How about we put a GPS-enabled governor around your neck, in case you ever think of stepping on private property.

Different context which doesn't apply to my initial post, and worded in a harsh manner to attempt to demonize my idea without presenting an argument against its merits (i.e. "around your neck"), but I'll bite.

Stepping on an individual's property doesn't endanger others' lives needlessly. It's pretty easy to call the police and have a trespasser removed/arrested. Plus, in some states, you can shoot and kill trespassers so long as you've given them fair warning, and can legally carry a firearm. People also have attack dogs, surveillance systems, etc...

You can't shoot and kill someone who's speeding endangering your life. If you call the police about a speeder, they'll usually look for them if they're not too busy. But police departments would quickly be overwhelmed if they had to police "every" speeder on the road. There's simply not enough police. Also, you're defenseless while being in the presence of their illegal driving behavior.

Trespassing, on the other hand, is a rare occurrence. Penalties tend to be harsher than speeding (jail time rather than a fine). It must be much easier to speed than trespass since I don't know anyone I've met in the last year who hasn't sped, yet I can't pick a single trespasser out of any of them. I'd imagine this is the same for most people.

People have little incentive to trespass too. Why do it? To steal something? Murder? Most people don't need to steal things or kill others.

Speeding, on the other hand, has a number of incentives tied to it which provide immediate benefit without significant perceived risk (tickets are rare - habitual speeders may only receive a couple a year | accidents are even rarer). For one, it might save you time^. It also makes people feel good (release of aggression, showing off, feeling of freedom, etc...).

My initial idea isn't one of punishment, but one which increases safety. What's the goal of driving? Going from A to B in a safe, efficient manner. Why wouldn't you want it to be safer, within reason? So you can cut 4 minutes off your 60 minutes of travel time?

^This isn't always the case. Roadways are much like assembly lines. Their slowest points set the pace of everything on the line. Speeders mostly zip from one bottleneck to the next, never really decreasing their net travel time. Time yourself driving the speed limit to work and back one day, and time yourself speeding the next. How much time did you save? A minute or two? None at all?

NOTE: Most vehicles already have governors which limit their top speeds, though aren't used in the manner which I suggest: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governor_(device)

I demonized your idea not because it's impractical, but because it's evil. It's evil because the idea is designed merely to make a more optimal society. It's evil because it's designed to enforce the law by preemptively making lawbreaking impossible. It's evil because it forces carmakers to make their machines in a certain way, to achieve this petty goal.

This proposal wouldn't increase safety until all cars on the road had the GPS-governor feature, which would take 15-20 years for old cars to be phased out. In the meantime, the new cars would have an annoyance (no speeding) without providing any measurable safety improvement.

You're correct on some points, though it may slow other cars by way of simply being in the way. It wouldn't work on highways with passing lanes until a high adoption rate, but a single slow car on one-lane side roads will "bottleneck" any speeders. This alone would most likely increase safety.

Gradually as more people got the cars, things would get safer and safer. Once, say, 90% of cars on the road have governors, it'll be hard for a speeder to find the opportunity to speed.

Economic reasons could speed up adoption too. For example, insurance carriers would likely charge less for those with the device, and more for those without it. Governments could give those with the device a break on their income taxes.

But honestly, I don't think the idea has much traction. It's too emotionally charged which would make it difficult for politicians to implement it, and there are large switching costs from current cars. Self-driving cars will likely appear beforehand. Radar and governors and what-not are really all just bandaids for the real problem with cars; their human drivers.

It's not clear to me that slowing traffic will increase safety in any meaningful way. Slowing traffic will, for any constant amount of "demand", necessarily increase traffic density. Increased traffic density would seem likely to have a positive correlation with accident rates that would partially offset the decrease you're hoping to see.

During the transition period, I predict you'd see a marked increase in the accident rate due to the increased instances of overtaking and broader spread of speeds. (12 cars all travelling at 80 mph on an interstate is safer than 6 cars travelling at 60 mph and 6 cars travelling at 80 mph. When you figure that each car governed to 60 will have to drive 33% longer, you'd actually have 8 cars at 60 mph and 6 cars at 80 mph to get the same throughput to destination on the highway.)

Interesting point. I know broadly that lowering speed limits tends to reduce accident rates, but that's certainly different than this (and may just be spin I've heard through the media).

The only way to tell would be to run something like this through a traffic simulator, and if that found things to be safer, next study it in a sample state or country (would be difficult to do). So you're possibly right, pending results of an imaginary study. :)