Points on the licence...
- Thread starter PBancroft
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Eat MY Dust
New Member
- Location
- Where ever I lay my hat (helmet)
BSA said:
Even better would be limiters that regulated the maximum speed a car could go in line with the speed limit of the road that the car was on. Can you imagine they did this?!?!? There'd be a lot of pissed off cagers!
BSA said:
sure, may as well just have people wear a chip then we can track them everywhere, not just in their cars!
Last thing we need is the government blowing another 10bil on a half ars3d, half baked i.t. system that would only benefit the crooks (and siemens/accenture or the like)- lets face it no technology is unbeatable and those who want away round it would!
Crackle said:
yep and damn simple to disable it/ hack it also - so every one loses! The criminals/those with money pay to bypass it and do what they want, no one concentrates on good driving practices as they are all focused on speed, the govt loses a big whack of money as no one is getting fined anymore, cars need serviced more as the limiter fecks the engine and some gready IT contracter makes a fortune implementing it!
nilling
Über Member
- Location
- Preston, UK
km991148 said:
You already carry one: it's called a mobile phone!
John the Monkey
Frivolous Cyclist
- Location
- Crewe
Regarding the footballer, would the crash have happenned/been less severe had he been travelling at a 70 rather than 97mph?
Appreciation of the conditions under which you did that should come into play when the punishment (assuming you have been caught) is applied by way of mitigation, or otherwise. Linford's suggestion in threads passim, and that of other posters that stiffer penalties are appropriate in residential areas, for example, seems eminently sensible to me.
Incidentally, recent research shows that drivers associate how safe it is to exceed a speed limit with how likely they are to be punished for doing so - I'm not saying that this is the case for your good self, but there may be a degree to which a driver breaking the law "safely" is operating under a set of false assumptions.
You're entirely within your rights to *believe* that, but if you (or anyone else) do exceed the speed limit you are (currently) breaking the law, regardless of conditions.km991148 said:
Appreciation of the conditions under which you did that should come into play when the punishment (assuming you have been caught) is applied by way of mitigation, or otherwise. Linford's suggestion in threads passim, and that of other posters that stiffer penalties are appropriate in residential areas, for example, seems eminently sensible to me.
Incidentally, recent research shows that drivers associate how safe it is to exceed a speed limit with how likely they are to be punished for doing so - I'm not saying that this is the case for your good self, but there may be a degree to which a driver breaking the law "safely" is operating under a set of false assumptions.
nilling
Über Member
- Location
- Preston, UK
What worried me about this announcement was the proposal of a drug-drive limit. In a way that's condoning drug use and driving as being acceptable, within limits. I'd rather have a zero tolerance for drink and drugs.
km991148 said:
You can't design it for the few who will disable it. You design for the majority and implement measures to deal with the others.
Why would a limiter thwack an engine. There's limiters on lots of engines including truck engines which do 500,000 miles or so in a lifetime.
IT contracts just need managing properly, besides you put the empasis on the manufacturer to design it in and so avoid another govt. IT problem.
John the Monkey
Frivolous Cyclist
- Location
- Crewe
I'd settle for just enforcing the traffic law we have. Stop treating drivers as though they weren't in charge of something that weighs upwards of half a ton that they can move at large speeds. Stop acting as though cars were just extensions of their living rooms, in which they can be "entertained" as they speed through other people's neighbourhoods. Stop acting as though having a "momentary lapse of concentration" whilst driving was something understandble.
Seems that the objections to this are the same as ever, and like always they ignore the simple reality that no one ever has to get done for speeding, they always have the option of not doing so.
It looks to me like the legal blind spot that prevents some people realising that speeding matters is as present as ever.
It looks to me like the legal blind spot that prevents some people realising that speeding matters is as present as ever.
Probably, he was p!ssed!John the Monkey said:
very true and I dont believe I am sperior or above the law.John the Monkey said:
Yep definatelyJohn the Monkey said:
yeah that sounds reasonable enough, and subcontiously I prob do to some extent (although to a very small degree). Unfortunately thats a consequence of the general attitude to driving/speeding and other bad habbits. Way too much emphasis is put on speeding as the worst aspect of driving, and I dont doubt it can greatly increases impact of an accident but more needs to be done to improve driving standards in general, for the good of all road users!John the Monkey said:
John the Monkey said:
The trouble with that is you are fighting an uphill battle against the manufacturer selling an image. Take the latest EuroIV engines. Why do we have them. To beat incoming legislation. Place restrictions on the manufacturer, direct or through legislation and you change the way they market their cars, wich in turn changes peoples attitudes and perceptions.
This treating the symptoms rather than the cause is always going to be ineffectual.
nilling said:
Yep I picked up on that too and wondered how they would implement it as surely a law like this would imply that some drug taking is permitted.
Dont think an absolute zero drink limit is possible (a slice of after dinner triffle etc), but it should be greatly reduced or at least brought in line with european limits.
