From Gizmodo [here (http://gizmodo.com/5248753/london-transport-authority-to-test-tracking-system-that-stops-speeding-from-space)]:
http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/gizmodo/2009/05/satnav_speed.jpg
Transport for London is announcing a large-scale trial of the Intelligent Speed Adaption system, which uses preloaded road data and GPS to slow speeders. Basically, the future is everything you were afraid of.

The Mail has assembled the above infographic to explain how the ISA system works, but it's fairly simple: Cars are outfitted with computers loaded with speed limit data for public roads, and monitored via satellite. In "Advisory" mode, the dash readout indicates if you need to slow down, and smiles at you if you do. In the hilariously named "Voluntary" mode, the computer will actually seize control of your throttle, letting off the gas until you ease back down to the speed limit.

You can't blame people for having a mid-scale privacy freakout over this one, but a few crucial factors keep it from being downright Orwellian: First, it's being deployed in London cabs, government cars and buses, so it's not being expressly imposed on private citizens; second, the system is local—as in, it reads its own GPS data to calculate speed and decides on a course of action without remote input—and has an override switch, which, based on my experiences with London cabbies, I suspect will get plenty of use. (And serve as a brilliant rant subject conversation piece).

But still, satellite speed control? That's worse than speed cameras. And the mere existence of this technology—not to mention the government's involvement in its development—certainly feels like a step in the wrong direction, even if this particular use is relatively benign. [Daily Mail]Big brother is watching you speed and then slowing your car down? Time to get the tinfoil out!

Big brother is watching you speed and then slowing your car down? Time to get the tinfoil out!

And wrap your car in it...

I see a lot of silvery vehicle wraps in the near future, now.

Really, if they are going to impose this, this could be very dangerous. I have actually been in a close-call experience where speeding actually saved our lives because we were able to shift lanes very quickly and avoid impact. Also, let's say you move to 30mph area from a 40mph area--what if the car behind you doesn't slow down as well? You've got an accident, and it's best to leave the driving to human intuition.

I don't know, but Orwell would be rolling in his grave right now.

Orwell spinning in his grave is the future of green energy. He's currently doing about 15000 rpm, which he reached in ~2005 when GWB uttered in a public address "When we're talking about war, what we're really talking about is peace."

There's a flip side to it, though.
40,000 deaths in the United States a year related to car accidents. Most of these happen between 5 and 7 PM aka "rush hour". People are tired and reckless trying to get home and dealing with stressful traffic. Even a minor accident can cause thousands of people to be delayed in traffic backups. Our population isn't shrinking, and traffic is continuing to get worse.

So now there's the ability to maintain an even speed on the entire auto fleet. There are cars that can stop themselves from rear ending other cars. There are others that can sense markers in the lanes to keep the car in its lane unless the turn signal is on. All of these advances combined could change the face of driving as we know it. It could lead to a fully automated fleet: saving billion upon billions of dollars in damages to public and personal property, insurance claims, and medical bills while saving those 40,000 lives a year, cleaning up the traffic problems, enabling the elderly and handicapped to get around on their own, and countless other benefits.

The fact of the matter is that my car was 16 years old when I traded it in. No government could even dream to tackle something like forced speed control without it taking 20 years to implement, and after 20 years the technology I outlined above could be a lot less science fiction and a lot more reality making it impractical and useless. Even if they did start implementing it, I'm sure there'll be a lot more people figuring out how to disable it than we had people unlocking the iPhone.

Without substantial breakthroughs in alternate energy, it would be surprising if suburban sprawl is still prevalent in 20+ years. Rush hour between city and suburb is probably a passing phenomenon. It's just not sustainable.

They should focus this kind of effort on public transit, IMO.

There's a flip side to it, though.
40,000 deaths in the United States a year related to car accidents. Most of these happen between 5 and 7 PM aka "rush hour". People are tired and reckless trying to get home and dealing with stressful traffic. Even a minor accident can cause thousands of people to be delayed in traffic backups. Our population isn't shrinking, and traffic is continuing to get worse.
``Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither." --Benjamin Franklin

Kelraz, the negatives far outweigh any positive outcome. Would you be willing to let the government control your means of transportation any more? Let's say that hypothetically King George V has returned and we need to overthrow the government. It wouldn't take much for the government to direct cars not to start up.

The only safe outcome is if _all cars_ were required to used this, and cars without this technology would not have a renewed registration. Can you imagine if you mixed cars with and without this technology. I would not want to be one driving with the ``voluntary" mode on.

Not to mention, all it would take is one security breach to cause more damage than the system would ever prevent. Preventing cars from starting would be the best case. What if someone were to stall all the cars in a hurricane evacuation, or stall only half the cars on a freeway while the rest plow into them at full speed?

I'm all for security, but this is crazy.

``Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither." --Benjamin Franklin

Kelraz, the negatives far outweigh any positive outcome. Would you be willing to let the government control your means of transportation any more? Let's say that hypothetically King George V has returned and we need to overthrow the government. It wouldn't take much for the government to direct cars not to start up.

The only safe outcome is if _all cars_ were required to used this, and cars without this technology would not have a renewed registration. Can you imagine if you mixed cars with and without this technology. I would not want to be one driving with the ``voluntary" mode on.

Did you miss the part where I wrote the government wouldn't ever be able to control your car or something? Wow.

If anything this will at most be utilized in cars where the owner has had issues with excessive speeding as an alternative to losing their license like the breath-a-lyzer which you can get installed if you have had trouble with DUIs in the past. They'd never be able to mandate and enforce, especially with a 20 year lifetime of some cars. By 2030 speeding will be a moot point.

Did you miss the part where I wrote the government wouldn't ever be able to control your car or something? Wow.Kelraz, with all due respect, I don't believe you said that, or at least directly.

Sure, I agree, for repeat offenders and those who have not had their rights restored (felons), it may be a reasonable compromise. Adoption by the public at large, however, should never implemented. I've seen some portrayals of the future with cars on railings, but nevertheless, I think cars must always have a manual drive mode with the ability to full disable outside communication to the car.

'I don't know, but Orwell would be rolling in his grave right now.'

- ROFL, no kidding mate!

Not to mention, all it would take is one security breach to cause more damage than the system would ever prevent. Preventing cars from starting would be the best case. What if someone were to stall all the cars in a hurricane evacuation, or stall only half the cars on a freeway while the rest plow into them at full speed?

An excellent point.

The more we automate, the more vulnerable we might become to someone with the right skillset and the wrong attitude.

There is such a thing as too much oversight of our lives, and this would cross my personal threshold for it for sure.

'What if someone were to stall all the cars in a hurricane evacuation, '

- We don't have many hurriances in the UK. Or any freeways.

Speaking of hurricanes, it really begs the question how well this system would work under the clouds. Guess you're SOL if it's cloudy outside... 'cause my GPS is always failing to work properly, even among the best circumstances.

'What if someone were to stall all the cars in a hurricane evacuation, '

- We don't have many hurriances in the UK. Or any freeways.

We stopped talking about the UK after about the fourth post.

You guys make a nice ground zero surveillance-state for us to watch though. Once they successfully foist things like this on the UK, they generally start trying to sell it here soon enough.

Speaking of hurricanes, it really begs the question how well this system would work under the clouds. Guess you're SOL if it's cloudy outside... 'cause my GPS is always failing to work properly, even among the best circumstances.

I've done some work for the US Navy and they gave me a tour of the Vice Presidential residence where the US Atomic Clock is located. GPS runs basically by time from the clock being beamed up to the satellites and back down - and your GPS unit measures the difference between the time broadcast and the "actual" time to triangulate your position. The guy giving the tour said that the civilian GPS models measure hundreths of a second making them accurate to within 6 meters. However there is a military band that is a much higher signal strength (capable to work under a nuclear cloud) and measuring thousands of a second making them accurate to within 6 inches - and there is a new atomic clock under development which could make the accuracy smaller than the device themselves.

The way I've always envisioned the practical future of cars is kinda straight out of Minority Report, or like on modern day airplanes. Fully automated for convenience, but manual drive always an option.

one day, on a popular freeway for morning speeding, the highway patrol decided to drive four cards in all lanes at the speed limit. That day had the most traffic in years. They never repeated the experiment.

Did you miss the part where I wrote the government wouldn't ever be able to control your car or something?

And they said the patriot act wasnt ever going to be misused either....since when do you actually TRUST the government.

And they said the patriot act wasnt ever going to be misused either....since when do you actually TRUST the government.

Well maybe in some countries it could be implemented, but installing and enforcing something like this would ...

1) Cost billions of dollars since every car in the US would have to be outfitted with these devices
2) Take 20 years, since the devices would be installed on new cars from the factory and old cars can last a very, very long time (see: the problems government is having dealing with emissions at the very present)
3) Bankrupt countless counties, towns, and police precincts which rely on traffic violations and the fees related to them to fund their law enforcement and various municipal expenses. Any county or city that has cameras would find their very expensive investment suddenly not worth it.

Not to mention it'd have to be voted on in congress and this is probably far more controversial and would have far greater opposition than anything the NRA could put together.

What is more likely is more traffic cameras, since they pay for themselves over time and are pretty damn effective (if you see the camera, you slow down to the speed limit). They'd never do a nationwide forced install. You guys are reacting over this worse than people did about Swine Flu :)

Kelraz, quit with the logic! I was enjoying the frothing at the mouth I was witnessing.

Didn't they have something similar in I, Robot with Will Smith? I seem to recall the cars doing great speeds, and controlled by computers....

I've done some work for the US Navy and they gave me a tour of the Vice Presidential residence where the US Atomic Clock is located. GPS runs basically by time from the clock being beamed up to the satellites and back down - and your GPS unit measures the difference between the time broadcast and the "actual" time to triangulate your position. The guy giving the tour said that the civilian GPS models measure hundreths of a second making them accurate to within 6 meters. However there is a military band that is a much higher signal strength (capable to work under a nuclear cloud) and measuring thousands of a second making them accurate to within 6 inches - and there is a new atomic clock under development which could make the accuracy smaller than the device themselves.

The way I've always envisioned the practical future of cars is kinda straight out of Minority Report, or like on modern day airplanes. Fully automated for convenience, but manual drive always an option.



Being someone that worked directly with satellite and other comms in the military, I can tell you that they do not always work as advertised. They are good much of the time, but weather can have a SEVERE affect on your signal strength. Not to mention the equipment itself needs tons of monitoring.

As far as this goes, I do not believe it is much of a concern, at least for 20+ years. America is not interested in giving up control of their vehicles.

It would be nice if America adopted SI units (a logical Base 10 system instead of fake UK imperial, where a US gallon is 3.8 litres and an Imperial UK gallon is 4.5 litres). Would also give us all a good excuse to speed were speed limits posted in kilometers: "Officer, I thought the posted signs were in miles per hour! Honest!"

Working as a defence contractor, I much prefer doing things the logical way.

You cannot throw off the chains of British imperialism!! BWHAHAHA!

Speed limits should be expressed like this:

SPEED
LIMIT

MACH
0.1

It sounds a lot more impressive than 75 mph!

I agree. And signs should be: 'You are 0.0000000000000001 Light-Years from Brighton'.