Slashdot Mirror


IBM to Help UAE Track Drivers on the Road

Mr.Bananas writes "InformationWeek reports that IBM has announced a deal with United Arab Emirates in which it would provide speed tracking devices that will automatically warn violators of traffic laws: "The telematics device will use multiple microprocessors based on IBM's Power Architecture, and will have the capability to monitor the speed of the vehicle and send out a warning if the car surpasses the posted speed limit." GeekCoffee goes on to report that tickets will be issued automatically to violators who ignore the warnings: "If the voice warning is ignored, the system would use a GSM/GPRS link to beam the car's speed, identity and location to the police so that a ticket could be issued.""

438 comments

  1. Uh.. okay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's just fucking creepy.

  2. UAE? by Cowclops · · Score: 4, Funny

    I thought they were referring to the "Ubiquitous Amiga Emulator"

    1. Re:UAE? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL, I was thinking the exact same thing. Hi.

    2. Re:UAE? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NO! NO! NO!

      It's "UAE Amiga Emulator". Recursive Acronyms have been manditory for YEARS now!

    3. Re:UAE? by lappy512 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Nah, they are monitoring truck bombs in the United Arab Emirates

    4. Re:UAE? by AndroidCat · · Score: 1

      They should get those VW Polos for people to drive then. (Fake ad video)

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    5. Re:UAE? by Mr2cents · · Score: 1

      I thought they were referring to the "Ubiquitous Amiga Emulator"

      If you didn't, I 'd wonder what you are doing on /. ;-)

      --
      "It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful." - Anton LaVey
    6. Re:UAE? by fuzznutz · · Score: 1

      I think you mean Miss Emily Litella. Rosanne Rosannadanna was the news anchor persona with the full hair.

  3. Awesome by SmartSsa · · Score: 3, Interesting

    That's pretty awesome for a place where traffic law informcent in itself is pretty weak and the drivers are pretty insane. But really, how is one to guarentee these devices stay in the cars?

    I for one would pull it off my car and throw it somewhere.

    But hey, some may like it and some may see it as a violation of their "freedom to drive like an idiot" :) There's two sides, naturally.

    1. Re:Awesome by jim_v2000 · · Score: 1

      I thought they would have figured something like "if a car speeds in the desert, and no one was there to see it, does it really matter?"

      --
      Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
    2. Re:Awesome by SerpentMage · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You are right in that there are two sides. However, I think it is more "Freedom to drive like an idiot". After all we are humans, humans that cherish freedom above everything else. As a friend says to me, average means that 50% of the people are dumber than you. But it also means that they have the right to be dumber than you and you can't do anything about it!

      I think what would bother me regarding the UAE deal is that it will be VERY one sided. Do you REALLY think that any UAE citizen, or any UAE royal family member will get speeding tickets? When pigs fly!

      But I agree, I would would pull it off my car and throw it somewhere....

      --

      "You can't make a race horse of a pig"
      "No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
    3. Re:Awesome by Heian-794 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      They could easily ensure that no one removes it from their cars by simply making it illegal to do so. Require an inspection-like sticker saying that "this car has a monitoring device installed", and if you don't have one, instant fine.

    4. Re:Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I for one would pull it off my car and throw it somewhere.

      Even if you for one would have your hands cut off for doing it? Brave man.

    5. Re:Awesome by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 2, Funny

      if a car speeds in the desert, and noone is there to see it, is the car even there at all?

      --

      People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
    6. Re:Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "As a friend says to me, average means that 50% of the people are dumber than you."

      Nah... that's not right. You could be average, but the distribution could be skewed. Say there were a few dumb people that were so dumb that average really meant 10% of the people are dumber than you.

    7. Re:Awesome by spuzzzzzzz · · Score: 2, Funny

      If a car speeds in the desert and no one can see it, the driver needs to get his eyes checked.

      --

      Don't you hate meta-sigs?
    8. Re:Awesome by Detritus · · Score: 1
      Inspection stickers are easily forged or illegally transfered from a compliant vehicle to a noncompliant vehicle. I've seen people swap whole windshields to get a "tamper-proof" inspection sticker on their car.

      I'd run random spot-checks and seize any vehicles that were missing the required equipment. That gets people's attention.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    9. Re:Awesome by floydman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well after living there for over 12 years, travelled all over Europe, USA, i would rather drive there... where you can get jailed for breaking a light, highways are well equipped than any other place i have ever been to..., and ppl can try for years to earn their driver license because the tests are so tough..

      So please, lets not stereo type each other, shall we..

      P.S: i am not a citizen of UAE, not do i live there any more.

      --
      The lunatic is in my head
    10. Re:Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Median!!!11oneone

    11. Re:Awesome by L0k11 · · Score: 1
      Car electronics are a lot simpler than that. As long as the device is not fitted by the manufacturer (who could incorporate it into the cars electronics/computers) it will be easy to disable.

      Third party devices in cars need a power source, simply wire up a hidden switch that interupts the power when you want it to be disabled and turn it back on when the device is being inspected.

      We used a similar method to disable the handbrake switch for in car video screens (required by law) but re-enable it when cops are checking the car out.

      --
      "Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything" -- Josef Stalin
    12. Re:Awesome by Big+Mark · · Score: 1

      I was in Saudi about a decade ago and it was a legal requirement for all cars to be fitted with pseudo-speed limiters - if you went over the highway speed limit it would issue an incredibly annoying BEEP BEEP BEEP BEEP. It didn't physically limit the speed, perhaps because the lawmakers realised the occaisonal necessity of speeding, probably because the average Saudi driver takes it as an Allah-given right to drive like Dale Earnhardt on acid.

      There was nothing in the law about the device being operational, merely present, so everyone used to disconnect the device the 99% of the time the car wasn't being serviced.

    13. Re:Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would you want to drive where you can get jailed for a simple traffic violation.

    14. Re:Awesome by ramblin+billy · · Score: 1


      In /.ese...

      1. Car drives by sensor
      2. Car does not send radio signal
      = Prison!

      billy - who thinks it's a GOOD thing when /.ers don't have criminal minds

    15. Re:Awesome by Black+Copter+Control · · Score: 1

      Either that, or open his eyes (and stop snoring).

      --
      OS Software is like love: The best way to make it grow is to give it away.
    16. Re:Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is the freedom do drive like an idiot better than the freedom to drive safely because the unsafe drivers are in jail?

    17. Re:Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Everybody makes mistakes, you too. Generally, we don't punish people for unintentional harm they cause if they behave reasonably. Maybe if you keep running red lights, you should get thrown in jail, but not if it's the occasional mistake.

    18. Re:Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      some may see it as a violation of their "freedom to drive like an idiot" :)

      This is the UAE. You have no freedoms that the government can't take a way on a whim.

    19. Re:Awesome by emidln · · Score: 1

      Car video screens are required by law? Where do you live?

      Anyway, anyone with sufficient knowledge of the standards can implement Electronic Control Units (ECUs) that attach to the car network. A really easy-to-implement scenario for the UAE would be the following:

      1) UAE installs ECU with multi-factor authentication and ability to wireless communicate (GSM/GPRS maybe?).

      2) the ECU sends out a heart-beat every 15 minutes while in use, and every 12 hours when not.

      3) if the ECU doesn't send out said heartbeat, you get a big ass fine and some jail time for having removed your ECU unless you can prove otherwise.

      The downside, is that this would incredibly easy to abuse to tracking purposes. i.e. track where the phone signal originates. Plus, I could think of a lot of fun things to do with an ECU on a car network and a GSM connection.

    20. Re:Awesome by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      Now if the sensor was a Patriot system refitted for anti-surface usage...

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    21. Re:Awesome by karmatic · · Score: 1

      The handbrake switch is required by law, not the TV.

    22. Re:Awesome by Caeda · · Score: 1

      In That case, you need to see where I live... From the customers I get, I'd say it's closer to 90%...

      --
      ~~ Please keep your arms, legs, and outright stupidity inside the ride at all times. Thank You ~~
    23. Re:Awesome by AK+Marc · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Everybody makes mistakes, you too.

      How many times have you "mistakenly" run a red light? In more than 10 years of driving, that's never for me. I have intentionally run them (such as 3 a.m. on an empty road, or knowing that I wasn't going to make the green and choosing to run the fresh red). But I can't see how someone could mistakenly run a red light.

      Most people breaking laws do so because of conscious choice. They choose to not signal. They choose to not come to complete stops at stop signs. They choose to not follow the speed limits. They choose to not stop at the red lights. And, if they are so incompetent that they mistakenly violate laws with great frequency (more than once a week), then they are quite dangerous and should be removed from the streets.

      Traffic crashes kill over 40,000 people every year. Less than 18 months to kill as many people on American roads as Americans killed in Vietnam (previously the Library of Congress measure for dead bodies) or more than one 9/11 per month (the new measure). It is from the morons like you that tolerate "mistakes" that kill over 100 people per day which give us the unenforcable traffic laws, road rage, and other problems we have. Get the "mistake" makers off the road, starting with you, and all of us will be better off.

    24. Re:Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not only that, but one of the best things about the UAE is screaming around the desert at speeds approaching "almost too fast".

      Why they'd want to change this, I have no idea. It's the closest thing to what I consider fun around there.

    25. Re:Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have been to Dubai (in UAE) and found drivers there to be measurably better than in other Arab nations.

      They also already have speed warnings on taxi's there. The car beeps once as the taxi driver blasts through the speed limit (100 kph I think). It isn't smart though, it seemed to recognize only the top national limit, and didn't adjust in the city. The beep justs assures you that yes, your driver is in a hurry.

    26. Re:Awesome by shadow_slicer · · Score: 1

      "How many times have you "mistakenly" run a red light?"
      I ran one last week. I've lived in town my entire life, and a few months ago they put a stop light at an intersection that had previously only had a stop sign.
      It was late at night and I was on my way home. I stopped at the intersection, looked both ways and then turned left.

    27. Re:Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh please.

      95% of the posted speed limits are based purely on the economics of travel. Going 65mph vs 85mph, you're not going to get there that much faster than everyone else, but you're going to burn a lot more gas. Most consumer cars are capable of handling at speeds higher than those posted, especially if they have the correct tires on their vehicle.

      I would much rather drive with me going 100mph, than with some person who is going 65 but isn't paying attention to what they are doing. At least I've got two hands on the wheel and my eyes on the road. I'm also checking my mirrors for police every few seconds so you can be sure I know who is around me.

      I would see this as a violation to "pass the idiot who is drifting around the lanes and can't drive straight/pass the idiot who is driving 10mph below the speed limit/pass the idiot who decided he wanted to drive next to me/pass the idiot who is driving around with his hi's on".

      There aren't two sides. There's a reason we don't have machines running our court systems. It's something we call a GREY AREA. Life isn't black and white, and it can't be reduced down to 1's and 0's, neither can this.

      I vote to keep humans in charge. I swear some of you nerds love your computers so much. You're constantly trying to replace people with with them and it makes no sense. SOMETIMES MACHINES AND C++ ARE NOT THE ANSWER.

    28. Re:Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "As a friend says to me, average means that 50% of the people are dumber than you."

      Average also means that you are dumber than 50% of the people. But you have a right to be that dumb.

    29. Re:Awesome by autocracy · · Score: 1

      Everywhere around here, lights are strung above the intersections. Sometime last year in Portland, ME, I ran a red light that was obscured by a tree... instead of being strung above the road, it was on a veritcal pole on the side of the street. I only caught it because I saw the cross traffic in my rear-view mirror.

      --
      SIG: HUP
    30. Re:Awesome by burdalane · · Score: 1

      I've never intentionally or mistakenly run a red light, but I have mistakenly blocked an intersection illegally by acting on reflex instead of judgment. I've also turned without signalling when I didn't remember I was supposed to turn until I was already at the intersection. I may have gone through stop signs without fully stopping and then only realized after the fact that I didn't fully stop. This kind of thing happens occasionally, maybe once every few months. In some time periods they may happen more often.

  4. Ahh... by Reene · · Score: 0, Troll

    Let the vacuous cries of "big brother" from the teeming /. masses begin!

    --
    "He does look a bit Oompa like, even if his Loompa is a bit off-kilter."
    1. Re:Ahh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Let the vacuous cries of "big brother" from the teeming /. masses begin!

      Let the government come and install a camera and microphone in every room of your house so they can randomly monitor you for "antisocial" behavior. Then you'll be qualified to have an opinion on the matter.

      Idiot.

  5. Who's rights where? by ravenspear · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I don't mean to offend any /. readers from the UAE, but it seems the YRO category has been getting more obscure with each story over the past few weeks. What relevance does a tracking system that will be experienced offline by drivers in the United Arab Emirates have to do with my rights online or anywhere else?

    1. Re:Who's rights where? by 0x461FAB0BD7D2 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Your right to privacy? Your right not to be tracked by the government? It's sort of like RFIDs, except in cars.

      Personally, if this works out, it's worth the amount of lives saved, just as long as it isn't abused.

    2. Re:Who's rights where? by voisine · · Score: 1

      Well, the thing reports you to the authorities though a communication network so I guess that qualifies as "on-line". And once it's implimented in a few countries and the bugs worked out, lawmakers will have a template to go on to further exise what few rights you have left wherever you might live.

    3. Re:Who's rights where? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who gives a fuck? This is what Slashdot puts up in the YRO section. You know this is what Slashdot will put up in YRO. If you're so damn offended that they wasted the 6 seconds of your time it took to read the summary, you can go to one of the thousands of other tech news sites.

    4. Re:Who's rights where? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What relevance does a tracking system that will be experienced offline by drivers in the United Arab Emirates have to do with my rights online or anywhere else?

      I don't know. Perhaps you could fill in a few details for us like what country you're in. That's going to make a teeny bit of difference as to whether it affcts you, you idiot.

    5. Re:Who's rights where? by Dachannien · · Score: 2, Funny

      Coming soon to a Western democracy near you....

    6. Re:Who's rights where? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's obviously a feel-good comfort piece for any Americans in the audience.

      "Yay," they can say, "there's a country where they have less freedom than us! For now. Go America!"

    7. Re:Who's rights where? by philkerr · · Score: 1
      Coming soon to a Western democracy near you....

      Like the UK.

      This kind of technology is being seriously looked at as a complement to the road toll scheme they already have in place around the centre of London.

      The GP comment fails to remember that technology knows now boundary. If this works in the UAE (which is probably a good testbed for it) then we will see the improved version of this rolled out in your country.

    8. Re:Who's rights where? by slavemowgli · · Score: 1

      Y'know, there IS a world outside of the USA, and in fact, the majority of humankind is from out there. It may seem strange to you, but some of these foreign freaks even browse Slashdot. Amazing, isn't it?

      --
      quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
    9. Re:Who's rights where? by wash23 · · Score: 1

      A tracking system that is connected to a computer network and that monitors someone's behavior seems to fall into the "rights online" category to me. This is probably off topic at this point, but I had to respond as your comment had been modded up to "insightful" which really doesn't make any sense.

    10. Re:Who's rights where? by ramblin+billy · · Score: 1


      New technologies need to be tested somewhere. TFA states that about 2 of the 3 million citizens of the UAE drive. Even if IBM only sells the minimum 100,000 units in the initial contract it makes for a hell of a field test. This is more than some simple transmitter/receiver device:

      "The telematic device will include several wireless technologies, including GSM (Global System for Mobile Communications) cellular capabilities and General Packet Radio Service. Bluetooth and an optional driver-identification feature using RFID also will be on the device, as will IBM's speech software, Via Voice."

      That's a lot of functionality to pack into a box and suggests that even more is possible. Especially intriguing is the idea of the "optional" RFID. I doubt if "optional" refers to the driver's decision. This device can determine which lead foot is actually breaking the law. Hopefully the punishment won't be modeled on the traditional penalty for theft imposed in some places in that part of the world. I can see a remote enabled explosive charge mounted on the gas peddle. It would also be possible to plant directed explosive charges (like claymore mines) at strategically selected points. Pissing off the government would be a risky business - after all, the explosion could always be blamed on terrorist hackers. For that matter, terrorists could hack into the system and detonate their own devices with little risk of capture or targeting the wrong person.

      If the system works in the UAE you can bet that some incarnation will eventually follow more close to home. Even now police can download the information in your engine control computer. It may be hard to fight legislation initially aimed at drunk drivers or based on "homeland security". If the system is widespread enough it would be a simple matter to track any driver in virtually real time. A disabling function would be easy to include in the sealed manufacturer installed unit. I'm not looking forward to the day when my back seat driver is the government.

      billy - it's just an electromagnet officer, really

    11. Re:Who's rights where? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Personally, if this works out, it's worth the amount of lives saved, just as long as it isn't abused.

      Heaven knows, the government wouldn't ever abuse something like this...and there shouldn't be any "slippery slope" effect leading to ever more intrusive monitoring of your activities.

      Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain...

    12. Re:Who's rights where? by Anonymous+Luddite · · Score: 1

      >> Coming soon to a Western democracy near you..

      Brother, it's already here.

  6. How far does this go? by sackadatfunk · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Would this system also be implemented in public vehicles, such as the police themselves?
    Shouldn't the cops get a ticket as well, if they are not "chasing the bad guy", say trying to get to the local krispy kreme before it closes?

    1. Re:How far does this go? by MisterLawyer · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Relevant personal experience:
      About a year ago I was driving on an interstate in Illinois, not too far from Chicago. For about an hour straight I was within a few football fields of a state trooper. We were both speeding at between 5-15 mph over the limit. At first I was cautious to stay a ways behind him so he wouldn't notice, but for at least half the time, I was the car immediately behind him. Suddenly he slows way down and gets behind me and pulls me over. I point out to him that he had been doing the same speed as me for about an hour, and that we were both going with the flow of traffic, and that he obviously wasn't in a hurry to get somewhere to stop a crime in progress. He said some like "it's a bad idea to follow cops", and that "just because I'm speeding doesn't make it legal for civilians to speed".

      This is the problem with speed limits in most of America. They are set so low that at least 90% of traffic is always exceeding the speed limit, including the cops, and thus the cops can essentially pull over anyone they want, whenever they want.

      So much for the Constitution and freedom from unreasonable search and seizure...

    2. Re:How far does this go? by Detritus · · Score: 1
      In many places, they can get reprimanded, or even fired, if they get too many complaints about their driving.

      If you see a cop do something really stupid, make a note of the car number, location and time. File a written complaint with the police department.

      Some departments have an institutional culture of ignoring traffic laws and department procedures in non-emergency situations. Others insist that their officers set a good example for the public.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    3. Re:How far does this go? by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      First, the ol' IANAL disclaimer.

      Take the ticket to court, and make the point that one would assume that a cop's speedometer is more reliable than the average civillian's. Either the cop would be forced to admit to a judge that he, too, was violating the law for no good reason, or the charges would probably be dropped.

    4. Re:How far does this go? by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      This is the problem with speed limits in most of America. They are set so low that at least 90% of traffic is always exceeding the speed limit, including the cops, and thus the cops can essentially pull over anyone they want, whenever they want.

      As far as I'm concerned there shouldn't be any speed limits on interstates outside of cities, as it is on the autobahns in Germany. I admit I sometymes drive fast on highways but in neigborhoods I go slower than the limits. It isn't necessarily speeding that causes accidents it's unsafe driving that does, such as not paying attention to the surroundings and talking on the cell phone while driving.

      Falcon
    5. Re:How far does this go? by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1
      The answer is yes. In the District of Columbia (aka Washington), the local government has "red light cameras". They write their own cops tickets for runing red lights and some of those same red light cameras will capture you speeding as well.

      Be sure to fight this. They will want to bring it to the USA and Europe in the name of safety - what they told us in Washington. Big brother on the horizon! One day you may wish that your mother in law in the backseat were there instead of the idiot technology you will have. "Your going to fast" (repeat 10 times/mile). "Look out for that truck!" (Repeat 2 times/mile). "Your going to get a ticket!" (Repeat 2 times/10 miles). "You should have taken that last exit, it is shorter" (eh? 1 to 2 times a trip). Don't have a mother in law yet? Just wait!

      I wonder how the warning sounds? Like R. Lee Ermey (Mail call, Apacolypse now, etc, USMC personality) - "Hey maggot! Slow down! You are over the speed limit! Stop and give me 20!" Then if you keep it up "Alright maggot! I just wrote you a $50 ticket! Too bad you don't have that much in your banking account, disabling car.... (car stops running)."

    6. Re:How far does this go? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Having been to traffic court, there is nothing that would force the cop to admit that he was doing anything wrong. There is nothing to stop the cop from telling complete lies either (such as that I was weaving in and out of traffic when I had actually remained in the same lane on the same road since I pulled out of the parking lot) because your word means nothing compared to his word.

  7. RoboTrafficCop by Bananatree3 · · Score: 1, Funny

    [driver] But I thought I was doing the speed limit!

    [RoboTrafficCop] You were going exactly 15.253 kph over the speed limit, mister

    [driver] But! BUT!!!

    [RoboTrafficCop] No buts mister. Ticket amount: 150 dollars

    [driver] No!!!

    [RoboTrafficCop] We robots have no sympathy

    1. Re:RoboTrafficCop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny thing is is that there will be no cop to argue with. You ticket will just get e-mailed to you and if you give it a few more years your fines will just get withdrawn automatically from your bank account too. :)

  8. We SORELY Need this Technology in the US by eno2001 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As my latest JE points out, people just don't follow the speed limit anymore or maintain safe braking distances. I don't think they will until corrective measures are taken. And the only corrective measures are those that are enforced on drivers. Driving is not a hobby or a skill, it's a practical mode of transportation. If you want to race, go find a race track and have at it. If you want to get from point A to point B, then follow the laws to the letter, leave plenty of time for travel, and don't bitch when you get a legit ticket.

    --
    -"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
    1. Re:We SORELY Need this Technology in the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If so many people do it, then it should be acceptable. What they are saying is that even if it's more dangerous, it's worth it to them to get places faster. Driving is all about controlling risk, and the level of risk considered acceptable is something that can change as society changes. I put people at risk every time I get in a car. EVERY driver does, and always has. We've just decided lately that even more risk is acceptable. How much risk is OK just a vague social line.

      Cell phones upped acceptable risk too.

    2. Re:We SORELY Need this Technology in the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "If so many people do it, then it should be acceptable."

      And before somebody picks on that line, I'll add that yes, pretty much anything that so many people do should be legal. Drugs, speeding, gambling, tax evasion, etc.

    3. Re:We SORELY Need this Technology in the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      ...If you want to get from point A to point B, then follow the laws to the letter, leave plenty of time for travel, and don't bitch when you get a legit ticket.
      I'm almost tempted to register, just so there would be a possibility of modding that post up.

      Sorry I didn't...but it's a great post anyway.
    4. Re:We SORELY Need this Technology in the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With the mandatory IANAL disclaimer, the laws in some states require a police officer to witness someone speeding in order to write them a ticket. This is why you don't see a whole lot of speeding camera deployment in the US as of yet. To set up a system like this, the laws in many states would have to change first.

    5. Re:We SORELY Need this Technology in the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If so many people do it, then it should be acceptable.

      Let's see how your mindset might change if you had a relative or friend killed in a car accident because of an aggressive or drunk driver.

    6. Re:We SORELY Need this Technology in the US by CosmeticLobotamy · · Score: 1

      ... follow the laws to the letter, leave plenty of time for travel, and don't bitch when you get a legit ticket.

      If everyone started doing that, they'd just lower the speed limit to the point where following it became impossible so that they could keep giving out tickets.

      It's never the guy going 65 in a 50 that's a problem. It's always the guy doing 50 in a 50 when everyone knows the accepted speed on the road they're on is 70.

    7. Re:We SORELY Need this Technology in the US by eno2001 · · Score: 1

      Moral relativism is not an excuse for bad behavior in any case. Your thinking is flawed. Please re-evaluate your position to be more in line with reason.

      --
      -"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
    8. Re:We SORELY Need this Technology in the US by bagel2ooo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Of the population, how many who do not follow the speed limit or maintain "safe" breaking distances (which seem rather arbitrary) get into accidents? I don't think that automatically handing out tickets will necessarily make any of those people safe drivers, it will just generate more revenue for the state. With race tracks shutting down due to not wanting liability, it would seem the only feasible way for that to work would be state-run tracks. There people could legally race and perhaps even be taught how to deal with hazards like hydroplaning in rain and such.

      --
      ( o ) one could say I'm rather baked
    9. Re:We SORELY Need this Technology in the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Driving drunk is NOT what is being discussed here. Most people do not drive drunk, and society does not consider drunk driving an acceptable risk.

      Aggressive? very vague. Be more specific.

    10. Re:We SORELY Need this Technology in the US by CosmeticLobotamy · · Score: 1

      Wreckless and drunk driving is nowhere near popular enough for that to apply. They're both considered by the majority to be insane. If it weren't, people would just avoid the roads in general.

    11. Re:We SORELY Need this Technology in the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My point is that increasing risk on the road is NOT bad behavior. It is morally and socially acceptable behavior. If you want to be safer than the rest of us, drive a Volvo.

      The rest of us want to use cell phones, eat, sing, and run our mouths while we drive. We don't CARE that it makes the roads more dangerous, or that it might kill us someday. We would rather take the risk and enjoy the benefits.

      The majority of people speed, because speed limits are rarely reasonable. Speeding is not irresponsible.

    12. Re:We SORELY Need this Technology in the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      take the bus.

      to some driving IS a hobby and that does not mean racing. some posted limits are ridiculously low and even most highway speeds could be higher safely, even police and highway patrol admit this.

      i for one, will NOT be tracked like this. besides, how does it track speed? GPS?(inaccurate), vehicle speed sensor?(many factors can cause it to read inaccurately)

      i'll be the first to admit we need far more stringent license requirements in the US, and better public transportation. many other countries don't have the same problems we do with traffic safety, yet they don't have a nanny system riding along with you either.

      makes you wonder.

    13. Re:We SORELY Need this Technology in the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everyone has their own "accepted" speed. You can't expect everyone to go 20mph over the speed limit just because others want to. Thats why there are multiple lanes, so that if someone wants to go one speed, they can. If someone else wants to pass them, they are free to do so as long as they aren't endangering themself or others on the road. I agree that going alot slower than the speed limit can be dangerous (and you can probably get a ticket for it, especially if you drive slow enough in the fast lane), but if you are going the speed limit, it really should not be an issue.

    14. Re:We SORELY Need this Technology in the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hah. You are by your own journal admission an idiot who drives 50mph when the speed limit says to, even when 70 is perfectly safe and everyone else wants to do 70! Congratulations, you are the most dangerous kind of driver on the road! A stupid yet self-righteous one. That's the most dangerous kind of human, in general.

    15. Re:We SORELY Need this Technology in the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Driving drunk and aggressive can go hand-in-hand many times. Aggressive driving? Hmm let's see. Speeding is the primary issue here, but riding people's asses when it is not necessary, cutting people off while you change lanes just to get one car ahead, running through stop signs or red lights, or passing cars illegally (whether it be on the shoulder or into oncoming traffic lanes). GGP said that if enough people do it, then it should be acceptable. You think so?

    16. Re:We SORELY Need this Technology in the US by aussie_a · · Score: 2, Insightful



      The majority of people speed, because speed limits are rarely reasonable. Speeding is not irresponsible.


      Isn't irresponsible huh? Well my brother was killed because he was hit by a speeding car. It very much is an irresponsible thing to do. I just hope you don't ever have to learn what it feels like for killing someone because of your irresponsible behavior.

    17. Re:We SORELY Need this Technology in the US by Picard102 · · Score: 1

      You probably don't drive state to state to state a lot.

    18. Re:We SORELY Need this Technology in the US by SerpentMage · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is exactly the kind of propaganda governments like to spew.

      1) Yes there are citizens who drive fast and follow too close. Just like there are citizens who smoke, eat too much, don't excercise, fart and burp in public. FACE reality, that is called humanity.

      2) Speeding tickets has nothing to do with safety, but everything to do with making money in the government. Don't believe me? Check the revenue at the local law enforcement office.

      3) Hazardous driving like following too close, passing too tightly, which is on the books of as illegal, has no revenue stream. Yet these actions themselves are highly dangerous and CAUSE accidents. Why are cops not checking for these infractions? Simple, it means WORK, and the revenue earned is less than the effort required. Meaning its not a cash cow.

      4) Highway speeds are way too low. Why is it that in Germany you can drive as fast as you can, Switzerland is 120 KPH, Austria 130 KPH, France 130 KPH, Canada 100 KPH, and the US 90-110 KPH? So that means driving by the books in Germany gets you speed tickets most other places, driving by the book in France and Austria will get you tickets in Canada and the US? Come on, these are artificial limits setup so that MOST people people end up speeding.

      These days cars and highways for a large part have become safe enough for 150-160 KPH. And with electronic signs in many countries aspeed limit can be altered reflecting the conditions on the highway. Why is this not enforced? Simple, speed tickets = cash cow = simple way of saying, "We are tough on accidents". BS, BS, BS!!!

      --

      "You can't make a race horse of a pig"
      "No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
    19. Re:We SORELY Need this Technology in the US by ctid · · Score: 1
      The rest of us want to use cell phones, eat, sing, and run our mouths while we drive. We don't CARE that it makes the roads more dangerous, or that it might kill us someday. We would rather take the risk and enjoy the benefits.

      What about the risk of hurting or killing someone else? That's the problem, isn't it? Driving dangerously isn't just dangerous to the person who is driving dangerously.
      --
      Reality is defined by the maddest person in the room
    20. Re:We SORELY Need this Technology in the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You really need a better perspective on things. Maybe if a close friend or relative gets killed because of someone who is speeding while on their cell phone or eating their lunch, you might change your flawed thinking.

    21. Re:We SORELY Need this Technology in the US by Detritus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Nice rationalization. "It's not highly skilled drivers like myself that are the problem, even though we routinely ignore speed limits, and other traffic laws, it's those damn slowpokes who get in our way."

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    22. Re:We SORELY Need this Technology in the US by centipetalforce · · Score: 1

      "Moral relativism is not an excuse for bad behavior in any case"

      So every American law is moral AND universal? Thank you for filling me in! I'll remember that next time I'm driving on the Autobahn WHERE THERE USUALLY ARE NO SPEED LIMITS AND THE ROAD IS ACTUALLY SAFER.
      I will remember to follow the American laws and drive 55mph while everyone else is driving 155kph. Yeah, that'll be REAL safe AND moral! Hooray! Speed is not what kills, alcohol and idiots behind the wheel do.

      "Your thinking is flawed. Please re-evaluate your position to be more in line with reason."

      Your words give me a headache. Look, I'm not the 'neck with the sawed off muffler who passed you on the road today, so don't take your insecurities out by advocating ridiculous traffic enforcement methods.

      Speaking of "moral relativism", If you believe that going 1 mph over the limit is immoral, than you sir, are a hypocrite.
      If you're saying you don't drive 1 mph over the limit ever than you are either over 60 (no offense) or a liar.

    23. Re:We SORELY Need this Technology in the US by Teh+Anonymous+Coward · · Score: 1

      Prude.

      --

      If I throw a stick, will you go away?
    24. Re:We SORELY Need this Technology in the US by dotslashdot · · Score: 0

      Isn't moral relativism what being liberal is all about?

    25. Re:We SORELY Need this Technology in the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Speeding CAN be irresponsible. If you go 60 down a residential street, that is irresponsible. But 35 is not. It's still illegal though.

      Morals aren't about feelings, they are about rights.

    26. Re:We SORELY Need this Technology in the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually society has decided what acceptable risk is. In our area we have decided that streets are 25mph, arterials 35mph, and highways 55 except where posted.

      Your "vague social line" is a collection of rules society has codified into law. They are not intended to be vague. If they are not clear you should contact someone who can explain them to you.

      If people wish to adjust the posted limit there are methods built into the system whereby these laws may be altered. This has happened many times in the past and will continue to happen as required. Therefore I suspect that your definition of "so many people" is not as large as you believe it is. "We" have not decided that more risk is acceptable. Only you have.

      If you insist on breaking the law, we will fine and/or imprision your ass as needed. Our society has decided that this is good and proper approach to "risk management".

    27. Re:We SORELY Need this Technology in the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's why it becomes OK when the majority of people do it. It would be okay to drive 120 if everyone else did it, even if it greatly increased the risk of death to everyone on the road.

      Look, many things I do put you at risk, and many things you do put me at risk. All I'm saying is that some levels of risk, though illegal, are still morally acceptable.

    28. Re:We SORELY Need this Technology in the US by rking · · Score: 1

      What they are saying is that even if it's more dangerous, it's worth it to them to get places faster.

      If the risk was solely to the driver then that would be acceptable and I would agree with you that they're entitled to make that decision. In reality, of course, the driver is risking the lives of people who haven't agreed that their lives are worth risking in order that the driver can get places faster. The driver risks lives of people who do drive safely or who don't drive at all. It is entirely legitimate for the government to regulate this activity in the interests of those people, just as with any other activity that is dangerous to others.

    29. Re:We SORELY Need this Technology in the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would be kind of hypocritical, wouldn't it? You think I have this opinion just because my imagination isn't good enough?

      I talk on cell phones when I drive. I eat. I drive tired and almost fall asleep. These things are as likely to kill me as anybody else. NO, I am not going to change my opinion just because it actually happens.

      You are the one that needs perspective. The minute someone dies you idiots all assume that it was somehow "wrong" for it to have happened. It's just freakin' life, man. It has an END. World not perfect. Accidents happen. But no, you want to sue the doctor, pass a new traffic law, put armed guards in the school, take guns away from everyone... you want to think that your life doesn't need to have risk. And *I* am the one that needs perspective? I don't think so. You just whine when you have to pay the piper.

    30. Re:We SORELY Need this Technology in the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And to make matters worse the car industry keeps releasing more powerful cars. WTF, why?! With all the environmental , gas consumption and safety issues we have right now why do they keep marketing and selling "more power"? Gee now I can zoom up to the next street light 2 secs faster that I could before. :/

    31. Re:We SORELY Need this Technology in the US by bcmm · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Has it occured to you that, in edition to the conspiricy to make massive amounts of money off tickets (presumably to fund a secret branch of the military or something), there might also be an actual need for speed limits so that people don't die on the road?

      Come on, speeding fines are not a major revenue source, the point is the money being taken away from the offender, not that it goes to the goverment afterwards (who of course should make no money, and shouldn't have to pay police, fire etc., because taxation is unamerican).

      There are conspiricies to line people pockets, but fining speeders is not one of them. Sorry.

      --
      # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i llama
      Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
    32. Re:We SORELY Need this Technology in the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heh. Speed limits don't do what you think. The safest way to pick a speed limit is to monitor the road without speed limits, and set the limit at the speed which 80% of the drivers naturally drive under. This is accepted fact across the nation. Guess how many speed limits are created this way? Almost none. Why? VERY BAD FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT REVENUE.

    33. Re:We SORELY Need this Technology in the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of the population, how many who do not follow the speed limit or maintain "safe" breaking distances (which seem rather arbitrary) get into accidents? I don't think that automatically handing out tickets will necessarily make any of those people safe drivers, it will just generate more revenue for the state.

      As taxes go, a tax on sociopathic behavious seems to be about the least objectionable.

    34. Re:We SORELY Need this Technology in the US by October_30th · · Score: 1
      even when 70 is perfectly safe

      And if everybody started driving 70mph, some jackasses would feel the need to do 90mph because of exactly the same reason.

      Automated speed control is a good thing. You can't rely on people's own judgement on how good drivers they are -- it's well known that most people completely overestimate their abilities.

      --
      The owls are not what they seem
    35. Re:We SORELY Need this Technology in the US by ThatWeasel · · Score: 0

      You are absolutely right. Right on, brother.

      --

      TW
      Television is dead. Long live That Weasel Television

    36. Re:We SORELY Need this Technology in the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Got any studies to back up what you say or are you just making shit up?

    37. Re:We SORELY Need this Technology in the US by Tadu · · Score: 1
      Highway speeds are way too low. Why is it that in Germany you can drive as fast as you can, Switzerland is 120 KPH, Austria 130 KPH, France 130 KPH, Canada 100 KPH, and the US 90-110 KPH?
      Just to dissolve a myth: while there is no general speed limit on highways in Germany, many highways do have speed limits (often 130 km/h). There aren't that many suitably long streches left without speed limit where the traffic situation will allow you to actually do 200 km/h. Not that it would be safe driving anyway.

      Otherwise, of course, I have to agree with your point.

      I assume your wierd "KPH" notation means km/h as well?

    38. Re:We SORELY Need this Technology in the US by October_30th · · Score: 3, Interesting
      It's always the guy doing 50 in a 50 when everyone knows the accepted speed on the road they're on is 70.

      Bwahaha! Yeah, it's the people who drive safely and according to the official regulations who are dangerous -- not us speed freaks who break the rules and make new ones for themselves simply because we're so goddamned good drivers. Nice rationalization.

      You wouldn't have any problem with the people doing 50 if you were doing 50 as well. "The other people are driving 70 mph too" is a pathetic excuse a kid might come up with. Besides, most people seriously overestimate their driving abilities.

      --
      The owls are not what they seem
    39. Re:We SORELY Need this Technology in the US by Mafia$oft · · Score: 1

      Just a "don't do this at home, kids!" clarification:
      You can NOT assume Germany to have unlimited speed on all highways, in fact on many sections it's now limited to e.g. 120 or even 100 KPH.
      That doesn't mean that there is no unlimited highway section any more, but there are many more limits than there used to be.
      (which probably has to do with insanely increased traffic, worsened road conditions, ...)

      And the obligatory notice: unlimited speed doesn't mean you can go as fast as you want, but as fast as your current driving environment safely allows for...

    40. Re:We SORELY Need this Technology in the US by moonbender · · Score: 1

      Just to disspell some of the mythical qualities of the German autobahn, while there is no general speed limit on the highway, very often there are signs indicating speed limits very much in line with the rest of the world. Very hard to say how much of the national highway network has a speed limit in place... 10%? 20%? 40%? Maybe someone else knows.

      --
      Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
    41. Re:We SORELY Need this Technology in the US by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1
      Hazardous driving like following too close, passing too tightly, which is on the books of as illegal, has no revenue stream. Yet these actions themselves are highly dangerous and CAUSE accidents. Why are cops not checking for these infractions? Simple, it means WORK, and the revenue earned is less than the effort required. Meaning its not a cash cow.
      You touch on an important point there. Here in NL, speeding tickets have become little more than a cash cow. Each district gets a quota for the nr. of tickets issued in a year, and since a few years, the revenue of these tickets is part of the country's budget (it wasn't always so). Meaning that if we all start driving according to the book, the finance minister would have a gap in his budget to fill. End of last year, people said to each other jokingly: "if you have to drive through Zeeland, stay within the speed limit, buckle up, make sure your car is in order and don't do anything else that might attract a cop's attention. That region is way behind on their ticket quota this year". And yes, that does mean they will do you for anything

      Privacy concerns aside, there's a nice advantage to a car-mounted system that monitors speed violations, namely that traffic cops can be released from radar gun duty to do real work. Before anyone chimes in to say that checking for speed violations is part of their job... no it is not! Keeping the roads safe is their job. Speed limits and other rules are merely a means to that end. Does that mean that we should be allowed to break the speed limit whenever we want? Of course not. My point is that the usual speed traps do not contribute one iota to road safety, because you'll invariably find them on roads where it is safe to drive, say, 70km/h, but the limit has been set at 50 for some arbitrary reason. Easy pickings, and after all, they have a quota to fill.
      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    42. Re:We SORELY Need this Technology in the US by moonbender · · Score: 1

      Yes: kph = kilometers per hour

      It's not really weird, I think most speakers of English would be startled to see anyone write about "driving 50 m/h". In fact it actually looks really odd to me, even though I'm used to km/h...

      --
      Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
    43. Re:We SORELY Need this Technology in the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Take a prozac. And by the way, you are wrong.

      Trafic fines brought in more than 1.5 million in 2004. The cost of maintaining traffic enforcement was over 2.5 million.
      http://www.spokanecity.org/government/po g/budget/b ids/?BidID=9

      Try taking your persecution complex to a shrink instead of slashdot.

    44. Re:We SORELY Need this Technology in the US by The+Tyro · · Score: 5, Informative

      I'm sorry, but I need to respond to this.

      Bringing up the police always seems to generate these "cops are all lazy, greedy, donut-eating, keeping-the-little-guy-down, tools-of-the-fascist-oppressors" posts.

      As a slashdotter with a background in law enforcement, I'll let you in on a little secret: with the exception of the highway patrol guys, most municipal/county cops HATE doing traffic. It's boring, repetitive, and most cops would much rather be doing something/anything else.

      Most police officers do NOT look on themselves as good little revenue-generators for their respective cities/mayors... the relationship is usually far, far more fractious and antagonistic than that. Besides, the individual cops don't get a cut of those tickets. There is little incentive to bust your butt, deal with the nasty attitudes of the people you stop, generate irate letters-to-the-editor in your local paper, all while doing something that you hate anyway. With the exception of a few small-town speedtraps (that have given other cops a black eye), most cops have better things to do than sit on their ass and write tickets all day.

      That said, a good knowledge of the traffic laws can serve you well. If you see someone acting suspiciously, their breaking of a traffic law gives you probable cause to stop them. Then, while writing their ticket, you look through the back window and see a gun and ski mask laying on the floor in the back seat (or you see the occupants madly stashing contraband as you execute your vehicle approach)

      BTW, the assured-clear-distance tickets, reckless operation citations, etc are finable offenses, so the "no revenue" accusation doesn't wash. Fact is, fewer of those offenses are ticketed because people take great pains not to commit them in front of police. You would not believe the difference in driver behavior, simply by comparing what you observe while driving your POV to what you observe while driving a marked cruiser.

      There's a reason the expression "driving like you've got a cop behind you" exists.

      --
      Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
    45. Re:We SORELY Need this Technology in the US by LadyLucky · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Speeding tickets has nothing to do with safety, but everything to do with making money in the government. Don't believe me? Check the revenue at the local law enforcement office.

      That's the best part - it's a tax that you can avoid paying entirely. Don't speed, and you don't have to pay a penny, yet the police get billions in revenue.

      In my books, that's a great deal. The fact that my car (a beautiful 2003 Toyota Camry) has great efficiency at 90kph is just a fringe benefit too.

      --
      dominionrd.blogspot.com - Restaurants on
    46. Re:We SORELY Need this Technology in the US by rmarll · · Score: 2, Informative

      Heh. Speed limits don't do what you think. The safest way to pick a speed limit is to monitor the road without speed limits, and set the limit at the speed which 80% of the drivers naturally drive under. This is accepted fact across the nation. Guess how many speed limits are created this way? Almost none. Why? VERY BAD FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT REVENUE.

      This is a popular myth. I keep a link to my local city's budget just for this purpose. What you'll find is that ticket revenue doesn't even cover the expense of trafic enforcement, much less generate "revenue" for the rest of the city. Fact is, traffic enforcement is a huge loss.

    47. Re:We SORELY Need this Technology in the US by slavemowgli · · Score: 1

      Actually, in Germany, many parts of the motorways do have speed limits, so it's not like you can drive as fast as you want *all* the time. ^_~

      That being said, though, you're quite right, and in fact, it seems to me that often enough, speed limits that really should be raised aren't, because not doing so means the state can make more money by occasionally handing out tickets to everyone.

      For example, over here, the (basic) speed limit for towns is 50 KPH (it can be lower (or sometimes higher) in certain areas of towns, of course, but if nothing else is said, it's 50 KPH); the actual speed at which everyone's driving is about 60, though. The logical thing to do would be for the government (no matter on which level) to say "OK, everyone's driving at 60, anyway, so we'll just raise the speed limit to that); however, that doesn't happen, as it'd mean that they couldn't cash in on anymore.

      To get back to the original topic, though, considering that the UAE apparently plan to ticket people *every* time they go above the speed limit, I'm not sure whether they really just want to cash in - after all, if you do have a cash cow, you're better of in the long term milking it instead of slaughtering it (which I think explains nicely why governments, no matter how often they say they only give out tickets to prevent accidents, usually don't do so *too* often - if they did, they'd risk that people *actually* change their driving habits).

      No - call me cynical, but I think the real purpose is a different one. I'd say it's more likely that they do want to get an infrastructure into place that allows them to automatically track every vehicle etc.; the "we want to enforce the speed limit" is just a strawman, just like "we want to crack down on accidents" is with other governments.

      --
      quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
    48. Re:We SORELY Need this Technology in the US by imsabbel · · Score: 1

      well, but the stupid kph doesnt have a meter anywhere, so it could be kilo everything.
      Not to mention that just "kilo" is most often associated with kilogram, not kilometer.

      --
      HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
    49. Re:We SORELY Need this Technology in the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      _None_ of these arguments diminishes the basic fact: people don't give a shit about other people's lives. I've got two friends of mine dead and other two serious injured in _four_ distinct car accidents.

      I'm spanish and people drive like there is no tomorrow (literally) here. I would _love_ to see something like that implemented here.

    50. Re:We SORELY Need this Technology in the US by moonbender · · Score: 1

      It could be anything, but, well, it's not. Your second sentence just serves to prove that point: people (in Germany) routinely refer to kilograms simply as "kilo", and even though that could be kilo-anything, well, it's not, and it's really not a source of misunderstanding, ever. It's clear from context whether you're referring to a weight or a distance.

      --
      Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
    51. Re:We SORELY Need this Technology in the US by rmarll · · Score: 1

      The link

      http://www.spokanecity.org/government/pog/budget /b ids/?BidID=9

    52. Re:We SORELY Need this Technology in the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1) MOST people drive too fast and follow too close. We obviously need stronger punishment.

      2) Speed tickets are not about safety, but speed limits ARE! Now... How do we force people to drive safely if there is no punishment?

      3) Following too close or passing too tightly is a judgement call. My sister got a ticket a ticket once because she didn't respect a stop sign. She decided to challenge it, went to court... and WON! Now, guess what she would have done for "following too close". Giving tickets for following too close would mean most cops would spend their days in court.

      4) Not so long ago I had an accident on a highway. Just after a curve there was a traffic jam (caused by another accident). I stopped without problems but the moron behind me (who was busy talking on the phone) didn't react fast enough. The result was $4000 of dammage for my car. By chance the speed was only 100 KPH, If it was 150 KPH, it would have been a lot worse. You have to understand that a German do not drive the same way as a Canadian does. Yes, that means I'm saying that Germans are better drivers than Canadian (I'm Canadian BTW).

      5) Yes, cars are safe enough for 150-160KPH... But roads and, most importantly, drivers are not. Going at only 100 KPH give them more time to react.

    53. Re:We SORELY Need this Technology in the US by coopex · · Score: 1

      There are many well thought out logical refutations of your post. However, so as to do a service to slashdotters who have actual jobs and aren't staying up until the wee hours drinking and playing halo at uni, I refute it thus: You are a moron. (Also, I kick you in the head.)

      --
      The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
    54. Re:We SORELY Need this Technology in the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cool, can you give me your address then please? I have a death wish, and I would like to come over and shoot you to death, right in the head. I don't give a shit if they give me the electric chair or put me to death by lethal injection. I mean, its just life, right? It has an END.

    55. Re:We SORELY Need this Technology in the US by cahiha · · Score: 1

      That's actually the law: in some states, you can get a ticket for observing the speed limit if, by doing so, you obstruct the flow of traffic. There are historical reasons for this, too. The speed limit in the US wasn't enacted for safety reasons, it was enacted to save gasoline.

    56. Re:We SORELY Need this Technology in the US by cahiha · · Score: 1

      people just don't follow the speed limit anymore

      What makes you think they ever did?

      or maintain safe braking distances

      That's a completely unrelated problem. Cops are much more likely to ticket you for following to closely at any speed (or other unsafe driving) than if you nominally exceed the speed limit but are going with the flow of traffic.

    57. Re:We SORELY Need this Technology in the US by mithras+the+prophet · · Score: 1
      Wreckless and drunk driving is nowhere near popular enough for that to apply. They're both considered by the majority to be insane.

      Personally, I don't mind wreckless driving at all... but maybe that's just me.

      :)
      --
      four nine eighteen twenty-7 thirty-nine forty-7 fiftyeight sixty-nine seventy-9 eighty-8 one-hundred-and-nine one-twenty
    58. Re:We SORELY Need this Technology in the US by Catmeat · · Score: 1
      2) Speeding tickets has nothing to do with safety, but everything to do with making money in the government. Don't believe me? Check the revenue at the local law enforcement office.

      If this were so, the last thing the authorities would want is a perfect speed enforcement system. If each car had a black box that snitched on the driver, each time he or she went 3 mph over the limit, then nobody would speed as evading fines would be impossible. The revenue stream would quickly dry up.

      To maximise revenue, an imperfect enforcement system is needed. One that will only catch some speeders. The average motorist will continue to speed as they know they have a reasonable chance of getting away with it.

      This seems to be exactly what we have in the UK in our network of roadside speed cameras.

    59. Re:We SORELY Need this Technology in the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "people don't give a shit about other people's lives. I've got two friends of mine dead and other two serious injured in _four_ distinct car accidents."

      How old were they? Typically young people get in a lot of accidents until they're over 25 and get enough experience to avoid accidents.

    60. Re:We SORELY Need this Technology in the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "the authorities would want is a perfect speed enforcement system."

      They do. Its only been within the past few years that such a system is practical, hence the push to start doing things like this.

      Witness the steroid idiot in Cawlee-Fornia suggesting all vehicles be GPS tagged and charged according to road use, because "gas taxes are unfair to SUV users".

    61. Re:We SORELY Need this Technology in the US by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Come on, speeding fines are not a major revenue source

      Actually, they can be. Cincinnati is getting ready to institute speeding cameras, and the expected revenue is $12 million per year. Some members of the city council are looking at this specifically as a revenue source to help balance the city budget.

    62. Re:We SORELY Need this Technology in the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Very hard to say how much of the national highway network has a speed limit in place... 10%? 20%? 40%?"

      There was just a show about the autobahn and its cops (and the tech they use) the other day -- the claim was that 50% of it had a speed limit.

      Maybe us Americans need to send this show over to one of your networks :-)

      Honestly, it was kind of interesting and dispelled a lot of myths. For instance, your roads are a LOT better in the states because they are just built right in the first place -- the depths of the concrete used are generally 8 to 10x that the US uses to make certain that its strong and lasts. Here -- we use just enough to get by til next summer when half our highways are under improvement again with 3/4ths of the lanes closed so that we can support road crews. That and the gradient of the road is severly limited -- the claim was that by limiting the grade, cars don't have to fight so much to hold onto the road, where as the US just doesn't care. I know there are quite a few hills that I have to deal with on the highway here that if you don't slow down, you WILL feel the tires pull away from the road for a second or two (ok, exageration) -- just hope nothing is past the hill needing to slow down fast.

      More or less, you guys know how to build roads and as such, you CAN drive a lot faster.

    63. Re:We SORELY Need this Technology in the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The risk is that if you raise the limit to 60 KPH you'd end up having people drive 70...

    64. Re:We SORELY Need this Technology in the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You need *very* good roads to drive 150KPH. Do you really believe you can do that on US highways? You obviously have never seen the potholes. Hit one of those babies going 100MPH and you're toast.

    65. Re:We SORELY Need this Technology in the US by winwar · · Score: 1

      "BTW, the assured-clear-distance tickets, reckless operation citations, etc are finable offenses, so the "no revenue" accusation doesn't wash. Fact is, fewer of those offenses are ticketed because people take great pains not to commit them in front of police."

      This is only partly true. I have seen people run red lights in front of police officers. Nothing happened. I have seen them tailgate regularly in front of officers. Nothing happened. Of course, I have also seen them speed in front of officers regularly and nothing happened too.

      Speeding is easy to prove. The other offenses are more subjective. Guess which will be enforced more readily. The police and prosecutors are just as lazy as the rest of us.

      One of the problems is the fact that almost everyone (if not everyone) breaks traffic laws at some point. But only a percentage are ticketed with negative consequences. This is a recipe for widespread dissatifaction. Of course, if they could ticket everyone, heads would roll (laws, speed limits, and elected officials would quickly change)....

    66. Re:We SORELY Need this Technology in the US by broller · · Score: 1

      or maintain "safe" breaking distances (which seem rather arbitrary)

      I guess it's arbitrary if you have no knowledge of physics. Safe distance is pretty easy to measure if you know the rate of deceleration of your car. I think the formula would go something like:

      distance = initial speed * time + ( 1/2 ) * acceleration * time^2

      That would give you stopping distance for the rate of (negative) acceleration your car\brakes can do in an emergency. If that distance is longer than the distance between you and the car in front of you, you need to back off a bit.

      The reason people use the "3 seconds" rule is that it works at any speed and requires only 3-5 seconds to evaluate as you travel along.

    67. Re:We SORELY Need this Technology in the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i live in Louisville, KY. not exactly the smallest of small towns (pop 700k, 16th largest city in US), and they are horrible here with the ticketing. they use multiple different colored ford f150 pickup trucks with toolboxes mounted in them, i have seen oldsmobile alero's, 90's ford thunderbirds, multiple different colored camaro's, jeeps, etc all for traffic enforcement. makes me sick when i know that the main north-south corridor expressway is set at 55mph and all the loop roads with less lanes etc are all at 65mph but where do they sit all the time, on the main corridor, the only one set artificially low, everyone is cruising at 70 on it anyway, makes for a nice steady flow of tickets. i have been to ticket court, it is 3 rooms standing room only, and this is every week, multiple court times in one night also.

    68. Re:We SORELY Need this Technology in the US by SerpentMage · · Score: 1

      Living in Switzerland, and having lived in Germany, I will disagree with you. If you live near Koeln sure you can't move five meters. However, I was living in Southern Germany and former east Germany and there is still plenty of stretchs to put the pedal to the metal. In fact I could often do 250KPH. My car could do faster, but it is limited.

      --

      "You can't make a race horse of a pig"
      "No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
    69. Re:We SORELY Need this Technology in the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      But 35 is not. It's still illegal though.

      Not where I live...35 is the limit in all unposted residential areas. They're almost all that way...

    70. Re:We SORELY Need this Technology in the US by Glock27 · · Score: 1
      Automated speed control is a good thing. You can't rely on people's own judgement on how good drivers they are -- it's well known that most people completely overestimate their abilities.

      You're touching on a point that is extremely important. What we need are autonomous cars that drive themselves. In our current through-the-looking-glass legal system there is already whining about liability "but if one of these cars has an accident and kills someone who is responsible?". That shouldn't matter if it can be shown that overall they are safer than human drivers...which shouldn't be hard. The manufacturers should be granted immunity from any lawsuits against the control software. Perhaps they could pay a fixed amount (say $1 million per death) for every time it is shown that the car's software didn't perform as well as an expert human driver would have, resulting in a fatality.

      The social benefits (no more "under the influence" deaths/arrests, no more tickets, fewer traffic deaths overall etc.) combined with the increased productivity of being able to do something useful while commuting would be staggering.

      --
      Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
      Score: -1 100% Flamebait
    71. Re:We SORELY Need this Technology in the US by Tadu · · Score: 1
      It's not really weird, I think most speakers of English would be startled to see anyone write about "driving 50 m/h". In fact it actually looks really odd to me, even though I'm used to km/h...
      You pretty much have to replace "speakers of English" by "US-Americans" here - anyone using the current unit system will use and understand km/h in written text because it is the natural thing to do. Of course, if you're used to obsolete mph, then kph might sound like it makes sense ;)
    72. Re:We SORELY Need this Technology in the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Actually, they can be. Cincinnati is getting ready to institute speeding cameras,


      As long as they keep em off my section of I-275 that's cool. ;)

      Then again, I'd probably rather get nailed by "photo radar" than some prick from the Cincinnati Police Department. Talk about a force with too many under trained undereducated kids masquerading as cops.

      Now.. if we'd just use the photo radar revenue to actually fund our schools...
    73. Re:We SORELY Need this Technology in the US by bananasfalklands · · Score: 1

      Being 'English' yes Traffic police may be needed, but the those who manage the english budgets think they can do WITHOUT them and in the UK are replacing human officers with Gatso speed cameras and there ilk.

      This means that if you do not have insurance, driving with drugs, - you will not be stopped.

      Beware - you make a definition between the job and the accountants - its the accounts who run the UK police forces.

      If you work in police tech good for you, but I see an amazing amount of retards in cars that no 'speed camera' will catch.

      You have to think the way accountants think or otherwise most of your post is /dev/null.

      --
      Send Peter Clifford Francis Macrae comdoms to 23 Bedford St, St.Neots, PE19 1AX, England
    74. Re:We SORELY Need this Technology in the US by NOLAChief · · Score: 2, Insightful
      You've never been through (insert ubiquitous small town here), have you? There are towns out there that exist solely as speed traps. They usually appear on a major state or US highway (not interstates) between larger population centers. Since local authorities set the speed through their towns, they will ramp down the speed limit 20-30 mph in less than half a mile. At the end of that is the town's lone cop with a radar gun and your ticket already half filled out. If you haven't already vaporized your brakes trying to kill your speed in time, you're toast.

      Some states have tried to pass laws making it harder to do this, but they have always been met with cries of "But we have no other revenue source for our town!!!" Yes, it's that blatant. I've heard that Florida's famous for this and I've had near misses in Colorado and Missouri.

    75. Re:We SORELY Need this Technology in the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      they use multiple different colored ford f150 pickup trucks with toolboxes mounted in them, i have seen oldsmobile alero's, 90's ford thunderbirds, multiple different colored camaro's, jeeps, etc all for traffic enforcement.


      In the spirit of slashdot oneupmanship I just gotta say, that ain't shit. A buddy of mine years ago (I think the early 90's) got clocked by one of those huge dump trucks that had a cop with a radar unit in it. Of course he was pulled over a bit later by a regular patrol car, but the indignity of getting nailed by an earth mover is just too much.

    76. Re:We SORELY Need this Technology in the US by Glock27 · · Score: 1
      distance = initial speed * time + ( 1/2 ) * acceleration * time^2

      You need to lose the "initial speed * time" term here. It is a two-step process.

      t = v / a gives you the time needed to stop.
      d = 1/2 * a * t^2 gives you the distance required.

      If your stopping distance + your initial position is >= the stopping distance of the car in front of you + its initial position, you have a problem.

      Note that the accelerations can be quite different, for instance if you're following a Porsche Carrera in your Cadillac Escalade.

      However, this calculation still neglects an important, and highly variable value, human reaction time. Be sure and add a term of:

      d = v * t

      Where v is the initial velocity, and t is the reaction time of the driver. This only needs to be done for the rear vehicle.

      The reason people use the "3 seconds" rule is that it works at any speed and requires only 3-5 seconds to evaluate as you travel along.

      Let's see...again by high school physics, 3 seconds at 60 MPH (88 ft/s) works out to 264 ft. Shooting for following distances like that simply won't work (other drivers cut in, or drive like maniacs, or you get shot) in any urban freeway environment I've lived in...YMMV of course. ;-)

      --
      Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
      Score: -1 100% Flamebait
    77. Re:We SORELY Need this Technology in the US by NOLAChief · · Score: 1
      There is a public safety element at work here. In the last 6 months in the New Orleans area, a stretch of interstate and a heavily-used bridge over Lake Ponchartrain have both seen speed limit increases. The rationale was essentially to decrease the delta between the people who actually obey the limit and those who think they know what the "accepted" speed is and thus decrease accidents. They coupled this with stepped up enforcement on the idiots who still insist on going over the new limit.

      IF you think you own the road and can go whatever speed you want, you WILL cause an accident. It's just a matter of time. I've seen drivers so intent on maintaining their idiotically high speed and NEVER EVER hitting the brake that they will swerve in and out of lanes and onto the shoulder. Barring that, they will tailgate within an inch of your bumper and at the first opening swerve around you and come within an inch of clipping you. Law of averages says your luck will run out. Then you slow down traffic for the rest of us as the police scrape your bloody remains and that of the innocent family you just took out off of the pavement.

    78. Re:We SORELY Need this Technology in the US by theLOUDroom · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Fact is, fewer of those offenses are ticketed because people take great pains not to commit them in front of police. You would not believe the difference in driver behavior, simply by comparing what you observe while driving your POV to what you observe while driving a marked cruiser.

      The fact is, I have NEVER seen anyone get pulled over for say, not signaling... and I have seen it done in front of cops many times.

      At least in my area, they just don't care.
      Driving down the road a 65 on a nice day when you have two freakin miles of visibility will land you a ticket, but changing lanes or cutting someone off almost NEVER does. I really don't care too much how fast someone's going, so long as they keep it under insane speeds, what's actually dangerous is when they do something unexpected, like turn left in fron if you without signaling.

      with the exception of the highway patrol guys, most municipal/county cops HATE doing traffic.

      Of course rather than standing up for their principles, they do it anyways. And then of course there are those little towns that deliberatlely set their speed limits WAY too freaking low. It's basically a conspiracy by the local gov't to pull in money. and the police STILL enforce them. At what point are you being a scumbag for giving someone a ticket, when the speed limit is 10mph below what it should be? 20? 30?
      If police want to be looked on better by the general population, they should start displaying some ethics. Rather than ticketing people for things that shouldn't be illegal in the first place, they could go try to catch people commiting crimes that actually have victims.

      Besides, the individual cops don't get a cut of those tickets.

      Except that they have a quota and they are expected to meet it. This is considered in their evaluations.

      Somehow there's always this amazing spike in "traffic enforcement" towards the beginning and end of each month. Whether the quota is official of not, it's pretty obvious they do exist.

      BTW, the assured-clear-distance tickets, reckless operation citations, etc are finable offenses, so the "no revenue" accusation doesn't wash.

      But it does because police actually have to DO WORK to catch people commiting those offenses. Right now traffic enforcement seems totally geared towards "How many people can I bust per hour." instead of "How can in improve that saftey of our nation's roadways."
      It's pretty obvious since even you are complaining about how hard it is to catch people committing offenses that are dangerous.
      Why not actually put some effort into giving tickets that make sense, rather than highway robbery?
      Oh yeah, you might actually have to work hard, and you might not get promoted since you wouldn't meet quota.

      --
      Life is too short to proofread.
    79. Re:We SORELY Need this Technology in the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1) Yes there are citizens who drive fast and follow too close. Just like there are citizens who smoke, eat too much, don't excercise, fart and burp in public. FACE reality, that is called humanity.

      The only one of those that can endanger other people is smoking, and surprise surprise, there are laws and bans for smoking.

      People rape and murder each other too. Should we FACE reality, that is called humanity?

      2) Speeding tickets has nothing to do with safety, but everything to do with making money in the government. Don't believe me? Check the revenue at the local law enforcement office.

      You need to go back to school and take a lesson in logic. Legislation can have more than one consequence. The existence of a consequence regarding profit does not negate the possibility of a consequence regarding safety.

      Speeding tickets punish speeding. Speeding is dangerous. Therefore speeding tickets discourage unsafe behaviour. Unless you have made some miracle breakthrough in physics and engineering that reduces stopping distances considerably?

    80. Re:We SORELY Need this Technology in the US by Mattintosh · · Score: 2, Interesting

      One of the problems is the fact that almost everyone (if not everyone) breaks traffic laws at some point. But only a percentage are ticketed with negative consequences. This is a recipe for widespread dissatifaction. Of course, if they could ticket everyone, heads would roll (laws, speed limits, and elected officials would quickly change)....

      Which is why speed limits need to go away. A logical way of deterring bad drivers from causing harm would be to punish for harming someone. Like this:

      1st accident - huge fine
      2nd accident - lose license for 1 year
      3rd accident - lose license for 5 years
      4th accident - lose license. period.
      Accident resulting in death - manslaughter charge, 5-15 years of prison.
      1st DUI/DWI - lose license for 5 years
      2nd DUI/DWI - lose license forever
      DUI/DWI accident resulting in death - 2nd (or 3rd) degree murder.
      Driving without a license -

      Very simple, straightforward, and easy to enforce. When someone screws up, they deal with it. Hopefully it scares them straight. If they screw up bad enough, they aren't a problem in the future.

      Of course, this puts more burden on the prison system, so they're going to have pass or revise laws to drastically reduce the amount of legal bullshit for the serious offenders, increase the number of death penalty and slap-on-the-wrist cases, and actually execute people on death row instead of letting them sit there for a decade or two. This is, of course, way too much to ask or expect from our lazy-ass lawmakers.

    81. Re:We SORELY Need this Technology in the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like it's time for a song dedicated to Mr, "I can rationalize anything":

      Troll Troll Trol your post!
      Gently down the wire
      Fairie-lee Fairie-le Farie-lee Fairie-lee
      Flames Blaze into Fire

    82. Re:We SORELY Need this Technology in the US by eno2001 · · Score: 1

      Oh yeah... I forgot about that vast government conspiracy to ticket us all to death so that they can get rich. Thank you for bringing that to my attention. Do you also happen to have the inside scoop on Area 51 and Roswell? I do so trust your sources... Ass.

      --
      -"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
    83. Re:We SORELY Need this Technology in the US by BandwidthHog · · Score: 1

      Yep. Highway 17 through South Carolina is notorious as well. Between Myrtle Beach and Charleston you do 70 for a while, then 55, then 45, then 35, then 60, then 45, etc. It gets to the point that you're worried more about missing a change than watching the road.

      --

      Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
    84. Re:We SORELY Need this Technology in the US by symbolic · · Score: 1

      Come on, speeding fines are not a major revenue source,

      I guess that depends on where you live. I've heard that in some areas, ticketing speeders is much more likely to generate a good ROI, than say, ticketing drivers who regularly scat all over everyone with their loud car stereos. My understanding is that if it's NOT a major source of revenue, it won't be addressed- a sad state of affairs if you ask me.

    85. Re:We SORELY Need this Technology in the US by SA+Stevens · · Score: 1

      Barring that, they will tailgate within an inch of your bumper

      I miss having a sun roof, and a coffee can full of taconite pellets beside me on the passenger seat.

      (okay, just fantasizing)

    86. Re:We SORELY Need this Technology in the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      If you see someone acting suspiciously, their breaking of a traffic law gives you probable cause to stop them. Then, while writing their ticket, you look through the back window and see a gun and ski mask laying on the floor in the back seat (or you see the occupants madly stashing contraband as you execute your vehicle approach)

      Oh such tripe. If you see someone acting suspiciously? Sorry bub, but thats not a crime. You're make a hypostatic leap here, suspicious = gun and ski mask in the back seat! Oh my god, what about the children!

      Without an question, the vast vast vast majority of people pulled over by cops for traffic infractions have no commited any other offense than the traffic infraction. The facts clearly bear this out, and you know it. But your post belies the true intentions of at least yourself, that you're fishing for other crimes. So, in short, cops are indeed acting like jack booted thugs, just thrilled to pull people over so they can search them, knowing, in the cops mind at least, that they MUST be a criminal. Afterall, they did something suspicious! Everyones a crook! I mean, come on, if you haven't got anything to hide, you shouldn't mind getting searched right? So obey citizen and let the nice heavily armed disgruntled cop search you. Afterall, you do want to stop the terrorists don't you?

    87. Re:We SORELY Need this Technology in the US by nxtw · · Score: 1
      The fact is, I have NEVER seen anyone get pulled over for say, not signaling... and I have seen it done in front of cops many times.

      And why would a cop pay attention to someone's signaling, when they could be looking at other things that actually *cause* problems like their head/tail lights (at night) along with speeding? Unless they are looking for drunk drivers, cops mainly go after speeders and those with broken lights.

      Driving down the road a 65 on a nice day when you have two freakin miles of visibility will land you a ticket, but changing lanes or cutting someone off almost NEVER does.

      It's a LOT easier to catch speeders than illegal lane changes and cutting people off.

      I really don't care too much how fast someone's going, so long as they keep it under insane speeds, what's actually dangerous is when they do something unexpected, like turn left in fron if you without signaling.

      That's unfortunate that it bothers you, but you have to pay attention to the road. Many drivers are ignorant, stupid, inconsiderate, etc. Cops cannot watch every lane change to make sure they properly use their signal. The best way to avoid bad drivers is not to drive at all.

    88. Re:We SORELY Need this Technology in the US by Dwonis · · Score: 1
      These days cars and highways for a large part have become safe enough for 150-160 KPH.

      It doesn't work that way.

      Kinetic energy is proportional to the square of your speed. This means that if you're driving at 160 KPH, you have over 3.1 times the kinetic energy as when you're driving at 90 KPH. In the same amount of time as it takes to reduce your speed from 90 KPH to zero, you will not even reduce your speed to 130 KPH if you start at 160 KPH.

      If you're involved in a collision at even 100 KPH, there's quite a good chance that you'll be dead or seriously injured.

      I doubt that cars and roads have improved that much. People's reaction times certainly haven't. Unless you have some hard evidence to back up your safety claims, I think you're talking out of your ass, regardless of your +5, Insightful mod.

    89. Re:We SORELY Need this Technology in the US by SA+Stevens · · Score: 1

      And then of course there are those little towns that deliberatlely set their speed limits WAY too freaking low.

      Or, perhaps, it's because so many of the citizens dogs are getting run over by outsiders rocketing through town, and parents of five year olds are becoming worried.

    90. Re:We SORELY Need this Technology in the US by SA+Stevens · · Score: 1

      Not to mention the fact that hours are suspiciously non-metric unit of measure. Where are the kilohours? Why not ten hours per day and one hundred hours per minute?

      Where's a good French Revolutionary when one is needed?

      (all beheaded?!?!?)

    91. Re:We SORELY Need this Technology in the US by nxtw · · Score: 2, Insightful
      there might also be an actual need for speed limits so that people don't die on the road?

      Of course. This means *reasonable* limits. Not arbitary 35mph speed limits on most two-lane roads that are common in some suburbs. As soon as you enter a different city/township, the limits jump up to 45mph. The nearest interstate has a 55mph speed limit mainly through one entire county -- after being 65mph before that for some time -- hint: most people don't slow down when they see the reduced speed limit sign. Even in a construction zone, most people go at least 65mph (in a 55mph zone), even though they can get doubled fines.

      Come on, speeding fines are not a major revenue source

      Maybe not for the local government themselves, but for the police department they can provide a much-needed boost in many areas.

    92. Re:We SORELY Need this Technology in the US by theLOUDroom · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And why would a cop pay attention to someone's signaling, when they could be looking at other things that actually *cause* problems like their head/tail lights (at night) along with speeding?

      Not signaling IS a major cause of accidents. I would bet much more so than having one light bulb out (cars pretty much have two of everything in case you didn't notice... except for turn signals, which you don't seem to think matter anyways).

      It's a LOT easier to catch speeders than illegal lane changes and cutting people off.

      Which is exactly what I was saying. Cops are more concerned with easy money than actually helping.

      That's unfortunate that it bothers you, but you have to pay attention to the road. Many drivers are ignorant, stupid, inconsiderate, etc. Cops cannot watch every lane change to make sure they properly use their signal. The best way to avoid bad drivers is not to drive at all.

      This is crazy. Cops can't catch every single speeded either, but that not the point. Right now cops basically DON'T EVEN TRY to catch people doing the things that actually cause accidents.
      I'm not bitching that's I have to pay attention to the road, I'm bitching because traffic enforcement in this country is retarded. I've seen people change lanes without signaling in front of a cop on many occasions and nothing ever happens. They aren't even doing anything about the people they DO catch as a matter of circumstance, let alone actually trying to actively do something about it.

      Do you have any idea how many fewer rush hour accidents we'd have if people weren't cutting each other off all the time?

      --
      Life is too short to proofread.
    93. Re:We SORELY Need this Technology in the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe you aught to just get your station wagon/behemoth SUV out of the left hand lane doing 55mph and stop bitching? Gosh!

    94. Re:We SORELY Need this Technology in the US by Space_Balls · · Score: 1

      But I have never heard anyone refer to distance as kilos! "I drove 50 kilos yesterday"...eh, no

      --
      this.showSig(false)
    95. Re:We SORELY Need this Technology in the US by pete6677 · · Score: 1

      Face it, dude, you're an idiot. Nobody cares about your self-righteousness. You obviously feel scared to handle a car at higher speeds. What if someone cut in front of you quickly, which I'm sure they do often as they fly around you, and it required a fast reaction from you to avoid an accident, could you do it? I doubt it, since you'll be too mind-numbed from crawling along at 50 mph to actually think about driving. Get off the highway and take the backroads, where you can go 50 without causing a traffic tieup.

    96. Re:We SORELY Need this Technology in the US by nxtw · · Score: 1
      Yeah, it's the people who drive safely and according to the official regulations who are dangerous

      That's one way to look at it. When most people violate the speed limit in an area, you can blame the problem on many groups:

      • The law/speed limit itself or those who set the speed limit
      • The majority of people that drive over the posted limit
      • The minority who follow the limit
      I blame the minority who does follow the limit. Why? Because it's easier. Because if a few drove faster, the roads would be safer. It's alot easier to get a small amount people to change than to get the minority to change.

      You wouldn't have any problem with the people doing 50 if you were doing 50 as well.

      In many areas, people don't want to drive 50mph. If the speed limit is 50mph, normally I don't want to drive 50mph. I want to drive at least 60. There are very few speed limits which I feel are justified... and most people seem to feel the same way, judging by the speeds they travel at.

      Of course, some people will follow the speed limit simply because it's the law.

    97. Re:We SORELY Need this Technology in the US by theLOUDroom · · Score: 1

      Or, perhaps, it's because so many of the citizens dogs are getting run over by outsiders rocketing through town, and parents of five year olds are becoming worried.

      ...and thus we illustrate the classic "straw man" fallacy. I didn't claim that ALL small town speed limits were too low, I said that some of them are. Are you actually trying to claim that there isn't a single 20 or 30 mph zone in the entire country that was set that way specfically to make money for the town?

      If that's so then why do so many states have laws passed to deal with this problem?

      The reality is that a lot of towns deliberately set their speed limits too low so they have a nearly endless supply of speeders to make money from. Especially in my state, which doesn't have laws to deal with this problem.

      --
      Life is too short to proofread.
    98. Re:We SORELY Need this Technology in the US by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      For example, over here, the (basic) speed limit for towns is 50 KPH (it can be lower (or sometimes higher) in certain areas of towns, of course, but if nothing else is said, it's 50 KPH); the actual speed at which everyone's driving is about 60, though.

      That's because speed sensors have a tolerance of 10 km/h and doing 59 on a 50 road won't trigger them.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    99. Re:We SORELY Need this Technology in the US by CosmeticLobotamy · · Score: 1

      I'm not a skilled driver. It has nothing to do with skill. If 95% are going 65 are 5% are going 50, the 5% are the danger. They accepted limit is predictable. Anything significantly slower is a hazard to the other 95%.

    100. Re:We SORELY Need this Technology in the US by modecx · · Score: 1

      A traffic cop near me regularly brings home his 90's Saturn equiped with police gear (radar, hidden lights, etc) Supposedly it's got a souped up engine also, but he's not a gearhead at all and dosen't know what it is. If you didn't pay very close attention to it, you'd never know it had lights.

      It's also kinda funny, because there's been a guy going around pretending to be an officer giving people tickets, and in general being a creep. Can't trust anyone anymore I guess.

      --
      Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
    101. Re:We SORELY Need this Technology in the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If police want to be looked on better by the general population, they should start displaying some ethics. Rather than ticketing people for things that shouldn't be illegal in the first place, they could go try to catch people commiting crimes that actually have victims.

      Actually this is one thing you don't want.. a police officers job is to enforce the laws created by the elected representives. It is actually unethical for the cops to go picking and choosing the laws they agree with. If ou dont like the traffic laws then take it yup with the local goverment

    102. Re:We SORELY Need this Technology in the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Horrible driving != going the concensus speed of the road.

      What happened in New Orleans is what should happen everywhere. Oklahoma did it on a couple of roads, at least. Anecdotally, it seems to be working fine.

    103. Re:We SORELY Need this Technology in the US by aaronl · · Score: 1

      You're very silly. This wouldn't work at all, and is unnecessary. It is already illegal to assault or murder someone. Enforce what is already there and things work much better. Also, mandatory minimum is a ridiculous idea for sentancing someone. Now that means a jury gets to decide if you broke the law, if the law should apply, but also whether you deserve the minimum sentance. Great idea, now people will go free because a five year sentance, or a murder 2/3 charge is too much.

      You system would simply force people to run from the police at every opportunity, and not to bother getting a license but drive anyway. Much like they do now and for similar reasons.

    104. Re:We SORELY Need this Technology in the US by 955301 · · Score: 1

      No, we need to get rid of cars for all but specialized purposes (rigs, concrete trucks, military, etc.) and switch to personal rapid transit.

      There's no reasons to use band-aid solutions to make cars follow vitual tracks on the road, think for the driver on following other cars, rate of speed, timing intersection crossings, or any other proposal made when a vehicle that IS on a track, IS controlled by computers and not driven by passengers does this more simply and efficiently.

      Classic river crossing problem. We need to take a step back to move forward.

      --
      You are checking your backups, aren't you?
    105. Re:We SORELY Need this Technology in the US by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      "If so many people do it, then it should be acceptable."

      You're forgetting the number one rule to driving: you're the best driver on the road. People push for these laws to be passed because they want to see them enforced on other people. Few people ever stop to think that such low speed limits will ever apply to them, the best driver on the road...

    106. Re:We SORELY Need this Technology in the US by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      So it's magically better if your friend/relative was killed by vehicular manslaughter that didn't involve "aggression" or alcohol?

    107. Re:We SORELY Need this Technology in the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Revenue is not profit! There's a big difference in using fines to pay a portion of the costs of running a police force and using the money to line someone's pockets.

    108. Re:We SORELY Need this Technology in the US by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1

      A) City governments, indeed any government, has no 'profit'.
      B) Did you see the word 'profit' anywhere in my or the GP's post?
      C) There's a big difference between putting in speed cameras to increase public safety, and putting in speed cameras to increase city revenue.

    109. Re:We SORELY Need this Technology in the US by HPNpilot · · Score: 1

      How about demanding better drivers rather than slowing down traffic to the point where gridlock occurs?

      The capacity of a road is more or less proportional to the speed limit. Think mass flow. Take a very busy expressway with traffic flowing at 70 MPH and put a cop there to enforce a 55 MPH limit and you will get a major traffic jam.

      I say, sure, you can have this technology but let's be realistic about speed limits and allow higher speeds but tie access to high speed roads to driver and vehicle capability. 70-80 MPH on freeways can be safe if you keep poor drivers and vehicles with poor maneuverability and braking ability off them.

    110. Re:We SORELY Need this Technology in the US by deacon · · Score: 1
      Oh Please, get a grip.

      I somtimes travel a road which goes thru a shopping mall.

      The road is 2 miles long.

      The whole thing is POSTED at FIVE MILES PER HOUR!!!

      This speed limit has absolutely no relationship to reality. A jogger goes faster than 5 mph.

      And to address your trollish point, it is speed differences, not absolute speeds, which cause traffic accidents on the road.

    111. Re:We SORELY Need this Technology in the US by theLOUDroom · · Score: 1

      ctually this is one thing you don't want.. a police officers job is to enforce the laws created by the elected representives. It is actually unethical for the cops to go picking and choosing the laws they agree with. If ou dont like the traffic laws then take it yup with the local goverment

      The problem with this argument is that it ignores reality. Reality: Cops do choose which laws they're going to enforce each and ever day.

      If a cop's on foot doing a drug sting, he isn't going to catch any speeders. If a cop spends all day on the west side of town, he's not going to stop any random crimes on the east side of town.

      The reality is that cops choose to actively enforce certain laws. Even if a cop isn't actively looking for violators of a certain specfic type, just the simple circumstances of where he is and what equipment he has with him are going to predispose him in a certain direction.

      The ethical thing to do is to actively persue law violations that actually matter, while enforcing all the "nusiance laws" on an "If someone calls us or we happen to see it" basis.

      For example: If wearing a blue shirt on tuesday inside your own house is illegal, should cops sit around trying to peer into everyone's windows, or is there perhaps something better they could be doing with their time?

      --
      Life is too short to proofread.
    112. Re:We SORELY Need this Technology in the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Very good comrade, have some more kool-aid.

    113. Re:We SORELY Need this Technology in the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly.

      Since we've established that 98% of the time speed limits are a meaningless construct, I'm trying to understand why people expect me to drive at their speed?

      I'm not asking you to go 20mph+ or even 1mph+ over the speed limit. All I ask is that you move yourself into the right lane when you:
      a) Are not passing a car
      b) See a car approaching you at a faster velocity

      It's really simple. SLOWER TRAFFIC KEEP RIGHT. You'll find that most problems happen when some jackass won't go the accepted speed and decides to drive next to the people on his right so no one can get by him. This makes people angry, and when they get mad, they will do silly things.

    114. Re:We SORELY Need this Technology in the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "there might also be an actual need for speed limits so that people don't die on the road?"

      Any proof for this? Every country that has increased their speed limits (Italy being the latest) has seen a _reduction_ in road deaths. Why?

      Inattention/tiredness is a far bigger cause of fatal accidents.

    115. Re:We SORELY Need this Technology in the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you see someone acting suspiciously? Sorry bub, but thats not a crime.

      You really need to brush up on your English comprehension skills, because you are whining about nothing at all.

      Nowhere did he say that it was illegal to act suspiciously. It is, however, illegal to speed, and if somebody breaks the law by speeding, a cop has every right to pull them over. If a cop decides to pull over the speeders who act suspiciously in preference to those that don't act suspiciously, that seems like a perfectly sensible way to allocate your time.

      If you don't want to get pulled over, don't break the fucking law!

    116. Re:We SORELY Need this Technology in the US by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Well my brother was killed because he was hit by a speeding car.

      Hardly.

      Your brother was killed because he stepped out of his house. If he had been safe and reasonable and stayed indoors all day he'd still be alive (albeit jobless most likely).

      I am truly sorry that your brother is dead. However, the fact that people are run over by people driving 70 mph is not in and of itself reason to set speed limits below that level. I'm sure people have been run over and killed by people driving 25 mph. Should we cap speeds at 10?

      Some people have the attitude that as soon as one person dies we now have to ban any activity that was remotely associated with that person's death. You might as well ban breathing - everybody dies. 100% guaranteed!

      That isn't to say that reckless driving shouldn't be illegal. However, speed limits are set mainly for the benefit of the insurance industry (who would prefer that we pay premiums but not drive at all).

      I do not question that raising speed limits will increase the number of deaths due to collosions. However, it is also true that banning cars would reduce the number of deaths due to collosions. Society needs to find a balance, and I'd argue that we are not at that point now.

      I wish I could do something that would bring back your brother. However, the fact is that people die every day. We don't need to turn their deaths into crusades to ban all human activity except for the essentials of eating, sleeping, and working.

    117. Re:We SORELY Need this Technology in the US by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Actually, bigger reasons for this are:

      1. The desire of leaders to feel like they have power. (They speed all the time - but they're immune to tickets. They feel good that they get to decide what is safe for everybody else.)

      2. The insurance industry. They do cash in on any law that limits driving in just about any way, since rates don't go down but accident rates do.

    118. Re:We SORELY Need this Technology in the US by eno2001 · · Score: 1

      If it says 5 MPH, then I drive 5 MPH. The inconvenience of driving slower is outweighed by the benefit of perfection attained in following the posted limit.

      --
      -"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
    119. Re:We SORELY Need this Technology in the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Worthless fucktard. If I follow the speed limit and some asshole cuts around me as you describe, it's far easier for me to slam on the brakes and stop because I don't have as much momentum. But I'll bet you've got quite a few collisions, speeding tickets and high insurance premiums to wear as medals of your manly driving. Eat shit and die bitch.

    120. Re:We SORELY Need this Technology in the US by squiggleslash · · Score: 1
      However, speed limits are set mainly for the benefit of the insurance industry
      Uh-huh. Yeah. Because... erm, why?

      Because people who speed are more likely to have accidents and therefore insurance companies want to use their traffic violation history as a factor in how much to charge? Well, yeah. But, in that case, the correct sentence would be:

      "Speed limits are set mainly for the benefit of drivers who do not speed, for they receive lower insurance premiums rather than having to subsidize those who generally drive less safely."

      Because, sure as anything, you can bet that the insurance industry doesn't make up reasons to increase premiums for specific groups as opposed to other groups. That would be financial suicide. The moment you start getting one group to unfairly subsidize another in insurance, those who are unfairly paying more will find another insurance company, because other insurance companies have no financial incentive to abuse the same group as much as the first. It's in their best interests not to.

      Put it this way - if you sincerely believe that speeders drive just as safely as non-speeders (or even more safely), and you run an insurance company, and you see your competitors abusing speeders, then isn't the most logical thing for you to do to offer speeders lower premiums so they switch to your company?

      The statistics show that speeders, generally, cause more accidents than those who drive close to the speed limit. Yes, some Slashdiot is going to reply here "Well, actually, accidents are often caused by people driving too slowly", usually hoping nobody will spot the fact that they're not talking about your average sensible driver doing 55 in, erm, a 55 zone, but the person doing 30 on the interstate.

      This is why insurance companies take into account speed related traffic violations. It's not some evil conspiracy. It's good business practice. You use the information available to determine if a driver is safe or not safe, and you bill them accordingly. You'll need more money to cover unsafe drivers, and you don't care as much about losing them as you do safe drivers, so you ask for more money.

      So, no, the reason for speeding tickets isn't to please the insurance companies. It's not some big conspiracy. It all comes down, in the vast majority of cases, to local governments trying to reduce accidents by setting speed limits that serve to protect motorists by (a) recommending a common speed that drivers will generally stay within range of and (b) ensuring that speed is rational given the driving conditions (lane widths, turns, visibility, numbers of pedestrians, etc.) And if you're going to set a speed limit, there's no point in not enforcing it.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    121. Re:We SORELY Need this Technology in the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure it's what being conservative is all about. Four more wars! But save the lives of those who aren't living! Oh, but execute, execute, kill kill kill!

    122. Re:We SORELY Need this Technology in the US by squiggleslash · · Score: 1
      Actually, no it isn't. There is nowhere in the US where it is illegal to drive at the speed limit. That would be unconstitutional, needless to say, as it would mean there'd be no way of avoiding a ticket. Florida, at one point, tried to enact such a law, largely so they had an excuse to stop suspected drugs traffickers (who would get on the highway, speed up to 5 below, and then set the cruise control), and the law was struck down for obvious reasons.

      It is often ticketable to be driving slower than the traffic to the right of you, but in this case the offense is that you're hogging the passing lane (or whatever the legal term is), not that you're "driving at the speed limit" - if you're not in a passing lane, you'll not get a ticket. There are also a number of areas that have a minimum speed limit (for example, a minimum 40mph on interstates, with the maximum set at 70. Not a minimum of 70 with a maximum of 55...)

      As for the last sentence, US speed limits predate the 1970s "gasoline saving" limits, which was 55mph in any case. Very few, if any, states have a 55mph limit on interstates today.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    123. Re:We SORELY Need this Technology in the US by TheVampire · · Score: 1

      "the individual cops don't get a cut of those tickets. There is little incentive to bust your butt"

      Uh-huh.. And tell a few more lies while you're at it. There are many small towns where the police department is FUNDED by tickets that are given out. A town with a population of about 1000 DOES NOT need a police force of 40+ odd people.

      And there are the towns ( Falls Church VA ) that SUSPEND the officer if they do not meet a specific number of citations issued.

      Now, lie to us again and tell us that the storm troopers have no incentive...

    124. Re:We SORELY Need this Technology in the US by The+Tyro · · Score: 1

      "storm troopers" eh? Yet another cops-are-all-tools-of-the-fascists post.

      I think the chip on your shoulder is obstructing your vision. Otherwise, you'd have been able to read the rest of my post and note the following sentence:

      With the exception of a few small-town speedtraps (that have given other cops a black eye), most cops have better things to do than sit on their ass and write tickets all day.

      I specifically acknowledged that speed-trap towns are sometimes a problem, and that they give other officers a bad name. Believe me, bub... nobody hates that crap more than the other cops. Why? Because any time you're talking to somebody, as soon as you mention that you're a cop, they immediately whip out their worst speed-trap story... yeah, nothing like having to atone for other officers' bad behavior.

      Incidently, I've been caught in one of those speed-trap towns myself (long before I raised my hand) However, I escaped because the officer screwed up reading my license plate and gave me additional citation for an out-of-date registration that wasn't (he failed to consult his pocket 50-state-license-plate and DL guide). Fortunately, I knew enough not to confront the officer during the stop; I immediately drove to the police station and politely explained everything to the sergeant. He promptly ripped up my ticket, apologized, and sent me on my way.

      FYI, you might want to keep a lid on that attitude of yours if you ever get stopped. That "wtf you stopping me for, pig??" attitude is a great way to ensure that the officer isn't even going to consider letting you off with a warning. Go ahead, say your piece... I hope it feels good... I also hope the higher insurance premiums you'll soon be paying will persuade you to treat an officer who's just trying to do his job with some common courtesy.

      Cheers.

      --
      Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
    125. Re:We SORELY Need this Technology in the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i`m sorry?
      hey buddy can you get on your hands n` knees and put you ear to the ground? why? because you`ll be able to hear hitler calling you...
      when "666" becomes mandatory who do you think will be enforcing it? who do you think will be putting people in prison and or killing them for refusing to take the mark? why do you think cops are not being punished for beating up or shooting someone? when jews and christians try to flee the country from persecution, (those who haven`t) who do you think will be trying to stop them? wake up! why do you think car chases are being allowed?

    126. Re:We SORELY Need this Technology in the US by the_mad_poster · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Giving your apparent inability to respond in an intelligent manner to these non-time-sensitive posts on Slashdot, I can only assume your driving skills, which are frequently dictated by your ability to make split-second decisions, fall roughly between this woman's and a cadaver's.

      I fear for the safety of the occupants of your vehicle as you display the average judgement of a 13 year old thug in a stolen Celebrity. You are clearly one of the many clueless sods I encounter on a daily basis, and I shall delight in reading the obituary generated when you go flailing off an overpass somewhere because your Omni wasn't able to handle the turn at 80 mph not because it was technically incapable, but because you're clearly utterly clueless behind the wheel.

      --
      Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
    127. Re:We SORELY Need this Technology in the US by TheVampire · · Score: 1

      The vast majority of cops are power-trip hungry bastards with pyschological problems. There are a few out there who actually are interested in helping the general public, but they are hard to find.

      The two specifics that I mentioned in my post are only two of many. There's a lot more of them out there. And Falls Church is not exactly a "small town speedtrap".

      I have no points on my license, and normal insurance rates. I take it easy during the daytime on regular roads. But late at night when me and my friends can scout out the back roads and post sentrys w/ radios, then all bets are off and 100+ MPH is the rule.

  9. to bastardize an old chestnut- by turbosk · · Score: 2, Insightful

    When they came for the speeders, I didn't speak up, because I wasn't a speeder.

    When they came for the Arabs, i didn't speak up, because I wasn't an Arab.

    When they came for me, there weren't any Arabs or speeders to speak up....

    1. Re:to bastardize an old chestnut- by coopex · · Score: 1

      Ooohhh! Making false analogies is fun, let me try!

      When they came for the rapists, I did not speak, for I am not a rapist.

      When they came for the junkies, I did not speak, for I am not a junkie.

      When they came for the patients in a permanently vegetative state, I did not speak, for I am not a patient in a permanently vegetative state.

      When they came for me, there was no one left to speak.

      --
      The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
    2. Re:to bastardize an old chestnut- by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Nice try, but you didn't do so good, bucko.

      There could be extenuating circumstances surrounding the speed of a vehicle which wouldn't be taken into account when the System fires off a ticket. Tell me which extenuating circumstances might be attached to a rape. I hope they DO come for the rapists, and string them up by their balls.

      There are currently no plans to round up the junkies, but if They did come for the junkies, there will be plenty of folks to speak up for them. Addiction is a serious situation which does not lend itself well to false analogies.

      Terry Schiavo had 15 (fifteen) years to get better. She had a LOT of people speaking up for her for a LONG time, and in the end, I believe her wishes were carried out.

      Hopefully, They will come for you, coopex. Too bad you didn't speak out more intelligently sooner, or someone might have cared.

  10. Windows 3.x by xixax · · Score: 4, Funny

    It was Windows 3.x "Unrecoverable Application Error" before that.

    "Unrecoverable Application Error:
    Truck/camel network sharing collision!"

    --
    "Everything is adjustable, provided you have the right tools"
  11. Hell no! by mangus_angus · · Score: 1

    No WAY your putting something like this on MY car, I WILL NOT BE TRACKED!! Now let me tell you what my kids drive and what it will take to have their cars outfitted with this device. The ticket is in their name correct?

    1. Re:Hell no! by slavemowgli · · Score: 1

      Do you honestly think that they will allow you to opt out of it, or that they will ignore it if you refuse to get the device installed or rip it out again after it's been put in?

      --
      quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
  12. Huge invasion of privacy by Antony-Kyre · · Score: 1

    It just seems like common sense that something like this would be a huge invasion of privacy. Is the government so strapped for cash that this is the only method of getting revenue that they can think of? Or am I missing something here?

    (Ignore the fact that speed can be recorded incorrectly due to tire size among other things.)

    1. Re:Huge invasion of privacy by Mubarmij · · Score: 2, Informative

      I am from the UAE. This (if true) is not a method to get cash and the government is definately not strapped for cash. We have some crazy drivers here.. and if this prove a successful way to control those idiots, then I can put up with such a system..

    2. Re:Huge invasion of privacy by powysbiker · · Score: 1

      This was suggested in the UK a couple of years ago, but even to the extent of actively controlling the speed of vehicles. It's only a matter of time before it gets enforced upon us with severe penalties for interfering with it.

    3. Re:Huge invasion of privacy by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1
      Yeah, but how long are the devices likely to remain working?


      Automotive electronics are not the most reliable of things. Stick delicate speed sensors into nasty environments like gearboxes and so on, and you've got a failure in service waiting to happen. Ever wondered why it costs so much to get failing ABS fixed?

    4. Re:Huge invasion of privacy by Antony-Kyre · · Score: 1

      Which would be a better solution?

      1) Forcing everyone to have technology put in their cars to ticket them when they speed.

      2) Those caught speeding, first offense, fine, second offense, lose license for quite a long period of time.

    5. Re:Huge invasion of privacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The UAE is unlike any other country. The used cars section in the daily newspapers regularly contain ads for lamborghinis and ferraris. A billionaire sheikh, not satisified by merely watching Formula 1, bought his own racing event A1 GP along with 50 world class race cars, and built the track in nine months. If you think that's crazy check out Dubailand

    6. Re:Huge invasion of privacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Both. The first enables the second.

    7. Re:Huge invasion of privacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stick delicate speed sensors into nasty environments like gearboxes and so on, and you've got a failure in service waiting to happen.

      Our cars are already equipped with "speed sensors". If your "speed sensor" isn't working then you're already a menace to other road users.

    8. Re:Huge invasion of privacy by screenrc · · Score: 1

      If speed is such a major concern, would it not be simpler to
      adjust the gas intake of cars cannot run above
      the highest speed limit? Such modifications could be optional, or
      they could be mandated by law -- depending on what you want accomplished.
      Issuing traffic tickets via monitoring systems mostly indicates
      a desire to collect money, not a desire for public safety.

    9. Re:Huge invasion of privacy by powysbiker · · Score: 1

      That's the whole point, they're using GPS for the speed monitoring so it is independent of the car's workings... apart, presumably, for a need for electricity. It isn't difficult for them to make it illegal to drive a vehicle with a defective one, after all, this has been the case for years with tachographs in commercial vehicles.

    10. Re:Huge invasion of privacy by ramblin+billy · · Score: 1


      Actually, commercial trucks (18 wheelers) have had devices for quite a while that allow their home offices to track them, upload engine data, and even disable the vehicle. They use GPS and usually use burst transmissions on cell networks. GPS units are also used on railroad cars, construction equipment, even portable water tanks. If you've rented a car lately it's very likely that the rental company has a record of everywhere you drove. The technology is well developed and very robust. It sure didn't seem like a bad idea when I ordered my Lojack.

      billy - where can I get a tinfoil hat for my car?

    11. Re:Huge invasion of privacy by mtz206 · · Score: 1

      This is a major threat to the privacy of personal information in the context of highway travel. And very similar initiatives exist to install such systems on American cars & highways. I've been engaged in research on DSRC and the design of Vehicle Safety Communication technologies. Much more info can be found here.

  13. UAE? by blake182 · · Score: 1

    "What the heck's this 'Unrecoverable Application Exception track driver'"?

    "Roseanne, it's 'United Arab Emirates', not 'Unrecoverable Application Exception'"

    "Oh. Never miiiind."

    </RoseanneRosannaDanna>

  14. Cut wires/traces to the transmitter by incog8723 · · Score: 1

    Will take about 3 minutes. Enough said.

    1. Re:Cut wires/traces to the transmitter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and what will you say to the police that will show up to your house three days later looking for a reason why your transmitter hasn't checked in yet. ;)

  15. hahah by Pinefresh · · Score: 1

    now we just need to find some way to install linux on it

  16. Awesome-A Different culture. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "I for one would pull it off my car and throw it somewhere."

    That's why you're not a UAE citizen.

  17. I can just see it now.... by victorhooi · · Score: 5, Funny
    System Error 0xFFF83: ILLEGAL OPERATION

    Warning: This user has performed an illegal operation, and will be booked now.

    DRIVER_IN_RED_SEDAN has caused an invalid page fault in module speeding_fines_are_a_cash_cow.dll at 0157:21114020

    Please save all your files, and pull over to the left-side of the road, and exit the vehicle. You may click the button "(*&#%)(*#$#@$#@ piece of c*ap" to view further details, or to see what will be sent to the Roads Revenue Collection Service about this incident. Click "Send Private Data" to send your private and confidential data to IBM, or alternatively, don't click anything, and we will do it anyway.

    Please have a nice day.

    ,

    1. Re:I can just see it now.... by dlichterman · · Score: 1

      yeah im just waiting for these things to BSOD...or give errors http://atom.smasher.org/error/xp.png.php?icon=Attn &title=Ticket&text=Your+Windows+has+crashed.++We+t hink+you+were+speeding%2C+so+heres+a+ticket%21&b1= NO%21&b1g=x&b2=I+was+speeding&b3=Fuck+You%21&b3g=x

  18. Who's rights where?-Constitution for all. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And does this audiance KNOW what rights UAE citizens have to begin with? You know, so we can keep track of the drain.

  19. Each person has their own speed limit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm comfortable driving 20km/h over the posted limit and I'm sure there are some drives who are comfortable driving 20 under the limit.

    Now, by comfortable, I'm referring to *safely*! My mind can safely process all the traffic information very quickly, not to mention the astute physics involved with the motion and vectors. Spotting troubles, risk and knowing when to slow down are skills I've picked up from the many years I have been driving.

    quote from http://www.answers.com/topic/car-accident:Many authorities emphasise speed as an inherent cause of accidents in itself, though most experts agree that speed alone is rarely a prime cause of accidents, though naturally a mis-application of speed can be a contributing factor, and higher speed in an accident resulting from whatever cause is more likely to have serious consequences

    1. Re:Each person has their own speed limit by EzInKy · · Score: 1

      quote from http://www.answers.com/topic/car-accident:Many authorities emphasise speed as an inherent cause of accidents in itself, though most experts agree that speed alone is rarely a prime cause of accidents, though naturally a mis-application of speed can be a contributing factor, and higher speed in an accident resulting from whatever cause is more likely to have serious consequences

      No arguments here. Personally I think differences in speed is more a cause of crashes than speed alone. I'm sure most people have come across the case of somebody entering a highway going 20 MPH below the speed limit. I'm just as sure that most people have come across the case of somebody going 20 MPH above the speed limit racing around them to exit the highway. Those situations are pretty likely to cause accidents, and the best way to prevent such accidents is to ensure that everyone drives the same speed by setting limits that are safe for all drivers on the road, not just grandma Moses or Mario Andretti and those who can not drive at a speed that is safe for the average driver should not be driving at all.

      --
      Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
    2. Re:Each person has their own speed limit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Plain speed isn't one of the major factors as whether an accident will happen or not, nor is difference in speed. (And even from my experience, those comfortable with higher speeds can easily predict and maneuver those at a slower speed.) See below for more information from my quoted article.

      RMFQ & RMFS-> http://www.answers.com/topic/car-accident :
      * Driver distraction, including fiddling with technical devices as noted previously, talking with passengers, eating or grooming in the car, dealing with children or pets in the back seat, or attempting to retrieve dropped items.
      * Driver impairment by tiredness, illness, alcohol or drugs, both legal and illegal. MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving) is an organization made up of the families of the dead who were killed in car accidents caused by drunk drivers.
      * Mechanical failure, including flat tires or tires blowing out, brake failure, axle failure, steering mechanism failure.
      * Road conditions, including foreign obstacles or substances on the road surface; rain, ice, or snow making the roads slick; road damage including pot holes.
      * Speed exceeding safe conditions, such as the speed for which the road was designed, the road condition, the weather, the speed of surrounding motorists, and so on.

    3. Re:Each person has their own speed limit by EzInKy · · Score: 1

      See below for more information from my quoted article.

      I did, particularly noting this part:

      naturally a mis-application of speed can be a contributing factor, and higher speed in an accident resulting from whatever cause is more likely to have serious consequences.

      What I'm saying is driving slower or faster than the flow of traffic is a misapplication of speed.

      --
      Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
    4. Re:Each person has their own speed limit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What I'm saying is driving slower or faster than the flow of traffic is a misapplication of speed.

      Not exactly. Under some circumstances you may be right. Under many conditions with a skilled driver a responsible deviation from the traiifc flow speed is very important. Believe me, many accidents are failures of drivers to properly apply this speed deviation from the traffic flow or not applying it at all.

  20. Huge invasion of my right to do anything. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "It just seems like common sense that something like this would be a huge invasion of privacy. Is the government so strapped for cash that this is the only method of getting revenue that they can think of? Or am I missing something here?"

    1-Why is it every time the police enforce the laws? It's seen as some attempt to make money? Can't they be enforcing the laws BECAUSE IT'S THEIR JOB?

    2-Invasion of privacy. On a public road, driving a vehicle, licensed by the government, engaging in a privilage, that if not carefully controlled can kill and injure people.

    1. Re:Huge invasion of my right to do anything. by Antony-Kyre · · Score: 1

      1) Sometimes it is to get money, but it really depends upon the location. In some places, if I'm not mistaken, police officers have a quota they have to meet for the number of tickets to write.

      2) Well, perhaps a public referendum on such privacy matters. Maybe if 60% of the population can agree that it would be a good thing, then maybe it should be allowed. But such privacy referendums need to be redone like every 5 to 10 years if done at all, incase public opinion changes. After all, laws are suppose to be reflective of what the people want.

  21. Boring by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Australia has had this heinous revenue raiser for the past 10 years. No GPS needed, Bridges zap you numberplate between points and you are dead meat. Oh and you are presumed guilty, and there is a $75 discouragement fee tacked on should you care to dispute matters in court.

    It is a bad idea, because fatigue is the real accident cause, which is why driver on drugs use is soaring (Australians have random driver on drigs tests) and in Victoria the proud stats are 1 out of 70 Vs (1/370 over Alcohol)

    1. Re:Boring by SWTP_OS9 · · Score: 1

      In the U.S. we have another form of Automated inforcement or "Revenue Generator".... IE Red Light cameras. They are all the rage!

      As soon as the cities figure out they would receive 1/2 of the $275 per infraction fee. This became a very hot items! Esp after altering the yellow light length! Funny that the collision shops business have pick up also...

      The latest concept is the new speed tax. Or High Fuel prices. Really help in killing sales of higer grade fuels.

  22. How far does this go?-Till the wheels fall off. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "This is the problem with speed limits in most of America. They are set so low that at least 90% of traffic is always exceeding the speed limit, including the cops, and thus the cops can essentially pull over anyone they want, whenever they want."

    Define "low"? Is that just below the point when the steering wheel starts shimmying?

    Also cops can already pull you over. What makes you think they need "speeding" as justification?

    1. Re:How far does this go?-Till the wheels fall off. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      cops can't just pull u over! read the constitution! are we in NAZI GERMANY?

    2. Re:How far does this go?-Till the wheels fall off. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In many states, "reasonable and prudent" overrides the speed limit. This is fine in say a snowstorm when reasonable and prudent could be as low as 25 even on a 75 highway.. but in the case where conditions are perfect, "resonable and prudent" pretty much means going with the flow of traffic..

      That's right.. the cops can pull you over for NOT exceeding the speed limit if everyone else is. The problem with the GP's post is not that the speed limits are too low (though they probably are - dang carter) but that the cop thought he was above the law. and to a certain extent he is: who's gonna pull him over.
      For this reason, and the anecdotal fact that the most dangerous drivers I ever see on the road are the police, I advocate running a 3 minute loop of closed circuit camera on your dash. prefereably with timestamp and a connection to the speedometer. just pop that sucker out when you see police break the law and submit it as evidence to whoever polices the police.

    3. Re:How far does this go?-Till the wheels fall off. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think something all of you need to realize is that they recieve hours of trainig and certification in driving their veihicles. At extreme speeds too. So before you start calling out the .000001% of trained professionals, how about talking about the millions of idiots who are late for work and think they are above the law. Or the flakey teen chicks with daddys new SUV. Or the gangstas with their pimped rides. Let's look at real problems first.

    4. Re:How far does this go?-Till the wheels fall off. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And of course cops thinking that the law applies to everyone but them isn't a real problem? I'd say Rodney King, several shareholders, and a whole host of other people would disagree.

    5. Re:How far does this go?-Till the wheels fall off. by HeavenlyWhistler · · Score: 2, Informative

      ...Ah, yes, the "trained professional" chestnut. I'm special, you see, and only with my super powers is it OK to drive fast. See how elite I am: .000001% (or about 3 people in the whole US)! Wrong. It's not rocket science to drive 75 MPH, on a sunny day, on a road designed for that speed, in a car designed for that speed, which is to say almost any car on the road today. The problem isn't you the driver, it is the other cars. If one of them changes lanes, or pulls out in front of you, you need to avoid them. It's your visibility that indicates your appropriate speed in most cases. On the flat open freeway, that's not a problem. And 20 years of driving experience beats a 25-year-old cop with "special training" in recognizing which is which. If it was safe for the cop, it was safe for the other drivers. That said, the law is what it is.

    6. Re:How far does this go?-Till the wheels fall off. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not Really relatedt to speeding, but if they want to pull you over bad enough, they legislate ways to make it legal. For instance in Connecticut the cops carry opacity meters to make sure cars with tinted windows don't have an illegal amount of tinting. Of course this stop also lets them check all of your paperwork, possible warrents outstanding, etc which is the real reason for pulling you over.

    7. Re:How far does this go?-Till the wheels fall off. by AK+Marc · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think something all of you need to realize is that they recieve hours of trainig and certification in driving their veihicles. At extreme speeds too.

      No, they don't. I'm familiar with the requirements for cops, and my training has vastly exceeded their minimum training. Of course, training is also irrelevant to their flaunting the laws they enforce. If you think training is important, should I be able to get out of a ticket by showing the training I received at the very same course that Texas Department of Public Safety performs driver training at. Of course, that's not the case. If I were to carry proof of that training and presented it to someone pulling me over, they'd think I was a smart ass and treat me worse, not better. So, we know that it isn't training that is related to the ability to drive fast.

    8. Re:How far does this go?-Till the wheels fall off. by geekboy642 · · Score: 1

      Yes.

      Now what are you doing to serve the Fatherl^WHomeland?

      --
      Just another "DOJ fascist authoritarian totalitarian bootlicker" -- Zeio
    9. Re:How far does this go?-Till the wheels fall off. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, no they can't just pull you over. They need to have a reason.

      Unless they added something about terrorists now and we can all be stopped and asked for our papers?

    10. Re:How far does this go?-Till the wheels fall off. by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      I advocate running a 3 minute loop of closed circuit camera on your dash. prefereably with timestamp and a connection to the speedometer. just pop that sucker out when you see police break the law and submit it as evidence to whoever polices the police.

      Yeah, you could try that but in many states you're the one who may end up in jail, permission hasn't been granted and you'd be breaking the law. Reminds me of a murder case years ago. This man was in his office working on something and he had his tape recorder on when someone else came in. They got into an argument and the second person killed the first. Of course it was caught on the tape, so the police didn't have trouble finding the murderer, but when he was in court the judge had to throw out the tape because he didn't give permission to have himself recorded. As the tape was the only proof, evidence, he murdered anyone he got away scotfree.

      Falcon
    11. Re:How far does this go?-Till the wheels fall off. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To the best of my knowledge permision is only required for audio recordings and does not apply to video recordings - especially video recordings in public.

  23. Ahh...Life Force. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Let the vacuous cries of "big brother" from the teeming /. masses begin!"

    The closes the "teeming masses" have been to "big brother" is when they enrolled in the "Big Brother/ Big Sister" program.

  24. YES! Why isn't Slashdot US-centric enough? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dear editors,

    In your FAQ You give an absolute commitment to being US-centric. "Slashdot is U.S.-centric" you say. No ifs, buts or maybes. So why are you confusing and scaring us by talking about other countries as if they exist of could matter? Please cancel my subscription.

  25. bed time story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    son... back in my day we could speed all we wanted and even run from the cops with the chance to get away.... those were the days

    1. Re:bed time story by quarkscat · · Score: 1

      Jeez! No offense, but you must be a really old fsckr! Since that had to have been before 2-way police radios. ("You can't outrun a Motorola.")

      Top speeds back then must have been all of 70 MPH - not fast by today's standards, except that the roads were mostly cowpaths.

      On a side note, I don't know if it is a matter of road congestion, diminishing social mores, or a general lack of traffic enforcement, but it seems that there are far more people these days that ignore traffic regulations and common sense in the way they drive. Except for an unexpected hardware failure, most traffic "accidents" these days are not accidents but driver stupidity and/or reckless disregard for safety.

  26. Who does and doesn't get a device in their car? by Kerhop · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The article states there are some two million drivers but they're only going to install this into some thousand vehicles, so how do they determine who gets it and who doesn't? My guess is first or second time offenders would get them first similar to how criminals are released back into society but have to "check in" with local law enforcement every now and then or when they move they have to "register" with the local sheriff. I imagine there will be random checks to make sure the devices stay installed in the vehicle as well.

  27. Better Idea by kushboy · · Score: 0

    How about you just pay to go faster? If they are going to get you no matter what with the trackers, there's no incentive anymore to speeding. Instead, up to a certain speed cap, just charge a penny per mph over the limit per mile or something. People have always speeded, and they'll still want to. If it were cheap enough, I'd certainly consider paying the speeding fee.

    1. Re:Better Idea by October_30th · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Would that money cover the costs of increasingly worse accidents? Would that money bring back the dead the number of which would definitely increase? No.

      Why is it that most people who like to "go faster" never seem to realize - or at least admit it - that it's not about them. It's primarily about the safety of the other people (yes, us who like to drive safely and by the regulations) on the road.

      --
      The owls are not what they seem
  28. Yes, I'll take half a system please by miaDWZ · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I can see the benefits of having a warning device telling you if you're going over the speed limit. There are lots of times I've thought to myself "hmmm, I wonder exactly what the speed limit is around here, I have not seen a sign". I've always thought it would be cool for the car to "know" what speed you should be driving at. If this device came around, I would jump at the chance to get one. On the other hand, the entire "speed and we will automatically issue you a ticket" idea is stupid. I don't want *that* half of the system in my car (for obvious reasons). I wonder what would happen if I rip out the mobile phone antenna so it can't transmit my details...

    1. Re:Yes, I'll take half a system please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My 86 BMW's on board computer allows you to enter a 'max speed' and when you exceed that max speed a light will flash on the console and a chime will sound.

      It would be cool to automatically know the speed limit, and it' wouldn't be that hard. Just put a transmitter on all speed limit signs and when the car goes by the sign, it logs the speed limit and retains it until the next sign.

  29. Cell Phone/GSM/Mobile blocking device by RandySC · · Score: 1

    Run a GSM blocker in your car and keep annoying and distracting phone calls away as well as preventing tickets!

    --
    Organization: alphabetical, sometimes numerical or messy
    1. Re:Cell Phone/GSM/Mobile blocking device by krumms · · Score: 1

      keep annoying and distracting phone calls away

      can you say "off button"? :)

  30. have you ever seen Arab drivers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They're the second worst drivers in the world, only surpassed by South Asians.

  31. Uhh.. did you RTFP or RTFA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    first of all, UAE is what you would technically call, "a friggin rich country.." they definitely are not doing this to generate revenue, but rather i would imagine to curb poor driving.

    secondly, quoted from TFA: in which a GPS-enabled "Smart Box" would be installed in cars to provide a voice warning

    tire size has nothing to do with this unit. i can see where you might jump to that conclusion, but seriously, can you imagine IBM implementing any multi-hundred million dollar program that could be circumvented by putting 20" rims on your vehicle that was originally equipped with 17's? heh.

  32. in UAE? by a.ameri · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Well, the technology is good, I can think of hundreds of useful applications for it. But the privacy issues just scare the hell out of me. And, where? in UAE? If it was in a civilized democratic country, where there are restrictions on what a government can do, where there are unions and institutions which care about citizens' rights, then maybe the use of these applications can be justified. But in UAE?

    I lived in the UAE for more than 2 years. I had a very nice job there working at a multinational telecommunication company. Being and Iranian myself, it was a very good opportunity for me as my country was nearby and en route to other places, I could stop at my country a couple of times a year to say hello to my family. But there are things in that country which just scared the shit out of me. Things that eventually made me forget the job and the good opportunity it provided, and virtually escape from there.

    In UAE, a car's plate number can have variable number of digits. No 1 is reserved for the Sultan of the province (there are 7 provinces there, Dubai being the biggest one). No 2 is usually the Sultan's brother, and the 1 digit numbers are all family members of the sultan. Cousins and close friends get 2 digit numbers, as well as their wives and their children. The 3 digit numbers are also relatives of the relatives of Sultan. Ordinary cars have 5 digits on their plates.

    The situation is that no one can stand in the way of a lower-digit car. If you see a 2 or 3 digit car coming from the opposite direction, it doesn't matter if it's your line of road or not, you have to make way for him. The police can not issue tickets to these cars. They do not obey the speed limit; mostly they have Ferraris and Porches which easily pass the 180 mph, and no one can even stop them. Legally, the police can do nothing with them.

    They have all the money of the world. They have built bridges longer and more modern than those in Japan and Sweden, they have made skyscrapers that make New York look like a village, they have cars which automobile manufacturers hand made for their special needs. They have made a heaven out there. And if you just want to have some holiday, get on the beech, go to a resort or something; it is a perfect place. But only if you care nothing about the political situation, and the mentality of the people.

    There are no political parties. No Elections. No private newspaper, no private T.V channel, basically no free speech. The thing that surprised me was that unlike the people of my country, who also lack these things, but at least are fighting in order to get them; they even do not think about having a democratic society, having liberty, and privacy. It is as if these words do not exist in the dictionary of an ordinary Arab. They have been brought up with the mentality that you never question the ruler. They never criticize a single action of any governmental body; be it the municipality, or any other bureau. It was so shocking, and yet embarrassing to me.

    If this technology was being deployed in a democratic country, you would have had many organizations and groups voicing concerns over it. If did not prevent the deployment of such technology, they would have at least made sure that the necessary checks and restrictions on the storage and usage of information about every single car exists. As it is in the UAE, I'm sure no one will even question this thing. No one will even think about how this technology can be used to violate their rights and privacy. It doesn't matter how much money and oil they have and what kind of gadgets they use to control their traffic; when a society lacks basic elements like freedom of speech; that society will not evolve in a positive manner.

    --
    -- /* Those who don't underestand Unix, are condemned to reinvent it poorly */
    1. Re:in UAE? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      all very true, but the reason the people don't fight back is that only about 20% or so are citizens. The rest are expatriates. Hell, even kids born and raised there do not get citizenship if their parent isn't an Emirati Arab.

      The 20% or so Emiratis are extremely rich. They get very highly paid jobs even without being qualified. So they have nothing to protest. The economy and businesses are basically run by the 80% expatriates, mostly from India and pakistan. They have to have an Emirati "sponsor" and pay him a hefty fee to run a business. And whenever there is a whimper of protest, they are immediately banned and sent back to their home countries.

      some links
      http://www.nosweat.org.uk/print.php?sid=1223 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4249223.stm

    2. Re:in UAE? by Detritus · · Score: 1

      Democracies often have similar problems. Try driving in Washington, D.C. The mayor and his cronies have low-numbered plates. Then there are special plates for Senators, members of Congress, diplomats, diplomatic staff, etc. These people are almost immune from getting tickets. They might get temporarily detained if they mow down a troop of girl scouts while drunk. They park when and where they please. I used to live near an embassy and they would park their cars on the sidewalk of the street I lived on when they were having a party. The police couldn't ticket or tow them.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    3. Re:in UAE? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I have lived in that part of the world.



      Things are different for different countries. UAE is still a heaven if u start thinking the pressure with which we live in US. They have all kind of developments and enjoying their life, and we sometimes are shitting in our pants, wondering is somebody is gonna sue me for nothing.



      Hell, I am not justifying all the bad things there. But my point is, why do we shrug for somebody else's country? They have a different way of looking at the world. And many times I felt great and safe there. People love white skin. People love amerikan passport. They have huge respect for smallest opinion we put. What else I could ask for?

    4. Re:in UAE? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      my cred: I lived in the UAE for a good 17 SEVENTEEN years of my life, I grew up there but now am studying in Canada...

      First my one and only critisism, Dubai is not the largest province, Abu Dhabi is. Dubai (the city) is just the most well known and tourist happy city.

      I totally back this guy up, drivers here are nuts. And you don't have to be a bigshot to do it, every other person drives like a maniac. No blindspots, no indicator lights, round-a-bouts that are hell and such fast driving.

      Trust me when I say this, this sort of thing is needed here. Invasion of privacy my butt, safety comes first. BUT, like people above have suggested, the rich folk won't be stopped from this. The locals are resourceful, enough money/status will get anything removed and like the parent said, the police can't do anything to the royal family(extended). I have heard stories about one of them patrolling disguised as a normal person...and stopping folk who drove dangerously and threating them , that was encouraging to hear.

      The rest is off-topic... but read it damn you cause i've spent a good half hour writing instead of doing ch 8 - sample and hold circuits...

      In response to your "rights" concern... the people don't want change because everything is good for them. Who needs free speech when the government takes good care of you? Who cares about election when all nationals have a "stock" in the oil and get handsome dividends? Heck if I knew nothing about management and was head/manager/executive of one of the many oil companies, I wouldn't complain at all.

      The people who do need rights are the expatriates...like myself and youself. These people constitute a a third (or two-thirds...i forget) of the population. They have few rights, can own no property (though this a changing...) cannot get citizenship, cannot openly practice their religion. (Bear in mind I said openly. They are good in the way that there are no banned religions or stuff like that...hold on...jews DON'T even think about going there. Their religion on the other hand is literally blasted into the city (the numerous mosques - 5 surrounding my building... - have megaphones).

      TV is censored... for porn mostly though. R rated movies are shown on tv though. CNN Global and BBC global are cable channels. Internet is proxy fiiltered, all porn/anti-islamic/pro jew stuff is filtered out.

      I hope I haven't given an overly bad impression of the place... the old locals are really nice but the youngins have attitudes and are snobs. Women, at least western or expatriate (indians, pakistanies, filipinos...americans, british etc) ones can wear whatever they want. There is no "dress code", but decency is probably enforced...(no bikinis inside malls...but i have seen them on the waterfront) Local women probably could wear what they wanted...but husbands/familt would object, not the government. This is the place to come to make a lot of money, good careers here are chem engineers, finance releated, and IT for the booming Dubai software business. Civil is booming too.

      People who live here GENERALLY love it! Warm (too warm at times) weather, no tax == happy people.

      Peace out!

    5. Re:in UAE? by a.ameri · · Score: 2, Interesting

      true indeed, not to mention that the expatriaets are not allowed to own a business (they can have a maximum of %49 share) and are not even allowed to buy land or an apartment. I have known pakistanis there who have lived in that country for years, working 6 days a week and trying to raise a family; and yet they are not even allowed to buy a simple apartement there; while the Emiratis get free land from the government.

      And the people who work at all the shops as clercks or sellers, at all the cinemas, hotels, bar maids, managers, corporate types, whores, DJs, etc are all foreigners. I am yet to see a single Emirati Arab actually "work" somewhere. I don't exactly know what does the 20% of this population which receive all the profits and money, do; aside from going up and down the street 10 times a day in their $200,000 cars.

      Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against Arabs, Over the years I have actualy met some very intelelctual and intelligent Arabs. But the realities of UAE are so drastically shocking, that leave me speechless.

      This article is being published in the YRO section, but rest assured guys, no ones rights are being violated here. This device won't be installed in any of the Emirati's cars, and the others simply have no "rights" for it to be violated.

      But as I said, you can't build a country like this. This situation has lasted for 20 years now, I wonder how much longer it can last. It is basically the 21st century equivalent of slavery.

      --
      -- /* Those who don't underestand Unix, are condemned to reinvent it poorly */
    6. Re:in UAE? by slavemowgli · · Score: 1

      That, while unfortunate, is a side effect of the immunity granted to diplomats and MPs (members of parliament - I guess that means congresspeople and senators in the USA). And if you think about it, immunity does make sense, too; the ability of MPs to vote on laws, give speeches on political issues and all that without having to fear repercussions of any kind is an important aspect of democracy. Yeah, it unfortunately means that some (?) of them will abuse that by parking on the sidewalk and so on. But as long as they're only doing that and not - say - robbing banks, it's a small price to pay.

      --
      quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
    7. Re:in UAE? by torako · · Score: 1
      The one big difference between UAE and Iran is wealth.

      As long as people are fed, have enough days off and can afford a nice car and maybe one or two vacations every year they usually don't complain.

      Panen et circenses, that's what it is about.

    8. Re:in UAE? by Mubarmij · · Score: 2, Informative
      Did you really live in the UAE? Your "facts" do not make me think so!

      Fist, car plate numbers:

      Car plates number are prestige symbols here (the smaller the number, the better). They are auctioned off to the highest bidders.

      As for the rest of your message, I am not going to waste my time refuting each and every point (there are private newspapers and TV channels BTW).

      For those interested, UAE is a federation of 7 Emirates (provinces). The largest of which is Abu Dhabi. All the 7 are ruled by dynasties. The governance of the country is voted among those dynasties.

      We have been, so far, lucky to have good people ruling those dynasties. This is why you do not hear much about Democracy. Poeple are living quite well and they see no need change what has been working for the last few decades. This might change in the future once we get a bad apple in those dynasties.

      During the last few years, the UAE's government, and Dubai government in particular was trying to diversify away from oil. There are some quite huge projects currently underway, with a focus on attracting tourism and business. They have been successful so far, with the country seeing more than 10 million tourists per year, along with most of the multin-nationals using UAE for their regional HQ.

      Some of the projects currently being built can be labeled as audacious.. but so far, what was finished among them (and even some that have not been even started yet) have been extremely successful (sold out, mainly to ex-ptriates). These include the tallest tower in the world, three huge palm-shaped islands, along with a collection of islands in the form of the world map, Dubailand, and many others.

    9. Re:in UAE? by a.ameri · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Correct, however unless you have the basic fundamental principles of a democratic society, you won't have sustainable improvement.

      I am talking from fist hand experience here. during 1970s, Iran was more or less in the same situation as UAE is today. People had money to burn, resorts were made in the Caspian sea which surprassed those in the Mediterranean; most of the population could easily afford a couple of vacations a year, and many multinational corporations had chosen Iran as their regional centre.

      However, one thing was lacking, and that was democracy and the freedom that comes with it. History proves that without these, all other financial improvements are temporary. What happened in my country was that in a short period of time, a revolution happened, everything was turned upside down, economic bans and embargos followed and the economy was shaken and basically ruined. Add to that 8 years of consecutive war with a neighbour (Iraq) and you will understand why we are where we are today.

      The situation in UAE is very similar here. They might seem prosperous today, but it's like a building which doesn't have basic correct foundations. You can build on top of it and make a skycrapper out of it, but all it takes to shake this skycrapper is a little push or a little social unrest, as in the case of UAE.

      The argument that "We don't want democracy because our rulers are the best" has been proven to be false over and over during history.

      --
      -- /* Those who don't underestand Unix, are condemned to reinvent it poorly */
    10. Re:in UAE? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I spent some time in iran this year. It greatly suprised me how much people value and fight for their freedom there, all kinds of freedom. And when i look at my own country (a western country) i see people regularly giving up those freedoms without a fight. I wish my country's people valued their freedom as much as the iranians do.

    11. Re:in UAE? by danila · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You don't need to violate the immunity. But if the police would at least be allowed to make some stink, that would help. You know, send the ticket to their office (i.e. the embassador or to the Congress), inform the press, etc. I don't think a parking ticket can really harm the MP that much.

      And to think of it, do you seriously think that if the police had the right to enforce at least some modicum of order with those guys, that our democracy would be threatened? It doesn't make sense.

      The idea of immunity is not challenged by anyone anymore, but it is horrendously elitist and antidemocratic. May be if the MPs had to live by the rules that are set to everyone, they would be motivated to keep an eye on law enforcement and judicial systems.

      --
      Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
    12. Re:in UAE? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you value something when you don't have any :)

    13. Re:in UAE? by slavemowgli · · Score: 1

      That'd be very short-sighted at least, though. Imagine a scenario like the following: tomorrow morning, there will be a vote on an important bill in parliament. Now, the evening before, the government (who wants to silence critics and opposition) has every MP save for those of their own party arrested. The MPs don't have immunity, so there is nothing they can do - the police can hold them for up to 24 hours without even giving a reason. Of course, there are no actual charges, so the MPs *are* released again 24 hours later; however, due to being arrested, they missed the vote, and the bill has now passed. I'm not sure, but I think it's a scarier scenario than some MPs parking on the sidewalks.

      --
      quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
    14. Re:in UAE? by danila · · Score: 1

      There is a very simple way to prevent such scenario.
      1) Change the voting system in such a way that there should be sufficient quorum. If they can slip into it a rule that every law must be read by every MP before voting, that would be extra great.
      2) Prohibit the police from arbitrarily detaining a person for 24 hours. Everyone benefits.

      It's really simple - what's the bigger problem right now - that someone wants to jail all our MPs without due process or that they are allowed to drive recklessly and violate other minor (?) laws and regulations? I say that the first problem doesn't exist at all. So I am advocating just pushing the pendulum a little bit.

      --
      Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
    15. Re:in UAE? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True, Indians or Pakistanis cannot own land in Dubai. But can foreigners buy land in India or Pakistan? NO.

    16. Re:in UAE? by quacking+duck · · Score: 1

      Converse anecdote from Canada... one time a parking cop came about an illegally parked car. When writing the ticket he discovered the plate had, instead of letters and numbers, a stylized lion. Not knowing what else to do, he drew out the plate as best he could and left the ticket on the windshield.

      The car belonged to the then-governor general (the queen's representative here, and technically the country's head-of-state). The image on the licence plate was the GG's symbol of office.

      Admittedly, it was a rookie cop...

    17. Re:in UAE? by globalar · · Score: 1


      Actually the word "democracy" in Arabic is simply a transliteration of the English word. Speaking of it in this context conveys more Western thinking than the Gulf really groks. It is better to use something like "participatory government."

    18. Re:in UAE? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Barakallahu Fik, akhy. Wu ya hala bel Emarat.

      Akhuk men Al Ssumal.

    19. Re:in UAE? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not sure about that, but almost anyone can become an Indian/Paki citizen after living there for a few years. In the UAE the only way you can be a citizen is if your father is.

    20. Re:in UAE? by dominator · · Score: 1

      New York:
      8,115,135 people in city, 21,796,124 in metro
      5,838 skyscrapers
      800 km^2

      Dubai:
      674,100 people in city, 1,510,000 in metro
      523 skyscrapers
      3,885 km^2

      So New York has 12x the people and 11x the skyscrapers in 1/5 the area. The 74 year old Empire State building is still 26m taller than your current tallest building and the world trade towers were so recently brought down were taller still. Dubai looks quaint compared to New York.

    21. Re:in UAE? by kbahey · · Score: 1

      No 1 is reserved for the Sultan of the province.

      I was going to take your post seriously and respond to your post, until you called the ruler a 'Sultan' of a 'province'.

      Anyone who is casually familiar with the area, or have just briefly visited there, like I did several times, would know that there is no title of 'Sultan' in the UAE. The title is Emir or Amir, meaning prince, or just 'ruler'. You are probably confusing them with the adjacent Muscat and Oman.

      And they are called emirates not 'provinces' too.

      I doubt your assertion that you lived there for two years.

  33. Corbin Dallas... by phreakmonkey · · Score: 2, Funny

    "You have five points remaining on your license..."

  34. UAE by djsamuraisam · · Score: 2, Interesting

    i live there! this isnt a case of the government not having enough money, just do a google for burj dubai. they have money coming out of there fucking dicks. they have tonnes of oil. they even own madame tussads in england!. its simply that the traffic laws are a joke, no one uses their indicators, almost everyone speeds, people drive 20 kmph in a 90 zone, people drive 368 kmph in a 20 kmph zone. paired with the fact they have so much fucking money, that 18 year olds are getting ferrari's for their first cars. personally, i cant wait till it arrives, im gonna hack the gibson and make a fuck load of money! "In UAE, a car's plate number can have variable number of digits. No 1 is reserved for the Sultan of the province (there are 7 provinces there, Dubai being the biggest one). No 2 is usually the Sultan's brother, and the 1 digit numbers are all family members of the sultan. Cousins and close friends get 2 digit numbers, as well as their wives and their children. The 3 digit numbers are also relatives of the relatives of Sultan. Ordinary cars have 5 digits on their plates." "there is no sultan in the UAE, its a sheikh."

    1. Re:UAE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they have money coming out of there fucking dicks and you have no qualms about living there and collecting that same money ? "there is no sultan in the UAE, its a sheikh Actually, the word 'sheikh' which these rulers have ascribed to themeselves is a victim of their ego. It used to be a title of respect for scholars with a lot of knowledge. Not a lot of money, as it is now.

    2. Re:UAE by djsamuraisam · · Score: 1

      im still in high school, most of the "rich" people are actually quite respectable, but its still easy to shuffle up dirt on them; http://www.bradenton.com/mld/bradenton/sports/9992 168.htm http://www.dawn.com/2005/02/24/int3.htm

  35. just can't wait by maxpublic · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I just can't wait for the day when all cars will be computerized and manual driving of any kind will be illegal. Then while I'm kicking back in my car drinking a coffee and listening to music while reading a book, I can think about all those enraged college students and idiot boomers fuming over the fact that they no longer get to endanger everyone else with their complete and total lack of skill...and smile.

    Hey, it's no different than legislating moronic things like seatbelt and helmet laws. If you think you have a moral imperative to act as my daddy, then I'll assume your position and bring it to its logical conclusion. And laugh at you every time you bitch about the 'good ol' days', when every stupid shit who insisted that *they* were great drivers put everyone else on the road at risk every time they got behind the wheel.

    Until that beautiful day, I'll back any bill that makes it a shooting offense for people to use their cell phones while driving. I swear to christ, those morons are as bad as any drunk....

    Max

    --
    My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
    1. Re:just can't wait by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1
      Then while I'm kicking back in my car drinking a coffee and listening to music while reading a book,

      In a lot of places, you can do that now. Taxi/bus/train.

    2. Re:just can't wait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Then while I'm kicking back in my car drinking a coffee and listening to music while reading a book"

      Actually you're part of the problem. You refuse to be engaged in driving. Both hands on the wheel, both eyes on the road.

      If you can't do that, take public transportation.

      Frankly, I hope gas triples in price to get people (perhaps like you?) off the road.

    3. Re:just can't wait by Caseyscrib · · Score: 1
      Some people drive cars because they enjoy it. I am considering purchasing a motorcycle because of this very reason. I don't plan to go 100mph or be a retard, but it would be nice to go out for a stroll on a Sunday morning. If I just sat back and let a computer do all the work, I do not think I would enjoy it as much. Contrary to your fascist beliefs that everyone should enjoy books and not driving, driving for some people is about more than getting from point A to point B... why else would would have sport cars and motorcycles?

      FYI, I live in one of the only states in the country without mandatory seatbelt or helmet laws. The drivers here really aren't that bad. There are a few idiots here and there, but thats expected in ANY area. I think you're just getting too aggravated when you see a bad driver, and don't know how to chill out and let it go. Quit fucking worrying about the bad drivers - its not your job to legislate their stupidity, because they're going to be dumbasses even if you make it illegal. If something happens, just make sure that it was the other person's fault and you shouldn't have to worry.

    4. Re:just can't wait by maxpublic · · Score: 1

      Quit fucking worrying about the bad drivers - its not your job to legislate their stupidity, because they're going to be dumbasses even if you make it illegal.

      Sure it is. Their bad driving endangers everyone around them. And I'll happily back any bill that FORCES everyone to use computer-controlled cars, once the technology gets good enough. If people want to manually drive, they can go to a track designed just for them.

      And I'll be laughing the whole time.

      Contrary to your fascist beliefs that everyone should enjoy books and not driving, driving for some people is about more than getting from point A to point B... why else would would have sport cars and motorcycles?

      Like I said, we'll set aside special driving reserves for you and your friends. The roads that everyone else travels, however, will be off-limits to manual drivers.

      And I'll *still* be laughing.

      Max

      --
      My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
  36. Hacking by lappy512 · · Score: 1

    I wonder how long it takes before someone creates a modified version of this, so they are never detected as speeding?

    1. Re:Hacking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or indeed to create enough false positives that the system isn't considered reliable enough in its implementation? (In that if you have a clapped up old pickup doing 200mph, you know something can't be right)

  37. so what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And driving cars has to do with your "rights online" how exactly?

  38. This is actually good... by afra242 · · Score: 1

    I used to live in Bahrain, and like Bahrain, the UAE is full of drivers who break all sorts of speed limits (the cops simply didn't care there). Popular to contrary belief, while these countries may be "police states" in some aspects (ie. talking about the government), they turned a blind eye towards traffic laws and simple "crimes". You rarely found cops hiding in a designated place to catch speeders, like they do here in the US.

    Seems like the UAE govt. know this and are using another course of action to deal with speeders. But, as always, it's all about connections in those places, so I doubt many people will be penalised for the tickets. We'll see...

    1. Re:This is actually good... by majid_aldo · · Score: 1

      ..hahah!! you haven't seen saudi arabia! i bet saudi driving infected bahrain.

      --
      --- widget evolution: enhanced, plus, super, ultra, extreme, exxxtreme, ultra-extreme, ..etc.
  39. law and order.. by t_allardyce · · Score: 1

    When the police are lazy and corrupt go directly to technology - i like it! Perhaps when someone speeds 3 times or more the car can automatically drive to the amputation centre to get their hands chopped off? oh wait, sorry my bad, its only the left hand right?

    --
    This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
    1. Re:law and order.. by afra242 · · Score: 1

      You're thinking Saudia Arabia (a US ally, btw). Countries like UAE and Bahrain are quite liberal (ie. bars, clubs) and have a huge foreign population. Unlike Saudia Arabia, there are no public executions nor do they chop your hands off...

    2. Re:law and order.. by t_allardyce · · Score: 1

      Sorry my bad, but UAE does have lashing and im pretty sure they have the death penalty too.

      --
      This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
    3. Re:law and order.. by smchris · · Score: 1

      So you are saying, "On the one hand, not so bad. On the other hand, not so good."

      I've made a tourism pledge that I don't go to execution countries. That way I never have an argument about which baggage handler put the brick of opium in my suitcase. Unfortunately, I live in the U.S.

  40. "IBM to Help UAE Track Drivers on the Road" by todu · · Score: 1

    "IBM to Help UAE Track Drivers on the Road"
    Am I the only one to have read that as:

    s/UAE as in United Arab Emirates/UAE as in Unix Amiga Emulator/

    s/drivers as in people who drives cars/drivers as in software purposed to link hardware to an OS/

    s/on the road as in cars on the ground/on the road as in, in real time/

    Like, I imagined the story would be about IBM making UAE able to for example detect a newly plugged in USB harddrive without having to reset the emulator first.

    ..but this other story was interresting too.

    1. Re:"IBM to Help UAE Track Drivers on the Road" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      s/{your entire comment}//

  41. That doesn't mean... by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1

    ... that it's not both trivially easy and incredibly common to "fiddle" tachographs.

  42. Limpdick McGee and his Massive Machine .. by torpor · · Score: 1

    .. designed to keep the raff in order.

    "UAE Driver #4023, you are fined one credit for violation of the State Fashion Law, Article II, Clause 3, 'Turban Wrapping Instructions'"

    The New World Order is upon us! There is nothing we can do about it .. except build another one, right on top of it, as quickly as we can..

    --
    ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
  43. Old news by Dasch · · Score: 1

    We've been having something like that for years here in Denmark, though it works a bit different. The speed of the car is determined (i think they use infrared light or something,) and if it's too high (you get a ticket if you drive more than ~10% faster than the limit) there's automatically taken a picture of you. That picture (all but the driver is censored, to avoid angry wives...), plus the date and time of the crime and the speed at that moment is mailed to you (along with the ticket).

    These devices are manned, though.

  44. Thank you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As an American who doesn't believe that America is the top of the global food chain (unfortunately it appears my breed is dying out), it's nice to see the insight of an Iranian who has lived in UAE. You managed to inform me about the differences between two cultural perspectives I'll likely never experience myself. And I feel that I'm a better person having read your post and gained those insights.

    Thank you. Please do it again! I'm adding you to my Friends list so your posts will stand out to me in the future.

  45. Simple by under_clocker · · Score: 1

    Well if they run it on windows we can write a code to make it seem like your doing a pleasant 54.89 mph when in fact you are blazing down the road at over 200mph IBM Imbecils becomming managers.

    1. Re:Simple by Legion303 · · Score: 1
      Imbecils

      Irony.

  46. Upgraded version will... by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

    ...govern the throttle so no matter how far you press the peddle, it will not go past the speed limit zone your in.

    --
    Life is not for the lazy.
  47. Not too bad an idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now that the "average" driver has responded, I think I'll put in my vote for this. I'm a US truck driver and, while my occupation has its share of idiots as well and everyone makes mistakes, I can't even *begin* to count the number of fools on the road nowadays. The facts are that most people are speeding well over the limits even in city block areas where pedestrians are prevalent; people do not drive with sufficient caution to the extent of cell phone use without a headset, applying makeup, reading newspapers or books, etc.; they drive on the shoulder to pass; cut others off in or approaching construction zones; and so on and so on.
    Now I run the risk of overgeneralizing, since I know that not *everyone* does any or all of these, but just watch what happens around you when you drive, if you even care. The dimwit who thinks it's safe to drive 90 MPH (approx. 135 KPH) in any sort of populated area hasn't got a clue as to what is safe or not.
    BTW, we in the trucking industry are being threatened to have on-board recorders required on our trucks in addition to our current log book, fairly extensive driving training, weight checks, and other restrictions. Most company drivers have a *governor* keeping their trucks below a certain speed; and it's integrated into the engine (ie, you can't just pull it out). OBRs and the aforementioned Big Brother traffic system would most likely be like that as well.
    So learn to drive like you have some common sense or I for one will welcome our new electronic overlords.

    1. Re:Not too bad an idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " I can't even *begin* to count the number of fools on the road nowadays."

      Yeah, most of them driving rigs for 36 hours straight on meth.

      Please. Keep your goddamn rig in the LH lane, or we'll run you off the road like a stray dog.

  48. Speeding tickets don't work by MichaelPenne · · Score: 1

    because there isn't enough enforcement to make moderate speeding a negative stimulus.

    However, it is very well established that higher speeds cause more accidents and more and greater injuries, cause more wear on roads, and of course use more fuel.

    In the first two, many of the costs are born by directly by society, so people who obey the speed limit and non-drivers subsidize speeders.

    With a more automated system of negative stimulus like automated ticket assignments to speeders, this cost would be more fairly distributed (speeders would pay their fair share) and/or speeding would be reduced (the negative stimulus would nearly always result from speeding).

    Seems to me a and a fair thing, it isn't like speeding is a right, esp. where speed limits are determined by democraticly elected governments--if we had this then speed limits could be set to the actual limit the road is designed for, and folks who drive above it assessed their share of the increased costs.

    1. Re:Speeding tickets don't work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "it is very well established that higher speeds cause more accidents and more and greater injuries, cause more wear on roads, and of course use more fuel."

      It is very well established that people talk out of their asses all the time.

      More wear on the road...why, because the rubber molecules become harder and more aggressive over 55 MPH?

      Actually, it is well established that 75% of all statistics and facts are made from whole cloth.

    2. Re:Speeding tickets don't work by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      More wear on the road...why, because the rubber molecules become harder and more aggressive over 55 MPH?

      Nope, because irregularities in the road get much more strain when cars hit them at higher speeds.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
  49. Its all about money, Disable the Accel vs.Tickets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Otherwise they would have the accelerator cable disabled at between Speed X, and Y.

    Instead, they want to mail a fucking ticket.

    It's all about, Fuck the little man, who pays for Big Brother.

    Who cares, the World Health Organization is going to kill us all with a virus soon

  50. How about this device? by Xenna · · Score: 1

    I've been getting a lot of tickets lately and I've been thinking about a similar device that monitors my location and controls a speed limiter in my car that ensures I can't drive too fast.

    I'm not a great fan of government controls, so I'd like to be able to switch the device off if I want to and switch it on if I like to keep my eyes on the road instead of watching my speedometer all the time. Or maybe I could overclock it slightly...

    IMHO speed monitoring will get better and better in the coming years. How big and expensive does a camera with a small speed detector and a wireless link for uploading its data have to be? Maybe there will be a speedcam in every lamp post in the future.

    I sure hope I will have my speed limiter by then ;)

    X.

    1. Re:How about this device? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're better off with a radar detector plus some jamming equipment.

      If you want to do radar + laser jamming, its not cheap but you can own the cops totally.

    2. Re:How about this device? by Greyfox · · Score: 1
      Well see, if you implement an automatic speed limiter then you don't get ticket revenues. A lot of towns depend on that ticket revenue either because they don't have enough of a tax base to cover all their services or the state has laws that require them to ask the taxpayers before they raise taxes, or both. Since the taxpayers almost never agree to a tax increase, that leaves alternate forms of revenue such as speeding tickets.

      The number of people who actually have to speed due to emergencies or whatever is statistically insignificant and the police will often argue that they are simply putting themselves in more danger by speeding. It's pretty rare that the 2 or 3 minutes you can save getting to your destination is going to make a difference anyway and if you're in a panic you'll be exercising poor judgement as well. I'm sure an override mechanism could be implemented for people who need to speed on a regular basis. That class of people might include volunteer firefighters, doctors and possibly off-duty police officers.

      --

      I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    3. Re:How about this device? by bluGill · · Score: 1

      I call it cruise control. I accelerate to the speed limit, set the cruise, and my car automatically maintains my speed at the exact limit. I don't have to think about it. Let the other cars pass, if the local government didn't want me to create an unsafe situation by going well under the speed of traffic they wouldn't set the limit so unreasonably slow.

    4. Re:How about this device? by Xenna · · Score: 1

      Cruise control, perhaps, but *intelligent* cruise control. I guess we must be in different countries, cause 'round here the limits tend to change a lot. Having some computer intelligence and satellite guidance would come in handy in complicated Holland.

      Normal cruise control would be great if I could commute at a convenient constant 120kph, but alas...

      X.

    5. Re:How about this device? by bluGill · · Score: 1

      Your right, I'm in the US. Miles of road with no changes in speed. I can drive for hours at 70mph (~120kph) before I have to change speed - so long as I'm not going to the nearby city where speeds change (normally I am). Even still I find cruise useful even when I have to reset it every 10 minutes.

      In my car without cruise I'm always gradually speeding up well beyond the limit. Then I look down and realize that the right lane is gong faster than I want to go (because of the police checking speeds), but I'm passing them.

  51. Because we don't know enough about you by Eternally+optimistic · · Score: 1

    To provide you with better, more personalized articles and comments, about your rights online, please publish your driver licence number, home adress, SSN, bank account numbers, any restrictions on your driver license (e.g. corrective lenses, only drive form/to work,...), slashdot password, and access to other information which we may from time to time require.
    It was an honest mistake, the article's poster thought your brother-in-law wass driving there.

    --
    What keeps me going is my inertia.
  52. At Last by Bazzalisk · · Score: 1

    Thank god someone has finaly done this. Now how long until we can have it connected up to a speed limiter that prevents the car from breaking the limit? (Before anyone says it, yes you have to have an emergenecy override button for emergenecy situations - but that can be linked up to a GPRS system to inform the police immediately) News Flash to people: Driving is a privelege, not a right - it is not a violation of privacy to ensure that people keep within the speed limit (which exists for safety reasons), nor would it be a violation of privacy to link cars up to a traffic control system - afterall, if you don't want to be monitored you don't have to drive.

    --
    James P. Barrett
    1. Re:At Last by m_maximus · · Score: 1

      Except that there is a privacy issue here, because I'm guessing that the system will be able to tell the police where you are at all times. Then it's not an issue of traffic law, it's an issue of them following your every movement. If that's not a privacy issue, I don't know what is.

      --
      I have a solution but you're not going to like it. (Something I say far too forten to my boss)
    2. Re:At Last by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shall I get you your one-way ticket to UAE?

    3. Re:At Last by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, with the way the government is starting to put cameras in public places, so they can run face recognition software on everyone that passes by to make sure they're not criminals and/or terrorists, you will probably need to rephrase that to: "If you don't want to be monitored, don't go outside." I mean, you don't HAVE to go outside. There are telecommuting jobs, in-house nursing care, grocery delivery, and so on.

      Our area of privacy is slowly decreasing, such that in the end it will be solely the inside of our homes. If we're lucky enough to have any area of privacy at all.

  53. doubles the risk, accding to this: by MichaelPenne · · Score: 1
    Our results show that the risk of involvement in a casualty crash is more than twice as great when travelling 10 km/h above the average speed of non-crash involved vehicles and nearly six times as great when travelling 20 km/h above that average speed. The mechanisms explored for this increase in risk (where higher speeds are associated with longer stopping distances, increased crash energy and more likely loss of control) also suggest that a reduction in the absolute speed of traffic is much more important in reducing crash frequency than a reduction in traffic speed differences.

    http://www.atsb.gov.au/road/rpts/cr204/index.cfm

    The finding that uniform speed reduces accidents makes sense (a lot of accidents are caused by speeding drivers suddenly coming on slower traffic) and points to the benefits of an automated traffic control system.
    1. Re:doubles the risk, accding to this: by nxtw · · Score: 1

      That's nice, but since most people do not follow speed limits in many areas, it's those obstinate goody two-shoes that often cause a bigger threat to safety. In my suburb, most speed limits are arbitrarily placed at 35 mph on non-county/state roads. There are *very* few people that go 35 mph. I, for one, usually honk at them or even pass them (regardless if it's legal to pass them.) There are few roads where the speed limits are widely followed - even on the expressway, the only time I've seen all traffic going at the posted speed limit was during bad weather. Otherwise, it's always at least 5 over in the right lane and closer to 10 in the left, except for those who choose to do the speed limit (and end up getting passed by almost everyone.)

  54. Cynical by mattr · · Score: 1

    Test in a small, rich draconian society systems that would get you sued a zillion ways from tomorrow in modern societies, then point to statistical improvements in safety and play the "homeland security" card (which will work for automated speeding ticket systems in a few years).

  55. 'Accepted' is the problem by MichaelPenne · · Score: 1

    'accepted' of course by people who know little to nothing about road engineering, automotive engineering, or in many cases driving.

    Having the rules made up by people who don't understand the game they are playing may make sense to you, but it seems pretty stupid to me.

    The 'guy going 65 in a 50' is a problem when he encounters traffic going 50 or some other unexpected road hazard, and can't stop in time, of course. Blaming the 'guy going 50' is like blaming a shooting victim for getting in the way of bullet.

    1. Re:'Accepted' is the problem by SA+Stevens · · Score: 1

      To augment your comment:

      I think we've all been on the highway where there are traffic signals every few miles, and they're all timed together to insure that people travelling the speed limit will get through without having to stop.

      Then there are often a few tards who jackrabbit around the people going the speed limit so they can be waiting, in front of normal traffic, stopped at the red light, which will change green smoothly a bit before the normal traffic drivers arrive at it.

      But the fricking speeders are stopped, in front of said lights, and end up forcing EVERYBODY behind them to stop, too.

      Thanks, piston boy.

  56. Newsflash: you're a sucker sheep-cow. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since you've designated yourself herd; do what I tell you and shutup. It's a privalege to get commands from me.

  57. Heh. by Aldric · · Score: 1

    Just wait until you get a false speeding ticket based on the tracking unit. I work in the tracking business and I've seen units report speeds of 150mph+. Mostly, the vehicle is not even capable of doing that speed. All you need is one bad GPS fix at the wrong time.

  58. Remember this rule... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If there are people tailgating you and you are in the LH lane *ITS YOUR FAULT*. Speed limit is irrelevant in that case.

  59. There's no such thing as "Agressive Driving" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can't even define it.

    Its usually "switching lanes too frequently"... but you can't define "too frequently". Its usually "tailgating"...but that's already a law. Its usually "driving too fast"... but that's called speeding.

    Its nonsense for people like you who are crappy drivers and refuse to stay in the far RH lane until you get more practice.

    You are creating a difficult situation because you have the mindset "I have a license, so I'm entitled to the LH lane as well as this guy who is ....DRIVING AGGRESSIVELY!!!!".

    Well, yes, he's tailgating you because you're doing 60 in the LH lane. Get the f*ck out of the way. Some of us have places we'd like to get to.

    1. Re:There's no such thing as "Agressive Driving" by eno2001 · · Score: 1

      Well... if you had RTFJE, you would know that there is usually room on both sides of my car and people still tailgate. If I am in the right hand lane (which I do very rarely because that's reserved for people who need to pass) and someone is going faster than me, I *do* move out of the way. But since it's a rarity that I'm in that lane in the first plae unless I'm passing, that doesn't acount for the 98% of the tailgaters who still refuse to pass me when they have ample opportunity. I can only chalk it up to bad driving skills or some kind of dominant desire they have to prove themselves, somehow, "better" than me. Interestingly enough, all they have proven is that they are slobbering retards with security issues.

      --
      -"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
    2. Re:There's no such thing as "Agressive Driving" by eno2001 · · Score: 1

      Sorry... make that left hand lane. I don't usually think of it as right and left, but as "passing lane" (which I stay out of) and regular traffic lanes.

      --
      -"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
  60. Its a stupid post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'll bet you drive the speed limit in the LH lane, and then complain about the line of cars behind you.

    And then you say "look at all those crazy drivers behind me!"

    Here's a hint...if there are a line of cars behind you, then you're going too slow, regardless of the posted speed.

    That's just the way it is... Instead of aggravating yourself and everybody else, pull over, let everybody pass and go on with your simple view that the law is always right, and that everybody else is wrong.

    1. Re:Its a stupid post by eno2001 · · Score: 1

      Again. Get over yourself and read my fucking journal Ms. Schiavo. You will note that I said that there is always room to pass on EITHER side of me and yet the idiots refuse to do so. I always stay in the center or normal traffic lanes and only use the passing lane WHEN PASSING.

      --
      -"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
  61. Of course they don't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "Most police officers do NOT look on themselves as good little revenue-generators for their respective cities/mayors"

    No, they don't. But the guys who run the force do.

    Believe me, if the money from speeding tickets never found its way back to the police budget, you'd see speed traps disappear immediately.

    I want to see cops patrolling, cops want to be patrolling, their bosses want to cover the budget. That's a fact.

    Besides, if speed limits were an absolute indicator of safety, then why do most cops drive 10-15 MPH over the limit in all circumstances? Because even the cops know the limits are set for grandma, not people with experience, eyes, and a brain.

    I've never been pulled over for going over the limit by a patrolling cop. Mainly because they're going faster than me. And this is in 35 years of driving.

    1. Re:Of course they don't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, they don't. But the guys who run the force do.

      Believe me...

      Okay, he's just said that he's got a background in law enforcement. Your comment was noticably void of such claims. And yet you are trying to tell him what goes on in the police force?

      Besides, if speed limits were an absolute indicator of safety

      Bzzt. Straw-man.

      why do most cops drive 10-15 MPH over the limit in all circumstances?

      Bzzt. Lie.

      Even if the claim wasn't ridiculous (all circumstances? Really?), I see no reason to believe that your personal experience can show how most cops act, and you haven't mentioned any formal studies that back up your claim.

    2. Re:Of course they don't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Your comment was noticably void of such claims"

      Oh, so a claim from an anonymous person is good enough for you. I hope you aren't a LEO.

      "Bzzt. Lie."

      Spoken like a 5 year rookie. Oops, veteran with an entire 5 years of experience. Hey rookie, be careful of the end of the gun with the round hole. The bullets come out that end.

      "nd you haven't mentioned any formal studies that back up your claim. "

      I'm not the one claiming speed limits are a good thing.

      Oh rookie. That round thing in front of you in the squad car? If you turn it, it makes the car turn.

      Hate to be your partner; you'd probably shoot him in the foot. Moron with a gun and a badge.

  62. What would happen here in the US by COredneck · · Score: 1

    I bet that the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) would propose something like this considering it is composed of driver's license officials and law enforcement executives and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHSTA). NHTSA was particularly upset when the national speed limit of 65/55 mph was repealed almost 10 years ago.

    An interesting item is I went to the Dayton Hamfest last year, there was one vendor selling a Car Chip that recorded details on your driving. I talked with the salesman and he even mentioned one company (he would not name) mandated this in private vehicles of their employees. If you didn't like it, you don't work for the company.

    With the coming Driver License Agreement as sponsored by the AAMVA and the mandate for states to join it if the Real ID Act of 2005 passes combined with this technology, it would be very difficult to retain your driver's license or maintain reasonable insurance premiums especially if you travel alot by car like I do. Even a "law abiding" driver will get nailed here and there !

    I will be doing a lot of traveling this Summer such as traveling from Colorado to California and to Indiana. In Indiana, the speed limits is pretty well 55 mph except for rural interstates. The 4 lane divided highways are 55 mph and I usually do 70 to 75 mph. Currently, Colorado takes no adverse action such as points for minor out of state offenses. Here in America, since our public transportation is non-existent, the motor vehicle is the only way to get around unlike Japan or Europe. Unfortunately, it is not practical since places of employment is spread around unlike many years ago where your job was located downtown in a given district.

  63. I know a better way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...just use the public transport system.

    What? It's too bad? Look at the money spent in street building and in the public transportation system and you know why it's bad!

  64. Robot Camel Jockeys by Darkman,+Walkin+Dude · · Score: 1

    This seems to be an extension of the general tech-upgrade that the UAE are going through right now. For example, (not sure if /. covered this one), they are using robot camel jockeys, it seems in an effort to stop children being kidnapped or purchased for use as jockeys. Likewise, one of my clients sells real estate in Dubai, and you should see the level of technology in one of their apartments... unreal.

    Still, the parallels between this and for example Japanese culture are interesting; once a society reaches a certain level of affluence, the integration of hi-tech seems to become not just accepted, but in fact the norm.

    1. Re:Robot Camel Jockeys by billcopc · · Score: 1

      Why would anyone want to buy other people's kids ? They can have all the high tech in the world, I still think it's mindless. It's so much more fun to make your own kids ;)

      --
      -Billco, Fnarg.com
  65. What safety issues? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    " and safety issues we have right now"

    Road safety has increase, that is, the roads get safer *every year*, despite more powerful cars and rising speeds.

    This suggests (a) speeding is not related to safety (b) other forces are at work that you don't understand.

    I'll let you do the research why; if I tell you, you won't believe me.

  66. You were never in UAE by War+Geese · · Score: 1, Redundant

    In the UAE, where I have lived for the past 11 years, 1. we do not have Sultans. We have Sheikhs 2. There are many private newspapers. se4arch for Khaleej Times, Gulf News and most editions of Indian regional language papers have a set up there. 3. It is true that there are no elections, but the fact that the Govt. and the Courts are just and fair and reasonably progressive make it one of the better places in the Gulf to be. The Police are prompt and polite. 4. There are a number of private TV channels. CNN,BBC even FOX are aired in the UAE 5. This is just a tool to control traffic. Not the population So Mod the parent DOWN

  67. Something needs to be done by smoker2 · · Score: 1

    I get to see lots of bad/stupid driving everyday, all day. People take their driving test, then just do what they want when they've passed. The instructors don't even seem to correct bad behaviour when they are training people. It seems that automatic "cars" as portrayed in Minority Report or I Robot will be the only way to go if the number of vehicles is allowed to grow unchecked.
    I am all in favour of an inbuilt electronic system much like the Tachographs we have in large goods vehicles in Europe. It would have to be electronic for car use, because you wouldn't be able to trust the average car driver to change the paper disks every day.
    For those who don't know, tachographs record speed against time and also rest periods. So if the vehicle has moved, that fact is recorded. In an electronic version, the device would record speed in much the same way, but would be impervious to user intervention. That way, if there were an accident, the device could be read via a scanner and report the actual conditions at the time of the crash. Also, it would require the driver to assume responsibility for the way they drive, which is something that seems to have been forgotten. Any time law enforcement had occasion to stop a vehicle, they would be able to see the recent driving history of that vehicle and prosecute infringments as neccessary. This is not big brother, this is common sense. No location details need to be recorded. Combined with sensors on the steering wheel to determine blood alcohol levels (which would disable the car if you were over the limit) a system like this would require people to pay attention to what they were doing while driving.
    The car these days is no longer simply a transportation device, it has become a fashion item / portable entertainment system, and the skill of the drivers has decreased as a result. Most people I see have difficulty reversing, staying in a designated lane or even steering ! I can always tell when some people have accelerated, because the car veers to the right ?!
    There was a funny experiment shown on tv recently, where, on a perfectly straight piece of road, they painted a "wiggle" in the white centre lane markings. Then they filmed the results. Most of the cars driving past actually swerved to follow the line of the "wiggle" !
    In brief, if people are going to reject public transport (where the driver is more highly qualified) then they must be forced into compliance. The car is not a toy, it is a machine, and a large, heavy, deadly one at that.
    Links:
    Representative image of a used tacho disk
    Digital tachograph system

    1. Re:Something needs to be done by jpop32 · · Score: 1

      If there were an accident, the device could be read via a scanner and report the actual conditions at the time of the crash.

      Most modern cars do that already. It's used in air bags and other active safety systems. These devices record the last couple of seconds of data from various engine and drivetrain systems.

      I believe it's only a matter of time while those are legal for police (and insurance companies?) to use as evidence.

      Recording GPS data will probably come automatically when GPS receivers become commonplace in cars.

  68. I wouldn't want to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    get caught violating laws there.. they don't exactly have the best human rights record and they practice Shari'a (Islamic Law). Wonder what the koran has to say about speeding? 100 lashes?

    http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/world/uae.htm#Human

  69. A step up from the 'ping' by Pugslyyy · · Score: 1

    All vehicles there have a chime that sounds whenever you go over the speed limit. The easy way to bypass it was to disconnect the speedometer cable where it attached to the transmission. Then you couldn't tell what speed you were going. Seems like there is a similarly easy hardware-hack for this one out there...

  70. The right perspective by danila · · Score: 1

    For the tinfoil crowd - don't look on this technology as the next step to total mind control. It's just a technological shift in transportation going on.

    This is actually a minor development in the gradual transition from the individualistic horse-like cars to more social railway-like model. Cars used to be one of the American symbols of individual freedom - I drive where I want to and how I want to. This made sense in the beginning, when there were relatively few cars. Normal countries didn't have this penile-substitution menthality and now they have decent public transportation, which is better suited to moving people around, not boosting someone's ego. But the USA will have to change too. It is unlikely that people there will abandon their invididual "wagons", but they will still adapt more and more technology that will enforce traffic control. First it might be devices like these ones, then it can be automatic control for highways, then centralised computer control elsewhere (in cities). And then you will essentially have a urban light transport, only without the benefit of sharing cars. But by then a taxi-like company might be easily able to actually do the replacement.

    --
    Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
    1. Re:The right perspective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Normal countries didn't have this penile-substitution menthality

      I wish I had mod points. -1 Flamebait. I'm really sick and tired of the USA-bashing here.

      Listen up: all you craven Europeans have been brainwashed by your socialist governments into thinking that you're making some kind of noble sacrifice in giving up too much of your freedom, but in reality you have just become cattle whose only purpose is to feed the socialist political machine. In the US, many fewer people put up with that kind of crap, but for some reason a vast majority of Europeans have been brainwashed not only into accepting their fate, but embracing it as some kind of more enlightened reality. I'm very glad we don't bend over and take it up the ass from our politicians to the degree that you do.

    2. Re:The right perspective by danila · · Score: 1

      cattle whose only purpose is to feed the socialist political machine
      The socialist political machine are the people of the society. It's not like there are uber-powerful corporations like in the USA. The poorest 10% in the USA get $6,804 per capita share in GDP. The average GDP per capita is $37,800. In ALL European countries with the exception of Italy ($5,607) and Ireland ($5,920) the poorest 10% are richer than in the USA, despite having the GDP/capita that is about 70% of that in the US. Source.

      Add to that better social security and other benefits of living in a welfare state, and you can easily see that people in Europe live better than Americans, with the exception of the rich guys. Yeah, it's easier to be filthy rich in the US than in Europe. I guess the European will have to somehow endure that.

      The European governments are socialist because it's what the people wanted. The American government, on the other hand, now exists solely for itself, to perpetuate the political and economical status quo.

      --
      Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
    3. Re:The right perspective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heh, more myths about the American social structure.

      Europe's "free" (another misnomer, its not free, its paid by your confiscitory taxes) healthcare is notorious in the entire world for its poor service.

      In America, hospitals are REQUIRED to treat the poor, so I don't quite understand the whole nature of the argument.

      Social Security sucks anyway. Save for your own retirement instead of making the government do it for you.

      Many countries, especially France, have been making market reforms becuase they realize that socialism is a failed model and if they want to remain economically viable, they are going to have to get off their asses and work more than 35 hours a week.

      Europe's weakness caused both world wars and is still bringing to new levels of mediocrity.

    4. Re:The right perspective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you will find happiness in crush others to get to the top.

  71. Freedom to drive like an idiot by nurb432 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Its also my right to not be monitored when im NOT doing anything wrong.

    So, yes, there are 2 sides..

    Perhaps if you put this on people that keep getting speeding tickets... But on regular citizens, no thanks the government doesnt need to know where i go.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:Freedom to drive like an idiot by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      Its also my right to not be monitored when im NOT doing anything wrong.

      Not in the UAE.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    2. Re:Freedom to drive like an idiot by TheLink · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Oh I'm fine if the government/whoever has the power to know where I (and everyone else) goes.

      As long as I also get the same power to know where everyone including the government/whoever goes.

      Everyone gets to watch everyone. Fair eh?

      Want to make fun of my habits and post embarassing pictures of me here and there? Fine, let's go see who's been watching me, and pull up various video clips of Mr Nosy.

      --
    3. Re:Freedom to drive like an idiot by planetoid · · Score: 0

      That'd be easing to know if it didn't strangely feel like these wacky ideas are being beta-tested in other countries for eventual use in the U.S..

      --
      Slashdot requires you to wait longer between hitting 'reply' and submitting a comment.
  72. great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    isn't that type of creepy Orwellian technology exactly what we wanted to avoid? perhaps we should take a close look at what filthy politicians are behind all that and dig up the dirt on them. there must be plenty to be found.

  73. Morons... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tracking your vehicle to ensure the safety of others is *not* an invasion of privacy. Using that information to intimidate you, or discriminate against you, is an invasion of privacy.

    Perhaps you regard air traffic control as an invasion of privacy, as your movements can be tracked. And you're not even responsible for the control of the aircraft!

    1. Re:Morons... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In several countries increases in speeding detection devices have caused road deaths to increase even as the amount of people speeding is reduced.

    2. Re:Morons... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Link to studies please.

      A BBC report that quotes the government or police is not a valid study.

  74. Re:We SORELY Need this Technology in the US, NOT! by pentalive · · Score: 1

    Yes, and don't cry when you are traveling along a freeway at the posted 55(65,70) next to a frontage road with a speed limit of 30 and the gps error has you driving on the frontage road. Ticket for 20 over the limit..

    Or blank-out have your car suddenly jump 400 ft, speed in excess of 80mph on a residential street due to the trees.

    This is just like those traffic cameras tied to radar, your guilty untill you prove yourself inocent. After all machines never make mistakes.

  75. Laws must be different in the UAE by pentalive · · Score: 1

    Last time I looked, a speeding ticket is a moving violation, attached to the driver, not to the car. How is this IBM/GPS gadget goning to know if it's Me driving my car? Other people drive my car too.

    1. Re:Laws must be different in the UAE by pentalive · · Score: 1

      Oh, I just re-read the article, I missed it the firt time. They will use "Otional" mean evil nasty RFID devices (hopefully planted in the driver's license, not in the driver) to see who's driving.

      wonderful

      Goody, swipe some one else's RFID and drive like a maniac, let them pick up the tag.

  76. Time for that reminder again... by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 0
    It is this time of year where it is necessary to issue the usual reminder:

    Driving is not an unalienable human right, but a revocable privilege that can be pulled anytime anyone does not drive properly and is a danger to other innocent users of the road.

    As it is performed on a PUBLIC road, driving is NOT an activity that can be performed with any expectation of privacy whatsoever. Having a device to monitor driver behavious is not in any way different from having policemen stationned at each street corner.

    1. Re:Time for that reminder again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Although I support the right of the UAE to make laws as they see fit, that does not mean I agree with them here in the USA.

      The idea that speeding causes accidents is a myth. What causes accidents is poor driving, of which speeding can be a contributor. I think we should allow a certian class of license that allows for drivers to speed if they pass a rigorous test that shows they can handle the responsibility.

      There is absolutely no one being harmed when you go 85 down a high way when you are the only one for miles. Yet, cops will set up speedtraps to catch people, under the mythical guise that they are protecting the public. Is this for safety or to generate revenue?

      Many times, speed limits are designed purely to generate traffic tickets for cities to make more money.

      The idea of a Big Brother inside your car would simply just make it so that the damn cops don't even have to get out of the Krispy Kreme to do their job, the city just gets a printout of who speeded while going through their town and just mails out tickets.

    2. Re:Time for that reminder again... by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 1
      Totally false

      Speed kills. As the energy dissipated during an inpact is proportionnal to que square of the speed, halving the speed will cause one fourth of the damage.

      This alones is the best reason for much lower speed limits.

      In addition, halving the speed with result in a quarter energy expenditure.

      Furthermore, driving fast reduces the time needed to avoid accidents, so as reflexes do not speed-up when you go faster, the chances of accidents is much higher when going fast.

      So, driving slower not only causes less accidents because there is more time to avoid accidents, it saves energy (and ultimately the planet), but it makes for far less damaging accidents.

    3. Re:Time for that reminder again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "halving the speed will result in a quarter energy expenditure"

      False. Energy expended from your car comes from a couple of source, and not one of them is your speed. Energy is expended to accelerate your car, overcome air resistance, and some steady amount due to basic idling of the engine. The lowest energy expenditure of a car (per mile) driven is at about 55 miles per hour, depending on the car and other conditions at the time.

      However, I agree with you completely on everything else. I know I'm not perfect and I would certainly not speed if I had that device in my car. It would probably help me be safer, just like many of those people who can't seem to admit that speeding is a pervasive problem. Also, note that there is a verbal warning given before a ticket is issued, so it's not like you'll get a ticket immediately if you exceed the speed limit. I think weneed something like this in the states.

    4. Re:Time for that reminder again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " I think weneed something like this in the states."

      Weenie.

      I'm a better driver with 3 drinks than you are stone cold sober.

      Not that I drink.

      But when I'm sober, I'm so much better than you that I should have to be behind people like you wasting my time so that you have so weird and wrong notion of safe.

      You sicken free men everywhere.

    5. Re:Time for that reminder again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Speed does not kill. If it did, you'd have died the first time you exceeded the speed limit. So would every NASCAR, Formula One, Dry Lake Bed Experimental Racer driver.

      Driving too fast for the conditions (internal and external), the car, etc is what the problem is.

      See Europe's crash statistics versus America's.

  77. I don't drive a crappy car by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Is that just below the point when the steering wheel starts shimmying?"

    My car's steering wheel doesn't shimmy right up to the top speed of 155 MPH.

    Yes, I did, to answer your next question.

  78. True by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    I was thinking more from the viewpoint of where i live, and the slow progression of violations such as this towards my shores..

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  79. Newflash: James P Barrett is a cluefuck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Driving is a privelege, not a right "

    Who is providing this privledge? You?

    You're one of those guys who basically can't drive, think they're the shit, and then decide they are driving at the safe limit.

    Meanwhile, there's a line of traffic behind you 34 cars long, and you fume about all the crazy drivers behind you.

    And then you wonder why your entire family thinks you're an asshole.

  80. What a load of rubbish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "have been attempting to create a rational set of ethics based upon logical presupositions"

    Dude. You like roleplaying games. Do you think perhaps you still have the mind of a child?

    Looking at your website, the only way you'll get laid is if you meet up with some blind/deaf girl. And even then, she'll have to be doped up.

  81. Hahahahaha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Normal countries didn't have this penile-substitution menthality"

    Yes, they have "Invade the rest of europe, kill millions of people in the process" mentality

    Or they have "we must control our citizens and run over them with tanks if they protest" mentality

    Or they have "We are an irrelevant European power, but we'll pretend we aren't" mentality

    Or they have the "no really, allah is in the sky and he told me to fly a plane into buildings" mentality

    I'd rather have a "penis" mentality all things considered.

    1. Re:Hahahahaha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or they have "we must control our citizens and run over them with tanks if they protest" mentality

      Which European power is this?

  82. Live better? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dude, most people in the US have 2 cars and a house.

    I've been to Europe. most people have an apartment and a bicycle.

    And they get medicine that says "well, if you're sick, there's a waiting list".

    But on the plus side, you guys start huge wars every few decades to keep the population down. Based on your post, I suspect its time for another. Featuring you.

  83. WHere do I sign up? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've always dreamt about speeding on the turnpike in my Ferrari and not worry about tickets, since the police already provided me with a booklet of PRE-FILLED citations for speeding. ALl I have to do is mail them in when I go beyond say 100mph. We don't have to engage in risky pursuits since they already recognize the red blur that is my Modena.

    Of course, I wake up and realize I am not The Carmack :-(

  84. Evil Empire by Indigo · · Score: 1

    So IBM has reclaimed its title of Evil Empire after all this time. Not that there's anything wrong with installing a government monitoring box in every automobile in the country and building a nationwide network of sensors to keep an eye on what every driver does at all times. After all, safety and security are more important than a so-called right to privacy. And not that any government has ever misused a data collection system that covers the entire population. How could anyone have a problem with this?

    Blah.

  85. CAN SOMEONE TELL ME... by eno2001 · · Score: 1

    ...when it suddenly became wrong to follow rules and right to break them? It's one thing when a law or rule is unjust (apartheid, anti-abortion, etc...). But it's another thing when the rules are there for a good reason. The national speed limit of 55MPH was created to conserv fuel AND save lives. I don't care what you want to link to, the fact is that if you get hit by a car going 70-75 MPH, your chances of walking away are greatly reduced compared to getting hit by someone going 45-55 MPH. We don't all need to go out and buy Volvos or start using public transportation. The buttholes who want to stroke their penis extensions need to go to hell. Driving is simply transportation. It's not a game. It's not a race. It's just go from point A to point B. That's it. Nothing more.

    But overall, it seems that people have thrown logic out of the window and want to justify bad behavior in any way they can find. The responses to my post here bear this out with the possible exception of a few trolls who post AC. Driving is not a right folks, it's a privlege. And if you can't handle it, then it will be taken away eventually. Hopefully by proper law enforcement, but possibly by the grim reaper.

    --
    -"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
    1. Re:CAN SOMEONE TELL ME... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go get yourself a horse. Point A to point B. That's right. In a reasonable amount of time. Usually the speed limits are deliberately made too low for revenue purposes. Also slower speeds don't always conserve fuel. That depends entirely on the individual cars and transmissions. Slower speeds in fact can sometimes use more fuel.

      BTW, please pull over the next time you have a line of 10 cars behind you while doing 25 in a 45mph zone. You're wasting everyone's time and making the roads MORE dangerous. Eventually someone's going to try to pass you. I hope it makes you feel better when you blame them for the resulting fatalities.

    2. Re:CAN SOMEONE TELL ME... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh my. Another cunt who can't read. eno2001 said he follows the posted speed signs. Logic dictates that he would be going 45 in a 45mph zone. You are making a leap that doesn't follow. There is no evidence in his poasts that says he is going under the speed limit. Unless you mean that a "45mph" zone is one where everyone is driving 45mph even though the posted speed sign is 35mph. In that case, you have a bunch of law breakers who should all be shot at sunrise. Get your head straight stupid cunt. You can't even read like eno2001 said. moo.

    3. Re:CAN SOMEONE TELL ME... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It must be nice to have such a black/white view of the world. Geesh.

    4. Re:CAN SOMEONE TELL ME... by eno2001 · · Score: 1

      So tell me... Are you narrow minded enough that you apply the same way of thinking to everything in your life? I'm black and white when it makes sense and shades of grey when that is applicable. Get off your high horse, you ass.

      --
      -"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
  86. ANOTHER POINT FOR THE MORONS by eno2001 · · Score: 1

    Although I have no way to prove it, let's just say that in nineteen years of driving, I got one speeding ticket. One. And it was waived because I have such a clean record. Know why I got it? Because I set my car on cruise control at 55 MPH and when I hit a hill it climbed up to 60 MPH. The cop (in a small backwoods town in southern Ohio) was really understanding and very impressed with my driving record. Now... how many times have you been in traffic court to contest a speeding ticket again? I rest my case.

    --
    -"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
    1. Re:ANOTHER POINT FOR THE MORONS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was one of the most incoherent posts I've ever read on slashdot. I'd accuse you of being an arrogant twit, but since I have no idea what point you are trying to make, I'm afraid it wouldn't be an accurate description.

    2. Re:ANOTHER POINT FOR THE MORONS by eno2001 · · Score: 1

      Uhh... read the parent you asshole. He was complaining about how he was in traffic court three times in a row. DING DING DING!!!! That means he's a BAD DRIVER. If you have a clean driving record, you're a good driver. Bad driving record = good driver. Simple. Go back and learn how to read you stunted dickhead.

      --
      -"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
    3. Re:ANOTHER POINT FOR THE MORONS by aaronl · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Either that or he drives on typical US roads where the speed limit is set to 85th percentile. A 55 is safe at 65, a 65 is safe at 75. There is a good reason why people drive 75 on most 65s, and that is because it's the limit you can consistently drive at without doing anything special.

      The difference between clean record and "bad record" is clean record probably gets people upset by driving so slow, and "bad record" drove in areas where the people who run the police dept. prefer to give tickets than fight crime.

      BTW, issuing tickets is about the most unsafe job a cop can have. You have to worry about chasing someone, then after you pull them over, you have to hope they don't try to hurt/kill you, and the whole time you get to worry about getting hit by other traffic. Can't forget the amount of driving hazard a marked car creates for everyone else, either. People slamming on brakes suddenly, the massive block of traffic, and the immediate and substantial increase in speed the moment the cruiser is out of sight. Real fun, and defintely not worth it to curb the horrendous criminal activity that driving a little faster really is.

    4. Re:ANOTHER POINT FOR THE MORONS by shmlco · · Score: 1
      There is a good reason why people drive 75 on most 65s, and that is because it's the limit you can consistently drive at without doing anything special.

      Or, equally likely, it's the maximum speed they think they can do without standing out and getting a ticket.

      --
      Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
    5. Re:ANOTHER POINT FOR THE MORONS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Although I have no way to prove it"

      i.e. "I'm speaking out of my ass"

      "Know why I got it?"

      Because even backwoods cops know an asshole when they see one?

      "Now... how many times have you been in traffic court to contest a speeding ticket again? I rest my case"

      Does it hurt? I mean, my shoulder hurts when I try to pat myself on the back like that. I guess you're double jointed?

      What does your post prove? I mean, to me, it proves that people who drive the speed limit (i.e. you), are pedantic bores who should have been sterilized before puberty. But maybe you think you contribute somehow? I dunno. I suspect you drive a Saturn. That would be the cherry on top of a "asshole sunday" that you've built your entire life.

      You're f*cking welcome!

    6. Re:ANOTHER POINT FOR THE MORONS by eno2001 · · Score: 1

      Heheh. That's the best you can do? You really are pathetic.

      --
      -"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
    7. Re:ANOTHER POINT FOR THE MORONS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A 55 is safe at 65, a 65 is safe at 75.

      Is a 55 safe at 55? Is a 65 safe at 65? Is there any pressing need for you to break the law and take the attention of officers who could be more productive elsewhere?

      Even if you could prove that it is no more dangerous to drive at the faster speed (and who are you kidding? Simple physics contradicts you), it's still wrong because it needlessly diverts police resources from more serious matters.

  87. More speed = more heat by MichaelPenne · · Score: 1

    heat wears out asphalt.

    More damage is caused by the speeder slamming on the brakes when they encounter traffic going the speed limit, avoiding an obstacle, etc. The faster a person is going when they slam on their brakes, the more heat and friction the road is subjected to.

    And of course when drivers clip curbs, gaurd rails, signs, safty cones, etc., the faster they are going the more damage they do (these minor accidents often aren't reported, so they don't make it into speed related accident stats).

    It's pretty clear if you stop to think about it and perhaps apply a little of your understanding of physics, materials science, and engineering to the question.

    1. Re:More speed = more heat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's pretty clear if you stop to think about it and perhaps apply a little of your understanding of physics, materials science, and engineering to the question.

      no, it isnt. The weather and seasons are the cause, not college kids doing 80mph instead of 65.

  88. Doesnt Matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you just shoot the cops.

  89. If you knew anything about driving by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You *don't* pass on the RH side. Its dangerous.

    If there is somebody coming up behind you, you have an obligation to move right and get out of the way.

    As to Terry Schiavo, next to broccoli, she was my favorite vegitable.

    1. Re:If you knew anything about driving by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you knew anything about driving, you'd know that "moving right" from the normal traffic lane means driving on the sidewalk.

  90. funny... by cryptocom · · Score: 1

    i'm sure
    these ----> http://www.oman-hp.com/videos.html
    guys will pay
    alot of attention
    to this.

    --
    It takes just a moment and an action to destroy. It takes some time and thought to create.
  91. Reminds me of something... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Invasion of privacy my butt, safety comes first"

    Reminds me of something Ben Franklin said...

    http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/b/benja mi nfr136955.html

    And I guess he was right.

    1. Re:Reminds me of something... by sinserve · · Score: 1

      dude, you don't need to link to that quote on slashdot.

      You can say

      1: they that can give up
      2: ???
      3: neither liberty nor safety.

      and we will get it just fine.

  92. Dude, when democracy hits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When democracy hits...and it will. Maybe not next year, but it will.

    People like you defending the current system will be first up against the wall. I wish you well.

  93. So you are the reason by MichaelPenne · · Score: 1

    we need technology like this.

    How do you know the speed limits are arbitrary? What is your training in civil engineering, law enforcement, emergency medicine?

    When I grew up, people in my suburban neighborhood usually drove well below the speed limit, they were more worried about hitting some kid or pet than getting someplace a few minutes earlier.

    Now I'd guess you don't have children or pets or have them and don't care about them, so this will all sound like "bwaaah bwaap bwaa" to you. It used to be pretty safe for kids and pets in suburbia (and other residential areas)--not because of LE, but because of greater general levels of 'common' sense.

    Hopefully this technology will let us reclaim our streets from teenaged (physically and/or mentally) hotheads who's horsepower is more than double their emotional IQ.

  94. VOTE by bluGill · · Score: 2, Interesting

    There is a solution to this: vote, and start writing letters to congress. This might not work in UAE, but in the US you can vote. Tell whoever sets the speed limits (could be congress or the city console) to make them reasonable. If they refuse run yourself.

    Even if the city sets the limit and you don't live in the city, the state has power. The state just has to tie funding to some project to the speed limit. Things will change. However so long as you complain but don't otherwise make this an issue nothing happens.

  95. Super weak! by cfalcon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yea, I dislike this a lot.

    Ironically, his advice "Don't follow cops" is something I follow very closely. And the companion "Don't let cops follow you".

    You would only believe these two things if the following conditions were fulfilled:

    (1)- At some level, police have rights and privledges that you do not.
    (2)- At some level, police have the ability to harm you.
    (3)- At some level, police are unfair and arbitrary.

    If any of these things were not true, then you would not have a problem with police being near you. (1) and (2) are true and most people don't have a problem with that. The question is, why don't more people bitch about (3)?

    The current traffic setup is basically, you are guilty. *How* guilty determines how the police act. The cop in your case wanted to flex nuts, so he did. The guy who pulled over my law abiding father for not stopping twice at the stop sign (seriously, he said you had to stop once at the white line, then again two feet forward where the intersection actually starts), the cop who pulled me over when I wasn't speeding and claimed I was doing OVER TWENTY OVER (and had a radar gun to show that *something* was going over twenty over), and the wide array of other police hassles means that you simply can't trust them.

    You can't trust them because they have more power than you, traffic court is a kangaroo court (I had pictures to show that the officer couldn't see me to verify that his 20+ reading was coming from me, because it obviously fucking wasn't, and that didn't matter either), and are often arbitrary.

    It only takes a few bad cops to make me distrust the whole lot of them. Not because I feel that they are all bad, but because statistics state that I'm going to get pulled over for no goddamn reason x%, where x is positive, when a cop is around, and 0% when no cop is around.

    So when I see them, I react with fear, and get the fuck away from them before they hurt me any more.

    Good job, society!

    1. Re:Super weak! by deacon · · Score: 1

      (1)- At some level, police have rights and privledges that you do not.

      (2)- At some level, police have the ability to harm you.

      (3)- At some level, police are unfair and arbitrary.

      Well, yes, unfortunately, so is life.

      Your points 1 and 2 are obvious. These points are also unfortunately necesary for cops to do their jobs.

      Cops are going to have a disproportionately excessive amount of contact with people who want to kill them. It will be only human nature (or would that be Pavlov) for them to eventually view every civilan on the street as someone who potentially wants to kill them.

      You are under less stress than cops. Your logical CHOICE of behaviour, when in the proximity of cops, is to be non-threatening, respectful, move slowly, and keep your hands in view.

      Understand that long term conditioning of constant threat to any living creature will make that creature very highly strung and instantly ready to respond to any threat. Cops, unfortunatly, become used to a dangerous environment, and they do not always behave as "cuddly" as they should.

      They are human, not perfect. Give them a break. Their job is a lot shittier than yours.

      I have never been a cop. I know some. I would not trade jobs with them. Getting free food at McDonalds, $100K a year, and the ability to speed all the time is just not worth having to scrape human remains off of the road way with a shovel.

    2. Re:Super weak! by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      You would only believe these two things if the following conditions were fulfilled:

      (1)- At some level, police have rights and privledges that you do not.
      (2)- At some level, police have the ability to harm you.
      (3)- At some level, police are unfair and arbitrary.

      If any of these things were not true, then you would not have a problem with police being near you. (1) and (2) are true and most people don't have a problem with that. The question is, why don't more people bitch about (3)?

      Are you in the USA? If so can you show me where the Constitution of the USA grants police more "rights and privledges" than other citizens? Just as the USA's Founding Fathers didn't trust government, neither do I. This and no 2 are big reasons why I believe in the Second Amendment, the right to bear arms, I fear the police and military only having firearms more than I fear criminals having them, besides which, laws banning citizens from owning firearms doesn't keep them from criminals hands. As for your question about no 3, a few weeks back I read an article about this survey high school students were given, how most of them thought, that is if they did think, that the government should censor the media. So long the First Amendment.

      Liberarian Falcon
  96. Actually it is by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Nice rationalization. "It's not highly skilled drivers like myself that are the problem, even though we routinely ignore speed limits, and other traffic laws, it's those damn slowpokes who get in our way."

    Actually it is; That's why Colorado has a law now that you can get a ticket for just sitting in the left lane not passing anyone (on highways where the speed limit is 65 or higher). This is to prevent road rage incidents with people that like to park in the left lane and just cruise.

    And they've also been enforcing it, which is nice to see with a traffic law that can actually help people.

    I'm sure you realize that making other drivers angry is far worse for everyone as a whole than speeding.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  97. I'm glad you feel that way by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Then you will not mind when my hacked car reports itself as you while I drive 100MPH through school zones.

    After all, the technology is infallible, right? And there's no way people would bypass these devices making it easier for violators to break the law (few police on road patrol after all) while everyone else was stuck at some arbitray limit, right?

    I thnk what the US badly needs is for you to drive to Sauidi Arabia and see how much you actually speed as opposed to how much you think you do.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  98. An oppresive law/technology that is not happening in the US.

    Makes you feel kinda good.

  99. Low is easy to define - natural speed of traffic by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Traffic has a very natural speed to it. A posted speed lower than this is low, and going at a speed where you are passing a lot of cars is high. It's pretty easy to figure out, and indeed most police really do pull over people that are going "high" speeds - passing others.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  100. reminiscent of Demolition Man by sl4shd0rk · · Score: 1

    "...speed tracking devices that will automatically warn violators of traffic laws.."

    Wait till those truck drivers find out they gotta wipe their ass with 3 shells.

    --
    Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
  101. Speed doesn't kill... by payndz · · Score: 1

    ...the sudden stop does!

    --
    You must think in Russian.
  102. Here's the source of the problem: by MichaelPenne · · Score: 1

    It has nothing to do with skill.

    We let people with minimal training perform a complex operation at high speeds when one person's mistake can endanger dozens of innocent lives.

    A common mass accident causer: everyone's cruising along at the 'accepted limit' when they approach a stand of trees on a sunny but cold day. In the stand of trees the road is shaded and much cooler and black ice has formed. The unskilled drivers slam on their brakes and go flying all over the place, woo hoo.

    Or you hit the skilled driver who slows down to 50mph because he/she knows what a stand of trees on a cold day is likely to mean...

    A good idea would be to restrict unskilled drivers to well under the speed limit until they gain enough skill to handle going 65-70mph without endangering others.

    Driving is after all a privilege, not a right.

  103. Seems like it would be pretty easy to catch by MichaelPenne · · Score: 1

    you doing that, since LE would recieve two signals from my car, one that wasn't speeding and one that was. We establish that my actual car wasn't, we track you down and send you to Saudi Arabia (or better Syria) for interrogation.

    In any event, cracking a simple ROM chip is not easy like cracking a Wintel & if just about everyone drove the speed limit it would be pretty easy to catch the crackers. You would stand out pretty well and pissed off citizens would be sending pics from their cell phones to LE.

    By the way, how do you know speed limits are 'arbitrary'? Are you a trained civil engineer?

    1. Re:Seems like it would be pretty easy to catch by mlyle · · Score: 1

      In any event, cracking a simple ROM chip is not easy like cracking a Wintel & if just about everyone drove the speed limit it would be pretty easy to catch the crackers. You would stand out pretty well and pissed off citizens would be sending pics from their cell phones to LE.

      Modifying what an embedded system does is usually not that difficult at all; microcontrollers are fairly standardized and there's been a lot of effort put into making them easy to develop on and debug. There's sometimes security bits, but they're generally fairly easy to turn off and read the code/data out; once you've reverse engineered things you can burn a new device. And if strong cryptography isn't used, you could just sniff the protocol and figure out how to send messages.

      Seems like it would be pretty easy to catch you doing that, since LE would recieve two signals from my car, one that wasn't speeding and one that was.

      So I take it you drive 24/7?

      I don't like speeders; but also, I don't want a device on my car reporting my driving habits (and who knows what else-- like location, etc) to police.

    2. Re:Seems like it would be pretty easy to catch by MichaelPenne · · Score: 1

      I think it would be pretty easy to catch the very few people who would have the knowledge and talent to do this, certainly easier than enforcing the traffic laws using the current system.

      Would you do if you could lose your license permanently if caught?

      I don't want a device on my car reporting my driving habits (and who knows what else-- like location, etc) to police.

      Why, what are you doing?

      Embedded device or high res cameras that track your license plate (or an RFID system embedded in your license plate), it's better to participate in the democratic process to limit abuses of these things than to try and prevent progress from finding better ways to enforce reasonable limits on privileges to use equipment that enables you put other people's lives at risk.

    3. Re:Seems like it would be pretty easy to catch by mlyle · · Score: 1

      I think it would be pretty easy to catch the very few people who would have the knowledge and talent to do this, certainly easier than enforcing the traffic laws using the current system.

      You have a lot of faith; check out identity thefts for a nice counterexample. We have a whole ton of people dealing with a big hassle, temporarily losing access to funds, and having to go through great degrees of trouble to prove their innocence/need to not pay debts; very few of the people abusing the system and causing this are getting caught. Worse, identity theft is a well understood and known problem, and requires a much greater of degree of interaction by the thief than a system like the one we're describing would. It is also likely that faith in the technology will cause adverse consequences for those who are framed or erroneously tagged by the technology, especially until abuses become extremely wide in scope and well known.

      Why, what are you doing?

      Brilliant. Who needs the fourth amendment? After all, you should have nothing to hide; so it's perfectly OK for the government to know everything. ...it's better to participate in the democratic process to limit abuses of these things than to try and prevent progress...

      Sure-- because you know we'll have plenty of infrormation available about how the systems work, and tons of checks and balances on the departments and the vendor to know when things go awry. The bulk of the populace won't be blindsided like they were about electronic voting machines this time around.

  104. Misspelled by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    United States of America was misspelled in the article text.

  105. LISTEN FUCKHOLES! by eno2001 · · Score: 1

    I DON'T DRIVE IN THE FUCKING LEFT HAND LANE. I mentioned that in my JE. I guess you're all too retarded to bother reading it. Here's the fucking quote for you worthless lazy ass sons of bitches and cunts:

    "You have room to cut around me on either side in almost every case. If not, I typically shift into a lane to give you room to pass. So WHY, if you have room, do you NOT PASS!!!!?"

    That's what I said. Typically, I'm in the normal traffic lanes, NOT the PASSING LANE. Get it through your thick boneheaded skulls. If this post doesn't resolve this pointless complaint, then I'm afraid all respondents have proven they are incapable of driving because you are also incapable of reading. Sayonara dickholes.

    --
    -"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
  106. In the UAE... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Car drives YOU!

  107. If we learned anything from Scott Peterson... by luke923 · · Score: 1

    GPS can clock you going 30,000MPH. I might drive a sports car, but the last time I checked, my commute to work still was 15-20 minutes for a 7-mile trek, not 0.00023 seconds. Even when I excessively speed, it's still not that short. And, of course, if Scott Peterson had to succumb to this system during that ill-fated fishing trip, think how large that fine would be, esp. in states that base the size of the fine on a dollar amount for each MPH over the speed limit one goes? If this system was in place, he would have preferred to be arrested and convicted for his wife's murder than receive that speeding fine. So, if we're to use any technoloy such as this, let's at least make sure that it's accurate before deploying it. Otherwise, think of all the false positives we'd end up having.

    --
    "Good, Fast, Cheap: Pick any two" -- RFC 1925
  108. I've given this a lot of thought by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For a little while, you struck me as an asshole. Now I'm not so sure. I think "fucktard" suits you more.

    Lets try it, shall we?

    "George Lenzer is a fucktard!"

    Yep. That fits real well. Let me get down on my knees for a second here....

    "Dear Sweet Jesus. Tell me that George doesn't have any children and is incapable of breeding. Please dear sweet Jesus. Just tell me that. In thigh name I prey, Ah, men!"

    See that George? We're all praying for you!

  109. Another "safety" at the expense of "privacy" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am not ready to enter into another government database so that I can be "safer." I can easily see Suspicious Behavior Patterns being enforced based on where I go and when no matter what speed I drive. Ultimately I would not be surprised by the following two situations in a society where this technology is pushed further and further under the guise of homeland security:

    anonymous govt employee: Mr. Smith went to a 7-11 and used a credit card to withdraw cash from his savings account and then went to radio shack and bought scanner with cash. That is suspicious and fits Profile #27364. Grab one of those Terrorism pre-filled sneak-and-peak forms.

    or...

    anonymous govt. employee: A Suspicious person was seen outside a walmart taking pictures of a parking lot security camera that was taking a picture of him. That is suspicious and fits Profile #74653. Mail out the standard What-Were-You-Doing-At-Walmart-Today forms to all cars parked there today AND every licensed-RFID passing any walmart sensor. And let's run a Suspicious Puchase Pattern check just for giggles.

    Farfetched? Maybe. So just picture a six-lane freeway with everyone going basically the same limit. Those going the high end of the accepted limit would be at the front and everyone would eventually be sandwiched behind them with the lowest cars pushing up on the other end. Imagine entrance ramps. Imagine the inevitable pile-ups. Imagine getting to know the driver to the left and the right because they're going to be around for a while.

    1. Re:Another "safety" at the expense of "privacy" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its no use for these people. They aren't free men. They're... I don't even know words to describe them.

      This idea that the government can do whatever it wants in the name of keeping us safe...sickens me to the core.

      I now understand why people left Europe hundreds of years ago to come to the new world. Now the new world has the same sickness and there's no place left to go for real freedom.

  110. OMFG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is nonsense. This is like saying the gravity of pluto has an impact on dogs jumping in the air. The answer is "well yes, but its so small that it is inconsequential".

    Same answer here.

    Tires aren't significantly hotter at 65 than 55. In fact, given that most tires are rated for speed of well over 100MPH, the heat produced isn't significant until the tires are at 3 times the national speed limit.

    If we lived in a temperate climate with no trucks, macadam roads would last forever. You could drive 140MPH and it would have no effect on roads.

    But put a semi on that same road carrying 40 tons on a slushy day that is going through a freeze/thaw cycle and it will break up in days.

    Please stop throwing physics around when you probably can't tell me the formula for telling the difference between your ass and a hole in the ground.

  111. Boom!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Will this also inform drivers or people in the surrounding areas about car bombers. There do seem to be a plethora of them in the surrounding area

  112. Simple Solution by cr0sh · · Score: 1
    Really - you shouldn't do this (too dangerous) - but this is a possibility...

    What you could do is limit the travel of your accelerator cable/linkage. Note, by the way, the such a modification could be dangerous, and/or possibly illegal - dangerous in that if you don't do it right (or if you do it right and it fails) - you could get in the situation of a "stuck" accelerator, which is a scary thing to have happen, if you have ever experienced it (has happenned to me before - not fun at all, especially if you are approaching a stoplight!).

    But, basically, you want to find the length of the cable where you are at 55 mph (or whatever the speedlimit is you want to limit your car to) - don't ask me how you would do this, it probably isn't easy unless you have access to those "roller thingies" (can't remember what they are called right now) - that you "drive" on while the car is stationary (used for calculating many things, but most often used in emissions checking). Even so, this procedure would be dangerous at best...

    Anyhow, once you know that, then you know how far you need to restrict your air intake valve (or carburetor intake valve, if your car is older) - how far the cable/linkage can rotate it until it hits your "stop" - then, install the stop. It could be a simple clamp or something on the cable, or it could be a screw stop or something to block the rotation of the pulley the cable or linkage is attached to.

    You could try putting in an air-restrictor plate or such as well in the intake (say, covering up half your filter) - but things might get really wonky with that - you would run rich once the accelerator opened up the intake valve to attempt to let in more air (and the computer instructed the injectors to let in more fuel), but more air didn't come through - which could lead to all sorts of emmision related issues...

    --
    Reason is the Path to God - Anon
  113. Clearly by MichaelPenne · · Score: 1

    all road damage is not caused by weather, roads wear out where there is very little change in the weather (LA, for instance).

    With weather taken out of the equation, vehicle wear and tear is obviously still a significant cause of road wear, and it is simple physics that the higher the speed of a vehicle the more energy it is expending, and of course it is expending a good deal of that energy via it's tires.

    At the molecular level, vehicles move by having molecules of their tires push against molecules of the road, and the harder they push the more molecules of the road will get pushed out of the road, this is simple physics, even if you don't understand it.

  114. Two signals? Who cares by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Two signals might help you - when you're trying to fight the ticket you get. Of course if you didn't happen to also be out driving at 3am then too bad for you I guess. Either way I don't care since it's not on my record.

    As for losing my licence if I get cought - how are you going to get caught when the number of police has been drastically reduced due to all the automated speeding devices? After all they have to be paid for somehow. And If I switch the tag with any regularity they can't even just scan for one ID.

    I am not a civil engineer, nor do I play one on TV. But I have had some CivE friends and just to help YOUR information, sometimes the speed limits get out of sinc or, yes, are arbitrarily set a little lower that what is technically safe because of local laws.

    Your just one of those stick-in-muds that like to drive in the left lane blocking people faster than yourself (which it seems is everyone) because you feel you're doing a civic duty. Thankfully as I noted the lawmakers in Colorado decided that what you are doing is indeed inciting anger in other drivers and is against the law.

    I don't tailgate, I don't anger other drivers. In fact I help them whenever I can by letting people in when the signal and helping other drivers merge. But if I get a chance yes I go a little faster than the speed limit.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  115. First Nazi Germany, now UAE by Control-Z · · Score: 1


    IBM helped the Nazis, or at the very least their German branch was taken over to do so. It's ironic that they would now be participating in such an intrusive monitoring system. Yes, traffic fatalities are a terrible problem but that still shouldn't give a government the right to spy on everyone's driving.

  116. Tribes2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The first thing that I thought was that somehow IBM decided to take on the task of fixxing all the damn UAE's that happen in Tribes2. ...sigh,
    back to watching Legends crash.

  117. Clearly not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "and it is simple physics that the higher the speed of a vehicle the more energy it is expending, and of course it is expending a good deal of that energy via it's tires."

    The friction of the tires doesn't change as speed increases, the bulk of it is due to drag.

    Frictional loses due to speed are the same regardless of speed. I challenge you to show me an equation that takes speed into account when calculating frictional losses.

    The bulk of energy expended at higher speeds is due to wind resistance, and even that isn't substantial until you're over 70-80 MPH. But that has *NO BEARING* on road wear.

    If we wanted to play your little game, I'd say any additional wear is offset by the fact that the car is on the road for less time when its going faster.

    Please don't try to give me psuedo-physics here on /. I'll eat you alive.

  118. Uh...no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "At the molecular level, vehicles move by having molecules of their tires push against molecules of the road"

    Nope. Engine turns wheel, wheel depends on friction. Without friction (i.e. ice) car goes nowhere.

    Frictional coefficient will change as tire temperature increases (that is why race cars don't go fast until their tires heat up and the rubber gets sticky), but you never see these kinds of temperature increases on road cars. Something like a NASCAR car will exert enormous pressure on the ground because (a) the car is using wind resistance to generate downforce (b) the car is going fast enough (200MPH) that the tires get really really really hot (c) racing tires are made of different rubber than OEM tires and may only be designed to last 100-200 miles.

    None of those elements are present on a street car.

    My guess would be that an SUV at 55MPH presents more wear than a car at twice those speeds primarily due to the weight of the vehicle and the bulk of the tires. Even that may be exaggerated.

  119. RE: pompous righteous indignation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You have some superficially valid points about eliminating stupid behaviour. But your logic taken to its conclusion eliminates all freedom. Just because you have a great deal of evidence that something is stupid doesn't mean you can stop someone from doing it.

    If you eliminate all wrong choices, you've eliminated choice altogether. Freedom IS the ability to do stupid things.

    -theed

  120. You are conflating 3 unreleated issues by MichaelPenne · · Score: 1

    identity theft is mostly accomplished via social engineering and/or improper security controls being installed on complex programmable systems.

    Tracking cars with simple ROM devices is a much different technology, more like what we have been doing for emissions control, for instance.

    With the amount of information available, it's better to look to the 4th to prevent abuse of information than think some you can do anything (legally) to prevent it's being gathered.

    In any event, the system wouldn't tell the govt. what you were doing, it would tell it what your car was doing, so there is direct 4th amendment issue--it is well established that govt. can monitor your property to prevent you doing something with it that may harm others.

    Voting machines, another conflation: the majority of drivers are cheating the current speed control system, so we need a new system that reduces cheating-- with voting, the ability to cheat has been increased by the current implementaion, the opposit case.

    If speed control via cops chasing you and giving you a ticket physically was keeping 90% of the people at the speed limit, there would be little reason to look for a better solution.

    1. Re:You are conflating 3 unreleated issues by mlyle · · Score: 1
      identity theft is mostly accomplished via social engineering and/or improper security controls being installed on complex programmable systems.

      Tracking cars with simple ROM devices is a much different technology, more like what we have been doing for emissions control, for instance.


      Identity theft is stealing an access credential-- by whatever means (breaking into e-commerce sites, stealing trash that contains the access credential, social engineering) in order to use that access credential to impersonate another person or steal assets.

      A computer in a car that monitors GPS and speedometer signals and sends messages over a cellular network is not a simple "ROM device"; it is a somewhat complicated embedded system consisting of instrumentation, embedded processing in the form of a microcontroller (probably a few; in both the GPS chipset, the monitoring device, and the cellular transmitter), and communications facilities. In the system, some sort of access credential or identifier is used to identify the car that has broken the rules and call home. Stealing that credential through appropriate means (physical tampering, social engineering, communications intercepts) would allow you to impersonate that vehicle. See the analogy now?

      In any event, the system wouldn't tell the govt. what you were doing, it would tell it what your car was doing, so there is direct 4th amendment issue--it is well established that govt. can monitor your property to prevent you doing something with it that may harm others.

      Really? Please give me a relevant citation on that, where probable cause doesn't exist. The law I've searched for says differently:

      In Moore DEA agents, without the benefit of a warrant or the owner's consent, surreptitiously attached beepers onto two vehicles parked by defendants in a shopping center parking lot. As the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit framed the issue: "The basic question [was] whether the use of beepers so implanted to monitor the movements of the U-Haul van and the 1966 Mustang . . . violated defendants' reasonable expectations of privacy." United States v. Moore, supra, at 112. That court answered the question affirmatively, but reasoned that the lessened expectation of privacy associated with motor vehicles justifies the installation and use of beepers without a warrant so long as the officers installing and using the device have probable cause.


      Voting machines, another conflation: the majority of drivers are cheating the current speed control system, so we need a new system that reduces cheating-- with voting, the ability to cheat has been increased by the current implementaion, the opposit case.

      Ah, but beware of unintended consequences. Before electronic voting machines were widely deployed they were touted as a technological cure-all that would eliminate most abuses and errors in the existing system; as a technologist, I know it is often difficult to arrive at technological systems with a higher level of robustness than tried and true conventional systems; I also know it can be much more difficult to spot and monitor abuses when technology and technology vendors are involved.
  121. Unless you have a rocket car by MichaelPenne · · Score: 1

    your car is overcoming wind resistence by exerting greater force on the road, via it's tires. You are talking about road friction and wind friction as if they are unrelated to speed.

    Speed is determined by the balance between resistence (friction of the road + friction of the air) and accleration. Unless it is coasting downhill to maintain a given speed the tires must exert force on the road, the greater the speed, the greater the force.

    Force exerted on the road certainly causes wear on the road, and a faster car is exerting more force than a slower car.

    So, physics question: what determines the maximum land speed of a wheel driven vehicle?

    Related: if ground friction is a minor issue, why are trains able to move vastly greater loads than trucks for a given unit of energy (call it horsepower)? Why are maglev trains even more efficient than rails?

  122. I don't think Miroyan v. US would apply by MichaelPenne · · Score: 1

    the DEA secretly installed these devices.

    So long as you know that a new car or a legally required device will report your speed to LE it shouldn't conflict with this ruling.

  123. Re:I don't think Miroyan v. US would apply by mlyle · · Score: 1

    OK. Please provide a better cite; note that the ruling was not on the basis of the secrecy, but on whether the suspects' reasonable expectation of privacy was violated.

  124. recording people in public by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    To the best of my knowledge permision is only required for audio recordings and does not apply to video recordings - especially video recordings in public.

    That could be true, I know photographers can shoot people in public without getting their permission. If I recall right the only tyme a photographer needs a release signed is if the photographs are used commercially and the person is identifiable. Actually a case like this was tried in court in 2003. A photographer photographed some bare breasted women during Mardi Gras in New Orleans. The photos then were posted on the net. Somehow the women found out and sued but the judge ruled the photos were shot in a public venue and therefore releases weren't needed.

    Boy, I'd love to get the 16MP full frame Canon EOS 1DS Mark II

    Falcon