Manufacturers can choose from a range of responses, from a seat belt-like alarm system to mechanisms that reduce engine power or push the pedal back when drivers violate the speed limit. Drivers can cancel the system, but the technology will be reactivated each time the car is started.
Experts have warned that the system could fail when there are temporary speed limits or unclear road signs that could cause drivers to accelerate unintentionally if they rely on the built-in ISA device.
However, manufacturers, including Citroen, Ford and Jaguar, have already begun to incorporate the technology into some of their cars.
Greg Smith, Tory, a member of the Commons Transportation Selection Committee, warned that entering speed limits into the law would be “completely unnecessary”.
“We have a well-established system of people who take their driving test, understand the law, prove they can drive properly and then trust them to do it, with severe penalties if they don’t,” he said.
“Anything that then seeks to instill more distrust in the state of its citizens so that they can do what is reasonable, legal and practical is simply an unnecessary babysitter.”
“Speed limits must be completely accurate”
Edmund King, president of AA, warned of chaos if speed limits were changed and the system was not updated.
He said: “Speed limits must be completely accurate because the car responds to the speed limit. If you have the wrong speed limit in the digital system, this can slow you down to the wrong speed or allow you to accelerate to the wrong speed.
Following lobbying by carmakers, the EU has mitigated initial plans to make the stricter ISA system, which reduces engine power once the speed limit is reached, mandatory. Such a system, which can be repealed in a short time by a driver who presses hard, has been shown to reduce road deaths by up to 20 percent.
The British Vehicle Certification Agency said earlier that it intended to reflect EU rules on post-Brexit vehicle safety standards.
The Ministry of Transport said no decision had been made as to which safety rules the UK would follow, but industry experts said deviating from EU rules would be detrimental to manufacturers.
“Leaving the UK from the EU provides us with a platform to take advantage of our regulatory freedoms,” said a spokesman for the department. “We are currently reviewing the vehicle safety provisions included in the EU’s General Safety Regulation and will implement requirements that are appropriate for the UK and improve road safety.”
The divergence “would be bad for the industry”
Mike House, CEO of the Society of Automobile Manufacturers and Dealers, welcomed measures to further improve the UK record, as it has some of the safest roads in the world.
“SMMT and its members look forward to contributing to the consultation with the UK government on how these measures will be implemented in this country,” he said. However, he added that deviating from EU regulations would be bad for the industry, given the close links between the two.
Highways England, now known as the National Highways, published a report last year that 30 areas of its road network have legally dangerous levels of nitrogen dioxide.
This prompted police to impose speed limits of 60 miles per hour on an “unspecified” basis, including the M1 from junctions 34 to 33 in South Yorkshire and the M6 near junctions six to seven in the West Midlands.
Drivers face a fine of £ 100 and three penalty points if caught exceeding the limit of these sections. The changes were introduced last summer for the “foreseeable future” a year after the Highways England test.
A study by Imperial College London found that lower speed limits do not increase emissions, while providing “clear benefits for driving style and associated particulate emissions”. In a separate analysis, Transport to London is pleased that lower speed limits “will not have an adverse effect on the environment or air quality”.
Gasoline cars driven at higher speeds burn more fuel and produce more pollutants, including nitrogen oxides, according to an analysis by the Canadian government.
Add Comment