Slashdot Mirror
Device Stops Speeders From Inside Car
frdmfghtr writes "CNN reports that the Canadian government is testing a new anti-speeding device." From the article: "The system being tested by Transport Canada, the Canadian equivalent of the U.S. Department of Transportation, uses a global positioning satellite device installed in the car to monitor the car's speed and position. If the car begins to significantly exceed the speed limit for the road on which it's traveling the system responds by making it harder to depress the gas pedal, according to a story posted on the Toronto Globe and Mail's Website."
It looks like we would all need tin foil hats for our cars......
xao
http://TheHillforum.hopto.org
This seems a little complex, "making it harder to press the gas pedal".
Why not just use a cruise control type system to limit the speed?
we'll think we're the luckiest people in the world just to be allowed IN the damn car, nevermind the fact that it'll only go where the Cognizant Authorities tell it to go, when and how they prescribe.
Is it fascism yet?
Canada, leading the way in anti-depress-ants!
This'll ruin chase scenes in movies. I guess they can't film in Canada anymore. If they get this in L.A., what will they put on the news?
first post!
Wouldn't it just be easier and cheaper to use the internal computers to do that? The cars with the digital spedometers know how fast you're going for sure, the analogue ones probably do too.
but would this have any effect on people with lead feet?
Dammit, the Canadians always get the good stuff.
How reliable is this? If it were to malfunction, couldn't this cause some pretty massive wrecks? How can we trust this? Where can I buy a tin-foil hat for my car?
Earn a % of cash back from Newegg, Tiger Direct, Walmart.com, and more: http://www.mrrebates.com?refid=458505
making it harder to depress the gas pedal
Why doesn't this monitoring device simply slow the car down to the legal speed limit by cutting off gas?
Rock that crushes, Paper & Scissors that don't matter.
I wonder how long before people will be sued for using their cruise control to bypass the rigid accelerator pedal? Under the DMCA of course.
What a stupid idea. In an emergency, it may be necessary to accelerate quickly, e.g. to get out of the way of another vehicle that's swerving into your lane, etc. If the behavior of the gas pedal suddenly changes in the middle of a crisis, it could CAUSE an accident.
Or, let's say you've got a 25mph residential street that turns onto a 50mph highway. You're driving along at 50mph, and suddenly the GPS system mistakenly thinks you're close enough to the residential street that you should now be going 25mph. The ensuing weirdness with the gas pedal distracts the driver for a moment. Fantastic.
Have you ever seen an incorrect (possibly simply out of date) street on Mapquest/Yahoo/Google Maps? I wonder how that sort of thing might affect this.
I would have no problem with using this technology to light up a warning light on the dashboard or something, but directly affecting the control of the vehicle sounds like a VERY bad idea to me. As long as we still trust humans to operate the steering wheel, we need to trust them to operate the gas as well.
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
Dupey mcdupenstein. And this is why I don't even bother with getting a free account.
traffic jams using cellphone data. Of course they are now they are saying they blatantly going to infringe upon our privacy.7 45248&tid=126&tid=215&tid=158
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/11/19/0
Ooo man the floppy drive is broken. No wait. The computer is just upside down.
Hell, why not just issue a speeding ticket out of the dashboard?
"John Spartan, you are fined one credit for violation of the verbal language statute..."
Seriously, though, this is just a bit too invasive.
Striking fear in the authors of godawful fanfiction, I am here, appearing in darkness, Tuxedo Jack!
In Soviet Russia, you push car pedal.
In Canada, car pedal pushes you.
...I hope they require it in all police cars, too.
From time to time it becomes necessary to punch the hell out of the gas pedal to get out of a situation where you are about to get killed by another vehicle driven by a fucktard. The idea that my car is going to start resisting me when I try to get out of that fucktard's way is unacceptable. I hope this dies a quick death and doesn't gain any interest in the US. M.A.D. This isn't just a bad idea. This is a top ten bad idea.
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
What if someone had an emergency and needed to speed (even if it's wreckless to do so anyways)?
What if someone is pregnant or hurt seriously and needed to get to the hospital quick? What if it's the dead of night and no one is on the road? Do you follow the 55 mph speed limit (yes, I know it's Canada, not America) or do you proceed to go up to 70-80 mph?
I would never voluntarily buy a car that had those restrictive devices placed on it. If it were made mandatory by government order, I would vote for any political party that promised to remove those restrictions.
I take responsibility for the task of driving, thank you.
It's all those other nutcases out there that need to be regulated.(irony intended)
CameraWatch2. Gives acoustic warning on overspeed.
Open Source Drum Kit, LPLC deve board - mjhdesigns.com
We already have this -- It's called a Wife. They alert you when you're going over the speed limit and make it increasingly difficult to press on the accelerator.
So they'll just get rear-ended a lot by peolpe who are on vacation, won't they?
What happens in a tunnel? No signal, I would assume, yet one would hope the car continues to operate normally. If that is the case, just surround the receiver with lead and block the signal to the car. Problem solved.
-------------------------------END--COMMUNICATION
I bet they actually mean't it would be harder for you to press the brake pedal so you can just fall off the bridge and die. Then they make a great example of you. God Bless America.
While this is a great idea, such items wouldn't be installed in police cars, for instance.
This makes polices chases much more boring, sadly, as the criminal would be better off running.
But this also makes the emergency services' various vehicles much more lucrative car-jacking targets.
The last thing we want to see is a police car chasing an ambulance down the motorway.
If the scope of this system can be expanded such that it can also make the brake harder to depress when the driver is driving less than the speed limit, that would be like totally awesome. I can't tell you how many times I've been stuck behind a granny (or person with Florida tags), wincing in anticipation of every curve in the road, no matter how gentle, which I know will bring up those infernal brake lights. And, just as a tangent, simply because there's a car in the oncoming lane doesn't mean a rapid deceleration is prudent!
The flag just makes more sense than the constitution. - Judas Gutenberg
What stops the wrong guys from using it?
What happens if you need to accelerate to avoid a crash?
Cool, if I lived in Canada, then I could get a leg work out while driving to college every morning...
Hell, why stop there? Why not a cranial implant that can monitor your cerebral activity. Then as soon as you just think something along the lines of "I hate Bush" or "I like Islam" you're immediately put on the governments list of individuals to keep an eye on and deny passports.
*goes back to reading Orwell*
Before enlightenment - Code C, read Usenet, play NetHack. After enlightenment - Code C, read Usenet, play NetHack.
How long until the makers and implementers of this device are sued when a driver cannot escape from a raging lunatic or stalker who is in pursuit?
Anyone think of the instances where going above the speed limit is necessary - traffic issues, defensive driving, emergencies? This program seems like it would put more hassle than anything. If you are in a hurry, you shouldn't speed (that is right) - but if there is an emergency, or if you are avoiding a traffic accident, going above the speed limit is basically needed. I think more thought should be put into this program first before they force these sort of regulations without any exceptions. Think of not being able to do a manuever to avoid an accident because your car limits you.
Plus, everyone's seen school buses with their regulators, going 60mph on the highway. No one wants to be like them.
Check out my website: Playfully Clever
Who is this being marketed at? Is it for car rental agencies? They have already used GPS to monitor where you take their cars and, at times, fining you for taking it out of state. I hardly believe that anyone expects this to be put into regular cars. (not even in Canada)
How many times have you been passed by some idiot who barely makes it between you and the semi barreling down on him? Imagine what's going to happen to you when he can't accelerate any faster and swings the steering wheel into your car at the last second when he realizes he's not going to make it? Awesome! Safety!
If everyone was logical, rational, and never did anything stupid, this would be fine... but the stupidity of others is always going to put people in danger, and this will just make it worse.
sig.
Yes, it's true. Sigh.
All I can say is that Bo and Luke Duke would be pissed...
Cause everyone wants a free Xbox360
Frankly, I can go either way on this one. In the obvious sense, it limits freedom insofar as one cannot choose to greatly exceed the speed limit.
On the other hand, it would mean eliminating the need for traffic officers in police forces. It would mean no more speeding tickets since the system would automatically enforce it - in fact, I've always wondered why cars weren't required to install a governer that prevented them from going above 90MPH (25MPH greater than the highest speed limit I've seen in the United States).
Do people really believe in speed limits? If so, I think this device could be a good way of limiting the number and severity of accidents. Would you be willing to give up your freedom (as well as fellow drivers) to speed to be a lot safer? What about to never have to worry about speeding tickets ever again? What if it allowed you to exceed the speed limit by 25% (81.25MPH in a 65 area and 43.75 in a 35 area)?
Frankly, this device could lead to liberalization of speed zones since enforcement would be 100%. Like, there's an unspoken rule that you have to be going at least 5-10MPH over to get a speeding ticket, but this device could automatically give you that leway and then enforce when you go above that.
I tend to go a little more toward regulation, so I'd like to hear if anyone else thinks this is too big brother.
Two questions really need addressing: GPS accuracy and "Oh Shit" moments.
Oh Shit moments are when you're in a small convertible with a large pickup behind you in a one-lane road. The pickup is doing twice the speed limit. You can't accelerate fast enough anyway (personal experience) to avoid an accident even without this.
GPS accuracy: Not as much of a problem now, but if this system doesn't give you the benefit of the doubt, it could slow you down to 25 every time you hit an intersection with a smaller street. If the person following you is driving an old car without this system, you're about to get slammed in the ass-end.
Would these internal computers be able to determine the position of the car?
This detail is important because the speed limit varies from area to area, and it really sounds more cost effective to set up a central database to determine the speed limit as the cars move from point.A to point.B, and if it were to exceed the limit, just send a blip to the offending car's real-time digital speedometer (I'd assume) and the car's gas-petal would increase resistance.
I drive a 1999 BMW 323is that is regulated to go no faster than 130 miles per hour. It's actually a pretty neat system - the engine is racing and making a lot of racket when you hit that speed (not that I ever have, mind you). Then it goes over the 130 MPH limit and the gas cuts out and it stops making noise. Then you fall under 130 MPH and the gas cuts back in. Then... you get the idea.
Calculating speed with GPS and making the gas pedal harder to push seems a little overly complicated.
I'm a big tall mofo.
How will they get auto manufacturers to install this device in the cars? Who would voluntarily install it in their cars--unless it was to protect (read--govern) your teenager?
My only thought as to how this could be implemented is through some sort of punitive measure, tantamount to the breathalyzers put into the vehicles of drunk drivers. I didn't read that in the article, however.
If they get the auto manufacturers to comply, it would truly be scary.
Hmmmmm....
What do the Germans have that we don't? Are they smarter (don't answer that), are they better drivers, do they have better roads ? Well the answer is IMHO yes. They aren't smarter, but they are more responsible behind the wheel... they aren't better drivers, their driving license is MUCH harder to get; they have better roads, but they also have WELL MAINTAINED CARS.
So in essence, the Germans are happily driving at 250+ Km/h on their autobahns without having significantly more accidents than us, because they have much higher standards when it comes to issuing drivers' licenses, they have suited roads, and their cars go through a very strict mechanical check-up every year, to make sure they are road-legal.
So stop pointing fingers at just speed, and start admitting that the reason we crash as much as we do is because we have too many sh*tty cars with sh*tty drivers. Period.
There's no fucking i'm voting for any moron proposing such a thing.
----
Go canucks, habs, and sens!
God forbid you ever have a wife who becomes pregnant... and carries the baby to term... and you have to speed to the hospital... ... I WISH I COULD GO FASTER HONEY, BUT THE CANADIAN SPEED NAZIS HAVE RUINED MY LIFE!
MoM++ - A Classic Expanded - [Master of Magic 1.5]
http://mompp.sourceforge.net/
Uh, why not just use the car's speedometer? Doesn't it have a much better idea of how fast the car is moving than GPS could figure out?
But yeah, horrible horrible idea. Changing how a car works in the middle of the game is going to cause accidents. Can you imagine if you were in the middle of passing a car on a 2-lane highway and suddenly the car stops accelerating?
This is a stupid idea. If you can't control a car in such a way that you need a device to stop you from speeding then you shouldn't be driving. It isn't that hard. If someone consistently proves they can't drive to the limits then don't let them drive. Don't fine them, don't take them to court. Take their car off them and sell it.
The day these start getting installed is the day the public wakes up and we can start getting rid of most of the stupid traffic laws, starting with the completely unnecessary speed limits.
If everyone who broke a traffic law got caught every time, all the traffic laws would get repealed immediately. Freedom would finally be returned to the roads.
I'm glad that stopping speeders on roadways will protect my rights a I surf the 'Net.
they have to dig your car out of the debris that either a volcano or tsunami piles on top of your car because you couldn't get out of the area fast enough. Here in Washington State, either scenario is possible.
:)
I haven't RTFA, but I can only assume that there is some room to allow for the
use of evasive high speed when necessary.
-Nemo
(Just waiting for the next post: "Hey look, they found Nemo"
Subaru called it a "Daddy alarm". It was a switch that could be locked into the "on" position by a key (separate from the ignition key). When engaged, the vehicle would sound an alarm whenever the vehicle speed exceeded 55MPH. It was about as annoying as the seatbelts-are-not-fastened-so-why-are-you-trying -to-start-the-engine alarm.
I can't imagine a teenager for which this would provide even the slightest deterrent. Just crank up the stereo and let 'er rip!
I personally installed a system to track rpms/mph on police units here in the US more than 5 years ago. It consisted of a tracking device(black box) that was hidden on a random vehicle every shift, which was monitored on a pc at a centralized location.
87 comments - and not a one mentioning Red Barchetta? What is wrong with you people?
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
From TFA:
"The system being tested by Transport Canada, the Canadian equivalent of the U.S. Department of Transportation, uses a global positioning satellite device installed in the car to monitor the car's speed and position."
"The agency is also testing another system that warns drivers with a voice alarm and a light whenever they start to speed"
It's being tested. That means if it results in lots of people getting in wrecks all the time, they will probably modify it not to do so, what with wrecks being generally not profitable to the DoT (canadian or otherwise). Plus they are doing the thing where they buzz a light and say "John Spartan fined 1 credit for violation of the profanity statute".
If you want to be pissed at it for being invasive and not allowing you to break the law, just say so. You don't have to phrase the gripe in terms of things that you think will convince law people.
Implementing this technology is going to create a problem in a few years when people start getting off of otherwise legitimate traffic tickets on the premise that "my car didn't stop me from going that fast".
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Give them the exercise when they try to speed by making them press harder.
PS: Kudos to Canada for making them press harder instead of just limiting the speed. Sometimes you need to speed to get out of the way of a dangerous driver (a timer would help with this too). I would hope they would limit the speed when it rains/snows too as around here (Kansas USA) there are many idiots who think a downpour or slush doesn't have any effect on their cars' handling.
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
We have an election coming up, tell me who the bastards are that thought of this one and I'll vote for some other criminal.
Speeding is a problem and while I have no statistical evidence to support my thesis, I believe that speeding a contributing factor in most auto wrecks; even if a drunk is behind the wheel, the propensity of a dangerous collision is reduced as the speed itself is reduced.
What is there to gain from people voluntairly slowing down? Better fuel prices (people will use less of it), lower insurance rates (less speeding tickets, less property/bodily damage), police can spend more time pursuing those involved in more serious crimes so there will be a reduction in those. And, if people regularly drove below the speed limit, the municipalities can increase the speed limit because right now they are forced to make them artificially low since so many people are regularly and habitually ignoring them.
If they're going to prevent people from speeding, can we prevent grandma and grandpa from going 25 mph on the freeway? Maybe the gas becomes easier to depress? I mean, obviously this is a horrible idea, but it would prevent just as many headaches.
Forecast for tomorrow: A few sprinklings of genius with a chance of DOOM!
This is a very good idea that needs some work. Speeding is responsible for thousands of deaths every year, and current enforcement mechanisms are ineffective, expensive, and often unfair. Issues of "individual choice" and "invasiveness" are not relevant, because the decision to speed directly endangers the lives of other people. Physically limiting speed, however, seems ill-advised. As other comments have pointed out, it is sometimes necessary to speed away from a dangerous situation. Another problem is that people with strong feet (pronounced "adolescent males") will be able to speed more than people without--the pedal does not become impossible to depress beyond the legal limit, just harder. Warning lights or noises are far more advisable. These could be combined with systems that record speed limit violations, and report them to authorities if they exceed a certain frequency or severity. These issues will be ironed out with experience. For now, I wish the Canadian regulators good luck.
Need to speed to avoid an accident? Riiiight. When was the last time you had to exceed the speed limit to avoid an accident when all of the other cars were also obeying the speed limit? Have you ever tried actually driving the speed limit? It's amazing how spacious and safe interstates feel when driving the speed limit (when the crazies aren't almost running into your rear bumper.) If everyone were moving this* speed, I bet the reduction in accidents (and increase in mileage) would far more than offset any few odd accidents that might occur.
.3 MPH faster.
Objections along these lines remind me of the objections to seat belt laws. "What if I need to get out? What if I drive into a lake, the car is filling up with water, and my seatbelt gets stuck? What if aliens land and the only way to save the planet is to go 80 MPH????" Hmmm...I'm guessing this isn't too likely. Similarly, if everyone were to drive the speed limit, I bet a lot of these "emergencies" would go away because reaction windows would expand.
Here's a revolutionary idea that wouldn't involve big brother technology: why not just obey the posted speed limits? This allows for judgment when (theoretically) it might be necessary, and also saves lives and gas.
Or don't obey the speed limits. I don't care. When you all are speeding it means that I can set my cruise control on the speed limit and relax even in heavy holiday traffic because everyone else is having an aneurysm trying to go
This sounds like an interesting system, and I agree it has some merit; I'll often discover I'm speeding a bit in my Toyota minivan because the engine is so quiet and the ride is so smooth it's easy to go faster than you realize. I'm sure other auto brands are similar. I do think making a system like this mandatory would be stupid, but if its use were voluntary, and disableable, then I think it'd be okay.
On the other hand, instead of doing something complicated like adjusting the feedback from the gas pedal, why not do something simpler, like sound a buzzer? Provide some feedback based on how long and how much over the speed limit someone is traveling.
Does this mean I'm going to have to work-out my scrawny chicken legs?
Ok, here's another scenario; I'm clipping along the 401 at 118 kph ...
Now wait, this is the "intended speed limit", the 401 is banked for 120 kph, cops set their radar at 123 or higher. The "legal limit" is set at 100kph so that when everybody speeds "a little" they'll be driving between 110-120.
Does this kick in because I'm 18kph "over" the limit?
Too posh to push?
Infant mortality rates and the death rates of mothers were also higher before.
Do you have to suffer to make things more meaningful? Technology, including anesthesological technology, is usually developed to make our lives more enjoyable. This is off topic, but I think by looking down on anyone who has had an epidural because they didn't endure the great pain of childbirth at home... is like looking down on people with electricity because they don't burn candles for light.
===
Uh, how to make this on topic, uhh... oh yeah, technology is usually developed to make our lives more enjoyable... but sometimes... the Canadian transportation people come in and try to put crazy devices in cars... and ruin everyone's lives!
MoM++ - A Classic Expanded - [Master of Magic 1.5]
http://mompp.sourceforge.net/
Being an American, especially having lived in Florida, it seems like you can't get anywhere in a reasonable period without speeding, at least on the interstates.
However, there are times when I would like to go the speed limit. For instance, there are places where I know there are often speed traps. What I would like is a button to push that reminds me to go the speed limit, either by an alert or as something akin to cruise control. Usually, I remember that I'm about to get onto a speed-trap-prone road, so I'll remember to push the button, but sometimes my attention wanders from the speedometer (say, to paying attention to traffic), and I sometimes speed up. This way, I won't blow through speed traps. But I always want to be able to disable it.
I mean, if you can find an angle where government regulation of business, or anyone else you happen to be at political or philosophical differences with, is a good thing, then I'm sure you can find an angle where the government regulation of what you do on the roads is a good thing for some other group. Like pedestrians, safer drivers than you, what have you. They obviously know what is best for your utilities, so why wouldn't they know what is best for your roads?
(This sarcasm brought to you by the Department of the Glaringly Obvious)
If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
*rips device out of consoole* *speeds*
Rest assured that if some kind of law is voted in requiring laws to ensure that cars have these, the ones that voted for it won't have to pay the damages associated with such a stupid law.
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
I can't wait for the 14,357 comments saying the most fundamental human right is the freedom to break speed laws. Scientific research showing speeding increases the risk of mortal accidents and basic physics telling higher speeds increases emissions of CO2 and other pollutants will definitely be a fascist complot. A fast car will be more fundamental to survival than food and fresh water. People without a car will a) be fanatic terrorist hippies, or b) not exist.
In e-discussions on environmental related topics, Godwin's law holds true for the words "middle ages" and "stone age".
Trust me, I work for the government.
As many have already posted, messing with the gas pedal is not a good idea. There are goign to be circumstances where one needs to speed, or the system is malfunctioning, etc. On my new chrysler town & country, as soon as you drive above 5mph without your seatbelt buckled, it starts making a dinging sound. Sure, you could drive without a seatbelt on, but the noise is so obnoxius that one is very compelled to wear their seatbelt. The same could be done for speading; implement the system that they are talking about. Make a warning light on your dash like they do for the seatbelt warnign light. If your going 5 or 10 mph opver the speed limit turn the light on, or if you are going way over the limit, start making an audible alert until the driver slows down. This way the driver will know, and be compelled to slow down, but in an emergency could continue driving as usual if they wanted. This would also not be a safelty hazard when speading is necessary (such as passing).
I'd like to know what happens if you're driving on an overpass that crosses over a slow street. Would the system just adjust to the faster speed for that moment if you're driving on the slower road?
Many freeway onramps have a speed limit of 25mph, and a short merge into 55-60 mph traffic. I'm sure this wont generate any problems.
Where I live, there's an elevated section of freeway (55mph) with a highway (35mph) directly underneath it. How would the system know which speed to assign to your vehicle?
I don't know about cost effectiveness, but wouldn't it be a more accurate system to have mini-broadcasters in light posts, speed signs, traffic lights, etc? Once your car passes within prximity of the speed sign, your car would reset the speed at which the pedal becomes harder to push.
If anything that would make the car's radar cross section larger. :)
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
Guys, maybe you didn't look closely enough:
The pilot test, using 10 cars driven by volunteers, is believed to be the first in North America, although similar systems have been tested in several European countries, according to the newspaper.
See the bold? The system has only been tested with 10 cars, which is an infinitesimally small sample when your country has dozens of millions of people. Chances are that once the researchers increase the sample pool by a few thousand cars and greater, problems will occur that will prove that the device causes noticeable quagmires in a large scale environment.
If you're reading this, stop it.
Here in Winnipeg, we actually have a pretty cool alternative. A MBA graduate from our university here has developed a device that is a direct competitor to this article's "system"
:P).
http://www.myottomate.com/
It's a shameless plug, but its just like a lot of you guys are mentioning. Device is passive (based off GPS), has an audible warning (which can be turned off)...and a light that comes on when you are speeding. It also notifies you of upcoming crosswalks, school zones, dangerous intersections, and red light cameras (so it can be used for evil as well
The guy who invented it came and did a presentation to our investment banking class about it, and he said that transport canada is also evaluating his system, which he feels is a lot safer (for the reasons everyone else is mentioning), and has a lot more practical features.
The device sells for about $275 canadian and can be moved from vehicle to vehicle, has a USB port for map updates, etc. He said that when they were developing the map software they foudn that a lot of the commerical maps sucked (Navteq and the like), so they went and mapped out all of winnipeg, speed limits, and all the other data. THere's potential for datalogging (how many km you've driven, etc). He intends to eventually market the device to all of north america.
Examine this scenario:
Muscles the Weightlifter is driving along, minding his own business, when the idiot driver behinds him starts accelerating. "Oh no!" shouts Muslces, who proceeds to slam on the gas. "Oh no!" shouts Muscles, who realizes that the gas is harder to press. "Ah, yes," says Muscles, as he realizes that he just needs to push a little harder. Muscles survives.
Theodore the CS professor is driving along, minding his own business, when the idiot driver behinds him starts accelearting. "Oh no!" shouts Theodore, who proceeds to slam on the gas. "Oh no!" shouts Theodore, who realizes that the gas is harder to press. "MOMMY!" shouts Theodore, as he cannot depress the gas any more. Theodore does not survive.
The strongest will survive, my friends. So much more progress.
"Give me a lever long enough and a fulcrum on which to place it, and I shall move the world." -Archimedes
The device is in your car, so, why not use the speedometer to determine speed? Duh!
The GPS unit is required to know what the speed limit for that particular road is in the first place.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
This will be useful when you're speeding away from people with guns.
hi
If the speed limits are raised to speeds most people are comfortable going, it'd mean the loss of a huge cash cow for many towns. In states where they have to beg their citizens every time they want to raise taxes, that might be the only significant source of revenue for a town.
Even if the people put up with such a system, everyone would stop speeding. That'd mean that people could make do with a lot less horsepower in their cars than they do now. I doubt big oil or big auto would put up with everyone switching over to 3 cylinder vehicles for long.
If they really wanted to stop speeders, they could put a mandatory system in place and have it done within a couple of years, but the state doesn't really want that. They need the speeders, and in fact they need to have most people breaking that law most of the time. Millions of dollars are at stake.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
A lot of slashdoters are thinking privacy and big brother. But what about people who need this sort of thing? I have a speeding problem. I've tried radar detectors, radar jammers, and I even have one of those cool little radios that tell me if a police officer is near by (it picks up the repeater on their radio). Unfortunatly, despite all of this help I continue to get speeding tickets. Now I'm nearly uninsurable and paying $7,500 a year for the insurance I do have.
If I could purchase a device like this to help me not speed, then cool! Maybe my insurance company would even give me a discount!
Do you have big leg syndrome? Call 1-800-sue-them and I'll get you the settlement you deserve.
Problem solved...
If this device becomes standard, then the government won't be able to collect revenue from speeding tickets.
If we had this about 7 years ago, back when I had my bike wreck as a kid, I could have bled to death! My mother rushed me to the hospital herself because it was faster. I would have then had the choice to bleed to death in her truck on the way there, or bleed to death waiting for an ambulance to show up!
"Better to be vulgar than non-existent" -Bev Henson
On the off-chance that no one has patented a GPS spoofer yet, let this post be prior art to keep the idea in the public domain.
There are soo many of these cockamamie schemes coming out that depend on GPS - for examaple california was floating a mandatory GPS logger for highway use taxes - that there is certain to be a big market for GPS spoofers. The signals from the GPS satellites should be faint enough that overpowering them in a radius of say, 10 meters ought to be feasible with a handheld-sized device.
In this case, I see two popular uses.
1) Spoof your own GPS to "unlock" the accelerator. Make it think you are always in the booneys on a highway with an 80mph limit (or one with no limit in the system's database).
2) Spoof that idiot in front of you who is driving too slow or the jerk tailgating you. Put him in a school zone with limit of 10mph and watch him come to a near stand-still - slowpoke will eventually pull over to the shoulder and let you pass while the tailgater will quickly fall off your tailgate.
If you implement systems like this, or other speed enforcement techniques like photo radar, the DOT needs to fix the underposted speed limits first. Traffic engineering rules specify that a good speed limit is the 85th percentile speed of unrestricted (IE, not stuck in traffic, not being enforced by a cop) traffic, rounded up to the nearest multiple of five. Studies show that this speed is the safest speed to drive at, regardless of any artificially chosen "limit" which is clearly not a limit in any sense of the word because the limits are routinely disobeyed.
If you want people to take speed limits seriously you need to make the limits appropriate and enforce them appropriately. A favorite trick in many states is to post a rediculously low (20 or 30mph under the prevailing traffic speed) work zone speed limit where no actual work is occuring. Then a police officer sits there and pulls over the people at the high end of the normal traffic speeds and tickets them. This behavior is unsafe, unfair, increases distrust of law enforcement and leads people to believe the whole traffic system is a scam.
A local expressway here is posted at 65. People typically drive between 65 and 80. Some drive faster. 80 is a completely safe speed on this road (in good conditions) and the off duty police drive much faster on their way home. A reasonable solution would be to set the limit at 80 or 85. Most people wouldn't drive that fast. I know most of the time I'd stick around 70 for fuel mileage but knowing it was legal to accelerate faster than that for passing or traffic maneuvers would increase safety.
isomerica.net | Foonetic IRC
While in theory this sounds like a good idea, the reality would be a nightmare.
Moving more slowly than the rest of the traffic on a highway is a hazard and causes accidents. Undoubtedly such a system would take as much as a decade to phase in, increasing the mix of restricted acceleration cars with those that have normal acceleration.
Anyone who has tried to traverse an eight-lane highway at speed knows how important their ability to accelerate is.
Changing the way a critical control mechanism -- like the accelerator -- behaves during an emergency situation could easily make an accident far worse than it would otherwise be. I have been in situations where I have had to suddenly accelerate and far exceed the posted speed limit to avoid a major accident. Unless this system comes with the best artificial intelligence ever invented, then it's a recipe for disaster.
This is a perfect example of using technology as sledgehammer to solve a social problem that would more effectively be addressed by education and training.
It's awesome that people come up with all these great ideas to percieved social problems, but it's such a laughably unsafe idea that you have to scratch your head and wonder how this made it off the drawing board. The government of canada is *not capable* of determining the appropriate speed for people to be driving. Only a driver can make the decision in a given circumstance, and preventing them from doing so only makes the roads more dangerous.
People who think they know everything really piss off those of us that actually do.
Sorry, but you got a few things wrong. Although you might be essentially right, let me be a Fact-Nazi (got it? A German, calling himself a Nazi. Funny, huh? Aw...):
1. The mandatory check-up (so-called "Hauptuntersuchung") is every _other_ year, and only after four years for a new car. Still, judging from what I see on `Pimp my ride', it is possible in the states to drive cars that would never be allowed on public streets in Germany.
2. Nobody is "happily driving at 250+ Km/h". Yes, I have been overtaken by the occasional Porsche doing 300 km/h (~190 mph) and Mercs at 220 km/h are not exactly a rare sight, but these people are notorious for closing up to an arm's reach of your bumper with headlights flashing; and they are generally considered arseholes with tiny wangs.
3. About 60% of the Autobahn network (that's an estimate, I couldn't be bothered to look it up) have speed limitation, typically 120 km/h. That doesn't stop people from speeding there, but they get caught sooner or later (the Autobahn police squad sports disguised, camera-fitted cars with appropriate engines)
4. From what I hear from friends with American licenses, you are right about driving licences.
5. Accidents don't happen on Autobahns. They happen on county roads with sharp curves, crossroads and narrow passages. Due to the Autobahn's construction (or any other Highway's, for that matter), head-on crashes are nearly impossible, and deadly crashes are much rarer than they are on county roads (believe me, I am an EMT...)
Speed enforcement needs to change. A few years ago, the speed limit on all major closed highways in New York was 55mph or less. The State Police would give you a ticket for going 64 and then give you a lecture that it was all for public safety, in other words, going faster was going to cause someone to die. Well, then they raised the cap to 65mph for highways without a lot of entrances and exits (usually about one every 3 miles or more). And guess what, the highway death rate has decreased!!!! I'm sure the death rate didn't decrease because of higher speeds, but it sure didn't go up because of the speed.
Speed enforcement is a money game here in the US. No one really cares if the roads are safer, they just want ticket money. I even heard of a recent case where a districy raised the budget for ticket collection by $1,000,000 without even consulting the Police Department. They simply told them to go out and get more money.
Here's where it gets good..... If cars were elecronically limited to never speed, then speed enforcement would become a dead industry. Fewer and fewer cars would speed as old cars are replaced by new. Then the police would go do something productive (like watch for people running stop signs, or suddenly changing lanes in front of a car, or something else that actually kills people). One good thing already. Now, someone has to provide the data that the in-vehicle speed limiters use. Some day they're going to screw up and label a section of a 55mph road 15mph or something similar. In the first day, they will cause thousands of traffic accidents and probably a few deaths. Imaging if half the cars on the 405 in LA suddenly slowed to less than a quarter of the speed limit and THEY were panicking because they are as confused as they guy coming up behind them. After that day (and the lawsuits) no company will want to control the system. There goes the speed limiters and the police have already taken up more fruitful pursuits. Yea!!!
With a country that loves cars and lawsuits as much as we do, it couldn't happen any other way.
Nowhere in the article does it state the purpose of these devices - the function, yes, but not the purpose. My bet is that this is a study into using the devices on repeated speeding offenders who have been penalized by the courts, a la the breathalizer ignition systems in use throughout much of the United States. Unremarkable, to say the least. Besides, as the article says, this is old technology, already being sold. What's the big deal?
I spend most of my time in bed, darling.
Next.. Magnetically controlled zippers that only open in the highway restroom, motels or your home. Ice boxes that lock when you have had four beers. Let's brainstorm, slashdotters and see just how much resposibility we can deprive people of.
"No fear. No envy. No meanness." Liam Clancy
This project is related to speeding 18 wheelers on Highway 401, currently the busiest highway in North America. It is not intended for use with passenger vehicles, or cars. CNN is spinning the story a bit into some obtrusive civilian control technlogy.
Really we just want transports to max out at 110kph, still 10 over the limit.
When you are driving to work in the morning and you woke up 10 minutes too late safety is remaining calm and ignoring your mad boss.
When your kid falls out of a tree and fractures his left arm safety is driving double the speed limit to ensure the livelyhood of your child.
The problem isn't just in traffic, we are seeing a set of governments that deem all their citizens idiots who can't hurt themselves except with intention. Everything has to be taken away from the citizens at large so nobody gets hurt. The problem with this agenda is that there is no significant reason to trust those who enforce this set of rules.
Psychologically limiting your population doesn't make sense so finding a situation where doing so would be stupid is not necessary. It's stupid to persue these measures in the first place.
"And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World"
1 John 4:14
Come on here, use some imagination.
Street signals connected to signs a short distance down the road (already done now). If on, your car slows down and stops at the appropriate place.
Radar to determine the distance from objects.
Sensor, if you didn't use the turn signal, you won't be allowed to change lanes. You can't change lanes for 10 seconds after successfully changing lanes.
Digital speedo that keeps you at the appropriate speed limit.
Sensors in the asphalt so that if you're slower than surrounding traffic, you're automatically sped up or your signal hits and you are shifted to a slower lane.
The radar will prevent you from changing lanes if there's an object in the lane next to you.
Sensors in stop signs that make you stop and not roll through.
RFID chips in people with birthdate so if a "kid" runs out into the street, your car is already sounding the horn and stopping.
When passing other vehicles, the road sensors let you exceed the speed limit by 15mph. Since there are sensors and radar, you won't be allowed to attempt to pass if you don't have enough horsepower to successfully pass.
Eliminate the need for stopsigns, lights, double yellow lines, solid yellow lines on your side of the road. Everyone knows where everyone is so you can pass on a blind curve without a chance of encountering oncoming traffic (can't help you with deer or other wildlife, or road hazards).
Your car can download weather conditions beamed directly from points on the highway. With sensors, your speed will be adjusted for conditions as necessary.
Since every will be id'd, the best routes to work will be known. Traffic density will be monitored and your car won't start if there's an issue or you'll be rerouted to avoid problems.
Cars will automatically pull over if an emergency vehicle is approaching. Cars will stop when approaching school buses that are picking up or dropping off kids. Emergency vehicles will be able to trigger lights to all be green. With cars pulling over, they won't have to slow down going through intersections.
The RFID chips that are embedded in people will light up adjacent signs warning traffic, for example if kids are playing, the "Children Playing" signs will be lit. Otherwise they'll be turned off.
With traffic density known, lights will be able to know the best traffic flow pattern and we'll get to work better.
Traffic will be able to approach speeds appropriate to the vehicle and surrounding conditions and will be able to sit a car length behind the next car which will let the traffic density increase safely.
Just some quick thoughts.
[John]
Shit better not happen!
What a terrible idea.
I don't drive as much nowadays as I used to, but a few years back I lived an hour from my work and racked up ten hours plus driving weekly, much of it at high speed.
I've been in enough situations where I needed a burst of speed to come out of the situation in one piece, and the last thing I'd need in such a scenario is my car fighting me. When a truck pulls into your lane whilst you are still in it at 80km/h and you have a car behind you, the last thing you need is something retarding your acceleration. When a driver who is willing to let you die by running you into the back of a parked car because their ego can't take the blow of you passing them, you need good brakes or good acceleration and the ability to use them fast. If they finally figure out the situation and make the wrong call by slowing down, that acceleration is going to be the difference between you being a statistic and making it home that night.
And before anyone says it, preventative driving is the key. But if you're on the road enough, you or another will eventually make a mistake that puts you in a bad situation.
Now GPS isn't always the most accurate of things, and the last thing I want is for the accelerator to require different amounts of pressure to achieve the same results based on GPS whims.
Having said all of that, replace messing with the car with an audible signal and you've got a winner.
They are just testing the device, and it is being done in conjunction with other jurisdictions (some in the states). Government agencies do this kind of thing all the time. Not unusual. I doubt it will ever be deployed widescale for a lot of the reasons others have pointed out.
make cars with a lower top speed?
we dont need cars capable of 160MPH
back in the day we didnt have no old school
Because the uk has such high speeding penalties I'd buy one just so I know what the road speed limit is.
Why UNIX?
I don't think these will last very long.
I found a recent article about red-light cameras that had been installed at various local intersections. The article made interesting mention of the fact that some of the yellow lights were timed as low as three seconds, which unquestionably does not provide enough notice to bring the vehicle to safe stop. You have two choices: slam on the breaks and hope there is noone in back of you, or continue, which will most likely have you entering the intersection on a red light.
This provides an excellent revenue source for both the city, and insurance companies- the city can impose a fine, and the insurance company can raise your rates. In fact, one of our local interstates generated over $13,000,000 in speeding fines (from cameras). Ethics aside (there don't appear to be any in this business) do you honestly think local governments are going to think very highly of a device that will deny it such a substantial source of revenue?
Pfft, they've had this for ages, it's called a wife! Thank you, thank you, I'm here all night.
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't regist
What about:
You are being chased by a band of thugs, or worse, by a corrupt police officer, yes, there is corruption in the canadian police force.
You need to get to a hospital.
You need help, have no phone and need to go to the closest town.
Sure you will risk a ticket but is the life of a loved one that cheap for the canadian government?.
There is no room por people in Canada, only for robots aka canadians.
If it is implemented as a voluntary system, I see no problem with it. Parents should be able to do this to keep their nutty teenagers under control, or have control over how their cars are used when they lend their vehicles to other people.
No way will I let anyone install such a system in my car but I'm very selective about who I let drive my cars.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
Why not just train people how to drive properly (i.e. the German system that requires drivers to be a minimum of 18 years old, with several hours of classes and in car training for adverse conditions and emergency situations)? Speed doesn't kill, incompetent and ignorant drivers do. The German highway system proves this - their accidents per capita are slightly lower than the US on highways with no speed limits. Millions could be invested to another useless technology to take one step closer to a nanny state, or folks could learn to put down the cell phone, stop chaning the radio station every 4.3 seconds and how to use a fucking turn signal.
Over the course of the session, each team had to submit a project outline. The only catch was that it had to be of interest to law enforcement. You can imagine the groans in the classroom when he said that...
Even though my team would have nothing of it, I proposed to the teacher a black-box that would automagically ticket bad driving.
When the teacher heard that, his face suddenly blank, and instead of his usually happy answers, he responded an extremely curt "no, anyway it's coming" that was so curt that it drew the air out of me.
I'm glad that it's finally there.
* * *
And now, time to repeat my usual hardass statement about driving:
Driving performed on **PUBLIC** roads being public, one shall not have any expectation of privacy whilst doing so.
Driving is a ***PRIVILEGE***, not a right, so your licenses can be pulled at will if you drive like stupid monkeys on drugs.
You ripped this comment from the anti slash DB. It was posted by dfsii here on July 03. All of your comments are just reposts of other comments. IMHO you should have your account deleted over it.
Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.
They also noted that the red light cameras, due to the deliberately decreased yellow light time, caused MORE accidents.
This of course pisses people off badly, when a "saftey" feature is turned instead to generate revenue and causes more problems at the same time.
They mention that it's ".. the car begins to significantly exceed the speed limit for the road .."
The key word here is in bold. Doing 200 in a 50 zone? Not ok. The brief burst to 60 or 65 to avoid a swerve into your lane (total time elapsed, 1.3s + reaction time)? Probably fine.
No need to be reactionary, just trying to take the dumb out of dumb drivers.
The less humans are in the system, the more we can weed out mistakes. I'd rather have a car hit me because of a malfuction than an old man who happened to have a heart attack and slam on the gas into me. At least I know that once the malfuction is corrected, it's not going to happen again!
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
If you have a really good reason - say, you're taking someone to a hospital - you're clear and the cops will even help you. Otherwise, you have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney, and to have an attorney present during questioning. And all that Miranda yadda yadda.
Yes, speeding laws should be that strict. One should not have the right to be a menace to others' lives.
Circumcision is child abuse.
Honestly, how many times a day while driving do you see people speeding? Is it because they have people chasing them?
Didn't think so.
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
Speed isn't the problem, unless you consider that the slower drivers are the ones causing many of the accidents.
As a rule (with few exceptions), it is the fast drivers who are paying attention to the driving. (They have to.) The drivers doing the speed limit are often also daydreaming, talking with other passengers (looking them in the eyes while doing it), talking on their cell phones etc. Unfortunately, the police don't have an "attention detector" to point at you before pulling you off the road for hazardous driving. (It's much easer to build a radar detector to collect revenue and pretend that it's for public safety.)
So the poor drivers continue to clog the passing lanes, oblivious to the traffic piling up behind them in dangerously close distances just waiting for multi-car pilups. (If they observe other traffic at all, I'm sure they remark to their passengers about the cars "weaving in and out" that are trying to get around them.)
If the authorities were *actually* concerned about making roads safer, they'd be better off having periodic mandatory testing of drivers and roadworthiness of cars. It might actually get much of the riff-raff off the roads and make them a safer place. Perhaps classifying drivers, safe for highway speeds, only safe for slower speeds (and some unsafe at any speed..)
I find it amusing how nearly everyone only focuses on the places where limiting your speed might cause an accident. I wonder why this discussion on slashdot is such a one sided debate? Probably be nobody wants one of these devices in our own car because we like to speed. However ignoring the other side of the argument does not strengthen your debate (why hasn't Bush realized this yet...).
Although I don't have any statistics handy, I suspect that having such a device in a car would make it safer to drive, and I am sure if everyone had them driving would be safer overall. Do I support or want these devices in my car? No way, but I can't blame organizations whose duty it is to make the roads safer for looking into these sorts of tools.
...should get this first. You know, mail men, dog-catchers, the guys who legislated this product's use, and of course, police officers!
-Derek
If the pedal gets harder to press, then I'll just have to get a stronger leg. Also, how will the car know we've switched drivers, and that my girlfriend can't press the pedal down at all. Okay, apart from the fact that she's imaginary.
So how's all this going to work in Boston after "The Big Dig"? When I checked last (yesterday), my GPS still doesn't work in tunnels.
And what about road rage? I already get annoyed with traffic if its pandering to silly speed rules -- is there going to be "car rage" in the future, where people start getting mad at their own vehicles?
Oh yeah, and is the system really going to be accurate and smart enough to know when I've gone to a track-day with my supercharged 4-wheeled land-rocket, and give my back my accelerator/gas pedal while I'm *legally* racing?
I think this is all the pipe-dream of an over-controlling technocrat somewhere! I guess this initiative will fail completely anyway -- I can't see car makers backing it, owners/driver won't want to pay for it, and lets face it, it gives practically nothing back to the users except a longer, possibly more dangerous, more annoying driving experience. I mean really, who's gonna vote for that?
And dont forget its 'comrade protection' feature, where it reports back to the government where you have been every moment of your travel.
Who you went to visit, what store you went too. Perhaps even notifying your insurance company, or opening a police investigation ticket if you happen to goto 'unapproved areas'.
Might as well just ride a bus, with its cameras and metal detectors..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Another interesting situation with red light cameras. I guess being dead won't stop you from getting a ticket anymore!
how they're going to recoup all of that lost extortion money^W^Wticket revenue if they stamp out speeding this way.
I will lose all respect of the Canadian government if they actually try to implement such a device.
Well, I'll lose all respect for their product test cycle if it ever gets out of alpha testing.
We've had a Garmin 3600 GPS gadget for a couple of years. It's a nice tool, but you quickly learn that it has certain, uh, limits.
For example, I often take a local street to avoid a busy stretch of our local super-highway (Boston's Route 128). The two roads are only about 10-20m apart for part of the drive, and the GPS map often shows me jumping back and forth between them. The speed limit on one is about twice the limit on the other.
Similarly, if I'm on the main highway, my GPS position often shows as the nearby frontage road. So the proposed gadget would show me going 2-3 times the speed limit of the street that it thinks I'm on. I'm not sure that trying to slow me down to 25 mph on a busy super-highway is all that wonderful an idea. And this problem isn't limited to adjacent "frontage" roads; sometimes my GPS position puts me on a street a block away from my real position.
I've seen cases where my GPS position was more than a mile from my real position. This lasts a few minutes, and then suddenly corrects itself. I wonder if the US military is again playing games with the satellites. But I don't know.
This afternoon, I was driving south on a local street in a nearby town. I glanced at the GPS gadget, and suddenly it showed me headed north on the street at around 150 mph. A few seconds later, it showed me headed south at my actual position, but at over 200 mph. Then my speed dropped back to around 30. I wonder what the proposed gadget would do with my gas pedal and/or brake in this situation?
This gadget has the ability to record a trip, including times, positions and speed. I recently looked at this after a trip, and was a bit amused when it said that my top speed was 350 mph. I've been contemplating the prospect (proposed seriously by some people) that such devices be installed in cars for evidence to be used in court.
In real life, the guys doing the programming and testing have some very interesting problems on their hands.
Actually, I think these problems are interesting. I wonder how one might get a job working on such problems? It seems to me that they might be solvable. But it also seems to me that Garmin hasn't solved them yet. Stories from other GPS users are similar, so apparently nobody (or maybe no commercial developer) has solved them yet.
Of course, for uses like they intended, they don't really need to fix these petty inaccuracies. Users just get a chuckle now and then and quickly learn the gadget's foibles. But making the device responsible for part of the vehicle's operation or use of GPS data by the legal system are something rather different.
My prediction is that it will fail and quietly disappear during alpha testing. Of course, it's always possible that the bureaucracy will ignore this and decree use of the technology anyway. It wouldn't be the first time that stuff was debugged by the victims^Wcustomers.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
The idea its not new, There are some other implementation in the EU. So some projects other day http://www.ars.nl/products.htm/.
But why stop there at monitoring and blocking the pedal ?
why not:
- give points for driving
- make a contest inside the company whos driving is better at the end of the month
- give tickets for the next soccer game
- police will send you the bill later on
why not... what a sec, its comming something... Carmagedon !!
Hmm.. will be banned in UK probably ..
In all honesty I believe that the money invested in this would make a lot more sense being put into driver's training. It doesn't take speed to make an idiot cause an accident, just look at all the lowish speed collisions on the road that are as a result of Joe Blow not checking his blind spot before he changes lanes or because people often haven't got the slightest clue on how to merge effectively. If I was in the transport minister's place I'd take that money out and start working on subsidies mandatory driver training. If you don't think this is true, go for a rush hour drive in Richmond BC, you might not get near the speed limit the entire time, but you'll definitly have more than a few really close calls.
Moo!
I saw your website about that new game. Like others, I read that EULA ;P This is just a few comments. BTW, I like the freebie version, but im going back to college and dont need another time-eater ;)
;) or equalavalent would be nice.
;)
- Installing The Software on multiple machines (including in the same residence) allowing simultaneous use with only a single license is not permitted. If a mechanism exists to stop simultaneous use of The Software on these machines (eg. physical access), and You are willing to be responsible for this mechanism, then such installation is allowed.
Kinda sucks. Makes perfect sence, but I remember that old game Total Annihilation in which you could play 2 player on 1 "license", and 10 player on 3 licenses. Reallly cool for lan parties, in that we had 3 or 4 (actually) legit copies going around the room so we could all play. Still, it was on trust that you dont break copyright.. They just planned for lan parties.
- You may perform public distribution of Created Content so long as such distribution is free of charge and You place no restrictions on the initial distribution or subsequent redistribution of the Created Content or on the use of the Created Content with The Software.
Gah! Now, I know where you're going on this (charging for internet downloads and other nasty stuff), but I do like the way GPL does this: allow for charge for media. Yeah, cd's are dirt cheap but still costs. Allowing a 1$ (erm, I see you're in Austrailia so...
Well, other than that, keep up the good work
The main problem with such a system is that in some cases it will actually contribute to accidents. Now, the United States significantly decrease the accuracy of the GPS system in war time (understandably so). Are we gonna see more car accidents in Canada when the US goes to war ?
The Raven
Here's my approach. Just replace all the cars on the road with fricken golf carts. That's right. Let every dumbass punch the accelerator to hearts content. Go all out. In fact, let's put humongous bumpers on the golf carts and load the bottom of them down really heavy so they are virtually impossible to turn upside down.
Then you make a new traffic law called, "Do whatever the fuck you want." Let people go all out. Punch that golf cart accelerator, baby! See an idiot driver? No problem! Go smash your golf cart into him at 10mph! Yeah! Get that anger out! WHEW--oh, shit! There's my exit. Damn, I gotta go to work. I'm like 2 hours late. Stupid golf cart.
If we have to do something stupid, at least it should be fun and stupid.
It's technically defined as going over the posted limit, set by the responsible authorities, and the understanding is that this is BAD ALL THE TIME.. right? WRONGO!
Driving on the road involves an infinite amount of constant judgement and "the speed limit" is only but one..
Around here they fiddled with zone change no less than 3 times on the edge of country town in 18 months meaning that a stretch of 200 m changed it status UP *and* DOWN from 50->80->50 km/h and WHERE this changeover varied by that distance.
So without ANY change in road and traffic conditions (town hasn't changed in 16 years we've been here) you could be doing 80, which is fine here, but under change 1 you're suddenly deemed to be doing 30 km/h OVER.. so this is BAD right!!??
so if a cop pings you you're so much toast! Try arguing with roadside cop about that (happened to me!) let alone teh courts - who rely mightily on the comparison of is "speed A > limit B" ?
But THEN they change their mind and bit of road you got pinged for then changes BACK to being included in outside 80 zone by the signs being moved further BACK towards town..
So NEXT time you do 80 (your reasonable speed being a constant here under the conditions) then you're suddenly deemed to be OK!!!???!!
Yet the only thing that has changed is the damn numbering..
Now I would argue in genuine situations such as crowded areas, schools, shopping area etc OF COURSE you drive with total limit AND safety adherence..
It would be HORRIBLE to mixup GPS control with all this as the maps would be totally screwed up and the driver MUST take responsbility 100% of the time - no matter what this magic (money earning) (low) limit is...
Our govt here just issues licences and reaps big money in fines by engineering ridiculous limits and you rarely have a legal chance in hell of challenging it..
Current NavSTAR GPS constellation is what, 5-8 years past the end of its expected lifespan and no replacement in sight? Makes me nervous every time I see something relying on GPS for information. All it takes is a couple of satellite failures, or the US Military deciding that they don't want people using GPS and it all goes up in smoke.
Suppose the actual speed limit is 60 for a particular stretch of highway, but the data was incorrectly entered as 30. Or due to signal interference, the computer temporarily thinks the car is on a different road with a low speed limit. All of a sudden the car slows down unexpectedly. That is a recipe for an accident.
---------
There is inferior bacteria on the interior of your posterior.
...that you're basically describing public transport, right ?
:) -that- is none of their business. How fast I drive, however, is very much their business. How fast you drive when you're coming up behind me is also very much my business.
If you're sucking on a giant icecream cone - don't be surprised if you're not allowed onto the bus.
The bus only goes where the government decides it should go.
It only goes when the government decides it should go.
And, lo and behold, along the route the government decides it to go.
There's just one thing... almost everywhere except for the U.S., public transport -works-, and works *so* well that there are millions who not only see it as a viable alternative to their car (if they even have one), but they prefer it.
The car is not a symbol of freedom - it's a mode of transportation which is regulated like any other, except that you have even more responsibilty. And, sadly, there are many who do -not- drive their cars responsibly, making it possible for these types of limitations to be implemented. It's a shame that a few should 'ruin' it for the rest. But, do tell, what bit of not being allowed to speed is ruining exactly what ?
Now if, on the other hand, you're pondering the gov't always knowing where you are... I wholly agree
This is for the more extreme people who share your view...
Roll back a few decades to when seatbelts became law... would you also have said "Before this is over, we'll think we're the luckiest people in the world just to be allowed IN the damn car..." etc. ? Did 'the slippery slope' start there ? Or do some measures actually just make sense ?
I'm sure you thought the "cars kill orders of magnitude more people than guns" argument was a good idea at the time. A few more years of this, and I'm going to bicycle over to your HQ and give you a good talking-to!
Stop learning! Only you can prevent esoterrorism.
Now is the time to start selling accelerator pedals for cars.
There is a story (think I heard it on Discovery channel) about when Mt. St. Helen's blew. A car driving away from the blast at 100 MPH passed a car doing about 80 MPH. The faster car managed to outrun the blast, the slower car did not.
They maybe rare but there are definitely times when you need all the speed you can get.
If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people
A UH-Haul I drove from Pennsylvania to Tennessee had one of these. If the speed got over 65, the pedal would shove my back against my foot to "un-press" the pedal.
Not only was it an extremely tiring drive, but it would also require me to actively push back again on the pedal once it quit fighting me. Otherwise, I'd putt along at 45 until I realized it...
Bad bad.
The law enforcement swine wouldn't be subject to this sort of proposal. But I thought no one was above the law! Oh, wait, that's right. We have a pack of dimwitted, arrogant, self-righteous walking fuckups with erections that ARE the law.
Yes, this is sickening. Live with it or change it.
-Arbitraitor
Unlike older cars which have an actuator to physically move the throttle cable when the cruise control is enabled, an actuator would have to be added to the accelerator pedal in order to provide any sort of force feedback to the driver indicating that he has exceeded the speed limit. The addition of an actuator to the accelerator pedal is unlikely to happen for a number of reasons:
Cost. ETC Acclerator pedals are fairly inexpensive to produce. Adding an actuator and control system will double or triple the cost of an accelerator pedal.
Space. The under-dash area of a vehicle is an extremely cramped space. This has pushed the size of accelerator pedals to the minimum practicle size. (Note: I'm talking about the size of the pedal housing which contains the pedal position sensors, return springs, hysteresis force mechanisms, etc, not the size of the pedal pad which your foot depresses) Adding an actuator will increase the size of the pedal so that it wouldn't fit in a modern vehicle.
Safety. The last thing you want to have happen is for any accelerator pedal (ETC or otherwise) to get stuck in any position other than idle. Adding a device to make it hard to push on the pedal seems like a real good way to accidently stick the pedal in an undesireable position (probably the position it was in when the vehicle was going to fast to begin with).
Come test your mettle in the world of Alter Aeon!
I always thought that a couple well placed Highway Patrol cars (either the old Mustang or the new Camaro) usually made the job of pushing the gas pedal down, a little more difficult. Who would have thought that Big Brother would take over that job? NoMorePoints.com
Well, it's a GPS and it's pretty easy to disable, the system requires 4 sattelites to operate (3 for a 3d position and 1 for clock error) and of course there are many places where this wouldn't work (parking garage, tunnels, driving in the mountains) so it couldn't just disable the car for not operating. All that needs to be done is place something over the receiver to stop the gps from getting a signal and "bingo-bango, sugar in the gas tank, the ex-husband strikes again" no more speed limiting, end of story. It wouldn't require much, possibly lead paint would do the job, wonder where you could find that on a car?
Who is this Jimmy character, and why was he cracking corn in the first place?
Very, very offtopic, so I'll self-mod down, but hey. ;)
:) Oh- and no multiplayer in E.V.E. Paradox yet, but I desperately want to add it...
;)
:)
That EULA clause on multiple installations should only be in the paid editions, there should be no such clause in the Free one. The clause is a little more convoluted so that you can do more things than "normal". For example, it makes it clear you can have a paid copy on your laptop and both boots of a dual-boot Linux-Windows system and do a quick install/uninstall on a friends machine to show them the game, all without being in breach of the agreement. Many EULAs will just say "one copy, period", where I think it's fairer to say "one copy at a time". I don't think you should have to choose one OS or machine to play the game on if you've actually got two (or more). I know people will do it anyway, and I'd rather people know that I'm completely cool with it.
Having said that, there are no such restrictions on the Free Edition, so everyone can run their own copy; think of the Free Edition as the limited spawn-only copies of various multiplayer games, except the Free Edition will have much more functionality than your typical spawn-copy and nobody has to have a paid edition if they don't want to.
The other clause you quote relates to Created Content, which basically means created levels, for when I get the Level Editor cleaned up for release. It restricts you from creating levels and either selling them or restricting access to them. Basically if you use the tool to create levels, everyone (with the right Edition) should be able to play them for free. If someone wants to sell levels for profit, they can negotiate something separate with me.
Feel free to drop me a line if I can help out further, email in profile and all over my site.
So we can pay more so that our cars will actively resist doing what we want them to do? Gee, why didn't I think of that?
-Rich
I'm sure you [NRA] thought the "cars kill orders of magnitude more people than guns" argument was a good idea at the time. A few more years of this, and I'm going to bicycle over to your HQ and give you a good talking-to!
No, this actually helps the NRA. Because now they'll be able to say that not only is it people that kill people (rather than their tools, like guns or cars), but that government-regulated/monkeyed-with tools actually do cause deaths by operating stupidly when you least expect them to. This issue is pretty much exactly like the "smart gun" initiatives that would rely on magic decoder rings, fingerprint sensors, etc., to enable your sidearm to work. Just what you want when you're trying to defend your life... "hold it right there, Mr. Breaking-and-Entering With A Knife! Don't threaten me and make me get go get my e-braclet or wash the dirt off of my fingers so I can then actually shoot you!"
You know - like when your GPS-satellite-sensing car won't let you pass the flaming fuel truck in front of you as a no-breaks-having cattle truck is bearing down on you from behind. Sheesh.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
What if the person is about to head-on collide with another car which has lost control due to a malfunction? The driver may need to accelerate to avoid the accident, even over the speed limit.
Removing personal control of a device from the user is really, really stupid. It assumes every possible situation has been identified and that is never true.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
Hey, I live here you insensitive clod! Quit sending your grannies down here.
When I get old, I'm going to move up north and drive really slow!
I really wish people would read the article before starting to rant but at least read the fucking submission!
If the car begins to significantly exceed the speed limit for the road on which it's traveling the system responds by making it harder to depress the gas pedal
Point number one: it says "If the car begins to significantly exceed the speed limit", it does not say "if the car exceeds the speed limit by the teensiest amount". So it would only start functioning after you've passed 130 in a 100 zone (example numbers made up by me based on what is considered excessive speed under the law).
Point number two: it says "responds by making it harder to depress the gas pedal", it does not say prevents the car from increasing its speed. So you're doing 130 in a 100 zone you have to press the gas peddle harder to hit 140 than you would if the device wasn't there giving you terrific feedback that you're driving SIGNIFICANTLY above the speed limit.
Point number three: It says nothing about these devices being mandated (in most cases they would be easy to bypass), if you don't want one in your car don't install one.
Point number four: The number of accidents that could be avoided with excessive speed is vanishingly small. It's very rare that a person's best option to avoid an accident is to "gun it", which (see above) you can still do!
Point number five: For the miniscule number of accidents that speeding up will help you avoid -- the system is using GPS to calculate speed, it wouldn't be instantaneous, there would be a few second (at least) lag (latency for the geeks reading this) before the system kicks in. Plenty of time to avoid whatever accident you're almost part of.
"Grab them by the pussy" -- President of the United States of America
"Perhaps a warning light on the dash, and maybe an intermittent warning bell sounding (sort of like what happens when you leave your keys in the ignition and open the driver's side door) would be *FAR* preferable, and probably far less expensive to implement. That way, you remind people when they are exceeding the speed limit and give them the opportunity to slow down of their own volition."
I drive a Saab 9-3 Viggen (I know BMW's also have this). I am able to program a max speed in the trip computer and if I hit the MAX speed a chime sounds (1 minute for me; a single chime for BMW).
While this does not address the possibility of the speed limit changing on a road. For me this is not an issue since the speed limit is 55 during 12 minutes of my 15 minute trip (assuming no traffic).
If a system interfaced with On-Star (GPS tracking) to chime when I hit a certain max speed over in a certain speed area I would not have an issue with it.
However having GPS controlled Speed limits is nothing more then an extension of the red-light camera's IMO.
Virginia (where I live) experimented with red-light cameras to deter people from running red lights. While the cameras did work and less red lights were run (less side impacts). The number of rear end accidents went up. Virginia has shut down the red light cameras as a result.
Let me control my speed rather then a computer/GPS. If I get nailed for speeding so be it, I will pay the price.
Computers/Cameras and/or GPS tracking is not able to anticipate all driving situations, (example running a red-light camera because of the Mustang behind me had no intention of slowing down).
Keep me in charge of my car and not some computer that does not know the road conditions around me.
Most of the rational behind why it's a bad idea that I've seen so far is because there are in fact a few situations where speeding for a short period of time is necessary. Well, that seems more like a minor oversight than an actual flaw with the device. If the increase in pressure were gradual, or perhaps only when you sped for more than, say, 20 seconds, wouldn't that make most counter-arguements moot? Notice that it doesn't actually prevent you from speeding, it just makes it more difficult. So in the unlikely event of an unpredicted disaster you could still speed all you want as you make your escape. (Of course, I doubt such things happen often in real life since enough people would wreak going that fast that the roads would probably become obstructed.) I mean, I understand that most people prefer going faster than the speed limit, but at least be honest about it. Don't dismiss the technology unless it's fundamentally flawed. My point is that if you do something illegal then you don't really have a right to complain if the authorites take measures to make it harder for you to do so.
A city near me was actually caught with a yellow light time of ~2 seconds. It was supposed to be 3. They had to refund all the red light tickets.
Computerized enforcement of laws is only going to get worse.
In the past, punishment for illegal parking/speeding was overly harsh so as to make an example of those caught. Now that "they" are gaining the ability to catch/fine *all* infractions, do we see the penalties decreasing? Nope.
Just something to think about as we rush headlong into the great 21st century with computers and stuff.
If this article were about the US, the first 100 or so posts would have been about what a facist Bush is. But since it's aboot Canada, folks are actually debating the technical merits instead of pointing out what socialism gets you.
Ah, nothing like overwhelming ignorance to keep things going. Topped off with that good old ignorance "Canada is socialist" nuggest.
Transport Canada is involved in this case purely to certify a private initiative to be roadworthy - the same way that they certify cruise control, ABS, car RADAR, and other alterations of a traditional car. If you're a private business and you want to sell or install something that could affect the safety of a vehicle, you can't until you have it certified by Transport Canada.
In no way is this a government initiative. In fact, Transport Canada is a federal agency, while operational roadway safety is a provincial mandate. If this were going to be implemented as a mandatory method of roadway safety, it would have been the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario (the MTO) that would have been involved.
The company involved likely wants to sell this device to transport companies, and perhaps rental fleet companies. It has nothing to do with your rights (especially one's rights online).
American cars typically get unstable at 75 mph (121 km/h). The steering, which has lots of play to begin with, starts to be simultaneously mushy and touchy. The hood latch may pop. (had it happen) There is a feeling of lift, as if the car is starting to act like a wing.
My Volkswagen Passat, a pretty mid-range German car I guess, is rock solid at least to 130 mph (209 km/h).
Then there's the story of a car exam in Germany, as encountered by a former coworker of mine. After noticing a bit of rust, two examiners grab the driver's door and pull really hard. It rips right off. In the USA, there'd be a lawsuit. In Germany, I guess it serves you right for trying to pass off a rustbucket junker as something suited to public roads.
The German road test is indeed tough. It's kind of famous in fact. In the US, the test normally doesn't involve speeds over 35 mph (56 km/h). In the US, we don't test merging onto a restricted access road. In the US, we don't test night driving. In the US, we waste our time on bullshit like hand signals that nobody would believe if seen in real life.
In the US, many cars are not very fit for public roads right as they leave the factory. Consider the Lincoln Navigator, the H2... We have dark tinted windows, unstable suspension, high center of gravity, etc.
"Look at how fast ambulances drive. They don't exceed the speed limit."
Has anyone ever told you how stupid you are ?
I'm telling you now : you are stupid.
Ambulances go faster than the posoted speed limit routinely. The risk is justified by the attempt to save a life.
Ambulances have lights, sirens, and infrared traffic light triggers precisely so they can go faster safely.
Next time, try thinking before you post your brain farts.
Thanks. Someone finally actually saw past the hyperbole and innuendo.
Remember the movie speed...... on the part when the bus passing over 55 a bomb is set on motion.. umm it can be a good idea to just set some time similar on a car... call it "the final solution" ...It may sound extreme..... but come on.. the number of trafic violations around the world. Some other good ideas will fallow..
Yes, and they will be installed on Police, EMS,
and Fire vehicles early next year !
As a member of The Left allow me to inform you that by questioning our authority you have officially committed Hate Speech.
If this Tought-Crime persists, I will be forced to call you a racist, closed-minded bigot.
Remember the inabilty to express Tought Crime is Free Speech.
Hail Hillary!
See you at the daily 2-minute Hate for Bu$Hilter Chimpy McHaliburtan. Only Hillary can save us from the Jew puppet Bu$Hilter Chimpy McHaliburtan's Goldstien-ism.
Don't overclock it!
-RadioElectric
"Okay honey, don't worry, we can outrun it. WHAT THE F***?!?!"
"You can't have everything. Where would you keep it?" -- Steven Wright
"Whoa there Trigger, quit tuggin' on them reins so hard!"
Honestly, am I the only person in the world who thinks this is a BAD idea? Yes, I realize that something must be done to protect us against those who break the law, however, I still feel that taking away control from our own vehicles is a little scary.... not that I can think of any instance of not being able to accelerate is a good thing, but there's gotta be a better way.
I would like to think of this as the first step toward variable speed limits. Since you can basically have your car tell you what the speed limit is, by GPS, it would be very easy to adjust the speed limit based on driving conditions etc.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
Interesting you mention this, because a disputed ticket was exactly the reason this whole thing came to light. The authority responsible for sending out tickets didn't drop a single charge over the entire year. Some people, however, are claiming that they have been falsely accused.
A discussion about this with a suburban police officer seemed to indicate that they believe there's no way the camera can lie- but worse, since this is the overriding persumption, proving your innocence (even when you are), can be nearly impossible.
...goes into the black box where your insurance company and big brother get access to it. That part is coming, too, along with disabling it or altering the data will also be a crime.. almost forgot, the "charge per mile driven" tax that is coming.
Problem solved. Well, that is before they start outlawing these anyways...
...do you honestly think local governments are going to think very highly of a device that will deny it such a substantial source of revenue?
What if the device also automatically applied the ticket price (and points) along with the speed decrease?
"If anything can go wrong, it will." - Murphy
Yes, taking control of a 3000 lb. vehicle away from the driver is a good idea. It would be so fundamentally stupid it's not even worth discussing.
I understand this is just a technology prototype of a singular concept that would have to be part of a larger system eventually, but the only people in the world I'd trust to develop and test anything like this would be Formula 1.
Only one step away from having the car transmit its location to the police at all times.
People like speed. After stationary jobs and sedentary traffic, people like speed. Period.
"But what if you cause a fatal traffic accident while driving your father to the hospital at 20 to 30 mph above the speed limit?"
What if you cause a fatal traffic accident while driving 20-30 MPH under the speed limit?
"Tell that to someone who has lost a relative in a traffic accident caused by speeding."
Okay, tell it to me. I lost a close relative to a young man who had one too many. He got jail time, which I think was not appropriate given his youth and history.
Life is full of challenges and ways to kill yourself. I don't want to live in a world where every rough edge is smoothed off just to keep people with a low tolerance of life to tell other people what to do.
Take a bus or something.
"Are you prepared to fund the cost of putting thousands of extra police cars on the road to enforce the speeding laws?"
No need. Traffic fatalities are going down as speeds are generally headed up. In otherwords, there is statistical link between travelling faster than the speed limit an fatalities.
Stop being such a sheep. Limits are generally low because most people are not competent drivers. I meant that. Fully 90% of the people on the road should not be there by temperment or training. Probably 75% of the population can't drive a manual transmission and >90% can't control a car through a four wheel drift. Imcomptent. Why should I have to risk my life on the road because people won't try to drive better?
Driving is not like pushing a cart around a supermarket.
Just a note: When you're traveling at above ~40 mph your blood will have enough momentum to break through the walls of your veins/arteries if you suddenly stop/decelerate.
Heck, who needs a bell or a force feedback pedal? Why not have a GPS enabled black box that records your speeds and locations then compares it against a map that includes details of the speed limits? Upload those coords every month or loose your driving "privileges". Too many violations and your insurance goes up and you get points or, in Singapore, maybe a caning. Criminals who needed to drive fast would fiddle their boxes. People who just wanted to drive fast would hack their boxes and suddenly they would be in a different league than, say, a speeder.
Why stop with cars. What about a government-sponsored site logger to log where you go on the net? Why not just subpoena my Amazon records, or my Google searches. And where is Gator these days? Changed the name and making money hand over fist.
Hey I've got it. What about a computer license? Whoa. There's a thought. We need ham radio licenses don't we? We should have internet licenses. I'm writing my congressman now or the Canadians will beat us to it.
After all, use of the internet is a privilege, not a right. Three more bad words in a tech forum and you're limited to 1200 baud downloads for a month Mr. Potty Key.
Joking aside, it is the culture of control that is, to my mind, so insidious. (Don't mind us. We're watching. If you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about.) Well, fine, FOR NOW.
This driving plan.. This little bit of well intentioned, but invasive technology won't end road culture. It might even save a few lives if it makes it through to implementation (which I doubt). A CCTV in a mall makes sense, but where does it stop. At the parking lot. Okay. Maybe. How about at the long red light at the edge of town that should flash yellow at three in the morning, but doesn't? Want a hidden red light camera there to fatten the city coffers? Well, maybe some of you do. Count me out.
But what bothers me about this nasty Canadian scheme is the idea that you take away the volition from the driver and give it to a system. (I understand that the driver can override it in an emergency. That is NOT the point.) Do it enough and people stop being as accountable for their own actions. It's natural. "Damn, girl, we're off the GPS grid for some reason. Let's let her rip while we can. See what this buggy can do. School zone? I could give a rat's ass. Let's BOOGEY." Most people obey the law. They do it from within and because they care about what their friends think; that is, unless they are watched all the time by the authorities. Then they abrogate the responsibility.
I spent a long time in the former Soviet Union. People there are still having a hard time adjusting to not being watched. (In Russia they are back in the comfort zone, I fear.) You want to see some bad driving. Go to Georgia. The one in the Caucasus. They may be driving badly, but they are going in the right direction.
Towards liberty.
"No fear. No envy. No meanness." Liam Clancy
the wording of the article is almost identical to an Law School Admissions Test question we had a few years ago. It basically gave us that prompt and asked us to identify a questionable necessary assumption. Of course, the answer was the author assumes that speeding up isn't necessary for preventing accidents, etc.
"but the fact remains that the law still states that you may not exceed the posted speed limit"
Who really cares? You drive at what's comfortable and safe regardless of what's posted. If that makes you angry and upset. Please be aware I don't really care. Your anger or happiness is not a prerequisite for what I do.
As for you, I don't care if you part your hair, go to church, beat your kids, speed, watch porn, expose yourself in public, eat too much, smoke, fart, have acne or even if you take viagra. I just don't care. It doesn't affect me.
Nothing personal.
You do understand. If you don't, please read my first sentence again.
Have a nice day.
P.S. yes. I do own a BMW.
I've had this situation happen with cars. It would be scarier with a truck. Sometimes, the only way to go is forward because you know the person behind is going to plow you otherwise. A lot of people go into the "zone" on highways for instance. Seems every few days I will get in the, "Oh damn, here comes traffic" situation and I brake not too hard, and some guy comes flaming in and nearly faceplants in my trunk.
That sounded bad, :-), but it would be worse if it really happened.
" I suspect this may be because they didn't want to put bigger tables into the engine computer."
More likely, it had to do with the type of tires on the car. Each tire rating has an absolute speed limit at which it is considered safe to drive. I'd be surprised if an SUV had Z rated tires. Well, maybe the Porsche/VW and BMW.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
So if I'm driving down the highway at 80km/h, and the oncoming traffic is doing 80km/h should I hit the oncoming car for any reason, it would be 160km/h impact.
If I'm on a controlled freeway with a median between my vehicle and oncoming traffic, no matter how you look at it, I am much safer unless someone decides to drive the wrong way down the freeway.
As far as I'm concerned, the most dangerous things on the road are inattentive drivers. I've driven in many different countries including Germany. When you are on the Autobahn, you are paying attention to the traffic around you, as is everyone else out there.
When I'm driving around in Ontario, I would be surprised if half the people looked around to see what was coming up around them. In a 3 lane freeway, everyone parks their car in the middle of the road and follows the bumper in front of them.
I saw a sign as I was approaching Toronto that said "Drive Defensively" and the first thing that came to mind is that defensive doesn't mean passive. From what I've seen, your typical Ontario driver (I won't generalize for the rest of NA) is a passive driver on the Freeway.
Here is a lesson on how this works. The inventor imagines his riches as he has created a wonderful tool to stop those lawless speeders. He goes to pitch it to a big manufacturer and they are interested. They pass it on to their team of lawyers, and its discovered that if they release something like this and a woman is trying to escape her abuser but can't and is then beaten, killed, or raped, they will be liable. Inventor then gets rejected and he goes back to looking for other ways to ruin the world for the rest of us.
Assuming posted speed is 60MPH, your adjusted speed (shaving 50 seconds off of 10 minutes) puts you at 65MPH. That's sure blazing down the road... Assuming posted is 35MPH, getting the 50-second savings means you speed at a blistering 38MPH. Doesn't seem to be that different.
What's more reasonable is to look at some actual speeding figures for your 10 minute drive. Assuming 35MPH posted (which is pretty likely) and I had to get someone to the hospital, I think I would go about 55 to 60MPH laying on the horn the whole way. For that 10-minute drive, my speeding would get me there in 6 minutes and 5 seconds. If I barrel at 80MPH (which I wouldn't unless it was like 4AM) I would get down to 4 minutes 22 seconds.
I'm not going to go 55MPH through intersections, but I would slow down to only about 25 or so (again, laying on the horn). So it's not exact, but a good estimate.
If you're having a heart attack, those minutes may be crucial. If you're slipping away, those minutes may save you. I hope, god forbid you ever have such a time-critical problem, that the driver doesn't drive with your logic.
They have speed limits in Canada?? Not on 401 (aka 20 once you get into Quebec) they don't.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
There's a very important word in the article, and it appears in the story description as well: significantly.
Every time there's a story about technologies like this, people chime up with "But what about this case? What about that case? How accurately can it detect the conditions?"
That is, how will it prevent false positives on borderline conditions?
Any decently designed system ignores such cases. It's not going to lock in as soon as you cross the border from a 35mph zone to a 50mph. But if you're going 100 in an 80 zone for 5 minutes straight, it will.
Basically, I want a way where I can set the "maximum speed" of the vehicle I am driving. Most of the time as I drive normally, I try to keep at the speed limit. However, over time, I am likely to find myself going over the limit by 5-15 mph, unless I am watching it constantly. Those split seconds when my eyes aren't on the road could be a problem I just as soon avoid. It is kinda like I don't speed intentionally, it just "creeps up" on me if I don't constantly watch it. Especially on the freeway when driving long distances, but even on surface streets, too. I can't be the only driver this happens to.
So, why not a device that lets you set the speed when you get to it (like a cruise control), but then "locks" to that speed, so you can't go past it. Slow down, stop (like in normal surface street traffic) - and even if you start back up again, it won't allow you to go past it, unless you do one of three things: 1) turn it off, 2) very quick accelleration, 3) very quick decelleration.
I don't expect this will ever be made - it is such a niche product, and the police dept would probably oppose it because I bet they catch a lot of speeders that are speeding, but don't realize it - until of course, they see the flashing lights and hear the siren behind them - DOH!
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
I'm a hardcore bicyclist. I realized years ago that the solution to controlling the urge to speed in motorized vehicles was to make the process physically "painful" or stressful, in the same way that trying too hard to bicycle up a mountain can make a rider bonk and have to give up or slow down and pace himself. Increasing energy expenditure can't be endless, it has limits, it has consequences. In the case of cycling, the consequence is obvious, but in motorized vehicles it's not so obvious: more gas burned, more pollution produced. It's far too easy to ignore or not even notice those consequences.
This is one practical implementation of my idea, it seems. I'd always imagined requiring a high-voltage hookup to the driver in order to be able to start and drive the car, and increasing the voltage if the driver started to drive unreasonably fast. This is admittedly a bit more practical.
Isn't that what a gas tax is?
-- Joren
Why use GPS to sense the car speed? It would be much cheaper and easier to use the speedometer.
Main Entry: depress
Pronunciation: di-'pres, dE-
Function: transitive verb
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French depresser, from Latin depressus, past participle of deprimere to press down, from de- + premere to press -- more at PRESS
[...]
2 a : to press down <depress a typewriter key> b : to cause to sink to a lower position
^.^
-- Joren
We had a project like this in Belgium back in 2002, called ISA
(And don't give me that Big Brother Bull Shit)
-> More Tolerance Is Less Extremism <-
This is very similar to DRM, something you are buying is intentional designed to work against you. And like DRM, this will eventually have reporting technology inside it to send out a "give me a fine" packet. Big Brother is getting into the computer, Big Brother wants to sit in your passenger seat.
I find it interesting that virtually nobody sees the secondary, much more profitable reason speeding fines are here to stay: it allows the insurance companies to charge you more for little extra risk. Think about it: if you're, um, accident prone you will already pay a fortune, but even if you have never had an accident in your life, those marks on your driving license will be used to arbitrarily raise your premiums - without any extra risk to the insurance company to justify it.
You're talking about a *LOT* of money here - those points stay with you for years and so will the upmark on your premium.
I agree witha previous poster: Germans tend to have less accidents (if they would only learn to slow down in adverse weather it would even be better), but I think that's also partly due to much better driver training, and sensible enforcement of the rules. Try speeding near road works and see if you get away with it..
= Ch =
Insert
On Autobahn , or high speed departemental/interregion route speed limit would not make much sense if everybody was reasonable. That is paying attention to the weather, knowing EXACTLY their reaction time in case of "crisis" situation, not knowingly distract yourself with an handy or discussing with your passenger etc... This is MOSTLY not the case. And this is where the problem is. When you go high speed you NOT ONLY risk your own life, but the one of the other. We have a nice proverb here around "the freedom of one stops where it disturb the freedom of another". In this case the freedom of NOT DYING because an idiot going 220 underestimated some distance.
But ok, maybe the speed limit are a bit on the tad low side. One can argue that, and as long as I am not forced to go on those high speed road at the same time as them (high speeder), fine.
Now let us talk about city speed (mostly 50kmh or 30 mph I think). Do you think this is a tad low ? Well there is a good reason. Adult and Children pedestrian cross the streets in various direction. Maybe they should not, but hey, some of them are still learning going outside, other just think LIKE YOU that forcing pedestrian into artificial limit (zebra lines) is plain dumb. Annd then there is the other road user : the bicycle. So you have a group of heterogen people using the road with various security (from nothing to a cage of metal) with various speed (road user : from 10kmh cycle to 50 kmh car).
Finally, as a cyclist let me say you this : the proportion of people making a BRUSK acceleration to pass before me is incredible. One already had an accident. Then there is the incredible number of people which pass before me JUST TO TURN RIGHT AND FREAKING CUT MY WAY. Then again it seems quite f*cking hard to udnerstand for car driver that a RIGHT PRIORITY is a RIGHT PRIORITY no matter the vehiccule coming to the right. If it is a cycle you still have to freaking leave him the priority. Then again there is a crossing lamp burner motto "it is a cycle and it is night so let us not care our light is red and the cyclist light is green". I am betting my money that all those people are the one grumbling at the speed being too low. I do not want to make an ad-hominem attack on you but car driver mostly forget that they ARE NOT FREAKING THE SOLE USER OF THE STREET!!!!After my 3rd accident due to an idiot thinking 50kmn, red lamp, stops, and priority do not apply to them because the only other vehicule is a cycle, I SPIT litterally on people thinking that in city there is too much limitation (speed or whatnot). OK sorry this was name calling and flamebaiting but apparently most car driver forget they are not the sole user of city street...
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
The Canadian national park was fantastic, until that darn grizzly smelled granny's left-over thanksgiving day turkey in the back seat! Fortunately my girl and I had just returned to the car, so we were in a good position to make an escape, after that big bear had smashed the car's rear window...
...so I fired up the engine, jammed the stick into first gear, and floored the accelerator.
Oh damn! We're on a park road with a 10mph speed limit!
Ahhhhhhh! Munch, Crunch...
Perhaps speeding causes problems but a remote control override on a car is even worse! Maybe the canadian government will jsut drive my car? Then I don't give a crap as I can relax and do somethign else but if I am driving, stay the f&ck off my controls!
As for the cvt issue you mention, face it, cvt sucks! I drive stick, made in italy and I go fast, I have had one ticket in the last 6 years and that was for an excess of 15kmph... on highways I will go up to 220 kmph if I think it's clear and safe.
What i think you are missing here is that the government, once again is telling you, rather intrusively this time what and how to use your private property. It's just like you buying a computer and the government tells you that you can not run Linux on it, or closer to the article, overclock it. And on top of that GPS in your car and they can monitor where you are??? Why not just send you a ticket in the mail every time your car goes over the speed limit?
They are planning or trying to institute a per mile charge based off of your cars odometer. A gas tax like we have now is per gallon, and yes, it should be enough, but because consumers are choosing high MPG vehicles increasingly, they will be double taxed-a fine if you will, which is what a tax is, on "per mile". It's been covered here before in a few articles along with vehicle "black box" recorders.
I remember seeing a report about an identical system being tried in Sweden some time ago. They said the car refuses to go faster than the speed limit given by gps and a map (hack anyone?) and notifies the driver through the gas pedal in a similar fashion to abs.
Any links?
"Who the FUCK are YOU to tell someone else to drive faster than he is comfortable?"
He's the guy who's complaining about you being an *asshole* for causing a problem for dozens of people because of a comfort level. You're looking ahead thinking "la la la la, those people in back of me are jerks because don't they know that *my* driving is the absolute safe limit? Don't they understand that I'm busy swimming in Lake Me?"
If you're not comfortable driving the limit here's what I suggest:
1) Move to the far right lane and stay there.
2) Take the bus
3) Take driving lessons and get better.
We don't have to make every human activity "comfortable" for people who don't have the aptitude for doing that activity. Your comfort level is fine. Right up until you're the a-hole in front of me doing 35 in a 45 zone because of your comfort level.
You're a pimple on humanity. If you had any decency, you'd be ashamed at your lack of skill. But no, you come on slash dot proclaiming that your comfort level should be the ultimate check of what should be allowed.
Its too bad your mom didn't have a wire hanger before you were born. Cripes.
Take a look at these statistics Life is full of challenges and ways to kill yourself. I don't want to live in a world where every rough edge is smoothed off just to keep people with a low tolerance of life to tell other people what to do.
I've got no problem with you doing things that may end up killing you ...
provided you don't put other people at risk at the same time.
If you manage to survive to an age where you have children, you might just
learn to understand this point of view. If you want to drive fast, take
up speedway racing or something. Or you could try free climbing or cave
diving, or clearing land mines, or ...
Traffic fatalities are going down as speeds are generally headed up. In otherwords, there is statistical link between travelling faster than the speed limit an fatalities.
According to the report linked above, someone travelling at 85 kph in a 60kph zone is greter than 50 times (yes FIFTY times) more likely to have a crash resulting in fatality or serious injury than someone driving at the speed limit. Is that what you mean?
Driving is not like pushing a cart around a supermarket.
True, and that is why we have driving licenses and driving tests. But equally, driving is not just a game for testosterone ridden male juveniles with a death wish. It is something that most adults need to be able to do to get by in modern society. And as such, the rights of your claimed 90% "incompetent" drivers to drive safely outweigh the rights of the other 10% to drive like maniacs.
Trust me, 70 mph is plenty fast when you're the unknowing pedestrian crossing the street ahead of them.
-Eric
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
I've never heard of a system of red light cameras in which you can get a ticket for driving through a yellow light. The rule is that you will be photographed only if you enter the intersection a certain amount of time after the light has turned red. If the light turns yellow as you approach an intersection and you can't stop your car in three seconds, you are driving too fast. Remember how you were taught in driving school to leave two seconds between you and the driver in front? Two seconds should be enough, in ideal driving conditions, to stop your car. If conditions are less than ideal, you should of course be driving more slowly.
There is no law against driving through a yellow light. Yellow lights are a buffer to help you to decide whether or not it's safe for you to enter the intersection, not some totalitarian conspiracy to ticket law-abiding drivers. It's understandable that most drivers have forgotten the basics they learned when they started driving, but I wish more of them would refresh their memories rather than spout off about how their own lousy driving skills give governments an excuse to discriminate against them. That's just embarrassing. Grow up and accept some responsibility for your actions.
"Walk, walk, walk, baby."
You're usually balding, slightly overweight, a bad moustache, and have kids that hate you.
Typical.
But what if you're trying to outrun a tornado because it's the only way to escape it? Obviously, if it's moving fast enough, you're not going to have time to get to a ditch.
This one happened to me: A friend was driving himself, me and another friend south, just shy of the German/Danish border on our way to the total solar eclipse in 1999.
As we were at the forefront of a string of cars, who overtook an even longer string of lorries and mobile homes, the left back tire failed. As in 'punctured at high speed'.
Knowing that the tire would soon fail completely at the current speed my friend hit the pedal to the metal, ignoring the sounds of protest from the rear of the car and got us up front in a hurry. Once we were safely parked on the hard shoulder, the remains of the tire was smoking like a stationary burnout. The wheel well was - not a pretty sight.
Second story, believe this one being from Denmark as well.
A man, allergic to bees, were stung inside his mouth. Knowing that his throat would swell and suffocate him within the time it would take for the ambulance to come and fetch him, he jumped in his car and raced to the emergency room. He got there in time, though by a slim margin. He was later acquitted of reckless driving, as this was a case of emergency driving in order to save lives.
Please tell us how you would have solved either of these scenarios by driving slowly or braking, please?
1. Any car modern enough to have this new system installed is going to have cruise control.
2. The law enforcement officers I have personally talked to here in the USA have said that they DON'T WANT people to obey the traffic laws, they want the revenue that traffic fines bring to the department.
The law should just say that people not wearing seatbelts always lose out regarding insurace and lawsuit payments. No belt? Pay your own medical bills and fix your own car. People without seatbelts are presumed to be responsible for crashes.
Hey, sorry the response is a bit late (We dont have internet connection at our newly constructed house, but alas.) Thanks much for the response.
;) Its crazy whats coming out of indie studios now (thinking of Darwinia, which I did buy), though like I said, really bad for me to buy now since Im starting college soon.
;) Ill need another fun game after I master Dokutsu Monogatari... (well, when I can beat hell.. just look for the game, like megaman, metroid and mario all in 1).
STill, the game is verrry cool
Well, if I have enough money after Christmas (hehe, aint I funny?) and get good grades in college, Ill take a drop and meebe do a purchase
All the best.
No probs!
:) And there are certainly a lot of good indie games floating around out there. Do be sure to check them out. :) And I'd encourage everyone to support small indie game developers. Even if E.V.E. Paradox isn't your cup of tea, look around until you find something that is... there are a lot of good games out there!
:)
I'm glad you like the games.
As for Introversion's games, I didn't go for Darwinia myself, but I definitely went for Uplink (bought it within a day of playing the demo). Uplink was an inspiration for me. It showed me that a game with an unconventional focus (a cracking sim) made by a small group could still sell and do well. If it wasn't for Uplink, I may have never given E.V.E. Paradox a go.
Thanks for your thoughts and for checking out the games.