World, Writing, Wealth discussion
The Lounge: Chat. Relax. Unwind.
>
External car speed control: for or against?
date
newest »
newest »
Oppose.Imagine that you're driving your mother to the hospital while she is clutching her chest and gasping that she can't breathe. Now, imagine that your car won't go any faster because some meddlesome, self-important government jack wagon shoved a governor up your a**.
J's eg provides food for thought but my first instinct was to support the proposal.
I wouldn't support restrictions on when or where people can travel, but this seems sensible enough. Cars are getting faster but people's sense of responsibility isn't increasing at the same rate.
There are more important battles to fight in the name of freedom.
I wouldn't support restrictions on when or where people can travel, but this seems sensible enough. Cars are getting faster but people's sense of responsibility isn't increasing at the same rate.
There are more important battles to fight in the name of freedom.
I've powered through that drive to the hospital with two different relatives. Your unimportant fight could well have been guilt ridden funerals.When espousing your strategic defense of liberty, don't forget that territory ceded will not be easily retaken, if it can be retaken at all.
I get where you're coming from and perhaps the roads and geography of rural America make this change a different proposition to what it would mean in the smaller, more densely populated UK. I, for one, don't like people in souped up BMWs and Teslas travelling at reckless, unnatural speeds on our roads. They're accidents waiting to happen, and a menace to other motorists. Take the temptation away from them.
Over the last few years our freedom of speech, right to meet with friends and relatives, open our business, choose what goes into our bodies, and even leave our homes have all come under attack. Now, the right to express perfectly legal views while holding a bank account is under attack too. These are all basic, natural human rights, which need defending.
IMO, travelling at dangerous speeds in a manmade contraption isn't in the same bracket of freedoms. Cars have already got too quick for most humans to cope with, and I won't shed any tears if speed controls are fitted on new models over here.
Over the last few years our freedom of speech, right to meet with friends and relatives, open our business, choose what goes into our bodies, and even leave our homes have all come under attack. Now, the right to express perfectly legal views while holding a bank account is under attack too. These are all basic, natural human rights, which need defending.
IMO, travelling at dangerous speeds in a manmade contraption isn't in the same bracket of freedoms. Cars have already got too quick for most humans to cope with, and I won't shed any tears if speed controls are fitted on new models over here.
And when the disinformation controls are fitted to your new computer? How about when the government decides that you need to show a valid reason to buy a can of spray paint?Liberty is not a hierarchy of rights ascending from menial to critical. Liberty is living your life without the interference of government meddlers. When you accept the first definition, this is what you get.
I built privacy fence to protect my child from needles & condoms being dumped in garden – now I have to tear it down
https://www.thesun.co.uk/money/230922...
J. wrote: "And when the disinformation controls are fitted to your new computer? How about when the government decides that you need to show a valid reason to buy a can of spray paint?Liberty is not a hiera..."
UK planning rules require planning permission for fences >6ft which this looks like and also that you can only fence on your boundary or inside if neighbour has boundary.
There is a definite hierarchy of rights. This isn't just unavoidable, it's desirable too.
At the bottom are rights that might be desirable to hold but which are unattainable, like Ian's famous right to not become infected by an airborne virus. Not being rained upon might be another.
Then you have rights that have to balance the fact that we don't live in isolation but within a society. Here, you have rights but they need partially keeping in check to protect others' rights. I would include all driving legislation within this. Also, practising a regulated profession, abiding by noise pollution rules, not smoking in enclosed public spaces, etc, etc.
At the top of the pecking order, you have an Englishman's God-given rights, which must always be protected at all costs. Some of these I listed above. They are what distinguushes us from totalitarian regimes.
There are obviously grey areas where these 3 classes of rights overlap. This is where we rely on the sound, common sense judgement of officials and a good, independent legal system to find solutions for the greater good. The lady in The Sun may have to go down the latter route to get what she desires, if the story has been accurately reported.
At the bottom are rights that might be desirable to hold but which are unattainable, like Ian's famous right to not become infected by an airborne virus. Not being rained upon might be another.
Then you have rights that have to balance the fact that we don't live in isolation but within a society. Here, you have rights but they need partially keeping in check to protect others' rights. I would include all driving legislation within this. Also, practising a regulated profession, abiding by noise pollution rules, not smoking in enclosed public spaces, etc, etc.
At the top of the pecking order, you have an Englishman's God-given rights, which must always be protected at all costs. Some of these I listed above. They are what distinguushes us from totalitarian regimes.
There are obviously grey areas where these 3 classes of rights overlap. This is where we rely on the sound, common sense judgement of officials and a good, independent legal system to find solutions for the greater good. The lady in The Sun may have to go down the latter route to get what she desires, if the story has been accurately reported.
Beau wrote: "At the top of the pecking order, you have an Englishman's God-given rights, which must always be protected at all costs. Some of these I listed above. They are what distinguushes us from totalitarian regimes."All very reasonable. If I remember correctly, "an Englishman's God-given rights" didn't begin with Jehovah handing down his tablets to William the Bastard atop the Tower of London or with any other divine manifestation. No, they began with some aristocrats being so unreasonable as to deny King John's divine right as a king by forcing John to affix his seal to the Magna Carta. It is the unreasonable, not the reasonable, who secure our liberties unto us.
An interesting debate evolving here. Sure, situations like J. suggests, can demonstrate a clear drawback, while a public interest in safer and legal driving also makes a lot of sense.I can understand the resentment of government's intervention, which grows with the appetite. They can't control cash and black market, so they come closer and closer to limit and outlaw cash. Many people use credit cards and cell phone for payments anyway, but should cash be criminalized, because the government fails to cope with enforcement?
We have car safety belts, which are entirely paternalistic and most likely lobbied by insurance companies, but I guess they do their job. The advocates for speed control claim they'll cut car accident fatalities by half. If the estimate is more or less accurate, is it a worthy aim to clip some wings?
If we accept extra government involvement concerning perilous objects like cars and guns, to what degree? In the US guns are constitutional, speeding isn't, should it make a difference?
King John and his predecessors, being human, must've misinterpreted God's Will. In this case, the barons simply nudged him in the right direction.
Liberty is a balancing act. Individual rights vs the greater good. When the former infringe upon the latter, the former may have to be checked. It's a fine balance and requires a degree of common sense.
Strong, independent institutions are important in achieving this balance. They must be free from knee jerk reaction and the whims of the day. Change must be thought through carefully. That is why I favour small c conservatism.
Liberty is a balancing act. Individual rights vs the greater good. When the former infringe upon the latter, the former may have to be checked. It's a fine balance and requires a degree of common sense.
Strong, independent institutions are important in achieving this balance. They must be free from knee jerk reaction and the whims of the day. Change must be thought through carefully. That is why I favour small c conservatism.
Beau,After the last few years, I thought the phrase "the greater good" would make you vomit. Perhaps a few more years of utopian thinking will impress the point upon you.
I oppose the concept unless ALL roads are constructed to accommodate it. Suppose you are on a one-lane each way road in hilly terrain and you wish to overtake a slow driver. Do you need y90ur motor to cut out while you are on the wrong side of the road while undertaking a perfectly safe manoeuvre up until this happened? People can also misjudge, and you don't need to kill people simply by imposing some device that forces you to comply with some law.
Nik wrote: "An interesting debate evolving here. Sure, situations like J. suggests, can demonstrate a clear drawback, while a public interest in safer and legal driving also makes a lot of sense.I can underst..."
Let's consider the thing as a working system.
It's simple enough to limit the maximum speed of a modern car. All it would take is a few lines of code. But what good does it do if those cars can still do highway speeds on country lanes?
Obviously, one must limit the car to the speed limit of the road it's on. Signs can be damaged, so the car will have to use GPS to figure out where it is and request the appropriate speed limit from some central system.
Aside from the government knowing where you are at all times, is it wise to give them that kind of access to your personal property? What if they decide that your politics aren't in keeping with responsible motoring, and turn your vehicle's speed limit to 0? If you don't think such a thing could happen, talk to Nigel Farage about your bank accounts.
J, central to my reading of the last 3 years is a belief that the interventions WEREN'T for the greater good. In fact, the opposite was the case.
Interventions were in the interests of a relatively small number of bad actors in high places, who succeeded in gaslighting the public into believing they were acting in the greater good to help them get what they wanted.
Weak institutions then failed to carry out their checking and balancing functions due to the worst traits of human nature, primarily the fear of going against the herd. These institutions need improving, not ignoring or dismantling.
Re the cars, factory fitted speed limits shouldn't need any smart functions. Simply set them at the national speed limit and leave it at that. Any form of post factory control, bar at MOT, servicing or in the event of a fault occurring is over reach and should be resisted.
Sure, drivers will need to display caution on the motorway when overtaking older vehicles but those skills should be learnt pre driving test. Also, as older vehicles are phased out, disparity between old and new will disappear.
Interventions were in the interests of a relatively small number of bad actors in high places, who succeeded in gaslighting the public into believing they were acting in the greater good to help them get what they wanted.
Weak institutions then failed to carry out their checking and balancing functions due to the worst traits of human nature, primarily the fear of going against the herd. These institutions need improving, not ignoring or dismantling.
Re the cars, factory fitted speed limits shouldn't need any smart functions. Simply set them at the national speed limit and leave it at that. Any form of post factory control, bar at MOT, servicing or in the event of a fault occurring is over reach and should be resisted.
Sure, drivers will need to display caution on the motorway when overtaking older vehicles but those skills should be learnt pre driving test. Also, as older vehicles are phased out, disparity between old and new will disappear.
Older vehicles are not the only slow ones; usually it is the driver who is slow. Overtaking on a motorway is not dangerous, but overtaking on more rural roads is. You want to spend a minimum amount of time on the wrong side of the road. Sometimes, in other circumstances, you need power to get you out of trouble, and i am unsure about "factory-fitted speed limits. How do they work? How can you be sure that nothing will go wrong in an emergency power demand?
You'd know you were having a bad day if your speed limit was set to zero and so you had to take a cab but couldn't pay for it because your bank account had been cancelled. Lol.
Let's not split hairs over fast cars. That sort of scenario is why we both oppose cancel culture and government over reach.
Let's not split hairs over fast cars. That sort of scenario is why we both oppose cancel culture and government over reach.
Ian, speed limiters are fitted on buses and HGVs. Even if you pressed the throttle to the floor, the vehicle won't go faster than the preset limit. I'm sure there's nothing smart about them.
You shouldn't be overtaking vehicles that are doing the speed limit, especially on country lanes. Slow down and drive safely.
You shouldn't be overtaking vehicles that are doing the speed limit, especially on country lanes. Slow down and drive safely.
Beau, I was talking about overtaking slow drivers. The question on how they work may influence the demand for more power even when going well below the speed limit. Buses do not fit the possible requirement - they tend to drive around cities where there are passengers.
Reading all the comments on here. I would have to say that I wouldn't want a speed control device on my car. If you have an emergency and need to get somewhere in a hurry where you have someone in your car that needs to go to a hospital - they could die in the car before getting there. Not all places in this world have ambulances readily available to come pick up people especially with people living out in rural areas.
Also if you need to pass someone on back country roads that are driving slow as a turtle you should be able to have the capability to speed up and drive around them.
With a speed control stuck on your car - that is just one more thing that could go wrong. How will the car know to adjust itself to all the speed limit signs? Some places go from 60 mph to 20 mph with certain areas. Within school zones the speed control would need to adjust itself to slow down.
What happens if the computer does not compute with the speed control or your computer goes out on your vehicle - what happens then with the speed control? Will you careen out of control? Will there be a backup safety feature in case something goes wrong? Or will your car stop completely and it won't let you do anything till help arrives?
Like J said - it is just one more thing to control us - government wants to completely control every aspect of our lives. Now they are wanting to control drivers.
Also how does that affect emergency vehicles? Are they going to have those devices stuck on their vehicles too? So if a fire engine needs to get to a house to put out a fire I guess the whole place will burn to the ground because the speed control won't let them go fast.
Beau wrote: "J, central to my reading of the last 3 years is a belief that the interventions WEREN'T for the greater good. In fact, the opposite was the case."And yet you trust the exact same politicians and bureaucrats to be altruistic with regards to this?
Marie, you're right, it is something else that could go wrong but surely it's not beyond the power of the world's leading vehicle manufacturers to make it reliable? Seems efficient enough when fitted to vehicles like HGVs at the mo. Also, I'm not on about capping the speed at sthg silly like 20mph. Fit it to go up to 70mph - the speed limit.
J, we've got to trust our institutions at some point or another. What else can we do? Trusting nobody leads to paranoia while no government means anarchy. It's a question of either 'put up', by stocking up on automatic weapons, or 'shut up' and try to influence the status quo by the accepted rules and regulations.
Although I often felt like putting up during lockdowns, in the cold light of day I'd rather shut up and make my points within the rules. Sometimes, better the devil you know.
J, we've got to trust our institutions at some point or another. What else can we do? Trusting nobody leads to paranoia while no government means anarchy. It's a question of either 'put up', by stocking up on automatic weapons, or 'shut up' and try to influence the status quo by the accepted rules and regulations.
Although I often felt like putting up during lockdowns, in the cold light of day I'd rather shut up and make my points within the rules. Sometimes, better the devil you know.
You're starting to understand the Second Amendment. Americans don't trust government. It's a trait which we were taught by the British king and parliament, and which our own government has repeatedly retaught us.
I appreciate the thoughts of freedom but...Modern cars already have GPS or camera monitoring of road traffic signs. These are steps on the way to automated cars and these are not just Teslas. Many already have full self-drive capability - another loss of freedom or...
When you travel in a plane, ship, train, bus or taxi you have no control over the speed. Automated car will be the same. It will also carry out manoeuvrers needed for efficient transport for all road users not just the ones wanting to go fast or slow (the slow ones will be sped up)
You already trust the car with its braking system, its lights and engine management, even its sending of servicing messages. Appreciate not all older cars do this. Its trading control for tech and convenience.
Is this a loss of freedom? Perhaps, but we already accept that control in the other modes even if you fly a private plane or sail your own boat. Rules / laws are supposed to be followed. If you don't like laws campaign to have them changed. Does your freedom to drive fast (or on drink or drugs) outweigh my freedom not to be killed by a mistake or misfortune. We banned drink driving and introduced safety belts to protect others and ourselves. We have speed limits to protect others.
I do not discount the emergency need or the slow traffic need, but there are far too many people who speed unnecessarily without thought for others. Think of crossing the road. A speeding car makes the pedestrian safety judgement incorrect as we have seen with emergency vehicles hitting pedestrians.
I don't think it's simply a matter of freedom, like all things it's a balancing act
I agree with Philip on this. His post has actually soothed my fears about driverless cars, which had been heightened after reading John Marrs' The Passengers (don't seem to be able to link via phone).
America is a different country to Britain, with a much different history and culture. They were still living in the Wild West 140 years' ago! They're frontiers men, who think of guns like we think of secateurs.
We do things differently over here. We sacrifice a bit of hard-core liberty for greater state protections. However, this does mean that we need to be extra vigilant when government over reaches or our intricate system of checks and balances fails to do its job satisfactorily.
America is a different country to Britain, with a much different history and culture. They were still living in the Wild West 140 years' ago! They're frontiers men, who think of guns like we think of secateurs.
We do things differently over here. We sacrifice a bit of hard-core liberty for greater state protections. However, this does mean that we need to be extra vigilant when government over reaches or our intricate system of checks and balances fails to do its job satisfactorily.
In my opinion, the issue is not about freedom per se, although the freedom not to be unnecessarily impeded by others is a concern. I am not worried about city driving. Here, leaving aside motorway sections and middle of the night driving, speed limits are irrelevant; you can't get anywhere near them.My concern is open highway driving. New Zealand is a moutainous country, and the roads in such regions are one lane each way. You get heavy transport that simply cannot get up hills at anything but a crawl and to get past them you need power. You are not anywhere near exceeding the speed limit in getting past them, but you do not need anything that chokes that power. I simply do not believe speed governors will always work exactly efficiently. I do not believe we are anywhere near an automated car for such roads yet, and I think a driver has to have the means of overriding such governors. If you only drive around in cities and on motorways, then they are fair enough. They would be fair enough on our roads if everyone had them AND the vehicles had the power to drive at the speed limit, but there will always be slow vehicles driven by those who have the attitude, "I pay my road taxes, I am only going 20 km, so why hurry?" As for speed governors, you really think the guys that want to go faster won't have a means of disabling them, and putting everything back together if there is an annual inspection? Or simply buy older cars.
Beau wrote: "I agree with Philip on this. His post has actually soothed my fears about driverless cars, which had been heightened after reading John Marrs' The Passengers (don't seem to be able to link via phon..."You might want to be more reserved when touting the heights of British civility during the Victorian Era. While y'all didn't go full Belgium, there are still quite a few countries with legitimate grievances.
As for your "intricate series of checks and balances", every new job which you assign to government grants them more power. How many jobs can they have before the Leviathan is too massive for you to resist?
Ian wrote: "In my opinion, the issue is not about freedom per se, although the freedom not to be unnecessarily impeded by others is a concern. I am not worried about city driving. Here, leaving aside motorway ..."I tend to prefer older vehicles. Yet there is a ticking clock in them. Sure just about everything can be repaired, rebuilt, or replaced, but the parts stream is not eternal. Eventually, there aren't enough of a vehicle left on the road to be worth manufacturing OEM or aftermarket parts. Once that happens, it is a race to zero.
Nik wrote: "... - Intelligent speed assistance ("ISA") ... Do you support or oppose and why?"Oppose. Until such time as all traffic is controlled by some central hub, there are too many instances where exceeding a speed limit is necessary. Merging traffic is a huge problem and between the big truck behind you on your rear who can't slow down if you brake, the guy entering the interstate on your right not merging correctly and about to sideswipe you, and the car in the left lane cutting across traffic to make the next exit, my control of my vehicle to speed up is the safest choice.
Even setting a low speed limit won't help in a construction zone as then everyone may be going too fast at 45 mph when a construction truck enters.
Generally, in a well-maintained car, it is not how fast you are going that is the problem (excluding people who are crazier than me), it is the difference in speed between the vehicles going slow, fast, slower, faster, merging, exiting, all of which is also part of the congestion problem. I don't think governing speed will be safer until there is actual AI traffic control for all and vehicle road worthiness is controlled. Since we can't yet avoid trains crashing, I don't see car control safely being in the near future.
I don't think we are anywhere near being able to do any control safely, other than setting a governor on an engine. Look at how most of our navigation systems still mess up, not reconginzing road changes and construction, or map locations being incorrect,* or simply cutting out with that dreaded "please follow the highlighted route" message. Happens a lot near military bases in the southwest and in many of the major cities I have been in. (*On my recent trip across country I ended up 50 miles out of the way from where my hotel was, in the middle of nowhere, north instead of northeast, because both my navigation system and the maps on my phone had the wrong GPS listing for a hotel that was part of a major chain.)
In America our road conditions, the number of lanes, the little town in the middle of nowhere of a state highway, the variety of speed limits not just based on the type of road but the same road from state to state, there is no consistency in our speed limit laws.
Setting aside all the practical reasons to oppose, of which there are many, I don't want it. I like driving fast and never had an issue because of it. The only time I wrecked a car or caused an accident, was at a traffic light when my brakes didn't work and I was doing the speed limit. I knew they were soft and my car was scheduled to go in the shop the next morning. As they say, a day late, a dollar short situation.
In line with the ideal of intelligent driving, what is the biggest problem/cause of accidents that you see or are reported in your area of the country or the world?The biggest cause of many accidents where I was living, people running red lights and making illegal left or right turns.
The biggest problem I have seen in my long distance driving are people driving too slow, especially in the left lane, but even in the right as that causes the big trucks to have to jump a lane over to avoid running over someone driving too slow for the highway.
One example from this morning. I entered the highway via a right hand turn (we drive on the left) but sone uncooperative character came up and sat in my blind spot in the left lane. I needed that lane to take a left exit lane, so the only option was really either to make a thorough pest of myself by slowing in the fast lane, or exceed the speed limit to make space. I quickly added 15k.
Driving too close - regardless of speed in bad weather. I don't have an issue with speed either. Auto driving in limited so far Tesla experience is not full auto. I still steer and adaptive cruise, lane management are just warnings. Cruise will keep to speed limit unless I blip it.As Lizzies states full control is needed then we can all drive at 150, 5 yards behind car in front whilst watching movie....
Against. Definitely against. Don't we already have enough external control over what we do? I know all the arguments for, but it's the principle of the thing.
Do you support or oppose and why?