Big Brother

[wraymond]

I think I remember a thread about this earlier but can’t find it, so my apologies for not reviving. In the news today:

Speed limit warnings being installed on all new cars from 2022 will be also be fitted, I imagine at the owners’ expense, from two years later. They will also collect and hive sat-nav details including driving techniques.

Presumably it will allow insurers to finely tune premiums according to perceived risk profiles. Even might be the start of speeding fines out of the blue, sans ANPR evidence. I wonder if dash cams....no, they wouldn’t, would they? Apparently, UK has already agreed to match all EU traffic law irrespective of coming developments. All in the interests of reducing road deaths.

I also read some data, official government stuff previously declared but, I daresay, subject to amendment whenever necessary. In 1940 there were about 2.3 million vehicles on the road compared with 32 million today. In 1940, out of the 2.3 million there were 8609 fatalities. In 2017 (latest figs) there were 1793 fatalities. It seems like we are rather a lot better off without the big brother approach.

That sort of takes away the impetus of the latest outrageous imposition and a rather lame excuse for surveillance. Further, UK traffic fatals is about half of those in France and Italy and a quarter of those in Bulgaria and Romania. Anybody have any idea what the number of road vehicles there are in those? We are lambs to the slaughter.

[macafee2]

has there been any mention of fitting limiters to pre 2022 cars?
Goodness knows how that will be done, who will make them?

I thought the news would kill the supercar market and would not do anything for the new car market but I can see 2nd hand cars fetching a premium.

those that speed should take note of what their actions have apparently resulted in or should car manufactures take responsibility for producing cars that do such speeds?

fake news?

macafee2

[Teflon]

Originally Posted by wraymond

......... In 1940 there were about 23 million vehicles on the road compared with 32 million today. ........

Can I ask what the source is for those numbers? I find the 1940 number quite extraordinary - would have thought it probably a tenth of that .

On the whole though, I agree with you . It also occurs to me that with speed limiters taking care of road speed, it's one more reason for drivers not to concentrate too much on their surroundings and could lead to a far more complacent approach to driving.

I often wonder how many of the safety measures that get introduced have a negative effect on driving standards. I suspect that driving around in an old classic, safe in the knowledge that if you hit something, there's no crumple zone to take the sting out of the impact, no air bags to deploy, and a nice strong steering column just waiting to pierce your breast bone, probably does much to focus the mind on careful driving .

Cliff

[75c]

98% of stats are made up.

There were less than 1.5 million cars on the road in 1940.

''In November 1940, the total number of cars in the UK was 1,348,817, and many vehicles were commandeered by the Army.''

[Gate Keeper]

Originally Posted by 75c

98% of stats are made up.

There were less than 1.5 million cars on the road in 1940.

''In November 1940, the total number of cars in the UK was 1,348,817, and many vehicles were commandeered by the Army.''

Below .......Copy and pasted from the Mail and we know how accurate the Daily Mail is..yeah right

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.d...ving-seat.html

####Between 2000 and 2017, the number of annual road deaths in this country almost halved from 3,409 to 1,793. This is attributable to factors including the increasing prevalence of airbags, better-built cars and a reduction in drink-driving.

Going back much further, there were 8,609 motor fatalities in 1940, when there were about two million vehicles on the roads, compared with 32 million today. The chance of dying in a motor accident is a tiny fraction of what it was 80 years ago.

This has been achieved as a result of safety measures introduced by car manufacturers, through public education, and by legislation outlawing drink-driving and making the wearing of seat belts compulsory. There hasn’t been a robot in sight####

[topman]

This will come in and they'll be all manner of hysterical headlines about it. After a year or so it'll be forgotten and we'll wonder what all the fuss was about.

Some fought like mad against seatbelts been brought in, they thought them dangerous. Now of course we think nothing of wearing them.

[wraymond]

Originally Posted by Teflon

Can I ask what the source is for those numbers? I find the 1940 number quite extraordinary - would have thought it probably a tenth of that .

On the whole though, I agree with you . It also occurs to me that with speed limiters taking care of road speed, it's one more reason for drivers not to concentrate too much on their surroundings and could lead to a far more complacent approach to driving.

I often wonder how many of the safety measures that get introduced have a negative effect on driving standards. I suspect that driving around in an old classic, safe in the knowledge that if you hit something, there's no crumple zone to take the sting out of the impact, no air bags to deploy, and a nice strong steering column just waiting to pierce your breast bone, probably does much to focus the mind on careful driving .

Cliff

Happy to reveal. Stephen Glover in the Daily Mail. He is a venerated journalist with impeccable credentials who, with others, produced the Independent newspaper. Prior to that he worked as a journalist for the Telegraph, both of which papers are noted for proper reporting.

Since joining the Mail he has maintained his integrity and straight talking with due diligence to research. I'm quite sure that the regular criticisms of his current employer, fashionable though it is to slag them off, haven't diminished by association his perception of events or accurate reporting. But, you pay your money and take your choice. I'm happy with mine.

Edit: Just comes to mind how, quite apart from the huge advance in mechanical safety measures over time, the driving test and the quality of instructor training has improved. That alone is very different to the way things were.

[Teflon]

Originally Posted by wraymond

……….

Edit: Just comes to mind how, quite apart from the huge advance in mechanical safety measures over time, the driving test and the quality of instructor training has improved. That alone is very different to the way things were.

That's a very good point, and it seems it is seldom (if ever) taken into account when reporting on safety statistics in the motoring sector.

Cliff

[MSS]

Originally Posted by topman

This will come in and they'll be all manner of hysterical headlines about it. After a year or so it'll be forgotten and we'll wonder what all the fuss was about.

Some fought like mad against seatbelts been brought in, they thought them dangerous. Now of course we think nothing of wearing them.

I agree. There was similar negativity about mandatory helmet wearing on motorcycles. Many people even complained about the fitting of catalytic converters claiming they would make cars much more expensive.

The proposal to fit these speed restricting capabilities allows the driver to either permanently diable the restriction each time that the car is started or to bypass it through accelerator action e.g. for overtaking. It seems to have been well thought through and as a minimum will make the driver positively accaountable for his/her actions.

For me, the ultimate will be to have all cars continuously report on the unlawful behaviour of other cars around them and for automatic extraction of the appropriate fines from people's bank accounts with those drivers that offend regularly being permanently decommissioned.

[wraymond]

Originally Posted by 75c

98% of stats are made up.

There were less than 1.5 million cars on the road in 1940.

''In November 1940, the total number of cars in the UK was 1,348,817, and many vehicles were commandeered by the Army.''

Thanks for that, I missed the decimal point! Now corrected to the figure from a source I used. It sort of underlines the point even more!