aboutDangerous Drivers
I was watching a report on the TV during lunch today, where they were showing the behaviour of some drivers along a stretch of road within a day.
It was a speed camera operated by a person inside a clearly marked van, and they were noting down the people breaking the speed limit etc. They showed a few videos:
- One man was putting a jumper on while doing around 80mph in his car
- Another in a large estate car put his brakes on so hard after noticing the parked van that he crashed into the barrier and nearly caused an accident with three other cars. No doubt the car was a complete write off, and I bet he was still fined after being caught by the speed camera in the van.
- Another car also brakes from doing 126mph down to around 100mph.
It got me thinking while I was driving back from a few errands how in actuality, car manufacturers and such don’t do much to stamp down on speeding. My Corsa which grumbles at me when I do 70mph, apparently can do up to 140mph. … Since when does a car need to go that fast? By law, you can’t do more than 70mph on the motorway…. so why have cars that can do twice that speed? What is the point?
With all the technological advances within the past decade, why not invent some sort of device that limits the speed someone can do on a certain road? We have GPS, people can figure out which road you’re on if you’ve broken down, so why not use it so tell a car not to go above a certain speed limit? All new cars could be fitted with something, and despite criminals probably removing such devices, it might actually help. With all the new technology these days, the government etc aren’t doing nearly as much as they could be doing in order to stop people speeding so much.
21
7:12 pm
Ben Babcock says:
It’s now possible to install devices that can record the speed at which a vehicle was travelling prior to crash, which could then be used as evidence in court.
The major objection to such a device, or a device like you propose, is one of privacy. Many individuals would see such a device as an infringement on their privacy, since the government would be controlling their vehicles. It invokes a totalitarian, 1984-esque vibe. Even as someone with generally leftist tendencies, I have to stop and consider where we draw the line when it comes to such devices. Are there not some conditions where it may be necessary to speed? Why not create cars that drive themselves then, to avoid drivers causing accidents through bad driving?
Before I digress and commit myself to a slippery slope, I’ll just observe that I am leery of placing technical restrictions on something that is a social matter. There is a fine line between “protecting people from themselves” and restricting people’s freedom to screw up. In some cases, such as with driving, it’s necessary to restrict some freedom in order to protect other drivers and pedestrians. So a device to restrict a car’s speed could very well become a reality in the future. It would be meet with considerable resistance (particularly from Americans :D), however, and that’s probably why it has never been introduced before.
21
7:14 pm
Nicola says:
People would soon change their tune if someone close to them/someone they knew were affected by a speeding driver. They never see the positive of such things until it benefits them personally. But then I guess no one can expect the entire human race to actually feel empathy for other people
22
3:43 pm
Clay says:
Here in the US some of the newer vehicles have what is called a governing system. It will stop the vehicle from exceeding 100 mph.
22
9:40 pm
Aaron says:
“People would soon change their tune if someone close to them/someone they knew were affected by a speeding driver. They never see the positive of such things until it benefits them personally.”
Uh, emotion based laws are the worse types of laws. It allows a ton of B.S. laws to get passed to “protect the children”, “for safety”, “So the Godless Commies will come and kill us all”, etc.
There is this law in my state about a drug, a State congressman (or was it a senator) son killed him self well on this drug.Doctors agreed that the drug was not the thing that caused him to kill him self. Yet a law was passed made by the congressman where any one on that drug needs to get blood tests and a bunch of other tests before they can get a Rx to get a refill. Yet the doctor can only give that month’s dosage, they can not order refills on a first Rx, instead it needs to be renewed every month.
When people act on emotion they take a quick reaction to make their view point, they hardly ever listen to or accept the facts which back up the other sides (or even their own side’s some times) view. To act on emotion is a cheap way to get something that would be illogical passed and also makes the other side look like soul-less bastards.
Yet, in WW2 after Pearl Harbor, the U.S. took Japaneses-Americans, German-Americans, and other people who came from the Axis countries (natural born citizens or not), in to Prision Camps (not to be confused with the Nazi’s constration camps). All of this was done on a emotional reaction to Pearl Harbor.
M.A.D.D. who’s mission was/is to make laws upping the legal drinking age in the U.S. to “prevent” drunk driving, yet although met with temporary success the numbers are rising again in Drunk Driving cases, the best solution would of been to educate the public on drunk driving, and how to practice responsible and safe drinking, educating the public will lead to a better educated public and reduce the need of unnecessary government control and laws. What does the U.S. have now since getting the age of drinking up to 21? Bing drinking among college students, seeming unsafe drinking practices, and a huge amount of drunk teens. If MADD was to instead of focused on safety and education the drinking age may of stayed at 18 and we would have a much higher amount of people drinking safety (such as less drinking in one sit in, designated drivers, etc). As Ben pointed out there are privacy issues. The government has showned us that it does not respect our privacy (even though it’s an essicental freedom in a democracy/republic system), and even when it violates our safety it never does that good at “protecting” us.
23
6:50 am
Nicola says:
Sounds like my drug Aaron.
I have to have blood tests every two weeks, and I have to have a pregnancy test each time I get my month’s prescription.
That actually has nothing to do with emotion, though. There have been quite a number of people who get psychological side effects and do commit suicide while taking them.
Also, I doubt *more* education on the effects of alcohol is going to change anything.
Your response is in response to my wondering about a matter where it has been proved that people are killed in the thousands every year by people who are driving their vehicles too fast. It’s not an emotional matter, it’s just that people realise the danger when it hits close to home. They think it won’t happen to them, but it could.
1
11:00 pm
Chris says:
Well,
I’ve got to say, from my perspective, that even if such a system was placed into cars, there would be obvious ways to remove it.
Also, around here, the state makes money off of speeders. Its a large cash cow (Cop sees speeder, cop writes ticket, state/town makes money). Why would a politician stop such a huge profit area? It’d be retarded.
Also, if my car was limited to 70mph, or rather, here in the states, I believe the highest speed limit it now 80mph, I wouldn’t exactly be happy. Running emergency calls sometimes requires me to raise my speed on the interstate to above eighty, to sometimes over one hundred miles per hour. Granted, I’ve got driver training above the average driver, it would still inhibit my ability to get to a destination quickly in my POV.