Q1.) Should all civilian vehicles be governed to 100 mph? This could save fuel and lives, as well as reduce insurance rates.
Q2.) We have the technology, should GPS type satellites be used to automatically send out tickets to people who break speed limits, park illegally or commit other traffic violations? This would free up police for more serious duties, and also save lives and conserve fuel.
2007-03-07 16:11:08 · 6 answers · asked by bumppo 5 in Cars & Transportation ➔ Safety
Q1 no. It affects too small a fraction of the population. Normal people don't drive 100mph. The few that do, don't drive 100mph that often. Anyway, 99 is just as reckless as 120 on an urban freeway.
On wide open rural freeways full of nuthin' but trucks, like Reno-Omaha, or Phoenix-San Antonio... everyone drives 75-80, but NOBODY drives much faster. (honest. Drive em yourself and see.) So again a 100mph governor wouldn't make any difference there either.
Of course, in Germany, 100mph is fine.
Q2 That essentially amounts to "prior restraint", but then so does implied consent for a breathalyzer test. I think it would be outlandish to do this for lawful citizens, though I could imagine repeat offenders being allowed to install this system as a deal to get their license back early. In which case it would not be helpful for it to "ding" them for 5-10 over the limit, as you often must drive that fast to stay safely with the flow of traffic. (which is why governors below 75 mph are a bad idea!)
As for parking illegally, you don't need GPS. Just detector loops in the pavement of the parking spot (or bus zone) alerting a metermaid that a car is parked illegally, and go ticket it :)
One thing... if tickets were so frequently given, then penalties would have to be MUCH less severe -- otherwise most people would lose their license in the first day :) One of the problems with robot camera red-light runner enforcement is the burden of proof for this serious, points charge. Must match photo of driver to his DMV license, and if it isn't clear or don't recognize him, they get off. Well what if it were a trivial wrist slap like a parking ticket, but you got it everytime you ran a red light? What if it was on the owner (like parking tickets) so "I wasn't driving" isn't a defense? That might work.
2007-03-07 16:55:51 · answer #1 · answered by Wolf Harper 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
1) Definitely. If you've ever driven at 100 you know it's far too fast for most roads and most cars. Also, the owner should have the ability to regulate it lower (like down to 45 for a parent of teenage driver, or to 75 for a rental car). This is already done with a lot of trucks.
2) I hesitate on this because it's just nitpicking. There's a lot of aggressive driving out there that it wouldn't see, and the moving penalties have become so relatively draconian that leaving your driving freedom up to electronic reliability (is there such a thing?) is a crap shoot.
2007-03-08 00:48:45 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
To Q1, sure.
To Q2, I doubt it would ever work. There would be a whole lot more tickets, and because there would be a whole lot more tickets, more people would fail to pay them. Officers who used to look for speeders, etc, would now be looking for people who don't pay their tickets. Until you can enforce ticket paying by GPS, this won't work.
2007-03-08 00:15:44 · answer #3 · answered by spockofvullcan 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
a) It may not be a bad idea, especially for teenagers, whos insurance rates are tantamount to murder.
b) I don't think GPS should be used.
2007-03-08 00:22:50 · answer #4 · answered by Shant J 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
NO and NO. And since you used the word "Big Brother", you know why I say NO :-)
2007-03-08 00:17:31 · answer #5 · answered by Misha 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
NO and NO.
2007-03-08 10:28:58 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋