Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Sat Apr 25, 2026 12:51

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 6 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Jun 19, 2007 15:39 
Offline
User

Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 16:04
Posts: 816
MCN

Quote:
Government rejects speed limiter calls
By Steve Farrell

Politics & the law

19 June 2007 12:53


Calls for speed limiters on motorcycles have been rejected by the Government this morning.

A Government response to the calls said speeding did not cause enough motorcycle accidents to warrant the move.

The House of Commons Transport Committee recommended in May (2007) that Government research “the viability of introducing speed limiters on motorcycles” but the response said there were no plans to do so.

The response, published today (Tuesday, June 19, 2007), said: ‘Currently there are no plans for motorcycle speed limiter trials or for speed limiters of any type to be made compulsory.’

The response said efforts to reduce accidents ‘should focus on the major contributory factors’ whereas research identified exceeding the speed limit ‘as a contributory factor in only four per cent of motorcycle accidents’.

It said: ‘A speed limiter would address a proportion of those accidents, but wouldn't necessarily impact on instances of inappropriate speed or “going too fast for the conditions”, a contributory factor in nine per cent of motorcycle accidents.’

The response said the Transport Committee was also wrong to focus on high-powered motorcycles as it ‘will not address accidents involving small and medium categories’.

It added: ‘Nor would it address accidents involving any motorcycle where the speed of the motorcycle was not a factor.’

The response said: ‘Limiting “the more powerful motorcycles” to a top speed such as 70mph would potentially prevent only a small number of accidents which take place above the highest GB legal speed limit.

‘Restricting the speed to 70mph would not address speeding in areas with lower limits, such as 30mph urban areas.’

To find out what the response said to other recommendations from the Transport Committee, including more restrictions on access to high powered bikes for new riders and a ‘more permissive attitude’ to motorcycles in bus lanes, get MCN, June 27, 2007.


Hopefully that will be the death of speed limiters on private vehicles.

_________________
Prepare to be Judged


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jun 19, 2007 16:26 
Offline
User

Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2004 17:37
Posts: 702
Location: Whitby, North Yorkshire
That looks like a small sign that a little common sense is beginning to emerge in official circles - but we need to see a lot more along the same lines before we get too excited.

Best wishes all,
Dave.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jun 19, 2007 18:52 
Offline
User

Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 09:01
Posts: 1548
I wonder if the fact that it would be almost impossible to implement & enforce was the reason for the proposal being rejected?

_________________
What makes you think I'm drunk officer, have I got a fat bird with me?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jun 19, 2007 19:07 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 23:09
Posts: 6737
Location: Stockport, Cheshire
The key question is whether they not only reject the idea of fixed top-end limiters, but also that of external variable speed control (EVSC).

If only the former it's a hollow victory as it was never realistically going to happen anyway and would be obviously pointless.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jun 19, 2007 20:46 
Offline
User

Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 19:04
Posts: 55
Did anyone else notice the reference to 4% this is not what the accidents stats say


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2007 21:34 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 19:19
Posts: 1050
disappointing that they didn't acknowledge that such a limiter would almost certainly cause an accident.

Imagine motorcycle in lane 3 at 70 car in lane 2 moves over - you only have one escape rout and that may not be an option. I reckon I rely on the gas to get me out of trouble probably once or twice a month


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 6 posts ] 

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You can post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.080s | 11 Queries | GZIP : Off ]