Hyundai's latest car automatically slows down for speed cameras

[Archean]

Hyundai's latest car automatically slows down for speed cameras

The Hyundai Genesis combines GPS and braking technology to slow the car down if drivers are speeding when they approach a speed camera. "It knows there is a speed camera there, it knows where the speed camera is and it will adopt the correct speed," explains Hyundai’s Guido Schenken in an interview.

The speed camera detection system will also alert drivers 800 meters in advance and sound a signal if the car is speeding ahead of a camera. Fixed speed cameras and average speed cameras are detected by the car, but the system will obviously not work with mobile cameras or highway patrol cars.


Dangerously .......... cool.

 

[cliffordcooley]

As much as I would love this in my own car, it should not be allowed. The auto industry shouldn't make it easy for us to disobey the law. The very concept should be against the law as much as speeding. Using this feature should be classified as intent to speed, and therefore deemed unlawful. After all what other purpose could you possibly want with it. It is not the same thing as owning a gun to protect yourself.

 

[davislane1]

As much as I would love this in my own car, it should not be allowed. The auto industry shouldn't make it easy for us to disobey the law. The very concept should be against the law as much as speeding. Using this feature should be classified as intent to speed, and therefore deemed unlawful. After all what other purpose could you possibly want with it. It is not the same thing as owning a gun to protect yourself.

Couldn't disagree with you more. The purpose (spirit of the law) of speed limits is to ensure the safety of other drivers and pedestrians. In many situations that limit can be either (a) ineffectual, as on an empty expressway, or (b) outright dangerous, as driving at a speed excessively above or below the real flow of traffic.

The real problem this tech creates is that it encourages driver laziness, much like lane and blind spot assist technology.

 

[cliffordcooley]

Couldn't disagree with you more.

It doesn't really matter if you disagree or not. If the speed limit is worth obeying, it is worth obeying everywhere, not just where cameras are posted. This is not avoiding traffic conditions, it is avoiding detection of possibly being the hazardous traffic condition. Helping avoid camera's is borderline to being guilty, much the same way as the driver is to a bank robbery. They are guilty by accessory to the broken law.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_there_..._just_don't_know_where_to_look_for_the_answer

 

[davislane1]

It doesn't really matter if you disagree or not. If the speed limit is worth obeying, it is worth obeying everywhere, not just where cameras are posted. This is not avoiding traffic conditions, it is avoiding detection of possibly being the hazardous traffic condition.

Is a person caught on camera doing 60 in a 55 on an empty road at a green light a hazard to anyone? Or someone caught doing 81 (illegal in most states) on an expressway where the average real traffic speed is 82?

My whole point is that the posted speed limit on any given road or expressway is not universally worth strict obedience and the only reason most people do obey is for compliance, when cameras or cops are present. This does not imply, as you seem to be suggesting, driving at an irresponsible speed. Rather, I'm saying that ticketing someone merely for exceeding an arbitrary velocity is, in practice, complete BS and that this technology, at least in theory, will reduce such nonsense.

Helping avoid camera's is borderline to being guilty, much the same way as the driver is to a bank robbery. They are guilty by accessory to the broken law.

This argument would never fly in a court of law. Providing someone with technology that can be abused is fundamentally different from actively and directly aiding in the commission of a crime. The "guilt by association" argument you're trying to fly here is akin to arguing the liability of security and anonymity firms for the distribution of illegal goods and services over encrypted networks because they provided the infrastructure and technology that was abused. No judge has yet endorsed such an argument.