Archives

Automatic speed control devices should be installed in cars to force motorists to stick to speed limits, an influential pressure group recommended. (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/driving/article5418016.ece)

http://www.cleanmpg.com/photos/data/501/Lady_Di_s_Death_in_this_high_speed_MB_crash.jpgDavid Byers - UK Times – Dec. 30, 2009

Lady Di's last minutes came within this smashed MB. The saddest car fatality in history may have been avoided with a system like this in place.

Considering just a few of the positives including lower traffic fatalities, lower fuel consumption and lowered emissions, the speed demons are out to put this one down ASAP. -- Ed.

The Commission for Integrated Transport (CfIT), a government transport advisory group, said that up to 29 percent of injury accidents on the road could be prevented by the voluntary introduction of intelligent speed adaption (ISA).

The system, which the report recommended drivers installing on a voluntary and not compulsory basis, would automatically slow a car down to within the limit for the individual road on which it is being driven.

However opponents of the report, co-written by the pressure-group Motorists Forum, claimed the idea was dangerous as drivers would enter "zombie" mode, where they fail to pay proper attention to road conditions.

The report, which also looked at the impacts on fuel consumption, emissions, noise and road network efficiency, concluded that, on 70mph roads, adherence to the speed limit could also lead to savings of up to six per cent in CO2 emissions as well as reduce accidents...

“This important report shows the very real benefits to motorists from the introduction and use of an ISA system - not just in road safety but also in terms of fuel and money saved," CfIT vice-chairman David Leeder said… http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/driving/article5418016.ece

Ironically, the tunnel near the JFK assassination site in Dallas has columns just like the ones that killed Princess Diana. The only survivor was the only one wearing a seatbelt - the other three died. I heard the impact was between 60-90mph and well over 10g (probably much higher). The impact physical moved Diana's heart - there have been no instances of survivors with displaced hearts. It was the same as when JFK was admited to Parkland - the doctors could not do anything for the Princess. Had she survived, she would have been an invalid for life.

We need to do things like this. One of the indisputable truths on how to control human behavior is the time between action to consequences and the perceived probability of consequences. Severity of consequences has virtually no affect, but if you know your car will shut down if you try to go to fast, or it's a given that you will get a ticket every time you speed, people will stop engaging in speeding.

Setting the vehicle's maximum speed to match the local road would be dangerous.

Sometimes you have to merge onto an Interstate where cars are going above the speed limit. How would you do that if your speed was limited?

Other times, a not-too-carefully-thought-out passing maneuver is attempted, where the only thing that would save you is the ability to max out your speed and get the passing done before a collision happens.

There are just too many instances where an attempt at increased safety would result in the opposite, a nasty wreck.

Harry

From the American College of Emergency Physicans (http://www3.acep.org/patients.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&id=26102&fid=1348&Mo=No&acepTitle=Speed)


Emergency physicians see the tragic consequences of speeding firsthand.
Speeding was a factor in 30 percent of fatal crashes in 2004, killing an average of more than 1,000 people each month (13,192 total).
Excessive speed reduces a driver's ability to respond to unexpected road hazards, increases the distance needed for braking, and increases the severity of a crash once it occurs.
The economic cost of speeding-related crashes is estimated by the government to be more than 40 billion dollars per year.
The American College of Emergency Physicians supports enforcement of speed limits and opposes further increases in speed limits.

It seems to me that the people who would voluntarily install this system could simply be a little easier on the gas pedal. And people who are inclined to speed would choose not to have it installed.

Sometimes you have to merge onto an Interstate where cars are going above the speed limit. How would you do that if your speed was limited?

You would never have to go above the limit if everyone was forced to be going the limit...or the onramp could have a 5/10 mph limit above the ajoining roads. This is escpecially true if you combine that tech with tech to prevent tailgating....at any speed over 10mph, there should be a car length of space to pull in to.

However, unless its mandatory, I don't see it working unless it has limited effect for exactly the type of reason you stated. I wouldn't mind feeling pop on my gas ped if I miss a speed limit change. Combine that with increased resistance on the ped if I'm over the limit and it would be a good safety measure for those who choose to have it, but if others are permitted to speed, you sometimes have to as well, at least for a short moment, to manuver safetly.

This would only be one step closer to dictatorship and the ultimate intrusion on privacy as well as the worst form of big brother yet. People can slow down if they chose to do so, I do not need the government to run my life. Plus what if there was an emergency where I had to go faster to save my life or a friends life such as getting to a hospital in time or outrunning a tornado for example. By the way 137k on my new prius and so far so good.

So where is the ballance between the "dictatorship" you refer to and the Anacharchy that gets innocent people killed?

I have a right to not get killed my someone breaking the law when i drive down the road. There are risks i accept when i drive and ones i should NOT have to accept.

Driving is a Privledge - not a right.

I can see a midification to the system - maybe allow a 60 second excursion from speed limit before re-inforcing the limit again and some period of enforcing the limit - This allows Emergency avoidance situations to be handled ( should not last more than a minute anyway).

I hope no one is even in the "Drive the friend to the hospital" situation - but i think we can agree that that is pretty Rare - where as the idiot Recklessly speeding will cause more harm that that rare situation.

Just my 2 cents.

steve

Excellent point: anacharchy is no more acceptable than a police state

Princess Di's death could have been avoided if she had decided not to endanger herself and others by not speeding away from photographers (not assasins or godzilla, but flashbulbs) and by not letting her intoxicated driver drive.
If law enforcement would do just that on a regular basis on our streets and highways there would be no need for any sort of additional devices. There's a system in place to discourage speeding and unsafe vehicle operation, it isn't being effectively used.
This device would also hamper those of us who may break the limit when rolling down a hill in order to make it up the next with less effort or in a P & G situation, something like that.

I'd love to see the difference in speed control = police state attidude between large city & small town folks. Going to London/Chicago/New York, you see plenty of cars, but you live in the mass transit system...a combination of trains, buses, taxis, and walking. In the large cites, you don't really need a car for daily life, but if you commute in/out of city or work in a town where mass transit isn't available, a car is a virtual necessity. In addition, the smaller the town, the more likely you are to commute long distances on open roads, making speeding more desirable. This is very different from city dwellers, where they already have no say in how fast the train goes, so having big-G step in to control cars is probably less of a concern.

Seperatly, if you set your cruise control to X, say 65, and the road slows to 50, I would hope when 65 resumes, the car would remain at 50 until the driver acts. This would create a need for the driver to maintain attention. Not to mention construction zones where the system might not slow you down and where you might not slow down if your not used to paying attention. I would think the primary technical concerns for the technology would be a combinatino of correct data being available, and a GPS system accurate enough to know if your on the 3 lane 70mph interstate on the 45mph access road right next to, or perhaps below the interstate.

Will England never learn?

They tried this once before when they banned guns. Violent crime went through the roof. I guess they never asked themselves where is the deterrent for thugs if innocent citizens are unable to defend themselves?

I am always amazed when people see a situation like this and jump to the conclusion that making a law or some other restriction will fix the problem. Laws only work for the people who obey them! I promise you, you can put any kind of technology you want on the road today and someone will figure out a way to hack it. Iraq is a perfect example. We have significantly superior firepower and an unquestionable technological edge, yet after all of these years we are still fighting.

What happen was a tragedy, but don't be so quick to think that a government can fix everything.

If only we could just take away all freedom, all thought, all responsibility, then we'll all be safe and happy. I can't wait for the day when I don't have to decide anything for myself...

Not.

Do things have to be black-and-white?

Any alternatives over the two choices mentioned so far to deal with the speeding issue?

If only we could just take away all freedom, all thought, all responsibility, then we'll all be safe and happy. I can't wait for the day when I don't have to decide anything for myself...

Not.

Quite so. Just banning all automobiles will do a lot toward eliminating highway deaths.

I am very skeptical of any program to use technology to replace driver knowledge, experience, and judgment.

I will again say that I believe it would be far more productive to devote scarce resources toward driver's education and enforcement of laws against reckless driving, failing to signal for turns and lane changes, slow drivers cruising in the left lane and failing to yield to faster ones instead of trying to nail someone going 58 mph in a 55 mph zone.

I also found it quite interesting that speeding was blamed for deaths in thirty percent of traffic accidents in the study cited above. What about the other seventy percent? What was their cause, and would the solution proffered in England do anything to reduce those?

Do things have to be black-and-white?

Any alternatives over the two choices mentioned so far to deal with the speeding issue?Surely we have creative minds.

Harder driving exams or recertication?

Stricter laws for violators?

Other ideas?

If only we could just take away all freedom, all thought, all responsibility, then we'll all be safe and happy. I can't wait for the day when I don't have to decide anything for myself...

Not.

I'm with you on this one. I don't want my world sterilized for me at the expense of something as fundamental as the ability to make a choice, even a bad one. Choice has decided the future of humanity for millenia. Make good choices and you thrive, bad choices and you suffer the consequences. If you start with something as simple as nannymobiles, eventually we do away with all risk and become little more than scared, coddled children. In some ways it seems awfully selfish, setting back an entire species because a generation is afraid of the world.

Other ideas?

It is my firm opinion that all drivers should be exposed to the suffering that is endured by those involved in accidents. I do not mean by reading a statistic in a book, or watching a movie, or listening to a lecture in an auditorium. I mean actually visiting a hospital and maybe even taking care of someone in a coma because they or someone else were speeding. With a nice "before" picture next to the bed - something to think about while emptying the urine collection bucket or whatever. Or a one-on-one conversation with someone crippled because of a drunk driver. Or attend a funeral to see the devastation to a family. Maybe a day's work in the morgue...

There are ways to get thru to most people, even kids. We just don't do a very good job of it.

Some people will never listen, and you cannot save them. There will always be accidents. Have an accident, another day helping in the hospital. Maybe even the thick-skulled (like I was when younger) can be gotten thru to if the lesson is repeated.

We have willingly given away far too many liberties already. I firmly believe that the solutions to most of our problems are not to be found by making more laws, but by more freedom, more responsibility, more community.

Surely we have creative minds.

Harder driving exams or recertication?


Other ideas?

What do you want to achieve? What is an 'acceptable' number of people killed horribly in car accidents?

Not meant a flip question, ultimately it's central to the sort of policy being debated here.

If the number is zero (or incredibly close to that number,) there will be serious trade offs in terms of individual liberties. I would prefer to avoid those. Accordingly, driver education (and re-certification) is probably the most important thing -- far more than enforcement or speed control devices.

At the end of the day, if fools want to get into cars driven by idiots who drive while intoxicated (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6179275.stm), no amount of laws or technological nannies are going to save them.

...eventually ... become little more than scared, coddled children. I don't know where you are, but up here in MA, it's too late. Already at that point, I think.

In some ways it seems awfully selfish, setting back an entire species because a generation is afraid of the world.

Not a species, a culture. The decline of western civilization...

I agree with Grendel. The real issue here is accountability. We have a problem with enforcement but aside from that, the cost obviously isn't high enough. Speeding tickets have become an "expense" of driving... like fuel or insurance. Something like the service suggested by Grendel is painful in a different way. One that cannot become just a "cost" but rather an illumination of actual consequences and a real addition of accountability.

We are too late to make a rapid change in the game without stripping too much in the way of liberty, but we can gradually bring people back in line by grounding them in reality. Reality is always more effective than intimidation.

I think there's a reasonable limit. The maximum speed limit I've seen is in Texas on the interstate and that's 80 mph. So I think a reasonable speed limiter for cars would be to set it at 85mph with the ability to go up to 95 mph for 60 seconds. Those are more than reasonable limits. This would also keep people watching their speed and focused as going over 85 would cause DFCO after 60 seconds. You could add a feature with on-star for example that would allow emergency personnel to disable it in case of an extreme emergency.

It is my firm opinion that all drivers should be exposed to the suffering that is endured by those involved in accidents. ... Maybe a day's work in the morgue...

Along this line, I'd like to see more crosses or memorials at crash fatality scenes. Some places (MT??) permanently install a cross for each fatality. My state (WA) doesn't memorialize fatalities, but allows families to install their own. These are 'tolerated' for a couple years, then the state removes them in order to reduce the discomfort to those who are disturbed by seeing these reminders of death.

I think that a lot more drivers need to be reminded much more often. That is why I prefer the Montana model.

Some people will never listen, and you cannot save them. There will always be accidents. ...

Another thing is to abolish this silly no-fault euphemism of accident. Few are truly accidents, the great majority are preventable. The National Safety Council has adopted a more accurate term -- automobile CRASH. We should do the same.

Another thing is to abolish this silly no-fault euphemism of accident. Few are truly accidents, the great majority are preventable. The National Safety Council has adopted a more accurate term -- automobile CRASH. We should do the same.Excellent point. Thank you for that well-needed correction. I agree entirely.

I agree with the lack of "sence of responsability" - and i am NOT advocating that government make every decision - at least not untill they show thay can make even ONE correct one.

I believe i am a responsable person - I believe i am doing my best to raise responsable children/ But as the past year has shown us - there are so many who take NO responsability for there actions. and the RESPONSABLE people end up with the burdon. If freedom means i have to pay for other peoples lack of thought and responsability for there actions. what alternative is there?

I am not trying to be a bummer here - I think freedom and personal responsability are what have made us a great country - but i just question how we can get back to that.

I will again say that I believe it would be far more productive to devote scarce resources toward driver's education and enforcement of laws against reckless driving, failing to signal for turns and lane changes, slow drivers cruising in the left lane and failing to yield to faster ones instead of trying to nail someone going 58 mph in a 55 mph zone.



I agree.

Start with the police! I've seen them drive by in the pouring rain with no lights on, when it is state law to use headlights in the rain. When I was teaching my children to drive, I told them not to drive like police, because most of them are lousy drivers.

We spend perhaps a million dollars to train a fighter pilot. How much do we spend to train the typical car driver? 50 cents for a DMV booklet? It's pathetic.

Acquiring a driver's license should be comparable to getting a pilot's license, with the same level of instruction and insistence on having a skilled, competent driver. It's time we stop giving out driver's licenses, and make people earn them by hard work, and pay a significant amount to acquire them.

We don't need more gizmos, we need better drivers. Speed is only one factor. What about all the other factors? It's simplistic for the police to only write speeding tickets and let all the other infractions go, like talking on cell phones (illegal here), failing to signal lane changes and turns, tailgating, and on and on...

Harry

I am not trying to be a bummer here - I think freedom and personal responsability are what have made us a great country - but i just question how we can get back to that.

If you think they alone made us a great country, you would be wrong. Think of the early days of free enterprise where the averge american was virtually slave labour, and unions couldn't organize because a combination of the businesses, peoply hired by the businesses, and even some local goverenment, used any necessary tactics including violence and murder to make sure the factories continued to operate full speed and without disruption. That is the legacy and the promise of minimal government....a country where a few control the many using famine and fear. That's why a strong government truely controlled by the people has to exist and should represent a good thing. However, most of these people don't represent much more than themselves and their friends...we have let government move away from people who are our neighbors and friends into those whoes movites may not be much further than the tyrants of past. We need to stop just accepting those names placed in front of us and instead seach our the best, brightest, and with the biggest hearts, to be our leaders. With a government like that, a government of us, we shouldn't have to fear controls or abuse, because we the governement will stop it.

On a different note...the original story has speed control as an option, not a requirement. Several of us stated that this wouldn't work unless it was EITHER mandatory, or the control wasn't a requirement, but a suggestion. Somehow we all went down the path of...ok, it must be mandatory, and got into this very polital discusion. Shouldn't we be staying with the tech? By the way, there are already commercially available solutions like this, but using different tech....GPSs. They now have road-speed data and can show it on screen. I have heard of, but not seen, models that can give an audio alert if you exceed the speed by more than X miles an hour. Far different than a system tightly integrated with the car, but no less useful. Its also something that was suggested on this site in the last 6/12 months. Its nice to see the features we want turning up the technology we use.

Let me ask a question....if this system were an option & lets say it only provides feedback when exceeding the limit without forcing you to slow, would you want such a feature in your car? For yourself? For your children?

I agree with the lack of "sence of responsability" - and i am NOT advocating that government make every decision - at least not untill they show thay can make even ONE correct one.

I believe i am a responsable person - I believe i am doing my best to raise responsable children/ But as the past year has shown us - there are so many who take NO responsability for there actions. and the RESPONSABLE people end up with the burdon. If freedom means i have to pay for other peoples lack of thought and responsability for there actions. what alternative is there?

I am not trying to be a bummer here - I think freedom and personal responsability are what have made us a great country - but i just question how we can get back to that. I'm trying to not be a bummer too. If my points seem strongly worded, it's because I'm trying to really change the way some people think. I'm concerned less with the details of this particular issue, and more with the way people these days think that giving up freedom is the answer to everything. I think it's killing the country. I hate to dump that on you guys on the other side of this, but that's what I think it's about. Believe me, I'm trying to engage you and convert you - I'm not arguing just to be a jerk about it. That said...

Taking away the freedoms of everyone, just because some people refuse to do what they are told, is not a solution for a people who wish to remain free. The answers are to better punish those that cause trouble in a way that hurts, and to better convince people not to cause trouble in the first place. It's really not as hard as it sounds.

I greatly prefer to live in a world where people can speed, than to live in one where every car is going the same speed because some bureaucrat decided (rightly or wrongly) that's what the speed should be on this stretch of road.

And that speed will be the lowest common denominator too, btw. It won't matter that my nice new Altima with the fancy suspension and brakes and traction control, driven by an older and wiser person (me), can handle certain speeds and conditions, at any particular time of day, better than that younger person (me as a teenager) can in that old poorly kept piece of junk. The "proper" speed will be what someone thinks that the 16 year old kid can handle in that piece of junk.

You think speeders are dangerous? How are we going to deal with the sociopaths that we are going to make by forcing people to drive at little old lady speeds?

You want to save some lives that are supposedly lost by speeding? Make people move out of the passing lane after they pass, and let the speeders pass. That will eliminate some of the crazy swerving and passing on the right that I see around MA, and a large portion of the road-rage, I bet.

And radio controls on the steering wheel. Why isn't that standard on everything yet?

Think of this like it's a classroom....so far we have some strong opinions to either punish the entire class or let it go wild.

What about cracking down on the guy that cut up?

What about cracking down on the speeder harder?

I have a couple of suggestions that some of you may or may not like:

1: Make driver's education (80 hours of instruction including hands-on) mandatory, with a seperate defensive driving course requirement (10 hours of instruction). If a license is suspended, revoked, etc. these classes must be repeated before receiving your license again. People with licenses already would have to be grandfathered in.

2: I agree that tickets are becoming thought of as necessary "driving expenses". There is an easy fix to that. Triple all ticket costs. This won't affect those of us that obey the laws already.

3: In the case of a collision, the cost of any tickets is tripled again and if anyone dies in the collision, a case for involuntary manslaughter can be made.

4: With #1 and #2, if no collision happened the ticket may be waived if the person never had the new classes and pays to go through the classes.

I am normally against any new laws, but I am only suggesting one (#1). The rest are already in the books but the punishment isn't enough to be a deterrent.

Let me ask a question....if this system were an option & lets say it only provides feedback when exceeding the limit without forcing you to slow, would you want such a feature in your car? For yourself? For your children?

We did get sidetracked didn't we.

I personally wouldn't pay for the option. But then I already abide by the speed limits, and I don't have children. The only person that drives any of my vehicles is a very trusted friend of mine (heck, we are buying a house together) that may go as fast as 5 over the speed limit.

If I had a child of driving age, I would definately give this option a look. Especially if it stored information that would let me know how fast the car had been driven.

I don't know what kind of action, but the only way you will stop any behavior is if the individual knows there will be immediate punishment. Otherwise, many individuals will not be able to abscond.

For example, you have an important exam or task on Monday which you must prepare for on Friday or you will fail. Even though you know you will fail, and it's important to perform well, many people will still go out partying on Friday, because the pleasure from the bad behavior is immediate, but the gratification from the proper behavior is delayed until Monday.

This doesn't apply to everyone in every situation, but it is a basic principle of human behavior which I believe in. There has to be immediate unwanted ramifications which outweigh the behaviors benefit and the individual has to believe their will be and then they will change their behavior.

The rise and fall of great nations is often tied to the character of it's people.

May I suggest some of the behavior on the road is evidence America is declining?

Self-government without self-dicipline does not work.

Might be OK in crowded England, but imposing a mandatory speed limiter in the US is completely senseless. There are many places in the west (including a good chunk of Oregon) where it is usually perfectly safe to go 80 or even 90 mph for a distance of dozens of miles or more. It might not be fuel efficient, but saving lives is the only possible justification for making something like this mandatory, and I just don't see it.

And where would you set the speed limiter? 75 mph, since that's the highest speed limit in the US? 65 for vehicles sold east of the Mississippi, but then what happens when you travel west? And shouldn't you allow a buffer for passing? Some states, such as Washington, ALLOW you to exceed the speed limit to pass, and have 2-lane roads with posted limits as high as 65mph. Presumably you need to set the limiter to 75mph just to allow for safe passing in Washington.

I would only support such a thing (as mandatory) if it were set to a high enough speed where there would never be a legitimate reason to go that fast on a public road. In my mind that limit would have to be at least85 or 90 mph.

On the other hand, if it were optional and user configurable I might be OK with it. I still think there's a danger that it could be set too low and thus put the driver and others in danger in an unanticipated situation.

Fuzzy, it's South Dakota that puts up the "Think" signs at locations where fatalities have occurred. The signs also say "Why Die?" on the bottom. When you come to a rural intersection with half a dozen of them in one place, it really does make you think. (By the way, the state will remove individual signs at the request of family members, but otherwise they stay there in perpetuity). I think every state should do this, and a few years ago I wrote my elected officials asking that they propose Oregon do the same thing.

And where do you set the speed limiter? 75 mph, since that's the highest speed limit in the US?

If you look at the orignal post you will find that the "limiter" is locaiton based. While we don't know if it absolutly limits you, we know if adjusts based on the speed of the road (or at least the database's information for speed on the road)


Some states, such as Washington, ALLOW you to exceed the speed limit to pass, and have 2-lane roads with posted limits as high as 65mph.

Can you provide a link to an offical source that states this to be true. I'm unaware of any such laws.

Can you provide a link to an offical source that states this to be true. I'm unaware of any such laws.

Actually I did find something...
"No person shall drive a motor vehicle at such a slow speed as to impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic except when reduced speed in necessary for safe operation or in compliance with the law; Provided, That a person following a vehicle driving at less than the legal maximum speed and desiring to pass such vehicle may exceed the speed limit, subject to provisions of RCW 46.61.120 on highways having only one lane of traffic in each direction, at only such a speed and for only such a distance as is necessary to complete the pass with a reasonable margin of safety."

However combined with the fact that it only applies when passing a vehicle driving below the speed limit, and other rules require a appropirate clear distance before passing, I can't imagine an officer or court would give you more than 5/10 mph for this, and you would have to restore to legal speed as soon as the pass is complete. If someone has to go 25mph above the limit to pass, they didn't allow sufficient clear room to pass.

...
Fuzzy, it's South Dakota that puts up the "Think" signs at locations where fatalities have occurred. The signs also say "Why Die?" on the bottom. When you come to a rural intersection with half a dozen of them in one place, it really does make you think...

South Dakota can't be the only place. I haven't been to SD, but I have seen many uniform white crosses, obviously standard issue (maybe with date and name or initials, but no "Think" or other logo), somewhere.

The spouse and I counted the crosses along one stretch of road, and it was a surprisingly large total (now forgotten). Something in my mind wants to say it was the highway from Big Sky to Bozeman. That is why I indicated Montana.

-- Dean

Actually I did find something...
"No person shall drive a motor vehicle at such a slow speed as to impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic except when reduced speed in necessary for safe operation or in compliance with the law; Provided, That a person following a vehicle driving at less than the legal maximum speed and desiring to pass such vehicle may exceed the speed limit, subject to provisions of RCW 46.61.120 on highways having only one lane of traffic in each direction, at only such a speed and for only such a distance as is necessary to complete the pass with a reasonable margin of safety."

However combined with the fact that it only applies when passing a vehicle driving below the speed limit, and other rules require a appropirate clear distance before passing, I can't imagine an officer or court would give you more than 5/10 mph for this, and you would have to restore to legal speed as soon as the pass is complete. If someone has to go 25mph above the limit to pass, they didn't allow sufficient clear room to pass.
I agree 25 would be a bit excessive, but IMO a 5-10 mph speed differential isn't enough for safe passing in many cases. The less time spent in the opposite lane the better. I'd guess they'd give you at least 10-15, which on a 65mph road is 75-80mph.

Ah, that same old tired "highway merge" argument. Think of the
loaded semi, that's all I have to say about that.
.
There are a few bad pilots that cut up, but they don't last long.
Pilots take a lot of personal responsibility for their actions
and skills, and they're always in communication with each other
and the tower. They understand the value of situational awareness,
smooth flow, and spacing. The FAA doesn't hand out pilot tickets
like they were candy, as opposed to most states' motor vehicle
authorities these days.
.
What is really needed is to raise the issues of bad driving and
the consequences to the level of national emergency, as I tried
to express here (http://techno-fandom.org/~hobbit/cars/sotu.html), and support that at all levels -- government,
the media, and grassroots social training and interaction. Someone
cutting up on the roads should be viewed with the same alarm as
someone deliberately bumping into people in a crowd just to try
and feel big and tough. Most people wouldn't stand for it, and
would be mildly horrified even if they didn't say anything.
Universal advocacy of safe and smooth traffic flow, accomodating
ALL conditions that may come up, needs to be cast in a positive
light that makes people feel more in tune with each other and
that they're helping a common cause. The way things are now, so
many drivers seem to feel like it's the end of the world to have
to wait a few seconds behind someone who has chosen to go a little
slower on a shared PUBLIC roadway -- maybe they're from out of town
and just trying to FIND something?? The community-beneficial
response is to back off a ways and let them do their thing in
peace, and that somehow needs to be brought out as something that
everyone can feel good about doing for each other.
.
Same with highway merges, where I have proven time and again that
leaving plenty of space for people to *get* on and get going makes
everything smoother overall. I will never condone or agree with
anyone who claims a need to bully one's way into a highway, period.
.
That's not big-brother dictatorship, that's common sense.
.
_H*

Here's an example from yesterday: I was tailgated twice on an Interstate in a snowstorm.

How about a gizmo to prevent people from tailgating me? That's entirely possible, a device that would factor speed and a sensor for determining distance, and then stepping in and preventing that tailgater from following me too closely.

Now that's a gizmo I could go for!


Harry