Speed limiters from 2022

[TAFKARM]

Or you could all drive below the speed limit and take to the track for thrills.

Just sayin’ like...

[jeff oakley]

I have no problem driving at an appropriate limit the problem is the road safety lobby have one agenda and that has been to reduce speed limits. That is why just about all of Staffordshire, Oxfordshire, Bucks, Gloucester all have hardly any national speed limits left. 

They have reduced them based on hysteria and cost savings as NSL roads have to be maintained and inspected more than 40 mph and 50mph. Any attempt to disprove their figures and conclusions is met with the same barrage of attacks that anyone who dares to suggest that climate change is no longer to do with science but more to do with big business and government cashing in with green taxes and selling green technology.

This is part of a whole raft of "safety features" one of which is all cars must have black boxes fitted. This will allow future road pricing and insurance to be denied or costs increased. If the box says you drive less smoothly than they have set it, next year increase premium. Drive at high peak time like going to work, pay more etc.

In the UK we have a third of all CCTV cameras already monitoring our every move, this is the next big step and one which people will accept as it comes wrapped in a shiney wrapper and doesn't look like a camera.

[BigSkyBrad]

Japanese domestic market cars have been limited to 180kph (110mph) since the '80s (but the ECU was always tweekable).

[Thrustyjust]

Agree with Geoff about Oxfordshire's roads. You know where you cross the counties. They have open country roads with not a visible house and 40 mph signs everywhere to stop them having to spend money on the roads being maintained as they are bomb holed, not pot holed. No other reason.  

To me , going round a track is like ground hog day. I have done it to realise that going round in circles is not my cup of tea, so that's not the solution to speed . Hell one day the environmentalist lobby will be banning tracks for pollution caused by cars going round and round for no actual benefit to the daisy pickers in the fields a few miles away. We are all getting dumbed down over time. 

My theory is if you drive at 140 mph on a motorway, is more environmentally friendly as the engine will only be burning fuel for half the time that you could be travelling  

 

[Mighty Mart]

 I live in the New Forest, where Ponies, Cattle, Donkeys and at times, Pigs and Sheep are free to roam around.....this inevitibly results in animal casualties (death) unfortunately, and the National limit that had stood for years was reduced to a blanket 40mph, with numerous places reduced to 30mph. There are many that would like the limit to be reduced further......

The thing is, there are numerous times when 40mph is irresponsibly fast....in the early mornings when the mist/fog is so thick, you cannot see where you are going, and probably half the drivers locally cannot see properly when night driving, due to their age / eyesight anyway....

At other times in certain places in the forest, in the 40mph zones, it is quite safe to drive at the National limit or more......

unfortunately, the limit seems to apply to the lowest common denominator of drivers, rather than being able to determine a safe speed to drive at considering the relevant conditions at the time.

No mention of retrofitting any devices to current road going vehicles then?

Mart.

 

[Blatman]

I'm not a conspiracy theorist but... The safety campaigners are a fine and safety is of course a laudable goal but I can't help thinking that reducing speed limits is an artificial way of reducing emissions to help the government meet their targets, my thoughts being safety is easier to sell than greenhouse gasses in a lot of the country and to a lot of the population. I mean how can safety campaigners cost an MP any votes...

I know from the last two years that my (1200cc injected and CAT'd) motorbike is going further on a fill-up since the introduction of average speed limits on only about 8 or 9 miles of my 42 mile commute. I know it's obvious but if that's on a motorbike which is pretty good on fuel to start with. Imagine if that was scaled up... 

[TAFKARM]

54 minutes ago, Blatman said:

I'm not a conspiracy theorist but... The safety campaigners are a fine and safety is of course a laudable goal but I can't help thinking that reducing speed limits is an artificial way of reducing emissions to help the government meet their targets, my thoughts being safety is easier to sell than greenhouse gasses in a lot of the country and to a lot of the population. I mean how can safety campaigners cost an MP any votes...

I know from the last two years that my (1200cc injected and CAT'd) motorbike is going further on a fill-up since the introduction of average speed limits on only about 8 or 9 miles of my 42 mile commute. I know it's obvious but if that's on a motorbike which is pretty good on fuel to start with. Imagine if that was scaled up... 

That’s a good thing isn’t it?

[SootySport]

The Germans are not going to like this idea, can't see them voting for it .  It's going make a huge dent in their EEC sales figures. French, Korean and Japanese car makers tend to build small wheezy engined cars so they will love the idea.  It's going to be tough years for new car sales after 2022 but a boom for the used car market.

[Man On The Clapham Omnibus]

On 28/03/2019 at 13:20, Thrustyjust said:

 

My theory is if you drive at 140 mph on a motorway, is more environmentally friendly as the engine will only be burning fuel for half the time that you could be travelling  

 

My theory is that you should go over crossroads as fast as possible to reduce the time you are exposed to the risk of meeting crossing traffic. 

[Westfield Chesil Limited]

On 27/03/2019 at 16:19, Steve (sdh2903) said:

Oh well 2021 is the year to treat myself to a 'keeper' car then.

I was just thinking the same.