Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

EU Proposes To Fit Cars With Speed Limiters

samzenpus posted 1 year,1 day | from the slow-down dept.

Transportation 732

schwit1 points out a new EU road safety measure to fit cars with devices that would stop them going over 70mph. "Under the proposals new cars would be fitted with cameras that could read road speed limit signs and automatically apply the brakes when this is exceeded. Patrick McLoughlin, the Transport Secretary, is said to be opposed to the plans, which could also mean existing cars are sent to garages to be fitted with the speed limiters, preventing them from going over 70mph. The new measures have been announced by the European Commission's Mobility and Transport Department as a measure to reduce the 30,000 people who die on the roads in Europe every year. A Government source told the Mail on Sunday Mr McLoughlin had instructed officials to block the move because they 'violated' motorists' freedom. They said: 'This has Big Brother written all over it and is exactly the sort of thing that gets people's backs up about Brussels.'"

cancel ×

732 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

No need for cameras. (5, Interesting)

nospam007 (722110) | 1 year,1 day | (#44732609)

My Navigator knows the speed limit and gongs if I pass it, why not just link it with the maximum speed of the cruise control in the same fucking computer?

I'd pay for that, since it would save me many tickets.

Re:No need for cameras. (5, Insightful)

0123456 (636235) | 1 year,1 day | (#44732651)

When I was in Holland last year, we had a car with a GPS and speed limit display. Only problem was, if you were on a main highway and passed over a local road, the speed limit would often switch to something like 50km/h as it briefly became confused about which road you were on.

Needless to say, having every car hitting the brakes at that point would probably be a bad idea.

But the speed limit signs really make no more sense, since they can trivially be 'hacked'; I've seen local kids in Britain turn speed limit signs around for grins, so you'd end up with a sixty mph limit in the town and a thirty on the road leading out of town.

All in all, it's a really stupid idea. Which is what you'd expect from the EU.

Re:No need for cameras. (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,1 day | (#44732839)

But the speed limit signs really make no more sense, since they can trivially be 'hacked'; I've seen local kids in Britain turn speed limit signs around for grins, so you'd end up with a sixty mph limit in the town and a thirty on the road leading out of town.

Not all laws are designed based on how easy it is to break them, especially once you leave the internet behind. Assaulting someone on the street is quite easy, but somehow most of us manage to get to work without doing that each day.

Re:No need for cameras. (0)

Greyfox (87712) | 1 year,1 day | (#44732657)

Yuh huh, and with that loss of ticket revenue, every small town along the interstate would go bankrupt.

Under the current system, pretty much all drivers ignore the speed limit and the police mostly just ding the ones who are driving REALLY unsafely. Start absolute enforcement of the speed limit and you'll see a push by the citizens to push the speed limit up to what people are actually doing on those roads. I reckon it'd probably also kill every sports car line overnight, which arguably might not be a bad thing.

Re:No need for cameras. (1)

0111 1110 (518466) | 1 year,1 day | (#44732951)

Under the current system, pretty much all drivers ignore the speed limit and the police mostly just ding the ones who are driving REALLY unsafely.

Since you use the term 'interstate' I assume you are talking about the US, but it appears that you have never actually driven here. Cops here will pretty much ticket anyone who exceeds the speed limit by 7-10 mph. They just cannot ticket everyone who exceeds the speed limit because a large fraction of the public routinely does just that. Where I live at least 80% of the drivers routinely exceed speed limits, although that is probably only because the enforcement is sporadic. Photo radar machines that automatically sent tickets to every single speeder would I think reduce that percentage by quite a bit.

This EU proposal might not be so bad if the speed limits were raised significantly. Perhaps to 120-150 mph at the top end. 70 mph is ridiculous. You may as well just ban cars and go back to horse drawn carriages. This debate is yet another example of the safety vs. freedom argument.

Re:No need for cameras. (2)

hgesser (605301) | 1 year,1 day | (#44732667)

The information is often out-of-date. My navi computer does the same, but when there's a new construction area (or one goes away), the limit is completely wrong.

Re:No need for cameras. (1)

SimonTheSoundMan (1012395) | 1 year,1 day | (#44732669)

Most GPS devices are inaccurate. They don't take elevation change, or even elevation at all in to the equation. D-GPS would be a better option, don't know any domestic GPS units to have them.

Re:No need for cameras. (5, Insightful)

geogob (569250) | 1 year,1 day | (#44732757)

That wouldn't work in lots of place - for example in Germany - where there are speed limits that are variables and are adapted with traffic or weather conditions. That's a principal problem for every area where the speed limit is dependent on weather. In France, a lot of highways have a speed limit of 130 (in modern units) and 110 when it is raining or the road is wet. How would such as system work under such regulations? Regardless of with or without a camera, its not easy.

Then if you don't have a camera, the system would need accurate to the minute information on construction work. Else you'll see someone race at 120 through a 60 construction zone... and it's quite a critical point because once you have automatic speed limiters, people rely on them and stop driving. They just move ahead, without any consideration for the speed they are at. This is dangerous, because they totally lose situational awareness.

Lets say you have a camera. How does it handle multiple speed limits for trucks or cars with trailers? How about lane dependent speed limit? It must also see and interpret the signs associated with the speed limits. That makes quite a lot of data to process and artificial intelligence built in a critical system. Not that its impossible... this is some sort of minimum for self driving cars. But that's going to be expensive. You might just as well make the car self driving if it already has this level of situational awareness.

Speak of it again, I don't think this is a good measure. Either make the car fully automatic or leave it be. Any measure that detaches the driver from situational awareness is the wrong way to go around it in my (non expert) opinion. I would rather consider an alternative, based on the same system, that issues warnings rather than take control of critical systems.

Lets give an illustrative example (I can't find a car analogy right now)... a car passes a truck on a country road. He's almost past the front of the truck, but the driver realizes he miss judged the distance with oncoming traffic. In most cases, the only way out of this, is to accelerate and quickly get for the truck. Breaking to get back behind when you almost past it would take longer... and that's assuming the spot behind it is still there and not closed by another car. Suddenly, your built in speed limiter decides you are going too fast for your safety and cuts the ignition, obviously not aware that you are trying to avoid a face to face collision.

I'd take a lot of time thinking such a system through before implementing it...

Re:No need for cameras. (1, Funny)

Type44Q (1233630) | 1 year,1 day | (#44732823)

In France, a lot of highways have a speed limit of 130 (in modern units) and 110 when it is raining

110 max in the rain strikes me as unfairly conservative; my '91 200Q with Falken FK452's (225/40R18) had no problem doing 130+ in heavy rain with no hydroplaning issues whatsoever... wait, were you talking KPH?!

Re:No need for cameras. (1)

wisnoskij (1206448) | 1 year,1 day | (#44732987)

"Modern units"

Re:No need for cameras. (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,1 day | (#44732763)

So, you got two ways to go about achieving a goal, one of which also has the potential to be a total privacy catastrophy. Guess which ones the politicians pick?

Re:No need for cameras. (1)

wisnoskij (1206448) | 1 year,1 day | (#44732971)

Can you set how wide the margin is?
Because that would be pretty annoying, everyone goes a little over.

ready to hack it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,1 day | (#44732611)

I can't wait to see the first 'hack' that puts something over a speedlimit sign so that instead of 70 kmh it's 10... ... gosh... I do hope it won't 'slam on the breaks' in that case.

Yeah... (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,1 day | (#44732619)

Not gonna happen

Re:Yeah... (1)

lennier1 (264730) | 1 year,1 day | (#44732805)

Hell will freeze over before they get the Germans to implement bullshit like that.

10 bucks for bottle of bird shit (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,1 day | (#44732629)

10 bucks for bottle of bird shit

No chance... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,1 day | (#44732631)

Even if this were a panacaea for stopping roadway deaths, do you think the government (any of them) is looking to give away all of the revenue created from speeding tickets? (Especially in Europe, where speed CAMERAS get you without a police officer even being on scene. We have a few in the Ststes, but nothing like the prevalance abroad.) Maybe they think they'll get back the revenue from ticketing those who have illegally disabled the controls.

Three reasons why this won't work (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,1 day | (#44732641)

1. Cars will fail to read the road signs correctly
2. Someone will hack the road signs, leading to mayhem
3. Only a certain percentage of road fatalities are caused by people exceeding the listed speed limit

Why not fit cars with a voluntary limiter that users can enable themselves?

Re:Three reasons why this won't work (1)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | 1 year,1 day | (#44732777)

Why not fit cars with a voluntary limiter that users can enable themselves?

You're a fucking commedian...

Re:Three reasons why this won't work (1)

Jmc23 (2353706) | 1 year,1 day | (#44732949)

..or a parent.

Re:Three reasons why this won't work (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,1 day | (#44732953)

Why not fit cars with a voluntary limiter that users can enable themselves?

You're a fucking commedian...

Someone should fit him with a voluntary posting limiter so he wouldn't post that crap. The real question is "would he enable it himself?"

Re:Three reasons why this won't work (1)

lordholm (649770) | 1 year,1 day | (#44732795)

Such systems are fitted already in many cars. As the Telegraph does not actually have any primary sources in this case, I would take the whole thing with a grain of salt. My guess would be that the Commission will be recommending that cars will be equipped with these systems, not that they are required to always be on.

Re:Three reasons why this won't work (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | 1 year,1 day | (#44732881)

4. There's no way this won't be easy to disable.

Re:Three reasons why this won't work (1)

FireFury03 (653718) | 1 year,1 day | (#44732919)

1. Cars will fail to read the road signs correctly
2. Someone will hack the road signs, leading to mayhem
3. Only a certain percentage of road fatalities are caused by people exceeding the listed speed limit

Why not fit cars with a voluntary limiter that users can enable themselves?

4. Automating all this stuff probably makes drivers less aware, which in itself may be bad for safety.

Also, the speed limits are frequently completely nonsensical - there are a number of roads I drive down with 30mph limits, which have "traffic calming" that would likely destroy your car if you did more than 10mph. In these situations, speed limits seem to serve no purpose - they used to tell you how fast you could safely drive in good conditions, but these days they are frequently intentionally making it dangerous to go anywhere near the speed limit...

Re:Three reasons why this won't work (0)

Tim Ward (514198) | 1 year,1 day | (#44732955)

Why not fit cars with a voluntary limiter that users can enable themselves?

I've got one. It's called a "cruise control". I set it to the speed limit and ignore the pricks trying to climb in my rear window.

Germany has no general speed limit on the Autobahn (1)

Esben (553245) | 1 year,1 day | (#44732649)

And the general population is against having such a speed limit. So this is not going to happen.

Re:Germany has no general speed limit on the Autob (2, Informative)

Truekaiser (724672) | 1 year,1 day | (#44732687)

Actually a lot of the autobahn now has speed limits. And yes it has cut the amount of deaths there by a lot.
I in fact like this idea.
My life should not be put at risk because some rich jack ass in a merc wants to go 90 while everyone else is going 65-70.

Re:Germany has no general speed limit on the Autob (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,1 day | (#44732761)

Autobahns are the safest roads around the world now.

Somehow, I think that proper maintenance of the roads, good, well placed signs have much higher impact on reducing the casualties than speed limits. But that would cost government money, not citizen money with next to no middlemen, so actually fixing the roads won't happen.

Re:Germany has no general speed limit on the Autob (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,1 day | (#44732869)

Somehow, I think that proper maintenance of the roads, good, well placed signs have much higher impact on reducing the casualties than speed limits. But that would cost government money, not citizen money with next to no middlemen, so actually fixing the roads won't happen.

While proper maintenance and signage are important, the driver is the most common fault in any accident, not just those with injuries, and it's quite often by willful choice.

Re:Germany has no general speed limit on the Autob (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,1 day | (#44732895)

You've obviously never been here. The Autobahns are in atrocious state. If you cross the border from the Netherlands or Belgium to Germany, this will be one of your first visual queues of being in another country. It isn't as bad as some of the other places I've seen, but it's hardly in good state.

Re:Germany has no general speed limit on the Autob (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,1 day | (#44732845)

The rich jackass doesn't kill people by driving fast. People die because they're too stupid to use their mirrors and get in front of the rich jackass who is a lot faster than they are.

Re:Germany has no general speed limit on the Autob (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,1 day | (#44732877)

You are kidding me, right?
90 mph isn't fast where there is no speed limit on the Autobahn. I've been driving that ten years ago in an old Renault Clio and my parents' VW Sharan maxed out at about 112 mph.
If you want to keep up with a Mercedes that's in a hurry, you need to drive at least 130 mph.
Don't even try to use the third lane if you want to drive at 70 mph.

Re:Germany has no general speed limit on the Autob (2)

FloydTheDroid (1296743) | 1 year,1 day | (#44732889)

I find in my commute (Everett Turnpike in New Hampshire) that a person who goes slower than everyone else is more dangerous than someone going faster.

That slower person (like 50 in 65+ mph traffic) forces everyone behind them to merge into faster traffic which seems just slightly more dangerous than those damn race car wannabes swerving from lane to lane. My personal strategy of going the same speed as the person in front of me is broken down by those slow people.

Re:Germany has no general speed limit on the Autob (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,1 day | (#44732983)

My personal strategy of going the same speed as the person in front of me is broken down by those slow people.

And is also broken by the fact you will only go the same speed as the person in front of you if you disagree with their speed.

Re:Germany has no general speed limit on the Autob (1)

ruir (2709173) | 1 year,1 day | (#44732985)

Amen!

Re:Germany has no general speed limit on the Autob (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,1 day | (#44732717)

According to the Guardian: New cars would have to feature systems capable of detecting limits through cameras or satellites and automatically applying the brakes.

So it would seem to be more localized.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/01/uk-fights-eu-speed-limit-devices

Amazing idea (2, Insightful)

dmesg0 (1342071) | 1 year,1 day | (#44732655)

It will cost just a hundred billion euros and will make 2% of the fatal accidents non-fatal, only crippling.

Re:Amazing idea (1)

mooingyak (720677) | 1 year,1 day | (#44732711)

It will cost just a hundred billion euros and will make 2% of the fatal accidents non-fatal, only crippling.

It won't necessarily save lives either. If you have a car that manages to speed somehow (there will still be a million ways) and then suddenly that car passes a spot where the limit drops, it will cause the car to brake without the driver anticipating it. That will cause more accidents than speeding. Plus, a car that breaks hard when there's nothing in front of it will surprise other drivers and cause a number of accidents as well.

Implementing this will increase, not decrease traffic fatalities.

Re:Amazing idea (2)

Zironic (1112127) | 1 year,1 day | (#44732813)

What kind of grade A moron would make a car brake to match a speed limit? It'll just turn the engine off to slowly reduce speed.

Re:Amazing idea (3, Informative)

Hentes (2461350) | 1 year,1 day | (#44732867)

From TFA:

Under the proposals new cars would be fitted with cameras that could read road speed limit signs and automatically apply the brakes when this is exceeded.

Re:Amazing idea (1)

dmesg0 (1342071) | 1 year,1 day | (#44732871)

And it will most probably warn you before doing that, so you can do it yourself. No worries here.

Re:Amazing idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,1 day | (#44732879)

This is in fact exactly what is already used in the speed-limiters that (by-law) have to be fitted to minibuses and some vans. They work perfectly fine.

Re:Amazing idea (2, Interesting)

FireFury03 (653718) | 1 year,1 day | (#44732963)

What kind of grade A moron would make a car brake to match a speed limit? It'll just turn the engine off to slowly reduce speed.

The same grade-A idiots that make you brake by reducing the speed limit too sharply to meet by engine braking alone and then whacks a speed camera in to catch anyone who didn't slam on the brakes.

An example I drive with reasonable frequency - the variable speed limit on the west-bound M4 near Newport, Wales. When they decide to reduce the limit to 50, the first 50 sign you see is too close to slow from 70 before passing it without braking. And every other gantry has a set of speed cameras in it, so you've basically got to hit the brakes on a motorway to avoid getting a NIP. This could be easilly solved by making the first sign a 60, and the next one a 50 to give you plenty of slowing down time.

Re:Amazing idea (0)

rex.clts (2791393) | 1 year,1 day | (#44732861)

it will cause the car to brake without the driver anticipating it. That will cause more accidents than speeding. Plus, a car that breaks hard when there's nothing in front of it will surprise other drivers and cause a number of accidents as well.

Implementing this will increase, not decrease traffic fatalities.

You really have to be the dumbest person in this entire thread.

There already exist limiters in commercial vehicles. These vehicles go down hills. Do you honestly think they apply the fucking brakes when the car exceeds the programmed speed?! I'll give you a little clue: NO, BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE FUCKING STUPID.

Re: Amazing idea (1)

O('_')O_Bush (1162487) | 1 year,1 day | (#44732921)

I think you took the top spot.

From the article based on the suggested law: " signs and automatically apply the brakes when this is exceeded. "

You should apologize.

Re: Amazing idea (1)

Jmc23 (2353706) | 1 year,1 day | (#44732961)

For obviously bad journalism?

Re:Amazing idea (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,1 day | (#44732807)

Completely wrong. It'll cause a ton of accidents on high speed roads like As and motorways. What would happen is this: car A accelerated to overtake a slow moving vehicle (UK law now states you cannot sit in a middle lane if there's a gap in the slow one), A and the 10 cars behind all ramp up their speed at varying rate to overtake, car A moves over once passed, car B is accelerating at a fast rate, C follows. B's brakes lights come on, C shits themselves and slams on the anchor. D, E and F pile up into C. G is a truck that's had a long run up, that cannot stop anywhere near as quick as a car, the cars are banging around in the road so the truck side swipes a couple and runs over a third. 8 deaths, 3 serious injured and a couple of people are scratched.

tl;dr: this will never happen, the legal mess would make the USA legal system look like a My Little Pony session.

Re:Amazing idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,1 day | (#44732843)

This is the same reason I don't wash my hands after defecating right before cooking your meal.

Re:Amazing idea (3, Interesting)

Hentes (2461350) | 1 year,1 day | (#44732891)

With the quality of software in modern cars, I wouldn't want to trust my life on a vehicle that can override my actions.

Re:Amazing idea (1)

pawnb (556687) | 1 year,1 day | (#44732941)

And how many of those 30,000 deaths were actually caused by vehicles travelling over 70mph?

Speed limiters a good idea but 70 is too slow (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,1 day | (#44732659)

I think speed limiters for most people's cars are a good thing. They would prevent a lot of people from screaming by on the interstate and prevent a surprisingly large number of accidents. However, I think 70 is too slow. They need to be limited to about 5 mph above the fastest speed allowed by law. Here in the US, I believe that would be a limit of 80 mph. The reason for that is it is enough headroom to allow for emergency maneuvers on the interstate but not so fast to be dangerously faster than surrounding traffic. In a perfect world, I'd love to have speed limit signs broadcast the speed limit and have the cars follow the SL+5 rule for maximum speed.

Re:Speed limiters a good idea but 70 is too slow (2)

b4dc0d3r (1268512) | 1 year,1 day | (#44732779)

I think speed limiters for most people's cars are a good thing

Think about the one day this fails for some reason, and someone is unable to get out of harm's way, or the brake inexplicably turns engages, and someone is hurt or injured.

Now, instead of it being a jackass driver's fault, it is the government's fault. A law-abiding citizen, perhaps, who did nothing wrong other than live in the EU. That's why this is a terrible idea.

new cars would be fitted with cameras that could read road speed limit signs and automatically apply the brakes when this is exceeded.

So many reasons why a person would be injured instead of saved - I won't bother picking this apart because the details are not my point.

The shift in blame is the problem. Putting breathalyzers on the ignition of someone convicted of drunk driving, and having it false positive, can be a consequence of violating that law. Here there are consequences to just being alive, and that is unacceptable. You should not think this is at all a good thing.

Speed governors on commercial vehicles are a tested technology, and a hard upper limit like that would be much safer than one which changes. If I were you, I would support that instead. But I'm not, so I don't.

Re:Speed limiters a good idea but 70 is too slow (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,1 day | (#44732911)

I'm not sure if you are responding to my post or something else, but I'll respond anyway. I was supporting a speed governor set at 80 mph. The general public does not need to go faster and it does not have all the problems that a system that automatically engages the brakes would. Additionally, there is no secure way to keep a person with tampering with a dynamic system. Because we are not in a perfect world, the only real case I can think of with one is with self-driving cars because they will already have other systems to avoid accidents.

Violates freedom ? Let me fix that for you (0)

Pop69 (700500) | 1 year,1 day | (#44732661)

A Government source told the Mail on Sunday Mr McLoughlin had instructed officials to block the move because they 'violated' our cash cow of speeding fines

Re:Violates freedom ? Let me fix that for you (1)

mysidia (191772) | 1 year,1 day | (#44732709)

We can save speeding fines with a small revision -- instead of limiting the speed; report the speed when it exceeds the limit.

Save it to a hard drive in a black box; that has to be reviewed and gets uploaded to government computers when the vehicle gets its inspection sticker renewed --- before the tags can be renewed: the fines have to get paid, and shared with the local government law enforcement body in the areas the vehicle was speeding.

Re:Violates freedom ? Let me fix that for you (1)

gman003 (1693318) | 1 year,1 day | (#44732801)

I see a sudden spike in sales of neodymium magnets, should your plan ever be implemented.

Re:Violates freedom ? Let me fix that for you (1)

mysidia (191772) | 1 year,1 day | (#44732935)

I suppose this is more of my fear of what will happen than a proposal I would want.

As for the magnets; most hard drives are well-shielded, and a decently strong magnet poses little danger; a government-required black box (unfunded mandate for vehicle manufacturers) would no doubt require much heavier shielding to ensure it survives an accident, and it would probably be required to be a critical component of the vehicle --- in other words: if the box is damaged, the car won't start.

The data upload would likely be seamless (wireless); and an electronic certificate of tag issuance also sent from the government's servers to be uploaded to the car ---- I have to imagine, they would also require that vehicles that don't get their tag renewed, give the drivers a 90 day grace period with very nagging warnings, after which their car's computer will lock out the drive-by-wire systems, and make the vehicle unable to be taken out of park or driven, until they get their car towed to an inspect/upload station.

The average consumer; would lack the knowledge or technical skills required to find the box or tamper with the record without damaging their vehicle; or wrecking its resale value.

They can also use more resilient media than magnetic hard drives: for example, a RAID1 of SSDs; a ROM chip that has patterns that get burned in once; a feRAM, sRAM, or DRAM technology either not requiring continuous power to retain its memory, OR containing battery backups with a high-longevity and high durability.

Wouldn't it be easier... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,1 day | (#44732665)

to just not let anyone go anywhere. Less speeding, less security leaks, less crime, no need for surveillance. The overlords could just pack up a box of sustenance & toiletries & deliver it every week. No more loud motors, no need for night lighting making the sky so much prettier to the eye. Sounds like a big improvement to me...

Hackers would get funding. (1)

GoodNewsJimDotCom (2244874) | 1 year,1 day | (#44732673)

Once this happens, there would be a big incentive to find out the device that finds you MPH, and make it read you're going 50% of your actual speed.

Already exists, sort of. (1)

PhrostyMcByte (589271) | 1 year,1 day | (#44732817)

I have a Unichip [unichip.us] in my car. It plugs in between the car's computer and its sensors, modifying the signals to influence performance. Undetectable and takes 10 minutes to install. It's programmable, too, via USB, and might work for what you're proposing without any new hardware.

Oh for fucks sake (1)

silviuc (676999) | 1 year,1 day | (#44732679)

So how do they plan to mitigate accidents caused by tired and overworked drivers? Do they also plan to install heart monitors in case people have heart-attacks? Those happen. What about drunk drivers? What about steering and breaking faults. How many people die because of those?

The thing is that these bastards can't provide roads that have enough capacity to support the current and future car traffic so they try to impose half-assed measures like these instead of figuring out how to make vehicle travel both faster and safer. I've got an idea. Ban all vehicles and go back to riding horses and horse pulled carriages. Those go nice and slow. Awesome!

Fucking bureaucrats.

Re:Oh for fucks sake (1)

bagorange (1531625) | 1 year,1 day | (#44732809)

So how do they plan to mitigate accidents caused by tired and overworked drivers? Do they also plan to install heart monitors in case people have heart-attacks? Those happen. What about drunk drivers? What about steering and breaking faults. How many people die because of those? Fucking bureaucrats.

Your position is that problems B, C, D, E and F exist, therefore problem A must not be addressed?

Re:Oh for fucks sake (1)

silviuc (676999) | 1 year,1 day | (#44732837)

My position is that they address the problem in a completely wrong manner. It's in the part that you've completely left out when quoting me.

Jobs94.com (-1, Offtopic)

AaronRue453 (3037413) | 1 year,1 day | (#44732689)

my roomate's step-aunt makes $70 an hour on the internet. She has been fired from work for five months but last month her paycheck was $14460 just working on the internet for a few hours. go now Jobs94.m

Just for lulz (1)

Mondor (704672) | 1 year,1 day | (#44732707)

I would love to see someone installing a 30km/h sign on a highway, making all cars apply brakes, slowing from 100km/h, crashing into each other. Blood, death and gore - that would be awesome video in YouTube!

Seriously, though, this is incredibly stupid incentive even for EU.

Argh! What's this obsession with 70mph? (1)

turgid (580780) | 1 year,1 day | (#44732713)

I don't understand this obsession with "70mph."

It's far more dangerous to go a couple of miles per hour over 30mph in a built-up and busy area where 30mph is the speed limit (pedestrians, cyclists, dogs, cats, vehicles stopping, turning using junctions etc.) than going 5 or 10 mph over a 70mph speed limit (on a dual carriageway or motorway).

I'm not trying to justify speeding, I'm just very cross at the number of ill-considered populist laws that are being proposed these days in the name of safety, whether it's safety from terrorists, safety from perverts or safety from anything else.

When all the traffic is traveling at the same speed in the same direction, the risk of collisions is negligible. That's why motorways can be so safe... but nowadays we have different speed limits for different vehicles on the motorway so lorries jockey for position at ~50mph, old grannies do 45 in any lane they please and the PHBs and salesmen do 100+ in their Mercs and BMWs (also in any lane they feel like, changing without warning, without looking and without signalling).

My driving is the best in the world. Everyone else is rubbish.

One day I will rule the world!!!! Be afraid all ye who read this warning.... Muhahhaha!!!!!!

And in Germany? (1)

whoever57 (658626) | 1 year,1 day | (#44732723)

Germany still has stretches of autobahn that are unlimited. I can't see this idea going over well in Germany.

No 2nd Amendment. (0)

kurt555gs (309278) | 1 year,1 day | (#44732733)

No rights at all.

Tyranny is guaranteed.

Re:No 2nd Amendment. (1)

bagorange (1531625) | 1 year,1 day | (#44732819)

Offtopic much?

Oh, so there is another EU . . . ? (5, Interesting)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | 1 year,1 day | (#44732741)

. . . a different one than the one where Germany is a member . . . ? Because that EU isn't going to put any speed limits on the German Autobahns. Actually, nobody else is either.

That is about as likely as the NRA leading a campaign to repeal the Second Amendment to the US Constitution (the right to bear arms).

Germans like their cars, like Americans like their weapons. That's an actual SAT analogy question.

And they like to drive them very fast.

Re:Oh, so there is another EU . . . ? (1)

bkmoore (1910118) | 1 year,1 day | (#44732789)

A German friend of mine asked me, when will the Americans finally get around to controlling weapons and reducing violence. I replied as soon as the Germans get around to imposing a nationwide speed limit on the Autobahn.

So, so hackable.. (1)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | 1 year,1 day | (#44732745)

How long before a prankster prints a sign reading 2 kmh and posts it on a highway?

Or, for fun with fuzzing car firmware, posts a sign reading "-1 kmh" or "1/0 kmh" ?

Re:So, so hackable.. (1)

turgid (580780) | 1 year,1 day | (#44732829)

Just go the whole hog and do -1^0.5.

Re: So, so hackable.. (1)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | 1 year,1 day | (#44732931)

O believe whole-hog would be e**(pi * i)

fuck that (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,1 day | (#44732747)

People die because they are shit drivers, make the damn driving tests count for something so that not every idiot gets on the road.

Actually, you do not have the freedom to exceed... (3, Insightful)

vettemph (540399) | 1 year,1 day | (#44732759)

...the speed limit (or the law) while enjoying the priveledge of being allowed to operate a vehicle. If you cannot do it safely (speed, wreckless or drunk), then you lose the priveledge. Driving is is not a freedom. Speeding is not a freedom. My Corvette will limit the RPM of the engine once I hit 141MPH, I've tried it twice a very long time ago. I was young, drunk, wreckless and speeding. Fortunately, no one was hurt. If we had provided this technology when cars where becoming mainstream no one would know the difference.
  Currently cars use several other technologies to prevent 'stupid' and everyone is ok with it.

1) The engine will shut down if oil pressure to low.
2) You can't put the car in drive unless you press the brake pedal.
3) You can't full brake the tires when trying to stop on snow, ice or gravel.

There are many more features working there way into all cars, all the time.

We can try al we want, but we can't fix stupid.
Cheers,

Re:Actually, you do not have the freedom to exceed (1)

OFnow (1098151) | 1 year,1 day | (#44732847)

They let people drive on snow, ice or gravel?

Brakes? (1)

gman003 (1693318) | 1 year,1 day | (#44732769)

I can actually sort of understand this cutting off the accelerator - figure out what the maximum safe speed on any road is (and give maybe a 10mph buffer for evasive manuevers - I've nearly been in crashes that I only averted by speeding out of the way), and have the accelerator cut off at that point.

But apply the brakes? That give you sudden deceleration - exactly the kind of thing that would cause an accident. If you're having trouble envisioning this, imagine someone tailing you a bit too closely when the speed limit changes from 55 to 45 - instant recipe for being rear-ended. I would think the risk from people exceeding the speed limit simply by coasting downhill is far outweighed by the risk of perpetual pile-ups on any speed limit change.

That's the other thing - using cameras to spot speed limit signs seems absolutely retarded. Does Europe not have the "school zone - speed limit 25 from 8-9am and 3-4pm" signs we have? Those will trip up computers pretty handily. Or construction zones with temporary speed limits. Or hell, assholes painting a fake speed limit sign on their tailgate (I will admit to being an asshole who would probably do this). No, I think the way to do this is either a simple "there is no situation where you need to exceed this one speed on any public road" limit, or have radio transmitters along the roads broadcasting the speed limit in a format that computers can easily work with (and possibly more information - road name, coordinates, etc).

Re:Brakes? (1)

0123456 (636235) | 1 year,1 day | (#44732969)

I can actually sort of understand this cutting off the accelerator - figure out what the maximum safe speed on any road is (and give maybe a 10mph buffer for evasive manuevers - I've nearly been in crashes that I only averted by speeding out of the way), and have the accelerator cut off at that point.

You're assuming that the speed limit bears any resemblance to the maximum safe speed for the road. The only time it does is through pure luck, since a speed limit that's safe with no other traffic in good weather will likely be suicidal when it's covered with ice.

Besides which, just imagine Joe Loser overtakes without checking the road ahead properly, could still easily pass safely if they just hit the gas and ignore the speed limit, but the car won't let them.

The whole worship of 'speed limits' is simply insane.

Driver Fatigue, second biggest cause of death (3, Insightful)

MrKaos (858439) | 1 year,1 day | (#44732773)

Isn't it a safety issue that you actually need to go faster sometimes. I mean if they were sincere about it wouldn't they raise the speed limits so people could get home sooner and off the roads before they die.

Brussels should just FUCK OFF actually.

Re:Driver Fatigue, second biggest cause of death (2)

Grumpinuts (1272216) | 1 year,1 day | (#44732787)

It's the Mail on Sunday ffs....UKIP's house magazine.

They say it is a freedom thing. (1)

Ralph Ostrander (2846785) | 1 year,1 day | (#44732797)

But in America I am sure the real reason not to lime a cars speed to the speed limit is that they would rather have the revenue from the speeding tickets than the lives saved. The proof is we write more speeding tickets now than ever. So tickets have never worked at anything other than getting money.

Re:They say it is a freedom thing. (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,1 day | (#44732913)

You're assuming that other measures wouldn't also be put in place, to make up the revenue elsewhere. Bas assumption.

dangerous (1)

phantomfive (622387) | 1 year,1 day | (#44732799)

"Under the proposals new cars would be fitted with cameras that could read road speed limit signs and automatically apply the brakes when this is exceeded.

That sounds like the most dangerous proposal I've ever heard of. A car that randomly steps on the breaks? What could possibly go wrong?

Politicians and bureaucrats in la la land (1)

John Allsup (987) | 1 year,1 day | (#44732825)

First, you have to ensure that speed signs are authenticated (so can't be forged),
this means not using visual recognition, but fitting every road in the country with a reliable radio based system or something...

Have they seriously thought this through or is it more mindless health and safety [alternative male cow produce]...???

Re:Politicians and bureaucrats in la la land (1)

ruir (2709173) | 1 year,1 day | (#44732989)

Driving with a photo of a 150km sign? ;-P

70 too high (1)

OFnow (1098151) | 1 year,1 day | (#44732833)

Really, if they would just think of the children, they would set the speed limit and speed limiter devices at 15MPH everywhere. On bicycles too!

No problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,1 day | (#44732835)

If you're going to cap the maximum speed, then you should also cap the minimum speed. There is nothing more annoying in the world than all lanes going the same speed because some idiot decided to plant himself in the "fast lane" going slower than the speed limit.

If a highway speed limit is 100km/s, people shouldn't be allowed to go slower than 90km/s. Anyone who wants to go slower should use the service lane.

Actual quote from EU spokesman (5, Informative)

bagorange (1531625) | 1 year,1 day | (#44732855)

Instead of rabidly anti-EU British papers.

relevant quote from EU spokesman:

“There is a currently consultation focusing on speed-limiting technology already fitted to HGVs and buses. “Taking account of the results, the Commission will publish in the autumn a document by its technical experts which will no doubt refer to ISA among many other things.”

Welcome, overlords (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,1 day | (#44732873)

I guess, in the end, it's computers who are our new overlords.

100k miles of commuting has changed my mind (3, Interesting)

Duncan J Murray (1678632) | 1 year,1 day | (#44732883)

on speed cameras. When I started out I didn't see the harm in speeding on our UK motorways (although I was vehemently against speeding in residential areas), and was largely opposed to the average speed cameras seen round the M25 and M42.

However, after so many miles of experiencing idiots driving erratically - speeding up/slowing down - some doing 90+ others doing 50mph, and having to continually be on the look out, overtaking, changing lanes just so I could drive with a consistent speed, I've decided average speed check cameras are the way to go. They stabilise the whole traffic, and generally everyone ends up driving almost exactly 70mph. There is a lot less stress, fuel economy is better than at 70, and there's much less slowing down and speeding up, which is also good for economy and safety.

If average speed cameras work - why use electronic limiters? There are very rare occasions when you need a bit of speed to do something safely, particularly at slower speeds (i.e. overtaking a cyclist or slower moving vehicle), and if there are any errors in the system, it could put people's lives at risk. Better to let the driver weigh up safety versus a speeding fine in those situations.

Reads the signs? (1)

Col. Klink (retired) (11632) | 1 year,1 day | (#44732893)

Man, I so wanna steal a residential speed sign and hang it out my back window on the highway. It applies to police cars as well, right?

All human drivers should be banned (2)

dmesg0 (1342071) | 1 year,1 day | (#44732915)

All the cars should be automatic. Then all the fatal accidents will be caused by bad programmers instead of bad drivers.

I had thought of this before (1)

Stormwatch (703920) | 1 year,1 day | (#44732923)

I had thought of this before, too bad I didn't patent it. Heh.

But seriously, I really hope they go for it full steam. Or at least, if there's a nationwide speed limit, lock the cars to never go beyond that. If speeders got no one but themselves killed, I'd be all for that "motorist's freedom" shit. But since that's not the case, fuck them.

The problem is elsewhere. (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,1 day | (#44732937)

How many people die each year because of health issues (cancer, heart failure, diabetes) that are related to pesticides, fast foods, artificial sweeteners, corn syrup and many more?
Why not fix the drinking water? The food? The air we breathe?

Car accidents are really insignificant.

What is this trash doing on Slashdot? (5, Informative)

AC-x (735297) | 1 year,1 day | (#44732945)

What is this trash doing on Slashdot? Seriously the whole article is utter crap [europa.eu] , there are no plans for any kind of speed limiters to be fitted to vehicles.

Here's the full quote from the EU commission in question:

The Commission has not tabled – and does not have in the pipeline – even a non-binding Recommendation, let alone anything more.

The Commission has supported past research into ISA. There is a current stakeholder consultation and study focusing on speed limiting technology already fitted to HGVs and buses. One aspect of that is whether ISA could in the long-term be an alternative.

This is just standard right-wing anti-EU drivel. I think Reddit user Dwilip put it best:

Standard Tory playbook by unknown junior minister looking for some cheap column inches.
Find EU report
Make up something ridiculous
Claim you are going to block it
Get your mate at the Torygraph to write about
It never happens
Say you personally stopped it
Print it in you leaflets, cite Torygraph article as evidence

uniting Europe (0, Troll)

bkmoore (1910118) | 1 year,1 day | (#44732965)

The good old EU, the highest-paid bureaucrats in the world, working hard at uniting Europe under one flag...because the one thing everyone from the Finns to Greeks, and the Portuguese and the Romanians all agree on is that the EU is run by a bunch of ivory-tower morons who are busy finding new and expensive solutions to problems that nobody really cares about. Meanwhile Rome is burning...at least if you're under 30 and live in southern Europe.

But on to more important problems, next it will be hairnets for fishers, cube-shaped tomatoes, minimum-curvature bananas, or banning the Germans from printing "made in Germany" on things they make... oh wait, they've already tried all that. Maybe now they'll go back to trying to force local communities to give their drinking water infrastructure away to multinationals such as Nestle in the name of "improving competition and service." They've never really given up on that idea. But we know who the EU-comissioners really work for. The EU is a phenomenon, and give it another 20 or 30 years and it will be something our kids read about in the history books.

Speed limits don't work (3, Interesting)

KingTank (631646) | 1 year,1 day | (#44732967)

A slow driver is a bored and inattentive driver. If you take away from the driver even the task of monitoring his speed, drivers are just going to get even more bored and inattentive.

Safety would be worse (1)

ehiris (214677) | 1 year,1 day | (#44732975)

This awful system would turn all any situation where someone would be cut off due to a blind spot into a sure accident.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>