EU may limit all motor vehicles to 70MPH

The world through the eyes of a Google self-driving car

Technology and cars go together like peanut butter and jelly. Google is in the forefront of automated car research, but other car manufacturer's are working on the technology too; not all of the research is being used for automation though.

A report by The Telegraph says that the European Union is looking to force auto manufacturer's to include speed limiting technology in their vehicles. The idea behind the Intelligent Speed Adaptation (ISA) program is to help save lives by ensuring that cars can't go faster than the speed limit, and there are two competing ideas on how to implement this restriction. The first would be cameras on the car reading the speed limit signs to determine the maximum speed for the road. The second idea is to have satellites beam that information directly into the vehicle. In either situation, cars that have already been purchased would have to be refitted with this new technology.

There's question on what types of limits would be enforced as well. The speed can be automatically controlled, or the driver can be given a simple warning. Presumably there's no reason that government officials couldn't allow the driver to drive at any speed and send them a ticket after the fact, similar to the way red light cameras work.

Is this the first step towards removing driver control from vehicles, paving the way for a faster future of self-driving cars? Or is this simply another power grab by a government organization?

Source: The Telegraph | Image via Google

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Visual Studio 2013 RC1 reportedly leaked

Next Story

Study: Windows Phone rises to 8.2 percent market share in five European markets

135 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

I've always wondered why this hasn't happened yet; especially in big cities. The idea I had years ago was of using transmitters which are placed at regular intervals across the entire city limit which send the car information on how fast it's allowed to go. But once you're out of said city; the car is no longer limited.

You're just as dead crashing at 70 as at 100. Survivability wise, you're doomed either way.

As for this idiot scheme, who's going to pay for the retrofitting? You can guarantee existing car owners will flat out refuse to and the governments are all broke, so they won't either.

Also, anyone trying to fit something to my car against my wishes is going to find their gadget shoved up their little end.

I'd rather sideswipe a car doing 100 than hit a barrier head on at 30.

Slower will always be safer, there's a few laws of physics that make sure that stays true, but to argue that a driver in a modern car couldn't survive a 70 mph crash on a highway is a bit silly, considering it happens all the time.

Well for his point, its driving into a concrete wall where difference between 70 and 100 does not matter. This rarely happens on motorway accidents.

threetonesun said,
I'd rather sideswipe a car doing 100 than hit a barrier head on at 30.

Slower will always be safer, there's a few laws of physics that make sure that stays true, but to argue that a driver in a modern car couldn't survive a 70 mph crash on a highway is a bit silly, considering it happens all the time.

Although I do understand the sentiment behind your reasoning, I'd have to disagree, the sideswipe, could have cascading repercussions a few feet further down, hitting a barrier head on at 30 probably wouldn't even set off the airbag in most modern euro ncap 5 star cars, I remember a Renault megane hitting ford mondeo at 30 and the megane barely had any damage to it
(yes I am aware a car hitting another car reacts differently when hitting a solid concrete barrier, I was just pointing out in these days of crumple zones and impact energy dissipation tech a 30mph shunt is actually not that uncomfortable for the vehicle occupants that are belted in)

I wouldnt limit the cars but I would introduce communication between them.

Its time that all cars are connected to a common system which allows them to communicate with other cars and traffic signals. I shouldnt drive the car, it should drive me.

Im dead serious too; This way if you want to go faster you can go faster (setting digitally the speed), and since the system knows how fast other cars are going, it can slow you down, say if there is a traffic jam.

Google has started this and they are a step in the right direction. We just need more companies to get involved in this.

**** smartwatches. I think the next big market waiting to be explored, are smartcars.

Its a very complicated and VERY expensive system, both on the public road and private cars, but it has to be done.

Should be interesting in a single police vehicle chase
Also, all those open track days, where you can take your car to above 70mph probably just took a hit

As for the 70mph on British Motorways, meh
Jeremy Clarkson said it best, Leave it as 70, it's 25 mph slower than people drive anyway

Another great decision looming by the EU to force on a population sick and tires of all their rules and regulations (UK)

With our vote whether or not to stay in the EU coming up I can already see the result.. I'm reminded of their meddling every time I drive past a car with its headlights on during a glorious summers day.

If headlights on during daylight come from EU, why isn't this in effect in Holland?

U hoeft als bestuurder van een motorvoertuig in Nederland overdag niet altijd met licht aan te rijden. Het voeren van motorvoertuigverlichting overdag (MVO) wordt op korte termijn ook niet verplicht gesteld. Wel moet u als bestuurder van een motorvoertuig, bromfiets, snorfiets en gehandicaptenvoertuig overdag dimlicht voeren als het zicht slecht is.

As a driver of a motor vehicle in The Netherlands you are not required to have your headlights on during the day. This will not be required in the short term. But as a driver of a motorvehicle, mopad or handicapt vehicle you are required to use dim lights when visibility is low.

Cars made after 2012 seem to have headlights that can't be turned off. e.g New BMW's and Audi's have a row of LED Lights around the headlight that shine, other cars just have the headlights on dimly.

Yeah, I never thought it went in effect here since the majority of cars here don't have headlights during the day, few do, few always did
When I continued reading I saw indeed new cars are required to have some lighting on by default. But it's still not legally required for people to drive with lights on normal visibility during the day.

I don't know about other Countries and how they've enforced it, but here in the UK only cars made after 2012 have to follow it, all EU cars made after that have to have lights on even during the day to follow the law. I'm guessing those particular lights can't be switched off because I'm sure not this many people would follow it. Cars made before that year obviously wouldn't have any lights for that purpose and don't have to drive with headlights on during the day.

This wont happen. Speeding fines pull in to much revenue for governments around Europe.

Here's an idea though, if you really want to stop speeding how about you actually punish those that do it? I live in a small rural village where the limit is 30mph. The police occasionally stop here and do their speed checks and the other day they were outside my office window. They must have stopped 30 people in the course of 6 hours, one guy was even doing 60mph! Every single person got let off with a warning and as per usually they continue to speed through this village. Beggers belief.

As for if they should limit every car to 70mph, i don;t think they should. They should control the speed externally in cities, villages and country roads to adhere to the speed limit. But on Motorways i think they should actually increase the limit slightly. Most deaths on Motorways are not caused by Speed alone but more by drink, drugs, tiredness and showing off.

MikeChipshop said,
This wont happen. Speeding fines pull in to much revenue for governments around Europe.

Here's an idea though, if you really want to stop speeding how about you actually punish those that do it? I live in a small rural village where the limit is 30mph. The police occasionally stop here and do their speed checks and the other day they were outside my office window. They must have stopped 30 people in the course of 6 hours, one guy was even doing 60mph! Every single person got let off with a warning and as per usually they continue to speed through this village. Beggers belief.

As for if they should limit every car to 70mph, i don;t think they should. They should control the speed externally in cities, villages and country roads to adhere to the speed limit. But on Motorways i think they should actually increase the limit slightly. Most deaths on Motorways are not caused by Speed alone but more by drink, drugs, tiredness and showing off.

This is very irrational thinking, its like thinking we would never ban smoking as it brings allot of money - FALSE!
Money from tobacco doesn't cover medical bills for lung cancer patient treatment and other side effects of smoking

As is human deaths because of traffic accidents cost our society more than lousy tickets people get for speeding.

There's a huge difference between Smokers who develop cancer (and other smoking related illnesses) who cost the NHS billions and speeders who in general cost the tax payer very little.

Actually reports in Holland claim that smokers bring in more money to the national treasury from tobacco taxes, than they cost in health-care.
This might differ in the rest of the world, but seeing many countries around me with similar or higher tobacco taxes, won't differ much.
If you want to blame unhealthy behavior for high health-costs, blame the fatso's. They don't bring in enough taxes to cover all the health issues they have.

Anyone who thinks they live in a free democracy, are living in a fantasy world! Everything in our society is controlled, makes sense that they now control our cars :-)

Except emergency vehicles, I also fail to see why manufacturers build (road) cars which are capable of doing more than the speed limit.

It's highly unlikely the extra half a metre would get you out of a situation so the "need to accelerate to get away from danger" is a non-argument.

I am for this. It would bring so many benefits.
> It would improve traffic flow as people would be going the same speed. Those phantom traffic jams tend to be created by people who travel at more than 70 bunching to those who are doing 70.
> It would also mean car joy riders wouldn't be able to escape the police as the police would effectively have faster cars.
> Safer for everyone.

But then it would be interesting to hear from those people who do stick to the speed limit on the motorway AND who think this isn't a good idea.
It seems only those who break the law and go over 70 are against this. While I understand it paves the way for other controlling factors, this is mutually beneficial.

Sir Topham Hatt said,
Except emergency vehicles, I also fail to see why manufacturers build (road) cars which are capable of doing more than the speed limit.

It's highly unlikely the extra half a metre would get you out of a situation so the "need to accelerate to get away from danger" is a non-argument.

It's a non argument because it conflicts with your view? There are ABSOLUTELY situations where you can avoid an accident or dangerous situation by speeding up a bit. To say otherwise is ludicrous.

Sir Topham Hatt said,
...Those phantom traffic jams tend to be created by people who travel at more than 70 bunching to those who are doing 70.

This is madness. I have never seen or even heard anyone else mention this phenomenon. On the other hand people holding up traffic by driving way below the speed limit is something I encounter daily. Ever seen what happens to traffic when there is an accident on the opposite side of a highway? Everyone slows right down to have a look and it's chaos.

Sir Topham Hatt said,
> It would also mean car joy riders wouldn't be able to escape the police as the police would effectively have faster cars.
> Safer for everyone.

This is true, but I fail to see how it adds to the argument. Many measures would make policing easier while infringing on the privacy or freedoms of the general public.

Sir Topham Hatt said,
...While I understand it paves the way for other controlling factors, this is mutually beneficial.

It's not actually beneficial at all when it takes away control from the driver. Driving is complex, and many complex and unforeseeable situations present themselves while driving. A driver can effectively determine the best course of action where such isolated systems would hurt their ability to do so.

This stuff is all fine once we reach full automation. While we still have human drivers that make human mistakes, half automating the drive could create as many dangerous situations as it prevents.

Sir Topham Hatt said,
It would improve traffic flow as people would be going the same speed. Those phantom traffic jams tend to be created by people who travel at more than 70 bunching to those who are doing 70.

It really wouldnt improve traffic that much, the issue is lorries trying to overtake each other, and the other is people not actually driving at the speed limit.
Every day im stuck behind someone doing 40-50mph on a 60mph road, for no reason. If they're not comfortable/confident enough to drive at the speed limit then they shouldn't be driving. These are also the people that pointlessly break when they see the smallest bend and when they see another car
I honestly believe if the speed limit was enforced where you had to be within at least 10% of speed limit (unless you're stuck behind something), limit was upped to 80 on motorways and 75 on dual carriage ways and that it was illegal for lorries to change lanes then traffic would be ok and accidents would be brought right down

The speed limit has been this 70 in most areas of Europe for many decades now. Cars have got incredibly more safe. In some areas the speed should be increased. Also in some areas like schools and built up areas it should be reduced.

We have a 'variable' speed limit in some areas which is good but it only ever gets reduced. During low traffic times it should be increased to 80.

People doing the legal limit in rush hour put more people in danger than those breaking the law by 'Speeding' at low traffic times (10pm - 5am).

There will be uproar if they do this. The UK especially is sick and tired of non-elected out of touch, overpaid imbeciles making our laws. (Yes I'm aware it's the people we elected who surrendered these powers)

Top speeds are electronically capped in the ECU and that bugs me in itself! I want to do my BMW European Delivery driving no less than that proposed top speed in my 5 series! How often will I get that luxury here in California without a track?

Zaic said,
This is great, some countries loose too much "Work force" in car related accidents

Cool so I guess after we cap the cars speeds we'll no longer have to worry about people who run red lights, or drive between lanes, or merge without looking, or take corners too quickly, or don't give way, etc, etc...

Oh wait, speeding doesn't actually pose a danger in and of itself, unlike all of the things I mentioned.

but it might prevent those things you mentioned + speeding, which will help,
just look at crash compilations most of the crashes come from someone seriously speeding doesn't matter what other rules they brake while doing so

Zaic said,
but it might prevent those things you mentioned + speeding, which will help,
just look at crash compilations most of the crashes come from someone seriously speeding doesn't matter what other rules they brake while doing so

How does that not matter? Speeding doesn't CAUSE a crash, speed limits are basically set arbitrarily. Whenever they talk about speeding related to crashes the wording is always "contributing factor" or something to that effect.

I don't think 100 MPH is even very fast. Pretty much any vehicle does at least that.
We definitely don't need vehicles going 150 to 200 MPH on the road though.

I've had only 1 vehicle not capable of attaining 100MPH, and it was my 1993 Ford Ranger that I sold two months ago. I wouldn't dare travel past 70 on the darn thing .

Because everyone will be doing a lower speed then merging shouldn't be a problem as it will happen the same as now, just at a lower speed.

Generally, if you speed up to merge, you're cutting in rather than "giving way" as required by the highway code.

Sir Topham Hatt said,
Because everyone will be doing a lower speed then merging shouldn't be a problem as it will happen the same as now, just at a lower speed.

This isn't a real thing. In fact, cars that are driving slower are more likely driving closer together as the safe following distance is shorter and therefore it would be harder to merge. Also you're assuming that it's difficult to merge due to an abundance of speeding drivers, which is also not the case.

Sir Topham Hatt said,
Generally, if you speed up to merge, you're cutting in rather than "giving way" as required by the highway code.

Speeding up to merge isn't cutting if you speed up to merge into a safe gap. This is actually a better way to merge than slowing down because it keeps traffic flowing, rather than slowing everyone down by slowing right down and making a person in the lane you're merging into slow down too to let you in.

Question: what does Google have to do with this? I read the source article and Google isnt mentioned once.

>Is this the first step towards removing driver control from vehicles, paving the way for a faster future of self-driving cars?

huh?

And the first thing most guys will do is remove that feature from their car and drive whatever speed they want to anyway.

Maybe the police would be more strict instead of "allowing up to 90mph" - this says to me that the speed limit is really 90 as I won't get in trouble for doing this speed.

Firstly, several European countries have speed limits over 70mph, even Britain occasionally considers increasing the limit to 80mph.

Secondly, implementing this in car will be hard. Good luck of fitting a limiter to older cars with no electronic management system to speak of for instance (I can see older cars suddenly becoming quite desirable).

Thirdly, the two suggested systems for how the car is supposed to know the speed have huge flaws. Reading speed signs? Terrible idea, incredibly unreliable, and easy to beat in at least 3 ways I can think of in a couple minutes. GPS, another dreadful way to do it. For instance last month I was driving down an interstate in California, when my SatNav suddenly decided I was on an adjacent road for several miles. Would have been superbly safe if the car suddenly decided to slow to 30mph without my control. </sarcasm>

I suspect this is an idea that some fool decided to bring up in an attempt to gain some press and impress some lobbyist.

(oh, and just so you know I actually tend to drive about 5mph *under* the limit on the motorways in my big old underpowered 4x4)

The 'dutch' implementation they came up with many years ago, had signaling posts in area's telling the car what speed it goes through wireless signals.
But then again this plan was only for neighborhood area's. Not motorways or whatever.

Honestly I would kind of like this. It ****es me off seeing people going 10+ over the speed limit and not be caught. Why are people in such hurry that they feel like breaking the speed limit.

I just wish Ontario would raise the ridiculous 80km/h on most roads and 100km/h on the highway. So sluggish.

rippleman said,
a fall from a 100 ft cliff doesn't kill you either, its the sudden stop at the bottom.

(according to your logic)

True. Hence parachutes, bungee cords, gliders.

Amen to that! I would hate to see them enforce a speed limit on our Autobahns! I hope our government won't accept that crap if it goes through.

Tbh the main accidents are mainly from idiots on the road doing stupid stuff that isnt always speeding, so unless you can control the driver then its pointless. You can still drink and drive etc so veering onto a pavement to unsuspecting person could still kill them etc.

Perhaps, but you cannot say speed isn't a large contributing factor to this "stupid stuff".
If cars went a lot slower then there would be less incentive to drive stupidly.

Sir Topham Hatt said,
Perhaps, but you cannot say speed isn't a large contributing factor to this "stupid stuff".
If cars went a lot slower then there would be less incentive to drive stupidly.

And if you get out of your car and walk there's even less danger. It IS possible to drive a car at speed safely you know.

Here in NL most people die/get hurt from accidents in city area's where you are not even able to drive up to the speed limit, let alone get over the speed limit.
It's reckless drivers, overtaking without looking, not slowing down in corners or for traffic lights.
Speed isn't the biggest factor to driving accidents.

Lord Method Man said,
Good to see the Euros have been fully conditioned to accept this kind of crap.

Yes, we have to attend conditioning sessions twice a week to ensure that we all think as we're told to.

Lord Method Man said,
Good to see the Euros have been fully conditioned to accept this kind of crap.

I reckon most EU citizens will laugh at how stupid the idea is.

I would not mine being limited actually. At least with a limit you won't get speeding fines for going a few mph over due to speedo being out a little.

I am a lazy **** though would love a car that would just drive me places be so much less boring.

As long as it's not something that is forced on the manufacturers that send their vehicles to the states. Plenty of legitimate reasons to go faster than the speed limit.

samw61 said,
Gees, that's good to know! What are these plentiful legitimate reasons??
It's a great way of showing the ladies how large your penis is.

samw61 said,
Gees, that's good to know! What are these plentiful legitimate reasons??

Overtaking, getting out of a dangerous situation...

I read this a few days ago on The Guardian ( http://www.theguardian.com/wor...ghts-eu-speed-limit-devices ), with the UK trying to stop it, probably because speeding fines contribute a great deal to the treasury; over £100 million.

The AA's quote in The Guardian's article sums up why it isn't such a good idea: "It could take away people's ability to get themselves out of trouble with a quick burst of speed, such as in overtaking situations where the capacity to accelerate can avoid a head-on collision."

Personally, if they're going to introduce it, I'd prefer the system that Nissan use in the GT-R: cars in Japan are electronically limited to 112 MPH/180 KPH, but with the GT-R, when the GPS detects you're on a racetrack, it deactivates the limiter. I never saw any mention of a system like this in the EU's proposal, so that should be the first step. Ideally, there needs to be some headroom in the limiter to try and avoid scenarios like The AA mention. If you wanted the best of both sides, then limit the cars here to 79 MPH, as the police have a "10% + 2 MPH" guideline when it comes to speeding.

I actually would like to see the research as to where deaths have occurred due to the high speed accidents. Maybe there's something else at play, another factor. Past research (if you can call it that) I've done on the autobahn stated death rates were actually lower recently than they have ever been and continuing to trend lower. Something like 1,000 down to 500 if not less a year.

Also if some of those countries are far worse than others, why punish all of them?

agtsmith said,
Because this article is written for Americans who rarely know what a kilometre is?
Yay for ignorance. Americans know full and well what a kilometre is. We just don't use it to measure our speeds on the roads. Please save the American bashing crap and ignorance for the relevant thread. This is about EU.

American based site with majority of its members in the US so the title will of course use our language and measuring system to catch our attention.

agtsmith-
KM/h is on our cars right next to MPH. Why the hell wouldn't we know what kilometers are? We are not shielded from other countries, systems and ideas... that's like saying we don't know what a centimeter is... wtf.... ignorant much?

cause that's such a terrible thing to assume. I would have to go out of my way to find that information which I wouldn't even know where to begin to look.

Our schools are teaching the metric system, and they have been doing so for over ten years as far as I know. It would seem that you living on that small island of yours has limited your knowledge of the world around you.

Its not bigotry, its the system that our country has used for a long long time. It's not something that changes overnight.

I have learned something new today. I've lived and visited several European countries, but never been to GB. I never would have thought that they would use Mph.

tytytucke said,
American based site with majority of its members in the US so the title will of course use our language and measuring system to catch our attention.
agtsmith-
KM/h is on our cars right next to MPH. Why the hell wouldn't we know what kilometers are? We are not shielded from other countries, systems and ideas... that's like saying we don't know what a centimeter is... wtf.... ignorant much?

I would like to see on neowin where the most amount of people come from!

SpeedyTheSnail said,
Our schools are teaching the metric system, and they have been doing so for over ten years as far as I know. It would seem that you living on that small island of yours has limited your knowledge of the world around you.

I would say more like 100 years depending on where you live. I started school 40 years ago and it was standard curriculum.

I think one of the reasons we will stick to it for a long time is that unlike most of Europe, we have a more logical city planning design in place. Our city blocks are 1 square mile. If you go into the country, farm land is usually divided into square miles. You can tell someone to travel 5 miles north and 3 miles east and they won't get lost. You can't pull that off in countries like Germany where the roads weave through the country side. Because of this, many people have a valid reason to only use miles and not kilometers.

The only thing 'unamerican' about Neowin is two of the three owners and some of our (volunteer) staff, all of its operations are based and registered in the U.S.

mattm591 said,

And you have just gone and nicely summarised why everyone 'America bashes'!

jakem1 said,
Of course you did.

When NeoBond himself says this site is an American Site I'm pretty sure that puts me in the clear. Also I never said anything negative or stupid. I wasn't even wrong. You people just want to start fights that can't be won and make an ass out of yourselves aka American bashing.

agtsmith- +respect

Edited by tytytucke, Sep 3 2013, 4:41pm :

Sounds pretty decent to me personally.....as for its implementation I vote for a warning system....something along the lines of "Please be advised you are currently moving X km/h beyond the speed limit. A ticket will be issued to you by mail if you do not reduce your speed to Y km/h within Z seconds."

They could even go as far as to take a picture of the driver of the car at the time the warning is issued to allow the owner of the car to avoid tickets in the case that they are not driving. And of course allow some variance (maybe up to 5-10 km/h or something) above the speed limit similar to how most police officers assign tickets.

Besides, there are times when one needs to temporarily accelerate, like passing someone or getting out of an unsafe situation. And what about people who go way below the limit--will they be warned as well? They are often even more of a danger, blocking up the flow of traffic and inciting others to anger.

Charisma said,
Besides, there are times when one needs to temporarily accelerate, like passing someone or getting out of an unsafe situation. And what about people who go way below the limit--will they be warned as well? They are often even more of a danger, blocking up the flow of traffic and inciting others to anger.

With this (and more advanced technologies) there should NEVER be a time to temporatly accelerate.

ilovetonetwork said,

With this (and more advanced technologies) there should NEVER be a time to temporatly accelerate.

Wut, there's plenty of situations where accelerating a little bit will help.
How about overtaking traffic? or are we going to make overtaking others with 0,1KMH difference the norm? Let's all be like truckers?

Unless they started putting it in cars now.
Just like the stupid daytime driving lights that aren't needed...
And the wing mirror indicator lights...

Eventually, all older cars will go (within 10-15 years) and classic cars can only just reach 70mph (or mine did anyway!).

Modern cars can do this with a software change. My Mustang allows you to program a "teenager" key that sets a maximum speed of 80MPH if the car is started with it. You can also do annoying parent things like limit the stereo volume.

This won't happen. Germany is one of the most influential members of the EU and it is famed its autobahns, motorways without speed limits.

Personally I'm all for technology to enforce speed limits but I don't think that there should be an arbitrary top speed, like the proposed 70mph.

theyarecomingforyou said,
This won't happen. Germany is one of the most influential members of the EU and it is famed its autobahns, motorways without speed limits.

Personally I'm all for technology to enforce speed limits but I don't think that there should be an arbitrary top speed, like the proposed 70mph.


Autobahn, contrary to popular belief, has a speed limit.

ILikeTobacco said,

Autobahn, contrary to popular belief, has a speed limit.

Parts of it do. Parts are essentially "don't drive unsafely"

It is not just the nice open autobahns we have here it is also the fact that volkswagen audi bmw mercedes and all the tuning companies are based in germany like M power and AMG. Dont think germany would want their car sales to go down that much

ILikeTobacco said,

Autobahn, contrary to popular belief, has a speed limit.

Sorry to let you down but, NOPE. Parts of it does but most of the main roads between big cities have no limit.

Tom said,

Sorry to let you down but, NOPE. Parts of it does but most of the main roads between big cities have no limit.


Not quite sure which big cities you are talking about but in gerneral in south germany you can be lucky to have 10km with no speedlimit on a row.

Trollercoaster said,

Parts of it do. Parts are essentially "don't drive unsafely"

Most of it has a low speed limit in the 70 to 90 KPH range near and in cities. The rest has the "don't drive unsafe rule." The problem with the don't drive unsafe rule is that if traffic is going 100 KPH and you are doing 150 KPH, they will now pull you over because you are driving unsafe compared to everyone else and forget going 200 KPH like you use to be able to. It has turned into the same thing as the USA where you can get away with going 10 MPH over but it depends on how the cops are feeling that day. It hasn't been this glorious unrestricted road that everyone seems to hint at for over a decade now.

Hey, in the EU, it's better than 70 km/h. 70 mph is about 110 km/h. That's kinda slow; when I drove on the magistrala in Bulgaria, the limit was 120, but 130-150 was more common.

Maybe its just that the source is a UK newspaper, so it says it will limit to 70mph which is the UK speed limit. The poster has decided that the top limit of 70mph mentioned early on in the source is the key thing here and incorrectly added that to the headline which on a worldwide site makes it look like the 70mph limit would apply across the EU, which it wouldn't. The article does state it would limit according to the individual road's limit, which would be a top limit 120/130kph in some parts of the EU, and probably unlimited on some parts of Germany's autobahn network. It would also be 20/30mph on most of the UK's residential roads, or 60mph on a single lane 'unrestricted' UK road. I wonder if it will determine if you have a caravan hooked up and adjust accordingly

Would like to see the "Top Gear" response to this, lol.

Can't imagine this would get much traction but hey, crazier things are happening every day.

If this happens (I doubt it will), they can test the cars on their 'Top Gear' track... so they wouldn't worry about testing on the public roads.

Edited by shozilla, Sep 3 2013, 12:35am :

shozilla said,
If this happens (I doubt it will), they can test the cars on their 'Top Gear' track... so they wouldn't worry about testing on the public roads.
Except the cars could only go up to 70mph on the track. That would make a dull lap with Stiggy.

shozilla said,
If this happens (I doubt it will), they can test the cars on their 'Top Gear' track... so they wouldn't worry about testing on the public roads.

They regularly test cars beyond official speed limits on public roads

Indeed. It also misses the simple fact that self-driving cars can safely travel at higher rates of speed that human drivers are capable of. So they'd be slowing everything down only to have to speed it up again...

How about mandating roll cages and other legitimate safety precautions that will actually save human lives?

its a good thing over all.. not only does it save lives with populations becoming older on average.. also, it increases gas mileage which is good for everyone

excalpius said,

How about mandating roll cages and other legitimate safety precautions that will actually save human lives?

Rollcages are required in a way that the car roof has to be able to hold the weight of the car and more.

stevember said,
I've always thought this for towns, if enter 20 mph zone car gets limited. Fail to see the issue.

Oh wait more scare mongering.


Except that these systems will be tracking cars. I remember a project like this ages ago here in NL, where they wanted to automatically limit speeds in neighborhoods.
Failed miserably cause people like the idea of freedom they get with their cars.

It will of course not be, but on the other hand, they have a point. Speed limits on signs never worked well. 70 mph feels a bit harsh though. The highest legal speed limit used in my country is 75 mph. For some leeway in case road safety improves in the future (the highest limit has been raised here once due to this) and for this legislation to be future proof, I'd say 80 mph seems like a better idea. This would also annoy fewer people than some arbitrary EU limit that is lower than current country limits.

It's kind of harsh to impose a strict, physical limit of 70 mph regardless what, despite the cars being usable on straight roads with crash barriers and all.

I agree with the other poster here saying Germany will in particular have a problem with this, and Germany being the most influental EU country.

Edited by Northgrove, Sep 3 2013, 3:06pm :

People (the masses) often don't know what's best for them. I remember when wearing a seatbelt became the law, and people were outraged. The per capita death rate in auto accidents went way down though.

I've always wondered why car makers were allowed to make cars that went 120 MPH+ standard. Driving that fast isn't legal almost anywhere, and it's dangerous as hell almost everywhere (especially in a Focus/Corolla/Civic/Accord/Camry etc.).

Car accidents kill 25,000-45,000 people a year in the US. Many of those accidents are due to speed. I love to drive, and love the freedom of my car, but there's no reason anyone driving on the streets or highways needs to go over 70 MPH.

Edited by thomastmc, Sep 4 2013, 2:00am :