5 ms·

London's GPS-based speed-limit trial puts Big Brother's foot on the gas pedal

9 points by CWuestefeld 17y ago

"Drivers in the trial get a switch to choose how the speed limiter operates. Advisory mode gives a dashboard warning when the speed limit changes. Voluntary mode overrides the throttle so it slows the car and prevents the driver from speeding. One potential problem is that GPS signals fade in the shadow of tall buildings in big cities. Lines admits that this does happen, but the system is programmed to assume that the limit is unchanged until the signal reconnects."

jacquesm 17y ago
Man I'd hate to be in a situation where I could get out of a situation by stepping on it and being held back by some helpful little box. It hasn't happened often in my driving career that stepping on the gas was a better option than braking but the few times that it did happen I was very happy to have that option.
- tptacek 17y ago
  I'm not in favor of these devices, but if I was, I'd counter that argument by suggesting they be tuned to 5mph over the posted speed limit, and allow a burst of ungoverned speed up to one minute if the accelerator is fully depressed.
  - jacquesm 17y ago
    tough to be you when you're trying to get to hospital with a wounded person and the governor kicks in. There is no substitute for human judgment. If you can't play by the rules you should lose your license, everybody else should be in full control of their cars and be held fully responsible in case they abuse their power. The only way I'd have peace with this is if it came with an 'override' button and all I'd have to do is give a valid explanation for the use of it (or pay a hefty fine).
    - gjm11 17y ago
      Suppose someone does the necessary studies, and it turns out that having a system like this would save 100 lives per unit time by reducing accidents, at a cost of losing 1 life per unit time because someone was unable to get to the hospital so quickly. Yeah, "tough to be you", and it would be really horrible for the victims and the people trying to get them to medical care in a hurry; but it could still be well worth it. The override button isn't a bad idea, though.
      - tc 17y ago
        The road to hell is paved with utilitarianism. That is to say, just because you can show that a policy produces gains on some statistical matrix does not mean that it is morally correct to coerce people into your scheme, particularly people that aren't doing anything wrong. Consider if I could show that eliminating redheads from society lowered traffic fatalities, saving 10k lives per year [1]. Would you argue it proper to kill off all the redheads [2]? Or even to use the minimum force 'necessary,' and require all redheads to keep their hair dyed brown? I hope not. Just be cognizant of whether the outlines of your argument can lead to nonsense. -- [1] Perhaps lots of men were rubbernecking behind the wheel to get a good look at those redheads, but the researchers couldn't definitively determine the causal pathway. [2] Only if the net present value of the expected future gain in lives was greater than the number of redheads that needed to die, of course.
        frig 17y ago
        You're being silly: under your scenario the 'minimal force necessary' would be about what's necessary to prevent drivers from being distracted by random glimpses of penis: - general knowledge that "hey, there's a law against indecent exposure; waving penis at passing drivers is indecent exposure" - general knowledge that penis-flashers who get caught will suffer unpleasant consequences ...it's certainly not "cut off all the penii preemptively", and not even "surgically install unremovable loincloths"; in other words if red hair was really that unbelievably distracting the worst-case scenario minimal force for redheads would be that they cover up while in certain parts of the public. So aside from the strawman choice of examples, you're also depending on utilitarianism to argue against it, which is pretty lame: - don't be a utilitarian! it leads to bad outcomes!
ryanwaggoner 17y ago
Voluntary mode overrides the throttle so it slows the car and prevents the driver from speeding. Kudos for the Orwellian naming convention :)
- gjm11 17y ago
  I think the point is that in this trial drivers get to choose whether the device is actually limiting their speed or not; what's voluntary is their choice to be limited by it.
  - ryanwaggoner 17y ago
    Yeah, I get it, but I still think it's ironic. I mean, if this becomes required someday, it could still be called "voluntary" because you don't have to drive.
Zak 17y ago
Like many road-safety campaigners, Lines is very persuasive with his argument. "There are 200 people killed and 2,500 seriously injured on London's roads each year, and it costs £1.2 billion [about $1.9 billion]," he said. This argument is not persuasive at all. Lines offers no evidence that regulating speed by GPS would produce a net decrease in traffic fatalities, injuries or economic damage. It is reasonable to assume that if all vehicles were required to equip such a device, some of each of the following (in unknown proportions) would occur: * Some crashes caused in whole or in part by excess speed would not occur. * Some crashes that could have been avoided by accelerating suddenly and briefly exceeding the speed limit would occur. * Some people would be exposed to dangerous situations, such as criminal assault that they may have been able to flee in an unrestricted car. It is probably safe to assume that some criminals will figure out how to bypass the devices on their own cars. * Some people requiring urgent medical care will suffer increased harm or death because they could not reach a hospital as quickly. And I'm probably forgetting a few things. Without some analysis of the likely changes in these outcomes, it's impossible to say whether the harms cited by Lines support the introduction of such devices.
- wildwood 17y ago
  The sad thing is, even if it led to a net increase in death and injury due to the causes you described, the traffic regulators would likely still see it as a gain, because it would reduce the number of "traffic deaths". (Even if it lead to a larger increase in "crime deaths" and/or "medical trauma deaths".) It's another case of being careful what metrics you use, and what you optimize for.
philwelch 17y ago
I wonder what happens when the GPS miscalculates which road I'm on and cuts my speed limiter to 25 MPH on the freeway.
TrevorJ 17y ago
I really hope this doesn't go anywhere. I hate this idea. If you have the option to speed but don't, you are still free. If you don't even have the option you aren't.

9 points by CWuestefeld 17y ago

jacquesm 17y ago

Man I'd hate to be in a situation where I could get out of a situation by stepping on it and being held back by some helpful little box. It hasn't happened often in my driving career that stepping on the gas was a better option than braking but the few times that it did happen I was very happy to have that option.

tptacek 17y ago
I'm not in favor of these devices, but if I was, I'd counter that argument by suggesting they be tuned to 5mph over the posted speed limit, and allow a burst of ungoverned speed up to one minute if the accelerator is fully depressed.
- jacquesm 17y ago
  tough to be you when you're trying to get to hospital with a wounded person and the governor kicks in. There is no substitute for human judgment. If you can't play by the rules you should lose your license, everybody else should be in full control of their cars and be held fully responsible in case they abuse their power. The only way I'd have peace with this is if it came with an 'override' button and all I'd have to do is give a valid explanation for the use of it (or pay a hefty fine).
  - gjm11 17y ago
    Suppose someone does the necessary studies, and it turns out that having a system like this would save 100 lives per unit time by reducing accidents, at a cost of losing 1 life per unit time because someone was unable to get to the hospital so quickly. Yeah, "tough to be you", and it would be really horrible for the victims and the people trying to get them to medical care in a hurry; but it could still be well worth it. The override button isn't a bad idea, though.
    - tc 17y ago
      The road to hell is paved with utilitarianism. That is to say, just because you can show that a policy produces gains on some statistical matrix does not mean that it is morally correct to coerce people into your scheme, particularly people that aren't doing anything wrong. Consider if I could show that eliminating redheads from society lowered traffic fatalities, saving 10k lives per year [1]. Would you argue it proper to kill off all the redheads [2]? Or even to use the minimum force 'necessary,' and require all redheads to keep their hair dyed brown? I hope not. Just be cognizant of whether the outlines of your argument can lead to nonsense. -- [1] Perhaps lots of men were rubbernecking behind the wheel to get a good look at those redheads, but the researchers couldn't definitively determine the causal pathway. [2] Only if the net present value of the expected future gain in lives was greater than the number of redheads that needed to die, of course.
      - frig 17y ago
        You're being silly: under your scenario the 'minimal force necessary' would be about what's necessary to prevent drivers from being distracted by random glimpses of penis: - general knowledge that "hey, there's a law against indecent exposure; waving penis at passing drivers is indecent exposure" - general knowledge that penis-flashers who get caught will suffer unpleasant consequences ...it's certainly not "cut off all the penii preemptively", and not even "surgically install unremovable loincloths"; in other words if red hair was really that unbelievably distracting the worst-case scenario minimal force for redheads would be that they cover up while in certain parts of the public. So aside from the strawman choice of examples, you're also depending on utilitarianism to argue against it, which is pretty lame: - don't be a utilitarian! it leads to bad outcomes!

ryanwaggoner 17y ago

Voluntary mode overrides the throttle so it slows the car and prevents the driver from speeding. Kudos for the Orwellian naming convention :)

gjm11 17y ago
I think the point is that in this trial drivers get to choose whether the device is actually limiting their speed or not; what's voluntary is their choice to be limited by it.
- ryanwaggoner 17y ago
  Yeah, I get it, but I still think it's ironic. I mean, if this becomes required someday, it could still be called "voluntary" because you don't have to drive.

Zak 17y ago

Like many road-safety campaigners, Lines is very persuasive with his argument. "There are 200 people killed and 2,500 seriously injured on London's roads each year, and it costs £1.2 billion [about $1.9 billion]," he said. This argument is not persuasive at all. Lines offers no evidence that regulating speed by GPS would produce a net decrease in traffic fatalities, injuries or economic damage. It is reasonable to assume that if all vehicles were required to equip such a device, some of each of the following (in unknown proportions) would occur: * Some crashes caused in whole or in part by excess speed would not occur. * Some crashes that could have been avoided by accelerating suddenly and briefly exceeding the speed limit would occur. * Some people would be exposed to dangerous situations, such as criminal assault that they may have been able to flee in an unrestricted car. It is probably safe to assume that some criminals will figure out how to bypass the devices on their own cars. * Some people requiring urgent medical care will suffer increased harm or death because they could not reach a hospital as quickly. And I'm probably forgetting a few things. Without some analysis of the likely changes in these outcomes, it's impossible to say whether the harms cited by Lines support the introduction of such devices.

wildwood 17y ago
The sad thing is, even if it led to a net increase in death and injury due to the causes you described, the traffic regulators would likely still see it as a gain, because it would reduce the number of "traffic deaths". (Even if it lead to a larger increase in "crime deaths" and/or "medical trauma deaths".) It's another case of being careful what metrics you use, and what you optimize for.

philwelch 17y ago

I wonder what happens when the GPS miscalculates which road I'm on and cuts my speed limiter to 25 MPH on the freeway.

TrevorJ 17y ago

I really hope this doesn't go anywhere. I hate this idea. If you have the option to speed but don't, you are still free. If you don't even have the option you aren't.