New Spyware to prevent speeding

Questions for debate:

1) Currently being tested in Canada, how likely is it to be adopted there, and down here in the "lower Provinces"?

2) Do you believe that this technology could materially improve roadway safety?

3) Are there any safety downsides to this technology?

4) If given a choice, would you equip your car with this device, and what is the reasoning behind your decision?

1) Currently being tested in Canada, how likely is it to be adopted there, and down here in the "lower Provinces"?

Pretty unlikely. Americans do not like the "Big Brother" feeling that this system is likely to give them...

2) Do you believe that this technology could materially improve roadway safety?

Not really. Traffic accidents are mainly caused by variations in speed not by the absolute value of the vehicle's speed. A grandma driving 7 MPH on the highway is just as likely to cause an accident as a maniac driving 100.

The article even states that speed is a contributing factor in only 25% of accident fatalities. That means that 75% of accidents have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the speed of the vehicle.

3) Are there any safety downsides to this technology?

Certainly it is conceivable that a vehicle will need to travel in excess of the speed limit. While these instances are rare, they are certainly possible.

4) If given a choice, would you equip your car with this device, and what is the reasoning behind your decision?

No. I hate Big Brother.

This reminds me of an offer my car insurance company made last year. If you equip your vehicle with a speed monitoring device, they'd (potentially) give you a discount on your insurance. The device attached to the OBD port of your computer and monitored changes in speed. If you did not exceed certain limits (which I believe were 7 MPH per second), you qualify for the discount. The device was detached and the data uploaded to the insurance company. The device needed to remain attached to the vehicle 90% of the time to qualify. The point is that the insurance company did not monitor absolute speed, but changes in speed.

1) Currently being tested in Canada, how likely is it to be adopted there, and down here in the "lower Provinces"?

I cannot see drivers embracing this idea. A lot would depend on how one defines “speeding”. Certainly in my state (Mass.) very few people ever ever drive 55 mph on a major highway.


2) Do you believe that this technology could materially improve roadway safety?

No. Speeding is not the major cause of accidents. Drunk driving is and I find it odd that, with technology available years ago to deal with this, it is not been discussed. In a AAA study a few years ago they looked at accidents that occurred in the lanes of a highway. The left “high speed” lane had only 10% of the accidents making it and the fast drivers the safest part of a roadway.
We need to also consider the enormous traffic jams that would occur, and the energy cost of same, if for example we chose to set the actual speed limit at 55 mph on roads where today people routinely drive an average of 70-75 mph.

3) Are there any safety downsides to this technology?

Could be. Angry drivers caught in big traffic jams could be a road rage hazard.

4) If given a choice, would you equip your car with this device, and what is the reasoning behind your decision?

NO. It is a stupid idea and will not IMO reduce accidents. What we need is car avoidance software now becoming available on some expensive German cars. This system would take over operation of a car if an accident was imminent and prevent or minimize the damage, death and injury.

http://istresults.cordis.lu/index.cfm/sect...atures/ID/73595

Living as I do in a city with dangerous areas, I'd really hate to not have the ability to hit the gas and get out of there if approached by potential carjackers or robbers. There would at least need to be a panic button to disable the system temporarily, even if it meant a fine, to allow for such an emergency.

I also agree that this wouldn't do much for overall safety, most accidents happen near the home and at relatively low speeds. It could be possibly be an idea for young drivers for the first year after licensing?.

I think far more would be gained by including a cellular damper that is engaged from the drivers seat when the car is in motion. If you want to talk, park.

Yeah, that's just as absurd. Our government has far better things to worry about than tasking a farm of satellites to monitor auto speeds.

Just say no to big bro!

1) Currently being tested in Canada, how likely is it to be adopted there, and down here in the "lower Provinces"?

I can't see that this type of technology will become widespread as it stands, because of all the 'big brother' concerns already mentioned.

Similarly, in the UK, the debate over road pricing has included suggestions that similar such GPS/GPRS technology (which already exists and is quite common in freight haulage and other fleets of vehicles e.g. field sales) would be useful, so that people could be taxed accoridng to how much they used the roads, and which ones they used) paying more for busy routes). I don't think this will really catch on either, because there is no real upside for users.

However, a step or two further down this route (forgive the pun) might lead to the type of 'car that drives itself' idea that was common in predictions of the furture made in the 1950s and 60s. THAT could be sold on convenience and safety (if all traffic were such a system vehicle-on-vehicle collisions should become a thing of the past, and speed limits might be able to increase quite safely).

Before that can happen the satellite poisitoning system would need to be significantly beefed up to provided resolutions of less than 5 centimetres or so - the 1-2 metres f the civilian GPS system, and even the 25-50 cm that only the military can get out of GPs or that the proposed European Galileo system would still be thicker than most car doors, so many people would still be killed within the margin of error of the system unless the resolution was an order of magnitude higher.

As soon as such systems are available, and cars come with them fittted as an option or even as standard, it wouldn't be long before companies provided them to many employees - if you don't have to drive, and your sat inside a vehicle with permanent network connections (necessary for operating the 'autopilot' system, the company could expect you to do some work while you're on the move. From the business point of view, this is just an extension of what they've already done by providing cell phones.

For leisure driving, you could watch TV, surf the net, or whatever. Maybe you could buy tickets for the attraction you're on your way to see and, depending on the time slot you get allocate, program in some local beauty spots as part of the route.

2) Do you believe that this technology could materially improve roadway safety?

Yes, but not in it's present form, as I say. Traffic on traffic accidents should more or less disappear (though cars without the system, or with some sort of glitch, would still be able to crash). And the sort of proximity technology that already helps people park in cars that use it should help to reduce pedestrian deaths (and maybe even roadkill) to almost nothing

3) Are there any safety downsides to this technology?

If we come to rely on it, the system, being safety-critical, would need umpteen backup and failsafe systems, which would make the whole thing pretty expensive.

Plus it wouldn't become very useful until a critical mass of vehicles starts using it.

4) If given a choice, would you equip your car with this device, and what is the reasoning behind your decision?

As things are now, not really. Maybe at some point I might buy one with the technology and it's beneficial aspects already fitted, but I'd say that was still at least 10 years away, if not more.

1) Currently being tested in Canada, how likely is it to be adopted there, and down here in the "lower Provinces"?
I'm afraid to say I just don't know. I feel that politicians have a way of making people want something they would not otherwise ask for themselves.

2) Do you believe that this technology could materially improve roadway safety?
No. The driver should have full control of his vehicle at all times. If the driver cannot handle this, he should not have a license.

3) Are there any safety downsides to this technology?
The first thing that comes to mind is a woman in labor, cursing at her husband because he can't break 25 mph.

4) If given a choice, would you equip your car with this device, and what is the reasoning behind your decision?
Never. I can handle my car myself. If I couldn't, I'd get a ride or take public transportation. The same goes for my children. They need to learn how to regulate their own speed, and about the consequences for not doing so.

I agree with you in general but not on this point. Unfortunately far too many drivers, esp. those who consistently drink and drive, still have licenses. These folks are responsible for about 20,000 highway deaths a year and some multiple of that in injuries. This costs all of us billions a year.

Second the newer cars are, at times and for good reason, NOT under full driver control at all times. The latest innovation is “stability control” which literally takes control of the car from the driver in order to recover from a loss of control that could lead to a deadly accident. This type of innovation and NOT GPS speed monitoring is what will reduce highway accidents and deaths. My next vehicle will have this system.

http://money.cnn.com/2003/09/25/pf/autos/what_is_esc/

You're right. Looking back, I think I read the question wrong.

Agreed. There are exceptions to every generalization. But note that "stability control" takes some control in a case that the driver cannot, due to human limitations, have full control over his vehicle. Anti-lock brakes are another example of this. These innovations actually grant the driver more control than he would otherwise have.

1) Currently being tested in Canada, how likely is it to be adopted there, and down here in the "lower Provinces"?
I see the box with the blue light warning &/or voice reminder to be likely as an option for people to lower their insurance costs. Newer cars are so much smoother to drive that it's easy to not realize how fast you're going -- and since it appears that fuel economy is getting to be a real issue, it's worth noting that lower speeds conserve fuel. The GPS system doesn't seem like it would fly, especially in Canada's dreaded enemy to the south.

2) Do you believe that this technology could materially improve roadway safety?
Not really. Speed is most hazardous in neighborhoods, where other more proven methods of speed mitigation can be utilized right now, such as speed bumps, traffic control, self-reporting radar, and a random police presence.

3) Are there any safety downsides to this technology?
Sure. Everytime I try to merge onto the freeway and there's a couple of 18-wheelers bearing down on me -- I have to floor it just to survive. There is one notorious onramp on highway 101 in the SF Bay area where the merge lane is about 50 feet long. 50 feet, and then bang! you're on the freeway. That's a civic advertisement for having a Porsche right there.

4) If given a choice, would you equip your car with this device, and what is the reasoning behind your decision?
I'm always looking to save a couple of bucks. If my insurance company offers a substantial discount for installing one of the reminder devices, then I'm all over it.