The Pub Discussion Board

Jefferson · 2007-01-11 02:50:18

There is the technology out there, today, to stop speeders. To, if not end, to put a major dent in the number of traffic accidents.

It's really quite simple as I see it. We place a small reciever on the undercarriage of all new cars and trucks and tie it directly to some part of the car (I am engine ignorant. I Apologize) that controls the speed.

Along side the road, starting with interstates and going down to farm roads and roads through sub-divisions, we place a small post with a transmitter on it. This transmitter would broadcast a "safe" top speed for a car and/or truck depending on road and traffic conditions.

The reciever beneath a passing car would "Read" this speed limit and set the car so it could go no faster than that limit. If'/when the speed limit changes, there would be another transmitter that would tell the car the new speed limit.

On MOST interstates across the country, the top safe speed, according to those who claim to know about these things, is 55mph. The transmitters would send a single telling all cars that go by it, that the top speed is 55. There would be a series of them every couple miles to make sure all the cars and trucks got the message. No car or truck would then be able to go faster than 55. A nice easy way to stop speeders, high speed chases and some of these horrendous car accidents we see on the TV news.

Now, there has been a lot of talk about self-driving cars. A lot of people are worried that it would "invade their privacy" because SOMEONE, somewhere would have to know where they're going and be controlling the car. With my idea, of just limiting speed, we don't have to worry about it. It would be a simple broadcast.

I guess there would be dangers, someone hacks in to the computers controlling these things and sets them to Omph and those behind to 55Mph could cause some serious fender benders but I'm sure this could be limited by limiting the connectivity of that specific computer. A closed circuit between the controlling computer(s) and the roadside speed transmitters.

This would take time. As we could not FORCE people to take their car in and have the reciever put in place, even with insurance rate breaks and tax breaks, I don't think most people would go for it. We could always install on all NEW Cars, trucks and motorcycles though and then make it very, very difficult to turn off the reciever, maybe messing with it without knowing a code or whatever, blows the electric system in the car, something to the effect LoJak does. Of course, this delay wouldn't be a bad thing since we would have to wire up and place all these speed transmitters as well. It would take probably the better part of a decade just to wire up the major interstates, and another decade or two to do city streets.

One other advatage to this idea, no more cop chases. The bad guy, running from the cops, gets on the interstate, they just shut it down, set everything, except the cop cars to 0mph and slow everything else behind it down to compensate. Might lead to fewer traffic jams as well.

What do you thinK? Good idea? Bad Idea? Expensive? yeah probably. Worth it? Is it stepping on someone's civil rights? Is speeding a civil right?

Eric Storm · 2007-01-11 05:19:00

Before I comment on the idea itself, I'd like to point out that yes, you CAN force older cars to get this device. All you would have to do is make it part of the registration inspection for the vehicle.

Now, as you point out, such a device would immediately create a black market in disabling these devices, so that cars would go at whatever speed they wanted. Sure, it would be illegal to have such a vehicle... but then, the only reason to do it is so that you can do something illegal anyway, so...

I can't drive, because of my eyes, so I am personally in favor of the self-driving vehicle, though I know such a system is probably more than a century away, because of the amount of infrastructure change involved. I don't think that an electronic speed regulator will solve any of the problems you've brought up. People will still cause accidents by not paying attention. If you stop an entire freeway section to stop one person, you will have every other driver on that stretch of highway screaming bloody murder... and as soon as it causes someone to, say, miss an important business meeting, cities will be sued for damages.

Until it's possible to remove the human from the loop, individual transportation will always be a very dangerous activity. As you might expect, I favor public mass transit over individual transportation. I envision a day when, instead of roads, there is a system of "tracks" that automated vehicles will run on, and which will service every home and business. Takes care of the accidents issue, and the speeding issue, and removes the need for police to waste time patrolling streets, so they can deal with other types of crime.

Net Wolf

dv8n · 2007-01-12 00:43:26

I think it is a good idea, Jefferson... BUT ( you there was a but didn't you?) like Net Wolf said people will screw it up... people screw up everything... not the individual mind you but all those blind (I swear Net that was NOT a joke about you) people who are trying to screw everybody else to get something for themselves.

...And Net's idea about mass transit is a good one too... but I think the cops should still patrol the streets, just to watch for some of the other types of crime...but hell they could probably do that on foot.

As much as I love driving I know that when I get behind the wheel of a mass of metal moving 55-60 ( hell who am I kidding I'm one of the speeders ) 70 mph it could very well turn into the wadded up ball of metal coffin they bury me in because it's more economical than cutting me out.

Eric Storm · 2007-01-12 02:02:42

Just to clarify, I wasn't advocating reducing the size of the police dept. I was just saying that, since they wouldn't have to worry about traffic offenses, they wouldn't need to patrol the "motorways". They'd still need to patrol neighborhoods to catch non-traffic crime.

Net Wolf

dv8n · 2007-01-12 19:08:47

...Of course, at the same time you know some would have to keep patrolling the "motorways" in the squad cars because not everyone will do it (like you said about the black market Tech.) Net said make them do it when they register the car, BUT their ares lots and lots of people out there that drive a non-registered car (even though it's illegal), just like car insurance is the law here,( they drive without it only getting it to register the car or when they get a ticket, then they let it go as soon as they can) Some people get by without registering their cars for a long time, they are just "lucky" I guess. I've known several that went years without registering their cars... on the same note many of them keep losing their cars in completely unrelated dealings... So maybe it's all just a matter of time before it catches up to them, in walks a new customer for the black market speed limit chip reprogrammer.

...it always comes down to people. or money. or sex. or something else. 3dbig_smile

Eric Storm · 2007-01-12 19:53:19

In my "public transportation" system, there wouldn't be a way to "not do it". There wouldn't be a place for normal vehicles to run on. As I said, there would be no "roads", only the specialized motorway used by the automated vehicles, which would not be "cars" as we know them now.

The system I envision in my head resembles a water-ride. You know, a cylindrical track down which the vehicle would be propelled. The computer would switch to different tubes at the appropriate points to get where it was going. This is why I said it would take so long to do it: it requires new and very expensive infrastructure to be built.

Net Wolf

TheNStorm · 2007-08-10 01:30:03

Hey! I've got an idea! Why don't we wrest control of self from the global populace. It'll waaay safer if nobody can choose for themselves lots in life. We could pick some -say... one out of every hundred people to watch out for the best interests of the rest, then we could designate tasks for the populace in general. This would have to happen over a great period of years, to take away the idea of individual revolt against the shiny new system, but eventually we'd have a world where everybody did exactly what they were supposed to do!

Oh yeah... who would decide what people are 'supposed' to do? I guess it would have to be an elite group of people with vision...

Why haven't we instituted such a system... hmmm... ~ponders for the next hour~... Oh! Yeah! We did, but then we had a civil war and one of those horrid emancipation proclamation thingies. Damn.

Right?

-The N Storm

Eric Storm · 2007-08-10 02:13:56

Yeah, then we ALL became slaves to Washington.

Net Wolf

siath · 2007-08-10 03:10:51

Jefferson wrote:
There is the technology out there, today, to stop speeders. To, if not end, to put a major dent in the number of traffic accidents.

It's really quite simple as I see it. We place a small reciever on the undercarriage of all new cars and trucks and tie it directly to some part of the car (I am engine ignorant. I Apologize) that controls the speed.

Along side the road, starting with interstates and going down to farm roads and roads through sub-divisions, we place a small post with a transmitter on it. This transmitter would broadcast a "safe" top speed for a car and/or truck depending on road and traffic conditions.

--snip-- for length

What do you thinK? Good idea? Bad Idea? Expensive? yeah probably. Worth it? Is it stepping on someone's civil rights? Is speeding a civil right?

Actually most interstates in the US are 75 mph; I know because I was a truck driver. There are a few in Texas and New Mexico and Arizona that are now 85 mph. More of the higher limits are cropping up too.

This device is called a govener (sp?) it regulates the top end of a vehicle. Some semi's have been getting ones that regulate it based on the road their on, ain't GPS tracking a wonderful thing...

Very simple device to install on any vehicle. My semi had a radar system on it that tracked every car around me their speed and what they did. It also regulated my truck if I had cruise control on and would slow it down if I was approaching a vehicle to fast. It also beeped to tell me 'hey dummy there's someone in your blind spot. Then if I turned on the blinker like I was going to change lanes it would go nuts to warn me.

The thing that gets me is truckers are regulated 11 hours a day driveing period. They say after you're driving 11 hours you're to tired to drive. Um Ok, good rule so why are the truckers the only ones forced in to it? 90%of all accidents involving a trucker is caused by a small vehicle, yes there was a study done over 10 years by the trucking industry and some agencies. The other 10% are stupid truck drivers... Nuff said about them.

Anyway, I say what's good for the goose should be good for the gander. Want to cut down on accidents, start regulating the smaller vehicles...

Siath

Jefferson · 2007-08-10 08:08:41

siath wrote:
Anyway, I say what's good for the goose should be good for the gander. Want to cut down on accidents, start regulating the smaller vehicles...

Siath

The question is, HOW? Do we put computers into cars that stop the car if the same driver has been driving for eleven hours? Should drivers have to fill out logs? Don't get me wrong, I agree with the idea, it would be near impossible to implement. People would scream invasion of privacy.

Net's idea of a tracked, mass-transit system is probably the wave of the future. Electro-magnetic track, small "cars" that run along them, you step in, tell it where you want to go and it's off. It could be nice. Could be luxurious even. Make the cars ball-shaped, big enough for four people, sitting around the inside of the ball, facing each other, maybe a table in the middle. Storage area for luggage on top, small luggage case above the passengers or even under the seats. If you don't wanna "scar" the land, just put them underground.

Have a local track to putter around town which would link with a bigger station where you could catch a "Regional" track if you wanted/needed to go across the state or into one of the neighboring states and this track would link with a "National" track that could carry, you and your family, clear across the country. The Cars on the "National" track would be larger, maybe bunks for sleeping in so you arrive fresh and well-rested. Work like a train station kind of. All paid for, presumably with taxpayer monies so all you have to do is swipe an ID card of some sort. It would be really cool but again, you'll have people saying that the government's tracking them using the system and, it would cost more than the interstate system to build and take twice as long to finish.

siath · 2007-08-10 11:15:28

Well, there are a lot of ways. But then again there are a lot of cars.

3dtongue I was just trying to make a point.

Siath

TheNStorm · 2007-10-15 19:37:05

Bigger government= bad/scary/possibly genocidal.

Realist theory applies here.

John Locke is the only way to go.

The end.

The N Storm

Eric Storm · 2007-10-15 20:38:27

Perhaps... except insofar as speeding causes innumerable deaths to innocent people (ie, those people who were NOT speeding), thus making it an issue for the government, whose job it is to protect those who are abiding by the law from those who are not. The problem with "law enforcement" is that it cannot, by design, do ANYTHING until the law has been broken. What the original proposition here was asking is, should we, in this one area, enforce the law by preventing people from breaking it in the first place?

We're not actually talking about a further intrusion on privacy or your rights. You already do not have the right to speed: it's a violation of the law. We are not talking about privacy at all: You're in public doing what you're doing, so it's not a private act. What we're asking is: should law enforcement be allowed to actually PREVENT you from breaking the law, and not just punish you when you do?

Net Wolf

Eric Storm · 2007-10-15 20:44:26

Oh, and on a note to siath concerning regulating the length of time people drive their cars per day: It's never been an issue because probably 99% of car drivers don't come anywhere near 11 hours a day in their cars. They manage to be stupid in much shorter periods of time. I would imagine that most people don't spend more than 2 hours in their cars on any normal day... and even on long-distance road trips, MOST people stop after about ten hours or so. (There are exceptions, and those people are stupid and deserve to die inside their precious cars just for being that stupid... natural selection at work. Sorry if that sounds harsh, but we have to reduce the population somehow... 3dsmile )

Net Wolf

Khellendros · 2007-10-15 22:20:37

I suggest removing all warning signs and labels.

Khellendros

Jefferson · 2007-10-15 22:50:30

"You didn't tell me my coffee was going to be hot! I'm going to sue!"

To quote Bill Engvall... "Here's your sign!"

3dsmile

The Pub Discussion Board

#1 2007-01-11 02:50:18

Saving Lives or Invading Privacy

#2 2007-01-11 05:19:00

Re: Saving Lives or Invading Privacy

#3 2007-01-12 00:43:26

Re: Saving Lives or Invading Privacy

#4 2007-01-12 02:02:42

Re: Saving Lives or Invading Privacy

#5 2007-01-12 19:08:47

Re: Saving Lives or Invading Privacy

#6 2007-01-12 19:53:19

Re: Saving Lives or Invading Privacy

#7 2007-08-10 01:30:03

Re: Saving Lives or Invading Privacy

#8 2007-08-10 02:13:56

Re: Saving Lives or Invading Privacy

#9 2007-08-10 03:10:51

Re: Saving Lives or Invading Privacy

Jefferson wrote:

#10 2007-08-10 08:08:41

Re: Saving Lives or Invading Privacy

siath wrote:

#11 2007-08-10 11:15:28

Re: Saving Lives or Invading Privacy

#12 2007-10-15 19:37:05

Re: Saving Lives or Invading Privacy

#13 2007-10-15 20:38:27

Re: Saving Lives or Invading Privacy

#14 2007-10-15 20:44:26

Re: Saving Lives or Invading Privacy

#15 2007-10-15 22:20:37

Re: Saving Lives or Invading Privacy

#16 2007-10-15 22:50:30

Re: Saving Lives or Invading Privacy

Board footer