Would You Let The Government Control the Speed of Your Vehicle?

[Unassisted]

Drivers in London are weighing whether to do this in exchange for reduced highway tolls.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...678707,00.html

Forget cameras - spy device will cut drivers’ speed by satellite
Dipesh Gadher, Transport Correspondent
IT IS the ultimate back seat driver. Motorists face having their cars fitted with a “spy” device that stops speeding. The satellite-based system will monitor the speed limit and apply the brakes or cut out the accelerator if the driver tries to exceed it. A government-funded trial has concluded that the scheme promotes safer driving.

Drivers in London could be among the first to have the “speed spy” devices fitted. They would be offered a discount on the congestion charge if they use the system.

The move follows a six-month trial in Leeds using 20 modified Skoda Fabias, which found that volunteer drivers paid more attention as well keeping to the speed limit. More than 1,000 lives a year could be saved if the system was fitted to all Britain’s cars, say academics at Leeds University, who ran the trial on behalf of the Department for Transport (DfT).

It is part of a two-year research project into “intelligent speed adaptation” (ISA), which the department is funding at a cost of £2m. Results of the initial trial will be presented to ministers this week.

A study commissioned by London’s transport planners has recommended that motorists who install it should be rewarded with a discount on the congestion charge, which tomorrow rises to £8 a day.

The trial Skodas were fitted with a black box containing a digital map identifying the speed limits of every stretch of road in Leeds. A satellite positioning system tracked the cars’ locations.

The device compared the car’s speed with the local limit — displayed on the dashboard — and sent a signal to the accelerator or brake pedal to slow if it was too fast. The system can be overridden to avoid a hazard.

“The trials have been incredibly successful,” said Oliver Carsten, project leader and professor of transport safety at Leeds University.

The DfT says it has no plans to make speed limiters mandatory but admits that it is considering creating a digital map of all Britain’s roads which would pave the way for a national ISA system.

Edmund King, of the RAC Foundation, said limiters might make motorists less alert: “If you take too much control away the driver could switch on to autopilot.”

[RBA]

The military tried something like this back in the 80's, it was called a governor. I hated the damn thing.

[SunDeck]

The military tried something like this back in the 80's, it was called a governor. I hated the damn thing.

Had one on a truck I drove for Edelmanns. Hated it. I can see the point, but I wonder how it would deal with those situations where you decide to jump up to 80mph so that you can get around a truck and keep that ---hole in the BMW behind you from getting stuck in your tailpipe?

[Reds Nd2]

The military tried something like this back in the 80's, it was called a governor. I hated the damn thing.

North Carolina tried it too, but they called theirs a senator. John Edwards, I believe. Slowed down all forward progress.

Now that was meant as nothing more than a lame joke. Please, I hope no one takes offense. It wasn't intended that way at all. Just a play off RBA's post and trying to get a chuckle out of everyone.

To answer the question seriously, no I wouldn't want to allow the government any more control over my life than they already have, which is entirely too much in my opinion.

[RedsBaron]

No way.
Now if they come up with a way of putting it on my vehicles a couple of years from now when my sons begin to drive, I'd consider it!

[Ravenlord]

i don't think it would work in this country. the state/county are far too reliant on the income of the tickets issued.

[WVRed]

Can you imagine the wrecks?

[Johnny Footstool]

I wouldn't mind if the kill switches were set at 80 mph -- high enough to give you a chance to pass someone on the highway. Of course, if they were set that high, then why have them at all?

I'm in favor of remote speed cameras and video monitoring, though. I shouldn't be prevented from speeding, but if I *choose* to speed, I'll suffer the consequences.

[zombie-a-go-go]

I shouldn't be prevented from speeding, but if I *choose* to speed, I'll suffer the consequences.

You just said you shouldn't be prevented from breaking the law.

Funny.

[zombie-a-go-go]

Huh.

Amusing... if people actually obeyed speed limits and laws of the road, I don't imagine this would even be an issue.

Me, I wouldn't care at all. Give me a five mph cushion and I'm good to go. As for the passing argument.... if you've got to break the speed limit to pass another vehicle, maybe you don't need to pass them. Crazy-talk, I know.

[Johnny Footstool]

You just said you shouldn't be prevented from breaking the law.

Yeah. Free will and all that. If you catch me in the act, then punish me and I'll accept the consequences.

You shouldn't get a ticket for "attempted speeding."

Murder is illegal. Planning a murder is illegal. But that doesn't mean I should be prevented from owning guns, knives, bludgeons, etc.

[zombie-a-go-go]

Yeah. Free will and all that. If you catch me in the act, then punish me and I'll accept the consequences.

You shouldn't get a ticket for "attempted speeding."

Murder is illegal. Planning a murder is illegal. But that doesn't mean I should be prevented from owning guns, knives, bludgeons, etc.

So if no one catches you speeding, you didn't speed?

There's no such thing as "attempted speeding." Either you did or you didn't.

[registerthis]

So if no one catches you speeding, you didn't speed?

There's no such thing as "attempted speeding." Either you did or you didn't.

Well, that's what speed/traffic cameras are for.

I understand the point of this, but I think it could also be dangerous. There are times when I legitimately *need* to exceed the speed limit--for instance, I've been trapped in the center or left lane with no way to get over (either a truck or some jerk who won't let me) and I need to speed up momentarily in order to get to my exit.

I'm inclined to go with Johnny on this one. If I get caught, fine. But this, to me, is just one more step towards that Big brother society that has cameras everywhere tracking everything you do. Sure, it will cut down on crime, but what else?

[RedFanAlways1966]

There are times when I legitimately *need* to exceed the speed limit--for instance, I've been trapped in the center or left lane with no way to get over (either a truck or some jerk who won't let me) and I need to speed up momentarily in order to get to my exit.

I don't know, register. Some people might argue that you should have gotten in the right lane sooner and taken an extra 15-30 seconds (if that much) to get to your exit. Prepare sooner for the exit that you knew all along that you are going to take, they might say. Honestly I can never see a legitimate reason to speed. That is why police can give you a citation no matter what the driver's reasoning may be.

I am like zombie... give me a 5-7 mph cushion and I am okay. If people who can do the math crunched the numbers, you'd be disgusted at how much time people actually save by doing 75mph rather than 65mph on the highway. It is all relative to the total distance traveled of course, but the time diff. is not at all significant compared to the damage that you and your passenger (and other drivers) may get w/ an accident at higher speeds.

I would not have a problem if all engines were limited to say 75mph (some western highways have 75mph limits). I see no reason for an individual to drive or need to drive over 75mph ever.

[registerthis]

I don't know, register. Some people might argue that you should have gotten in the right lane sooner and taken an extra 15-30 seconds (if that much) to get to your exit. Prepare sooner for the exit that you knew all along that you are going to take, they might say. Honestly I can never see a legitimate reason to speed. That is why police can give you a citation no matter what the driver's reasoning may be.

What I'm saying is, can you honestly tell me you would never envision a scenario where you would need to go above 70 mph? (Or, 60 in the cities?)

it's easy to say that "Well, you should just have gotten over sooner", but you don't know the situation. In Columbus, for example, when I lived there and had to drive to work in the morning, i came down 315 to 70 East, and had to exit at Front St. I had all of perhaps 1/2 a mile to navigate across four lanes of Interstate traffic. Preventing me from going faster than 60 MPH would have been unduly dangerous in that situation.

If a cop catches me doing it and wants to ticket me, fine. I probably wouldn't even argue. But this just seems dangerous and unduly limiting to me.