Hyundai’s 2015 Genesis will automatically brake for speed cameras(extremetech.com)
extremetech.com
Hyundai’s 2015 Genesis will automatically brake for speed cameras
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/185365-hyundais-2015-genesis-will-automatically-brake-for-speed-cameras-awesome-or-a-terrifying-misuse-of-technology
55 comments
Most areas with speed cameras (local) drivers already know where they are and cause a dangerous sudden braking condition anyway. I do fear that all the automatic nanny's are making people MORE likely to Facebook while driving their 4000lbs death machines though.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/4wd-drivers-really-as-bad-w...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yerkes–Dodson_law
Safest car ever should have a sharp spike mounted in the center of a steering wheel and no safety belts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yerkes–Dodson_law
Safest car ever should have a sharp spike mounted in the center of a steering wheel and no safety belts.
Seat belts and bicycle helmets cause the same phenomena: accident rate goes up when introduced/required before going back to normal after people adjust their risk taking to the increased safety envelope.
Do you have a reference to this? I've heard this argument before, but haven't been able to find any hard stats.
The buzzword is "risk compensation". There's a whole article on Wikipedia about it (and lots of studies) but, to make a long story short, "measures, designed to improve traffic safety, may bring along negative consequences in a way that individuals increase the riskiness of their driving behaviour because they feel safer (Dulisse, 1997)"
With cycling, in particular, it's not just individuals making judgments about their own safety, either; a 2006 UK study shows that drivers passing cyclists give helmet wearers less clearance, perhaps out of some subconscious sense that they'd do better if they get hit, or maybe that, being risk-averse helmet-wearers, they're less likely to lash out and do something unexpected. (see http://www.helmets.org/walkerstudy.htm )
I think it comes from Freakanomics.
Every GPS unit sold in South Korea already come with a database of every speed camera in the country, and the database can be easily updated every few weeks. Connecting this to the speed controller is only the logical next step. I'm actually surprised that it took Hyundai so long to connect the dots.
I don't know about the US and UK, but whenever the Korean police installs a speed camera, they put up a clear warning sign 500-1000m before the camera. There is absolutely no secret or surprise about the location of a speed trap, and the police apparently doesn't care to catch drivers by surprise, either. Someone probably figured out that drivers tend to slow down when they see the warning sign, and do so gradually instead of suddenly since the actual camera is still a quarter mile away. In other words, transparency about the location of speed traps actually increases road safety, even though it probably reduces police revenue.
I don't know about the US and UK, but whenever the Korean police installs a speed camera, they put up a clear warning sign 500-1000m before the camera. There is absolutely no secret or surprise about the location of a speed trap, and the police apparently doesn't care to catch drivers by surprise, either. Someone probably figured out that drivers tend to slow down when they see the warning sign, and do so gradually instead of suddenly since the actual camera is still a quarter mile away. In other words, transparency about the location of speed traps actually increases road safety, even though it probably reduces police revenue.
> I don't know about the US and UK, but whenever the Korean police installs a speed camera, they put up a clear warning sign 500-1000m before the camera. There is absolutely no secret or surprise about the location of a speed trap, and the police apparently doesn't care, either.
Of course they care. That's why the sign is there.
The objective of a speed trap is to make drivers slow down, not punish them. If it's hidden and the driver does get ticked it means it failed at it's goal because you had a speeding car on the road anyway.
Of course they care. That's why the sign is there.
The objective of a speed trap is to make drivers slow down, not punish them. If it's hidden and the driver does get ticked it means it failed at it's goal because you had a speeding car on the road anyway.
But that can result in people only slowing down where there are cameras. If you don't tell people where the cameras are, in theory (if there are enough of them and the punishments are harsh enough) people should slow down across the board.
There are of course issues with this (sudden braking when a camera is spotted can lead to accidents in itself, it punishes low income earners harder than high ones etc.), but I have noticed that in Australia, with relatively harsh speeding punishments and the majority of speeding cameras being hidden, there is a much lower incidence of speeding than in the US.
There are of course issues with this (sudden braking when a camera is spotted can lead to accidents in itself, it punishes low income earners harder than high ones etc.), but I have noticed that in Australia, with relatively harsh speeding punishments and the majority of speeding cameras being hidden, there is a much lower incidence of speeding than in the US.
If the goal is to make people drive slowly in general, FUD might be more effective.
If the goal is to make people slow down in places where they really do need to slow down (e.g. before curves), visible warnings might be more effective.
Outside of large cities, most of Korea has a mountainous terrain. A highway with an official speed limit of 110km/h can be perfectly safe to drive at 130km/h in one stretch but dangerous to drive at 90km/h in another stretch just a few km away. So I think it makes sense for the Korean police to focus on making people drive more slowly in some places than in others. Maybe the priorities should be different in a large flat country like Australia.
If the goal is to make people slow down in places where they really do need to slow down (e.g. before curves), visible warnings might be more effective.
Outside of large cities, most of Korea has a mountainous terrain. A highway with an official speed limit of 110km/h can be perfectly safe to drive at 130km/h in one stretch but dangerous to drive at 90km/h in another stretch just a few km away. So I think it makes sense for the Korean police to focus on making people drive more slowly in some places than in others. Maybe the priorities should be different in a large flat country like Australia.
Then these signs would be all over the states, and cops would be putting up signs around their speed traps.
I said Korean's cared.
If they are not putting signs in the US (I don't live there) they are failing, or the motivation is not safety but money.
If they are not putting signs in the US (I don't live there) they are failing, or the motivation is not safety but money.
In the USA, speeding tickets are about revenue, which is why they hide their speed traps.
In the UK, fixed speed cameras are often preceded by warning signs. Not so in Australia - I think we've had cases of them being hidden in roadside bins. It's common to see a police car with speed gun behind bushes at the side of the road.
> The objective of a speed trap is to make drivers slow down, not punish them. If it's hidden and the driver does get ticked it means it failed at it's goal because you had a speeding car on the road anyway.
The objective of a speed trap is money. Speed traps are a safety hazard. Causing drivers to slow down suddenly and then speed up again as soon as they pass the camera is significantly more dangerous than them driving at a constant higher speed. It also causes more pollution and consumes more fuel. Jurisdictions not interested in generating revenue don't install them.
The objective of a speed trap is money. Speed traps are a safety hazard. Causing drivers to slow down suddenly and then speed up again as soon as they pass the camera is significantly more dangerous than them driving at a constant higher speed. It also causes more pollution and consumes more fuel. Jurisdictions not interested in generating revenue don't install them.
This is going to confuse the hell out of people who buy it second hand in 10 years time, especially if the maps go out of date.
Well to be honest I was expecting something more advanced, like a military grade LIDAR detector of optical lens & cams.
And some cams emit infareds so there are many means to detect them.
And some cams emit infareds so there are many means to detect them.
Usually detecting them can be too late. They can clock your speed and take your picture extremely fast and work in a very focused area usually.
The detector would have to catch "Scatter" from it from cars going through it or whatever. Which, IR is emitted from many sources, so it couldn't be used as a reliable way to detect it.
Also, a lot of the triggers are by video cameras. If you have ever setup any basic home security system(Like Q-See), you can choose areas as "Triggers" for recording. The operators of the cameras basically draw out areas that act as trigger zones. See this as something of an example: http://rhythmtraffic.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/WebUI.jp...
The detector would have to catch "Scatter" from it from cars going through it or whatever. Which, IR is emitted from many sources, so it couldn't be used as a reliable way to detect it.
Also, a lot of the triggers are by video cameras. If you have ever setup any basic home security system(Like Q-See), you can choose areas as "Triggers" for recording. The operators of the cameras basically draw out areas that act as trigger zones. See this as something of an example: http://rhythmtraffic.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/WebUI.jp...
I wonder how they did their market research to arrive at a position where it avoids being detected breaching a limit but doesn't avoid breaching the limit when there is no camera around. It seems a fairly cynical position to adopt to appeal to a specific segment of the market. Seem very similar to a DUI insurance policy that was briefly offered in Australia (you pay premiums, caught out DUI, no problem, insurance pays).
I'd much prefer to have three options:
1 Turned off - I'll take responsibility for the vehicle myself and bear the consequences myself
2 Their proposal - I'll let the machine avoid the tickets and when nobody is looking do what I please
3 No speeding - The vehicle will never speed, I'll never get a speeding ticket under any circumstances, camera there or not, in fact Hyundai will pay the fine as it will be simply impossible to incur one and they'll put their money on the line to make sure the damn thing works.
I'd much prefer to have three options:
1 Turned off - I'll take responsibility for the vehicle myself and bear the consequences myself
2 Their proposal - I'll let the machine avoid the tickets and when nobody is looking do what I please
3 No speeding - The vehicle will never speed, I'll never get a speeding ticket under any circumstances, camera there or not, in fact Hyundai will pay the fine as it will be simply impossible to incur one and they'll put their money on the line to make sure the damn thing works.
Surely if the intention of the car manufacturer was honest it would simply prevent the car from ever exceeding the speed limit anywhere, not just when you're passing a speed camera. Just autobraking for cameras is a ridiculous case of overfitting for the wrong fitness metric.
It might be that the car manufacturer wants to actually sell a few of the cars...
Nobody, including the police, thinks that is a good idea. It isn't illegal to make a pass over the speed limit, for example. Or if it is, it doesn't matter.
Judicious application of speed, including over the speed limit, makes the road safer for everyone.
Judicious application of speed, including over the speed limit, makes the road safer for everyone.
"It isn't illegal to make a pass over the speed limit"
... I think you're probably mistaken. Seems unlikely the police will overlook your driving at 50 in a 35 zone just because you're doing it on the wrong side of the road towards oncoming traffic to pass someone dawdling along at 30. That would be an odd loophole.
Also would suggest that freeway speed limits only apply in the 'slow' lane, since all the other lanes are technically passing lanes....
... I think you're probably mistaken. Seems unlikely the police will overlook your driving at 50 in a 35 zone just because you're doing it on the wrong side of the road towards oncoming traffic to pass someone dawdling along at 30. That would be an odd loophole.
Also would suggest that freeway speed limits only apply in the 'slow' lane, since all the other lanes are technically passing lanes....
Ok, I didn't claim it's legal to make a pass at 200mph in a 35mph zone. I am not about to look up the statutes, especially as they are different in every state, but my memory is that at the end of the day speed is legally up to your judgement and the officer's judgement.
95% of the time the posted speed limit is treated as "The Limit", but in circumstances like passing we continue to use "judgement" as the metric, both on part of us and the officer.
So if you pass at 70mph in a 35mph, an officer can say "That is reckless", and if you pass at 40mph he can say "That is reasonable".
Remember, it behooves no-one for passing speeds to be +0.5mph. If you want to overtake someone and you cannot have an appreciable speed differential, the pass will take a very long time which is more risky.
95% of the time the posted speed limit is treated as "The Limit", but in circumstances like passing we continue to use "judgement" as the metric, both on part of us and the officer.
So if you pass at 70mph in a 35mph, an officer can say "That is reckless", and if you pass at 40mph he can say "That is reasonable".
Remember, it behooves no-one for passing speeds to be +0.5mph. If you want to overtake someone and you cannot have an appreciable speed differential, the pass will take a very long time which is more risky.
You could imagine drones of various kinds being pretty good at taking auto speed readings while still being way cheaper than officers with radar guns. My money's on that as the next strategy once fixed camera placements become completely ineffective.
Of all the possible reasons to introduce intelligent breaking, this is the worst. Risking accidents to save money equivalent to 3 large coffees?
That would depend on how quickly the brakes are applied. Hyundai ain't stupid. They'll probably try to make it as smooth as possible so that the car behind you has enough time to react. The occupants of the Genesis probably won't appreciate a sudden jerk, either.
Yeah, I mean the computer would be aware of the speed trap miles BEFORE reaching it. It has plenty of time to a soft slow down of the car.
How much are your speeding fines? In Australia, 10km/h (6MPH) over is $150, and 20km/h (12MPH) is $300.
I agree, this is a terrible idea though.
I agree, this is a terrible idea though.
So what happens when it detects a speed zone in the middle of winter when I'm on a patch of black ice? The result is often a spinout resulting in totaling the car on a guard rail or a tree or a snowbank. I'll pass. Braking and acceleration are too important for maintaining road traction. Why would I compromise that to avoid a speeding ticket?
First, get past the obvious benefit of a seemingly unfair advantage for
avoiding traffic tickets, such as reduced costs due to traffic fines or
insurance premiums.
Then get past the obvious harm of a seemingly unfair advantage for avoiding traffic tickets, such as reduced freedom to drive "too fast" and reduced revenues for law enforcement budgets [1].
The end result of tech like this (including the ultimate step of speed governors preventing speeding) really seems to be all of us sharing safer roads, and fewer of us getting hurt or dying in traffic accidents.
This seems pretty good at first sight, but unfortunately, it leaves open one problematic question; if everyone drove at the speed limit (and fully stopped at stop signs/lights --feasible to enforce with tech), would there be fewer accidents?
Also, I wonder if there would be more or less traffic congestion?
[1] http://www.networkworld.com/article/2226966/opensource-subne...
Then get past the obvious harm of a seemingly unfair advantage for avoiding traffic tickets, such as reduced freedom to drive "too fast" and reduced revenues for law enforcement budgets [1].
The end result of tech like this (including the ultimate step of speed governors preventing speeding) really seems to be all of us sharing safer roads, and fewer of us getting hurt or dying in traffic accidents.
This seems pretty good at first sight, but unfortunately, it leaves open one problematic question; if everyone drove at the speed limit (and fully stopped at stop signs/lights --feasible to enforce with tech), would there be fewer accidents?
Also, I wonder if there would be more or less traffic congestion?
[1] http://www.networkworld.com/article/2226966/opensource-subne...
The odd thing is that once the automated/autonomous vehicles reach above the 10% level the consensus is (cant find a stellar ref but http://www.usfav.com/publications/TAVI_8-CapacityPinjari.pdf will do for a start) that we'll see marked improvements beyond 10% expected in
- less traffic congestion and increased roadway capacity beyond what can be obtained with human drivers
- 28% reduction in fuel usage on the whole fleet
- marked reduction in crashes beyond a 10% reduction expected
- less traffic congestion and increased roadway capacity beyond what can be obtained with human drivers
- 28% reduction in fuel usage on the whole fleet
- marked reduction in crashes beyond a 10% reduction expected
Thanks for the link to that white paper. I've skimmed the intro, and
then skipped to the end for their conclusions. I'll read the whole thing
later tonight, but as expected, the conclusion states itself to be
speculative, without supporting data, and in need of more research. From
the pdf:
> "many experts speculate that the overall benefits outweigh the potential negative externalities."
> "Additional research is necessary on a number of aspects related to AVs, including ..."
Like everyone, I really want to believe having more automated and autonomous vehicles on the road will result in fewer accidents, reduced congestion, and other benefits, but all we really have at the moment is (seemingly well reasoned) speculation since we lack supporting data. Until we have supporting data from repeatable experiments, whether the speculated benefits will both materialize outweigh the negative impacts should remain open questions. The open questions will get answered, eventually, but it will take a few decades and buying into the all the speculated hype at this early and unproven stage is harmful.
I guess I'd rather be cautiously optimistic until we have more useful and repeatable results.
> "many experts speculate that the overall benefits outweigh the potential negative externalities."
> "Additional research is necessary on a number of aspects related to AVs, including ..."
Like everyone, I really want to believe having more automated and autonomous vehicles on the road will result in fewer accidents, reduced congestion, and other benefits, but all we really have at the moment is (seemingly well reasoned) speculation since we lack supporting data. Until we have supporting data from repeatable experiments, whether the speculated benefits will both materialize outweigh the negative impacts should remain open questions. The open questions will get answered, eventually, but it will take a few decades and buying into the all the speculated hype at this early and unproven stage is harmful.
I guess I'd rather be cautiously optimistic until we have more useful and repeatable results.
> This seems pretty good at first sight, but unfortunately, it leaves open one problematic question; if everyone drove at the speed limit (and fully stopped at stop signs/lights --feasible to enforce with tech), would there be fewer accidents?
Yes.
Why is that a problematic question in the first place? It's physics.
Yes.
Why is that a problematic question in the first place? It's physics.
> Why is that a problematic question in the first place? It's physics.
It's not that simple. Example: Just before rush hour a significant number of cars get on the highway. If they travel at a lower rate of speed, fewer of them will have reached their destination as most businesses start to let out, which means there will be more cars on the highway rather than at their destination and therefore more traffic congestion. And traffic congestion is a primary cause of highway collisions.
It's not that simple. Example: Just before rush hour a significant number of cars get on the highway. If they travel at a lower rate of speed, fewer of them will have reached their destination as most businesses start to let out, which means there will be more cars on the highway rather than at their destination and therefore more traffic congestion. And traffic congestion is a primary cause of highway collisions.
Ways to reduce congestion without altering roads, signs, traffic light cycles, or work hours:
1) Everyone drives slightly below the speed limit
2) Pick a lane and stick to it
3) Merge late
There's research showing that almost whatever you do (short of charging), congestion will remain the same. More roads makes for more drivers. More public transport takes cars off the road? Others will replace them due to the increased convenience.
> There's research showing that almost whatever you do (short of charging), congestion will remain the same. More roads makes for more drivers. More public transport takes cars off the road? Others will replace them due to the increased convenience.
That's clearly incorrect. Cars aren't going to magically appear in North Dakota just because you put in a twelve lane superhighway to nowhere.
What the data in question is actually explaining is that traffic congestion reduces traffic. When you remove the cause of the traffic congestion you get more traffic. But this isn't Zeno's Paradox. There is a finite number of lanes capable of handling all the traffic you would see when there is no traffic congestion.
That's clearly incorrect. Cars aren't going to magically appear in North Dakota just because you put in a twelve lane superhighway to nowhere.
What the data in question is actually explaining is that traffic congestion reduces traffic. When you remove the cause of the traffic congestion you get more traffic. But this isn't Zeno's Paradox. There is a finite number of lanes capable of handling all the traffic you would see when there is no traffic congestion.
Obviously in extreme cases (30 lane freeways everywhere), it doesn't follow, but I was speaking of realistic changes.
On the one hand this is fucking terrifying on the other I'm off to tag everything with stupid speed limits. Five mph on the motorway and 70 outside schools.
I can't locate it now, but there was an article I read somewhere that talked about the un-expected side-effects of speed cameras.
Was along the lines that people get used to where speed cameras are located (along their daily commute, etc), and either slow-down in that one particular area (positive effect), or slam on the brakes and cause accidents (negative effect). Both resulting in fewer traffic citations, andd causing the cost-to-maintain the cameras (often contracted to 3rd parties) to increase. Some cities in the Bay Area of California have removed the camera inside the boxes, stopped paying the contractor to maintain the cameras, and just left the metal enclosures in place -- with the same results.
(maybe hidden moral - humans are creatures of habit?)
Was along the lines that people get used to where speed cameras are located (along their daily commute, etc), and either slow-down in that one particular area (positive effect), or slam on the brakes and cause accidents (negative effect). Both resulting in fewer traffic citations, andd causing the cost-to-maintain the cameras (often contracted to 3rd parties) to increase. Some cities in the Bay Area of California have removed the camera inside the boxes, stopped paying the contractor to maintain the cameras, and just left the metal enclosures in place -- with the same results.
(maybe hidden moral - humans are creatures of habit?)
So if I was a local council member, I'd be starting up a cyber warfare division to deliberately insert false camera locations and remove legitimate ones, along with a program of moving the actual cameras around on a random rotation.
Well, that and ensuring that there are more marked police cars patrolling the roads.
Well, that and ensuring that there are more marked police cars patrolling the roads.
Stupid.
Speed cameras exist to stop idiots killing innocent people.
Yeah police profit. Who cares. They need all the help they can get with crystal meth literally turning a fair slice of the world into psycho zombies.
Speed cameras exist to stop idiots killing innocent people.
Yeah police profit. Who cares. They need all the help they can get with crystal meth literally turning a fair slice of the world into psycho zombies.
Speed cameras solely exist to generate profit. A road can, and does, have speeders all day and not a single accident.
I'm still going to hit a person/car if they do something stupid on the road if I am speeding or not.
If you need any supporting facts that they are only for profit, there is more research in red-light cameras. They have shown that they can cause more accidents because people try to avoid going through the intersection "just in case" they don't make it all the way through and get a ticket. This causes aggressive braking and accidents. It also doesn't help that a lot of states will shorten the length of the Yellow light at these intersections to ensure more people will go through them. Yay for safety.
As for speeding cameras, my state recently took one down due to backlash because they installed a camera 100ft before a speed increase sign. The "tickets" (I quote that because they are usually fines, and not really tickets, and usually do not cause points to be put on your license if your state has that system) included a photograph of their car passing the new speed limit sign.
The state admitted no wrong doing, and believe it was a great spot to put the camera. If I remember correctly it was in a 25mph zone that went to 45mph. It would ticket cars upto the 45mph sign for going 30mph in a 25mph zone. While "technically" correct, it's pretty obvious the motivation of wanting to put it there.
edit: found it for you, http://www.wtop.com/58/3423357/Police-question-College-Park-...
I'm still going to hit a person/car if they do something stupid on the road if I am speeding or not.
If you need any supporting facts that they are only for profit, there is more research in red-light cameras. They have shown that they can cause more accidents because people try to avoid going through the intersection "just in case" they don't make it all the way through and get a ticket. This causes aggressive braking and accidents. It also doesn't help that a lot of states will shorten the length of the Yellow light at these intersections to ensure more people will go through them. Yay for safety.
As for speeding cameras, my state recently took one down due to backlash because they installed a camera 100ft before a speed increase sign. The "tickets" (I quote that because they are usually fines, and not really tickets, and usually do not cause points to be put on your license if your state has that system) included a photograph of their car passing the new speed limit sign.
The state admitted no wrong doing, and believe it was a great spot to put the camera. If I remember correctly it was in a 25mph zone that went to 45mph. It would ticket cars upto the 45mph sign for going 30mph in a 25mph zone. While "technically" correct, it's pretty obvious the motivation of wanting to put it there.
edit: found it for you, http://www.wtop.com/58/3423357/Police-question-College-Park-...
More directly, there are devices that have been shown to increase safety far better than speed cameras -- those electronic signs that ready your current speed back to you (and flash if it's too high).
The problem with fines and fees is that it puts a price on things, which is why those electric signs work so much better than speeding cameras.
Sure, a $100, $200, or more ticket is expensive and a lot of money to some people it allows the people who can afford it to easily rationalize the behavior.
"It's only $200 bucks it's clearly not that big of an issue, if it was a real danger it would be more expensive"
However the speed blinkers let you know you're doing something wrong and these condition you to feel guilty therefore slowing down.
Sure, a $100, $200, or more ticket is expensive and a lot of money to some people it allows the people who can afford it to easily rationalize the behavior.
"It's only $200 bucks it's clearly not that big of an issue, if it was a real danger it would be more expensive"
However the speed blinkers let you know you're doing something wrong and these condition you to feel guilty therefore slowing down.
Most people don't worry about the speeding ticket cost, but the increased insurance premium that goes with it.
Agreed, insurance premium hikes are big compared to the fine. It's usually cheaper to hire a lawyer...though that also costs more than the fine.
Every time I drive by one of those, I look at it, which completely distracts me from the road. (how fast does it say I'm going? Does my speedometer say the same thing? It doesn't!?)
Agreed, I can't imagine how those signs are a net positive for safety.
Those things make me go faster, I like to see how high I can get the sign to go.
In Australia (Victoria) at least -- I think they are capped at 10km/h above the speed limit. To prevent exactly that.
yep, people will naturally drive at any speed they determine to be safe for the road they are on. Those signs help make them aware of it.
I can honestly say that 90% of the time, I probably am not sure what the speed limit of a road is that I am on. I naturally slow down in residential areas, and speed up for highways. Generally this is 75mph or so in my area with a speed limit of 65mph. If they raised the speed limit to 85mph, I personally wouldn't really like it and probably wouldn't drive that speed.
I've gotten only one speeding ticket in my life, and I have never been in any accidents of any sort. The speeding ticket was on a 2-lane straight road, in the middle of the day with barely anyone around, so I was more comfortable with going fast and didn't even know I was going that fast.
edit: if you're going to down vote me, at least add to the discussion and prove me wrong.
I can honestly say that 90% of the time, I probably am not sure what the speed limit of a road is that I am on. I naturally slow down in residential areas, and speed up for highways. Generally this is 75mph or so in my area with a speed limit of 65mph. If they raised the speed limit to 85mph, I personally wouldn't really like it and probably wouldn't drive that speed.
I've gotten only one speeding ticket in my life, and I have never been in any accidents of any sort. The speeding ticket was on a 2-lane straight road, in the middle of the day with barely anyone around, so I was more comfortable with going fast and didn't even know I was going that fast.
edit: if you're going to down vote me, at least add to the discussion and prove me wrong.
Reasoning: people are going to rely on this to save them from speeding tickets. So they're going to drive too fast. Meanwhile, other idiots who don't have it will also drive too fast. It's only a matter of time before someone in a Genesis enters a camera zone and auto-brakes while another speeding idiot on a cellphone is tail-gating them. Result: a high-speed pile-up.
Something not-dissimilar happened with the first roll-out of ABS on cars; drivers who knew their brakes were super-strong drove too fast and actually ended up with a higher accident rate, at least at first. But ABS was a pure safety feature (to prevent your brakes locking up on a slippery surface or if engaged too hard). This ... I lack words to describe how inadvisable I think it is to seek to avoid a small fine in return for an elevated risk of high-speed vehicle-to-vehicle collisions.
(The risk can be reduced if the Genesis has rear facing radar to prevent shunts, or begins to brake gently some distance ahead of the camera zone. It's also mitigated if tail-gating idiots drive cars with adaptive cruise control -- that maintains constant separation from the vehicle ahead regardless of speed. But as not all cars have the latest features it'll take an automobile generation for this stuff to spread out and become ubiquitous. Meanwhile, sooner or later, people will die.)