Smart guns - survey... sort of

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

A smart gun is one that will only fire when an IDed owner holds it.

I've read numerous times that guns should regulated the same as cars. An analogous hypothetical question is posed below.


The question: Since laws have been proposed and passed mandating the sale of smart guns in some manner, should the technology to control and limit vehicle speeds as posted on the respective road of travel be passed?

Computers and electronics have been steadily taking over aspects of life since the '80s. They're in phones, refrigerators, TVs and cars. My truck has several. They do things like control the fuel injection, lock the doors when I shift out of park and listen to remote for signals to lock or unlock the doors. With GPS technology and computer control, every vehicle can determine its location within about 10 meters, its direction of travel and query a national database for the applicable speed limit. The vehicle itself could report or limit the speed of the vehicle to that posted for the road. (Of course emergency vehicles would be unregulated.)

Please share some thoughts.

7 votes, 1 pass | Time left: Unlimited
	cool, it will be impossible to speed
	1 (14%)
	dumb idea, I like the current system, if they catch me, I pay the fine
	5 (71%)
	leave the speeds unlimited but if I speed, report me electronically
	1 (14%)
	1 DU member did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[ExciteBike66]

1. It's an interesting analogy,

but driverless cars are going to make it moot eventually. The manufacturers of driverless cars will likely not allow those cars to speed due to the liability issues (unless a law absolves them, I suppose).

Anyway, many cars already have speed governors in order to protect their components from abuse and to limit insurance costs.

Within the bounds of the survey, I vote for speed governors that can sense the current limit and adjust accordingly, assuming the tech is capable of doing so reliably. I imagine that speed limits will have to increase a bit (as they have been doing for decades).

Edit: I voted for #1, although I doubt it will ever be *impossible* to speed. Hackers might be able to disable to governor in the future...

[Throck]

5. I thought governors had drivers?

[ExciteBike66]

6. What do you think money grows on trees?

Governors should drive themselves, and stop stealing from the taxpayers to support their lavish, chauffered lifestyles!

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

7. As I understand the technology...

...driverless cars will still have a seat and controls for a driver. AFAIK the coming generation of driverless car will not preempt driver control. (In spite of what some CT believers assert, autopilots did not lockout pilot controls on 9/11.) Those industries that develop algorithms for driverless operation will no doubt prioritize safety over speed but slower is not always safer.

re: "...assuming the tech is capable of doing so reliably." The analogous area has been a part of a more heated subset of the controversy over smart guns. As I understand the guiding smart gun principle, it can be phrased, "The gun fires if and only if a designated person holds and fires it." Since there will always be a situation for which the design is unprepared, it is my opinion that a smart gun will always be compromised in reliability over a model without the smart interlock(s). You don't always *need* a gun, but when you do, you really really do.

Hackers will likely be able to defeat measures intended to control either vehicle speed or gun use.

thanks for sharing

[ExciteBike66]

9. I agree wrt guns, they are different than cars,

and I say that as someone who would heavily regulate and/or ban some or all guns.

As for the driverless cars allowing drivers to regain control, this is true for the near future. However, I could easily forsee that, while allowing manual control of steering or acceleration, those cars might still have a speed limiter to prevent outright speeding. If a car malfunctions and needs the driver to take over the steering, it might still be able to control speed to some degree (or perhaps a malfunctioning driverless car could just have a set speed limit that is low and does not change at all for different roads, in order to incentivize the owner to head to the dealership immediately for repairs).

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

11. re: "...perhaps a malfunctioning driverless car could just have a set speed limit that is low..."

IMHO an autonomous malfunctioning anything needs to restore all basic control to the operator. Doesn't matter if it's a car, gun or web-enabled ice maker. A failure mode use case for a car could be failure at speed on an interstate or other main highway. Having the car suddenly drop from 70 MPH to 30 MPH could kill someone.

[ExciteBike66]

17. I think we are getting out of hand here.

"IMHO an autonomous malfunctioning anything needs to restore all basic control to the operator. Doesn't matter if it's a car, gun or web-enabled ice maker. A failure mode use case for a car could be failure at speed on an interstate or other main highway. Having the car suddenly drop from 70 MPH to 30 MPH could kill someone."

No.

1.) If the car suffers the total failure you are imagining, then perhaps the speed governor can take the speed down slowly, or actually react to driver input for the amount of time it takes to pull over safely, fine. However, once the car is slowed to stopped by the human, my proposed "Speed limit" should be safe enough. At least, my proposal would be better than a car that didn't move at all.

2.) If the car suffers a less-than-total failure, then the same thing could be programmed to happen.


Either way, there is no need to allow the car to exceed the speed limit posted on the roadway.

Furthermore, as to guns, if a gun is malfunctioning, I would rather it did NOT allow unrestricted control. However, that is just because it would be in accordance with my overall stance on guns. If one could FORCE their gun to "malfunction", then the problem of criminals stealing other people's guns would still exist.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

20. I agree about the thread taking a tangent

I infer that you are in the camp accepting a deeper level of automated control than I am. I can see disallowing exceeding speed limits when the limit is over 45 MPH.

Re: "If one could FORCE their gun to "malfunction", then the problem of criminals stealing other people's guns would still exist."

OTOH a criminal wouldn't have to "force" a gun to malfunction. A criminal would only have to hack the gun. A criminal could just steal one of the 300+ million existing dumb guns.




Back to a minor point: A failing automated system doesn't always know that it's failing. Software uses binary numbers for calculations. An "8" would be 1000 in binary. A speed limit of 85 would be "10000101". Imagine the consequence of the left most "1" being a "0". Suddenly the speed limit changes from 85 to 5.

Have a picture: https://goo.gl/maps/nPm4P2h9KJ42

[ExciteBike66]

22. I do accept automated control over cars, sure.

There is almost zero chance that computers could drive worse than humans, and any life saved by an automated car would be worth it imo. I also want to point out that I am a committed manual-transmission BMW enthusiast, so I have plenty of skin in the game.


"OTOH a criminal wouldn't have to "force" a gun to malfunction. A criminal would only have to hack the gun. A criminal could just steal one of the 300+ million existing dumb guns. "

Well, yes and no. Not many gang-bangers out there with coding experience, much less actual hacking expertise. Sure, some criminal enterprise could hack the guns and then sell them, but I would imagine the costs would be very much higher for one of those hacked guns than for "normal" guns on the black market right now. The economics would change, at least.

As to "dumb" guns, it is true that they would still be "out there". But having "smart" guns at least would not enlarge the problem any more than it already is.


"Back to a minor point: A failing automated system doesn't always know that it's failing. Software uses binary numbers for calculations. An "8" would be 1000 in binary. A speed limit of 85 would be "10000101". Imagine the consequence of the left most "1" being a "0". Suddenly the speed limit changes from 85 to 5."

This is not too different in the world of human-controlled cars today. We all have computers in our cars, and they all run on those same ones and zeros. I guess a car could mess up and read the limits wrong (or be hacked), but that doesn't mean FULL control need be given to the human occupant. Perhaps the car could respond to the "Hazard Lights" button by pulling over and stopping at its earliest convenience. That way, if the speed was messed up the car would at least try to stop once the driver noticed. So long as the car can get safely to the edge of the roadway, no need to allow the driver to exceed the speed limit. I can understand allowing SOME control to the driver in an emergency, but I don't see the need to allow the car to exceed the speed limit.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

24. re: "...no need to allow the driver to exceed the speed limit."

The speed limit is 5 as far as the car knows. Driving up the shoulder at 5 along a highway with traffic going 50-85 is dangerous. Sitting on the shoulder is also dangerous. Making someone wait and pay for a tow truck because an otherwise driveable car has a brainfart is rather unpopular.

Truly autonomous technology for close human contact is no where near ready for prime time.

[ExciteBike66]

25. I agree in part

"Truly autonomous technology for close human contact is no where near ready for prime time."

I agree totally with this statement. That said, google is convincing me more and more every day that the day of automation is almost here.


"The speed limit is 5 as far as the car knows. Driving up the shoulder at 5 along a highway with traffic going 50-85 is dangerous. Sitting on the shoulder is also dangerous. Making someone wait and pay for a tow truck because an otherwise driveable car has a brainfart is rather unpopular. "

Also true, although I presumed the person would only drive until the next exit, and thus the journey at "5" would not be very long. Furthermore, if everyone else on the highway is also automated, and are not experiencing a malfunction, at least driving on the side would be relatively safer than it would be today with human drivers.

Perhaps the car can be put into some sort of "limp-mode" that is faster than 5 mph. My point is that I wouldn't want "limp-mode" to be able to go very fast, or else folks might just drive around in "limp-mode" without the benefit of automation, thus making the whole system worthless. Perhaps the system will allow driving at a limited speed if one pushes the "Hazard Lights" button.

I would expect that the benefits of automation would be such as to make us want to force every car to be automated, eventually. Kind of like how airbags are now required.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

26. Side benefits (to autonomous cars) would be...

...law enforcement wouldn't need to enforce speed limits (or most other) traffic laws. Cops could concentrate on violent and property crimes.

DUI would become a don't care since the "drunk" wouldn't be driving.

[bluecollar2]

2. I understand the reasoning but

As a safety issue one sometimes has been to exceed the speed limit to avoid an accident...

E.g. To pass by a group of dangerously bunched up cars, to get by a texter or phone talker, to get passed someone obviously under the influence.

[ExciteBike66]

3. I don't know,

why is it safer to be in front of those people than behind them?

[bluecollar2]

10. I prefer to be driving away from the mayhem

Than to be approaching it.

[ExciteBike66]

18. But you are less safe in front of the drunk driver...

than you would be behind them, since you are presumably able to slow down and not get too close to them.

Furthermore, just passing the guy would be a failure to do your basic civil duty of calling the police and reporting the driver.

Even if you would be safer in front of the guy, you would be EVEN SAFER if you just stopped your car and let him continue (perhaps while you called 911).

As to speed limits and speed limiters, there is still no reason to allow someone to exceed the limit merely to pass one of your example individuals.

1.) If the texter or drunk is driving at the speed limit, then you can also drive at the speed limit behind them. No need to break the law.

2.) If the texter or drunk is driving much slower than the limit, you can pass them at the limit. No need to pass them too quickly where they might be surprised and make a sudden movement.

3.) If the texter or drunk is driving just a bit under the limit, enough to be annoying to you, then I suggest you could still just stay behind them if you do not wish to chance passing them. It's not like driving 23 in a 25 is going to kill you...

[bluecollar2]

27. what part of driving AWAY from a dangerous

Situation is so difficult to understand?

[ExciteBike66]

28. And what part of

having some guy obliterated out of his mind behind your car do you not understand?

If you are able to speed, then so is he. S**t, if you are passing him, you are putting yourself in even more danger by being so close to him. Why bother passing him at all, when it actually gets you closer to danger? Why not just slow down and let the distance between you and the drunk actually increase, while at the same time being able to focus on what he is doing since he is still in front of you? Do you need to be at your destination so badly that you would risk actually driving RIGHT NEXT TO a drunk driver?

S**T, why not just stop, turn around, and drive in the other direction, that would REALLY put a bunch of distance between you two.

Sorry, but the tone of your response kind of forced me to vent a bit!

[bluecollar2]

29. I'll repeat myself

I prefer to have mayhem occurr behind me.

Your suggestions are noted.

Thankyou

[ExciteBike66]

33. I understand you want him behind you,

But if that is the case, why would you drive towards him (in order to pass)? Easier just to turn around and go in the opposite direction, where he is still behind you and you don't have to pass him.

You are intent on trying to minimize your own danger by first taking an action that maximizes your danger!

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

30. Pardon my intrusion here

You so far are the only person more confident in the abilities of software and system developers to anticipate and provide for all possible conditions. Unplanned emergencies are a fact of life. A part of my intention in forming this poll was to determine if anyone was comfortable giving up what may be an important aspect of a well established activity in the hope that maybe safety would be improved.

Maybe I'm wrong but I take from your replies here that you consider all aspects of greater speed to be a danger and all aspects of limiting speed to be an asset. It is my opinion that this may be characteristic of folks who favor the idea of control.

I have witnessed first hand that impaired and distracted drivers tend to drive more slowly than others. While the act of passing such a driver may be a short term danger, remaining behind that person may where traffic is collecting and becoming denser is not safe either.

Making it difficult for a law abiding individual to own and acquire a gun will not prevent a criminal from obtaining one.

[ExciteBike66]

34. Ok, but

"I have witnessed first hand that impaired and distracted drivers tend to drive more slowly than others."

If that is truly the case, then there should be no problem passing him at the speed limit! Further, perhaps the speed-limited car I propose can allow short bursts of say 5 over the limit in order to pass someone.


In a prior post, I posited three scenarios:

1.) The drunk is driving very slowly, in which case passing at the speed limit is good enough.
2.) The drunk is driving just under the speed limit, in which case the driver behind him can just be content to travel at that rate of speed, since it isn't anything more than annoying.
3.) The drunk is driving at the speed limit, in which case, once again, the following driver can just continue at the speed limit, since he has no legal need to exceed the limit.


"Maybe I'm wrong but I take from your replies here that you consider all aspects of greater speed to be a danger"

Can you name any aspects of greater speed that make it less dangerous than slower speed? Please keep in mind that you always have the option to slow down, stop, or turn around if something dangerous is ahead of you.


"remaining behind that person may where traffic is collecting and becoming denser is not safe either. "

I do not see the logic here. Assuming the other drivers are not also intoxicated, why would it be dangerous to remain behind the guy. assuming my three scenarios above?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

36. I imagine most people...

...drive in order to go somewhere else. I can think of many scenarios which would improve safety while sacrificing freedom. Those trade offs wouldn't always be my first choice.

[ExciteBike66]

37. The discussion is not about sacrificing freedom,

since speeding is already illegal, having a speed-limiter on your car is really not a sacrifice at all. If you want the speed limits to be higher, you have to vote for people willing to raise them.

If you are talking about forcing all cars to be automated, then once again, it really is not about freedom. 1.) You could make the same argument about laws requiring seat belts in all cars. 2.) The use of public roads is a privilege, not a right (see any DUI case where a license was revoked). 3.) Ironically, it might even be the case that having all cars automated would mean speed limits could actually be set higher than they currently are, allowing "most people [to] drive in order to go somewhere else" faster!

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

39. Speed limits are an evolving aspect of the motor vehicle code

The seat belt issue: how would you feel about a car that wouldn't start if a seat belt wasn't worn and wouldn't remain running if the belt was removed?

Should the Ultima GT-R be illegal to sell and own in the US?

It is my position that the law keep pace with technology. This requires that our legislators inform themselves about the technology.
I'm kinda with you on the automated and faster option.

[ExciteBike66]

40. I am unfamiliar with the Ultima GT-R,

does it not come with seat belts?

Having cars require seatbelts doesn't bother me, because the social benefits are much greater than the costs. It is the same with automation (assuming the testing is rigorous and the cars are deemed safe to drive themselves, something that as of right now is ongoing).

If the car shuts off when the seatbelt is released, I think there would need to be some leeway for accidentally removing your belt or having a pissed-off passenger remove it for you (perhaps a one minute timer before the car shuts down, so you can pull over?).

I totally agree with you about the law and technology. Generally the law (legislative branch) is far behind technology, and the court system ends up having to fill in gaps until the legislators feel the need to step in. I foresee that automated driving tech will continue to improve to a point where, in the near future, we will be able to trust driverless cars enough to allow their sale to the public. Once we have a bunch of years of mixed driving (normal and driverless), then we can see where we are in terms of mandating automation or not.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

41. Yes it has seat belts along with a 240 MPH max speed

A 60 second timer for seat belt release induced shutdown seems okay but back when cars required the belts to start, folks just hacked the system.

I'd like to see legislators and executives educating themselves to keep up with new developments.

[ExciteBike66]

35. A separate post for the gun thing

"Making it difficult for a law abiding individual to own and acquire a gun will not prevent a criminal from obtaining one."

This is not entirely true. Many times guns are stolen from law-abiding citizens and end up in criminal hands. Thus, if law-abiding citizens are prevented from having guns, then the total pool of criminal guns should be smaller.

Furthermore, consider that sometimes a law-abiding gun owner later becomes a criminal. My logic again holds: if law-abiding citizens are prevented from having guns, then the total pool of criminal guns should be smaller.


On the other hand, I do agree with you that "if guns are criminalized, then only criminals would have guns". But, over the long term, the supply of outstanding illegal guns would contract if 1.) no new guns were manufactured (this would presumably not be allowed if guns were banned outright, except for police and military use), and 2.) police destroyed any guns they confiscated. Once again, this would take a long time, due to the number of guns already in this country.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

38. See my embedded replies below

"Making it difficult for a law abiding individual to own and acquire a gun will not prevent a criminal from obtaining one."

This is not entirely true. Many times guns are stolen from law-abiding citizens and end up in criminal hands. Thus, if law-abiding citizens are prevented from having guns, then the total pool of criminal guns should be smaller.

And if law-abiding folks have no effective means of defense against the "smaller pool" they are still defenseless victims. The idea is to reduce crime. A self-defense shooting isn't a crime.

Furthermore, consider that sometimes a law-abiding gun owner later becomes a criminal. My logic again holds: if law-abiding citizens are prevented from having guns, then the total pool of criminal guns should be smaller.

You seem concerned about disarming the pre-criminal element among us. I'd prefer to prevent them from ever becoming criminals. The last hundred years have amply demonstrated to me that banning is one of the surest ways to provide an economic motive for crime. (By analogy, if I had a magic wand, I wouldn't make a Republican unable to vote, I'd make him a Democrat. )

Once again, this would take a long time, due to the number of guns already in this country.

Actually, this would take forever since hundreds of millions of guns exist, the skill to manufacture a gun exists and 3-D printers exists. The genie is out of the bottle.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

8. I agree

I expect numerous traffic problems and delays will be mitigated by automobiles with auto-pilot like capabilities but I don't see operators being barred from control any time in the near future.

[justhanginon]

4. I think there are too many variables presented while driving.

Perhaps if there were some type of overide feature for emergency situations that would require a somewhat inconvenient reset. Aside from the logistical problems, I really don't think it would be feasible from a safety standpoint.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

12. Just a question

A car is operating in autonomous mode and is pulled over by police in a traffic stop.
First, does the autonomous vehicle recognize and comply with the stop?
Second, who gets the ticket?

[justhanginon]

13. That is a damn good question. I was mulling over some possible

solutions but they all seem to have disqualifying results. Audio recognition of a siren would be too easily duplicated by bad guys and incidental unrelated uses, ambulances, fire equipment passing by etc. Optical much the same. It seems to me that it would entail having the autonomous vehicle and the police vehicle having some specific relationship related to the incident but even there, it may affect other autonomous vehicles in the area.
Hell, I didn't go to M.I.T so my last solution would be to shoot out the tires, arrest the driver and impound the car.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

14. Einstein was pretty big on thought experiments

He wasn't quite as creative as you but he had his moments.

I considered the idea of having law enforcement able to communicate with and control a specific registered vehicle. That idea is full of hacker based rabbit holes.

Next I figured that an occupant should be responsible for disabling autonomous operation and complying. However, if the car is really autonomous the occupant may not be a qualified operator.

Who gets the ticket in this particular rabbit hole of thought is anyone's guess since an actual root cause failure may have derived from a multitude of directions or causes or possibly a cascade of effects.


OT: If you really want something to worry about, several years ago I worked for a subcontractor to a DoD contractor on the ERMP program for the UAV then called Warrior (an update of the predator). The update included improved avionics and flight control to allow the pilots to be replaced with operators and missions specialists. The aircraft would fly itself; the operators would control and assign mission objectives, targets, loiter times, altitudes and locations and collect intelligence. Not only would the operators not fly it, they wouldn't necessarily know how to fly it nor would the capability to actually control flight remotely exist at all.

I believe about half of the planned 150 some vehicles have been delivered at this point. I have no idea if the operator modifications have been included. I wonder how long it will be until surplus UAVs are sold to local police departments.

[justhanginon]

15. It seems to me that when you got to full on autonomy you really lose

the human ability to make decisions that include an instant moral relevance to any given situation, especially emergency ones. whether that be needing an instantaneous decision as to where to crash land a disabled plane given the visual input of a pilot or in the case of an automobile whether to hit a person or oncoming traffic. None are easy calls but may require instant if not instinctual responses.
Your last paragraph is tad scary!
I've been retired for almost twenty years and could never have dreamed we would be discussing these problems as part of an actual reality. I think my head is beginning to hurt! )))

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

16. re: "I've been retired for almost twenty years..."

I'm just hoping that the bulk of the e-ring hasn't retired from reality.

[ExciteBike66]

19. The human "ability" is over-rated...

"None are easy calls but may require instant... responses. "

There is nothing better at this than a computer...

[justhanginon]

21. Speed loses much of its value when their is no human moral

input for its "millisecond quicker" decision. No matter how much information you put into a computers decision making programs you cannot add in a sense of variable situationally based morality that humans would consider in a given incident.

[ExciteBike66]

23. I don't see it that way at all...

Emergency situations like the thought experiment where one can hit a child or a group of children involve split-second decisions that humans are rarely capable of making.

99.9% of the time, the human will mash the brake and brace for impact without moving the wheel or thinking anything at all. At least a computer can have the decision made (though programming) prior to the incident arising. Furthermore, the computer can drive the car at a rate of speed that makes such incidents almost non-existant.

[spin]

31. I like to move with the speed of the traffic. ...

On the interstates near me that have 70 mph speed limits most people go between 75 and 80 mph.

Moving 20 mph slower or faster than the traffic can cause accidents.

If ALL cars had such speed limiting devices installed I would have no major problem.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

32. Sounds like a safe plan

Thanks for your vote.