board77

LalaithUrwen wrote:

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.

Of course, it was a hypothetical "what if...?" scenario. And, just to be clear cuz I think it's a very important distinction, the question isn't about a machine that knows when someone is going to commit a crime but about a machine that knows when someone is currently committing a crime. It's an important distinction, imo, because, practically by definition, if you are committing a crime, the government has a right to stop you.

Sure they do. And the methods we already have in place are sufficient. Or, if not, hire more police officers. But don't entrust it to machines who won't be able to do the job as well.

IMO.


Lali

I disagree. How many times have you heard the phrase, "Why aren't the cops out catching criminals instead of hassling motorists."

Besides, this is all moot. This WILL happen, whether people want it or not, simply because it makes sense to do something automatically if it is practical to do so, and there is sufficient saving to be made. It may take 20 years, or 50, but this will certainly happen and I would guess sooner rather than later.

It may happen in Europe (and it may end up happening in the US), but I can guarantee it will have a very tough time getting approved in the US. People do not want such an intrusive thing in their lives.

And the only people who say that to cops are the people who have been stopped and given a ticket--usually while they're in the process of getting said ticket.


Lali

I think it's far from certain that people will even be driving cars en masse in 20 to 50 years. But if present trends continue; yeah, something along those lines will probably happen.

Personally, as I'm living in a zone where only 30 km/h are allowed (because of a kindergarten and a school) and seeing every second car driving by too fast, I'd appreciate such a thing.

But where are you going to stop? We already have cars that won't start if you've drunk alcohol or if you haven't fastened your seatbelt. Will there be cars that won't start if it's below 0°Celsius and you haven't got winter tyres attached?

Why draw the line at speed limits? Get the GPS to stop your car at red lights, to stop it when you want to turn the wrong way into a one-way-street, to yell at you if you want to park in a no-parking-zone or to stop if you want to drive into a green zone without permission (that's a zone where only cars with a low exhaust standard are allowed - like in Munich). Let the car decide that the distance to the car in front of you is big enough.

Bankrobbers or other criminals won't be able to put up a car chase against the police, for they will be stopped by the GSP-speed-limiter. Oh, wait, my hubby says that it's just an electronic device and those who want will find a way around it.

Speaking of electronic devices. They tend to fail. We were in Munich last week and our Navigation-thing (which is working with GPS) always told us to turn around while we were in a one-way-street. Then it told us we were driving through the park, while we were on the beltway - allowed to go 60 km/h...

(Well, hubby also says: another thing that will be broken a lot, will cost lots of money to repair like most electronic fuzzy things in the car )

I think it will get dangerous the moment people start to rely on those things. According to (german) statistics, most accidents happen because of speed not appropriate to the situation. Mind you, not driving above the speed limit (btw, we still have lots of motorway kilometers without speed limit - what would the GPS-limiter say to that? ), but driving too fast while the streets are wet, icy, snowy, whatever. Mostly young people go too fast, driving the speed limit, but not heeding the street condition. Like "oh, this street is limited to 80 km/h, so I'll go 80 km/h (although this bend to come is only drivable with 40 km/h)"

What if the car in front of you has GPS-speed-limiter and you haven't? You won't see brake lights, for the driver doesn't brake, the GPS slows down the motor.....

Oh, and government always knows where you are .

I see a hard time for the thing getting approved over here.

Areanor wrote:

Oh, and government always knows where you are .

There's a REALLY good reason to not implement this. And nobody can tell me they won't because even if they don't have the technology installed now that doesn't mean they won't later. And their promises that it will never expand are empty air. The seatbelt law was originally written with the promise that it would never be a primary pull-over, only as a secondary charge if someone is pulled over for another reason AND isn't wearing their seatbelt. Now it is a primary pull-over.

Wow. Is everyone over there completely paranoid?

Yeah, probably from your perspective we are. We have no history of living under socialism (and its variant forms); I'm not saying that in a condemning or judgmental way. It's just, well, that's not the American experience, imo. I think that makes us quite resistant to these types of "big government" things.

Or maybe it has nothing to do with our different governmental histories?

I'm open to other thoughts. Maybe we are just more paranoid than the rest of the world? Less enlightened? Or maybe it really is due to not being used to big government and, having had a different kind of freedom than Europe, we are resistant to anything we perceive as a threat to that?

Lali

Lalaith - you really hit on something there. The importance of history and experience in ones acceptance of governmental powers. That was a great observation.

With the socialist trends that the US economy is taking right now, I don't see the arguments against this kind of intrusion as paranoid. Is there something wrong with favoring liberty?

I don't know if this gps limiter WILL happen, but I will be against it until I know the extent of this intrusion. As Areanor said, why not have the limiter stop your engine as you approach a red light, or stop sign? What ever happened to allowing people to be responsible for themselves?

Alatar wrote:

Wow. Is everyone over there completely paranoid?

Have you seen the sort of people we have running our country?

I think the historical tradition in the US is that, by and large, people generally know how to handle their own lives better than an impersonal governing entity does. There are varying degrees of this, of course, but most people tend to value their personal liberty of choice. I think that preference is a far cry from paranoia, though. Look at the illegal wiretaps of the Bush administration. There have been plenty of examples of government officials using any number of means to keep tabs on people in the name of "security." I don't think it's unreasonable to resist this, including the fact that so many of us posting are put off by the idea of a mandatory speed limiter.


And yov, for the purpose of this discussion I don't really see the value of ignoring all practical concerns of the device. I think all of the practical problems are evidence of the fact that no matter how hard they try, the government can't enforce the law perfectly. And if they try too hard, it's too easy to go overboard with restrictions. I think that a speed limiting device is a way of stopping someone from breaking the law before they actually do, and not exactly when they do. Because if, for example, a person is speeding to get out of the way of an oncoming car, or to pass another vehicle, no police officer would give them a ticket. So, there are certainly examples of speeding without breaking the law. I just think something like this, for a very minor offensive, is far too restrictive in that it cannot predict why people are breaking the law. And I don't think speeding can be compared to murder or theft, either theoretically or practically.

TheEllipticalDisillusion wrote:

With the socialist trends that the US economy is taking right now, I don't see the arguments against this kind of intrusion as paranoid. Is there something wrong with favoring liberty?

See this is the sort of thing I object to. Are you suggesting the rest of us don't favour liberty? America is supposedly the land of the free and the brave, bastion of democracy. That means you get to pick the people who make your laws. You elected your government, let them do their job. And part of their job is enforcing laws for the overall good of the country.

Liberty is not "I can do what I damn well please", although that seems to be the American translation of the word.

I strongly object to the idea that stopping someone from breaking the law is an attack on liberty. In fact, if you believe the laws are just, I might argue the exact oppose would be true.

It's unsafe when someone in front of you is driving way too slow. It's also frustrating, which makes people do stupid and generally unsafe things like drive around the slow driver even when they shouldn't. Should we enforce something that prevents you from driving under the speed limit, too?

Again, I think it's the intrusiveness of the thing that bothers people. Suppose resources weren't an issue. How would you feel about a law that required you to have a police officer ride in the back seat all the time to make sure you didn't speed?

Of course one individuals concept of 'liberty' is sometimes different than another. I recently was doing some research on the use of the phrase 'liberty' as found in our own Declaration of Independence (life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness) and was surprised to see how experts on that period of history differ greatly with some modern politico's who use it to mean they can do what ever they please to do as long as nobody else is hurt. But I do not want to derail the thread so that is for another day.

Rebeccas brings up an interesting question

Quote:

It's unsafe when someone in front of you is driving way too slow. It's also frustrating, which makes people do stupid and generally unsafe things like drive around the slow driver even when they shouldn't. Should we enforce something that prevents you from driving under the speed limit, too?

Speaking only for Michigan where I live, there are minimum speed limits at least on expressways but they are rarely an issue since almost everyone looks at the posted speed limit as something near the minimum. Rule of thumb is that you can go nine miles over the posted maximum speed without fear of getting a ticket.

Rebecca's point seems very applicable to much older drivers who tend to come out after and before rush hour, stay in the extreme right hand lanes, wear hats, and seem totally oblivous to anything around them. They tend to crawl along and fifty people can pass waving them the one finger salute or honking loudly and they just creep along like they are the only ones on the road. And I agree that they also are a hazard.

Consider if 70 is the posted limit on a freeway. Many cars are going near 80. Then you get someone who is going 55 (the minimum). That is a huge disparity in speed for vehicles travelling on the same highway and poses all sorts of risks for everyone.

I had also made the point about minimum speeds, as well as the point about speed limits only being valid in good weather/road conditions. You can get a ticket for going 75mph in a 75mph speed zone if the roads are slick with ice, snow, or rain. That is a judgment call by police officers, based on common sense and experience.

I'm not against obeying the laws. I'm not against enforcing those laws. I'm against machines doing something that humans would be better at doing, especially in this case where it seems fraught with so many potential issues, exceptions, and problems. And it is so intrusive.


Lali

Alatar wrote:

TheEllipticalDisillusion wrote:

With the socialist trends that the US economy is taking right now, I don't see the arguments against this kind of intrusion as paranoid. Is there something wrong with favoring liberty?

See this is the sort of thing I object to. Are you suggesting the rest of us don't favour liberty? America is supposedly the land of the free and the brave, bastion of democracy. That means you get to pick the people who make your laws. You elected your government, let them do their job. And part of their job is enforcing laws for the overall good of the country.

Liberty is not "I can do what I damn well please", although that seems to be the American translation of the word.

I'd like to keep America the bastion of democracy, land of the free and the brave. Those words all translate to not legislating away my right to privacy.

Yes, my elected officials write and enforce laws, and I expect them to write laws that do not contravene the idea of liberty. Liberty is "I can do what I damn well please so long as it doesn't infringe on anyone else's liberty." Also, the freedom to break the laws--which then is the job of my elected officials to enforce my law breaking with a punishment. Do you dislike that I have an American-centric view of liberty? I am an American. It is the only country that I have known.

If you want to cut down on speeding, add more police presence. The presence of police stops people from speeding because everyone knows that if they blow past a cop--woo woo woo woo ticket time.