I've advocated this for decades. Devil's in the details, as always - like, what's the responsibility of someone throwing a party to check ID's? But the basic idea is something that's quite appealing. And I would say suspension, then revocation, for any alcohol-related offense. If you're showing that you can't handle it, then you can't have it.

You got it. Amphibious tractor / amphibious tracked vehicle = "AmTrac."

Vocabulary word for today: "portmanteau."

"The greatest efficiency?"

"The discretion of police?"

Right, as of TODAY, they say they can't monitor the speed limit that precisely, so that's how they slip it by you.  When I compare my Garmin to my speedometer, the two numbers are exact.  How long do you think it will be for politicians to realize that?

If you think you can't be cited for 1mph over the limit, then what's the point of having a "limit" at all?

My view is, if they're going to monitor our behavior out on the roads that closely, then let's individualize it.  I drive according to conditions (both the weather and my vehicle), and so do 99% of the people out there.  Some people are simply better drivers than others.  I speed all the time, I have a few tickets to prove it, but in 20+ years of driving, I have ZERO traffic accidents.  You want to restrict the 99% in order to keep the 1% in line?

You want to stop someone else from hitting you?  Try working on your alertness and the awareness of your surroundings.  Do you know where the corners of your vehicle are?  Do you know how to adjust your driving to snow, ice, rain, highway ruts, fog, etc?  Try improving your assessment of conditions and the capabilities of your vehicle... try improving your own driving skills... and STOP trying to make laws that tell ME how I should be driving.

I think you completely didn't read what I wrote.

Greatest efficiency... As in, short and sweet and to the point. Get rid of the bad drivers without screwing around all drivers. Do it quickly without letting them go around for months and months if they already have convictions pending.

Police discretion... Yes. There is such a thing. The police can stop you from going 1MPH too fast, but in practise they will not. Quite often it's just 10% over or faster which they really care about. Not all the time, obviously. That is why it is down to their discretion. How difficult was that concept?


I am not trying to make laws to stop good drivers, I want them to stop bad drivers. Don't question my observational skills, they're just fine. But what am I supposed to do if someone just pulls out into me? It has very nearly happened before, they let the wheel go and turned right in towards my car. Thankfully they were on the near side so I had a lot more reaction with it, but it was very nearly a crash because of their negligance. If someone is dangerously speeding (and I am happy to accept that there is such a thing as 'responsibly speeding') and just hits into me, how is that my fault? What was I doing wrong?

A GPS speedo and a car speedo will rarely read the same value. It depends on too many variables, and a speedometer can provide a false reading (so long as it isn't saying that you're driving too slowly).



Seriously, what did you actually read? It certainly wasn't what I wrote.

Accidents happen... they always have and they always will.  If someone pulls out into you, then you have one... and of course, it will always be HIS fault, not yours.

Toying with laws for the "greatest efficiency" because you "very nearly" had an accident is not the kind of society I want to be a part of.  You're also working toward giving mechanical police (ie- cameras and computers) the "discretion" to send you costly speeding tickets in the mail.

It's not what I'm reading into your posts... it's what you can't see in them when you write them... therein lies the real problem. 

It's also your lack of understanding on how government entities work.  What they SAY they will practice today is NOT what they will be practicing 10, 15, or 20 years from now... or sometimes even a MONTH from now... but you're opening the door for that today.  All because you very nearly had an all-too-human "accident"... and you think you can stop those by letting the government watch our every move.  THAT would be the real accident.

Excellent points, all!

If you don't drink, why should YOU have to pay for and breathe into a breathalyzer every time you want to run some errands?  Oh, we'll make the government pay for it... as if that won't be YOU paying for it - lol!

I like your point about melting groceries, too.  A mis-calibration or a sensor that's scratched or unclean... while your ice cream is melting and your kids are crying... what a great way to live!

...and you didn't even mention the issue of fingerprint stealing from compromised databases.

Actually, the insurance companies do a pretty good job. Have an accident and your rates go up.
From the government end, they set rules in place, and if you break them and get caught, you pay a penalty.
You aren't making much of a point here.

Get real. Why the heck do you think that we elect governments and then obey the laws they put in place?
I suppose you would willingly give up the entire US military complex and raise your own standing army to keep your back yard safe?
Your freedom to do what you want ends when it endangers the well being of someone else.
Text and drive, as an example, is drooling idiot stupidity, so we have laws against it ( you would call it government tyranny), because people are droolingly stupid idiots that will risk other people's well being simply because they are selfish asses.

It's a Libertarian point that I'm sure passes right by you.  Read the first couple of paragraphs from Thomas Paine's Common Sense - about the differences between government and society, and you might get a better idea.

Oh, and the insurance companies don't determine speed limits, nor do they determine what is "safe."  The laws don't do a very good job of it, either.

Don't be an idiot.  Our Constitution (don't know about yours) specifically sets aside National Defense as a government responsibility.  I've never seen anything in there about the government being charged with our "safety."

You're trying to determine factual safety based on actuarial statistics... but you can't possibly take-in all the necessary variables to get it right.

Could be sooner than that!  Look at Volvo:
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/vo … 37032.html

That's the same story I linked to.

I was definitely being conservative with my timeline though.

And the job of a military is to do what?
Oh yes, keep the civilians safe by killing off the enemies of the state.
That's what "defence" is about in the context you brought up.
In two sentences you have said the government is not responsible for public safety, and then said that it is.
Perhaps you could make up your mind.....

Limiting the power of the vehicle sounds vaguely like the motorbike rules currently in effect - If you're under 21, you can take the accelerated course where you ride an underpowered bike for 2 years, pass the test and go onto the full power bikes. However, cars are often more expensive, and someone might not be willing to trade in their car straight away. They might be on their parent's insurance, in which case you'd need to modify the EMS for specific drivers, in which case you'd need a way of identifying which driver was driving.

Also, restricters were the first thing those young motorcyclists took off their bikes!


One problem with raising the speed limit, is raising the artifical limit set by drivers. If the limit is 70MPH, people drive at 80. If you raise it to 80, people drive at 90. So by increasing the physical limit by 10MPH, you're allowing people to go 20MPH faster, which is more dangerous. If a wheel drops off, you and everyone else around you is in for a bad day.

I have to agree with Justin on this.  The authorities have a track record of introducing laws to combat one thing and then abusing it for other reasons. 

Examples which come readily to mind are the "anti-terror" laws:  Local Authorities used them to intercept mail, etc, of people they suspected of lying about their home address in order to get their kids into the school of their choice, and laws which were intended to prevent people covering the pavement with rubbish being used to fine people because their bin was too full to allow the lid to fully close.

It would be very unwise to believe that the Nazis (or similar) couldn't have come to power in this day and age:  all they needed was state machinery they could bend to their purposes (including a law which gave the largest minority party an automatic majority to overcome the problem of weak government....)

I would also like to add that we are Humans, not machines.  As such we are not perfect and will do such things as go over the speed limit at times. I don't want a ticket arriving on my doorstep every time I go 33 mph because I wasn't constantly watching my speedometer.

And finally, one major problem with democracy is that, at best,  it favours the opinions of the majority and ignores the will of the minority, and at worst favours the will of the vocal minority pressure groups against the will of the silent majority.  Give the authorities the power to monitor your every movement and pressure groups will get that used for their own ends.  Politics is a dirty business:  even in a relatively "clean" country like the UK, look at the power Murdoch wielded.

I think we need to be very, very careful before we give the authorities any more power to monitor and control us.

"It is only to make sure you are not breaking the law in the first place" is the basis of Orwell's 1984....  His work was intended as a warning, not a blueprint for government!