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?
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?
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?
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Have you ever seen an incorrect (possibly simply out of date) street on Mapquest/Yahoo/Google Maps?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;
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)
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.
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
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
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
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.
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.
IF you are going to allow a monitoring system inside the car, and IF you are just trying to remind the driver they are speeding, then why bother engineering a mechanical system at all? A noisemaker would be cheaper.
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?
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.
A noisemaker would be cheaper.
It would, and my car (a 1989 Mercury Cougar) has the old-school (non-GPS) variant on that called a speed alarm. Basically, you set the alarm at your cruising speed and it tells you when you've gone 5 mph over the set speed with a little beep (it starts flashing as soon as you go over, if I remember correctly).
The problem with it is that it's not directly connected to the thought of speeding. There have been many-a-time that I've heard the beeping and thought "What the hell?", even though I personally set the speed I wanted to go not five minutes earlier.
If you're going to help people remember that pushing the gas pedal right now may not be the best of ideas, then the least distracting and most direct way to do it is to rig the gas pedal in this manner.
Besides, in order to get over the noise of the radio and cell phone, do you know how loud that sucker would have to be?
Although there's an idea... If you speed, you don't get any music or radio. Because, obviously, you need all your attention on the road right then.
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.
Most of I40 through Arizona & New Mexico has a speed limit of 75mph, since there's not much there to get in the way. The only places things slow down are up and down through the mountain passes. In my loaded moving truck, I could maintain the 70mph speed up hill - while the 18 wheel trucks slowed to 50ish. Down hill on opposite side of mountain, they could regain speed while I was still at 70, thus passing me as they cruised back to 75+ on flat section. The result was a constant game of pass em while ya can! I'd pass them uphill, they'd pass me downhill, and drift off into distance on flat stretches. Only to get bunch up again at next uphill. As it got later in the day, this became such a hazard to me in the little moving truck, I've never rented a moving truck from that rental company again. No idea if they still use governors, but the fact I had to deal with it once is enough that I don't care to find out. I've rented from a competitor that doesn't use such devices since - and yes, I've driven from west coast to east, then back to west, then back to east - so 3 trips cross country so far... I thought I was going to die several times during that first trip limited to 70mph - I will never do that again.
In summary, it's just simply a bad idea!
I AM, therefore I THINK!
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.
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.
What a bunch of fucking nonsense.
Look, traffic engineers know, and have known for a very long time, that the safest speed to set speed limits at is the 85% percentile speed: the speed which 85% of the free-flowing traffic on that particular road travels at or below. This is because the large majority of drivers are reasonable and prudent, and while they wish to reach their destination in a short amount of time, they also wish to remain alive and unwrecked.
If traffic engineers want this speed on a stretch of hypothetical road to drop, they do this by changing the road surface. Narrows, curves, crests, inclines, will all reduce the 85th percentile speed.
Setting a speed limit lower than the 85th percentile speed doesn't reduce the speed at which traffic flows. I'm going to repeat that again, because it sounds vaguely important:
Changing the speed limit doesn't change how fast people drive. The safe speed for a road is determined by the road design and the road conditions, and *not* by some arbitrary number on a sign.
The notion that traveling at the posted limit +5 is more dangerous than traveling at the posted limit, or than traveling at the posted limit -5, is reasonable only if the posted limit reflects the 85% percentile speed.
Sometimes it does. Some states even have it written into their laws that that's how speed limits are determined.
But more often it does not. More often, speed limits are set artificially low, in order to provide a source of revenue for the state. If you set a speed limit below the 85% percentile speed, people will generally ignore it, drive at the speed dictated by road conditions and their ability, and then you can ticket them for speeding.
Here are the actual conclusions of that study I linked to just above:
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
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.
Yeah, I have to outrun volcanos and tsunamis ALL THE TIME in Washington. Thank god for my fast car. They never give you advance warning for those things, and even when they do, 70 isn't nearly enough to get out.
The poster seems to be under the delusion that speed limits are always tied to the current maximum safe speed.
This is absurd, as other factors can be at work:
political (the town I live in has 5mph lower speed limits on exactly the same roads and road conditions as the towns around it - and not coincidentally is the first town in the US to use photo-radar).
legal - in the US, every state (except perhaps one) has an absolute maximum for speed limits. Clearly some roads and vehicles are capable of being driven safely at much higher speeds on some road segments in those states. Not that long ago, the idiot Jimmy Carter forced a 55mph maximum speed limit throughout the US, that lasted until 1994. The interstate highway system was built for much higher speeds (I believe 75mph) and the Kansas Turnpike for 80mph, it's previous speed limit.
safety for non-familiar drivers - a road can have conditions which make the maximum safe speed lower than the apparent (to non-familiar drivers) safe speed. The authorities may choose to set the speed limit lower to compensate.
weather - the speed limit may be lowered to compensate for common but not continuous weather conditions such as high winds.
Traffic engineers used to set speed limits, in the absence of other factors, determining the 85th percentile speed of unconstrained drivers. In other words, presumably 85 percent of the drivers, based on their experience and perceptions, drove at or below the maximum safe speed. They would, of course, set them lower at hard to see hazards such as hidden curves.
If one is going to have such a system, soft but effective feedback seems much better than hard limits.
BTW... some cars have unadvertised built-in speed limits. My 2001 Toyota Sequoia appears to have a 100mph limit. One day on a storm chase, on a very good road with almost infinite visibility, we tried it, and at 100mph the engine refused to go faster, even though it clearly had the capacity. I suspect this may be because they didn't want to put bigger tables into the engine computer.
The only good weather is bad weather.
In regards to your ambulance point: actually, on the way to accident scenes, those things do go well over the speed limit. So do police cars and fire trucks. Once the person is in the ambulance, yes, they slow down - the person is already getting medical attention. But shaving 30 seconds off a 5 minute trip to get to the guy having a heart attack can easily be the difference between life and death.
Also, there are times (rare, yes) when speeding to the hospital is not the worst idea. The hospital where I live is slightly out of town, and to get there you have to go on a highway of sorts. The limit is 60km/h for part of it. Oh a straight road, no lights, no fast turns or merging traffic, if it was 4 in the morning and someone was dying in my backseat, going up to 100 would not be an issue.
When cryptography is outlawed, bayl bhgynjf jvyy unir cevinpl
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'm not sure if things would have turned out so well if I was driving a slower car which may not have been capable of accelerating enough to avoid the oncoming car or to make the turn safely at the speed that was necessary. I may have reacted differently if I was driving a different vehicle in the same situation. In that particular situation I was doing my best to drive safely and defensively beforehand, and at that instant I judged that accelerating would be the best option given the situation and my car's performance envelope.
Based on my driving experience, I'd agree that it's much more common to need to suddenly decelerate to avoid a collision than to suddenly accelerate. Still, situations where it's necessary to suddenly accelerate (even beyond the posted speed limit) to avoid a crash do arise sometimes, even when you're paying attention and driving in a safe and legal manner. A safe and defensive driver tries to avoid getting into situations where they need to take sudden evasive actions by anticipating the actions of other drivers and leaving enough room for nearby boneheads to do boneheaded things without hitting them. Still, sometimes you'll encounter another driver whose boneheadedness exceeds reasonable expectations. :-)
My minivan otoh pushes 90 quite easily, and would probably break 120 if i wanted to try it.
It's probably got a fuel shutoff somewhere between 100-125. My old car had a fuel shutoff at 120 (though it actually kicked in at 115 because my speedometer was off ;) -- I would be zipping along with a nice amount of acceleration and when it hit 120 my engine would turn into a massive brake. The fuel cut-off wouldn't release until the speed dropped below 110. My current car has this limit at about 110. One time I bypassed it by shifting into netural on a nice downgrade to avoid the engine braking affect. I think I got my car up to about 135 that time. I was actually scared ;)
I think this has something to do with the tires that most cars use. The typical consumer tire isn't rated for more then 120. There might also be a law enforcement stake as well.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
If traffic engineers want this speed on a stretch of hypothetical road to drop, they do this by changing the road surface. Narrows, curves, crests, inclines, will all reduce the 85th percentile speed.
Three problems with this.
Firstly if a driver is unfamiliar with the road, and therefore unaware of the traffic calming measures coming up ahead and may speed on into a dangerous situation. You therefore create a hazard not just for that driver but everyone else around them.
Secondly those traffic calming measures also add to the difficulty and hazard in driving when other circumstances take place: eg. wet weather, roadworks
Thirdly, those familiar with the road tend to overestimate their own abilities. There's been a lot of roadwork in the area in which I live for the last two years, and I've seen idiots doing 70km/hr where the limit is 40, and with good reason.
You're right that no one wants to crash. You're wrong about people being sensible about it.
But in all honesty speeding fines etc. are all about politics and revenue. There has never been any genuine interest in reducing crashes. Car manufacturers have done more to make cars safe than anyone (and they're doing it for selfish reasons too - to sell cars).
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
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?
Get your facts straight.
The bill mandating a 55mph speed limit had nothing to do with safety and everything to do with conserving fuel. There was this energy crisis around that time, you see.
Oh, and Richard Nixon signed the bill. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Nixon
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
As a New York City Paramedic, I agree. Here in New York State, we are never alowed to exceed the speed limit, no matter what the scenario. We are (same goes for FDNY) not even allowed to take red lights. Only the NYPD can do that.
The sick person being transported to the hospital is already sick, there is no exuse to jeopardize the public after the fact. The same holds true for responding to calls.
There have been quite a few case lately were EMTs or Paramedics have received jail time for their reckeless driving.
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.
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.
Obviously you missed the part about "The Canadian government". There isn't really any situation where "evasive high speed" would ever be needed.
I mean, if there were a natural disaster in Montreal, the only roads that could support high speeds (the highways) would be gridlocked traffic much like they are every day during rushhour.
...should get this first. You know, mail men, dog-catchers, the guys who legislated this product's use, and of course, police officers!
-Derek
Another interesting situation with red light cameras. I guess being dead won't stop you from getting a ticket anymore!
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.
Once and only once have I escaped by speeding up and that was on a 2003 ZX-6R (sport bike) capable of accelerating MUCH faster than your average car. I had somebody to my right and I was in the left lane when some idiot in an SUV decided to take the shoulder to pass a bunch of cars. the jersey wall started to come in, decreasing room on the shoulder for his truck. When he realized this, he was heading right for my tail. I had ZERO time to maneuver because I was trapped. I had no choice but to cut down the middle of two 18 wheelers in order to make my escape.
Very fortunate was that this was also the only time there was ever a cop around when you needed one. A Maryland state trooper saw the whole thing and pulled him over. Hopefully he lost his license.
My lame blog.
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
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..
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 ?
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!
You missed the 'for any reasonable length of time' bit in the summary. If you need to put your foot down to get out of the way of something, do it. The system shouldn't flag you up for 8 seconds of flat out acceleration.
How many people can read hex if only you and dead people can read hex?
Not when I'm doing the speed limit and then I have to slam on the brakes because I come upon some idiot in a Cadillac, who ignores all headlight flashes and horn honks, and I can't pass because everyone coming up behind me is passing, thus cutting me off from getting around and rendering me a hazard to traffic. And this is in vehicles with V-8 engines! So they do have enough power -- the driver is just too stupid to use it. Why don't the cops ever ticket these people for going too slowly? (40 on a highway IS illegal).
i am a soviet space shuttle
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
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.
As for aircraft, the ONLY reason that the Government can get with all present regulations is because there are only a miniscule number of airplanes when compared to how many cars are in daily operation in this country.
The new Light Sport category might change that (offtopic). Anyways, trust me, the rules for aviation are there for the safety of you, your passengers, and others in the air or on the ground. There do happen to be a ton a regs in aviation, but I've never found one that I didn't agree with. Flying is a lot more complex then driving (operating in 3 dimensions, no roads, high speed w/ limited manueverability, and no way to "pull over and check something"). It makes sense to have a more complex set of rules to keep everything flowing smoothly.
And as the original poster said, any pilot in command (PIC) is allowed to break ANY rule he deems necessary in an emergency situation (with no consequences if the situation is considered a valid emergency). You don't even have to report it or fill out paperwork unless specifically requested.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
As far as speed goes its a tough concept because all drivers are not equal. A 16 year old goin 130mph is inherently more dangerous than a 32 year old race car driver. Granted, a 32 year old mother of three is probably not the best person to be going 130 either. Education and reflexes are two important factors. I don't see a way to fairly apply these skills to the road so for the most part I'll drive 10 - 15 over when traffic allows and more on the highway again when traffic allows. Traffics cops here in AZ are generally pretty reasonable. I've seen then pull up next to a girl goin 90, they point to her motioning at her dash and she realizes what she's been doing. In my mind that should generally be the goal rather than ticketing. Have the cop turn on the lights to let you know you're screwing up. Correct your speed at that point. If you don't then they further and ticket you. Can't take away that power otherwise they don't have any effect when they turn their lights on.
That said I've had issues with traffic cops before. When I was 16 in my Probe GT that I bought with money I earned from being a net admin I'd get pulled over once a week for no reason. Once it was a dark and stormy night, so I was driving a little slow and hugging the white line cause I couldn't see very well. Yep, cop pulled me over wondering if I'd been drinking. Naturally I was coming home from work, the only thought in my mind was my bed so it pissed me off to no end. I also had a situation of entrapment. Was driving at 3am again coming home from work not a car around. In my rear view mirror I see a car two miles back. Few minutes later is on my bumper driving erratically like they want to pass, so I slow down to allow them to pass legally but they stay on my bumper. So I speed up a little but still he stays on my bumper. Then I downshift and take off, he wait untils I'm going 85 in a 45 to turn on his lights.A week later all of the cops in the city were taken off of traffic duty for about 3 months. Apparently I'm not the only one they did that too. I don't like the idea of hard speed limits. I think if you give drivers more responsibility they will drive more responsibly. There are always people that are the exception but I think the majority would be reasonable.
"Okay honey, don't worry, we can outrun it. WHAT THE F***?!?!"
"You can't have everything. Where would you keep it?" -- Steven Wright
You are right about one thing - it was the idiot Nixon who signed it.
I never claimed it had anything to do with safety. I showed it as an example of a speed limit that was NOT related to safety! Good grief.
Oh, and as long as we are picking nits, I was wrong to say it was repealed in 1994. It was repealed, of course, by the Republican majority elected in 1994, who of course couldn't vote on anything until 1995 when they removed this onerous law. As a storm chaser, I was very pleased, as we need speed to get to the storms and being able to go 75 instead of 55 made a big difference.
The only good weather is bad weather.
I can give you a perfect example of when speeding up is required. I know someone that had this happen.
They were on a low powered motorcycle.
A large truck came up behind them - hadnt seen them
They didnt have the power to pull away
The truck destroyed the bike, the person only survived by throwing themselves off the bike and grabbing a tree at 50 MPH, breaking a lot of bones. The bike was spread over 180 yards of road.
In this instance it was the bikes lack of power causing the problem, but if that same power was cut off by a computer - and that caused a death - it shouldnt be possible.
Tux Games. Your complete source for native Linux games.
'm a big fan of slowing to a stop in the road. They'll generally pass before you completely stop.
I have this theory. It's called gravity. All objects in the universe have a gravimetric attraction towards each other. Gravity falls off with the square of the distance as I recall. So it stands to reason that the closer you get to my rear bumper the harder it is going to be for me to push my foot down on the gas ;)
That said, brake checking is illegal - you'll get a ticket for reckless driving (or similar) to match their "following too closely" ticket. Well, depending on how smooth the other party is when the cops arrive, anyway...
Yeah, but it doesn't stop me when I'm annoyed at being followed too closely. You'd probably have a hard time getting away with it on an open highway (but then, on an open highway, why didn't the asshole just pass you?) but in town or traffic you could always claim that somebody cut you off and you had to slow down. Plus the other guy being somebody as inconsiderate enough to tailgate isn't likely to be very smooth when the cops come.
One time after I got rear-ended by someone I got out to ask if she was ok. She promptly started screaming at me "Why the fuck did you stop?". As though it was my fault she rear ended me while talking on her cell phone. I wound up in a screaming match with her and the paramedics broke us up (happened right in front of the fire station). By the time the police arrived I was calm and collected. Working for the insurance agency kind of taught me the drill. She bitched and swore at them and wound up getting a following too closely ticket -- I didn't even open my mouth. After they talked to me they decided to issue her a ticket for distracted driving and violation of the NYS law against handheld cell phone use. For the record I was stopped and waiting for her to pass me so I could back into a parking space -- with my turn signal on!
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
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
From what I know of emergency response within the state of Pennsylvania: Police, EMT, and firefighters get "carte blanche" access to the roads when their sirens/lights are on. Not only do they have unlimited speed limit & can run lights, but all traffic in front of them is legally required to yield as well. There is a tradeoff involved. If any of the above is involved in an accident while their sirens are on, they are automatically liable for it.
And not once in all of that did I see an accident that could have been prevented by "evasive high speed".
If this is true, that's only because you're imagining dangerous situations infront of your car. How is braking going to help you when a speeding car is bearing down on you from behind? If anything it's only going to make the collision happen sooner. How is braking going to help you in the split second you realize someone is about to T-bone you from a side?
The first thing you are taught in defensive driving...
Let me just stop you right there. Defensive driving classes are a joke. All they do is tell you to pay attention, slow down, and to hit your brakes. No really. Save yourself 75 dollars and eight hours of your life, because that's about it.
The above advice is ridiculous, because, in my experience, most emergency driving situations can be avoided entirely by disregarding the latter two parts. Sometimes it's safer to go faster. Imagine you're about to pass a truck. You could: (a) break the speedlimit and pass in about 30 seconds or (b) take about 2 minutes to overtake him going the speedlimit. Obviously it's A, because the longer you take to pass him the more time you're in his blindspot and with less routes of escape.
Moreover a good deal of the time, the best thing is to do nothing. That's right--nothing. If you hit a patch of ice, unless you're really experienced, don't try and correct unless you absolutely have to. Just keep your calm and hold the wheel steady until you get through it. Same thing with hydroplaning. It's the overreaction--the slamming on the brakes or swerving--that makes you lose control. In the cases where action is required, however, I find that braking should be viewed as one of many appropriate responses.
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..
I don't think you get it though. Collisions you can control usually involve relative velocities. Usually the ones you can't control (for the simple reason that they happen too fast) involve someone being at an complete stop. This difference is crutial. Example: Imagine getting hit by a car at 60 MPH. Now imagine the same collision while you yourself are going 59.9 MPH in the same direction.
In this light, the engine needn't take the car from zero to sixty, to avoid an accident. A small, quick increase in speed can be all that's required to avoid a collision.
-Grym