EU Proposes To Fit Cars With Speed Limiters 732
schwit1 points out a new EU road safety measure to fit cars with devices that would stop them going over 70mph. "Under the proposals new cars would be fitted with cameras that could read road speed limit signs and automatically apply the brakes when this is exceeded. Patrick McLoughlin, the Transport Secretary, is said to be opposed to the plans, which could also mean existing cars are sent to garages to be fitted with the speed limiters, preventing them from going over 70mph. The new measures have been announced by the European Commission's Mobility and Transport Department as a measure to reduce the 30,000 people who die on the roads in Europe every year. A Government source told the Mail on Sunday Mr McLoughlin had instructed officials to block the move because they 'violated' motorists' freedom. They said: 'This has Big Brother written all over it and is exactly the sort of thing that gets people's backs up about Brussels.'"
No need for cameras. (Score:5, Interesting)
My Navigator knows the speed limit and gongs if I pass it, why not just link it with the maximum speed of the cruise control in the same fucking computer?
I'd pay for that, since it would save me many tickets.
Oh, so there is another EU . . . ? (Score:5, Interesting)
. . . a different one than the one where Germany is a member . . . ? Because that EU isn't going to put any speed limits on the German Autobahns. Actually, nobody else is either.
That is about as likely as the NRA leading a campaign to repeal the Second Amendment to the US Constitution (the right to bear arms).
Germans like their cars, like Americans like their weapons. That's an actual SAT analogy question.
And they like to drive them very fast.
100k miles of commuting has changed my mind (Score:4, Interesting)
on speed cameras. When I started out I didn't see the harm in speeding on our UK motorways (although I was vehemently against speeding in residential areas), and was largely opposed to the average speed cameras seen round the M25 and M42.
However, after so many miles of experiencing idiots driving erratically - speeding up/slowing down - some doing 90+ others doing 50mph, and having to continually be on the look out, overtaking, changing lanes just so I could drive with a consistent speed, I've decided average speed check cameras are the way to go. They stabilise the whole traffic, and generally everyone ends up driving almost exactly 70mph. There is a lot less stress, fuel economy is better than at 70, and there's much less slowing down and speeding up, which is also good for economy and safety.
If average speed cameras work - why use electronic limiters? There are very rare occasions when you need a bit of speed to do something safely, particularly at slower speeds (i.e. overtaking a cyclist or slower moving vehicle), and if there are any errors in the system, it could put people's lives at risk. Better to let the driver weigh up safety versus a speeding fine in those situations.
Re:Amazing idea (Score:4, Interesting)
With the quality of software in modern cars, I wouldn't want to trust my life on a vehicle that can override my actions.
Re:Amazing idea (Score:3, Interesting)
What kind of grade A moron would make a car brake to match a speed limit? It'll just turn the engine off to slowly reduce speed.
The same grade-A idiots that make you brake by reducing the speed limit too sharply to meet by engine braking alone and then whacks a speed camera in to catch anyone who didn't slam on the brakes.
An example I drive with reasonable frequency - the variable speed limit on the west-bound M4 near Newport, Wales. When they decide to reduce the limit to 50, the first 50 sign you see is too close to slow from 70 before passing it without braking. And every other gantry has a set of speed cameras in it, so you've basically got to hit the brakes on a motorway to avoid getting a NIP. This could be easilly solved by making the first sign a 60, and the next one a 50 to give you plenty of slowing down time.
Speed limits don't work (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:No need for cameras. (Score:4, Interesting)
They should also fit cars with proximity sensors that automatically apply the brakes when you get too close to the car in front. Then if that car brakes, whether it's because of the glitch you describe or any other reason, you'll have enough time to brake to avoid a collision.
Re:Three reasons why this won't work (Score:4, Interesting)
But the main issue is: EU commissioners and national MPs are my elected (well, sort of) representatives charged with managing certain aspects of running the country. They are not my parents. The highway code is not a set of moral values, but they are increasingly treated as such. In reality the should be regarded as a means to an end, that end being road safety, and enforcement of that code should reflect that. Rigidly applying the speed limits does little to serve that goal.
By the way, if this gets implemented, I will install a backlit 80km/h sign in my rear window, so I can flash it at tailgaters, making their speed control system hit the brakes. All in good fun.
Re:No need for cameras. (Score:2, Interesting)
Australia's mandatory bicycle helmet laws are one such example, having changed public attitudes negatively towards cycling, and marginalising it as an extreme sport. This, in a time when cities need cycling as the infrastructure buckles under the weight of 17.2 million motor vehicles.
Re:Three reasons why this won't work (Score:5, Interesting)
That is the wrong kind of thinking. My point is that rigidly enforcing speed limits (which in itself may indeed constitute some local optimum value) does not necessarily improve road safety. While it may be good to set a speed limit of 100km/h on a certain road, it might make little sense to ding people for doing 104 (the current threshold here in NL) or even 114. I recently had the opportunity to observe the difference between a loosely interpreted and tightly interpreted speed limit, thanks to the police doing daily and highly visible speed checks on a road I drive over for my daily commute. Before the checks, a few people might do 90 on that road, most more or less stuck to the limit of 100, while a few did 110 in the fast lane, with a very small minority doing over 120. In this case, traffic flows smoothly, merging and overtaking was easy as well. But when the cops started their speed trap, people kept to the limit of 100kmh religiously. In busy traffic the result was that changing lanes became much more difficult, traffic flowed much less smoothly, and with everyone closely matching each other's speed, they had a tendency to drive too close together as well. In this case, rigidly keeping to the speed limit actually decreases traffic safety.
Making a speed limiter mandatory has the following downsides:
- It imposes a cost on vehicle owners
- It removes our freedom to exceed the speed limit if conditions and circumstances allow (and as I have argued, that speed limit is a means (and a crappy one at that), not an end.
- It introduces an additional point of failure into vehicles, and a potentially dangerous one at that.
The burden of proof is on the state in this case: proof that the upside (increased traffic safety, not adherence to the law) outweighs the downsides. Given the current statistics on traffic fatalities, I have serious doubts about the effectiveness of this proposal. Even the best case scenario does not merit a trial.
Re:No need for cameras. (Score:2, Interesting)
Actually, the stronger possibility is it's the kind of story you'd expect the Mail on Sunday
70 Mph (112 km/h) is the speed limit in the UK and is significantly smaller than most countries in EU (120-130 km/h). Speeding is national sport everywhere in EU, there is no way the EU would make a serious proposition to electronically prevent car to go about 90% of the current speed limit without making the top news in about every country. Something in this news has been distorted to flamebait level.