Speed cameras to be rendered obsolete?

The Department of Transport is to start a large scale trial of speed limiters in the spring. Twenty volunteers from Leeds are to be given Skoda Fabias with electronic limiters fitted...

...when the limiters are switched on they will work in conjuction with a GPS system and an electronic map in order to establish the speed limit on the road travelled.

http://www.pistonheads.com/speed/default.asp?storyId=6115

didn't know skodas needed limiters

But seriously limiters are bad ideas people will switch off when driving and then crash but the trial will only measure speed not overall safety so we will all get one soon.

what happens when you try to over take the 45 mph club you can't accidents will go up as overtaking becomes more and more stupid.

i am pissed off with speed kills it is so stupid. If speed kills then motorways should be deadly but they aren't the worst roads. Hell on a ship we only do 15mph so we don't even need to watch where we are going but we do

rant over


but it will continue later

I don't actually find this that intrusive since it's the law and they already check our speeds anyway. Of course, I don't speed either so that might have something to do with it.

I've always wondered how long it would take for something like this to come along. I also wonder how much revenue will be lost for the police without speeding tickets being handed out?

...when the limiters are switched on they will work in conjuction with a GPS system and an electronic map in order to establish the speed limit on the road travelled.

And the first time one of them causes an accident on the highway because the GPS thinks they're on an adjacent 20mph road and slams on the brakes for them, they will abandon the idea and everyone will drop it.

A far more effective method, which I'm amazed has never been implemented is exit to exit timing on toll roads with the tickets you pick up as you enter (or electronically with EZ-Pass/Fastlane et. al). They know the distances between exits, and the speed limits. If you get there sooner, you were speeding.


-Zeke

they do in france

And the first time one of them causes an accident on the highway because the GPS thinks they're on an adjacent 20mph road and slams on the brakes for them, they will abandon the idea and everyone will drop it.

Great point. they must not have enough ambulance chasers in the UK.

(edit: US DoD turns selective availability back on to frustrate Saddam.....CRASH!....BANG!....BOOM! No wonder the initiative for a non-US GPS satellite system.)

I had wondered about the safety issue. You're right about GPS positioning problems. There are also times when you need to speed up to avoid an accident, and having an "emergency override" button wouldn't work in that instance.

exit to exit timing on toll roads

Oh, they do far worse than that...

tanstaafl.

So what happens when there's an emergency and you need to get to a hospital.

British people need to organize militias and start stockpiling weapons and then overthrow their government.

I think that's what the "emergency button" is all about.

OK. I didn't read the article.

I thought thats exactly what radical Muslims groups in the UK were planning to do right now...

...Whether they plan to justify their actions on the basis of the potential introduction Speed Limiters in vechicles is not known.

The ad for radar detectors next to the article is kinda funny...

Especially ironic as most of the radar detectors (or more accurately speed camera locators) advertised on PistonHeads are GPS based ones...

exit to exit timing on toll roads

They do this in France. In the UK, we don't have any toll roads. We have tolls for bridges/tunnels and the like, but AFAIK, there are absolutely no toll roads anywhere in the country.

The government was talking about persuading private contractors to build roads, and paying for them with tolls, but I don't know if this will happen or not.

Besides, it's not speed that kills, it's driving too damn close to the car in front, or driving too fast for the conditions.

Actually, it's usually the wounds (caused by colliding with something) that kill, but you get my point.

Twenty volunteers from Leeds

Your Leeds correspondent here.

So, as if the guided buses taking up half the road to take six passengers each into the City Centre in the rush hour wasn't enough.

And the bendy buses that can't get round corners - I saw one demolish a lampost with its back half!

And the City loop system that statistically slows down the bus services it was meant to improve.

And the tram system (and I am a tram fan) that will take up more road, and for evermore take up a significant proportion of our taxes - because, like the Sheffield example, the City just isn't big enough to make the system viable.

So, why does this new initiative not surprise me!!!
Those pen pushers on the Council just have to have new toys.

When I came here in '72, it took 40 minutes to get to work - this morning it took 40 minutes to get to work - what congestion problem?

One day it will dawn on their worships that people relocate businesses here precisely because of the ease of local and national road access - till then I will curse as I follow one of twenty dawdling Skodas - and I bet heavily that those volunteers for freeby cars are all council employees!

measure speed not overall safety

I think there's an argument for saying that speed limits on roads come under wfaulk's memorable phrase laws that attempt to reinforce already-illegal acts by making illegal acts that might lead to them that also make illegal the same acts that wouldn't lead to illegality. If their driving is dangerous, prosecute them for dangerous driving. If their driving isn't dangerous, why are we prosecuting them?

Peter

Absolutely. It would save all the wasted effort that is being gone through at the moment to decide whether or not to ban the use of hand held phones in cars.

If someone is driving dangerously by using a mobile on the move then the police can do them for dangerous driving. We don't need another new law.

Gah!

I remember reading about that GPS case (or something very similar) a few months ago. That the French have such restrictions doesn't suprize me, although last time I was in France there was no shortage of frightening drivers, so it doesn't seem to be helping much.

The major difference in the Acme rental case is that it's not a government entity in any way, although I don't think their level of disclosure was sufficient (nor their argument that it's accepted practice). Had their client been suitably informed he would have had the option to take his business elsewhere.
I read an article yesterday (in a GPS trade mag which I receive for no good reason) about certain defective UHF/VHF marine TV antennas that were knocking out/overwhelming GPS signals for a mile in every direction. This was in a harbor in California IIRC.

-Zeke

exit to exit timing on toll roads

We don't have toll roads, as has been explained further down the thread, but what is now being introduced here are gantries with cameras that read your number plates at the beginning and end of a section and calculate your speed. People have been coming up with patent ideas to make number plates unreadable!

I didn't think it could work that well until I was going through some roadworks on a motorway and a large flashing light display came up with: Slow down - driver, followed by my numberplate, followed by my accurate speed.

We don't need another new law

Less laws - less confusion - less opportunities for fat cat legal people to acquire big fees for discussing precedents, I couldn't agree with you more - and, running my own business, I have to deal all the time with daft new namby pamby legislation.

Talking on mobiles in cars is a pet hate of mine, the number of times I've had to take avoiding action for someone consequently not concentrating is legion.

The trouble, as I see it though, and, I've overheard and been part of numerous such conversations, is that unless you have a specific clear cut law banning the practice, people think it's just part of the highway code and they are unlucky if they get caught, and even more, prosecuted - any more than parking on the brow of a hill, or many of the other things that you find if you read through.

So, for that reason alone, on this occasion alone, I would like to see a specific clearcut law.

yes and any more intelligent thinking and all the poltictions will vanish in a big wisp of logic as thier eason to excist vansihes

"...gantries with cameras that read your number plates..."

That sounds perfectly awful.

-Zeke

Just love the penguins, they are new aren't they?

That sounds perfectly awful

....none other than an invasion of your civil liberties, as many have argued.

But, if storing those numbers, which I assume the equipment does, leads to catching one of the terrorists that threaten us all, I'll be the last to complain.

on that note i would like to see a law banning eating and makeup. These are 2 common problems i seee every day. We should have an "open seal" law on makeup containers and ban all drive-thru windows at restaurants because some people choose to be distracted drivers.
I'm obviously being facetious, but realistically can anyone find statistics on What distracts drivers (causing accidents)?

I agree with other posts, its not the cell phone causing the problem its the driver who chooses to be distracted. If you ban cell phone the same driver will be distracted trying to get their "hands free" kit workin. Also a driver willing to make such a choice will undoubtedly make that choice regardless of the object of distraction.

on that note i would like to see a law banning eating and makeup

The first would be very handy for controlling population explosion, the latter would be dead handy for spotting that you're chatting up the wrong woman when you've had a few.....

....oh, sorry, you mean in cars - right with you, plus combs, hairbrushes - or perhaps removing the mirrors would be better, and talking to passengers emotively with arm movements like a Tamla-Motown video should be a jail sentence.

I also wonder how much revenue will be lost for the police without speeding tickets being handed out?

This is a commonly made mistake that I hear all the time. In fact, speeding tickets are NO REVENUE for the police. The only one who benefits is the government. This is not the same thing. The officer who writes the ticket or makes the report won't see one cent more revenue on his paycheck because he wrote that ticket or report (and so it should be!)
Also the police force in general won't benefit at all from it.

So I see little chance of this "big brother" system ever getting implemented. Not only because of the technical issue, but mostly because this system would mean a serious drain of revenue for the government. I can guarantee you that the government nowadays depends on those speeding tickets and looks at it as some sort of sure income.

In reply to:

---

in replie to Roger :
Besides, it's not speed that kills, it's driving too damn close to the car in front, or driving too fast for the conditions.

---

Amen to that. I've seen A LOT of accidents in the last couple of years because of my job. Mostly only with material damage, but some unfortunately were fatal to the ones involved. I've literally seen people ripped apart because of accidents. Has this changed the speed at which I'm driving? No.
It has however changed the way that I'm driving. You'll NEVER catch me tailing another car, OR speeding when the conditions are not right for it. But I don't have any problem with driving home at 2AM on the interstate in dry weather at 160 km/h when I'm literally the only car on the road.
So those would also be my nr. 1 driving tips if I ever was to give some : keep your distance and adjust your style of driving to the conditions that are on the road !

On the cell phone in the car issue : Using a hands free kit is probably equally distracting as phoning from the car without one. (or smoking in the car, or eating, etc...) Heck, they never outlowed mobilophones (the pre-GSM type) or CB's !
[sarcasm mode]
The only difference is that now everybody has a mobile phone, and so it's become increasingly profitable for the government to make the handsfree sets obligatory. Because more people using mobile phones equals more people "needing" handsfree sets equals more handsfree sets sold equals more revenue because of VAT. And in case some stubborn driver refuses to buy such a handsfree set, he can get fined, so that equals also more revenue because of the fines. (mmmm....I'm starting to see a pattern here!)
And to top it all off : we can sell this to the general public in the spirit of our new "safer traffic policy"! Incredible, a win-win-win situation.
[/sarcasm mode]

This is a commonly made mistake that I hear all the time. In fact, speeding tickets are NO REVENUE for the police

That isn't true in the UK. Police authorities are now allowed to erect speed cameras anywhere they want (as opposed to only at accident blackspots) and keep the income in return for painting the camera bright yellow.

Rob

Of course I can only talk about the police force in my country. Sorry about that.

And I do hope you're kidding about painting those cameras. But I've learned that with you, one never knows!

Over here, the police never sees any of the money that the cameras bring in. What are the UK police forces actually supposed to do with that money then? Give all their officers a pay rise or use it to be somewhat self-supporting?

In reply to:

---

....none other than an invasion of your civil liberties, as many have argued.

But, if storing those numbers, which I assume the equipment does, leads to catching one of the terrorists that threaten us all, I'll be the last to complain.

---

Ahh yes.
But where do you draw the line here?

How many terrorists do think it is fair to catch to justify the potential invasion of hundreds of thousands or even millions of innocent people's civil liberties?
1, 2, a hundred? A thousand?, none?

Hmm, its a difficult problem I agree, but there are no simple answers.

I also fail to see how, storing car number plates in a database actually helps prevent terrorist attacks or to track down terrorists - except maybe after the fact (e.g. after a terrorist attack), but even then would this evidence stand up in court?
[as presumably all such terrorists will be subject to a fair trial].

There is presumably no actual ability with this system to prove who the driver was at the time the number plate was recorded - so how can you say "we know this (alleged) terrorist was at the wheel of this car as it speed away from the scene of the crime" or "we know you were driving this car on the way to a terrorist attack" ?

And of course, there is always the situation of people making up fake number plates to fool this sort of system - its happened in other crimes I know of, where a car has had its (distinctive) number plate cloned and another car the same make,model and colour was driven around in a totally different part of the country hundred of miles away for the precise purposes of giving the car, an alibi.

If these "terrorists" can make up fake id cards, and probably passports as well, as has been reported in the media, then any attempt to use number plates as a tracking device is equally doomed to failure as they start a business of making copies of other people number plates.

And its not like Number Plates have anti-forgery devices in them like money, passports and some ID cards - all you need is some Yellow Plastic (in the UK) and a tin of Black Paint or some black plastic stick on letters and you're done - fake number plate factory in business.

Whats next - finger-print ID devices in the steering wheel of every car so that the driver of the car can also be proven at the time?

In reply to:

---

I'm obviously being facetious, but realistically can anyone find statistics on What distracts drivers (causing accidents)?

---

Well, from a ongoing debate on the merits of banning cellphone use in cars the government agency in New Zealand responsible had this to say about accidents caused by distractions:

About 15 of the 425 road deaths last year were found to be due to distractions in the vehicle, e.g. reaching for something while driving, fiddling with the car stereo, trying to get rid of a insect pest (e.g. Bee/Wasp) in the car while driving etc.

And only about 5 deaths a year were attributable to cellphone use while driving.

Now those figures only tell half the story as everyone who has ever driven behind someone talking on a cellphone you'd know that their level of driving skills goes down dramatically while doing so.

And studies have confirmed that talking and driving just don't mix well - and thats whether on a cellphone or not [seems the brain can't drive a car and make the brain work well at the same time].

Of course with a non-handsfree cellphone there is also the added problem of not having two hands on the wheel at all times [like we're supposed to all do right?] and probably more than one accident (but not necessarily death) has been caused by someone dropping their phone and then scrambling to pick it up and crahsing into something while doing so.

the big issue with cellphones is that if you make handsfree compulsary, does it actually make it safer to use a cellphone while driving?

Not sure on that one, whereas if you see someone with a cellphone on their ear, you know to keep well back and to expect dangerous/inconsiderate driving if you're behind them, or see them coming the other way.
With a hands free solution, none of this would be visible.

Maybe we need a flashing light on the roof of every cellphone carrying car, which flashes whenever the driver is using a cellphone (handsfree or not), thus warning all drivers that this driver is a potential hazard.

A lady is in court in Melbourne for dangerous driving. She was seen to be swerving erratically and being 'distracted' while talking on her mobile.
Archeon: But I don't have any problem with driving home at 2AM on the interstate in dry weather at 160 km/h when I'm literally the only car on the road.

I'm not claiming that I'm any angel, but how do YOU know that the conditions are suitable for driving at 160Kph? is the road closed to all other traffic? I don't think that because the driver deems that the conditions are safe, they can do any speed the like. It's still illegal when I do it too.

Whats next - finger-print ID devices in the steering wheel of every car so that the driver of the car can also be proven at the time?


Ooohh.. That's a doubleplusgood idea.

And I do hope you're kidding about painting those cameras. But I've learned that with you, one never knows!

Nope it's true.

Over here, the police never sees any of the money that the cameras bring in. What are the UK police forces actually supposed to do with that money then? Give all their officers a pay rise or use it to be somewhat self-supporting?

They are allowed to spend some of it on maintaining the cameras and installing new ones. The rest is supposed to go on other efforts to reduce traffic accidents.

The Police only get part of the fine though, the rest still goes to the treasury.

but how do YOU know that the conditions are suitable for driving at 160Kph

I expected this replie, so I'll explain a bit.
My car is one of the more expensive models. Pushing it to 160 Kph is not pushing it's limits (200 Kph+ would be). 160 Kph still leaves enough headroom to rule out mechanical failiure because of pushing the car to (past?) it's max.

The road certainly wouldn't be closed to all other traffic, but I'm talking about the interstate (motorway) here. It's not like there are intersections, cyclists, pedestrians, ... there. Furthermore I specified that I only do this past a certain hour, say 23.00hrs or so. At that time there's almost no traffic on those roads. When driving 50km, I'll be lucky in passing 5 to 10 vehicles. (which are mostly trucks that ride at the first lane - keep in mind that these are 3-lane motorways)

The only danger I see is that I could hit an object on the road that fell off a truck or something. However, if I was riding at the legal speed (120 Kph) I would probably also hit it since the motorways aren't illuminated between 00.00hrs and 06.00hrs in Belgium.

They are allowed to spend some of it on maintaining the cameras and installing new ones. The rest is supposed to go on other efforts to reduce traffic accidents.

Ah! That's actually a good thing!

Over here, all the money goes to treasury...

The only danger I see is that I could hit an object on the road that fell off a truck or something
That's the type of thing I was thinking of. One just doesn't know what's in the road ahead [goonshow.voices(moriaty)it is a head![/goonshow.voices(moriaty)]

...how do YOU know that the conditions are suitable for driving at 160Kph?

I would guess that if I were on a properly maintained limited-access road with multiple lanes in each direction and guardrails or a center median separating me from oncoming traffic and as far ahead of me as I could see there were no other cars traveling my direction... I would certainly have no difficulties driving my Porsche (930 Turbo Carrera) at 200 KM/Hour and feeling perfectly safe in the process.

tanstaafl.

Pushing it to 160 Kph is not pushing it's limits

Some of the guys in this thread would crap themselves on an average journey on the M4. 160kph (100mph) is pretty much the average speed in nose to tail traffic. It's a real pain getting stuck behind them all

Rob

160kph (100mph) is pretty much the average speed in nose to tail traffic. It's a real pain getting stuck behind them all


Amen to that, 12 years ago, I was diagnosed with a chronic illness, the specialist said, you're obviously in a stressful job, if you could cut down on the stress, it would certainly help.

I decided that the only thing that I could think of was to always drive within the speed limit, leave the recommended space behind the car in front, let people out at junctions and back off when confronted with idiots.

I can't say I get anywhere any later, but I'm certainly fresher, the only downside is all the rude bastards that sit on my tail!

Actually i have slowed down a bit since i got an empeg i have slowed down a bit it is defiantly makes chilling at out at 80mph far easier.

Nope it's true.

Certainly is. This is a picture of the speed camera just outside empeg Towers: