OTish: Thoughts on Speed

On or around Fri, 21 Nov 2003 12:00:02 GMT, SteveG enlightened us thusly:

the driver following should have had the nouse to realise that the one in front had swerved for a good reason, and followed him. If the front one had time to take avoiding action, the one following could have too. Not to say that the both of them weren't tossers, and driving without due care etc...

but the point about speed limits is double-edged. Thes to tw*ts were already 30 mph over the limit, and would have been driving like that anyway, limit or no.

You could make an argument that the safety camera should be where the crossing point is, or that the crossing point should be made more obvious. But the real point is the same as all the other things that crop up: People *must* take responsibility for their own actions, and not delegate it to the State. The State would control and limit and regulate and ban and generally interfere with our lives to the Nth degree, but this will not stop this sort of thing.

Granted, had there been the much-vaunted satellite technology, they tw*ts couldn't have been doing 70.

I'd be more impressed with a radar anti-collision system built into the front of every car, so that when it detects something approaching it slows the car automatically; stops it if necessary. It would react far faster than people, if it could be made reliable. It could only work on relatively short range; it'd need to have a way of seeing the lane markings in the road so that it didn't result in an emergency stop when something comes the other way, etc., but I reckon the technology could do this - might need special radar-reflective road paint. The system could also interface with traffic lights, the TL could emit a radar signal when it was on "stop", making it impossible to jump lights. This system, properly programmed, would also allow much closer (safe) spacing on fast roads such as motorways and so on. It also has the advantage that being self-contained it's not based on satellite uplinks and other stuff that can go wrong or not work 'cos it's under a bridge, etc., which is a fault with the satellite speed thing. It'd also be no more difficult (and maybe easier) to retro-fit; it doesn't per se need a speed signal, just an actuator for the throttle and brake, and maybe clutch.

SG: INdeed, the camera was, at one time, just about 30m from the crossing - almost directly outside my house in fact - but it got vandalised practically nightly. I should explain that my wife and sleep at the back of the house so never saw or heard anything (honest guv). They moved the camera so that it is outside a petrol station and used one of the forecourt cctv cameras to monitor it. Lo-and-behold a couple of nights later they had the evidence they needed to prosecute three individuals for damaging it.

Since the accident there is some talk of moving it back to it's original position. At the moment there is one of those flashing speed reminder signs there, which initially had an effect on peoples speed but it has not just become a regular sight on the road which is ignored.

SG: I think we're a way off having the technology you describe widely available at a reasonable cost and I would expect an outcry from the civil liberties lobby if any government seriously suggested it. You only have to look at the hue and cry over identity cards to see how much pressure vocal groups like that can excert.

Regards Steve G

On or around Sat, 22 Nov 2003 23:34:18 GMT, SteveG enlightened us thusly:

those can be regarded as a challenge...

yet they're seriously suggesting the satellite speed control thing. The availability and cost is largely down to demand, anyway; if there's a new rule that all cars have to have it, then the number swill make it cheaper. They already have a system for planes to stop 'em flying into the scenery, after all, and that's a much more complex problem, 'cos it's in 3 dimensions.

I grant you that the radar reflective lane marking paint may not be extant, unless it happens to be so anyway.

Yes, however it also makes the assumption that the pilot doesn't want to fly into the ground. You can't really expect this from car drivers - they are going to want any edge they can get and if it takes crippling the charging unit then some pillocks will do it.

As regards the cost, we are a ways from having the technology - period. There is a DOT study ongoing between a large uni and a large commercial R&D organisation, but they haven't gotten very far yet.

The big problem is the support infrastructure which will cost a minimum of hundreds of millions of£££s to roll out. This is going to be an unpopular move no matter how it's done.

P.

On or around Mon, 24 Nov 2003 15:35:48 +0000, "Paul S. Brown" enlightened us thusly:

yeah, people will "fix" it. but not many, same as other things like speed limiters.

I thought they had terrain-following radar for fighter jets now, which allows a computer to fly it through the scenery? maybe not. granted that such a system probably costs a million bucks, or something, and thus isn't appropriate to cars, but supply and demand will fix the price as it does with everything else. Give someone a guaranteed market for a million units a year, the price per unit goes down.

the support infrastructure for a car-based radar system ain;t gonna cost more than the infrastructure to run GPS-based speed limiters, I wouldn't have thought. And I know which I'd rather have, given the choice. A radar-collision-avoidance system would be a damn' sight easier to sell to "the people" than a big-brother style speed limit enforcement, IMHO; it's not going to enforce anything, as I described it - on empty roads, you'll be able to go as fast as you want.

The only speed limited which kick in at an obnoxious level tend to be fitted on trucks where you have the tacho disc as additional enforcement - you can disable the limiter if you want, you still stand a reasonable chance of being caught if somebody complains about you. Cars tend to have limiters at

If you were to limit cars to 70 or even 90 then I can guarantee you there would be a vast number of cars with the limiter disabled. Mostly repmobiles and Novas with big bodykits to be sure, but still enough to cause major problems. You have to remember that most family cars sold these days are easily capable of 100MPH+, even the TD5 Disco is good for 115 without much strain. People are going to want an "Edge" when their driving and you will get a lot of cars with any form of speed enforcement disabled along with the box that costs you money when you drive it.

How many people are going to consider the possiblity of getting something for nothing against the possibility of jail time for disabling a tracker? Roughly the same number as consider the possibility of getting somewhere 5 minutes faster against the possibility of a fine?

Yes, but the issue is where they want to charge you by the number of miles travelled - and do so in near real time. At that point you need a land infrastructure to allow the car to broadcast what it's done in the last whatever timeperiod. The cellphone network isn't up to this (and would cost a fortune if it was), there is no fixed infrastructure currently capable of dealing with this - consider 30 million cars trying to phone home - far easier to poll them at fixed points on the road network and have that data transferred to a home base.

Terrain following radar is all well and good except for the fact it's an active system - 2 units heading for each other on the same frequencies will cause massive variations in the perceived distance due to constructive and destructive interference. It's practical on fighters because you are unlikely to be in a location which has 600,000 fighters per day going through, however bits of the UK road network easily have that. There just isn't enough airspace to make this practical. Having each car know where it is by GPS and broadcast to all in its vicinity (say 50 yds) is more practical simply because you get away with a relatively small number of channels with limited overlap. This is the same basic principle CB radio was licensed on - range no greated than 4 miles and 40 channels being enough for everybody within 4 miles to use in comfort.

Let's face it - if and when the gubmint put any form of sophisticated tracking system in all vehicles it's going to be used for every purpose - surveillance, taxation, speed enforcement - everything. P.

On or around Mon, 24 Nov 2003 21:34:19 +0000, "Paul S. Brown" enlightened us thusly:

which is a damn' good reason for avoiding it, in favour of trying to develop something better.

a tracking-based speed limiter which won't let you exceed the posted limits is, I venture to suggest, gonna make a very limited difference to the accident stats; cf the thing about removing speed limits, which if speed were the main issue, would cause a huge increase.

The speed limit for Interstate highways in the state of Montana is "reasonable and prudent", and AFAIK, still is.

Cheers, Aled.

See, now I believe that the UK driving license should have a 4-year expiry on it, not a "for life" one. I believe this could stamp out many of the bad habbits that people get into.

Cheers, Aled.

Do you have to have a re-test every four years then?

I'm not where you think I am. *grin* I quite happily toddle around the mountains of south Wales, although as of next week you'll be able to spot me toddling around Docklands and Plumstead. :)

Cheers, Aled.