Slashdot | Using GPS To Catch Speeders Found Illegal
http://slashdot.org/articles/01/07/03/0423218.shtml -- -- ____________________________________________________________________ Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent. Ludwig Wittgenstein The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
At 08:31 AM 7/3/2001 -0500, you wrote:
Somehow I feel we haven't heard the end of this.. steve
At 10:43 AM -0700 7/3/01, Steve Schear wrote:
At 08:31 AM 7/3/2001 -0500, you wrote:
Somehow I feel we haven't heard the end of this..
I see people on Slashdot and various other fora cheering this. They don't understand the rights issues involved. The owner of a piece of property, such as a car, has the property and contract right to set up a contract as he sees fit. The first part of the ruling, that the contract was not clear enough, I can mostly accept. Future contracts will spell this out in more detail, in larger type fonts. And more people will have been exposed to the idea. There may be posters put up in rental offices. The second part of the ruling is an invalid attack on the property and contract rights of the owner of the property. --Tim May -- Timothy C. May tcmay@got.net Corralitos, California Political: Co-founder Cypherpunks/crypto anarchy/Cyphernomicon Technical: physics/soft errors/Smalltalk/Squeak/agents/games/Go Personal: b.1951/UCSB/Intel '74-'86/retired/investor/motorcycles/guns
On Tue, 3 Jul 2001, Tim May wrote:
The second part of the ruling is an invalid attack on the property and contract rights of the owner of the property.
The rental agency has no(!!!) authority under law to enforce speeding regulations. If they find that a leasee has violated a law by getting a ticket or whatever then they certainly have the right to protect their property by refusing or raising rates on future rentals, but to impose 'fines' is simply wrong, they do not represent the civil authority in charge of the road. It would certainly be sufficient evidence to bring charges of reckless driving or whatever, but the final determination of 'guilt' and the consequences thereof are up to the CIVIL authorities and not the owner of the property. -- ____________________________________________________________________ Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent. Ludwig Wittgenstein The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
Huh? This is Choatian nonsense. If the speed limits were 85 mph and a rental car company decided it only wanted drivers to go 65 mph, they could put this in their contract and enforce if, if they so choose. If they misjudge and drivers really, really want to go 85 mph, they will lose business. Such are the gusting winds of the market. You may reasonably say that private companies should not be the enforcement arms of the state, but they should be allowed to make their own decisions when voluntarily choosing to do so. -Declan PS: Of more cypherpunk relevance, perhaps, is the greater role that insurance companies would play in the absence of government speed limits. You may have to pay more in insurance to drive faster, for instance. On Tue, Jul 03, 2001 at 04:10:27PM -0500, Jim Choate wrote:
On Tue, 3 Jul 2001, Tim May wrote:
The second part of the ruling is an invalid attack on the property and contract rights of the owner of the property.
The rental agency has no(!!!) authority under law to enforce speeding regulations. If they find that a leasee has violated a law by getting a ticket or whatever then they certainly have the right to protect their property by refusing or raising rates on future rentals, but to impose 'fines' is simply wrong, they do not represent the civil authority in charge of the road. It would certainly be sufficient evidence to bring charges of reckless driving or whatever, but the final determination of 'guilt' and the consequences thereof are up to the CIVIL authorities and not the owner of the property.
-- ____________________________________________________________________
Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.
Ludwig Wittgenstein
The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
On Tue, 3 Jul 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote:
If the speed limits were 85 mph and a rental car company decided it only wanted drivers to go 65 mph, they could put this in their contract and enforce if, if they so choose.
How? The only ethical way would be to either put a govenor on the vehicle or else have somebody ride along with you. Otherwise they'd just have to trust the civil authorities to catch speeders.
If they misjudge and drivers really, really want to go 85 mph, they will lose business. Such are the gusting winds of the market.
Not necessarily, there is an issue of cognisence and alternative. For example, let's say that the contract says 65 max, but somebody goes 85. How's the company going to know?
You may reasonably say that private companies should not be the enforcement arms of the state, but they should be allowed to make their own decisions when voluntarily choosing to do so.
Within limits, yes. The question is where are the limits. -- ____________________________________________________________________ Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent. Ludwig Wittgenstein The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
On Wed, Jul 04, 2001 at 08:11:06PM -0500, Jim Choate wrote:
On Tue, 3 Jul 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote:
If the speed limits were 85 mph and a rental car company decided it only wanted drivers to go 65 mph, they could put this in their contract and enforce if, if they so choose.
How? The only ethical way would be to either put a govenor on the vehicle or else have somebody ride along with you. Otherwise they'd just have to trust the civil authorities to catch speeders.
1. Notify renters you're going to GPS track the car to catch speeders 2. GPS track the car to catch speeders 3. Fine speeders 4. Tell them you've fined them Perfectly ethical, though probably bad business practice. -Declan
On Wed, 4 Jul 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote:
On Wed, Jul 04, 2001 at 08:11:06PM -0500, Jim Choate wrote:
On Tue, 3 Jul 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote:
If the speed limits were 85 mph and a rental car company decided it only wanted drivers to go 65 mph, they could put this in their contract and enforce if, if they so choose.
How? The only ethical way would be to either put a govenor on the vehicle or else have somebody ride along with you. Otherwise they'd just have to trust the civil authorities to catch speeders.
1. Notify renters you're going to GPS track the car to catch speeders 2. GPS track the car to catch speeders 3. Fine speeders 4. Tell them you've fined them
Perfectly ethical, though probably bad business practice.
Actually it's not, it's a strawman to draw in more income. If the auto vendor was really concerned about their vehicle they'd install a govenor (like they did on the '64 1/2 Mustand for example) that would limit the RPM's of the engine. Quick, easy, simple. A lot(!!!) less expensive (about $20) and more reliable than a GPS receiver. It's the typical bait and switch (typical of capitalist/libertarian goals that is). What's an example of why this process won't work? Consider the GPS is set for 55MPH and the customer is doing exactly 50MPG (hence not being shown as a speeder) but is in a 30MPH zone. -- ____________________________________________________________________ Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent. Ludwig Wittgenstein The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Choate
What's an example of why this process won't work? Consider the GPS is set for 55MPH and the customer is doing exactly 50MPG (hence not being shown as a speeder) but is in a 30MPH zone.
Squirrel definitions won't help you, Jim. Neither will the ridiculous straw men you're erecting. A speeder, in this discussion, is a person who breaks the speed limit imposed by the _rental_contract_, not the state. If the company has the technological ability to accurately (or inaccurately, although that would probably be bad for business) measure the speed of the car, they can tell if the person is exceeding their contractually determined speed, that is, "speeding." If the contract says they can charge $5000000 for each infraction, they can. Period. Like Declan and Steve point out, the consumer may not be happy with this. If they're not, they can go somewhere else. -- Riad Wahby rsw@mit.edu MIT VI-2/A 2002 5105
On Wed, 4 Jul 2001, Riad S. Wahby wrote:
A speeder, in this discussion, is a person who breaks the speed limit imposed by the _rental_contract_, not the state. If the company has the technological ability to accurately (or inaccurately, although that would probably be bad for business) measure the speed of the car, they can tell if the person is exceeding their contractually determined speed, that is, "speeding." If the contract says they can charge $5000000 for each infraction, they can. Period.
Even though it's likely irrelevent over the long term, I would expect that the contract would be somewhat self-destructive where it comes into conflict with State law, for example, where the vehicle is required by law to travel at some minimum speed (45mph on the highways around here), and the rental contract specifies something different. Obviously, I pulled this example out of my ass, and it is unlikely that any of these contracts would attempt to enforce such a low limit, however, it is descriptive as an example of public policy vs private contract interests. I am sure that the lawyercritters have given us any number of strange and not so wonderful laws which could find themselves in disagreement with these private contracts... -- Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin@mfn.org If Governments really want us to behave like civilized human beings, they should give serious consideration towards setting a better example: Ruling by force, rather than consensus; the unrestrained application of unjust laws (which the victim-populations were never allowed input on in the first place); the State policy of justice only for the rich and elected; the intentional abuse and occassionally destruction of entire populations merely to distract an already apathetic and numb electorate... This type of demogoguery must surely wipe out the fascist United States as surely as it wiped out the fascist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The views expressed here are mine, and NOT those of my employers, associates, or others. Besides, if it *were* the opinion of all of those people, I doubt there would be a problem to bitch about in the first place... --------------------------------------------------------------------
On Wed, Jul 04, 2001 at 09:42:48PM -0500, Jim Choate wrote:
If the auto vendor was really concerned about their vehicle they'd install a govenor (like they did on the '64 1/2 Mustand for example) that would limit the RPM's of the engine. Quick, easy, simple. A lot(!!!) less expensive (about $20) and more reliable than a GPS receiver.
Then you'd risk spurious lawsuits from someone who can't accelerate to get out of an accident situation, and you'd also lose the source of income you might get from all these speeding tickets you as the renter would levy.
It's the typical bait and switch (typical of capitalist/libertarian goals that is).
This is just insane. -Declan
At 2:16 AM -0400 7/5/01, Declan McCullagh wrote:
On Wed, Jul 04, 2001 at 09:42:48PM -0500, Jim Choate wrote:
If the auto vendor was really concerned about their vehicle they'd install a govenor (like they did on the '64 1/2 Mustand for example) that would limit the RPM's of the engine. Quick, easy, simple. A lot(!!!) less expensive (about $20) and more reliable than a GPS receiver.
Then you'd risk spurious lawsuits from someone who can't accelerate to get out of an accident situation, and you'd also lose the source of income you might get from all these speeding tickets you as the renter would levy.
It apparently already happens, the installation of governors on rental cars. I rented a car at the Baltimore-Washington airport last summer and merrily got on the freeway (er, "parkway") connecting it with the Beltway. It was late at night, traffic was light, so I stepped on the gas. It just ran out of speed at about 65. Couldn't get it to go any faster, even with the pedal to the floor. Now it _could_ be that it was just a late American model, heavily-pollution-control-entangled econobox, but I've driven el cheapo Korean and Japanese models which had no problem reaching high speeds on straightaways. I figured at the time that the rental cars had indeed been equipped with RPM governors. I was only mildly annoyed and I didn't feel my safety was threatened, pace the above point about accelerating. Most traffic acceleration risks are at lower speeds, so a top-end speed governor isn't likely to pose a safety risk. --Tim May -- Timothy C. May tcmay@got.net Corralitos, California Political: Co-founder Cypherpunks/crypto anarchy/Cyphernomicon Technical: physics/soft errors/Smalltalk/Squeak/agents/games/Go Personal: b.1951/UCSB/Intel '74-'86/retired/investor/motorcycles/guns
At 02:16 AM 7/5/2001 -0400, Declan McCullagh wrote:
On Wed, Jul 04, 2001 at 09:42:48PM -0500, Jim Choate wrote:
If the auto vendor was really concerned about their vehicle they'd install a govenor (like they did on the '64 1/2 Mustand for example) that would limit the RPM's of the engine. Quick, easy, simple. A lot(!!!) less expensive (about $20) and more reliable than a GPS receiver.
Then you'd risk spurious lawsuits from someone who can't accelerate to get out of an accident situation, and you'd also lose the source of income you might get from all these speeding tickets you as the renter would levy.
I wonder how significant such GPS-based levies would influence the basic business model and competitiveness of an auto rental company. At first be might be used as a tactical revenue source to enable lower basic rates and attract new business, with the scofflaws paying for the difference between competitor's market rates and the lower rates afforded by the levies. Later, it might evolve into a sustainable advantage as those most likely to pay the levies avoid the agency the remaining customers may very well be much safer drivers enabling lower insurance premiums and costs of operation steve
participants (6)
-
Declan McCullagh -
Jim Choate -
measl＠mfn.org -
Riad S. Wahby -
Steve Schear -
Tim May