Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: George Whorewell on September 02, 2013, 08:10:11 AM
-
Usually, these big government disasters begin in the EU.
Coming soon to the USA...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/road-safety/10278702/EU-plans-to-fit-all-cars-with-speed-limiters.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/road-safety/10278702/EU-plans-to-fit-all-cars-with-speed-limiters.html)
EU plans to fit all cars with speed limiters
All cars could be fitted with devices that stop them going over 70mph, under new EU road safety measures which aim to cut deaths from road accidents by a third.
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.
“The Commission wanted his views ahead of plans to publish the proposals this autumn. He made it very clear what those views were.”
The source claimed one of the reasons he was against the Intelligent Speed Adaptation (ISA) scheme is that the UK has a better road safety record than other European countries – with 1,754 people dying in road accidents last year compared to 3,657 in Germany.
The scheme would work either using satellites, which would communicate limits to cars automatically, or using cameras to read road signs. Drivers can be given a warning of the speed limit, or their speed could be controlled automatically under the new measures.
A spokesman for the European Commission said: “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.
-
cue the libtards to say its a good idea...
-
"Speed limiter delete kits" now on sale at summitracing.com
-
cue the libtards to say its a good idea...
It's like a bad fucking horror flick the crap they keep coming out with month after month. The nutbag shit I see come out of England and the EU and shortly make its way here. I'm sick of saying it all the time. Just fucking send me back to 1840 or some shit. This fucking shithole of a time has no future of interest and I'm just fucking sick of it all.
-
"Speed limiter delete kits" now on sale at summitracing.com
lol
It's like a bad fucking horror flick the crap they keep coming out with month after month. The nutbag shit I see come out of England and the EU and shortly make its way here. I'm sick of saying it all the time. Just fucking send me back to 1840 or some shit. This fucking shithole of a time has no future of interest and I'm just fucking sick of it all.
they will be arguing for breathalyzers in all cars before you know it
-
We will soon have cars without drivers and similar things. This is fact.
Without question, unless the idea is vigorously opposed, we will see a day when a person will have the power of driving be legally taken away from him.
-
Chevrolet trucks have speed limiters set at 90mph already.
-
Chevrolet trucks have speed limiters set at 90mph already.
easily disabled and not illegal to do so if Im not mistaken...not the same
-
We will soon have cars without drivers and similar things. This is fact.
Without question, unless the idea is vigorously opposed, we will see a day when a person will have the power of driving be legally taken away from him.
doubt it, there will be cars that drive themselves but will also have the ability for the driver to manually take over.
not that this has any bearing on the situation at hand so....
-
Simply blaming speed and the often ridiculously low speed limits is idiotic. But attempts at limiting speed have been around for decades and it seems they are getting closer now.
High performance German cars used to be limited at 155mph, many still are today but not to the degree it used to be and in fact the autobahn "no speed limit" sections have been reduced substantially.
In Japan there used (thankfully) to be a "gentleman's agreement" between manufacturers not to go over 280 hp on street cars and Japanese domestic market cars were restricted to 112 mph.
There were some attempts to introduce a similar system at least a decade ago with a gps based system that would detect speed limits on areas and automatically limit the car's speed. The system would have several modes, one of which being a fully automatic where the car would not exceed the limit for any reason and stepping on the throttle had no effect whatsoever, quite dangerous.
Also under these proposals old cars would have to be fitted with the system and of course the motorists would have to pay the bill.
Then there is the big issue of speed tickets (even with these systems the police will find a way to issue tickets for "exceeding the speed limit").
All in all, a ridiculous and terrifying proposal straight out of "1984".
-
doubt it
Famous last words, right there.
So there would be no future pressure arising from the potentiality, Tony? Will the same powers that are currently stripping rights, suddenly become "chill", or what? How do you envision that happening?
there will be are cars that drive themselves but will also currently have the ability for the driver to manually take over.
Fixed
not that this has any bearing on the situation at hand so....
Exactly what doesn't have bearing, Tony?
-
Famous last words, right there.
So there would be no future pressure arising from the potentiality, Tony? Will the same powers that are currently stripping rights, suddenly become "chill", or what? How do you envision that happening?
Fixed
Exactly what doesn't have bearing, Tony?
these will be pushed as a safety feature/convienence and will need manual override in cases where malfunctions happen or when its better to have a human driving
-
these will be pushed as a safety feature/convienence and will need manual override in cases where malfunctions happen or when its better to have a human driving
I will tell you without question, that the technology will rapidly advance to a point that effectively edges out any potentially injurious error, and supposed reasoning will arise to remove the human from the equation.
-
For anyone that doesn't think this will happen: What do you believe will stop it?
-
For anyone that doesn't think this will happen: What do you believe will stop it?
no matter how advanced computers get they will always be designed with a manual override
computers are designed to make our lives easier by doing what we intend them to do, from an engineering stand point its stupid to not put in a manual override
-
no matter how advanced computers get they will always be designed with a manual override
computers are designed to make our lives easier by doing what we intend them to do, from an engineering stand point its stupid to not put in a manual override
When these cars begin to become commonplace, Tony, what would you say will pose the greatest safety risk to the people inside them?
Myself, I say it will be cars that have humans controlling them. Would you disagree?
-
When these cars begin to become commonplace, Tony, what would you say will pose the greatest safety risk to the people inside them?
Myself, I say it will be cars that have humans controlling them. Would you disagree?
you seem to once again hear what you want and argue whatever arguement you want
Im not saying that these types of vehicles wont exist or that they wont be safer in most situations than human drivers only that there will always be a manual override.
-
you seem to once again hear what you want and argue whatever arguement you want
Im not saying that these types of vehicles wont exist or that they wont be safer in most situations than human drivers only that there will always be a manual override.
Please give me a scenario, Tony.
-
Please give me a scenario, Tony.
of a manual override?
come on dude this is going to the way of the "wealth is limited" thread where you go in circles chasing your tail...
-
of a manual override?
come on dude this is going to the way of the "wealth is limited" thread where you go in circles chasing your tail...
Get over it, Tony.
Just be more careful with some of the shit you say, if you don't want that type of thing to happen.
-
Get over it, Tony.
Just be more careful with some of the shit you say, if you don't want that type of thing to happen.
be careful what I type if i dont want you chasing your tail?
LMFAO
-
be careful what I type if i dont want you chasing your tail?
LMFAO
::)
;D
-
::)
;D
lol sorry bro your 0-3...zimmerman, wealth and now this.
-
Hahahaha..:)..how did I get a 0 on Zimmerman, Tony?
BTW, in case you were legit about not getting the last question: I am looking for a scenario that would involve a manual override, to cause a continued need for the issuing of common licenses. Specifically, I want to know why it would be required to continue issuing standard drivers' licenses in such a computerized, power-backed environment where driving is not only no longer a necessity, but is deemed a potential hazard.
Will get your reply tomorrow, bro.
-
Hahahaha..:)..how did I get a 0 on Zimmerman, Tony?
BTW, in case you were legit about not getting the last question: I am looking for a scenario that would involve a manual override, to cause a continued need for the issuing of common licenses. Specifically, I want to know why it would be required to continue issuing standard drivers' licenses in such a computerized, power-backed environment where driving is not only no longer a necessity, but is deemed a potential hazard.
Will get your reply tomorrow, bro.
you get a 0 for zimmerman b.c you couldnt seem to understand that he didnt break any laws by getting out of his truck...by continuously looking at one section of the law instead of its all of it.
before I answer your question, please state whether you think these future cars will be designed with a manual override feature.
-
cue the libtards to say its a good idea...
no matter how advanced computers get they will always be designed with a manual override
computers are designed to make our lives easier by doing what we intend them to do, from an engineering stand point its stupid to not put in a manual override
::) And then when you read the actual article:
The scheme would work either using satellites, which would communicate limits to cars automatically, or using cameras to read road signs. Drivers can be given a warning of the speed limit, or their speed could be controlled automatically under the new measures.
In other words, these devices have the option for manual override.
Good Lord... I have never seen a poster so committed to being ... well, you know. Of course, the other the other thread in which you've made the last post I see you mention your "college" days. Priceless.
-
I like the fact that most idiot 16 year olds with no driving experience cannot drive their vehicle 200 mph due to technical limitations.
I like the fact that most idiot 16 year olds with no driving experience cannot drive their vehicle 150 mph due to technical limitations.
Would I like a situation where most 16 year olds have a vehicle with a limiter that doesn't let their car go above 70 mph? Maybe.
I can see some situations where grown folk may even need to push it to 80 or 85 mph. But honestly, can anyone list the situations where going OVER 100 mph is necessary?
I do know that every time I see some idiot driving down I-75 at 2 am, going 120 mph, knowing full well the cops will never catch him because he can just get off at the next exit by the time they get moving... it pisses me off... public menace right there. Perhaps IF you are caught speeding over 90 mph, you are required to keep the metal 'governor' on your pedal to prevent you from breaking 70 again.
-
I can see it now, the liberals saying 'why does anyone need a high-powered car???' 'Why do you need a car that can go faster than the speed limit???' 'Why do you need a car that accelerates quickly??' ' if you have a sports car you must be up to no good' followed by feinstein presenting a bill to ban any car with 'sporty features' including that '92honda civil hatchback with an aftermarket spoiler on it labeling it a 'high powered weapon'...
THIS IS WHERE ALL THIS SHIT LEADS
-
::) And then when you read the actual article:
In other words, these devices have the option for manual override.
Good Lord... I have never seen a poster so committed to being ... well, you know. Of course, the other the other thread in which you've made the last post I see you mention your "college" days. Priceless.
LMFAO yea my stalker
What does the tangent discussion about manual overrides have to do with whether or not this is a good idea and a liberal wet dream?
You can't be for one but point out that they will put in manual overrides?
Your hatred of me has blurred your already questionable vision there albert
-
I like the fact that most idiot 16 year olds with no driving experience cannot drive their vehicle 200 mph due to technical limitations.
I like the fact that most idiot 16 year olds with no driving experience cannot drive their vehicle 150 mph due to technical limitations.
Would I like a situation where most 16 year olds have a vehicle with a limiter that doesn't let their car go above 70 mph? Maybe.
I can see some situations where grown folk may even need to push it to 80 or 85 mph. But honestly, can anyone list the situations where going OVER 100 mph is necessary?
I do know that every time I see some idiot driving down I-75 at 2 am, going 120 mph, knowing full well the cops will never catch him because he can just get off at the next exit by the time they get moving... it pisses me off... public menace right there. Perhaps IF you are caught speeding over 90 mph, you are required to keep the metal 'governor' on your pedal to prevent you from breaking 70 again.
I completely agree in fact why not create an alert when you go over the speed limit and have it automatically issue you a ticket?
-
i didn't say that. But the same way a person is issued a reckless driving citation or instantly loses license for driving 115 mph in a school zone..
well, i have no problem with putting a little note on their license. Fuck them. Drive that fast and put the rest of us in danger. I'm not talking about neutering the average american, just the idiot that thinks he's vin diesel in front of an elementary school. yes, fck that guy. yes, fuckk his right to drive 120 mph.
people who are irresponsible with cars - DUI, reckless speeding, drag racing - the wrost kind of idiots. Cause they're not just doing bonehead shit to endanger themselves - they're risking the health of others.
So yes, cry me a river for the poor 16 year old who isn't allowed to drive 115 mph for the 5th fcking time. boo fcking hoo.
Can't you see where all ths shit is leading though? It is terrifying. They want to control everything..
-
you get a 0 for zimmerman b.c you couldnt seem to understand that he didnt break any laws by getting out of his truck...by continuously looking at one section of the law instead of its all of it.
before I answer your question, please state whether you think these future cars will be designed with a manual override feature.
The only logical path I see regarding a manual override, ends. In fact, I cannot see a future scenario that involves common licensing, or human-controlled vehicles on public ways, period. I'd love for someone to convince me otherwise.
(BTW, seems to me it could only become illegal in this case if it was attached to an unlawful death, but the prosecutor did not attempt to show that an unlawful death took place. So the decision became a very predictable one, and I did indeed predict it before the jury spoke.)
-
I like the fact that most idiot 16 year olds with no driving experience cannot drive their vehicle 200 mph due to technical limitations.
I like the fact that most idiot 16 year olds with no driving experience cannot drive their vehicle 150 mph due to technical limitations.
Would I like a situation where most 16 year olds have a vehicle with a limiter that doesn't let their car go above 70 mph? Maybe.
I can see some situations where grown folk may even need to push it to 80 or 85 mph. But honestly, can anyone list the situations where going OVER 100 mph is necessary?
I do know that every time I see some idiot driving down I-75 at 2 am, going 120 mph, knowing full well the cops will never catch him because he can just get off at the next exit by the time they get moving... it pisses me off... public menace right there. Perhaps IF you are caught speeding over 90 mph, you are required to keep the metal 'governor' on your pedal to prevent you from breaking 70 again.
Very few things are necessary. This forum certainly isn't. Neither is television...especially fictional TV shows like Breaking Bad. A glass of red wine while watching Breaking Bad is even less necessary.
You don't still claim to be a Libertarian, do you? There couldn't be a less libertarian point-of-view than what you have here
-
Very few things are necessary. This forum certainly isn't. Neither is television...especially fictional TV shows like Breaking Bad. A glass of red wine while watching Breaking Bad is even less necessary.
You don't still claim to be a Libertarian, do you? There couldn't be a less libertarian point-of-view than what you have here
if a glass of wine during breaking bad could kill OTHERS, then yes, it's a problem.
if a kid drives 115 in a school zone, yes, I'm fine with requiring his stupid ass to drive a damn moped for a year, if he drives at all.
reckless behavior is fine - UNTIL IT IMPEDES ON THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS - which a car going 115 mph certainly does.
-
http://jalopnik.com/the-eu-isnt-really-planning-to-limit-all-cars-to-70-mp-1246413214
The backlash against the alleged EU plan forced the EU to issue a statement on their blog:
Reports in the press over the last day or two have suggested that the EU intends to bring forward “formal proposals this autumn” to introduce automatic speed controls -known as “Intelligent Speed Adaptation” or ISA, into cars. This is quite simply not true and the Commission had made this very clear to the journalists concerned prior to publication.
The blog post makes it clear that while research into such technology was, in fact, occurring (and will continue), no actual laws or proposal of laws have been suggested. The blog entry goes on to quote from a Commission spokeperson a line that was ignored by most of the news outlets reporting on the story:
“The Commission has not tabled – and does not have in the pipeline – even a non-binding Recommendation, let alone anything more.”
-
its not as though ye actually drive fast in the USA
-
if a glass of wine during breaking bad could kill OTHERS, then yes, it's a problem.
if a kid drives 115 in a school zone, yes, I'm fine with requiring his stupid ass to drive a damn moped for a year, if he drives at all.
reckless behavior is fine - UNTIL IT IMPEDES ON THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS - which a car going 115 mph certainly does.
Not where I live. You might rip up a corn field, but that's no reason to prevent my car from being able to drive that fast.
How often are kids driving 115 mph in a school zone? And how is making them drive only 70 mph in a school zone going to save lives?
You take a ridiculous restriction like preventing cars from being able to drive faster than some arbitrary speed and link it with 16 year olds going Luke Duke during bus drop off when a 16 year old driving "only" 70 mph is just as deadly in that scenario.
Of course, when your kid swallows a marble and you're trying to race to the hospital, a 70 mph limit isn't going to be saving any lives either...but kids swallowing small objects isn't nearly as common as teenagers jumping school curbs at triple digits MPHs.
-
If a person excessively breaks the speeding law, I have no problem revoking their license or requiring them to attach a piece of metal to pedal that limits their vehicle to the maximum speed limit on the intersate in that state. That'd be 70 or 75 mph in most states.
Yes, if a person has an emergency, they'd better take a different car - because if they're so much of a dumb shit to drive 115 mph in a school zone, they're more likely to cause a wreck than to create one.
I respect the scenario you present, but it's very rare - way more often we see ass-hat 16 year olds going 90 in a school zone, than we see some vin diesel hero driving granny to the ER with a nitro pill lodged in her throat.
Or maybe you just lock fckers up when they speed like that... if you're going more than 50 mph over the limit, and it's not a medical emergency, your ass is locked up ffor one year. i'd be cool with that instead.
-
I completely agree in fact why not create an alert when you go over the speed limit and have it automatically issue you a ticket?
id like you to give me one good reason not to do this 240.
-
Usually, these big government disasters begin in the EU.
Coming soon to the USA...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/road-safety/10278702/EU-plans-to-fit-all-cars-with-speed-limiters.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/road-safety/10278702/EU-plans-to-fit-all-cars-with-speed-limiters.html)
EU plans to fit all cars with speed limiters
All cars could be fitted with devices that stop them going over 70mph, under new EU road safety measures which aim to cut deaths from road accidents by a third.
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.
“The Commission wanted his views ahead of plans to publish the proposals this autumn. He made it very clear what those views were.”
The source claimed one of the reasons he was against the Intelligent Speed Adaptation (ISA) scheme is that the UK has a better road safety record than other European countries – with 1,754 people dying in road accidents last year compared to 3,657 in Germany.
The scheme would work either using satellites, which would communicate limits to cars automatically, or using cameras to read road signs. Drivers can be given a warning of the speed limit, or their speed could be controlled automatically under the new measures.
A spokesman for the European Commission said: “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.
Crazy.
-
If a person excessively breaks the speeding law, I have no problem revoking their license or requiring them to attach a piece of metal to pedal that limits their vehicle to the maximum speed limit on the intersate in that state. That'd be 70 or 75 mph in most states.
Yes, if a person has an emergency, they'd better take a different car - because if they're so much of a dumb shit to drive 115 mph in a school zone, they're more likely to cause a wreck than to create one.
I respect the scenario you present, but it's very rare - way more often we see ass-hat 16 year olds going 90 in a school zone, than we see some vin diesel hero driving granny to the ER with a nitro pill lodged in her throat.
Or maybe you just lock fckers up when they speed like that... if you're going more than 50 mph over the limit, and it's not a medical emergency, your ass is locked up ffor one year. i'd be cool with that instead.
Punishment for crime is fine with just about everyone. There is a big difference between punishing someone for reckless driving and preventing ALL VEHICLES from being capable of driving faster than a certain speed because someone might drive recklessly.
The whole "I don't usually do X, therefore no one should be allowed to ever do X" concept is just beyond frustrating to me. It's simple mindedness at its worse.
There's no direct & absolute causal relation between an engine's speed capabilities and risk of death. The whole "stay alive at 55" farce is a great example of this. Dropping speed limits to 55 mph did nothing to reduce accidents or traffic deaths. In fact, when the 55 mph limit was dropped, many states jumped top speed limits to 65 mph and saw no increase in driver danger...so much so that states even decided to increase speed limits to 70 mph.
The risk factor is idiots. You can't abolish stupid. Stupid sticks around no matter how many nanny laws you pass. That's something the simple minded thought process of "an idiot might be irresponsible with this option, therefore it shouldn't be allowed for ANYONE!" misses time and time again.
Fuck, kids these days would walk into a pit of lava if there wasnt a sign that said "do not walk into pit of lava" to "warn" them that lava is hot. You can't prevent people from being dipshits...all you do is create more perfect morons while preventing non-idiots from having any control over their own lives
-
id like you to give me one good reason not to do this 240.
I'm alone on a straight-away three miles long that I've driven hundreds of times in my life. There's three farm owners within 10 miles and two of them are in the car with me (the third is in the car behind me). It's daylight outside, no rain, no shadows, and I feel like taking my compound turbo duramax for a quarter mile run with my new 400 over sticks...and might hit 120mph at the end.
I'd like to think that I still hold some rational thought abilities that allow me to judge whether or not a situation is overly life-threatening to me and those around me.
I realize that many of you have decided that you are incapable of deciding that on your own, but I'm not ready to call myself a helpless moron.
I can hold a firearm without it randomly going off without warning.
I can drink a sugary drink without falling into a tailspin of never-ending gluttony.
I will expect my 17 year old kid to be able to handle the responsibility of buying windshield washer fluid (you have to be 18 years old now...)
I can handle the power of internal combustion and realize that driving faster than the posted speed limit may lead to being ticketed...I can also handle the responsibility of owning a vehicle that can drive faster than 70 mph without driving through school yards at 140 mph.
-
I'm alone on a straight-away three miles long that I've driven hundreds of times in my life. There's three farm owners within 10 miles and two of them are in the car with me (the third is in the car behind me). It's daylight outside, no rain, no shadows, and I feel like taking my compound turbo duramax for a quarter mile run with my new 400 over sticks...and might hit 120mph at the end.
I'd like to think that I still hold some rational thought abilities that allow me to judge whether or not a situation is overly life-threatening to me and those around me.
I realize that many of you have decided that you are incapable of deciding that on your own, but I'm not ready to call myself a helpless moron.
I can hold a firearm without it randomly going off without warning.
I can drink a sugary drink without falling into a tailspin of never-ending gluttony.
I will expect my 17 year old kid to be able to handle the responsibility of buying windshield washer fluid (you have to be 18 years old now...)
I can handle the power of internal combustion and realize that driving faster than the posted speed limit may lead to being ticketed...I can also handle the responsibility of owning a vehicle that can drive faster than 70 mph without driving through school yards at 140 mph.
I agree with you doison, I am asking 240 as he wants a "good" reason to not put in speed inhibitors in cars why this would be a bad idea since he was against it.
-
Punishment for crime is fine with just about everyone. There is a big difference between punishing someone for reckless driving and preventing ALL VEHICLES from being capable of driving faster than a certain speed because someone might drive recklessly.
The whole "I don't usually do X, therefore no one should be allowed to ever do X" concept is just beyond frustrating to me. It's simple mindedness at its worse.
There's no direct & absolute causal relation between an engine's speed capabilities and risk of death. The whole "stay alive at 55" farce is a great example of this. Dropping speed limits to 55 mph did nothing to reduce accidents or traffic deaths. In fact, when the 55 mph limit was dropped, many states jumped top speed limits to 65 mph and saw no increase in driver danger...so much so that states even decided to increase speed limits to 70 mph.
The risk factor is idiots. You can't abolish stupid. Stupid sticks around no matter how many nanny laws you pass. That's something the simple minded thought process of "an idiot might be irresponsible with this option, therefore it shouldn't be allowed for ANYONE!" misses time and time again.
Fuck, kids these days would walk into a pit of lava if there wasnt a sign that said "do not walk into pit of lava" to "warn" them that lava is hot. You can't prevent people from being dipshits...all you do is create more perfect morons while preventing non-idiots from having any control over their own lives
Good post. 240 is starting to sound like an actual advocate cor the nanng state concept.
And I'm sure it has technically happened before, but I've gone my entire life and never seen anyone drive 115 in a school zone. In fact I'm not sure its even possible to do that in virtually all common vehicles without crashing your vehicle. I've never even seen sanyone go even 60 in a school zone.
What I do see on a daily basis however, are thousands of people being forced to go 20mph for a ridiculous distance past high schools set 500 yards from the street, all in the name of 'safety' for the 15-18yr olds who go there ::)
-
Punishment for crime is fine with just about everyone. There is a big difference between punishing someone for reckless driving and preventing ALL VEHICLES from being capable of driving faster than a certain speed because someone might drive recklessly.
I never said all cars. Re-read it. I said those who break the law with extreme recklessness.
-
I never said all cars. Re-read it. I said those who break the law with extreme recklessness.
I'm sure you included some kind of escape clause for your absurdity. That only makes it worse though. At least stand behind what you say. Diffidence is cowardice when it comes to politics
-
I would prefer to see muzzles placed over individuals who lack the willpower to stop eating. Now that's real liberty.
-
I would prefer to see muzzles placed over individuals who lack the willpower to stop eating. Now that's real liberty.
fat people who eat themselves to death really only hurt themselves.
I can't fire a gun into traffic. Why should someone be able to drive a half-ton truck, 115 mph.
-
fat people who eat themselves to death really only hurt themselves.
I can't fire a gun into traffic. Why should someone be able to drive a half-ton truck, 115 mph.
why should you be able to speed at all?
-
why should you be able to speed at all?
there are times when an emergency will make it necessary, as someone pointed out.
IMO, there are some people who lose that right to "go 110 mph in an emergency", perhaps after their 2nd or 3rd maor speeding ticket - or DUIs, possibly.
I just have no feelings of pity for those who use cars like that - not giving a shit about others because hey, they're in a hurry and/or have had too many to drink. Fck them.
-
Please give me a scenario, Tony.
Let's talk airplanes. For one thing, auto-pilot systems have been in use for decades, and planes (which already spend most of their time flying under the auto-pilot regime to maximize fuel economy) actively attempt to prevent human error as flight-control systems disallow pilot inputs that would cause an airplane to exceed its operational envelope. Auto-pilots even have the ability to land a plane - including cooperating with ATC.
Research has proven that flying under the auto-pilot is safer even during emergencies: Ace human pilots are, no doubt, amazing and can "out-innovate" a computer (think landing in the Hudson) but such emergencies are few and very far between and truly ace pilots are even rarer.
And yet, despite all that, planes include not only human pilots (which makes the rest of us feel warm and fuzzy) but also switches that allow those human pilots to turn off or override the much better and safer automatic pilot.
If this is the case in the much more controlled environment of commercial aviation, do you really think that the much more chaotic and insane automotive environment won't include an "override dammit!" Brightly colored switch?
fat people who eat themselves to death really only hurt themselves.
I can't fire a gun into traffic. Why should someone be able to drive a half-ton truck, 115 mph.
Perhaps I'm driving the truck on private land? Or a track? But that's not important. The fact is this: It's true that the government can dictate the technical specifications of the cars that drive on its roads and it could mandated a "fixed top speed." However, unless the government is willing to prevent the registration and use of older vehicles the restriction won't matter. All that will happen is that the used car market will heat up, as people look for vehicles that suit their needs and demands and not the dicta of some bureaucrat.
By the way, this silly argument of "why should you have the right to do X" is flat out fucked up from the get-go. The question should be "why shouldn't you have the right to do X?"
I can see some situations where grown folk may even need to push it to 80 or 85 mph. But honestly, can anyone list the situations where going OVER 100 mph is necessary?
"Necessary" is a loaded term. There are plenty of roads in the United Stares that can be safely traversed at speeds far above 100mph, and where massively increasing (or even lifting) speed limit makes sense.
Driving from Las Vegas to Reno or from Las Vegas to Phoenix there are many stretches of highway – effectively endless straights – where 65 and 115 are indistinguishable. By increasing speed and reducing the amount of time drivers spend behind the wheel, you reduce the number of fatigue related accidents (fatigue-related accidents outpace speed-related accidents by a factor of almost 6 when looking at highway and freeway incidents).
You suffer from the misconception that speed kills, just like you suffer from the misconception that guns kill. The indiscriminate and unsafe use of speed kills, just like the indiscriminate and unsafe use of gun kills. And you believe that since humans can't be controlled ex ante, the tool must be limited.
That's pretty fucked up.
-
Let's talk airplanes. For one thing, auto-pilot systems have been in use for decades, and planes (which already spend most of their time flying under the auto-pilot regime to maximize fuel economy) actively attempt to prevent human error as flight-control systems disallow pilot inputs that would cause an airplane to exceed its operational envelope. Auto-pilots even have the ability to land a plane - including cooperating with ATC.
Research has proven that flying under the auto-pilot is safer even during emergencies: Ace human pilots are, no doubt, amazing and can "out-innovate" a computer (think landing in the Hudson) but such emergencies are few and very far between and truly ace pilots are even rarer.
And yet, despite all that, planes include not only human pilots (which makes the rest of us feel warm and fuzzy) but also switches that allow those human pilots to turn off or override the much better and safer automatic pilot.
If this is the case in the much more controlled environment of commercial aviation, do you really think that the much more chaotic and insane automotive environment won't include an "override dammit!" Brightly colored switch?
The very first thing I'd note, is that cars can't threaten to fall from the sky under malfunction.
(Your post brings up thoughts about liability though, and of course insurance interests will string along some manual controls greater than a simple brake, for awhile; but it's tough to envision the idea staying behind a certain curve for very long, especially where liability is concerned. The fact that a car can carry enough independent power to propel and maneuver itself, too, is something to consider.)
-
The very first thing I'd note, is that cars can't threaten to fall from the sky under malfunction.
(Your post brings up thoughts about liability though, and perhaps insurance interests will string along some manual controls greater than a simple brake, for awhile; but it's tough to envision the idea staying behind a certain curve for very long, especially where liability is concerned. The fact that a car can carry enough independent power to maneuver itself, too, is something to consider.)
planes cant threaten to do a number of things cars can do so your first point is moot
-
planes cant threaten to do a number of things cars can do so your first point is moot
No, Tony. The point isn't moot.
-
No, Tony. The point isn't moot.
LOL yes it is there brain child
-
LOL yes it is there brain child
Tell that to an insurance company, Tony.
-
Tell that to an insurance company, Tony.
that b/c airplanes can fall out of the sky, we need manual overrides in cars?
damn youre a tard
-
that b/c airplanes can fall out of the sky, we need manual overrides in cars?
damn youre a tard
Honestly, Tony. I have absolutely no idea of where you're coming from or what you're talking about.
-
Wow, just go back and re-read the last few posts there brain child
-
Wow, just go back and re-read the last few posts there brain child
I'd suggest you do the same, nitwit. You're so frantically jumping around from thread to thread, fighting with everyone in sight, you can't keep track of what you're doing.
Chill out, and get hold of yourself.
-
I'd suggest you do the same, nitwit. You're so frantically jumping around from thread to thread, fighting with everyone in sight, you can't keep track of what you're doing.
Chill out, and get hold of yourself.
thread to thread, Im posting in 2 threads right now LMFAO...
hahah goodness youre a moron...
-
thread to thread, Im posting in 2 threads right now LMFAO...
hahah goodness youre a moron...
If you're going to do that, do it right.
-
The very first thing I'd note, is that cars can't threaten to fall from the sky under malfunction.
(Your post brings up thoughts about liability though, and of course insurance interests will string along some manual controls greater than a simple brake, for awhile; but it's tough to envision the idea staying behind a certain curve for very long, especially where liability is concerned. The fact that a car can carry enough independent power to propel and maneuver itself, too, is something to consider.)
Sure - cars can't fall out of the sky (only partially true - several cars did fall out of the sky in a James Bond movie and I have it on good authority that our armed forces routinely drop not only cars but entire heavily armored tanks from airplanes!) but so what? Things operate based on their design parameters. But that's irrelevant to the point I was making.
That point was two-fold: first that even with a well-proven and highly reliable technology (auto-pilots) in a much more regulated environment, manual overrides still exist by legal or regulation fiat; and second that the human occupants feel safer in knowing that a human can assume control in case of some nebulous, undefined emergency.
Self-driving cars are almost certainly going to be safer and more efficient than their human-operated counterparts. But that won't mean that override switches won't be present. They will, for a long time. Don't believe me?
Look at your car and ask yourself "what use is a mechanically activated emergency handbrake in an era of exceedingly sophisticated anti-locking brake systems with highly reliable hydraulics and features like assisted panic-braking?"
For two reasons: because people don't like to feel "out of control" and want something direct that a machine cannot control and because legislation changes very very slowly.
Beyond that, I agree that self-driving cars will result in a lot of court cases and legal filings.
-
Sure - cars can't fall out of the sky (only partially true - several cars did fall out of the sky in a James Bond movie and I have it on good authority that our armed forces routinely drop not only cars but entire heavily armored tanks from airplanes!) but so what? Things operate based on their design parameters. But that's irrelevant to the point I was making.
That point was two-fold: first that even with a well-proven and highly reliable technology (auto-pilots) in a much more regulated environment, manual overrides still exist by legal or regulation fiat; and second that the human occupants feel safer in knowing that a human can assume control in case of some nebulous, undefined emergency.
Self-driving cars are almost certainly going to be safer and more efficient than their human-operated counterparts. But that won't mean that override switches won't be present. They will, for a long time. Don't believe me?
Look at your car and ask yourself "what use is a mechanically activated emergency handbrake in an era of exceedingly sophisticated anti-locking brake systems with highly reliable hydraulics and features like assisted panic-braking?"
For two reasons: because people don't like to feel "out of control" and want something direct that a machine cannot control and because legislation changes very very slowly.
Beyond that, I agree that self-driving cars will result in a lot of court cases and legal filings.
I don't doubt that a manual brake will exist for quite some time, avxo. Insurance concerns wouldn't allow otherwise.
Let me ask you this: Do you believe there will be an end to common licensing for public roads?
-
Sure - cars can't fall out of the sky (only partially true - several cars did fall out of the sky in a James Bond movie and I have it on good authority that our armed forces routinely drop not only cars but entire heavily armored tanks from airplanes!) but so what? Things operate based on their design parameters. But that's irrelevant to the point I was making.
dont say that, thats how he ended up chasing his tail for 2 hours.
-
To act as though something that is supported by ground, is comparable to something that is not supported by ground or by anything else by aerodynamics, doesn't make sense. Not sure how I can make it any clearer.
-
Going to call it a day, bros. Will catch you guys later. :)
-
I'm fine with someone going 200 mph on their own property. Let her rip!
But IMO, anyone who drives 100 mph on a city street should just lose their licence. And unless you have a preggo woman in the back or a big ass spider bite, if you're 50 mph over the limit... forget the piece of metal on the pedal... just pull their licence for 1-2 years.
-
I don't doubt that a manual brake will exist for quite some time, avxo. Insurance concerns wouldn't allow otherwise.
Let me ask you this: Do you believe there will be an end to common licensing for public roads?
Insurance concerns are not the issue - Federal regulations and people's desire for a manual backup are the issue. An Audi USA engineer I know told me that most "complaints" they receive about new cars are about newer vehicles is that "electronic emergency brake": people write in, concerned about what will happen in the case of an electical failure.
I don't believe there will be an end to licensing; I think that for the foreseeable future even self-driving cars will require a licensed driver behind the proverbial wheel for liability purposes. And why I don't think I'll be able to drive from Las Vegas to, say, Santa Cruz overnight and enjoy a good nap at the same time even after I get my fancy self-driving car in a few years. It will be illegal for a vehicle to operate in such a fashion.
Ultimately, however, I think that licensing drivers for vehicles will become a thing of the past, just how elevator operators have become a thing of the past. You'll just buy a car and the car will drive itself, no license required.
-
I'm fine with someone going 200 mph on their own property. Let her rip!
But IMO, anyone who drives 100 mph on a city street should just lose their licence. And unless you have a preggo woman in the back or a big ass spider bite, if you're 50 mph over the limit... forget the piece of metal on the pedal... just pull their licence for 1-2 years.
It's easy to come up with ridiculous counterexamples, like driving 100mph through a city or town. A city street is one thing. A highway or freeway, with restricted right of way and limited access, and other features designed to facilitate secure high speed travel is quite anothe thing.
Is there a reason why we should not be able to drive over 100 mph on some stretches of I-5 between San Francisco and Los Angeles? It's a separated roadway, with long stretches of straights and what few curves exist barely require one to turn their wheel.
Or stretches of highways between Las Vegas and Reno, where you can go for 300 miles without seeing anything at all.
I drove both these routes personally, and I can tell you that extremely high speed could be safely sustained by a less than mediocre driver given a properly operating vehicle. And those speeds would tremendously reduce the amount of time spent on the road which, by itself, can reduce accidents.
Modern cars are capable of exceedingly high performance all around. They can reach great speeds and cruise comfortably.
That some people misuse that capability isn't an argument against cars being able to reach those speeds or even against speed itself.
-
I'd be fine with certain lanes or stretches being 80 or 90 or even 100 mph limits... 3 lanes wide woudl be a good idea. I'd probably avoid those stretches just because every idiot with a new car woudl be out there drag racing.
I dont have a problem with the limit. I just think once a person is reckless with a 1000 pound vehicle where he can kill others, they don't belong on the road.
-
I'd be fine with certain lanes or stretches being 80 or 90 or even 100 mph limits... 3 lanes wide woudl be a good idea. I'd probably avoid those stretches just because every idiot with a new car woudl be out there drag racing.
I dont have a problem with the limit. I just think once a person is reckless with a 1000 pound vehicle where he can kill others, they don't belong on the road.
To prevent one reckless person from driving crazy you think no cars should even be able to drive faster than 80 mph?
You're "fine" with all cars having speed governors that limit their top speed to 70-80mph...but then you lost two reasons where one might need to drive 100 mph (preggo and spider bite)?
That's just the worst kind of thinking. "Because someone could be an idiot with respect to vehicle speed, NO ONE should have the right to high vehicle speeds."
When someone is an idiot, the proper response is never to trample on the rights and freedoms of everyone else--yet that is the kind of thinking that passes the 40,000 new laws that get put into effect every year in the US.
-
But IMO, anyone who drives 100 mph on a city street should just lose their licence. And unless you have a preggo woman in the back or a big ass spider bite, if you're 50 mph over the limit... forget the piece of metal on the pedal... just pull their licence for 1-2 years.
Does a pregnant passenger make a car traveling at 50 mph over the limit safer than other cars going say 10 mph over the limit?
-
To prevent one reckless person from driving crazy you think no cars should even be able to drive faster than 80 mph?
I never said "no cars should be able to drive faster than 80 mph".
Does a pregnant passenger make a car traveling at 50 mph over the limit safer than other cars going say 10 mph over the limit?
Yes... I think a dad focused on getting moms to the ER before she pops will still be more focused and actually safe, than a 16 year old smoking pot, racing his buddies...
And I think in this age of medicine, reckless kids are way more common than last minute water bursts. With today's hormone-fed fat babies, they gotta induce labor all the time now. kids dont roll outta there like they used to :)
-
The bottom line is, any more steps in the direction of furthering government control and big brother type policies are a very bad and dangerous thing.
-
The bottom line is, any more steps in the direction of furthering government control and big brother type policies are a very bad and dangerous thing.
but mass government snooping stasi still is ok ?
-
No its not
-
Insurance concerns are not the issue - Federal regulations and people's desire for a manual backup are the issue. An Audi USA engineer I know told me that most "complaints" they receive about new cars are about newer vehicles is that "electronic emergency brake": people write in, concerned about what will happen in the case of an electical failure.
I don't believe there will be an end to licensing; I think that for the foreseeable future even self-driving cars will require a licensed driver behind the proverbial wheel for liability purposes. And why I don't think I'll be able to drive from Las Vegas to, say, Santa Cruz overnight and enjoy a good nap at the same time even after I get my fancy self-driving car in a few years. It will be illegal for a vehicle to operate in such a fashion.
Ultimately, however, I think that licensing drivers for vehicles will become a thing of the past, just how elevator operators have become a thing of the past. You'll just buy a car and the car will drive itself, no license required.
That seems pretty certain, yes.
-
Something that can't be forgotten, is how future vehicles won't be independent from one another. A vehicle will be in continuous communication with surrounding vehicles, and all vehicles in a particular location will be processing and reacting to information from one another as a person simply could not do.
Seems to me, a vehicle can have a kill-switch to cover all bases, and other vehicles will simply react as necessary to avoid collisions, etc.
...and no matter what, unless 'nads are somehow grown, the day of fully tracked and recorded travel will be upon us.
-
Something that can't be forgotten, is how future vehicles won't be independent from one another. A vehicle will be in continuous communication with surrounding vehicles, and all vehicles in a particular location will be processing and reacting to information from one another as a person simply could not do.
Seems to me, a vehicle can have a kill-switch to cover all bases, and other vehicles will simply react as necessary to avoid collisions, etc.
...and no matter what, unless 'nads are somehow grown, the day of fully tracked and recorded travel will be upon us.
The day of fully tracked and recorded travel is already upon us. It's just that the tracking records aren't fully consolidated at this point.
Tracking someone doing a cross-country trip can be done by:
(a) looking at the target's mobile phone HLR and checking to find which VLRs his mobile connected to.
(b) looking at credit card usage, tracking fuel purchases - from gas stations and McDonalds.
(c) examining records from cameras on patrol cars, stationary traffic monitoring stations, gas stations, rest areas, toll stations and traffic lights.
(d) "pinging" the automobile to directly report its position via OnStar or other vehicle telematics services.
(e) "pinging" the suspect's phone to directly report its position via "MobileMe" or whatever Apple calls their system these days.
Contrary to popular belief, real-time continuous satellite tracking isn't really feasible for a number of reasons. But it doesn't matter. Some of these other approaches are way cheaper and much more effective.
And besides, why even bother tracking someone that closely? Extrapolating possible routes via "breadcrumbs" of past behavior can be trivial.
-
worring about who will know the speed of the car while being oblivious to smartphones loggin all your location co- ordinates
and who has been busy in recent years getting data from computer companies ?
-
The day of fully tracked and recorded travel is already upon us. It's just that the tracking records aren't fully consolidated at this point.
Tracking someone doing a cross-country trip can be done by:
(a) looking at the target's mobile phone HLR and checking to find which VLRs his mobile connected to.
(b) looking at credit card usage, tracking fuel purchases - from gas stations and McDonalds.
(c) examining records from cameras on patrol cars, stationary traffic monitoring stations, gas stations, rest areas, toll stations and traffic lights.
(d) "pinging" the automobile to directly report its position via OnStar or other vehicle telematics services.
(e) "pinging" the suspect's phone to directly report its position via "MobileMe" or whatever Apple calls their system these days.
Contrary to popular belief, real-time continuous satellite tracking isn't really feasible for a number of reasons. But it doesn't matter. Some of these other approaches are way cheaper and much more effective.
And besides, why even bother tracking someone that closely? Extrapolating possible routes via "breadcrumbs" of past behavior can be trivial.
Sounds like a "remedy" for that "problem" may be on the way.
Any information that is fed to this beast, is a problem.
-
Sounds like a "remedy" for that "problem" may be on the way.
Any information that is fed to this beast, is a problem.
then perhaps its time to ditch the smartphone?
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=493142.msg7019614#msg7019614 (http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=493142.msg7019614#msg7019614)
-
then perhaps its time to ditch the smartphone?
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=493142.msg7019614#msg7019614 (http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=493142.msg7019614#msg7019614)
Great post, BBC. When I saw the headline on the post, earlier, I'd assumed that was a "what's the coolest new smartphone" type of thread.
-
worring about who will know the speed of the car while being oblivious to smartphones loggin all your location co- ordinates
and who has been busy in recent years getting data from computer companies ?
If this is an answer to my post, then please note that I ranked mobile phone tracking as number 1, especially since it can be done remotely without any changes to any existing infrastructure – all it takes is a query against the HLR of your primary network to find out which VLR and tower to query.
Cellular networks don't even need GPS to collect this information; they already collect highly accurate distance information, which can then be used to trilaterate a mobile station pretty accurately. And before anyone says that this is some big-brother designed system, it's not. This accurate tracking is necessary to control the 'TA' field, which controls the timing advance dictating when a phone can transmit, so as to account for the speed of light. Yes, you read that right...