Speed Limiting

A government-funded trial in the UK has just concluded that more than 1,000 lives a year could be saved by fitting speed limiters to all cars there.

The satellite-based system will monitor the speed limit and apply the brakes or cut out the accelerator if the driver tries to exceed it. A government-funded trial has concluded that the scheme promotes safer driving.

Drivers in London could be among the first to have the “speed spy” devices fitted. They would be offered a discount on the congestion charge if they use the system.

The move follows a six-month trial in Leeds using 20 modified Skoda Fabias, which found that volunteer drivers paid more attention as well keeping to the speed limit.

Should Bermuda consider introducing a similar system? Implementing it here would surely be considerably easier than in the UK due to the smaller number of different speed limits and the limited number of car dealers.

Some may fret about this being an invasion of privacy, but the system need not be mandatory. Drivers could be offered an incentive to have it installed, such as a discount on their annual license fee.

My initial concern was that such a system might actually cause accidents if it prevented a driver from getting an urgently-needed burst of speed (e.g. if he misjudged an overtaking opportunity). But apparently “the system can be overridden to avoid a hazard”.

If such a system was mandatory, and could be made to work, it would be better than speed cameras. After all, cameras don’t actually stop people from speeding, they just enable them to be punished afterwards.

Perhaps Dr. Brown should give the UK’s Department for Transport a call.

Comments

[ace on 05.07.05 at 09:02]

"But apparently “the system can be overridden to avoid a hazard”".

or to engage in a race.

If you can over-ride the system that easily then it is useless, surely?

[TJL on 05.07.05 at 09:13]

Good point. Can you give more specifics as to how the emergency over-ride works? Does it only work for a short period of time? Does the driver initiate the over-ride (say, by pushing a button) or does the system by default not kick in until the car has been in excess of the speed limit for a predetermined length of time?

This suggestion creeps me out for some reason. I can just imagine the chaos on the roads if the system ever shorted out and limited vehicles to 5 kph (or worse, 0 kph). I much prefer speed cameras - as I'm sure you're aware, they could actually limit speeding, by giving the drivers a very strong incentive not to.

[Tiger Bay on 05.07.05 at 09:24]

This is a complicated solution to a simple problem: the failure of police to police the roads.

Aside from occassional short "windows of enforcement" when speed traps are set up, their approach is to sit in the stations until called.

This increases surveillance without really resoving the problem. Think of the fortune that's been spent on closed circuit TV in Hamilton - with very little impact on preventing crime or improving prosecution success.

Plus, I doubt you can fit it on motorcycles which are a significant part of the problem here.

[ruby tuesday on 05.07.05 at 09:48]

It is very easy to fit limit devices to scooters - in the UK most 50cc scooters are sold with a 30mph ceiling and have subsequent discounts on insurance. Would it be possible to make it mandatory for all riders under 21 to ride limited scooters? Obviously there would be issues as far as policing is concerned but even in my limited tenure on the island it would appear that juvenile speeding is getting worse.

[Martin on 05.07.05 at 10:01]

When it comes to scooters, I have a feeling that if some where to drive at the permitted maximum, there might just be less accidents.

I grow weary when I come up behind a 5kph visitor who is wavering all over the roads. It is also easier in some respects to control the bike at a greater speed.

That said, Ruby is right in that we should cap the max speed in any event.

At least that way, the occassions where I am left with skid marks down my socks because some idiot has zoomed up the inside of my car at 60 + should reduce!

[Terry on 05.07.05 at 10:15]

Ruby has a point. Another piece of legislation, more paper work for the Police when you can find them. Tampering with the device to go faster, plus the speeding ticket, the Courts would be overwelmed again. I still believe in the heavy fine syndrome. People don't care how many tickets they have but if you burden them with a 500-1000 dollar fine they would think twice (mabe) about it. Running red lights is cool, you get a fine, big deal.It's the ones that kill people doing this that come to our attention.

Everyday thousands of people run red lights, some are caught, most are not. Cameras are great for revenue because you can't have a Cop at every junction and this entails chasing them down too. You write a ticket and three more do it. I have an eight cylinder Cadilac that goes 120 mph. The sign says 45, I do fifty, 65, I do 70. Never had a ticket in 40yrs.

Compliance is the key, if you don't, burn them I say.Hit them where it really hurts, in the pocket book. You all know the feeling when you have to pay the Belco bill and cable and morgage/rent. If you do the crime, make em pay the fine.........

[loki on 05.07.05 at 10:24]

"....but even in my limited tenure on the island it would appear that juvenile speeding is getting worse."

Much worse. The number of complete tools riding bikes as if they are competing in a Moto GP race is alarming, to say the least. Ten years ago, it would have been rare to see an idiot riding a bike at 80-90k, overtaking a line of traffic around a blind corner; these days it's a regular occurence. Also, it would appear that the standard minimum speed these days for virtually any young person with a bike is around 65k. Time to seriously crack down on these idiots, kids......

[Tiger Bay on 05.07.05 at 10:35]

Any mecahnical governor can be tampered with .. plus, look at the number of "kits" that are available to boost performance of engines. There's even a second hand market for them on e-moo!

[ruby tuesday on 05.07.05 at 10:53]

Agreed Tiger - nothing is perfect.

In the UK & Japan there are schemes where limiters are validated during MOT or the sha-ken and this in turn validates insurance. If this is a serious social issue then I'm sure it would be politically expedient to pass draconian measures on juvenile speeders (these oxygen thieves don't vote).

If you crash and are de facto uninsured what sanctions could be realistically employed apart from existing fines/incarceration?

[The Limey on 05.07.05 at 14:03]

TJL

More info at http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,15149-1163297,00.html

Drivers will be able to override the system in an emergency. It can be disengaged either by pressing a red button on the steering wheel or by pressing down very hard on the accelerator.

[H Reardon on 05.07.05 at 16:09]

If this is voluntary, I can't see the people it intending to target as being affected. If it is involuntary, I have a huge problem with it. Ergo, don't see the point.

[Terry on 05.07.05 at 16:26]

HR, you seem to have a problem with everything. Laws are Laws.If you don't like it, appeal to the Supreme Court. Now you will really need that Check.

[Joseph Froncioni on 05.07.05 at 22:07]

"After all, cameras don’t actually stop people from speeding, they just enable them to be punished afterwards."

Wrong, wrong, wrong Phil. Speed cams function as a deterrent to speeding and not as a way to catch speeders.

[The Limey on 05.07.05 at 22:26]

Joe

I agree that speed cams function as a deterrent. Don't get me wrong - I still support their introduction. My point was that they don't physically stop someone from speeding though (they just encourage them not to).

Still, maybe they'd only be worth considering if even cameras don't stop the nutters doing 120kph down Kindley Field Road. Perhaps courts could order those convicted of speeding to have them fitted to their vehicles?

[Two Cent Charlie on 05.07.05 at 22:43]

Having speed limiters on both rental scooters and mopeds riden by 16 through 18 year olds would be a good start.

I would also a huge supporter of putting limiters on all commercial and government vehicles. This would include any kind of van, truck or bus. There is a benefit from this in that the commercial vehicles actually become rolling speed regulators. In addition there could be created a legitimate opportunity for young Bermudians to be trained in installing and maintaining these systems.

A program like this could easily be done in conjunction with Bermuda College, the transportation department and commercial enterprise.

[Two Cents on 06.07.05 at 01:15]

"The move follows a six-month trial in Leeds using 20 modified Skoda Fabias"

...I imagine it would have taken six months to find 20 people who would want to drive a Skoda Fabia

[Adjustah on 06.07.05 at 06:22]

"Drivers will be able to override the system in an emergency. It can be disengaged either by pressing a red button on the steering wheel or by pressing down very hard on the accelerator."

In the event of a pack race, or should you be being chased by the Man for your outstanding warrants, press here...

Doesn't this ever so slightly, completely defeat the purpose of having this sytem onboard?

[TJL on 06.07.05 at 07:13]

Agreed. It sounds too easy to over-ride, so everyone who currently speeds will now just spend all their time with their finger on the button, or invest in lead-soled boots.

In response to an earlier post by Terry, I don't think massively draconian fines are the answer if current levels of capture are maintained. One of the basic findings of human behavioural economics is that otherwise "rational" people tend to significantly underestimate the likelihood of already unlikely events (so they underinsure their property or risk injury speeding, because "it just can't happen"). The best way to convince speeders to slow down is to dramatically increase the likelihood of being caught rather than increasing the penalty. Hence, speed cameras are, in my opinion, the ideal solution (since cops are expensive and would ideally be better placed solving our spiralling crime problem).

Another problem with increasing penalties is that you give a speeder a greater incentive to attempt to evade capture once he feels he's been "caught". There is a reason for keeping the punishment proportional to the crime beyond basic human decency, and that is we don't want to arrive at a "might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb" situation; if an individual knows they won't be able to pay a massive fine and will face jail time as a result, they might as well risk a charge of avoiding arrest and lead police on a high-speed chase more dangerous than the original offense.

[Bermudanews on 06.07.05 at 08:42]

If you want to slow people down just ban overtaking. Anyone overtaking must be doing more than 20mph. You dont need expensive gear like radar to prove overtaking. Just put police out and let them book the overtakers. The governors also do work really well on bikes in the UK. They can generally only be removed at dealers and if they are removed at an inspection make it so they forfeit the bike no questions asked. Its the bikes that cause the problem more than cars but its the car drivers you see getting booked more than the idiot bike rider in the traffic in the mornings and evenings. Much easier to see if a governors present than take the engine to bits to measure the capacity. The safest road is resumably one with no or few entrances, like Crowe Lane, Frog Lane and Dutton Avenue yet these are the most popular places for the Police to trap people doing speeds in the low 50's. Its easier for them, the drivers have nowhere to escape to. Finding a speed camera that can see those small triangular dirty plates with kryptonite locks hanging over them is what will be the problem.

[ace on 06.07.05 at 09:18]

Overtaking is to be a crime?

What about overtaking a wobbling tourist that is becoming more and more nervous as they realise a car is behind them?

What about overtaking a pedal bike?

What about overtaking a person learning how to drive who is crawling along at 15kph?

What about overtaking a granny that can barley see over the steering wheel who is crawling along at 15kph?

What about overtaking the car who has suddenly stopped because the driver wants a chat with his mate?

?????

[H Reardon on 06.07.05 at 09:42]

"Laws are laws."

Posted by Terry.

Terry, by that I guess you mean that legislators have some sort of supreme wisdom and that therefore a law is unquestionable and noone should have a problem with it. Given the quality of politicians on this island, I just don't understand your commitment.

Here's a few actual laws in the US. After all, laws are laws, so make sure you follow these when traveling to the states:

Noone is allowed to ride a bike in a swimming pool.
Baldwin Park, CA

Noone is permitted to wear cowboy boots unless they own at least 2 cows.
Blythe, CA

It is illegal to spit, except on baseball diamonds.
Burlingame, CA

Ice cream may not be eaten while standing on the sidewalk.
Carmel, CA

Women are not permitted to wear high heels in town.
Carmel, CA

It is illegal to drive more than 2,000 sheep down Hollywood Blvd.
Hollywood, CA

Persons classified as "ugly" may not walk down any street.
San Francisco, CA

A man can not go outside with a jacket and pants that don't match.
Carmel, NY

During a concert, it is illegal to eat peanuts and walk backwards.
Greene, NY

Citizens may not greet each other by "putting one's thumb to the nose and wiggling the fingers".
Staten Island, NY

It is illegal to take more than three sips of beer at a time while standing.
Texas

The entire Encyclopedia Britannica is banned in Texas because it contains a formula for making beer at home.

It is illegal to dust any public building with a feather duster.
Clarendon, TX

Obnoxious odors may not be emitted while in an elevator.
Port Arthur, TX

[H Reardon on 06.07.05 at 09:47]

Well said Ace.

To often, in response to a problem or issue, a large percent of the people on this site try and legislate behavior. I agree that in some cases legislation is the answer, but it shouldn't be everyone's first reaction.

"Don't let anyone smoke on his property."

"Put some device on a car that doesn't let the car go over 35K"

"Don't allow the property owner to sell his property."

[terry on 06.07.05 at 11:59]

Reardon, thanks for the update. I do live in the US, just like you mabe, a transplant. I was fined 800 dollars for farting in an elevator. All law makers are human. They do not rule supreme. My commitment is to safety and fair judgement. Get off your high horse. Just trying to do my time on this one shopping excursion. I guess it was the way I was brought up, you know, be nice and suffer the consequences....?

[Jessica on 06.07.05 at 12:23]

"This is a complicated solution to a simple problem: the failure of police to police the roads."

I have to agree. There are many days when I'll be driving around and not see a single police car/bike on the road. And the times when they are out in small force they park in the same spots. I've seen plenty of people on bikes slow down near one of these spots only to zoom off at top speed once they are out of view.

[The Limey on 06.07.05 at 13:48]

Tiger Bay

This is a complicated solution to a simple problem: the failure of police to police the roads.

The problem may be simple, but the solution isn't. No matter how many traffic cops you have they won't be able to police everyone all the time.

Also, if it's illegal to go faster than a certain speed, how can you justify allowing vehicles that are capable of exceeding it?

Jessica

I've seen plenty of people on bikes slow down near one of these spots only to zoom off at top speed once they are out of view.

Cameras potentially have the same problems. I hope when the Government finally gets round to implementing them they'll put in enough (dummies or real cameras) so this isn't an issue

[James on 06.07.05 at 14:17]

The punishment for speeding is clearly insufficient. What about the lady who got caught THREE TIMES in one evening last week. Clearly people need an incentive to slow down.

Fines aren't enough.

Disqualification is the key - with the additional threat of jail if you get caught driving while disqualified.

It worked for me a couple of decades back.

[Andrew on 06.07.05 at 14:32]

Behaviour Modification 101 - the certainty and frequency of reward or punishment are factors in the success of behaviour modification. Since the chances of getting ticketed are slim, people are driving like hell and know that they can get away with it. Using a combination of cameras and improved enforcement frequency, people would learn to slow down or be taken off the road.

[H Reardon on 06.07.05 at 14:40]

"Also, if it's illegal to go faster than a certain speed, how can you justify allowing vehicles that are capable of exceeding it?"

Freedom.

[ace on 06.07.05 at 16:25]

"It worked for me a couple of decades back."

Me too. I agree 100% with you. As soon as the cash grabbing fines became almost the only punnishment for speeding the roads became a nightmare.

[terry on 06.07.05 at 17:22]

I agrre with James and Ace. Mabe, well yes, I did not put it in the right context when I stated Fines, heavy fines. Disqualification and serious repercutions is a broader and better way to go. I agree, but then again there is the inforcement and time it takes with all those offenders. Lets lobby Government since we already discused it hee.

[The Limey on 06.07.05 at 17:40]

Reardon

Freedom.

But you don't have the freedom to do what you like on the roads.

Didn't Galt once say that you agree to give up some of your freedoms in exchange for the right to use the roads? ;-)

[david on 06.07.05 at 19:01]

"I’m not a big believer in Governments legislating to protect people from their own stupidity." A quote from the limey, hmmm yet you agree with governments introducing measures stopping people going too fast on the car. Yet again another way of imposing a minority's views onto everyone around. Lets be honest if you did a referendum on your average country (england now, not wacky bermuda) what % would agree with such an idea? 10, 20% at a push yet sure lets talk about it! Why do you think this wasn't on labours manifesto? I rest my case. To mention just one point against. You are in a car, you want to overtake someone cos you are in a hurry or cos they are driving a nissan. To do that safely you may need to momentarily speed so that you spend the least amout of time in the opposite lane so you pick a spot where its free, albeit for only seconds. You pull over, suddenly you can't overtake cos you can't increase your speed, you are stuck in the opposite lane longer then you envisiged - bang! So the solution? No one overtakes. Great one einstein! Of course bunched up traffic is really safe not to mention increased tailgating / road rage etc. Does anyone actually know the % of road accidents caused by speeding as opposed to anything else? Yes you'll always get dickheads speeding, and have no doubt they will overcome any measure the government introduces like with anything else in society. So it wont stop them yet puts the law abiding citizen at risk. Fantastic! Lets talk about getting one over the french, much more interesting!