Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

EU Proposes To Fit Cars With Speed Limiters

Posted by samzenpus on from the slow-down dept.

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.'"

10 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 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.

    4. 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.

  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?

  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.”

  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?