Slashdot Mirror
Australia, UK To Test Vehicle Speed-Limiting Devices
nemesisrocks writes "The New South Wales government is set to begin testing a device that will limit the speed of drivers because 'excessive speed is one of the primary ways that people are killed while driving.' Located on the dashboard, it senses a driver's speed with the use of GPS. If the speed of a car goes over the posted legal limit, a warning sounds. If the driver ignores the warning, the device eventually cuts all power to the car because a cut-off switch has been installed between the accelerator and the engine."
The Times Online reports that the same system will be tested in the UK this summer for use in taxis and buses.
... what could possibly go wrong?
Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal
One of the biggest problems with current GPS detection devices is lack of context.
The GPS needs to know the direction and actual road/lane I am driving in.
I get warnings about speed cameras and told to slow down - just because I am passing UNDER a 30mph road travelling in a different direction on a motorway (70mph).
liqbase
This is a common idea that speed is the cause of the crash. Speed can make a crash worse of course, but the most common danger on highways that I see is people driving close together because one person is driving too slow in a fast lane. The bunched up traffic scares the hell out of me.
This fails to address either the legitimate need for speedy travel (medical emergencies, birth, etc.) and the possibility of error on the part of the system. If the system is taught that a particular road has a speed limit of 10kph when in reality, the limit is 50, it's going to do nothing but inconvenience people.
If they mandated a device which prevented people driving when fatigued, or had a pint, or when distracted, or when it's raining, the kinds of things that cause most accidents, it'd be a huge civil liberties breach. I mean, there's no legal prohibition to driving when you're a little tired or a little drunk or listening to NPR or there's a bit of drizzle, but you'd make them de facto illegal if you installed a device that prevented people from driving in that state. There is a legal prohibition to driving over the limit, though.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
You wouldn't possibly be implying that someone was grossly exaggerating the figures to hype up their own pet cause, would you? In this day and age, that would be simply unimaginable.
"Cutting all Power" should mean cutting additional gas that accelerate...or I mean it just work like cruise control that instead of supplying more gas when it goes under speed, it stop supplying more gas when it goes over the speed.
But requiring GPS? Bullshit. Hong Kong's bus (which most of them are double deckers, and import from UK) has speed limiter installed for 15+ years. The bus can never goes over 70km/h no matter how hard you press the gas pedal (70km/h is the legal speed limit for bus on all road). There is a little red light on the dashboard to signal the driver the limiter is activated.
Technology? It's just based on the speedometer that every automobile has, just like all cruise control! Why do we need to pull GPS into the picture? I have absolutely no idea.
Ha, and what are they going to do when people mod their vehicles to circumvent this?
I know that they are talking about cars and not motorcycles -- but as someone who rides motorcycles, speed in a straight line isn't the hard part, speed in turns is. A lot of accidents are caused because people try to handle turns fast and fail.
Or cause idiots tried wheelies when they had no clue.
I imagine that it lets you drive over the limit for more than the minute or so that an overtaking manouvre takes. We have these things called "engineers" who can anticipate problems.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
Speed doesn't kill, stupid driving kills. A good driver should be able to determine the appropriate speed for the road, traffic, and conditions. A bad driver will get into accidents anywhere, because they don't pay attention or plan ahead.
Technically speed is a factor in 99.9% of all accidents. If the car was stationary, no accident would have happened.
But, more sensibly, it is lack of driving ability that is the cause of these accidents. A skilled racing driver could undoubtedly drive safely at a speed far above the posted limit; a 79 year old grandmother with cataracts is unsafe even when driving below the limit. The police should list "lack of skill" as a cause, not speed.
So, I'm overtaking that other car. I go over the speed limit because I noticed an oncoming car on the opposite lane and decide I won't avoid collision if I stay within the speed limit, and it's too late to retreat.
Then the engine power drops so that I can't finish the maneuver on time.
Coming next: brakes that make it impossible to brake rapidly, to avoid collision with a car tailgating you.
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
There are roads in my area that have different speed limits in different directions on the same road! Speed limits that jump and drop 30 miles per hour more than once in a single mile! Speed limits that vary by time of day (school zones, etc), and more.
There are new roads being paved daily, others widening or diverted by construction. Temporary speed limits are posted by construction workers constantly. If the device can't react to these as well, it's useless, and probably more dangerous since "if it's not beeping, i'm not speeding" could potentially become a LEGAL defense!
Also, what happens when you are trying to pass a car that's going slower than you, and while trying to pass your engine power drops!?!?
What happens if you have a software glitch, or your device looses calibration. It could hold you to 10 or 20 miles less than the posted speed limit. It could simply fail, and cut engine power output. It could fail to engage and allow you to speed dangerously. It could simply prevent you from driving at all...
The ONLY safe application I can see for this system would be to apply while driving under cruise control, and be an alert-only system.
This is also something too easy to abuse by officers. If it's mandated to be installed, and everyone is being tracked, then entrapment starts to be an issue.
There is no contest in life for which the unprepared have the advantage.
If they could create a device that cut your speed when you drive too close to the guy in front, THAT would save lives. It's incredible how many stupid drivers think it's OK to tailgate.
Speeding. 99% of respondents want to drive faster than the speed limit, it seems.
Remember that driving is licensed, it's not a right. You are permitted to drive on the road if you obey the rules of the road, and you expect your government, who grant you that licence, to enforce the rules of the road.
You would expect the police to arrest drunk drivers - they are abusing their licence. You should expect them to control road speed, for the same reason. The rules are there, it's not as if you don't know what they are, and whether you like them or not they all apply equally to you.
If you feel that you should be able to drive faster than you're presently legally allowed to, then win the argument and get the law changed. But please stop bitching about the way that a given rule of the road applies to you; those are the terms you agreed to when you stepped into your car.
I mostly agree - however at higher speeds, even well trained professionals can have accidents. The problem is, at higher speeds, the damage and mortality rate is higher- that is to say, an old person might have a 50% likelihood of crashing, but their speed gives their chances of survival. The higher the speed, the higher the mortality.
;P
That being said, I think they should impliment yearly driving tests. So many people would fail. I would be happy and free on the road again! (without all those damn MASSHOLES!!)
Belief? Hope? Preference?The Existential Vortex
Sorry that's just narrow minded.. Speeding DOES NOT cause accidents. Incompetent drivers cause accidents. Not looking, talking on the mobile phone, looking at the kids in the back seat, applying makeup, smoking, drinking, eating, changing the CD, ALL cause more accidents than speeding.
In fact the constant pressure NOT to speed causes accidents because I now spend more time looking at my speedo making sure I ain't speeding as I go through the 20th speed camera instead of looking at the road a head of me.
The reason people target speeding and obsess over it is beacuse it is the one thing they can be visible doing something about whether it works or not.
Take the common if you had hit little girl X and 30 instead of 35 she would have lived arguement. I can counter that with had I been doing 45 I'd have been passed her before she stepped on the road (assuming the same timeline)..
Hell they want to reduce the speed to 50 in order to save lives, why the fuck stop there? how about just make us all fucking walk and then noone can be killed by a speed.
Safe speed is what should be encouraged. On a dry, clear day with a well maintained car do 90mph on the motorway. However when it's dark & foggy slow the fuck down and take it easy..
Speeding is one of the most preventable causes of accidents
Not true...if someone wants to speed they will, and no propaganda (or technology) will stop them. The solutuion to this problem is to ban drivers for two or more serious speeding offences.
The main cause of crashes is Human Error, and this is often because, over time, people forget how to drive properly. What's needed is a joined-up system of assessment and testing for drivers to ensure that their driving remains at a good standard. We all forget things and lose touch with 'good practice'. A 'check-test' every 5 years or so would weed out those whose driving has become unsafe, and they could then be required to take some re-training to bring their driving back up to an acceptable standard.
Smivs on the intertubes!
i constantly see people driving right next to tractor trailers, boxed in with nowhere to go, and they just stay there, refusing to speed up or pass because they're going the speed limit and won't dare go a single tick faster. i bet if you asked them why they were doing that, they'd say it was because they were being "safe" in obeying the speed limit - but what the hell is so safe about camping uncomfortably close to an 18-wheeler and riding along side him at 60 MPH?
there is more to being safe than blindly obeying speed limits.
Indeed, exactly. Speed does not cause many accidents, it simply exacerbates them, though to what level is difficult to determine. A crash at 150 km/h will be worse than one at 100 km/h, but then, why not lower the limit to 50 km/h, since that will reduce the damage even further. It's a stupid game, and this speeding witch hunt is turning law-abiding safe drivers into criminals, and causing people to spend more time watching their speedometers instead of keeping their eyes on the bloody road.
Most accidents are caused by poor training, and poor attention, as well as taking actions that other drivers don't expect, such as weaving, excessive braking, and the worst... Not using your turn signals - Americans, I'm looking at you. Use your signals!
So you're arguing that some Bureaucrat somewhere should be in charge of how fast my car should be able to go?
What if I enjoy taking my Audi to the track on occasion and wish to exceed 135MPH on the back straightaway?
BTW, MOTORCYCLES will and do exceed 190MPH on the track so let's not use NASCAR as the standard for this. Frankly NASCAR is a bunch of redneck pussies making 2,000 left handed turns in a "race".
I also find it amusing that a guy whose car is 'limited' to 80MPH over the fastest speed limit in North America is arguing for limiters. If you think they're such a good idea why don't you have your computer reprogrammed to limit YOUR car to 75MPH? They can change the limiter downward as well as upward!
What's that? You're not interested in doing that? I thought not.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I say all the time up here in Canada, if they really cared about speeding, they'd nail everyone going more than 1km/h over the speed limit.
They don't though, because they don't really care.
The police officer driving past me at 140 without his lights on doesn't think speeding is bad, he's doing it himself.
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
Comment removed based on user account deletion
You've apparently never dealt with an insurance company. While investments may be their main business, they do have a little side business doing actual insurance work. Which, to an insurance company, means
1) Collecting premiums
2) Not paying claims unless they absolutely have to, and lowballing the insured when they do.
They'd love for claims to go down. That provides them with a windfall. Predictability? Well, a predictible _maximum_ level of claims is fine, but even insurance companies don't object to a windfall in the form of lower costs.
Since these are auto insurance companies, who have managed to wangle laws requiring auto insurance, they need not worry about reduction in demand for their product; they have the State to provide that for them.
a) if you need to exceed the speed limit to overtake, then you don't need to overtake
b) if you can't complete you overtaking manoeuvre in the amount of clear road space you can see, then you don't overtake
c) if you do need to pull in, then you can reduce your speed and pull back in behind the car you're overtaking
I don't think reckless driving habits are going to be a strong argument against the scheme when this is the sort of behaviour the scheme is designed to reduce ;-)
----------------------------------- My Other Sig Is Hilarious -----------------------------------
If they could create a device that cut your speed when you drive too close to the guy in front, THAT would save lives. It's incredible how many stupid drivers think it's OK to tailgate.
For some reason, those jackasses seem to think it makes it easier for them to pass.
Tailgater: I'll ride six inches off his bumper, then suddenly swerve out and begin accelerating as soon as I'm clear, pedal to the floor and hell bent for leather because I'll need to be going 25mph faster than him to get around before I have a head on collision.
Smart driver: I'll ride a couple seconds back, and when an opportunity approaches, I'll gradually speed up ahead of time. That way I'll already be going 10mph faster than him by the time I change lanes and I'll only be facing oncoming traffic for a few seconds.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
I can understand why they do it when some jerk is riding in the leftmost lane, not passing anyone, and going the speed limit or less. The ones I don't understand is when they tailgate someone in one of the right lanes, and there's plenty of room to go around them on the left. I think there's a lot of people like that who just tailgate not because they're wanting to go faster, but because they just like to follow people for some weird reason.
"a) if you need to exceed the speed limit to overtake, then you don't need to overtake"
I hate this argument, lets sat someone is doing 10kph under the speed limit, it is perfectly reasonable to overtake them. Now is it safer to overtake them at 10kph relative speed? or 30kph relative speed? (divide numbers by 1.6 to get old-timey measurements)
Speeding while overtaking makes a helluva lot of sense.
What a ridiculous thing to say.
Here in Aus there's an extraordinarily antisocial type of 'driver' who will do 20 under the limit for half an hour banking up 30 cars behind them and then when people start to overtake them en-masse put their foot down, usually while there's someone beside them. Then when the overtaking lane ends they'll back off again and continue holding people up.
What's the person beside them supposed to do when the person they're 3/4 past moves up to the speed limit? Slam on the brakes? Usually there's someone behind them overtaking as well. In any case, it's the person being overtaken who's behaving recklessly.
Peg it 10kph over the limit for 5 seconds to get around them is safer than the bloody dangerous response you describe in C.
A. You obviously never drive outside of four lane highways. the level of ignorance is astounding
B. Correct, unless the above happens - and it happens all the bloody time here, especially in the holidays when people like you get out of the cities and actually encounter a corner or two.
C. If your 3/4 of the way past, aborting is extraordinarily dangerous for *both* cars and anyone behind. Not to mention if there's someone behind you trying to overtake as well, as there usually is, or someone behind the car your overtaking who's closed up the gap that you left.
Lemme guess you don't drive on B roads much, and when you do your ever so careful and the 30 cars backed up behind you are just 'bad aggressive drivers' but your doing the best you can, your driving to the conditions and it's everyone else who's the 'bad driver'.