Canada Testing Speed Control Tech

[drizzle]

According to this CNN article, Canada is testing a system that uses GPS to determine your speed and the speed limit of your location to make it harder for you to exceed the speed limit. It does so by making it harder to depress the accellerator once you exceed the limit.

There are several things I don't like about this but the biggest is that it is a very small step from this to a system that automatically reports you if you are speeding. Then a small step from that to government tracking of your vehicle.

The article also mentions that these tests have been done already in parts of Europe. Any Europeans have more info about this? Is it being discussed much over there?

[attowatt]

According to this CNN article, Canada is testing a system that uses GPS to determine your speed and the speed limit of your location to make it harder for you to exceed the speed limit. It does so by making it harder to depress the accellerator once you exceed the limit.

There are several things I don't like about this but the biggest is that it is a very small step from this to a system that automatically reports you if you are speeding. Then a small step from that to government tracking of your vehicle.

The article also mentions that these tests have been done already in parts of Europe. Any Europeans have more info about this? Is it being discussed much over there?

Welcome to ONSTAR....... also ONSTAR can listen to you while you are in your vehicle

[drizzle]

Welcome to ONSTAR....... also ONSTAR can listen to you while you are in your vehicle

Yes, I thought of that and almost mentioned it. The difference is that ONSTAR is voluntary.

[attowatt]

The difference is that ONSTAR is voluntary.

:as he clcks his heels together: Theres no place like home...theres no place like home...

Heh.. Heh..

[idleprocess]

If the government can automate the collection of speeding tickets, then penalties for speeding need to go down since they'll discover - shockingly - that the ratio of speeding tickets issued vs actual violations is tiny. Less effort to apprehend violators, less penalty.

I don't care if the government needs to "recoup their investment" in such systems - they're not fundamentally necessary for public welfare and I'd rather not see the taxpayers fund such nonsense.

<Rant mode>
Speeding is but one factor in unsafe driving. Having driven a number of "backroads" on a recent road trip, I can state with certainty that there is no uniform theory on highway speed limits. Even within a single state, speed limits on interstate highways will differ (Texas has 70MPH on many interstates, but 65 on others for no apparent reason; I blieve that New Mexico has 75MPH). Federal and state highways are worse - nevermind the blatant speed traps... and why towns are allowed to strangle high-speed arteries and treat them like any other city street is beyond me... if they were so worried about high-speed traffic on the highway, they wouldn't build so close to it, now would they? The point of highways is interstate and intercity travel. If your town has some redeeming features, perhaps some tarvelers will stop, but why impede everyone?

Example: TX highway 121 runs east-northeast from Fort Worth past the northern entrance to DFW airport until it intersects US 75 about 30 miles north of Dallas. It's about the only way to get to the airport if you're northeast of it. There is a town (The Colony) along 121 that has utterly strangled that highway with a series of unsynchronized stoplights and a 55MPH zone along a stretch of 70MPH highway. What's really infuriating is that the entirety of the town is north of the highway. I wouldn't mind the stoplights if they were synchronized and timed to reflect the ~10:1 through:local traffic ratio, but they're not timed and the speed zone just makes it worse. Thankfully, that highway is being upgraded to limited-access. I think I'll make sure to show said town the bird every time I drive past as a gesture of parity after wasting untold hours sitting in traffic for no particular reason.

I think that everyone knows that speeding tickets are more about secondary revenue for government than alleged safety violations. If I'm cruising at 75 MPH on a straight highway with little traffic under good conditions but the speed limit is 65 MPH, where's the dire risk to the public? I can understand pulling drivers over for weaving through traffic at high speeds, cutting other drivers off, failing to yield right-of-way, changing lanes in an intersetction (depressingly common in Dallas), and other behaviors signifigantly more dangerous than safely driving faster than the posted limit.
</Rant mode>

[jtr1962]

Another brain-dead "solution" to an imaginery problem. The whole speed versus safety thing has already been discussed ad nauseum anyway here and here. Distracted and/or incapacited (drunk/tired) driving is the real cause of accidents but of course it's a lot harder to think of solutions to that. So much easier to say speed kills, implement yet another nanny-state solution, and also rake in big money in fines. Truthfully, these small towns who make their living off speeding tickets should have this funding source cut off. Let them wither and die. When many cops are assigned a "quota" of speeding tickets then that means something is wrong with the present laws. It's like telling a cop to arrest 10 murderers on any given day. Sooner or later they'll be going after people who aren't even dangerous.

BTW, what annoys me all the more, and I think wasn't mentioned in either of those lengthy threads, is the trend towards preemptive justice nowadays. The law used to hold that there can be no legal recourse unless some actual damage to persons or property occurred. Nowadays the trend towards "preventative" laws has people being fined because they're doing something that somebody else perceives as harmful. It doesn't even seem to matter if the act actually has a high potential for harm, either, just that it "seems" dangerous enough to enough people to get their lawmakers to make a law against it (i.e. emotion-driven lawmaking at its worst). Speeding is but one thing. We also have gun control, and lots of other innane laws. For example, NYC seems to have a thing against sidewalk cyclists even though the number of people killed by wayward cyclists annually, both on the street and sidewalk, is never in the double digits, and usually zero. In fact, far more people are killed by cars on the sidewalk in a year than are killed by cyclists on streets and sidewalks combined in a decade. Regardless, because this act "seems" dangerous to enough people, laws were made against it. There are loads of other such inane laws as well. For example, walking between cars in a subway train was recently prohibited. Orwell's 1984 is indeed coming to pass, just in a more stealthy way. I sincerely hope this trend of silly laws and too many laws is reversed in the coming years. We need to start taking useless laws off the books, and revising other laws, such as speed limits, to reflect reality.

[LEDninja]

The cell phone companies up here in brrrrland are offering parents the ability to monitor their kids location via GPS cellphone. I think une of them offers speed monitoring as well. All for a fat fee of course.

[Pydpiper]

up here in brrrrland

You do know you are farther south than 14 States right?..

The phone tracking provides alot of oppertunity, great if you have kids, bad if your one of them..

[jtr1962]

Even within a single state, speed limits on interstate highways will differ (Texas has 70MPH on many interstates, but 65 on others for no apparent reason; I blieve that New Mexico has 75MPH). Federal and state highways are worse - nevermind the blatant speed traps... and why towns are allowed to strangle high-speed arteries and treat them like any other city street is beyond me... if they were so worried about high-speed traffic on the highway, they wouldn't build so close to it, now would they? The point of highways is interstate and intercity travel. If your town has some redeeming features, perhaps some tarvelers will stop, but why impede everyone?

Welcome to the era of legislated speed limits. Setting limits used to be solely the province of traffic engineers. They would measure the speed distribution of vehicles under free-flowing traffic conditions, and set limits accordingly. The time-proven practice of using the 85th percentile on urban roads, the 90th percentile on two-lane highways, and the 95th percentile on limited access highways, all rounded up to the nearest 5mph, worked well for decades. Besides setting speed limits, they were also used to set minimum speeds on limited access roads. Typically they used the 10th or 15th percentile speed for that. Ironically, thanks to legislated limits, the speed limits on many roads are actually about the same or even less than a properly set minimum speed would be. Small wonder quite a few drivers nowadays regard speed limit signs to mean that you should be driving at least this speed, if not faster.

Setting limits according to traffic engineering practice all changed with the enactment of the 55 mph limit. Now speed limits were legislated. Even with its repeal, many localities realized the huge increase in speeding ticket revenue they saw, and were reluctant to give that up. Therefore, they either kept the old limits in place, or sometimes grudgingly raised them by 5 or 10 mph bowing to public pressure, yet still keeping them low enough to fill some daily quota. Naturally, there is inertia to go back to the old way of setting limits because for many towns their primary revenue source would disappear. Even in the absence of such pressure, the fact is that legislators don't like the numbers traffic engineers come up with for setting limits, and therefore artificially impose state or local absolute maximum speed limits. Even more tragically, unrealistic speed laws have caused drivers to disregard other traffic laws on the guise that if going over the limit is safe, they it probably is also safe to run a red light, or change lanes without signaling, or run a stop sign. We really need to undo the decades of damage by returning the setting of speed limits solely to traffic engineers.

BTW, good rant!

[Lynx_Arc]

I can see one problem with a gadget that wont allow you to break a speed limit.
If you have ever got on a 2 lane road (one lane each direction) behind a slow moving car or semi truck and have had to pass them quickly you soon find yourself exceeding the speed limit for a short period of time till you are in the clear back in front of the slow vehicle in the right lane. If you had a speed throttle you may find yourself having trouble passing them in all but very long stretches of road.
With cars that have manual transmissions it is easy to be going faster downhill by up to 5-7 mph than the speed limit and without constantly observing the speedometer.
My guess though is they wont use altitude so if you were going off a cliff at 100 mph straight down they probably wouldn't know to ticket you for speeding.
Add to all of this trying to figure out which roads are what speed limits and which authority is given the notice for speeding you have yourself a possible nightmare including trying to defend the technology in court

[dtrego]

...snip...
Truthfully, these small towns who make their living off speeding tickets should have this funding source cut off. Let them wither and die.
...snip...

For a story about something just like this in my neck of the woods, go to www.newromesucks.com - New Rome was a small village near me with such a bad reputation that the State of Ohio crafted legislation to wipe it off the map. NewRomeSucks was one guy's (not me - I never got a ticket there. Honest. ) effort to fight back. Scroll to the bottom of the page and click on the archive link - hours of entertainment!

- Dwayne

[drizzle]

All good arguments Lynx. I hadn't thought of the elevation being taken into account. Nice to know you wouldn't get a ticket as you fell to your death over a cliff.

From the article, I gather that it would be harder to depress the accellerator if you were speeding but not prevented altogether. I still don't like it. As you mentioned passing could be a serious problem. Imagine going out to pass a slow vehicle and being thrown off because all of a sudden the accellerator is pushing back trying to slow you down. That would be potentially deadly.

As for the speed limits and jurisdictions, I don't see that as such a big deal. It's just a matter of someone filling in a database and keeping it up to date. Oh wait, that's right this is the government we are dealing with. Okay, so that is a new multi-million dollar per year agency just created.

[Size15's]

It would be fair better if such tracking systems fined you if your driving was significantly different to the vehicles around you. For example, it is common in my experience for the natural flow of traffic to exceed 90 mph for many miles of motorway (70 mph speed limit). Many roads have a 30 mph limit for no obvious reason (people tend assume they are 40 mph zones. Additionally, many roads have 30 mph limits that really should be 20 or less.

If the traffic is flowing then you're not speeding imho unless you are driving significantly faster than everybody else.

They better fine people for driving too slowly (were applicable) as well!

[PlayboyJoeShmoe]

1984 gets closer and closer....

:

[yuandrew]

GPS tracking sounds pretty new but then I have also heard of speed cameras (Think of a red light camera but hooked to a radar gun to photograph drivers exceeding the speed limit by a certain margin) That sounds a lot cheaper and it is already implimented in some areas

GPS tracking and speed reporting is not too new though; some one I knew in high school had his parents install this "stupid GPS tracking device" in his vehicle after he was tickted for speeding. Not only does it report how fast he is driving to his parents via E-Mail or Cellphone Text-Message but it also tells them where he is (It can be programmed to report if he is arriving at school, work, home") and it will even report how fast the vehicle is accelerating or engine RPM.

Not to mention you could remotely lock and unlock the doors by phone (I heard you can also lock the door in a way that it cannot be opened from the inside; useful if you find you child driving somewhere when he/she is unauthorized and want to "trap" him/her in the vehicle and force them to go home and you can even disable the engine as well (That is what I think is the bad part, if you cause the engine to stall while on a busy highway; it could result in a rear end collision or accident)

There are many companies that actually provide the such services but the only one I've heard of is All-track USA.

http://www.alltrackusa.com/

[drizzle]

Yuandrew:I don't have a problem with either of the things you mentioned. In the case of the radar gun/camera it's not tracking or controlling my vehicle while I'm driving. In the case of the service, like ON-STAR, it's voluntary, at least for the parent.

For me it crosses the line when it's the government that wants to track or, control my vehicle. I still can hardly believe it's even being considered.

[LEDninja]

1984 gets closer and closer....

It's 2005. We are falling way behind.

[offroadcmpr]

GPS tracking sounds pretty new but then I have also heard of speed cameras (Think of a red light camera but hooked to a radar gun to photograph drivers exceeding the speed limit by a certain margin) That sounds a lot cheaper and it is already implimented in some areas

GPS tracking and speed reporting is not too new though; some one I knew in high school had his parents install this "stupid GPS tracking device" in his vehicle after he was tickted for speeding. Not only does it report how fast he is driving to his parents via E-Mail or Cellphone Text-Message but it also tells them where he is (It can be programmed to report if he is arriving at school, work, home") and it will even report how fast the vehicle is accelerating or engine RPM.

Not to mention you could remotely lock and unlock the doors by phone (I heard you can also lock the door in a way that it cannot be opened from the inside; useful if you find you child driving somewhere when he/she is unauthorized and want to "trap" him/her in the vehicle and force them to go home and you can even disable the engine as well (That is what I think is the bad part, if you cause the engine to stall while on a busy highway; it could result in a rear end collision or accident)

There are many companies that actually provide the such services but the only one I've heard of is All-track USA.

http://www.alltrackusa.com/

Yup, heard of those. Before my friend got his car and license, his parents always threatened to put one of those in his car. So when he got it, we searched the car to make sure that it was clean. lol

[gadget_lover]

Driving home tonight I saw a car blow by at 90 or more (4 lane interstate) and having to change lanes to gow around cars. I was uncomfortable when I saw him swerve from lane to lane as he passed me. I would have liked him to have some automatic limiter.

As I recall, the law here says that you are not allowed to exceed the speed limit when passing either.

When it comes to passing, it would be a lot safer if you could be sure the aproaching car was doing 65 and not 95. This is especially hard to determine when at night or when you have only a moment to commit to passing.

I actually like the idea of an automatic speed control. I could be sure of the speed of the approaching traffic when I pull out of a parking lot. I could relax and not worray about speed traps. There could be some good come from it.

I'd rather that it not be done in such a way that it can be used for enforcement.

People should realize that it does not take satellites and GPS to automate the process of tracking you. Cameras and computer imaging has progressed to a point where it is trivial to track you movements via traffic camera's and Optical character recognition of your license plate.

It's also trivial to track a cell phone that is turned on. They communicate periodically with the cellular network so the cell phone company knows where to route your call. There is software to triangulate the cell phone signal to locate (within a few hundred feet) your location. This is enough to determine if you are speeding significantly.

Me? I'm not as worried about big brother as I am hackers. Imagine the fun if a hacker broadcast a bogus signal on the GPS frequencies that tells your GPS that you are 3 blocks off the freeway in a 35 zone instead of in a 70 zone. Fun and Games.

[oldgrandpajack]

Personally, I think accelerometers should be included in the package, with their data recorded along with speed infractions. The package should also include a device to determine if the vehicle is tailgating. It should also be wired to determine how turn signals, brakes, and the accelerator are used. The total package would not only be able to determine if a vehicle is speeding, but also if it is weaving, sliding, peeling out, tailgating, if it isn't using turn signals, and does Texas stops. The data should go to the State, but not for enforcement purposes (except in case of accidents, and/or suspected criminal activity). The States should share the data with all auto insurance companies, first and foremost. Auto insurance companies would then use the data, to determine what each individual should pay for auto insurance. The data could also be used to help determine life, health, and disability insurance rates. The data should also be given to lawyers and law enforcement, in case of auto accidents, to help determine who's at fault, for civil and criminal purposes. The vehicles owner should also be able to access the information.

If the device determines it's likely the driver is driving recklessly, drunk, or impaired (for whatever reason), the engine should turn itself off, the first time the car comes to a stop. A code would have to be entered into the onboard computer, by an agent from your insurance company (for a fee), in order to restart the car. Of course, law enforcement would probably have an eye out for cars that won't restart at intersections, breatholizer in hand. Actually, law enforcement should probably be notified, so they can help with traffic problems, around the stalled vehicle.

In New York State, auto insurance is capped, for high risk drivers. All the other drivers are subsidizing the high risk drivers auto insurance, through higher rates. I believe this should be changed, so that everyone's driving habits determines the amount they are charged by insurance companies. No caps and no subsidies. Auto insurance should be manditory in all 50 States.

This would allow people to drive fast, even if it's against the law. But, it would be reflected in their auto insurance bill. Wouldn't make speeding legal though, and law enforcement would still be out there patrolling, and able to pull you over for any traffic violation.

EDIT: Insurance companies would determine how the device is programmed, in order to determine if the vehicle is being driven recklessly, or by someone drunk or impaired. The vehicle owner could shop around for insurance.

[markdi]

oldgrandpajack

I would hate to live in your world

[oldgrandpajack]

oldgrandpajack

I would hate to live in your world

I know there would be those who wouldn't like it. But, I and many others would enjoy the lower auto insurance bills. I'm tired of subsidizing high risk drivers. Been doing it since I got my first car. Wonder how many thousands of dollars that adds up to?

oldgrandpajack

[James S]

The problem with a large system like what they are proposing is that there is a HUGE hidden cost. You all think it would be cheap because GPS units are getting so cheap and the cellphone or other network is already in place. Units could be built initially for probably under $200, probably much less in the quantites that they are talking about.

But, how do you access and store that information and provide reasonable access to subscribers or police or anything else.

The software that runs these systems ALWAYS and without exception ends up costing several times what they planned and doesn't work at all for at least a year longer than they estimated. And it can be even worse than that. This system has a problem in the sheer amount of data that needs to be logged, indexed and saved somewhere. ANY initial solution that the government gets from their high powered consultants will be wrong. And it's quite possible that a project like that would cost a billion dollars and still fail.

When you start talking in billions With possible price overruns into more and more billions. (because the data network with the phone systems will need upgrading along the major highways due to the amount of data and the need to continue to carry a phone message or 2) And whole new departments of government will need to be created to manage the data...

Shall I open another can of worms and suggest that they spend those billions on light rail corridors along what they consider the problematic rodes?



Plus, with GPS tracking the potential for abuse even by non-government people is huge. Do you give your daughters GPS tracking password to the babysitter so that she can look her up if she doesn't come home on time? Who does she share it with? If the system is based on people making their own passwords for access then they will be hugely open to others getting ahold of your childrens location and abusing that and them. If they assign passwords that means you're going to have to write them on sticky notes attached to the monitor of your PC and they will be equally open to the lawn guy reading them through the window and then going after your kids.

No, this is bad all the way around, thats if such a huge IT project could be made to work in the current IT climate at all.

(course, as a software developer and project manager I could do it at a much reduced cost and make it work But thats cause I'm so good and everybody else are morons and I wouldn't take that job anyway, too scary)

[jtr1962]

Shall I open another can of worms and suggest that they spend those billions on light rail corridors along what they consider the problematic rodes?

Or high-speed rail lines for that matter. One reason people go over the limit is to save time (and also because limits are just set too low for modern cars and roads). If they have another alternative to go medium distances from point A to point B fast the whole speeding question is moot. You just drive along local roads 20 minutes or less to the train station, board the train, enjoy the ride averaging 150 mph or better, rent a car at your destination station if needed, and drive the last few miles to your ultimate destination (or even use local public transit if available). Overall probably faster than doing 100 on the Interstate, and with less energy used plus far less chance of injury or death.

If you're going to spend billions on a system which in effect makes the existing transportation network less efficient (i.e. read slower) then you might as well spend the same money to just build something a whole lot better. As I said in another thread, cars are a really poor fit for long distance travel anyway, even if legal 100 mph speeds, which is about the fastest most cars can safely go with current technology, were allowed. They would still be too slow and too energy intensive compared to a decent high-speed rail system.

BTW, the only thing I think would be a good idea here might be some sort of non-GPS black box which would only be looked at in the event of an accident. In particular, I think some means of recording if a car ran a red light or stop sign would be a great idea since those are far and away the biggest causes of accidents. Perhaps there could also be some way to determine if the driver was drunk or otherwise incapacitated. However, as I said I would want it legal for the data from such a device to be downloaded if and only if the vehicle was involved in an accident. This goes along with the legal philosophy of having no recourse unless there is actual damage to property or persons. An insurance company would only be able to raise your rates for accidents which were determined to be your fault via the black box. I don't favor the black box recording speed limit violations either, just vehicle speed and other data. Granted, there may be times excessive speed will be determined as a contributing factor in an accident, but the current practice of speed limit violations as an excuse to raise insurance rates should be made illegal. In fact, there shouldn't be mandatory auto insurance but that's a whole other topic. A far better determinant of insurance rates is simply looking at the number of accidents a driver causes. Incidentally, past a certain threshold within a period of time a person's license should be suspended. Past a certain grand total the license should be revoked permanently. Forgot today's silly point system. It really has no correlation with the reality of who causes accidents.

[tvodrd]

I think I read a blurb back when that some cars record speed and other data which can then be downloaded after a collision.

Larry

[oldgrandpajack]

I don't think such a system would cost all that much. The state would only be collecting and distributing the information to the insurance companies, for the most part. The insurance companies would determine how the information is used. Remember, the insurance companies would be competing against each other, for your business, and this should keep costs down. Also, in my state, auto insurance companies are regulated, and are not allowed to have huge profits, by gouging. It might take a year, for the insurance companies to get up to speed, and be able to anylize the data, and determine new auto insurance rates. And heck, maybe high speed is safer. The insurance companies would know the truth before long.

If you take into account, the fact that the great majority of drivers are subsidizing the driving habits of a minority, and the fact that so many lives are lost, or permanately altered, on our highways each and every year, this measure would be cheap, in my estimation. Probably much cheaper than the air bags and seat belts, already installed in our cars. The annual savings on auto insurance bills, for drivers with good driving habits, would probably more than offset the cost of the device and system. Plus, those with lesser driving habits, could continue to do what they do. Of course, the auto insurance companies could send you a report of what is causing your bill to be so high, and if you choose, you could change the habits which have raised said bill.

If you think that the speed limit is set too low on the highways you are commuting on, then you should lobby to have the speed limit changed.

oldgrandpajack

[jtr1962]

If you take into account, the fact that the great majority of drivers are subsidizing the driving habits of a minority, and the fact that so many lives are lost, or permanately altered, on our highways each and every year, this measure would be cheap, in my estimation.

I agree 100% that good drivers shouldn't subsidize bad ones. We really do need a way to determine exactly who and what causes most of the accidents, and then revoke their licenses or jack up their insurance costs to reflect the damage they cause. Speed is all too often seen as the villain but it seldom is unless we're talking about those few on the far outlier (i.e. somebody doing 120 when most of the rest of traffic is going 75 to 95).

If you think that the speed limit is set too low on the highways you are commuting on, then you should lobby to have the speed limit changed.

That's the purpose behind setting limits at the 95th percentile (or 90th or 85th for for non-limited access roads) and reviewing them every five or so years. The general public can vote for higher limits by simply driving faster or slower limits by driving slower. Legislating limits injects emotion into the process instead of engineering. Also, last I checked most legislators didn't have degrees in traffic engineering, and are by definition no more qualified to set limits than I would be to fly an F16. Also, the beauty of a 95th percentile limit is that it lets cops focus on those on the far outlier which is really the small percentage of drivers whose speed actually increases their accident risk.

As an aside, besides properly setting maximum speeds I'm all for posting minimum ones according to traffic engineering practices. I also feel those should be enforced as vigorously if not more so than maximum speeds. The proverbial little old lady who takes her '59 Plymouth to church on Sundays at 35 mph on the local expressway is as much or more of a hazard than the testoterone-driven idiot doing 150. Neither belongs on the road.

[Pydpiper]

I think I read a blurb back when that some cars record speed and other data which can then be downloaded after a collision.

Larry

This is true in all current GM's and Chryslers, it has been in effect for a few years. It may very well be in imports as well, but the info I got was directed to Gm and Chrysler.

[oldgrandpajack]

We do live in a democracy, and I'm pretty happy, for the most part, and will go along with majority determining the rules, any day of the week. If I feel strongly enough about an issue, then it's time to try to change a rule I think is unfair or unreasonable. Seems to have worked pretty well, for a long time, in our country.

And yes, all high risk drivers would have their rates altered, for whatever reason, even old drivers that have lost the abililty to drive safely. The insurance companies already know who is costing them more money. Writing the program, to use the data, shouldn't be all that difficult.

I agree, that somone who is driving extremely fast anywhere, or maddeningly slow on a restricted access highway, should have their lisence revoked. Don't know how this would be enforced though, because the system wouldn't determine who is actually driving the vehicle, just how the vehicle is being driven. This probably needs to be left to law enforcement. Of course, many drivers wouldn't be able to afford their auto insurance, if they were driving unsafely. This alone, would eliminate most of those with the worst driving habits.

oldgrandpajack

[cobb]

I agree, I too hear most cars have black boxes that record a range of info at time of air bag deployment. Ive heard as early as 93 in shop class about a guy who bought the cheaper corvette(the more expensive is ment for racing, at least what I was told), raced it and returned it for an engine warranty replacement. They told him the time, date, speed and engine rpms he abused the car at.

I seriously doubt there system will come into use. Much like the threatened blow test to see if your blood alcohol level is safe to allow the car to start. (Yes, I do know, known alcoholics have to have this installed, but never world wide across all makes and models).

As a side note, many areas in VA have the signs that read speed limit enforced by air craft.I have yet to see an f16 or any type of jet, coptor or by place waiting to fire on speeders. I bet its hard to fire on a moving car doing 35-85 from a jet doing at least 400mph.