Slashdot Mirror
UK to Put Monitors in Every Car?
wackoman2112 writes "The Sun is reporting that the UK government has plans to put a computerised spy in every car. This "spy" will record every single time a motorist goes slightly over the speed limit, into a bus lane, or stops on a yellow line! It will report this information to roadside sensors and you will soon receive a fine in the mail."
A Dutch minister has suggested the idea to install a cruse control (with speed limit) in every car. Aside from this there have been experiments here in the Netherlands with such a cruse control that would limit the speed based on GPS data and a database.
The Sun is a tabloid rag, concerned only with tittle-tattle, gossip, celebrity "revelations" and salacious pictures. It is not a newspaper and I wouldn't ever think of using it as the basis for a sensible discussion on any issue. Someone find a reference to this "story" in a real newspaper and we can talk about it.
Rob.
It's a terrible, terrible newspaper with a reputation for making up half of what they print and not checking the rest.
They also have severe disagreements with the government and are not above lying to score political points.
This might be true, but a second and more reputable source would be better.
Keep in mind that this is a British tabloid that is doing the reporting. The genre is notorious for fluff, demagoguery, and "sports dailies" that are basically half sports, half softcore porn. I'd hope to see something a bit more solid verifying this story before I worried too much about it.
For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
WTF is an 'MOT'?
I *think* the initials are "Ministry of Transport", but that's not directly relevant.
In the UK, if your car is over three years old, you must get a certificate of roadworthiness, issued by a certified test centre, once a year. The certificate is an "MOT Certificate" and the test is an "MOT Test".
Driving without an MOT or insurance is illegal, and you have to present both your MOT and your insurance certificate in order to get a tax disk, without which you're bound to get stopped and fined (or worse) eventually.
The article is suggesting that adding the necessary tech would be mandatory in order to pass the test.
Anyone interested in issues surrounding driving in the UK, esp. the anti car madness which is around at the moment, should have a look at SafeSpeed. Lots of interesting information regarding cameras, police targets, why driving fast isn't necessarily dangerous, etc.
SpamNet - a spam blocker that really works
We've already got this on the way in the USA. OBD-III (on-board diagnostics 3) is a scheme proposed by the EPA and various other government agencies to "protect the environment." Right now, every new car has OBD-II, which constantly monitors your vehicle for emissions compliance. Wonderful, huh? Well OBD-III will incorporate a satellite transmitter in every car...if your car goes out of spec, the government will know who you are...and have the authority to revoke your registration until you get it fixed. They will also have the ability to stop your car from starting, or stop it entirely if you are determined to be a criminal or environmental outlaw. Plans are already afoot to interface the system with "smart signs"...so you could be issued a ticket directly from a "SPEED LIMIT 55" sign...for going 56. The future is here! Limitless revenue for the government!
Some have commented that The Sun is not the world's most authoritative journal available in the ok. You're right, it's not.
However, similar articles have been in the broadsheets over here:
The Times
BBC News
The Observer (this one slightly older)
Since the Sun is always heavy on opinion and light on fact, I looked up the stuff it was talking about.
There is currently an EU wide project looking into Electronic Vehicle Identification. ACPO (the UK's association of chief police officers) is just one of the bodies involved:
"Ministries of Transport of Belgium, France, the Netherlands, Norway and the UK, as well as ACPO (UK), KLPD (Netherlands), RDW (Netherlands), Q-Free (Norway), EFKON (Austria), TNO (Netherlands), ERTICO."
(Hardly a pet project of Blairs then?) I think the report referred to is this one which is part of a requirements gathering exercise, not a policy document. Here's a one of the requirements (Section 5, User Needs):
"The issues of privacy, safety, and security must be clear and understandable if the public are to have any confidence in the system. ("Big Brother" concerns by invasion of privacy by authorities)"
I don't think much of Blair and the lickspittles he has running the country just now, but the Sun is just about the bottom of the journalistic barrel, you might want to read the report and judge for yourself.
Hahaha for those of you who don't live in the UK - "The Sun" newspaper is a fithy rag of a tabloid.
They frequently lie and make up stupid stories.
Don't believe a word of it.
Last.fm - join the social music revolution
It has always struck me as strange that:
The speed limit here (in Toronto, Canada) is 100 KPH.
All cars have speedometers that go to 180 KPH and higher.
People actually drive 120 KPH on the highway
-and-
The speed limit is an "absolute". If you're over, you are breaking the law.
Not only should there be sensors, but cars should have governors. The law *is* the law. If you don't like the law, vote and have your representative *change* the law.
However, if I get pulled over for driving 120 KPH, and all other highway traffic was doing the same speed, I feel that I should be able to forward the ticket to the automobile manufacturer for criminal facilitation. Because I can't, I feel that there is a de-facto conspiracy for raising taxes. (Note: In my entire driving "career" I have had only one speeding ticking, and no other infractions. I was not paying close attention to my speed, the highway was empty, and I was ticketed for 120KPH. No, the car did not have a cruise control, or I would have used it).
So, I not only want *detectors*, I want *governors*. Since we have the means, why should I pay tickets? The stated reason is safety (or gridlock prevention, or somesuch public good), and I presume that government officials aren't lying.
Ratboy
Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
I have long wondered, here in the USA, what would happen if speeding laws were actually thoroughly enforced. The politicians would not want that. People will take a certain amount of onerous tax like speeding fines, but no more, and the politicians and police are pretty good at judging the limit, to milk as many golden eggs as possible without killing the goose that lays them. I'd love to see real enforcement; so many people would clog the court system, and so many suspended licenses would cause a revolt in traffic laws. Politicians know that. I imagine any policeman who actually wrote speeding tickets all day long, as any of them could, would quickly learn a lesson from his boss.
Infuriate left and right
ugh...
most of those havent bee around since 20's vintage cars...
... hi bingo
Just to bring it to peoples' attention, something in excess of 3,000 people are KILLED every year by cars and trucks in the UK... and yet the UK is considered to have a "good" road safety record. That figure is in the region of a hundred times worse per passenger mile than the rail or bus system, the equivalent of a fully-loaded 767 going down every single month.
/.-friendly note, this type of infrastructure is PERFECT to pave the way for robot-driven self-navigating cars and autonomous road vehicles.
Hence, I'm in favour of virtually ANY regulation of motorists. Nobody has a god-given right to carry themselves about in two tons of steel - especially in a small and crowded country like the UK with an adequate public transport infrastructure.
As to "driving at 35 when the limit is 30"... in any case, either of those speeds is too fast on urban UK roads. We have a much higher level of pedestrian (and cyclist) activity than the US, especially in towns. There's also a massive problem with illegaly-owned, uninsured cars and people driving them without the proper license.
Anyways, to finish on a more
Actually, all you have to do is tap your breaks. In most cases, people follow too closely, so they have to break when they see your lights.
m l for more information.
By tapping the breaks and then moving on, you can cause a "traffic wave" of stopped traffic that can last for quite some time.
Visit http://www.amasci.com/amateur/traffic/traffic1.ht
He says at one point: When traffic is heavy and unstable, slight braking by a single driver can cause the traffic to freeze into a gigantic crystal. Like Kurt Vonnegut's end of the world story CAT'S CRADLE it's the "Ice Nine" of the highways.