Is it alright with you if the government monitors your driving 24/7 in the fight against global warming?
A report released today by the UK Government’s Sustainable Development Commission calls for around-the-clock monitoring of driver’s speed to force them to slow down and help cut down their emissions of Co2 in the battle against global warming.
It calls for taking control of the car’s speed away from the driver and having it controlled by the government via satellite.
Is that alright with you?
The report said: [quote]
———————————————————–
""The UK Sustainable Development Commission yesterday released a report recommending the use of average speed cameras for round-the-clock tracking of motorist journeys nationwide. The government advisory body said that widespread deployment of average speed cameras was required to reduce the emission of carbon dioxide by automobiles, a factor that some believe is linked to global changes in temperature. The report made a number of recommendations affecting the driving public.
"The business models associated with private motoring are not aligned with sustainability," the report explained
The report also called for a "clear timetable" for the introduction of Intelligent Speed Adaptation technology that would use global positioning satellites to take away control of vehicle speed from the driver, making it impossible for a car to exceed the limit on a given road. The same information communications technology (ICT) infrastructure could be used for congestion pricing, tolling of every journey and charging for insurance by the number of miles driven. The commission explained that such systems would require a substantial and ongoing financial investment.""
—————————————————————
It also said that such a system could be a big step towards road-pricing where every journey would be taxed appropriately.
Of course, this is just the UK, but once the technology is in place and shown to work, no doubt there will be calls by international bodies to roll it out worldwide to help fight global warming.
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/30/3031.asp
The full report is available here: http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/
EDIT - @ Vampire Muffin Man.
Well said. For commercial vehicles it many be worth looking at as an industry standard. But not private vehicles, that as you say is fascistic.
There are a few problems with this:
1) It assumes gasoline powered cars. Spending ANY money on gasoline powered infrastructure, beyond maintenance, is just plain stupid.
2) Taxing someone for travel is one thing that I would say is grounds for revolution. Property taxes, sales taxes (fuel) and registration taxes are one thing, but taxing someone for going to the store or to a friend’s house is seriously fcuked up.
3) Going fast isn’t the most significant destroyer of mileage in modern cars. It’s acceleration and poor maintenance. My car gets basically the same mileage (~35 MPG) whether I’m going 55 MPH or 70 MPH. In town, when I average 30 MPH, though, I can vary my mileage by as much as 5 MPG just by *how* I’m driving and how my car is running and if I’m running the AC. (I always keep track of my mileage as it’s an excellent indicator of how my car is running.)
4) The obvious potential for abuse. Considering that the very idea is abusive, I don’t think I really have to explain here.
Here’s an idea, only implement this system on commercial vehicles… I don’t think that you’d hear much complaining from companies, especially if they could use the system to keep track of their vehicles, drivers, freight, etc. One thing with this, though, is that many large trucks can get *better* mileage by speeding down hills and then slowing (or rather not maintaining) as they climb the next, so that makes the system pointless in that case.
Basically, though, I’m sure everyone can agree that this idea is fascist and shouldn’t be allowed to even come close to being implemented.
The way to solve the problem with automotive emissions is through making better cars (hybrids and electrics) and improving infrastructure, not taking away freedom.
Edit: Let me explain why I believe that it’s fascist. Being monitored to ensure you aren’t breaking the law… So will you allow all your phone conversations to be monitored to ensure that you aren’t conspiring to commit a crime? (Oh, wait…) Will you now allow cameras in your home to ensure that you aren’t abusing your family members? Will you now allow audio monitors everywhere to ensure that you aren’t speaking out against your now totally fascist government? Will you agree to be ‘chipped’ so that your whereabouts can be monitored 24/7 to ensure that you aren’t assembling with others where you can’t be directly monitored?
Exactly where should the line be drawn?
It may seem like a small step, but with modern technology, your near the edge of el Capitan here, so…you may want to watch it.
Continual monitoring your driving is on the edge of being search[and seizure] which requires some reasonable suspicion of a crime being committed. Continuing to weaken that legal tenant is an extremely bad idea if you enjoy freedom. If it’s allowed, it will absolutely, 100% without a doubt be abused and lead to more eroding of freedoms. Therefor, it must not be allowed to happen.
If you want to limit speeds, then simply limit the speed that a vehicle can go. Or perhaps have an internal chip that only allows the vehicle to achieve the maximum allowed speed on whatever section of road it’s traveling on (though it should allow for some acceleration beyond that as there are instances where going faster can help avoid an accident). There should not be ANY external monitoring of a private conveyance…
_
The UK already uses average speed cameras on many roads. They time you between two fixed points to calculate your average speed. It obviously slows people down a lot more than traditional speed cameras, the position of which most people know, and can temporarily slow down for.
I don’t think we’ll see global positioning satellites taking away control of vehicle speed from the driver for a long time yet. It would be a massive undertaking and would receive HUGE opposition. Plus, if its impossible to speed how are they going to make any money out of us in speeding fines?
I don’t mind the average speed cameras but I think satellites communicating with your car is a step too far. I do think that given how good some freeways/motorways are, and how much safer todays cars are, that some speed limits on freeways/motorways could be raised.
References :
Im an American and this is a perfect example how a socialist government can control lives. This is the type of law Americans will fight tooth and nail to stop. It would prevent you from rushing your wife giving birth—rushing to a school when your child had an aciident —rushing to work when you over slept. In America, individual states decide the speed limit
References :
That seizes the freedom and privacy. Govt should use Euro II norms etc to prevent vehicles not adhering to pollution control in the first place.
References :
Wow, next Europe will ban individual cars and everyone will be forced to use public transportation. The sad thing is that some in the United States want to do similar things including making everyone move to walking or biking distance to work.
References :
There are a few problems with this:
1) It assumes gasoline powered cars. Spending ANY money on gasoline powered infrastructure, beyond maintenance, is just plain stupid.
2) Taxing someone for travel is one thing that I would say is grounds for revolution. Property taxes, sales taxes (fuel) and registration taxes are one thing, but taxing someone for going to the store or to a friend’s house is seriously fcuked up.
3) Going fast isn’t the most significant destroyer of mileage in modern cars. It’s acceleration and poor maintenance. My car gets basically the same mileage (~35 MPG) whether I’m going 55 MPH or 70 MPH. In town, when I average 30 MPH, though, I can vary my mileage by as much as 5 MPG just by *how* I’m driving and how my car is running and if I’m running the AC. (I always keep track of my mileage as it’s an excellent indicator of how my car is running.)
4) The obvious potential for abuse. Considering that the very idea is abusive, I don’t think I really have to explain here.
Here’s an idea, only implement this system on commercial vehicles… I don’t think that you’d hear much complaining from companies, especially if they could use the system to keep track of their vehicles, drivers, freight, etc. One thing with this, though, is that many large trucks can get *better* mileage by speeding down hills and then slowing (or rather not maintaining) as they climb the next, so that makes the system pointless in that case.
Basically, though, I’m sure everyone can agree that this idea is fascist and shouldn’t be allowed to even come close to being implemented.
The way to solve the problem with automotive emissions is through making better cars (hybrids and electrics) and improving infrastructure, not taking away freedom.
Edit: Let me explain why I believe that it’s fascist. Being monitored to ensure you aren’t breaking the law… So will you allow all your phone conversations to be monitored to ensure that you aren’t conspiring to commit a crime? (Oh, wait…) Will you now allow cameras in your home to ensure that you aren’t abusing your family members? Will you now allow audio monitors everywhere to ensure that you aren’t speaking out against your now totally fascist government? Will you agree to be ‘chipped’ so that your whereabouts can be monitored 24/7 to ensure that you aren’t assembling with others where you can’t be directly monitored?
Exactly where should the line be drawn?
It may seem like a small step, but with modern technology, your near the edge of el Capitan here, so…you may want to watch it.
Continual monitoring your driving is on the edge of being search[and seizure] which requires some reasonable suspicion of a crime being committed. Continuing to weaken that legal tenant is an extremely bad idea if you enjoy freedom. If it’s allowed, it will absolutely, 100% without a doubt be abused and lead to more eroding of freedoms. Therefor, it must not be allowed to happen.
If you want to limit speeds, then simply limit the speed that a vehicle can go. Or perhaps have an internal chip that only allows the vehicle to achieve the maximum allowed speed on whatever section of road it’s traveling on (though it should allow for some acceleration beyond that as there are instances where going faster can help avoid an accident). There should not be ANY external monitoring of a private conveyance…
_
References :
No, but you’re fighting a losing battle about the car thing.
The day when satellites monitor speed (and other things) to enforce speed laws (and other traffic laws) is surely coming. Just a more comprehensive system than present day radar, or red light cameras. And it WILL be interactive.
Ain’t computers wonderful? Without them, handling the mass of data involved would be impractical.
References :
"Is it alright with you if the government monitors your driving 24/7 in the fight against global warming?"
No! I think there are much more effective methods of driving down (pun intended) CO2 emissions.
References :
Wonderful idea, before you start chucking "Eco-fascist" or " Socialist-running-dog" at me consider this.
Most people do not know how to drive properly, fact. They will race and generally travel at an unsuitable speed any chance they get.
Given the IQ of the average British driver (I am one) is about that of an intelligent fruit bat they are not to be trusted.
Another upside of controlling speed (apart from safety) is that in the event of a fuel shortage the speed limit could be varied in order to conserve fuel.
This in fact was done by freedom-loving Conservative governments in the 1960s/1970s. Guess what happened? Following an imposed national speed limit of 50 mph the accident rate fell away dramatically and the traffic average speed hence flow went UP! The fuel savings are another source of admiration.
So yes, all in all a wonderful idea, course it won’t be liked by the anti-social amongst us whose idea of fun is to break the law by speeding and thereby putting everyone’s health in danger, but so be it.
Bring it on, the sooner the better.
References :
Actually, yes.
When you drive over the speed limit, you’re breaking the law. Often this isn’t enforced and some leeway is given, but the speed limit is the *maximum speed limit*. Whether or not the limit is strictly enforced (apparently it is in Washington, btw), speeding is illegal.
This proposal is basically a method of near-constant surveillance to ensure that you don’t break the law. Think of it like having a cop on every street.
Personally, since I don’t speed and frankly don’t like going over the speed limit (sometimes I do if I’m slowing traffic, but don’t like to do it), I think it’s a great idea. Not only are you wasting gas and creating excess CO2 emissions when speeding (not to mention other pollutants), but you’re also making the roads less safe, increasing the chances of an accident.
I really don’t see why you think it’s "fascistic" to monitor vehicles to ensure the drivers aren’t breaking the law. I think it’s a great idea. I constantly find myself wishing there were more police around to catch all the traffic violations I see, primarily speeding. Heaven forbid we actually enforce the law!
References :
Well, if I’m going to be monitored 24/7 to control terrorism anyway . . .
References :
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=1948927&page=1
(Searched "Government monitors telephone")