UK to Put Monitors in Every Car? 1028
wackoman2112 writes "The Sun is reporting that the UK government has plans to put a computerised spy in every car. This "spy" will record every single time a motorist goes slightly over the speed limit, into a bus lane, or stops on a yellow line! It will report this information to roadside sensors and you will soon receive a fine in the mail."
Sheesh... (Score:1, Interesting)
Sensors. (Score:3, Interesting)
Heh (Score:3, Interesting)
Poll Tax II (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:The Sun (Score:5, Interesting)
What a great idea! (Score:4, Interesting)
Say (for example) someone doesn't see you, and cuts you off in traffic - you have two options.. you can swerve into the bus lane, or let them hit you (stopping traffic, raising your insurance rates, possibly causing injury)
I can see it now - if someone pisses you off in traffic, you just force them into a bus lane.. a month later, they get a fine!
Yeah, that's real fair.
Re:Get the F out... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Inflexibility means brittle. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Get the F out... (Score:3, Interesting)
I have concluded we have too many laws and the only thing that makes it tolerable is that the laws are not much enforced. Congress critters would take a different view.
Re:am I missing something? (Score:2, Interesting)
It's kinda like walking down a trail. If the land is flat and solid around you, you have no concerns; if you wander off the trail - even accidentally - getting back on is no problem. If the trail is just inches from a high cliff wall on one side and a hundred-foot dropoff on the other, you will be greatly concerned; if you wander off one side even a little you'll die, and you can't get away from that danger by going the other way..."stay on the trail" is obvious but not particularly comforting.
Likewise for this UK proposal. People may stray from the path a bit, but it's typically harmless. Punishing them for every little harmless transgression will cause severe anxiety resulting in (a) more accidents as people desperately try to stay legal, and (b) a breakdown of gov't as people decide that cooperation is too costly.
Governments only work by cooperation of the people. Ride the people hard enough, and cooperation will end...ironically resulting in the downward spiral of harsher crackdowns resulting in more rebellion.
The Fifth Element (Score:2, Interesting)
Car Computer: You have 5 points left on your licence.
Korben Dallas: Yes. Thank-you for reminding me
Re:am I missing something? (Score:4, Interesting)
Also, my insurance provider will absolutely hose me if I get more than a ticket a year. People make mistakes (such as not noticing a speed limit sign, or letting the car coast to too high a speed on descent) and if you are ticketed every single time, without the chance to explain/petition for otherwise, who is going to keep the insurance companies in check?
Maybe the Brits don't have mandatory insurance. I don't really know.
Re:Inflexibility means brittle. (Score:5, Interesting)
Does not count for emergencies (Score:2, Interesting)
Like so:
I see the vehicle behind me go out of control. It is headed for me and likely to damage my vehicle and/or injure/kill myself or my passengers. As a result, I (correctly) instinctively stomp the gas, thereby avoiding an MVA (multi-vehicle accident). With this system, I get penalized for not getting into a potentially lethal accident...
Worthy Source of Information (Score:4, Interesting)
I am actually in favour of cracking down on people who recklessly break the law, but I think monitoring people's speed this way is not the way to go. For example, I know many people who would not think twice before doing speeds in excess of 50mph in a 30mph limit zone, these people could do with receiving punishment for such a thing. But IMO there is nothing wrong with doing 80/90mph along a country lane in the dark (the safest time - you can see traffic a long way off - and there is much less of it) providing, you, the car and the road can all handle that sort of speed. I would never consider doing speeds in excess of the limit in heavily populated areas. [for those of you who are not aware the speed limit on such roads is 60mph].
If this kind of technology is going to be introduced into vehicles in this country, then fair enough, thats the way its going to be, I think it would certainly take away some of the fun of driving, but in some ways I would rather know that I am being 'watched' constantly rather than having to keep looking to see where the speed camera is hidden.
BTW, WTF!!! is this colour scheme, its kind of maroon and puke yellow. its making me feel quite ill!!!!!
FYI I didn't RTFA - its the sun, there's nothing to read in the sun.
Regardless of whether the story is factual or not (Score:3, Interesting)
If this were happening in the US, the question would be whether companies who would find this the most useful, such as companies who have fleets of drivers, would find it worth the public outcry. It also brings up the question- is this the direction in which we want to go? There are certainly arguments in favour- lives saved is one of them. Drunk driving is another. But from there we go back to civil liberties again. Do we have the right to unmonitored transport? Do we have the right to make our own driving choices?
More important than either of those, this runs straight into a question of, is it right to have a fine issued without human intervention? Because some of the problems then become... what if my car was stolen? What if I'm speeding because there's a woman having a baby in the backseat? If a cop stops the car in those situations, they can offer support by recognising your car and being witness to who was driving, or in the latter case, calling an ambulance, and frequently the fine will be waived. Human crises do tend to get some laxity where the low is concerned, because other people tend to acknowledge them.
Here's another interesting note, even beyond the question of whether a device that reports on speeding and yellow lines can report on your location under the Patriot Act.... In Vermont, at least when i lived there two years ago, it was not illegal to cross a double yellow line unless there was a posted restriction saying so. The rest of the time, the cop might get you for recless endangerment, but the yellow lines officially meant, "Passing is not recommended in this area."
Point being, the states have enough law changes that some of those reported issues will not be applicale. Do they then get turned off? I'm treating all this as a hypothetical question, of course, and will look for the same story elsewhere before i treat it as otherwise. It reminds me of the debate over automatic-track cars, the ones which do the driving for you over an electric strip, etc. The question then was- if your car can automatically go where it's told, can there be stops to which you can't go? to which no one can go but a few select people? It was interesting then, and it's interesting now. Not enough to make me put together a tinfoil hat, but interesting nonetheless.
technical issues (Score:5, Interesting)
if you have GPS that can calculate speed, check it against your speedometer and you will see what I mean. (I didn't believe this either, till one of my friends used his GPS to prove it. Also, it would likely depend on how fine a resolution and how quickly your GPS refreshes... however, I am not a GPS expert by any means, esp since googling produces various opinions. some say that it's the error in the speedometer, some say it's intentional error in the [ridingaz.info] GPS [roadfly.org])
Monitoring people, in my opinion, seems a very untrusting way to do business. It automatically assumes that the observed need to be closely watched, creating a rather suspect environment. (I won't start screaming big brother, don't worry. You can argue this without invoking Orwell)
I don't know how the UK relys on speeding tickets as sources of income, but I am reminded of a story from florida [wtev.com]. AAA near a florida town put up signs 6 miles outside the city that warned motorists of the 'speed trap' ahead in order to keep the speeding down. The local cops said that the signs were not allowed. Their reason? Revenues due to speeders were going down. In short, people were slowing down. You would think the cops would have been happy, right? No, they were upset because they claimed that they received 40% of the town budget and 105% of the police budget through fines. So, basically, they publically stated that they wanted people to speed. yea, yea, I know that's obvious, but I never dreamed in a million years that they would actually admit it. And what baffled me further was that hardly anyone cared! Their attitude was, "Of course that's why they don't want the signs there" instead of "isn't it outrageous that the cops actually admitted that!!"
My point of relating this story is, if the UK is simply doing this to generate new revenue, it's a very very shady deal. I think it reeks of greed and a dash of corruption, the privacy issues set aside. Also, what about those times when you *have* to speed? perhaps a car comes barralling down the road behind you and you need a quick burst of speed to avoid a collision? What about passing (overtaking). yea, I know you aren't supposed to go over the speed limit when you do that, but if you don't, passing is rather tough. I myself don't pass much, but when I do, I try to limit myself to 5mph over the speed limit.
-John
In two minds... (Score:3, Interesting)
With the police freed from having to book and deal with this minor stuff they can move more officers onto protecting and investigating more dangerous crimes. Why should the cops have to spend their days trying to bust these people? They know they are breaking the road code, they know there are fines, and now they want to whine about losing that ability. No sympathy from me.
The privacy nut in me wonders about infriging uses of the technology, but with proper legislation that should be kept well under control. Think about it: a hit and run occurs in a back street at 11PM, check the records to see which cars were there at the time and question the suspects. Check the database to see where those cars are now and make sure they're not heading for the airport.
There is the potential to abuse this system, but it also has the potential to streamline the administration of these motoring infractions. As long as they build a little tolerence into the system it will not be draconian.
Re:Why always in UK? (Score:2, Interesting)
Thing is, they've been on in the papers for ages about fitting tracking devices to cars here. There's been mutterings of discontent before, but the proposed schemes haven't been as oppressive as this beauty, which any sane person would object to (if it was actually possible to implement, which, let's face it, it isn't). Now this story will go away and in a couple of months something along these lines, but greatly diluted, will be mooted, and they'll gauge the reaction again then.
It's like the national identity card scheme. A proposal to implement one in the UK is brought forward in the middle of every term of parliament, regular as clockwork, and soon disappears again thanks to public opposition. The complaints are becoming fainter, though, and soon enough it'll be brought in, again in the middle of a parliamentary term when any damage that it does to support for the government can be reversed by a timely tax cut (it's a stone-cold fact that the only things that people in Britain actually care about are taxes and what's on the TV. Anything that happens beyond the bottom of their own garden doesn't matter as long as their taxes aren't paying for it).
I, for one, welcome our driving overlords (Score:3, Interesting)
First, there should be a little gray area built in. It would not be hard to write a routine that would compare specific events to your recorded driving habits and decide whether to issue a summons. For instance, if one regularly drives within the speed limit, but occassionally excededs the limit for a brief period of time in order to pass safely or avoid an unsafe driver, they should not be penalized. Drivers who regularly excede the speed limit should be penalized.
Second, I have no quam with ticketing the owner of a vehicle. They are fundamentally (and legally) responsible for its safe and lawful operation.
I used to live in an apartment complex near a major highway. When that highway backed up, many drivers would drive at highway speed through the streets around the complex in order to bypass the traffic jam. I have been struck twice crossing the street by people who ignored a stop sign, knowing that cops were almost never there. Anyone who has lived in an area with 1) lots of pedestrians and 2) lots of drivers who skirt the law knows the sense of danger and would welcome anything that would bring a consequence to these drivers.
Re:Inflexibility means brittle. (Score:2, Interesting)
I've always though that speed limits signs are generally well placed and visible.
A lot of drivers want to drive the speed limit, but often don't pay attention to what speed they are actually driving.
I realise that alot of drivers need to pay more attention to thier driving. Better control should help keep us all safe.
Hmmm. Didn't a bunch of Brits rebel once... (Score:3, Interesting)
I thought I heard that story once. Maybe today's Brits need to do the same thing, only in reverse -- put their lawmakers on a boat and give 'em the old heave-ho.
----
That said, you know, I'd *really* like to disable the air bag's "black box" in my own car. Anyone know how to take one of these out of a Pontiac?
With new laws (Score:2, Interesting)
Cameras in Austria (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Ever heard of OBD-III? (Score:3, Interesting)
In general, though, I agree - most cops are pretty reasonable over such things.
Re:Ever heard of OBD-III? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Inflexibility means brittle. (Score:3, Interesting)
I saw a couple in Colorado (Vail - where else of course?), and people really didn't know how to handle them, which makes them bad. And visiting other countries can be challenging too, such as France where I believe priority is given to those joining the roundabout, not those already on it.
Re:Inflexibility means brittle. (Score:4, Interesting)
On a side note, I wonder if the number of people speeding would crash the system on the first day. Government's never been known for getting more mundane computing system requirements right on the first try. That would be amusing.
Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt (Score:3, Interesting)
***But*** there are good reasons you should welcome this tech, if it should ever come to pass. One is, it's a step toward true metered insurance. If everything is recorded, we can dispense with this nonsense about traffic fines and just charge you a different insurance rate based on how safely you really drive. Good driving behavior could be rewarded, bad could be punished. Now if you are an unsafe driver, you won't like this because it you will have to change your driving habits. But good drivers everywhere will rejoice at the safer roads.
Once metered insurance is in place, we can have cars that drive themselves, with insurance based on how safe the car drives. We can't have them now due to liability issues and potential for greatly increased traffic.
Re:UK road stats (Score:3, Interesting)
My remedy to traffic problems would go like this:
1) FINISH THE FUCKING ROAD SYSTEM! Christ on a bike it's a fucking shambles! Every day I drive down the A40 in and out of London. Three lanes all the way EXCEPT for the two lane bridge that has been there - due for widening - for nearly FORTY YEARS. Finish the M23/A23. Finish the M4. Finish the A406. There are HUNDREDS of partially built major roads all over the country, and it's time they were finished so we can at least see if the original strategy had any merit.
2) Impose a separate (and punitive) testing and regulation system for private vehicles of over 2000Kg. Make School bus use COMPULSORY where applicable.
3) Toll new road projects to get them out of the meddling hands of government, and get blighted properties PROPERLY compensated as part of the road building business plan.
4) Enforce strict Diesel particulate limits in cities - STRONGLY encourage the use of hybrid / zero emission vehicles by public transport providers.
These four measures are really just the start of a realistic approach to road transport in the UK, with a ridiculous 4% of total journeys made by rail these days, it's even arguable that the whole rail system be shut down with the main and branch lines turned into roads.
Re:UK road stats (Score:2, Interesting)
However, policing with computers monitoring all the time is not a good idea - having road tax monitors in locations would be nice, as well as only having speed cameras in accident "blackspots" rather than places that will generate the most money. Put simply, the UK should look at statistics for certain roads, see how many injuries/deaths are occuring, and why, and take action, rather than just placing things to prevent illegal driving. What's better, to stop 10 cars for speeding at 45 in a 40 zone (ala the Ring Road in Nottingham) or to stop one person from getting killed on the local high street? I'd plump for the second.
Re:Inflexibility means brittle. (Score:3, Interesting)
Anyway , you could set it so that it disengages only at maximum throttle and for 30 seconds. If you *really* need to *really* go faster, then it's much more natural in an emergency situation to fully floor it then press a button. Yes, that will mean that some idiots will drive at full throttle, but also allows it to be overridden in the most natural way (as opposed to a button you have to press).
30 seconds of full throttle is a *long* time and a lot of distance too... probably at least two or three miles (starting from 60mph) , for most new cars.
And it's annoyingly hard to 'casually' speed when all you've got is full throttle / no throttle.
Re:Inflexibility means brittle. (Score:3, Interesting)
Ah, it's time for a little MLP...
A layman's description of why traffic backs up for no apparent reason and how to stop it [amasci.com].
An article about an actual German study on the the physics of gridlock [theatlantic.com].
UK road stats? Yeah right! (Score:2, Interesting)
Yeah, 3000 people may be killed in road accidents each year, and that may be a worse stat than for the rail system. So why aren't the same government, who are proposing these crackpot measures, *INVESTING IN RAIL TRAVEL - ESPECIALLY LIGHT RAILWAYS and TRAMS* - mass transport systems which would help to cut down on car use and cut down on motor accidents? Could it be because it's easier and more PROFITABLE to install speed cameras, toll roads, two-plus lanes and charging zones which do more to raise revenue than to actually address the problems of road usage?
I, for one, would be happy to use public transport, if it was reasonably cheap, convienient and available when I needed it - as a motor car is. I suspect the same applies to most drivers in the UK.
Idiot monitoring measures which force people to drive according to artificial conditions are designed for one thing and one thing only. TO RAISE REVENUE.
I won't be voting for Blair or that dunce Prescott next time, I can assure you.
Re:UK road stats - regular tests (Score:3, Interesting)
The Association of Chief Police Officers' official guideline for prosecution in speeding cases is that the vehicle was travelling at more than 10%+2mph over the speed limit. Why? Because if you tried to prosecute everyone who broke the absolute speed limit, the court system would grind to a halt.
Things like spy-in-the-car technology or speed limiters will fail for much the same reason, even if they're ever implemented successfully in the first place. Given that they can't even set up cameras in London that reliably detect people in the new congestion charging zones, there's not much danger of Big Brother sitting on my back seat any time soon.
of course you could just drive properly... (Score:2, Interesting)
Drivers in the UK feel put-upon for various reasons, like the high price of fuel (believe me, US citizens should not complain about fuel prices!), but the main reason that driving is an ordeal over here is the sheer number of cars/trucks/buses in a limited roadspace.
As it is, a great deal of the UK has been sacrificed to cars, and the cities almost entirely so. Building more roads is simply not an option in many places.
Cars themselves are cheaper than ever in the UK, thanks to the European Common Border Agreement, and there is an ever-rising number of cheap second-hand vehicles on the market.
The only way to limit pressure on the roads is to drive up the price of motoring, and a large increase in vehicle duty or fuel tax would be politically disadvantageous for any government, so other ways can be found. This being said, I do not see how the current government would think that imposing a compulsory electronic cop in every car would prove any more popular..
Motorists were (and remain) up in arms over the issue of radar-triggered cameras in well-known speeding blackspots, where transgressors receive fixed-penalty fines through the post after being photographed. The move was understandably described as 'a cynical revenue-generating ploy'.
While revenue was the main impetus to the deployment of these cameras, am I the only one who considers it alarming that drivers object to being forced to observe the speed limit? Driving faster greatly increases the likelihood of accident, especially in complex environments like UK cities (our cities were laid out a long time before cars came along). Running through red lights is even more likely to cause a disaster.
If the prospect of having your teeth forced into your oesophagus by your steering wheel isn't enough to make you drive responsibly, maybe a 30 fine is..
Of course, I travel by bus, so I don't give a fuck. I can read a book in peace while someone else deals with the road. More significantly, my vehicle weighs twelve and a half tons. Crash into me and I'm barely aware of it. You're fucked, airbag or not...
You all missed the point ... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:UK road stats (Score:3, Interesting)
I completely agree with this. I have found that I can safely do 95 on a motorway (erm, freeway for those of you over the atlantic) because I am focussing on what the other road users are doing. I put no thought into driving my car, into its speed, into changing gear or watching the speedometer. So I am far more alert, I get to slow down for traffic without having to brake (because I saw it from a distance), I often see when people are about to pull out in front of me and brake in advance so that I can brake gradually and safely rather than slam on the brakes as they swerve in front of me.
Compare all that to when I had to commute down to Brighton for a while, including the stretch of the M25 with variable speed limits.
For those of you that haven't encountered it, every couple of hundred yards along the three lane each way road there are LCD speed limit signs, which change the speed limit on the fly according to some magic (probably traffic flow). There are also speed cameras to ensure people stay within the speed limit.
I found that driving through those regions, most drivers were doing 5-10 miles/hour faster than the limit. So I had a choice:
- Stay at the same speed at the general traffic, and risk getting speeding fines and/or losing my licence
- watch the signs continually to find out what the speed limit is, and my speedometer continually to make sure I was within in.
I can't afford fines, and I can't commute to Brighton without my car (I don't consider a 3 hour train ride commuting, and don't even ask about busses) so losing my licence wasn't an option.
Net result: I spent all my time reading speed limit signs and my speedometer, and very little time actually watching the road, observing traffic, doing all those things that make someone safe on the road.
In short, speed cameras are bloody dangerous. I have no confidence in perpetual monitoring being any safer.
~Cederic