Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
Transportation Government News Technology

Australia, UK To Test Vehicle Speed-Limiting Devices 859

nemesisrocks writes "The New South Wales government is set to begin testing a device that will limit the speed of drivers because 'excessive speed is one of the primary ways that people are killed while driving.' Located on the dashboard, it senses a driver's speed with the use of GPS. If the speed of a car goes over the posted legal limit, a warning sounds. If the driver ignores the warning, the device eventually cuts all power to the car because a cut-off switch has been installed between the accelerator and the engine." The Times Online reports that the same system will be tested in the UK this summer for use in taxis and buses.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Australia, UK To Test Vehicle Speed-Limiting Devices

Comments Filter:
  • by just_another_sean ( 919159 ) on Wednesday May 20, 2009 @10:20AM (#28025007) Journal

    ... what could possibly go wrong?

    • by vertinox ( 846076 ) on Wednesday May 20, 2009 @10:23AM (#28025049)

      Solar flares.
      US Military mucking with GPS system.
      DoS attacks.

      On the bright side, you'll never get a ticket again because you can blame the car if it lets you speed.

      • by Nazlfrag ( 1035012 ) on Wednesday May 20, 2009 @10:33AM (#28025207) Journal

        Poor reception.
        Software bugs.
        Hardware bugs.
        Insectoid bugs.

        I'm sure there's more. On the bright side, you could be travelling down a steep enough incline to roll home when the engine dies.

        • by twostix ( 1277166 ) on Wednesday May 20, 2009 @11:38AM (#28026231)

          Semi-trailers here in Aus already have governers set to 100KPH.

          Drivers often drop them into neutral on the highway on downhills, they hit 140 no problems.

          There's also a thriving industry found in the back pages of trucking magazines dedicated to remov...err 'maintaining' them.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by digitig ( 1056110 )
          Out of date maps.
          overpasses and underpasses (the GPS often gets wrong which road you're on)
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Icegryphon ( 715550 )
      The electrical Component which does runs this malfunctions and causes all sorts of Havoc on the driver,
      God forbid causes a wreck, then they can sue the hell out of the government and car companies.
      Freaking Nanny statism is getting under my skin.
    • by Asic Eng ( 193332 ) on Wednesday May 20, 2009 @10:33AM (#28025209)
      ... what could possibly go wrong?

      If implemented as described in the article: not much. With "cut power" they actually mean "limit power to reach only the maximum allowed speed" and you can override it if you wish. (Emergency transport to the hospital, speed limit out of date etc.)

      • by MozeeToby ( 1163751 ) on Wednesday May 20, 2009 @11:01AM (#28025641)

        How is this information not in the summary?

        Summary: If you go too fast, they kill the engine and leave you stranded.
        Article: If you go too fast, they limit your speed to the legal speed limit and you can override it with a push of a button.

        Summary is designed and implemented to piss off and scare the slashdot crowd. Article is a reasonable, if very intrusive, approach to reducing traffic accidents.

        We'd complain if the mainstream media had a headline like "New Nuclear Power Plant Will Mutate Your Children?" and the article says "No, no it won't" wouldn't we? How is this any different.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by plague3106 ( 71849 )

          Summary is designed and implemented to piss off and scare the slashdot crowd. Article is a reasonable, if very intrusive, approach to reducing traffic accidents.

          Except that speeding (ie, violating the posted limit) isn't what is causing traffic accidents. If anything, it's limits purposefully set lower than engineering standards that cause accidents.

          So far, everytime they've raised speed limits on interstates, accident rates DROP.

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by flerchin ( 179012 )

            [citation needed]

            I've googled, and I can't find the data to which you are referring. Perhaps you are incorrect?

            • by Ghede ( 1521401 ) on Wednesday May 20, 2009 @11:58AM (#28026597)

              Learn to google. Googling speed limits interstates accident rates got me the first one, and variations thereof, Adding -purdue got me the second. It would also have eventually produced contrary results if any existed. Of course, I'm not going to sit at google adding fifteen hundred -words just to reinforce or refute those articles. I don't even drive.
              • by JonathanBoyd ( 644397 ) on Wednesday May 20, 2009 @12:28PM (#28027055) Homepage

                Learn to google.

                Learn to read. The findings were mixed and in cases where increasing the speed limit saved lives, it was as simple as 'ore speed is faster' but rather 'faster highways takes speeding drivers away from other roads where accidents are more likely'.

                "For example, one study found that a speed limit increase from 55 to 65 resulted in roughly a 3 percent increase in the accident rate and a 24 percent increase in the probability of a fatality once an accident occurred," Mannering said. "But then other studies have contended that legislation-enabled speed-limit increases have actually saved lives. One study argued that increasing from 55 to 65 saved lives because of shifts in law enforcement resources, the ability of higher speed limit interstates to attract riskier drivers away from inherently more dangerous non-interstate highways and reducing how often drivers speed up and slow down."

            • He heard it on Fox News.

          • by Zoxed ( 676559 ) on Wednesday May 20, 2009 @11:38AM (#28026227) Homepage

            > Except that speeding (ie, violating the posted limit) isn't what is causing traffic accidents.

            Even if speeding itself does not *cause* an accident it *does* make the consequences worse.

            • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

              by cbiltcliffe ( 186293 )

              So if you want to improve road safety, you have two options:

              1. reduce the consequences of an accident by reducing speed.

              2. eliminate the accident by removing morons from the road.

              The government, and apparently yourself, would rather do the first.
              Myself? I think the second is a much better long-term solution.

              When you consider the economic damage accidents - even non-fatal ones - cause, there's no reason at all to keep these twits on the road.

              Other than the government making lots of money from traffic fines,

        • by PitaBred ( 632671 ) <> on Wednesday May 20, 2009 @11:22AM (#28025985) Homepage
          You can override it, but... what is reported back? THAT is the sticker. If it were a self-contained unit that never broadcast anything and simply helped me keep to the speed limit, I'd consider getting one for myself. But if it was in ANY way accessible by or connected to the government (or even just kept logs), FUCK that.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        If implemented as described in the article: not much. With "cut power" they actually mean "limit power to reach only the maximum allowed speed" and you can override it if you wish. (Emergency transport to the hospital, speed limit out of date etc.)

        I have this friend named Murphy, I think you two should be introduced. Because once this technology is there, it will start to be used for other purposes.

      • by Hatta ( 162192 ) on Wednesday May 20, 2009 @11:14AM (#28025833) Journal

        And what happens when the guy in the lane next to you spins out and you have to make a split second decision to punch the accelerator and get clear, or get in an accident?

        • by MikeBabcock ( 65886 ) <> on Wednesday May 20, 2009 @11:26AM (#28026053) Homepage Journal

          People who believe speed is the cause of all problems don't understand its use in emergency manoeuvres.

          Of course, the lower accident rate on highways that went to 75mph instead of 55, or the lower death toll on the Autobauhn than on many American highways confuses them too.

          For the nay-saysers, speed isn't implicitly causing accidents, poor driving and/or unforseen circumstances are.

          The only speed that is nearly guaranteed not to cause an accident is zero. By getting in the car at all, you've increased your odds of being in a collision far more than the subsequent increase caused by speeding.

        • by Asic Eng ( 193332 ) on Wednesday May 20, 2009 @11:27AM (#28026059)
          *If* implemented as described, the throttling of the engine is not immediate, so you should still be able to go above the speed limit briefly. I could imagine a similar scenario, where you are overtaking a car and have not seen an approaching car in the other lane. It could be safer to accelarate and complete the maneuver rather than aborting it. So I'd be concerned whether the period you can go beyond the speed limit would be long enough.
          • by socrplayr813 ( 1372733 ) on Wednesday May 20, 2009 @12:57PM (#28027539)

            I wish I had mod points for you. That is by far the best response I've seen so far regarding the danger of this technology.

            I'm not necessarily opposed to some kind of action to deal with out-of-control speeders, but unexpected physical limits placed on the vehicle are not the way to do it. Any limits need to be clearly defined prior to a person operating a machine capable of that much destruction. If the parent poster's scenario occurs or the system reports an incorrect speed limit at just the wrong moment, I don't see any potential for GOOD things to happen.

            It seems to me that the people who drive fast enough to be affected by these systems are also the ones most likely to find a way to get into trouble with it. They're also likely to simply disable it completely, which defeats the whole purpose. After realizing that, it does start to sound like nothing more than a way to track innocent people. Oh crap I've joined the tin foil crowd...

        • by gnasher719 ( 869701 ) on Wednesday May 20, 2009 @11:44AM (#28026313)

          And what happens when the guy in the lane next to you spins out and you have to make a split second decision to punch the accelerator and get clear, or get in an accident?

          Your brakes are usually about four times stronger than your engine. If you need to change your speed very quickly, the brakes are much better at doing it. Instead of thinking that you can rely on engine power to get you out of trouble, learn watching the traffic, and reading other people's behavior. If the guy in the next line spins out, then most likely you should have noticed suspicious behavior before, and acted accordingly, like giving him space.

          • by AK Marc ( 707885 ) on Wednesday May 20, 2009 @12:47PM (#28027355)
            Instead of thinking that you can rely on engine power to get you out of trouble, learn watching the traffic, and reading other people's behavior.

            If I'm passing someone and they spin out, coming partially into my lane and I have to swerve, my car is more stable swerving while accelerating than swerving while braking. Braking while in any maneuver is probably a bad idea. Brake before maneuvers, accelerate during. But that's more subtile than most people will get, but for those out there that can and do handle their car at the limits on a regular basis, removing any option will reduce our safety.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Tuoqui ( 1091447 )

        If you can override it if you wish then there is no purpose for it to be there in the first place. Less government intrusion into our daily lives not more!

    • by Anonymous Coward
      US government is testing a device which will determine the thrust rate and force during a sexual intercourse, because it's determined that excessive thrust can lead to heart attack. All the citizens over age of 45 years will have the device fixed between their penis and heart. If excessive thrust is detected, the device will cut the blood supply to the penis of the offending party. (earlier version was designed to throttle oxygen supply to the heart, but it was thought to be too aggressive)
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by elrous0 ( 869638 ) *
      And what will happen the first time a simple glitch in one of these devices causes a 60-car interstate pile-up? Probably the same thing that will happen the first time a well-known politician or celebrity tries to rush someone to the hospital.
  • by LiquidCoooled ( 634315 ) on Wednesday May 20, 2009 @10:21AM (#28025031) Homepage Journal

    One of the biggest problems with current GPS detection devices is lack of context.

    The GPS needs to know the direction and actual road/lane I am driving in.

    I get warnings about speed cameras and told to slow down - just because I am passing UNDER a 30mph road travelling in a different direction on a motorway (70mph).

  • That's strange.. (Score:5, Informative)

    by Pvt_Ryan ( 1102363 ) on Wednesday May 20, 2009 @10:22AM (#28025037)
    UK government official figures show speed is only the causing factor in 5-7% of all accidents.
    • by Sockatume ( 732728 ) on Wednesday May 20, 2009 @10:28AM (#28025117)
      If they mandated a device which prevented people driving when fatigued, or had a pint, or when distracted, or when it's raining, the kinds of things that cause most accidents, it'd be a huge civil liberties breach. I mean, there's no legal prohibition to driving when you're a little tired or a little drunk or listening to NPR or there's a bit of drizzle, but you'd make them de facto illegal if you installed a device that prevented people from driving in that state. There is a legal prohibition to driving over the limit, though.
    • by FTWinston ( 1332785 ) on Wednesday May 20, 2009 @10:30AM (#28025153) Homepage
      You wouldn't possibly be implying that someone was grossly exaggerating the figures to hype up their own pet cause, would you? In this day and age, that would be simply unimaginable.
    • by Kugala ( 1083127 ) on Wednesday May 20, 2009 @10:33AM (#28025205)

      Speed doesn't kill, stupid driving kills. A good driver should be able to determine the appropriate speed for the road, traffic, and conditions. A bad driver will get into accidents anywhere, because they don't pay attention or plan ahead.

      • by 16Chapel ( 998683 ) on Wednesday May 20, 2009 @10:55AM (#28025567)
        If they could create a device that cut your speed when you drive too close to the guy in front, THAT would save lives. It's incredible how many stupid drivers think it's OK to tailgate.
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by PitaBred ( 632671 )
          Before getting their driving licenses people should be forced to take and pass a physics course in which they do various calculations on car-sized objects being dropped and hitting brick walls or other car-sized objects.
        • by Just Some Guy ( 3352 ) <> on Wednesday May 20, 2009 @01:09PM (#28027725) Homepage Journal

          If they could create a device that cut your speed when you drive too close to the guy in front, THAT would save lives. It's incredible how many stupid drivers think it's OK to tailgate.

          For some reason, those jackasses seem to think it makes it easier for them to pass.

          Tailgater: I'll ride six inches off his bumper, then suddenly swerve out and begin accelerating as soon as I'm clear, pedal to the floor and hell bent for leather because I'll need to be going 25mph faster than him to get around before I have a head on collision.

          Smart driver: I'll ride a couple seconds back, and when an opportunity approaches, I'll gradually speed up ahead of time. That way I'll already be going 10mph faster than him by the time I change lanes and I'll only be facing oncoming traffic for a few seconds.

      • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 20, 2009 @11:15AM (#28025837)

        i constantly see people driving right next to tractor trailers, boxed in with nowhere to go, and they just stay there, refusing to speed up or pass because they're going the speed limit and won't dare go a single tick faster. i bet if you asked them why they were doing that, they'd say it was because they were being "safe" in obeying the speed limit - but what the hell is so safe about camping uncomfortably close to an 18-wheeler and riding along side him at 60 MPH?

        there is more to being safe than blindly obeying speed limits.

    • by sunderland56 ( 621843 ) on Wednesday May 20, 2009 @10:42AM (#28025333)
      Technically speed is a factor in 99.9% of all accidents. If the car was stationary, no accident would have happened.

      But, more sensibly, it is lack of driving ability that is the cause of these accidents. A skilled racing driver could undoubtedly drive safely at a speed far above the posted limit; a 79 year old grandmother with cataracts is unsafe even when driving below the limit. The police should list "lack of skill" as a cause, not speed.
      • by FredFredrickson ( 1177871 ) * on Wednesday May 20, 2009 @11:09AM (#28025761) Homepage Journal
        I mostly agree - however at higher speeds, even well trained professionals can have accidents. The problem is, at higher speeds, the damage and mortality rate is higher- that is to say, an old person might have a 50% likelihood of crashing, but their speed gives their chances of survival. The higher the speed, the higher the mortality.

        That being said, I think they should impliment yearly driving tests. So many people would fail. I would be happy and free on the road again! (without all those damn MASSHOLES!!) ;P
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by DarrenBaker ( 322210 )

        Indeed, exactly. Speed does not cause many accidents, it simply exacerbates them, though to what level is difficult to determine. A crash at 150 km/h will be worse than one at 100 km/h, but then, why not lower the limit to 50 km/h, since that will reduce the damage even further. It's a stupid game, and this speeding witch hunt is turning law-abiding safe drivers into criminals, and causing people to spend more time watching their speedometers instead of keeping their eyes on the bloody road.

        Most accidents a

    • by Minwee ( 522556 ) <> on Wednesday May 20, 2009 @11:16AM (#28025867) Homepage

      UK government official figures show speed is only the causing factor in 5-7% of all accidents.

      It's true. At least 95% of all collisions occur when both vehicles are standing still.

  • by Sockatume ( 732728 ) on Wednesday May 20, 2009 @10:23AM (#28025045)
    If you read the article, you'll see that it limits the engine's available power so that it can no longer go over the limit. It doesn't cut off the engine, or for that matter the battery.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      Just for future reference, cutting the battery does not kill power; because there's an alternator generating all the electrical power the car (usually) needs. It will; however, play hobb with the electrical system because the battery acts, in effect, as a large filter and it helps to regulate the system voltage.
    • by SharpFang ( 651121 ) on Wednesday May 20, 2009 @10:44AM (#28025361) Homepage Journal

      So, I'm overtaking that other car. I go over the speed limit because I noticed an oncoming car on the opposite lane and decide I won't avoid collision if I stay within the speed limit, and it's too late to retreat.
      Then the engine power drops so that I can't finish the maneuver on time.

      Coming next: brakes that make it impossible to brake rapidly, to avoid collision with a car tailgating you.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by clickety6 ( 141178 )

        a) if you need to exceed the speed limit to overtake, then you don't need to overtake

        b) if you can't complete you overtaking manoeuvre in the amount of clear road space you can see, then you don't overtake

        c) if you do need to pull in, then you can reduce your speed and pull back in behind the car you're overtaking

        I don't think reckless driving habits are going to be a strong argument against the scheme when this is the sort of behaviour the scheme is designed to reduce ;-)

        • by daver00 ( 1336845 ) on Wednesday May 20, 2009 @06:04PM (#28032195)

          "a) if you need to exceed the speed limit to overtake, then you don't need to overtake"

          I hate this argument, lets sat someone is doing 10kph under the speed limit, it is perfectly reasonable to overtake them. Now is it safer to overtake them at 10kph relative speed? or 30kph relative speed? (divide numbers by 1.6 to get old-timey measurements)

          Speeding while overtaking makes a helluva lot of sense.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by twostix ( 1277166 )

      You can't just "cut power" like it's an electrical appliance.

      You can either:

      - Limit Air
      - Limit Fuel
      - Limit Spark

      All three of those things will reduce power and two of those things have significant problems with petrol engines.

      - Closing the butterfly ala cruise control is the safest but most expensive, unreliable and mechanical way of doing it.
      - Limiting fuel, cheapest way but fraught with danger, leaning out to much causing detonation and burning through valves and piston heads.
      - Limiting spark, likely way

  • bad assumption (Score:5, Insightful)

    by berashith ( 222128 ) on Wednesday May 20, 2009 @10:25AM (#28025087)

    This is a common idea that speed is the cause of the crash. Speed can make a crash worse of course, but the most common danger on highways that I see is people driving close together because one person is driving too slow in a fast lane. The bunched up traffic scares the hell out of me.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by idontgno ( 624372 )

      Speed can be a contributing cause to a crash. Higher speed reduces effective response time (or, if you wish, increases response distance), meaning a situation which could have been avoided (braking, evasive maneuvers) at a lower speed becomes unavoidable at a higher one. (Of course, arguing about causation can be pointless--after all, there could have been no crash at all if the drivers had chosen not to drive in the first place.)

      But true, speed's affect on a crash is to increase the total kinetic energy bu

    • Re:bad assumption (Score:5, Interesting)

      by PPH ( 736903 ) on Wednesday May 20, 2009 @10:39AM (#28025279)

      True. But look at it from the insurance companies (or gov'ts) point of view. The total cost of all accidents is the number of accidents times the cost per accident. Speed affects the cost per accident to a much greater degree than their probability of occurrence. To the individual, its more important to avoid an accident altogether. But the insurance industry wants to lower the overall cost.

      The proper solution to lowering accident probability might entail something that would remove the worst drivers from the roadway*. This is definitely not in the auto industries best interest. It lowers insurance premium receipts and the market for new vehicles. So the industry is motivated to reduce the cost per accident and keep Mr Magoo on the road.

      *My personal preference would be to increase the minimum standards for possessing a D/L to the point at which it would remove sufficient numbers of drivers from the roadway so as to reduce traffic congestion. We only have room for X drivers. We'll only issue X licenses to the most competent.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by scorp1us ( 235526 )

      From someone (me) who has been in many accidents, all I can say is that speed has never been a factor, and I am routinely substantially over the limit.

      - In one accident, she did not follow the "yield sign" and merged into me.
      - In another accident, the work truck in front of me swerved out of my lane to reveal a stalled vehicle on the open road. (He should have pushed his car to the side and started it there)
      - In another accident, I was driving down the load and a car was attempting to make a left onto the r

  • by King_TJ ( 85913 ) on Wednesday May 20, 2009 @10:27AM (#28025105) Journal

    Speed doesn't kill anybody.... It's that coming to a sudden stop that gets you every time!

  • by fantomas ( 94850 ) on Wednesday May 20, 2009 @10:27AM (#28025115)

    Don't HGVs (heavy goods vehicles, artics, trucks, whatever you call them) have speed limiters on them as it is? I think this is so in the UK and some of Europe? (90kph/ 56mph)

    Information welcomed.

  • by sam0737 ( 648914 ) <> on Wednesday May 20, 2009 @10:30AM (#28025161)

    "Cutting all Power" should mean cutting additional gas that accelerate...or I mean it just work like cruise control that instead of supplying more gas when it goes under speed, it stop supplying more gas when it goes over the speed.

    But requiring GPS? Bullshit. Hong Kong's bus (which most of them are double deckers, and import from UK) has speed limiter installed for 15+ years. The bus can never goes over 70km/h no matter how hard you press the gas pedal (70km/h is the legal speed limit for bus on all road). There is a little red light on the dashboard to signal the driver the limiter is activated.

    Technology? It's just based on the speedometer that every automobile has, just like all cruise control! Why do we need to pull GPS into the picture? I have absolutely no idea.

  • Modders (Score:3, Insightful)

    by metlin ( 258108 ) on Wednesday May 20, 2009 @10:30AM (#28025163) Journal

    Ha, and what are they going to do when people mod their vehicles to circumvent this?

    I know that they are talking about cars and not motorcycles -- but as someone who rides motorcycles, speed in a straight line isn't the hard part, speed in turns is. A lot of accidents are caused because people try to handle turns fast and fail.

    Or cause idiots tried wheelies when they had no clue.

  • Speed limiting... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by HockeyPuck ( 141947 ) on Wednesday May 20, 2009 @10:31AM (#28025177)

    I've got no problems with speed limiting vehicles. Some are already here, if you rent a U-Haul truck, there's a governor on the engine that won't let you above 65mph. It doesn't kill the engine, but the truck just doesn't accelerate anymore. Why not just put the same thing on cars? Do we really need cars that are able to go 100+ mph? I know what someone will say, "but I need the engine power to accelerate if I need to..." I'm not saying we should nerf the engines, but just limit the max speed of the vehicle but keep all the HP/torque so you can go from 0-60 in 2seconds, but you top out at 85mph.

    Btw, NASCAR does this already on some tracks for safety reasons. You don't see any of those cars going 200+ mph. Even though they are completely capable of it.

    Most cars already have a limiter, my BMW is computer limited at 135mph. Though, I could spend $50 and get that part of the computer reprogrammed.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by dfenstrate ( 202098 )

      My Ranger is limited to 92 MPH, based on stability reasons (My estimate from actually going that fast, finding the limit, and trying to change lanes.)

      That being said, we shouldn't put ourselves in the position of determining what our fellow citizens 'need,' especially in the absence of demonstrated over-riding social concerns. The number of accidents- proportional, and straight numeric amount- based on excessive speed alone do not come anywhere close to an overriding social concern.

      On the whole, we are no w

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Buelldozer ( 713671 )

      So you're arguing that some Bureaucrat somewhere should be in charge of how fast my car should be able to go?

      What if I enjoy taking my Audi to the track on occasion and wish to exceed 135MPH on the back straightaway?

      BTW, MOTORCYCLES will and do exceed 190MPH on the track so let's not use NASCAR as the standard for this. Frankly NASCAR is a bunch of redneck pussies making 2,000 left handed turns in a "race".

      I also find it amusing that a guy whose car is 'limited' to 80MPH over the fastest speed limit in Nort

  • This is bogus. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by yourassOA ( 1546173 ) on Wednesday May 20, 2009 @10:32AM (#28025179)
    Now if they put speed limiting devices on cars the cops should have them to. Because no one is speeding right? Three weeks ago I had to pull into the ditch doing 140 KPH with a fire truck because a cop decided to pass me on the way to a car crash/explosion. There were two oncoming vehicles and if I had not pull over there would have been a head on collision. (It is illegal for a cop to pass a fire truck. Besides what is the cop going to do, piss on the fire if he gets there before me?) Now three weeks latter the same cop is goofing off and destroyed a brand new honda 1200cc motor bike injuring himself and a girl he was showing off to. And of course he doesn't get a ticket either. Really who needs a speed limiter?
    Also are they considering the revenue they will be loosing from speeding tickets? I'm sure that they will figure out another way to get that money out of people.
  • by linebackn ( 131821 ) on Wednesday May 20, 2009 @10:35AM (#28025229)

    Proof once again that if your hair is pointy enough, then all problems seem like they can be solved using technology.

  • by Polkyb ( 732262 ) * on Wednesday May 20, 2009 @10:40AM (#28025303)
    "Transport for London (TfL), which will today announce a six-month trial of ISA, estimates that, if two thirds of London drivers used the devices, the number of road casualties in the capital could be reduced by 10 per cent." Most cars in London don't actually move fast enough to get to 20Mph, so how exactly would this system save lives? Most UK private cars have had their speedometer set 10% fast anyway (reads 33 when doing 30 and 77 when doing 70) in an effort to both slow you down and remove te vehicle manufacturer from any possible law suits regarding speeding fines.
  • by Froggie ( 1154 ) on Wednesday May 20, 2009 @10:56AM (#28025583)

    Speeding. 99% of respondents want to drive faster than the speed limit, it seems.

    Remember that driving is licensed, it's not a right. You are permitted to drive on the road if you obey the rules of the road, and you expect your government, who grant you that licence, to enforce the rules of the road.

    You would expect the police to arrest drunk drivers - they are abusing their licence. You should expect them to control road speed, for the same reason. The rules are there, it's not as if you don't know what they are, and whether you like them or not they all apply equally to you.

    If you feel that you should be able to drive faster than you're presently legally allowed to, then win the argument and get the law changed. But please stop bitching about the way that a given rule of the road applies to you; those are the terms you agreed to when you stepped into your car.

May all your PUSHes be POPped.