Machines will make criminals of every driver


PDA






Sergeant Bob
August 25, 2003, 07:32 AM
The Sun (http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2003391098,00.html)


By GARY O'SHEA
and NIC CECIL,
Political Editor

DRIVERS were reeling last night at Government plans to put a computerised spy in EVERY car.

The hi-tech gadgets will record each time a motorist DRIFTS over a speed limit, WANDERS into a bus lane or even STOPS on a yellow line.

And it means the Government will hit Britain’s hard-pressed motorists with even more fines — and bring extra millions flooding into the Treasury.

The proposed scheme is guaranteed to cause outrage among Britain’s 38million drivers.

Last night Tory Shadow Trade Secretary Tim Yeo said the implications of the plan were nightmarish — adding: “It risks turning every motorist, however safe a driver, into a criminal. It is far too draconian.”

The scheme would force car makers to fit the microchip in all new vehicles. Older cars would have them added during an MOT.

Sensors installed at the side of every road will then pick up signals from the chip, pinpointing the car’s exact position.

Each sensor would be programmed with the road’s speed, parking and general driving restrictions — and will record each car that breaks them.

The Government claims the microchip will allow them to make roads safer and cut crime.

Car registration and MOT details would be carried on every chip, making stolen or uninsured vehicles simpler to trace.

And police reckon terror suspects and criminals could also be targeted more effectively.

But the AA’s Bert Morris warned: “There could be a hidden agenda at work here.

“You can expect the Government to trumpet the benefits of this and downplay the downside.

“But law-abiding public could be hit with serious fines, while real criminals like car thieves find a way of avoiding detection.

“We have to ask ourselves if the gain is worth the pain.”

Civil rights organisations are also deeply concerned.

A spokesman for the group Liberty said: “This sets a very dangerous precedent.

“The entire driving population is going to be turned into criminal suspects.

“It’s disturbing to think the Government would be able to track people’s movements around the clock.”

The spokesman added: “This is going to be a back door method of raising cash for Government coffers through fines.”

If the plan is approved by the Government it could become law by 2007.

And even if they decide to drop the idea, talks are already under way in Brussels that could see a similar system imposed on us by the EU.

The Department of Transport said the technical, financial and civil liberty issues surrounding the scheme were being examined.

A spokeswoman added: “We are looking at the feasibility of this at the moment.”

The Government plan will be seen as the latest offensive in an all-out war on British motorists.

There are more than 4,500 speed cameras on our roads. They nail a million drivers annually, clocking up fines of more than £66million.

London’s hated congestion charge is expected to rake in a further £65million in its first 12 months. The charge is expected to be extended to other cities and towns in the near future.

The Government also plans to hit drivers with a £35 surcharge on speeding and parking fines.

The extra penalty has been proposed by Home Secretary David Blunkett to raise millions for victims of crime. The EVI chip feasibility study was written by Superintendent Jim Hammond, who is head of Sussex traffic police.

He admits in the document that the proposals will spark “Big Brother concerns.”

Previously, Supt Hammond has worked to develop trial drug tests for motorists. He also led a huge speeding crackdown in his patch.

Mr Yeo added: “This would be a spy harassing every driver. It’s time the Government laid off motorists.”

If you enjoyed reading about "Machines will make criminals of every driver" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
agricola
August 25, 2003, 07:53 AM
some notes:

i) the Sun, as I have oft stated, is garbage;

ii) this is a proposed plan - and its brought around every six months or so by the solar rag. Interestingly, the ever - inquistive Sun has been blindly behind the Government over the Hutton Inquiry, even to the point of wilfully mistating the facts (which for them is nothing new);

iii) the Congestion Charge is that "hated" by Londoners that residents of areas not in the zone are demanding it be expanded - and business, which the solar rag frequently claims is being hard-hit by the charge, is more in favour than against (the idiocy of claiming that people arent driving into central London to go shopping should be apparent to anyone who has either tried to find a parking space or had to take out a morgage to go in a pay-and-display, all of which cost more than the Charge).

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,3604,1020660,00.html

iv) speed cameras are the solar-rags bete noir, and they have been for ages - they were primarily responsible for the making of them easier to see. They trumpet the line that drivers, rather than people in the know (like accident investigators for example) know what speed is safe; which of course works swimmingly until some safe, careful Sun reader decides how safe he is and wipes out himself, or his family, or someone elses family because of that safety. Few traffic-calming measures have had such a positive effect, which is probably why they are so hated.

v) are they trying to attack the Supt. at the end of the piece? How DARE HE try and crack down on people drug-driving!

Zedicus
August 25, 2003, 09:20 AM
Agricola, The sun is indeed Rubbish, but not everything they print is.
Dissmissing a paper just because they arent the Herald is ludicris.

Personaly I've noticed that Tabloids tend to report the news in a less biased way.
And besides, Even mainstream papers like the Herald and the Teligraph have had to make lot of retractions of untrue or incorect materal.

This sounds simmalar to the EU's bright idea for the Compulsary Power & speed "Limiter" the EU now requires to be put on many hi-pereformance Foriegn made cars (the Nissan Skyline for EG.)

from my point of view the UK is begining to sound more and more like the kgb...:scrutiny:

Dave P
August 25, 2003, 09:29 AM
sounds like a supercharged method of traffic control similar to "our" roadside cameras linked to speed detectors. Fully automatic system detects your car speeding, it takes a picture of driver and plates, and mails you a citation. Presto - Chango: instant income (at very low cost)!

agricola
August 25, 2003, 09:56 AM
zedicus,

i can see why you think that - after all, you and the Sun share the same rigorous regard to the truth :rolleyes:

the reason the Telegraph, Guardian and Times publish their retractions is because they, at least, have some shred of journalistic integrity left. The same cannot be said of the Sun.

dustind
August 25, 2003, 12:01 PM
[tounge in cheek]
Why not just put the chips in people's heads, a lot more crime could be solved, and they could still be used for traffic, ooh-ooh, and you would already know who the driver is, wont that be so much safer!

Destructo6
August 25, 2003, 12:08 PM
Yes, the ends always justify the means.

PeteyPete
August 25, 2003, 12:13 PM
It wouldn't surprise me if they implimented something like that over there....they already have surveillence cameras on every corner in London, speed cameras at most busy intersections (those mf'ers will blind you w/ the flash they use:eek: ), and a populace that firmly believes "why should we care if we're being watched if we're not law breakers":rolleyes: .

MJRW
August 25, 2003, 12:22 PM
What would prevent English motorists from blatantly breaking laws and arguing each and every charge? If done in mass, could this overwhelm the system?

Parker Dean
August 25, 2003, 12:38 PM
Whaddaya mean Over There? Anyone looked at the OBD III (On Board Diagnostics III) proposals for over here?

While not directly aimed at traffic enforcement, rather the proposal is cloaked in "concern for the environment" by targeting the emissions control systems. It is supposed to report emission control system failures to government agencies by radio/cell uplink so that the vehicle's owner can be "informed". But just incidentally speed and location are included parameters, imagine that. It is also proposed that the system be able to disable the vehicle's engine remotely in the event of a need by law enforcement. Or perhaps by environmental agencies too. Rolling blackouts on cars too?

I'm sure it's "for the children" too.

Duncan Idaho
August 25, 2003, 12:45 PM
Does IngSoc at least provide you guys with Victory Gin tm ?

gun-fucious
August 25, 2003, 12:52 PM
Have You Heard About OBD III?

With the recent approval of regulations governing on-board diagnostics (OBD) information availability, the Automotive Service Association (ASA) has been pleased with the cooperation of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the development of information transfer to repairers. ASA was a strong advocate of independent service shop owners and technicians having access to the same information accessible to new car dealers. The EPA protected these rights in its draft information availability rule and in the final rule published last summer.

One area of concern has been the recent discussion surrounding a waiver of federal preemption to permit California to implement its own OBD regulations. The serious question for independent repairers has been whether our rights will be protected as strongly as in the federal regulations. This is an issue ASA is discussing with regulators and other members of the aftermarket. ASA will make a decision in the near future as to a California strategy on the waiver.

As the OBD II (federal OBD uses the same basic technical standards as California OBD II) debate comes to a close, speculation is already mounting about an OBD III concept in California. OBD III is being discussed as a program to minimize the delay between the detection of an emissions malfunction by the OBD II system and the actual repair of the vehicle. This includes a reading of stored OBD II information from in-use vehicles and the direction to owners of vehicles with fault codes to make immediate repairs. In this concept, faults are picked up by a monitoring technology and reported to a regulator, and the vehicle owner is then directed to get further testing and possible repairs. The debate over controlling vehicle emissions may soon move from what type of testing facilities and test methods are most effective to the complete on-board cycle of fault detection, notification and follow-up testing and repair being discussed in the OBD-III concept.

What types of technology can be used to detect and relay data pertaining to emissions malfunctions? Options include roadside readers, local station networks or satellites. The roadside reader has been tested by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) since 1994. It is capable of reading eight lanes of bumper-to-bumper traffic at 100 miles per hour. It can be used from a fixed location with portable units or a mobile unit. If a fault is detected by a reader unit, it has the capability of sending the vehicle identification number (VIN) plus the fault codes to the regulator. (The term regulator is used broadly here--patrol officers, private contractors or others could be involved, depending on how a program is structured.) The local station network has not been tested by CARB, but would allow a location and monitoring service.

The satellite system can be used with a cellular phone hookup or location monitoring technology. The vehicle would receive an alert via a cellular phone or the monitoring technology. The location, date, time, VIN and OBD II data would be returned to a satellite beacon.

Several issues surround the OBD III concept. From a regulatory perspective, all of the technologies used, other than roadside technology, require a Federal Communications Commission (FCC) license. The possibility of interference with other signals in the same band is of concern. The issues of commercial operators, law enforcement, jurisdiction among state agencies, Intelligent Vehicle Highway Systems, etc., have to be addressed before OBD III is a reality.

How would an OBD-III program prompt further testing and possible repair? An OBD-III program could be incorporated into the current inspection and maintenance (I/M) program. OBD III might also be used to generate an "out-of-cycle" inspection. Once a fault is detected, a notice could be mailed to the vehicle owner requiring an out-of-cycle inspection within a certain number of days or at the next registration or resale, or a citation would be issued. Penalties might include court appearances or fines related to vehicle registration.

A roadside pullover might work this way: the monitoring technology detects a fault, a law enforcement officer stops the vehicle with the fault code, and a technician working with the officer at the scene verifies that a code is set. A citation is then issued requiring testing at a test center, with a time limit for the vehicle owner to do this before a penalty is incurred.

What legal issues arise under OBD III? There seems to be some question as to the "suspicionless mass surveillance" of private property. There is no opportunity to confront or rebut the results; no notice that the vehicle will be tested. Fourth Amendment search and seizure issues tend to arise.

There are obviously technologies and enforcement procedures available to support the OBD III concept. Do the public health arguments as to controlling the severity of air pollution override the constitutional privacy questions involved? What about consent? These are questions that will undoubtedly arise, and could bring a court challenge.

After several court battles with OBD II, the issues are still unsettled as to the California waiver. I/M programs are still to be finalized in several states and the threat of congressional action looms. The concept of bringing all the issues under one program will certainly be controversial, but is being discussed as far as a long-term policy. Independent repairers need to prepare for the next waive of emissions and information issues as they continue to participate in the current debate involving the same.

ASA is working with regulators and other members of the aftermarket to ensure that the independent repairers' interests are included as long-term policies are developed.

--Bob Redding is ASA's Washington representative. He holds a law degree from the George Washington University School of Law.

gun-fucious
August 25, 2003, 12:55 PM
BEYOND OBDII
http://members.aol.com/carleyware/library/us796obd.htm

OBDII is a very sophisticated and capable system for detecting emissions problems. But when it comes to getting motorists to fix emission problems, it? no more effective than OBDI. Unless there? some means of enforcement, such as checking the MIL light during a mandatory inspection, OBDII is just another idiot light.

Currently under development are plans for OBDIII, which would take OBDII a step further by adding telemetry. Using miniature radio transponder technology similar to that which is already being used for automatic electronic toll collection systems, an OBDIII-equipped vehicle would be able to report emissions problems directly to a regulatory agency. The transponder would communicate the vehicle VIN number and any diagnostic codes that were present. The system could be set up to automatically report an emissions problem via a cellular or satellite link the instant the MIL light comes on, or to answer a query from a cellular, satellite or roadside signal as to its current emissions performance status.

What makes this approach so attractive to regulators is its effectiveness and cost savings. Under the current system, the entire vehicle fleet in an area or state has to be inspected once every year or two to identify the 30% or so vehicles that have emissions problems. With remote monitoring via the onboard telemetry on an OBDIII-equipped vehicle, the need for periodic inspections could be eliminated because only those vehicles that reported problems would have to be tested.

On one hand, OBDIII with its telemetry reporting of emission problems would save consumers the inconvenience and cost of having to subject their vehicle to an annual or biennial emissions test. As long as their vehicle reported no emission problems, there? be no need to test it. On the other hand, should an emissions problem be detected, it would be much harder to avoid having it fixed?hich is the goal of all clean air programs anyway. By zeroing in on the vehicles that are actually causing the most pollution, significant gains could be made in improving our nation? air quality. But as it is now, polluters may escape detection and repair for up to two years in areas that have biennial inspections. And in areas that have no inspection programs, there? no way to identify such vehicles. OBDIII would change all that.

According to Mark Carlock with California? Air Resources Board, the technology exists now to make OBDIII possible. "The idea is to streamline the inspection process by only inspecting those vehicles that really need it." Carlock says the technology to do so is "no big deal." But he concedes that it would be the model year 2000 at the soonest before OBDIII might actually be required on new vehicles.

A prototype system built by GM Hughes Electronics has already been evaluated by ARB that uses a roadside transmitter to interrogate vehicles as they pass by. The system uses ultra low power 10 milliwatt receiver stations and 1 milliwatt transmitters (which is about 1,000 times less power than a typical cellular telephone) with a broadcast frequency of 915 Mhz. The system is reportedly capable of retrieving information from 8 lanes of bumper-to-bumper traffic whizzing by at speeds up to 100 mph!

When the vehicle receiver hears the query signal from a stationary or portable roadside transmitter, it transmits back an answer in the form of the vehicle? 17-digit VIN number plus an "okay" signal or any trouble codes that may be present. The information can then be used to identify vehicles that are in violation of clean air statutes so a notice can be sent that repairs and/or smog testing is required. Or, the information could be used on the spot to identify vehicles for a pullover roadside emissions check or issuing an emissions citation.

The projected cost of such a system would be $50 per vehicle, says Carlock, based on similar transponders that are in use for electronic toll collecting. The transponders are about the size of a small calculator.

The same basic approach could also be used with existing cellular phone links (local station networks) and/or satellite systems. To keep motorists from tampering with or disabling their telemetry systems, vehicles could be interrogated randomly or on a scheduled basis to monitor their condition. The OBDIII telemetry could also be combined with global positioning system (GPS) technology to document or monitor the whereabouts of vehicles.

Orbiting 11,000 miles above the earth? surface are 24 military satellites that make up the Navstar global positioning system. By timing radio signals from these satellites, the position of a vehicle, boat or plane anywhere on the earth can be fixed within a few meters. The GPS system is currently used by many fleets for tracking the whereabouts of their vehicles as well as by onboard navigation systems for pinpointing a vehicle? location on an electronic map.

The advantages of using a satellite based telemetry system for OBDIII rather than a roadside system are:

* Greater coverage of the entire vehicle population for more accurate surveillance. Vehicles could be monitored and queried no matter where they were, even while sitting in a garage or driveway. There? be no way to avoid the watchful eye of the emissions police.
* Being able to locate vehicles that are in violation of clean air statutes, either for "demographic studies" or to track down and arrest violators.
* Being able to monitor the whereabouts of vehicles for purposes other than emissions surveillance such as recovering stolen vehicles (like today? LoJack anti-theft system), keeping tabs on suspected drug dealers, gang members and other undesirables.
* Being able to disable vehicles that belong to emission scofflaws by transmitting a secret code. Law enforcement officers might also be able to use such a code to disable a vehicle fleeing from a crime scene or one that belonged to someone with a backlog of unpaid traffic violations.

The specter of having Big Brother in every engine compartment and driving a vehicle that rats on itself anytime it pollutes is not one that would appeal to many motorists. So the merits of OBDIII would have to be sold to the public based on its cost savings, convenience and ability to make a real difference in air quality. Even so, any serious attempt to require OBDIII in the year 2000 or beyond will run afoul of Fourth Amendment issues over rights of privacy and protection from government search and seizure. Does the government have the right to snoop under your hood anytime it chooses to do so, or to monitor the whereabouts of your vehicle? These issues will have to be debated and resolved before OBDIII stands a chance of being accepted. Given the current political climate, such drastic changes seem unlikely.

Another change that might come with OBDIII would be even closer scrutiny of vehicle emissions. The misfire detection algorithms currently required by OBDII only watch for misfires during driving conditions that occur during the federal driving cycle, which covers idle to 55 mph and moderate acceleration. It does not monitor misfires during wide open throttle acceleration. Full range misfire detection will be required for 1997 models. OBDIII could go even further by requiring "fly-by-wire" throttle controls to reduce the possibility of misfires on the coming generation of low emission and ultra low emission vehicles.

So until OBDIII winds its way through the regulatory process, all we have to worry about is diagnosing and repairing OBDII-equipped vehicles and all the non-OBD vehicles that came before them.

Double Naught Spy
August 25, 2003, 02:15 PM
Assuming the article is real and correct, the machines will NOT make criminals of every driver. The drivers are already breaking the law. The machines will just be providing a watchful documentary eye. People 'made' criminals by the machine were already performing the same criminal acts and doing so with the comfort that nobody is around to catch them.

The cause of the problem of being criminal is not by the machine. The cause is in the people. The machine just records it.

HankB
August 25, 2003, 02:39 PM
OBD II, OBD III, radio uplinks, transponders, GPS . . . Considering all the recent problems with hacker viruses, worms, and such, does anyone else here see an opportunity?

I mean, it seems like reprogramming, hacking, or spoofing these electronic "spies" would be a growth industry for the backyard computer mechanic . . . one where he could actually make money, rather than just causing damage like he does now by hacking Windows.

And if there's a "secret code" for disabling cars - or fleets! - of vehicles, how long until someone gets ahold of this code and decides to disable, say, all cars in Southern California around rush hour? Or during a blackout or earthquake?

gun-fucious
August 25, 2003, 03:03 PM
another wrinkle is the bad press from Police high speed chases that go bad

"it would be so much safer for the public, if the Police could electronically pull you over"

dustind
August 25, 2003, 03:13 PM
Something ate my reply when the page would not load.

Anyway why cant OBD just tell the driver there is a problem? All you need is a led readout like an alarm clock to get an arror code.

What about those of us who are smart enough to be able to operate a wrench?

I will not even go into why I hate OBD for its horrible ability to run and tune an engine. It can almost never tell when there is a problem, can not hit the broad side of a barn tuning wise, and is unfit for anything other than an economy car.

As for the original topic, no one can drive to work without breaking enough traffic laws to loose their license. Speed alone can not tell you anything about traffic saftey, it depends on the situation.

As for police chases, why not do the same for everyone's computer, or front door, we would be so safe... Orwell was an optimist.

Parker Dean
August 25, 2003, 11:26 PM
Anyway why cant OBD just tell the driver there is a problem? All you need is a led readout like an alarm clock to get an arror code.

In a way these systems already do with the illuminated Check Engine lamp. The operator is supposed to take it in for service.

Problem is that most ignore it if the car runs OK otherwise. So the State in it's zeal to collect fines from defective equipment wishes to institute a program that tells it when a vehicle is in violation.

While they may initially propose notification by traffic stop and a period of time to repair you can bet your boots that some bright type is going to decide that they can increase their take by removing the stop and shortening the interval for repair. This after the initial furor has died down.

And I don't for a second believe that clean air is the ONLY reason for the OBDIII proposal, not even a primary one. IMO, the difference made would be so miniscule as to be undetectable.

vmi93
August 26, 2003, 08:11 PM
They trumpet the line that drivers, rather than people in the know (like accident investigators for example) know what speed is safe; which of course works swimmingly until some safe, careful Sun reader decides how safe he is and wipes out himself, or his family, or someone elses family because of that safety. Few traffic-calming measures have had such a positive effect, which is probably why they are so hated.

What the ^&$#&$ are those drivers thinking, believing that they are best situated to judge the appropriate speed for immediate road conditions?

Government professionals always know better than the unwashed citizenry, don't they?

Now I know the reason I can legally own semiautos and handguns and Mr. Agricola probably can't. If the majority of British voters share his views on letting bureaucrats run every aspect of their lives, it's no wonder that any attempt to protect individual rights in Oceania fails.

dustind
August 26, 2003, 10:52 PM
About speed.
My motorcycle does not have a tach, speedo, or any other gauges. I can drive or race it very well on and off road.

Humans have the wonderful ability to estimate the g-force of turns based on the shape of the turn and their speed. If we could not, everyone would go off the road every day. You know what a turn will feel like and if you can make it without even thinking about, and people automatically adjust their speed. Terrian looks different to us relitive to the speed that we are traveling.

In responce to parker, yes you are right, you can get error codes from OBD1 with a paper clip. Modern cars have been regulated so far that I doubt they contribute measurably to air polution. Cato has some interesting things to say about the EPA, most of which I knew before reading. I am a "gear head" who helps people modify vehicles, both on and off road.

243_shooter
August 26, 2003, 10:53 PM
not to hijack the thread..

Anyway why cant OBD just tell the driver there is a problem? All you need is a led readout like an alarm clock to get an arror code.

they currently do that, the mil illuminates indicated a fault code and/or an on board monitor that didn't pass.. you can also (on most cars) tell if all the OBD II monitors have ran and passed.. C/D/J cars/trucks will even give you the p code in the odometer if you'd like..

CARB is a joke IMHO.. Loosen the emmissions standards up a bit so that they can get some mileage out of these things (how much fuel does it take to keep a cat. converter running at 750 deg I wonder :D).. I figure if every car on the road got about 1 mpg better right now, think of the national savings on fuel, and the lower price..

They are pushing for electric cars, who cares if all the fallout from the power plants lands up here in NY and poisons ever lake we've got..

Reason number 5,321 why I'm no fan of CA. Let 'em keep Davis, you reap what you sow.

To be slightly on topic, GB's got video camera's on every corner, what's so different about having an electronic spy in the car? Boils down to another case of you reap what you sow.

Leo

Parker Dean
August 27, 2003, 03:28 AM
Originally posted by dustind
In responce to parker, yes you are right, you can get error codes from OBD1 with a paper clip.



I'd hope I'm right, I was a drivability tech for a decade LOL! :D

Ever try to get codes from an early Eighties EEC-III Ford? It's such a PITA I just learned the sensor signals and avoided all that code garbage (two test lights and a hand vacuum pump if that tells you anything). OBD-I Chryslers are fun, just turn the ignition on three times. I used to be amused at the people that would call with a Chrysler no-start and would be all panicked about the CE light flashing after multiple starting attempts


Originally postedby dustind
Modern cars have been regulated so far that I doubt they contribute measurably to air polution.


This has long been known but the lack of political organization on the part of motorists is astounding. It seems like people have some sort of disconnect about legislation and their cars. Sort of a form of "it doesn't affect ME" type mindset. While emissions controls have proven to be beneficial (for instance in the late Sixties Indianapolis stank like diesel exhaust. In the Eighties I noticed it smells like wet mud. Recently I've noticed San Antonio has developed the diesel-exhaust smell) this going for this last one-tenth-of-one-percent stuff is absurd. They get away with it because of a lack of political opposition.


Originally posted by dustind
I am a "gear head" who helps people modify vehicles, both on and off road.


Pretty much the same story here I've been playing with car for 25 years or so now. Taking a break and exercising an interest in firearms for a while.

CatsDieNow
August 27, 2003, 09:45 AM
The cause of the problem of being criminal is not by the machine. The cause is in the people. The machine just records it. DN Spy,

There are many situations that could cause me to "break" a traffic law:

* Debris in the road could force me to cross the center line or drive on the shoulder.
* I could have to accelerate quickly to avoid being hit by merging traffic.
* A police officer could be directing traffic against/through a red light.
* The railroad crossing gates could be jammed down so I either have to make a U-turn or drive around.
* A power failure causes the traffic lights to become 4-way stops.

A machine does not know the totality of the circumstances.

Tamara
August 27, 2003, 10:38 AM
That's my beef with the concept.

Having Robbie The Robot enforcing speed limits (which are usually set by a municipality without any consultation by traffic engineers) completely removes human judgement from the loop. To Robbie, the Limit is the Limit. 80 year-old half-blind arthritic driver on a foggy, rainy night in a '75 Buick Electra wagon with worn-out brakes, shot tie-rod ends and four mismatched bald snow tires in heavy traffic? The Limit is the Limit. 32 year-old graduate of Skip Barber with an SCCA competition license in a year-old M3 on fresh Pilot Sports on a sunny afternoon with no traffic? The Limit is the Limit.

Stuff like this makes me glad of, for example, Georgia's anti-speedtrap legislation. You won't find any photo radar in the Peach State.

If you enjoyed reading about "Machines will make criminals of every driver" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!