Speed Limit Enforcement.....IN SPAAAAACE!!

[Ink Asylum]

London is experimenting with a new technology that combines GPS with remote car controls to automatically enforce speed limits. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1180194/The-car-makes-speeding-history--slowing-vehicle-going-fast.html) Currently it is planned for government vehicles and buses, but it has the potential to expand much further. Here's an infographic explaining the tech:

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/05/11/article-1180194-04E2C8D1000005DC-102_634x353.jpg

On the one hand the government has the responsibility to enforce the law. In the case of speeding, that currently requires either speed cameras or police officers, and mainly punishes offenders after the fact. The proposed system, if it were to be used in all cars, would greatly reduced the ability of drivers to break the law in the first place, potentially freeing up officers for more important tasks.

On the other hand the device is clearly a big helping of Big Brother. In practice, it will mean that every single car with the device is being tracked by the GPS system. Is that a step too far in order to severely reduce casual and intentional law-breaking? Being required to have your car's location remotely tracked strikes me as a huge violation of privacy.

I don't object to the technology itself, just the potential for abuse. I see the benefit of installing it in buses and other government vehicles. If the government is going to be on the hook for accidents caused by public vehicles they have the right to implement such measures. I could also see installing the device into the vehicles of people that grossly and consistently break the speed limit. It might be a better punishment than suspending their license.

Of course, I wouldn't mind seeing all driving, or at least high density traffic, fully automated, Minority Report-style.

[NoName]

I don't object to the technology itself, just the potential for abuse. I see the benefit of installing it in buses and other government vehicles. If the government is going to be on the hook for accidents caused by public vehicles they have the right to implement such measures. I could also see installing the device into the vehicles of people that grossly and consistently break the speed limit. It might be a better punishment than suspending their license.


I agree with this paragraph. I would think the only time it should be forced on someone is when it's a public vehicle or as a punishment.

All other times should be "opt in". It could also be great for parents who have kids starting out driving... plus they could know where their kid goes (no lieing about their outings).

Forcing the public at large to use it though is a bit much...

[National Kato]

Forcing the public at large to use it though is a bit much...

However, that would really be the only way we'll ever get to the point where cars drive themselves. Without speed regulation, it would be massive pileups all over.

[Ox]

Being required to have your car's location remotely tracked strikes me as a huge violation of privacy.
Would you mind explaining this? If a cop decided to tail you from when you pulled out of your driveway until you parked, that wouldn't be a violation of your privacy: you're in public, a cop or anyone else is allowed to look at you, it might be a little creepy but you can't really tell him to stop. The only reason we don't already do this for everyone is, of course, it would be prohibitively expensive. But if the cops had some reason to dedicate the resources to tailing you (say, you're a suspected spy or mob boss), they could do it without regard for your privacy. After all, that's all a stakeout is.

This just strikes me as a really efficient form of stakeout or tailing. How is it a violation of privacy?

Of course, I wouldn't mind seeing all driving, or at least high density traffic, fully automated, Minority Report-style.
The necessity issue strikes me as a bigger problem. Generally, speeding is illegal; but if I'm delivering a pregnant woman in labor to the hospital, or there's some other emergency, the pedal should grace the metal. I highly doubt this system will be sophisticated enough to understand when a necessity defense could be raised. Far better to ticket people automatically (where they can contest it in court, or at the very least evaluate whether the situation warrants paying a fine) rather than impose an unbreakable speed limit.

EDIT: I realize the current system appears to permit this sort of "override", but I'm thinking ahead to the automated Minority-Report system.

[roboninja]

However, that would really be the only way we'll ever get to the point where cars drive themselves. Without speed regulation, it would be massive pileups all over.

This is the only way something like this works at all. Just wait for the lawsuit when someone dies because they could not accelerate to avoid that incoming out-of-control tractor trailer.

[GigaFuzz]

I'm no expert, but don't current GPS sat-nav systems only receive signals, without broadcasting them? The car knows where itself is, but the satellites don't know where the car is. In other words, they can't be used to track a vehicle.

[Wraith]

I'm no expert, but don't current GPS sat-nav systems only receive signals, without broadcasting them? The car knows where itself is, but the satellites don't know where the car is. In other words, they can't be used to track a vehicle.They could potentially track speeding violations and store them onboard, then upload them the next time the driver passes a speed camera. (By what method of transmission, I don't know, but I'm sure there's a way it could be done.)

[Ox]

They could potentially track speeding violations and store them onboard, then upload them the next time the driver passes a speed camera. (By what method of transmission, I don't know, but I'm sure there's a way it could be done.)
Certainly GPS trackers exist -- they're basically GPS receivers duct-taped to cell phones. The phone sends a text message of the receiver's coordinates every so often. They are increasingly popular with certain law enforcement bureaus (http://www.chicagotribune.com/technology/chi-ap-wi-gps-police,0,5867383.story). But not every GPS receiver is a GPS tracker -- your standard GPS receiver you buy in the store probably does not have a cell phone duct-taped to it, so you can't be tracked with it.

[Wraith]

Certainly GPS trackers exist -- they're basically GPS receivers duct-taped to cell phones. The phone sends a text message of the receiver's coordinates every so often. They are increasingly popular with certain law enforcement bureaus (http://www.chicagotribune.com/technology/chi-ap-wi-gps-police,0,5867383.story). But not every GPS receiver is a GPS tracker -- your standard GPS receiver you buy in the store probably does not have a cell phone duct-taped to it, so you can't be tracked with it.Yeah, that'd be one option. I was thinking of something like RFID, which would probably be cheaper. You'd just get scanned at certain points.

[Ink Asylum]

This just strikes me as a really efficient form of stakeout or tailing. How is it a violation of privacy?

Because the government would, in effect, be tailing everyone, all the time, regardless of suspicion. You had better believe that if I never broke a single law nor acted in a suspicious manner yet a cop was tailing me and keeping tabs on my travel habits every day without any suspicion of wrongdoing that would be a huge violation of my privacy.

It's similar to the fuss over tapping phones. People have no problem with tapping the phones of suspected terrorists, but if the government says it's going to tap everyone's phones all the time just in case any of them decide to become a terrorist people won't stand for it.

The necessity issue strikes me as a bigger problem. Generally, speeding is illegal; but if I'm delivering a pregnant woman in labor to the hospital, or there's some other emergency, the pedal should grace the metal. I highly doubt this system will be sophisticated enough to understand when a necessity defense could be raised.

It's not difficult at all. If you need to speed for an emergency, call 911 or some other service as you're running to your car with your pregnant wife and tell them what the emergency is and that you need your speed control remotely overridden. Or allow for a manual override that keeps track of how often it's used so it can't be abused for daily "emergencies" when you wake up late for work. If the system is completely automated, Minority Report-style, you'd probably be able to get your pregnant wife to the hospital even faster, as traffic can be cleared ahead of your car much more efficiently than if you were trying to speed through normal traffic, as it could also be done for emergency vehicles.

[Ox]

You had better believe that if I never broke a single law nor acted in a suspicious manner yet a cop was tailing me and keeping tabs on my travel habits every day without any suspicion of wrongdoing that would be a huge violation of my privacy.
In your mind? Or in the mind of society at large?

I mean, we all have different attitudes of where the line between public and private is drawn. Barbra Streisand thought that satellites weren't allowed to photograph California because they might accidentally catch a glimpse of her. That's a pretty expansive view of privacy. I think people are allowed to watch me as long as they don't have to be standing in my house to do it. That is a much more curtailed view of privacy.

It's not a question of suspicion; obviously cause for suspicion may justify violating privacy under certain circumstances. Let's instead talk about what people are allowed to do with no suspicion, just because they feel like it.

So how do we resolve these different views of privacy? Barbra and I can't both be right. Do we rely upon the societal average view? How do we measure that? Or is this one of those areas where we each say, "I'm right, because I derived my answer from the Bible/Ouija board/Magic Eight-ball, and the rest of you hate freedom"?

It's similar to the fuss over tapping phones. People have no problem with tapping the phones of suspected terrorists, but if the government says it's going to tap everyone's phones all the time just in case any of them decide to become a terrorist people won't stand for it.
Ah, but the difference there is that -- when courts were considering this issue -- public telephone booths had little doors you could close. In principle, the purpose of those booths was to prevent people from overhearing your conversation. So courts decided that this meant society was prepared to accept the notion that telephone calls were private. I'm not kidding, that's the logic.

Of course, today very few public telephones have booths. And people routinely speak very loudly into their cell phones in restaurants. Has society's view of the privacy of telephone calls changed? Are they now public, like my face?

[Narradisall]

They've been going on about this for years now. I think I first heard about it abut 8 years ago.

It'll never happen anytime soon, way to expensive and this government have spent alll their (and other peoples) money for the next 10 years or so.

[Serapth]

Certainly GPS trackers exist -- they're basically GPS receivers duct-taped to cell phones. The phone sends a text message of the receiver's coordinates every so often. They are increasingly popular with certain law enforcement bureaus (http://www.chicagotribune.com/technology/chi-ap-wi-gps-police,0,5867383.story). But not every GPS receiver is a GPS tracker -- your standard GPS receiver you buy in the store probably does not have a cell phone duct-taped to it, so you can't be tracked with it.

Although the inverse is becoming increasingly true.

If you are a paranoid the government is out to get you type... don't get a cell phone.

[CES]

A couple things. One is that this type of device is adding a mandatory price hike. Not what anyone really wants. The other is that, if implemented, this should be like ESP: either on or off at the discretion of the driver. I dislike the idea of something completely out of the users control cutting into the controls of a multi-ton chunk of fire spewing metal.

Love the claims that it'll aid congestion in London. It really won't.

[Ink Asylum]

Oddly enough, this article popped up recently. (http://www.chicagotribune.com/technology/chi-ap-wi-gps-police,0,5867383.story)

Wisconsin police can attach GPS to cars to secretly track anybody's movements without obtaining search warrants, an appeals court ruled Thursday.

However, the District 4 Court of Appeals said it was "more than a little troubled" by that conclusion and asked Wisconsin lawmakers to regulate GPS use to protect against abuse by police and private individuals.

As the law currently stands, the court said police can mount GPS on cars to track people without violating their constitutional rights -- even if the drivers aren't suspects.

Officers do not need to get warrants beforehand because GPS tracking does not involve a search or a seizure, Judge Paul Lundsten wrote for the unanimous three-judge panel based in Madison.

That means "police are seemingly free to secretly track anyone's public movements with a GPS device," he wrote.

Oddly, the case involved police getting a warrant to use GPS to track a suspected stalker, and the suspect arguing it violated his privacy because it could track his car on private property. The court went farther than the case required, deciding that the cops didn't even need a warrant to attach a GPS to someone's car. The ACLU is likely to appeal, so we may see this issue decided at a federal level, in the US at least.

[Narradisall]

Interestingly enough, I saw someone on the way to work today miscalculate coming onto a slip road and avoided hitting another car (which didn't see him) with a quick burst of speed to get in front.

He was actually doing roughly the speed limit and if he'd had one of those restrictors his only option would have been to slam the brakes on instead, and risk a pileup.

I can see this being epic.

[Narradisall]

Another interesting point.

You can kiss good bye to Ferrari, Bugattii, or any high end cars if they added this.

I doubt even people whom enjoy the penis extension those cars give would be pleased having a 200mph car thats capped at 70mph. I doubt the manufacturers would bother selling them in the UK anymore.

[Ox]

The court went farther than the case required, deciding that the cops didn't even need a warrant to attach a GPS to someone's car. The ACLU is likely to appeal, so we may see this issue decided at a federal level, in the US at least.
We already have (http://www.allbusiness.com/services/legal-services/4066725-1.html). Even the famously liberal Ninth Circuit (http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/186/186.F3d.1119.98-30146.98-30145.html) has upheld this stuff. The only remaining issue is whether individual state constitutions, which sometimes offer greater protections for privacy, might prohibit it. But obviously that's not an issue for the federal courts.

[GigaFuzz]

Another interesting point.

You can kiss good bye to Ferrari, Bugattii, or any high end cars if they added this.

I doubt even people whom enjoy the penis extension those cars give would be pleased having a 200mph car thats capped at 70mph. I doubt the manufacturers would bother selling them in the UK anymore.

I fail to see the point. Unless these people are driving at 200mph on public roads (which I seriously doubt) it makes no more difference to Ferrari owners than it does to those with a Ford Focus.

[boratika]

I'm all for this. As far as I'm concerned the people that can't help themselves from breaking the law have ruined it for everyone else. I know exactly what a car doing around 70kmph (43.5mph) hitting a cat sounds like just from hearing far too frequently from my living room. I don't appreciate this fact. The speed limit on residential streets here is 50kmph (31mph). The street I live on is about 250m long (985').

Really, I feel like many people on the roads just don't have a decent enough understanding of kinematic (either intuitive or academic) to be allowed behind the controls of a deadly piece of machinery.


There's also some interesting traffic modelling done that suggest this sort of imposition would result in everyone getting to their destination faster. (I'll try to find links a bit later) The maths they work with is a "bit" beyond me, though. So I'd definitely like to see some empirical data.

[Ink Asylum]

We already have (http://www.allbusiness.com/services/legal-services/4066725-1.html). Even the famously liberal Ninth Circuit (http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/186/186.F3d.1119.98-30146.98-30145.html) has upheld this stuff. The only remaining issue is whether individual state constitutions, which sometimes offer greater protections for privacy, might prohibit it. But obviously that's not an issue for the federal courts.

One of the bloggers I read had an interesting observation on the Wisconsin case:

Prediction: nothing will happen about this until a Wisconsin cop is caught tracking women for personal reasons (thinks his wife/gf is cheating, is stalking a certain woman, etc.), and then there will be enough outrage for the legislature to do something.

Seems about right to me.

[Ox]

That's already illegal, isn't it? Stalking is a felony under Wisconsin law. Wis. Stat. 940.32 (http://www.legis.state.wi.us/Statutes/Stat0940.pdf). It explicitly includes "Photographing, videotaping, audiotaping, or, through any other electronic means, monitoring or recording the activities of the victim," as well as "Placing an object on or delivering an object to property owned, leased, or occupied by the victim."

Obviously, that's not to say that the legislature wouldn't decide to pass yet another law prohibiting the use of any electronic surveillance by police. Heck, the legislature could simply decide to disband the police and return to a Wild West format. However, it's not like there's no recourse under the current system for that behavior.

EDIT: Harassment, which is merely engaging in any conduct that is intimidating and has no legitimate purpose, is also an offense in Wisconsin. One may get a temporary restraining order against a harasser, which elevates any further offenses into felonies.

[TheKeck]

Is anyone else wondering how often getting a wife in labor to the hospital is really an emergency that would be helped by speeding?

Just seems like such a cliche. :p

[boratika]

Is anyone else wondering how often getting a wife in labor to the hospital is really an emergency that would be helped by speeding?

Just seems like such a cliche. :p

Clearly you haven't watched enough formulaic romantic comedies to understand how frequently speeding across town is necessitated.

[Ink Asylum]

I'm going to take a guess and say, at max, once every nine months. :)

[headhunter228]

Another interesting point.

You can kiss good bye to Ferrari, Bugattii, or any high end cars if they added this.

I doubt even people whom enjoy the penis extension those cars give would be pleased having a 200mph car thats capped at 70mph. I doubt the manufacturers would bother selling them in the UK anymore.

But, on the bright side, you wouldn't have this equipment in older cars (unless they were outlawed or required to have them installed). I can still drive my classic American muscle cars like a maniac, unless stricter emissions laws kill such vehicles.

[Narradisall]

But, on the bright side, you wouldn't have this equipment in older cars (unless they were outlawed or required to have them installed). I can still drive my classic American muscle cars like a maniac, unless stricter emissions laws kill such vehicles.

I had also wondered that. I used to drive a 1969 Austen Healey Sprite that was exempt from tax etc that woulnd't work with this tech. So if it went that way I'd consider picking up that 1964 AC Cobra I've always wanted....

[Serapth]

But, on the bright side, you wouldn't have this equipment in older cars (unless they were outlawed or required to have them installed). I can still drive my classic American muscle cars like a maniac, unless stricter emissions laws kill such vehicles.

That is, until you get to the first corner, where you will probably go flying off in a tumbling massive 6 ton fireball of American steel, blood and guts.

[Serapth]

Another interesting point.

You can kiss good bye to Ferrari, Bugattii, or any high end cars if they added this.

I doubt even people whom enjoy the penis extension those cars give would be pleased having a 200mph car thats capped at 70mph. I doubt the manufacturers would bother selling them in the UK anymore.

Actually, the new Nissan Z supercar as a sattelite enabled speed limiter. However, when it detects you are in certain areas, like a racetrack, it turns the limiter off.


I actually don't mind cars being governed to say, 70 or 75mph. That said, I also want to make driving too slow on the highway a capital offence. So there is my offer... so long as we agree to a maximum speed limit, there is also an enforced minimum speedlimit, with the death penalty!

[Narradisall]

That is, until you get to the first corner, where you will probably go flying off in a tumbling massive 6 ton fireball of American steel, blood and guts.

Actually I think you'd be stuck behind miles of people stuck doing 50.

[headhunter228]

That is, until you get to the first corner, where you will probably go flying off in a tumbling massive 6 ton fireball of American steel, blood and guts.

Eh.....good point. I would mostly drive like a maniac down the straight stretches, and try not to flog it through corners. These things were designed for drag racing, not high-speed cornering.

[CES]

Actually, the new Nissan Z supercar as a sattelite enabled speed limiter. However, when it detects you are in certain areas, like a racetrack, it turns the limiter off.


The GT-R you mean? That thing is already packed with enough technology to give anyone over the age of 40 a mental breakdown and that's before they get to the speed.

It's also stupidly rare and incredibly pricey so I doubt we'll see a good test of the system.

Edit: Seems like the system won't even be implemented in cars outside of Japan.

[headhunter228]

The GT-R you mean? That thing is already packed with enough technology to give anyone over the age of 40 a mental breakdown and that's before they get to the speed.

It's also stupidly rare and incredibly pricey so I doubt we'll see a good test of the system.

Edit: Seems like the system won't even be implemented in cars outside of Japan.

Maybe he's refering to the 370Z, even though that's not technically considered a "supercar." Now, the GT-R? Definately. If I were to get a Japanese performance car, and I was stupidly rich, I'd go with a Hennessy GT-R500. Essentially, it's a base GT-R that has been performance modified by a tuner here in the US. But, $110,000 for a car is a tad much, right?

[TheKeck]

I actually don't mind cars being governed to say, 70 or 75mph. That said, I also want to make driving too slow on the highway a capital offence. So there is my offer... so long as we agree to a maximum speed limit, there is also an enforced minimum speedlimit, with the death penalty!
Are you kidding? There are places on my way up north where the actual speed limit is 75. (Which means, of course, that I can safely go 83 or so. :p)

[ShivaX]

Are you kidding? There are places on my way up north where the actual speed limit is 75. (Which means, of course, that I can safely go 83 or so. :p)

Don't try that in Wyoming. Trust me. They really mean 75.

Nothing more awkward than talking to a WY Highway Patrolman who comes up and says:
"You know you were going 80?"
"Um... yes."

[Serapth]

The GT-R you mean? That thing is already packed with enough technology to give anyone over the age of 40 a mental breakdown and that's before they get to the speed.

It's also stupidly rare and incredibly pricey so I doubt we'll see a good test of the system.

Edit: Seems like the system won't even be implemented in cars outside of Japan.

I'm not saying its practical... I'm saying it exists! :)

[CES]

I'm not saying its practical... I'm saying it exists! :)

Be afraid of the day it does become practical. It'll get to the point where you might as well not bother driving.

I can see "old" cars making a huge comeback with things like this. Bring on the era of the Cortina's, Capri's and the days of midsize, fast, good looking cars.

[Serapth]

Be afraid of the day it does become practical. It'll get to the point where you might as well not bother driving.

I can see "old" cars making a huge comeback with things like this. Bring on the era of the Cortina's, Capri's and the days of midsize, fast, good looking cars.

To be honest, if we could speed the slower fuckers up, I would sacrifice some of my top end speed. I mean, when I was a teen I set new land speed records on a consistent basis... I actually believe I am the only person alive to bring a Chrysler Lebaron up to 230kmph. That said, as ive gotten older, its more slow people that piss me off then the inability to go extremely fast. This coming from someone who drives an RX8 and recently owned a GSXR. I like my speed, but I am willing to get rid of it.

Besides, the real fun is in the corners.

[CES]

To be honest, if we could speed the slower fuckers up, I would sacrifice some of my top end speed. I mean, when I was a teen I set new land speed records on a consistent basis... I actually believe I am the only person alive to bring a Chrysler Lebaron up to 230kmph. That said, as ive gotten older, its more slow people that piss me off then the inability to go extremely fast. This coming from someone who drives an RX8 and recently owned a GSXR. I like my speed, but I am willing to get rid of it.

Besides, the real fun is in the corners.

I know someone who almost always drives 5mph under the speed limit in the area. He gets a stunning amount of abuse, tailgating (something that really, really irks me) and being carved up by idiots in tiny cars who think they know best. He drives a Mercedes E220 and some idiot in a Corsa or 206 sits on his back bumper. These idiots don't seem to get the fact that if they crash into the E220, they will lose. Badly.

[Serapth]

I know someone who almost always drives 5mph under the speed limit in the area. He gets a stunning amount of abuse, tailgating (something that really, really irks me) and being carved up by idiots in tiny cars who think they know best. He drives a Mercedes E220 and some idiot in a Corsa or 206 sits on his back bumper. These idiots don't seem to get the fact that if they crash into the E220, they will lose. Badly.

Why? Tell your idiot friend to drive the same speed as traffic and chances are he wont get hit. Its not speed or even lack of speed that kills, its not conforming.

[CES]

Why? Tell your idiot friend to drive the same speed as traffic and chances are he wont get hit. Its not speed or even lack of speed that kills, its not conforming.

I'm not sure if you are aware of this but in the UK, if you crash into someone from behind, you are almost always liable for not leaving enough distance to brake.

Besides, he's been driving for 30+ years and not had one accident. How I don't fucking know.

Edit: Double clicked the "Submit Post" button and it threw up and error about dupe posting. Fucking brilliant addition to a forum.

[Serapth]

I'm not sure if you are aware of this but in the UK, if you crash into someone from behind, you are almost always liable for not leaving enough distance to brake.

Besides, he's been driving for 30+ years and not had one accident. How I don't fucking know.

Most likely because the people around him are crashing trying to avoid his deviant ass.

And yeah, in Canada, hitting from behind is almost always a ticket.

That said, if you create a situation in which you would be hit, is also a ticket.

[Khrymsyn]

I wonder if we'd ever see something like this in the states, and right now at least, I lean towards "no".

Why?

The states and police departments rely too damn much on moving violations. They'd RATHER you speed, so they can collect another $250, over, and over again.


'sides, it's not the speed that kills.
It's the sudden stop.

[CES]

Most likely because the people around him are crashing trying to avoid his deviant ass.


The real irony is he has a higher premium than I do (I've been driving for about 3 months) due to the fact that he runs a taxi and the second driver keeps crashing the fucking thing by not paying attention. "I didn't see the wall" is not a fucking valid excuse. Neither is cracking a spring because you went too fast over a speed bump.

Probably should add that to the "List of things that piss you off" thread.

[Narradisall]

I wonder if we'd ever see something like this in the states, and right now at least, I lean towards "no".

Why?

The states and police departments rely too damn much on moving violations. They'd RATHER you speed, so they can collect another $250, over, and over again.

You won't see it in the UK for the saem reason. It would cost them too much to implement and it would lose the government billions every year. The only possible pro is it*could* reduce accidents. No way they would spend and lose billions to save a few lives.

[Doogie2K]

Why? Tell your idiot friend to drive the same speed as traffic and chances are he wont get hit. Its not speed or even lack of speed that kills, its not conforming.

I drive the speed limit, on the nose, and lower on inclement road conditions. I've never gotten a ticket (this city is photoradar-happy; we just approved speed-on-green cameras), and never been hit. Frankly, the way I see it, I'm not the one creating the problem, it's the other douchebags who need to get to the red light 2.8 seconds sooner who are, and if I get rear-ended by someone tailgating me for having the sheer bloody gall to only go 70 on John Laurie, no court or cop would fault me. If everyone drove civilly, you wouldn't "need" to go 15 over to "keep up with traffic."

Or put more succinctly, if everyone else jumped off a bridge, would you?

[Serapth]

Or put more succinctly, if everyone else jumped off a bridge, would you?

Does it allow me to get a half dozen more kicks in on the son of a bitch that jumped before me?

Seriously, Canada's speed limits are wayyyyyyyyyy to low. Super straight roads, 400 series highways, and the speed limit is 100 (60mph). What the fuck?

[BlackPete]

Does it allow me to get a half dozen more kicks in on the son of a bitch that jumped before me?

Seriously, Canada's speed limits are wayyyyyyyyyy to low. Super straight roads, 400 series highways, and the speed limit is 100 (60mph). What the fuck?

Depends on the province. On Vancouver Island, the speed limit on the main highway is 110. I've seen 120 somewhere, but I forget where. It wasn't in Ontario, though.

[Doogie2K]

Does it allow me to get a half dozen more kicks in on the son of a bitch that jumped before me?

Only if you fall faster than he does.

Seriously, Canada's speed limits are wayyyyyyyyyy to low. Super straight roads, 400 series highways, and the speed limit is 100 (60mph). What the fuck?

It's 110 on the QE2 between Calgary and Edmonton. (Actually, the real pisser is that the Calgary end, Deerfoot Trail, only drops to 100, while the Edmonton end, Gateway Boulevard, goes to 60. Every time I go up there that baffles me.)

[Serapth]

Odd, I thought the queens roads ( 400 series, so far as I know them, and the transcanada ) were all 100km/h. Guess I am being provincophobic. Only provinces i've actually driven in have been Ontario and Quebec, whom both seem to share the same rules, although Quebec is much more mercenary about collecting fees.