Voluntary speed limiters coming to a country near you ?

Why would anyone in their right mind want to encourage any government to
implement this kind of unnecessary intrusion into their life.

Besides, I already have a 100% effective personal speed limiting system...

My brain and my right foot.

 

They're nutty here too...

 

I wouldn't mind it so much so long as it operates like my cruise control; i.e. I can turn it on if I want it, and if I don't, I leave it off. And like my cruise control, I can manually override it temporarily and return to my original speed. Also, whether I choose to run it should be private information.

I agree with one of the last points, that I don't have to be bothered with keeping track of what the speed limit is because the car will mind it automatically. I also think the display should indicate what the posted speed limit is so I don't have to drive a mile or two to look for a sign in case I missed the first one.

Good technology overall... I think it can be very useful.

 

Yup, it really is that bad - over 6000 speed cameras in the UK.

Here is an interesting web page about speeding.

Car Bibles: Fact vs. Fiction about speeding

 

Yes 6000 fixed location speed cameras which are all bright yellow and marked with warning signs.
We don't have as many fixed cameras but a lot of mobile cameras mounted to cars. The warning signs are after the camera.

 

My main point was they are about revenue generation not road safety. The number of people killed on british roads has remained pretty consistent at about 3500-4000 deaths per year.

The speed cameras used to be a nice inconspicious grey, and the local councils weren't happy about being forced to repaint them yellow. But traffic planners are cunning and have found ways to conceal some of the yellow ones behind other road signs or to site them behind trees or allowing the hedges to overgrow behind them.

 

its interesting that the spread of percentages is 3% and because excessive speed is attributed to "only" 1 in 14 accidents, that we should, for some reason, de-emphasize excessive speed when concerned over safety??

im sorry, but its stuff like this that idiots take away as being ok to drive fast. what about stats on when people die? and relation to excessive speed?

 

I think he was trying to say that we should try and fix the other 13 out 14 reasons that accidents are attributed to, instead of only addressing 1 out of 14, which incidently the only one the gov does target has resulted in an increase in the accident rate at camera sites.

In your second paragraph, it sounds like you believe it is okay for the government to lie, to implement a money making system that does not reduce road deaths, and all because idiots will believe it means that they can speed with impunity?

 

im sorry it sounds that way, but the entire article seems to say that speed is less of a factor in accidents without a single word mentioning the repercussions of any accidents cited.

a straight percentage on cause is an immediate red flag that pertinent information is missing. most accidents are very low speed to begin with thus removing excessive speed from the largest catagory of accidents to begin with...

this article is slanted, misleading and i stand by my original statement that many people will be swayed by its contents

 

Sorry, we seem to have read that article from very different view points. Not really much point to discussing it further.

(BTW I don't advocate speeding)

 

i am sure we do see the article in a different light and why is that?

it is simply the point i am trying to make. i am not for or against the article other than it only presents one PERSONAL point of view using selected facts from an obviously much broader set of data points, most of which have been excluded.

the only point i am trying to make is that many people will be misled by what they think is an unbiased, well imformed statement when this is obviously not the case

 

My feeling is that if you think speed limits are too low, then that is what should be addressed.

If you think a speed camera set to go off at 40mph in a 35mph zone is wrong, then the solution is not to ban the cameras. The solution is to ban the 35mph limit.

 

In the US, about a third of traffic deaths are attributed to speeding.

Analysis of Speeding-Related Fatal Motor Vehicle Traffic Crashes-DOT HS 809 839

 

I don't have a problem with speed cameras for revenue. If speeding motorists are contributing to the state's operating budget it takes a little pressure off the rest of us. The money has to come from somewhere.

As far as I can see speeding is a choice and so if you speed you choose to get a fine. Everyone knows you get a fine for speeding so is isn't some secret tax. You will also be fined for being inattentive and lots of other offences but it's harder to prove.

 

Or is it a solution in search of a problem? Causality is often overlooked, in a vain attempt to placate a sheep-like public with very noticeable, but usually ineffective, "solutions"

Dangerous driving, eg Road Rage, has dramatically increased. There have been cases here of tiny brain, tiny penis, men using their full size pickup to ram a car off the road, due to their perception that they had been "cut off."

I've noticed just the opposite, it's usually the idiot in the SUV or pickup, who bullies his way through traffic. Since I'm built like a bald gorilla, it's usually a bad day for them when they cut me off

I'm not afraid of automation and technology, as I have spent most of my career designing a variety of industrial automation and avionics packages. Despite our airspace becoming so highly congested, overall flying is far safer than it used to be. Use of flight augmentation computers, autoflight systems, TCAS, EGPWS, all contribute to safer flying

Another key difference is that pilots are conditioned to NOT act as if they own the sky, to defer to authority. Eg if the EGPWS yells "too low terrain pull up" they immediately do so. If they receive an advisory from TCAS, they listen

Note: TCAS caused a tragedy in Germany when incorrect Swiss air control instructions caused a conflict between a DHL cargo jet and a Russian airliner. The two jets collided in midair. In that instance, the TCAS wasn't capable of "reversion" or changing its mind. Eg if the original instruction to avoid midair was "decend decend" and the rate of closure in fact increases, the TCAS should revert to "climb, climb" instead.

As far as having cameras everywhere, I doubt that has in any way made us safer. What is the use of catching a criminal in the act of committing a crime, when the "justice" system will barely slap the person on the wrist

Both the UK and Canada have very much a criminal coddling environment, to the point that crime is purposely under-reported. Especially with youth crime, a juvenile can literally get away with murder

So a security camera manages to capture a 14 year old firing an illegal handgun at an innocent woman, killing the woman. The 14 year old may never spend any time in a real jail, instead be surrounded by an army of headshrinkers and do-gooder lawyers and Social Workers. The CCTV capture is of little use

Security cameras do capture spectacular accidents, such as Red Light Cameras. Or the IRA bomb in Manchester that went kaboom. But they don't make us any safer

I lived almost half my life in Utah, where it appears the State Constitution all but requires folks to have guns - unless you are a criminal, or "simple," or "insane." Not very politically correct wording there

Compared to Winnipeg, Salt Lake City offers far lower rates of homicide, car theft, home invasion, assault, etc. Yet folks up here automatically assumed because of all those "bad guns" down there, just the opposite was true

So all this talk about security cameras, speed limiters, photo radar enforcement, etc, is just hot air. Once you create a "justice" system that protects the criminal, and tells the victim to go to hell, it becomes nothing more than an academic exercise

 

I would personally support changing our justice system to allow the evidence of the crime committed on CCTV be equivalent to a jury verdict of guilty. Shortcut all the courtroom and lawyer nonsense and send the file to a judge who just renders the punishment. Isn't that essentially what's happening when the camera catches you running a red light or speeding?

 

Hmmm you noticed that too? Kind of ironic how the "evidence" can be used for a red light camera or a photo radar camera, but is rarely so accepted for a homicide.

 

Wow.

Absolutely great system and it is about time something like this was made available - at least - on a voluntary basis to begin with.

What I would also love to see is a sizable reduction in insurance premiums for those motorists who agree to have their vehicle retrofitted with the system.

Now, I realize that many will find this technology at least as intrusive as public and private video surveillance and that is definitely easy to understand.

However, my past experiences in this area make me a believer in this type of technology and as long as it helps achieve what I've been wishing for the last 20 years, it is not just a welcome system I look forward to, but also a necessity.
After all, enhancing public safety and lowering emissions have been noble goals for many of us but yet we have proven to be utterly unable to raise our driving standards... at least enough to comply with even the most basic of traffic regulations - like obeying posted speed limits. Heck we can't even pass a law to have regular and periodic driver testing.

In my books this is not only good stuff but also sorely needed on our streets and highways.


Cheers;

MSantos