You sceptic 
But i fear you are correct
"Well, if you never speed, you've got nothing to worry about"
A bit like "well if you've got nothing to hide...." so why bother password protecting anything?
No it's probably my crappy but reliable old Focus. Very low milieage, FSH, CD player. Interested?
Doesn't work like that in my car...If i have the limiter on i can bury my foot and nothing happens,
Difference between a speed limiter and an intelligent speed limiter
There are many things to beat the EU with but this isn't one, Speeding is a major pet peeve of mine, won't go into why, but if this change results in one less death on UK roads it been worth while. I don't give a monkeys if it adds a £100 or so to the cost of a car.
The VCA obviously agrees, they are choosing to implement this anyway even though we will no longer be in the EU, anyone not happy with it may be better directing there frustration at them
cheers
I have an old car myself. I'm hanging on to the f***er.
Thats not what this legislation is for
cheers
I am loathed by most restrictions on driving (even though I haven't had a car for close to 10yrs).
However, this isn't a EU issue, it's a western world social issue with various groups in society campaigning on emotive grounds to reduce speed, put in cameras etc. The opposite position is
less emotionally resonating. Arguments pointing out things like it's bad driving not speed itself will fall on deaf ears.
We are in the area of diminishing returns where we have already done all the practical and reasonable things to reduce accidents and road deaths and now it's a case of increasing costs dramatically/removing freedoms significantly for ever decreasing benefits.
It's just that trying to argue facts and figures about diminishing returns is not remotely as impacting persuasive to the general public as "what about children dying", for obvious reasons.
For some there are no compromises, especially if they have had to face the horror and lifechanging effects of loosing a child in a car accident.
Then there is the issue of simply being more cars, more drivers and more pedestrians that without clear demarcation and seperation, will continue to increasingly come into conflict.
All societies have to balance the practicalities and costs of the freedoms that private motor vehicles gives us versus the costs in dealing with and cleaning up after accidents.
Beyond that, many societies including ours have to balance popularist campaigns to reduce speed and save childrens lives with the practicalities and restrictions on motorists trying to get to work and make a living, or just be able to get out and about.
When you consider all the national campaigns and legislation introduced by our own individual governments over the years that have repeatedly reduced and restricted private motorists in where they go, how quickly they can get there and whether they have to both pay a charge for entering an area and then for parking if they can find a spot ...
... it is clear that this is not a very good example of a uniquely 'EU telling us what to do' argument.
Not exactly. I drive numerous vehicles at work.
Not only do they include a speed limiter that means the fastest you can go is 66mph (can't be over ridden), but they also include, trimble, which tracks, taking corners at speed, braking hard, idling the engine for more than two minutes, but also now includes a further tracker if it is overloaded.
Fine. an overloaded vehicle is dangerous. Except for the one time when I had to carry a load and the vehicle decided it was just over. We had to use another which didn't have that tracker on it to transport it.
It also tracks exactly where the vehicle goes.
Fine it's a work vehicle. But none of this was fitted a few years ago.
Understood mate, I could limit the speed on my old Picasso
but again, that is not what the legislation is for, it is an alert system, nothing more
cheers