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."
Inflexibility means brittle. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Inflexibility means brittle. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Inflexibility means brittle. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Inflexibility means brittle. (Score:5, Insightful)
now, at the age of 70, would you be physically able to drive a car? thats a different question.
Re:Inflexibility means brittle. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Inflexibility means brittle. (Score:5, Funny)
so your car has an advance/retard lever? or a choke? even if you're in that minority in the US that has a clutch and gearstick, i doubt you have to double clutch to change gears because you don't have a synchromesh gearbox. or use different coolants for summer and winter. or regularly have to repair tires because they puncture so often.
Re:Inflexibility means brittle. (Score:3, Informative)
most of those havent bee around since 20's vintage cars...
Re:Inflexibility means brittle. (Score:5, Funny)
Judging by some of the idiots I regularly see on the road, their cars MUST have a retard lever on them, since they have a retard behind the wheel.
Re:Inflexibility means brittle. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Inflexibility means brittle. (Score:3, Interesting)
I saw a couple in Colorado (Vail - where else of course?), and people really didn't
Re:Inflexibility means brittle. (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with the new system, apart from its Orwellian intrusion into people's lives, is that it only monitors a limited selection of behaviors that define good driving.
Most of us have been in the situation where someone is a technically qualified driver - stops when they're supposed to, never exceeds the speed limit, etc. - but they can be among the more dangerous people on the road because they can act without much regard for other drivers, for the flow of traffic. Some of these correct but oblivious drivers don't actually become involved in an accident for every dangerous situation they create; but there cases where other drivers get into the accidents.
I think periodic tests are sufficient, but full time monitoring is overly instrusive and, though it will cut down some on the number of accidents, it will not completely eliminate the problem of bad drivers.
Re:Inflexibility means brittle. (Score:4, Informative)
By tapping the breaks and then moving on, you can cause a "traffic wave" of stopped traffic that can last for quite some time.
Visit http://www.amasci.com/amateur/traffic/traffic1.ht
He says at one point: When traffic is heavy and unstable, slight braking by a single driver can cause the traffic to freeze into a gigantic crystal. Like Kurt Vonnegut's end of the world story CAT'S CRADLE it's the "Ice Nine" of the highways.
UK road stats (Score:4, Informative)
Hence, I'm in favour of virtually ANY regulation of motorists. Nobody has a god-given right to carry themselves about in two tons of steel - especially in a small and crowded country like the UK with an adequate public transport infrastructure.
As to "driving at 35 when the limit is 30"... in any case, either of those speeds is too fast on urban UK roads. We have a much higher level of pedestrian (and cyclist) activity than the US, especially in towns. There's also a massive problem with illegaly-owned, uninsured cars and people driving them without the proper license.
Anyways, to finish on a more
Re:UK road stats (Score:5, Insightful)
Every advanced driving course you can go on will teach you about appropriate use of speed. If I'm overtaking a slower moving vehicle on a single carriageway road the safest thing for me to do is overtake as quickly as possible, speedlimit be damned. They call it "time exposed to danger" for a reason. In your ideal little world I would have to stick to the letter of the speed limit, which would increase the danger to me, the vehicle I'm overtaking and other road users.
Do you honestly believe that people fixating on the precise speed they are doing, staring at their speedometers, at least when they aren't looking out for the next speed camera, are driving safely? I've given up, now I drive to a speed reasonable for the road conditions, my vehicles condition and capabilities, and my level of alertness. Sometimes that means I'm over the limit, sometimes I'm under. I spend my time looking out of the window where I'm going, or in my mirrors, where my eyes should be, not fixed to the speedo. The only times I actually look at the speedo is when there is a speed camera. Now, ask yourself again, would you rather be on a road where everyone is spending more time looking at their speedos than the road ahead, or one where everyone was paying attention to their driving? We seem to be heading rapidly towards a society where the latter is in prevelance.
What the government should be going on about is increasing driver training. If you really want to reduce accidents on the roads every driver should have to take a practical test every 5 years (say). By this I do not mean a little 20 minute drive, I mean a really good, in depth examination of your driving skills. If you fail then you have to go on a course of some kind to sort things out, you have say 6 months to complete this and take the test again (perhaps an abbreviated one).
You can pick up bad driving habits even without realising it. Take me, I considered myself a good driver, I've been on a number of driving courses (off road, rallying, track sessions, skid pans), yet I went out on a "Performance Road Car" course and got picked up for a number of bad habits. None serious, but enough to make me stop and re-evaluate my driving style again. Look at what real "Advanced Drivers" (see http://www.iam.org.uk/ [iam.org.uk]) go through, and you will realise that these guys are an order of magnitude better drivers than most people on the roads. I'd rather be in a car with one of these guys at 120MPH than most people at 60MPH.
None of this is rocket science, none of it is surely beyond the whit of anyone of average intelligence, yet the Government hasn't ever made even a single move in this direction. The reasons for this are plain, to do the above, whilst very clearly achieving their stated objective of improving road safety, does nothing to line their own pockets. So instead they focus on the mantra of speed, because this means they can tax^H^H^H fine motorists easily and cheaply. That this has been shown to have very little effect on accident rates, and indeed some speed cameras INCREASE the local accident rate, is brushed off. Actually genuinely improving road safety in any reasonable manner would actually cost them money, so they aren't interested.
The same is true when it comes to
Re:Inflexibility means brittle. (Score:3, Insightful)
Is this the kind of nation you would want to live in? To have a mechanical god tell you how to behave? Why not just castrate us now, so there will be no more rapes? And while they're at it, cut off my ears, so I can't listen to any more
Re:Inflexibility means brittle. (Score:4, Funny)
With a good radar detector...you don't have to pay attention to the speed limits...
Re:Inflexibility means brittle. (Score:5, Insightful)
Might not be such a bad thing, we might wind up with more sensible speed laws then.
Then again, this also seems to be proof that speed laws, etc. are just revenue genrating devices and a means to give the police reason to pull over "profile" folks (ie DWB-Driving while black, and now, DWA-Driving while Arab). IF they really wanted to keep cars from speeding, they'd make the sensors work the other way, tell the car not to exceed 100kph or whatever, and a simple rev-limiter/electronic throttle would maintain the speed.
Soon after they could build us the little matrix-tubes where we could live out our lives in government mandated safety.
Re:Inflexibility means brittle. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not so sure. Although the US moved to greatly increase enforcement of drug laws, we haven't yet wound up with more sensible drug laws. All we got were more jails with more people in them. More draconian laws do not necessarily produce an effective backlash.
Re:Inflexibility means brittle. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Inflexibility means brittle. (Score:5, Insightful)
This proposal is not merely a strict regulation on driving, it is (theoretically) the perfect mechanism for citations. Presumably it will give you a citation for each and every violation of a traffic law. It is the equivalent of putting a government mandated sensor in your body that phones home every time it detects illegal chemicals in your body.
Once drivers realize how often they break the laws and how much it costs them, they will demand a change in the law. The only way to avoid this would be to have the prosecutor choose to not prosecute most people, like the police currently choose to not pull over most violations they witness. However, a traffic officer has at least some leeway to decide the dangerousness of a particular violation as he witnesses it; a prosecutor after the fact won't have nearly as much insight. The end result would be enormously unfair, and I am not sure if even the government has enough spin power to make people ignore 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.
Re:Inflexibility means brittle. (Score:5, Insightful)
>laws.
Drug laws still only criminalize a minority of the population, despite the fact that pot smokers want to believe everybody supports reform.
However, if you managed something like 100% enforcement for speeding (and made the punishment for speeding HARSH, such as civil forfeiture of your vehicle!) you might finally tip the scale where the average person is willing to take on the lawful authority with whatever implement of destruction is available to him.
If they don't get pissed enough to start a revolution, they might at least get pissed enough to start voting.
Re:Inflexibility means brittle. (Score:4, Insightful)
Also, it could be argued that forcibly controlling a car's speed violates your freedoms. With this scheme, you're free to speed if you want, but be prepared to pay the consequences
Re:Inflexibility means brittle. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Inflexibility means brittle. (Score:4, Funny)
If you need to drive an injured person to the hospital or something like that, there could be an emergency switch that disables the limiter completely. After that emergency you would need to get the limiter reenabled by the local police and you would get a ticket if your emergency was something like oversleept and didn't want to be late.
Re:Inflexibility means brittle. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, good solution.
Speeding is demonised unnecessarily (Score:3, Insightful)
Even the police recognise that speeding contributes to a tiny fraction, some 7% of accidents, the overwhelming factors being bad driving; Poor observation, poor judgement, thoughtlessness and inattention.
http://www.ringroad.org.uk/one_third.htm
Why is speeding demonised in this way? It's easy
Re:Inflexibility means brittle. (Score:5, Insightful)
This is an insanely stupid idea. There are times when you need to speed up to get out of a dangerous situation. For example, I was once driving down the highway, and this guy in the lane next to me (obviously drunk) was weaving in and out of lanes, and other cars had to swerve to avoid him. In that case, the safest place to be is in front of him, not behind him. However, I was already going 65mph (the speed limit) and was in one of the left hand lanes, so I couldn't safely slow down enough to get behind him. So I had to speed up to 75 to pass him and some other cars, and then slow back down to normal speed. And about 15 minutes later, there was a five car pileup, caused by this guy (I found this out on the news when I got home).
Also, how is such a device going to be regulated? Will it "know" what the speed limit is? How will it enforce it? If I'm on a highway where it's 65, and then it drops to 55 in a populated area (which is not at all uncommon), will it slam on the brakes until the car gets down to 55? That's a great way to get rear-ended.
Even if the device is smart enough to know what the speed limit is at all times, I'm not sure I want something like that in control of my car's accelerator. I was in a car once where the computer malfunctioned and the fuel-injector was locked full-on. This is equivalent to flooring the accelerator. Fortunately, this happened on an empty street, but had I been in stop and go traffic, or in a parking lot next to a building, I'd probably be dead.
A car is, like anything else, something which can be used for good or evil. It's up to the operator to decide which they choose. You wouldn't want a program on your computer preventing you from using it to copy MP3s, or view pr0n, or read communist newsletters, would you? Why would you want a device on your car preventing you from exceeding the speed limit when necessary?
Re:Inflexibility means brittle. (Score:3, Informative)
If there were to be *any* speed enforcement, I think that this is the best way.
As for "tell the car not to exceed 100kph or whatever, and a simple rev-limiter/electronic throttle would maintain the speed", almost all busses have what they call a governor that if you exceed 65mph, the
Re:Inflexibility means brittle. (Score:5, Funny)
much more flexible...
Good website for UK drivers... (Score:5, Informative)
Ever heard of OBD-III? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Ever heard of OBD-III? (Score:4, Informative)
well, no, actually. your speedometer is not a perfectly accurate guage of your speed. this is already understood by law-enforcement which is why they only issue you tickets for going substantially over the speed limit. it is very easy to argue in court that your speedomoter was miscalibrated slightly...
in canada, your speedometer has to be accurate to within ten percent by law.
Remember, cops are just like you and me... (Score:3, Informative)
You know what? They don't want to have to work any harder than they have to, just like the rest of us, and they certainly don't like to 'work in vain'. That is, give a citation, or make an arrest, just to see it not hold up in court because they had some detail out of line.
How would you like spending weeks shoring up and securing a server, only to see a hacker get in because you overlooked a minor
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:3, Informative)
In fact, the new cell phones are supposed to have GPS capability soon. I wonder how long it will be before somebody comes up with a little self-adhesive foil "patch" that can be applied over the GPS antenna to block the signal (assuming that the GPS antenna is separate from the phone antenna -- which is likely). If you do nee
Paranoia (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Ever heard of OBD-III? (Score:3, Insightful)
If there are United States citizens actually advocating a system like this, then they need to step aside, take a deep breath, and study the history of the USA and a bit of literature to put their zealotry into perspective. People who want systems like this are the real criminals towards humanity
HAHAHA "The Sun" lies (Score:5, Informative)
They frequently lie and make up stupid stories.
Don't believe a word of it.
Re:HAHAHA "The Sun" lies (Score:5, Informative)
If you've written that after watching Fox news, then you are seriously deluded. Basically, in the US, newspapers provide balanced coverage while TV news unashamedly chases ratings by being populist and biased. In the UK, TV coverage is balanced (by law) while newspapers generally take a political slant. Given that most people get their news from the TV, I'd say the British system results in a better educated public.
This is especially true since there's little diversity of viewpoints even on US TV - the choice seems to be between rightwing and very rightwing - and very few genuinely national newspapers, meaning that "balanced" coverage is whatever the NY Times prints. In the UK, on the other hand, in addition to the balanced coverage provided by the numerous TV news stations, the presence of 10 national newspapers all with different political points of view, from unashamedly liberal to unashamedly neo-con, means that at least you're generally aware of other points of view, even if you don't subscribe to them.
And anyway, nobody reads tabloid newspapers for the news. That's why they have to put a half-naked girl on page 3...
Also means realistic changes required (Score:4, Informative)
Wrong (Score:4, Insightful)
You pass a lot of laws and then you enforce those laws against "them". "They" are whatever group of people needs to be controlled, minimalized, or put down. In the USA, some of these groups are blacks, homosexuals, and conservative Republicans.
The correct answer is to repeal the laws and replace them with "guidelines". If most traffic laws were repealed, would you start intentionally hitting other cars or pedestrians? I wouldn't.
If my car told someone I was bad at keeping within the "guidelines" and I got a letter saying "Please do a better job!", would that be a threat? No.
Freedom is the only correct answer to most of these questions.
The Sun (Score:5, Insightful)
Implied: why bother linking to any of their crap?
Re:The Sun (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:The Sun (Score:5, Funny)
It's a dark day for all of us. :-(
Re:The Sun (Score:5, Insightful)
In sun think:
ID cards good: keep foreign scum out of the country
Car IDs bad: stop you driving properly and spy on what you do
They have their audience and respond to how they think. They have no consistent viewpoint on civil liberties, they just lisen to their masters voice.
Re:The Sun (Score:5, Funny)
However (Score:3, Informative)
Where's Wesley Snipes when you need him? (Score:5, Funny)
am I missing something? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:am I missing something? (Score:5, Insightful)
They'd spend billions before realising that it won't work as a concept, car thieves routinely circumvent it and the law hasn't caught up to the idea of RFID tagging as evidence. FWIW, quite a large number of traffic lights in this country are already equipped with cameras, and we have several hundred 'GATSO' cameras by the roadside. Unfortunately they don't provide identification of the driver, just the car and by inference the owner, but they can't prove the driver. A small loophole.
The other problem is that in 2000, they granted the police wide ranging powers to request information of telecommunications providers...we're still waiting for the rules governing the requests to actually be written.
The current labour government has a track record of trying to lever itself into the position of being a data nexus...the largest personal identification database is run by Envision for TV licensing, but it's not actually registered with the Data Protection registrar. As a result, I don't trust the UK government to actually get stuff right.
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:am I missing something? (Score:5, Insightful)
just so that big brother can a.) fine me for going a little over the speed limit ...
b.) can years hence accurately tell where I am right now or where I was on a certain date at certain time.
You know, Bob, I usually don't fuck up bad on the road but hey...
Get the F out... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Get the F out... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Get the F out... (Score:3, Insightful)
or example:
Traveling in the bus lane for more than 5 minutes.
or staying above the speed limit for more than 15 minutes, or failing to slow down for a speed zone.
I totally agree with you that this would be a total bullshit invasion of privacy, I am just saying there are probably lesss problems with actually implimenting it than you let on.
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:Get the F out... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Get the F out... (Score:4, Funny)
Sensors. (Score:3, Interesting)
Screw Thy Neighbor! (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a reason human beings do this in the US- one because it's always open to interpretation, and two- we have to have a job like traffic cop for the jerks in our society.
Dutch minister: Curse control (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Dutch minister: Curse control (Score:4, Funny)
Rob.
The Sun in perspective (Score:5, Informative)
Rob.
Re:The Sun in perspective (Score:5, Informative)
(reg req'd)The Informer: a car that will tell the police everything [timesonline.co.uk]
AA gives green light to spy-in-car proposal [theherald.co.uk]
That's why (Score:3, Funny)
Re:That's why (Score:3, Informative)
they plan to add the chip to cars during their MOT..
Credentials of the source (Score:5, Informative)
Handy guide to the UK press (Score:5, Funny)
Jim Hacker: "Don't tell me about the press. I know exactly who reads the papers:
- The Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country;
- The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country;
- The Times is read by people who actually do run the country;
- The Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country;
- The Financial Times is read by people who own the country;
- The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country;
- And the Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it is."
Sir Humphrey: "Prime Minister, what about the people who read the Sun?"
Bernard Woolley: "Sun readers don't care who runs the country, as long as she's got big tits."
Heh (Score:3, Interesting)
Uh huh (Score:4, Insightful)
At any rate, you have the right to a day in court, and to face your accuser. Unless this tattler box can show up to testify against you, your case will be thrown out.
So once again some loudmouth says something stupid or sarcastic, and the Sun jumps all over it like its the next big story. Those guys are almost as bad as slashdot when it comes to fact checking.
The Sun (Score:5, Informative)
They also have severe disagreements with the government and are not above lying to score political points.
This might be true, but a second and more reputable source would be better.
As long as it is fairly balanced by... (Score:3, Funny)
So if you rights are violated, you will get a fat settlement check in the mail automatically as well.
Eventually we all will have "legal bots" fighting each other in the depths of the Legal Network.
Good Evening Sir... (Score:4, Funny)
Sure Son, here, Take my car.
A grain of salt... (Score:5, Informative)
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.
I don't know about the UK but in the US... (Score:5, Insightful)
This shop would produce circumvention kits, which would be banned from import, yet be strangely available via flea markets, and some "grey-area" mail order catalogs.
It would eventually require the continual inspection of automobiles to verify that the devices haven't been circumvented. And in the US, a car has become so much part of the identity of "being American", that people would consider even inspecting the system an attack on their civil liberties.
But then again, should the US Gov. indicate that it is necessary because suspected terrorists could be using vechiles (aka cars) to plan their next grocery store outing, I'd fully expect it to pass with full approval.
Cynical? No! Not me! hahahahaha....
Other coverage (Score:4, Informative)
However, similar articles have been in the broadsheets over here:
The Times [timesonline.co.uk]
BBC News [bbc.co.uk]
The Observer [guardian.co.uk] (this one slightly older)
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.
Some concrete info. (Score:4, Informative)
There is currently an EU wide project looking into Electronic Vehicle Identification. ACPO (the UK's association of chief police officers) is just one [inro.tno.nl] of the bodies involved:
"Ministries of Transport of Belgium, France, the Netherlands, Norway and the UK, as well as ACPO (UK), KLPD (Netherlands), RDW (Netherlands), Q-Free (Norway), EFKON (Austria), TNO (Netherlands), ERTICO."
(Hardly a pet project of Blairs then?) I think the report referred to is this one [ertico.com] which is part of a requirements gathering exercise, not a policy document. Here's a one of the requirements (Section 5, User Needs):
"The issues of privacy, safety, and security must be clear and understandable if the public are to have any confidence in the system. ("Big Brother" concerns by invasion of privacy by authorities)"
I don't think much of Blair and the lickspittles he has running the country just now, but the Sun is just about the bottom of the journalistic barrel, you might want to read the report and judge for yourself.
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
Re:technical issues (Score:3, Insightful)
Wait, lemme get this straight: you saw the speed jumping up and down on the GPS display, and you thought the SPEEDO was wrong? Did you feel the car jerking back and forth at the time? Or could you not tell because you were so high on crack?
You got it backwards: if you want your ground speed from your GPS, you n
About Time... (Score:4, Informative)
The speed limit here (in Toronto, Canada) is 100 KPH.
All cars have speedometers that go to 180 KPH and higher.
People actually drive 120 KPH on the highway
-and-
The speed limit is an "absolute". If you're over, you are breaking the law.
Not only should there be sensors, but cars should have governors. The law *is* the law. If you don't like the law, vote and have your representative *change* the law.
However, if I get pulled over for driving 120 KPH, and all other highway traffic was doing the same speed, I feel that I should be able to forward the ticket to the automobile manufacturer for criminal facilitation. Because I can't, I feel that there is a de-facto conspiracy for raising taxes. (Note: In my entire driving "career" I have had only one speeding ticking, and no other infractions. I was not paying close attention to my speed, the highway was empty, and I was ticketed for 120KPH. No, the car did not have a cruise control, or I would have used it).
So, I not only want *detectors*, I want *governors*. Since we have the means, why should I pay tickets? The stated reason is safety (or gridlock prevention, or somesuch public good), and I presume that government officials aren't lying.
Ratboy
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.
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.
Great Idea! (Score:5, Insightful)
If they approve after that, we can extend it to the peons.
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?
Have a neighbor you dislike? (Score:5, Funny)
1. Steal his car one night
2. Drive around like a madman for 30 minutes
3. Park it back in his driveway
4. Watch the hijinks ensue when the police cart him away.
Be sure to wear gloves and leave no DNA. He'll never be able to prove it wasn't him.
another blackmarket opportunity (Score:3, Insightful)
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:And I thought red light cameras were a nuisance (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:And I thought red light cameras were a nuisance (Score:3, Informative)
Clear to the eye, but the cameras can't get your license #.
Now if they've got a film you can put on your windows to do the same I don't know.
Re:And I thought red light cameras were a nuisance (Score:3, Informative)
For example just because your plate isn't distinguishable in the image doesn't mean it's indistinguishable when the image has been inversed! Pretty cool stuff. "for some reason" light gray on white is easier to read than black on dark gray. ;)
Re:And I thought red light cameras were a nuisance (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:And I thought red light cameras were a nuisance (Score:3, Informative)
It can when the yellow length is deliberately shortened [geocities.com] to induce violations. The real solution is to increase the yellow length [motorists.org], assuming the goal is to prevent accidents and not generate revenue.
Re:And I thought red light cameras were a nuisance (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, red lights should be consistent. I've seen areas where the yellow light lasts less time than others. If you're unaware of how long the light will be yellow, you might inadvertantly enter the intersection right after it turns red, which can be construed as a violation.
Yellow lights should be required by law to all
Cameras in Austria (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Issue (Score:5, Informative)
I *think* the initials are "Ministry of Transport", but that's not directly relevant.
In the UK, if your car is over three years old, you must get a certificate of roadworthiness, issued by a certified test centre, once a year. The certificate is an "MOT Certificate" and the test is an "MOT Test".
Driving without an MOT or insurance is illegal, and you have to present both your MOT and your insurance certificate in order to get a tax disk, without which you're bound to get stopped and fined (or worse) eventually.
The article is suggesting that adding the necessary tech would be mandatory in order to pass the test.
Re:Why always in UK? (Score:4, Insightful)
1. Junior minister "leaks" proposal to, for example, tattoo barcodes on the heads of all babies at birth.
2. Liberal press goes hysterical.
3. Senior Minister / Prime Minister denies all.
4. Liberal Press claims victory.
5. Meanwhile, government slips in bill to, for example, tattoo barcodes on some babies' heads.
6. GOTO 1