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."
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?
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Have you ever seen an incorrect (possibly simply out of date) street on Mapquest/Yahoo/Google Maps?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;
because overtaking is sometimes a good thing.
Because limiting the speed can actually be dangerous in certain circumstances.
Say you're driving along a two lane road (1 lane in both directions) stuck behind a slow truck. Cars are piled up behind you. I'm sure most drivers have been in this situation before. When you overtake the car behind you will move up to your old position stopping you from going back. If while you're on the wrong side of the road you see a car coming towards you it may be necessary to speed to complete the overtaking move. The proposed system would appear to allow for this while a set speed limiter may not. I'd prefer to speed than to die wouldn't you?
groklaw, wired and slashdot. The holy trinity of work based time wasting.
Those are not legitimate reasons to drive at excessive speeds. Accelerating out of a dangerous traffic situation: yes. Shaving fifty seconds off a ten minute drive to the emergency room at the risk of colliding with another car, rolling over in a ditch, or wrapping around a tree: absolutely fucking NOT. Look at how fast ambulances drive. They don't exceed the speed limit. Honestly, where do people get the idea that careening down city streets at 80mph is a smart way to transport people to the hospital?
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
Further supporting the notion that speed limits have everything to do with raising money for the state, and very little to do with road safety.
To be a good driver, you need to know how your car reacts to your control inputs. You provide input X, it responds in manner Y.
Introducing a device which changes Y to, say, Y-5, will impair the ability of people to control their vehicle, because it will change the vehicle's response to their inputs to one they are unfamiliar with.
This is a really dumb idea.
But various studies[1] like this one[2] have indicated that speed limits have little effect on the frequency or number of accidents. In fact, in some cases, raising the speed limit actually lessens the risk of accidents.
Yes, speed is a contributing factor to the severity of the accident, but not to whether or not the accident actually occurs. Look at the Autobahn in Germany. Accidents are not nearly as common as they are on American freeways (I don't know anything about Canadian freeways and their accident rates), yet the speeds tend to be substantially higher.
Personally, I think the speed limits are mostly for police to engage in revenue collection. Yes, keeping speeds around 55-60mph usually results in fuel savings for most vehicles, but people should be free to move at any safe rate of speed, within appropriate limits for that particular roadway (and most people naturally drive at a safe speed for the road, even if it is higher than the posted limit), and have that choice be their own. If I choose to drive at 55 to save fuel, you'll find me in the slow lane with the semi trucks. If I choose to drive 85 because I'm late for an appointment, I'll be in the fast lane with other similarly-rapid vehicles.
I would posit that if one were to remove all speed limit signs, except for those around inherently dangerous sections of roadway (i.e. an upcoming sharp turn that requires a lower rate of speed), most people would drive slightly faster (maybe 70-80mph) than they do presently, but would still drive in a safe manner. I doubt that many would suddenly start going 140mph just because there's no signs.
[1] http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/p-sl.html
[2] http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/sl-irrel.html
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.
You know, I shouldn't throw stones, because I speed all the time and not usually just a "little bit" -- 80-85 is common for me on the highway. That said, I've been driving for almost 15 years. I used to work for an insurance agency and attended more safe driving courses/schools then I can recall. I processed thousands of accident reports and claims. And not once in all of that did I see an accident that could have been prevented by "evasive high speed".
Your at cruising speed. Let's say 70mph. All of a sudden something that happens that will require you to speed up or slow down 10mph to avoid it. What action do you think is faster? To gain that speed in time to matter will doubtless require a downshift. That's going to add at least a second on a shift stick. It might even take that long in an automatic -- since newer automatics lock the torque converter at cruising speed and would need to unlock it before downshifting. All the CVTs that I've driven in my day seem to be equally slow to change gear ratios to anything meaningful. Then how long will it take to actually gain that speed? Contrast that to your brakes. The brakes that I might add have the power to stop your your car even against the force of a runaway engine.
The first thing you are taught in defensive driving is to study the situation around you and think about what could wrong. For each scenario of something that could go wrong you are supposed to have a way to get out of that problem without it becoming an accident. This could be as simple as thinking "What will I do if he doesn't stop at that stop sign?" with the answer "I'll stop" (duh!) -- but it works equally well on the West Side Highway at rush hour. In all of my driving experience I can not once think of a situation where my method of getting out of trouble would have involved speeding up.
This doesn't mean that there aren't scenarios where you need to speed up to stay out of trouble -- some asshole tailgating you comes to mind (speed up to pass the guy on your right and get out of the dimwits way). I'm just saying that I've never seen a scenario where a split second decision to go faster would have prevented an accident. I've seen lots where a split second decision to brake would have.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
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?
...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 ?