I'm Sorry Dave, I Can't Let You Drive That Fast
from the death-race-2000 dept
Transport authorities in London are planning to test systems that would prevent cars from going over the speed limit in an attempt to reduce traffic fatalities. They want to create a "digital speed-limit map" that could be used by GPS navigation systems to alert drivers of the speed limit on the road they're traveling, while it would also presumably be linked to a speed limiter that would cut down engine revolutions should a driver go to fast. This idea won't be received well, though it probably won't meet as much resistance as the car that automatically gives speeders tickets. One common criticism of the devices will likely use the hypothetical situation of somebody needing to get to a hospital quickly, and the device being the difference between life or death. That may be true, though it's a highly unlikely situation for most people; more of a concern are the unintended consequences the devices could create. Part of the problem with driving laws that attack symptoms of bad driving, rather than bad driving itself (like cell phone driving bans) is that they create a mistaken air of safety. With these devices, it's not hard to see people simply laying on the gas, and letting the device control their speed, since after all, if you're obeying the speed limit, you must be driving safely, right? The devices can't sense current road conditions and limit speeds accordingly, like a human driver, and like cruise control, they may not be able to account for sharp curves in the road or other environmental factors. So while these types of devices are introduced in the name of safety, there's a good chance they could actually make the roads less safe.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Finally street creds for us hackers!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Finally street creds for us hackers!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Finally street creds for us hackers!
hilarious
// don't pretend you don't know what i'm talking about
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
anyone want to bet against that happening?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: lawsuits
The proposal is for Jollye Olde Englande, whose legal system has not been totally tilted in favor of ridiculous claims.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Automatic Speed limiter
BUT I'll keep my Impalla SS :-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Automatic Speed limiter
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The day the government controls what speed I drive on the highway better be the same day I get a car that can drive itself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Step up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Step up."
Screw you. The idea is that an audible alarm will notify you when you are above the speed limit. This can be done with current components off the shelf. There's no one actually making cars that respond to anything except the drivers intentions. I think this could be valuable for truckers or anyone on long drives on straight roads where it is very easy to lose track of speed and end up in a dangerous situation. So fuck off, don't overreact.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Yes, I did, thank you.
Now stop whining about spelling and make a difference in the world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bloody cheek
Then you berate someone else for asking what I consider a reasonable question.
And you have the nerve to talk about "making a difference in the world"...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bloody cheek
Fascism is a sickness, and anyone with it does not deserve life.
"Then you berate someone else for asking what I consider a reasonable question."
I've berated no one.
"And you have the nerve to talk about "making a difference in the world"..."
Yup.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Disagreeing with you is hardly Fascism
So now free speech - that quintessential right to disagree - is to be redefined as Fascism and carries a mandatory death sentance to be administered by you. Who put you in charge? Last time I looked, Fascism was defined best by what people DO, not what they THINK.
>> I've berated no one.
Berate: To rebuke or scold angrily
You: "stop whining about spelling"
Good night and thank you.
>> "And you have the nerve to talk about "making a difference in the world"..." Yup.
And wow, what a difference you have made.
I agree that the idea of a speed-limiter is a bad one for several reasons, but "I will personally [torture] and kill anyone who thinks this is a good idea" is not a particularly clever way to deal with it. Do that someone face to face and you could be looking at jail time.
That's a nice hole you're in. Keep digging.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
speed
"Sometimes *puff puff* sometimes you gotta race!"
- From "Killin' Them Softly"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How very Brittish...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How very Brittish...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: How very Brittish...
At least we English people aren't busy suing each other for milllions all because somebody else pushed in front of them at the supermarket when they were buying their shopping (Groceries for you Americans)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who's line is it anyway
If you don't know, you should...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FYE: That was British too
Personally I found the British version to be a lot funnier than the US version, but maybe that's just me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How very Brittish...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: How very British...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You shall now be issued tickets appropriatly.
In addition, those of you against wiretaps clearly have something to hide.. search warrants have been issued.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Search warrants? We don't do that anymore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You shall now be issued tickets appropriatly.
In addition, those of you against wiretaps clearly have something to hide.. search warrants have been issued."
you have the logic of a 4 year old.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
read the patriot act. that logic belongs to your leaders.
or joe mccarthy. hitler. nero. its a common governmental tactic, actually.
and then do the world a favor and read a book or two. start with shakespeare. it will help us all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"if you are against this idea, then clearly you must be a speeder... as only speeders have a need to go faster than the speed limit.
You shall now be issued tickets appropriatly.
In addition, those of you against wiretaps clearly have something to hide.. search warrants have been issued."
you have the logic of a 4 year old.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You shall now be issued tickets appropriatly.
In addition, those of you against wiretaps clearly have something to hide.. search warrants have been issued."
You're a moron.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Did you read TFA? or even the summary???
The problem is idiots like you who think that following the speed limit is what defines safe driving.
While speeding may occur during dangerous driving. Speeding itself does not classify dangerous driving..
So a car that strictly follows the speed limit will take away some control from the driver.. so idiots like you will assume they are safe...thus making driving more dangerous.. not less..
And i have no idea what you are going on about wiretaps.. get of the crack hippie...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Your analogy is inappropriate. The speed of one's vehicle cannot be directly compared to a private conversation as such speed is presented in public.
A more appropriate analogy would be the introduction of legislation in which you will be required not to say certain things (like, for instance, "Fire!") in a public arena (like, for instance, a movie theater) for fear of causing a panic.
Oh wait, that's already the case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Speed doesn't kill, contrary to most people beliefs, ignorance and stupidity does. Like those that think they are not breaking the law when the try to maintain the speed limit at the cost of safety to others. Vigilantism is just as illegal as speeding.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kind of a stretch....
In fact, the much more important factor is the one that you casually brushed aside. To say it's "a highly unlikely situation" for someone to need to drive fast to get to the hospital is a fairly ridiculous reason to dismiss it as a valid argument.
How many people here have smoke detectors in their houses?
*everyone raises their hand*
Now.. how many people have actually had a house fire that the smoke detector warned them of?
*very few people raise their hand*
Now... imagine you just wrote an article that said smoke detectors aren't that great of an idea because it's "highly unlikely" that someone's house would catch on fire, and it's more likely that they would be lulled into relying on the smoke detector to determine if there's a fire, instead of using their eyes and nose instead.
People would call you insane, I reckon.
The fact is... I have the right (and the obligation) to protect/help/save/etc myself and my family in the event of an emergency. And the gov't shouldn't be able to take that right away from me by some law in the name of "perfect safety", as if such a utopia can ever be achieved.
I would say that's a far more compelling argument against the above legislation.
WATYF
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Crazy Brits
The banned firearms...its illegal to defend yourself (the law REQUIRES you to FLEE...seriously...they denied a guy parole for "being a threat to crimminals") they banned hunting...you have to pay to use a television...
Now this?
Brits are weird.
Frankly having someone listen to me talk about last night's debauchery on the phone isn't so bad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Slow Drivers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Slow Drivers
In California Slow drivers holding up 3 cars are supposed to use turnouts on one lane highways to let faster traffic pass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Slow Drivers
The difference is that if you are changing lanes to pass on a two-lane, the person should be going slow enough so that you don't have to speed to pass. The problem is people feel justified going 75 to pass someone going 53 in a 55. If you can't safely pass while remaining under the limit, you shouldn't pass at all. You may just have to *gasp* drive a little slow for a bit. Is 7 seconds faster to your destination really that big of a deal?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Slow Drivers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Slow Drivers
Wrong. It is actually safer to pass at 75 than 55. Why? You would spend far less time in the oncoming lane and reduce the risk of hitting oncoming traffic. The speed itself is not a problem. It is speed combined with stupidity that causes problems. For example, passing at 75 in a blind curve.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Slow Drivers
Incorrect. Your argument stands only on the premise that you spend less time in the oncoming lane.
However, what you fail to consider is that in order to pass, 5 things must happen:
1. You check the oncoming lane and determine if it is clear to pass.
2. You enter the oncoming lane and accelerate.
3. You pass the car in front of you.
4. You check your mirrors to ensure you are safely around the car.
5. You re-enter the correct lane.
Your argument precludes #4. At 70mph (heck, even 30mph) in a lane where there could be oncoming traffic, it is DANGEROUS to turn your eyes away from the road. The faster you are going, the more dangerous that is as you will get to that waiting traffic much sooner, reducing the amount of time you have to actually check your mirrors and make an appropriate decision.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Slow Drivers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What, afraid a French tourist was driving on the road without the devise and got killed because the system didn't know they were there? I doubt the Brits would have a problem with that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There have been countless times where I avoided a wreck from wreckless drivers not paying attention by me accelerating out of the way. Truckers changing lanes, drivers merging onto the highway at 50 when I wouldn't be able to slow down from 70 fast enough for them, people running redlights, etc. If they were going 70 and I was going 70, I couldn't accelerate to get out of the way. A car can accelerate faster than it can stop, well unless you have a car with a crappy engine.
I haven't had a speeding ticket since I was 16 and the only major wreck I was in was because a drunk driver ran into me head on. I do speed occasionaly, on long stretches of straight highway, or 5 - 10 miles over the limit in good conditions.
More effective means of making roads safer would be to raise the driving age to 18, better drunk driving prevention, and real tests throughout your driving life. There is no test for old people that are no longer capable of driving.
The only device that should be on a car that limits its opperation is a blood alcohol test that actually tests the driver, not his sober buddy.
Having the speed limit show up on the GPS is something that should have been there a long time ago, as information. But for using it as hard numbers: What happens when the GPS mappers got it wrong? What happens during construction? What happens when school is in? What about the billions of cars on the road that don't have such devices?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Driving ability is achieved through proper instruction and PRACTICE PRACTICE PRACTICE. The only major accident I've been involved in was due to my 28 year old girlfreind who made several mistakes:
1.) Pulled out to pass without checking blindspot.
2.) Oversteered when pulling back into lane (began to fishtail)
3.) Overbreaked when fishtailing
4.) Oversteered again in the WRONG direction to break fishtail.
I say for every year the driving age is raised, the permit age should be lowered along with more indepth drivers ed i.e. practicing accident avoidence. Any idiot can drive 35mph and paralel park, what causes accidents are people not having hte expiriance in handling fishtailing, skidding and so forth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I say we use some of these top of the line gaming systems to run some realistic driving sims and treat a drivers license the way pilots are treated for their license. You have to rack up X number of hours in the simulator before they let you get behind the wheel of the "student driver" car. Then you have to have X more hours in the "student driver" car before you are allowed to go solo. In this case, the simulator can be used at home and report your statistics via internet to the DMV, and the parents would be responsible for logging time in the passenger seat with the teenager driving and uploading those stats online. Once you meet those criteria they allow you to log on securely and take the test, and you receive your license in the mail with the picture that was taken when your account was set up.
Next up for the creator of SimCity - The massively multiplayer SimCar. It comes standard with a Japanese model car and available expansions for SUV, 4x4, classic, muscle car, roadster, European, etc.. The deluxe edition would allow you to spend virtual money to purchase licensed brands and models, though I doubt there would be many Ford Tauruses driving these streets. You would only get credit for driving with EA approved force feedback accessories though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
amen! you want to save lives and make the roads safer, teach you kids how to drive. dont stick them in a huge a$$ Suv and say they are safe. if they cant drive then sticking them in a larger vehicle just makes me have to watch out for all the yukons, suburbans, expeditions, etc. oh and we might need to rethink letting elders and women drive at all!
just learn to drive!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A car can accelerate faster than it can stop
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: test for old people
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Not saying I am for these changes, but this argument about acceleration suffering from a lowered top speed is baseless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
First of all, the merging lane should always yield to traffic. Period. If you need to speed to get in front of that semi, then you should not get in front of that semi. If you obeyed the law in the first place, there would be no "slamming on the [brakes] as the lane ends."
Your argument that "it's going to happen" is moot if such devices were installed. How could they if the vehicle won't go that fast?
Also, cops rarely (if ever) commandeer vehicles. They're cars are made for "highspeed."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Clearly the education system has failed us. Another baseless argument.l
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
On the other hand ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: On the other hand ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
*shakes head in shame*
*smacks the british person who thought of this!*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: *shakes head in shame*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: *shakes head in shame*
Let's see, there's the special police interceptor package.. I guess they COULD actually make a cop car different from the street model, couldn't they?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
y'all come live in texas
personally...i think Hal was right, dave was a threat to his mission. too bad he did't succeed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So yeah...fun
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dumb
ANYTHING that limits control of a car is a potential for disaster.
Say your driving down the road and you see some transport truck jackknife. You need to make a split second decision, so you punch the gas because your brain figured out it can get around the truck before it completely blocks the road (and thereby causing you slam into the side of the truck). But, your car decides that because the speed limit is 60km/h you have no power or cannot gain speed.
So, you slam into the truck and die because some asshole politician somewhere getting kickbacks from whatever shyster company developed the technology decided it was a good idea to force people to drive the speed limit using computers regardless of any situation that might arrise on the roads.
Even the idea of automatically ticketing individuals for going over the speed limit won't fly. There are countless situations in which my MUST drive faster, to avoid an accident or to get out of a bad situation (i.e. a bunch of braindead drivers bunching up and cutting each other off). If you are automatically fined or car won't work to speed up then this will just cause more hassle then its worth as countless people will be fighting the fine or suing the hell out of the company that developed technology that kills people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dumb
You miss the point -- If the overall rate of fatal accidents is reduced by limiting the speed limit, then any loss of life resulting from the scenario you describe will be more than offset by the number of lives not lost because vehicles are speed limited.
Now, as for whether such legislation interferes with natural selection (in this case, whether intelligent drivers will, over time, tend to survive longer than dumb ones)... that's a whole 'nother issue.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Great Idea!!!
I wish we had it here.
I dare you to try to torture and kill me.
There is no reason that the mappers wouldnt be able to reduce speed limits when school is in, or during construction, or rain.
There is no reason to not develop a new technology because the existing cars don't have it.
Its not a crutch, it is a safety feature. I don't go driving into walls for fun, just because there are airbags in my car. It is still your responsibility to follow the posted speed limits.
The GPS just acts as a reminder.
Also, the nature of a limiter, is that there is potential above that, that one does not have access to. Therefore , if your car maxes out at 70mph, it won't take 60 seconds to reach it. It will take whatever it took before, it just can't go above.
No one is going to buy a car that takes 60 seconds to reach 60 mph. People like to be able to accellerate. But they also like to know that their children aren't driving at speeds in excess of 100mph. Not uncommon in teenagers.
That is also a target market for the car that gives speeding tickets. If you buy your child a car, they have to pay the speeding tickets. (Provided you have a somewhat trustworthy/responsible child. I can hear you now, "Im not gonna have my insurance rates go through the roof because of my idiot kid")
If it were proven 100% effective, I would support something like autopilot in cars, or virtual bumpers, where your car, at highway speeds, will not let you get too close to the vehicle in front of you. Why not? No one has the "right" to speed, or drive recklessly. Automobiles are a danger, why not reduce the risk?
The problem with the whole situation is that this will never happen. It would require tax increases to implement, PLUS the government would be losing money to speeding tickets (as someone pointed out in the car that issues speeding tickets discussion). And Insurance companies would be up in arms!
And for the record, the "I drive safe and have never been in an accident" argument is bullshit. It is a logical fallacy. Who cares what you do? There are dangerous, and reckless drivers in the world. Just because you don't do it, does not mean other people don't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Great Idea!!!
The problem is it will NEVER be 100% effective. What happens when the program crashes? What happens when a tire blows? What happens when you hit some black ice? What happens when GPS fails?
I fully support auto-pilot cars where I have to do NOTHING at all to give . It's all or nothing though. If I have to be in control of anything, then I need as much control as possible.
I would also fully support speed limits, if they were reasonable. The problem is that they are so arbitrary. They don't account for road conditions, weather, traffic, etc and they don't account for the capabilities of the car you are driving.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Great Idea!!!
Absolutely. I agree it wont ever be 100% effective, and that is what I meant. Sorry if I didnt make that clear. In the meantime, though things like smart braking technology, and speed limiters, can help make the road a much safer place.
And again, in alot of those situations a speedboost would help, just don't make it possible to sustain those elevated speeds. That is where the danger (especially for young people) comes in.
Actually though, I think an interesting issue here is this:
As most people know a system like this, or even autopilot, could probably never be 100% effecient ( == no deaths/serious injuries from auto accidents). But most likely it could be far more efficient than our current system (fewer deaths/serious injuries than we currently have). Is that good enough? What if it was a close margin? A distant margin?
In an autopilot situation most likely the individuals being hurt would have no way of causing the accident. As opposed to today, where the general consensus is only "idiots" and drunks cause accidents. So is it better to have fewer deaths and injuries, if all parties involved are innocent? Or is it better to be ina situation where idiots are taking other peoples lives at the expense of risking their own life?
I guess that is kind of a question raised in the movie.
in I Robot as well...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Great Idea!!!
1. You may go above the posted speed limit.
2. The system does not force you to accelerate, from what I understand. The best thing to do when you have a blowout is to let off the gas and slowly apply the brake. How would this system prevent that behavior?
3. Same as 2.
4. Same as 1 with the exception that it misinterprets the speed limit to less than the posted, in which case you will have to go *gasp* under the speed limit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They spend all their time sitting at the side of the road waiting to pull over some poor kid trying to get to work on time that payes $5.15/hr so he doesn't get fired and have his 6 inter-racial children die of hunger.
Cops rarely do anything beneficial to society. Not to mention all the tension and nervousness they cause drivers when they are on the road.
The best thing this law would do is make sure there are fewer cops out there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Cops rarely do anything beneficial to society. Not to mention all the tension and nervousness they cause drivers when they are on the road.
The best thing this law would do is make sure there are fewer cops out there."
Actually, you make a very good point here in that some small towns actually rely on those fines for income. That's the real reason you have 15mph speed limits in small, rural towns. They want money.
Point taken. Kudos.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh, I didn't realize these vehicles were being han
I guess I thought that we lived in a society with at least a facade of capitalism, where we are allowed to CHOOSE whether or not we purchased the vehicle with the ticket printer, or the speed limiter.
I had no idea the government was handing them out and forcing us to drive them.
And as far as having corpses in the backseat when you get to the hospital. Its a fucking ticket!!!! You'd rather kill your wife and child then get a speeding ticket???
I'm pretty sure that I would rather have a machine print me a ticket that I can go fight in court next month, then waste the time getting pulled over by a cop, who takes his sweet fucking time walking up to my window to ask me why I am speeding.
I agree with the argument about the jacknifed tractor trailer, even if it is a one in a million situation, unless you are James Cameron maybe. But, I dont see why these vehicles couldnt have some sort of boost when you pound the gas pedal that works for a few seconds, and then eventually reduces your speed again.
Rather than railing against an idea for a technology like some sort of Hands Off! Troll, why not try to come up with constructive criticisms to make these ideas better?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Personal Responsibility!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Speed Limiters
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't forget evasive action!
Don Norman keeps saying that all the lessons we've learned from computer-aided aviation have been forgotten as we start to create the same systems for cars, and this is one of the big ones-- you warn the pilot if an unsafe condition occurs, but you never have limits like "you can't put the plane in that orientation" because there will always turn out to be some odd circumstance when it may be necessary to do that to save the lives of everyone on board.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Don't forget evasive action!
Actually yes, Topher3105, DID bring that up already.
Read before you post.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The government makes too much money
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The government makes too much money
Who said anything about forcing a switch?
Why does it have to be government established?
Why can't a company implement it as a safety system in vehicles, that a person could choose whether or not they want it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Speed limitors in cars
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Speed limitors in cars
people react differently to different conditionments. for example, fundamentalist christians do the "right thing" just because they were told to and don't question it.
Authority must be questioned. if you don't believe that, your rights will be eventually be raped from you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
can you fucken read there has to ba at least 10 people that saided that
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Morons, the lot of them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Make it an option
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Make it an option
Not a bad idea.
But I don't like the idea of a GPS tracking device in my Car.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Make it an option
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Make it an option
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
warning, yes, speedtrap ... ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Speeding is Neccessary
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Government enforced safetly? Never happen.
Yes. That is exactly what the government will do. All cars must have safety belts. That's a safety feature that must be followed. Driver-side air bags? Those too.
If the government feels this is a good thing, then they will call it a standard, and force the manufacturers to use it.
Protecting the public, whether they want it or not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Government enforced safetly? Never happen.
This will occur simultaneously with the federal takeover of local municipalities, because the local police departments will ALL be bankrupt if the government forces us all to drive cars that cant break the speed limit.
HERE IS THE REAL QUESTION!:
WHAT HAPPENS IF YOU'RE IN A SITUATION WHERE YOU NEED TO GO FASTER TO AVOID AN ACCIDENT???
WHY ISNT ANYONE CONSIDERING THAT????
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Government enforced safetly? Never happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
gizmos
GPS gives you two speed limits, the legal one above which you get some sort of warning, nothing too loud, just irritating plus maybe a warning light. and a second 'max' speed. say 10-20% higher above which you cannot go.
now you have a 10-20% 'floor it' margin to get out of trouble and an annoying noise when you use it as a warning.
something like this will come it, it will not be compulsary at first (but your insuance will tripple witout it) eventually it will be brought in 'to protect children' etc.
prob tied with a system that gives you a ticket if you use the higher speed for more than a few seconds.
to be honest i'd fit one, but then i learnt to drive in an old mini, it didn't go above 40 anyway...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
silly
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Governors have been around for decades! I've driven Military vehicles, and company vehicles that had speed governors on them. Preventing the vehicles from going over 60mph, by dethotleing the carburetor or whatever.
A new digital one is no different. The governments could have passed laws requiring these on vehicles back before I was ever born, and probably before my parents were ever born.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's not speed...
Speed limiters on cars won't magically give drivers situational awareness. They'll also kill the ability of traffic to flow safely. Everyone's seen the traffic jams caused by a police cruiser's presence on a highway during rush hour. Traffic backs up behind the officer, people get upset because there is no way to pass.
Is the public making the demands for safer freeways? Is the public saying "too many deaths, control my car for me!". I say "probably not".
Who makes money on fewer freeway fatalities? Insurance companies. Wonder who's backing the bill?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's not speed...
Yes, but it will prevent a 16 year old kid from doing 90 around a bend that he doesnt have the experience to navigate that yet.
And since when has public demand affected legislation or the direction of the market??!?!
As an aside, traffic is a COMPLETELY different scenario in the UK, from the US. There is a different mentality altogether.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's not speed...
EXACTLY. My wife is a driving instructor here in NJ. The state will pretty much give anyone a license. She's had so many near-collisions that she's stopped counting - and all of these kids get their licenses. The hands-on training just isn't there. Kids take a BS written test, get thrust on to the road for 6 hours while the instructors try not to get killed, wait a year, and get their license. There is no situational training or testing - it's pretty much just a "can you figure out where the acceleration and brake are? you pass" sort of thing.
Unfortunately, all these inexperienced drivers really get out of any of the "drivers ed" is where the gas pedal is, leading to immature drivers going really fast. Most never mature because they don't care to... many people I know who are around my age (25) will argue with me till they're blue in the face that there's absolutely nothing wrong with riding the left lane on a highway and passing on the right. Heck, my mother-in-law argues with me about it all the time. Turn signals? What are they? And why shouldn't I use a cell phone and eat McDonalds at the same time while I'm driving?
There's a lot of reasons why the roads are so dangerous. Speeding is not very high on the list of major contributors.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Enforced speed limits? Great Idea!
I think an overide is a good idea, combine that with an automatic ticket issue machine, you have the choice of obeying the limit or being flayed alive by the authorities.
"People could die!!!"
You Yanks really are a bunch of Drama Queens.
Dex.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tested and Approved
0 accidents!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nothing new
Also, as a motorcyclist, I can't count the number of times that accellerating out of the way has saved my skin. I seem to have about a 75% chance of somebody merging into my lane right on top of me on the highway. I've actually had to kick the sides of merging cars before to get their attention because they couldn't hear my horn.
The moral? Err...If you don't want my steel-tipped boots scuffing up your SUV, don't put speed limiters in cars.
Yeah.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Speeding Laws
I always go above the speed limit! ;)
The Speed limits are way too low.
The only thing that really bites my cucumber is- "How much is this going to cost?" and "who foots the bill?".
Money- that is the problem- unless they can make these devices cost $100 or less.
Most GPS systems cost more than my current car is worth! (piece of crap).
On another note- someone above mentioned raising the age limit before once can drive.
I think a better approach would be to limit children under 21 to 4 cylinder cars with engines 2 litres or less.
Only allow more powerfull cars to more level header adults.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fun some how
I think what they are doing goes beyond taking away a fun toy but taking away our abilaty to choose. Mistakes and mishapes are what make us human. The better way to do this is to guide some one the the better choice. Bigger fines and better education is the key.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
why do you all hate this so much?
I think it's a good concept. It won't hurt you to drive slower, whereas driving faster gives you less time to react, and in a crash, the faster the car(s) is going, the worse the damage will be.
It's likely that the manufacturer of the limiter wound place an emergency override button somewhere in the car for use in, duh, emergencies, and that could easily be monitored so as to ensure the feature isn't abused.
The only conclusion I can draw from all the negative responses is that you believe this is infringing on rights, that you are yourself a speeder, or you are some combination of the two
I really don't see this as an infringement of rights, personally
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Governent officails here's an idea if you want to save lives. How about scales at fast food restaurants that determin what food you can purchase based on your BMI? Fat kills more people every day than speeders.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Speeding Saved ME
Problem a Gatso flashed us, I was probably going 40-50 in a 30 at this point, lucky I wasn't ticketed - I'd like to think the bods reviewing the images could tell that I was maneovering to avoid a hazard, rather than being a boy racer. Something I was quite willing to goto court to explain.
Thank $deity that there's a two week limit on speed cam notifications to prosecute. Was crapping myself!
:o)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Speeding Saved ME
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Trolls
Why can't people see that this could be just another vehicle, with a safety feature?
It isn't infringing on ANY rights. None.
Apparently, limiters already exist, and as far as I can tell, haven't killed thousands of people.
There are obvious and practical over ride systems.
There is a market for them (Parents buy "black boxes" for their kids cars, why not this?)
Why is it always worst case scenario with you trolls?
Bad driving isn't going away until we have auto pilots, but that doesn't mean you can't make people safer. Things like drift-warning (and correction!) exist already. They are safety features, not mind control devices.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Trolls
I did actually agree that this would be a good idea *IF* it was an _option_ that you could turn off.
then I said I still didn't like the idea of a GPS trackign device in my car.
Read all posts before you generallize them. thanks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mother may I
On-Star, GPS tracking uplinked telecommuncation device becomes manditory on all vehicles...... sounds like a safety feature the government will just eat up mandating for us.
Slower car in front of you on two lane roadway, and you'll have to push the 'button' and ask permission to have the limitor released so you can safely pass the vehicle, after the operator reviews your driving record and the other dirivers, and determines if you have the right to pass, and the skill to do such safely. Then of course your monthly bill (ticket) arrives showing all your driving activity, uploaded from the little black box dailing into their servers.
Damn that sounds far fetched, glad I don't own a chevy product anymore, they have already put all that technology together...... talk about fore-thinking.
*shudder*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Way off topic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
While this technology gets figured out...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Overly complicated solution
Thing is though that it's impossible to speed when the roads are congested, it all just grinds to a halt.
As the UK gets more and more clogged up, there's not going to be much point having anything like this anyways.
Speed camera's have been shown to be a complete waste of time and are not actually bringing down the number of injuries.
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/effects.html
What we need is better skilled drivers with roads that have less actual danger spots.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Haha, wow
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Haha, wow
Us people like to be in complete control of our vehicles when we drive them. It makes us feel safe. Sorry :-p
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
not that bad of an idea
what if theirs just like a little button somewhere that overrides the machine, but turns on a light outside your car or something. police will see if youre fucking the system, but if the button is on the steering wheel then you can use it to make a quick decision in an emergency. this could be some kinda of middle ground, where it wouldnt totally solve the problem, but it would cut down on it and have very minimal side effects
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: not that bad of an idea
what if theirs just like a little button somewhere that overrides the machine, but turns on a light outside your car or something. police will see if youre fucking the system, but if the button is on the steering wheel then you can use it to make a quick decision in an emergency. this could be some kinda of middle ground, where it wouldnt totally solve the problem, but it would cut down on it and have very minimal side effects"
what aobut disconnecting the light?
what about disconnecting the system completely?
what about boycotting cars that control the driver?
this is such a horrible idea. it might be a good idea as an enhancement to cruise control, but not as a tool for "stopping speeders."
Mark my words. this will never happen. if it does, people will avoid it like the plague.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here's the car of the future
1. Built-in Alcohol detector; .001 blood level? - Car won't start, you're obviously drunk!
2. Built-in IQ detector; IQ less than 100? - Take the bus, you have no business behind the wheel!
3. Built-in Speeding detector; Doing 5% over the posted limit? - Speed limiter kicks in, on-board cellular phones police, transmits GPS data, road conditions, traffic density, ticket issued, fine automatically deducted from your bank account. (No money in bank account? - Arrest warrant issued!)
4. Emergency over-ride button; Push the button in an emergency? All lights begin flashing randomly, On board cellular/GPS notifies authorities, Operator comes on line asking what the problem is, Speed limiter kicks in, car pulls over automatically at a designated emergency stopping point to wait for emergency response units (they will come when they finish their coffee and donuts). Push the button in a non-emergency? - Automatic jail time...
5. Profit!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
used to be
i think it would then but otherwise no.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Faultygps
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
GPS is military controled
All they want is war.
I wish they would just go back to America and do something constructive for once.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
no way!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
cz
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: cz
[ link to this | view in chronology ]