

London's GPS-based speed-limit trial puts Big Brother's foot on the gas pedal - CWuestefeld
http://www.autoweek.com/article/20090708/CARNEWS/907089996
"Drivers in the trial get a switch to choose how the speed limiter operates. Advisory mode gives a dashboard warning when the speed limit changes. Voluntary mode overrides the throttle so it slows the car and prevents the driver from speeding.<p>One potential problem is that GPS signals fade in the shadow of tall buildings in big cities. Lines admits that this does happen, but the system is programmed to assume that the limit is unchanged until the signal reconnects."
======
jacquesm
Man I'd hate to be in a situation where I could get out of a situation by
stepping on it and being held back by some helpful little box. It hasn't
happened often in my driving career that stepping on the gas was a better
option than braking but the few times that it did happen I was _very_ happy to
have that option.

~~~
tptacek
I'm not in favor of these devices, but if I was, I'd counter that argument by
suggesting they be tuned to 5mph over the posted speed limit, and allow a
burst of ungoverned speed up to one minute if the accelerator is fully
depressed.

~~~
jacquesm
tough to be you when you're trying to get to hospital with a wounded person
and the governor kicks in.

There is no substitute for human judgment. If you can't play by the rules you
should lose your license, everybody else should be in full control of their
cars and be held fully responsible in case they abuse their power.

The only way I'd have peace with this is if it came with an 'override' button
and all I'd have to do is give a valid explanation for the use of it (or pay a
hefty fine).

~~~
tptacek
It's illegal for you to drive like an ambulance to the hospital in your own
unmarked car.

~~~
jacquesm
It isn't where I live.

And better your own unmarked car than none at all.

In fact my insurance policy explicitly states they'll reimburse me for damage
to upholstery when transporting accident victims.

~~~
tptacek
That's really interesting, and I'm surprised.

My new position, if I was going to argue for adoption of GPS-based speed
governors, would be that there could be an override switch that required a
service appointment to reset, a small EZ-Pass-style transponder, and a hefty
fine for getting caught disabling your governor.

Now the .001% of drivers that need to make emergency runs to the hospital can
do so with no interference, and minimal after-the-fact overhead to comply with
the enforcement system. I'd probably still keep the 5mph buffer and the
minute-long burst, since you can't hit a switch in a driving emergency.

------
ryanwaggoner
_Voluntary mode overrides the throttle so it slows the car and prevents the
driver from speeding._

Kudos for the Orwellian naming convention :)

~~~
gjm11
I think the point is that _in this trial_ drivers get to choose whether the
device is actually limiting their speed or not; what's voluntary is their
choice to be limited by it.

~~~
ryanwaggoner
Yeah, I get it, but I still think it's ironic. I mean, if this becomes
required someday, it could still be called "voluntary" because you don't
_have_ to drive.

------
Zak
_Like many road-safety campaigners, Lines is very persuasive with his
argument. "There are 200 people killed and 2,500 seriously injured on London's
roads each year, and it costs £1.2 billion [about $1.9 billion]," he said._

This argument is not persuasive at all. Lines offers no evidence that
regulating speed by GPS would produce a net decrease in traffic fatalities,
injuries or economic damage. It is reasonable to assume that if all vehicles
were required to equip such a device, some of each of the following (in
unknown proportions) would occur:

* Some crashes caused in whole or in part by excess speed would not occur.

* Some crashes that could have been avoided by accelerating suddenly and briefly exceeding the speed limit would occur.

* Some people would be exposed to dangerous situations, such as criminal assault that they may have been able to flee in an unrestricted car. It is probably safe to assume that some criminals will figure out how to bypass the devices on their own cars.

* Some people requiring urgent medical care will suffer increased harm or death because they could not reach a hospital as quickly.

And I'm probably forgetting a few things. Without some analysis of the likely
changes in these outcomes, it's impossible to say whether the harms cited by
Lines support the introduction of such devices.

~~~
wildwood
The sad thing is, even if it led to a net increase in death and injury due to
the causes you described, the traffic regulators would likely still see it as
a gain, because it would reduce the number of "traffic deaths". (Even if it
lead to a larger increase in "crime deaths" and/or "medical trauma deaths".)

It's another case of being careful what metrics you use, and what you optimize
for.

------
TrevorJ
I really hope this doesn't go anywhere. I hate this idea. If you have the
option to speed but don't, you are still free. If you don't even have the
option you aren't.

------
philwelch
I wonder what happens when the GPS miscalculates which road I'm on and cuts my
speed limiter to 25 MPH on the freeway.

