SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
International road safety experts are calling for all vehicles to be fitted with speed warning devices, and drivers who exceed the speed limit may find their accelerators disabled by devices that are being considered in Australia.
According to the experts "Driving too fast causes 1.25 million road traffic deaths a year globally, and is a major contributor to the 6.9 per cent increase in deaths on Australian roads to 1275 in the year ending August 31."
The road safety experts called for all European vehicles to be fitted with Intelligent Speed Assistance (ISA) devices. These use speed sign recognition and satellite information to warn drivers with sounds or message if they exceed the limit.
The council launched a campaign on YouTube to build support for ISA, saying it had a huge potential to save lives.
Some devices, which have already been integrated into some new models of Ford cars, have an override function that can stop speeding drivers from using the accelerator until they return to the speed limit.
Anyone want this fitted to their car? I can see problems...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04 2016, @07:20AM
Real life is about to become a lot more boring. Soon the cop shows will have to fake stuff even more than usual.
(Score: 2) by davester666 on Tuesday October 04 2016, @08:31AM
No. People will figure out how to disable this shit. Oops, officer. Just like your dashcam, somehow the speed limiting system isn't working right. And here's the receipt from the shop I took it to last week, and they can't figure out why it's not working either.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04 2016, @08:55AM
You see that axe buried in the thing, that's why it isn't working, son...
(Score: 2) by riT-k0MA on Tuesday October 04 2016, @07:25AM
What about life-threatening emergencies?
If someone's seriously injured and there's no time to wait for an ambulance, one would need to break the speed limit to rush them to hospital.
Is there a way to disable the device if one's hazard lights are on, signifying there's an emergency? if so, what's to stop a speedster from activating their hazard lights in order to speed?
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04 2016, @07:34AM
You don't have the authority to break the speed limit under any circumstances. Maybe you haven't noticed but you don't have rights anymore. In an emergency you dial 911 and you let the legally empowered emergency services handle your emergency. If emergency services don't respond fast enough, too bad for you, and you have no legal recourse to sue because you have no rights. If you have a problem with this arrangement then you are a terrorist.
(Score: 3, Informative) by riT-k0MA on Tuesday October 04 2016, @08:18AM
911 doesn't work in my country. We have to dial 112.
Also speeding under emergency circumstances is accepted in my country :-P
(Score: 4, Funny) by LoRdTAW on Tuesday October 04 2016, @11:55AM
Lucky. They changed mine to 0118 999 881 999 119 725 3
(Score: 0, Disagree) by Francis on Tuesday October 04 2016, @02:02PM
That's probably not true. Most, if not all, countries accept 911 as well as the official number due to the sheer number of movies and TV shows from the US that reference 911 for emergency use.
I don't recommend dialing it to see, but chances are good that dialing 911 will connect you to the same line as 112 would.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Tuesday October 04 2016, @05:41PM
You must be joking - they do not accept 911 here.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Tuesday October 04 2016, @08:02PM
No, I'm not joking. It's not widely advertised, but they generally do accept it because of people traveling and because it's so widely known.
Just because you think they don't accept it, doesn't mean that they don't.
(Score: 1, Troll) by janrinok on Wednesday October 05 2016, @07:15AM
Well, what do I know? I just dialled it and got unobtainable. Oh, I must be wrong.
It might work in major cities in this country, but it sure as hell does nothing here where I live. That's probably why they don't advertise it then....
(Score: 1) by Francis on Wednesday October 05 2016, @09:48PM
You seriously dialed 911 in order to verify that it doesn't work in your part of the world?
Are you fucking stupid? I mean seriously, what would have happened if it had been hooked up in your part of the country? Oh, gee, I'm sorry, I had to be right on the internet.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Thursday October 06 2016, @06:59AM
A simple 'sorry, wrong number' is all it takes. Are you that frightened of the world outside your own home?
No.
Oh, I expect a SWAT team would have been despatched, the local militia mobilised, and we'd have gone to a high state of nuclear readiness... Oh, sorry, those sort of things don't happen here. I would have explained it was in incorrect dialling (after all, it is not a listed number here) and we would have wished each other a good day; and our lives would have gone on unchanged.
No, I merely wished to demonstrate that you were wrong. The world does not revolve around the USA and how things work there. If Americans travelling the world expect every phone to accept 911, the dollar to be a usable currency in the shops, and our steaks to be the size of half a cow, they will be very saddened by the experience of new countries.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Thursday October 06 2016, @07:07AM
Francis, it's probably best you don't mark replies to your comments as 'Trolls' simply because you don't like them. Don't forget, I work here :)
A civilised conversation is more than adequate to make a point. Dialling 911 might work in many places outside the CONUS, but don't rely on it if you leave home. Learn the culture of the country that you are visiting and I can guarantee that your stay will be much more enjoyable. Most of Europe will respond to '12', and operators are usually quite happy to cope with different languages.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Thursday October 06 2016, @08:51AM
Typo - 112
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Thursday October 06 2016, @08:46AM
I have just had a conversation with our local telephone engineer advice line, who advise me thus:
You might be surprised by how many people do not use mobile devices, or rely on land line telephones even in this day and age.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday October 04 2016, @01:25PM
I think that if you are being chased by a super fast zombie hoarde, or an alien spacecraft, you should be able to drive as fast as your vehicle is capable of going.
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Tuesday October 04 2016, @02:10PM
Emergency responders don't usually have the authority to break the speed limit. Firetrucks, aid cars and ambulances are often allowed to drive on the wrong side of the road and run red lights, but they're not generally allowed to drive much over the speed limit. The reason being that it's not usually safe and the collateral damage and delay that comes from a crash isn't acceptable.
OTOH, the police will speed when it's relevant, but usually not when they're heading to the scene of a crime. The times they speed are usually when chasing somebody down and even then they're usually discouraged from going too much above the speed limit.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04 2016, @04:16PM
OTOH, the police will speed when it's relevant, but usually not when they're heading to the scene of a crime. The times they speed are usually when chasing somebody down and even then they're usually discouraged from going too much above the speed limit.
Hah! Clearly you haven't lived in Chicago. They'll speed through red lights, illegal turns, oncoming traffic, you name it. Frequently without their lights or sirens on too. Going to and from crime scenes as well as just to avoid traffic because lunch waits for no man. First hand observation as well as second hand from the half dozen friends and family in the force.
(Score: 2) by curunir_wolf on Tuesday October 04 2016, @06:07PM
OTOH, the police will speed when it's relevant, but usually not when they're heading to the scene of a crime. The times they speed are usually when chasing somebody down and even then they're usually discouraged from going too much above the speed limit.
Around here they speed all the time, especially when heading to the scene of a crime. Sometimes with lights and sirens on, sometimes not. I've never lived in a place where the police don't speed regularly.
I am a crackpot
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04 2016, @07:37AM
The police.
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Tuesday October 04 2016, @08:33AM
I'd be more concerned with a situation where you have e.g. to escape a avalanche.
The police. I mean, having your hazard lights on is a quite overt condition.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by zocalo on Tuesday October 04 2016, @09:07AM
This. While not a very common case, not every emergency situation is best avoided by slamming on the brakes and sometimes the most expediant solution is to floor the accelerator potentially involving breaking the speed limit. I've had several instances of someone cutting into my lane when slamming on the brakes would have meant the idiot tailgating me would almost certainly have been unable to stop in time - that would have been their fault, but it would also become my problem and I'd rather it didn't. As a more extreme example, several years years back I was in the process of over taking a high-sided truck that was driving very slowly due to strong crosswinds when it got caught by a really strong gust and started to go over (one of many on the UK's A1 that day). I was just drawing level with the cab at the time, caught sight of it out of the corner of my eye and accelerated clear, but if I'd braked there was no way I wouldn't have been dodging assorted large household appliances. Fortunately, the cab tore free from the trailer and righted itself, so while the truck driver was badly shaken he was also unharmed.
Audio-visual over the limit warnings, sure, but messing with the accelerator needs some more thought than just disabling it. A gradual slowdown after a sustained period of over the limit driving while the alarm was sounding perhaps, but the "grace period" definitely needs some careful consideration to determine the worst possible case.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04 2016, @02:37PM
Some time ago some guy and his kids were crossing the road in a 60 zone near a corner. I took the corner at about 35 to 40 km/h. Didn't come close to hitting anyone.
The dickhead kicked my car as I passed slowed down to about 20, then jumped in his car and chased me.
Luckily, that POS could jump to 140 right fast. Having a roadrager on my ass? I did 120 to 140 up the road, took a left, cruised around a couple of bends, took a right into a driveway and dead stopped. His car screamed round the corned 10 seconds behind me. I waited a few minutes then drove back the other way.
If I was booked for doing that 120+ in the 80 zone I went through I would have paid it happily. While telling the officer about the road rager chasing me. My choice to get out of there fast.
If my car was limited and his wasn't? He'd probably have tailed me till I ran out of petrol. Then what? Use your imagination.
I dislike speeders as much as anyone. We don't nedled this in Aus. We have way too many red light and speeding cams as it is.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04 2016, @02:59PM
so you nearly ran over an innocent family crossing the street then when the loving father chased you you ran and hid like a chicken shit? bravo sir!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04 2016, @10:26AM
escape a avalanche
Twenty is plenty.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by ledow on Tuesday October 04 2016, @11:16AM
Easy.
You put an option that says "Do you want to override?"
Which records, in an impermeable record, what time, what location, what speed, and what key was in the ignition when it was overrode.
Are you going to override it on every journey if it's going to be a permanent record of every time you broke the law? Likely not.
Are you going to care about overriding it in an emergency? Likely not.
Problem solved.
But what really pisses me off is that everyone complains about not being able to break the law (i.e. speed) but NOBODY ever campaigns for higher speed-limits.
And we know why that is. The irrefutable evidence that speeding is the primary cause of accidents, that the speed limits selected are the best compromise between "safe" and "gets you there", and that you just WANT to do more dangerous things that are against the law.
In no other part of daily life do people break the law so blatantly, regularly, deliberately and often. "Oh, sorry, officer, I know I'm only allowed to use items I paid for, but it was only ten items I stole..."
If you want to speed, make speeding legal.
If you can't make speeding legal, then don't speed.
If you want to carry a gun, make it legal.
If you can't make it legal, then don't carry a gun.
Honestly, I don't know what's so difficult about that concept. And yet people moan about being "caught" on a speed camera, that they are "money-making" (only if you're thick enough or dangerous enough to be caught by them), they are "unsafe" (because other drivers brake to the speed limit in their presence?! Really?!), etc.etc.
Don't break a law and complain about it, get it removed from the statute books or modified. And then you'll meet the exact reason why the limits are as they are - almost every country with higher limits has worse safety records.
Personally, I see no problem with the German Autobahn's. As fast as you like but if you're doing stupid speeds, any accident will be your fault. On a motorway, that's actually okay and fairly safe.
But if I was in charge, I'd allow that, and then take your licence away for 1mph over in a school zone or any other posted speed limit. Anything else is hypocritical.
There's no point in a limit if you are limited to it. You might as well say you can only take $10,000 in cash through an airport and then just let anyone through with any amount of money.
Unenforced laws are pointless, and people - generally - are too stupid and ignorant to stick to quite a simple, obvious and sensible law despite decades of warning. At this point, taking away their control of that is about the only way to restore any sense of order on the road.
(Score: 5, Informative) by stormreaver on Tuesday October 04 2016, @12:00PM
The irrefutable evidence that speeding is the primary cause of accidents....
Bullshit. Following too closely, regardless of speed, is orders of magnitude higher on the list of collision causes. But it's easier to ticket for speed than for d=rt, and therefore more profitable to make revenue-generating laws surrounding speed.
(Score: 3, Informative) by ledow on Tuesday October 04 2016, @01:29PM
If you are going too fast to stop in the distance, it's the same thing.
Semantics and variable substitution mean that measuring SPEED (rather than trying to measure a subjective distance between two fast-moving vehicles, at speed, accurately, and present to court) is infinitely easier and more prosecutable, and equivalent.
If you are up someone's butt, you're going too fast and need to slow down.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by tangomargarine on Tuesday October 04 2016, @02:46PM
No. You and the guy in front of you can both be going exactly the speed limit, either 30 feet apart, or 300 feet apart. You're saying there's no difference between these conditions?
There are already things to ticket people on for this circumstance--reckless driving, driving too fast for conditions (heavy traffic), stuff like that--without bringing absolute speed into it. If you're tailgating somebody you don't slow down, you back off then resume the same speed. Or better yet, just pass them if you can.
is infinitely easier and more prosecutable
God forbid the police actually have to do some work.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by ledow on Tuesday October 04 2016, @03:18PM
Absolute speed affects your braking distance. Relative speed DOES NOT.
Above 90 your tyres might not even be rated to brake properly.
There are diminishing braking returns as you go faster as the tyres and brakes heat EXTREMELY quickly and degrade unless designed for that kind of speed. I've even seen a tyre blow under extreme braking, though I was one of those people who just drove past the moron involved so maybe his car was poorly maintained.
100->0 is incredibly stressful on the average consumer car.
30->0 isn't.
"If you're tailgating somebody you don't slow down, you back off..." GOSH! I wonder what backing off would involve?!
And what you're talking about is MATCHING SPEED. The speed there matters no matter what the distance.
If there is room to brake before you hit him, at 70mph or at 20mph, there isn't a problem.
If there is not room to brake, you need to REDUCE YOUR SPEED. That's the factor.
If he's doing 70mph and you've only left a 2s gap for 10mph? You need to SLOW DOWN or - congratulations, you're an idiot!
If he's doing 10mph on a 70mph road but you've only left a 2s gap for travelling at 10mph? Congratulations, slow down or you're an idiot!
The single most important factor is speed (which single-handedly determines the safe-braking distance), appropriate to the road and conditions.
Rather than have people get out their cars and argue over 5cm, you just need to be doing an appropriate speed.
And you CANNOT judge distance. You can't. You might be able to tap a car as it passes you but you CANNOT tell when that car is 50, 60, 70 metres away. No human can. And even worse when at speed and not expecting to have to. That's why all that kind of stuff disappears in court because humans can't judge speed or distance by numbers, only by instinct. "I thought I was far enough away" is a pointless argument that courts don't even try to argue with you, it's too subjective. "I was doing 30 and had a 2 second gap" is easily provable or disprovable from the car alone, or from the fact you hit him (i.e. if you were doing 30, we will know. If you were doing 30 with a 2 second gap, in the absence of MAJOR brake failure, you're never going to be able to hit him if you were paying attention - and the skidmarks will tell you that). In a court, NOBODY is going to get out a tape measure for such things.
And there's a little dial in your car that accurately-enough tells you your speed. Pretty much it's your ONLY indicator of anything useful. It's even BIASED IN YOUR FAVOUR by law in my country, so that when you do 30 on the speedo, it's not ACTUALLY 30 on the road (because you're such an idiot you can't be trusted to stick to 30 by yourself). And that dial is required by law to be maintained to within a certain accuracy as it's your ONLY guide. Distance guides, though I'm sure some cars might have them with their fancy LIDAR, are not standard.
And there's a thing called the 2-second rule. 2-seconds, AT ANY SPEED, gives you your safe distance. No judgement necessary, and there's a saying that takes exactly 2 seconds to say. Works at any speed, for any vehicle, in any condition, for any driver.
But you cannot judge distance, so basing things on the road on distance for anything more than casual use (i.e. next town in 10 miles) is STUPID. You have no idea how far apart you are, especially if you're driving a different car, for instance. But the speedo will be accurate enough and the 2s rule still applies.
And the police certainly shouldn't need to be wasting their time on you AT ALL on this junk, so don't make them, and don't make them jump through hoops to prosecute people breaking a very easy-to-follow, easy-to-understand, easy-to-proof-violation law. When it says 30 and you did 34, why the hell would you want to cost the police money for "catching you" other than to deter them to the point you get freedom/anarchy on the road to do what you want? Shut up, pay up, don't do it again.
Plenty of laws that the police CHOOSE not to prosecute end up dying out and becoming unenforced. Speeding isn't one of them. Ask a copper why.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by stormreaver on Tuesday October 04 2016, @03:51PM
[mechanical suitability arguments snipped]
That is all a red herring, and is almost entirely irrelevant. The entire argument is assuming that speeds are within the limits of the machine being driven. It's already understood that machines have limits, so that is not at all relevant to the discussion.
Following too closely and speed are two entirely separate issues. Conflating the two is how we end up with absurd speed laws.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Tuesday October 04 2016, @05:18PM
I believe it's 3 seconds. You need a full second to react and get your foot on the brake pedal. The other 2 seconds assume the vehicle's brakes are in pristine condition and probably equipped with ABS. At 60mph you only got 176 feet to stop without hitting anything.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04 2016, @05:59PM
+1 it's 3 seconds
(Score: 2) by dry on Wednesday October 05 2016, @02:11AM
My memory of when there was an ad campaign was 2 slow seconds, eg "1 and 2 and". And that was before there was ABS and even (front) disc brakes were still a new thing on normal cars
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Friday October 07 2016, @10:07PM
When I took driver's ed about ten years ago we were taught that it used to be 2 seconds based on the assumption that you wouldn't need to stop entirely in that space, you just needed to be able to react and hit your brakes, and then you and the car ahead of you would slow down to a stop together.
The current guideline is apparently 4 seconds, based on the assumption that the guy in front of you might not be making a controlled stop. If he hits a concrete barrier and goes 60 to 0 in an instant, you won't have any hope of stopping in only 2 seconds. Not the most likely scenario ever, but I suppose it happens.
Of course, around here people seem to think two car lengths at 70MPH means you're leaving room for them to merge in...
(Score: 2) by dry on Wednesday October 05 2016, @02:25AM
While its nice to leave a space between you and the car in front, around here, when busy, another car will fill in that gap pretty quick. So you slow down again and another car fills in the gap. Pretty quick you're not moving and now you're in danger of getting rear ended.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04 2016, @03:15PM
when the state runs the propaganda machinery it's nearly impossible to convince enough people that they are capable of making any decision in quantities necessary for changing laws.
(Score: 1) by nitehawk214 on Tuesday October 04 2016, @08:35PM
NOBODY ever campaigns for higher speed-limits
Bullshit, people do it all the time. Which is why the speed limits on the new really good paid access roads around here have 70mph limits.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04 2016, @11:44AM
Forget about emergencies, what about normal driving? Isn't merging and passing going to be extremely difficult when people around you are traveling at max speed? What will police departments (in USA) do to make up for the lack of speeding ticket income? How easy will it be to tape a tiny 90 MPH picture to your sign camera? What about the increase in spray painted signs? How can you pull away from that crazy driver behind you? If someone slowly creeps up on you and is tailgating you'll never be able to pull ahead to a safe distance. What if zombies aren't slow? What about private roads and roads whose speed limits change based on season/time-of-day/events/etc...
That's completely ignoring GPS isn't a perfect system and is easily disabled. Good luck getting stuck at 10 MPH when some idiot points a signal repeater at you. The cheap ones are only around $40 though being cheap their range is only a few meters.
If you're in a life-threatening emergency you shouldn't be speeding. You're already in an altered state of mind and the injured person would almost certainly die in any type of crash. It's probably better for you to provide first aid and wait for the medics than let them bleed to death in the back seat. If they get worse you won't be able to perform CPR or whatever else they might need and that will kill them in your 15 minute drive to a hospital and another 5 minutes trying to convince someone there to help you when you show up unannounced and unexpected. Most births take awhile. No need to rush. If it is a fast birth, you'd still be better helping instead of driving.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04 2016, @01:41PM
Good point. Actually, I've heard recently a radio broadcast about self-driving cars, where one of the things they told is that if the self-driving car follows exactly the allowed speed in dense traffic, it does not work well: People will overtake and go back to the lane very tightly, causing the autonomous car to temporarily slow down in order to restore the safety distance. Except that this slow down causes more people to overtake, causing even more slow-down by the same mechanism. The end result is that the car ends up to be a slow-moving obstacle about which neither those in that car nor those in the cars around them will be very happy.
(Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Tuesday October 04 2016, @05:19PM
It is dangerous to go at a speed significantly different fro the traffic around you.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by hendrikboom on Tuesday October 04 2016, @05:14PM
How can you pull away from that crazy driver behind you? If someone slowly creeps up on you and is tailgating you'll never be able to pull ahead to a safe distance.
If you speed up, he'll speed up too and he'll be tailgating at an even more unsafe speed.
The only remedy is to slow down until his distance becomes safe. Chance are, he'll take the opportunity to pass you and your worry will be over.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Francis on Tuesday October 04 2016, @02:08PM
Partially, but the main reason that this is such a bad idea has nothing to do with these niche cases, it has to do with the fact that they're adding a new and unnecessary complexity that could be cracked or outright broken and could lead to problems. Not to mention the fact that you should never be driving the maximum speed for your vehicle, no matter how low that number should be. You should always have a bit of extra speed available if you need to pass or evade.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04 2016, @09:15PM
I'd wager that more lives are lost due to unnecessary speeding than are saved by people breaking the speed limit to get someone to a hospital in an emergency.
(Score: 5, Informative) by GungnirSniper on Tuesday October 04 2016, @07:34AM
Driving too fast isn't the problem, but merely a catch-all for "we're not sure but he was moving". There's no category for "didn't use turn signals" or "cow path roads with curves and blind spots". Nor is there a "poor reflexes" or "elderly driver who shouldn't be on the roads". Everything that moves more than 30 MPH is a speeding accident to these idiots.
People are going to die, and losing only 1300 a year in a large country like Australia shouldn't be the cause for these safety fascists to cause more misery to freedom loving people. The war on masculinity continues.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04 2016, @08:19AM
Not sure what this has to do with masculinity, but I do agree that people seem terrified of unlikely threats. It's like people place almost zero value on freedom subscribe to the 'If It Saves Just One' ideology.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by TheRaven on Tuesday October 04 2016, @08:31AM
Driving too fast isn't the problem
Driving too fast may not be the cause of the accident, but it's the cause of the damage that the accident causes. The difference in injuries between a 30mph collision with a pedestrian and a 35 mph collision are huge. Remember, e = mv^2 - you don't need to change v much to transmit a lot more energy to the thing that you hit.
People are going to die, and losing only 1300 a year in a large country like Australia shouldn't be the cause for these safety fascists to cause more misery to freedom loving people.
Enforcing the law is fascist now? Currently, speed limits are one of the most selectively enforced laws and a system where most people commit crimes but only certain ones are punished is a lot closer to fascism than one where everyone is punished for violations. If everyone is forced to obey speed limits, then it's a lot more likely that they'll actually fix the ones that are too low.
The war on masculinity continues.
I think you're confusing masculinity with the faux masculinity of people who feel the need to overcompensate for something. If you need to drive fast to feel like a man, then that says a lot about you.
sudo mod me up
(Score: 4, Touché) by maxwell demon on Tuesday October 04 2016, @08:48AM
Better remember E=mv²/2. Especially if you ever have to take a physics exam. ;-)
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04 2016, @12:01PM
In my car, E = m gamma
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday October 04 2016, @01:29PM
1 / n = sin x
Now cancel the 'n' on both sides:
1 = six
or:
1 = 6
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 4, Funny) by FatPhil on Tuesday October 04 2016, @02:27PM
sin / cos = tan
in / co = tan
i / co = ta
i = taco
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 1) by nitehawk214 on Tuesday October 04 2016, @08:39PM
sideways 5 [memecdn.com]
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 3, Informative) by MostCynical on Tuesday October 04 2016, @09:10AM
it varies by state. Victoria has a 0km/h threshold (ie, fixed and mobile speed cameras, police with radar guns and red light safety cameras all book you if you are even 0.5km/h over the limit - even though the Australia Road Rules allow your speedometer to be up to 10% out - these days, the 10% had better be over reading...)
We already have 'speed limiters', which are supposed to stop trucks going over 100km/h... but seem to fail, alot.
http://www.armstronglegal.com.au/traffic-law/heavy-vehicle/speed-limiters [armstronglegal.com.au]
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 4, Insightful) by quintessence on Tuesday October 04 2016, @09:20AM
speed limits are one of the most selectively enforced laws and a system where most people commit crimes but only certain ones are punished is a lot closer to fascism than one where everyone is punished for violations.
Because the law itself is "vague". Driving the speed limit during rush hour? You're impeding the flow of traffic. Planting yourself in the left hand lane without passing? In my state, improper lane usage.
Anyone with a modicum of sensibility realizes traffic laws (edit: most laws) are contextual (such as exceeding the speed limit to allow for passage of an emergency vehicle, not driving the minimum speed limit when condition are bad, etc.), but you always have law and order types who insist on following the letter of the law without understanding the why (usually safety or ticket revenue) of the law.
Not to mention there is no reason to just stop there when we can have perfect enforcement of all laws with just some minor modifications to your civil rights (embedded detectors for any illegal substances, 24/7 CCTV everywhere, etc).
This was brought up during the 70s. It was a stupid idea then, and it's a stupid idea now, but I guess every generation needs the opportunity to rediscover the depths of their stupidity.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by GungnirSniper on Tuesday October 04 2016, @09:34AM
It's an anti-male movement because males get more speeding tickets, or get in school fights, or whatever we're having zero-tolerance for today.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Touché) by TheRaven on Tuesday October 04 2016, @10:21AM
sudo mod me up
(Score: 0, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04 2016, @11:17AM
Female detected.
(Score: 2) by Hawkwind on Tuesday October 04 2016, @05:18PM
Possibly, always. CONSTANT VIGILANCE
(Score: 3, Insightful) by tfried on Tuesday October 04 2016, @09:40AM
The war on masculinity continues.
Speeding as an expression of masculinity? You could not have picked a better example to illustrate why it is an absolute necessity to have clear and simple traffic rules, and to enforce them.
You are right that speeding may be somewhat over-represented in accident statistics. That's simply because it is one of very few things that can often be established, objectively, after an accident (contrary to bad signalling, for example). But it totally does not make it "not the problem". It's simply one of the few significant risk factors that we can control, proactively. (And no, I'm not talking about those questionable devices mentioned in the article, but good old speed monitoring.)
And if you do want to talk about "liberty", then tell me again, what you want to do about those who are somewhat elderly, or have below average reflexes? Making sure that everybody drives mostly well behaved and predictable, is simply the way to make sure that these groups, too, can participate in traffic without posing excessive risks to themselves and others.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04 2016, @03:23PM
typical socialist scum. penalize everybody b/c some people wouldn't make the cut if people were free instead of letting nature take it's course. It's so much safer now that old people have no disincentive for getting out on the highway going 40 mph! Roads and cars aren't for everybody! cars are powerful machines that can kill. Roads are like a racing video game. if you can't haul ass like a madman you have no business driving! :)
(Score: 3, Informative) by Farkus888 on Tuesday October 04 2016, @08:52AM
The .au on the link is telling here. Australia is very anti car enthusiasm of any kind on the legal front. They will take your car for such heinous and clearly objective crimes as "wilfully starting a motor vehicle or driving in way that makes unnecessary noise"
https://www.qld.gov.au/law/crime-and-police/types-of-crime/hooning/ [qld.gov.au]
(Score: 5, Informative) by MostCynical on Tuesday October 04 2016, @09:23AM
don't forget "sustained loss of traction" (aka burnout)
(also an offence in New Zealand)
http://www.geoffharrison.com.au/blog/burnout/ [geoffharrison.com.au]
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04 2016, @09:43AM
Modded informative, printed, and soon to be mailed to the American Legislative Exchange Council, thanks.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04 2016, @11:58AM
In Australia its "Failure to maintain full control of vehicle"
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday October 04 2016, @02:40PM
This was the gist of the notice. It said "The Guide is definitive. Reality is frequently inaccurate."
This has led to some interesting consequences. For instance, when the Editors of the Guide were sued by the families of those who had died as a result of taking the entry on the planet Tralal literally (it said "Ravenous Bugblatter Beasts often make a very good meal for visiting tourists: instead of "Ravenous Bugblatter Beasts often make a very good meal of visiting tourists"), they claimed that the first version of the sentence was the more aesthetically pleasing, summoned a qualified poet to testify under oath that beauty was truth, truth beauty and hoped thereby to prove that the guilty party in this case was Life itself for failing to be either beautiful or true. The judges concurred, and in a moving speech held that Life itself was in contempt of court, and duly confiscated it from all those there present before going off to enjoy a pleasant evening's ultragolf.”
Show me a person who thinks they're ever in complete control of the vehicle, and I'll show you somebody who doesn't know much about how their vehicle works.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 05 2016, @12:44AM
> Show me a person who thinks they're ever in complete control of the vehicle, and I'll show you somebody who doesn't know much about how their vehicle works.
I was fortunate once to have some rides with Mario Andretti in a few different sports cars...on a wet race track with some puddles. First thing he did was hunt for the stability control button and turn it off--he knew that he was much better than any computer in those conditions. In this particular Acura NSX he commented that it tended to push a little (lose front traction before rear) and then demonstrated while braking through three turns, each tighter than the one before. First lap he used the same braking point as with the previous car (similar overall performance) and missed the final turn apex by about 3 feet (ran a little wide). Second lap he started braking about 3 feet earlier and had the inside front wheel just grazing the inside curb.
All this while different wheels were alternately gripping and hydroplaning, and the car was yawing back and forth, slowing down from about 90 mph to 35 for the last/tightest corner in the sequence.
He was in control, he knew it, there was no question about it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04 2016, @12:00PM
so, no overtaking, at all, ever.
fuck off.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04 2016, @06:05PM
Why overtake if the person in front of you goes at the same speed as you?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04 2016, @09:03PM
You forgot to add "fuck off"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 06 2016, @12:38AM
It is not unheard of for some people to drive under the speed limit. Not being able to exceed the speed limit while overtaking such drivers increases the risk by prolonging the situation.
Also I don't know how it is in .au but at least here speed limits in many places are absurdly low as is and keep dropping despite cars becoming ever safer and faster. The only explanation as far as I can tell is the increased potential for speeding tickets.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04 2016, @01:35PM
This is what you get with democracy.
Cunts ruling over men.
(Score: 2) by captain normal on Tuesday October 04 2016, @05:28PM
Donald! Knew you'd show up sooner or later.
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts"- --Daniel Patrick Moynihan--
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Hartree on Tuesday October 04 2016, @03:08PM
"Dear customer: You are exceeding your insurance company speed limit of 45 mph for basic insurance. Should you wish to increase your allowable speed to the maximum government speed limit on this highway of 70 mph, you will automatically be charged full rate if you click here. Else you will be limited to the lower 45 mph limit."
The parallels to net neutrality are left as an exercise for the reader.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04 2016, @03:31PM
title should read "Socialist rats want cars fitted with Variable Maximum Speed Devices "
(Score: 3, Insightful) by jelizondo on Tuesday October 04 2016, @03:55PM
It bothers me that they have no statistics to justify their move and just go on piling on the citizenry stupid laws.
From the World Health Organization [who.int] (Warning requires Javascript) we can see that speed limits are the only variable in traffic deaths: Germany, 4.3; Australia, 5.4 in road deaths per 100,000 inhabitants; but you get the UK with 2.9.
Some counties, like Spain, are debating raising the limit (currently 110 km/h) to 130 km/h because newer cars are much safer than they were when the speed limits were originally imposed. Death rate in Spain? 3.7
Road conditions, weather and driver training are important variables that are never addressed; just lowering or enforcing the speed limit is not the only answer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04 2016, @05:45PM
you get the UK with 2.9.
Where I live (in the UK) traffic is slower than it was when horse drawn, but the local council
has spent a small fortune putting up 20MPH speed limit signs everywhere.
The only people exceeding 20MPH are on motorbikes, and it is highly unlikely that they will
take any more notice of the limit than they did of the previous 30MPH limit.
In short, the reason for the low number of accidents is that the traffic can't bloody move
- stationary vehicles cause very few accidents.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04 2016, @10:22PM
Limit for cars in Spain is 120 for highways (streets 50, and other roads 90 or 100). The 130 proposal is dead in the water for now, mostly because the conditions will not last. And speed tickets make money.
Road conditions matters a lot. Spain ones are going to crap since the crisis. Cars are also getting older... same reason, the good "new" (then) ones were bought just before the crisis (bubble money) and they will not be easily replaced now.
Emergency response time and medical care also mater, faster (helicopters and so on) and skills can help a lot. At least while Spain can pay for both that should stay (serious tries to privatice and monetize health).
Oh, also, IIRC each country has a different time limit. In some countries if you die <=24h after the accident, you count as road kill. In others the limit is 48h, etc.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Osamabobama on Tuesday October 04 2016, @05:09PM
This seems like an oversimplified, single-sided analysis of driving fast. People drive fast because it benefits them, and to neglect that benefit will lead to flawed conclusions and counterproductive policy. What is the economic impact of all the time saved by driving faster? How much more enjoyable is an average drive at white-knuckle speeds as opposed to a leisurely pace? How much time in hospital beds was avoided by decisively fatal traffic accidents?
At first glance, this is just the latest way to lie with statistics...
Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04 2016, @07:17PM
no they don't
like this
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 05 2016, @12:54AM
> People drive fast because they think it benefits them
Well, when I was alternating between my house and my GF's house the drive was 1000 miles, give or take a few. If I drove at the speed limit (varied from 55 to 70 on these interstate highways) it would take about 18 hours and if I went 10 mph over the limit consistently I'd save something over 2 hours. All approximate, since I was also stopping to stretch and refill the tank for variable amounts of time.
Two hours is worth a lot when there is a hot date at the other end!
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday October 04 2016, @07:49PM
Where I grew up, it's not the speed that kills the most, it's the instant deceleration when encountering another object (fixed or travelling in the opposite direction, typically).
I turns out that speeding on the highways doesn't kill nearly as much as losing control on tree-lined countryside roads. Short of dropping those limits to less than 60 km/h, strict enforcement of posted limits is a lot of hassle that won't yield major improvements.
Also, we need people to die. Hopefully just before they retire, but in too many cases, the earlier the better.