You may pay attention to the roads, but rather obviously, not everyone does, otherwise there would be way fewer accidents.And it's not just about paying attention, it's also about wilfully speeding.Something most drivers do. It's the extent of that speeding that is also an issue worthy of consideration.
The point, in the context of your objection to the EU 'controlling our lives in an adverse way' is that the proposed legislation is aimed at saving lives, and from that perspective, it seems obviously sensible to me.I wrote previously how I believe an autonomous emergency braking system should be installed on every car. Autonomous vehicles are safer so how long before human control is frowned upon?
The proposed legislation is on the sale of new cars which have the technology built in and which do not need 'alignment' once you take delivery.
There is a thread in the motoring section as well. I posted it this morning in this section from the angle of government interference, by the EU. Which is slightly different than the technical implementation and driving impact.
As you may see I've contributed there as well with further background information of what is behind it. Professionally I work a lot with the automotive sector and also governments. I have a bit of an insight what this and other technologies will bring and introduce.
Yup, I'm a hypocrite before anyone mentioned it. I'll take their money but are against it. However to be fair, our team argued some of those points as well with the Australian government last week when we did a proposal for a similar thing they wanted to do.
I augmented my team with a humanities lecturer and a corporate lawyer beyond the technical staff which brought up some very interesting challenges and issues. Especially around inclusion, who owns the data, for what purpose it can be used etc.
From that angle I do think it is relevant to have a political discussion about it, and not just a motoring related one.
I hope that makes sense.
I wholly agree that autonomous vehicles are safer, but these aren't autonomous vehicles. This is middle of the road. As such they take away need to pay attention in my opinion. I would love autonomous vehicles, you won't hear me argue against that.
And I'm sorry, but when the ISA technology is used fully, then it is enriched with onboard camera information that reads the dynamic signs on the road. Those cameras do require alignment, and replacement. Granted it may dependent on how the manufacturer decides to implement it together with their other technologies. Having had it on several cars now, it is not cheap and it extends the time taken for a simple windscreen replacement considerably. Instead of getting ours done next day it was a three weeks wait with a cracked windscreen before the centre was available. Ofcourse I'm aware that there will be more centers available over time, and hopefully better technology gets developed that they can do it on the driveway in the future. Or even better with an autonomous vehicle, that the driver can send the car when they don't need it 
To the point of the proposed legislation (rather than the original point that the EU is evil grrr grrr), I am in support of it and here is why.
There are several technologies that can be used to reduce road traffic deaths.There is no question about whether they will be effective or not.They are.
Autonomous Emergency Braking - Thatcham
https://www.autoblog.com/2017/08/23/lane-departure-warnings-really-are-saving-lives-says-iihs/
I myself avoided and accident because I had a momentary lapse of concentration and the AEB stopped the car in time.
AEB is a no brainer.
Active Lane Assist is, too IMO.It gives a simple nudge when in operation and does keep you in the lane to a limited degree.It's not perfect, but it's another safety tool in the arsenal.
As for Intelligent Speed Assistance (ISA), I think it's very useful to be reminded when you're speeding.It's easy to wander over the speed limit and who wants to get done by the police or a speed camera, right?
More to the point, the stats are that an accident with a pedestrian cause significant more damage at higher speeds: Kill speed
So just think about someone rushing, doing 40 in a 30 and hitting a kid who runs in the road.Happens all too often and takes the life of a child, ruins the lives of the child's family and traumatises the driver (unless they are a complete ****).
If an ISA system forcibly stops them from exceeding the speed limit in all 30mph zones, then lives *will* be saved. I know the legislation is only for beeping at the driver, but I would actually go further than that.
Now I understand the argument that you occasionally need the extra speed to overtake or 'get out of trouble' or whatever.I've owned a Lotus Elise, an RD350 and a Fireblade, so it's not like I don't enjoy speed or the thrill of putting the pedal to the metal.And driving is a pleasure to many people for the obvious reasons of freedom, fun, skill etc. But should people be arguing that they want the ability to speed in a 20mph school zone? Or a 30mph highstreet?
It's a contentious issue, obviously, but the EU are putting the imperative of saving lives before the 'right' of drivers to exceed the speed limit and I think that's a good call.
Point is, in a UK government this is all put in a manifesto. You know what you are getting and if it's a bad idea there's ways to do something about it or you can just ultimately vote out the party.
What manifesto has this or anything else from the EU been in?
If I don't agree with it, how do I stop it?
Labour wanted to bring in road funding. A pay as you drive scheme. It was "for the best" as it was to discourage car use and get us all being green.
There was a huge voter backlash and it was never introduced.
What happens when it's something you don't agree with? How do you stop it? Fine if the public is actually behind it but who was consulted? Who called for it? Bringing in things "for our benefit" was the same as from 1984's Big Brother.
Also note. "1984" was not written to be anti-communist or anti-fascist. It's anti-totalitarianism. Orwell was a socialist, but he detested authoritarian regimes.
Maybe a higher priority would be to stop people driving around without licence, MOT or insurance.
Cheers,
Nigel
What if it's half term? Will it then allow me to do 30mph? Or will it still kick in?
Because you've frequently thought, oh it's half term, I can do 60 past this school.
Does that argument work with the police if they pull you over for doing 30 in a 20mph zone?I’m not aware of 20mph zones being term time adjusted?
No, I watch the road and drive at an appropriate speed. If it's not a school day, and the road is empty, 30 is fine. Considering at work I'm known for driving like "Driving Miss Daisy" you are on the wrong idea with that. It's why I usually end up on the driving jobs.