board77

I'm with Yova here. Assuming all the emergency situations could be catered for, on a philosophical level, whats wrong with enforcing the law.

New can of worms. Holby, as a human being with the right to make choices, decide to ignore a 30mph limit in a residential area. Because he's doing 50mph he doesn't react in time to a kid on a bike and the child ends up dead. Should he have the right to ignore a law that protects someone else's life? Should he have the right to kill, even if its illegal?

My thoughts kept coming back to the imaginary "what if" scenario of bumping up crime the machine could stop to an even mildly more serious crime. What if a machine could stop, say, vandalism as it was happening, would that be met with the same "nanny state" and "right to freedom" arguments? "I have a right to smash windows and the cops should have to catch me to stop me!" Um...do ya now? Step the crime all the way up to rape and murder and it looks even more absurd.

That said, Lali makes a plenty good point but I think it mainly pertains to why it'd be too difficult to do something like this well, not why it would be "right' or "wrong".

So at what point do we have monitors to make sure we aren't breaking the law in our own houses?

I know there is a reason for speed limits, because I worked with travel models and know why they are there, but as for putting monitors in cars to make sure people don't speed is, imo, taking the responsiblity off the person and puts it on the government. And that is a slippery quick slope down hill to a government that decides and regulates everything.

And I think people do need the freedom to break the law. I think people need to be responsible for their own actions, and once the government starts making those decisions, people stop being responsible.

Putting in these limiters would eliminate quite a bit of government revenue. When people don't speed, they don't get tickets and hefty fines. What is the government thinking!? Speed limits aren't there because they care about your safety: they're there to make money.

But even if they do install such devices, people will find ways to remove them. So this whole thing is moot.

I think time will prove you right AND wrong on this. I foresee these starting as a voluntary device that when used offer a hefty discount on insurance. First time drivers in particular will find impossible to get insurance without having one installed. They will eventually become mandatory, just as seatbelts did, for far less reason. And yes, people will find ways to disable them and then complain bitterly when their insurance is null and void after a crash. People are stupid.

Some jurisdictions get more than 2/3 of their revenue from tickets. These devices would bankrupt them. The mobile tax collectors have reason to oppose these devices.

I support these devices, just not making them mandatory. Give insurance discounts to those who install them.

Before the insurance companies will give discounts, there'll have to be evidence that staying below the speed limit results in fewer claims. I really can't see that being the case unless nearly everyone is doing it.

Dave_LF wrote:

Before the insurance companies will give discounts, there'll have to be evidence that staying below the speed limit results in fewer claims. I really can't see that being the case unless nearly everyone is doing it.

I think there have been statistic studies done for years on this very matter (speed versus fatalities, damage, etc). And of course, it is simple physics: less speed = less force = less damage and lower chances of human injury.

Staying at or below the speed limit may not reduce the NUMBER of claims (there will always be morons out there making poor decisions), but it would reduce the average cost. People with limiters, guaranteeing their speed, are lower risk, and therefore should be able to get better insurance rates.

Except if you're regulated and going the speed limit while everyone else is going 10-15 above, you're actually more likely to be in an accident. That's what I was getting at when I said it would only work from an insurance perspective if nearly everyone was doing it. Speed is important in determining how much damage you take given that you've crashed, but it's speed difference that matters in how likely you are to crash in the first place.

Why don't the insurance companies lobby for lower speed limits, come to think of it?

I am with yov. Not trying to be unsympathetic to drivers, but it would always seem like a good idea to me to make the roads safer. This particular device sounds like it could use a bit of work, but the overall idea sounds fair. As Alatar said, a lot of people feel it is their God-given right to drive (or bear arms, or have children they can't support, or other things I could mention whilst my tongue is planted somewhat in cheek), so I think laws like this would have a lot of trouble passing. People like their vehicles, and they're gonna drive 'em whether they're drunk, high, getting a BJ, unlicensed, or on probation, dammit.

The whole, "protecting people from themselves" thing will hopefully not get too insanely out of hand, but with so many accidents and deaths each year caused by vehicles (even when the driver is alert and competent!) I think it is worth trying something new for a while.




*E*

Dave_LF wrote:

Except if you're regulated and going the speed limit while everyone else is going 10-15 above, you're actually more likely to be in an accident. That's what I was getting at when I said it would only work from an insurance perspective if nearly everyone was doing it. Speed is important in determining how much damage you take given that you've crashed, but it's speed difference that matters in how likely you are to crash in the first place.

Why don't the insurance companies lobby for lower speed limits, come to think of it?

I don't think EVERYONE ELSE goes/will be going 10-15 above. In my experience, the vast majority of people use (approx.) the proper speed. I don't think "likelihood" would fluctuate terribly much.

I don't think everyone would have to be equipped with one of these for insurance companies to justify giving lower rates. If I am going the proper speed and make good decisions, and get involved in an accident anyway - the other guy will be paying me more than I pay him because it was MORE his fault than mine (e.g. 9% my fault 91% his). Having one of these limiters would *guarantee* lower "fault percentages" for the user, and they should be entitled to a better rate. Maybe not a HUGE discount, but certainly something.

As for why insurance companies don't lobby for lower speed limits...can't say. Perhaps they are just as evil as the government (big surprise) and don't do so because they stand to gain more if everyone is going too fast.

yovargas wrote:

My thoughts kept coming back to the imaginary "what if" scenario of bumping up crime the machine could stop to an even mildly more serious crime. What if a machine could stop, say, vandalism as it was happening, would that be met with the same "nanny state" and "right to freedom" arguments? "I have a right to smash windows and the cops should have to catch me to stop me!" Um...do ya now? Step the crime all the way up to rape and murder and it looks even more absurd.

I don't know; I'll bet if you proposed implanting everyone with a chip that would watch you all the time and render you unconscious the moment you tried to rape or murder, you'd find plenty of opposition (what if I need to act in self-defense? What if I'm into S&M? What if the chip malfunctions? What if secretly reports information about my ordinary behavior to some authority?). I don't think it's the enforcement angle that bothers people so much as the idea of being watched all the time. There's also the idea that the degree of enforcement should parallel the heinousness of the crime. "You can't get rid of Rod Blagojevich or stop CEOs from spending bailout dollars on vacations, but you want to reach into my engine and force me to go the speed you want?" Change it so that it complains if you go more than, say, 25% over the speed limit and so you could override it in an emergency, and people would probably be more comfortable with the idea.

Onizuka Eikichi wrote:

I don't think EVERYONE ELSE goes/will be going 10-15 above. In my experience, the vast majority of people use (approx.) the proper speed. I don't think "likelihood" would fluctuate terribly much.

You must not live anywhere near where I do.

Quote:

As for why insurance companies don't lobby for lower speed limits...can't say. Perhaps they are just as evil as the government (big surprise) and don't do so because they stand to gain more if everyone is going too fast.

How do they gain from that?? Shouldn't they want to minimize the number of collisions and thus the number of claims?

Dave_LF wrote:

Quote:

As for why insurance companies don't lobby for lower speed limits...can't say. Perhaps they are just as evil as the government (big surprise) and don't do so because they stand to gain more if everyone is going too fast.

How do they gain from that?? Shouldn't they want to minimize the number of collisions and thus the number of claims?

It would be tricky, but as long as the drivers *your* company insures are reasonable people and don't get into accidents...all is well. All other drivers, though - and this is kind of cruel to say, but - if they crash into one of your people, there might be something gain there. You want your people to be safe, and the other guys' people to be reckless (and having higher speed limits encourages more reckless). Insurance companies, as they say, are twisted and creepy.

Or something like that. Maybe I just see conspiracy wherever I go.

But before we get too off-topic!

The thing people seem to reject the most is the "mandatory." People like options. If you want them to pick a particular option, just make that option really appealing.

"If you use our limiter, you get increased safety, better insurance rates, AND if you install now, we'll give you a free 42" LCD 1080p TV!"

Harharhar

I wouldn't mind gadgets that report speeding and laws that allow such speeders to be ticketed- but would never agree to something that would mindlessly limit how fast I could get myself out of a dangerous situation.


edit: Every time I read the thread title, I misread it as "Should Inlaws be Forced?"

I got a GPS for Christmas and it alerts me when I go over the speed limit. And then I slow down. I like that.
Having something similar to that in your car seems useful to me. Having something that slows you down whether you want it or not isn't something I'd like, though.

And yet you enjoy slowing down others for no reason what so ever.

Go figure.

My car turns 27 this year. It limits itself, especially on those steep mountain highways. I stay to the right and do what I can just to keep the damn thing moving. If the state patrol is watching me at all it's because they're afraid I'm going to be the next break down. My personal favorites are the jerks who would rather tailgate me than use the passing lanes. I'm not sure what they're trying to achieve because scaring me isn't going to get more power out of my engine and did I mention that there's a passing lane?

Going to and from Seattle, we took S's car and used the cruise control when it wasn't icy. When it was icy, we turned it off and used our heads. I-80 across Wyoming was 300+ miles of ice rink. You speed (or even approach the limit) on a road like that and you'll have bigger problems than a traffic ticket.

I'm with Dave and Ara. What is the harm in installing a limiter? Loss of freedom is the harm. The government regulates the speed limits, so therefore the government knows best? Are you less likely to die at 65 than 75? Is there enough evidence out there to show that 65 mph is the safest highway speed? In all conditions? Forget about driver stupidity, what about the weather? Rain can cause the safest drivers to crash, and you can die or kill another at 55 or 75.

I remember reading about a pedestrian killed at 30 mph on New Year's Eve 2007 in Queens. The woman driving was not intoxicated, not speeding, and yet when the drunk man darted out into the road giving her no time to stop, and yet she still killed him. She wasn't charged because she wasn't breaking the law, and something unforeseen still happened. It's cute to harangue irresponsible drivers for the number of motorist deaths and accidents, but you can be Captain Safety in your car, but you can't see the future.

I don't even agree with a gadget that reports and tickets you. What do you do if you have to pass someone? Speeding for long stretches of roadway is dangerous, but speeding to pass a truck, and then dropping back to the speed limit is not the same level of danger. People cry about big government, and then suggest these kinds of things?

I'm with you TED. I was going to mention, "What about minimum speeds?" There are such things. Will the limiter make you go faster if you are below the minimum speed? And what about weather conditions? Many people forget this, but the posted speed limit is only valid in good weather. You have a responsibility to lower your speed if the weather is poor. Can the limiter handle that? A police officer who is there can make that judgment that says, although the posted speed limit is 75, the weather is making it unsafe to travel above 45.

And this is very different than something like rape or murder. We have no mechanical way of knowing when someone is going to commit a serious crime, so to try to extrapolate this situation to something more serious like rape or murder is illogical. There is no rape-o-meter.


Lali