Freedom Dies with GPS Speed Governor
ISA the Nanny is Ready to Control You
A new system is being tested in Australia and the UK to limit the death and injury caused by speeding. It is tied into a GPS that is directly linked to the computers that regulates a car engine's functions. It's called Intelligent Speed Adaptation or ISA for short. The idea is to circumvent human input to the throttle to slow the vehicle down when it enters a new speed limit zone or when the driver is speeding. There is a warning and a delay before it takes control, but it still counteracts driver control. There is a way to deactivate the GPS driven ISA speed control, but this won't last. The creators of this monster recognize there are sometimes situations when it is prudent to exceed the speed limit in order to pass other vehicles or even accelerate to avoid an accident. But it also acts as a parent and proposes to limit the times which the ISA system will allow the driver to accelerate to a speed faster than the local law permits within several periods of a specific time frame. There is a maximum for each time scale, meaning that if you are a speed demon who wants to pass multiple vehicles in order to "get ahead", then you will find yourself unable to do so after the sixteenth time you pass another slower vehicle in a given twenty four hour period. You will find yourself unable to accelerate past the speed limit again until the next day or the next one hundred miles.
This is a reasonable limit as considered by the builders of this technology since it is safe to assume that someone who feels the need to pass that many people is probably an unsafe driver. However, now that driver lacks the ability to make that call on their own. And this is the inherent problem with this automated nanny system. It trades our freedom with the excuse of making us safer.
The real question is not, "why aren't the speeds of vehicles being limited?", but, "why should they be?" Yes, there should be law that puts limits on behavior to ensure the safety of others, but we should be given the respect to choose to follow them or not. By posing the question: "why aren't speeds being regulated?" as a reason to take away our freedom to choose, is basically saying that we need a big government to control us and tell us what to do. Naturally, as society becomes more advanced and more complex, it does make sense to institute ways of taming our propensity for breaking the law. But why not spend money on educating and teaching instead of taking away control and freedom? I argued in an article on Helium that having a fast bike means you have the freedom to not only brake but accelerate out of a sticky situation on the road. When we start building artificial walls for people, the human race is going to find itself under a dictatorship of rule that it will someday rebel against.
We ought to defend our right to own a fast bike, not curtail other's rights to own one. If an idiot wants to ride a fast bike and kill themselves, that is up to them. I don't want them to do it, but it would be wrong for me to make them comply by force before the act has even happened. It's the same for the helmet law here in the US. It's completely unconstitutional because when you crash and split your head wide open, no one else is involved in that particular event. Yes, the family of the rider is affected of course. And one of the reasons for the helmet law is that someone else ends up paying for the hospital care for the idiot rider. However, this is not true across the board, and it is also wrong to assume that we can control someone's personal freedoms because it might end up costing us money. How about we educate these reckless idiots? Require them to go to informative classes that last for weeks when they buy a death rocket? Show them the carnage, have them meet paraplegics, and then they will know why it is wrong to drive or ride like a banshee.
No, instead the solution is to merely take away control and freedom from the individual. It's cheaper, and money can be made from it by the wrong people - politicians and / or the state. By creating a system of education as mentioned above, we can actually create a new market for teachers and credentials. We could send part of that money to help those that have suffered serious injuries as a result of riding recklessly, to research to find ways of curing them. Perhaps even enough money to donate to other noble health causes. This would be an American solution. By instituting more regulation that places restrictions on individual rights of the consumer, companies responsible for manufacturing electronic governors and automated speed controls, will make backdoor deals with the politicians who promote the new regulation. If we go the other way, these schools will be new and not nearly as likely to make enough money to interest the greed of the politicians, we will preserve freedom and actually teach people the reasons we cannot ride like idiots.
There will be a day when we are required to wear implants that don't allow us to do anything that can be considered dangerous according to the government, and actually inhibit us from physically taking such actions. I can't wait for them to tell hanglider pilots, paraglider pilots and ultralight pilots that they can no longer do what they love because someone else decided that they are engaging in unsafe activities that could result in death or injury. Then again, there is no profit to be made from stopping people from flying this way, and if there was, public opinion would probably not even come into play since the general public is not affected by such regulation.
As it stands now, when the nanny speed controller becomes mandatory, the public will accept it because they are being fed the lie that they are only gaining a safer driving environment. No one will tell them they are trading their freedom for it. No one will propose a better way to control reckless driving: propaganda. Media information dissemination has proven to be very effective in reducing smoking and encouraging people to vote for Barrack Obama. There is absolutely no reason this wouldn't work to reel in would be reckless drivers and riders.
The nanny speed controller will save lives, there is no doubt. But if such extreme measures seem necessary, why haven't other more passive freedom preserving ways been presented before this technology came into existence? Think about it. The problem with nuts on the road and road rage has been around for more than ten years. And now we are turning to a ball and chain to deal with it? Something doesn't smell right, and it's not the hot, sweaty, DOT approved helmet I am forced to wear because I am too stupid to make that decision on my own.
Related
Comments
AUTHORPhoenix1350, thank you for coming back. I think the main thrust of your argument is that we are one conglomerate mass. I mean no offense to you or insult, but I think the kind of mindset that says it has "become harder to weed out bad seeds" is the wrong kind of mindset to have because it would seem to me that implies we NEED a system to prove everyone's ability to think sanely. But the two problems inherent with that kind of thinking require that we first formulate an idea of what the standard of sanity is, and no matter how hard we try, we will never completely understand who is prone to breaking the rules and etiquette of sensibility and who is merely being an individual.
This is where our argument goes circular, but the only way we will know for certain is if a person has been known to make errant decisions. The second problem is that despite the sensibility of the argument you present, there is always going to be some degree of privacy invasion and a restriction on our ability to make our own decisions when it comes to limiting our ability to make our own choices.
But in a world of flawed people, we cannot trust anyone to make those decisions for us either.
No matter how you look at it, the principle is that we are being punished before we commit the crime.
You propose that because our decisions affect other people, it creates an entirely different set of rules where personal rights are secondary. I agree it is a reasonable argument, but how far are we going to go? Because of the direction the laws are going in the United States, I envision that we will eventually end up with RFID chips and even behavioral modification technology. This is nothing less than slavery because although it is not as evident in Europe, in America, the rich and powerful control the lower classes. History presents this scenario over and over - but what I find more reprehensible is the intrusion of our individuality.
What we need is less laws that are more reasonable and more enforcement of existing laws. At least over here, laws are made and the upkeep of those laws are forgotten, but often bring in revenue to local, state and federal government. There is a lack of human concern.
I will concede that our technology has outpaced our ability to control it wisely, but I believe that with proper education and a form of social engineering (I hesitate to use that phrase), people can be guided to behave like human beings instead of speed demons.
You say that ego is a primary factor in our inability to control ourselves - then how can we depend on people in power to make the right decisions for us?
I don't believe that I am the one looking for a fail-safe solution, in fact that is what I believe speed control is actually trying to achieve, and we know that there is no system that will ever perfectly answer our needs.
I couldn't agree with you more about the dumbing down of society! THAT is the problem we need to deal with, because dealing with the root of that problem will eliminate the argument for speed controls.
I agree we shouldn't censor the internet (or any media) either for the very reason I argue against the speed governor. Solutions like the speed governor are not the ONLY way to deal with this problem, I think that is a very hopeless way to look at things.
I get your point about dealing with these problems as a group, but I think in the end, this is dead wrong. Yes, we need general laws concerning conduct, but being punished for something that SOMEONE ELSE MIGHT do, does not sit well with me. People of good conscience should be lifted up - honored by society, and those that break the rules should be punished. We shouldn't be treated as inmates from the get-go.
We do need to deal with this issue as a society, but punishing the innocent is evil. I hate going through security at the airport, but the reason it is in place is because people have become apathetic and lazy. Those Muslims that flew airliners into the towers would have been reported to the CIA immediately if I had been their flight instructor - they actually told their instructors they didn't want to learn to land! Hello?
It's laziness and a lack of personal responsibility that brought us to this point, and probably something that cannot be reversed in the near future, but responding to those qualities by encouraging more of the same (such as the speed control) is not going to make things better.
Thanks very much for the debate, it has certainly caused me to look deeper into why I believe the way I do.
By the way, here is the hub that sparked the creation of mine: https://hubpages.com/autos/The-Absolute-Solution-T...
I think you'll find yourself nodding in agreement with Hal Licino.
oh and btw,
maybe the innocent girl shouldn't be standing in front of the lawnmower to begin with
haha :)
Alexander,
What i meant was, in a mental institution everyone is treated the same, everyone is assumed sick. In society, its become harder and harder to individualise each person and weed out the bad seeds, in other words, one persons actions are reflected on society as a whole. (unless of course we each had our own individual RFID chips installed)
I think you are trying to apply a specific rule to a general situations. Every situation will have a different set of rule in which things operate.
If your a bad cook and likely to burn down your house, that's not my problem, however if you are on a public road, that is occupied by thousands of people, then THAT become a situation that involves EVERYONE on those roads.
The thing with being on the roads is, you never know who is around the corner, or behind the wheel, and that is gambling with LIFE and DEATH.
You'll also notice in a lot of psychology reports, most people that a bad at something think are good at it. So when most people say they are an excellent driving, it's most likely the opposite. This is human EGO, and a by-product of this ego is arrogance.
If you wanted a fail-safe solution, then we could just brainwash everyone and remove the ego, or even PROGRAM our driving abilities so EVERYONE has the skills of Michael Schumacher and we would all get around faster! (but safer?)
I found this page while searching for the very system you described, a speed regulating device, which i believe is a very good idea, given the statistics of road tolls and driver faults.
As for the dumbing-down of society, i think that comes from a much higher power, ie Media and advertising. But the younger generation seem to feel 'immortal' and don't fear death, as the are exposed to it constantly through movies, games and internet. But then what, should we CENSOR the internet? Should we ban R18+ games? This is the way society has developed, whether an intentional direction or just a result of history its something that we are unlikely to change, therefore finding a way to deal with this is the only plan.
Car manufacturers are never going to makes cars with a limited speed, do you think they care about people lives? They just want money, and suck people into buying expensive cars because they go FASTER! All the safety measures in cars are more than likely to avoid a law-suit rather than save lives.
As i don't want this to drag on into a long debate ill just finish by saying, unless each and every single person and be monitored individually, allowing us to punish the bad and reward the good, we have to accept that we will always be looked at as a GROUP.
- AUTHOR
Phoenix1350, thanks for your thoughtful comment and reading all the way through and perusing at least a few comments! I had to hunt for my comment about mental institutions.
As far as your response to that analogy goes, what is your point? It seems you agree with me, everyone in a mental institution is regarded as unstable and therefore unable to take care of themselves. If we are not mentally affected in some way, then no one has a reason to control our behavior before we do something wrong. That's not justice, that's tyranny.
I do not agree with controlling (punishing) people for a lack of self control before they have committed a crime, but I understand what you are saying, and yes, I am promoting greater freedom at the expense of safety - but only because that safety comes at the price of our individual freedom. If YOU feel unsafe, why are you going to put a speed limiter on MY car? I have never proven to you that I am a danger to you and yet you are brazen enough to support invasive legislation that will control my behavior. THAT is immoral.
The next question is who decides what behavior is potentially harmful and makes the decisions for everyone else how they are going to live? How can I tell you what kind of lawn mower you should have because I am worried that it will get away from you and kill an innocent child?
There is a huge lack of trust in the ability of fellow human beings to do the right things, and there are plenty of examples that make a certain level of mistrust prudent. However, if we start treating everyone like children who are unable to discern and decide for themselves what is right, they will only become more rebellious and complacent - It will make the idiot-driver problem worse.
You said: "abuse has come from the cars that are commercially manufactured." Perhaps there are underlying conspiracies and I won't disagree with that, but unless you drive a Toyota, you are in control of your acceleration practices and you have to take ownership of your actions.
Thank you for the stimulating comment.
Alexander,
your comment about living in a mental institution.. well, everyone in a mental institution is considered insane, until proven otherwise. I'm sure innocent people get locked up in their sometimes as well.
The simple saying 'its takes a few to ruin for the many' is what is arguable here. What drives someone to intentionally drive twice the speed limit and risk the innocent lives of people around them (their lives are obviously not worth much)
The fact that we have vehicles on the roads that can excess the speed limits, gives us humans the choice to go faster, a thrill for a many people, but streets are not race tracks.. those speeds should be left for professionals.
It's been proven time and time again, that people abuse the privilege of driving a car, and that abuse has come from the cars that are commercially manufactured. In other words.. the greedy feeding the greedy.
Most people are not taught to drive at high speeds, like police officers and race car drivers, only because we are not meant to drive like that. And what's the point of having a car that can do that?
Another simple solution would be, one strike, bye bye licence FOR GOOD. That would quickly take the 'hoons' off the road, and discourage other from exceeding the speed limit. (unless in the case of an emergency, which can easily be proven with evidence)
So i say, we as human beings have brought this upon ourselves. Yes, a majority of drivers obey the laws, but as long as we have access to higher speeds, we will always be a danger to ourselves and others around us.
Good Day
- AUTHOR
Hello fritz, thanks for commenting. I'm afraid your question is so general, I don't see how it applies to this hub, but I will try to respond: When a law is made that infringes on our individual rights - that takes away the right to choose, then freedom is taken away. So, a bad law takes away freedom, and breaking that law may restore freedom.
Since when breaking the law is a freedom?
- AUTHOR
As far as education being just talk, what that means is that the way education is managed needs to change. There are fine examples of successful education techniques: how else do we get knowledgeable scientists, medical experts, obedient military personnel and thousands of positions where strict adherence to guidelines can be instilled. Why not with driving? Maybe it has to do with a simple 50 question test which we need to pass in order to obtain a driver's license. Maybe it has to do with the lack of protocols in place to inform licensed drivers of new laws and regulations. I believe education is the answer, and more enforcement WHEN the law is broken. There aren't enough cops on the road to deal with bad drivers, so they go after the, "big fish," meaning drastic offenders. Lack of education and lack of consequence is creating an environment where drivers can break the law and drive willy-nilly and barely have to worry about getting caught.
What I am proposing is way more expensive than putting in electronic leashes, but it is also more humane and preserves individual freedom. No amount of money should dictate whether or not we have rights. If the choice is life in a cage where SOMEONE else makes decisions for me, or death, I would rather die because a life controlled by someone else is not a life at all.
Now, if I had a choice to have the electronic leash installed OR get intensive training, that would be fine by me because saving lives from unnecessary death is important and I get to CHOOSE.
Years ago when I went to get my motorcycle license, I had to take a simple but comprehensive motorcycle riding course. I remember important safety lessons that I would never get out of a 50 question DMV test, so why couldn't we apply that to the driver's license training? It is too easy to get on the road and THAT is why people are dying.
I could go on, but to sum up my response is basically that individual rights in this case are more important than life because without individual rights, there would be no life. But I am only saying this because self control and restraint CAN resolve the issue, there ARE ways to prevent accidents that don't require a shackle. If it wasn't a matter of human input and self control, then naturally we should have more advanced controls in place. A space shuttle launch is computer controlled and this is a good thing because if an accident happens, computers can make the determination and decision to save lives faster than a human can. On the road, it is a simple matter of self control and self control CAN be taught and enforced.
Why is the solution to control the actions of others as if they are already guilty? We should consider the speed governor for repeat offenders, not for law abiding drivers.
I also would like to add we both believe there are these 'idiots' or rather selfish people who don't care about the safety of others on the road. Well the roads have been policed for decades and they're still there and still killing people so should we do nothing? We both know all this driver education talk isn't going to make much difference.
The lengths people go to to save a single life but we could save millions by giving up what you describe as a liberty. To big a price to pay is it?
In response to you reply I actually whole-heartedly agree with speed limits. Driving a car for many years one becomes blasé about the actual speed you are doing in them. If you spend time on foot or bicycle by busy roads you'll soon realise how fast and injurious cars can be.
With current trends more people will be killed this century on the roads than were killed in the last century by wars. Just consider that includes 2 world wars. This is because 1 million people per year are killed on the roads most of them not actually in a motor vehicle.
You're making the mistake everybody does in believing your minor speeding is OK it's just those 'idiots' who are killing people. In reality it's motorist.
- AUTHOR
Michael Beaevr, thanks for reading and commenting. I must say, you sound like a liberal - you repeat that we "do not have rights" often.
Have you considered that maybe the law is wrong, or that there may be times when the law needs to be ignored? Sometimes it is safer (not often I'll grant you) to increase your speed to bypass a bad situation especially on the freeway.
What it comes down to, and you have hit on the true subject matter of this article, is our rights to make our own decisions. Putting automated restrictions on people is like throwing them in jail before they commit the crime!
How would you like a tracking device installed somewhere inside your body (and you don't know where) that tracks your movements throughout the world just in case you commit a murder? Or should there be an inhibitor device attached to your neck that monitors your heart rate, hormones and adrenalin so you won't commit violence? (I know this sounds like sci fi but the alternative is a bunch of weights attached to your arms and legs that restrict your movement).
What that means is that those who do not have inhibitor devices like speed governors, have all the power. The Constitution gave the people the right to bear arms in order to defend themselves against a tyrannical government, meaning you and I have just as much ability to make good choices as the politicians do. And you can bet that proponents of speed governors are just as flawed as we are and they won't get one for their cars!
Yes, people drive like idiots, but what we need is a better training system, a waaaaaaay more stringent licensing process and better funded law enforcement.
Thanks for reminding me why I stand against speed governors and seat belt and helmet laws. Your comment is appreciated!
The whole history of the motor vehicle has shown that people will always choose to break the law and speed given the opportunity. We all know talking up driver education comes from the idea that 'us responsible speeders are OK it's the one's who speed to excess who are the bad ones.' Well the rules of the road are clear; you must not exceed the speed limit for the road on which you're driving. That is not optional. Therefore this system absolutely does not remove anybody's freedoms or rights because you don't have that right anyway. If you want to share the road with other people who want to safely go from A to B you drive no faster than the speed limit. You don't have the right or freedom to speed like you don't have the right to physically attack another person even though you may be capable of it.
Even an ardent road safety supporter like myself is guilty of consciously speeding and driving agressively because it's hard not to particularly when I feel in a hurry for something. If the car can do it you will do it. It should not be up to the driver.
- AUTHOR
I meant GPS, not GSP. I should have said ISA anyway. Oops! Time for bed.
- AUTHOR
Joatmon, everyone suspects that law enforcement agencies that patrol the streets and highways make a decent amount of income off of tickets, but where can we find that information? You seem to have some knowledge about these things.
I for one am not convinced mandatory GSP's will successfully be repealed since helmets target motorcycle riders as well.
Interesting comments, another angle I didn't think about, thanks!
If this were attempted to be mandatory on all vehicles, I suspect the municipalities that rely on speeding tickets for a large part of their income would protest vociferously. Some communities use the speeding ticket income to help fund Police retirement Funds. The police in these communities would not like this. On another angle, the first thing what would happen if this were mandatory on just motorcycles, the AMA would probably lobby for repeal since it targets one segment of the population.
- AUTHOR
I agree aah. They (the big "G") are punishing the innocent before they have even broken the law. In a decade or two, we'll only be allowed to own weapons that can sense when you are pointing it at a human being and refuses to fire when you do. Then we can rely on the cops (part of the nanny state) to not come and solve the problem for us because they are understaffed.
it is truly unfortunate that people have no self control and thus the nanny state is born. Freedom is about each individual exercising consideration for others, self discipline and common sense. Alas too many do not and so we have to invoke technological fixes and the rest of us pay the price of yet another layer of government control. How about we just eradicate those who bring these problems to begin with.
- AUTHOR
So you would like it if the government came into your home and told you how to cook because if you, "do it wrong," the whole neighborhood might burn to the ground. My point is simply not to take away our ability to make our own decisions. No ruling entity ought to behave as if we are guilty before we act, but instead ought to fine or imprison us AFTER we do something wrong.
And doesn't compulsory education make sense? The law ought to be clearly laid out so that we know what we're supposed to do, but the choice to be an idiot should be up to us, and then we can choose to suffer the consequences if we are idiots. That's how a just system works.
I do thank you for your comment Martyn, it is good to have a completely opposing view, (I mean it), and it made me think about my stance again.
An interesting dichotomy here: on the one hand you advocate the freedom to speed or not, on the other you advocate compulsory "education" for motorists. So, you're quite happy to trade one "freedom" for another. Similar to the freedom of cigarette smokers who want to pollute the air you breathe, speeding motorists aren't just a danger to themselves, they're a danger to all of us, pedestrians and other motorists alike. I'm not sure this device is the answer, but one thing is true - as long as you allow speeding motorists to exist, then people will get killed on the roads unnecessarily. It's time to end this slaughter and stop giving the oxygen of publicity to spurious advocates of freedoms which only curtail the more essential freedom of everyone else - to be safe where ever you are.
- AUTHOR
Thanks for visiting and commenting Misha, it's an honor to have you here, (now I feel like a talk radio host). You make an excellent point about obeying the law and driving safely being two different things. I can't count how many times people use their blinker right before they cut you off or tailgate you. I get so angry that cops don't pull over tailgaters and other idiots who pretend to obey the law then drive in an offensive way.
I find your proposal to pull back on speed limits and other driving specific laws interesting, I wonder if it would work. People drive like nutcases now, how will it really improve if we give people more freedom? I think too many people interpret a more easy hand as permission to do what they want. However, open source philosophy works very well on the internet, so you're idea is worth trying, (although in a city far far away from mine).
I sometimes feel like I want to live like the Road Warrior in Mad Max, install hidden guns and oil slick generators in my car. Grenades for my motorcycle since people tailgate a mere foot or two, (seriously!), from my rear tire on the freeway.
I agree Alexander. :) Those idiots that want to go faster no matter what will find a way to do this, either by implementing a different technology fooling the ISA, or by finding a way to disable it altogether. So, after a short period of adaptation, accidents with idiots will return to the current levels. Yet accidents because of ISA limitations and malfunctions will go up, and don't get me started on the potential use of such a system by a government to control their citizens...
Oh, and in regard to your last comment - obeying the law and driving safely are two completely different things, not even related :)
- AUTHOR
Thanks for the comment Gypsy and reading. I totally understand the reason behind instituting this control. I argue in the other direction on my Nationalized Healthcare article, but then I don't feel that socialized medicine takes away our freedoms either - although it can easily be abused. I respect your view and I think HalLicino's argument for the system is an eloquent one: hubpages.com/hub/The-Absolute-Solution-To-Excessive-Fatal-Speed-On-Our-Highways. I have often pondered the wisdom of owning a motorcycle, but for now, the decision is mine and that's the way it should be.
This next thought is not directed at Gypsy Willow, but something for everyone to ponder. In mental institutions, they don't allow some patients to have sharp objects such as forks, are we living in a mental institution? If so, we should rehabilitate the sick ones, not punish the sane ones.
Gypsy, the only reasoning I can agree with is that these reckless riders hurt others. However, isn't it the same with anything? We have the ability to main and kill people with weapons as well, yet there is no special inhibitor device that decides for you when to shoot and not to. I think we need to find a way to weed out the nuts behind the wheel and force them to take public transportation or drive limited vehicles - not the good ones who obey the law and drive safely.
One day long ago I fell off my horse and landed on my head, now I never ride without a helmet . Several of my friends have lost young sons to motorcycle accidents, Two of them killing innocents in the process. Our cop friend always says when he sees a motor cyclist roar past white lining, "organ donor!" Well organ donors are in demand so why protect them from themselves? The reason is that they take out innocents with them. Sorry I have to disagree with you on this one.
23