GPS trial to enforce speed limit

yes, and only seems that idiots do vote... for idiots

democracy? what is that? where do you find it?


ROTFL!

 

Certainly not in the Peoples Republic of California.

 

That's awfully complicated. Why not just impose stiff jail terms for speeding? Speeding is illegal. Speeding kills innocent people along with the criminal. Say, one month in jail for each one mph over the limit. Double on the second offense. Life without parole for a third offense. We're talking about murderers here. Just because not every speeding violation results in a death is no reason for leniency. Enforce this law, and speeding will become a much less common crime.

They all can. Not just base map errors, as another poster noted, but also irregular terrain can cause radio signal reflections that can result in position errors. My Garmin GPS occasionally has a hiccup where it thinks I'm off course. Generally, it pops back soon. But if you're on the freeway doing 65 and suddenly your GPS knocks you down to 25 because it thinks you've beamed your car onto a surface road, that's not good.

Errors due to radio signal reflection happen most often in mountainous areas, or near high-rise buildings.

Ha!!! My telephone is off unless I want to make a call. They won't be tracking me by my phone!

Touche!

 

Sort of funny how the same technology and government control applied to passenger aircraft is considered critically important for safe travel and when applied to cars is totally bad.

 

You mean commercial passenger airline pilots don't control the speed of the planes they're piloting? That doesn't sound plausible. Of course I'm not a pilot and I have no training as a pilot so maybe you can help me and others understand?

Anyway, I'm all for just jacking up the price of gas even more. That will have more of a calming effect than any artificial means of restraint. People will just drive less, which will mean fewer people will be speeding.

 

Just pointing out that aircraft position, airspeed, and altitude are monitored by a lot of folks in real time. Misbehave and you will be contacted (like my Dad did when he buzzed his parents house in a B-47).

 

The pilot operates the throttle, but Air traffic Control (a government agency) tells the pilot how fast s/he may fly, and radar provides the controller real-time data on the speed, direction, and altitude of the plane, all of which require permission from the controller to change.

I agree with you that raising the price of gas is a very good idea, providing that the increase goes to something positive, rather than into the pockets of oil company executives and stockholders.

 

Many, many years ago there was a turnpike where speeding almost did not exist. It used the ticket system in those days.

The ticket was time stamped on entry and again on exit when you paid your toll. It was easy to calculate your speed for the trip. Over the speed limit and the toll collector handed you a ticket.

The only way you could get away with speeding was to stop at a rest area for a while and let time catch up with you. And then you still didn't get there any faster.

Bob

 

Nanny state gone mad...

 

This I know, and I enjoy listening in on the air traffic controllers during commercial flights if the captain is kind enough to put it on one of the channels (they sometimes will on request, sometimes if there's a delay so they dont' get so d***ed many questions ).

I'm not sure it's a good analogy between commercial air travel and civilian ground travel, but the point is taken anyway. We're already regulated by traffic signs, traffic lights, police, common sense... a more efficient method of regulation isn't necessarily a bad idea.

Probably the biggest problem with paradigm shifting people's driving habits is scale: there are a lot of drivers, and most of them would passionately resist changes. That's why I like incentive-based shifts, rather than coercion. Just give someone a little bit of a reason to change their behavior and they'll do it. You don't even have to tell them what to do, just open up a path for them. Water flowing downhill and all that.

Incentives that may be combined to good effect:

• Price of fuel. Yes, raising it too quickly hurts more people than it helps. Maybe commercial rates could be subsidized by higher personal fuel tax so the price of goods and service remains low while personal transit gets an appropriate sanity-check.
• Better access to alternate modes of transit. e.g. I really want to ride the bus to work sometimes, but if I did it would take me 1.5 hours, vs. my 10 minute bike ride... no kidding. I could walk to work much faster.
• Employment opportunities close to home
• Telecommute options expanded (even enforced!)

So basically, I'm against forcing change by telling people what to do. I like the idea of just making the right choices the easiest and cheapest choices because people are cheap and lazy! (I speak from personal experience )

 

That was a neat response. The original comment was based on a lot of people looking at only one viewpoint. I had no intention of declaring someone being right or wrong. Other situations that come to mind:
1) Drug testing - Either a violation of privacy or necessary for pilots and critical jobs.
2) Airport Security - Either provides security or security theater
3) National Security - Self-Explanatory or Oxymoron.

Personally, The number one fear I have for young kids (especially mine) is the likelyhood of death due to dangerous drivers. I despise government heavy handedness as much as anyone, but the yearly carnage on the roads calls for something better than accepting 40k funerals a year for the freedom to drive insanely. I do not know the best answer yet.

 

The problem with A/IVHS (automated/intelligent vehicle highway systems) is not unique to land transport. It's called the Paradox of Automation. As you increase the level of automation the consequences of any single human error are magnified. We tried increasing automation in the aviation industry and it was a disaster (several actually). Now aviation regulators are busy finding ways of devolving more control to the pilot (called free flight).
Incentives and better design are definitely the way to go. I've got one project putting in "self-explaining roads" in Auckland that offers some promise

 

The main problem I see here (besides Big Brother) is a huge safety concern. The plan will fail the first time someone is killed because they couldn't accelerate fast enough to get themselves out of a traffic situation.

There are a lot of two lane roads where I live and more often than not, someone insists on passing a slower vehicle (or tractor). The safest way for them to pass is to increase their vehicle speed well above the speed limit. Imagine having to pass another car with only 10 mph difference and have it done safely.

Being in control of one's own vehicle speed is the safest option. Yes, there are idiots and maniacs on the road, but their behavior may worsen with a restriction on their vehicle speed. One doesn't need to drive fast to be a danger on the road.

 

Your not going to find hardly anyone that disagrees with you. The more interesting question is should remote monitoring of a vehicles speed and behaviour (e.g. numerous rapid lane changes) be monitored? For example, should automatic tickets be given for exceeding the speed limit by some amount for some time?

Or let me state it this way. Would you desire some national effort to reduce traffic deaths by huge factors if it involved loss of driving "freedoms"?

 

Put in those terms, I'd actually be thrilled with it. I used to be a "good" driver myself... now I'm a safe driver. All I needed was a car with a realtime MPG display to calm me down!

I always laugh a little at jerks blowing by at 90mph in a 55 zone, and hope they get nailed for it... it would be comforting to know that they'd get a ticket in the mail.

 

So what are they offering in return in return for allowing some stranger to put a machine in your car to decide what it can do? Also, are the speed limits burned into the CD disk in the car...?

 

They want to limit.. i want to free... sigh..

I think we should have lane monitors. indicators that tell you how fast traffic is moving as an average.. so everyone can try to keep within a healthy average. they would not max out and they would be separate per lane. A merger unit will tell you how fast you need to go before you're welcomed by the others...

Maybe at that time.. we can have a somewhat healthy fast lane... if you're not doing x amount.. move right... same rules as today.

this will keep people from wondering too slow.. and thinking they'll get somewhere by going too fast.

I don't know the technicals of it.. but every major interchange where you recieve traffic.. or.. every x amount of miles. either way, they would have to be able to feed each other information so there is an average speed.


driving should be a right.. if our government is going to allow people to develop like they should.. driving should be mandatory. ( as sad as that may sound )

spent money on something useful... like Breathalyzer on ignition systems.