Autocar - First for car news and reviews

Speed limiting technology is being tested on taxis, buses and council vehicles in London this summer.

The technology — known as Intelligent Speed Adaptation (ISA) — is being tested by Transport for London in a trial on all roads inside the M25.

According to the Times newspaper, drivers of vehicles with ISA will be able to select an option that prevents them from accelerating over the limit. The vehicle will also automatically slow down if the driver fails to reduce his speed when h...Read the full article

Autocar:

Transport for London (TfL) estimates that, if two thirds of London drivers used the devices, the number of road casualties in the capital could be reduced by 10 per cent.

If I had this system, I'd simply put my foot hard down on the accelerator.   At that point it would be like how I'm when I've got my cruise control on; I'm bored.   Then I'm looking around for something to do.   Which is a worry because I really should be looking at the road!

Interesting that if you reduced the number of people speeding it would only give a 10% reduction in road casualties.   Obviously this is an optimistic figure, they always are, so you could find in reality that it would only reduce accidents a few percent.   Speeding doesn't seem to be the danger it always claimed to be.   Certainly you're not getting a reduction by a third!

Is it worth knobbling every car in the capital?   It's as effective as a identity cards against terrorists hoping that they'd put that down as their occupation!

 

If this technology were compulsorily introduced nationwide, what additional motoring costs would the government introduce to make up for the millions of pounds lost in speeding fines? Higher VED? Higher fuel duty?

Here they come. All the old arguments:

1. "If I drive slower, I find it difficult to concentrate"

2. "Their statistics are obviously wrong"

3. "What if I need to accelerate my way out of trouble?"

4. "Think of the cost of fitting it to cars"

5. "Speed is nothing to do with accidents anyway"

Of course, the fact that a load of well-funded and highly qualified road safety experts, with a wealth of statistical information at their hands, think this is something worth trying is just ridiculous!

1984!

RobotBoogie:

1. "If I drive slower, I find it difficult to concentrate"

Its not me, its everyone else!  People will concentrate even less because it takes the responsibility for how fast they're going out of their hands.  That's the crux of it - where the responsibility lies.

RobotBoogie:

Here they come. All the old arguments:

1. "If I drive slower, I find it difficult to concentrate"

2. "Their statistics are obviously wrong"

3. "What if I need to accelerate my way out of trouble?"

4. "Think of the cost of fitting it to cars"

5. "Speed is nothing to do with accidents anyway"

Of course, the fact that a load of well-funded and highly qualified road safety experts, with a wealth of statistical information at their hands, think this is something worth trying is just ridiculous!

 I am sorry but what you have said their is complete balls!

 1. its not a matter of "driving slower" makes you consentrate less, simply that if you have to monitor your speed, you have to consentrate more rather than just putting your foot hard down and letting the car do the speed,

2. The stats probably are correct but are most likely based on "worst case" scenarios, thus in real terms it will most likely save 4-7% of deaths. Now considering we have around 3100 deaths on the roads each year, and aroundf 50% (i seem to recall) are on single carriage ways, and another 30% on motorways / duel carrageways, that means we are saving 4-7% of 20% thus around 1% of road deaths, in ALL urban areas (ie around 30) will be saved, but since this is only in london that equates to what 3 a year!? now i accept deaths are a very bad thing, but for the removal of my rights (as lets be honest, this trial will soon have the backing of the ecomentalists who what us all back on horse and carts, which will be faster than cars soon!) lets out the money to better use!

3. never really a valid arguement, you shouldnt get yourself in the situation in the first place, if its not safe to over take, DONT!

4. well lets think of the cost shall we? 20,000,000 vehicals at what realistically 250 each? need i say more?! 

5. clearly not true, but it is not as bigger factor as the government would have everyone believe, as they get MONEY when we get punished for speeding!

TegTypeR:

1984!

Someone in authority wants to slow traffic down because it will save lives, and that means we're living in a police state. Comments made by the same people who often use the words "Stalin" and "speed camera" in the same sentence. These are, in my experience, generally people who know very little about Orwell, Russian History or traffic management.

Good idea but it should be telling drivers when they are going too slow. Quicker buses and taxis are what is needed.

RobotBoogie:

Of course, the fact that a load of well-funded and highly qualified road safety experts, with a wealth of statistical information at their hands, think this is something worth trying is just ridiculous!

Why do you think that because someone disagrees with you they are being ridiculous ? If you agree with this technology being forced on us all, tell us why and the evidence you have to back it up. Personally i have no real objection to it being applied in urban areas and city centres but do think that used on motorways and fast single and dual carriageways there is a danger of causing bunching, which is well known to be hazardous and an "I'll just go as fast as I can" attitude which, combined with lower levels of concentration, are a recipe for multiple pile-ups.

RobotBoogie:

Of course, the fact that a load of well-funded and highly qualified road safety experts, with a wealth of statistical information at their hands, think this is something worth trying is just ridiculous!

Sorry is this Transport for London you were talking about?! Road Safety Experts?!!!

The numbered points and the bit at the end are ironic, you silly sods. I'll italicise the ironic stuff in future. Try to keep up at the back!