war. If the DDR joins the BRD in 1990 then it has to join the EEC. If a strong ex-soviet state like the DDR joins, then it is almost impossible to tell Czechoslovakia and Poland that they can't join, who were only commimist because the USSR imposed it. Once Czechoslovakia is in then Hungary will want in etc. ....
Who'd have though Donald Tusk could reach JFK's 'Ich bin ein Berliner' levels of solidarity with his appeal to British Europeans. Listening to a phone-in people are saying they were in tears when they heard what he said
Movements start with the most unlikely beginnings. Could this be the start of a beautiful friendship.....
There wasn't a dry eye in the house.
Tories don't have tear ducts
Didn't George Osborne once famously cry at a funeral....
was that the one where TMay buried his political career ?
I can see this speed limiting law going down about as well as the idea of road pricing with the Great British public.
I think there’s a generational divide. I suspect most under-30s won’t have much of a problem with this. Phones are helping to kill enthusiasm for cars.
The Jeremy Clarkson tendency is a diminishing force.
Car speed limiters in 2022, we're getting them whether in the EU or not.
Isn’t this a complete non story? Speed limiting technology does not enforce speed limits, it allows drivers to control their speed by means other than the accelerator and the brake.
No - It very much is a story and the EU will pass it into law in September applying to all new cars and commercial vehicles from 2022. The speed will be governed by a limiter based on gps. The driver will be able to override the speed limiter but aftet a short period an audible warning will cut in
There’s an awful lot of shitcake nannying legislation coming out of the EU this week that reminds me why I voted to Leave. They seem intent on taking all the freedom and pleasure out of driving.
It’s reminded me why I voted to Leave and felt so strongly about it prior to the vote.
You take pleasure out of breaking the law by exceeding the speed limit?
Yes, and so do you.
I’ve never met anyone who’s religiously stuck to 70mph on dual carriageways and motorways at all times, and wouldn’t believe you if you said you were one of them.
Going 100mph+ is obviously dickish but rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men.
Funnily enough, one of the few I've ever encountered who claimed to stick rigidly to the speed limit at all times was Snowflake, once of this parish. It is widely thought that she was Yvette Cooper, in which case I would say from my perception of her here that she is notably well-informed, and dogmatic.
And no, I don't always stick to the speed limit. There are times when it is downright dangerous to do so.
I think the rule of speed limit + 2 mph + 10% is a sensible rule of thumb for a prosecution.
I go much slower when there are horses, cyclists and children, down to 15mph at times. If it’s a clear road, at 6am, I have gone 37-38mph in a built up area, but I don’t take the piss. On motorways I’d say I average 75-80 with spurts when I get up to 85-90.
I can see this speed limiting law going down about as well as the idea of road pricing with the Great British public.
I think there’s a generational divide. I suspect most under-30s won’t have much of a problem with this. Phones are helping to kill enthusiasm for cars.
The Jeremy Clarkson tendency is a diminishing force.
I would think that would london Vs rest divide as the young in London don't drive.
No - It very much is a story and the EU will pass it into law in September applying to all new cars and commercial vehicles from 2022. The speed will be governed by a limiter based on gps. The driver will be able to override the speed limiter but aftet a short period an audible warning will cut in
There’s an awful lot of shitcake nannying legislation coming out of the EU this week that reminds me why I voted to Leave. They seem intent on taking all the freedom and pleasure out of driving.
It’s reminded me why I voted to Leave and felt so strongly about it prior to the vote.
You take pleasure out of breaking the law by exceeding the speed limit?
Who does not?
Quite a few people never break speed limits by design. It has always amused me how many who would consider themselves on the side of law and order think they have the right to ignore laws they dislike as soon as they get in their car, even though they are designed to prevent injury and death.
The only clearly sensible exception to me is overtaking on single carriage roads, which should be completed as swiftly as possible. I find 20mph infuriating, but spend little time driving in socialist boroughs of London, so it doesn’t affect me.
I would expect 20 to 30mph speed limits to be taken very seriously.
A motorway is a regulated environment and the 70mph limit designed for a different age when car engines, brakes, and safety was of an entirely different order.
Although it is still intrinsically both safer and more environmentally friendly to travel at 70mph than 80mph. That's not to say that in the right conditions it wouldn't be safe to travel at 90mph or even higher but casualty rates on the roads are falling and the static speed limits is a part of that.
It’s still safer to travel at 50mph, or not to travel at all and stay at home.
There are trade offs: including the economy, speed, and pleasure.
The speed limits have been the same for a very long time so I find it hard to see how they’ve been a decisive factor in reductions over the last 20-30 years.
What I mean is that if speed limits had been increased "because cars are safer now", then casualty rates would be higher than they actually are.
I agree there are trade-offs. I'm happy with a motorway limit of 70mph. There are some roads where the speed limit is too low (there's one outside my window here, which is a 30 and should be a 40), but those are specific cases and probably rare.
Speed limits are all fine and dandy - but there are times when you legitimately need to exceed the speed limit in order to avoid an incident. Speed limiters take away that control precisely at a time when you might actually need it to avoid a larger problem.
This is a good point.
Last year I was behind a lorry in the inside lane of the M1 and pulled out into the middle lane to affect a routine overtake. As I passed the rear of the lorry the front of it started to drift into the middle lane, driver nodding off possibly, thus threatening to block my passage. I could neither slow down nor return to the inside lane because I was already past the back of the lorry and I had another car up my arse in the middle lane. The outside lane was also a no-go because it was nose to tail with cars going a lot faster than me.
Death beckoned.
But no! What I did, and I had just a split second to make this decision, was I floored the accelerator and just squeaked through and past the lorry before the gap closed up. Phew.
So busting the speed limit is not only the right of any freeborn Engishman but in this case saved my life. If I had been driving a Brussels approved Ford Quisling car that couldn't do it I would be dead. The EU would have (quite literally) killed me.
Who'd have though Donald Tusk could reach JFK's 'Ich bin ein Berliner' levels of solidarity with his appeal to British Europeans. Listening to a phone-in people are saying they were in tears when they heard what he said
Movements start with the most unlikely beginnings. Could this be the start of a beautiful friendship.....
There wasn't a dry eye in the house.
Tories don't have tear ducts
Didn't George Osborne once famously cry at a funeral....
I can see this speed limiting law going down about as well as the idea of road pricing with the Great British public.
I think there’s a generational divide. I suspect most under-30s won’t have much of a problem with this. Phones are helping to kill enthusiasm for cars.
The Jeremy Clarkson tendency is a diminishing force.
I would think that would london Vs rest divide as the young in London don't drive.
Doesn’t this apply in the other large cities as well? Especially with the rise of Uber?
Hopefully one of our northern or Midland brethren can opine, or a Bristolian.
I expect North of the Wall dragons are still popular.
Can I just say that visual recognition and GPS-based speed limiting is a rather (ahem) *interesting* idea technology-wise.
I have no great philosophical problem with it; the question is how it operates. I have not heard much about the ISA proposal, so the following may or may not be valid:
*) GPS is not accurate enough. In places you get local road that may have a low speed limit (e.g. 30 MPH) alongside one with a 70 MPH speed limit. It would be easy for a vehicle on the 70MPH road to suddenly think it is on the 30 MPH one and slow down without warning. What happens when the GPS signal is downgraded or spoofed?
*) Sign recognition is not enough on its own, either - what about poor weather conditions? What happens when it 'sees' the sign on the adjacent road? Besides, visual recognition tech is *really* poor at seven-nines or greater reliability - which is what is needed.
*) What is the default if GPS/Glosnass/Galileo signal is downgraded and the visual camera inoperable? Would you still be able to drive the car as normal (in which case the answer for anyone wanting to speed is obvious). It sounds like at the moment you can - but car fitted with this tech can be made inoperable in such conditions easily.
*) Access to the data in the black box should be very carefully regulated. It should *not* be available OTA for privacy and security reasons.
*) The speed limit is the *maximum* speed limit - you should drive according to conditions. It would be easy for drivers to fall into a situation where the car tells them they can drive at 70MPH, but rain is falling, and their instinct says they should slow down to 60 MPH.
As ever with technology, the important question is not how it works, but how it fails. Something Boeing ignored with MCAS ...
I am a European - in the true sense of the word. But as a remain voter who would now vote otherwise, I am anti-EU - at least in the current form. A form that is not going to change in the short-medium term as far as I can see.
Are you in favour of customs barriers between the countries that are currently in the EU? If not, then whatever you replace the EU with would need to look remarkably like the current EU.
I am perfectly happy to have a well-constructed trading bloc with reciprocal arrangements - what I object to is everything that has been loaded on top of that. The 'European Project' has moved beyond trade and the necessary structures to support and facilitate that into areas that really should be left to the nation state.
It would have been preferable if the EU had stayed as the Western European Union; the original six, plus us, Austria and Iberia and maybe Scandinavia. However, thanks in no small part to Mrs T, we are where we are. The culture in the East, for historic reasons is, it seems to me, somewhat different.
There is a problem with this thinking though. Lets take a look back to the end of 1989. Imagine the screen blurring wibbling from left to right
Every one in the West wants the DDR to join unify with the BRD. It will show that capitalism has won the cold war. If the DDR joins the BRD in 1990 then it has to join the EEC. If a strong ex-soviet state like the DDR joins, then it is almost impossible to tell Czechoslovakia and Poland that they can't join, who were only commimist because the USSR imposed it. Once Czechoslovakia is in then Hungary will want in etc. ....
There's also the issue that Greece had already joined. Greece is in an anomalous position in the EU, geographically in the East and with Byzantine history, but in its political culture and ethnicity having more in common with Latin than Slavic Europe ; and of course having a unique connection with the original West. That meant that, despite all that, the EU had already moved beyond the original geographically western core, and other states could see that.
It’s still safer to travel at 50mph, or not to travel at all and stay at home.
There are trade offs: including the economy, speed, and pleasure.
The speed limits have been the same for a very long time so I find it hard to see how they’ve been a decisive factor in reductions over the last 20-30 years.
What I mean is that if speed limits had been increased "because cars are safer now", then casualty rates would be higher than they actually are.
I agree there are trade-offs. I'm happy with a motorway limit of 70mph. There are some roads where the speed limit is too low (there's one outside my window here, which is a 30 and should be a 40), but those are specific cases and probably rare.
I can think of two roads in my area which are 30 and should be 40. Funnily enough, the police like to do speed traps on them.
I can see this speed limiting law going down about as well as the idea of road pricing with the Great British public.
I think there’s a generational divide. I suspect most under-30s won’t have much of a problem with this. Phones are helping to kill enthusiasm for cars.
The Jeremy Clarkson tendency is a diminishing force.
I would think that would london Vs rest divide as the young in London don't drive.
They will, once they get a bit older and start moving out from the centre.
Car speed limiters in 2022, we're getting them whether in the EU or not.
Isn’t this a complete non story? Speed limiting technology does not enforce speed limits, it allows drivers to control their speed by means other than the accelerator and the brake.
No - It very much is a story and the EU will pass it into law in September applying to all new cars and commercial vehicles from 2022. The speed will be governed by a limiter based on gps. The driver will be able to override the speed limiter but aftet a short period an audible warning will cut in
There’s an awful lot of shitcake nannying legislation coming out of the EU this week that reminds me why I voted to Leave. They seem intent on taking all the freedom and pleasure out of driving.
It’s reminded me why I voted to Leave and felt so strongly about it prior to the vote.
You take pleasure out of breaking the law by exceeding the speed limit?
Who does not?
Quite a few people never break speed limits by design. It has always amused me how many who would consider themselves on the side of law and order think they have the right to ignore laws they dislike as soon as they get in their car, even though they are designed to prevent injury and death.
The only clearly sensible exception to me is overtaking on single carriage roads, which should be completed as swiftly as possible. I find 20mph infuriating, but spend little time driving in socialist boroughs of London, so it doesn’t affect me.
Speeding in urban areas and on country roads is stupid, but doing 80-85 on a motorway makes little difference. Motorways are by far the safest roads on which to drive.
I would be comfortable with the speed limit on motorways being raised to 85mph if simultaneously the speed limit in built-up areas was reduced to 20mph.
I agree. In practice, the police only take an interest at people doing 85 + on motorways.
But at least the 70 speed limt allows the police to fine/charge people driving dangerously and at 80 mph. If the speed limit was 85 mph you would need to make a very good case for the dangerous driving or of speeding at at least 90, as any thing under 90 would be contested.
I can see this speed limiting law going down about as well as the idea of road pricing with the Great British public.
I think there’s a generational divide. I suspect most under-30s won’t have much of a problem with this. Phones are helping to kill enthusiasm for cars.
The Jeremy Clarkson tendency is a diminishing force.
I would think that would london Vs rest divide as the young in London don't drive.
Doesn’t this apply in the other large cities as well? Especially with the rise of Uber?
Hopefully one of our northern or Midland brethren can opine, or a Bristolian.
I expect North of the Wall dragons are still popular.
Public transport in Bristol is notoriously bad.
Other cities better and so yes maybe more a big city Vs rest thing, but London is a place where you really don't need a car / pain in the assato have one compared to say Birmingham where you can live without one but still advantages to having it.
I can see this speed limiting law going down about as well as the idea of road pricing with the Great British public.
I think there’s a generational divide. I suspect most under-30s won’t have much of a problem with this. Phones are helping to kill enthusiasm for cars.
The Jeremy Clarkson tendency is a diminishing force.
And getting the chance to do an enjoyable drive is increasingly rare. The ones I remember were in Europe or at times when it used to be quiet like early mornings or Boxing Day. Being in moderate to heavy traffic nowadays is work not pleasure
Speed limits are all fine and dandy - but there are times when you legitimately need to exceed the speed limit in order to avoid an incident. Speed limiters take away that control precisely at a time when you might actually need it to avoid a larger problem.
This is a good point.
Last year I was behind a lorry in the inside lane of the M1 and pulled out into the middle lane to affect a routine overtake. As I passed the rear of the lorry the front of it started to drift into the middle lane, driver nodding off possibly, thus threatening to block my passage. I could neither slow down nor return to the inside lane because I was already past the back of the lorry and I had another car up my arse in the middle lane. The outside lane was also a no-go because it was nose to tail with cars going a lot faster than me.
Death beckoned.
But no! What I did, and I had just a split second to make this decision, was I floored the accelerator and just squeaked through and past the lorry before the gap closed up. Phew.
So busting the speed limit is not only the right of any freeborn Engishman but in this case saved my life. If I had been driving a Brussels approved Ford Quisling car that couldn't do it I would be dead. The EU would have (quite literally) killed me.
In principle it should be possible to design a speed limiter that would allow for a temporary burst of speed for a few seconds for that scenario, but would prevent sustained speeds in excess of the speed limit.
Car speed limiters in 2022, we're getting them whether in the EU or not.
You take pleasure out of breaking the law by exceeding the speed limit?
Yes, and so do you.
I’ve never met anyone who’s religiously stuck to 70mph on dual carriageways and motorways at all times, and wouldn’t believe you if you said you were one of them.
Going 100mph+ is obviously dickish but rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men.
Funnily enough, one of the few I've ever encountered who claimed to stick rigidly to the speed limit at all times was Snowflake, once of this parish. It is widely thought that she was Yvette Cooper, in which case I would say from my perception of her here that she is notably well-informed, and dogmatic.
And no, I don't always stick to the speed limit. There are times when it is downright dangerous to do so.
I think the rule of speed limit + 2 mph + 10% is a sensible rule of thumb for a prosecution.
I go much slower when there are horses, cyclists and children, down to 15mph at times. If it’s a clear road, at 6am, I have gone 37-38mph in a built up area, but I don’t take the piss. On motorways I’d say I average 75-80 with spurts when I get up to 85-90.
In other words, I use my judgment.
So you routinely break laws that you do not like?
Isnt that being "progressive" ?
This is a Kantian question. He was an absolutist. He had no room for judgement or context.
I am not a Kantian. In general I regard moral and legal rules as guidance, to be generally followed, but broken when I exercise my judgement. Otherwise I am a robot.
It is 3:00am. You are in a car stopped at traffic lights at a crossroads with clear visibility in all directions. Nothing on the road. Do you cross at red or sit there waiting for the green? The answer determines whether you are a Kantian or not. What if it has been on red for the last 15 minutes?
So busting the speed limit is not only the right of any freeborn Engishman but in this case saved my life. If I had been driving a Brussels approved Ford Quisling car that couldn't do it I would be dead. The EU would have (quite literally) killed me.
If you floor the accelerator you car would still accelerate under the new regulations.
The intent is to stop dozy drivers exceeding the speed limit because they aren't paying attention, not to enforce a speed limit in all circumstances.
No - It very much is a story and the EU will pass it into law in September applying to all new cars and commercial vehicles from 2022. The speed will be governed by a limiter based on gps. The driver will be able to override the speed limiter but aftet a short period an audible warning will cut in
There’s an awful lot of shitcake nannying legislation coming out of the EU this week that reminds me why I voted to Leave. They seem intent on taking all the freedom and pleasure out of driving.
It’s reminded me why I voted to Leave and felt so strongly about it prior to the vote.
You take pleasure out of breaking the law by exceeding the speed limit?
Who does not?
Quite
I would expect 20 to 30mph speed limits to be taken very seriously.
A motorway is a regulated environment and the 70mph limit designed for a different age when car engines, brakes, and safety was of an entirely different order.
Although it is still intrinsically both safer and more environmentally friendly to travel at 70mph than 80mph. That's not to say that in the right conditions it wouldn't be safe to travel at 90mph or even higher but casualty rates on the roads are falling and the static speed limits is a part of that.
The speed limits have been the same for a very long time so I find it hard to see how they’ve been a decisive factor in reductions over the last 20-30 years.
What I mean is that if speed limits had been increased "because cars are safer now", then casualty rates would be higher than they actually are.
I agree there are trade-offs. I'm happy with a motorway limit of 70mph. There are some roads where the speed limit is too low (there's one outside my window here, which is a 30 and should be a 40), but those are specific cases and probably rare.
I’m not sure that necessarily follows. It’s much more likely to be a function of congestion than speed. And I’m not sure the German autobahn experience suggests such a problem.
Setting the geographic limit is only part of it. Allowing room for sensible judgement and interpretation is another.
Speed limits are all fine and dandy - but there are times when you legitimately need to exceed the speed limit in order to avoid an incident. Speed limiters take away that control precisely at a time when you might actually need it to avoid a larger problem.
This is a good point.
Last year I was behind a lorry in the inside lane of the M1 and pulled out into the middle lane to affect a routine overtake. As I passed the rear of the lorry the front of it started to drift into the middle lane, driver nodding off possibly, thus threatening to block my passage. I could neither slow down nor return to the inside lane because I was already past the back of the lorry and I had another car up my arse in the middle lane. The outside lane was also a no-go because it was nose to tail with cars going a lot faster than me.
Death beckoned.
But no! What I did, and I had just a split second to make this decision, was I floored the accelerator and just squeaked through and past the lorry before the gap closed up. Phew.
So busting the speed limit is not only the right of any freeborn Engishman but in this case saved my life. If I had been driving a Brussels approved Ford Quisling car that couldn't do it I would be dead. The EU would have (quite literally) killed me.
I believe some speed limiters allow temporary speed increases and acceleration over and above the speed limit for short periods - hopefully exactly the scenario you mention. For example, I think recent Jags will ignore the limiter if you fully depress the accelerator. It depends if EU-compatible ISA systems are allowed to have such capability.
Car speed limiters in 2022, we're getting them whether in the EU or not.
You take pleasure out of breaking the law by exceeding the speed limit?
Yes, and so do you.
I’ve never met anyone who’s religiously stuck to 70mph on dual carriageways and motorways at all times, and wouldn’t believe you if you said you were one of them.
Going 100mph+ is obviously dickish but rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men.
Funnily enough, one of the few I've ever encountered who claimed to stick rigidly to the speed limit at all times was Snowflake, once of this parish. It is widely thought that she was Yvette Cooper, in which case I would say from my perception of her here that she is notably well-informed, and dogmatic.
And no, I don't always stick to the speed limit. There are times when it is downright dangerous to do so.
I think the rule of speed limit + 2 mph + 10% is a sensible rule of thumb for a prosecution.
I go much slower when there are horses, cyclists and children, down to 15mph at times. If it’s a clear road, at 6am, I have gone 37-38mph in a built up area, but I don’t take the piss. On motorways I’d say I average 75-80 with spurts when I get up to 85-90.
In other words, I use my judgment.
So you routinely break laws that you do not like?
Isnt that being "progressive" ?
This is a Kantian question. He was an absolutist. He had no room for judgement or context.
I am not a Kantian. In general I regard moral and legal rules as guidance, to be generally followed, but broken when I exercise my judgement. Otherwise I am a robot.
It is 3:00am. You are in a car stopped at traffic lights at a crossroads with clear visibility in all directions. Nothing on the road. Do you cross at red or sit there waiting for the green? The answer determines whether you are a Kantian or not. What if it has been on red for the last 15 minutes?
by and large I agree with you. There is a certain arbitrariness to laws and some laws outlive their purpose.
I can see this speed limiting law going down about as well as the idea of road pricing with the Great British public.
I think there’s a generational divide. I suspect most under-30s won’t have much of a problem with this. Phones are helping to kill enthusiasm for cars.
The Jeremy Clarkson tendency is a diminishing force.
And getting the chance to do an enjoyable drive is increasingly rare. The ones I remember were in Europe or at times when it used to be quiet like early mornings or Boxing Day. Being in moderate to heavy traffic nowadays is work not pleasure
Its because because this country doesnt do infrastructure
No - It very much is a story and the EU will pass it into law in September applying to all new cars and commercial vehicles from 2022. The speed will be governed by a limiter based on gps. The driver will be able to override the speed limiter but aftet a short period an audible warning will cut in
There’s an awful lot of shitcake nannying legislation coming out of the EU this week that reminds me why I voted to Leave. They seem intent on taking all the freedom and pleasure out of driving.
It’s reminded me why I voted to Leave and felt so strongly about it prior to the vote.
You take pleasure out of breaking the law by exceeding the speed limit?
Who does not?
Quite a few people never break speed limits by design.
I would expect 20 to 30mph speed limits to be taken very seriously.
A motorway is a regulated environment and the 70mph limit designed for a different age when car engines, brakes, and safety was of an entirely different order.
Although it is still intrinsically both safer and more environmentally friendly to travel at 70mph than 80mph. That's not to say that in the right conditions it wouldn't be safe to travel at 90mph or even higher but casualty rates on the roads are falling and the static speed limits is a part of that.
It’s still safer to travel at 50mph, or not to travel at all and stay at home.
There are trade offs: including the economy, speed, and pleasure.
The speed limits have been the same for a very long time so I find it hard to see how they’ve been a decisive factor in reductions over the last 20-30 years.
What I mean is that if speed limits had been increased "because cars are safer now", then casualty rates would be higher than they actually are.
I agree there are trade-offs. I'm happy with a motorway limit of 70mph. There are some roads where the speed limit is too low (there's one outside my window here, which is a 30 and should be a 40), but those are specific cases and probably rare.
There's a road I run down regularly (The A60 from Oldcotes to Langold) which could do with being 30 rather than 40, and have a wider pavement...
OTOH 85 should be the limit for motorways as per Alistair. I try not to break the speed limits on motorways (Heck I can't in my old banger of a Peugeot) in my other half's car not through fear of sinning per se, but fear of burning.
It’s still safer to travel at 50mph, or not to travel at all and stay at home.
There are trade offs: including the economy, speed, and pleasure.
The speed limits have been the same for a very long time so I find it hard to see how they’ve been a decisive factor in reductions over the last 20-30 years.
What I mean is that if speed limits had been increased "because cars are safer now", then casualty rates would be higher than they actually are.
I agree there are trade-offs. I'm happy with a motorway limit of 70mph. There are some roads where the speed limit is too low (there's one outside my window here, which is a 30 and should be a 40), but those are specific cases and probably rare.
I can think of two roads in my area which are 30 and should be 40. Funnily enough, the police like to do speed traps on them.
The most dangerous roads, in my experience, are country lanes - barely wide enough for two cars - which are “nominally” NSL out in the sticks but full of bends and blind corners with vans and cars doing 60mph+ - often in the middle of the road - where 30-40mph and caution would be far more sensible.
Can I just say that visual recognition and GPS-based speed limiting is a rather (ahem) *interesting* idea technology-wise.
*) What is the default if GPS/Glosnass/Galileo signal is downgraded and the visual camera inoperable? Boeing ignored with MCAS ...
i wonder how tempting it would be for individuals to tape over the camera, so it can't read signs.....
Despite progress in computer vision, it certainly won't be anywhere near 100% accuracy on reading signs. Poor visibility, camera fault, people have messed with the sign.
Speed limits are all fine and dandy - but there are times when you legitimately need to exceed the speed limit in order to avoid an incident. Speed limiters take away that control precisely at a time when you might actually need it to avoid a larger problem.
This is a good point.
Last year I was behind a lorry in the inside lane of the M1 and pulled out into the middle lane to affect a routine overtake. As I passed the rear of the lorry the front of it started to drift into the middle lane, driver nodding off possibly, thus threatening to block my passage. I could neither slow down nor return to the inside lane because I was already past the back of the lorry and I had another car up my arse in the middle lane. The outside lane was also a no-go because it was nose to tail with cars going a lot faster than me.
Death beckoned.
But no! What I did, and I had just a split second to make this decision, was I floored the accelerator and just squeaked through and past the lorry before the gap closed up. Phew.
So busting the speed limit is not only the right of any freeborn Engishman but in this case saved my life. If I had been driving a Brussels approved Ford Quisling car that couldn't do it I would be dead. The EU would have (quite literally) killed me.
I believe some speed limiters allow temporary speed increases and acceleration over and above the speed limit for short periods - hopefully exactly the scenario you mention. For example, I think recent Jags will ignore the limiter if you fully depress the accelerator. It depends if EU-compatible ISA systems are allowed to have such capability.
Fully depress the accelerator doesn’t sound very safe to me.
It’s still safer to travel at 50mph, or not to travel at all and stay at home.
There are trade offs: including the economy, speed, and pleasure.
The speed limits have been the same for a very long time so I find it hard to see how they’ve been a decisive factor in reductions over the last 20-30 years.
What I mean is that if speed limits had been increased "because cars are safer now", then casualty rates would be higher than they actually are.
I agree there are trade-offs. I'm happy with a motorway limit of 70mph. There are some roads where the speed limit is too low (there's one outside my window here, which is a 30 and should be a 40), but those are specific cases and probably rare.
I can think of two roads in my area which are 30 and should be 40. Funnily enough, the police like to do speed traps on them.
Driving at 80-85 vs 70 certainly makes little appreciable difference to arrival times (unless you are driving a very long way), increases the risk of accidents, and wastes fuel. I don’t see the point personally.
Something that’s becoming more common is cars being driven at 25mph in towns and wandering all over the road. I imagine it’s people on their phones.
I drive to the N of Scotland (from England) reasonably frequently. 80 vs 70 does actually make a reasonable difference in the length of time to complete the journey. As it is a long way, one of the biggest risks is tiredness, and without much traffic it is pretty tedious, so any time saving on empty roads could easily be a safety benefit.
Maybe this is an argument for variable speed limits with a higher limit below a certain traffic density.
I believe the average speed for traffic on the M74 through the borders was once measured at 74mph, and that includes 'busy' times.
I really don't like the limiter idea, although I do stick pretty rigidly to all urban limits. I have a suspicion that it will eventually involve tracking - just because 'they' can.
As Peter from Putney has pointed out, Betfair's market on the Commons to pass Brexit at the 3rd meaningful vote is looking very interesting.
Yes 2.22-2.28 No 1.79-1.82
Not far from a coin toss according to the market.
On the grounds that Bercow won't allow it back to the Commons unless the Standing Order is first overturned, there is a reasonable argument that MV3 can't happen unless it will pass.
On that basis, Yes is potentially risk free, but obviously isn't. Might be some value.
Car speed limiters in 2022, we're getting them whether in the EU or not.
You take pleasure out of breaking the law by exceeding the speed limit?
Yes, and so do you.
I’ve never met anyone who’s religiously stuck to 70mph on dual carriageways and motorways at all times, and wouldn’t believe you if you said you were one of them.
Going 100mph+ is obviously dickish but rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men.
Funnily enough, one of the few I've ever encountered who claimed to stick rigidly to the speed limit at all times was Snowflake, once of this parish. It is widely thought that she was Yvette Cooper, in which case I would say from my perception of her here that she is notably well-informed, and dogmatic.
And no, I don't always stick to the speed limit. There are times when it is downright dangerous to do so.
I think the rule of speed limit + 2 mph + 10% is a sensible rule of thumb for a prosecution.
I go much slower when there are horses, cyclists and children, down to 15mph at times. If it’s a clear road, at 6am, I have gone 37-38mph in a built up area, but I don’t take the piss. On motorways I’d say I average 75-80 with spurts when I get up to 85-90.
In other words, I use my judgment.
So you routinely break laws that you do not like?
Isnt that being "progressive" ?
This is a Kantian question. He was an absolutist. He had no room for judgement or context.
I am not a Kantian. In general I regard moral and legal rules as guidance, to be generally followed, but broken when I exercise my judgement. Otherwise I am a robot.
It is 3:00am. You are in a car stopped at traffic lights at a crossroads with clear visibility in all directions. Nothing on the road. Do you cross at red or sit there waiting for the green? The answer determines whether you are a Kantian or not. What if it has been on red for the last 15 minutes?
I'm obeying the lights generally out of fear of some hidden camera springing up giving me TS10.
Who'd have though Donald Tusk could reach JFK's 'Ich bin ein Berliner' levels of solidarity with his appeal to British Europeans. Listening to a phone-in people are saying they were in tears when they heard what he said
Movements start with the most unlikely beginnings. Could this be the start of a beautiful friendship.....
There wasn't a dry eye in the house.
Tories don't have tear ducts
Didn't George Osborne once famously cry at a funeral....
I can see this speed limiting law going down about as well as the idea of road pricing with the Great British public.
I think there’s a generational divide. I suspect most under-30s won’t have much of a problem with this. Phones are helping to kill enthusiasm for cars.
The Jeremy Clarkson tendency is a diminishing force.
And getting the chance to do an enjoyable drive is increasingly rare. The ones I remember were in Europe or at times when it used to be quiet like early mornings or Boxing Day. Being in moderate to heavy traffic nowadays is work not pleasure
Its because because this country doesnt do infrastructure
People who remember the golden age of driving were those wealthy enough to have access to cars when they were less affordable on a relative basis.
See also the golden age of flying etc.
After a few years of Corbyn as PM there will be great driving opportunities as the roads empty. Too bad the only car available will be the Allegro Mk 2.
As Peter from Putney has pointed out, Betfair's market on the Commons to pass Brexit at the 3rd meaningful vote is looking very interesting.
Yes 2.22-2.28 No 1.79-1.82
Not far from a coin toss according to the market.
On the grounds that Bercow won't allow it back to the Commons unless the Standing Order is first overturned, there is a reasonable argument that MV3 can't happen unless it will pass.
On that basis, Yes is potentially risk free, but obviously isn't. Might be some value.
MV3 market on Betfair should be voided if it doesn't occur before 30-03.
Good morning, everybody. I have been offline since Thursday. Please can someone tell me whether a No-deal Brexit has been definitely and legally avoided yet? I've looked at the BBC news but it doesn't seem to give a definite picture.
Thanks in anticipation.
For the day after tomorrow, yes, although there are some brexit enthusiasts dicking around with an eccentric legal theory that, were it not a pile of pants, would mean no.
Speed limits are all fine and dandy - but there are times when you legitimately need to exceed the speed limit in order to avoid an incident. Speed limiters take away that control precisely at a time when you might actually need it to avoid a larger problem.
This is a good point.
Last year I was behind a lorry in the inside lane of the M1 and pulled out into the middle lane to affect a routine overtake. As I passed the rear of the lorry the front of it started to drift into the middle lane, driver nodding off possibly, thus threatening to block my passage. I could neither slow down nor return to the inside lane because I was already past the back of the lorry and I had another car up my arse in the middle lane. The outside lane was also a no-go because it was nose to tail with cars going a lot faster than me.
Death beckoned.
But no! What I did, and I had just a split second to make this decision, was I floored the accelerator and just squeaked through and past the lorry before the gap closed up. Phew.
So busting the speed limit is not only the right of any freeborn Engishman but in this case saved my life. If I had been driving a Brussels approved Ford Quisling car that couldn't do it I would be dead. The EU would have (quite literally) killed me.
I believe some speed limiters allow temporary speed increases and acceleration over and above the speed limit for short periods - hopefully exactly the scenario you mention. For example, I think recent Jags will ignore the limiter if you fully depress the accelerator. It depends if EU-compatible ISA systems are allowed to have such capability.
Fully depress the accelerator doesn’t sound very safe to me.
I’d rather just disable it.
Disabling it temporarily is more of a faff - find the button or menu option, disable it, then accelerate. In an emergency pressing it harder seems far easier and more sensible.
And if you want to leave it permanently disabled, the problem is the requirement for a black box: it would be easy for legislation to say: "At MOT, download the data to see when the ISA system was disabled, and report it to authorities if it is for more than 10% of mileage." or somesuch.
As Peter from Putney has pointed out, Betfair's market on the Commons to pass Brexit at the 3rd meaningful vote is looking very interesting.
Yes 2.22-2.28 No 1.79-1.82
Not far from a coin toss according to the market.
On the grounds that Bercow won't allow it back to the Commons unless the Standing Order is first overturned, there is a reasonable argument that MV3 can't happen unless it will pass.
On that basis, Yes is potentially risk free, but obviously isn't. Might be some value.
The UK has a Max speed limit of 70 MPH so we would be limited to that speed! However in Germany large parts of the Autobahn have no limit, therefore no limiter. Which make a mockery of the whole thing.
Who'd have though Donald Tusk could reach JFK's 'Ich bin ein Berliner' levels of solidarity with his appeal to British Europeans. Listening to a phone-in people are saying they were in tears when they heard what he said
Movements start with the most unlikely beginnings. Could this be the start of a beautiful friendship.....
There wasn't a dry eye in the house.
Tories don't have tear ducts
Didn't George Osborne once famously cry at a funeral....
I can see this speed limiting law going down about as well as the idea of road pricing with the Great British public.
I think there’s a generational divide. I suspect most under-30s won’t have much of a problem with this. Phones are helping to kill enthusiasm for cars.
The Jeremy Clarkson tendency is a diminishing force.
And getting the chance to do an enjoyable drive is increasingly rare. The ones I remember were in Europe or at times when it used to be quiet like early mornings or Boxing Day. Being in moderate to heavy traffic nowadays is work not pleasure
Its because because this country doesnt do infrastructure
People who remember the golden age of driving were those wealthy enough to have access to cars when they were less affordable on a relative basis.
See also the golden age of flying etc.
After a few years of Corbyn as PM there will be great driving opportunities as the roads empty. Too bad the only car available will be the Allegro Mk 2.
the UK has acquired nearly 50% more vehicles on its roads in the last 25 years. The road network hasnt expanded anywhere near that much.
Car speed limiters in 2022, we're getting them whether in the EU or not.
You take pleasure out of breaking the law by exceeding the speed limit?
Yes, and so do you.
I’ve never met anyone who’s religiously stuck to 70mph on dual carriageways and motorways at all times, and wouldn’t believe you if you said you were one of them.
Going 100mph+ is obviously dickish but rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men.
Funnily enough, one of the few I've ever encountered who claimed to stick rigidly to the speed limit at all times was Snowflake, once of this parish. It is widely thought that she was Yvette Cooper, in which case I would say from my perception of her here that she is notably well-informed, and dogmatic.
And no, I don't always stick to the speed limit. There are times when it is downright dangerous to do so.
I think the rule of speed limit + 2 mph + 10% is a sensible rule of thumb for a prosecution.
I go much slower when there are horses, cyclists and children, down to 15mph at times. If it’s a clear road, at 6am, I have gone 37-38mph in a built up area, but I don’t take the piss. On motorways I’d say I average 75-80 with spurts when I get up to 85-90.
In other words, I use my judgment.
So you routinely break laws that you do not like?
Isnt that being "progressive" ?
This is a Kantian question. He was an absolutist. He had no room for judgement or context.
I am not a Kantian. In general I regard moral and legal rules as guidance, to be generally followed, but broken when I exercise my judgement. Otherwise I am a robot.
It is 3:00am. You are in a car stopped at traffic lights at a crossroads with clear visibility in all directions. Nothing on the road. Do you cross at red or sit there waiting for the green? The answer determines whether you are a Kantian or not. What if it has been on red for the last 15 minutes?
I'm obeying the lights generally out of fear of some hidden camera springing up giving me TS10.
Fair enough. That's part of your judgement. Fear of punishment. Not Kantian though. How about moral laws? Do you obey them because of fear of divine retribution? God's watching?
Disabling it temporarily is more of a faff - find the button or menu option, disable it, then accelerate. In an emergency pressing it harder seems far easier and more sensible.
And if you want to leave it permanently disabled, the problem is the requirement for a black box: it would be easy for legislation to say: "At MOT, download the data to see when the ISA system was disabled, and report it to authorities if it is for more than 10% of mileage." or somesuch.
And something like that will happen.
MoTs are nothing to worry about. I have had some right pieces passed by the simple expedient of finding whatever testing garage the local minicab drivers use and bribing the tester as they do. You could get a wheelbarrow MoTed for 50 quid at those places.
As for speed, I live on Teesside and since the start of the year work in Sheffield. Last time I had a similar commute was 2012. Back then, in a company car and a fuel card paying my fuel, I used to cruise at 90mph. As did my colleagues. Get there as quickly as possible, cost not an issue, spend your time trying to eyeball cops.
Now I cruise at 65-70. With occasional brief jaunts up to 75. With more traffic on the roads than back then I have found that often there is little point going any faster than 65 as all that happens is that you catch the back of the slow trucks / traffic quicker and spend a decent chunk of the journey speeding up and slowing down. Which is pointless.
Who'd have though Donald Tusk could reach JFK's 'Ich bin ein Berliner' levels of solidarity with his appeal to British Europeans. Listening to a phone-in people are saying they were in tears when they heard what he said
Movements start with the most unlikely beginnings. Could this be the start of a beautiful friendship.....
There wasn't a dry eye in the house.
Tories don't have tear ducts
Didn't George Osborne once famously cry at a funeral....
I can see this speed limiting law going down about as well as the idea of road pricing with the Great British public.
I think there’s a generational divide. I suspect most under-30s won’t have much of a problem with this. Phones are helping to kill enthusiasm for cars.
The Jeremy Clarkson tendency is a diminishing force.
And getting the chance to do an enjoyable drive is increasingly rare. The ones I remember were in Europe or at times when it used to be quiet like early mornings or Boxing Day. Being in moderate to heavy traffic nowadays is work not pleasure
Its because because this country doesnt do infrastructure
People who remember the golden age of driving were those wealthy enough to have access to cars when they were less affordable on a relative basis.
See also the golden age of flying etc.
After a few years of Corbyn as PM there will be great driving opportunities as the roads empty. Too bad the only car available will be the Allegro Mk 2.
The golden age of driving was when road traffic deaths were 5 times as high as at present.
Speed limits are all fine and dandy - but there are times when you legitimately need to exceed the speed limit in order to avoid an incident. Speed limiters take away that control precisely at a time when you might actually need it to avoid a larger problem.
This is a good point.
Last year I was behind a lorry in the inside lane of the M1 and pulled out into the middle lane to affect a routine overtake. As I passed the rear of the lorry the front of it started to drift into the middle lane, driver nodding off possibly, thus threatening to block my passage. I could neither slow down nor return to the inside lane because I was already past the back of the lorry and I had another car up my arse in the middle lane. The outside lane was also a no-go because it was nose to tail with cars going a lot faster than me.
Death beckoned.
But no! What I did, and I had just a split second to make this decision, was I floored the accelerator and just squeaked through and past the lorry before the gap closed up. Phew.
So busting the speed limit is not only the right of any freeborn Engishman but in this case saved my life. If I had been driving a Brussels approved Ford Quisling car that couldn't do it I would be dead. The EU would have (quite literally) killed me.
I believe some speed limiters allow temporary speed increases and acceleration over and above the speed limit for short periods - hopefully exactly the scenario you mention. For example, I think recent Jags will ignore the limiter if you fully depress the accelerator. It depends if EU-compatible ISA systems are allowed to have such capability.
Fully depress the accelerator doesn’t sound very safe to me.
I’d rather just disable it.
Disabling it temporarily is more of a faff - find the button or menu option, disable it, then accelerate. In an emergency pressing it harder seems far easier and more sensible.
And if you want to leave it permanently disabled, the problem is the requirement for a black box: it would be easy for legislation to say: "At MOT, download the data to see when the ISA system was disabled, and report it to authorities if it is for more than 10% of mileage." or somesuch.
And something like that will happen.
I think the biggest lesson of the 21st century, so far, is that if technology allows government and the institutions of the state to monitor you, they will.
I think it’s one of the most (if not, the most) serious political phenomena we face at the moment and I can see no real boundaries being placed on it.
All new models will need to have pre-wiring for alcohol interlocks to allow for the retrofit of in-car breathalysers for previously convicted drink drivers.
So we are all going to pay the cost, rather than the law breakers.
I am a European - in the true sense of the word. But as a remain voter who would now vote otherwise, I am anti-EU - at least in the current form. A form that is not going to change in the short-medium term as far as I can see.
Are you in favour of customs barriers between the countries that are currently in the EU? If not, then whatever you replace the EU with would need to look remarkably like the current EU.
I am perfectly happy to have a well-constructed trading bloc with reciprocal arrangements - what I object to is everything that has been loaded on top of that. The 'European Project' has moved beyond trade and the necessary structures to support and facilitate that into areas that really should be left to the nation state.
It would have been preferable if the EU had stayed as the Western European Union; the original six, plus us, Austria and Iberia and maybe Scandinavia. However, thanks in no small part to Mrs T, we are where we are. The culture in the East, for historic reasons is, it seems to me, somewhat different.
There is a problem with this thinking though. Lets take a look back to the end of 1989. Imagine the screen blurring wibbling from left to right
Every one in the West wants the DDR to join unify with the BRD. It will show that capitalism has won the cold war. If the DDR joins the BRD in 1990 then it has to join the EEC. If a strong ex-soviet state like the DDR joins, then it is almost impossible to tell Czechoslovakia and Poland that they can't join, who were only commimist because the USSR imposed it. Once Czechoslovakia is in then Hungary will want in etc. ....
There's also the issue that Greece had already joined. Greece is in an anomalous position in the EU, geographically in the East and with Byzantine history, but in its political culture and ethnicity having more in common with Latin than Slavic Europe ; and of course having a unique connection with the original West. That meant that, despite all that, the EU had already moved beyond the original geographically western core, and other states could see that.
And 'Eastern Europe' is and was not a homogeneous block. The Czech Republic was always going to be far easier to integrate into the EU than Romania.
As Peter from Putney has pointed out, Betfair's market on the Commons to pass Brexit at the 3rd meaningful vote is looking very interesting.
Yes 2.22-2.28 No 1.79-1.82
Not far from a coin toss according to the market.
On the grounds that Bercow won't allow it back to the Commons unless the Standing Order is first overturned, there is a reasonable argument that MV3 can't happen unless it will pass.
On that basis, Yes is potentially risk free, but obviously isn't. Might be some value.
Good point.
As @Pulpstar has just pointed out, the market voids on 30 March, so the vote would essentially have to take place tomorrow to pay out. Which is pretty unlikely, but if it did happen then I think it's almost certain to pass.
Car speed limiters in 2022, we're getting them whether in the EU or not.
You take pleasure out of breaking the law by exceeding the speed limit?
Yes, and so do you.
I’ve never met anyone who’s religiously stuck to 70mph on dual carriageways and motorways at all times, and wouldn’t believe you if you said you were one of them.
Going 100mph+ is obviously dickish but rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men.
Funnily enough, one of the few I've ever encountered who claimed to stick rigidly to the speed limit at all times was Snowflake, once of this parish. It is widely thought that she was Yvette Cooper, in which case I would say from my perception of her here that she is notably well-informed, and dogmatic.
And no, I don't always stick to the speed limit. There are times when it is downright dangerous to do so.
So you routinely break laws that you do not like?
Isnt that being "progressive" ?
This is a Kantian question. He was an absolutist. He had no room for judgement or context.
I am not a Kantian. In general I regard moral and legal rules as guidance, to be generally followed, but broken when I exercise my judgement. Otherwise I am a robot.
It is 3:00am. You are in a car stopped at traffic lights at a crossroads with clear visibility in all directions. Nothing on the road. Do you cross at red or sit there waiting for the green? The answer determines whether you are a Kantian or not. What if it has been on red for the last 15 minutes?
I'm obeying the lights generally out of fear of some hidden camera springing up giving me TS10.
Fair enough. That's part of your judgement. Fear of punishment. Not Kantian though. How about moral laws? Do you obey them because of fear of divine retribution? God's watching?
For Traffic laws in general it's fear of burning, not sinning (Particularly the M1 with all its cameras). But I wouldn't do 50 past a school even if I knew there was no probability of being caught. I always pass cyclists and horses safely and slowly.
By the time those law comes in aren't we all supposed to be in self driving cars anyway ;-) after all they keep telling us they have basically solved the problem...
Not sure this has been mentioned, but Ken Clarke just said IF the House comes to a conclusion and Mrs May ignores it "she would have to be removed by VONC"...
Who'd have though Donald Tusk could reach JFK's 'Ich bin ein Berliner' levels of solidarity with his appeal to British Europeans. Listening to a phone-in people are saying they were in tears when they heard what he said
Movements start with the most unlikely beginnings. Could this be the start of a beautiful friendship.....
There wasn't a dry eye in the house.
Tories don't have tear ducts
Didn't George Osborne once famously cry at a funeral....
I can see this speed limiting law going down about as well as the idea of road pricing with the Great British public.
I think there’s a generational divide. I suspect most under-30s won’t have much of a problem with this. Phones are helping to kill enthusiasm for cars.
The Jeremy Clarkson tendency is a diminishing force.
And getting the chance to do an enjoyable drive is increasingly rare. The ones I remember were in Europe or at times when it used to be quiet like early mornings or Boxing Day. Being in moderate to heavy traffic nowadays is work not pleasure
Its because because this country doesnt do infrastructure
People who remember the golden age of driving were those wealthy enough to have access to cars when they were less affordable on a relative basis.
See also the golden age of flying etc.
After a few years of Corbyn as PM there will be great driving opportunities as the roads empty. Too bad the only car available will be the Allegro Mk 2.
The golden age of driving was when road traffic deaths were 5 times as high as at present.
Speed limits are all fine and dandy - but there are times when you legitimately need to exceed the speed limit in order to avoid an incident. Speed limiters take away that control precisely at a time when you might actually need it to avoid a larger problem.
.
I believe some speed limiters allow temporary speed increases and acceleration over and above the speed limit for short periods - hopefully exactly the scenario you mention. For example, I think recent Jags will ignore the limiter if you fully depress the accelerator. It depends if EU-compatible ISA systems are allowed to have such capability.
Fully depress the accelerator doesn’t sound very safe to me.
I’d rather just disable it.
Disabling it temporarily is more of a faff - find the button or menu option, disable it, then accelerate. In an emergency pressing it harder seems far easier and more sensible.
And if you want to leave it permanently disabled, the problem is the requirement for a black box: it would be easy for legislation to say: "At MOT, download the data to see when the ISA system was disabled, and report it to authorities if it is for more than 10% of mileage." or somesuch.
And something like that will happen.
I think the biggest lesson of the 21st century, so far, is that if technology allows government and the institutions of the state to monitor you, they will.
I think it’s one of the most (if not, the most) serious political phenomena we face at the moment and I can see no real boundaries being placed on it.
Government and technology is replacing an all-seeing God to encourage and enforce good behaviour. China is leading in this but the rest of the world will follow.
Whats to stop an amendment being passed that seeks changes to the PD, which the EU accedes to, the WA is agreed and we leave. Then the government collapses and a GE leads to a new Parliament. Given that no Parliament can bind its successor.....
Speed limits are all fine and dandy - but there are times when you legitimately need to exceed the speed limit in order to avoid an incident. Speed limiters take away that control precisely at a time when you might actually need it to avoid a larger problem.
.
I believe some speed limiters allow temporary speed increases and acceleration over and above the speed limit for short periods - hopefully exactly the scenario you mention. For example, I think recent Jags will ignore the limiter if you fully depress the accelerator. It depends if EU-compatible ISA systems are allowed to have such capability.
Fully depress the accelerator doesn’t sound very safe to me.
I’d rather just disable it.
Disabling it temporarily is more of a faff - find the button or menu option, disable it, then accelerate. In an emergency pressing it harder seems far easier and more sensible.
And if you want to leave it permanently disabled, the problem is the requirement for a black box: it would be easy for legislation to say: "At MOT, download the data to see when the ISA system was disabled, and report it to authorities if it is for more than 10% of mileage." or somesuch.
And something like that will happen.
I think the biggest lesson of the 21st century, so far, is that if technology allows government and the institutions of the state to monitor you, they will.
I think it’s one of the most (if not, the most) serious political phenomena we face at the moment and I can see no real boundaries being placed on it.
Government and technology is replacing an all-seeing God to encourage and enforce good behaviour. China is leading in this but the rest of the world will follow.
And most of the population are more than happy to share way too much information with our new gods.
It's crazy to think that people got so upset about ID cards because if a database of personal info / fingerprints, but happily share everything about their lives with tech companies who sell that info on.
The new systems are now aggregating info from various sources, so for example the latest "advance" is you go into a store, browse and leave without buying anything. Stores are now hiring a service that can work out who you were (despite not giving them info) and then buying targeted ads in social media for the products you were browsing. It all works on the fact so many apps have your location data etc and so buying it and aggregating you can pin people down.
In principle it should be possible to design a speed limiter that would allow for a temporary burst of speed for a few seconds for that scenario, but would prevent sustained speeds in excess of the speed limit.
That actually sounds quite difficult to me. Still, I suppose my scary scenario is rare. If this technology came in I would be dead but probably 25 other people, mostly of good character and pleasant personality, who are dead would not be. So that is fair enough.
Not sure this has been mentioned, but Ken Clarke just said IF the House comes to a conclusion and Mrs May ignores it "she would have to be removed by VONC"...
Not sure this has been mentioned, but Ken Clarke just said IF the House comes to a conclusion and Mrs May ignores it "she would have to be removed by VONC"...
In reality Theresa May would either have to resign if Parliament tried to force her into a course of action she didn't think was in the national interest or we'd have to have a general election.
People on Newnight last night seemed to think these inactive votes were pretty much a waste of time and the view was that all roads lead to a general election now...
The day that Boris Johnson becomes leader of the Conservative Party will be the day I resign my membership of that once great party. I am sure the great philandering fatso won't be quaking in his well tailored broguess at the prospect, but if he is at the head of it, the tradition of the Conservative Party being a serious business orientated party of aspiration will be over, and it will no longer be a place for those of moderate right of centre opinion.
Speed limits are all fine and dandy - but there are times when you legitimately need to exceed the speed limit in order to avoid an incident. Speed limiters take away that control precisely at a time when you might actually need it to avoid a larger problem.
.
I believe some speed limiters allow temporary speed increases and acceleration over and above the speed limit for short periods - hopefully exactly the scenario you mention. For example, I think recent Jags will ignore the limiter if you fully depress the accelerator. It depends if EU-compatible ISA systems are allowed to have such capability.
Fully depress the accelerator doesn’t sound very safe to me.
I’d rather just disable it.
Disabling it temporarily is more of a faff - find the button or menu option, disable it, then accelerate. In an emergency pressing it harder seems far easier and more sensible.
And if you want to leave it permanently disabled, the problem is the requirement for a black box: it would be easy for legislation to say: "At MOT, download the data to see when the ISA system was disabled, and report it to authorities if it is for more than 10% of mileage." or somesuch.
And something like that will happen.
I think the biggest lesson of the 21st century, so far, is that if technology allows government and the institutions of the state to monitor you, they will.
I think it’s one of the most (if not, the most) serious political phenomena we face at the moment and I can see no real boundaries being placed on it.
Government and technology is replacing an all-seeing God to encourage and enforce good behaviour. China is leading in this but the rest of the world will follow.
The fact that it is an authoritarian country like China, that regularly locks up large numbers of its people for the most spurious of reasons, that is leading with this sort of thing should be a warning to us all.
Speed limits are all fine and dandy - but there are times when you legitimately need to exceed the speed limit in order to avoid an incident. Speed limiters take away that control precisely at a time when you might actually need it to avoid a larger problem.
.
I believe some speed limiters allow temporary speed increases and acceleration over and above the speed limit for short periods - hopefully exactly the scenario you mention. For example, I think recent Jags will ignore the limiter if you fully depress the accelerator. It depends if EU-compatible ISA systems are allowed to have such capability.
Fully depress the accelerator doesn’t sound very safe to me.
I’d rather just disable it.
Disabling it temporarily is more of a faff - find the button or menu option, disable it, then accelerate. In an emergency pressing it harder seems far easier and more sensible.
And if you want to leave it permanently disabled, the problem is the requirement for a black box: it would be easy for legislation to say: "At MOT, download the data to see when the ISA system was disabled, and report it to authorities if it is for more than 10% of mileage." or somesuch.
And something like that will happen.
I think the biggest lesson of the 21st century, so far, is that if technology allows government and the institutions of the state to monitor you, they will.
I think it’s one of the most (if not, the most) serious political phenomena we face at the moment and I can see no real boundaries being placed on it.
Government and technology is replacing an all-seeing God to encourage and enforce good behaviour. China is leading in this but the rest of the world will follow.
And most of the population are more than happy to share way too much information with our new gods.
That is one of the odd things about the ID card mess: there was a heck of a lot of controversy over governmental ID / biometric cards, and the idea was more or less scrapped. Yet within a few years, we're willingly giving vast amounts of personal data to fairly unaccountable third parties over the Internet...
The day that Boris Johnson becomes leader of the Conservative Party will be the day I resign my membership of that once great party. I am sure the great philandering fatso won't be quaking in his well tailored broguess at the prospect, but if he is at the head of it, the tradition of the Conservative Party being a serious business orientated party of aspiration will be over, and it will no longer be a place for those of moderate right of centre opinion.
I wouldn’t worry. There is no chance that he gets through to the final 2.
Speed limits are all fine and dandy - but there are times when you legitimately need to exceed the speed limit in order to avoid an incident. Speed limiters take away that control precisely at a time when you might actually need it to avoid a larger problem.
This is a good point.
Last year I was behind a lorry in the inside lane of the M1 and pulled out into the middle lane to affect a routine overtake. As I passed the rear of the lorry the front of it started to drift into the middle lane, driver nodding off possibly, thus threatening to block my passage. I could neither slow down nor return to the inside lane because I was already past the back of the lorry and I had another car up my arse in the middle lane. The outside lane was also a no-go because it was nose to tail with cars going a lot faster than me.
Death beckoned.
But no! What I did, and I had just a split second to make this decision, was I floored the accelerator and just squeaked through and past the lorry before the gap closed up. Phew.
So busting the speed limit is not only the right of any freeborn Engishman but in this case saved my life. If I had been driving a Brussels approved Ford Quisling car that couldn't do it I would be dead. The EU would have (quite literally) killed me.
Fear not, the EU proposal that we have had input into via the Commission allows that sort of manoeuvre. The alcohol interlock is only for those with previous convictions for drunk driving. Details here.
Not sure this has been mentioned, but Ken Clarke just said IF the House comes to a conclusion and Mrs May ignores it "she would have to be removed by VONC"...
By "She" I presume he meant "the government"?
I think he meant her. And by extension her government But FTPA means VONC merely leads to a new leader. He sounded more than prepared to do so.
Mr. Royale, I agree with that. If the fools who want purely electronic money get their way, that's yet another downside.
I assume you mean phasing out cash, rather than mainstreaming Bitcoin and the like. Since one goal of the proponents of cryptocurrency is explicitly to make governmental oversight of transactions all but impossible.
For the record, I'm in favour of getting rid of cash as quickly as is practical, and think that crypto is bonkers.
Not sure this has been mentioned, but Ken Clarke just said IF the House comes to a conclusion and Mrs May ignores it "she would have to be removed by VONC"...
No should would not 'have' to be. It is their right to attempt to do so but I would not bank on it being successful. How many MPs relish the prospect of defending their actions at a General Election?
Car speed limiters in 2022, we're getting them whether in the EU or not.
You take pleasure out of breaking the law by exceeding the speed limit?
Yes, and so do you.
I’ve never met anyone who’s religiously stuck to 70mph on dual carriageways and motorways at all times, and wouldn’t believe you if you said you were one of them.
Going 100mph+ is obviously dickish but rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men.
And no, I don't always stick to the speed limit. There are times when it is downright dangerous to do so.
So you routinely break laws that you do not like?
Isnt that being "progressive" ?
This is a Kantian question. He was an absolutist. He had no room for judgement or context.
I am not a Kantian. In general I regard moral and legal rules as guidance, to be generally followed, but broken when I exercise my judgement. Otherwise I am a robot.
It is 3:00am. You are in a car stopped at traffic lights at a crossroads with clear visibility in all directions. Nothing on the road. Do you cross at red or sit there waiting for the green? The answer determines whether you are a Kantian or not. What if it has been on red for the last 15 minutes?
I'm obeying the lights generally out of fear of some hidden camera springing up giving me TS10.
Fair enough. That's part of your judgement. Fear of punishment. Not Kantian though. How about moral laws? Do you obey them because of fear of divine retribution? God's watching?
For Traffic laws in general it's fear of burning, not sinning (Particularly the M1 with all its cameras). But I wouldn't do 50 past a school even if I knew there was no probability of being caught. I always pass cyclists and horses safely and slowly.
Same here. That's a moral judgement. The issue in breaking the speed limit is distinguishing between potentially doing harm and potentially getting caught.
That is one of the odd things about the ID card mess: there was a heck of a lot of controversy over governmental ID / biometric cards, and the idea was more or less scrapped. Yet within a few years, we're willingly giving vast amounts of personal data to fairly unaccountable third parties over the Internet...
TBF there's a big difference depending on whether you get to choose which third-parties you interact with. OK, TBF that's hard in practice because basically every website in the known universe opts in to Facebook and Google tracking, but you can at least do it if you work at it.
I am a European - in the true sense of the word. But as a remain voter who would now vote otherwise, I am anti-EU - at least in the current form. A form that is not going to change in the short-medium term as far as I can see.
Are you in favour of customs barriers between the countries that are currently in the EU? If not, then whatever you replace the EU with would need to look remarkably like the current EU.
I am perfectly happy to have a well-constructed trading bloc with reciprocal arrangements - what I object to is everything that has been loaded on top of that. The 'European Project' has moved beyond trade and the necessary structures to support and facilitate that into areas that really should be left to the nation state.
It would have been preferable if the EU had stayed as the Western European Union; the original six, plus us, Austria and Iberia and maybe Scandinavia. However, thanks in no small part to Mrs T, we are where we are. The culture in the East, for historic reasons is, it seems to me, somewhat different.
There is a problem with this thinking though. Lets take a look back to the end of 1989. Imagine the screen blurring wibbling from left to right
Every one in the West wants the DDR to join unify with the BRD. It will show that capitalism has won the cold war. If the DDR joins the BRD in 1990 then it has to join the EEC. If a strong ex-soviet state like the DDR joins, then it is almost impossible to tell Czechoslovakia and Poland that they can't join, who were only commimist because the USSR imposed it. Once Czechoslovakia is in then Hungary will want in etc. ....
There's also the issue that Greece had already joined. Greece is in an anomalous position in the EU, geographically in the East and with Byzantine history, but in its political culture and ethnicity having more in common with Latin than Slavic Europe ; and of course having a unique connection with the original West. That meant that, despite all that, the EU had already moved beyond the original geographically western core, and other states could see that.
Oh, definitely point taken; I can easily see the anomalies of my position. However, I've just got this fuzzy view from way back, We are where we are, though, iof course. There are lots of areas and times where, looking back, I wish different choices had been made, personally, locally, nationally.
So busting the speed limit is not only the right of any freeborn Engishman but in this case saved my life. If I had been driving a Brussels approved Ford Quisling car that couldn't do it I would be dead. The EU would have (quite literally) killed me.
If you floor the accelerator you car would still accelerate under the new regulations.
The intent is to stop dozy drivers exceeding the speed limit because they aren't paying attention, not to enforce a speed limit in all circumstances.
Indeed. Many on this thread seem to be labouring under a gigantic misapprehension, and running with it (but hey, PB). To be clear these regs simply mandate that cars have a warning system, they won't mechanically govern the vehicle down to 80mph out 70mph or whatever.
I don't own a car, but like to hire nice exec cars when I need them. The last couple I have rented already had a very similar system. I still broke the limit, on open roads, from time to time, but the warning was useful.
What's the big problem? Anyone would think the gammons are getting all hot and bothered for the fun of it.
Not sure this has been mentioned, but Ken Clarke just said IF the House comes to a conclusion and Mrs May ignores it "she would have to be removed by VONC"...
No should would not 'have' to be. It is their right to attempt to do so but I would not bank on it being successful. How many MPs relish the prospect of defending their actions at a General Election?
As I said below. The genius of the FTPA means no such GE is necessary...
Not sure this has been mentioned, but Ken Clarke just said IF the House comes to a conclusion and Mrs May ignores it "she would have to be removed by VONC"...
By "She" I presume he meant "the government"?
I think he meant her. And by extension her government But FTPA means VONC merely leads to a new leader. He sounded more than prepared to do so.
We can add Kenneth Clarke to the "unhinged by Brexit" column now then?
Not sure this has been mentioned, but Ken Clarke just said IF the House comes to a conclusion and Mrs May ignores it "she would have to be removed by VONC"...
By "She" I presume he meant "the government"?
I think he meant her. And by extension her government But FTPA means VONC merely leads to a new leader. He sounded more than prepared to do so.
As I said last night, I think there are enough MPs prepared to bring down the govt if it were the only way to stop no deal
The day that Boris Johnson becomes leader of the Conservative Party will be the day I resign my membership of that once great party. I am sure the great philandering fatso won't be quaking in his well tailored broguess at the prospect, but if he is at the head of it, the tradition of the Conservative Party being a serious business orientated party of aspiration will be over, and it will no longer be a place for those of moderate right of centre opinion.
I wouldn’t worry. There is no chance that he gets through to the final 2.
Wasn't it widely believed that there was no chance of the UK voting to leave the EU at one, quite recent, time?
Speed limits are all fine and dandy - but there are times when you legitimately need to exceed the speed limit in order to avoid an incident. Speed limiters take away that control precisely at a time when you might actually need it to avoid a larger problem.
.
I believe some speed limiters allow temporary speed increases and acceleration over and above the speed limit for short periods - hopefully exactly the scenario you mention. For example, I think recent Jags will ignore the limiter if you fully depress the accelerator. It depends if EU-compatible ISA systems are allowed to have such capability.
Fully depress the accelerator doesn’t sound very safe to me.
I’d rather just disable it.
Disabling it temporarily is more of a faff - find the button or menu option, disable it, then accelerate. In an emergency pressing it harder seems far easier and more sensible.
And if you want to leave it permanently disabled, the problem is the requirement for a black box: it would be easy for legislation to say: "At MOT, download the data to see when the ISA system was disabled, and report it to authorities if it is for more than 10% of mileage." or somesuch.
And something like that will happen.
I think the biggest lesson of the 21st century, so far, is that if technology allows government and the institutions of the state to monitor you, they will.
I think it’s one of the most (if not, the most) serious political phenomena we face at the moment and I can see no real boundaries being placed on it.
Government and technology is replacing an all-seeing God to encourage and enforce good behaviour. China is leading in this but the rest of the world will follow.
And most of the population are more than happy to share way too much information with our new gods.
That is one of the odd things about the ID card mess: there was a heck of a lot of controversy over governmental ID / biometric cards, and the idea was more or less scrapped. Yet within a few years, we're willingly giving vast amounts of personal data to fairly unaccountable third parties over the Internet...
It's really odd. I objected to ID cards but gladly give loads of personal data to YouGov. I don't know why. Perhaps I don't trust the government's motivation but sort of trust YouGov.
Speed limits are all fine and dandy - but there are times when you legitimately need to exceed the speed limit in order to avoid an incident. Speed limiters take away that control precisely at a time when you might actually need it to avoid a larger problem.
.
I believe some speed limiters allow temporary speed increases and acceleration over and above the speed limit for short periods - hopefully exactly the scenario you mention. For example, I think recent Jags will ignore the limiter if you fully depress the accelerator. It depends if EU-compatible ISA systems are allowed to have such capability.
Fully depress the accelerator doesn’t sound very safe to me.
I’d rather just disable it.
Disabling it temporarily is more of a faff - find the button or menu option, disable it, then accelerate. In an emergency pressing it harder seems far easier and more sensible.
And if you want to leave it permanently disabled, the problem is the requirement for a black box: it would be easy for legislation to say: "At MOT, download the data to see when the ISA system was disabled, and report it to authorities if it is for more than 10% of mileage." or somesuch.
And something like that will happen.
I think the biggest lesson of the 21st century, so far, is that if technology allows government and the institutions of the state to monitor you, they will.
I think it’s one of the most (if not, the most) serious political phenomena we face at the moment and I can see no real boundaries being placed on it.
Government and technology is replacing an all-seeing God to encourage and enforce good behaviour. China is leading in this but the rest of the world will follow.
And most of the population are more than happy to share way too much information with our new gods.
That is one of the odd things about the ID card mess: there was a heck of a lot of controversy over governmental ID / biometric cards, and the idea was more or less scrapped. Yet within a few years, we're willingly giving vast amounts of personal data to fairly unaccountable third parties over the Internet...
Some are. Some are not. Even if the young are dumb and don't understand the implications of what they do, it is nice for some of us to retain that choice.
That is one of the odd things about the ID card mess: there was a heck of a lot of controversy over governmental ID / biometric cards, and the idea was more or less scrapped. Yet within a few years, we're willingly giving vast amounts of personal data to fairly unaccountable third parties over the Internet...
TBF there's a big difference depending on whether you get to choose which third-parties you interact with. OK, TBF that's hard in practice because basically every website in the known universe opts in to Facebook and Google tracking, but you can at least do it if you work at it.
As stated down thread, it isn't that simple now. Some apps require various permissions to work eg location data. So you have to opt into that. They the sell that info on and it is aggregated with lots of other info to profile you, your daily routine etc.
You don't see the full picture, when you allow one app a particular permission and another app a different one.
Most people have no idea this is the case and you can't really opt out unless you don't use any apps on your phone (or go through absolutely everything, checking permissions, deleting lots of apps because if their conditions etc).
Speed limits are all fine and dandy - but there are times when you legitimately need to exceed the speed limit in order to avoid an incident. Speed limiters take away that control precisely at a time when you might actually need it to avoid a larger problem.
.
I believe some speed limiters allow temporary speed increases and acceleration over and above the speed limit for short periods - hopefully exactly the scenario you mention. For example, I think recent Jags will ignore the limiter if you fully depress the accelerator. It depends if EU-compatible ISA systems are allowed to have such capability.
Fully depress the accelerator doesn’t sound very safe to me.
I’d rather just disable it.
Disabling it temporarily is more of a faff - find the button or menu option, disable it, then accelerate. In an emergency pressing it harder seems far easier and more sensible.
And if you want to leave it permanently disabled, the problem is the requirement for a black box: it would be easy for legislation to say: "At MOT, download the data to see when the ISA system was disabled, and report it to authorities if it is for more than 10% of mileage." or somesuch.
And something like that will happen.
I think the biggest lesson of the 21st century, so far, is that if technology allows government and the institutions of the state to monitor you, they will.
I think it’s one of the most (if not, the most) serious political phenomena we face at the moment and I can see no real boundaries being placed on it.
Government and technology is replacing an all-seeing God to encourage and enforce good behaviour. China is leading in this but the rest of the world will follow.
The fact that it is an authoritarian country like China, that regularly locks up large numbers of its people for the most spurious of reasons, that is leading with this sort of thing should be a warning to us all.
Something we can agree on Mr Tyndall. They have largely done away with cash. Everyone uses phones. A very neat system for a surveillance state to not only monitor your spending, but also what you are buying and where you are. Pretty scary.
Not sure this has been mentioned, but Ken Clarke just said IF the House comes to a conclusion and Mrs May ignores it "she would have to be removed by VONC"...
By "She" I presume he meant "the government"?
I think he meant her. And by extension her government But FTPA means VONC merely leads to a new leader. He sounded more than prepared to do so.
I don't think you can VONC just the PM - its got to be the government.
Speed limits are all fine and dandy - but there are times when you legitimately need to exceed the speed limit in order to avoid an incident. Speed limiters take away that control precisely at a time when you might actually need it to avoid a larger problem.
This is a good point.
Last year I was behind a lorry in the inside lane of the M1 and pulled out into the middle lane to affect a routine overtake. As I passed the rear of the lorry the front of it started to drift into the middle lane, driver nodding off possibly, thus threatening to block my passage. I could neither slow down nor return to the inside lane because I was already past the back of the lorry and I had another car up my arse in the middle lane. The outside lane was also a no-go because it was nose to tail with cars going a lot faster than me.
Death beckoned.
But no! What I did, and I had just a split second to make this decision, was I floored the accelerator and just squeaked through and past the lorry before the gap closed up. Phew.
So busting the speed limit is not only the right of any freeborn Engishman but in this case saved my life. If I had been driving a Brussels approved Ford Quisling car that couldn't do it I would be dead. The EU would have (quite literally) killed me.
I believe some speed limiters allow temporary speed increases and acceleration over and above the speed limit for short periods - hopefully exactly the scenario you mention. For example, I think recent Jags will ignore the limiter if you fully depress the accelerator. It depends if EU-compatible ISA systems are allowed to have such capability.
Fully depress the accelerator doesn’t sound very safe to me.
I’d rather just disable it.
I have a speed limiter which I don't use, but if I did it does works as described above, when needing quick acceleration.
Speed limits are all fine and dandy - but there are times when you legitimately need to exceed the speed limit in order to avoid an incident. Speed limiters take away that control precisely at a time when you might actually need it to avoid a larger problem.
.
I believe some speed limiters allow temporary speed increases and acceleration over and above the speed limit for short periods - hopefully exactly the scenario you mention. For example, I think recent Jags will ignore the limiter if you fully depress the accelerator. It depends if EU-compatible ISA systems are allowed to have such capability.
Fully depress the accelerator doesn’t sound very safe to me.
I’d rather just disable it.
Disabling it temporarily is more of a faff - find the button or menu option, disable it, then accelerate. In an emergency pressing it harder seems far easier and more sensible.
And if you want to leave it permanently disabled, the problem is the requirement for a black box: it would be easy for legislation to say: "At MOT, download the data to see when the ISA system was disabled, and report it to authorities if it is for more than 10% of mileage." or somesuch.
And something like that will happen.
I think the biggest lesson of the 21st century, so far, is that if technology allows government and the institutions of the state to monitor you, they will.
I think it’s one of the most (if not, the most) serious political phenomena we face at the moment and I can see no real boundaries being placed on it.
Government and technology is replacing an all-seeing God to encourage and enforce good behaviour. China is leading in this but the rest of the world will follow.
And most of the population are more than happy to share way too much information with our new gods.
That is one of the odd things about the ID card mess: there was a heck of a lot of controversy over governmental ID / biometric cards, and the idea was more or less scrapped. Yet within a few years, we're willingly giving vast amounts of personal data to fairly unaccountable third parties over the Internet...
My biggest issue was that the tech at that time didn't work. Even now fingerprint recognition is far from a solved problem on the level of securing you Vs 70 million others.
Not sure this has been mentioned, but Ken Clarke just said IF the House comes to a conclusion and Mrs May ignores it "she would have to be removed by VONC"...
No should would not 'have' to be. It is their right to attempt to do so but I would not bank on it being successful. How many MPs relish the prospect of defending their actions at a General Election?
As I said below. The genius of the FTPA means no such GE is necessary...
It is if you have no clear leader to replace her. The requirement to be able to produce a stable majority in Parliament remains. I see nothing in the current situation that indicates that is likely. Any MP who chooses to VoNC May at the moment has to be aware that the overwhelming likelihood is that it will lead to a GE. They need to ask themselves if they are feeling lucky....
I believe some speed limiters allow temporary speed increases and acceleration over and above the speed limit for short periods - hopefully exactly the scenario you mention. For example, I think recent Jags will ignore the limiter if you fully depress the accelerator. It depends if EU-compatible ISA systems are allowed to have such capability.
On balance I am persuaded. It's a good idea.
I bet Iain Duncan Smith isn't though. Can't see him accepting something like this lying down.
The day that Boris Johnson becomes leader of the Conservative Party will be the day I resign my membership of that once great party. I am sure the great philandering fatso won't be quaking in his well tailored broguess at the prospect, but if he is at the head of it, the tradition of the Conservative Party being a serious business orientated party of aspiration will be over, and it will no longer be a place for those of moderate right of centre opinion.
I wouldn’t worry. There is no chance that he gets through to the final 2.
Wasn't it widely believed that there was no chance of the UK voting to leave the EU at one, quite recent, time?
Or a certain Marxist thicko assuming the post of LoTO
If you floor the accelerator you car would still accelerate under the new regulations.
The intent is to stop dozy drivers exceeding the speed limit because they aren't paying attention, not to enforce a speed limit in all circumstances.
Sounds like a sensible step towards what would really bring down the death toll on the roads - driverless cars.
To steal a phrase from the gun lobby, cars* don't cause accidents, people who think they are good drivers do.
* Well, unless it's a problem with the car such as failing brakes or a puncture.
The issues with this new system (see my post below) are just a tiny subest of the problems facing truly autonomous, level-5 cars. Which is why even Waymo are behind schedule.
And don't get me started on the hideous mess that is Tesla's system ...
The day that Boris Johnson becomes leader of the Conservative Party will be the day I resign my membership of that once great party. I am sure the great philandering fatso won't be quaking in his well tailored broguess at the prospect, but if he is at the head of it, the tradition of the Conservative Party being a serious business orientated party of aspiration will be over, and it will no longer be a place for those of moderate right of centre opinion.
I wouldn’t worry. There is no chance that he gets through to the final 2.
Wasn't it widely believed that there was no chance of the UK voting to leave the EU at one, quite recent, time?
I’m an active member of the Tory Party and know a few MPs. Trust me; he has no chance.
That is one of the odd things about the ID card mess: there was a heck of a lot of controversy over governmental ID / biometric cards, and the idea was more or less scrapped. Yet within a few years, we're willingly giving vast amounts of personal data to fairly unaccountable third parties over the Internet...
TBF there's a big difference depending on whether you get to choose which third-parties you interact with. OK, TBF that's hard in practice because basically every website in the known universe opts in to Facebook and Google tracking, but you can at least do it if you work at it.
Use a VPN and limit the information you put out there.
So busting the speed limit is not only the right of any freeborn Engishman but in this case saved my life. If I had been driving a Brussels approved Ford Quisling car that couldn't do it I would be dead. The EU would have (quite literally) killed me.
If you floor the accelerator you car would still accelerate under the new regulations.
The intent is to stop dozy drivers exceeding the speed limit because they aren't paying attention, not to enforce a speed limit in all circumstances.
Indeed. Many on this thread seem to be labouring under a gigantic misapprehension, and running with it (but hey, PB). To be clear these regs simply mandate that cars have a warning system, they won't mechanically govern the vehicle down to 80mph out 70mph or whatever.
I don't own a car, but like to hire nice exec cars when I need them. The last couple I have rented already had a very similar system. I still broke the limit, on open roads, from time to time, but the warning was useful.
What's the big problem? Anyone would think the gammons are getting all hot and bothered for the fun of it.
No need to spoil an interesting post with a quasi-racial slur.
Comments
Every one in the West wants the DDR to join unify with the BRD. It will show that capitalism has won the cold war.
If the DDR joins the BRD in 1990 then it has to join the EEC.
If a strong ex-soviet state like the DDR joins, then it is almost impossible to tell Czechoslovakia and Poland that they can't join, who were only commimist because the USSR imposed it.
Once Czechoslovakia is in then Hungary will want in etc. ....
https://twitter.com/quatremer/status/1110823106178924544
https://twitter.com/5goalthriller/status/1110607829294043137
The Jeremy Clarkson tendency is a diminishing force.
I agree there are trade-offs. I'm happy with a motorway limit of 70mph. There are some roads where the speed limit is too low (there's one outside my window here, which is a 30 and should be a 40), but those are specific cases and probably rare.
Last year I was behind a lorry in the inside lane of the M1 and pulled out into the middle lane to affect a routine overtake. As I passed the rear of the lorry the front of it started to drift into the middle lane, driver nodding off possibly, thus threatening to block my passage. I could neither slow down nor return to the inside lane because I was already past the back of the lorry and I had another car up my arse in the middle lane. The outside lane was also a no-go because it was nose to tail with cars going a lot faster than me.
Death beckoned.
But no! What I did, and I had just a split second to make this decision, was I floored the accelerator and just squeaked through and past the lorry before the gap closed up. Phew.
So busting the speed limit is not only the right of any freeborn Engishman but in this case saved my life. If I had been driving a Brussels approved Ford Quisling car that couldn't do it I would be dead. The EU would have (quite literally) killed me.
Hopefully one of our northern or Midland brethren can opine, or a Bristolian.
I expect North of the Wall dragons are still popular.
I have no great philosophical problem with it; the question is how it operates. I have not heard much about the ISA proposal, so the following may or may not be valid:
*) GPS is not accurate enough. In places you get local road that may have a low speed limit (e.g. 30 MPH) alongside one with a 70 MPH speed limit. It would be easy for a vehicle on the 70MPH road to suddenly think it is on the 30 MPH one and slow down without warning. What happens when the GPS signal is downgraded or spoofed?
*) Sign recognition is not enough on its own, either - what about poor weather conditions? What happens when it 'sees' the sign on the adjacent road? Besides, visual recognition tech is *really* poor at seven-nines or greater reliability - which is what is needed.
*) What is the default if GPS/Glosnass/Galileo signal is downgraded and the visual camera inoperable? Would you still be able to drive the car as normal (in which case the answer for anyone wanting to speed is obvious). It sounds like at the moment you can - but car fitted with this tech can be made inoperable in such conditions easily.
*) Access to the data in the black box should be very carefully regulated. It should *not* be available OTA for privacy and security reasons.
*) The speed limit is the *maximum* speed limit - you should drive according to conditions. It would be easy for drivers to fall into a situation where the car tells them they can drive at 70MPH, but rain is falling, and their instinct says they should slow down to 60 MPH.
As ever with technology, the important question is not how it works, but how it fails. Something Boeing ignored with MCAS ...
Yes 2.22-2.28
No 1.79-1.82
Not far from a coin toss according to the market.
Other cities better and so yes maybe more a big city Vs rest thing, but London is a place where you really don't need a car / pain in the assato have one compared to say Birmingham where you can live without one but still advantages to having it.
I am not a Kantian. In general I regard moral and legal rules as guidance, to be generally followed, but broken when I exercise my judgement. Otherwise I am a robot.
It is 3:00am. You are in a car stopped at traffic lights at a crossroads with clear visibility in all directions. Nothing on the road. Do you cross at red or sit there waiting for the green? The answer determines whether you are a Kantian or not. What if it has been on red for the last 15 minutes?
The intent is to stop dozy drivers exceeding the speed limit because they aren't paying attention, not to enforce a speed limit in all circumstances.
Setting the geographic limit is only part of it. Allowing room for sensible judgement and interpretation is another.
OTOH 85 should be the limit for motorways as per Alistair. I try not to break the speed limits on motorways (Heck I can't in my old banger of a Peugeot) in my other half's car not through fear of sinning per se, but fear of burning.
NSL out in the sticks but full of bends and blind corners with vans and cars doing 60mph+ - often in the middle of the road - where 30-40mph and caution would be far more sensible.
I drive very defensively on those.
messed with the sign.
I’d rather just disable it.
I wonder why...?
Maybe this is an argument for variable speed limits with a higher limit below a certain traffic density.
I believe the average speed for traffic on the M74 through the borders was once measured at 74mph, and that includes 'busy' times.
I really don't like the limiter idea, although I do stick pretty rigidly to all urban limits. I have a suspicion that it will eventually involve tracking - just because 'they' can.
On that basis, Yes is potentially risk free, but obviously isn't. Might be some value.
See also the golden age of flying etc.
After a few years of Corbyn as PM there will be great driving opportunities as the roads empty. Too bad the only car available will be the Allegro Mk 2.
And if you want to leave it permanently disabled, the problem is the requirement for a black box: it would be easy for legislation to say: "At MOT, download the data to see when the ISA system was disabled, and report it to authorities if it is for more than 10% of mileage." or somesuch.
And something like that will happen.
The UK has a Max speed limit of 70 MPH so we would be limited to that speed! However in Germany large parts of the Autobahn have no limit, therefore no limiter. Which make a mockery of the whole thing.
Mike
Now I cruise at 65-70. With occasional brief jaunts up to 75. With more traffic on the roads than back then I have found that often there is little point going any faster than 65 as all that happens is that you catch the back of the slow trucks / traffic quicker and spend a decent chunk of the journey speeding up and slowing down. Which is pointless.
I think it’s one of the most (if not, the most) serious political phenomena we face at the moment and I can see no real boundaries being placed on it.
So we are all going to pay the cost, rather than the law breakers.
It's crazy to think that people got so upset about ID cards because if a database of personal info / fingerprints, but happily share everything about their lives with tech companies who sell that info on.
The new systems are now aggregating info from various sources, so for example the latest "advance" is you go into a store, browse and leave without buying anything. Stores are now hiring a service that can work out who you were (despite not giving them info) and then buying targeted ads in social media for the products you were browsing. It all works on the fact so many apps have your location data etc and so buying it and aggregating you can pin people down.
People on Newnight last night seemed to think these inactive votes were pretty much a waste of time and the view was that all roads lead to a general election now...
https://www.thesun.co.uk/motors/8725369/cars-fitted-speed-limiters-2022-slow-vehicle-down/
Of course if we had MEPs at the new session in September we could raise issues, rather than just follow them.
There may be some issues for low volume manufacturers such as Morgan.
For the record, I'm in favour of getting rid of cash as quickly as is practical, and think that crypto is bonkers.
There are lots of areas and times where, looking back, I wish different choices had been made, personally, locally, nationally.
I don't own a car, but like to hire nice exec cars when I need them. The last couple I have rented already had a very similar system. I still broke the limit, on open roads, from time to time, but the warning was useful.
What's the big problem? Anyone would think the gammons are getting all hot and bothered for the fun of it.
To steal a phrase from the gun lobby, cars* don't cause accidents, people who think they are good drivers do.
* Well, unless it's a problem with the car such as failing brakes or a puncture.
You don't see the full picture, when you allow one app a particular permission and another app a different one.
Most people have no idea this is the case and you can't really opt out unless you don't use any apps on your phone (or go through absolutely everything, checking permissions, deleting lots of apps because if their conditions etc).
I bet Iain Duncan Smith isn't though. Can't see him accepting something like this lying down.
And don't get me started on the hideous mess that is Tesla's system ...
If you don’t believe me, speak to TSE.