GPS-Aided Speed Traps

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/apr/28/tomtom-satnav-data-police-=
speed-traps

"Dutch drivers might have wondered how it was that speed traps were
always in just the right place to catch speeders. It turned out to be
simple enough: if they owned a TomTom, their in-car satnav was spying
on them, and the aggregated data about cars' speed was being sold via
the government to the police =96 who used it to set the traps.

. . . Normally the aggregated data would be used to tell subscribers
to TomTom services how to route around traffic conditions and give
improved estimates of journey time. The sale of data to the government
was intended to help it understand causes of congestion and accidents.

But the police had a simpler idea for how to use the data to offset
the cost of buying it, and followed that as well."


The TomTom announcement, linked in the Guardian story:

http://www.tomtom.com/page/facts

On 2011-05-01 13:47 , Ed M. wrote:
ice-speed-traps

If it were up to me, no car could operate without a speed governor which =

would receive radio signals from the road side indicating the maximum=20
speed on the road. Some tolerance would be given, but it sure as hell=20
would be impossible to drive 160 km/hr in a 90 zone.

Ironically, such a system would allow increasing the speed limit on many =

roads, safely. Further, it could be used to limits speeds more in=20
inclement conditions, construction areas or for flow management during=20
rush hour.

It would free up police resources to do other things, reduce speeding=20
related accidents as well as reduce fuel consumption and emissions per km=
=2E

It is absurd that we have speed limits on roads, yet it is legal to sell =

cars that can easily exceed the maximum speed limit by a factor of 2 and =

sometimes much more.

As an extension of the above, cars would record their fuel consumption=20
per km, and those vehicles that consumed the most would be taxed the=20
most; those that consumed a nominal goal amount not taxed at all; and=20
those that consumed less than the goal would be given a credit (paid by=20
the gas hogs). That is the best way to subsidize efficiency: have the=20
hogs paying for the most efficient users every time at the tank. Of=20
course, over time the nominal goal would be raised (km/litres) to=20
encourage the development and use of ever more efficient vehicles.

--=20
gmail originated posts filtered due to spam.

On Sun, 01 May 2011 14:29:04 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:


I hope there would be a quick way for the driver to override the
speed governor, because otherwise it would surely cost lives.

Hans-Georg

On 2011-05-01 16:52 , Hans-Georg Michna wrote:

No. You're propagating the false scare tactic that the automobile
industry has successfully promoted.

To a near certainty it is most dangerous to accelerate out of danger
when you are at the speed limit or at the speed of the "mass" of
vehicles in which you are traveling. If you are at a lower speed you
still have that option. But generally you are safer stopped than
accelerating in dangerous conditions. (Yes, you can now create 99
scenarios where accelerating will save your life, but the fact is each
scenario has other viable options where reducing speed and maneuvering
is the safer option).

And in the end, statistically, such will result in fewer accidents for
most and too bad for the few where it doesn't work out.

Automobile companies have successfully marketed the notion of
overpowering acceleration as a life saver. This is misleading.

One US BMW ad showed a lady merging onto a freeway to suddenly find an
18 wheeler whizzing by. In the commercial she confidently jabs the
accelerator of her beamer to the floor and overtakes the 18 wheeler with
lots of room to spare.

She equally could have gently hit the brakes and merged properly. After
all, on a freeway merge in North America, one must yield to the traffic
on the freeway when merging. IIRC it is the same in most (all?) of Europe.

Fear of death marketing in common. It doesn't make it right.

--
gmail originated posts filtered due to spam.

Drivers already pay more for increased fuel consumption. Taxes won't
make cars more efficient, nor should we be subsidizing it. Let people
who want poor mileage pay for it by buying more fuel and those who don't
get further on a gallon. Please don't set yourself up as a dictator who
will make others satisfy your goals. Let them satisfy their own.