I had to honk at 0900 this morning - empty road, get behind a rented Impala going about 28 in a 35, which I can tolerate as I was going to turn in a couple blocks anyway. But at the turn it just stops, then makes a u-turn - no signal of course, and I barely make it through the light. The person had no idea anyone was behind them, I suspect.
I love it when you honk, and the idiot honks back. Then I just lay on the horn, I have no shame, and my horn is louder than most :shades:
Don't worry, I have no plans to move to MN - the roads here are bad enough, due to huge population increases and road maintenance that hasn't followed. I especially love utility covers that don't line up with the road surface, and utility trenches that are filled in and then remain 4" below the pavement.
I don't think you got the sarcasm in my post about the aluminum head-gear. The basic point is not to fear that perhaps one day the government can track the movements of every driver out there with an embedded GPS and uses it to send out speeding tickets automatically. If you're not doing anything illegal then no worries!
Hey Andre, here's another long post for your reply, and please post your websites if you're quoting NHTSA
“I don't pay any attention to the speed limits so if they are incorrectly set, then that might make me drive 15 over through no fault of my own.” As the driver, you are responsible for whatever speed you drive period.
“because driving slow bores and fatigues the heck out of most drivers, which will make them less alert.” Someone saying they’re “bored” driving so they aren’t paying attention, isn’t an excuse for not paying attention. And driving 20mph vs 5 mph over the limit on a flat highway isn’t much more exciting. If you want spirited or exciting driving go have fun, but don’t do it on any public roads, as public roads aren’t there for your personal excitement.
“why is it the owner's job to secure funds for a fine from the correct driver” As the owner of a vehicle, it is/should be their responsibility when they pass over the keys. Of course the driver is also responsible, so if the owner of a car wants to sue the driver if the driver gets a ticket, that’s up to the driver. Maybe next time the car owner will be more careful who he gives the keys to. It’s called responsibility of the owner of a car.
My original quote, “drivers get a speeding ticket that they'd have to appeal to prove it was justified. “ Then your response, “So your guilty until proven innocent?” No, the violation was proved by the GPS recording a speed faster than the limit. It’s always up to the individual convicted to appeal the violation, just like you’d appeal any other proven ticket. Speeding is pretty black and white basic math If your speed minus the speed limit is greater than zero than you’re speeding. Then it’s just a matter of how much you were speeding and the point at which a ticket is given.
“I’ll take an average driver at full alertness and attention driving 15 over the speed limit over an expert talking on his cell phone and texting while driving driving at or below the speed limit anyday” Me too, but I see no reason to believe mult-tasking drivers will stop just because they’re driving faster.
It’s also false to indicate that just because a road was physically designed to go a certain speed, doesn’t mean that the posted speed limit needs to match that speed, since there are many other factors to speed limits than the physical road.
Also, from a google search “NHTSA study on speeding involved in accidents” Do this google search yourself to find these top two results: www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/enforce/speed_forum.../ferguson.pdf quotes from the final summary from page 30 of the PDF: as crash speeds increase, so does crash severity, increases in speed limits increase speed, as well as crashes, www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/nti/enforcement/pdf/809839.pdf Quotes from page 33 Speeding is one of the most prevalent factors contributing to traffic crashes Speeding is a factor in 30 percent of all fatal crashes Driving on public roads impacts that safety of all the other drivers around you, so if a person wishes to have the privilege of driving on public roads, then all manner of safety equipment can be mandated by the government. The black box in a car can be considered a safety mechanism, not only because it allows manufactures to know the factors at and before the point of an accident, but also because if people know that their driving habits are being monitored, they’re more likely to drive in a safe manner just like they come to a full stop at a stopsign when they see a cop, or slow down if they see one.
The basic point is not to fear that perhaps one day the government can track the movements of every driver out there with an embedded GPS and uses it to send out speeding tickets automatically. If you're not doing anything illegal then no worries!
Ah yes, the usual argument trotted out to justify increased government surveillance. You might want to check out this article, although I suspect it will do little to dim your enthusiasm for an increasingly intrusive nanny state. You might consider relocating to the UK; the British authorities aren't constrained by piddling tecnicalities such as our Constitution:
Mine: 1995 318ti Club Sport-2020 C43-1996 Speed Triple Challenge Cup Replica
Wife's: 2021 Sahara 4xe
Son's: 2018 330i xDrive
might as well have all your email flow through a central government reading station too. Hey, if you aren't doing anything wrong, who cares, and maybe they will catch someone else doing something naughty!
wait, they are already doing that (at least on TV show "person of interest").
might as well have all your email flow through a central government reading station too. Hey, if you aren't doing anything wrong, who cares, and maybe they will catch someone else doing something naughty!
Precisely. Only the guilty would object to such a reasonable proposal. If only we could repeal that pesky Bill of Rights- then our benevolent bureaucracy would finally be able to ensure our safety and security...
Mine: 1995 318ti Club Sport-2020 C43-1996 Speed Triple Challenge Cup Replica
Wife's: 2021 Sahara 4xe
Son's: 2018 330i xDrive
Yes, I should trust a group of people who can do virtually nothing else properly, to monitor the movements of every vehicle at every time. Brilliant! To paraphrase an old song: you can't even run your own life, I'll be darned if you'll run mine :shades: You should move to Britain, where 1984 isn't used as a warning, but as an instruction manual - a society that IMO needs some kind of revolt right now, but has nothing.
Until each and every speed/traffic law can be defended as being optimal to the letter, absolute adherence to all of them is tough to swallow, especially in a nation built on revolution from unjust idiots. Speeding isn't even close to being the major issue on the roads right now.
I'm looking more at the cost savings, safety benefits, convenience, and effeciency (in the future of course because we're not there yet) of having GPS in every vehicle, linked to the vehicle's VIN, linked to road locations, so there would be no more people needed to man toll boths, no more cops with speed guns, even traffic lights could be programmed to change based on the incoming traffic, versus a magnetic strip at the intersection.
To me, the potential benefits to these innovations are much greater than the perceived "threats" to our liberty. Yes, there have been cases of the government tapping cell phones without the legal authority in terrorist investigations, but even with those extreme and rare cases I have yet to hear about the personal impact to those violations.
So if computers are tracking/managing traffic via GPS (yes, and automatically issuing tickets to violaters for repeat and/or excessive violations), I'm still not sure how this becomes a "1984" situation. Give me some specific examples of what you think the government will do, and why, with this information.
What about all the new cameras at busy intersections, in convenience stores, office buildings, etc...all recording the movements of everything happening in front of their lens. Do you consider all of these cameras recording you a violation of your liberty? I'd say all the convenience store owners who used the recording to catch robbers were glad they had them. Young women walking on college campus's probably feel safer with cameras posted around most campus areas. Again, some people probably feel that all these cameras recording their movements in public areas violate their liberty, but to others they improve safety. The same with GPS in cars as I've described.
Bottom line to me is to compare the real benefits of using this type of technology to the real impacts. I can see the real potential benefits, but I have yet to see any potential negative impact to our personal liberty and freedom. So please, post some specific impacts you think would occur. What violations of liberty would happen and how would that affect someone?
I remember a rash of stories when photo radar came out. People were opening up the mail and seeing a photo of their spouse tooling around town when they were supposed to be away on a business trip. :shades:
I guess I can't agree with it, but I have to say, I am not a middle aged drone in some Prius-like transportation pod, so maybe I am not the target market. I like cars and I like to drive.
You have yet to prove any specific benefits of 24/7 vehicle monitoring, and you have the gall to demand so-called evidence of any negative impacts? Are you for real? Safety? Convenience? Efficiency? Cost is a personal choice. Cameras on private property are not the same as on every stretch of roadway, existing for revenue purposes so overpaid underworked public sector sucks can continue to cash in. The people with their fingers on the button can't even manage simple traffic controls, and you think this would make roads safe and efficient? Do you trust the government to handle this information with responsibility and benevolence? The onus is on YOU to prove your case before you demand anything from the naysayers.
This must be a joke. Let me guess, the war on drugs is also a good idea, and a 21 year old drinking age is logical. 55mph is a good speed limit, and speed kills. Just keep the penalty box in the right lane, let others go past, and all will be well.
Bottom line to me is to compare the real benefits of using this type of technology to the real impacts. I can see the real potential benefits, but I have yet to see any potential negative impact to our personal liberty and freedom. So please, post some specific impacts you think would occur. What violations of liberty would happen and how would that affect someone?
As I said earlier, you really need to relocate to the UK. The Brits will warmly embrace your affection for abundant government surveillance and centralized control. When this technology I'm sure you will welcome it as another way for our benevolent leaders to improve our safety and security...
Mine: 1995 318ti Club Sport-2020 C43-1996 Speed Triple Challenge Cup Replica
Wife's: 2021 Sahara 4xe
Son's: 2018 330i xDrive
I received one - two weeks after I obtained my license when I was 16. I'm glad I did, though, because I was speeding unintentionally due to being on the verge of falling asleep at the wheel. Had I not been pulled over, something much, much worse would have likely occurred (I'm not sure what a 1985 Camry would have looked like after driving off the road at 80+ mph).
That stop sure woke me up! :surprise:
Since then, though, I have not yet been pulled over for speeding - most likely because I generally don't drive significantly over the limit (combined with being aware of my surroundings).
I'm not sure how my wife manages to drive without me sometimes. She's so oblivious to road signs, such as speed limit changes, that I find myself frequently reminding her that the speed limit changed to X. Mind you, I'm not telling her to slow down; I'm just providing a point of reference. :P
She was pulled over for speeding in Idaho back in 2009 (when we stiffed you on that visit - still sorry about that, but also glad we didn't get you sick), but the officer was lenient with her and suggested she "pay more attention to road signs in the future." It probably helped that she was going 68 when the SL was 70, and just didn't change her speed when the limit dropped to 60 about 1/8 of a mile before he zapped us.
2018 Subaru Crosstrek, 2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2013 Subaru Forester, 2013 Ford F250 Lariat D, 1976 Ford F250, 1969 Chevrolet C20, 1969 Ford Econoline 100
Hmmm, so no specific impacts noted (except for the accurate one posted by the HOST!)
If you don’t see the potential impacts on traffic flow with having GPS embedded in cars linked to roadways, then you’ve never driven through an EZPASS lane on a toll road. Would you rather have an “overpaid underworked public sector employee” sitting behind a toll booth, or behind a radar gun when technology could do it? Do I trust the government to handle my driving information responsibly and benevolently sure, just as much as I trust the government to handle my mortgage deed, birth certificate, tax returns, etc, which I've never had any probles with (I have less faith in Visa or Mastercard and other private businesses from responsibly handling my personal information, but that’s another topic!)
As far as your other topics:
War on Drugs are you for making some drugs legal? 21 year old drinking age how old do you want it to be? 18? 25? 55mph is a good speed limit in Canada it’s about 60mph most places (100km/hr) and last time I was up there my MPG really went up because of it. If MPG is the biggest priority, then 55mph speed limit makes sense, if MPG isn’t the biggest priority, then 55mph doesn’t make sense. Speed limits are set for a variety of reasons and I’ll let our democratically elected officials determine them not every wacko out there.
Speed kills NHTSA seems to think so (see post 19334)
Some of these posts sound like sound bites from wacko AM radio entertainers! I don’t think careful weighing of costs and benefits equals “mindless surrender.”
Anyway, since nobody can provide specific rebuttal, I’m out of here. Please feel free to agree with each other
EZPASS is not GPS. And with your Orwellian idea, you'll just have the same people with control issues sitting behind monitors keeping track of the tax slaves instead of manning toll booths and speedtrapping. No net gain.
The same people who allow some drugs (cigs, booze) while burning mountains of money to fight others are the same who want blind deference to undefendable limits, and who want 24/7/365 surveillance. The same people who want the highest drinking age in the first world, an asinine policy which virtually creates young binge drinkers, want 24/7/365 surveillance.
MPG is a personal decision. These days, few drive a guzzler because they are forced to. I could drive a lame hybrid or a tin can, but I choose not to, and I can live with paying more at the pump to enjoy myself. You can hypermile it and get the mileage you please - just stay in the right lane where you belong. It's not hard. Elected officials don't set speed limits either - people appointed by people selected by people who are friends with people who are appointed by "elected officials" set limits.
Your NHTSA chatter is deceptive. If someone is texting or smoking or eating or drunk while exceeding an often arbitrarily determined speed and they have a crash, it gets chalked up as "speed kills". The insurance cabal loves it, anyway - but I don't know if people who enjoy critical thinking feel likewise. Dumbing down the driving experience helps nobody.
Since you can't provide any detailed defense of an Orwellian surveillance grid on the road, leaving is a good choice, I agree :P
Well, aside from violating the Constitution and the potential for all sorts of abuse...
Do I trust the government to handle my driving information responsibly and benevolently[sic] sure, just as much as I trust the government to handle my mortgage deed, birth certificate, tax returns, etc, which I've never had any probles[sic] with
24 hour electronic surveillance of your driving behavior is a far cry from preserving real estate documents and birth certificates. And you have never had a problem with a tax return? I can tell you that the IRS is a total joy to deal with- especially when you are trying to correct a mistake that they made.
Speed kills NHTSA seems to think so
NHTSA? You mean the same agency that predicted terrible carnage on the highways if the moronic 55 mph speed limit was repealed? Yes, I have a lot of faith in that outfit.
Some of these posts sound like sound bites from wacko AM radio entertainers! I don’t think careful weighing of costs and benefits equals “mindless surrender.”
How clever! Yes, those of us who don't want to sacrifice our Constitution to a cost/benefit analysis are definitely crazy. I weep bitter tears that I am not as enlightened as you, sedately motoring about in your appliance pod and sycophantically pledging your allegiance to a faceless horde of autocratic bureaucrats.
Mine: 1995 318ti Club Sport-2020 C43-1996 Speed Triple Challenge Cup Replica
Wife's: 2021 Sahara 4xe
Son's: 2018 330i xDrive
Your NHTSA chatter is deceptive. If someone is texting or smoking or eating or drunk while exceeding an often arbitrarily determined speed and they have a crash, it gets chalked up as "speed kills". The insurance cabal loves it, anyway - but I don't know if people who enjoy critical thinking feel likewise. Dumbing down the driving experience helps nobody.
I love the folks who bolster their arguments with information from NHTSA or the IIHS; it's akin to relying on tobacco companies to analyze the relationship between smoking and cancer or heart disease.
Since you can't provide any detailed defense of an Orwellian surveillance grid on the road, leaving is a good choice, I agree
You are SO unenlightened! Only the guilty have anything to fear from 24/7 surveillance. So tell me, just what are YOU hiding?
Mine: 1995 318ti Club Sport-2020 C43-1996 Speed Triple Challenge Cup Replica
Wife's: 2021 Sahara 4xe
Son's: 2018 330i xDrive
Perhaps the best thing that could come from advanced car electronics is the ability to totally eliminate high speed car chases.
Cop gets a tag #, cross references it with the VIN and calls OnStar (or other appropriate service) to remotely disable the car. Force each case to be reviewed by the courts to ensure cops aren't using it to stop cars and meet women.
And, on that "war on drugs", shouldn't we have won that war by now?
How much longer till its won? And, at what costs, both in people and $$$?
Haven't we been down this road before, with prohibition? How'd that work out???
No, no... of course the benefits of being tracked by our masters at all hours of the day or night far outway the costs.
Why, with this power... I could know where every dissident in the nation is at all times. And easily arrange for the police to arrest them on a false accusation. Sure, the charges won't stand, but think of the glorious intimidation factor.
Plus, I'm sure that, in some cases, 'accidents' could be arranged. The public enemy accidentally "fell" down the stairs, you know. It's a common accident in China.
I mean, only the guilty have reason to protest this public safety initiative... think of the children!
Trust the State! All power to the State! Hail the Motherland! Internationale!
---
A very good example of a total surveillence state... for the good of the people, of course.
The really hard thing to believe is that some people are so willing to forgo the 4th amendment to the Constitution - and don't even understand why others would care. It is none of the governments' business where I go, and believe me, if GPS were available the government would track every persons movements under some pretense or another.
Speaking of the government tracking where you go... it's already happening in some parts of the USA. For example, in Minneapolis, anyone who wants to take a few minutes of their time can look up your license plate number and find out where your car has been... for the past year!
The retention time varies widely by state/city (e.g. St. Paul erases data after 14 days, and in Maine the data is "confidential" and erases it after 21 days unless it's part of an investigation). The implications of this mobile camera technology are... troubling.
of having GPS in every vehicle, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
What happens when the GPS malfunctions and it needs to get fixed ($$$$ and time wastage). Or worse, gets you killed in an accident due to a "failure?"
What if the GPS malfunctions or is simply inaccurate and reports a bunch of speeding tickets on you when you weren't REALLY speeding. That is what I mean by being found guilty by one source of data. The GPS even if reliable, is one source and could be inaccurate without a live operator verifying its correct operation both before and after the ticket is issued (like cops are supposed to do with their radar guns and a tuning fork everyday to verify calibration). Finding someone guilty simply from a single GPS device doesn't sound reliable, nor "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" standard doesn't seem to be met by that one piece of data. My GPS sometimes lists the incorrect speed limit on roads I drive (signs change). Wild, false, and inaccurate allegations will be the norm if this is allowed. I don't want anyone accused of anything unless the prosecutions case is pretty much bullet proof. I think it's a waste of money to try a case you can't win on the DA's part.
Private companies also control and review and operate, or sub-out their camera securities functions. They don't bring a case to court soley on the video tape's evidence. Typically, the clerk who witnessed the crime would be brought to the stand as well. If it was during closed hours, the detectives will investage whether you have an alibi or not "got any twin brothers that look like you?," and (WHERE WERE YOU aT MIDNIGHT LAST THURSDAY!?) and questions like that. There is a thorough investigation PRIOR to charges being brought upon presumed innocent victims. A traffic cam is not a "thorough" investigation.
So there you have it, your system would exponentially increase false allegations and accusations of innocent people. That would waste time and energy and money.
No thank you! That is a huge negative impact. I don't want to spend any more time in court than I absolutely have to!
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
Someone saying they’re “bored” driving so they aren’t paying attention, isn’t an excuse for not paying attention. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It may not be an excuse but it's human nature so we should take it into account.
As the owner of a vehicle, it is/should be their responsibility when they pass over the keys. so if the owner of a car wants to sue the driver if the driver gets a ticket, that’s up to the driver. Maybe next time the car owner will be more careful who he gives the keys to. It’s called responsibility of the owner of a car. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That is pretty "out there" What happened to personal responsibility in this world. Why can't people simply be held responsible for their own actions? Perhaps the car dealership that sold the vehicle should get a ticket too, since they "sold" the vehicle to you and should be more careful and responsible about who they sell to! (some gun control people use this argument). Come to think of it, perhaps Audi should get sued and fined for making a car that goes faster than 70 MPH in CA since that is the maximum speed allowed in CA. I bet you'd love that. What happens when your car gets stolen and the theif racks up 10 speeding tickets in a day? Are you doing through the trouble of getting restitution/suing the criminal for those costs? Good luck on that! (I've had a car stolen and it's been 10 years and I've received very little from that)! Goes back to the presumed innocense violation of your ideas. You are presumed guilty and the fact that your car was stolen without your permission becomes irrelevant; you are charged with all the penalties anyway (you are the owner after all, perhaps you should pay the gov't to protect your property from being stolen! Maybe the secret service will moonlight to make money for prostitutes.
but also because if people know that their driving habits are being monitored, they’re more likely to drive in a safe manner just like they come to a full stop at a stopsign when they see a cop, or slow down if they see one.
The correlation between people obeying traffic laws under a cops' presence has been shown, but the correlation between following traffic laws and driving "safely" has not been shown with any evidence or facts whatsoever! Remember, accident rates are trending down and speed limits are generally going up in the last couple decades. This directly contradicts the "speed kills" sources.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
TO Andre, backy, steve, fintail, roadburner, busiris since you're all of the same mold.
“believe me, if GPS were available the government would track every persons movements under some pretense or another.” There’s a difference between tracking and then using that information. Right now the government “tracks” every person through all sorts of means (SSN, Driver’s License #, Tax Forms, etc ). They can track where you live, when you move, etc right now. If they wanted to, they can track you by your credit card transaction, cell phone usage, internet usage, etc.. The ability of the government to track has been around forever and there are checks and balances in place to ensure it’s not abused, and for the most part it isn’t.
Google and other private businesses are really the ones who want to track people, but even their goal isn’t sinister. It’s simply to be able to target advertisement to make money. Private business is the entity with the real motive to track people, because it’s the profit motive. The government’s motive is more limited to some defined purpose (national security, law enforcement, etc).
As far as GPS technology linked to VIN and roadways, that’s something for the future and of course no system will be 100% perfect and there will be lots of details to work out. Of course if your car is stolen and someone is speeding away with it the owner won’t be liable for the speeding tickets. I think it’s better to focus on the 99.9% vs the odd exception. As far as GPS killing someone, that reminds me of an episode of The Office where the boss followed an inaccurate GPS into a lake! I’m not sure how GPS tracking your speed would kill you? If GPS were used to manage traffic, there would have to be similar safety mechanisms that are in place today with automated signals for the exact same reason nothing new here.
And talking about the manufacture being liable is sort of silly. I’d think a person with title to a vehicle who voluntarily passes the keys to someone should assume some liability. Think about the car being property like your home. If something happens in your home, even if not your fault or even if you weren’t home, then your homeowner’s insurance may have to cover it. Note exactly the same with the car
And the NHTSA reports I found state that speeding is a factor for 30% of accidents, so if it’s being enforced anyway, why not do it in a more efficient manner? And I only mention NHTSA because someone else posted that it was 3%, not 30%, so I included the link in a previous post.
Funny thing is that it’s often the same people not wanting government intruding on their lives are the same folks wanting to get rid of regulations on businesses, and it’s precisely the regulations on private businesses that will really protect our privacy. Believe it or not, I’m on all your sides when it come to protecting privacy information, but I’m much less worried about the government as I am with private businesses.
I’m sure I’m not going to change anyone’s opinion here, but it’s good to get the thinking wheels turning from time to time and throw out an opposing viewpoint. The main thing is not to judge too harshly things you don’t fully understand. Quotes like this, “So there you have it, your system would exponentially increase false allegations and accusations of innocent people. That would waste time and energy and money.” on a future traffic management system are pretty silly when it's 10+ years down the road (forgive the pun!). Traffic management functions will be more automated in the future (including enforcement). If a person is really that afraid of being monitored via public cameras, internet transactions, cell phone conversations and GPS chips in their cars and phones, then I feel sorry for them. Don’t afraid of the technology, but you might want to be afraid of those advocating for giveing too much freedom to private corporations who will use this information for their own profit.
Hey HOST am I a little off topic sorry about that! It all started because NHTSA reports (and common sense and physics) prove speeding is dangerous and enforcement techniques to reduce it are good. And that speeders are inconsiderate to those around them (gotta throw in the topic name :P )
Anyway, I'm back to driving my Prius in the right lane except to pass like I always do, and I'll just watch you guys flying down whatever lane you feel is your right to drive in, and at whatever speed you "feel is safe," and I'll see you at the same destination about 30 seconds later :P
And I will wave as I pass you by in my actual car, actually enjoying some kind of driving experience, while my toaster sits in a kitchen cabinet :shades:
Speed doesn't kill. Bad driving kills. They aren't one in the same.
You know, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say something a bit provocative...
How many Germans thought Germany would be what it was in 1940-1945 when they voted the [non-permissible content removed] party into power in the early 1930's?
And, before anyone goes off on some rant about how this is the USA, not [non-permissible content removed] Germany, I would simply say that you're 100% correct. But, Germany wasn't the same country in 1929 as it was 10 years later.
Things sometimes change, and not necessarily for the better.
I'm not anti government, but I completely understand that absolute power corrupts... Absolutely.
It's human nature for some to want to dominate others.
Data sharing/collection is something relatively new to the human race. Can you imagine what the likes of Stalin and Hitler would have done with it?
What has the capability to do great good also has the ability to do great harm.
All I'm saying is that we need to give data sharing/collection/manipulation a great deal of thought before we simply decide that it will only be used for the good of mankind, and never abused.
"Speed doesn't kill. Bad driving kills. They aren't one in the same." You're right in the bad drivers kill, and bad drivers that are speeding kill even more. When everyone driving becomes as good a driver as you then we can take down all the speed limit signs.
My comment to the German post would be that would be to look at the past 50 years and current US government's record. Like I was saying in my previous post, the government can right NOW (if they really wanted to) could have UAVs flying over your house, satellites pointed at you, track your phone, read your mail, track your internet use, cell phone, banking transactions and use all that information "against the people" IF they wanted to. So if the government really wanted to "control the people" they could do it right now. I see no evidence for that type of control going now, so I doubt if GPS in a car would all of a sudden tip the balance and turn the USA into [non-permissible content removed] Germany.
Don't be done. It's good to make people think. :shades:
But don't lump us all in the same canoe either.
Surveillance is fine, when it's got some regulations in place and court oversight. That means having a good reason to keep track of someone. Checks and balances.
And I will wave as I pass you by in my actual car, actually enjoying some kind of driving experience, while my toaster sits in a kitchen cabinet
I find driving an appliance to be extremely unsafe; I'd soon die of boredom. :P
Speed doesn't kill. Bad driving kills. They aren't one in the same.
But it's relatively easy to catch speeders, and it's a fairly consistent revenue stream. Meanwhile, the dumbing-down of the American vehicle operator -"driver" is far to generous a term- continues. Instead, we have to build cars that assume more and more driving taske because owners are too stupid/lazy/inept to do it for themselves...
Mine: 1995 318ti Club Sport-2020 C43-1996 Speed Triple Challenge Cup Replica
Wife's: 2021 Sahara 4xe
Son's: 2018 330i xDrive
More cars, more drivers, more trips, more miles, higher to highest fuel prices, faster, etc etc.
I heard an EXTREMELY dumb one on CNBC. aka financial news network. Some driver (lady) claimed a stuck accelerator " making" the driver ( her ) go up to 120 mph (I am assuming a freeway with 65 mph speed limits and having an automatic). Why she didnt put it in neutral or the LEO's DIDNOT advisie putting it in neutral is beyond me.
If you are referring to the Kia dimwit, she claims that the stop/start button didnt work, the brakes didnt work, and she couldn't put the transmission in neutral. Yeah, right. Even worse, some hungry product liability attorney will likely extort a generous settlement from Kia, thereby rewarding the imbecile for her rank incompetence... :mad:
Mine: 1995 318ti Club Sport-2020 C43-1996 Speed Triple Challenge Cup Replica
Wife's: 2021 Sahara 4xe
Son's: 2018 330i xDrive
Boring easy cars make for more inept drivers. I feel like I lose some of my probably unspectacular driving ability every time I drive my mom's Camry. I feel like I accomplished something when I drive my old car. When I ride a motorcycle, I am usually in a mild state of freak-out, but when finished, I usually feel like I learned something. Dumbing down the driving experience is not a good thing. We don't need more cars that stop themselves so their drivers can tend to their ipads and Starbucks.
Speed all comes down to money. There are places for slow and there are places for fast. Slow in all places only benefits the inept.
Makes it hard to defend slowing down in a panic, doesn't it? If some can't take the heat of moving at a speed equal to or higher than their grandparents drove at their age, maybe they should stick to side streets.
"those who ignore history and the lessons of the past are doomed to repeat them".
Personally, I'm not concerned about the "present" government intruding too far into my life, just as I would bet most Germans would have said on 1929.
If one bothers to study the history of Germany from 1915-1945, they'll find thousands of letters, articles, etc. in which survivors told of having absolutely no clue just how much, as well as how fast, things were going to change within that time period.
I trust my local police force. One reason is that it has, to a degree, a limited control over me. It's equipped with adequate arms, vehicles, etc. I don't lie awake in bed every night wondering if they're going to invade my house at any moment.
I doubt I'd feel any safer if it was equipped with a platoon of battle tanks, long-range cannons, fighter jets and stinger missiles. In fact, I'd trust them less.
Once total control is ceded to a "superior" entity, whatever that entity might be, you're at the mercy of that entity, regardless whatever it might become.
because it’s the profit motive. The government’s motive is more limited to some defined purpose (national security, law enforcement, etc).
Actually, the government's motive for traffic enforcement is profit (well, at least revenue if they didnt' spend it all and more). If it wasn't about the money, they'd reduce or eliminate fines and increase jail times.
That is the problem with camera enforcement as well, the more tickets written, the more money is made. Gives a lot of incentive to write more tickets and is a conflict of interest for a body (gov't) that is supposed to be unbiased in deciding legal matters of justice.
That 30% figure you cite must include blatently skewed data such as speeders that were speeding because they were drunk, or high on drugs. Going too fast for conditions is another exception they don't take into account (bald tires in torrential rain). Also, accidents where the speed limit is underposted makes an accident "involve a speeder" when really they were driving reasonably and safely in regards to speed, and speed had nothing to do with the accident itself. Due to the under posted limits, they are labeled a "speeder" and hence the accident attributed to "speed factors" Insurance companies love this line of thinking because then they raise your rates on two counts.
For example, I could be going 80 MPH in a 65 MPH SL zone, and get rear ended by a speeder going 85 MPH. Was the problem my speed, or the perpetrator's speed? Not hardly, it was a failure of them to yield my space and stop or slow down before they hit me (probably due to inattention). Speeding is considered a factor in that accident by the NHTSA, but it wouldn't have mattered if I was going 65 MPH or less, they still would hit me. If I was going faster, the accident would have been avoided in fact! I could be going 30 and they 35 and the same result is achieved with the same damages. The speed is irrelevant. What is relevant is that two objects cannot occupy the same space at the same time; now that's physics, and has NOTHING to do with speed.
Common sense and physics do not prove speeding is dangerous.
I can drive by you at 10 MPH, 100 MPH, 1,000 MPH equally safely given the right machine. The only thing that is dangerous is if as the driver you steer into another object at speed and try to occupy the same space at the same time. As long as you don't do that, speed is not dangerous. Go parallel to the wall, and your fine at any speed. Go perpendicular towards the wall, and your in trouble at any speed other than 0.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
And talking about the manufacture being liable is sort of silly. I’d think a person with title to a vehicle who voluntarily passes the keys to someone should assume some liability. Think about the car being property like your home. If something happens in your home, even if not your fault or even if you weren’t home, then your homeowner’s insurance may have to cover it. Note exactly the same with the car
That was the point, the argument is silly; just as yours is. My point was to show a similar argument to yours, and better illustrate how silly it is. Holding the car owner liable is a silly idea for others' driving!
Why not hold the engineer at the manufacturer just as liable for making something so fast and deadly ? :P
Cars are not homes. Homes are not operated, or driven, and do not move. If there is an operation in your home, then it is a business, and you should have separate insurance for that.
I've heard the stories of homeowners being sued by the burglers for when they fall from the roof or cut themselves on the window while breaking in and tresspassing. I think these stories are terrible and examples of corrupted lawyers and judges. Just as you don't want to be held liable for the thief that steals your car, I dont' think my Homeowner's insurance should have to pay for uninvited guests like burglers!.
Auto insurance companies say the coverage follows the car, not the driver. I don't agree with that philosophy. I believe they'd say the opposite if it suited them to say so.
However, you can't hold people criminally liable for acts others commit while using their property. If I let you borrow a gun to go to the shooting range and have some fun, and then you choose to go on a murder rampage, should I really be charged with murder? Your advocating the same with car owners and speeders/red light runners!
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
I must admit since Enterprise Rent-a-Car got on my bad side for trying to charge me for a dent that was already there, I wouldn't mind racking up a few camera tickets for them (since you hold the owner liable for driver's transgressions!).
Rental companies will love you!
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
Auto insurance companies say the coverage follows the car, not the driver. I don't agree with that philosophy. I believe they'd say the opposite if it suited them to say so.
I agree with you there! It makes sense for collision and comprehensive to follow the vehicle, but liability is all about the driver. Since one driver can only drive one vehicle at a time, liability should follow that driver and all licensed drivers should have liability insurance (unless your state allows you to assume personal liability in lieu of insurance rather than in addition to it). It doesn't matter what car you drive (within a given GVWR) or whether you own it, rent it, or borrow it, your liability and uninsured/under-insured insurance covers you in an at-fault situation.
2018 Subaru Crosstrek, 2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2013 Subaru Forester, 2013 Ford F250 Lariat D, 1976 Ford F250, 1969 Chevrolet C20, 1969 Ford Econoline 100
Well, I would say the owner of a car certainly has the responsibility to ensure the borrower is legally qualified and licensed to drive the car, and not visibly impaired.
Most reasonable people would "frown" on lending your car to a impaired crack-head, staggering drunk or 9 year old girl with a Barbie doll.
The gas station down the road will sell you gas, but I fail to see how they might be responsible for me if I buy a can of gas and burn my neighbor's house down... Unless I tell the sales clerk that is my intention, or I wear a T-shirt that says I'm a convicted arsonist.
"look at the past 50 years and current US government record"
And, we would find a convicted US vice president (Agnew), a president the resigned from office to escape conviction for government cover ups (Nixon), and a number of convicted governors (see former Illinois governors, as an example).
Add to that, depending on one's POV, we invaded a country (Iraq) either under another government cover up, or at a minimum, incompetent intelligence and a refusal to fairly evaluate what intel that was available. German intelligence repeatedly told the US government to be skeptical of the US's main source of intel on Iraq's "WMDs" (Google "Curveball").
We can go on about corruption, all the way down to the local level, like the recent conviction of a SC highway patrol for trafficing in and possession of child pornography.
a township cop saw a women he liked, so he pulled up, waved, etc. to get her attention, but it did nto work. So he ran her plates (with no legal justification) to get her name/address.
then the dimwit tried to friend her on facebook, indicating he was, in fact, the cop that tried to get her attention.
Well, I would say the owner of a car certainly has the responsibility to ensure the borrower is legally qualified and licensed to drive the car, and not visibly impaired.
I think that's asking a lot of an owner! I mean, your gonna give a visible eye check, walk the line type test before handing over the keys? What if they borrow the car for more than one use for along period of time? Are you going to give them a breathalyzer each and every time they start up the car? Your life would be consumed being the "law enforcer" without a paycheck to back it up!
This reminds me of a law San Luis Obispo passed that said the home owner's would be responsible for underage drinkers at parties. It was the old folks targeting the young in class warfare if I ever saw it!
They wanted us college kids to card people as they came to parties, and monitor their behavior and free will!!! I found it ludicrous because we weren't making money off of underage drinkers, it wasn't a business or a bar that the gov't should have that many regulations and mandates over! It is a private residence! Leave the carding to the businesses, leave the private homes alone! People can be held personally responsible for their own actions and decisions! Unless I put a gun to your head forcing you to drink, it's not my fault what the consequences are if you choose to break the law on your own.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
I know that, I"m just saying if bobw3 had his way, Enterprise would be liable and they'd have to SUE you to collect their fine monies back!
He's saying car owner's should have to pay the fines for the driver's errors and sue them to recuperate those costs! I'm just throwing out examples of why that is so ludicrous (and camera enforcement in general so wrong!).
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
Comments
I love it when you honk, and the idiot honks back. Then I just lay on the horn, I have no shame, and my horn is louder than most :shades:
Don't worry, I have no plans to move to MN - the roads here are bad enough, due to huge population increases and road maintenance that hasn't followed. I especially love utility covers that don't line up with the road surface, and utility trenches that are filled in and then remain 4" below the pavement.
“I don't pay any attention to the speed limits so if they are incorrectly set, then that might make me drive 15 over through no fault of my own.”
As the driver, you are responsible for whatever speed you drive period.
“because driving slow bores and fatigues the heck out of most drivers, which will make them less alert.”
Someone saying they’re “bored” driving so they aren’t paying attention, isn’t an excuse for not paying attention. And driving 20mph vs 5 mph over the limit on a flat highway isn’t much more exciting. If you want spirited or exciting driving go have fun, but don’t do it on any public roads, as public roads aren’t there for your personal excitement.
“why is it the owner's job to secure funds for a fine from the correct driver”
As the owner of a vehicle, it is/should be their responsibility when they pass over the keys. Of course the driver is also responsible, so if the owner of a car wants to sue the driver if the driver gets a ticket, that’s up to the driver. Maybe next time the car owner will be more careful who he gives the keys to. It’s called responsibility of the owner of a car.
My original quote, “drivers get a speeding ticket that they'd have to appeal to prove it was justified. “ Then your response, “So your guilty until proven innocent?”
No, the violation was proved by the GPS recording a speed faster than the limit. It’s always up to the individual convicted to appeal the violation, just like you’d appeal any other proven ticket. Speeding is pretty black and white basic math If your speed minus the speed limit is greater than zero than you’re speeding. Then it’s just a matter of how much you were speeding and the point at which a ticket is given.
“I’ll take an average driver at full alertness and attention driving 15 over the speed limit over an expert talking on his cell phone and texting while driving driving at or below the speed limit anyday”
Me too, but I see no reason to believe mult-tasking drivers will stop just because they’re driving faster.
It’s also false to indicate that just because a road was physically designed to go a certain speed, doesn’t mean that the posted speed limit needs to match that speed, since there are many other factors to speed limits than the physical road.
Also, from a google search “NHTSA study on speeding involved in accidents” Do this google search yourself to find these top two results:
www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/enforce/speed_forum.../ferguson.pdf quotes from the final summary from page 30 of the PDF: as crash speeds increase, so does crash severity, increases in speed limits increase speed, as well as crashes,
www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/nti/enforcement/pdf/809839.pdf
Quotes from page 33 Speeding is one of the most prevalent factors contributing to traffic crashes
Speeding is a factor in 30 percent of all fatal crashes
Driving on public roads impacts that safety of all the other drivers around you, so if a person wishes to have the privilege of driving on public roads, then all manner of safety equipment can be mandated by the government. The black box in a car can be considered a safety mechanism, not only because it allows manufactures to know the factors at and before the point of an accident, but also because if people know that their driving habits are being monitored, they’re more likely to drive in a safe manner just like they come to a full stop at a stopsign when they see a cop, or slow down if they see one.
Ah yes, the usual argument trotted out to justify increased government surveillance. You might want to check out this article, although I suspect it will do little to dim your enthusiasm for an increasingly intrusive nanny state. You might consider relocating to the UK; the British authorities aren't constrained by piddling tecnicalities such as our Constitution:
Mine: 1995 318ti Club Sport-2020 C43-1996 Speed Triple Challenge Cup Replica
Wife's: 2021 Sahara 4xe
Son's: 2018 330i xDrive
wait, they are already doing that (at least on TV show "person of interest").
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
Precisely. Only the guilty would object to such a reasonable proposal. If only we could repeal that pesky Bill of Rights- then our benevolent bureaucracy would finally be able to ensure our safety and security...
Mine: 1995 318ti Club Sport-2020 C43-1996 Speed Triple Challenge Cup Replica
Wife's: 2021 Sahara 4xe
Son's: 2018 330i xDrive
Until each and every speed/traffic law can be defended as being optimal to the letter, absolute adherence to all of them is tough to swallow, especially in a nation built on revolution from unjust idiots. Speeding isn't even close to being the major issue on the roads right now.
To me, the potential benefits to these innovations are much greater than the perceived "threats" to our liberty. Yes, there have been cases of the government tapping cell phones without the legal authority in terrorist investigations, but even with those extreme and rare cases I have yet to hear about the personal impact to those violations.
So if computers are tracking/managing traffic via GPS (yes, and automatically issuing tickets to violaters for repeat and/or excessive violations), I'm still not sure how this becomes a "1984" situation. Give me some specific examples of what you think the government will do, and why, with this information.
What about all the new cameras at busy intersections, in convenience stores, office buildings, etc...all recording the movements of everything happening in front of their lens. Do you consider all of these cameras recording you a violation of your liberty? I'd say all the convenience store owners who used the recording to catch robbers were glad they had them. Young women walking on college campus's probably feel safer with cameras posted around most campus areas. Again, some people probably feel that all these cameras recording their movements in public areas violate their liberty, but to others they improve safety. The same with GPS in cars as I've described.
Bottom line to me is to compare the real benefits of using this type of technology to the real impacts. I can see the real potential benefits, but I have yet to see any potential negative impact to our personal liberty and freedom. So please, post some specific impacts you think would occur. What violations of liberty would happen and how would that affect someone?
You have yet to prove any specific benefits of 24/7 vehicle monitoring, and you have the gall to demand so-called evidence of any negative impacts? Are you for real? Safety? Convenience? Efficiency? Cost is a personal choice. Cameras on private property are not the same as on every stretch of roadway, existing for revenue purposes so overpaid underworked public sector sucks can continue to cash in. The people with their fingers on the button can't even manage simple traffic controls, and you think this would make roads safe and efficient? Do you trust the government to handle this information with responsibility and benevolence? The onus is on YOU to prove your case before you demand anything from the naysayers.
This must be a joke. Let me guess, the war on drugs is also a good idea, and a 21 year old drinking age is logical. 55mph is a good speed limit, and speed kills. Just keep the penalty box in the right lane, let others go past, and all will be well.
As I said earlier, you really need to relocate to the UK. The Brits will warmly embrace your affection for abundant government surveillance and centralized control. When this technology I'm sure you will welcome it as another way for our benevolent leaders to improve our safety and security...
Mine: 1995 318ti Club Sport-2020 C43-1996 Speed Triple Challenge Cup Replica
Wife's: 2021 Sahara 4xe
Son's: 2018 330i xDrive
That stop sure woke me up! :surprise:
Since then, though, I have not yet been pulled over for speeding - most likely because I generally don't drive significantly over the limit (combined with being aware of my surroundings).
I'm not sure how my wife manages to drive without me sometimes. She's so oblivious to road signs, such as speed limit changes, that I find myself frequently reminding her that the speed limit changed to X. Mind you, I'm not telling her to slow down; I'm just providing a point of reference. :P
She was pulled over for speeding in Idaho back in 2009 (when we stiffed you on that visit - still sorry about that, but also glad we didn't get you sick), but the officer was lenient with her and suggested she "pay more attention to road signs in the future." It probably helped that she was going 68 when the SL was 70, and just didn't change her speed when the limit dropped to 60 about 1/8 of a mile before he zapped us.
I'm thinking the same thing; I find it incredible that someone would mindlessly surrender their personal freedom to the Nanny State.
Mine: 1995 318ti Club Sport-2020 C43-1996 Speed Triple Challenge Cup Replica
Wife's: 2021 Sahara 4xe
Son's: 2018 330i xDrive
If you don’t see the potential impacts on traffic flow with having GPS embedded in cars linked to roadways, then you’ve never driven through an EZPASS lane on a toll road. Would you rather have an “overpaid underworked public sector employee” sitting behind a toll booth, or behind a radar gun when technology could do it? Do I trust the government to handle my driving information responsibly and benevolently sure, just as much as I trust the government to handle my mortgage deed, birth certificate, tax returns, etc, which I've never had any probles with (I have less faith in Visa or Mastercard and other private businesses from responsibly handling my personal information, but that’s another topic!)
As far as your other topics:
War on Drugs are you for making some drugs legal?
21 year old drinking age how old do you want it to be? 18? 25?
55mph is a good speed limit in Canada it’s about 60mph most places (100km/hr) and last time I was up there my MPG really went up because of it. If MPG is the biggest priority, then 55mph speed limit makes sense, if MPG isn’t the biggest priority, then 55mph doesn’t make sense. Speed limits are set for a variety of reasons and I’ll let our democratically elected officials determine them not every wacko out there.
Speed kills NHTSA seems to think so (see post 19334)
Some of these posts sound like sound bites from wacko AM radio entertainers! I don’t think careful weighing of costs and benefits equals “mindless surrender.”
Anyway, since nobody can provide specific rebuttal, I’m out of here. Please feel free to agree with each other
The same people who allow some drugs (cigs, booze) while burning mountains of money to fight others are the same who want blind deference to undefendable limits, and who want 24/7/365 surveillance. The same people who want the highest drinking age in the first world, an asinine policy which virtually creates young binge drinkers, want 24/7/365 surveillance.
MPG is a personal decision. These days, few drive a guzzler because they are forced to. I could drive a lame hybrid or a tin can, but I choose not to, and I can live with paying more at the pump to enjoy myself. You can hypermile it and get the mileage you please - just stay in the right lane where you belong. It's not hard. Elected officials don't set speed limits either - people appointed by people selected by people who are friends with people who are appointed by "elected officials" set limits.
Your NHTSA chatter is deceptive. If someone is texting or smoking or eating or drunk while exceeding an often arbitrarily determined speed and they have a crash, it gets chalked up as "speed kills". The insurance cabal loves it, anyway - but I don't know if people who enjoy critical thinking feel likewise. Dumbing down the driving experience helps nobody.
Since you can't provide any detailed defense of an Orwellian surveillance grid on the road, leaving is a good choice, I agree :P
Well, aside from violating the Constitution and the potential for all sorts of abuse...
Do I trust the government to handle my driving information responsibly and benevolently[sic] sure, just as much as I trust the government to handle my mortgage deed, birth certificate, tax returns, etc, which I've never had any probles[sic] with
24 hour electronic surveillance of your driving behavior is a far cry from preserving real estate documents and birth certificates. And you have never had a problem with a tax return? I can tell you that the IRS is a total joy to deal with- especially when you are trying to correct a mistake that they made.
Speed kills NHTSA seems to think so
NHTSA? You mean the same agency that predicted terrible carnage on the highways if the moronic 55 mph speed limit was repealed? Yes, I have a lot of faith in that outfit.
Some of these posts sound like sound bites from wacko AM radio entertainers! I don’t think careful weighing of costs and benefits equals “mindless surrender.”
How clever! Yes, those of us who don't want to sacrifice our Constitution to a cost/benefit analysis are definitely crazy. I weep bitter tears that I am not as enlightened as you, sedately motoring about in your appliance pod and sycophantically pledging your allegiance to a faceless horde of autocratic bureaucrats.
Mine: 1995 318ti Club Sport-2020 C43-1996 Speed Triple Challenge Cup Replica
Wife's: 2021 Sahara 4xe
Son's: 2018 330i xDrive
I love the folks who bolster their arguments with information from NHTSA or the IIHS; it's akin to relying on tobacco companies to analyze the relationship between smoking and cancer or heart disease.
Since you can't provide any detailed defense of an Orwellian surveillance grid on the road, leaving is a good choice, I agree
You are SO unenlightened! Only the guilty have anything to fear from 24/7 surveillance. So tell me, just what are YOU hiding?
Mine: 1995 318ti Club Sport-2020 C43-1996 Speed Triple Challenge Cup Replica
Wife's: 2021 Sahara 4xe
Son's: 2018 330i xDrive
Cop gets a tag #, cross references it with the VIN and calls OnStar (or other appropriate service) to remotely disable the car. Force each case to be reviewed by the courts to ensure cops aren't using it to stop cars and meet women.
And, on that "war on drugs", shouldn't we have won that war by now?
How much longer till its won? And, at what costs, both in people and $$$?
Haven't we been down this road before, with prohibition? How'd that work out???
Prohibition was as popular and useful as 55, any current "wars", and worked as well as having all roads under perpetual speedtrap surveillance.
Why, with this power... I could know where every dissident in the nation is at all times. And easily arrange for the police to arrest them on a false accusation. Sure, the charges won't stand, but think of the glorious intimidation factor.
Plus, I'm sure that, in some cases, 'accidents' could be arranged. The public enemy accidentally "fell" down the stairs, you know. It's a common accident in China.
I mean, only the guilty have reason to protest this public safety initiative... think of the children!
Trust the State! All power to the State! Hail the Motherland! Internationale!
---
A very good example of a total surveillence state... for the good of the people, of course.
The Prisoner - Checkmate
The retention time varies widely by state/city (e.g. St. Paul erases data after 14 days, and in Maine the data is "confidential" and erases it after 21 days unless it's part of an investigation). The implications of this mobile camera technology are... troubling.
http://www.startribune.com/local/minneapolis/165680946.html?refer=y
What happens when the GPS malfunctions and it needs to get fixed ($$$$ and time wastage). Or worse, gets you killed in an accident due to a "failure?"
What if the GPS malfunctions or is simply inaccurate and reports a bunch of speeding tickets on you when you weren't REALLY speeding. That is what I mean by being found guilty by one source of data. The GPS even if reliable, is one source and could be inaccurate without a live operator verifying its correct operation both before and after the ticket is issued (like cops are supposed to do with their radar guns and a tuning fork everyday to verify calibration). Finding someone guilty simply from a single GPS device doesn't sound reliable, nor "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" standard doesn't seem to be met by that one piece of data. My GPS sometimes lists the incorrect speed limit on roads I drive (signs change). Wild, false, and inaccurate allegations will be the norm if this is allowed. I don't want anyone accused of anything unless the prosecutions case is pretty much bullet proof. I think it's a waste of money to try a case you can't win on the DA's part.
Private companies also control and review and operate, or sub-out their camera securities functions. They don't bring a case to court soley on the video tape's evidence. Typically, the clerk who witnessed the crime would be brought to the stand as well. If it was during closed hours, the detectives will investage whether you have an alibi or not "got any twin brothers that look like you?," and (WHERE WERE YOU aT MIDNIGHT LAST THURSDAY!?) and questions like that. There is a thorough investigation PRIOR to charges being brought upon presumed innocent victims. A traffic cam is not a "thorough" investigation.
So there you have it, your system would exponentially increase false allegations and accusations of innocent people. That would waste time and energy and money.
No thank you! That is a huge negative impact. I don't want to spend any more time in court than I absolutely have to!
It may not be an excuse but it's human nature so we should take it into account.
As the owner of a vehicle, it is/should be their responsibility when they pass over the keys. so if the owner of a car wants to sue the driver if the driver gets a ticket, that’s up to the driver. Maybe next time the car owner will be more careful who he gives the keys to. It’s called responsibility of the owner of a car.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That is pretty "out there" What happened to personal responsibility in this world. Why can't people simply be held responsible for their own actions? Perhaps the car dealership that sold the vehicle should get a ticket too, since they "sold" the vehicle to you and should be more careful and responsible about who they sell to! (some gun control people use this argument). Come to think of it, perhaps Audi should get sued and fined for making a car that goes faster than 70 MPH in CA since that is the maximum speed allowed in CA. I bet you'd love that. What happens when your car gets stolen and the theif racks up 10 speeding tickets in a day? Are you doing through the trouble of getting restitution/suing the criminal for those costs? Good luck on that! (I've had a car stolen and it's been 10 years and I've received very little from that)! Goes back to the presumed innocense violation of your ideas. You are presumed guilty and the fact that your car was stolen without your permission becomes irrelevant; you are charged with all the penalties anyway (you are the owner after all, perhaps you should pay the gov't to protect your property from being stolen! Maybe the secret service will moonlight to make money for prostitutes.
but also because if people know that their driving habits are being monitored, they’re more likely to drive in a safe manner just like they come to a full stop at a stopsign when they see a cop, or slow down if they see one.
The correlation between people obeying traffic laws under a cops' presence has been shown, but the correlation between following traffic laws and driving "safely" has not been shown with any evidence or facts whatsoever! Remember, accident rates are trending down and speed limits are generally going up in the last couple decades. This directly contradicts the "speed kills" sources.
The solution here should be easy enough, even to the casual observer. :shades:
“believe me, if GPS were available the government would track every persons movements under some pretense or another.”
There’s a difference between tracking and then using that information. Right now the government “tracks” every person through all sorts of means (SSN, Driver’s License #, Tax Forms, etc ). They can track where you live, when you move, etc right now. If they wanted to, they can track you by your credit card transaction, cell phone usage, internet usage, etc.. The ability of the government to track has been around forever and there are checks and balances in place to ensure it’s not abused, and for the most part it isn’t.
Google and other private businesses are really the ones who want to track people, but even their goal isn’t sinister. It’s simply to be able to target advertisement to make money. Private business is the entity with the real motive to track people, because it’s the profit motive. The government’s motive is more limited to some defined purpose (national security, law enforcement, etc).
As far as GPS technology linked to VIN and roadways, that’s something for the future and of course no system will be 100% perfect and there will be lots of details to work out. Of course if your car is stolen and someone is speeding away with it the owner won’t be liable for the speeding tickets. I think it’s better to focus on the 99.9% vs the odd exception. As far as GPS killing someone, that reminds me of an episode of The Office where the boss followed an inaccurate GPS into a lake! I’m not sure how GPS tracking your speed would kill you? If GPS were used to manage traffic, there would have to be similar safety mechanisms that are in place today with automated signals for the exact same reason nothing new here.
And talking about the manufacture being liable is sort of silly. I’d think a person with title to a vehicle who voluntarily passes the keys to someone should assume some liability. Think about the car being property like your home. If something happens in your home, even if not your fault or even if you weren’t home, then your homeowner’s insurance may have to cover it. Note exactly the same with the car
And the NHTSA reports I found state that speeding is a factor for 30% of accidents, so if it’s being enforced anyway, why not do it in a more efficient manner? And I only mention NHTSA because someone else posted that it was 3%, not 30%, so I included the link in a previous post.
Funny thing is that it’s often the same people not wanting government intruding on their lives are the same folks wanting to get rid of regulations on businesses, and it’s precisely the regulations on private businesses that will really protect our privacy. Believe it or not, I’m on all your sides when it come to protecting privacy information, but I’m much less worried about the government as I am with private businesses.
I’m sure I’m not going to change anyone’s opinion here, but it’s good to get the thinking wheels turning from time to time and throw out an opposing viewpoint. The main thing is not to judge too harshly things you don’t fully understand. Quotes like this, “So there you have it, your system would exponentially increase false allegations and accusations of innocent people. That would waste time and energy and money.” on a future traffic management system are pretty silly when it's 10+ years down the road (forgive the pun!). Traffic management functions will be more automated in the future (including enforcement). If a person is really that afraid of being monitored via public cameras, internet transactions, cell phone conversations and GPS chips in their cars and phones, then I feel sorry for them. Don’t afraid of the technology, but you might want to be afraid of those advocating for giveing too much freedom to private corporations who will use this information for their own profit.
Hey HOST am I a little off topic sorry about that! It all started because NHTSA reports (and common sense and physics) prove speeding is dangerous and enforcement techniques to reduce it are good. And that speeders are inconsiderate to those around them (gotta throw in the topic name :P )
Anyway, I'm back to driving my Prius in the right lane except to pass like I always do, and I'll just watch you guys flying down whatever lane you feel is your right to drive in, and at whatever speed you "feel is safe," and I'll see you at the same destination about 30 seconds later :P
And I will wave as I pass you by in my actual car, actually enjoying some kind of driving experience, while my toaster sits in a kitchen cabinet :shades:
Speed doesn't kill. Bad driving kills. They aren't one in the same.
How many Germans thought Germany would be what it was in 1940-1945 when they voted the [non-permissible content removed] party into power in the early 1930's?
And, before anyone goes off on some rant about how this is the USA, not [non-permissible content removed] Germany, I would simply say that you're 100% correct. But, Germany wasn't the same country in 1929 as it was 10 years later.
Things sometimes change, and not necessarily for the better.
I'm not anti government, but I completely understand that absolute power corrupts... Absolutely.
It's human nature for some to want to dominate others.
Data sharing/collection is something relatively new to the human race. Can you imagine what the likes of Stalin and Hitler would have done with it?
What has the capability to do great good also has the ability to do great harm.
All I'm saying is that we need to give data sharing/collection/manipulation a great deal of thought before we simply decide that it will only be used for the good of mankind, and never abused.
You're right in the bad drivers kill, and bad drivers that are speeding kill even more. When everyone driving becomes as good a driver as you then we can take down all the speed limit signs.
My comment to the German post would be that would be to look at the past 50 years and current US government's record. Like I was saying in my previous post, the government can right NOW (if they really wanted to) could have UAVs flying over your house, satellites pointed at you, track your phone, read your mail, track your internet use, cell phone, banking transactions and use all that information "against the people" IF they wanted to. So if the government really wanted to "control the people" they could do it right now. I see no evidence for that type of control going now, so I doubt if GPS in a car would all of a sudden tip the balance and turn the USA into [non-permissible content removed] Germany.
Now i'm done...maybe :P
But don't lump us all in the same canoe either.
Surveillance is fine, when it's got some regulations in place and court oversight. That means having a good reason to keep track of someone. Checks and balances.
I was hoping...
And I will wave as I pass you by in my actual car, actually enjoying some kind of driving experience, while my toaster sits in a kitchen cabinet
I find driving an appliance to be extremely unsafe; I'd soon die of boredom. :P
Speed doesn't kill. Bad driving kills. They aren't one in the same.
But it's relatively easy to catch speeders, and it's a fairly consistent revenue stream. Meanwhile, the dumbing-down of the American vehicle operator -"driver" is far to generous a term- continues. Instead, we have to build cars that assume more and more driving taske because owners are too stupid/lazy/inept to do it for themselves...
Mine: 1995 318ti Club Sport-2020 C43-1996 Speed Triple Challenge Cup Replica
Wife's: 2021 Sahara 4xe
Son's: 2018 330i xDrive
Again it is one of THE safest years for as long as they have been recording these things and data capture is arguably the best that it has EVER been.
NHTSA
More cars, more drivers, more trips, more miles, higher to highest fuel prices, faster, etc etc.
I heard an EXTREMELY dumb one on CNBC. aka financial news network. Some driver (lady) claimed a stuck accelerator " making" the driver ( her ) go up to 120 mph (I am assuming a freeway with 65 mph speed limits and having an automatic). Why she didnt put it in neutral or the LEO's DIDNOT advisie putting it in neutral is beyond me.
Mine: 1995 318ti Club Sport-2020 C43-1996 Speed Triple Challenge Cup Replica
Wife's: 2021 Sahara 4xe
Son's: 2018 330i xDrive
Speed all comes down to money. There are places for slow and there are places for fast. Slow in all places only benefits the inept.
"those who ignore history and the lessons of the past are doomed to repeat them".
Personally, I'm not concerned about the "present" government intruding too far into my life, just as I would bet most Germans would have said on 1929.
If one bothers to study the history of Germany from 1915-1945, they'll find thousands of letters, articles, etc. in which survivors told of having absolutely no clue just how much, as well as how fast, things were going to change within that time period.
I trust my local police force. One reason is that it has, to a degree, a limited control over me. It's equipped with adequate arms, vehicles, etc. I don't lie awake in bed every night wondering if they're going to invade my house at any moment.
I doubt I'd feel any safer if it was equipped with a platoon of battle tanks, long-range cannons, fighter jets and stinger missiles. In fact, I'd trust them less.
Once total control is ceded to a "superior" entity, whatever that entity might be, you're at the mercy of that entity, regardless whatever it might become.
Actually, the government's motive for traffic enforcement is profit (well, at least revenue if they didnt' spend it all and more). If it wasn't about the money, they'd reduce or eliminate fines and increase jail times.
That is the problem with camera enforcement as well, the more tickets written, the more money is made. Gives a lot of incentive to write more tickets and is a conflict of interest for a body (gov't) that is supposed to be unbiased in deciding legal matters of justice.
That 30% figure you cite must include blatently skewed data such as speeders that were speeding because they were drunk, or high on drugs. Going too fast for conditions is another exception they don't take into account (bald tires in torrential rain). Also, accidents where the speed limit is underposted makes an accident "involve a speeder" when really they were driving reasonably and safely in regards to speed, and speed had nothing to do with the accident itself. Due to the under posted limits, they are labeled a "speeder" and hence the accident attributed to "speed factors" Insurance companies love this line of thinking because then they raise your rates on two counts.
For example, I could be going 80 MPH in a 65 MPH SL zone, and get rear ended by a speeder going 85 MPH. Was the problem my speed, or the perpetrator's speed? Not hardly, it was a failure of them to yield my space and stop or slow down before they hit me (probably due to inattention). Speeding is considered a factor in that accident by the NHTSA, but it wouldn't have mattered if I was going 65 MPH or less, they still would hit me. If I was going faster, the accident would have been avoided in fact! I could be going 30 and they 35 and the same result is achieved with the same damages. The speed is irrelevant. What is relevant is that two objects cannot occupy the same space at the same time; now that's physics, and has NOTHING to do with speed.
Common sense and physics do not prove speeding is dangerous.
I can drive by you at 10 MPH, 100 MPH, 1,000 MPH equally safely given the right machine. The only thing that is dangerous is if as the driver you steer into another object at speed and try to occupy the same space at the same time. As long as you don't do that, speed is not dangerous. Go parallel to the wall, and your fine at any speed. Go perpendicular towards the wall, and your in trouble at any speed other than 0.
That was the point, the argument is silly; just as yours is. My point was to show a similar argument to yours, and better illustrate how silly it is. Holding the car owner liable is a silly idea for others' driving!
Why not hold the engineer at the manufacturer just as liable for making something so fast and deadly ? :P
Cars are not homes. Homes are not operated, or driven, and do not move. If there is an operation in your home, then it is a business, and you should have separate insurance for that.
I've heard the stories of homeowners being sued by the burglers for when they fall from the roof or cut themselves on the window while breaking in and tresspassing. I think these stories are terrible and examples of corrupted lawyers and judges. Just as you don't want to be held liable for the thief that steals your car, I dont' think my Homeowner's insurance should have to pay for uninvited guests like burglers!.
Auto insurance companies say the coverage follows the car, not the driver. I don't agree with that philosophy. I believe they'd say the opposite if it suited them to say so.
However, you can't hold people criminally liable for acts others commit while using their property. If I let you borrow a gun to go to the shooting range and have some fun, and then you choose to go on a murder rampage, should I really be charged with murder? Your advocating the same with car owners and speeders/red light runners!
Rental companies will love you!
I agree with you there! It makes sense for collision and comprehensive to follow the vehicle, but liability is all about the driver. Since one driver can only drive one vehicle at a time, liability should follow that driver and all licensed drivers should have liability insurance (unless your state allows you to assume personal liability in lieu of insurance rather than in addition to it). It doesn't matter what car you drive (within a given GVWR) or whether you own it, rent it, or borrow it, your liability and uninsured/under-insured insurance covers you in an at-fault situation.
Most reasonable people would "frown" on lending your car to a impaired crack-head, staggering drunk or 9 year old girl with a Barbie doll.
The gas station down the road will sell you gas, but I fail to see how they might be responsible for me if I buy a can of gas and burn my neighbor's house down... Unless I tell the sales clerk that is my intention, or I wear a T-shirt that says I'm a convicted arsonist.
And, we would find a convicted US vice president (Agnew), a president the resigned from office to escape conviction for government cover ups (Nixon), and a number of convicted governors (see former Illinois governors, as an example).
Add to that, depending on one's POV, we invaded a country (Iraq) either under another government cover up, or at a minimum, incompetent intelligence and a refusal to fairly evaluate what intel that was available. German intelligence repeatedly told the US government to be skeptical of the US's main source of intel on Iraq's "WMDs" (Google "Curveball").
We can go on about corruption, all the way down to the local level, like the recent conviction of a SC highway patrol for trafficing in and possession of child pornography.
Yes, nothing to fear from government... Right...
a township cop saw a women he liked, so he pulled up, waved, etc. to get her attention, but it did nto work. So he ran her plates (with no legal justification) to get her name/address.
then the dimwit tried to friend her on facebook, indicating he was, in fact, the cop that tried to get her attention.
I believe he is now an ex-township LEO.
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
I think that's asking a lot of an owner! I mean, your gonna give a visible eye check, walk the line type test before handing over the keys? What if they borrow the car for more than one use for along period of time? Are you going to give them a breathalyzer each and every time they start up the car? Your life would be consumed being the "law enforcer" without a paycheck to back it up!
This reminds me of a law San Luis Obispo passed that said the home owner's would be responsible for underage drinkers at parties. It was the old folks targeting the young in class warfare if I ever saw it!
They wanted us college kids to card people as they came to parties, and monitor their behavior and free will!!! I found it ludicrous because we weren't making money off of underage drinkers, it wasn't a business or a bar that the gov't should have that many regulations and mandates over! It is a private residence! Leave the carding to the businesses, leave the private homes alone! People can be held personally responsible for their own actions and decisions! Unless I put a gun to your head forcing you to drink, it's not my fault what the consequences are if you choose to break the law on your own.
He's saying car owner's should have to pay the fines for the driver's errors and sue them to recuperate those costs! I'm just throwing out examples of why that is so ludicrous (and camera enforcement in general so wrong!).