Could pay-per-mile lead to the state automating speeding tickets?

[Neonred 3,867]

17 minutes ago, bcking said:

I mean absolutely no disrespect to you, but one of our biggest problems with driving is over-confidence. I'm sure if you asked everyone that speeds on the highway, many of them would say "Yes but I'm a good driver" or something like that.

We also over-estimate our reaction times. We all think we could respond quicker than we can. We may imagine ourselves at our peak when the reality is many times you are driving not at your peak, or the conditions on the road reduce your ability to respond.

 

If everyone were good drivers the speed limits could be much higher than they are. Without erratic lane changes, and with safe following distances, we could all drive 90 or 100 and be just fine. The fact is that will never be the case. Individuals may think they are good drivers (and some, including yourself, maybe are) but that doesn't mean speeding is appropriate. You may be the safest driver on the road but if you are going 90 miles of hour and someone else does something stupid, you may not react quickly enough. The accident may not be your fault, but you won't care about judgment if you are dead.

 

I'd love to see more education, and stricter testing to get the license. The UK failure rate for the driving portion of the test is commonly greater than 50 or 60 percent. The US failure rate for the driving portion is negligible. Most people who fail in the US do so on the written test (which itself is a joke so I have no idea how that is the case).

 

However, I'm not convinced that better testing/education would really change behavior. I think it is human nature to under-estimate risk. Accidents may be very common but to an individual they are unlikely to occur. Not only are accidents "uncommon" from an individual perspective, so are tickets and punishment. It may seem like there are lots of cops on the road but compared to the number of drivers they really isn't. You can "get away" with bad behavior 80-90% of the time. That makes it easy for people to think they will get away with it "just this one time" every time they do.

Won't disagree with you.  Doing 90 on a US interstate is asking for trouble.  It's the unpredictability of other drivers that is a problem, and many of the smaller crapbox cars on the road are not safe at high speeds.  I know that Mercedes and BMWs perform well at much higher speeds.  I took care of much of my need for speed racing for many years.  Safer on the track as you pretty much know what the next guy is going to do.

Edited April 6, 2018 by Neonred

[bcking 3,157]

Just now, Bill & Katya said:

The main reason for this "tracking" device is to record the mileage driven with respect to assessing road taxes.  The author and others in this thread are only speculating on the slippery slope aspect of any government putting a tracking device in a personal vehicle.  If we want to make driving safer, why not simply restrict all cars to a maximum speed of 15 mph regardless and make that a regulatory requirement for all car makers.  Requiring a vehicle owner to purposefully put a government tracking device in a vehicle is wrong in many ways, but mostly, it is just another invasion of privacy.  If the state of Washington wants to increase their road taxes since revenues are falling because of increased fuel economy, then require the owners to self report the mileage.  This can be done online, would most likely take just a few minutes, and not require a big brother device in anyone's car.

 

As to government recording anyone in their home, I think Amazon is already taking care of that with Alexa.

You as the owner wouldn't be placing the device. The objects (the cars) would require them before you could even purchase them. When you purchase them they would already include the device. If you didn't like that, don't purchase one. That is not an invasion of privacy. That is changing the regulations on a product before you buy the product. You then agree to the product when you purchase it.

 

I don't really care about the road tax thing, that is fine. They can go ahead and do that now. I've only cared in this thread about the "slippery slope" argument because I also don't have a problem with that either.

 

As for the "maximum speed of 15 mph regardless", that is an appeal to extremes and is a logical fallacy. 

[Dashinka 25,516]

Just now, bcking said:

You as the owner wouldn't be placing the device. The objects (the cars) would require them before you could even purchase them. When you purchase them they would already include the device. If you didn't like that, don't purchase one. That is not an invasion of privacy. That is changing the regulations on a product before you buy the product. You then agree to the product when you purchase it.

 

I don't really care about the road tax thing, that is fine. They can go ahead and do that now. I've only cared in this thread about the "slippery slope" argument because I also don't have a problem with that either.

 

As for the "maximum speed of 15 mph regardless", that is an appeal to extremes and is a logical fallacy. 

So Washington state will be able to force all car makers to install a device that only it uses to record and transmit driving information?  I think this already exists, it is called an odometer.

[Unidentified 2,930]

2 hours ago, bcking said:

I mean absolutely no disrespect to you, but one of our biggest problems with driving is over-confidence. I'm sure if you asked everyone that speeds on the highway, many of them would say "Yes but I'm a good driver" or something like that.

We also over-estimate our reaction times. We all think we could respond quicker than we can. We may imagine ourselves at our peak when the reality is many times you are driving not at your peak, or the conditions on the road reduce your ability to respond.

 

If everyone were good drivers the speed limits could be much higher than they are. Without erratic lane changes, and with safe following distances, we could all drive 90 or 100 and be just fine. The fact is that will never be the case. Individuals may think they are good drivers (and some, including yourself, maybe are) but that doesn't mean speeding is appropriate. You may be the safest driver on the road but if you are going 90 miles of hour and someone else does something stupid, you may not react quickly enough. The accident may not be your fault, but you won't care about judgment if you are dead.

 

I'd love to see more education, and stricter testing to get the license. The UK failure rate for the driving portion of the test is commonly greater than 50 or 60 percent. The US failure rate for the driving portion is negligible. Most people who fail in the US do so on the written test (which itself is a joke so I have no idea how that is the case).

 

However, I'm not convinced that better testing/education would really change behavior. I think it is human nature to under-estimate risk. Accidents may be very common but to an individual they are unlikely to occur. Not only are accidents "uncommon" from an individual perspective, so are tickets and punishment. It may seem like there are lots of cops on the road but compared to the number of drivers they really isn't. You can "get away" with bad behavior 80-90% of the time. That makes it easy for people to think they will get away with it "just this one time" every time they do.

Then how can we deal with people who think it's okay to overtake someone who's going the speed limit outside a school? 

[bcking 3,157]

1 hour ago, Unidentified said:

Then how can we deal with people who think it's okay to overtake someone who's going the speed limit outside a school? 

Right now they can get away with it 9 times out of 10 (probably more often).

 

I go through 3 school zones on my way to work every morning. Less than 50% of cars even slow down, and then another 50% of those are more "slow" but still go about 10 above the school zone speed. In the last 6 months I think I've seen an officer out in the morning maybe 3 times with a speed camera.

 

Police forces don't have the manpower to strictly enforce the laws, and because it is so inconsistently enforced, people do it because they will "get away with it" the vast majority of the time.

 

Once we have a system where they can't get away with it, I think we'd see behaviors change. Whether that is built into cars, or built into roads I don't really care. My issues with red light cameras is that they don't go far enough. It can create more dangerous situations because people were already speeding to begin with so they don't have time to stop before the light appropriately, so then when they see the yellow they speed through. Combine red light cameras with automatic speed enforcement and you'd be set.

 

It may make some people here happy to hear that I would prioritize this over gun control. Motor vehicle deaths is a far greater killer and we can do so much better. Phone use is an entire other ball game. You are caught with your phone in your hand texting, that should be a no second chance situation. License revoked. We need to crack down on the idiots on the road.

[Dashinka 25,516]

1 minute ago, bcking said:

Right now they can get away with it 9 times out of 10 (probably more often).

 

I go through 3 school zones on my way to work every morning. Less than 50% of cars even slow down, and then another 50% of those are more "slow" but still go about 10 above the school zone speed. In the last 6 months I think I've seen an officer out in the morning maybe 3 times with a speed camera.

 

Police forces don't have the manpower to strictly enforce the laws, and because it is so inconsistently enforced, people do it because they will "get away with it" the vast majority of the time.

 

Once we have a system where they can't get away with it, I think we'd see behaviors change. Whether that is built into cars, or built into roads I don't really care. My issues with red light cameras is that they don't go far enough. It can create more dangerous situations because people were already speeding to begin with so they don't have time to stop before the light appropriately, so then when they see the yellow they speed through. Combine red light cameras with automatic speed enforcement and you'd be set.

 

It may make some people here happy to hear that I would prioritize this over gun control. Motor vehicle deaths is a far greater killer and we can do so much better. Phone use is an entire other ball game. You are caught with your phone in your hand texting, that should be a no second chance situation. License revoked. We need to crack down on the idiots on the road.

Again, just limit all cars to a maximum speed.

[bcking 3,157]

9 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Again, just limit all cars to a maximum speed.

Sure we could do that but realistically the "maximum speed" would be like 75, since many roads have speed limits that high. Realistically it would be more like 80 or 85 at a push to allow for overtaking and other brief moments where you need to go faster. That wouldn't really help much with speeding in areas where the speed limits are lower like side roads. You need a system that knows the speed limit of where you are and actively controls the limits of the car. I don't think we're there yet for that though.

 

I see no reason why cars should be free to go above 90 or above in any situation.

[Dashinka 25,516]

8 minutes ago, bcking said:

Sure we could do that but realistically the "maximum speed" would be like 75, since many roads have speed limits that high. Realistically it would be more like 80 or 85 at a push to allow for overtaking and other brief moments where you need to go faster. That wouldn't really help much with speeding in areas where the speed limits are lower like side roads. You need a system that knows the speed limit of where you are and actively controls the limits of the car. I don't think we're there yet for that though.

 

I see no reason why cars should be free to go above 90 or above in any situation.

But wouldn’t we all be safer if all cars and trucks were limited to 25?

[cyclone27 710]

Don’t worry there will be devices that block any speed monitors. This is the  beauty of capitalism at works.🤑

Edited April 6, 2018 by cyclone27

[RLA 324]

I hope that soon we will see drones used to enforce traffic laws.  They should be able to spot all kinds of violations besides speeding, e. g., tailgating or dangerous overtaking.  Depending on how they're designed they'd also be much less of a privacy concern. 

[bcking 3,157]

21 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

But wouldn’t we all be safer if all cars and trucks were limited to 25?

I've already said that an appeal to extremes is a logical fallacy.

 

Why not have no cars at all? Surely we are all safer walking everywhere.

 

There has to be realistic limitations. No one needs to realistically travel 90 mph outside of police/fire/ambulance.

 

Speeds of 50-65 can be reasonable in certain situations.

13 minutes ago, RLA said:

I hope that soon we will see drones used to enforce traffic laws.  They should be able to spot all kinds of violations besides speeding, e. g., tailgating or dangerous overtaking.  Depending on how they're designed they'd also be much less of a privacy concern. 

Sounds good to me.

[Umka36 781]

5 minutes ago, RLA said:

I hope that soon we will see drones used to enforce traffic laws.  They should be able to spot all kinds of violations besides speeding, e. g., tailgating or dangerous overtaking.  Depending on how they're designed they'd also be much less of a privacy concern. 

Don't even need that if we go with the path of automated cars. Why the need to drive right?

[bcking 3,157]

14 minutes ago, Umka36 said:

Don't even need that if we go with the path of automated cars. Why the need to drive right?

That would be the ultimate and would render all of this moot.

 

If cars communicated with each other they could factor in following distance, automated reaction times (much quicker than humans), weather, road conditions and could change speeds as needed.

 

We'd probably end up with faster average speeds since their reaction times and an adequate following distance would make it safer.

Edited April 6, 2018 by bcking

[RLA 324]

I‘m not sure self-driving cars will fix the problem entirely.  Some people will find ways to jail-break their systems and remove some of the safety features to make their cars faster, at the expense of other people‘s safety. 

[Unidentified 2,930]

8 hours ago, Neonred said:

Ha!  I take it you've never had the driving experience in Russia.  Makes the US drivers look like ultra careful grandmothers.

I have seen youtube clips from Russia. I have experienced driving in Thailand and Indonesia which is also crazy. But we're talking about the US. Where people seem to have 0 respect for traffic laws.