From UK Telegraph:
EU plans to fit all cars with speed limitersQuoteAll cars could be fitted with devices that stop them going over 70mph, under new EU road safety measures which aim to cut deaths from road accidents by a third.
FULL ARTICLE HERE (http://markholtz.info/6w)
Speed limiters? Uh, no. Maybe a speed limit indicator on my dash. That would be helpful.
Yikes. There's two ways to avoid an accident. Slow down, or speed up. Remove one of those two ways from the equation and fatalities will go up, not down.
Quotethe plans, which could also mean existing cars are sent to garages to be fitted with the speed limiters, preventing them from going over 70mph
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha no. One of the reasons I drive old cars is because I eschew overbearing technological crap like this.
Note to EU, please see stupid experiment in US from 1974 through 1986 for further information.
Won't happen - just as it hasn't the other 100000000 times the Eurocrats have proposed it. EU Commissioners like their high performance vehicles*.
The issue the Eurocrats have to overcome is not liberty: both state and personal rights.
Nor is it safety: for their propaganda has won that fight and decent arguments like corco's are ignored or treated with disdain
It also isn't getting the number right - this isn't a blanket 90km/h or 100km/h like those for trucks and coaches/buses/larger vans/minibuses (see below)
It's the jobs lost, the elites upset, and the pride lost with the death of the European Supercar for public consumption if there's a blanket 150km/h (or 130km/h) limit.
The worst thing about this proposal is the satellite tracking. And it's not just going to limit you to 70mph - it will limit you to the speed limit in that place! I guess Galileo has to be justified somehow - it's technology based on a war where the USA and EU aren't allies, and GPS is blocked: it needs a peacetime purpose and its peacetime purpose is to make our roads more dangerous by removing from people the need to work out a safe speed - just put the pedal to the metal and you'll be OK! Well, at least the speed limiter is the Trojan Horse for tracking vehicles (even in the 1984 dystopia that is 21st century UK, the Automatic Number Plate Recognition and CCTV systems that can track cars have masses of checks and balances in encryption and deletion of data)
*and they, the 27-member unelected (they are appointed by member states and confirmed by MEPs) executive - in the EU's bizarre way that the EU orders separation of powers - make the laws. The Parliament (elected by party list proportional representation by universal suffrage - so almost directly elected by the people) merely have the Veto stamp on the Executive's decisions.
Quote from: english si on September 03, 2013, 06:36:06 AM
The issue the Eurocrats have to overcome is not liberty: both state and personal rights.
Nor is it safety: for their propaganda has won that fight and decent arguments like corco's are ignored or treated with disdain
It also isn't getting the number right - this isn't a blanket 90km/h or 100km/h like those for trucks and coaches/buses/larger vans/minibuses (see below)
It's the jobs lost, the elites upset, and the pride lost with the death of the European Supercar for public consumption if there's a blanket 150km/h (or 130km/h) limit.
How active are the Greens at the EU level and how much power do they have? This sounds like something that would originate with them. There's no viable Green Party on the U.S. side of the pond, but the Sierra Club and its allied groups (NRDC and the Smart Growth industry)
love stuff like this.
The unfortunate thing about such proposals is that they are usually developed in deepest secrecy, and the "sprung" on an unsuspecting public.
Quote from: english si on September 03, 2013, 06:36:06 AM
The worst thing about this proposal is the satellite tracking. And it's not just going to limit you to 70mph - it will limit you to the speed limit in that place! I guess Galileo has to be justified somehow - it's technology based on a war where the USA and EU aren't allies, and GPS is blocked: it needs a peacetime purpose and its peacetime purpose is to make our roads more dangerous by removing from people the need to work out a safe speed - just put the pedal to the metal and you'll be OK! Well, at least the speed limiter is the Trojan Horse for tracking vehicles (even in the 1984 dystopia that is 21st century UK, the Automatic Number Plate Recognition and CCTV systems that can track cars have masses of checks and balances in encryption and deletion of data)
I don't see it going anywhere.
Quote from: english si on September 03, 2013, 06:36:06 AM
*and they, the 27-member unelected (they are appointed by member states and confirmed by MEPs) executive - in the EU's bizarre way that the EU orders separation of powers - make the laws. The Parliament (elected by party list proportional representation by universal suffrage - so almost directly elected by the people) merely have the Veto stamp on the Executive's decisions.
This is an issue that
might infuriate EU voters - and, implicitly, MEPs.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on September 03, 2013, 08:12:26 AMThis is an issue that might infuriate EU voters - and, implicitly, MEPs.
MEPs don't have to care that much about what their constituents think - at least not as much as their party thinks. OK, smaller constituencies will have more accountability as not all parties will get someone, but even there, the party can drop you to second on the list and kick you out without the need for the voters to do anything.
I don't see it going anywhere either, but that the people don't like it means jack shit to Brussels. After all, they got Ireland to vote again on Lisbon, which itself was the EU constitution that the Netherlands and France rejected with the meaningless pomp removed (eg the EU anthem, the EU public holiday, etc) to pretend that it wasn't the same thing reheated. Corporations, political elites, astro-turf lobbying groups (ie artificial grass roots lobbying paid for with taxpayers money - mostly done by large charities/NGOs like Oxfam, WWF, Greenpeace, etc) are what Brussels is designed to hear, not the people.
As for the Greens - politically, the Green parties form part of the The Greens-European Free Alliance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Greens%E2%80%93European_Free_Alliance) - which includes localists who want greater devolution/independence for Scotland, Wales, Corsica, etc (they are termed Nationalist, but Nationalist parties are either in the Eurosceptic the Communist block (Sein Fein)/url] or [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance_of_European_National_Movements]the Fascist block (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_United_Left%E2%80%93Nordic_Green_Left)) and are typically Eurosceptic (though they side with Europhilic groups who see Westminster/Paris/Madrid as remote, but don't mind Brussels calling the shots most of the time). Greens in Europe are Localist, anti-Corporations and somewhat anti big-state, but they are pro big-NGO.
70 mph? The motorway speed limit is higher than that in most EU countries, when such a limit even exists!
Quote from: english si on September 03, 2013, 06:36:06 AMI guess Galileo has to be justified somehow
what does he have to do with anything?
Something like this will never be passed in any U.S. jurisdiction. Governments are too reliant on speeding fines.
Quote from: Dr Frankenstein on September 03, 2013, 11:08:09 AM
70 mph? The motorway speed limit is higher than that in most EU countries, when such a limit even exists!
UK-centric reporting from the Telegraph.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on September 03, 2013, 12:44:04 PM
Quote from: english si on September 03, 2013, 06:36:06 AMI guess Galileo has to be justified somehow
what does he have to do with anything?
Other than being a very over-rated scientist* who gave his name to the European Space Agency/European Union's sat nav system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_(satellite_navigation)), nothing.
*seriously, his credibility comes from the political problems from the Pope, and the laughable science - seriously, tides showing the earth's rotation when it was obvious that they were linked with the moon's rotation and had been for centuries - what was Galileo smoking? - that led to his austraciation. Of course, he did do some good work on the Telescope, but that doesn't change the fact that Copernicus did the proper science before Galileo did his crummy job. Galileo gets the credit for heliocentricity as he came up with the right answer, but wrong reasons, in a place where Aristotle (who came up with geocentricism) still reigned supreme.
Quote from: english si on September 03, 2013, 04:55:07 PM
austraciation
Does this mean 'sent to a penal colony'? :bigass:
Quote from: agentsteel53 on September 03, 2013, 12:44:04 PM
Quote from: english si on September 03, 2013, 06:36:06 AMI guess Galileo has to be justified somehow
what does he have to do with anything?
It is not Galileo the astronomer English Si is talking about--rather, it is the EU's clone (currently under development) of the GPS satellites, which are currently under the control of the US military.
I basically agree with English Si's analysis. There are too many constituencies that would be opposed to hard speed limitation to 70 MPH, especially given the fact that many EU countries have higher motorway speed limits (in some cases much higher). The fact that this story appears in the
Torygraph makes me suspect an attempt to stir up the ABD tendency, or alternatively an attempt to re-frame the debate so that the measure that is really wanted--such as mandatory installation of GPS-based, driver-selectable speed limiters in new car models--looks much more reasonable by comparison.
To the best of my knowledge, no cars currently sold in the US have driver-selectable speed limiters, but it is not uncommon for newer cars in Europe to have this feature. It competes to an extent with cruise control. The main difference between the two is that cruise control allows you to set the cruising speed and, when engaged, will maintain that speed automatically, while this type of speed limiter requires you to keep your foot on the throttle and, when engaged, will not allow you to go over the speed limit for the road segment you are on (as determined by GPS) minus a safety offset. (Years ago I rented a Mercedes C280K with this type of limiter and the safety offset was apparently 5 MPH; this meant that when the limiter was set, I could go no faster than 25 MPH in a 30 MPH area.)
I dislike even selectable speed limiters and, judging from comments on a recent SABRE thread on this topic, it seems the general preference is for cruise control even among native-born Britons who are road and driving enthusiasts. However, I can see speed limiters being much more appealing than cruise control to EU bureaucrats because they do not apply power automatically to maintain a set speed, which disposes of the scenario where a distracted driver forgets cruise control is engaged and is carried full speed into a collision.
Quote from: J N Winkler on September 03, 2013, 05:02:49 PM
To the best of my knowledge, no cars currently sold in the US have driver-selectable speed limiters, but it is not uncommon for newer cars in Europe to have this feature. It competes to an extent with cruise control. The main difference between the two is that cruise control allows you to set the cruising speed and, when engaged, will maintain that speed automatically, while this type of speed limiter requires you to keep your foot on the throttle and, when engaged, will not allow you to go over the speed limit for the road segment you are on (as determined by GPS) minus a safety offset. (Years ago I rented a Mercedes C280K with this type of limiter and the safety offset was apparently 5 MPH; this meant that when the limiter was set, I could go no faster than 25 MPH in a 30 MPH area.)
The 1996 BMW 3-series I once drove had a trip computer with a button you could use as a speed limiter of some kind. I don't know whether it actually prevented you from exceeding the set speed, or just sounded a buzzer if you were going too fast. I, of course, never used that feature, so I wouldn't know.
Quote from: oscar on September 03, 2013, 05:25:06 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on September 03, 2013, 05:02:49 PM
To the best of my knowledge, no cars currently sold in the US have driver-selectable speed limiters, but it is not uncommon for newer cars in Europe to have this feature. It competes to an extent with cruise control. The main difference between the two is that cruise control allows you to set the cruising speed and, when engaged, will maintain that speed automatically, while this type of speed limiter requires you to keep your foot on the throttle and, when engaged, will not allow you to go over the speed limit for the road segment you are on (as determined by GPS) minus a safety offset. (Years ago I rented a Mercedes C280K with this type of limiter and the safety offset was apparently 5 MPH; this meant that when the limiter was set, I could go no faster than 25 MPH in a 30 MPH area.)
The 1996 BMW 3-series I once drove had a trip computer with a button you could use as a speed limiter of some kind. I don't know whether it actually prevented you from exceeding the set speed, or just sounded a buzzer if you were going too fast. I, of course, never used that feature, so I wouldn't know.
BMWs are limited to 155 MPH (most if not all of the M cars are capable of significantly higher speeds), and cars sold in Japan have been limited to 180 km/h (112 MPH) for decades; most JDM speedometers I've seen don't go above 190 km/h while the USDM equivalents are maxed out at 140-150 MPH in my cars.
I don't think that counts as "driver selectable".
lots of cars have governors. my 2001 Taurus threw itself into neutral when I hit 116mph coming down a hill once.
Quote from: NE2 on September 03, 2013, 05:02:45 PM
Quote from: english si on September 03, 2013, 04:55:07 PM
austraciation
Does this mean 'sent to a penal colony'? :bigass:
Ya know what, I'm legitimately confused as to what word this is supposed to be. Ostracization? He wasn't ostracized so much as - well, he wasn't excommunicated either - censured?
Quote from: english si on September 03, 2013, 10:03:39 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on September 03, 2013, 08:12:26 AMThis is an issue that might infuriate EU voters - and, implicitly, MEPs.
MEPs don't have to care that much about what their constituents think - at least not as much as their party thinks. OK, smaller constituencies will have more accountability as not all parties will get someone, but even there, the party can drop you to second on the list and kick you out without the need for the voters to do anything.
Good point. Parties matter - a lot - in most parliamentary systems.
Quote from: english si on September 03, 2013, 10:03:39 AM
I don't see it going anywhere either, but that the people don't like it means jack shit to Brussels. After all, they got Ireland to vote again on Lisbon, which itself was the EU constitution that the Netherlands and France rejected with the meaningless pomp removed (eg the EU anthem, the EU public holiday, etc) to pretend that it wasn't the same thing reheated. Corporations, political elites, astro-turf lobbying groups (ie artificial grass roots lobbying paid for with taxpayers money - mostly done by large charities/NGOs like Oxfam, WWF, Greenpeace, etc) are what Brussels is designed to hear, not the people.
Hmm, this sounds more than a little like Washington, D.C.!
Quote from: english si on September 03, 2013, 10:03:39 AM
As for the Greens - politically, the Green parties form part of the The Greens-European Free Alliance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Greens%E2%80%93European_Free_Alliance) - which includes localists who want greater devolution/independence for Scotland, Wales, Corsica, etc (they are termed Nationalist, but Nationalist parties are either in the Eurosceptic the Communist block (Sein Fein) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_United_Left%E2%80%93Nordic_Green_Left) or the Fascist block (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance_of_European_National_Movements)) and are typically Eurosceptic (though they side with Europhilic groups who see Westminster/Paris/Madrid as remote, but don't mind Brussels calling the shots most of the time). Greens in Europe are Localist, anti-Corporations and somewhat anti big-state, but they are pro big-NGO.
Many of the positions advocated for by the Nordic Greens are certainly very Communist-sounding. Never mind that the Communist regimes of the Soviet Empire were some of the worst despoilers of the environment - ever.
Some similarities between the Greens and stateside environmental groups as well. Many U.S. groups like the Sierra Club and EDF are most-effective at lobbying the legislative and executive branches of the federal government. In most of the United States, an environmentalist endorsement is simply irrelevant come Election Day (though the Sierra Club especially will cynically support candidates who appear to be very favored to win and then claim credit for same).
Quote from: cpzilliacus on September 03, 2013, 08:43:16 PM
Many of the positions advocated for by the Nordic Greens are certainly very Communist-sounding. Never mind that the Communist regimes of the Soviet Empire were some of the worst despoilers of the environment - ever.
AKA the 'string shit together and hope nobody notices' school of logic.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on September 03, 2013, 07:20:09 PM
I don't think that counts as "driver selectable".
lots of cars have governors. my 2001 Taurus threw itself into neutral when I hit 116mph coming down a hill once.
Similarly, Ford now advertises this as one of the features of their MyKey (https://media.ford.com/content/fordmedia/fna/us/en/news/2013/06/11/ford-mykey--now-on-6-million-vehicles--helps-parents-keep-teens-.html) system. Depending on which key is in the ignition, things like max speed or radio volume (among a list of others) can be limited for certain drivers.
Apparently, no, it isn't happening. for now.
http://jalopnik.com/the-eu-isnt-really-planning-to-limit-all-cars-to-70-mp-1246413214
Quote from: NE2 on September 03, 2013, 09:10:34 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on September 03, 2013, 08:43:16 PM
Many of the positions advocated for by the Nordic Greens are certainly very Communist-sounding. Never mind that the Communist regimes of the Soviet Empire were some of the worst despoilers of the environment - ever.
AKA the 'string shit together and hope nobody notices' school of logic.
To be quite frank, the Scandinavian countries have had a decent environmental record (while being more than a bit socialist), but the former Communist Eastern Bloc and Soviet Union had a very dismal one. It's a bit of irony, isn't it.
Quote from: Brandon on September 04, 2013, 06:31:47 AMTo be quite frank, the Scandinavian countries have had a decent environmental record (while being more than a bit socialist), but the former Communist Eastern Bloc and Soviet Union had a very dismal one. It's a bit of irony, isn't it.
I should point out that the Nordic Green is simply part of the name of the 'Communist' block (they don't call themselves that) in the EU Parliament - sure there's a couple of Scandinavian green-left alliances in there (though only two of the Nordic Green-Left Alliance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_Green_Left_Alliance) sitting in the EU Parliament). And even when you look at the Nordic Green-Left Alliance, the parties all have names like the Socialist People's Party and Left Party. There's not much Green there.
Quote from: Steve on September 03, 2013, 08:26:52 PM
Ya know what, I'm legitimately confused as to what word this is supposed to be. Ostracization? He wasn't ostracized so much as - well, he wasn't excommunicated either - censured?
I meant ostracized - and he kind of was: excluded from the big boys table, laughed at (with good reason). He wasn't really censured, or we'd have not heard of him (the places where Rome had less-to-no control also found his ideas mostly laughable and he wouldn't have even got a look in there).
J N Winkler called him an astronomer - that's very true, and he was a good one when it came to making telescopes and seeing Jovian moons. However there's the myth (somewhat based in history, but not actually history) that means that he's some martyr for science and needs to be honoured with grand space projects named after him. Why not name the European GPS system after some famous navigator like Magellan or Cook? Or at least someone more competent in the field that Galileo is famous for - Copernicus or Kepler?
Quote from: cpzilliacus on September 03, 2013, 08:43:16 PMGood point. Parties matter - a lot - in most parliamentary systems.
More so in systems where you vote for the party, and not the person. Like the EU one. Many European parties use the EU elections to give unelectable people an elected job. They also use the appointment of Commissioners to place non-entities/unelectable people and give them enormous power.
You kind of have that in the US, but the party (if not the public) openly chooses its candidates and the parties in a two party system, as well as making it a much more us v them, end up as very broad due to having to reflect the diversity of the nation: a Democrat from Idaho would likely see a Republican from Maryland as liberal on several issues. Party lists PR typically allow the party bigwigs to control and narrow the party.
Quote from: english si on September 04, 2013, 07:19:27 AMWhy not name the European GPS system after some famous navigator like Magellan or Cook?
I think those names are probably politically incorrect these days. the history of navigation is so entwined with colonialism that I can't think of any famous navigator offhand who hasn't been pushed aside in recent years. Leif Erikson?
Quote from: agentsteel53 on September 04, 2013, 10:35:38 AM
Leif Erikson?
And that's only because he's an alternative to the nowadays-less-popular Christopher Columbus.
Also those pesky Norwegians voted against EU membership (twice) and Leif, being of Norse descent, was born in Iceland (not voted to join) and died in Greenland (which voted to leave).
Plus he went to North America, the hated continent. At least Cook and Magellan did it to export Europe to the world.
Quote from: Brandon on September 04, 2013, 06:31:47 AM
Quote from: NE2 on September 03, 2013, 09:10:34 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on September 03, 2013, 08:43:16 PM
Many of the positions advocated for by the Nordic Greens are certainly very Communist-sounding. Never mind that the Communist regimes of the Soviet Empire were some of the worst despoilers of the environment - ever.
AKA the 'string shit together and hope nobody notices' school of logic.
To be quite frank, the Scandinavian countries have had a decent environmental record (while being more than a bit socialist), but the former Communist Eastern Bloc and Soviet Union had a very dismal one. It's a bit of irony, isn't it.
Sure is. I believe the biggest single source of pollution in the entire Baltic Sea watershed has traditionally been untreated municipal sewage from St. Petersburg, Russia. In part a legacy of the former Soviet Union.
There has been some pretty bad environmental damage done in the Nordic nations (usually associated with natural resource extraction, animal fur processing (raising of mink for their pelts is a significant industry in some Finnish municipalities) and railroad construction (large-scale soil contamination by creosote and arsenic at wood processing plants is surprisingly common)), but less since the world became environmentally aware in the 1960's and 1970's. These days, the environmental laws and rules are probably as strict in Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden as they are in the United States (and they
still manage to plan, engineer and construct major highway projects).
It is possible to safely swim in most waters adjacent to or in downtown areas of Nordic cities - at least in the summertime (not such a good idea in February - the water tends to be, well,
hard).
Quote from: oscar on September 03, 2013, 05:25:06 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on September 03, 2013, 05:02:49 PM
To the best of my knowledge, no cars currently sold in the US have driver-selectable speed limiters, but it is not uncommon for newer cars in Europe to have this feature. It competes to an extent with cruise control. The main difference between the two is that cruise control allows you to set the cruising speed and, when engaged, will maintain that speed automatically, while this type of speed limiter requires you to keep your foot on the throttle and, when engaged, will not allow you to go over the speed limit for the road segment you are on (as determined by GPS) minus a safety offset. (Years ago I rented a Mercedes C280K with this type of limiter and the safety offset was apparently 5 MPH; this meant that when the limiter was set, I could go no faster than 25 MPH in a 30 MPH area.)
The 1996 BMW 3-series I once drove had a trip computer with a button you could use as a speed limiter of some kind. I don't know whether it actually prevented you from exceeding the set speed, or just sounded a buzzer if you were going too fast. I, of course, never used that feature, so I wouldn't know.
My 2006 BMW 750Li has a settable speed limit warning, it won't stop you from going over the limit, it just gives you an alarm and a "speed limit exceeded" warning on the dash.
...whereas my company's work trucks have GPS devices which alert the drivers' supervisors when they're going too fast.
A friend of mine works for a small company that has GPS devices in all of their company cars. Don't know if they track speed, but they definitely do track location - the idea is not to enforce safe operation so much as it is to enforce that employees are going where they are supposed to be and not goofing off or joyriding.
The owner of this same company also was planning to install hidden microphones in the office to secretly record employees' conversations... until he found out that was illegal.
What a shitty company.
I once worked at a dealership that installed them on the loaner cars; after all, you're borrowing it. I was too busy to care where they all were at any given time but if you had a custom who was shy about returning the car on time (always 7-14 days later than when the car was due), I'd look them up.
"So, in case I missed your voice mail option, your car is ready."
"Sorry, I took the kids to Disney World. Won't be back for another couple of days..."
"Oh, the computer said your last two stops were on State Road 7 and Commercial Boulevard, and at..."
"...I'll have my wife/husband return the car tonight..."
Worked like a charm...it's kind of an option I wish I exploited more. We had two more weird issues; one customer had a car sitting at our rival dealer's store for three weeks, and he never called back. We finally heard back, and the customer was apologetic; not because he'd been gallivanting in our car, but because he damaged it, and paid for the repair out of his own pocket. (The loaners required insurance coverage, anyhow.) So, we kind of felt he learned his lesson.
Another loaner was sold, auctioned, and the transmitter was left inside. My guess is that there was no record of its installation, but the company offering the service had records, to be sure, because for years, a loaner car was
always in the Phoenix area, two time zones way...
Quote from: DaBigE on September 03, 2013, 10:59:33 PMMyKey
I'm so glad that the "my" trend in brand names is slowly dying out; this is the first time I've noted something like this in months.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on September 09, 2013, 03:55:39 PM
Quote from: DaBigE on September 03, 2013, 10:59:33 PMMyKey
I'm so glad that the "my" trend in brand names is slowly dying out; this is the first time I've noted something like this in months.
Especially because MySpace is being replaced with other things.
We still have MyLittlePony though.
I think the worst example was having myflorida.com on the license plates for a while. icky.