Is Ford Trying To Patent a Way For Its Cars To Report Speeding To the Police? (motorauthority.com) 216
Is Ford trying to patent a way for its cars to report speeding drivers to the police? An article in Motor Authority notes that this patent application from Ford was filed January 12th of 2023 — and just published 11 days ago by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office:
In the application, Ford discusses using cars to monitor each other's speeds. If one car detects that a nearby vehicle is being driven above the posted limit, it could use onboard cameras to photograph that vehicle. A report containing both speed data and images of the targeted vehicle could then be sent directly to a police car or roadside monitoring units via an Internet connection, according to Ford. Using vehicles for speed surveillance would make cops' jobs easier, as they wouldn't have to quickly identify speeding violations and take off in pursuit, Ford notes in the application. It also means some of that work could be delegated to self-driving cars, which could be equipped to detect speeding violations, the automaker adds...
Ford has also tried to patent a "night drive mode" that would limit vehicle speeds at night for everyone — including first responders.
Thanks to long-time Slashdot reader schwit1 for sharing the article.
Ford has also tried to patent a "night drive mode" that would limit vehicle speeds at night for everyone — including first responders.
Thanks to long-time Slashdot reader schwit1 for sharing the article.
might not end well (Score:4, Interesting)
i can imagine damage given to vehicles that are equipped with this “feature.”
Re:might not end well (Score:5, Informative)
Once more, the problem only lies in the clickbait slashdot title. This is not to equip the general population, only police patrol. It's in the patent draft.
See how they intertwin the generic "detection", which applies to any car, and the cases where there is a transmission, where it only applies to law enforcement vehicles.
See for example Claim 8: in any car, the system can detect and display a notificaton ; Claims 9,11,12: if it is a police car, then it can trigger a radar, transmit information to a server, notify of a pursuit. There are 20 claims in total, you're free to analyse them.
8. A method comprising: determining, by a processor in a first vehicle, based on evaluating a speed measurement obtained from a first vehicle speed detection system of the first vehicle, [...] and displaying, by the processor, on a display screen of an infotainment system of the first vehicle, a notification that includes at least one of the speed measurement associated with the second vehicle
9. The method of claim 8, wherein the first vehicle is a first law-enforcement vehicle [...]: activating, by the processor, a radar device [...]
11. The method of claim 8, wherein the first vehicle is a first law-enforcement vehicle [...]: transmitting, by the processor, at least a portion of the record to at least one of a server computer that is configured to store information associated with traffic violations [...]
12. The method of claim 8, wherein the first vehicle is a first law-enforcement vehicle [...]: transmitting [...] an alert that the first law-enforcement vehicle is executing a pursuit operation.
https://trea.com/information/s... [trea.com]
Justify it. (Score:2)
If this is only for law enforcement (who is basically exempt from speeding limits, especially when in pursuit), then what is the entire point of this technology? Sounds like yet another form of audit and documentation to “justify” any harm or death related to high speed pursuits. Otherwise, why are cops tattling on cops again? A broke taxpayer wants to know which asshole is getting rich.
Re:Justify it. (Score:5, Insightful)
It detects the speed of OTHER vehicles. Detecting the speed of the current vehicle is called a SPEEDOMETER and it's been around a few years.
Re: (Score:3)
I wish the Law and car manufacturers would go a few steps further:
- Onboard sensors that detect when someone is tailgating you above a certain speed limit. This would prevent false positives when you're in stand still tra
Re: (Score:3)
Use in police cars is almost certainly Ford's plan (the second sentence of the abstract says "An example method executed by a processor in a first vehicle (a law-enforcement vehicle, for example)...", but t
Re: (Score:2)
So on the off chance that a vehicle may catch you committing a crime on camera, you instead postulate a world where people will commit crimes pre-emptively... on a vehicle they know is fitted with cameras?
I'm all in favour of this. We need to identify these insanely stupid people out there and stop them from breeding.
Nobody likes a snitch (Score:5, Insightful)
If you really want to enforce a speed limit, pass a law requiring mandatory speed limiters [autotrader.co.uk] in all new cars, rather than having one brand of car acting as some sort of ad-hoc police deputy.
Re: Nobody likes a snitch (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
According to the summary, Ford has tried that kind of patent.
As the actual manufacturer of automobiles, care to explain why they would need a patent to simply create a corporate policy that states new cars will be designed to not exceed 80MPH? What exactly are they patenting? The right to NOT make a car unjustifiably fast that exceeds EVERY legal speed limit posted across an ENTIRE country?
Why exactly would Ford need permission or patent protection to do that again?
Re: (Score:2)
Given that the issue is far more likely to be with obstruction rather than speeding, why are we so focused on monetizing speedi .... oh.... Wait. I get it.
It's about revenue generation, first and foremost. Difficult to do with douchebags obstructing the freeflow of traffic in multiple, insane, ways. Easy with speed metrics. Got it.
Re: (Score:2)
If you really want to enforce a speed limit, pass a law requiring mandatory speed limiters [autotrader.co.uk] in all new cars, rather than having one brand of car acting as some sort of ad-hoc police deputy.
One problem with those - at least as I see it now - is that I don't trust them to have the right speed. My current experience across multiple cars is that the speed limit displayed in the car is frequently wrong - in both directions.
Re: (Score:2)
If you really want to enforce a speed limit, pass a law requiring mandatory speed limiters [autotrader.co.uk] in all new cars, rather than having one brand of car acting as some sort of ad-hoc police deputy.
Except that the law doesn't do anything of the sort. No where is there a law with mandatory speed limiters, and not in the EU either. You are not limited in any way and free to ignore the car's feature that is mandated by the EU law. In the case of my car it involves flashing the little speed indicator sign on the instrument cluster in a completely ignorable and unobtrusive way.
Which is a good thing by the way, where I live we have service streets to houses, meaning 30km/h parallel streets next to main road
Re: (Score:2)
If you really want to enforce speed limits, change them to reflect the actual speed that safe drivers drive
All speed limits are unrealistically low and most safe drivers routinely exceed them
This erodes respect for the law in general
The safe speed on a road varies a lot, based on lighting, weather, driver competence, traffic and vehicle performance
Traffic enforcement should not be based on a single number, but instead on performance under the conditions that exist at the time
Re: (Score:3)
who would use it? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:who would use it? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I know a small town that started issuing tickets based on pictures, this escalated to people taking pictures of their neighbours they don't like while they were legally crossing the sidewalk to get into their garages. Mind you, in suburbs where you usually don't see a pedestrian all day long for as far as you can see. Just a small parking fine, that would both not deter anyone who's doing it regularly (heck, I parked for more money) and wo
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with your diagnosis that people will be more than happy top transmit data. However, none of this scenario is in this patent. Infractions can only be recorded through radar measurement, and the patent is clear that the purpose of the image detection is, in a police car, to trigger a radar which in turn, in a police car, can transmit the infraction.
Regarding doorbell cameras, when you say "happy to send the videos", it is an "Appeal to Motive" (fallacy). People don't have a choice, at least in my plac
Re: (Score:2)
Think of all the people who got Ring doorbell cameras, and are happy to send the videos to the police. Those same people will be more than happy to report when someone goes past them speeding. It doesn't even have to be automatic: if there is a button that people have to push to send the report, they will happily push it.
Funny thing about hypocritical button smashers; they’re guilty of being fucking impatient too. Hope they enjoy the equally shitty rewards in return. Maybe at some point they’ll learn that being a cunt, doesn’t pay.
Re: (Score:2)
People already do with dashcams. They have to manually submit, but they do it.
For speeding it's usually not enough, because the police are very keen to argue that the GPS speed sensor in the dashcam is not accurate. If it was, it would undermine their radar/laser speed trap guns that are actually inferior to GPS.
For dangerous driving, using a mobile phone while driving, even littering, the police do use submitted dashcam footage to prosecute. It's just unfortunate that often the dashcam isn't good enough to
Re: (Score:2)
Think of all the people who got Ring doorbell cameras, and are happy to send the videos to the police. Those same people will be more than happy to report when someone goes past them speeding. It doesn't even have to be automatic: if there is a button that people have to push to send the report, they will happily push it.
You've already got this with Dash Cam Warriors, predominantly cyclists. Many UK police agencies now have section on their website to upload a video.
I've driven for years with a dash cam but that's mainly there for my own amusement and the off chance I might need to settle an insurance dispute (in Australia loads of people will lie to insurers, my version of events is correct because I have the footage). Perish the thought of dobbing in other motorists, even though most will be absolute morons, no-one lik
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, come on... do we really need a make another tool for the Karens of the world to complain about every minor infraction to government services? They're annoying enough as is. They're already making HOA's miserable to live in, and now you want to expand their perceived moral "authority" to their local highways as well?
Re: (Score:2)
Won't hold up in court. (Score:2)
Firstly, only selected bodies have the authority to measure speed and issue tickets. Private companies don't. This is for a number of reasons but most importantly it's about the accuracy of a measurement and making sure that the speed data is not tampered with. In order to accurately measure the speed of a vehicle one's got to consider own speed, position of the measured object, angles, curvature of the road, etc. Then we have the problem of atestation of your own speedometer and of the measuring device whi
Re: (Score:2)
> Don't what? Make the equipment that measures the speed?
Don't have the authority to use the equipment in a way that has (legal) consequences.
Those who do have to use certified, vetted and controlled equipment.
Let them (Score:2)
Once they become required by law, Ford should lose patent protection.
Let's hypothesise (Score:5, Interesting)
Let's hypothesise.
The patent is granted, and the legal issues sorted so that privately owned vehicles are allowed work as mobile speed cameras, with their evidence admissable in court.
6 months later Ford starts selling them.
3 Days later the full liust of models that can have this feature is public knowledge across the internet.
That night, the fires begin.
I'm not advocating this. I'm just saying that in the modern world this would be inevitable.
Re: (Score:2)
That night, the fires begin
This is great. I fully support living in a world that has weeded out morons who would commit crimes on vehicles fitted with cameras all to maybe not potentially get caught committing a crime in the future.
Can you imagine such a world? Safer for all from emotional morons, and with a general IQ increase for the remaining population to boost.
Nobody's going to set fire to cars over this (Score:2)
Not so fast... (Score:2)
The only reason why everyone other than ford hasn't tried to patent it, other than the usual reasons, is that we aren't total dicks that want to turn the entire automotive using populace of the world into out enemy.
Do you ... not like your own laws? (Score:2)
People are so schizophrenic about speeding enforcement.
You do know that speeding laws are passed by people you voted for, right? But when anybody tries to actually enforce the laws, you get all squirrelly.
Don't want speed limits enforced? Then vote for people who will raise or remove speed limits.
Read the Patent, it already exists (Score:2)
Democracy (Score:2)
I'm in favor of democracy. I'd like to see speed limits be explicitly posted, including unambiguous rules for conditions like rain, fog and snow, and then enforced 100%.
Then let the voters sort out whether any politician who supports speed limits that are too low makes it past the next election. Selective enforcement of laws is a huge problem. Individual police officers should not have the freedom to pick and choose which laws to enforce and which to ignore, or pick a choose who has to follow the laws and w
Relativity will be a b*tch (Score:2)
Car at 20mph, passing car, 30 in a 30, with real diff 10.
Car at 20mph, brakes suddenly, passing car 50 in a 30.
Plus lots of variations for averages, wrong speed limits, patchy location...
Re: Relativity will be a b*tch (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You mean you would have to factor in the current vehicle's wheel (or maybe even GPS) speed into the formula?
Oh no. What a chore!
Measuring the relative velocity of two vehicles is pretty easy, measuring JUST ONE of those vehicles absolute velocity (at least, relative to the Earth) is trivial and literally staring you in the face when you're driving.
Adding one onto the other requires nothing more than accounting for the addition of the appropriate error margins.
forced to buy an data plan and / or maps gps updat (Score:2)
forced to buy an data plan and / or maps gps update plan?
with the car?
Patents (Score:5, Interesting)
No, Ford - like any large company - thinks about what everyone might do in the future, tries to patent it in advance (while it's still "novel") and then if ANYONE makes a car that does that, they have to pay Ford.
See "heated front windscreen".
Most of those patents go unused, the income from those patents is from their competitors and other smaller companies, and they never have to actually implement it in any mainstream model, but if they do decide to do so... it costs them nothing because they own the idea.
Welcome to how patents work, and always have.
There are patents for the most ridiculous things, and the second a new tech comes out (e.g. "AI"), then thousands of patents are filed to do things "using AI" in order to then try to extract money from the entire world ever trying to do that particular thing.
In a hardware world like car manufacture, there is a patent on every single component, and it's a good idea to own enough of them that your competitors would rather negotiate / exchange patent licensing than you have to pay everyone for every part.
I bet there are a dozen car companies each owning some tiny part of any system on a car, e.g. if you took "lane deviation avoidance", I bet there's a patent in that from every major car company, plus dozens of tech companies, and that all of them were filed before a major car company actually had a working mass production with that technology in.
Re: (Score:2)
"We put it in a one-off concept car that costs $10m".
There you go. Problem solved.
There's no need for this. (Score:2)
If we want to stop speeders, we don't need high tech surveillance or even paid patrol officers.
All we need is a big rock. [youtube.com]
Other countries do this (Score:3)
Can I just have walkable cities and public transit (Score:2)
At that point what's the fucking point of having your
I call entrapment (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And ear splitting exhausts
Report them if... (Score:2)
I'd like to see cars restricted to under 100 mph and report those, there is never a reason for a civilian to go those speeds. Report no brake pads and bald tires too.
Enslave the population (Score:2)
If they want to stop speeding, scale the penalties (Score:2)
Finland is the famous model.
I'll be honest, I speed all the time - nothing ridiculous, but the sort of "nobody cares if you're within 10%" that's been usual in Minnesota my whole life.
But if speeding tickets were $5000 or whatever, fuck that I'll take more time and lock the cruise control so I don't speed.
https://www.wionews.com/world/... [wionews.com]
Other side of the detection. (Score:2)
No-one seems to have questioned how the system can know the speed limit in force.
Yes, there is mapping data, but, where I live, my Tesla shows the speed limit incorrectly on many roads that I drive along. It's not just on old, rural roads, but on new (or perhaps newly-widened) roads.
I can imagine an automated system will suffer from lots of false positives and false negatives from this incorrect data.
let them patent it (Score:2)
Double-Edged Sword? (Score:3)
Once any sort of technology is developed, it's original use is always expanded on by the good guys AND the bad guys. At some point, the humans will learn that inventing technology to solve problems, only solves 3 problems and creates 5 more.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Insane (Score:5, Interesting)
Defensive patent?
Ford-exclusive feature that no other car-marker can adopt.
Re: Insane (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
They will, they'll just have to pay licensing fees.
Or they can join a patent pool [wikipedia.org].
The more patents they have, the more likely they'll be invited to join. That's why companies patent tonnes of stuff they have no interest in actually implementing.
Re: (Score:3)
FUCK FORD.
Is Ford purposely trying to sink their sales already MORE than how car sales are tanking presently?
Who the fuck would want to buy into this eco-system?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Defensive patent?
Ford-exclusive feature that no other car-marker can adopt.
ALL patents are defensive. Otherwise billionaires running corporations wouldn’t secure tens of thousands of them behind an army of litigators ready to sue if anyone dare try and use them. Ever.
They call them Patent War Chests for a reason. Playing word games changes nothing.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It doesn't snitch on you, it does it for the other cars. You benefit because other drivers will be reluctant to speed around your car.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
" You benefit because other drivers will be reluctant to speed around your car."
That's absolutely NOT helpful. It's not helpful to have everyone around me doing 10 or 20mph below average traffic speed. It's not helpful to be stuck behind slowpokes.
Re: (Score:2)
If you've ever driven a white crown Vic (funnily enough, also a Ford) in the early 2000s you'd know that's not a convenience.
Re: (Score:2)
If you've ever driven a white crown Vic (funnily enough, also a Ford) in the early 2000s you'd know that's not a convenience.
No kidding... My wife bought a Ford Explorer here a year or three ago... Black. Same color as Texas DPS and many local police. First time I hopped on a local toll road, merged behind a semi doing 80 (the speed limit), and did a quick pop-out to get away from him... Everyone slammed on their brakes!
Re: (Score:3)
This is how I feel. If people want to zoom around in the hammer lane, go for it. I make sure to do my part to never do the same speed as a car by me, or at least leave room for people to get around.
It seems to be an ego thing, about people willing to sacrifice safety and get into confrontations with other, possibly armed drivers, just because they don't like someone going ahead of them. Even if they are speeding, who cares. If I'm in the hammer lane and someone is behind, I let them by. If they screw u
Re:Insane (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems to be an ego thing, about people willing to sacrifice safety and get into confrontations with other, possibly armed drivers, just because they don't like someone being ahead of them.
FTFY.
Forcing drivers to pass on the right, or even get tired of people's crap and pass on the shoulder is endangering others.
I agree people should follow traffic laws and drive courteously, including staying out of a passing lane when not passing, but calling it the "hammer lane" and supposing that someone driving in it a little more slowly than you prefer is "forcing" you to do something as damned stupid as passing in the shoulder says infinitely more about your driving habits and nature than it does about theirs.
Pull out a calculator sometime and compute how much time you save by driving 80 instead of 75 over a 30-mile commute. Hint: It's not worth being crippled, killing someone else, or dying over.
Not just driving slow, but slamming on brakes at random. What is it that in the past few years, slamming brakes at random on a highway is commonplace?
Most of the time it's caused by following too close to the person in front of you. I'm astonished at the tiny gap left by some people; it means that any speed variation in the person in front requires brakes, and that continues behind them to all the other unsafe drivers leaving insufficient following distance, like ripples in a pond. Try leaving a least 3 or 4 seconds distance between you and the car in front of you. You can usually absorb small speed variations by adjusting the throttle instead of brakes, and as a "side" benefit, you will actually have sufficient reaction time when something bad happens (but of course you'll still be rear-ended by the asshat riding your bumper).
Re: (Score:3)
Try leaving a least 3 or 4 seconds distance between you and the car in front of you.
I do. It then promptly becomes occupied by another driver who sees that 3 or 4 second gap as an invitation to use it to weave through traffic.
Personally I've found 1.5 to 2 seconds to be the sweet spot between "I'm leaving sufficient margin for error" and "This much of a gap will invite other drivers to cut me off at 60 miles an hour".
Re: (Score:3)
I buy a car.
It has a snitch feature.
How in the fuck does that benefit the buyer of the car?
Why in the fuck do I have to pay for this if I buy such a car?
Fuck Ford. Kill the commie bastards coming up with this shit.
I can see how businesses might want this feature for their fleet cars.
But yeah, if they implement in personal vehicles, I can see Ford losing the personal vehicle market.
Given that making cars available to everyone was Henry Ford's entire goal when he created and built the company, he must be spinning in his grave.
Re:Insane (Score:5, Funny)
But yeah, if they implement in personal vehicles, I can see Ford losing the personal vehicle market.
I would consider having my car report unsafe drivers near me a feature actually. Might have Biff give it that second coat of wax as a reward.
Re: (Score:2)
A business would never, ever, ever want this for their fleet cars. Ever. Never ever ever. Never.
Many already do. Haven't you seen those stickers which say, "Vehicle speed monitored by GPS", or something similar? Fleet vehicle speeds are already being tracked. The only difference is that monitoring stays with the company and the company has to do the leg work. In Ford's case, they would do everything which would reduce the cost to a company.
Re: Insane (Score:2)
Monitored to themselves, not the police.
Re: Insane (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I buy a car.
It has a snitch feature.
How in the fuck does that benefit the buyer of the car?
By making the roads safer for you and everyone else?
PS - this feature doesn't seem to work the way you think it works, but time will tell.
Re:Insane (Score:4)
> By making the roads safer for you and everyone else?
This would have far, far larger consequences regarding our societal structure. Everyone snitching on everyone is a society most of us aren't used to (except maybe those living in an HOA)
Re:Insane (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree WRT the far reaching implications of this policy in the general case. For the restricted case of reporting unlawful operation of vehicles on publicly owned infrastructure I'm less sure that it's nearly that big a change. Dangerous vehicle operation should really be reported immediately and without exception in such cases anyway.
Then, after a lot of us get tickets maybe we can have a rational discussion about reforming the laws instead of relying on the discretion of the police to have some semblance of sanity. The highly irregular way traffic law is enforced now is basically a blank check for anyone to be pulled over at any time for something virtually everyone is doing, and that's a far worse thing in my opinion.
Re: (Score:2)
> Dangerous vehicle operation should really be reported immediately and without exception in such cases anyway.
I absolutely agree with this statement.
There's that difference: "Dangerous" . Going 10km/h over the limit on a straight empty country road on a sunny day is a good reason for lax enforcement. Going 40 km/h in a zone 30 in front of a school when kids are coming out is a case for harsh enforcement.
You can't enshrine in law every possible condition. And even less in computers.
And yes, I did read th
Re: (Score:2)
Based on the amount of people choosing to live in HOAs it seems like the society people want.
Re: (Score:2)
Based on the amount of people choosing to live in HOAs it seems like the society people want.
Sometimes you have no choice as the house of your dreams happens to be in a HOA.
Trust me, if I could get out of the HOA, I would do it in a freakin' heartbeat. They are 99.9% shit.
Re: (Score:2)
You choose when you purchase the house.
HOAs don't droop property value (often seem to increase it), so it seems like many people choose to live with one.
Re:Insane (Score:5, Insightful)
This is not a parking ticket. Moving violations are misdemeanor offenses. This means its not the car that gets ticketed but the driver. Speed cameras have to get a shot of the driver and the license plate, otherwise you can claim someone else was driving. The states where this is used most also require front and rear license plates. A camera at road level wont be able to get a great driver image especially if the side windows are tinted.
Re: (Score:2)
The we can change the law to give the car a "moving parking ticket" in these cases. Get enough of them like parking tickets, and your car gets impounded.
Re: (Score:2)
Thats only allowed to happen because the sheeple keep reelecting the lawmakers that pass the shit. Vote them out and write them telling them exactly WHY you fired them. The followup is the important part. Unless the car is also going to require a driver to scan the barcode of the drivers license, and use a camera to image the driver, I fail to see how they meet the criteria of elements of a crime.
Criminal Act: actus reus. For the actus reus element of a crime to be present, there must be a voluntary, physic
Re: (Score:2)
The speed and red light cameras I've received tickets from do not include pictures of me, and are not moving violations.
Re: (Score:2)
I would be interested in seeing that ticket, redacted of course. My state does allow automated enforcement. Any enforcement that results in points off your license would violate due process if they cannot prove Actus Reus.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So you get a ticket in the mail saying you were driving 12 MPH over the speed limit (a civil infraction, a penalty of 3 points and $30.00 fine) and passing in a "No Passing Zone" (a civil infraction, a penalty of 3 points and $150.00 fine) and a photo of your car /with plates in the left lane returning to the right over double yellow lines, misjudging by 30 feet.
You can:
Re: (Score:2)
Dont forget your constitution right to confront your accuser. Make them bring the traffic camera into court. It was acting autonomously. It needs yo be proven it was calibrated and properly working at the time the images were taken. Honestly the readon they get away with this is because you sheep roll over and just take it in the arse. So many people plead guilty they continue to violate your rights. They did not meet the requirements: actus reus, and mens rea, to charge you with a crime. Points off your li
Re:Insane (Score:5, Informative)
Not in Maryland. The state does not require identification of the driver and car owners have no right to contest the ticket in court. The state's Supreme Court ruled that camera tickets are a tax rather than a crime.
Re: (Score:2)
if it is a tax then they cannot take points right? Someone should invoke 6th amendment right to confront your accuser. I dont get whats with these liberal states being so hell bent on violating your civil liberties. Isnt that what the term liberal was originally intended to be? I would move out of such a liberty infringing state. Your 5th amendment says you cannot be deprived of life, liberty, or property without DUE PROCESS of the law. Saying you cannot contest it in court violates your due process. What y
Re: (Score:3)
By making the roads safer for you and everyone else?
And yet the Autobahn, on which I've driven at what would be considered in the US as considerable speeds, is one of the safest roads in the world. What the Autobahn shows us is that safety comes from well trained and alert drivers driving properly built and maintained cars on properly built and maintained roads. These are the biggest factors that make roads safer for you and everyone else.
To put the road factor in perspective, one of the sections of the Autobahn I drove on in Germany was considered by the
Re: (Score:3)
How in the fuck does that benefit the buyer of the car?
If the public doesn't benefit from people following the laws, maybe we should repeal those laws.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Germany's strict enforcement of speed limits reduced both accidents and traffic fwiw.
I'm sure just like here in the US there is a variation in skill, but the floor is higher.
Re: Insane (Score:2)
That doesnâ(TM)t work. Every driver out there believes theyâ(TM)re better than they really are, and thatâ(TM)s before something unexpected happens. Ultimately itâ(TM)s speed that kills because it reduces reaction times and the amount of energy that must be dissipated is related to the square of the speed. If you donâ(TM)t like the rules, you donâ(TM)t have to drive on public roads! Itâ(TM)s a choice and a privilege.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The average driver thinks they're much better than average. Allowing drivers to self-determine their skill level is a great way to cause carnage on the roads.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If the public doesn't benefit from people following the laws, maybe we should repeal those laws.
The government is unlikely to repeal laws that bring it, or its financiers, a substantial amount of revenue, simply because said laws do not benefit the citizens.
Unless you think the CAN SPAM Act has been an overwhelming benefit to you.
Remember, it is a felony for you to lie to a bank, insurance company, or credit bureau. It is no crime whatsoever for them to lie to you. You can go to jail for stealing a $100
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Whats worse is that, in theory, refusing to buy ford doesn't isolate you. Some other nanny-state fascist driving a ford will ‘karen’ you right to the police. Lol
Re: (Score:2)
> Why in the fuck do I have to pay for this if I buy such a car?
I'd imagine you won't actually have to pay for it. It'll be like the crapware on your PC or TV - it's paid for by the crapware producers. In this case, it'll be paid for by the police, and put there by Ford, but much of a muchness.
I can't see this working in the UK/EU - aside from privacy issues, in order to book someone for speeding, you have to be comparing them against a calibrated speed sensor. Police cars have them, as do speed cameras.
Re: (Score:2)