Stealth tax

[Dan B]

If we're going down the route of technical solutions to social problems, a "braking distance enforcer" would be technically a whole lot simpler and probably more useful than a speed limiter anyway. And it could easily be funded by insurance companies: "we will reduce your premiums if you fit this device: your cover will be invalid if we find you've tampered with it"

 

[BentMikey]

I think RT has a good point. The disadvantage with many of these automated systems is that they tend to cause a lower reliance on and quite likely a real drop in police presence. I think both the automated systems and the police presence are needed.

 

[Defy78]

If we're going down the route of technical solutions to social problems, a "braking distance enforcer" would be technically a whole lot simpler and probably more useful than a speed limiter anyway. And it could easily be funded by insurance companies: "we will reduce your premiums if you fit this device: your cover will be invalid if we find you've tampered with it"

Sounds like a good idea but not sure how that would work!? Would it let you park for instance? Also would it be car specific (i.e. depend on actual breaking distance of the car and not a generic average breaking distance?). Are we talking about a rediculously long range parking sensor or something else? Would that work? What sort of power would you need to work it? How accurate would it be? Just wondering is all

 

[Rhythm Thief]

I don't know. The steps people have to consider to control those who won't control themselves.

Amazing, isn't it? And it's part of my objection to technological solutions: it does nothing to make people realise that speeding is an antisocial thing to do. Until you can make people slow down because they recognise that it's simply a good thing to do - and you'll never make everyone think that way - you'll bever crack it. People will find ways around physical speed limiters, or at least feel resentful enough about them to drive badly in other ways, like a spoiled child destroying his toys in a fit of petulance when he's not allowed his own way. This doesn't strike me as a great way to ensure road safety.

 

[Davidc]

Regardless of the technical feasibility of GPS speed control, I'm still not convinced it's actually desirable...... I don't think compulsory limiting is quite the trouble free solution that a few on here seem to think it is.

I don't want it compulsory, what I want is to have it optional like it is now, with the automatin able to adjust it.

Much better that people chose to use it because speeding has become as socially aceptable as extortion or robbery.

 

[Rhythm Thief]

I don't want it compulsory, what I want is to have it optional like it is now, with the automatin able to adjust it.

Much better that people chose to use it because speeding has become as socially aceptable as extortion or robbery.

Now that I absolutely agree with. It would remove the (frankly ridiculous) argument which goes "Speed cameras cause accidents. Since they were introduced, I have to drive everywhere with my eyes glued to the speedo".

 

[BentMikey]

Oh I don't know - right now anyone almost everone speeds. Just because technological solutions have holes doesn't make them a bad choice. They are not the only limiting factor out on the roads.

What would you rather have instead - everything down to the man/woman in the driving seat? That's clearly not a good solution.

 

[Dan B]

Sounds like a good idea but not sure how that would work!? Would it let you park for instance? Also would it be car specific (i.e. depend on actual breaking distance of the car and not a generic average breaking distance?). Are we talking about a rediculously long range parking sensor or something else? Would that work? What sort of power would you need to work it? How accurate would it be? Just wondering is all

Well, it's just handwaving so I can't answer detailed questions, but look at e.g.
http://www.ramseyelectronics.com/cgi-bin/commerce.exe?preadd=action&key=SG7 for an idea of what could be achieved at relatively small cost.

It would prevent you from parking so fast that you couldn't stop before hitting the bumper of the car in front, but I think that's probably a feature not a bug...

 

[thomas]

Sounds like a good idea but not sure how that would work!? Would it let you park for instance? Also would it be car specific (i.e. depend on actual breaking distance of the car and not a generic average breaking distance?). Are we talking about a rediculously long range parking sensor or something else? Would that work? What sort of power would you need to work it? How accurate would it be? Just wondering is all

Look at one of the new Volvos (I forget which), but it has a sensor as part of a cruise control type system for motorway use, so that if a car pulls in your lane, it will slow the car down to keep a sensible gap. It was shown on Top Gear a few series ago. The main problem being, the system used the car's brakes, rather than just easing off for a bit which would be much better.

 

[Norm]

Can you imagine how poor lane discipline would become if you knew that you could change lanes on someone and their car would keep them off your tail?

 

[thomas]

Can you imagine how poor lane discipline would become if you knew that you could change lanes on someone and their car would keep them off your tail?

I think that's the problem with all these types of technologies. Modern cars, with automatic wipers and automatic lights....give it a couple generations and people will be driving around at night, with their lights off...not because bulbs are gone, but because the automatic sensors broken, they don't know how to turn their lights on themselves

Lane discipline already seems quite bad at the moment. People in the outside lanes unnecessarily.

 

[Rhythm Thief]

Can you imagine how poor lane discipline would become if you knew that you could change lanes on someone and their car would keep them off your tail?

That's the problem with all technology based solutions. The answer has to lie in making drivers better, rather than making them redundant.

 

[Defy78]

Well, it's just handwaving so I can't answer detailed questions, but look at e.g.
http://www.ramseyelectronics.com/cgi-bin/commerce.exe?preadd=action&key=SG7 for an idea of what could be achieved at relatively small cost.

It would prevent you from parking so fast that you couldn't stop before hitting the bumper of the car in front, but I think that's probably a feature not a bug...

That does kinda look like a long range parking sensor (with built in speed radar). I guess if you hook it up to a control unit it would work not sure I would want one though, but maybe I'm just too confident in my driving ability .

Thomas, now you mention it I do remember the top gear bit, also we have cars like the lexus that has face recognition and gives a loud beep if the drivers head drops (i.e. falling asleep). Like you say I wouldn't want to be reliant on these technologies to drive though. I also remember a top gear bit where they were testing car (a BMW I think) in Germany. The car had a similar system and would stop you hitting a car in front in the fog / poor vis. The car set off got to a reasonable speed went into the fog and promptly crashed into a car set up there for the test. Reason, they forgot to turn on the sensor system, doh! Now, I see cars pass me at break neck speeds into fog when they don't have this system, what if they did and trusted it and it failed...wouldn't want to be the car infront going at a sensable speed for the conditions would you

 

[Dan B]

That's the problem with all technology based solutions.

Risk compensation. It's a problem even with fairly low-tech technology

But Buckley, an insurance executive, confesses his own weakness for Blackberry and Bluetooth. He feels compelled to conduct business by phone and e-mail on long, lonely drives between his offices in Rocky Mount and Nags Head.
“That’s more than two hours,” said Buckley, 49. “I’m not just going to sit there in the car. I get a lot of work done on that straight, dead stretch of U.S. 64.
“And if I run off the road, there are rumble strips that divert me back onto the road. That has happened occasionally. They seem to work, those rumble strips.”

http://www.howwedrive.com/2010/01/29/rumble-strips-and-risk-compensation/

 

[thomas]

Thomas, now you mention it I do remember the top gear bit, also we have cars like the lexus that has face recognition and gives a loud beep if the drivers head drops (i.e. falling asleep). Like you say I wouldn't want to be reliant on these technologies to drive though. I also remember a top gear bit where they were testing car (a BMW I think) in Germany. The car had a similar system and would stop you hitting a car in front in the fog / poor vis. The car set off got to a reasonable speed went into the fog and promptly crashed into a car set up there for the test. Reason, they forgot to turn on the sensor system, doh! Now, I see cars pass me at break neck speeds into fog when they don't have this system, what if they did and trusted it and it failed...wouldn't want to be the car infront going at a sensable speed for the conditions would you

Hadn't heard about that lexus but I certainly believe it. I remember that bmw too...blooming funny!!! Like you said, these technologies make drivers too reliant on them.