They're using the wrong technology to address the problem.
Intelligent, variable speed limits is the answer, not stricter enforcement of occasionally-appropriate artificial limits that don't reflect current conditions.
everyone who is playing the slippery slope card should remember how massively most of the DARPA autonomous cars failed at the tests they were given. i dont think we have to worry about self controlled vehicles for a while.
If you equate it to the "Pit Lane" push button in race cars, it makes sense.
I refuse to drive within the M25 whenever I'm over there. Most of the roads in Britain are fantastic, but I can't handle that kind of congestion. Mandatory limiters and congestion charges would just make me even stabbier.
I actually kind of like this. At least if I'm going to get frustrated driving behind someone doing the speed limit, I'll be thinking "fucking government," instead of "fucking asshole who has no interest in driving." So, thank you Big Brother, for making me less angry at the idiots I share the road with.
I approve, as long as they also monitor these Prii to make sure they stay out of the left lane. Move over motherf*****, I know you see me two inches from your bumper!
@SirNotAppearing: On the other hand, it could be fun to drive slowly in front of these only to accelerate beyond their governed speed whenever they try to pass.
Only the British could come up with such a fiendishly oppressive idea and have it fail by installing on cars bought by drivers incapable of reaching the speed limit in the first place.
This isn't nanny-state-ism, it's just making sure the laws are FOLLOWED! You don't want people speeding around, do you? That's why there are so many speed cameras! To make sure people obey the law!
@CPO Alfisted: The UK isn't a nanny state at all! They just make sure you obey the laws by implementing programs that either force you to, or scare you into doing so!
That's not being a nanny state, that's being safe.
@Alphamazing: No, its called "being oppressive". They are removing your right to make your own decisions, little by little.
This isn't going to make drivers safe; they have spent the last 12 years telling us that "speeding kills". This in turn has led people to conclude "not speeding is safe", which is not the case.
You don't have to speed to run someone down. Perfectly possible at 29mph.
But now that speed is taken from your control, people will abrogate their responsibility on the road, and still be a danger.
Which is why, in 1995 we prosecuted 40,000 people for speeding and had 3,300 deaths on the road and why in 2007 we prosecuted 2m for speeding and were only down to 3,200 deaths on the road.
@leavethegun-takethecannoli: I was just about to switch on my nuclear powered haranguing hat, but you have successfully talked me back down to DefCon 3 for now.
@tinman0: If you'll please read my first post, you'll note that I was arguing a point that someone argued to me, thus my second comment was in a similar vain, sarcastic in tone.
07/08/09
07/08/09
07/08/09
07/08/09
Intelligent, variable speed limits is the answer, not stricter enforcement of occasionally-appropriate artificial limits that don't reflect current conditions.
07/08/09
Basically, this will have zero effect except to prove that Britain is hell bent on controlling every aspect of it's citezen's lives.
07/08/09
07/08/09
07/08/09
[jalopnik.com]
07/08/09
I refuse to drive within the M25 whenever I'm over there. Most of the roads in Britain are fantastic, but I can't handle that kind of congestion. Mandatory limiters and congestion charges would just make me even stabbier.
07/08/09
07/08/09
What a stupid idea.
Big Brother is only going to get bigger.
07/08/09
07/08/09
07/08/09
07/08/09
07/08/09
Move over motherf*****, I know you see me two inches from your bumper!
07/08/09
07/08/09
07/08/09
07/08/09
07/08/09
07/08/09
07/08/09
07/08/09
07/08/09
07/08/09
07/08/09
07/08/09
This isn't nanny-state-ism, it's just making sure the laws are FOLLOWED! You don't want people speeding around, do you? That's why there are so many speed cameras! To make sure people obey the law!
07/08/09
07/08/09
That's not being a nanny state, that's being safe.
07/08/09
07/08/09
This isn't going to make drivers safe; they have spent the last 12 years telling us that "speeding kills". This in turn has led people to conclude "not speeding is safe", which is not the case.
You don't have to speed to run someone down. Perfectly possible at 29mph.
But now that speed is taken from your control, people will abrogate their responsibility on the road, and still be a danger.
Which is why, in 1995 we prosecuted 40,000 people for speeding and had 3,300 deaths on the road and why in 2007 we prosecuted 2m for speeding and were only down to 3,200 deaths on the road.
Speed doesn't kill - morons do.
07/08/09
07/08/09
I still am glad the US isn't a crazy nanny state like the UK.
07/08/09
07/08/09
07/08/09
Nobody wants to be safe. Safe is boring. This is similar to shutting down amusement parks because there is a risk of dying on the rides.
07/08/09
Sorry for the confusion.
Have a graph:
[i18.photobucket.com]
07/08/09
07/08/09
Oh, that was priceless. If only I could heart-click you again.
07/08/09
07/08/09
That's why "Twenty's Plenty", as the signs up in Scotland remind me.
07/08/09
Fixed.
07/09/09
@tinman0: And you get a heart for making sense.
07/09/09
07/08/09
07/08/09