http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/03/25/ford_auto_speed_limit_obedience_fuel_starvation/
Quote
Ford has announced a new intelligent speed limiter system which reads traffic signs and reduces fuel flow to keep your vehicle within the speed limit.
Quote
The Intelligent Speed Limiter combines current Ford technologies: the Adjustable Speed Limiter and Traffic Sign Recognition, which are both already available on models including the Focus, Mondeo, and Kuga SUV.
At speeds of between 20mph and 120mph the system smoothly decelerates by restricting the fuel supplied to the engine, rather than applying the brakes. Should travelling downhill cause the vehicle to exceed the legislated speed an alarm is sounded.
I'm guessing this wouldn't be popular around here. (I'm also wondering what would happen if some kid switched a "Speed Limit 70" sign on an interstate with a "Speed Limit 20" sign...)
Quote from: algorerhythms on March 25, 2015, 12:26:39 PM
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/03/25/ford_auto_speed_limit_obedience_fuel_starvation/
Quote
Ford has announced a new intelligent speed limiter system which reads traffic signs and reduces fuel flow to keep your vehicle within the speed limit.
Quote
The Intelligent Speed Limiter combines current Ford technologies: the Adjustable Speed Limiter and Traffic Sign Recognition, which are both already available on models including the Focus, Mondeo, and Kuga SUV.
At speeds of between 20mph and 120mph the system smoothly decelerates by restricting the fuel supplied to the engine, rather than applying the brakes. Should travelling downhill cause the vehicle to exceed the legislated speed an alarm is sounded.
I'm guessing this wouldn't be popular around here. (I'm also wondering what would happen if some kid switched a "Speed Limit 70" sign on an interstate with a "Speed Limit 20" sign...)
Or worse, changing a 35 to an 85. Threes are easy to change.
Quote from: algorerhythms on March 25, 2015, 12:26:39 PM
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/03/25/ford_auto_speed_limit_obedience_fuel_starvation/
Quote
Ford has announced a new intelligent speed limiter system which reads traffic signs and reduces fuel flow to keep your vehicle within the speed limit.
Quote
The Intelligent Speed Limiter combines current Ford technologies: the Adjustable Speed Limiter and Traffic Sign Recognition, which are both already available on models including the Focus, Mondeo, and Kuga SUV.
At speeds of between 20mph and 120mph the system smoothly decelerates by restricting the fuel supplied to the engine, rather than applying the brakes. Should travelling downhill cause the vehicle to exceed the legislated speed an alarm is sounded.
I'm guessing this wouldn't be popular around here. (I'm also wondering what would happen if some kid switched a "Speed Limit 70" sign on an interstate with a "Speed Limit 20" sign...)
I suspect the reason Ford is developing this in the UK is because of Britian's propensity for speed camers, especially in work zones.
The system seems to depend on the authorities properly signing their speed cameras. Not a safe assumption in North America, whatever is the practice in the U.K.
Quote from: oscar on March 25, 2015, 01:10:29 PM
The system seems to depend on the authorities properly signing their speed cameras. Not a safe assumption in North America, whatever is the practice in the U.K.
Or like in Chicago where they've been known to flag parked cars for speeding.
How does it read "End Speed Zone", which defaults the speed limit back to the statutory limit?
Quote from: Brandon on March 25, 2015, 01:14:28 PM
Quote from: oscar on March 25, 2015, 01:10:29 PM
The system seems to depend on the authorities properly signing their speed cameras. Not a safe assumption in North America, whatever is the practice in the U.K.
Or like in Chicago where they've been known to flag parked cars for speeding.
Or in Belgium, where a speed camera clocked a Mini Cooper at Mach 3 (i.e., 50% faster than Concorde!).
Sometimes, avoiding a crash requires speeding up. Removing the option to speed up would lead to more crashes.
Quote from: 1 on March 25, 2015, 03:37:39 PM
Sometimes, avoiding a crash requires speeding up. Removing the option to speed up would lead to more crashes.
"When in doubt, accelerate."
- Hugh "The Polar Bear" Rowland (as he was going over a very nasty bit of road in South America)
Or, better yet, I'd love to see these things in those states which use Boring Squares as route markers.
I sure wouldn't want to get stuck behind one of these things on, say, MA2 when the engine suddenly governs itself to 2mph! :pan:
Seriously, speed governors as a whole need to crawl into a hole and die. Nothing is more frustrating than having a governed truck pull in front of you on the freeway while you're trying to pass someone else...especially when said truck is governed at 63 and trying to pass one set to 62. Swift Transportation, be swifter please!
Quote from: cu2010 on March 25, 2015, 04:22:23 PMI sure wouldn't want to get stuck behind one of these things on, say, MA2 when the engine suddenly governs itself to 2mph! :pan:
If you'd ever been on Route 2 at rush hour, you'd realize traffic governs itself to this speed.
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 25, 2015, 01:51:41 PM
Or in Belgium, where a speed camera clocked a Mini Cooper at Mach 3 (i.e., 50% faster than Concorde!).
For people who don't want to hunt for the article on it. ;)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3613715.stm
Big Brother
And now on CNN.com:
http://money.cnn.com/2015/03/25/technology/ford-speed-limit/index.html
The comments are brutal...
So if a Canadian comes down here with the technology, would they be stuck going 40 mph on the interstate?
The local news station was branding this as "how would you like to never get a speeding ticket ever again", so there's at least one person out there aside from Ford's PR people that are trying to sell this.
35 being changed to 85 isn't a problem because the car does not force you to go the (apparent) speed limit. In this case it would be like a normal car that doesn't resist speeding.
Someone putting up a wrongly low speed limit sign or a situation in which higher speed is required is not a problem because the limiting effect can be cancelled with firm pressure on the accelerator.
The system seems to be intended to keep you from unintentionally going 80 in a 70, not to make it impossible. I rather like the idea, but I think there should be a way to turn it off or to add a certain allowance in places where speed limits are not realistic and strictly enforced. I've always thought self-adjusting cruise control would be nice to have. In one of these cars you could presumably set the cruise control to the highest speed limit and let it adjust automatically.
I'm baffled as to who would voluntarily buy or otherwise drive a car with this "feature". If this becomes standard equipment on Fords that will certainly prevent me from ever buying another one.
My opinion on this completely depends on implementation. It would be useful on roads with unrealistically low limits but with high enforcement (or pretty much any road at all with high enforcement) to prevent your speed from drifting too high, but only if you could enable/disable it at will. Otherwise, it's pretty much needless regulation.
I have an intelligent speed limiter behind my steering wheel.
Quote from: Duke87 on March 26, 2015, 01:00:35 AM
I'm baffled as to who would voluntarily buy or otherwise drive a car with this "feature". If this becomes standard equipment on Fords that will certainly prevent me from ever buying another one.
Yep, I agree. It's really not a hard concept to not speed. Just don't speed. Because more often than not, someone will always be going faster than you (and someone will be going faster than them!) on a multi-laned road.
Quote from: Zeffy on March 26, 2015, 09:34:48 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on March 26, 2015, 01:00:35 AM
I'm baffled as to who would voluntarily buy or otherwise drive a car with this "feature". If this becomes standard equipment on Fords that will certainly prevent me from ever buying another one.
Yep, I agree. It's really not a hard concept to not speed. Just don't speed. Because more often than not, someone will always be going faster than you (and someone will be going faster than them!) on a multi-laned road.
Or speed...just make sure you're not the fastest speeder out there!
If I'm going fast in the left lane, and someone comes up from behind me, I gladly let them pass. I consider it insurance that a nearby cop will find him first!
I have heard that if a national speed limit were to be imposed by the politicians again, all motorcars with On-Star could be programmed within seconds not to exceed it in cruise control.
Quote from: wxfree on March 25, 2015, 08:47:59 PM
.... I rather like the idea, but I think there should be a way to turn it off or to add a certain allowance in places where speed limits are not realistic and strictly enforced. ....
I would not be surprised if part of the idea behind this sort of system is a reaction to people who find the post speed limits unrealistic–it strikes me as the sort of thing regulators would like as a way of saying, "We decide what the speed limit is, not you."
I've seen arguments over the years that all cars should have governors: "The national speed limit is 55 mph, so there's no reason why a car should be able to go faster." Of course, we've seen in the past 20 years just why that sort of idea is asinine. It's impractical and unnecessarily expensive to have to get your governor reprogrammed every time the laws change, and it's absurd to say "you live in Virginia, so your car should be governed to 70 because that's Virginia's maximum"–who is the regulator to assume you won't drive in Maine where they have a 75-mph limit, for example? I suppose the idea here is that because the system can "read" the sign, it "knows" when to let you go faster–but how do you account for the problem of the sign being obscured by a big truck or the like? (I suppose nowadays if cars had governors they could be adjusted remotely, similar to what "02 Park Ave" mentions.)
Ford's system strikes me as a "solution" in need of a problem.
I suppose I have a bit of a libertarian streak in me because I think people do indeed have a RIGHT to ignore the speed limit: You have the right to drive as fast as you want, but with that right comes the responsibility to pay the penalty if you are caught violating the law, and to suffer whatever draconian penalty (including jail time) you incur if you do something idiotic like driving 75 mph on a residential 35-mph street. In other words, if you choose to go 105 mph in a 55-mph zone in Virginia, you will probably face jail time if you are caught, so if you choose to go that fast, suck it up and don't whine about it if a cop nails you and you wind up in jail.
(I cite 105 in a 55 zone because Jayson Werth got five days in jail earlier this year for doing precisely that on the Beltway.)
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 26, 2015, 11:56:24 AM
(I cite 105 in a 55 zone because Jayson Werth got five days in jail earlier this year for doing precisely that on the Beltway.)
How did he manage that? I thought the Beltway's supposed to be a pseudo-parking lot.
(Or am I mixing up I-495 with the M25? :bigass:)
Quote from: Bickendan on March 26, 2015, 12:12:47 PM
(Or am I mixing up I-495 with the M25? :bigass:)
NSFW because of profanity
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 26, 2015, 11:56:24 AM
(I cite 105 in a 55 zone because Jayson Werth got five days in jail earlier this year for doing precisely that on the Beltway.)
IMO, the Capital Beltway is
not an appropriate place for such speeds, but there are roads in Virginia where it is probably O.K. (all or nearly all of I-295 in metropolitan Richmond where it is east of I-95) and Maryland (nearly all of I-70 between Frederick and Baltimore).
As to Werth having to serve five days in the Fairfax County jail for being convicted of reckless driving, well, I am not so enthused about that
either.
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 26, 2015, 11:56:24 AM
I suppose I have a bit of a libertarian streak in me because I think people do indeed have a RIGHT to ignore the speed limit: You have the right to drive as fast as you want, but with that right comes the responsibility to pay the penalty if you are caught violating the law, and to suffer whatever draconian penalty (including jail time) you incur if you do something idiotic like driving 75 mph on a residential 35-mph street. In other words, if you choose to go 105 mph in a 55-mph zone in Virginia, you will probably face jail time if you are caught, so if you choose to go that fast, suck it up and don't whine about it if a cop nails you and you wind up in jail.
There are two barriers in the U.S. to freeway-class roads with no speed limit:
(1) Much of the design of the system is
old, and was never envisioned for such (potential) speeds (perhaps one exception might be the New Jersey Turnpike, which was designed and engineered for speeds of up to 80 MPH - in the late 1940's).
(2) We do not demand enough driver education and training in the U.S. that would be needed for such speeds.
Of course, self-driving vehicle technology might render this discussion moot.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on March 26, 2015, 12:57:43 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 26, 2015, 11:56:24 AM
I suppose I have a bit of a libertarian streak in me because I think people do indeed have a RIGHT to ignore the speed limit: You have the right to drive as fast as you want, but with that right comes the responsibility to pay the penalty if you are caught violating the law, and to suffer whatever draconian penalty (including jail time) you incur if you do something idiotic like driving 75 mph on a residential 35-mph street. In other words, if you choose to go 105 mph in a 55-mph zone in Virginia, you will probably face jail time if you are caught, so if you choose to go that fast, suck it up and don't whine about it if a cop nails you and you wind up in jail.
There are two barriers in the U.S. to freeway-class roads with no speed limit:
(1) Much of the design of the system is old, and was never envisioned for such (potential) speeds (perhaps one exception might be the New Jersey Turnpike, which was designed and engineered for speeds of up to 80 MPH - in the late 1940's).
(2) We do not demand enough driver education and training in the U.S. that would be needed for such speeds.
Of course, self-driving vehicle technology might render this discussion moot.
(3) Political climates do not favor implementing such driver education or raising/eliminating speed limits. That could be slowly changing on the state level with stretches of Interstate going to 70, 75, 80 (and 85 in Texas?), but it is very unlikely we'll see the Montanabahn return in its full glory.
(4) Related to political climate, public perception in areas still holds to the gospel of speeders will exceed the limit by X even if the speed limit is raised by Y to match the 85% speed, despite that not being the case in instances where the limit was appropriately raised.
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 26, 2015, 11:56:24 AMthe problem of the sign being obscured by a big truck or the like
That's enough, right there, to make me not like the idea. If the speed limit goes up but the sign is hidden behind a tree or a truck, or maybe it's posted on an overhead sign and the system doesn't get that concept, then I would have to override it by mashing down on the gas. No thanks.
Frankly, I also think this would, long term, would be way to make drivers less responsible. They might get used to it and stop paying attention to the speed limit signs for themselves. Then they'll wonder why a problem occurs when the system fails to notice a reduction in speed limit upon entering a town and a child runs out into the road after a basketball.
My company installs GPS devices in our technicians' work trucks, and those devices monitor speeds. The company we use for that service balances that data against a database of known speed limits for individual stretches of road, then sends my bosses an alert if a vehicle is speeding over a certain threshold that our company has set. This causes problems sometimes. It's happened before that, when a driver on an Interstate going over a bridge, the GPS device thought for a second that the truck was on the surface street below. Then our bosses, in another city unfamiliar with area, get a speeding alert for going 65 in a 35 zone, and they have to hunt down the truth. At other times, the speed limit on file for a certain road is just plain wrong; in that case, our staff has to figure out what the correct sore limit is and call in a correction to the other company. One such road here in the Wichita-Augusta area is right by a tech's house, so an alert was being issued almost every time he went to or from work.
I point that issue out not because the technology at hand is the same, but to illustrate that this sort of technology is quite fallible. And it's one thing to have alert issued, but quite another thing to have your car suddenly slow down.
Quote from: kphoger on March 26, 2015, 01:44:14 PM
....
I point that issue out not because the technology at hand is the same, but to illustrate that this sort of technology is quite fallible. And it's one thing to have alert issued, but quite another thing to have your car suddenly slow down.
Indeed. I'm also skeptical of all the V2V and similar stuff due the risk of havoc if someone hacks the system.
Quote from: Bickendan on March 26, 2015, 12:12:47 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 26, 2015, 11:56:24 AM
(I cite 105 in a 55 zone because Jayson Werth got five days in jail earlier this year for doing precisely that on the Beltway.)
How did he manage that? I thought the Beltway's supposed to be a pseudo-parking lot.
(Or am I mixing up I-495 with the M25? :bigass:)
I believe it was early on a Sunday morning. He was driving a Porsche 911 GT3.
About ten years ago, I rented a Mercedes C280K in Britain which had a speed limiter (presumably GPS-based) instead of cruise control. I disliked it because it required continuous application of foot pressure to the throttle pedal (unlike a true cruise-control system) and limited vehicle speed to the speed limit minus 5 MPH.
I am not a fan of speed limiter technology even if it will fix vehicle speed exactly at the limit and can be overriden by the driver. In Britain a technology based on reading signs would work far better than in the US because essentially only two typefaces are permitted on traffic signs and the speed limit signs are all of standard design with dimensional measurements that have remained unchanged since 1965 (save for metrication in the early 1970's). In the US there are far too many weird signs relating to state-specific speed zoning practices, many states have their own speed limit sign designs, and many counties use speed limit signs that look nothing like those shown in Standard Highway Signs. (As an example, some counties around here use designs with both "SPEED LIMIT" and the limit value in Series C--which is pretty hard even for human drivers to parse at speed.)
As for companies using GPS to track their employees--ugh.
Quote from: kphoger on March 26, 2015, 01:44:14 PM
Frankly, I also think this would, long term, would be way to make drivers less responsible.
There's lots not to like about this whole concept, but the quoted is definitely my biggest hang-up. Giving drivers another reason to pay even less attention to the road than they already do is hugely problematic IMO.