[aprssig] Star Wars..
ka8vit at ka8vit.com
Wed Feb 1 11:40:41 CST 2006
Why would they do that?
Most places will opt for speed/traffic cameras.
Why prevent us from driving over the limit when,
they can fine us for it instead!
Here in Cleveland, Ohio, speed and traffic light cameras
have become a BIG money maker for the city.
Funny though, the recent headline did NOT say,
"Ten lives saved by traffic cameras"
"Cameras bring in $285,000 in first six week of operation"
But, ya know, it's all about safety... (yeah...right).
AA3JY at Winlink.org wrote:
>Now..does this sound familiar..?
>Star Wars Speed Trap
>GPS being used to catch speeders
>By ERIC PETERS
>Like tearing off that sticker on mattresses that warns us not to
>penalty of law," most of us don't pay much attention to speed limits.
>Five to 10
>over is the rule, not the exception -- as any survey of average
>speeds will confirm. We vote with our right foot every time we get
>wheel, countermanding the diktats of the local bureaucrats who erect
>are frequently well below what large majorities (better than 85
>you want an actual figure based on traffic surveys) consider
>But what if driving faster than the posted limit became an
>For years, this has been “The Dream” of safety-badger types, who
>deviance from often arbitrarily-set posted speed limits with mowing
>small children in a gigantic SUV with really loud mufflers, one hand
>wheel, the other clutching a half-empty fifth of Jack Daniels. They
>mechanical governors (which never flew) and even managed, briefly, to
>get a law
>passed that required all new cars to be fitted with speedometers that
>no faster than 85 mph.
>Now, however, the technology exists for a great leap forward -- or
>depending on your point of view.
>The Canadians are testing out a system that combines onboard Global
>Positioning Satellite (GPS) technology with a digital speed limit map.
>It works very
>much like the in-car GPS navigation systems which have become so
>late model cars -- but with a twist. Instead of helping you find a
>the system, prevents you from driving any faster than the posted speed
>of the road you happen to be on.
>As in a conventional GPS-equipped car or truck, the system knows which
>you're on, as well as the direction you're traveling. This information
>continuously updating as you move. But in addition to this, the system
>acquires information about the posted speed limit on each road, as you
>Once your vehicle reaches that limit, the car's computer makes it
>difficult to go any faster.
>Ten vehicles equipped with this technology are currently being tested
>Ottowa area; if the trail is "successful," a wider series of tests is
>planned. And it's a sure bet the entire thing will eventually be the
>object of a
>very strong-armed push aimed at making it mandatory equipment in every
>"We are trying to assess the operational acceptance issues," says
>Burns of Transport Canada's road safety directorate.
>But is all of this really necessary -- or even a good idea?
>For one thing, if current speed limits are so sensible, why do so many
>disobey them routinely? Are large majorities of us simply indifferent
>own safety and that of others -- even though we seem capable of
>responsibly in other aspects of our lives?
>Or are speed limits often set unrealistically low?
>And if they are, wouldn't it make more sense to adjust them so that
>reflect a more reasonable consensus -- based upon how we actually
>rather than constantly pushing for new ways to compel compliance with
>most of us clearly think are too low?
>Bear in mind that for 20-plus years, we were relentlessly nagged by
>self-styled "safety lobby" (and its profiteers in the insurance
>industry) that to
>exceed the sainted 55 mph limit was "dangerous speeding" that put
>and others at risk. Yet when Congress finally repealed the 55 mph
>'95 -- and most states raised their highway limits to 65, 70, even 75
>some cases -- highway fatality rates did not increase as predicted. In
>just two years after the majority of states increased their maximum
>speed limits, the total national highway fatality rate reached an
>record low of 1.64 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled
>This proved that driving 65 or 70-something mph on a highway was not
>"unsafe." The big difference post-'95 was that you no longer had to
>getting a ticket for doing it.
>The same issue exists on many secondary roads, where under-posted
>routinely ignored by most drivers -- but vigorously enforced by radar
>Like the tickets issued to people under the double nickel, the use of
>to nab motorists exceeding these under-posted limits is justified on
>basis of "safety" -- even though most of us know that driving five or
>faster doesn't in and of itself constitute unsafe driving any more
>than doing 65
>or 70-something mph did under the old 55 mph NMSL.
>And sometimes, it's necessary to accelerate rapidly in order to avoid
>accident -- even if it means momentarily exceeding the posted limit.
>But Canada's little experiment could bring a screeching halt to all
>literally. Dumbed-down limits -- and dumbed-down driving -- would
>more than the law of the land.
>They would become an inescapable way of life.
>Some might welcome a world in which driving faster than whatever the
>limit happens to be is impossibility. But it might be more
>post realistic speed limits -- and deal with the handful of drivers
>or can't drive reasonably -- than to treat every driver on the road
Bill Chaikin, KA8VIT
USS COD Amateur Radio Club - W8COD
WW2 Submarine USS COD SS-224 (NECO)
ka8vit at ka8vit.com
QRP-L NBR: 2596
More information about the aprssig