Perhaps a technology solution? Could we not install one of those devices that London shops use to send messages to mobile phones...
There is a simple technological solution to bollard bashing, speding, jumping lights, etc - a car that reacts to the road regulations. It would be easy to have a gizmo in a car that knows via gps or roadside transmitters what is legal. Even better it could automatically pay parking fees or refuse to allow the engine to stop, or the car to lock if you park in designated no parking zones.
So many road regulations could be enforced this way, saving the police loads of time - but no government has the b*lls to make the fitting of such devices mandatory.
There is a simple technological solution to bollard bashing, speding, jumping lights, etc - a car that reacts to the road regulations. It would be easy to have a gizmo in a car that knows via gps or roadside transmitters what is legal. Even better it could automatically pay parking fees or refuse to allow the engine to stop, or the car to lock if you park in designated no parking zones.
So many road regulations could be enforced this way, saving the police loads of time - but no government has the b*lls to make the fitting of such devices mandatory.
Nice one! Do that for every offence and we have gridlock! Nevertheless, suspect it would work
Nice one! Do that for every offence and we have gridlock! Nevertheless, suspect it would work
It's all readily achievable - but it won't happen for years. Let's face it they had imposed some restrictions on HGVs for years (speed limiters, tachographs) which could easily be applied to cars - but haven't been. If the government was really serious about the 70mph limit they could have enforced it with limiters years ago.
The government don't need to do a thing. Insurance companies could just introduce systems like this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage-based_insurance then charge accordingly. Those who chose not to fit the systems - or fitted systems but exceeded limits - would pay much higher rates than those who did. They'd be made compulsory (by the insurance companies) for under 25s, those with dangerous driving convictions and so on.
Economics, dear boy, economics. If the insurance companies could make money out of it and we consumers could save money we'd all have GPS based monitoring systems sitting in our cars right now. A no brainer. The technology isn't the issue - fitting all cars with the technology to monitor and report their speed and position 24/7 would be trivial.
Same applies to global warming. It doesn't matter whether climate change is being induced by our actions or not. If the oil companies short term profits are maximised (and our costs as consumers are minimised) by lobbyists persuading Congress/Parliament/us that burning fossil fuels is the way to go, that's the way we'll go. Regardless. It all comes down to which lobbyists have the most cash. My money is on the oil company lobbyists.
Never before has the fate of so many rested on the self interest of so few. Quote me if you like.
i have a suggestion. If everyone (brian etc) if so worried about these damn bollards, how about the retired and bored among you go and stand next to the entrance slip road, with high visiability vests on and stop offending vehicles from hitting the bollards.
Worthwhile i think...no more injuries, no more smashed cars, no more expensive repair bills for the tax payer. its perfectly legal, and you would actually achieve something rather then just bickering amongst yourselves over whether one can see signs or not. Does it actually acheive anything? (Having said all that, the drivers would still ignore you anyway, then you will learn why people keep hitting them. Most drivers are unattentive idiots)
Logged
Male
Female
