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.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    identicon
    MissingFrame, May 24th, 2006 @ 9:00am

    Finally street creds for us hackers!

    Geeks will have the only fast cars on the block! Eat my shorts greasers!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    anonymous coward, May 24th, 2006 @ 9:19am

    the system didn't make me slow down when it was raining, i crashed my car, my wife and kids were killed, i'm suing for millions...

    anyone want to bet against that happening?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      just because, May 24th, 2006 @ 10:58am

      Re:

      i will bet my life that that will happen. like the coffee thing at mikey-Ds'

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Ivory Bill, May 24th, 2006 @ 1:47pm

      Re: lawsuits

      "the system didn't make me slow down when it was raining, i crashed my car, my wife and kids were killed, i'm suing for millions..."

      The proposal is for Jollye Olde Englande, whose legal system has not been totally tilted in favor of ridiculous claims.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 24th, 2006 @ 9:19am

    Wouldn't it just make more sense to make fewer cars capable of exceeding the speed limit?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      steve, May 24th, 2006 @ 10:57am

      Automatic Speed limiter

      I agree in that new cars should all have 50 HP 4 cylinder diesels that max out at 80 Mph 9highest speed limit in the USA.)
      BUT I'll keep my Impalla SS :-)

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      SPR, May 24th, 2006 @ 1:28pm

      Re:

      Why not raise the speed limit. It is too low anyway. Besides, there are too many people on the road that are too stupid to drive. If we kill them offf, so what??

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      JWW, May 24th, 2006 @ 1:59pm

      Re:

      Yeah, but no one would buy them. The only way to make this happen is to make it a LAW.

      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.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      al, May 24th, 2006 @ 3:19pm

      Re:

      We could require all cars to have an organic engine, with maybe 1 horse power. Maybe we can sell a sports version with a team of horses 4+ horse power. I really getting excited here.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Zeroth404, May 24th, 2006 @ 9:22am

    I will personally totrute and kill anyone who thinks this is a good idea.

    Step up.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Posterlogo, May 24th, 2006 @ 1:47pm

      Re:

      "I will personally totrute and kill anyone who thinks this is a good idea.

      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.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      ZerothWho, May 24th, 2006 @ 3:36pm

      Re:

      I will personally totrute and kill anyone who thinks this is a good idea. Step up.
      I think this is a good idea. Good luck with that whole "tortrue [err...maybe you meant "torture"?] and kill" thing.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Zeroth404, May 25th, 2006 @ 6:26am

        Re: Re:

        "I think this is a good idea. Good luck with that whole "tortrue [err...maybe you meant "torture"?] and kill" thing."

        Yes, I did, thank you.

        Now stop whining about spelling and make a difference in the world.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Wizard Prang, May 25th, 2006 @ 8:14am

          Bloody cheek

          First you threaten to hurt people who might disagree with you.

          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"...

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, May 25th, 2006 @ 11:51am

            Re: Bloody cheek

            "First you threaten to hurt people who might disagree with you."

            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.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Wizard Prang, May 26th, 2006 @ 3:18pm

              Disagreeing with you is hardly Fascism

              >>Fascism is a sickness, and anyone with it does not deserve life.

              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.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    TriZz, May 24th, 2006 @ 9:28am

    speed

    In the words of the almighty Dave Chappelle:

    "Sometimes *puff puff* sometimes you gotta race!"
    - From "Killin' Them Softly"

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    E.T., May 24th, 2006 @ 9:29am

    How very Brittish...

    Why can't those blasted Brits invest their time and money into something more useful...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Monty Python, May 24th, 2006 @ 11:12am

      Re: How very Brittish...

      They do, they invest it in "Monty Python", the best british comedy to ever exist!!!

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        David, May 24th, 2006 @ 2:17pm

        Re: Re: How very Brittish...

        I think you mean, the BEST comedy to have ever existed, not just best British.
        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)

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          JCS, May 25th, 2006 @ 6:34am

          Who's line is it anyway

          Not going to argue about Monty Python not being funny...but IMO the funniest show on TV now is Who's Line is it Anyway.


          If you don't know, you should...

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Wizard Prang, May 25th, 2006 @ 8:18am

            FYE: That was British too

            Who's Line is it Anyway was originally a Radio Series in Britain, then a TV series.

            Personally I found the British version to be a lot funnier than the US version, but maybe that's just me.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, May 24th, 2006 @ 2:15pm

      Re: How very Brittish...

      like fixing there teeth?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Ryan, May 24th, 2006 @ 9:31am

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, May 24th, 2006 @ 10:13am

      Re:

      search warrants have been issued.
      Search warrants? We don't do that anymore.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Zeroth404, May 24th, 2006 @ 10:23am

      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.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Joe, May 24th, 2006 @ 11:18am

        Re: Re:

        You obviously have no sense of humor.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Reverend, May 24th, 2006 @ 1:38pm

        Re: Re:

        wow.

        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.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Reverend, May 24th, 2006 @ 1:39pm

          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.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, May 24th, 2006 @ 2:04pm

            Re: 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're a moron.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      e, May 24th, 2006 @ 10:24am

      Re:

      pfft. it's called having your kid dying of a fever or giving birth. but perhaps when you get to the hospital with corpes in your backseat, they'll be nice enough to clear those tickets for you :]

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, May 24th, 2006 @ 1:06pm

      Re:

      And I suppose you've never passed another car, right?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, May 24th, 2006 @ 2:37pm

      Re:

      Clearly you are a moron..

      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...

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Tim Arview, May 24th, 2006 @ 3:48pm

      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.
      I sense that you are being sarcastic, but as we have no way of hearing your tone to detect such, I will go ahead and introduce the argument that speeders are not necessarily the only ones who will present arguments against the idea. However, I would wager that most (i.e. not all) drivers who oppose this are speeders in that there is very little to oppose. It's like opposing licensing, well...anything. The license may be a hassle but there's likely a good reason for it and only those who wish to abuse the licensed activity would oppose the license itself.

      In addition, those of you against wiretaps clearly have something to hide.. search warrants have been issued.
      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.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      STV, Nov 8th, 2006 @ 12:28pm

      Re:

      Hide? more like protect my privacy. Authority and power corrupt those with it. Look at JR Hover and all the pointless investigation (through wire taps) he did on people that had nothing to hide.

      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.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    WATYF, May 24th, 2006 @ 9:33am

    Kind of a stretch....

    I dunno... your "drivers will rely on the 'limit' to do their driving" seems like a bit of a stretch. I already have something just like that called "Cruise Control", but when I turn it on, that doesn't mean I stop paying attention to the road (or road conditions or curves or anything else).

    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

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    tabernac, May 24th, 2006 @ 9:35am

    The GPS thing annoyingly telling you that you are going over the speed limit would be a good idea. But yeah, all of the obvious reasons would apply for why the actual speed controls would be idiotic. They just need to manufacture cars that simply don't go over 75 or so. But for all the lower speed limit problems, like someone going 50 in a 25, well, who knows. Driving has always been the single most dangerous thing that most people do on a daily basis, so in a sense, we're all idiots.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Angry Rivethead, May 24th, 2006 @ 9:43am

    Crazy Brits

    Brits certainly LOVE taking away thier own liberties...what was it...

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    2ron, May 24th, 2006 @ 9:43am

    Slow Drivers

    So what if you decide to pass someone on a two lane road because they are going under the speed limit. Here's what I see happening: you floor it to get around them, your car tops out at 55 mph making it take extra time to get around the slow car which results in a head on collision with the oncoming car in the other lane. Oops. So I guess now we all have to go the speed of the slowest car on the road. This demonstrates that there are times besides going to the hospital when we may need to go over the speed limit to avoid an accident. This is just one of them.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, May 24th, 2006 @ 10:57am

      Re: Slow Drivers

      no, that senario means that it was unsafe to pass the slow car to begin with. Yes it sucks that you have to drive below the speed limit. There is always somebody that wants to faster behind you, and somebody slower than you ahead. A fact of driving on one lane(each direction) roads.
      In California Slow drivers holding up 3 cars are supposed to use turnouts on one lane highways to let faster traffic pass.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Andrew, May 24th, 2006 @ 11:26am

      Re: Slow Drivers

      So what if you decide to pass someone on a two lane road because they are going under the speed limit...

      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?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        General Fault, May 24th, 2006 @ 12:18pm

        Re: Re: Slow Drivers

        @Andrew You have obviously never passed a clueless person. I can't count how many times in a given week that I start passing someone doing 1/2 the speed limit only to have them speed up to 10mph over the speed limit as soon as I get side by side with them. Often people see that they are getting passed and 'wake up' only to go back to sleep when someone is behind them with lights on horn going and one finger wave flying. Just happened today when one truck pulled along side of a bus going 45 in the left lane of a 65mph 2-lane freeway for ~10 miles with noone in front and a line behind as far as can be seen during rush hour. When he finally passed the bus, the jerk sped up to 80 making it impossible to pass him until he got back along side of a dump truck and again slowed to 45. Everyone that passed him (after 10 miles or so) flipped the creap off, but none of them could have passed him if their speed was limited to the speed limit, and clearly he needed to be passed.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, May 24th, 2006 @ 12:32pm

        Re: Re: Slow Drivers

        ". The problem is people feel justified going 75 to pass someone going 53 in a 55"

        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.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Tim Arview, May 24th, 2006 @ 4:22pm

          Re: Re: Re: Slow Drivers

          "It is actually safer to pass at 75 than 55."

          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.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      SPR, May 24th, 2006 @ 1:32pm

      Re: Slow Drivers

      As a matter of fact I did get a speeing ticket (by an Indiana County Mountie) for exceeding the speed limit when I was passing a car going 45 in a 55 on a two lane state highway.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Ap, May 24th, 2006 @ 9:46am

    It's related to automobile technology, it comes from Britain.. not to worry.. There's no way it will ever work. (ever own and try to maintain a British car? )

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Patrick Mullen, May 24th, 2006 @ 10:01am

    I think the concept is pretty dumb, but why couldn't the system know what the weather conditions are? Why couldn't the system, which is GPS, know when you are coming to a curve? Hell, if everyone had these devises, why couldn't the system know what traffic conditions were like?

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    mthorn, May 24th, 2006 @ 10:01am

    Making cars that go slower is stupid. This means less power to get up and go. A car tha maxes out at 70 would likely take over 60 seconds to reach that speed. Do you know how many accidents that will cause with people merging onto the interstate? Slow drivers on the interstate are dangerous enough as it is.

    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?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Angry Rivethead, May 24th, 2006 @ 10:48am

      Re:

      Neh, if you raise the driving age to 18, you just have inexpirianced 18 year olds on the road instead of 16 year olds.

      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.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        It's me again Magaret, May 24th, 2006 @ 12:49pm

        Re: Re:

        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.

        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.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        who knows, May 24th, 2006 @ 3:12pm

        Re: Re:

        dont for get blowouts, ie firestone and Ford. oversteer killed more than the blowouts did.

        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!

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      dan, May 24th, 2006 @ 11:06am

      Re: A car can accelerate faster than it can stop

      I know this isn't the topic at hand, but you're so far off with that fact. 0-60 times are typically around 4-8 seconds... count those out with "mississippi's" Typical braking distances are 150-200 feet. (Nobody really posts 60-0 times.) You will never get to 60 in 175 feet and you better be able to come to a complete stop in will under 5 seconds. You're on crack.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Blake Eggemeyer, May 24th, 2006 @ 4:00pm

      Re: test for old people

      while there isnt a different official test for old people renewing their linence, but i have seen them applied unofficialy. an old lady was renewing her license, the clerk asked her to step on his foot, he refused to renew the license because she couldnt push hard enough.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Tony, May 24th, 2006 @ 4:30pm

      Re:

      Why would a car having a lower top speed have anything to do with how fast the car would get up to speed???? The rate of acceleration can be independent of top speed. All they have to do is put a limiter on it; same acceleration curve as before.

      Not saying I am for these changes, but this argument about acceleration suffering from a lowered top speed is baseless.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Daxon, May 24th, 2006 @ 10:15am

    This would be a great item for parents who have their children on their insurance and driving their cars. A report could be emailed to the parents email address. The same can be true for businesses who have their emiployees drive their vehicles.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Silver, May 24th, 2006 @ 10:34am

    I can just see it now, someone trying to merge onto a highway just not being able to go that 2 miles an hour faster needed to get ahead of a semi, slamming on the breaks as the lane ends and crashing into a car behind the semi. Now should the person race to get ahead of the semi? Maby not, but it's going to happen. Theres another hypothetical situation, other then the hospital run. On the other hand I think it would be hilarious if a cop commandeered a vehicle to do a highspeed :) chase.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Tim Arview, May 24th, 2006 @ 3:58pm

      Re:

      "I can just see it now, someone trying to merge onto a highway just not being able to go that 2 miles an hour faster needed to get ahead of a semi, slamming on the breaks as the lane ends and crashing into a car behind the semi. Now should the person race to get ahead of the semi? Maby not, but it's going to happen. Theres another hypothetical situation, other then the hospital run. On the other hand I think it would be hilarious if a cop commandeered a vehicle to do a highspeed :) chase."

      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."

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Tony, May 24th, 2006 @ 4:35pm

      Re:

      So Silver, are you saying that you wouldn't be able to get on the highway if those trucks were say.... 100 feet closer to you when merging? Would you be completely lost if you couldn't get on in front of the truck... hmmm, what would a prudent driver do if he could not get on IN FRONT OF THE TRUCK.. hmmm.. thinking... thinking... I suppose you would just have to gauge the two speeds and the distance between the two vehicles and get in BEHIND the truck. Same process as now!

      Clearly the education system has failed us. Another baseless argument.l

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    MissingFrame, May 24th, 2006 @ 10:35am

    On the other hand ...

    I think something like this would lead to the correction of the ridiculous speed limits. You know, where one guy died because someone was going 60 on a 45, so they decide to lower the speed limit to 30. And at 5am your the only car on a 75ft wide road going 34 MPH because you know some officer is looking to meet their quota.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Mike, May 28th, 2006 @ 3:27am

      Re: On the other hand ...

      "And at 5am your the only car on a 75ft wide road going 34 MPH because you know some officer is looking to meet their quota."
      Officers don't have quotas bud. If you speed you are breaking the law, yes 30mph is useless and stupid at night, I mean if someone wants to walk in the street and be hit it is their problem, but the law is the law and they are only doing their job so grow up and drive 30mph.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 24th, 2006 @ 10:35am

    population control

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Chris, May 24th, 2006 @ 10:37am

    *shakes head in shame*

    ok, nothing good can come of this. i am a Emergency Medical Tech is my local community. part of the job is getting to the scene as quickly as possable. that means we speed..... hence the flashing lights on my personal car. now, if this speed limit device where to happen, how many people would lose their life cause vol. firemen and emt's couldnt get some place fast enough?? doesnt seem like a good idea to me, but i am not sure........

    *smacks the british person who thought of this!*

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Joe, May 24th, 2006 @ 11:21am

      Re: *shakes head in shame*

      I highly doubt they would place these devices in emergency vehicles. I'm sure someone would propose it but I doubt that it would ever see the light of day.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Tony, May 24th, 2006 @ 4:37pm

      Re: *shakes head in shame*

      Chris the EMT. You don't actually think that police cars, ambulances, and fire trucks would have limiters built in would you? I swear, the things you guys come up with!

      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?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    charlie potatoes, May 24th, 2006 @ 10:43am

    y'all come live in texas

    Gas crunch? what gas gas crunch? Texas is about to raise the speed limit to 80 MPH...so we won't be needing any of those sissy assed cars with high tech governors...so what if we are gonna have 15% more fatalities and insurance premiums are going to rise once more? I can afford it/it ain't gonna be me (take your pick) Texas insurance companies own our state anyway..
    personally...i think Hal was right, dave was a threat to his mission. too bad he did't succeed.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    me again, May 24th, 2006 @ 10:44am

    I'm confused. So there are actually cars and roads where you guys are at? All we have are the shoes on our feet.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    charlie potatoes, May 24th, 2006 @ 10:46am

    YOU HAVE SHOES?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 24th, 2006 @ 10:47am

    So yeah...fun

    Sounds like something you'd see in the movie V For Vendetta....

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Topher3105, May 24th, 2006 @ 11:00am

    Dumb

    Do all politicians share one brain cell.

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Ivory Bill, May 24th, 2006 @ 2:13pm

      Re: Dumb

      "...But, your car decides that because the speed limit is 60km/h you have no power or cannot gain speed..."

      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.....

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Alpharocker, May 24th, 2006 @ 11:00am

    Great Idea!!!

    Its a fantastic 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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, May 24th, 2006 @ 12:29pm

      Re: Great Idea!!!

      "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 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.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Alpharocker, May 24th, 2006 @ 12:49pm

        Re: 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?

        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...

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Tim Arview, May 24th, 2006 @ 4:16pm

        Re: Re: Great Idea!!!

        "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?"

        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.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Zeroth404, May 24th, 2006 @ 11:13am

    Not to mention Cops wouldn't have anythign to do.

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Tim Arview, May 24th, 2006 @ 4:08pm

      Re:

      "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."

      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.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Alpharocker, May 24th, 2006 @ 11:15am

    Oh, I didn't realize these vehicles were being han

    Sorry all. I was confused.
    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?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    mongoose5150, May 24th, 2006 @ 11:30am

    Personal Responsibility!!!

    Ya know, If people would just be responsible in todays society maybe we would not need absurd laws. That is why I pay for insurance.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    AUDIGuy, May 24th, 2006 @ 11:38am

    Speed Limiters

    My ex-girlfriend got 4 tickets behind the wheel of my Audi A6. I went on a business trip and decided to set the speed limiter to 65mph. She called me the 1st night I was gone complaining that something was wrong with the car. Worked like a charm!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Petréa Mitchell, May 24th, 2006 @ 11:40am

    Don't forget evasive action!

    No one's mentioned the case where you're just driving along and suddenly need to floor it to avoid being part of an accident.

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Alpharocker, May 24th, 2006 @ 11:52am

      Re: Don't forget evasive action!

      No one's mentioned the case where you're just driving along and suddenly need to floor it to avoid being part of an accident.

      Actually yes, Topher3105, DID bring that up already.

      Read before you post.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    anon, May 24th, 2006 @ 11:51am

    The government makes too much money

    Local governments make way too much off of speeding tickets to force people to switch to this system. Period.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Alpharocker, May 24th, 2006 @ 11:54am

      Re: The government makes too much money

      "Local governments make way too much off of speeding tickets to force people to switch to this system. "

      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?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Judi Stoker, May 24th, 2006 @ 12:00pm

    Speed limitors in cars

    Why not offer incentives to people who obey the law, like tax credits or deep cuts in car insurance? I think it's a lot easier to reward people for doing the right thing than trying bizarre ways to catch them doing the wrong thing. Isn't that the way we raise our kids? Reward them for good behavior? Are women working on these projects? Maybe you should hire a few moms for the idea tank.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Zeroth404, May 24th, 2006 @ 12:14pm

      Re: Speed limitors in cars

      I don't know about you, but I got slapped around as a kid if I didn't do what I was told to do. That just made me more of a rebel :-)

      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.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Myinnershadow, May 24th, 2006 @ 12:14pm

    "No one's mentioned the case where you're just driving along and suddenly need to floor it to avoid being part of an accident."

    can you fucken read there has to ba at least 10 people that saided that

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Wolfger, May 24th, 2006 @ 12:28pm

    Morons, the lot of them.

    Have none of these people ever been in a situation where they needed to accelerate in order to avoid a collision? While such a situation does not occur every day, it happens a good deal more often than emergency races to the hospital (although it certainly could result in an emergency race to the hospital...)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Joe, May 24th, 2006 @ 12:32pm

    Make it an option

    Why don't they make this an option like it is with cruise control? Combine this toy with cruise control for people who want to follow the speed limit and not have to worry about what the speed limit is. Set this baby and forget about your speed. Getting closer to a true car autopilot.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, May 24th, 2006 @ 12:39pm

      Re: Make it an option

      "Why don't they make this an option like it is with cruise control? Combine this toy with cruise control for people who want to follow the speed limit and not have to worry about what the speed limit is. Set this baby and forget about your speed. Getting closer to a true car autopilot."

      Not a bad idea.

      But I don't like the idea of a GPS tracking device in my Car.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    simon, May 24th, 2006 @ 12:47pm

    warning, yes, speedtrap ... ?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    WirelessGUy, May 24th, 2006 @ 12:50pm

    What do you think would happen if you couldn't get a GPS signal for whatever reason, trees, downtown canyon effect, military testing stuff, etc...would you just not be able to go anywhere?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Nick, May 24th, 2006 @ 12:50pm

    Speeding is Neccessary

    Sometimes it is necessary to speed to keep yourself out of tight situations. I.E. Sometimes you need to be able to accellerate out of situations where you are trapped if you need to evade. For example if you are next to a truck who is going the same speed as you, and there is someone following you too closely, you should just pass the truck so that you regain some room to manuever if an accident occurs in front of you.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Adam, May 24th, 2006 @ 12:58pm

    Government enforced safetly? Never happen.

    Everyone keeps talking about how they just wouldn't buy cars that have a speed limiter, because what is the government going to do, force them to buy it?

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Alpharocker, May 24th, 2006 @ 1:29pm

      Re: 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.

      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????

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Tim Arview, May 24th, 2006 @ 4:27pm

      Re: Government enforced safetly? Never happen.

      Driver-side airbags are not law in Illinois. There are still vehicles on the road which are not equipped with airbags. I drive one. It's not illegal here. Perhaps it is in your state, but you can't just assume it's that way everywhere.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Claire Rand, May 24th, 2006 @ 1:01pm

    gizmos

    to be fair a limiter could actually work, if it was a two stage device.

    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...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    punker, May 24th, 2006 @ 1:02pm

    what if u need to over take some one on the road u need to speed up or ur avoding an accident ?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Sandra, May 24th, 2006 @ 1:04pm

    silly

    this is rediculous, back to the drawing board folks

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 24th, 2006 @ 1:11pm

    My oh my ppl..,
    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Brad, May 24th, 2006 @ 1:25pm

    It's not speed...

    Reducing speed may reduce fatalities, but it won't reduce accidents. Most accidents are caused by poor driving habits.

    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?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Alpharocker, May 24th, 2006 @ 1:33pm

      Re: 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.

      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.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, May 24th, 2006 @ 2:00pm

      Re: It's not speed...

      "Reducing speed may reduce fatalities, but it won't reduce accidents. Most accidents are caused by poor driving habits. "

      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.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Dexter, May 24th, 2006 @ 1:28pm

    Enforced speed limits? Great Idea!

    I am a brit in the UK, this is a 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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Alpharocker, May 24th, 2006 @ 1:56pm

    Tested and Approved

    I just tested this system on my NES by playing Rad Racer without touching the up button.

    0 accidents!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Epione, May 24th, 2006 @ 1:59pm

    Isn't it legal to speed while passing on a one lane highway?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Zeb, May 24th, 2006 @ 2:01pm

    Nothing new

    AC up there is right, most cars nowadays have either a speed governor, a rev limiter, or both. While it might cut off your max xpeed at around 120mph or so, it's still there.

    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.....

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Kids Hate Me, May 24th, 2006 @ 2:09pm

    Speeding Laws

    Personally I think it's a great idea- but I hate it.

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    TheOtherHalf, May 24th, 2006 @ 2:45pm

    Fun some how

    Speed is nothing but another way to "have fun". asuming you dont get caught, or killed, its free (ish). people would find some other way to almost die to have fun.

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    r3dheadstepchild, May 24th, 2006 @ 2:59pm

    why do you all hate this so much?

    It seems many of you think this is a bad idea. I really don't see why. A) it probably would not affect most of you. B) I don't think many of you have driven on some of the narrower roads of the UK and Ireland, some of which are only about 12 ft wide total.

    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

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 24th, 2006 @ 3:13pm

    I hate the government. Idiot drivers pull your head out of your @$$ and drive.

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    oPless, May 24th, 2006 @ 3:53pm

    Speeding Saved ME

    I was entering an on-ramp in London at a stupid hour at night. Idiot drunk driver weaving all over the road in front of me. So I punched the accellerator, changed lanes and passed him.

    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)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Tony, May 24th, 2006 @ 4:41pm

      Re: Speeding Saved ME

      How exactly did it save you? Seems like speeding actually got you side by side with the guy weaving. Explain how being behind him and watching his every move was not safer than flooring it and passing him? Discuss.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Alpharocker, May 24th, 2006 @ 4:52pm

    Trolls

    It is obvious that the people who are abhorrently against this are not even interested in considering it. Which makes their argument worth next to nothing.

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Zeroth404, May 25th, 2006 @ 6:28am

      Re: Trolls

      "It is obvious that the people who are abhorrently against this are not even interested in considering it. Which makes their argument worth next to nothing. "

      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.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    TxOcelot, May 25th, 2006 @ 7:21am

    Mother may I

    Can see it now....

    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*

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Alpharocker, May 25th, 2006 @ 10:15am

    Way off topic

    It almost pains me to say this, for I fear a zealous backlash. But, for my money, the funniest show of all time is easily Captain Kangaroo.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Bark Muckman, May 25th, 2006 @ 10:22am

    While this technology gets figured out...

    PlateWire allows users to report bad drivers, or even award good drivers. Parent have begun using the service to track their teenage childrens' driving habits. Once this database grows large enough, will people think twice before driving like a fool, so that their plate doesnt appear on PlateWire?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    MSP, May 25th, 2006 @ 10:54am

    Overly complicated solution

    The UK is infested with speed cameras now, it would certainly be usefull to have an optional system that can ensure that you're keeping within the limit. But getting every car fitted with GPS would be a real problem.

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Katie K, May 25th, 2006 @ 3:15pm

    Haha, wow

    As happy I am that people are discussing this and some people are being mature and actually taking it seriously (Not just being like, ya, i hate this idea and anyone who doesn't agree with me is an idiot), I'm amazed at the amount of people that have mentioned the override thing! Don't you people read before you post?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Zeroth404, May 25th, 2006 @ 5:34pm

      Re: Haha, wow

      "Don't you people read before you post?"

      Us people like to be in complete control of our vehicles when we drive them. It makes us feel safe. Sorry :-p

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    pyark, May 25th, 2006 @ 6:32pm

    not that bad of an idea

    about the exceptioney stuff:
    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

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Zeroth404, May 25th, 2006 @ 6:51pm

      Re: not that bad of an idea

      "about the exceptioney stuff:
      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.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 26th, 2006 @ 7:25am

    Here's the car of the future

    Since we're talking "Big Brother" here, here's how I see the B.B.Mobile 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!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Zeroth404, May 26th, 2006 @ 10:07am

    Don't you think this whole thig is a bit -- oh, I don't know -- COMMUNISTIC?!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    only one, Oct 31st, 2006 @ 7:27am

    used to be

    it used to be that the majority of the people buying Porsche's and Ferrari's was that they took them to the track and raced them. i mean look at some street legal racing cars now. some people drive to the races in their car. this will probably never work until they have the auto drive cars where you just tell it and it drives. in california the've already made cars the i think get with in inches of each other at highway speeds (now 65 near me) and you see the drivers reading books. if the road curves the car follows.
    i think it would then but otherwise no.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    GPS is military controled, Nov 8th, 2006 @ 12:40pm

    Faultygps

    So what happens when the US Military (who controls the GPS system, unless your country is one of the few deploying their own) decides to skew the reading as they do during war time. The US GPS system transmits on two singles one for military use and on for civi use. A few years ago they decided to give the same readings through both singles but they could change their mind at the push of any general.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    GodEater, Jan 10th, 2008 @ 11:47am

    GPS is military controled

    -=How can we trust _anything_ these war mongers do?=-

    All they want is war.

    I wish they would just go back to America and do something constructive for once.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    [none], Feb 29th, 2008 @ 1:22pm

    no way!

    this is the most retarded thing i have ever read about and whoever thought of this need to go f a tree

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    c, Jan 22nd, 2009 @ 10:22am

    cz

    x zczX c

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This