Of course such a measure doesn't have many opportuities to fleece the motorist
On-the-spot fines?
EDIT: sorry, that's not for the motorist
Edited by Focus {P} on 10/05/2009 at 12:18
|
For some reason, on the spot fines doesn't seem to work in this country. Didn't they try it with drunks and other anti socials ?
|
For some reason on the spot fines doesn't seem to work in this country. Didn't they try it with drunks and other anti socials ?
They did and still do, MrX, it works very well from what I've seen of it...
|
|
|
|
I guess any law needs enforcing so on-the-spot fines for errant pedestrians would be a necessary evil Focus. It doesn't sit well with me though. But if government is going to fiddle about with the minutiae of life, it'd not be a massive leap and would enjoy some degree of success.
It'll never happen because pedestrians and cyclists (I am both) tend to be held in disproportionately high regard when it comes to road death figures. It can't be their fault - which is true only to the extent that they're relatively powerless compared to a 2 ton vehicle (which everyone has surely worked out). You only need to visit the online forums of the Guardian to understand the pure vitriol directed towards "the motorist" in the most general terms - in fact I'd encourage people to witness it as it's a visceral, aggressively held opinion which takes absolutely no prisoners.
Good points gordonbennett.
|
|
I'm not particularly against a jay-walking law (and associated fines) - how does it work in the States? Is it only on certain roads? Do you know why it hasn't been introduced previously here?
|
Don't know why it's not been enforced here - the government could make plenty of money from pedestrians simply trying to get to their destination.
I'm not versed in US jaywalking laws! but from an initial search, it appears that the jurisdiction is local, and tickets/fines are only issued when a) a PO sees it and b) is a dangerous thing to do - i.e. plenty of traffic about. It seems POs are allowed to use their discretion as to which infractions are followed up.
If it saves lives, then why is the government NOT enacting similar measures?
|
|
|
|
|
On the spot fines won't work, as pedestrians don't have number plates (yet?). However, with the UK now having more and more interlinked spy cameras than people and facial recognition and insight through interaction software being implemented as systems are updated, I don't think it will be long, as they already create a map of you passport and driver's license face, and the government are desperately trying to get an uberdatabase under the guise of ID cards.
|
"On the spot fines won't work, as pedestrians don't have number plates (yet?)"
!! - I think in America on-the-spot fines are implemented on-the-spot rather than by the tangled web of Orwellian technology - though I like the idea of number plates on people. If you pay extra, have flashy bevelled silver ones on the forehead or forego this and pay thousands for a little transmitter beacon atop the head. Think of the money you'll get from making that law - all for our assured "safety".
|
In a thread that someone started way back on 28th May 2003 I stated:
"The technology exists and - like it or not - ALL new cars will eventually be fitted with sophisticated GPS maps linked to the engine management system to make it impossible to exceed the speed limit. Watch the new car market take a dive and the value of recent second hand cars soar when it happens. It's a few years away yet - for political not technical reasons" - and BOY was I savaged for my comments by those who ridiculed the possibility of our nanny state actually doing it.
Better get used to it guys. It's coming closer.
|
Only if you buy a new car though. It would have to be retro fitted to all cars to make it work. Would be interesting though...passing a premiership footballer on the motorway in his restricted brand new Lamborghini in a 20 year old shed
|
"The system makes it almost impossible to get a speeding ticket from a camera"
(Telegraph)
My guess is that`s all that 90% +of regular motorists want.
Bye bye the subscription camera data base POI`s for little dash top devices...
Edited by oilrag on 10/05/2009 at 16:51
|
Any fitting that could alter the power output or road speed of a car independently of its driver's wishes has the potential to be totally lethal.
It isn't coming. It's a load of cobblers.
Edited by Lud on 10/05/2009 at 16:55
|
|
The regulation of the masses - due to the sins of the few.
|
A socially just, speed regulation system, with personal wealth, social class and bestowed celebrity status negated.
After all, we surely had enough of `The rich man in his castle, poor man at his gate` mentality in days gone by.
The current fine and points system favours the ruling class, who escape punishment by no thumb handshakes and peers in the judiciary. Fines mean nothing and a chauffeur can be used with no personal loss. Insurance doubling due to points doesn`t even register on their radar.
It`s just an punishment for the masses who often lose their livelihood.
A true socialist solution then, that regulates the Lord in his Bentley and the working man in his family car equally.
|
|
Sometimes this country sickens me. One day perhaps the masses will wake up.
|
escape punishment by no thumb handshakes
Were you in the boy scouts too oilrag? :o}
Magistrates, to give the devils their due, often fine rich miscreants very steeply. And if they are rich enough not to care even about five-grand fines, there are still licence points, totting up and driving bans.
I take your point of course being poor myself about fines, steeper insurance and so on meaning less to the rich than to you and me. But although not politically right wing I find myself out of sympathy with socialism where motoring is concerned. The automobile at its best is a toy for rich gents. Private motoring has an irredeemably reactionary side, and if that presents some of us with a contradiction or two we just have to choke on it as best we can.
Altering a car's power output or maximum speed while it is on the move, by any agency other than the driver's volition, is guaranteed to cause road deaths. I suppose that is equality of a sort, but we should bear in mind that as always more poor people will be killed than rich ones.
|
but we should bear in mind that as always more poor people will be killed than rich ones.
Always been the same, it seems knee jerk reaction only takes place once one of the great and good comes to harm.
|
Regardless of the merits of this technology, this doesn't surprise me. Just another restriction placed on us and in this country we don't stand up and do anything about it.
When i think about the whole picture i just see everyone ending up functioning like robots. Problem is, we are trying to be programmed when we are mean't to evolve, make mistakes and improve.
Slave to money living between ever narrowing lines then we die.
Edited by OldSkoOL on 10/05/2009 at 18:08
|
The regulation of the masses - due to the sins of the few.
Exactly!
|
Any fitting that could alter the power output or road speed of a car independentlyof its driver's wishes has the potential to be totally lethal. It isn't coming. It's a load of cobblers.
Sorry Lud - I wish you were right, but you could not be more wrong. A device which merely causes a vehicle to gradually lose speed until it reaches a predetermined point (the limit) could by no reasonable stretch of the imagination be called totally lethal.
|
Under the wrong circumstances, it is potentially lethal.
One seldom needs much of a car's performance, but when one has miscalculated and has to scoot out of the way pronto one sometimes has to hope that it's all there. If it has started to alter its responses and outputs in the way they would need to be altered to 'cause the vehicle to gradually lose speed', it wouldn't be all there.
I think this is a silly idea which can only posiibly appeal to a non-driver once they have given it what thought they can manage.
|
Slight topic drift but not really I suppose. My wife went to visit her parents today. They live five miles away. To get to or from our house to the main road you have no choice but to negotiate 14 speed humps. At the other end near her parents there is no option but to cross a further 8 speed humps. So to make a 10 mile round trip to visit her family you have to deal with a minimum of 44 speed humps. The council in their wisdom have now also introduced two new give ways. Not at junctions but slap in the middle of a straight road, the main arterial route we have to use daily. This road which always flowed freely has now been narrowed at two seemingly random points to a single lane. This has caused peak time traffic jams where none previously existed. The combination of the car wrecking speed humps and the unnecessary give ways must be causing an increase in emissions and needless congestion. Had it been deemed appropriate to have an exceptionally low speed limit then so be it but this is just overkill.
To return to the thread though, my point is that we just accept these things don't we ? We moan and grumble but I admit that I haven't got off my backside and complained or campaigned. I don't suppose many, if any, have. We just roll over and accept the nonsense.
Maybe we should have a worm turning.
|
Agree with every word Humph, but to turn the worms and make a difference will take a minor revolution.
The people responsible for such things and those in authority to make changes all come from the same PC or should that be CP training school and all think alike, apart from which they are a self promoting flock and the more rubbish that comes from them, the more like minded types will need to be recruited to oversee rule.
I reckon it'll have to get a lot worse before any real resistance is organised.
Orwell may well have underestimated.
|
The completely pointless campaign of obstruction described by HB was applied in London in spades by the Livingstone regime, baleful and malevolent in many ways if not quite all. Traffic is needlessly obstructed without any real benefit to anyone.
I hoped that the new mayor would start to undo some of the really pointless, painful rubbish littering the capital's streets, while leaving perhaps the congestion zone which has reduced traffic volumes perceptibly and made it easy to park in the West End if you can find a non-telephone parking place. But nothing much has happened and ghastly articulated buses continue to massacre people.
|
|
Slowly but surely, the country is drifting towards a life that is a combination of '1984' and 'The Machine Stops'.
|
I see it being similar in societal fairness to The Clean air Act.
Without the Act, Lord Battenberg-Cake, sitting lording it over us in his stately home, would have continued to put as much soot into the environment up his 56 chimneys as Drax power station in 1970.
As a result, despite his Eton education massive wealth and contempt for the working man, he was forced to live in his kitchen sitting in front of an electric fire.
It`s worth the personal sacrifice of freedom to bring these arrogant, power by birthright - from the Norman conquest land grab Lords and Masters - down a few thousand pegs.
With the limiter proposals, the working man can cruise alongside Lord-Battenberg-gotcha-cake on the motorway and PEER IN - ( with his yellowed teeth due to not being able to afford a dentist)
Regards
Boy Scouts Lud? We escaped after the first half hour and went fishing - never to return.
;-)
|
It`s worth the personal sacrifice of freedom to bring these arrogant, power by birthright - from the Norman conquest land grab Lords and Masters - down a few thousand pegs.
Not the way I see it oilrag, sorry.
If there's a choice between the two extremes - and of course there isn't - to be quite honest I will take the freedom along with the toffee-nosed twits, rather than no toffee-nosed twits and no freedom either...
There will always be privileged people and everyone else under all political systems. Some of the ones we've got are awful, others less so. Whether it's the rump of the feudal system (what has so infuriated you about that?) or wide boys with ill-gotten gains, there will always be people some of whom cause offence who have a firm grip on the good end of the stick. Pointless to get in a tizz about it. Chuck them out and you may get someone worse.
|
It`s not about who`s actually in power though Lud. To be honest are they not all the same? snouts in the trough?
But speed regulation would bring a level playing field across the social strata. The current camera, points and fines system harms the working man and woman - can bring them to the point of losing their homes and jobs.
How can that be fair? When celebrities, footballers, - and so on - just escape the punishment and laugh at the system.
It` often said that `death is the great leveler` if ever there were a new`opium of the poor masses that`s it. Believing it.
But the reality of course is that the Lord Gotcha- Cake dies on silken sheets - at home - attended by a mass of private Doctors and minimum wage caregivers - attending to his every whim, including fresh caviar.
No starving on a mixed sex NHS ward for him at the end.
When you think about it - the current points on license system is similar to the Poll Tax
in it`s disproportionate effect on the poor.
It wouldn`t be so bad if it were ONLY the Peers of the realm that were unaffected by the current points for speeding system - but we all know they are just the tip of the iceberg. That modern times means a nose in the trough with complete disregard of others. And that it`s the poor hard-pressed ordinary person that takes the hit in the wallet.
Much as I personally dislike a speed regulation system - If its the second, true, `Great Leveler` to The Clean Air Act - Why not?
How else can you get to a level playing field?
It`s all academic of course - the next government will drop it - and fine cut glasses containing vintage claret , will be raised across the land to a toast of - "Good show old boy"
|
Well, I don't think 'getting a level playing field' by knocking everything down to basement level is the way to go, nothing quite like the sight of the peasants killing all the horses just because they aren' allowed to ride to point out the futility of a 'classless' society!
Lets all grovel in the dirt less we are considered better than our neighbour, think Pol Pot and the khmer Rouge.
|
I see it as the ordinary person being elevated to the level of punishment and discomfort felt by the rich.
With the total emphasis being on the effects of speed regulation
Edited by oilrag on 11/05/2009 at 10:59
|
Unless it has the ability to apply the brakes as well as ease off the accelerator, how will it work?
People hurtling into villages at 50 will simply free-wheel into the back of others who started from a lower speed.
|
Hi, I'm newly registered to the forum however, I felt compelled to provide some input to the discussion on this topic so apologies for the long windedness.
I'd like to put a slightly different point of view on the subject of fitting vehicles with "intelligent" speed limiters based on GPS positioning linked to a database of speed limits.
From a number of the comments posted, there does appear to be some misinformation surrounding the understanding of these devices. These devices fall under the category of something called ISA - Intelligent Speed Adaptation (or sometimes Intelligent Speed Assistance). The can be either passive or active - passive warns you when traveling over the speed limit and it's up to you to take the appropriate action. There are two types of active ISA - voluntary and mandatory - voluntary allows you to override the system in some way - mandatory doesn't.
Yes, they are designed to limit the speed of the vehicle based on the speed limit of the road where that vehicle is traveling. But what happens if the ?black box? loses? it's GPS signal - well, the vehicle default speed, should the gps signal be lost or the database doesn?t have the speed data for that road, can be set to be the maximum speed limit for the country (clearly 70 in the case of the UK) ? so nothing is taken away from the vehicle.
Intrinsically, it does not take control away from the vehicle, it fundamentally stops the driver from breaking the speed limit ? the driver is still in control of the car, still has to take into account the surrounding conditions, the weather, pedestrians and other road users. Yes, you may get vehicles bunching together on motorways but it will be not much different from how it is today ? not everyone wants to travel at the speed limit.
The devices use GPS signals being transmitted form satellites surrounding the earth (in the same way your satnav device does). So, no tracking of the car is undertaken through these devices. (If you are worried about big brother tracking you ? if you own a mobile phone ? you can be tracked the instance you switch it on to the point you switch it off ? the mobile phone companies have had this capability literally from day one with the mobile networks!)
Yes, you may get the scenario where you mis-judge overtaking and want to put your foot down for that particular instance ? the voluntary ISA ? the ability to override the system - can be based upon the throttle being fully depressed ? so you can overcome these types of scenarios.
Additionally, the speed limits for these devices can restrict the speed of the vehicle to the allowable speed limit for that vehicle.
Let?s look at the benefits; speed is one of the major contributing factors to accidents. If you can limit speeding (and particularly excessive speeding), you can reduce the risk of accidents. This should lead to a reduction in insurance premiums (which are predominantly risk based). If your car is stolen, you can phone up a call centre, report it as stolen, within minutes, as soon as the stolen vehicle next stops, the vehicle?s maximum speed can be set to zero and the does, for that particular scenario only, can respond to state where it is, so it can be recovered. For new drivers ? the maximum speed can be set to 60 or whatever is deemed appropriate ? the device can time-fence the vehicle so that is can only be driven between certain hours ? again reducing the risk of accidents, reducing insurance premiums for new drivers. It would be possible to set the device and hence speeds, for different drivers of the vehicle. These devices can be geographically ring-fenced so that for instance, traveling in the UK, the speed restrictions will apply, traveling outside of the UK, no restrictions will be places on the speed limit of the vehicle.
You would not need the computing power of a small computer ? passive ISA will run on your mobile phone in the same way that satnav does. The computing power of your phone is sufficient to control active ISA.
No, there are not thousands of road speed changes every week. For a road speed to be changed ? a road traffic order is required to be raised and these are only undertaken in response to specific requests and undertaken in conjunction with the local constabulary and use government guidelines. There are temporary speed restrictions granted for specific points where road works are taking place however, when completed, the speed limit returns to the speed limit based on national guidelines. (It has to be said that these guidelines have just undergone a massive review and there will be some lowering of speed limits in line with these guidelines).
Yes, these devices are not perfect and will have a number of scenarios and issues that will be required to be resolved however, if they reduce the risk of accident for both drivers and pedestrians what is wrong with that? Many objections to these types of devices appear to be fundamentally based on the objector being restricted from speeding. You may not agree with the speed limit and I may not agree with the speed limit however, that is what has been deemed appropriate for that road at that point and, as law abiding citizens, it should be adhered to unless people are advocating braking the law?
|
While we're at it, let's have a camera every few yards to catch the litter-droppers and dog-foulers. And one on every dustbin in case we 'break the law' and put the wrong rubbish in. How about a camera in every room in every house to stop domestic abuse? Sounds daft, I know. The trouble with this sort of thing is where it can lead. It's not the sort of society in which I wish to live. I don't wish to be monitored every time I step outside my house, my emails and internet traffic recorded etc etc. The 'if you don't break the law, you have nothing to fear' argument doesn't wash I'm afraid.
|
While we're at it let's have a camera every few yards to catch the litter-droppers and dog-foulers.
They don't cause death and injury, though, do they - so that argument's a red herring...
>>The trouble with this sort of thing iswhere it can lead.
I entirely agree, and thats my main concern
I don't wish to be monitored every time I step outside my house my emails and internet traffic recorded etc etc.
As already pointed out we already are... and if you use a computer at work then its even more intrusive...
I don't wear the "accelerate out of trouble" argument as in nearly 30 years of driving I've yet to come accross a scenario where its better to accelerate rather than brake...
Having said that I do have one major concern and its regarding the "hollier than thou" brigade - you know the ones, they drive at 5 to 10 mph under the limit and when you come to overtake them they speed up - its not so much of a problem at the moment as you can momentarily exceed the limit to get past them... but with this device?
|
'This device' will be found impractical and not adopted. They are just flying a kite.
And this argument is becoming too barmy to be pursued.
|
>>Let?s look at the benefits; speed is one of the major contributing factors to accidents.
Sorry if I've got his completely wrong, but I was lead to believe that speed was a contributing factor in only about 4-6% of road collisions, therefore the remaining 90 odd percent were caused by something other than speed.
|
Here here. I'll worry about the 3,000 who die on our roads every year when the 11,000 who die unnecessarily in our NHS hospitals every year is addressed.
|
There have been numerous examples throughout human history of the powers who happen to be heaping more and more regulation and restriction upon their populations.
Usually, eventually, those populations dispose of the services of those leaders.......
Rarely pleasantly.
|
The roads have never been safer, the deaths per mile travelled or per journey is miniscule. It would be better and much more cost effective to have better driver training plus more effort into catching drunk, drugged and unregistered drivers plus the few nutters who just don't give a damn. That would require more traffic officers. There'll never be zero deaths on the road, a de minimus level will have to be accepted. Accidents happen beacause humans make mistakes. It gets to a point where efforts to reduce accidents further becomes overly intrusive on the majority who drive reasonably carefully. That point has been reached in my opinion.
The biggest factor against this from a government's viewpoint is that the revenue from fines would dry up. They'd need to find some other way to get the cash in.
I console myself in the thought that government knows best! :-)
|
I console myself in the thought that government knows best! :-)
They almost certainly think they do which is to me quite worrying. Motoring has always been an easy target for the control freaks.
|
I'll worry about the 3 000 who die on our roads every year when the 11 000 who die unnecessarily in our NHS hospitals every year is addressed.
It is being addressed (my wife works in a hospital) - do you mean brought down to a certain figure?
|
one was so disturbed by the experience he wrote to me expressing his disquiet at the obvious danger this put drivers in. >>
I would imagine falling asleep at the wheel would be the biggest danger with this ghastly proposal.
|
When the same level of effort, concern, technology and law introduction is put in to place for the hospital issue as is in place for the road deaths issue.
Not a single week goes by with out some government announcement about some new way of tackling / dealing with speeding on our roads. You'd think it was a major crisis and that it was wiping out tens of thousands. I once read that the same number of pensioners as people killed in road accidents each year, die of hyperthermia. See much urgency going on to address that ?
|
|
I'm with Mr X on this one. If the Government wanted to 'save' the most lives, they would do a proper cost/benefit analysis across all departments to see where the finite resources would be best spent. I'm pretty sure road deaths wouldn't be at the top of the list.
|
"The system makes it almost impossible to get a speeding ticket from a camera"
(Quote Telegraph)
How would that increase revenue HJ ?
|
You are about 3 times more likely to be killed at home than you are by using the roads.
And you spend probably spend 10 to 20 times more time in the home than in the car, so thats not really an argument against it...
HJ, you mentioned that one of the people who had the restriced car felt it was dangerous... what were his/her reasons? The only two I could think of would be from Road Rage by those who wish to break the limit and you would be impeding their progress and tailgating from the same crowd (and probably some more)?
Like Lud I'm not convinced anything will come of it, but if we are to stop it if they do decide its a "good idea" then we're going to have to produce better arguments than some of the knee-jerk stuff thats been produced so far.
|
It's fairly obvious that a system of that sort, while immensely annoying, would not usually cause accidents or road deaths. Not usually, just from time to time.
Our country has one of the world's highest traffic densities, with many towns, urban areas and local variations in speed limits for other reasons or none. Driving standards and standards of general behaviour leave much to be desired. Given this background, 'from time to time' may mean, probably would mean, many times a day. It wouldn't take long to become measurable.
The idea is silly and impractical. They are just flying a kite.
|
Surely oilrag twelve points on the licence mean a ban whatever your income? I don't see that the system discriminates against the poor particularly, although a careless attitude to fixed penalties can do a professional driver out of a job. I don't think Mr Loophole always wins either.
This external speed-control system won't be taken up by this government because it will be found to be potentially dangerous. So it won't have to be dropped by the next one.
No playing field is ever level. Some are less sloping than others, but financial and other privileges ensure that things are not the same for everyone.
|
It won`t happen in my opinion Lud. The freedom constrictions would finish off any political party that brought it in.
I`m personally against it - having been merely it`s advocate... for the sake of argument ;-)
c
Edited by oilrag on 11/05/2009 at 16:21
|
|
|
|
|
|
