Big Brother speed control to be trialled

[dom_105]

Big Brother speed control to be trialled

State governments are set to trial a device that can automatically slow a speeding car using satellite technology.

The Australasian Intelligent Speed Adaptation initiative could first be trialled in Victoria, The Herald Sun reported.

Victoria Police Chief Commissioner Christine Nixon, several Victorian ministers, a former Victorian coroner and 45 other participants would be the first to try the speed reduction system, the report said.

All state and territory governments and the New Zealand government have been in talks to introduce the system.

Other trials are planned this year in NSW and Western Australia, the report said.

The system would cost between $700 and $2,000 per vehicle and would first be fitted to fleet cars, the Herald Sun said.

The technology uses GPS and a database that identifies speed limits on all roads and operates on three levels.

Drivers get an audible warning they are over the limit at level one.

At level two, the device cuts power to the engine to prevent the driver from speeding, but the system can be adjusted or overridden.

At level three, the system cannot be switched off or adjusted and all speeding is cut.

The device could be fitted to repeat speeding offenders, or to all vehicles.

A spokeswoman for Roads Minister Tim Pallas would not confirm any trial, but Queensland Transport Minister John Mickel said his government was involved in the talks.

"Technology is evolving all the time with these things, and my view with road safety is to see what the latest technology is and see if we can improve safety.

Queensland Transport vehicle safety consultant Michael Paine said the system could cut the number of serious accidents by 20 per cent.

The Herald Sun quoted an unnamed Victorian government website, which estimated the number of fatalities could be cut by almost 60 per cent if it was fitted to all cars.

Soon you won't be able to walk out the front door without strapping on a GPS unit, just in case you might comit a crime.

[cheeza5]

i like this........ not!

[UNR8D]

every time they talk about reducing road deaths its always 20% WTF is that some magical figure or being blaintantly obvious its a load of .

[LTDHO]

Drive slower and everyone lives.
Just look at old folks homes!

[woteva]

I'm surprised any government would support this. If nobody can speed and the road toll doesn't decrease dramatically, it will show how useless speed cameras really have been at decreasing accidents.

[Disciple]

What if you're trying to overtake a massive truck on a narrow 2 lane road and you get half way past and then your speed gets limited? Real good idea... out:

[hy_boi]

Cuts power to the engine? How the hell can that be safe?

[aye you]

this is a government on a power trip. While i support the attempts to lower the road toll, this is not the way to do it. It is removing the publics freedom in a sense

[Daymoe]

Jesus, whats next?

[Ruger]

seriously guys...... in the world of mods, auto electrics and aftermarket ecu i reckon it could be bypassed it fairly easy.....

[MITCHAY]

Originally Posted by Ruger

seriously guys...... in the world of mods, auto electrics and aftermarket ecu i reckon it could be bypassed it fairly easy.....

I'd imagine it would probably be these easiest thing to defect too :

[merlin]

I don't get the mentality of this trial (from a philosophical viewpoint):

1) They propose to eradicate speeding in order to eradicate speeding deaths (logical at first glance).

2) However this eradication 'solution' is very complex, very high cost and extremley freedom limiting. It would increase traffic congestion, pollution, take away time from peoples daily life, impact the economy ect. But maybe its worth it? lets dig some more...

3) Causes of death within Australia (source ABS 2005 - most recent data I could find):

Road deaths in 2005 = 1,636
Total deaths in 2005 = 134,000.

Thus road deaths make up 1.2% of all deaths in Australia. Add to that that speeding deaths contribute to 40% of road deaths. Therefore 1636 deaths becomes 654 deaths in 2005 due to speeding. Now of those 654 speeding related deaths, 30% also involved alcohol giving us a final figure of 458 deaths due to speeding or 0.34% of all deaths in the year 2005.

Now they are proposing a high cost, freedom limiting "solution" to a problem that dosn't really seem to exist (0.34% of all deaths!). To me they are making a mountain out of a molehill.

4) From those same 2005 statistics cancer kills us the most (30%), followed by heart disease (18%) and diabetes caused 9% of all deaths. Yet we know that diet and exercise can help shield us from these causes - were is the call to ban junk food or make exercise compulsary? Were is the call to ban (gasp) people with a history of cancer from having children (shocking proposal but you get the jist)

5) Finally there were 2101 deaths from suicide in the year 2005 which is higher than the amount of all road deaths put together.

In Australia we seem to have this media fixation on road deaths and speed in particular in looking at the statistics I can't seem to find why. Nobody wants to lose a loved one on the road and no police officer wants to make that visit however you have to take a good hard look at the stats in this instance and ask the government why are they making such an issue out of speeding?

[Feathers]

Originally Posted by Disciple

What if you're trying to overtake a massive truck on a narrow 2 lane road and you get half way past and then your speed gets limited? Real good idea... out:

Exactly what I was thinking.

[Trevor 57]

Originally Posted by Disciple

What if you're trying to overtake a massive truck on a narrow 2 lane road and you get half way past and then your speed gets limited? Real good idea... out:

You put your foot on the brake and slow down and get in behind the truck, then you ask yourself "what in hell was I doing overtaking when it was obviously unsafe"

Truckies face this issue every day

[ebxr8240]

Now ?? Is it the blue wire ? Or the red one ?????

[Daymoe]

Lets say in 10 years time this thing becomes standard, it eliminates track days and drags.

Originally Posted by ebxr8240

Now ?? Is it the blue wire ? Or the red one ?????

Try cut all at the exact same time haha

[RG]

It would be easy to get around and if worst came to worst just hit the thing with a hammer.

Seriously that thing that goes MOOOOO Nixon needs to go.

[Rob]

Originally Posted by Big_Trev

You put your foot on the brake and slow down and get in behind the truck, then you ask yourself "what in hell was I doing overtaking when it was obviously unsafe"

Truckies face this issue every day

It would only be unsafe because the limiter engaged and you spent an extra 5 or so seconds stuck beside a truck, while safety nannie tells you that by doing 5kph over the limit, you've just wiped out a small family (thats what happens when you speed isnt it? People keel over dead!). Bad speeder.. bad.

Assuming you survive the head on collision, you could invoice Ms Nixon for the cost of your munted car.


The answer is simple.

POWERRR!

[colossus]

Originally Posted by merlin

I don't get the mentality of this trial (from a philosophical viewpoint):

1) They propose to eradicate speeding in order to eradicate speeding deaths (logical at first glance).

2) However this eradication 'solution' is very complex, very high cost and extremley freedom limiting. It would increase traffic congestion, pollution, take away time from peoples daily life, impact the economy ect. But maybe its worth it? lets dig some more...

3) Causes of death within Australia (source ABS 2005 - most recent data I could find):

Road deaths in 2005 = 1,636
Total deaths in 2005 = 134,000.

Thus road deaths make up 1.2% of all deaths in Australia. Add to that that speeding deaths contribute to 40% of road deaths. Therefore 1636 deaths becomes 654 deaths in 2005 due to speeding. Now of those 654 speeding related deaths, 30% also involved alcohol giving us a final figure of 458 deaths due to speeding or 0.34% of all deaths in the year 2005.

Now they are proposing a high cost, freedom limiting "solution" to a problem that dosn't really seem to exist (0.34% of all deaths!). To me they are making a mountain out of a molehill.

4) From those same 2005 statistics cancer kills us the most (30%), followed by heart disease (18%) and diabetes caused 9% of all deaths. Yet we know that diet and exercise can help shield us from these causes - were is the call to ban junk food or make exercise compulsary? Were is the call to ban (gasp) people with a history of cancer from having children (shocking proposal but you get the jist)

5) Finally there were 2101 deaths from suicide in the year 2005 which is higher than the amount of all road deaths put together.

In Australia we seem to have this media fixation on road deaths and speed in particular in looking at the statistics I can't seem to find why. Nobody wants to lose a loved one on the road and no police officer wants to make that visit however you have to take a good hard look at the stats in this instance and ask the government why are they making such an issue out of speeding?

.

I speed and I vote.

[AWD Chaser]

Originally Posted by merlin

I don't get the mentality of this trial (from a philosophical viewpoint):

1) They propose to eradicate speeding in order to eradicate speeding deaths (logical at first glance).

2) However this eradication 'solution' is very complex, very high cost and extremley freedom limiting. It would increase traffic congestion, pollution, take away time from peoples daily life, impact the economy ect. But maybe its worth it? lets dig some more...

3) Causes of death within Australia (source ABS 2005 - most recent data I could find):

Road deaths in 2005 = 1,636
Total deaths in 2005 = 134,000.

Thus road deaths make up 1.2% of all deaths in Australia. Add to that that speeding deaths contribute to 40% of road deaths. Therefore 1636 deaths becomes 654 deaths in 2005 due to speeding. Now of those 654 speeding related deaths, 30% also involved alcohol giving us a final figure of 458 deaths due to speeding or 0.34% of all deaths in the year 2005.

Now they are proposing a high cost, freedom limiting "solution" to a problem that dosn't really seem to exist (0.34% of all deaths!). To me they are making a mountain out of a molehill.

4) From those same 2005 statistics cancer kills us the most (30%), followed by heart disease (18%) and diabetes caused 9% of all deaths. Yet we know that diet and exercise can help shield us from these causes - were is the call to ban junk food or make exercise compulsary? Were is the call to ban (gasp) people with a history of cancer from having children (shocking proposal but you get the jist)

5) Finally there were 2101 deaths from suicide in the year 2005 which is higher than the amount of all road deaths put together.

In Australia we seem to have this media fixation on road deaths and speed in particular in looking at the statistics I can't seem to find why. Nobody wants to lose a loved one on the road and no police officer wants to make that visit however you have to take a good hard look at the stats in this instance and ask the government why are they making such an issue out of speeding?

Don't forget, half of all speeding deaths occur on country roads - you better believe it - TV said so...

[Smoke Pursuit]

Speed limiters are easy enough to disconnect / overide in trucks, so i dont see a problem lol.

[Fev]

what about the point to point speed check on the M7 and M5 in sydney which is coming in soon? when you pass through the tolls it takes a photo of your license and when you pass out of the next toll it takes another photo of your license and calculates how long it too you to get there, and how fast your average speed was. if it is faster then the average time it takes you to get there doing 102 you are sent a speeding ticket. WTF IS THAT!
way too much control being laid down by our goverments

[XCSEDAN]

good luck government, people will just cut the wires, and really, what a dumb *** idea.... there is so many factors not counted for, say for example if someone (and $20 says this will happen) hacks the system and screws it.

Originally Posted by merlin

I don't get the mentality of this trial (from a philosophical viewpoint):

1) They propose to eradicate speeding in order to eradicate speeding deaths (logical at first glance).

2) However this eradication 'solution' is very complex, very high cost and extremley freedom limiting. It would increase traffic congestion, pollution, take away time from peoples daily life, impact the economy ect. But maybe its worth it? lets dig some more...

3) Causes of death within Australia (source ABS 2005 - most recent data I could find):

Road deaths in 2005 = 1,636
Total deaths in 2005 = 134,000.

Thus road deaths make up 1.2% of all deaths in Australia. Add to that that speeding deaths contribute to 40% of road deaths. Therefore 1636 deaths becomes 654 deaths in 2005 due to speeding. Now of those 654 speeding related deaths, 30% also involved alcohol giving us a final figure of 458 deaths due to speeding or 0.34% of all deaths in the year 2005.

Now they are proposing a high cost, freedom limiting "solution" to a problem that dosn't really seem to exist (0.34% of all deaths!). To me they are making a mountain out of a molehill.

4) From those same 2005 statistics cancer kills us the most (30%), followed by heart disease (18%) and diabetes caused 9% of all deaths. Yet we know that diet and exercise can help shield us from these causes - were is the call to ban junk food or make exercise compulsary? Were is the call to ban (gasp) people with a history of cancer from having children (shocking proposal but you get the jist)

5) Finally there were 2101 deaths from suicide in the year 2005 which is higher than the amount of all road deaths put together.

In Australia we seem to have this media fixation on road deaths and speed in particular in looking at the statistics I can't seem to find why. Nobody wants to lose a loved one on the road and no police officer wants to make that visit however you have to take a good hard look at the stats in this instance and ask the government why are they making such an issue out of speeding?

pft the government is not going to make any money off cracking down on those things! it's not worth it silly man!

[Daymoe]

Or we could pay China to blow the GPS satellite out of space, they have the capability haha.

[Fev]

Wooooo!

[pertuan]

Interesting plan they have. If by some miraculous reason they happen to make this work, could they tie it into my Cruise Control as well so I don't have to adjust it when the speed limits change on the roads?

[colossus]

Originally Posted by Fev

what about the point to point speed check on the M7 and M5 in sydney which is coming in soon? when you pass through the tolls it takes a photo of your license and when you pass out of the next toll it takes another photo of your license and calculates how long it too you to get there, and how fast your average speed was. if it is faster then the average time it takes you to get there doing 102 you are sent a speeding ticket. WTF IS THAT!
way too much control being laid down by our goverments

Point to point camera's are pure evil - far more evil than fixed cameras for which you slow down for about 5 seconds.

I can't wait until we all have to wear white and have the same haircuts ect. (coming soon apparently).

The sooner the state governments are kicked out the better.

[Trevor 57]

Originally Posted by BLC

It would only be unsafe because the limiter engaged and you spent an extra 5 or so seconds stuck beside a truck, while safety nannie tells you that by doing 5kph over the limit, you've just wiped out a small family (thats what happens when you speed isnt it? People keel over dead!). Bad speeder.. bad.

Assuming you survive the head on collision, you could invoice Ms Nixon for the cost of your munted car.


The answer is simple.

POWERRR!

it would be unsafe to consider overtaking when obviously you have a need to rush it. Remeber the speed limit is 100km/h even when overtkaing, so the question has to be asked, why did I overtake when it was obviously unsafe?

I am a true advocate that cars should be speed limited to 120km/h.

So go on the attack, I am used to it. :

[DivHunter]

AHAHAHAHAAA it still lets you speed so they get to keep all the cameras.

[ea90gl]

any one seen the movie Demolishen Man with wesley snipes and sylvester stallone? Soon the governments will try make our lifestyle very similar to the lifestyle in the movie, in other words a very strict, bland and sh!!ty lifestyle