Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Sunday August 21 2016, @06:04PM   Printer-friendly
from the this-is-safer? dept.

[...] It is clear that a significant minority of British drivers put their time and their 'needs' above the safety of other road users and pedestrians. In a few decades, the driverless car will be perfected and the driven car must be made obsolete, preferably by law.

Until then the Government and the insurance industry should take radical steps to help residents of rural and urban communities reclaim their neighbourhoods from the lorries, the lunatics - and those Great British Motorists who like toddlers think they can do what they like, and explode with rage and indignation when questioned about it.

  1. Black boxes compulsory in every vehicle, with improved technology that detects speed limit breaking and careless or aggressive driving.

  2. Insurance companies encouraged to hike premiums immediately and punitively as bad driving is revealed.

  3. Insurance companies obliged to hand over to DVLA and / or police all data that reveals traffic offences and dangerous driving.

  4. Legal framework to allow prosecution and driving bans relating to offences revealed by black boxes.

  5. Legal changes to encourage use of dashcam / helmet-cam / CCTV evidence to prosecute motorists.

  6. Comprehensive review of 30mph speed limits, with local consultations on which should be lowered to 20mph.

  7. Limit revs to 3,000rpm on all vehicles - as condition of passing MOT - to cut noise and dangerous acceleration.

  8. Funding for technology that will limit all vehicles automatically to the local speed limit (and in the case of national speed limits, a safe speed for the road conditions); and will prevent heavy goods vehicles from using inappropriate rural and urban roads.

Source: This is Money


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by snufu on Sunday August 21 2016, @06:47PM

    by snufu (5855) on Sunday August 21 2016, @06:47PM (#391149)

    please subscribe, leave a review, and recommend the "Get Off My Lawn" podcast to your friends. Tune in next week for my list of behavioral constraints for pet owners.

    (Actually, I agree that driverless cars should be mandatory in public spaces. Fortunately there is no right to drive in the U.S. constitution.)

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 21 2016, @07:03PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 21 2016, @07:03PM (#391161)

    Actually, I agree that driverless cars should be mandatory in public spaces.

    Do you also think that the companies that produce these mandatory driverless cars should be required to have the cars run using 100% freedom-respecting software?

    Fortunately there is no right to drive in the U.S. constitution.

    The federal government only has the powers given to it by the Constitution. The power to force people to use driverless cars does not exist in the Constitution, so it would have to be added via an amendment.

    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by arcz on Sunday August 21 2016, @08:17PM

      by arcz (4501) on Sunday August 21 2016, @08:17PM (#391200) Journal

      Actually there is a right to drive, it's called the "freedom of movement". It's in that 9th amendment thing. You know, all the rights we had before the constitution was created? Yup, it's old.

      • (Score: 2) by snufu on Sunday August 21 2016, @10:35PM

        by snufu (5855) on Sunday August 21 2016, @10:35PM (#391289)

        People are "free to move" in driverless cars.

      • (Score: 1) by BeaverCleaver on Monday August 22 2016, @08:54AM

        by BeaverCleaver (5841) on Monday August 22 2016, @08:54AM (#391522)

        I got hassled by a cop for walking (on the very outside!) of I70 in Colorado one January evening. There is no way, as a pedestrian, to cross the river in winter, unless you walk across the freeway. The snow is neck-deep, and the river doesn't freeze over.

        Now, I realise this is an edge case... but one could argue that NOT being a motorist meant that my right to move was infringed in this case.

        • (Score: 2) by snufu on Monday August 22 2016, @06:24PM

          by snufu (5855) on Monday August 22 2016, @06:24PM (#391777)

          Not an edge case, this is very common. Not only is mass transit limited, roads are hostile to pedestrians. Roads without sidewalks or roads that squeeze pedestrians onto narrow ghetto like strips between high speed traffic and high cinder block walls of housing subdivisions or funnel pedestrians into chain link 'chutes' over noisy thoroughfares. And remember, "only a nobody walks in L.A." even though the average rush hour commute is slower than walking.

    • (Score: 2) by snufu on Sunday August 21 2016, @10:38PM

      by snufu (5855) on Sunday August 21 2016, @10:38PM (#391292)

      Any local, state, or federal legislation mandating driverless cars could not be challenged on constitutional grounds. Unlike gun ownership, mandatory driverless cars would be determined by majority vote. (IANAL)

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 22 2016, @12:36AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 22 2016, @12:36AM (#391362)

        Where in the Constitution does it grant the federal government the power to mandate driverless cars? At most, this would be a state/local matter.

        Furthermore, given what I've said, why do you even think it's a good idea? Do you want to force people to use cars which run proprietary software, have DRM, and likely spy on them? Companies like Google are developing these cars, so it's going to be a privacy nightmare, especially if (and it almost certainly will be) the software is proprietary.

        • (Score: 2) by snufu on Monday August 22 2016, @03:57AM

          by snufu (5855) on Monday August 22 2016, @03:57AM (#391443)

          This will be a question of public safety that localities will have full jurisdiction to regulate, similar to the local laws that prohibit smoking in most public spaces.

          why do you even think it's a good idea?

          Because statistics show that primates en masse cannot be trusted to operate vehicles safely. As driverless vehicles become more prevalent, the number of fatalities per commuter mile for human vs machine driven cars will compel lawmakers.

          Regarding privacy, congratulations on ripping every proprietary black box and binary blob out of your existing car. You should make a blog showing us how you did it.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @12:35PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @12:35PM (#393450)

            This will be a question of public safety that localities will have full jurisdiction to regulate, similar to the local laws that prohibit smoking in most public spaces.

            That should be possible.

            Because statistics show that primates en masse cannot be trusted to operate vehicles safely.

            The amount of car accidents and deaths resulting from them is minuscule compared to the overall human population, and freedom is worth making sacrifices for. I am not convinced.

            Regarding privacy, congratulations on ripping every proprietary black box and binary blob out of your existing car.

            I use an extremely old car with no such components. There was also the possibility that I did not own a car at all. Thanks for making assumptions, however.

            In addition, the fact that the situation is already bad does not mean it's justified to make it worse. Terrible logic on your part.