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.
All I have to say is... (Score:5, Insightful)
... what could possibly go wrong?
Re:All I have to say is... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:All I have to say is... (Score:5, Interesting)
Tunnels.
Drift.
Valleys.
Echoes.
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.
Re:All I have to say is... (Score:5, Informative)
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)
overpasses and underpasses (the GPS often gets wrong which road you're on)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
specifically what if I'm on the freeway and the GPS thinks I'm on the frontage road? I'll drop ~50% speed right there.
-nB
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I blame them now for putting up speed limit signs to begin with.
Re:All I have to say is... (Score:5, Insightful)
Hear hear!!
Hell, the main reason they have the stupid speed zones, it just for revenue generation. The best way to drive is to drive in a manner that is safe for the road conditions presented to you.
I hope they don't get around to trying this in the US....I for one will be out with soldering iron and wire cutters very quickly.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
In my quick perusal of the local Vehicle Code, I see there are about 4 - 6 different kinds of speeding violations. One of them is "driving too fast for conditions", which seems to be the only one people are concerned with as a practical matter. But there are others, like driving faster than the posted speed, faster than the state maximum, faster than the max for your kind of vehicle, faster than max for the kind of road you are on, etc.
Re:All I have to say is... (Score:5, Insightful)
1) It's not just about how well you can maneuver your vehicle along the road surface, it's also about what sort of a hazard your vehicle traveling at high speed presents to other motorists, and what risk they present to you. (And let's face it, everyone thinks they're a better driver than they really are).
2) Do you really trust everyone around you to judge what is "safe for conditions"? The phrase is a legal catchall for circumstances when a driver is not exceeding the posted limit, but should have known that it's imprudent to continue at 75MPH in freezing rain. It's not a justification to push up against the laws of physics.
3) How do you define "safe for conditions"? As fast as you can possibly travel? What margin of error do you leave, if any, and how do you calculate that? There are plenty of professional drivers who have trouble doing that on a closed course with known variables. Changing the venue to a public road only makes things worse, unless you put a higher priority on your driving freedom than most people's desire to be free of wanton carnage.
4) Speed limits are appropriate in most circumstances. Residential and commercial districts have a lot of activity, and it doesn't really matter how straight and flat the road is when a kid runs out in the road, or a traffic light turns red, or someone has to edge their car out into the road a bit just to see if it's clear to enter the roadway.
5) Rural highways are really the only place that a high speed limit is appropriate, and left of the Mississippi, we have rather high limits -- 75 to 80. There are many places where this could be safely raised to 120+, but the problem is that this isn't Germany, and there are many, many cars on the road here that can't go over 80 or 90. Good luck convincing America that everyone's car *must* be capable of at least 120MPH (and all the parts and maintenance that go along with that).
6) Speed doesn't kill, but speed differential does. When you have people traveling at 70, 140, and 210MPH all on the same road, it's just asking for problems. What happens when the guy doing 140 changes lanes in front of you, doing 210, to pass the guy going 70? You slam on the brakes, and the guy rounding the curve behind you (driving "not too fast" for conditions) plows into you. Congratulations -- you just got killed and nobody was legally at fault.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
they impose financial penalties based on actual evidence of the driving habits of each individual, as opposed to generic statistical inferences and supposition
Yup, which is why, despite having a prefect driving record, my rates remained relatively fixed from age 16 to 25, at which point they were drastically lowered.
Oh wait...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:All I have to say is... (Score:5, Funny)
"Door is ajar... Door is ajar... Door is ajar..."
My door is not a #$^@ing JAR, it's a DOOR, stop SAYING that!
This line brought to you by the early '90s idea that everything should talk.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
As I always tell my passengers "tuck and roll... tuck and roll".
Re:All I have to say is... (Score:5, Informative)
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.)
Re:All I have to say is... (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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)
[citation needed]
I've googled, and I can't find the data to which you are referring. Perhaps you are incorrect?
Re:All I have to say is... (Score:4, Informative)
https://shop.sae.org/technical/papers/960439 [sae.org]
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.
Re:All I have to say is... (Score:5, Informative)
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."
It's totally true, man. (Score:3, Funny)
He heard it on Fox News.
Re:All I have to say is... (Score:5, Insightful)
> 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)
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,
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That's not a result of speed, it's a result of following too closely and probably not paying attention, which are both problems regardless how fast you're driving. If you're driving 30 mph faster, then there should be correspondingly greater space given to traffic around you to account for it.
How do you think accident rates would drop if you actually
Re:All I have to say is... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:All I have to say is... (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:All I have to say is... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Americans as a group are largely ignorant of the idea of "situational awareness" and drive *extremely* reactively, instead of paying attention, being able to see dangerous situations beginning to develop, and avoiding them before any action is actually necessary. Half the time, we don't even know the traffi
Re:All I have to say is... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:All I have to say is... (Score:5, Insightful)
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...
Re:All I have to say is... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:All I have to say is... (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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!
Re:All I have to say is... (Score:4, Informative)
Yeah, it does:
(i love having to wait 5 minutes between posts)
Re:All I have to say is... (Score:4, Insightful)
In another news... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:In another news... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:All I have to say is... (Score:5, Insightful)
the govener on my car is at 155.. i have zero planns on taking it there.
on a side note the traction control on it reacts by not limiting but rather removing all power to the tires..
several times this is caused me to almost get hit when pulling out into traffic.
if these goveners are so blind as to jsut remove all power i can see accidents being caused by them.
i can tell you of many times pulling a boat down the highway and it would start to fishtail.. depending on whats around you and your options.. some times speeding up to stop it is your only option.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:All I have to say is... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
GPS needs to know road directions (Score:5, Insightful)
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).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
it prevents people from going 80 in a 55 zone, I'm all for it.
If you think you can prevent people from doing 80 in a 55 (or 90 in a 65) then you, sir, have never driven on the Massachusetts Turnpike.
Re:GPS needs to know road directions (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
That's strange.. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:That's strange.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:That's strange.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In fact the constant pressure NOT to speed causes accidents because I now spend more time looking at my speedo making sure I ain't speeding as I go through the 20th speed camera instead of looking at the road a head of me.
Safer drivers (Score:5, Insightful)
Speeding is one of the most preventable causes of accidents
Not true...if someone wants to speed they will, and no propaganda (or technology) will stop them. The solutuion to this problem is to ban drivers for two or more serious speeding offences.
The main cause of crashes is Human Error, and this is often because, over time, people forget how to drive properly. What's needed is a joined-up system of assessment and testing for drivers to ensure that their driving remains at a good standard. We all forget things and lose touch with 'good practice'. A 'check-test' every 5 years or so would weed out those whose driving has become unsafe, and they could then be required to take some re-training to bring their driving back up to an acceptable standard.
Re:That's strange.. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:That's strange.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:That's strange.. (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:That's strange.. (Score:4, Insightful)
I can understand why they do it when some jerk is riding in the leftmost lane, not passing anyone, and going the speed limit or less. The ones I don't understand is when they tailgate someone in one of the right lanes, and there's plenty of room to go around them on the left. I think there's a lot of people like that who just tailgate not because they're wanting to go faster, but because they just like to follow people for some weird reason.
Re:That's strange.. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:That's strange.. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:That's strange.. (Score:5, Insightful)
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!!)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:That's strange.. (Score:5, Funny)
It's true. At least 95% of all collisions occur when both vehicles are standing still.
"Cuts power" not "cuts all power" (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:"Cuts power" not "cuts all power" (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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 ;-)
Re:"Cuts power" not "cuts all power" (Score:4, Insightful)
"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)
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
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Try riding on a highway adjacent to a service road and parallel to a nearby ridge line. Depending on the satellite geometry and other terrain, you can end up getting a long-term incorrect reading that way, due to receiving the satellite signals reflected from the ridge line.
bad assumption (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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)
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, Insightful)
Or maybe -- now stop me if this seems to be too radical -- we could try building really big cars. I'm talking about a single huge car that could hold easily forty or fifty people. And these special really big cars could just spend all day driving back and forth between places where people live and where they work. That way lots of people could get to work without having to drive.
They would cost a bit to operate, but we could offset that by having everybody pay a small fare when they get on the really bi
Re:Ok, wait a second. (Score:5, Insightful)
You've apparently never dealt with an insurance company. While investments may be their main business, they do have a little side business doing actual insurance work. Which, to an insurance company, means
1) Collecting premiums
2) Not paying claims unless they absolutely have to, and lowballing the insured when they do.
They'd love for claims to go down. That provides them with a windfall. Predictability? Well, a predictible _maximum_ level of claims is fine, but even insurance companies don't object to a windfall in the form of lower costs.
Since these are auto insurance companies, who have managed to wangle laws requiring auto insurance, they need not worry about reduction in demand for their product; they have the State to provide that for them.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
yup
here is a normal situation I see every day.
Many cars, we will say about 50, are spread across 4 lanes of traffic over a total distance of a few hundred yards, all traveling between 65 and 75 mph. The faster cars are further to the left, and no one in any lane is driving too close to the car in front of them. This pack of cars is traveling safely, although the posted limit is 55 mph.
A single car, with the user texting on their cell phone is in the left lane, or second to left lane, driving between 50 and
As they say .... (Score:5, Funny)
Speed doesn't kill anybody.... It's that coming to a sudden stop that gets you every time!
Speed limiters already on HGVs / trucks? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
I didn't RFTA but ... (Score:5, Insightful)
"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.
Re:I didn't RFTA but ... (Score:4, Informative)
Modders (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
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)
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)
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
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't want Big Brother in my car for the same reasons I don't want big Brother in my computer.
If it's not logging or reporting home, it's hardly Big Brother.
This is bogus. (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Solve all problems by throwing more tech at it! (Score:4, Funny)
Proof once again that if your hair is pointy enough, then all problems seem like they can be solved using technology.
I can't see it happening (Score:4, Informative)
If you don't like it, change the law (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"That removing this device would be illegal."
So is speeding.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
And all laws are inherently just and right, and should be obeyed blindly and without question.
Re:No Doubt (Score:4, Insightful)
I say all the time up here in Canada, if they really cared about speeding, they'd nail everyone going more than 1km/h over the speed limit.
They don't though, because they don't really care.
The police officer driving past me at 140 without his lights on doesn't think speeding is bad, he's doing it himself.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:GPS speeds are inaccurate (Score:4, Interesting)
They are BOTH computed in real time AND averaged over distance.
Recent court cases have proven GPS based speed monitoring is far more accurate even than most spedometers which monitor real time wheel speeds, and easily trump radar and laser accuracy.
As long as the speed is logged a dozen times a second or so, but averaged over periods of not less than 1.5 seconds, and updated in real time based on the fractional second, the speed on the screen should not be more than a fraction of a mile per hour less or greater than your actual speed, which is actually MORE accurate than a traditional spedometer, which unlike GPS can be effected by vehicle alignment, tire pressure, wether, and age of the mechanics behind it. Car speedometers today are only accurate on average to within 3MPH.
Re:Speed Limits Change (Score:4, Insightful)
There are roads in my area that have different speed limits in different directions on the same road! Speed limits that jump and drop 30 miles per hour more than once in a single mile! Speed limits that vary by time of day (school zones, etc), and more.
There are new roads being paved daily, others widening or diverted by construction. Temporary speed limits are posted by construction workers constantly. If the device can't react to these as well, it's useless, and probably more dangerous since "if it's not beeping, i'm not speeding" could potentially become a LEGAL defense!
Also, what happens when you are trying to pass a car that's going slower than you, and while trying to pass your engine power drops!?!?
What happens if you have a software glitch, or your device looses calibration. It could hold you to 10 or 20 miles less than the posted speed limit. It could simply fail, and cut engine power output. It could fail to engage and allow you to speed dangerously. It could simply prevent you from driving at all...
The ONLY safe application I can see for this system would be to apply while driving under cruise control, and be an alert-only system.
This is also something too easy to abuse by officers. If it's mandated to be installed, and everyone is being tracked, then entrapment starts to be an issue.
commercial vehicles are already limited (Score:3, Informative)
If you want to do something like this for commercial vehicles
They already are. For decades, diesel trucks have had mechanical governors that can be adjusted (not in the cockpit.) For at least a decade, there have been dataloggers for fleets, some live...some memory-card based or short-distance radio (ie when you pull into the yard.) They record things like the driver bouncing off the engine rev limiter, engine speed, road speed, throttle, fuel consumption, etc.
A friend bought a new cargo truck a coup