Ez-Pass system in states like New Jersey can curb speeding, if refined to perform properly. When you get your car registration you would be required to get a battery powered transmitter/receiver (approx. size of a pocket calculator) to be attached the car windshield. On the highway there would be transmitting/receiving stations that will send signals to your car. Each station would record the time a car passed the station. Next station would be a know distance away from the previous station. For example, if car a passes station A at time T1 and Station B at time T2, using simple physics one can determine who is speeding and who is not. To keep the data management clean, the system would eliminate the old recordings after speed is calculated. Once car passes Station B and speed is calculated, if results show no speeding system would delete recording of Station A. If signs of speeding is shown, all data is saved for legal purposes and pictures are taken of the car at each station thereafter and a speeding ticket is issued electronically.
I agree
No opinion
I disagree
Add your comment
Are you completely bananas? Good grief, why not just extort enough money from the overburdened taxpayers to pay for a cop to ride in the back seat of every car? C'mon, friend, isn't the world a scary enough place without nannynazis controlling every breath we take, every word we say, every mile we drive? Such an incredible degree of prior restraint should frighten every "free" citizen of this republic!
why not incorporate the very idea you have with the cruise control of cars, that they CANNOT speed. This takes away all the law enforcement invasiveness and achieves a much higher standard of compliance.
Cruise control idea requires system to perform similar functions as my proposed idea. Cruise control system must be able to adjust the speed limit, since each highway may have different speed limits. Only way this can happend is through signal received from a transmitter on the highway.
I understand this infringes on our freedom, but imagine the savings for tax payers (reduced highway deaths and accidents, increased ticket revenues and lowered police presence).
No way. Thats all we need is for Uncle Sam to know exactly where we are, and when we are there. Then, what if a rest-stop on said highway was robbed at 2:16 AM... every car that drove past that rest area within 30 minutes will be bothered at home? at work? That, combined with the prevailing "guilty until proven innocent" fundamental is just insane.
Why limit it to highways.. lets put it on every telephone pole in every city. That way, the government knows who was where, and when, 100% of the time. Oh, lets also publish it on the internet, so if i am shamming or hiding from my boss on a friday afternoon, he can meet me at the corner...
Why stop there... it would be more efficient to give every moving "thing" in the country a Globally Unique ID number and a GPS transmitter. This way we can all be tracked by satellite.
Better yet, lets tatoo every newborn baby from now on, with a bar code on both shoulders that can be scanned at every traffic light...
Or, take a different look... In Germany they have been doing something similar for years. However, there isn't any info transmitted from every car (speeders or not). There are 3 wires burried in the road surface. The first two that you would drive over are about 2 feet apart, and the 3rd is another 5 feet infront of the second. When you drive over the first, a timer is activated. When you almost instantly drive over the 2nd, the timer is stopped. In the remaining 5 feet of distance, the speed is calculated. When you drive over the third wire, which happens to be installed next to a camera on the side of the road, if your speed was faster than a pre-determined rate, your vehicles front and rear plates are photographed.
I dont know how many rental cars i had pose for those cameras over the years :)
Cameras are not perfect and plates can be obscured with plate covers.
I think this is a good idea and it has been dismissed for the wrong reasons. The point is to reduce the speed on the highway and thus reducing the deaths and the number of people permanently handicapped. It is also a good way to reduce the pollution caused by car. The idea is not to raise more money for the states or to control where people are (who would botter to look at the flood of data generated by the system? Let's not paranoid).
I don't know the figures for the United States, but in France, a little more than 8000 people a year loose their life on the highway (That is about 5 Titanics sinking every year). That is a lot for a country of 60 million people. This is largely due to speed, as their roads are excellent and cars are in good state. They are among the worst drivers in Europe with, I think, twice as many death as in UK (with is still about 4000 people per year). Have a look at the US figures and you will also conclude that something must be done to reduce these numbers. If this means that we have to reduce speed via the tool proposed here, so be it.
As for privacy concerns, I think the idea is well framed. If you are within the speed limits, there is no record and off you go. If you deliberately choose to drive faster, then face the consequence.
As for the taxpayer financial health, this is a winning idea as well. Less deaths (usually of young people) and less injuries translate into more working poeple to share the tax burden and lower healthcare cost. If the idea works, people will respect the speed limits and there will be little incomes from speeding tickets. Finally, taxpayers will make better use of their police force. It will be sent perventing crime and/or solving crimes in problematic neighbourhoods, instead of waisting its time on the highway.
Also, as a consumer, you will discover that your gaz bill will shrink. Driving slowly reduces your energy consumption.
I think that collectively, we have a lot to gain from this idea and the only thing we loose is the adrenaline rush that speed gives. But for that, people could go on privately managed speed tracks, where if you kill yourself, you do it in a controlled environment with no damage to the others who were quietly using the public highways.
If this idea has to be dismissed, let it be on its effectiveness at reducing speed and deaths on the road. To view this as an issue of private liberty is, in my view, incorrect. Driving is a priviledge, not a right.
The area where speeding is the most dangerous is around schools and where kids play... an extra 10 MPH multiplies by a huge factor the likelyhood an incedent will be mortal. There is no right to speed in such areas, and draconian measures are acceptable... just keep the police academy away from me... just set my speed governer as i drive by the modified ez-pass and my car will automatically become the proper speed... as i will have no choice, i won't cry "orwellian bastards" rather i'll marvel at how they've managed to solve 2 problems... 100% compliance without getting in the face of any drivers... wow. Those paranoid about data privacy should take their issues to the total information awareness office at the DOD and put their complaint on record.
In places without an ez-speed control system, the car could go whatever the driver did... just where speed MUST be held exactly, what a great idea to take the whole choice out of the drivers hands altogether.
In germany, taxi's have a graph system in the boot (trunk) where a little device records the speed of the car constantly and police can check of the car has speeded... i'm sorry, if big brother is one of the two of these ideas, it is the second in my book... one idea criminalizes the driver and gives a constant police scrutiny for potential speeding... the other takes speed control completely away from police focus and yet achieves compliance. It is a mistake to disregard such a libertarian virtue.
I agree with Pieter on this one. It's a terrible idea. I don't understand why so many people are willing to give up their freedoms so easily.
I don't feel this is a problem that requires giving the government the ability to track my whereabouts all the time.
It seems like a few of you are missing one key point:
Even if "everyone does it" or "when you do it, it's in a safe way" but you have no right to speed. It's already illegal. I am wary of hard limits that prevent a driver from changing his speed as there are likely complications no one has thought of (what about someone on an Oklahoma highway with a tornado in his rear-view mirror?), but claiming that you lose your right to speed would be like critizing the police for arresting you because they're infringing on your right to steal.
I think the result would be a change in the speeding law. More generally, I think it is a bad idea to have a law that everyone breaks. It makes people think they can choose which laws really count and which ones don't.
My initial idea is being deviated by user comments. I suggested a system that tracks cars and only records information when speeding actually occurs. This does not place any limitations on the automobile, but on the driver's inclination to speed. A non-speeding driver will not be recorded. In New Jersey, I face a 1-2 hrs traffic delay due to speeding accidents(it happends atleast twice a month). Imagine the costs for police enforcements, high insurance cost (auto and medical) and lost productivity.The argument that everyone speeds is not a valid reason against this system. Speeding is illegal and cars are weapons when driven at high speed (small mistake can take lives). Freedoms of good drivers is not violated, system does not record when drivers follow the speed. It only infringes on the freedoms of speeders, similar to the way prison infringes on the freedoms of criminals. Those accused of speeding should be given a fair court appointment to defend themselves. If there a tornado chasing me and I need to speed then tell it to the judge.
sath- I agree with ya there. I was supporting the idea that one does not have the "right" to speed and also pointed out that systems to limit speeding in the car could have negative side effects (in response to other user comments).
I seem to recall recent articles indicating that raising speed limits from 55 to 65 actually lowered death rates on roads in New Jersey, my home state. Before we assume lower speeds equate to lower death rates, more research and investigation needs to be done. I have a feeling more emotion than fact is at work for this idea.Who the heck would support increased government monitoring of our actions anyway?!
hmmmm.... responsible, mature, socially minded drivers don't need this. How about simply educating drivers to be more courteous and considerate.
Read 1948 by George Orwell. You'll like it for all the wrong reasons. ---And I thought I was nuts.
This appears to be a clear case of treating the symptom but not the cause. Poor basic driving skills are likely a root cause for most accidents (purely my opinion). In addition to testing upon first issueing a license, we should improve the content (relevant) and frequency (renewing) of testing. Also, we should set AND enforce clear, consistent, and practical highway rules (e.g. max/min speed by lane, pass only on left, etc.).
On the interstates in my city (many with 4 - 8 lanes), drivers seem to fan out and all go the same speed. Accidents are caused when someone is trying to go faster (even though everyone is breaking the 55mph speed limit) starts jockeying to get around the "clog". Also, I've seen with my own eyes, idiots stop in an active lane of an interstate highway with their right blinker on trying to get over to an exit. This idiot should be getting a ticket, not the guy driving 10mph over an arbitrary limit.
This appears to be a clear case of treating the symptom but not the cause. Poor basic driving skills are likely a root cause for most accidents (purely my opinion). In addition to testing upon first issueing a license, we should improve the content (relevant) and frequency (renewing) of testing. Also, we should set AND enforce clear, consistent, and practical highway rules (e.g. max/min speed by lane, pass only on left, etc.).
On the interstates in my city (many with 4 - 8 lanes), drivers seem to fan out and all go the same speed. Accidents are caused when someone is trying to go faster (even though everyone is breaking the 55mph speed limit) starts jockeying to get around the "clog". Also, I've seen with my own eyes, idiots stop in an active lane of an interstate highway with their right blinker on trying to get over to an exit. This idiot should be getting a ticket, not the guy driving 10mph over an arbitrary limit.
Everyone assumes that speed kills. While this is true in the extreme (going 150mph is almost never safe), it has actually been shown that differences in speed is what kills. i.e. a grandmother going 45 on a 70mph highway is FAR more dangerous than the reckless teenager going 80. Although the basic speed check suggested above is feasible with current technology (and is rumored to actually be used in extreme cases, like if you drive the length of Massachusetts in under an hour), I feel a better solution is simply weed out poor drivers, or make it more expensive for them to continue their driving habits.
How to do this? Insurance companies are already figuring it out: acceleration. In general, reckless drivers accelerate and brake far more harshly and far more frequently than safer drivers. They are contemplating giving discounts on your premium if you install an acceleromoter in your car which reports back to the insurance company your acceleration history. I believe that this is a *far* more effective solution for increasing safety than ever escalating the battle between artificial speed limits and a nation of drivers with a wide range of driving aptitudes.
Please Please Please!!! There is no reason to bicker over this at all! To stop speeding, there is only one solution: Raise Speed limits! SO SIMPLE!
It is not surpring to see all the negative (almost agressive) reaction to your suggestion. This culture is ruled by an unwritten nearly constitution-level rule which says that laws which prevent a person from doing whatever they want in their cars are forbidden. This extends from true enforcement of speeding laws to the primal fear people have of gasoline taxes (even though most economists favor them). The answer is NOT - as some have suggested to raise speed limits to levels which accomodate speeders. Speeding presents significant negative externalities and it is NOT just about relative speed or acceleration. These are the comments of those who only recognize the danger to other motor vehicles. Lets not forget that fast-moving cars and truck are always a danger to pedestrians and cyclists, and create more noise. It is difficult to argue that speeders are not a menace deserving of fines. The only reason, I believe the speed laws are not enforced is because so many do it. Simply tyranny of the majority.
The system detailed by sath45 already exisits (for many years) in europe, and is most technically advanced in the U.K. We do not use or need a "calculator" transitter. Cameras set at various points along the road can read the car number plate, calulate your average speed and mail the fine to you. No human involvement.
With respect to big brother in the UK we have data protection acts.
I don't like the idea of being watched, so I voted against this. I do support the part about getting drivers to slow down. Why not use the same technology in reverse? The car receives signals from transmitters on the side of the road, which tell the car how fast it's supposed to be going, and the car tells you to slow down. Maybe have a few steps of annoyingness... 5 mi (or 8 km) per hour over the limit, and a light flashes. 10 mph over, and an intermittent beep sounds. 15 mph over, which is criminal speeding here in Maine, and the car constantly buzzes (similar to the door ajar sound). Better yet... make an external light, so everybody else knows you're going rediculously fast. As for placement, the transmitters could be attached to speed limit signs and at the end of on-ramps.