Canada Testing Speed Control Tech

[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 :laughing: 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.

 

[PlayboyJoeShmoe]

I'm sure you are already aware of this Cobb...

But it's slow Aircraft, using Stopwatches and Radios and is far more insidious than F16 using 20MM!!!

 

[cobb]

Hey look, a cop on a biplane with a stop watch, we better slow down....

I'm sure you are already aware of this Cobb...

But it's slow Aircraft, using Stopwatches and Radios and is far more insidious than F16 using 20MM!!!

 

[NewBie]

I was at a microcontroller conference, and sat next to a fella that is developing vehicle tracking systems. This system will be a State forced system, keeping track of where you drove, in order "to determine road taxes". The excuse is that it will put the money where folks drive the most.

The research and design of the system was sponsored by several western States.

And it will be a mandatory system. The amount of the taxes would be figured out when you refuel, when it uploads the information into the States database.

Way too much invasion of privacy, imho.

Their out? You don't have to have the system, or have it operational, but if not, we will tax you at the highest rate...

 

[idleprocess]

If it's used to calculate taxes based on usage, that might lead to lower taxes for most drivers ... but when does government ever reduce taxes voluntarily without public pressure?

As far as "putting money where people drive most," I'd think that the usual survey techniques would work just as well (for less), combined with looking at maintenance patterns. No need to fund a new system with questionable benefit.

 

[drizzle]

Hey look, a cop on a biplane with a stop watch, we better slow down....

Ya, you better because he's gonna radio his buddies in their cop cars who will pull you over. I was fortunate to be trailing far enough behind several cars that were speeding and they were all pulled over by cop cars that came on at a freeway entrance, alerted by the plane we saw circling overhead.

 

[Schuey2002]

I bet its hard to fire on a moving car doing 35-85 from a jet doing at least 400mph.

Have you ever seen that footage of a huge swath of vehicles that we destroyed who were trying to flee Kuwait during Desert Storm? It would appear that it is far easier than you might think.

 

[cobb]

Have you ever seen that footage of a huge swath of vehicles that we destroyed who were trying to flee Kuwait during Desert Storm? It would appear that it is far easier than you might think.

The trail of tears or what ever they called it as the troops retreated from kuwait with their booty back to iraq? The spray and pray method doesnt take much talent.

Next time will look for planes circling over head.