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."
It seems to me that people *need* a certain amount of flexibility in the law.. Something this rigid is bound to fail...it simply goes too far against human nature.
Do you have any fucking idea what "The Sun" is?
Implied: why bother linking to any of their crap?
I want to see people get irate like Snipes in the phone booth in Demolition Man. Maybe slashbots can start a movement to bring back cryogenically frozen nerds to combat our evil oppressors.
Nobody has a right to drive a car over the speed limit, or to shoot a red light: provided suitable privacy protections are put in place, what exactly is wrong with this proposal?
No way... Are people's liberties going to be trampled that bad? Would we have to explain every single infraction? "The truck was on my arse so I had to speed up" or "I swerved into the bus lane to miss the dog". The possibilities are endless. And that's just for having legitimate excuses for every time you "break the law". What's scarier is that this is even a possibility. This just paves the way to have video cameras mounted in every car "to ensure your personal safety" or whatever. Kinda frightening if you ask me.
"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lampposts...for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang
If they're going to be that way about it, they'd be better off having the road sensors set the speed of the car, making speeding impossible.
Cool! All you need to do is swipe a sensor from the side of the road, reverse engineer the signals in your garage, and sniff your neighbor's/enemies' signature, and you can bankrupt them with traffic tickets!
There's a reason human beings do this in the US- one because it's always open to interpretation, and two- we have to have a job like traffic cop for the jerks in our society.
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.
Given the nature of the paper this story orignated in, I'd say the story should be taken with a grain of salt.
I toggled a toggle and buttoned a button, but when I got done, I was done doin' nothin'.
Well at least they are coming out and saying it. Here in the US they trick us into using EZ-Pass because without it, some of these highways are brutal to navigate. Sure, it only pays your tolls, for now. Sure, it's only optional, for now.
Overreaction, as usual, by the Sun. I'm not even going to finish reading this diatribe, I don't buy it, not even for the UK. All of this is easier accomplished by roadside cameras, and has the same basic flaw - it wont hold up in court.
At any rate, you have the right to a day in court, and to face your accuser. Unless this tattler box can show up to testify against you, your case will be thrown out.
So once again some loudmouth says something stupid or sarcastic, and the Sun jumps all over it like its the next big story. Those guys are almost as bad as slashdot when it comes to fact checking.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
With the disclaimer that the Sun is a rag and can't really be believed I can imagine this would be met with a similar response to the Poll tax in the UK. Why should people stand for such blatent money grabbing government interference in their day to day lives.
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
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.
... putting a computerized spy in every police car and such!
So if you rights are violated, you will get a fat settlement check in the mail automatically as well.
Eventually we all will have "legal bots" fighting each other in the depths of the Legal Network.
...I am here to take your daughter for dance.
Sure Son, here, Take my car.
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.
... that this spy cam will only be used for monitoring speed limit, & not for some nefarious motive? The opportunities are endless, if such a public spy-cam system is compromised.
This is great - what if you need to break one of these laws to prevent an accident?
Say (for example) someone doesn't see you, and cuts you off in traffic - you have two options.. you can swerve into the bus lane, or let them hit you (stopping traffic, raising your insurance rates, possibly causing injury)
I can see it now - if someone pisses you off in traffic, you just force them into a bus lane.. a month later, they get a fine!
Yeah, that's real fair.
Here's a wacky idea -- how about you stop burning red lights?
Burn the land and boil the sea, you can't take the sky from me
There are license plate covers (at least here in the states) you can buy.
Clear to the eye, but the cameras can't get your license #.
Now if they've got a film you can put on your windows to do the same I don't know.
Cruising the internet on my TI-99/4A @ a whopping 300 baud!
It would take approximately 2 hours after this passes for an entrapenuer to board and airplane and set up shop in Mexico.
This shop would produce circumvention kits, which would be banned from import, yet be strangely available via flea markets, and some "grey-area" mail order catalogs.
It would eventually require the continual inspection of automobiles to verify that the devices haven't been circumvented. And in the US, a car has become so much part of the identity of "being American", that people would consider even inspecting the system an attack on their civil liberties.
But then again, should the US Gov. indicate that it is necessary because suspected terrorists could be using vechiles (aka cars) to plan their next grocery store outing, I'd fully expect it to pass with full approval.
Cynical? No! Not me! hahahahaha....
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.
Kind of reminds me of the fifth element...
Car Computer: You have 5 points left on your licence.
Korben Dallas: Yes. Thank-you for reminding me
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!
Hi
1 76-7905 12,00.html
An article in a similar vein, though less inflammatory I would hope (I've not read the one in the sun) appeared in the Sunday Times on the 24th.
There is a link from:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,
May need to register if you are outside the UK I'm afraid.
I hate automatic radars as much as the next fast driver but I certainly back red light/photo radar camera completely. Hey, they should be at every crossroad. And don't tell me that the traffic light turning yellow and then red doesn't give you enough time to break. That means that you were definitely going too fast to go safely through that crossroad. Let me remind you that a green light at a crossroad doesn't mean that you have to speed up to catch it; it means you have to be ready to slow down and stop if it turns yellow.
It's probably because of irreponsible fast drivers like you that the rather-responsible fast drivers like me and others are being prosecuted by automatic speed radars and stupid regulations everywhere.
Also, I often take my fas^Ht ass out of my sport car and become a pedestrian. And I enjoy biking too. So do the kids and other pedestrians in the neighboorhood. Hell, I am against death penalty, but I am not sure what I'll think if one of us get run over because somebody irresponsible ran a red light.
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)
I admit to not having read the article, but an automated system that doesn't take into account ALL of the data of the circumstance would be flawed.
Like so:
I see the vehicle behind me go out of control. It is headed for me and likely to damage my vehicle and/or injure/kill myself or my passengers. As a result, I (correctly) instinctively stomp the gas, thereby avoiding an MVA (multi-vehicle accident). With this system, I get penalized for not getting into a potentially lethal accident...
-------------------------
As easy as herding cats!
I'm English. Here's how it works:
1. Junior minister "leaks" proposal to, for example, tattoo barcodes on the heads of all babies at birth.
2. Liberal press goes hysterical.
3. Senior Minister / Prime Minister denies all.
4. Liberal Press claims victory.
5. Meanwhile, government slips in bill to, for example, tattoo barcodes on some babies' heads.
6. GOTO 1
evil math within Nature's Cubic Creation!
The fact that something like this has been reported in "The Sun" really isn't a justifiable reason to believe that it is at all likely to happen. I used to read quite a lot of UK newspapers (I live there) and I have seen this or a very similar story published before, and nothing has ever happened about it. I fully expect the same thing to happen this time.
I am actually in favour of cracking down on people who recklessly break the law, but I think monitoring people's speed this way is not the way to go. For example, I know many people who would not think twice before doing speeds in excess of 50mph in a 30mph limit zone, these people could do with receiving punishment for such a thing. But IMO there is nothing wrong with doing 80/90mph along a country lane in the dark (the safest time - you can see traffic a long way off - and there is much less of it) providing, you, the car and the road can all handle that sort of speed. I would never consider doing speeds in excess of the limit in heavily populated areas. [for those of you who are not aware the speed limit on such roads is 60mph].
If this kind of technology is going to be introduced into vehicles in this country, then fair enough, thats the way its going to be, I think it would certainly take away some of the fun of driving, but in some ways I would rather know that I am being 'watched' constantly rather than having to keep looking to see where the speed camera is hidden.
BTW, WTF!!! is this colour scheme, its kind of maroon and puke yellow. its making me feel quite ill!!!!!
FYI I didn't RTFA - its the sun, there's nothing to read in the sun.
.sigs are for losers
For example just because your plate isn't distinguishable in the image doesn't mean it's indistinguishable when the image has been inversed! Pretty cool stuff. "for some reason" light gray on white is easier to read than black on dark gray. ;)
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
If this were happening in the US, the question would be whether companies who would find this the most useful, such as companies who have fleets of drivers, would find it worth the public outcry. It also brings up the question- is this the direction in which we want to go? There are certainly arguments in favour- lives saved is one of them. Drunk driving is another. But from there we go back to civil liberties again. Do we have the right to unmonitored transport? Do we have the right to make our own driving choices?
More important than either of those, this runs straight into a question of, is it right to have a fine issued without human intervention? Because some of the problems then become... what if my car was stolen? What if I'm speeding because there's a woman having a baby in the backseat? If a cop stops the car in those situations, they can offer support by recognising your car and being witness to who was driving, or in the latter case, calling an ambulance, and frequently the fine will be waived. Human crises do tend to get some laxity where the low is concerned, because other people tend to acknowledge them.
Here's another interesting note, even beyond the question of whether a device that reports on speeding and yellow lines can report on your location under the Patriot Act.... In Vermont, at least when i lived there two years ago, it was not illegal to cross a double yellow line unless there was a posted restriction saying so. The rest of the time, the cop might get you for recless endangerment, but the yellow lines officially meant, "Passing is not recommended in this area."
Point being, the states have enough law changes that some of those reported issues will not be applicale. Do they then get turned off? I'm treating all this as a hypothetical question, of course, and will look for the same story elsewhere before i treat it as otherwise. It reminds me of the debate over automatic-track cars, the ones which do the driving for you over an electric strip, etc. The question then was- if your car can automatically go where it's told, can there be stops to which you can't go? to which no one can go but a few select people? It was interesting then, and it's interesting now. Not enough to make me put together a tinfoil hat, but interesting nonetheless.
"I'd say 'Have a good time,' but arson is still illegal.
too bad that speedometers aren't 100% exact. They simply display a sorta average of your speed. If it showed your exact speed while driving, the needle would jump around much quicker. (not quite as quick as the Tach, but it wouldn't be as smooth as it is now). This means that people who honestly believe they are going the speed limit may inadvertantly go a mile or two over (esp if they are accelerating quickly, then ease off right at the limit)
if you have GPS that can calculate speed, check it against your speedometer and you will see what I mean. (I didn't believe this either, till one of my friends used his GPS to prove it. Also, it would likely depend on how fine a resolution and how quickly your GPS refreshes... however, I am not a GPS expert by any means, esp since googling produces various opinions. some say that it's the error in the speedometer, some say it's intentional error in the GPS)
Monitoring people, in my opinion, seems a very untrusting way to do business. It automatically assumes that the observed need to be closely watched, creating a rather suspect environment. (I won't start screaming big brother, don't worry. You can argue this without invoking Orwell)
I don't know how the UK relys on speeding tickets as sources of income, but I am reminded of a story from florida. AAA near a florida town put up signs 6 miles outside the city that warned motorists of the 'speed trap' ahead in order to keep the speeding down. The local cops said that the signs were not allowed. Their reason? Revenues due to speeders were going down. In short, people were slowing down. You would think the cops would have been happy, right? No, they were upset because they claimed that they received 40% of the town budget and 105% of the police budget through fines. So, basically, they publically stated that they wanted people to speed. yea, yea, I know that's obvious, but I never dreamed in a million years that they would actually admit it. And what baffled me further was that hardly anyone cared! Their attitude was, "Of course that's why they don't want the signs there" instead of "isn't it outrageous that the cops actually admitted that!!"
My point of relating this story is, if the UK is simply doing this to generate new revenue, it's a very very shady deal. I think it reeks of greed and a dash of corruption, the privacy issues set aside. Also, what about those times when you *have* to speed? perhaps a car comes barralling down the road behind you and you need a quick burst of speed to avoid a collision? What about passing (overtaking). yea, I know you aren't supposed to go over the speed limit when you do that, but if you don't, passing is rather tough. I myself don't pass much, but when I do, I try to limit myself to 5mph over the speed limit.
-John
"The definition of insanity is continuing to do the same thing and hoping for different results"
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
With the police freed from having to book and deal with this minor stuff they can move more officers onto protecting and investigating more dangerous crimes. Why should the cops have to spend their days trying to bust these people? They know they are breaking the road code, they know there are fines, and now they want to whine about losing that ability. No sympathy from me.
The privacy nut in me wonders about infriging uses of the technology, but with proper legislation that should be kept well under control. Think about it: a hit and run occurs in a back street at 11PM, check the records to see which cars were there at the time and question the suspects. Check the database to see where those cars are now and make sure they're not heading for the airport.
There is the potential to abuse this system, but it also has the potential to streamline the administration of these motoring infractions. As long as they build a little tolerence into the system it will not be draconian.
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
Jim Hacker: "Don't tell me about the press. I know exactly who reads the papers:
- The Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country;
- The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country;
- The Times is read by people who actually do run the country;
- The Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country;
- The Financial Times is read by people who own the country;
- The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country;
- And the Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it is."
Sir Humphrey: "Prime Minister, what about the people who read the Sun?"
Bernard Woolley: "Sun readers don't care who runs the country, as long as she's got big tits."
Mostly because they sound us out to test our reaction before deciding whether to implement their madness. Particularly in the summer "silly season" when Parliament's closed and the papers have nothing to talk about and many a column inch going begging. This scheme will never happen because it's completely crackpot, but everyone's a winner when such a story appears, because the government gets to work out exactly how much Big Brother nonsense they can get away with, the papers get a story that shifts units at a time when nothing else is happening to do so, and Joe Public gets to vent his spleen a bit.
Thing is, they've been on in the papers for ages about fitting tracking devices to cars here. There's been mutterings of discontent before, but the proposed schemes haven't been as oppressive as this beauty, which any sane person would object to (if it was actually possible to implement, which, let's face it, it isn't). Now this story will go away and in a couple of months something along these lines, but greatly diluted, will be mooted, and they'll gauge the reaction again then.
It's like the national identity card scheme. A proposal to implement one in the UK is brought forward in the middle of every term of parliament, regular as clockwork, and soon disappears again thanks to public opposition. The complaints are becoming fainter, though, and soon enough it'll be brought in, again in the middle of a parliamentary term when any damage that it does to support for the government can be reversed by a timely tax cut (it's a stone-cold fact that the only things that people in Britain actually care about are taxes and what's on the TV. Anything that happens beyond the bottom of their own garden doesn't matter as long as their taxes aren't paying for it).
On Board Diagnostics in the long hand. This is something that is required in every single new car sold in California. This mandate was set by CARB (California Air Resource Board) who are non-elected officials. They're the same ones who jack up our gas prices by requiring funny gas that "suppossedly" burns cleaner. Currently OBD is at level II. It monitors certain pieces of equipment on your car and when they go out of range you get a little flashing orange light on your dash that says "Check Engine." In essense, every piece of equipment that it checks is considered part of your smog system on the car (even things like axels) and if you are a car-modder it becomes increasingly difficult to bring aftermarket parts into the mix as the smallest detail can put the whole OBD II system out of whack. CARB has been trying to push OBD III through the system for years. OBD III like OBD II will monitor your car's smog systems, but it will also monitor speed and location. It will include a transmitter that sends this data to a central processing center. If anything goes out of whack you not only get the flashing light, you get a letter in the mail (probably from the DMV). I'm sure speeding will garner you a ticket, not to mention that every time you're in your car the government will be tracking you (an end to privacy). It's time to wake up. Plans are being developed to begin taxing our car mileage and our vehicle emissions. There have even been ideas bantered around that would restrict how far you can live from your place of work.
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
First, there should be a little gray area built in. It would not be hard to write a routine that would compare specific events to your recorded driving habits and decide whether to issue a summons. For instance, if one regularly drives within the speed limit, but occassionally excededs the limit for a brief period of time in order to pass safely or avoid an unsafe driver, they should not be penalized. Drivers who regularly excede the speed limit should be penalized.
Second, I have no quam with ticketing the owner of a vehicle. They are fundamentally (and legally) responsible for its safe and lawful operation.
I used to live in an apartment complex near a major highway. When that highway backed up, many drivers would drive at highway speed through the streets around the complex in order to bypass the traffic jam. I have been struck twice crossing the street by people who ignored a stop sign, knowing that cops were almost never there. Anyone who has lived in an area with 1) lots of pedestrians and 2) lots of drivers who skirt the law knows the sense of danger and would welcome anything that would bring a consequence to these drivers.
Let's start by putting one in every car driven my a Government minister, Member of Parliament and policeman, and by their families. If that works, we'll extend it to media people and sports stars.
If they approve after that, we can extend it to the peons.
Welcome to the Turing Tarpit, where everything is possible but nothing interesting is easy.
Running red lights is one of the few traffic laws I feel should be fully enforced to the letter. Going 10MPH over an unreasonably low limit won't kill someone; running a red light will.
Of course, red lights should be consistent. I've seen areas where the yellow light lasts less time than others. If you're unaware of how long the light will be yellow, you might inadvertantly enter the intersection right after it turns red, which can be construed as a violation.
Yellow lights should be required by law to all last the same amount of time.
Seriously! If they are going to ticket everyone doing 5 over, why not the people traveling at half the limit in the middle lane?
They could tell that it isn't traffic by looking at the cars around them and checking their speed. If they (the other cars) are going alot faster, ticket the person.
Because removing the faster drivers (insanely and otherwise) does little when you still have the insanely slow drivers.
GPS fears are paranoia. If you're really afraid that the government is out to get you, you'd better avoid cell-phones entirely. You're walking around with a fairly powerful radio transmitter. There are companies which sell software that triangulate the position of a cell-phone based on the surrounding cell towers. GPS doesn't add any new capability in terms of tracking that they didn't have before.
... hop in a boat, sail across the ocean, and declare their independence?
I thought I heard that story once. Maybe today's Brits need to do the same thing, only in reverse -- put their lawmakers on a boat and give 'em the old heave-ho.
----
That said, you know, I'd *really* like to disable the air bag's "black box" in my own car. Anyone know how to take one of these out of a Pontiac?
Ed R.Zahurak
You know, oblivion keeps looking better every day.
This could actually be something useful. Nobody likes fines, but no one likes reckless drivers either. If more flexible and adaptable driving laws were put into place, this could allow for higher speed limits when and where it would be safe, plus it would guarantee equality in fines (with maybe a bias toward middle/upper class if this was only put into new cars). If done with the SAFETY of people in mind, not revenue, it would allow for higher speed limits, and maybe some other features (i.e. the speed limit is 80, but there would be an audio warning and you had 30 seconds to get back down to give you time to pass) If the government still plans to pull the same amount of revenue from traffic violations, this would allow them to do it fairly, and with smaller more frequent fines.
The laws need to be REPEALED. 'Flexible' laws are laws that are flexibly enforced. Flexible enforcement is another term for persecution.
You pass a lot of laws and then you enforce those laws against "them". "They" are whatever group of people needs to be controlled, minimalized, or put down. In the USA, some of these groups are blacks, homosexuals, and conservative Republicans.
The correct answer is to repeal the laws and replace them with "guidelines". If most traffic laws were repealed, would you start intentionally hitting other cars or pedestrians? I wouldn't.
If my car told someone I was bad at keeping within the "guidelines" and I got a letter saying "Please do a better job!", would that be a threat? No.
Freedom is the only correct answer to most of these questions.
For anyone who doesn't know, The Sun's quality of journalism ranks at the heady heights found slighty above that of The National Enquirer in the USA.
So it's probably only a plan to monitor CO2 emmisions or something like that...
If it was true, there are, of course, some blatantly obvious questions:
- How do they know exactly WHO was driving at the time of the incident? (and how could they prove it?)
- How would it know the bounds of a bus lane (expensive infrastructure change to put any technology in the bus lanes)?
- If they're worried about speeding, why not regulate the vehicle to the posted speed limit?
- Wouldn't that be discriminatory? Because people bringing their vehicles from abroad wouldn't have those sensors?
EOM
"Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day, teach him how to fish and he'll sit in a boat and drink beer all day."
This sig is in Spanish when you're not looking....
Piss him off!
1. Steal his car one night
2. Drive around like a madman for 30 minutes
3. Park it back in his driveway
4. Watch the hijinks ensue when the police cart him away.
Be sure to wear gloves and leave no DNA. He'll never be able to prove it wasn't him.
I have a friend that is finishing up his law enforcement degree, and I have family that are police officers.
:P
You know what? They don't want to have to work any harder than they have to, just like the rest of us, and they certainly don't like to 'work in vain'. That is, give a citation, or make an arrest, just to see it not hold up in court because they had some detail out of line.
How would you like spending weeks shoring up and securing a server, only to see a hacker get in because you overlooked a minor, but very obvious detail?
A cop giving you a citation for 1 mile over would be doing more or less that. It's wasting their time and yours. I've been told time and again that 'quotas don't exist', but raises and promotions are based on busts and citations. Sure, there may not be a quota, but you'd best believe there is motivation to place as many arrests and citations as possible, but you also want them to stand up in court if it ever goes there.
Okay, enough rambling.
Karma: Chameleon (mostly due to the fact that you come and go).
There's a new approach being introduced here in Austria. On the A22 in Vienna, which is a three-lane highway, there is a speed restriction of 80 km/h (50 mph) within the city limits. This is enforced using cameras at various locations, which take images on the number plates of the cars, then compare the time taken to traverse a specific distance. If your average speed over that period exceeds 85 km/h, you get a ticket.
Paul Gillingwater
MBA, CISSP, CISM
You're new over here aren't you.
There's only one thing that I like about that paper... well 2 things actually... and the authenticity of those is dubious...
You fool! You've given cheese to a lactose intolerant volcano god! Do you know what that means?
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
I haven't read all 400+ comments on this topic or done any research into the U.S.'s OBD-III stuff, but how are they going to handle the practical side of this, e.g., the fact that I'm an identical triplet and sometimes loan my cars or pickup truck to one of my brothers. If one of them is driving and goes 60mph in a 45 zone, who gets the ticket? Lets see that one stand up in court.
Yet another advantage to having a multiple!
Twin or more? ITA
Apache/Spring/La
the time lag between this orwellian nightmare being deployed and the existence of blackmarket 'blinding' modifications that sever the spybot's connections to its sensors in an undetectable (to the spybot) way will be what? a week? a month?
However, the same story was in The Sunday Times.
In the UK the current government propaganda is that speeding is a contributing factor in one third of all accidents which other than the fact that speed is a contributing factor in all accidents is patently bullshit.
Even the police recognise that speeding contributes to a tiny fraction, some 7% of accidents, the overwhelming factors being bad driving; Poor observation, poor judgement, thoughtlessness and inattention.
http://www.ringroad.org.uk/one_third.htm
Why is speeding demonised in this way? It's easy and politicians are lazy. Simple to measure and it allows the automated collection of millions of pounds of fines every year.
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
It can when the yellow length is deliberately shortened to induce violations. The real solution is to increase the yellow length, assuming the goal is to prevent accidents and not generate revenue.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
The Sun newspaper is notorious for printing stories that have little or no basis in truth. It's also written in a style geared towards readers with a mental age of 12.
Folks, this *is* the Sun we are talking about here, which is a very, shall we say, Sensation-oriented paper. So take it all with a grain of salt.
***But*** there are good reasons you should welcome this tech, if it should ever come to pass. One is, it's a step toward true metered insurance. If everything is recorded, we can dispense with this nonsense about traffic fines and just charge you a different insurance rate based on how safely you really drive. Good driving behavior could be rewarded, bad could be punished. Now if you are an unsafe driver, you won't like this because it you will have to change your driving habits. But good drivers everywhere will rejoice at the safer roads.
Once metered insurance is in place, we can have cars that drive themselves, with insurance based on how safe the car drives. We can't have them now due to liability issues and potential for greatly increased traffic.
You mention finishing the road system because it's a "shambles." Are you saying that'll make it safer? You mention special testing and regulation systems for heavy vehicles. (I don't understand what "compulsory" school buses would accomplish, or even what it really means.) You propose toll roads to address funding problems. Are toll roads safer? You'd like limits on diesel engines, and I can't help but agree -- London in July and August, phew. But that's more of an environmentalist suggestion, not a suggestion for the road system per se.
What does all this have to do with the original post's reasons for supporting rigid laws for motorists? Wasn't there something about the high rate of mortality being comparable to 747s crashing with alarming regularity?
I'm a (fairly) responsible, fully paid up and accountable motorist. I'm not your problem NOW, and I won't be in the future whether there's a nanny-chip or not.
People like that never hit pedestrians, then, or collide with other cars? I fit the same categories, but I was almost side swiped twice this morning during my 4-minute commute by people who don't understand the right of way at a four-way stop. Or had you considered that other people can hit you, too?
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
Err, you do realise that the Sun is one of the UK's more disreputable tabloids. Its not as bad as, for instance, quoting the National Enquirer on the western side of the pond, but almost...
Al.The Daily ACK - Eclectic posts by yet another hacker
While i don't have a hard time imagining that something like this is coming in the near future, let us consider the source, the Sun is not exactly the most reputable news source, more likely it hangs out somewhere near the bottom end of the reputability scale. Why not post some stuff from the weekly world news while we are at it? They had some great articles on UFO technology last week.
On Wall Street they say "buy low, sell high" On the pad we say, "buy high, sell high" Isn't that somehow better?
The Sun newspaper? Ha! What will make the Slashdot headlines next? "London Bus Found in Iceberg" - Daily Sport, springs to mind. The Sun is about as reliable as a clockwork orange, and about as red-top tabliod style sensationalist as you get, to boot.
> In the event that your accelerator sticks and you can't unstick it. Shift to neutral and let the engine blow.
It's better to step on the brake and turn off the ignition switch. Unless your brakes are in bad shape they'll be able to slow the car significantly even with the accelerator all the way down, and switching off the key will stop the engine dead.
Virg
This kind of prating is exactly the type of nonsense I can't abide.
Yeah, 3000 people may be killed in road accidents each year, and that may be a worse stat than for the rail system. So why aren't the same government, who are proposing these crackpot measures, *INVESTING IN RAIL TRAVEL - ESPECIALLY LIGHT RAILWAYS and TRAMS* - mass transport systems which would help to cut down on car use and cut down on motor accidents? Could it be because it's easier and more PROFITABLE to install speed cameras, toll roads, two-plus lanes and charging zones which do more to raise revenue than to actually address the problems of road usage?
I, for one, would be happy to use public transport, if it was reasonably cheap, convienient and available when I needed it - as a motor car is. I suspect the same applies to most drivers in the UK.
Idiot monitoring measures which force people to drive according to artificial conditions are designed for one thing and one thing only. TO RAISE REVENUE.
I won't be voting for Blair or that dunce Prescott next time, I can assure you.
The Association of Chief Police Officers' official guideline for prosecution in speeding cases is that the vehicle was travelling at more than 10%+2mph over the speed limit. Why? Because if you tried to prosecute everyone who broke the absolute speed limit, the court system would grind to a halt.
Things like spy-in-the-car technology or speed limiters will fail for much the same reason, even if they're ever implemented successfully in the first place. Given that they can't even set up cameras in London that reliably detect people in the new congestion charging zones, there's not much danger of Big Brother sitting on my back seat any time soon.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
When reading the article (oh wait, this is slashdot..)bear in mind that The Sun is a part of News International (Rupert Murdoch, Fox News, etc) and knows very well how much profit there is in rabble-rousing and saying what people want to hear..
Drivers in the UK feel put-upon for various reasons, like the high price of fuel (believe me, US citizens should not complain about fuel prices!), but the main reason that driving is an ordeal over here is the sheer number of cars/trucks/buses in a limited roadspace.
As it is, a great deal of the UK has been sacrificed to cars, and the cities almost entirely so. Building more roads is simply not an option in many places.
Cars themselves are cheaper than ever in the UK, thanks to the European Common Border Agreement, and there is an ever-rising number of cheap second-hand vehicles on the market.
The only way to limit pressure on the roads is to drive up the price of motoring, and a large increase in vehicle duty or fuel tax would be politically disadvantageous for any government, so other ways can be found. This being said, I do not see how the current government would think that imposing a compulsory electronic cop in every car would prove any more popular..
Motorists were (and remain) up in arms over the issue of radar-triggered cameras in well-known speeding blackspots, where transgressors receive fixed-penalty fines through the post after being photographed. The move was understandably described as 'a cynical revenue-generating ploy'.
While revenue was the main impetus to the deployment of these cameras, am I the only one who considers it alarming that drivers object to being forced to observe the speed limit? Driving faster greatly increases the likelihood of accident, especially in complex environments like UK cities (our cities were laid out a long time before cars came along). Running through red lights is even more likely to cause a disaster.
If the prospect of having your teeth forced into your oesophagus by your steering wheel isn't enough to make you drive responsibly, maybe a 30 fine is..
Of course, I travel by bus, so I don't give a fuck. I can read a book in peace while someone else deals with the road. More significantly, my vehicle weighs twelve and a half tons. Crash into me and I'm barely aware of it. You're fucked, airbag or not...
This was only announced to divert attention away from the Government's rather dodgy position in the Hutton enquiry ... dead scientists, dodgy war memos ... the list goes on.
Just before the Iraq II war we had an announcement about taxing the sale of houses - a similar ploy to try and divert attention away from a rather corrupt Labour party's inner connivings.
Let's face it - how on earth is a device in a car going to be able to tell if you're in a bus-lane or not - with current tech ?
Sigh
For American readers, don't take anything that appears in The Sun too seriously. It's a bit Weekly World Newsish targeted at the absolute lowest mental ability level. The people that read The Sun are the sort that would be outraged at a "magic gizmo" that fined them every time they went over the speed limit. It will never happen.