|
Post by thaddius on Jun 1, 2006 19:17:37 GMT -5
Apparently London is researching and developing a system that when your car determines that it is exceeding the speed limit will automatically slow the car down to the speed limit. The argument for that is the possibility to save lives. First off, does the government have the right to be that invasive (I'm not familiar with British law) and secondly is it worth having more government intervention to possibly save some drivers? Link.
|
|
|
Post by ExtraCheeZ on Jun 1, 2006 20:07:39 GMT -5
Personaly I see that as creating accidents too. More cops would prolly help... but thats too expensive.
|
|
|
Post by eek on Jun 1, 2006 20:47:03 GMT -5
I never really saw the point in making vehicles capable of exceeding the speed limit in the first place.
I'm not sure if the government have the right either, but I don't think there's any convincing argument against such a measure. Not from the viewpoint of any law abiding citizens, anyway.
|
|
|
Post by ShadowLynx on Jun 1, 2006 22:03:27 GMT -5
I reckon the Government is taking too much interest in those matters here.
People should be trusted to do what they can. It's when they can't be the thingamajig should be allowed.
|
|
Muad'dib
Squire
Kwizatz Haderach
There exists no separation between gods and men; one blends softly casual into the other.
Posts: 1,638
|
Post by Muad'dib on Jun 2, 2006 2:29:42 GMT -5
I hate these speed drivers, but it shouldn't be obligatory. But there should be a banishment from usage of cars or something severe to people who drive too fast in such ways as to risk accidents.
And while we are on the topic of cars, I think that we should remove the horns of cars.
|
|
|
Post by eek on Jun 2, 2006 8:35:49 GMT -5
I hate these speed drivers, but it shouldn't be obligatory. But there should be a banishment from usage of cars or something severe to people who drive too fast in such ways as to risk accidents. A great number of accidents involve drivers who have had such a ban from driving (temporary, of course). There's no sure fire way of stopping them from ever sitting in a driver's seat. Well... not without causing them some injury, but I imagine that's a bit of a drastic solution.
|
|
Muad'dib
Squire
Kwizatz Haderach
There exists no separation between gods and men; one blends softly casual into the other.
Posts: 1,638
|
Post by Muad'dib on Jun 2, 2006 8:38:31 GMT -5
A great number of accidents involve drivers who have had such a ban from driving (temporary, of course). There's no sure fire way of stopping them from ever sitting in a driver's seat. Well... not without causing them some injury, but I imagine that's a bit of a drastic solution. Revoke their licence, and if they are seen driving again, fines.
|
|
Randalf
Squire
5,000,006 GLOMPS!
Posts: 1,585
|
Post by Randalf on Jun 2, 2006 20:25:06 GMT -5
Meh I see that as potentially hazardous as well. I don't trust electronics to think for me in things like that. Sure, a calculator can do my math for me, because I don't want to do it anyway, but if I'm driving along, I don't want it to slow down for me (I don't speed anyway). What happens if there is something in the road I have to avoid, and I have to speed up to do it? There are so many possibilities that not being able to go above the speed limit would create a wreck. The fact remains that machines cannot develop the reasoning of the human mind... they cannot adapt to the new situations that are bound to occur. Of course, the mind cannot always get us out of those car accidents either . I just think I would be more comfortable in trying to get myself out of the accident, than trying and not being able to for something stupid like that. I can't even explain how I feel on whether or not the government has the right... I can't even understand what I think about it, much less explain it.
|
|
Muad'dib
Squire
Kwizatz Haderach
There exists no separation between gods and men; one blends softly casual into the other.
Posts: 1,638
|
Post by Muad'dib on Jun 2, 2006 20:39:24 GMT -5
What happens if there is something in the road I have to avoid, and I have to speed up to do it? The kind of thing that can't be avoided by slowing down? You shouldn't be driving fast enough that you wouldn't be able to slow down enough in events like that. I'm mostly for libertarian ideas. Thats why I think this shouldn't be obligatory, but clamp down on drivers that choose not to use it who are caught speeding, by means of revoking licences and fines. And removing car horns because they are plain annoying.
|
|
|
Post by TheStranger on Jun 4, 2006 17:14:59 GMT -5
If we were to make a car based on speed limit, would it be made on the basis of what country it was made?
That would be most realistic; however, just because I buy a car in wherever, doesn't mean i'll always be using it there. So, its not the car that should have limits, its the person who is driving should be able to have some smarts.
|
|
|
Post by morty14 on Jun 6, 2006 18:44:34 GMT -5
Too difficult to do IMO. Unless in England highways have the same speed limit as neighbourhoods.... Would the car adjust to the speed limit of that particular area? If so, how? What about people driving older cars, would they be required to have this tech installed? What if people decided to take out this little feature? Or would it be unremovable? All interesting questions, which are probably answered by the link I didn't click ;D
|
|
Muad'dib
Squire
Kwizatz Haderach
There exists no separation between gods and men; one blends softly casual into the other.
Posts: 1,638
|
Post by Muad'dib on Jun 7, 2006 7:22:52 GMT -5
Too difficult to do IMO. Unless in England highways have the same speed limit as neighbourhoods.... Would the car adjust to the speed limit of that particular area? If so, how? What about people driving older cars, would they be required to have this tech installed? What if people decided to take out this little feature? Or would it be unremovable? All interesting questions, which are probably answered by the link I didn't click ;D Firstly, I hadn't gotten around to reading it either, and I did so now. As for the old cars question? Didn't see an answer to that.
|
|
|
Post by thaddius on Jun 8, 2006 21:48:54 GMT -5
My whole point in bringing this up was the fact that with moves like that and the universal id cards the people in the UK are supposed to start carrying, it seems like the government is creating a state where they have complete control over their citizens, denying them the ability to protest or rebel.
|
|
|
Post by lulu on Jun 8, 2006 22:02:23 GMT -5
There are systems already like that in place in Utah. But it's more dangerous than just slowing down. The entire vehicle shuts off when;
A. speeding B. listening to loud music (decibal limit) C. Seat belt is not worn.
It's not a manditory system. It was a consumer made system for parents that want to keep a lockdown on their 'wild' teens.
|
|
Muad'dib
Squire
Kwizatz Haderach
There exists no separation between gods and men; one blends softly casual into the other.
Posts: 1,638
|
Post by Muad'dib on Jun 9, 2006 6:48:15 GMT -5
My whole point in bringing this up was the fact that with moves like that and the universal id cards the people in the UK are supposed to start carrying, it seems like the government is creating a state where they have complete control over their citizens, denying them the ability to protest or rebel. And thats not to mention the prospect of having microchips. They are already being used on animals. Its not too far off the "logical conclusion" for many people to see the uses for it on us. But personally, if the car knows what the speed limit in an area is, and it is put in there to stop crime in that means by say, the car companies, its not as bad as say, a microchip having you been followed. If I have a microchip in me, i'll be followed the whole time, if I have a thing in my car, it stops me driving at speeds that are likely to cause an accident. I mean, the way I look at it, the speed limits are probably too high as they are, so having someone driving over them is definitely bad. Think of it this way; you go into a pub, and start drinking. If you get too drunk, and the bartender refuses to serve you any more, would you consider that oppression? (Not saying you think this is oppression, but its just a question) Also, if we have this system in place, logically I think we can assume that there would be less accidents, and insurance prices would go down. I probably left out a lot of points, so feel free to point out any blind spots.
|
|
pilaf
Foreman
Out of step with the world
Posts: 455
|
Post by pilaf on Jun 10, 2006 1:34:21 GMT -5
Well, you have to ask if it's really an invasion of "privacy" is it is intended to save lives.
Privacy, IMO, doesn't extend to actions which can harm others, such as reckless driving. Privacy is the things you do in your own home or the aspects of your life which really aren't anyone's business, such as your religion, sexual preferences, musical preferences, political ideologies, personal style, whether you choose to smoke, drink or use drugs in your own home, etc.
When you're doing something that may hurt others, including children who may happen to be riding as passengers in other cars..it's different. Driving is a responsibility, not a privelage.
Of course, I'd like to see people make the decision for themselves to use this technology rather than having it forced on them, unless they're repeated driving offenders, in which case I see no problem with court decisions to make it mandatory for such drivers. (The best thing of all would be to see more people voluntarily make the decision to, say, not drive 95 mph on the Interstate, but hey, whatcha gonna do?)
|
|
|
Post by Justice on Jun 12, 2006 7:59:22 GMT -5
I can see this ending up causing more accidnets, they should just make more cops on the street and make the fine for speeding alot more
|
|
|
Post by TheStranger on Jun 25, 2006 15:18:21 GMT -5
I can see this ending up causing more accidnets, they should just make more cops on the street and make the fine for speeding alot more Care to elaborate on that? If a car is going slower, then its quicker till it goes from the person pressing the brakes to a complete stop.
|
|
|
Post by Vinya on Jul 17, 2006 0:18:11 GMT -5
to hell with the speed limit!
*says the girl who got caught doing 83 in a 55*
|
|
Muad'dib
Squire
Kwizatz Haderach
There exists no separation between gods and men; one blends softly casual into the other.
Posts: 1,638
|
Post by Muad'dib on Jul 17, 2006 0:23:44 GMT -5
*To hell with car horns*[/not relevant to topic]
Well, what is more intrusive? Having a car that will not go over the speed limit, or having cameras everywhere?
Because people will eventually want one or the other.
Now, i'd rather have something in my car to restrict my speeds than a camera seeing me whereever I go.
If i'm being watched, its invasion. If my car is designed to a legal standard, and you are against that, well I don't know, I truly don't.
|
|
melchior1
Aspirant
Official PROTESF Necromancer
"This is my blessing, my curse."
Posts: 628
|
Post by melchior1 on Jul 17, 2006 0:34:09 GMT -5
I don't think I'd buy a car that wouldn't let me do what I wanted.....not willingly......there is no way I would give my free will over to a completely unsophisticated machine.....I'll go the speed I wanna go, which is sometimes over the limit, but mostly not
|
|
Muad'dib
Squire
Kwizatz Haderach
There exists no separation between gods and men; one blends softly casual into the other.
Posts: 1,638
|
Post by Muad'dib on Jul 17, 2006 0:37:47 GMT -5
I don't think I'd buy a car that wouldn't let me do what I wanted.....not willingly......there is no way I would give my free will over to a completely unsophisticated machine.....I'll go the speed I wanna go, which is sometimes over the limit, but mostly not Cars can't go 200 miles an hour, why would you want to buy one now? Oh, you'd not want to go at that speed? Well, I think if the highest a car can go is 60 miles per hour, I don't see why one can be against that.
|
|
|
Post by Vinya on Jul 17, 2006 0:39:05 GMT -5
I don't think I'd buy a car that wouldn't let me do what I wanted.....not willingly......there is no way I would give my free will over to a completely unsophisticated machine.....I'll go the speed I wanna go, which is sometimes over the limit, but mostly not Cars can't go 200 miles an hour, why would you want to buy one now? Oh, you'd not want to go at that speed? Well, I think if the highest a car can go is 60 miles per hour, I don't see why one can be against that. because the speed limit on most interstates is 75 I think they should raise the speed limit. Seriously. some of them are just rediculously slow....at least around here.
|
|
|
Post by Osama Bin Laden on Jul 17, 2006 0:39:30 GMT -5
Its because of the lack of controll. This speed limiter thing is just another way the governments interfering with peoples lives. If you cant have controll over apeice of metal, than what next?
|
|
melchior1
Aspirant
Official PROTESF Necromancer
"This is my blessing, my curse."
Posts: 628
|
Post by melchior1 on Jul 17, 2006 0:46:01 GMT -5
The only place that i really speed rediculously is my grandma's road out in the country, and then only cause its exciting and low risk at the same time I just like having the choice to speed if ever I want to and speeding can, in desperate circumstances, save lives too, ex: health emergency requiring you to get to the emergency room asap
|
|