Slashdot Mirror


EU Proposes To Fit Cars With Speed Limiters

schwit1 points out a new EU road safety measure to fit cars with devices that would stop them going over 70mph. "Under the proposals new cars would be fitted with cameras that could read road speed limit signs and automatically apply the brakes when this is exceeded. Patrick McLoughlin, the Transport Secretary, is said to be opposed to the plans, which could also mean existing cars are sent to garages to be fitted with the speed limiters, preventing them from going over 70mph. The new measures have been announced by the European Commission's Mobility and Transport Department as a measure to reduce the 30,000 people who die on the roads in Europe every year. A Government source told the Mail on Sunday Mr McLoughlin had instructed officials to block the move because they 'violated' motorists' freedom. They said: 'This has Big Brother written all over it and is exactly the sort of thing that gets people's backs up about Brussels.'"

21 of 732 comments (clear)

  1. No need for cameras. by nospam007 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    My Navigator knows the speed limit and gongs if I pass it, why not just link it with the maximum speed of the cruise control in the same fucking computer?

    I'd pay for that, since it would save me many tickets.

    1. Re:No need for cameras. by 0123456 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      When I was in Holland last year, we had a car with a GPS and speed limit display. Only problem was, if you were on a main highway and passed over a local road, the speed limit would often switch to something like 50km/h as it briefly became confused about which road you were on.

      Needless to say, having every car hitting the brakes at that point would probably be a bad idea.

      But the speed limit signs really make no more sense, since they can trivially be 'hacked'; I've seen local kids in Britain turn speed limit signs around for grins, so you'd end up with a sixty mph limit in the town and a thirty on the road leading out of town.

      All in all, it's a really stupid idea. Which is what you'd expect from the EU.

    2. Re:No need for cameras. by geogob · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That wouldn't work in lots of place - for example in Germany - where there are speed limits that are variables and are adapted with traffic or weather conditions. That's a principal problem for every area where the speed limit is dependent on weather. In France, a lot of highways have a speed limit of 130 (in modern units) and 110 when it is raining or the road is wet. How would such as system work under such regulations? Regardless of with or without a camera, its not easy.

      Then if you don't have a camera, the system would need accurate to the minute information on construction work. Else you'll see someone race at 120 through a 60 construction zone... and it's quite a critical point because once you have automatic speed limiters, people rely on them and stop driving. They just move ahead, without any consideration for the speed they are at. This is dangerous, because they totally lose situational awareness.

      Lets say you have a camera. How does it handle multiple speed limits for trucks or cars with trailers? How about lane dependent speed limit? It must also see and interpret the signs associated with the speed limits. That makes quite a lot of data to process and artificial intelligence built in a critical system. Not that its impossible... this is some sort of minimum for self driving cars. But that's going to be expensive. You might just as well make the car self driving if it already has this level of situational awareness.

      Speak of it again, I don't think this is a good measure. Either make the car fully automatic or leave it be. Any measure that detaches the driver from situational awareness is the wrong way to go around it in my (non expert) opinion. I would rather consider an alternative, based on the same system, that issues warnings rather than take control of critical systems.

      Lets give an illustrative example (I can't find a car analogy right now)... a car passes a truck on a country road. He's almost past the front of the truck, but the driver realizes he miss judged the distance with oncoming traffic. In most cases, the only way out of this, is to accelerate and quickly get for the truck. Breaking to get back behind when you almost past it would take longer... and that's assuming the spot behind it is still there and not closed by another car. Suddenly, your built in speed limiter decides you are going too fast for your safety and cuts the ignition, obviously not aware that you are trying to avoid a face to face collision.

      I'd take a lot of time thinking such a system through before implementing it...

    3. Re:No need for cameras. by lightknight · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, no. Laws are designed by people with typically the most fleeting grasp of how they might affect reality.

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    4. Re:No need for cameras. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      When I was in Holland last year, we had a car with a GPS and speed limit display. Only problem was, if you were on a main highway and passed over a local road, the speed limit would often switch to something like 50km/h as it briefly became confused about which road you were on.

      Needless to say, having every car hitting the brakes at that point would probably be a bad idea.

      But the speed limit signs really make no more sense, since they can trivially be 'hacked'; I've seen local kids in Britain turn speed limit signs around for grins, so you'd end up with a sixty mph limit in the town and a thirty on the road leading out of town.

      All in all, it's a really stupid idea. Which is what you'd expect from the EU.

      Look on the bright side, with a bit of luck this will finally give Jeremy Clarkson a heart attack.

    5. Re:No need for cameras. by BasilBrush · · Score: 5, Insightful

      When I was in Holland last year, we had a car with a GPS and speed limit display. Only problem was, if you were on a main highway and passed over a local road, the speed limit would often switch to something like 50km/h as it briefly became confused about which road you were on.

      That's a pretty fucked up navigation system then. Tracks should be sticky, and only easily change to other roads when there is a junction, or where the GPS position is significantly away from the road it previously thought you were on.

      They can often believe you've taken a slip road (off ramp) when you haven't, and vice versa, before correcting. But to believe you're on a road you are simply passing over is a big fuck up.

      Needless to say, having every car hitting the brakes at that point would probably be a bad idea.

      That would be a pretty stupid way to implement it anyway, even for legitimate speed limit changes, so it wouldn't be done like that. A limit on acceleration would deal with the majority of cases. If they really cared enough about acceleration sue to downhill slopes, they could add in very gentle braking too.

      All in all, it's a really stupid idea. Which is what you'd expect from the EU.

      Actually, the stronger possibility is it's the kind of story you'd expect the Mail on Sunday (or it's sister the Daily Mail) to tell about the EU, regardless of whether there is any truth in it. Or if there is a grain of truth, with lots of untrue embellishments.

    6. Re:No need for cameras. by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 4, Funny

      "Modern units"

      110 m/s sounds pretty unsafe in heavy rain, even with no risk of hydroplaning or loss of grip.

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    7. Re:No need for cameras. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Needless to say, having every car hitting the brakes at that point would probably be a bad idea.

      They should also fit cars with proximity sensors that automatically apply the brakes when you get too close to the car in front. Then if that car brakes, whether it's because of the glitch you describe or any other reason, you'll have enough time to brake to avoid a collision.

      Or you could just quit tailgating the car in front of you and you will always have plenty of time to avoid
      a collision with the car in front of you, with no additional technology required.

    8. Re:No need for cameras. by serviscope_minor · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They should also fit cars with proximity sensors that automatically apply the brakes when you get too close to the car in front.

      I'm not sure that would work. To get some things out the way:

      I currently live in England whish is blessed with some of the safest roads in the world. I'm going to assume you're American, since most people are here. The English road test is very, very much harder than the various US ones. Compared to some, (i.e. big, empty states like NM) the difference is laughable. On average people fail between 1 and 2 times before finally passing.

      I'm not making any particular point except about the test. It's necessary since England is so much more crowded and has on average much more crowded roads.

      And that's the thing. Once you get on a busy motorway, it is still terrifing to anyone with an understanding of, e.g. physics. There's usually about a 1 second gap between all cars. There is nothing you can do about it. If you slow down, you'll slow the lane down and cause lots of people to pull out to overtake. That's particularly dangerous since all 3 lanes are full. And then people will simply pull into the gap in front of you, filling the nice 2-3 second gap.

      In other words, it's a nice idea, but on crowded roads, even with good drivers, it wouldn't work.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
  2. Three reasons why this won't work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    1. Cars will fail to read the road signs correctly
    2. Someone will hack the road signs, leading to mayhem
    3. Only a certain percentage of road fatalities are caused by people exceeding the listed speed limit

    Why not fit cars with a voluntary limiter that users can enable themselves?

    1. Re:Three reasons why this won't work by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If your speed limits do not serve the end of public safety, then your limits need to be revised.

      That is the wrong kind of thinking. My point is that rigidly enforcing speed limits (which in itself may indeed constitute some local optimum value) does not necessarily improve road safety. While it may be good to set a speed limit of 100km/h on a certain road, it might make little sense to ding people for doing 104 (the current threshold here in NL) or even 114. I recently had the opportunity to observe the difference between a loosely interpreted and tightly interpreted speed limit, thanks to the police doing daily and highly visible speed checks on a road I drive over for my daily commute. Before the checks, a few people might do 90 on that road, most more or less stuck to the limit of 100, while a few did 110 in the fast lane, with a very small minority doing over 120. In this case, traffic flows smoothly, merging and overtaking was easy as well. But when the cops started their speed trap, people kept to the limit of 100kmh religiously. In busy traffic the result was that changing lanes became much more difficult, traffic flowed much less smoothly, and with everyone closely matching each other's speed, they had a tendency to drive too close together as well. In this case, rigidly keeping to the speed limit actually decreases traffic safety.

      Making a speed limiter mandatory has the following downsides:
      - It imposes a cost on vehicle owners
      - It removes our freedom to exceed the speed limit if conditions and circumstances allow (and as I have argued, that speed limit is a means (and a crappy one at that), not an end.
      - It introduces an additional point of failure into vehicles, and a potentially dangerous one at that.

      The burden of proof is on the state in this case: proof that the upside (increased traffic safety, not adherence to the law) outweighs the downsides. Given the current statistics on traffic fatalities, I have serious doubts about the effectiveness of this proposal. Even the best case scenario does not merit a trial.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
  3. Oh, so there is another EU . . . ? by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 5, Interesting

    . . . a different one than the one where Germany is a member . . . ? Because that EU isn't going to put any speed limits on the German Autobahns. Actually, nobody else is either.

    That is about as likely as the NRA leading a campaign to repeal the Second Amendment to the US Constitution (the right to bear arms).

    Germans like their cars, like Americans like their weapons. That's an actual SAT analogy question.

    And they like to drive them very fast.

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
  4. Actual quote from EU spokesman by __aarzwb9394 · · Score: 5, Informative
    Instead of rabidly anti-EU British papers.

    relevant quote from EU spokesman:

    “There is a currently consultation focusing on speed-limiting technology already fitted to HGVs and buses. “Taking account of the results, the Commission will publish in the autumn a document by its technical experts which will no doubt refer to ISA among many other things.”

    1. Re:Actual quote from EU spokesman by xaxa · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Instead of rabidly anti-EU British papers.

      relevant quote from EU spokesman:

      “There is a currently consultation focusing on speed-limiting technology already fitted to HGVs and buses.

      “Taking account of the results, the Commission will publish in the autumn a document by its technical experts which will no doubt refer to ISA among many other things.”

      Thank you!

      Any British newspaper, except sometimes the Guardian or Independent, is not a neutral source for news on the EU. They will happily blame the EU for anything, while not noting that British MEPs vote in favour of it, or (fairly often) Britain made a significant input into the proposal.

      http://www.votewatch.eu/ can be useful for finding this, but it's not that easy to search.

    2. Re:Actual quote from EU spokesman by OneAhead · · Score: 4, Informative

      You're on the right track, but it's actually even worse than that. More relevant quote from EU spokesman:

      " The Commission has not tabled – and does not have in the pipeline – even a non-binding Recommendation, let alone anything more. The Commission has supported past research into ISA. There is a current stakeholder consultation and study focusing on speed limiting technology already fitted to HGVs and buses. One aspect of that is whether ISA could in the long-term be an alternative. And a second consultation on in-vehicle safety systems in general. Taking account of the consultation results, the Commission will publish in the autumn a document by its technical experts which will no doubt refer to ISA among many other things. That is all."

      Source: http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/reports-of-brussels-big-brother-bid-to-impose-speed-controls-are-inaccurate-beyond-the-limit-2/

      And it's not that the British newspapers publishing that drivel have the excuse of being misinformed or anything. It's ludicrous to think the EU has any concrete plans of doing such things in the first place - all these so-called "journalists" would need to do is think how much public support a measure like this would get (very close to zero), how good this would be for the careers of the politicians involved, and of the horrible mess that would ensue with countries' individual schemes of speed limits, including Germany.... The same thing goes for the /. editors - listen up guys, if something sounds too sensational to be true, it usually is. Also, some healthy skepticism is in place with news coming form certain sources - one would think the editors should by now be aware of the abysmal reputation of some UK news outlets...

  5. What is this trash doing on Slashdot? by AC-x · · Score: 5, Informative

    What is this trash doing on Slashdot? Seriously the whole article is utter crap, there are no plans for any kind of speed limiters to be fitted to vehicles.

    Here's the full quote from the EU commission in question:

    The Commission has not tabled – and does not have in the pipeline – even a non-binding Recommendation, let alone anything more.

    The Commission has supported past research into ISA. There is a current stakeholder consultation and study focusing on speed limiting technology already fitted to HGVs and buses. One aspect of that is whether ISA could in the long-term be an alternative.

    This is just standard right-wing anti-EU drivel. I think Reddit user Dwilip put it best:

    Standard Tory playbook by unknown junior minister looking for some cheap column inches.
    Find EU report
    Make up something ridiculous
    Claim you are going to block it
    Get your mate at the Torygraph to write about
    It never happens
    Say you personally stopped it
    Print it in you leaflets, cite Torygraph article as evidence

  6. Not really by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When I was in Holland last year, we had a car with a GPS and speed limit display. Only problem was, if you were on a main highway and passed over a local road, the speed limit would often switch to something like 50km/h as it briefly became confused about which road you were on.

    Needless to say, having every car hitting the brakes at that point would probably be a bad idea.

    But the speed limit signs really make no more sense, since they can trivially be 'hacked'; I've seen local kids in Britain turn speed limit signs around for grins, so you'd end up with a sixty mph limit in the town and a thirty on the road leading out of town.

    All in all, it's a really stupid idea. Which is what you'd expect from the EU.

    Not really, if the maxium speed limit is 70mph, which seems odd in the EU since it's supposed to be metric, but if the maximum speed limit is whatever, then setting the sensor to go off when you go above the maximum won't be impacted by side roads or the like. It will only kick in if you go over the maximum speedlimit. In the US, for most states that would be 70mph, although there are a few which allow faster.

    Giving a warning when one is breaking the law isn't taking away one's legal freedoms, just their illegal freedoms, which by definition, they aren't free to exercise in the first place.

    Of course, there is a much simpler method than using computers and the like. Go back to putting appropriately sized engines and gear ratios in cars and they will be able to accelerate quickly, get good fuel economy, and limit their top speed to about 1.25 times the maximum speed limit allowed. After all, why manufacture cars with a top speed of 150-200mph when the maximum legal speed limit is 70mph? It seems that if the state can revoke your license for dwi because you might hurt somebody while driving while intoxicated, the same rational would work for driving well above the posted speed limit.

    According to the summary, 30,000 Europeans were killed in car accidents, it doesn't say how many were high speed, but even if only 10% were, that is 3,000 people, about the number killed on 9/11 in the US. The US went to war because those deaths were viewed as being for no good reason. Are traffic fatalities because of reckless high speed driving any better?

    1. Re:Not really by Bert64 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Speed is not the only cause of road accidents, and in many cases a crash would have occurred anyway. Also setting a maximum speed would do nothing to stop people speeding at 70mph down residential streets, which is far more dangerous than doing 90mph on a highway.

      In fact many crashes are caused by lack of speed, or significant differences in speed. Someone driving well below the speed limit is often far more dangerous than someone driving way above it, especially on roads where its not easy to pass them because they will cause a queue of frustrated drivers to form behind them. Someone driving slowly on the highway is also extremely dangerous.

      Also speed limits today were set many years ago, when cars were much slower and more dangerous... While lowend cars then would have struggled to reach 70mph if they could at all, today virtually any car is capable of 100mph. More importantly, while driving 70mph back then was noisy and resulted in a lot of vibration from the vehicle, today 70mph is a trivial cruising speed and you barely realise you're moving... This significantly increases the change of people falling asleep at the wheel.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    2. Re:Not really by Smauler · · Score: 4, Informative

      I'm a lorry driver... and GP is right. Very few drivers actually pay for their fuel any more, and if they're from the same company, they wouldn't bother rotating. I certainly never have deliberately sat in a convoy - it's a lot harder to drive when you can't see all the road in front of you. Sometimes you'll get trucks that constantly overtake each other, because one is quicker up hills, the other is quicker on the flat, but they don't do it deliberately.

  7. EU debunking of report by Dj · · Score: 4, Informative

    http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/reports-of-brussels-big-brother-bid-to-impose-speed-controls-are-inaccurate-beyond-the-limit-2/

    --
    Reports in the press today suggest that the EU intends to bring forward “formal proposals this autumn” to introduce automatic speed controls -known as “Intelligent Speed Adaptation” or ISA, into cars. This is quite simply not true and the Commission had made this very clear to the journalists concerned.

    The Mail on Sunday for example, uses a quote from a Commission spokesman but chooses to leave out the first and most important sentence given to the paper’s reporter, which was this:

    “The Commission has not tabled – and does not have in the pipeline – even a non-binding Recommendation, let alone anything more.”

    For the record, the rest of the quote supplied said this:

    “The Commission has supported past research into ISA. There is a current stakeholder consultation and study focusing on speed limiting technology already fitted to HGVs and buses. One aspect of that is whether ISA could in the long-term be an alternative.

    And a second consultation on in-vehicle safety systems in general. Taking account of the consultation results, the Commission will publish in the autumn a document by its technical experts which will no doubt refer to ISA among many other things. That is all. (NB such “staff working documents” are not adopted by the Commission at political level and have no legal status.) Nothing more is expected in the foreseeable future.

    It is part of the EC’s job – because it has been mandated to do so by Member States, including the UK – to look at, promote research into and consult stakeholders about new road safety technology which might ultimately save lives. This is done in close cooperation with Member States and the UK has generally supported such efforts.”

    It might also seem strange to some that the UK government -if the press reports are accurate at least in that respect – apparently objects so violently to even being consulted about a range of future ways in which lives could be saved on Europe’s roads.
    --

    --
    "You know you want me baby!" - Crow T Robot
  8. Re:All human drivers should be banned by PPH · · Score: 4, Funny

    So, download a new driver.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.