Big Brother in Britain

[Tony]

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,1111211,00.html ...full article


After speed cameras, road humps and mobile phone bans, there could be more bad news for Britain's motorists. Police are urging Ministers to give them the power to stop vehicles by remote control.
In what will be seen as yet another example of the in-creasing power of Big Brother, drivers face the prospect of their cars being halted by somebody pushing a button.




I'm interested to know what the Brits think of this.

[American]

Not to go off-topic, but what would you think if cars were built to max out at 90 mph (via a computer trip, not by downgrading the engine)? No more high speed chases. It's a similar concept, one that I'm in favor of. 85 might be better even. (Course then you'll have the police arguing that it should be lowered to the actual limit of 65.... or 75 in parts of the Southwest.)

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by American
Not to go off-topic, but what would you think if cars were built to max out at 90 mph (via a computer trip, not by downgrading the engine)? No more high speed chases. It's a similar concept, one that I'm in favor of. 85 might be better even. (Course then you'll have the police arguing that it should be lowered to the actual limit of 65.... or 75 in parts of the Southwest.)

There could be a "high-speed" chase at 20 Mph not to mention the fact that speed governors are very easy to over-ride.

[Andonyx]

Originally posted by American
Not to go off-topic, but what would you think if cars were built to max out at 90 mph (via a computer trip, not by downgrading the engine)? No more high speed chases. It's a similar concept, one that I'm in favor of. 85 might be better even. (Course then you'll have the police arguing that it should be lowered to the actual limit of 65.... or 75 in parts of the Southwest.)

For safety and traffic flow, you must be able to exceed the maximum speed limit by some margin.

If you cannot pass or manuever around cars going at maximum speed limit in your own car that reduces your options for lane changing by half and severaly hinders traffic progress, as studies I'm far too lazy to look up have shown.

[American]

Originally posted by Grammatron

... not to mention the fact that speed governors are very easy to over-ride.


A typical chase is a 17-year old without a license who stole the car moments before for a joyride. There's also a lot who steal it to commit a robbery. If a regular person wants to override it, have fun. Most criminals won't have the chance or even bother if they do since they don't plan on getting caught.

[American]

Originally posted by Andonyx

For safety and traffic flow, you must be able to exceed the maximum speed limit by some margin.

If you cannot pass or manuever around cars going at maximum speed limit in your own car that reduces your options for lane changing by half and severaly hinders traffic progress, as studies I'm far too lazy to look up have shown.


That's why I say 85, maybe 90. I got balls of steal, and even I don't drive that fast. Maybe 84 was the highest ever. (I don't recall, and it was so long ago it's too late to prosecute me for any laws I may or may not have broken.)

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Tony
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,1111211,00.html ...full article
I'm interested to know what the Brits think of this.

I have no problem with it.

Im always amazed at how motorists are outraged that the gov is trying to stop them breaking the law and endangering the lives of others.

[Tony]

Originally posted by American



That's why I say 85, maybe 90. I got balls of steal, and even I don't drive that fast. Maybe 84 was the highest ever. (I don't recall, and it was so long ago it's too late to prosecute me for any laws I may or may not have broken.)


84 is the fastest you've driven? cough*pussy*cough. ;) :D


I am against speed governors of any kind, it's up to the police to enforce the laws.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


I have no problem with it.

Im always amazed at how motorists are outraged that the gov is trying to stop them breaking the law and endangering the lives of others.

Let me guess, if they aren't doing anything illegal they don't have anything to hide right?

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Tony



84 is the fastest you've driven? cough*pussy*cough. ;) :D


I am against speed governors of any kind, it's up to the police to enforce the laws.

Tony, I rather think its up to citizens to obey the law.

Otherwise dont complain when the police start using cameras etc..

[American]

Originally posted by Tony

I am against speed governors of any kind, it's up to the police to enforce the laws.


Yes, but the laws of physics overrule all others..... *CRASH*

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Tony


Let me guess, if they aren't doing anything illegal they don't have anything to hide right?

Its unfortunate that there are a great number of selfish and irresponsible poeple who insist on endagering other people's lives and property thereby neccesitating this kind of thing.

Im not enarmoured with the idea of a survelence society but if that what it takes to protect the public from these selfish veterinary supositries, then so be it.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


Its unfortunate that there are a great number of selfish and irresponsible poeple who insist on endagering other people's lives and property thereby neccesitating this kind of thing.

Im not enarmoured with the idea of a survelence society but if that what it takes to protect the public from these selfish veterinary supositries, then so be it.


So liberty means nothing?

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by American



Yes, but the laws of physics overrule all others..... *CRASH*

That being the crux of the matter.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Tony

So liberty means nothing?

Liberty means everything Tony.

But you are only considering the liberty of the offender, not the liberty of the other driver/passenger/pedestrian who is also trying to use the use the road and should have the liberty to use it without fear being killed or maimed by some idiot who thinks they are Aryton Senna.

Dont put the rights of the criminal before the rights of the victim.

[Luke T.]

I would like to know how a cop in a police car would be able to single out the car he is chasing with his magic wand and stop just that car while in the middle of chasing that car.

I don't like the idea of anyone being able to stop my car. If the cops can do it, then so can someone else. Kind of raises road rage to a whole new level. And car-jacking.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Luke T.
I would like to know how a cop in a police car would be able to single out the car he is chasing with his magic wand and stop just that car while in the middle of chasing that car.

I don't like the idea of anyone being able to stop my car. If the cops can do it, then so can someone else. Kind of raises road rage to a whole new level. And car-jacking.

Yup, it does open up a can of worms. I think wiith the current technology, its possible but bear in mind its not something that just any old joe can do, also it could also be used against car-jacking.

[BTox]

Originally posted by Luke T.
I don't like the idea of anyone being able to stop my car. If the cops can do it, then so can someone else. Kind of raises road rage to a whole new level. And car-jacking.

Good points. There would be a massive black market business on disabling/shielding the system.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Luke T.
I would like to know how a cop in a police car would be able to single out the car he is chasing with his magic wand and stop just that car while in the middle of chasing that car.

I don't like the idea of anyone being able to stop my car. If the cops can do it, then so can someone else. Kind of raises road rage to a whole new level. And car-jacking.

Oh that's easy. The same principal is used by Onstar(tm) to unlock doors and locate cars using Satellite. I am not aware of any case where a thief hacked into Onstar to steal a car. Of course this would be very expensive to put in every single car, but at the rate technology is progressing I would not be surprised if in 10-15 years it would be a standard option that police can utilize. It doesn’t scare me as long as I can disable it.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london

But you are only considering the liberty of the offender, not the liberty of the other driver/passenger/pedestrian who is also trying to use the use the road and should have the liberty to use it without fear being killed or maimed by some idiot who thinks they are Aryton Senna.



I’m considering the liberty of everyone. Giving the government power to stop me in a car opens up all kinds of doors for abuse of power. The person living in fear does not have a right to infringe on my liberty. It is their responsibility to deal with their fear.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Tony



I’m considering the liberty of everyone. Giving the government power to stop me in a car opens up all kinds of doors for abuse of power. The person living in fear does not have a right to infringe on my liberty. It is their responsibility to deal with their fear.

Tony, how is a cop's ability to switch on the lights and legally force you to pull over that much different than a cop's ability to push a button and physically force you to pull over?

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Tony



I’m considering the liberty of everyone. Giving the government power to stop me in a car opens up all kinds of doors for abuse of power. The person living in fear does not have a right to infringe on my liberty. It is their responsibility to deal with their fear.

Im not talking about people living in fear, Im talking about the people who are killed and maimed every year by selfish and irresponsible drivers.

Liberty should be unrestricted until the property and lives of others are under threat. In that case we need laws to protect people.

Would you agree that its fine for me to blind-fold myself and swing about wildly with a baseball bat in a crowded public place? Or do think I should be stopped from doing so?

[Andonyx]

Originally posted by Tony






I am against speed governors of any kind, it's up to the police to enforce the laws.

But the govorners here in the US are not mandated by law. They are placed for insurance reasons. Most manufacturers place these on their car because somehow limiting their cars to 120, or 130 makes a huge difference in their litigation insurance as opposed to allowing the car to hit 150.

Makes no sense to me personally.

A good example is the Hyabusa Motorcycle. When it originally arrived, even the production model could hit something like 191 on straights with the proper tires.

Honda got slammed by insurance problems and oddly, some press, and later models were capped at like 172.

Seems like a petty difference at that point.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Andonyx


But the govorners here in the US are not mandated by law. They are placed for insurance reasons. Most manufacturers place these on their car because somehow limiting their cars to 120, or 130 makes a huge difference in their litigation insurance as opposed to allowing the car to hit 150.

Makes no sense to me personally.

A good example is the Hyabusa Motorcycle. When it originally arrived, even the production model could hit something like 191 on straights with the proper tires.

Honda got slammed by insurance problems and oddly, some press, and later models were capped at like 172.

Seems like a petty difference at that point.

Is there much difference between flying off a motorcycle at 191 and 172?

[Tony]

Originally posted by Grammatron


Tony, how is a cop's ability to switch on the lights and legally force you to pull over that much different than a cop's ability to push a button and physically force you to pull over?

None really, except the button gives the cops more power thus more power to abuse. For the record, I am against the current laws that give the police the power to pull you over.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Tony


None really, except the button gives the cops more power thus more power to abuse. For the record, I am against the current laws that give the police the power to pull you over.

I wouldn't really mind a device in my car if it would help stop some moron from flying through rush hour traffic and killing 3 people. I doubt police would abuse the power since they would be slammed quite hard if they did.

[BTox]

Originally posted by Tony

For the record, I am against the current laws that give the police the power to pull you over.

For the record, are you in favor of any laws? Just curious.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london

Liberty should be unrestricted until the property and lives of others are under threat. In that case we need laws to protect people.


You can attribute this argument to anything. This isn’t a reason, its a justification. You are treating normal people as a threat with no reason or evidence.

Would you agree that its fine for me to blind-fold myself and swing about wildly with a baseball bat in a crowded public place?

Yes, I would. But you cross the line when you hit someone, when and if that happened you would have to account for your error in a civil court. That's the risk you take.

[Tony]

Originally posted by BTox


For the record, are you in favor of any laws? Just curious.

Yes I am.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Tony


None really, except the button gives the cops more power thus more power to abuse. For the record, I am against the current laws that give the police the power to pull you over.

I ahve to agree with Tony here. If I am a terrorist with a car full of explosive that Im going to ram into a bus-load of school kids, those evil police should not have the power to stop me. /sarcasm.

[BTox]

Originally posted by Tony


Yes I am.

Care to give a few examples - again, just curious.

[Tony]

Originally posted by BTox


Care to give a few examples - again, just curious.


Laws against murder, robbery and raping are a few examples.

[BTox]

Originally posted by Tony


You can attribute this argument to anything. This isn’t a reason, its a justification. You are treating normal people as a threat with no reason or evidence.



You do not consider someone driving in traffic at 100 mph a threat? The evidence is speed as determined by radar.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Tony


You can attribute this argument to anything. This isn’t a reason, its a justification. You are treating normal people as a threat with no reason or evidence.



I am not attributing it to 'anything'. I am attributing it to reckless driving. Do I really have to drege up references to convince you that reckless driving is a bad thing and kills and maims thousands of people every year?

Originally posted by Tony

Yes, I would. But you cross the line when you hit someone, when and if that happened you would have to account for your error in a civil court. That's the risk you take.

So lets say that many many people all adopted this practice of wildly swinging baseball bats in crowded public places while blindfolded. Do you not think you could preserve more liberty by taking steps to prevent this behaviour than by allowing it to continue unchecked? Is it not better to prevent a tradgedy than to pick up the pieces afterwards?

[Tony]

Originally posted by BTox


You do not consider someone driving in traffic at 100 mph a threat? The evidence is speed as determined by radar.

This is a gross misunderstanding of my point.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london

So lets say that many many people all adopted this practice of wildly swinging baseball bats in crowded public places while blindfolded. Do you not think you could preserve more liberty by taking steps to prevent this behaviour than by allowing it to continue unchecked? Is it not better to prevent a tradgedy than to pick up the pieces afterwards?

I wonder how would you put a governor on a baseball bat? :p

[BTox]

Originally posted by Tony


This is a gross misunderstanding of my point.

Then what was your point?

[Tony]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london

Do I really have to drege up references to convince you that reckless driving is a bad thing and kills and maims thousands of people every year?


No, thats not my concern.

So lets say that many many people all adopted this practice of wildly swinging baseball bats in crowded public places while blindfolded.

Thats absurd.

[Tony]

Originally posted by BTox


Then what was your point?

My point is that, legally, we still have presumption of innocence. By painting everyone with the same guilty brush, we betray that.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Tony


No, thats not my concern.

Thats absurd.

1. Yes it is your concern. Stop dodging other peoples arguments.

2. Its a hypothetical question, humour me.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Tony


My point is that, legally, we still have presumption of innocence. By painting everyone with the same guilty brush, we betray that.

So you can, if you want, go to court and argue that you are innocent. If you are, you will be cleared, if you are guilty then will face the consequences of endeagering the life and property of others.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


1. Yes it is your concern. Stop dodging other peoples arguments.


NO, it isn’t my concern. Preserving freedom and individual liberty are my concerns.

2. Its a hypothetical question, humour me.

It’s an absurd and unrealistic hypothetical; can you come up with a different one?

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Tony


NO, it isn’t my concern. Preserving freedom and individual liberty are my concerns.

It’s an absurd and unrealistic hypothetical; can you come up with a different one?

1. So preserving the individual of liberty people of individuals to not be run over by reckless idiots doesnt count here?

2. No, its not that difficult. Try and apply yourself Tony.

[BTox]

Originally posted by Tony


My point is that, legally, we still have presumption of innocence. By painting everyone with the same guilty brush, we betray that.

How is stopping the car of someone driving 100 mph and arresting them any different than pulling them over and arresting them? Or any different from capturing and arresting someone accused of murder or burglary?

[Luke T.]

Perhaps if people were reminded that driving a car is a privelege and not a right, it might help this conversation about liberties.

Or not. :)

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Tony


My point is that, legally, we still have presumption of innocence. By painting everyone with the same guilty brush, we betray that.

But being detained does not take away any presumption of innocence; it's not like cop sentences you on the spot. That indeed would be a major problem, forcing a car to come to a halt does not come anywhere near that.

[Tony]

Originally posted by BTox


How is stopping the car of someone driving 100 mph and arresting them any different than pulling them over and arresting them? Or any different from capturing and arresting someone accused of murder or burglary?

Are you being intentionally obtuse, or can you really not understand?

[BTox]

Originally posted by Tony


Are you being intentionally obtuse, or can you really not understand?

Sorry, as a rule I have problems understanding illogic.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Grammatron


But being detained does not take away any presumption of innocence; it's not like cop sentences you on the spot.

It is my contention that mandating such a device be required in all cars is an infringement on liberty. Furthermore, by mandating such a device be required removes the presumption of innocence by treating everyone equally guilty regardless of whether a crime was committed.

[Tony]

Originally posted by BTox


Sorry, as a rule I have problems understanding illogic.

In other words, you can't understand.

[BTox]

Originally posted by Tony


In other words, you can't understand.

Yes, I cannot understand illogic.

[Andonyx]

I'm sorry, I have to agree with Tony in the most General sense here. It seeme to me that JOL is arguing the old, "if you're innocent you have nothing to worry about line."

That would be fine if in reality being arrested and investigated on charges that amounted to nothing didn't hurt you in the long run, as long as you were found innocent, but that's simply not the Case.

Read Richard G's topic on Airport security in this same forum for an example of how a man who violated no laws, had no ill intent and did nothing wrong is now out $2500 and probably more, plus missed work, and so forth because he was presumed guilty.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


1. So preserving the individual of liberty people of individuals to not be run over by reckless idiots doesnt count here?


What evidence do you have that such a device would prevent ALL car accidents? If no such evidence exists, your bit about "preserving the individual of liberty people of individuals to not be run over by reckless idiots" is moot.

2. No, its not that difficult. Try and apply yourself Tony.

I'll say again its absurd and unrealistic.

[Tony]

Originally posted by BTox


Yes, I cannot understand illogic.

Doubtful, this is just an attempt for you to sink back into your comfortable (and un-American) worldview while trying to ostracize me. Keep diluting yourself, "illogic" indeed.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Andonyx
I'm sorry, I have to agree with Tony in the most General sense here. It seeme to me that JOL is arguing the old, "if you're innocent you have nothing to worry about line."

That would be fine if in reality being arrested and investigated on charges that amounted to nothing didn't hurt you in the long run, as long as you were found innocent, but that's simply not the Case.

Read Richard G's topic on Airport security in this same forum for an example of how a man who violated no laws, had no ill intent and did nothing wrong is now out $2500 and probably more, plus missed work, and so forth because he was presumed guilty.

I would agree with that only if you were forced to put such a device in your car, but if I want to do it voluntarily (like LoJack) then where's the harm?

[BTox]

Originally posted by Tony


Doubtful, this is just an attempt for you to sink back into your comfortable (and un-American) worldview while trying to ostracize me. Keep diluting yourself, "illogic" indeed.

As a practicing homeopath I realize the more I dilute myself the stronger and more omnipotent I become. ;)

[Tony]

Originally posted by BTox


As a practicing homeopath I realize the more I dilute myself the stronger and more omnipotent I become. ;)

Well *****, I want omnipotence too. Can you hook a ***** up? ;)

[shanek]

Out of curiosity, what's so bad about road humps? (I assume they're the same thing as speed humps or speed ramps here in the US.)

To those wondering what's so bad about the police being able to push a button and stop your car: If the police can do it, what's to stop someone else from figuring out how to do it?

[Tmy]

Do you realize how dangerous it would be to have a car lose all power while its moving? Surprising the driver? That could cause so many accidents by itself. Then you have Big Brother on the hook for a wrongful death of some kieds who were hit by an out of control car that lost its power brakes and steering.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by shanek

To those wondering what's so bad about the police being able to push a button and stop your car: If the police can do it, what's to stop someone else from figuring out how to do it?

128 and/or 256 bit encryption.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Tmy
Do you realize how dangerous it would be to have a car lose all power while its moving? Surprising the driver? That could cause so many accidents by itself. Then you have Big Brother on the hook for a wrongful death of some kieds who were hit by an out of control car that lost its power brakes and steering.

I imagine by then we would have drive-by-wire technology which would allow the car to be put into Neutral where it would safely decelerate while still giving ability to the driver to steer it and stop it.

[ceptimus]

* The article says the power would be reduced only slowly.

* Suzuki make the Hayabusa, not Honda.

* speed bumps are dangerous for motorcycles in slippy conditions, a hazard for injured people being taken to hospitals in ambulances, and an unnecessary hinderance to fire engines and the like.

* As us poor fools in the UK are already happy to pay 6$ / gallon for gas, I dare say we will happily accept this new, costly addition to our already ludicrously over-taxed motoring.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Luke T.
Perhaps if people were reminded that driving a car is a privelege and not a right, it might help this conversation about liberties.

Or not. :)

Well you dont have a rightto own a phone, that doesnt mean the govt is free to listen to your conversations.

Even wh/o a license I am free to drive on private property.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Tmy


Well you dont have a rightto own a phone, that doesnt mean the govt is free to listen to your conversations.

But the ability for them to is built in, isn't it?

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Luke T.


But the ability for them to is built in, isn't it?

It is for Cell phone.

[Skeptic]

Here's a true story.

In 1970s israel, color TV broadcasting finally arrived, since the world switched to "living color" broadcasting. The israeli government feared the social effect: until then, both rich and poor had B&W TV; what would happen if the rich will now start buying color TVs while the poor would be stuck with the B&W ones? So they hit on a wonderful device known as the "mehikon" ("eraser"). This gadget "erased" the color from all israeli TV broadcasts, by "translating" all color into various shades of gray. This meant that even if you had a color TV, and the original program broadcast was in color, you'd recieve it in FAKE B&W! (think of the "coloring" of old pictures, only in reverse).

Needless to say, within a few weeks a new gadget arrived: the "anti-mehikon", which you could attach to your color TV, and translate the gray-scale color images back to their original color, so you would get a color broadcast after all. So the evil rich people got a color TV with an anti-mehikon, which made the mehikon the laughingstock of the entire country. It was soon discontinued.

Same thing here. The sole result of this thing would be that those who could afford to will buy a "anti-stopping" gadget that would defeat the cop's device and not allow the car to be stopped. In effect, the only people who it will really stop would be the poor schmucks who could not afford to buy the gadget.

As an aside, I think a similar VOLUNTARY system like this does exist with many car-theft-protection services: you can AGREE with them to install a gadget in the car that stops it when it goes beyound a certain speed, as an anti-theft device, when you know you never drive so fast and if somebody does, it means the car was stolen. It is not the idea itself that is wrong--it's making it compulsory.

By the way, wouldn't "killing" the engine at 90 MPH be a sure way to create TONS of accidents?

[Richard G]

There is a reason we threw the Brits, and their King out of America many years ago. Judging from this story, and others, it was not a mistake.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Here's a true story.

In 1970s israel, color TV broadcasting finally arrived, since the world switched to "living color" broadcasting. The israeli government feared the social effect: until then, both rich and poor had B&W TV; what would happen if the rich will now start buying color TVs while the poor would be stuck with the B&W ones? So they hit on a wonderful device known as the "mehikon" ("eraser"). This gadget "erased" the color from all israeli TV broadcasts, by "translating" all color into various shades of gray. This meant that even if you had a color TV, and the original program broadcast was in color, you'd recieve it in FAKE B&W! (think of the "coloring" of old pictures, only in reverse).

Needless to say, within a few weeks a new gadget arrived: the "anti-mehikon", which you could attach to your color TV, and translate the gray-scale color images back to their original color, so you would get a color broadcast after all. So the evil rich people got a color TV with an anti-mehikon, which made the mehikon the laughingstock of the entire country. It was soon discontinued.

Same thing here. The sole result of this thing would be that those who could afford to will buy a "anti-stopping" gadget that would defeat the cop's device and not allow the car to be stopped. In effect, the only people who it will really stop would be the poor schmucks who could not afford to buy the gadget.

As an aside, I think a similar VOLUNTARY system like this does exist with many car-theft-protection services: you can AGREE with them to install a gadget in the car that stops it when it goes beyound a certain speed, as an anti-theft device, when you know you never drive so fast and if somebody does, it means the car was stolen. It is not the idea itself that is wrong--it's making it compulsory.

By the way, wouldn't "killing" the engine at 90 MPH be a sure way to create TONS of accidents?

Like I said, you would in fact be putting the car in neutral not turning it off so it's not a problem.

As for the anti-device it would not be legal in the US because unlike Israel, USA does not allow people to own a jamming device of any kind. As of now there is no voluntary system to disable the car in any way by police while it's in motion. And I don't much favor the way South Africans deal with car thieves.

[Andonyx]

Originally posted by Grammatron


I would agree with that only if you were forced to put such a device in your car, but if I want to do it voluntarily (like LoJack) then where's the harm?

Sorry. I may have missed the part where the conversation diverged...I've been obsessed with the science section today.

I thought we were discussing the UK police push to have this installed mandatorily. Am I mistaken?

[Andonyx]

Originally posted by Grammatron




As for the anti-device it would not be legal in the US because unlike Israel, USA does not allow people to own a jamming device of any kind. As of now there is no voluntary system to disable the car in any way by police while it's in motion. And I don't much favor the way South Africans deal with car thieves.

Yes, and we're not allowed to own cable descramblers either....so?

Look you only have to look at Radar detectors, and traffic camera blinders to know that the moment they develop something like this someone somewhere even if it's sold from a small off-shore Island will start selling something to defeat it.

First we had Radar Guns,

Then we had detectors,

Then we had Radar Guns that used Lasers,

Then we had detectors that could read the laser band....

It goes on and on and on.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Andonyx


Yes, and we're not allowed to own cable descramblers either....so?

Look you only have to look at Radar detectors, and traffic camera blinders to know that the moment they develop something like this someone somewhere even if it's sold from a small off-shore Island will start selling something to defeat it.

First we had Radar Guns,

Then we had detectors,

Then we had Radar Guns that used Lasers,

Then we had detectors that could read the laser band....

It goes on and on and on.

I am fairly certain that you are allowed to own and use one as long as you are not getting channels you shouldn't legally be having in the first place, though I could be wrong.

All the things you mention require a person to install it prior to use of a car. Most of the high-speed chases (at least here in LA) happen because someone stole a car and thus is unlikely to have the anti-device. I'm not anywhere near claiming that there could be a foolproof device.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Grammatron
128 and/or 256 bit encryption.

Crackable. 128-bit WEP was cracked.

[shanek]

Originally posted by ceptimus
* speed bumps are dangerous for motorcycles in slippy conditions, a hazard for injured people being taken to hospitals in ambulances, and an unnecessary hinderance to fire engines and the like.

We're talking about speed humps, not speed bumps. Again assuming they're like the ones in the states, you can safely drive over them at the posted speed (just not faster).

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by shanek


Crackable. 128-bit WEP was cracked.

Well then 256-bit. Point being there is no case I am aware of where somebody hacked Onstar(tm) and used it to open up a car.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by Grammatron


Is there much difference between flying off a motorcycle at 191 and 172?

You get to say "*****" at 172 before you die, at 191 you only get as far as "sh..."

At those speeds, your motorcycle can effectively become a missile with a payload of however big your gas tank is. I've seen the results of a motorcycle hitting an auto at ~120 mph and it blew the sedan wide open, exploding gasoline everywhere.

[Andonyx]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal


You get to say "*****" at 172 before you die, at 191 you only get as far as "sh..."

At those speeds, your motorcycle can effectively become a missile with a payload of however big your gas tank is. I've seen the results of a motorcycle hitting an auto at ~120 mph and it blew the sedan wide open, exploding gasoline everywhere.

Good, everyone having a good laugh?

Excellent.

Now would anyone like to go back and read the entire post?

You know, the one where I mentioned it was a petty difference?

Great.

Now someone please explain to me why the governor is on there in first place....

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Andonyx


Good, everyone having a good laugh?

Excellent.

Now would anyone like to go back and read the entire post?

You know, the one where I mentioned it was a petty difference?

Great.

Now someone please explain to me why the governor is on there in first place....

Didn't you answer that question with insurence?

[ceptimus]

It's to do with product liability, and the speed rating of the tyres.

Z rated tyres might fail in hot conditions, with a full load, at a maintained speed over 172mph.

Of, course, there are not many places you can do that speed for long. :D

ceptimus. (who has a European spec. Honda Blackbird, that is not restricted, and will maintain over 185mph)

[Prester John]

I think it is hard to argue legitimatly for the right to be able to break the law.
However thats fine when the laws are just. Would not the ability to monitor at every step of ones life, stop the car you are driving in etc make the 1984 police state merely a few ill thought out laws away? What precedents are we setting and where will the observation of our lives end?

Perhaps we should spend a bit of time considering just where exactly our societies are going, what we actually want from our society etc, take a longer term look at how we govern ourselves, rather than just small steps to deal with problems as they arise.