TFL trial device to enforce speed limits

Bassjunkieuk

Just saw a report about this on the BBC news this morning and it's really annoyed me.......

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8042749.stm

Unfortunately the video on that link isn't the same one used on the show this morning which seemed to present the device as some sort of bad thing.

It is basically a small device that knows the speed limits of all the roads within the M25. THe driver can then choose between 2 modes; one is called advisory in which it displays a face on the screen to show your current speed vs. the speed limit - green smiley for under changing to red sad face for over the limit. The second mode actually stops the car from going faster then the speed limit, regardless of how much you press the accelerator.

I think this is an excellent device and could do a great deal to improve road safety but I think the whole way it was reported pretty much sums up their view on it. The reporter demonstrating the device activated the voluntary mode that limits his speed and was driving down a road, he then comments

"The road ahead of me is perfectly clear, every bone in my body is telling me to go faster but I can't. I can see the car behind me is getting closer and I bet he's getting quite angry"

The road he was on was clearly a residential road, running alongside a park or field
(fenced in) of some sort.

To top it off this road had a cycelane on........

asprilla

I already have a device to tell me whan I'm going over the speed limit, it's called a speedo. It gives me a read out of my speed in real time.

The furore around safety and speeding really annoys me because most people don't actually understand the problem. Speed doesn't kill or lead to accidents; inappropriate use of speed does and there is a massive difference between the two.

According to the Home Office own accident figures most of those accidents where speed was a direct cause of the accident (around 90%) actually took place below the speed limit, iit was simply that conditions didn't warrent driving at the limit.

Truth be told, we need better driving instruction, harder tests and frequent retesting, as well as a cultural chnage towards more consideration for all road users. Driving should be a privilage, not a right. We don't really need more speed restrictions and little deviced to point out the exact moment you become a baby killing maniac.

lost_in_thought

Asprilla wrote:

I already have a device to tell me whan I'm going over the speed limit, it's called a speedo. It gives me a read out of my speed in real time.

The furore around safety and speeding really annoys me because most people don't actually understand the problem. Speed doesn't kill or lead to accidents; inappropriate use of speed does and there is a massive difference between the two.

<snip>

Truth be told, we need better driving instruction, harder tests and frequent retesting, as well as a cultural chnage towards more consideration for all road users. Driving should be a privilage, not a right. We don't really need more speed restrictions and little deviced to point out the exact moment you become a baby killing maniac.

+1

always_tyred

lost_in_thought wrote:

Asprilla wrote:

I already have a device to tell me whan I'm going over the speed limit, it's called a speedo. It gives me a read out of my speed in real time.

The furore around safety and speeding really annoys me because most people don't actually understand the problem. Speed doesn't kill or lead to accidents; inappropriate use of speed does and there is a massive difference between the two.

<snip>

Truth be told, we need better driving instruction, harder tests and frequent retesting, as well as a cultural chnage towards more consideration for all road users. Driving should be a privilage, not a right. We don't really need more speed restrictions and little deviced to point out the exact moment you become a baby killing maniac.

+1

The present policy is to make driving a privilage for the rich only.

Kieran_Burns

lost_in_thought wrote:

Asprilla wrote:

I already have a device to tell me whan I'm going over the speed limit, it's called a speedo. It gives me a read out of my speed in real time.

The furore around safety and speeding really annoys me because most people don't actually understand the problem. Speed doesn't kill or lead to accidents; inappropriate use of speed does and there is a massive difference between the two.

<snip>

Truth be told, we need better driving instruction, harder tests and frequent retesting, as well as a cultural chnage towards more consideration for all road users. Driving should be a privilage, not a right. We don't really need more speed restrictions and little deviced to point out the exact moment you become a baby killing maniac.

+1

+2

nicely put as well

lost_in_thought

Always Tyred wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

Asprilla wrote:

I already have a device to tell me whan I'm going over the speed limit, it's called a speedo. It gives me a read out of my speed in real time.

The furore around safety and speeding really annoys me because most people don't actually understand the problem. Speed doesn't kill or lead to accidents; inappropriate use of speed does and there is a massive difference between the two.

<snip>

Truth be told, we need better driving instruction, harder tests and frequent retesting, as well as a cultural chnage towards more consideration for all road users. Driving should be a privilage, not a right. We don't really need more speed restrictions and little deviced to point out the exact moment you become a baby killing maniac.

+1

The present policy is to make driving a privilage for the rich only.

Hmmmm, I obviously skipped over that 'driving should be a privilege not a right' bit... I don't really agree with that... but do agree with the rest.

And yeah, this is what a friend refers to as the 'stick approach' as opposed to the 'carrot approach' whereby you tax the hell out of the people driving as opposed to offering incentives to those who don't. It's bl**dy irritating.

Some people have to drive, especially those in rural areas where public transport is a foreign concept.

Fireblade96

I already have a device to tell me whan I'm going over the speed limit, it's called a speedo. It gives me a read out of my speed in real time.

I would strongly resist the installation of any device that takes away my control from any vehicle I'm driving. This sort of technology removes the responsibility from the driver who can then e.g. drive at 30mph past a school at 9am, because his little black box told him it was OK. On the other hand, it may prevent him exceeding 70mph on a motorway, making it impossible to escape an overtaking lorry that lumbers into his path.

As already stated, it's not speed that kills - it's inappropriate speed and inconsiderate driving.
We don't need more technology to save us from ourselves, we need better driver education and suitable penalties for people who carelessly kill with motor vehicles.

[/rant]

always_tyred

Speed is a contributory factor. Its wishful thinking that it isn't. 1/2mv^2 and all that. Its the easiest to measure and regulate.

asprilla

When I say privilege, I mean something that you can only do if you good enough and considerate enough not to be a menace to other road users. There is no reason, in my eyes, why everyone can't be in this position, but too many road users feel that they have the right to do whatever they want once they have passed their test. They don't.

Just to keep things balanced I should point out that I speed on a semi regular basis, when I judge it to be safe, and am not a perfect driver by any stretch of the imagination.

Always Tyred wrote:

Its the easiest to measure and regulate.

That's pretty much it.

Personally I advocate more mobile police units who are able to judge poor driving rather than a box that allows +/- 10%.

always_tyred

Asprilla wrote:

When I say privilege, I mean something that you can only do if you good enough and considerate enough not to be a menace to other road users. There is no reason, in my eyes, why everyone can't be in this position, but too many road users feel that they have the right to do whatever they want once they have passed their test. They don't.

Just to keep things balanced I should point out that I speed on a semi regular basis, when I judge it to be safe, and am not a perfect driver by any stretch of the imagination.

Always Tyred wrote:

Its the easiest to measure and regulate.

That's pretty much it.

Personally I advocate more mobile police units who are able to judge poor driving rather than a box that allows +/- 10%.

Agreed, its lazy policing. Its absurd that tailgating at 70mph is treated more leniently than driving on a deserted road at 80mph.

dirk_van_gently

Asprilla wrote:

Truth be told, we need better driving instruction, harder tests and frequent retesting, as well as a cultural chnage towards more consideration for all road users. Driving should be a privilege, not a right

Spot on, there is a culture of cynically bad driving, people just stink, that's the truth of it. I don't really know where this general malaise of generally rude bad tempered, impatience has developed from, but it has developed over a period of say 20years or so.

Eau Rouge

Always Tyred wrote:

Speed is a contributory factor. Its wishful thinking that it isn't. 1/2mv^2 and all that. Its the easiest to measure and regulate.

Sure it is, but it has nothing at all to do with speed limits. There is a misconception that speed limits have something to do with how fast you can safely drive a road, which is just not true, they don't even try and set most speed limits to how fast you can safely drive a road. The primary function of 30mph limits seems to be to define the border between a village/town and the countryside.
The idea of limiting people to posted limits makes no sense.

Stone Glider

One of the things I remember from my Driver Education Course was the comment by one of the presenters that the speed limits were maximum speeds, not obligatory speeds.

The roads are ever more crowded and it is now feasible to limit vehicle speeds remotely. I think that that will become normal in metropolitan areas within twenty years. If Swine Flu was killing 3,000 people a year there would be pandemonium, yet we tolerate traffic deaths at that level, not to mention the injuries and the trauma.

BTW I was doing the DEC to avoid three points on my licence for speeding. It sort of worked, sort of.

Bassjunkieuk

I have to agree with the previous posters and didn't get a chance to mention it on my OP as I had to take the kids to school, but I do think driver education and a greater deal of respect would be much more useful then these gimmicky devices.

Part of the reason I wanted to post about this was the whole way it was reported, i was almost like Jeremy Clarkson and Richard Hammond where doing the story with the "oh but we must obey speed limits" comments from the 2 breakfast presenters in the studio just didn't seem very professional.

Like Asprilla I don't profess to be a perfect driver, I have moments when I do speed and these are normally in situations where I judge it to be "safe" so usually on very quiet roads. I have found that since riding my bike more regularly I have calmed down a lot as a driver and now just can't see the point of racing around like a lunatic all the time as all it does is waste petrol and get me into the next traffic jam faster!

Eau Rouge

Go race a tin-top car for a season, that seriously slows down your driving.
It's counter-intuitive, but you quickly see just how hard you can really push a car, and just how fast they can be made to go.
Back on the real roads, when you know the car can be made go so much faster if you drove it like you raced, you just lose interest in going too fast. All that risk and no reward.

always_tyred

Eau Rouge wrote:

Always Tyred wrote:

Speed is a contributory factor. Its wishful thinking that it isn't. 1/2mv^2 and all that. Its the easiest to measure and regulate.

Sure it is, but it has nothing at all to do with speed limits. There is a misconception that speed limits have something to do with how fast you can safely drive a road, which is just not true, they don't even try and set most speed limits to how fast you can safely drive a road. The primary function of 30mph limits seems to be to define the border between a village/town and the countryside.
The idea of limiting people to posted limits makes no sense.

I think there is some science behind it - if the ad campaigns are anything to go by.

My other half recently got freaked out by a police info day at her work on the effects of speed. You know, stats about the blunt force trauma caused by the bottle of Evian on the back seat, that sort of thing.

Her car still looks like someone lives in it, mind you.

chuckcork

The idea that its "safe" to speed on a country road is a fallacy.

Zip down the road at above the posted speed limit, you may well be exceeding the engineering design limit for the road. Thats the parameters around which the road would be designed for vehicles, for things like radii on corners, cuttings where the road passes over a crest, sight lines with junctions to minor roads and exits from say farms and houses.

So go along a road at 20mph faster than that engineered limit, and your likely to find sooner or later the "sorry mate I did not see you" literally correct as you could not possible have been seen yourself before someone pulls out in front of you, or stop yourself to avoid hitting them, in time to avoid running straight into someone.

Obviously that is for modern roads where an engineered limit even makes sense, a lot of roads and road junctions in the UK would have come into being when the pony and trap was the fastest way to get around, which unfortunately only makes the issue worse....

I would strongly resist the installation of any device that takes away my control from any vehicle I'm driving. This sort of technology removes the responsibility from the driver who can then e.g. drive at 30mph past a school at 9am, because his little black box told him it was OK. On the other hand, it may prevent him exceeding 70mph on a motorway, making it impossible to escape an overtaking lorry that lumbers into his path.

The overtaking lorry would be limited to 60mph wouldn't it?

Bassjunkieuk

+1 for country roads, whilst the scenery can be amazing (another hazard!) and some allow you to give it some welly but thats only when your on one that doesn't have hedgerows that obstruct your view on every turn. I don't get the chance to drive on country roads that much but do enjoy the times I can! Case in point in a$$hat impatient drivers was perfectly made last time I went to the father in laws.
We tend to travel down there late in the evening as we need to head across town to pick up the A4/M4 and then spend about 2 1/2 hours on motorways and A/B roads and with 5 kids they can get rather bored so we head out when they are asleep. We also have to rely on the sat-nav for the last part, especially in the dead of night with no streetlights. Last time we went down there I turned onto what I knew was the last road and only to be followed by some boy racer! Problem is I'm now looking for the dirt track that leads to his house with this b3llend up my ar$e with his full beams on :evil: It was dangerous and if on the off chance he had hit me then I'm not to sure what I would have done as I don't appreciate idiots tailgating me at the best of times, let alone when I have my family in the car.

Having had this rant and to bring it back OT, the device TFL have planned wouldn't have helped in this instance as the road is national speed limit so in theory I could have been doing 60mph, whearas due to the pitch black conditions and need to find an effectively un-marked turn off I was probably doing closer to 25mph. Also some country roads I've been down I'd be quite happy to do in my smaller car at much higher speeds then the big family car.

I think is another contributing factor to the excessive speed seen nowadays is modern cars have advanced to the point where even the worst of drivers can appear to drive like a god as the various ABS, traction control, electronic stability systems etc. can come to the rescue before things go really pear shaped thus making these people thinking that they really can drive like Michael Schumacher!

nwallace

56mph limiters on >3.5Tonne lorrys.

Some people think ABS will stop you quicker, in fact if it kicks in it will take you longer to stop but you will have control over where the vehicle goes while trying to stop it.
The difference is ABS gives you a better chance of steering the car away from the tree you just drove it at than cadence braking does.

The concept of a car loosing control pisses me off. A car should never be incontrol of where it is going, if it is then clearly the driver has lost control.

Supose that's one for the shit reporting thread.

always_tyred

nwallace wrote:

Some people think ABS will stop you quicker, in fact if it kicks in it will take you longer to stop but you will have control over where the vehicle goes while trying to stop it.

I don't think this is right. Static and dynamic friction are different (the former being the larger 0 but its a long time since I had any clue by how much). So, when your wheel is rolling, the contact point is stationary on the road - static friction. You start sliding - dynamic friction.

Just ask Lewis Hamilton.

Or Jackie Stewart if you have an extra half hour or so to hear the end of the answer.

The Chingford Skinhead

Interesting piece in yesterday's Torygraph on the speed limiter. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/road-and-rail-transport/5300462/Speed-restricted-car-a-review.htmlThere is a video but it doesn't cover the more interesting detail in the article. Namely that he had to stay at the limit and therefore faced constant pressure from other drivers who expected him (demanded a better word) to exceed it.

Very amusing article on speding by David Mitchell in the Observer saying speeding tickets were a tax, but only on idiots. Furious debate in the comments section, most amusing.

Deadeye Duck

Always Tyred wrote:

nwallace wrote:

Some people think ABS will stop you quicker, in fact if it kicks in it will take you longer to stop but you will have control over where the vehicle goes while trying to stop it.

I don't think this is right. Static and dynamic friction are different (the former being the larger 0 but its a long time since I had any clue by how much). So, when your wheel is rolling, the contact point is stationary on the road - static friction. You start sliding - dynamic friction.

Just ask Lewis Hamilton.

Or Jackie Stewart if you have an extra half hour or so to hear the end of the answer.

ABS will only stop you quicker if you don't know how to properly brake. Progressive braking, allows you to increase the braking resistance as you break because it's a gradual increase in pressure to the brake discs which will stop you from locking them up. This approach to breaking will stop you far quicker than ABS.

ABS is only there for the case of you spotting a hazard and slamming your foot down. It's there because panic tends to lead to people locking up their wheels and causing more harm than good.

the theory of which will stop first, entirely depends on the average joe behind the wheel:

If they both just put the pedal to the floor, the guy with ABS will stop far quicker than the guy without because he will just lock up his wheels and slide along the ground untill he eventually hits something or gains traction again.

If they both try to progressively brake, the guy without ABS will stop quicker because he can apply pressure past the trigger point of the ABS system when it is safe to do so.

lost_in_thought

Deadeye Duck wrote:

If they both try to progressively brake, the guy without ABS will stop quicker because he can apply pressure past the trigger point of the ABS system when it is safe to do so.

Is that not why driving instructors tell you not to cadence brake in cars with ABS?

Perhaps the instructor I had, but he made it very clear to me the different methods of stopping a car in a hurry with and without ABS...

Deadeye Duck

lost_in_thought wrote:

Deadeye Duck wrote:

If they both try to progressively brake, the guy without ABS will stop quicker because he can apply pressure past the trigger point of the ABS system when it is safe to do so.

Is that not why driving instructors tell you not to cadence brake in cars with ABS?

Perhaps the instructor I had, but he made it very clear to me the different methods of stopping a car in a hurry with and without ABS...

Precisely. You're wasting your time trying braking techniques when the car is only going to take over at a certain point anyway, you might as well let it do the whole job for you. It's also why you get told to put the pedal in half way, then the clutch, then ease the pedal down the rest of the way, during an emergency stop (if the car doesn't have ABS), as it will stop far more effectively than just putting the pedal down.

Sadly, more often than not, in an emergency you tend just to think oh f.... and put your foot to the floor, which is why we have ABS.

Peasoup

The main reason ABS is less efficient than a good driver (using threshold braking) is that during an ABS stop, as the wheel approaches lock, it is released (by the ABS) and after a delay the brake pressure is then reapplied. This loop continues until the vehicle is brought to a halt.
The time taken to continually release and reapply the brake results in lower decel and increased stopping distance.
However, overall the pros of the system outweigh the cons

DavidTQ

nwallace wrote:

56mph limiters on >3.5Tonne lorrys.

Some people think ABS will stop you quicker, in fact if it kicks in it will take you longer to stop but you will have control over where the vehicle goes while trying to stop it.
The difference is ABS gives you a better chance of steering the car away from the tree you just drove it at than cadence braking does.

The concept of a car loosing control pisses me off. A car should never be incontrol of where it is going, if it is then clearly the driver has lost control.

Supose that's one for the shoot reporting thread.

Theres not many people that actually understand that one about ABS, ABS is hailed as a safety device to the masses, but few people have ever actually tried back to back testing in the same car with and without ABS to see what affect it really has - which can be quite dramatic. That said you can do back to back testing on many cars (disabling the abs via the fuse) and see that you actually generally stop faster even on damp tarmac locking up and sliding than you do jamming the brakes on with abs. Ive been there Ive done it back to back on the same vehicle on wet tarmac, locking up and sliding to a halt stops faster than maximum braking using ABS, Even without any decent braking skills... The only thing that ABS gives you is a vague steerability whilst standing on the anchors - which is of course one of the worst possible things you can ever do in a tight spot.

Of course most cars braking bias is terrible from the factory, the back brakes are criminally under used. 60-40 split is about right but many come from the factory with a 90 - 10 split, Braking efficiency is massively sacrificed to reduce the possibility of the back end coming out under braking in occaisional circustances.

That said ABS is aimed at the mass market and theres far too many people who will blindly stand on the anchors and swerve with the wheel

When I started rallying the braking cures all instinct was one of the first things I had to lean to dtich...

always_tyred

DavidTQ wrote:

nwallace wrote:

56mph limiters on >3.5Tonne lorrys.

Some people think ABS will stop you quicker, in fact if it kicks in it will take you longer to stop but you will have control over where the vehicle goes while trying to stop it.
The difference is ABS gives you a better chance of steering the car away from the tree you just drove it at than cadence braking does.

The concept of a car loosing control pisses me off. A car should never be incontrol of where it is going, if it is then clearly the driver has lost control.

Supose that's one for the shoot reporting thread.

Theres not many people that actually understand that one about ABS, ABS is hailed as a safety device to the masses, but few people have ever actually tried back to back testing in the same car with and without ABS to see what affect it really has - which can be quite dramatic. That said you can do back to back testing on many cars (disabling the abs via the fuse) and see that you actually generally stop faster even on damp tarmac locking up and sliding than you do jamming the brakes on with abs. Ive been there Ive done it back to back on the same vehicle on wet tarmac, locking up and sliding to a halt stops faster than maximum braking using ABS, Even without any decent braking skills... The only thing that ABS gives you is a vague steerability whilst standing on the anchors - which is of course one of the worst possible things you can ever do in a tight spot.

Of course most cars braking bias is terrible from the factory, the back brakes are criminally under used. 60-40 split is about right but many come from the factory with a 90 - 10 split, Braking efficiency is massively sacrificed to reduce the possibility of the back end coming out under braking in occaisional circustances.

That said ABS is aimed at the mass market and theres far too many people who will blindly stand on the anchors and swerve with the wheel

When I started rallying the braking cures all instinct was one of the first things I had to lean to dtich...

Oh dear. ABS is used on the space shuttle. I think we should tell NASA that it would be better to lock the wheels.

The principle of ABS is sound - its no different to traction control - nd the physics (more grip when the wheel is turning and the contact patch is therefore not sliding with respect to the road surface) is the physics. They even used it in F1 for a time. It could be that the implementation in road cars is on the conservative side, but I've seen demonstrations exactly as you describe where the ABS is substantially superior to locking up.

And if you think that cadence braking is "just as good" then I presume you do maths faster than a computer as well.

cee

like AT, I have also seen this same car ABS/NonABS test and just jumping on the anchors with both feet....

Stopped in far less distance with ABS.....

Professional drivers (race drivers) can use progressive braking perhaps more efficiently than ABS, as they can push the pedal to the point before the wheels lose traction, and gradually apply more pressure...thus keeping the wheels turning, but slowing down. I guess the other thing about race drivers is that they very rarely brake to a complete stop like we would have to on the public road in an emergency stop situation....and are surrounded by far more predictable drivers than the rest of us on the road.

Joe average...(me and I will assume most of everyone on here) will more often than not, stop quicker with ABS....OK once you might get lucky and do the perfect braking technique, but time and time again....gotta be ABS.

DavidTQ

Always Tyred wrote:

Oh dear. ABS is used on the space shuttle. I think we should tell NASA that it would be better to lock the wheels.

The principle of ABS is sound - its no different to traction control - nd the physics (more grip when the wheel is turning and the contact patch is therefore not sliding with respect to the road surface) is the physics. They even used it in F1 for a time. It could be that the implementation in road cars is on the conservative side, but I've seen demonstrations exactly as you describe where the ABS is substantially superior to locking up.

And if you think that cadence braking is "just as good" then I presume you do maths faster than a computer as well.

The stuff Ive experienced on road cars so far is tripe. It gets stripped of and binned for many motorsport applications...

Where have you seen these demonstrations? have you ever done it yourself? Id be interested to know what cars and how the tests were carried out... Perhaps ABS technology has undergone a revolution in the last 5 years since I last brought a new car. Certainly all the ABS systems I have experienced lengthened stopping distances and cut in unnecesarily. No ABS system Ive yet experienced can accurately determine exact locking point. The overall loss of braking effort Ive experienced with every ABS system Ive met yet is considerable, although I do appreciate that not everyone has or wants the feel for a car on a knife edge... The theory may be fine, but I dont think the implementations Ive experienced so far have been that good at trading braking effort for traction, cutting in too soon and loosing far more braking effort than needed. What would probably be better than pulsing the brakes on and off (which is a terrible thing to do when traction is questionable anyway) is a braking effort regulator, if the software was perfect then it could keep traction without any wasted effort, rather than pulsing it could just adjust the effort going but keep the forces applied smoother rather than offering a bite release bite release system.

I Have done the tests on three different cars with ABS enable \ disable on a switch. One was a mondeo st one was a 4x4 sierra cosworth and one was a rwd sierra cosworth. Thats not "technique"s involved just standing on the anchors at a set speed from a set marker, Ive been there Ive DONE it, alongside other people who were getting exactly the same results. Ive also much more subjectively "felt" the difference when preparing a car for motorsport between with and without ABS. When it comes to technique, cadence braking is not my idea of fine braking technique, most people in an emergency stop situation wouldnt have much time for pumping the brakes fast, in fact many peoples brains just lock up . The very fastest way to stop a car (other than hitting an immoveable object) is to put it sideways, if you can use pendulum technique you can scrub speed blindingly fast - this however is outside of the realms of most road drivers and not always safe to do. Probably the most practical way to reduce your stopping speed in a straight line with a road car? - try disabling ABS then yanking up your hand brake at the same time as braking. Less adviseable on corners for people who cant drive beyond the limits of traction But for a straight stop It will improve things massively. Even on a completely standard road car with an "average" driver.

My experience of road going ABS systems is that they would be outright lethal to attempt to use at competition pace, and that I have disagreed strongly with their cutting in at times when no lock up was immininent.

Maybe it was effective on forumla one cars? Its not unreasonable to believe it may have been with the basic physics behind how a brake works, perhaps at the speeds they drive the benefits of the less heat generated by being on and off was enough to make it worthwhile? I should think at their speeds keeping the brakes from over heating is a paramount concernt. Which again average drivers shouldnt be having to worry about, certainly not with one short stop. Without having been involved in either F1 or Nasa I couldnt say how good or bad a decision is or Why it was made, or why it was dropped, or just how far removed their technology is from road technology. Its also noteable that the roundy boys on circuits are working with corners they know well, they've practised anticipated etc, they are unlikely to come across "unforseen" events regularly... They arent normally looking to "stop" they are looking to scrub speed smoothly for a corner.

On the Nasa front I also suspect that "driving" a space shuttle with so much mass - 100 tonnes at close to 300mph and so little contact patch is very different from a road going vehicle... I dont doubt for a second that locking up or not cadencing the brakes rapidly would over heat and destroy the tyres in seconds most likely the brake linings as well... not something your average every day joe is at risk of doing, The physics and practicalities involved are miles away from car driving...

I tried launch control on my cars as well and ended up disabling that as I could demonstrably get away faster using my own control every time. road going Traction control \ ESP type software, I also wouldnt use on, Ive tried it and I can get through a corner faster and safer without it. I absolutely hate the traction control systems that cut back your power when it detects the possibility of wheel spin. as it happens power through the wheels can be a vitally important part of taking a corner at high speed - as a front wheel drive, left foot braking driver would tell you.

When a computer driven car in the real world can outpace me in a race, maybe I will change my mind. But for now I will take my real time physics abilities over a computer programmes idea of ideal physics anyday... I dont use cadence braking as such, on the road I tend to avoid any situation where it would be "needed" and on the track its regular during rallying to be balancing your car on a knifes edge a slight dab to hard on the brake pedal could be disasterous. My mind CAN do "rough" physics maths far faster than a computer, or at least far faster than any computer we have seen yet. Id LOVE to see a computer that could keep a car on a track at a competetive pace... The scale of the variables we process when controlling a car way beyond the limits of traction is far beyond what can be achieved by a traction control program. Or by any computer device I have seen yet...

always_tyred

Could you put this in bullet points as follows:

- ABS / traction control devices are based upon sound phyics and, in some embodiments, provide enhanced performance.

- Some of them are crap.

If you 'd have done that, you wouldn't have to work late tonight to make up the time.

zanes

What I particularly "like" about this proposal is the fat that all unrestricted unclassified roads are currently 60mph limits. So, we all get speed limiters, and you can still drive at 60mph ddown these roads.

Now, do we think it's better to get a thrill doing a ton on a motorway, or throwing a car round single track unclassifieds at 55mph? This will just shift inappropriate driving to small roads. Which run through the hamlet my mother lives in.

Plus the fact hard limiting users like this has been discredited for years.

I'd also like to copy something I sent a friend a while back;

Having said all that, I do get a certain smile out of the two (in seperate cars) people who went along at the speed limit on that long straight between ******** (single carriageway, one lane each way, 60mph limit) and my turning last winter in the dark.
Results: Animals run out from hedges, cars swerve to avoid.
One car rolls several times, hits a wall, demolishes the hedge/wall and lands in the field. ... Read MoreThe other one hit a wall with such force that the car flipped end over end into the field, resulting in some can opening perform by the local fire boys. No deaths, incredibly.

Now, what do we think was the cause? How did it happen at the speed limit? Clue: Distraction, and unfamiliarity with the road and hazards.


Oh, and +60000000000000 on improving training and edcuation.


Edit: And for the vast majority of drivers in the vast majority of average situations on public roads, ABS, ESC, EBA etc are god sends. Maybe we should get rid of seatbelts and SRS systems, as they can injure in certain situations.

*Senses helmet like debate brewing* :P

Just don't.

Edit 2: Everything is MHO/experience. I'm an average driver, looking to improve my experience levels. And do a skidpan course.