Slashdot Mirror
Ford Testing a New 'Traffic Monitoring' Device
Poletown writes "The Detroit Free Press put out this article today about a new vehicle based 'traffic monitoring' system that Ford is testing. It will report your speed, the road temperature, whether or not your wipers/headlights are active, and even if you've used your anti-lock brakes. Initially, the system will be tested on Ford-owned and municipal vehicles."
The "intelligent roadway" concept sounds all gee-whiz and cool, but the fact still remains that it's we, the drivers, who are responsible for both the volume and the density of traffic. Our being on the roads in the first place generates the volume, and our need to get "there" first generates the density.
Someone posted a link to this site about how one driver can singlehandedly eliminate traffic waves simply by not driving like a nut. I've tried it, and it's not difficult, but I can't imagine convincing my wife to let a gap open up in front of her... there's something in human nature that rebels at the thought of someone else getting ahead of you in line.
My prediction: If these devices and systems lead to more efficient roads, then there will simply be more people on the roads. The end result will be *worse* congestion than before. That's why building new expressways is so futile -- you just can't build your way out of gridlock. [Insert mass transit rant here]
Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
But it wont work because if a device can tell if your antilock brakes are working it can just as easily tell if your speeding or any other number of big brother activities.
Ever heard of OnStar? It's got GPS, and can therefore report whether you're speeding, and yet it's not abused in the way you suggest it would be. People actually even pay extra to have it in their car.
I'm not saying that it isn't good to be cautious, but just because a technology can be used in a "Big Brother" way doesn't mean it will.
You probably shouldn't click this.
Can they really write you a ticket if they know that your vehicle was speeding, but they don't know who was driving it? It seems they are using cameras to penalize red-light runners in some cities already, but how are they doing this? If the car isn't registered to me, then I don't get the ticket?
Your boss could find out if you go drinking on the weekend, and so on. Imagine anyone being able to use this "public" information to stalk or harass someone. Since the information would reported to municipalities, it would by definition be public unless legislated otherwise.
GOOD!
We as a country do too much just because we think we'll get away with it--and we let slide our liberties because we aren't challenged when we exercise them, and so don't have the chance to defend them.
BOSS: "So, Planesdragon, I see that you bought twenty-four kegs of beer last weekend..."
PD: "Yep. I had a kegger at my house. It's my personal life, and, as you can see, I'm here bright-eyed and bushy-tailed monday morning. So what's it to you?"
BOSS: "Oh, ah... Ok."
This is going to be installed in municipal vehicles and police cars, not your vehicle. Relax everyone.
Good luck figuring out traffic patterns by putting this in police cars. The police by me are either sitting by the side of the road looking for speeders and HOV lane violators, or they're cutting through traffic in the disabled vehicle lane.
This sounds like a good idea, but i see it being used in all the wrong ways. Cops would no longer have to catch someone speeding, they would just have to link the illegal speed with the vehical and send the ticket in the mail. Any government could track were certain citizens are (or rather their cars) at any time. I wonder how long it would take someone to put linux on one of these systems. It would be a pretty tight mobile computer.
"What's wrong with your car reporting to your insurance agency that you're speeding?
Please, please, tell me you're just going for flamebait points. You've got to be kidding, right?
The problem with this is just that: my CAR telling somebody about my habits? Isn't that what we have police officers for? If I let my buddy borrow my pickup to move a desk, and he speeds, I get the ticket & the insurance ding? Oh wait. Why not use the RFID tags in my clothing to make sure that I get the ticket?
Wrong. Automated data collection will just keep forcing us into a submissive role. And you're FOR this?
I assume, then, the first time you drive like an idiot, or forget to signal, you'll be prepared for the officers when you pull in your driveway.
"If there's hope, it lies in the proles..."
You could write cool python scripts to visualize your commute to work, etc.
Or someone else's.
Divorce lawyers/investigators would love this shit. No thank you.
KFG
Yes, your issues are true for personal vehicles. However, in the case of fleet vehicles, where the person doesn't get a choice if it's on or not, I could see it being quite helpful.
In fact, I know a few people whose work vehicles will report to their employer when they showed up at the work site (construction related field). This is just an extension to that.
You're automatically assuming that 'consumer' means 'private citizen' which it may not be. I can see significant demand for this for fleet vehicles, especially if it can be correlated to GPS or some of the other monitor systems that already exist.
Public works vehicles would be a prime candidate for this, as it could give indicators where potholes are, or snow problems, or flooded roads. Radio and TV stations might put it in their vehicles, so they could improve their traffic reporting.
It might move to private vehicles, if there were incentives. Maybe discounts on your insurance, or taxes, or the like, but I don't see people just jumping out and wanting it on their own, for the very reasons you stated.
And it's entirely possible that they'll be put in without people knowing about it, such as the black boxes that record airbag data, or forced to be in there by law [all vehicles in the state of must have them], similar to emissions controls, which help the general population, but not the individual user.
Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
I'm not saying that it isn't good to be cautious, but just because a technology can be used in a "Big Brother" way doesn't mean it will.
Yes it does, It's only a matter of time before the fed/state/local authorities start to supoena onstar. First it will be for a good reason (murder, kidnapping) but once it starts, we'll be sliding right on down that slope. How long until someone is arrested for terrorism because their SUV was parked at a fertilizer store, a diesel station, and an airport in the same day?
They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty nor security
It's a bunch of BS to get people to let this big brother in the car.. then ZAM it'll start to be abused.. Just like OnStar was. OnStar gor saved via a tecnical detail, but if they had multiple audio out channels, it's still be abused today.
The fact is, it's US thats the problem. We employ a greedy and not cooperative strategy on the roads. They did research around here, and they found that all the highways were completely cpable of handling the volume of traffic at rush hour. It's out driving that creates backups.
And don't get me started about RUBBERNECKERS! ARH.
People here are some tips:
1) Don't rummberneck, mangled metal is fun, but it's none of your business.
2) Don't tail gate, leave good room. Tailgating makes you slam on your brakes, so the guy behind you needs to slam arder, and so on, until people are locking up anc causing more accidents.
3) When in a backup let the gap be made. Don't floor it to the next guys bumper then brake hard 1) it wastes gas 2) you repeat #2. I've seen "averagers" - peopel who average the flow out create a huge difference. And I think we all rather me slow and steady rather than stop-and -go. If you are a stop and go person: remember: 1) all that gas used to get up to speed gets wasted when you put on your brakes, 2) you waste more brakes killing the effect of overusing gas 3) you create more changes in speed which is more changes for a rear-end collision by another unattentive driver. We handle things if they are steady.
4) Get over early. You having to slow down your lane so you can get over in a hurry, slows down your lane and causes others to change lanes.
5) minimize lane changes. Each one is a time when you a leagally vulderable. When you change lanes, right of way is with the person who is already there. And we all know about 2 people, one moveing left, the other right, that don't see each other.
That shoudl take care of 90% of the problems on the road.
Thank you.
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
There is no point for every driver on the highway to have this system in their car. Afterall, the car next to you is not likely to report anything different than what you're reporting at any given time.
However, think of this usage. A local radio and TV station operation offers to pay to have this system installed in 2000 volunteer's cars, and those people are paid $250 or so a year to participate. Suddenly, this station will have a a very informative realtime traffic system, because as odds are one of their spotters will be delayed by any rainstorm or lane closure. What's more, the spotters don't have to do anything active to report that they've been stopped or slowed, since the system phones in their reports for them.
There's no need for everybody's privacy to be violated, because this doesn't need a census, just a sample. If a few people are willing to give up some privacy, the whole public can benefit from the data collected in the form of better traffic advisories.
Yes, they should have be fired exactly like that.
The work crews were expecting their actions to be untraceable and they were caught. As a taxpayer I hope all city vehicles are setup with this info. As long as their employment agreement states that the city/state has the right to monitor their vehicles then whats the issue...
One should not theorize before one has data. -Sherlock Holmes-
[Devil's advocate]We have collectively (note that I didn't say individually) agreed that going too fast on certain roads is bad and, for the sake of public safety, people who exceed certain speeds should be punished. Since this is what the people have decided is best why would anyone object to better enabling the police to enforce the people's will?[/Devil's advocate]
Personally I think victimless crimes such as speeding are the heart of the problem. If it were up to me there would be no speed limits anywhere but the penalties for crimes such as vehicular manslaughter and driving under the influence would be much for draconian.
However, if they try to put this in my car...it will be disconnected quickly.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
"Yes, Mr. Thomas, the data pulled from your 2005 Ford Mustang GT indicates that you were going 134 mph when you wrecked last night at 3:27am. Local weather reports show that it was raining, yet your wipers, as well as headlights were out. Our assumption is you were drunk. Claim denied."