Technology, could it ultimately kill 'fun driving'
Discussion
Once again my trawl through the internet for website worthy content has landed me on something that made me think.
This particular article is titled 'How traffic enforcement could play out on the roads of the future' and goes on to explain about how car-to-car, car-to-infrastructure and GPS communication could one day be how speeding tickets are handed out. Quite an interesting read to be honest, but it got me thinking (it's kind of 'end of the world' thinking) could these none patrol car speeding ticket methods kill those great drives on empty roads?
I mean, it's taking the technology to the extreme, but do we think that one day you could receive a speeding fine from any road at anytime; just because cars are connected to 'the man' at all times through gps??
Ideally they'd keep a system like we have now, where only certain roads have cameras etc.
As I say, total speculation on my part, just wondered what people thought?
This particular article is titled 'How traffic enforcement could play out on the roads of the future' and goes on to explain about how car-to-car, car-to-infrastructure and GPS communication could one day be how speeding tickets are handed out. Quite an interesting read to be honest, but it got me thinking (it's kind of 'end of the world' thinking) could these none patrol car speeding ticket methods kill those great drives on empty roads?
I mean, it's taking the technology to the extreme, but do we think that one day you could receive a speeding fine from any road at anytime; just because cars are connected to 'the man' at all times through gps??
Ideally they'd keep a system like we have now, where only certain roads have cameras etc.
As I say, total speculation on my part, just wondered what people thought?
Cylinder 8 said:
I think there would be so much uproar from the majority of motorists that it would never actually be implemented. I certainly hope so, anyway!
Agreed....it'd be like some kind of movie plot! Seems like something that's happen though; average speed cameras were bad enough for a while
I think technology at the moment is making the roads less safe, as people tool about with their gaze fixed on their satnav, "safe" in the knowledge that their car has ABS and things like cruise control and a whole host of other devices that mean the driver no longer has to concentrate on the business of driving. Oh, and those nice soft pillows that come out if you do have a crash.
Ozzie Osmond said:
Except there could be a "continuous connection" law which issues an automatic fine if you block the signal.
Much like the recently introduced "continuous insurance" law.
What about when there is no satellite signal? Your parked undergoing or in a garage... Hey even the equipment could be faulty.Much like the recently introduced "continuous insurance" law.
It's impossible to do!
Technology already does kill fun driving but you can at least still choose to drive something without ABS, brake servo, power steering, traction control, DSG, etc. etc. etc.
Compulsory GPS monitoring would be absolutely horrific though, as said, you could be on the quietest road in Britain with no one to hurt but yourself and still have to drive sedately. The company I work for puts trackers and accelerometers in their commercial vehicles (not company cars...yet). Obviously those guys can't brake the speed limit but they also get a slap on the wrist for harsh acceleration/braking/cornering etc. The more points they score the more dangerous they are apparently, as obviously you can drive as badly as you want as long as you do it slowly
Compulsory GPS monitoring would be absolutely horrific though, as said, you could be on the quietest road in Britain with no one to hurt but yourself and still have to drive sedately. The company I work for puts trackers and accelerometers in their commercial vehicles (not company cars...yet). Obviously those guys can't brake the speed limit but they also get a slap on the wrist for harsh acceleration/braking/cornering etc. The more points they score the more dangerous they are apparently, as obviously you can drive as badly as you want as long as you do it slowly
T0MMY said:
The company I work for puts trackers and accelerometers in their commercial vehicles (not company cars...yet). Obviously those guys can't brake the speed limit but they also get a slap on the wrist for harsh acceleration/braking/cornering etc. The more points they score the more dangerous they are apparently, as obviously you can drive as badly as you want as long as you do it slowly
What an incompetent attitude. "Harsh" acceleration can avoid a collision, don't your idiot bosses know this?No doubt the tracker suppliers brainwashed them with bulls
t to sell their wares.mybrainhurts said:
What an incompetent attitude. "Harsh" acceleration can avoid a collision, don't your idiot bosses know this?
No doubt the tracker suppliers brainwashed them with bullst to sell their wares.
To be fair most of the managers are fairly understanding of the occasional incident. What annoyed me more was when we were discussing the drivers' results and people racking up lots of points were described as "dangerous" by default. I'd rather one of our guys was carrying a bit more corner speed whilst concentrating, than driving sedately whilst tapping away on his phone, obvlivious to the world.No doubt the tracker suppliers brainwashed them with bulls
t to sell their wares.If I got one in my company car and drove how I normally do I've no doubt I'd be flagged as extremely high risk, regardless of the fact I've done astronomical miles for the last 10 years and never had an accident.
I don't ever see us moving towards a continuously monitored driving society particularly if it had strict rules, the main reason being far too much of the UK, (and the rest of the world) economy is tied up in the motor car, if you suck all the enjoyment out of it then car basically become white goods and far less would be sold, for far less money.
To have continuously monitored driving would also be fairly unworkable without some serious changes, if every car honestly stuck to all speed limits and a minimum 2 second gap to the car in front and 4 seconds in the wet, it would lead do a fairly large increase in congestion, particularly on motorways.
If you look at the way insurers currently do telemetrics, they are generally perfectly happy to continue to insurer drivers they know regularly speed provided they keep it under 100mph, which is over 40% above our highest limit, this is because they are working or the reality of calculated risk, not out dated laws based on when cars had drum brakes, cross ply tyres and seat belts and head rests that were optional.
Can you imagine brake campaigners lobbying for continuous speed monitoring to accept it on the condition you could do 40% above the limit before any enforcement took place, most of them probably thing 10%+2 is far too much of a margin.
To have continuously monitored driving would also be fairly unworkable without some serious changes, if every car honestly stuck to all speed limits and a minimum 2 second gap to the car in front and 4 seconds in the wet, it would lead do a fairly large increase in congestion, particularly on motorways.
If you look at the way insurers currently do telemetrics, they are generally perfectly happy to continue to insurer drivers they know regularly speed provided they keep it under 100mph, which is over 40% above our highest limit, this is because they are working or the reality of calculated risk, not out dated laws based on when cars had drum brakes, cross ply tyres and seat belts and head rests that were optional.
Can you imagine brake campaigners lobbying for continuous speed monitoring to accept it on the condition you could do 40% above the limit before any enforcement took place, most of them probably thing 10%+2 is far too much of a margin.
ging84 said:
To have continuously monitored driving would also be fairly unworkable without some serious changes, if every car honestly stuck to all speed limits and a minimum 2 second gap to the car in front and 4 seconds in the wet, it would lead do a fairly large increase in congestion, particularly on motorways.
If you look at the way insurers currently do telemetrics, they are generally perfectly happy to continue to insurer drivers they know regularly speed provided they keep it under 100mph, which is over 40% above our highest limit, this is because they are working or the reality of calculated risk, not out dated laws based
Has it not been proven time and time again that if all cars were to stick to the speed limit and keep the correct gap the traffic would flow better. This can often be seen working on a day with bad weather where most slow down and the traffic can ease, that is until someone goes too fast and has a crash or a new driver has a panic attack. If you look at the way insurers currently do telemetrics, they are generally perfectly happy to continue to insurer drivers they know regularly speed provided they keep it under 100mph, which is over 40% above our highest limit, this is because they are working or the reality of calculated risk, not out dated laws based
Secondly cars maybe able to stop faster and perform better including greater safety but there is less room on the roads and IMO a false sence of security in cars which all negates the claim that cars can go faster because they can stop better etc.
Edited by chri5 j t on Thursday 13th November 20:21
chri5 j t said:
Has it not been proven time and time again that if all cars were to stick to the speed limit and keep the correct gap the traffic would flow better. This can often be seen working on a day with bad weather where most slow down and the traffic can ease, that is until someone goes too fast and has a crash or a new driver has a panic attack.
Secondly cars maybe able to stop faster and perform better including greater safety but there is less room on the roads IMO a false sence of security in cars which all negates the claim that cars can go faster because they can stop better etc.
Dudes right, traffic would flow better (although the m42 has yet to prove to me that variable speed limits really work)...but as you say it should....Secondly cars maybe able to stop faster and perform better including greater safety but there is less room on the roads IMO a false sence of security in cars which all negates the claim that cars can go faster because they can stop better etc.
But does the pro of less traffic outweigh ever being able to actually enjoy driving? Don't think I could cope if what I enjoy was completely diluted 100% of the time
Ozzie Osmond said:
I understand what you say - but the statistics say beyond any doubt that the roads are getting safer. That is, if you have the sense to keep well away from anything with two wheels and preferably avoid being a pedestrian too!
IS that safer in terms of number of accidents, or the number of injuries/deaths - I have no doubt accidents are more survivable than they used to be, but I do think standards of driving in the UK (particularly in Cambridge where I live) are pretty woeful. Maybe some of it is that cliché of a driving licence being seen as a right rather than a privilege. A privilege to be maintained on a daily basis, not one from 60 minutes when you were 17.Christ I'm getting and sounding old.
jmorgan said:
Cylinder 8 said:
I think there would be so much uproar from the majority of motorists that it would never actually be implemented. I certainly hope so, anyway!
I think most people would not bother, perhaps a little whimper.Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff