London to have satellites that monitor your speed

In a trial that can only be described as Big Brotherly, London is going to start trials of attempting to stop speeders from space.

The basic idea works around that the vehicles are equipped with information about speed limits for public roads. A satellite will monitor the speed of the car vs. the pre-installed data to determine if the car is speeding.

If the car is found to be speeding then one of two things can happen. The car can either be slowed down by the satellite (voluntary mode) or the car can alert you that you need to slow down but won't actually adjust the vehicles speed (advisory mode). There will be an override switch that will allow the driver to disable the satellites ability to control the car.

Testing will begin on London cabs, buses and government vehicles only and private citizens will not be affected. It remains to be seen if the new technology will be effective and if citizens are willing to accept this amount of government intrusion into their daily drive.

Source: Daily Mail

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

ATI Radeon HD 4890 vs. Nvidia GeForce GTX 275

Next Story

Sign up for the Office 2010 Technical Preview, due in July

137 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Here is a funny video I came across a few years back that I was able to dig up again. Basically they put a bunch of cars in a curricle and tell them to drive 30kpm. Not 29kpm, not 31kpm but 30kpm. It doesn't take long before the cars are practically rear ending each other. This is in a controlled environment and they still can't do it. The average person just can't drive. There is nothing you can do about it. Not that this really applies to this article, but I though some of you would find it amusing.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13402

LOL next thing we know they are going to have ION Laser beams attached to it, Pin point accuracy on you and everyone one you know!, Then a terrorist gets hold of it and the world is at ransom, oh boy, WW3 here we come!

Sewje said,
LOL next thing we know they are going to have ION Laser beams attached to it, Pin point accuracy on you and everyone one you know!, Then a terrorist gets hold of it and the world is at ransom, oh boy, WW3 here we come!

1. No.
2. No.
3. No.

Given that the UK government is supremely incompetent at managing public finances and taxation revenues, what on Earth will they do when the millions per year raised through speeding fines dry up?

Another example of the NWO (New World Oder)
Next they'll be installing CCTV camera's in every town. Wait, thats all ready happening here in england.
To protect us...i beg to differ greatly.

They are now wanting to put RFID chips in us.
We know it's possible because pets can have chips implanted.
Then it'll be ID card with a chip that has every bit of information about you and your life so far.

THEN barcodes. open your eyes people!!

Tommy DW said,
Another example of the NWO (New World Oder)
Next they'll be installing CCTV camera's in every town. Wait, thats all ready happening here in england.
To protect us...i beg to differ greatly.

They are now wanting to put RFID chips in us.
We know it's possible because pets can have chips implanted.
Then it'll be ID card with a chip that has every bit of information about you and your life so far.

THEN barcodes. open your eyes people!!

This has some of us more aggravated then others. It really has very little to do with speeding. I am very aggravated by it and it doesn't even effect me that much because I do the speed limit 99% of the time. What people fail to see is the big picture. This system in it's self may not be that bad. But if you don't fight it, or at least show some resistance then what will they try next. This sort of thing can snowball. I remember watching that movie Fifth Element for the first time and thinking it was a little far fetched but not to far off. Well looking at it now it doesn't seem far fetched at all. It's just around the corner. :(

Oh and iRobot. The cars had auto pilot and you got a ticket if you disabled it. Right around the corner.

This is intended as a reply to #10, #10.1 and other similar posts, but I have posted at the bottom due to the number of posts. Please note that some of the below is specific to the UK and may not apply to other countries. Please read the post in its entirety before replying. Thank you.

Kirkburn said
Speed doesn't kill, only drivers do? Hilarious. Thigh-slappingly hilarious.

Please, tell that to all the people killed on the roads by drivers going too fast in rural areas, leaving no time to react to hazards. Obviously their speed had nothing to do with it. It was the driver?


Correct. Speed does not kill. It is the impact that kills, not the speed. You and many others are confusing driving fast with driving dangerously. They are not the same thing. The opposite is also true: just because I'm driving slowly does not mean that I'm driving carefully.

Example 1: Say I was driving at 60mph in a 30mph zone and I went up on to the pavement and killed someone. Now consider the same thing but at 30mph. In both cases, I would have been driving dangerously, but only in the former would I have been exceeding the speed limit.

Example 2: I could legally drive past a school at 30mph (20 in some areas) in foggy or wet weather when children are coming out. This would not be exceeding the speed limit; it would be very dangerous and stupid driving, but not illegal. On the other hand, I could drive at 120mph on a motorway in good conditions in a car capable of that speed, when there are few other cars on the road. I would be breaking the law and risking a ban, but I would be causing far less of a danger to myself and others than driving past the school at 30mph (or 20).

It is not speed in itself that is dangerous; it is speed in inappropriate circumstances. Granted, the faster you are going, the greater the chance and seriousness of an accident may be, but that does not mean that excess speed is the only cause of the accident.

I frequently drive at roughly 10-20mph in excess of the speed limit, as do many others, and have done since I passed my test 10 years ago, and have never had an accident as a result of exceeding the speed limit. If speed really killed, I would surely have had at least 1 accident by now. If there are pedestrians, especially children, walking or crossing nearby, schools, parked cars, cyclists, etc., I slow down for them. The same goes for adverse weather. I may drive fast, but I also drive carefully.

Driving safely is about driving at a speed suitable for the road and conditions, not about sticking to speed limits. The 30mph speed limit was introduced in 1934 (source: http://www.safermotoring.co.uk/UnderstandingSpeedLimits.html), and vehicle handling and braking systems have come a long way since then.

The government can introduce all the speed limiting devices they like. It will not stop the people that really want to drive fast or dangerously and it will not make people better drivers.

The current UK driving test needs to be a lot stricter. People can pass far too easily without any understanding of how to drive safely and judge a suitable speed for the road and conditions. Driving on motorways should either be part of driving tuition (with a qualified instructor) and also part of the driving test, or as a separate test for drivers not interested in driving on motorways, and motorists not allowed to drive on motorways without passing the appropriate test. Also, I believe that making drivers re-take the driving test every 5-10 years would go a long way to reducing the number of bad drivers out there, and thus the number of accidents.

djtaylor said,
This is intended as a reply to #10, #10.1 and other similar posts, but I have posted at the bottom due to the number of posts. Please note that some of the below is specific to the UK and may not apply to other countries. Please read the post in its entirety before replying. Thank you.

Correct. Speed does not kill. It is the impact that kills, not the speed. You and many others are confusing driving fast with driving dangerously. They are not the same thing. The opposite is also true: just because I'm driving slowly does not mean that I'm driving carefully.


No I'm not confusing the two. Driving 40, 50MPH through a town is dangerous, because of the speed. Driving dangerously and speeding are very closely connected.

Of course you can drive dangerously at low speeds, but you're rather less likely to kill someone.

djtaylor said,
Example 1: Say I was driving at 60mph in a 30mph zone and I went up on to the pavement and killed someone. Now consider the same thing but at 30mph. In both cases, I would have been driving dangerously, but only in the former would I have been exceeding the speed limit.

One example does not mean anything. In any case, if the car was moving slower, the pedestrian not only has a better chance of getting out of the way, but also of surviving any collision

djtaylor said,
Example 2: I could legally drive past a school at 30mph (20 in some areas) in foggy or wet weather when children are coming out. This would not be exceeding the speed limit; it would be very dangerous and stupid driving, but not illegal. On the other hand, I could drive at 120mph on a motorway in good conditions in a car capable of that speed, when there are few other cars on the road. I would be breaking the law and risking a ban, but I would be causing far less of a danger to myself and others than driving past the school at 30mph (or 20).

Yes, drive at sensible speed limits in bad conditions. That doesn't mean in good conditions you can go faster, especially not if "you have a good car". Other cars may not have the same control, and cannot deal with cars coming past them at 100+MPH, especially for reaction times when looking in your mirrors.

djtaylor said,
It is not speed in itself that is dangerous; it is speed in inappropriate circumstances. Granted, the faster you are going, the greater the chance and seriousness of an accident may be, but that does not mean that excess speed is the only cause of the accident.

This is not something any of us have been suggesting. Only that speed is an important factor.

djtaylor said,
I frequently drive at roughly 10-20mph in excess of the speed limit, as do many others, and have done since I passed my test 10 years ago, and have never had an accident as a result of exceeding the speed limit. If speed really killed, I would surely have had at least 1 accident by now. If there are pedestrians, especially children, walking or crossing nearby, schools, parked cars, cyclists, etc., I slow down for them. The same goes for adverse weather. I may drive fast, but I also drive carefully.

You may be a good driver. However you can't design speed limits per person - they have to be for the slowest needed over the whole group.

djtaylor said,
Driving safely is about driving at a speed suitable for the road and conditions, not about sticking to speed limits. The 30mph speed limit was introduced in 1934 (source: http://www.safermotoring.co.uk/UnderstandingSpeedLimits.html), and vehicle handling and braking systems have come a long way since then.

This is true, but isn't really a case for increasing the speed limit. Pedestrians haven't changed since then, and a driver that isn't paying attention won't necessarily be helped by either handling or brakes.

djtaylor said,
The government can introduce all the speed limiting devices they like. It will not stop the people that really want to drive fast or dangerously and it will not make people better drivers.

The current UK driving test needs to be a lot stricter. People can pass far too easily without any understanding of how to drive safely and judge a suitable speed for the road and conditions. Driving on motorways should either be part of driving tuition (with a qualified instructor) and also part of the driving test, or as a separate test for drivers not interested in driving on motorways, and motorists not allowed to drive on motorways without passing the appropriate test. Also, I believe that making drivers re-take the driving test every 5-10 years would go a long way to reducing the number of bad drivers out there, and thus the number of accidents.


I absolutely agree, our driving tests do need to be expanded to include motorway driving, and people retested every decade or so (especially when you reach older ages)

djtaylor said,
The current UK driving test needs to be a lot stricter. People can pass far too easily without any understanding of how to drive safely and judge a suitable speed for the road and conditions. Driving on motorways should either be part of driving tuition (with a qualified instructor) and also part of the driving test, or as a separate test for drivers not interested in driving on motorways, and motorists not allowed to drive on motorways without passing the appropriate test. Also, I believe that making drivers re-take the driving test every 5-10 years would go a long way to reducing the number of bad drivers out there, and thus the number of accidents.

Same goes for the states. They don't even make you park anymore. You just drive around the block behind the testing facility and then your done. No time to encounter any traffic, not even a single car. Maybe one stop sign.

This further proves they don't give a crap about safety. It is all about bringing in money.

One other thing that goes a long way is parents. I drove to school with my Mom everyday for a year with her in the car before I was allowed to drive by myself. I did a lot of driving with my Dad too. He would constantly say, watch out for that mailbox, someone could jump out. You should be looking there.. and there. I also did about 4 autocross events with him so I had some clue how to drive at the limits. But I think a lot of parents think they are to busy to do all this so they just hand them the keys and say, "go kill your self tonight.. Oh and be sure to take a few friends with you".

It's time for one of those crazy ****ers with explosives in his basement to do some good for the world and destroy the satellite before it gets in the air. Seriously, this is a huge step toward the government controlling your life completely. Stop it before it gets too far. This is just ridiculous. And why does it seem like only England is coming up with all of this BS? I'd always assumed the UK was pretty safe in general, compared to the United States at least.

seeing as how this is london, big problems will arise!

firstly if the car infront is gradually slowing from 50 to 30 automatically, the car BEHIND is still doing 50 (because there somes a waypoint which cars have to pass for the speed reduction to start) which leads to a bumper to bumper mash up!

Im fine with this whole thing, but as long as its done by somebody besides the labour government

peacemf said,
firstly if the car infront is gradually slowing from 50 to 30 automatically, the car BEHIND is still doing 50 (because there somes a waypoint which cars have to pass for the speed reduction to start) which leads to a bumper to bumper mash up!

Heard of brakes?

or the car can automatically slow down when it detects the car in front slowing down, the Mercedes-Benz S class already has this tech in them (Jeremy Clarkson tested it out on TopGear a few years back, it was pretty awesome).

This is fairly old, I guess it has taken them some time to get it ready for actual use (heard about it years ago when it was just a concept). On a side note, I remember a similar tech in been used/tested in the US by the Police there, it was similar to this (perhaps even an extension of it) and it allowed the Police to remote shutdown a car to prevent the person from getting away (and thereby preventing a dangerious high speed chase) THAT I like the sound of.

I actually kinda like the sound of this system.
It would be good to be able to turn it on or off depending on the situation/driving conditions. But the main problem that I can see is the computing power that is needed to compute all the data for the cars, and what happens if the system goes down or there is a bug in the system? We can't have cars be limited to 50km in a 100km zone because of a bug in the system.

Wat has annoyed me for a while is "School Zones".
The moment I pass a set point the speed goes from 30/40/60mph to 20mph. Okay, 20 is fine between 7am to 6pm (or thereabouts), but why the hell does it need to be 20mph at midnight there won't be any school kids about at that time...

What needs to be set is relative speed limits on all roads that are dependant on time, congestion and weather... If it's clear and sunny and I'm on an empty motorway the limits can be faster, but it's rainy/foggy/busy then drop it down. Like what is already done on some major roads, do on ALL roads.

Cheshire Cat said,
What needs to be set is relative speed limits on all roads that are dependant on time, congestion and weather... If it's clear and sunny and I'm on an empty motorway the limits can be faster, but it's rainy/foggy/busy then drop it down. Like what is already done on some major roads, do on ALL roads.

I agree, but doing so is rather expensive and can be high maintenance. Schools may start earlier, end later on specific days, for example. You'd have to ensure the signage was clear about when the limits apply, such as electronically switching them, Which require cables, electricity, very stable supplies and software, and central control.

Kirkburn said,
I agree, but doing so is rather expensive and can be high maintenance. Schools may start earlier, end later on specific days, for example. You'd have to ensure the signage was clear about when the limits apply, such as electronically switching them, Which require cables, electricity, very stable supplies and software, and central control.

They do this a lot in the states. The signs don't have wires. They have batteries and solar panels and are updated via RF. In my city they have cameras mounted everywhere. They also have sensors in the roads to detect the speed of the traffic all over town. All the intersections are networked with fiber and they have a control center with a staff that monitors the traffic all day. They could write speeding tickets all day but they can improve safety more effectively by simply keeping traffic flowing.

ermax said,
They do this a lot in the states. The signs don't have wires. They have batteries and solar panels and are updated via RF. In my city they have cameras mounted everywhere. They also have sensors in the roads to detect the speed of the traffic all over town. All the intersections are networked with fiber and they have a control center with a staff that monitors the traffic all day. They could write speeding tickets all day but they can improve safety more effectively by simply keeping traffic flowing. :)

I agree, it very much annoys me to see traffic stopped or braking for no reason.

Mr Spoon said,
Well, my car is safe as it doesn't have one of those sat nav things!

You're "safe"? From what? Being caught speeding?

sensationalist much? it's not like they're spying on your ass and sending the fines automatically (like they do NOW, by the way). it's a system that alerts you or slows your car down automatically. We've all seen that coming. The next step is cars driving themselves with collision avoidance. But this isn't "bigbrotherly", this is just technology. Big brotherly would be that they use satellites to spy on your ass and fine you right away

So... you are driving down the high way at say 80mph, and there is a bug in the map of the navigation and it's begining to slow down to 30mph a car behind you hits you, you die and big brother is happy again. *tada!*

The phrase "big brotherly" or equivilant is thrown around far too much these days. I suspect most people who use it haven't read the book or something. Take this case, for example... nothing B.B.-like in having a sattelite to monitor driving speed!

I have a friend in the legal road department. He spends all day making sure that signs are set to where they are supposed to be and are in the correct font etc. Well he knew about this scheme about 2 years ago. Basically he said that the car would be chipped and a engine limiter put on it, it would monitor traffic flow from a sat in space and depending on what the traffic flow was would reduce your speed.

My response was "why not catch a f**king bus, at least you know where it's going to stop and what route you are going to take" :)

V = Vendetta, its coming people, wake up and smell the expenses.

uhm...

Wouldn't hitting the advisory bypass button more or less account for a "yes, I know I'm speeding at I have just confirmed that I am speeding." Therefore, a ticket/fine cannot be argued?

These self written editorials are beyond a joke.
Rewriting an article badly isn't unprofessional journalism, it's plain pointless.

Besides completely missing the point, the basic facts are misinterpreted.

"A satellite will monitor the speed".... ummm the car has a speedo! At what point in the source article does it say this???

"Big Brother" isn't the "only" way to describe this. One other would be public safety, another might be education.

Neowin please stick to what you do best. Copy and Paste.

PS: And no I won't submit news or give it a try myself thanks. I have better things (read: worse things) to do at my computer.

I don't mind this idea at all and yes I do drive before anyone says otherwise.

I stick to the speed limits anyway and it wouldnt make a difference to my driving except I wouldnt have to avoid the complete ******** who think its clever to tailgate you with their main beams on to try speed you up then fly past you almost taking the side of your car off in the process.

LonelyCooler said,
I don't mind this idea at all and yes I do drive before anyone says otherwise.

I stick to the speed limits anyway and it wouldnt make a difference to my driving except I wouldnt have to avoid the complete ******** who think its clever to tailgate you with their main beams on to try speed you up then fly past you almost taking the side of your car off in the process.

Well if your going slower then the flow of traffic in the passing lane then they have a right to flash you. Not sure about UK but in the states the rule is that you must be passing to use the passing lane. If you aren't moving faster then the other lane, then you are not passing and there for you need to move over. The rule says nothing about speed limits. Just because you are doing the speed limit doesn't give you the right to cruse in the passing lane.

I do agree that they should tailgate though.

I wasnt talking about the passing lane, I was talking about a standard 30mph road, and its illegal to use your main beams when someones in front of you as it stops them seeing out their mirror.

If im doing 30mph on a 30mph road I dont expect to be tailgated, blinded and then get overtaken where the persons in such a hurry incase an oncoming car shows up that they almost hit me pulling back in.

LonelyCooler said,
I wasnt talking about the passing lane, I was talking about a standard 30mph road, and its illegal to use your main beams when someones in front of you as it stops them seeing out their mirror.

If im doing 30mph on a 30mph road I dont expect to be tailgated, blinded and then get overtaken where the persons in such a hurry incase an oncoming car shows up that they almost hit me pulling back in.

I agree.

The article is rather stupidly put together. The Satellite navigation system has the road map and speeds database stored on board the car. The only part where satellites come into play is the RECEPTION OF THE GPS POSITIONING INFORMATION. The warnings are a function of the on-board navigation computer system. NO MONITORING NEEDED, YOUR CAR ITSELF HAS POSITIONAL AWARENESS, KNOWS WHERE IT IS AND TRIES TO MAKE YOU FOLLOW WHAT'S IN ITS DATABASE. It will be another annoying distraction, and will be funny when the inevitable database errors are made (as in a 20mph zone being put in the middle of a 65mph Interstate).

The aviation industry has had this stuff for years. It involves a rather large database stored in the navigation system. It's known as TERRAIN AWARENESS, and tracks your altitude and position gathered from GPS data correlating your current position to the ground level at that point. Your display can show you a color coded map where a color such as red shows terrain at or above your current position, yellow for warning of terrain approaching your current position and green for terrain below your flight path.

I belive this news post is not well reported. The technology behind is already being used by trucking companies, and works the other way around.

- The user will need to have GPS navigation system directly connected to the electronic speed limiter.
- The system checks the location on the map, and applies the limit depending on user settings.

For example, TomTom devices already do the 'advisory' mode. As soon as you are above the limit, the device tells you.

naT said,
I belive this news post is not well reported. The technology behind is already being used by trucking companies, and works the other way around.

- The user will need to have GPS navigation system directly connected to the electronic speed limiter.
- The system checks the location on the map, and applies the limit depending on user settings.

For example, TomTom devices already do the 'advisory' mode. As soon as you are above the limit, the device tells you.

Yeah I already submitted the reporting using the REPORT function above as the article is not too accurate. Obviously satellites won't monitor or stop cars and in fact the technology is already here and has been for years (existing sat navs), except that these specialised sat navs will be connected to the throttle/accelerator of a vehicle and the application running on the sat nav will be able to cut power. Pretty much how you say. The article needs rewriting

This is just going to make me drive faster. It ****es me off that they want to spend millions to try and slow us down when cars are getting better in handling and braking. No doubt if they ever installed it they would eventually find a way to fine you if you were speeding. I want to get the **** out of this ****ty country before it is too late.

So, instead of raking in millions of pounds in speeding fines, they are proposing controlling cars to prevent speeding at a cost of billions of pounds.

Shrewd business sense there, gub'na.

Bemani Dog said,
So, instead of raking in millions of pounds in speeding fines, they are proposing controlling cars to prevent speeding at a cost of billions of pounds.

Shrewd business sense there, gub'na.

Except speeding fines are not supposed to be used to generate revenue so there goes your "theory". In fact the system is not even mandatory.

testman said,

Except speeding fines are not supposed to be used to generate revenue so there goes your "theory". In fact the system is not even mandatory.

Your kidding your self if you think speeding fines aren't used to create revenue. Why do you think all the fines are going nuts as the recession started to kick in? Budget cuts are forcing them to up the fines and create more speed traps. It isn't all about safety.

ermax said,


Your kidding your self if you think speeding fines aren't used to create revenue. Why do you think all the fines are going nuts as the recession started to kick in? Budget cuts are forcing them to up the fines and create more speed traps. It isn't all about safety.

I actually said they are NOT supposed to be used to generate revenue. I know that in a lot of cases the opposite is true but I didn't say they don't do that, only that they are not supposed to be. They are clearly not proposing to control cars in order to lose money and do themselves out of revenue, that's just very silly.

He already has to a degree, the drive-by-wire thing in the Merc S class a few years back (it's vaguely similar to this)...this will probally get mentioned in the news section followed with him probally saying how moronic it is :P and that he has a better idea!

EDIT: Techically he already has, involving magnets

People who speed and get caught by a speed camera and then have the nerve to moan about them being a money making scheme should be ashamed of themselves.

It's simple. If you don't want to get caught by a speed camera and end up being fined then don't speed.

You have no excuse and I hope one day this system will be in place everywhere.

If revenue generated from speed camera's was used to make the roads safer than many people wouldn't have a problem with this.

The problem comes when local authorities use speed camera's to grab extra cash. When whitehall wanted the money from speed camera's to come direct to them, many LA's stopped installing speed camera's.

There are plenty of other more effective schemes which are genuine and work well to reduce speed. The most effective being the interactive flashing speed signs which light up if a driver is going over the speed limit. Also signs showing a happy face for driving within the speed limit and a sad face for speeders and finally a sign which lights up and displays your speed in a big billboard style on the side of the road.

All of these systems effectivley kill speed without any fine's being issued, which at the end of the day is the whole point of these systems.

REM2000 said,
If revenue generated from speed camera's was used to make the roads safer than many people wouldn't have a problem with this.

The problem comes when local authorities use speed camera's to grab extra cash. When whitehall wanted the money from speed camera's to come direct to them, many LA's stopped installing speed camera's.

There are plenty of other more effective schemes which are genuine and work well to reduce speed. The most effective being the interactive flashing speed signs which light up if a driver is going over the speed limit. Also signs showing a happy face for driving within the speed limit and a sad face for speeders and finally a sign which lights up and displays your speed in a big billboard style on the side of the road.

All of these systems effectivley kill speed without any fine's being issued, which at the end of the day is the whole point of these systems.

I understand you're point and agree to a certain extent but those that speed and get caught by a speed camera only have themselves to blame.

Like I said if you don't want to get caught then don't speed in the first place.

I've been on the receiving end of speeding drivers twice in my life and they weren't a pleasant experience. First time was some idiot doing way over 40 on a 30 road and the other was my retard aunty who somehow managed to do 50 on a 30 road after leaving her driveway which was less than 30 yards away.

Luckily the first time I just got a few bruises here and there but the second time I was in crutches for 8 weeks with a broken ankle and that was my entire summer holiday down the pan.

lee26 said,

I understand you're point and agree to a certain extent but those that speed and get caught by a speed camera only have themselves to blame.

Like I said if you don't want to get caught then don't speed in the first place.

I've been on the receiving end of speeding drivers twice in my life and they weren't a pleasant experience. First time was some idiot doing way over 40 on a 30 road and the other was my retard aunty who somehow managed to do 50 on a 30 road after leaving her driveway which was less than 30 yards away.

Luckily the first time I just got a few bruises here and there but the second time I was in crutches for 8 weeks with a broken ankle and that was my entire summer holiday down the pan.

I have to say that there is far too much focus on speed. Speed related deaths are at approximately 1,200 per year. But this is actually a misleading figure since excessive speed, over the limit, and speed inappropriate for the conditions are lumped together. Also, the speeding related deaths include those from drink driving, driving under the influence of drugs, burglars evading poilice etc... so in essence we could be looking at a real world figure of 200 deaths per year through people chosing to ignore the speed limit who aren't under the influence who are just maybe late home for tea. Do you think that a mandatory limit would stop a drunk driver, no. What about stopping the thieves who are attempting to escape police officers. Again, no.

What I am tired of with this country, is the errosion of freedom. The freedom to chose. Why should millions of drivers be penalised because of the reckless decisions of a few hundred? You can't stop all accidents, but you can take realistic precautions and leave the freedom of choice, instead of this over zealous cotton wool nanny state driven health and safety rubbish.

Piggy banks. Sure outside a school they are great, but hidden behind trees on straight areas of road with zero fatalities is just laughable, not to mention all the wasted police time in camera vans when they could be out trying to catch the thousands of criminals who are still at large.

The only reason the government want to monitor each car's speed is because they want the ability to track each vehicle, it has nothing to do with road safety, don't forget they wanted to use this method as a means of road taxation... but they were met with a lot of opposition and it was rapidly canned. What better way to reintroduce it than using "speed" and "road safety" buzzwords coined so frequently in The Sun, and Daily Mail to obtain the publics acceptance.


The government have much more pressing issues to worry about... They should focus their attention on those.

The Daily Mail as a source for Front Page News on Neowin? What is the world coming too? What next, The Sun and Page 3 as a source? :P

This is stupid, esp since they plan to lower speed limits as well. Speed doesnt kill, its the people behind the wheel that kill. Germany dont have a speed limit as such on their Autobahns (motorways) and they don't have more crashes than us in the UK.
Not saying some speed limits are bad, ones in villages and around schools are good, but enforcing them like this is a bit much i think and whats to stop it from goin wrong, which could be quite dangerous

chemaz101 said,
This is stupid, esp since they plan to lower speed limits as well. Speed doesnt kill, its the people behind the wheel that kill. Germany dont have a speed limit as such on their Autobahns (motorways) and they don't have more crashes than us in the UK.

Speed doesn't kill, only drivers do? Hilarious. Thigh-slappingly hilarious.

Please, tell that to all the people killed on the roads by drivers going too fast in rural areas, leaving no time to react to hazards. Obviously their speed had nothing to do with it. It was the driver?

The autobahn's may not have a speed limit, but they have recommended limits and speed is still taken into account in accidents. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autobahn#Speed_limits

Kirkburn said,
The autobahn's may not have a speed limit, but they have recommended limits and speed is still taken into account in accidents. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autobahn#Speed_limits

People still die when everyone involved is doing the speed limit. Speed doesn't kill. Rapid deceleration does. You can do the speed limit and still be a complete moron and change lanes without looking first and create a nice pile up. Watching over us like big brother will not make people better drivers. But it will create more revenue.

Actually, speed clearly can kill, but that's not the only factor, clearly. Just saying that speed doesn't kill is as silly as saying that only speed kills.

Pam14160 said,
. . .guns don't kill people do. . .LOL

Indeed, it made me think of that, too - except in this case it reaally made no sense.

Of course you can kill if you're doing the speed limit.

chemaz101 said,
This is stupid, esp since they plan to lower speed limits as well. Speed doesnt kill, its the people behind the wheel that kill.

Going 120km/hr on highway is just as safe as going 100km/hr (speed limit) providint you are a good driver, who is always aware of his surroundings, and providing that theres no other restrictions (heavy traffic, snow, rain, fog, etc). So no, speed doesn't kill... its bad drivers who dont pay attention. Someone going 60 on the highway is more likely to cause an accident, then someone going 100. Someone going 100 and never checking blind spots (A LOT OF PEOPLE) is going to be more likely to cause an accident then a good driver doing 120 in the passing lane.

darkpuma said,
Going 120km/hr on highway...

What the heck is this obsession with speed limits on highways?

It's stupid to say speed doesn't kill, then give a specific situation where speed is less likely to be the cause of an accident, and assume it invalidates any possible times speed could be at fault.

Drive properly, and you're less dangerous. And yes, driving at reasonable speeds is part of that.

Kirkburn said,
What the heck is this obsession with speed limits on highways?

It's stupid to say speed doesn't kill, then give a specific situation where speed is less likely to be the cause of an accident, and assume it invalidates any possible times speed could be at fault.

Drive properly, and you're less dangerous. And yes, driving at reasonable speeds is part of that.

In my examples speed is not at fault. I'm sure you could say ok, so theres a guy going 130 on the highway and he gets in an accident cus he doesn't stop in time or w/e, but then yeah, its a bad/dangerous driver... who was speeding. But the point is he is a bad driver because he was going too fast for the situation. Any accident due to speed is probably always linked to a bad/irresponsible driver.

darkpuma said,
Any accident due to speed is probably always linked to a bad/irresponsible driver.

Of course they are! The only way a car can speed is by the driver doing so. So what? The speed of the car was still a factor. Speed kills.

Kirkburn said,
Of course they are! The only way a car can speed is by the driver doing so. So what? The speed of the car was still a factor. Speed kills.

You miss the point. Actually I don't think you miss the point you are just pretending you are ignorant. You can kill someone with a 3200lbs object at just about any speed. Enforcing a speed limit isn't going to solve the problem. In fact, if I could put money on it, I would say it would make things worse. On highways you would have people going into a trance out of boredom because their minds aren't stimulated by making lane changes, making passes or being passed. People will be driving in blind spots for miles at a time. Road rage ect, ect.

What would be more effective is to raise the driving age to 25 and implement a system to give tickets for tailgating. Obviously the elimination of tailgating would save lives. They should be able to generate a ton of revenue (which is all they care about) with this. People zone out and then ride your but and don't even know it, but they are doing the speed limit. But only because I am in-front of them doing the speed limit so they have no choice. Hahaha.

ermax said,
You miss the point. Actually I don't think you miss the point you are just pretending you are ignorant. You can kill someone with a 3200lbs object at just about any speed. Enforcing a speed limit isn't going to solve the problem. In fact, if I could put money on it, I would say it would make things worse. On highways you would have people going into a trance out of boredom because their minds aren't stimulated by making lane changes, making passes or being passed. People will be driving in blind spots for miles at a time. Road rage ect, ect.

What would be more effective is to raise the driving age to 25 and implement a system to give tickets for tailgating. Obviously the elimination of tailgating would save lives. They should be able to generate a ton of revenue (which is all they care about) with this. People zone out and then ride your but and don't even know it, but they are doing the speed limit. But only because I am in-front of them doing the speed limit so they have no choice. Hahaha.


If you're suggesting making driving "more exciting" is a way to make is safer, that's just silly. If you're too tired or prone to zoning out to drive properly at normal speeds, don't bloody drive.

I'm not being ignorant, I just find it stupid that people think that speeding somehow isn't an issue. Drivers that speed can kill. Drivers that don't speed can also kill, but it's less likely.

Kirkburn said,
If you're suggesting making driving "more exciting" is a way to make is safer, that's just silly. If you're too tired or prone to zoning out to drive properly at normal speeds, don't bloody drive.

Are you suggesting that dozing off because you are playing follow the leader for hours at a time more safe? I didn't say anything about making a drive "more exciting". I wasn't suggesting doing flybys to spice up the drive. I am simply saying that if you don't have to interact with the car at all then you are more likely to doze off. This is one of the points I always have when parent throw there kids in a car with an auto trany because they think it is "more safe". At least with a manual they have to stay focused on operating the car rather then freeing up their hands and brain to do other stuff like sending TXTs on the cell. When your out of town for a long weekend visiting family and then have a 6 hour drive home. There will be times when people start feeling sleepy. Most people will stop and take a break but there are times where it will sneak up on people. It isn't like they intentional fall asleep.

But I know, you are the model driver that drives perfect, never drives unless they had a full 8 hours of sleep and drives the speed limit 100% of the time. You will also miss an exit because to change lanes you have to exceed the speed limit for 20secs which is a no no. You also have extensive on track experience so you know all about the way your car handles. Right?

Does not sound too bad as long as they increase the speed limit in certain areas 20 on a 40 road is stupid and as long as I don't have to may more in road tax or more tax from my pay.

Premgenius said,
Does not sound too bad as long as they increase the speed limit in certain areas 20 on a 40 road is stupid and as long as I don't have to may more in road tax or more tax from my pay.

Er, what?

Speed limits are not based on taxes. They are based on safety.

Kirkburn said,
Er, what?

Speed limits are not based on taxes. They are based on safety.


I think he's talking about a sharp rise in road tax to cover the costs of this system.

Perhaps the government should think about spending some of that car tax on the roads, as over essex, suffolk and cambridge the roads are in a terrible state!

REM2000 said,
I think he's talking about a sharp rise in road tax to cover the costs of this system.

Perhaps the government should think about spending some of that car tax on the roads, as over essex, suffolk and cambridge the roads are in a terrible state!


Ah, that makes more sense.

I agree some of the UK's roads need work, but they're better than many other places.

Well at least in the US... The 55 mph speed limit was decided on to limit gas consumption in 1974. In '87 it was raised to 65 on some roads. In '95 it was repealed, but 55 seems to have remained the defacto standard

Don't they use killometers over there? If so, why does the image show "MPH"? Maybe I'm wrong??

And this is a bit too "big brotherly". Europe is getting insane with their involvement in things.

The last time I went to the UK their road signs were still in miles. I think they have chosen to switch to the metric system gradually, and it takes ages until they complete it.

ricknl said,
The last time I went to the UK their road signs were still in miles. I think they have chosen to switch to the metric system gradually, and it takes ages until they complete it.


Hell no. No where in the UK is in kilometres and never will be no matter what the idiots in the EU want.

lee26 said,
Hell no. No where in the UK is in kilometres and never will be no matter what the idiots in the EU want.

Do tell how the imperial system is better than metric? Discounting the cost of a switch, why shouldn't we be on metric, regardless of who wants it.

(And stop making a bogeyman out of the EU, it's old)

Kirkburn said,
Do tell how the imperial system is better than metric? Discounting the cost of a switch, why shouldn't we be on metric, regardless of who wants it.

(And stop making a bogeyman out of the EU, it's old)


I didn't say it's better but we brits have been used to the current system for years and changing it will just cause confusion. The current system works just fine so why fix something that aint broke?

ricknl said,
The last time I went to the UK their road signs were still in miles. I think they have chosen to switch to the metric system gradually, and it takes ages until they complete it.

No, we have a permanent exemption. We can keep on using both and with road signs they can stay in miles.

lee26 said,
I didn't say it's better but we brits have been used to the current system for years and changing it will just cause confusion. The current system works just fine so why fix something that aint broke?

Children in the UK have been primarily taught in metric for several decades. I'd hardly call it more confusing than imperial, or having to switch being confusing.

I'm British, and I couldn't tell you accurately how many feet there are in a mile, yards in a mile or metres in a mile, nor could most of my friends (in our early twenties). I just know that miles are around 1.6-something km.

Most of the rest of the world uses kilometres, it's a very simple system, and requires little learning. You literally only have to cross the channel and you will see it everywhere. As fun as it is to be isolationist and independent, it's stupid to be different just to be different.

lee26 said,


I didn't say it's better but we brits have been used to the current system for years and changing it will just cause confusion. The current system works just fine so why fix something that aint broke?


And it's been tried, in the US. In fact, we have a single Interstate highway (19) which originally had signage entirely metric (no signs in miles whatever). Now it has little metric signage.
http://www.interstate-guide.com/i-019.html

lee26 said,
Hell no. No where in the UK is in kilometres and never will be no matter what the idiots in the EU want.

Actually the meter system is far more logcial than the old imperial system.

I had an idea similar to this years ago, but the transmitters would be in/on speed limit signs. And there would be no override switch.

Well i know where my switch will be... when i first read this topic i thought s**t there going to do us for speeding without us seeing any cameras..!

I guess its a good idea if you have a twitchy gas foot and are unable to stay at the same speed..

dave164 said,
I guess its a good idea if you have a twitchy gas foot and are unable to stay at the same speed..

If you have a twitchy gas foot and can't keep at or around the speed limit, you shouldn't be driving

Voluntary is the areas that have the sharp bend signs and a speed limit underneath, in a white rectangle and not in a circle which means it's compulsory.

Geranium_Z__NL said,
uhhh........??? Okay.. Cooll... well then i wont drive in 30KM zones anymore LOL


Would be annoying if the Ambulance gets limited aswell..

That's where the world is going nowadays

Geranium_Z__NL said,
uhhh........??? Okay.. Cooll... well then i wont drive in 30KM zones anymore LOL


Would be annoying if the Ambulance gets limited aswell..


One, I'm guessing you don't drive.
Two, what's a 30KM zone? If you mean 30KPH, you plan to avoid them how, exactly?
Three, what on earth makes you think they wouldn't have thought about that?

Mkvos said,
No, they meant 30KMH
And 30KMH is not the same as 30MPH

There's not a lot of 30KMH zone.

To go from my house to my job i drive in a 30 KMH zone for about 5 secondes out of 30 minutes.

30 KMH is for residential zone where there's school. And honestly you don't want to go faster than that when there's kids playing around. It's mostly 50KMH, 70KMH, 90KMH and 100KMH.

100KMH is definately too slow for highway with limited access most people drive at 120KMH.

LaP said,
100KMH is definately too slow for highway with limited access most people drive at 120KMH.

Do you know *why* it's set at 100KMH? Why is the fact most people speed a reason for it to be higher?

Kirkburn said,
Do you know *why* it's set at 100KMH? Why is the fact most people speed a reason for it to be higher?

It's not the fact most people speed that is the reason for it to be higher but simply that 120KMH is still a safe speed to drive at. That's why even people with a baby on board still drive at 110-115KMH. If you drive at under 120KMH the police wont give you a ticket. I always drive at 115-119KMH and never got any ticket. Over 120KMH you are at risk of getting one.

Yes your chance to survive a frontal crash at 120KMH are less than 100KMH. But on a straight highway where the sides are separated by a wall (or by a natural obstacle like trees) the chances for a frontal crash to happen are next to 0. Most car accidents where people die here happen in 50-90KMH roads (like someone driving at 90KMH on a 50KMH road that is dangerous).

Since frontal crash are out of question on a limited acces highway with an obstacle between each side of the road there's no reason to limit the speed at a ridiculously low level like 100KMH. 115-120KMH is still safe even the police acknowledge this by rarely giving ticket to people driving at this speed.

LaP said,
That's why even people with a baby on board still drive at 110-115KMH.

I don't think most people do anything different with a baby on board. If you're going to do something to hurt a baby, you're going to do something to hurt an adult, and vice versa.

Dhalamar said,
Well the idea is to keep people from driving over the limits so I don't see anything bad with it.

I agree, speeding fun till kill a kid etc.

Don't know about London, but around here they need to get the speed limits correct and THEN I might be ok with it. The limits are often way too low, esp. on limited access roads. It's absurd when you have a road at one speed and then you cross into another state and suddenly the speed is 10mph higher.

Dhalamar said,
Well the idea is to keep people from driving over the limits so I don't see anything bad with it.


If people drive over the limit, lets say 35 in a 30 m.p.h. zone then remove their licence and fine them £5,000.

Thats the problems with today's politicians they are all liberal.

nowimnothing said,
The limits are often way too low, esp. on limited access roads. It's absurd when you have a road at one speed and then you cross into another state and suddenly the speed is 10mph higher.

Why are they too low? What may seem "slow" in a car, certainly isn't for pedestrians.

leesmithg said,
If people drive over the limit, lets say 35 in a 30 m.p.h. zone then remove their licence and fine them £5,000.

Thats the problems with today's politicians they are all liberal.


Do you know how much further it takes to stop going from just 30 to 35 MPH? More than you think.

Kirkburn said,
Why are they too low? What may seem "slow" in a car, certainly isn't for pedestrians.

You don't have to go 35 to kill a pedestrian. Even 5mph will kill someone. What kills isn't the speed it's the stupidity. Don't walk in front of moving objects and if your the one controlling the moving object, keep it at a speed that is manageable. Speeding isn't always dangerous. You just have to use your brain. I don't want the government slapping me with a fine when I am operating my car in a save manner. They aren't trying to make the roads safer, they are trying to make money. Wake up.

ermax said,
You don't have to go 35 to kill a pedestrian. Even 5mph will kill someone. .


Yes, but 5mph won't kill most people.
From a THINK flyer:

If a pedestrian is hit at:

â€Â¢ 20mph there is about a
1 in 40 chance of being killed

â€Â¢ 30mph there is about a
1 in 5 chance of being killed

â€Â¢ at 40mph there is about a
9 in 10 chance of being killed

â€Â¢ if struck at 35mph there is a
50/50 chance of being killed

Although I disagree with this technology being used on motorways and dual carriageways.

Kirkburn said,
Why are they too low? What may seem "slow" in a car, certainly isn't for pedestrians.

Note that I specifically called out limited-access roads (highways, interstates, etc). They're too low because the state legislature has the right to set it to whatever they want and the state legislature is collectively... not Einstein...

nowimnothing said,
Note that I specifically called out limited-access roads (highways, interstates, etc). They're too low because the state legislature has the right to set it to whatever they want and the state legislature is collectively... not Einstein...

You did say especially, not solely. And you've not said why it's too low.

ermax said,
You don't have to go 35 to kill a pedestrian. Even 5mph will kill someone. What kills isn't the speed it's the stupidity. Don't walk in front of moving objects and if your the one controlling the moving object, keep it at a speed that is manageable. Speeding isn't always dangerous. You just have to use your brain. I don't want the government slapping me with a fine when I am operating my car in a save manner. They aren't trying to make the roads safer, they are trying to make money. Wake up.


Most people, 5 minutes before an accident, clearly thought their speed WAS manageable. Tell me, how do you judge manageable speed? 30 in a 20 zone is manageable? OK, did you account for the kid that just ran out in the street for a ball and at 20 you could have stopped yet now at 30 you just killed the kid... just how can anyone judge what is manageable?

Rohdekill said,
OK, did you account for the kid that just ran out in the street for a ball and at 20 you could have stopped yet now at 30 you just killed the kid... just how can anyone judge what is manageable?

Let me clarify. I am not disputing speed limits on roads in residential areas where the unexpected can happen. Personally 30mph in a neighborhood is to fast. 20mph is even pushing it. What I am aggravated about is receiving a ticket when you are on the interstate completely alone doing 85mph in a 70mph zone. Besides, you could be doing 30mph (posted speed limit) and still be careless and run someone over. It all comes down to stupidity. Making a stupid person go the speed limit doesn't make them any less stupid. If they cared about saving lives they would do something like install proximity detectors on all cars that warns people when they follow to close to people. I suspect that would have a far greater effect then slowing people down from a lethal speed to a less lethal, but still lethal speed.

ermax said,
What I am aggravated about is receiving a ticket when you are on the interstate completely alone doing 85mph in a 70mph zone.

Speed limits are not only for the safety of others. While some cars handle better then others at high speed, you can't give individual car models different speed limits.

Kirkburn said,
Speed limits are not only for the safety of others. While some cars handle better then others at high speed, you can't give individual car models different speed limits.

Okay, so explain to me why cops like to pull over sport cars for doing 85 in a 70 before pulling over the guy driving in an SUV at 85 with his left foot hanging out the window and tailgating at the same time? Hahaha

ermax said,
Okay, so explain to me why cops like to pull over sport cars for doing 85 in a 70 before pulling over the guy driving in an SUV at 85 with his left foot hanging out the window and tailgating at the same time? Hahaha

Because that's your perception of the situation? Also, UK =/= US, UK cops =/= US cops, exaggerations don't help, and the plural of anecdote is not data.

Ummm. that IS the point.

Also, if you read the article form the BBC - I didn't bother reading this one - You'd see that the device can be turned off completely if you require. So how is this anything like big brotherly?!

TurboTuna said,
Ummm. that IS the point.

Also, if you read the article form the BBC - I didn't bother reading this one - You'd see that the device can be turned off completely if you require. So how is this anything like big brotherly?!

Crap like that always starts as an "option" then becomes manditory down the road.

Nose Nuggets said,
that's so completely irrelevant to the point its staggering.

Read what VRam said.

Always starts as "good". and ends up being abused.

So like I said, this is not the point.

The title of the article is misleading, as is the first paragraph. Nowhere is your speed monitored BY SATELLITE. It's just a standard issue GPS nav system connected to a VOLUNTARY speed limiter.

We're going to need this technology anyway when we move to cars that drive themselves. As long as it is my decision to do this, so be it.

The BIG privacy question would be if the GPS data is relayed to any agency without your explicit consent. But I don't see any mention of anything like that here.