Proposed CA bill would electronically restrict cars from going 10mph over speed limit
Proposed CA bill would electronically restrict cars from going over speed limit
I am not a "muh freedom" guy, I don't drive more than 10 over anyway. But this is just logistically a bad way to stop speeding.
Where does my car get the current speed limit information? How and when does it update as speed limits change? Will school systems around the country have to submit a list of which days are "school days" for school zone speed limits?
What if the GPS registers you on the 30mph road below or next to the 70mph highway, long term or even for a momentary glitch? Who is at fault if that causes you to be in an accident?
Will school systems around the country have to submit a list of which days are “school days” for school zone speed limits?
Story time!
There is an elementary school a few towns over from me which happens to straddle the only viable throughfare in that area. Note that this is out in the country, so it's not like it's on Main Street or anything. There is no other road. Well, it's got one of those blinker signs that says "15 MPH speed limit when flashing." It's meant to be used during pick-up and drop-off times, for obvious reasons.
A few years ago some cantankerous asshole at the school with no real authority decided that people were "zOoMiNg ToO FaSt!!!!" on "their" road and during summer vacation flipped the sign on and left it blinking all day and night. Then a bunch of "anonymous" calls starting coming in to the local PD about people exceeding the 15 MPH speed limit. They had to get somebody with keys to come out and turn the fucking sign off. And the next morning, lo and behold the sign was once again mysteriously turned on. This process repeated for several weeks until the culprit was finally caught, who unsurprisingly was some low-grade administrator for the local school district. Insofar as I am aware no actual punishment was meted out.
Tl;dr: If you give petty egos even a tiny amount of perceived control over people's lives they absolutely will abuse it to the fullest extent they are physically or technically able to, without fail. It's not a matter of if, it's only a matter of when.
What about in an emergency? What is someone needs to go over that limit for evasive maneuvers or something?
I get it, people speed, but put the cameras up and just fine them. That’s all.
What about in an emergency? What is someone needs to go over that limit for evasive maneuvers or something?
(Technologically speaking) Do it. Since we’re talking communication and electronics, you’ll be automatically reported. Present your excuse and let’s see what happens.
(I’m not saying that I’m in favour of this.)
Oh, and I’ve driven a car with speed limiter. It’s like cruise control, but it doesn’t let you go above the speed you choose. It was an amazing experience, I loved it. You press the accelerator, you get to that speed and it stays there. You feel a resistance on the pedal. If you want, simply force the pedal a bit more. It will turn the controller off and let you drive faster.
I saw a video yesterday of cars fleeing the 2011 tsunami in Japan, I'm willing to bet those people exceeded 10mph over the posted speed limit trying to get away from the water.
Limiting the speed of the vehicles isn't going to improve driving skills or eliminate distractions. It isn't going to make people drive safer, just slower.
I'm sure any situation where people need to go 10+ miles over the speed limit is going to be exceedingly rare and limited to things like fleeing forest fires or tsunamis, but limiting the speed isn't going to have a huge impact on accidents.
It could decrease fuel consumption and emissions though 🤷♂️.
But it still seems like a problem that could be solved with better enforcement.
There are reasons other than natural disasters that happen all the time. Health emergencies are a fine example of this. Yes, ideally you’d wait for an ambulance but oft times that’s just not viable.
As a somewhat recent arrival to NZ, I found it interesting — starting with our rental car — that the speed limit is displayed on your dashboard. It changes colour as soon as you go 1 km over the limit.
All very cool. The most notable issue with this is there are sections of roads where this doesn’t work at all.
That said, there is a LOT of traffic calming here.
There’s still the occasional assclown that goes way over the limit. Unsurprisingly, that usually happens on long, straight roads without traffic calming.
I actually quite dislike cars but this is fucking insane
Authoritarian nonsense.
Yes, enforcing "laws" is authoritarian.
How about let people actually own the fucking car they purchase
You will own nothing and be happy
Maybe the corporate overlords will let ChatGPT have my car go a little faster to my wage slave camp!
There are plenty of rules your car has to comply with in order to use public roads.
Rules are different from taking direct control away from the driver.
This tech should be developed and used to stop chase vehicles. Also if it is used to stop people from going 10 over then we shouldn't have cops checking people's speed anymore.
Come to Omaha, where they already don't.
Well, city cops don't. State patrol ain't got shit to do and will absolutely fuck up your day. But they don't leave I80.
Despite all the chest-beating and holier-than-thou bullshit they spout whenever there's a high profile traffic incident or chase, not a single police department on Earth actually gives a fuck about enforcing traffic regulations for "safety." Maybe at some point in history, but no anymore. In modern times, traffic stops have only two aims in mind for police departments: Money, in the form of reliance on fines and citations for their budget; and as a pretext to harass, intimidate, search, and otherwise attempt to violate the 4th amendment rights of sections of the population they don't like.
The police will vehemently oppose any mechanism or proposal that will in any way limit the volume of traffic stops they initiate and number of tickets they write. Even if it is demonstrably "for safety."
They dont violate the 4th amendment.
10mph over? Have they driven on CA freeways? The vast majority of traffic is moving at 15+ mph over.
This will cause traffic slow downs and more road rage.
One interesting about speeding in traffic. Often you're rushing just to stop.
It's been proven that if you cap the max speed in heavy traffic everyone gets through it faster. Less stop and go with merges and guesses.
Think of all the times someone sped up to prevent you from changing lanes? Or someone blocks you during a zipper merge.
Traffic wouldn't suck as much if people didn't suck. I can't wait until a few decades from now we've got AI cars Managing it for us.
Variable speed limits just keep the road ticking over and they're great. In the UK there were a bunch of highway improvements being rolled out, like reversible lanes, traffic flow monitoring and, yes, full-time variable speed limits and they all worked really, really well. But they also got rid of the hard shoulder (refuge lane) and the whole thing was collectively referred to as "smart motorways". Needless to say that lots of people were injured or killed by the lack of hard shoulders, so now the government is poised to announce a rollback of all the smart motorway measures, including the absolutely superb variable speed limits.
This will cause traffic slow downs
That's literally the point.
Especially since they won't be able to make older cars follow this.
Sounds like a roundabout way to track everyone
You don't have to track a car to limit how fast it goes. Speed governerors exist inside gas powered cars already. All that has to be done is 1) legally require a manufacturer to limit speeds of their vehicles, and 2) prosecute them when they do not implement those restrictions. The rest is lawyers and lines of code (and lines of coke I guess)
You need location data to be able to determine what limit to impose.
And I bet you anything it will be a cloud based system.
How do you determine the location of the car and the speed limit on that section of road? Sounds awfully close to tracking it.
That would only be true if there was only one speed limit everywhere. Which there isn't.
Since a lot of discussion is happening around how they're going to implement this, and the article doesn't go into the details, here's more information: https://sd11.senate.ca.gov/news/20240124-senator-wiener-introduces-groundbreaking-bills-slash-california-road-deaths-epidemic
In line with NTSB recommendations, SB 961 requires every passenger vehicle, truck, and bus manufactured or sold in the state to be equipped with speed governors that limits the vehicle’s speed based on the speed limit for the roadway segment. The maximum speed threshold over the speed limit for that segment that the speed governor may permit the vehicle to travel at is 10 miles per hour over the speed limit. SB 961 also permits the vehicle operator to temporarily override the speed governor function. SB 961’s speed governor requirement does not apply to emergency vehicles.
And if anyone really wants to dive into it, the actual text for the bill is here: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240SB961
Old cars for the win!
Yet another reason that old cars are looking better and better. We'll be Cuba at some point.
I love old cars and trucks.
Lots of people arguing about the practicality of this, or whether it can be done without invading privacy or slippery-sloping into mass surveillance.
The thing is: Even if it could be done perfectly — giving instant leeway when emergencies occur, being perfectly private forever, with perfectly accurate sensors — I still don’t think we’d want it.
That’s because laws are not just mechanical things. They are social things. When we put up a speed limit sign, it’s not just to configure a number in the driver’s mind. It’s to remind them to think about how they’re interacting with the community around them.
De-emphasizing that responsibility runs counter to this social purpose, which I think we intuitively understand at some level even if we reflexively bring out other claims in order to object to the policy.
Isn't that just going to cause accidents? For all the non regulated cars on the highway, what happens if you need to merge into a lane where the flow of traffic is faster than the speed limit?
I can only imagine going to pass and failing to do so in as timeless manner as needs to occur...
That would make passing so much more dangerous as people are in the other lane even longer.
would be a prohibitively expensive and complex system to implement and maintain, what an incredibly stupid idea.. even if every single person drove the exact same brand and model of car, it would be astronomically expensive to implement, and incalculably expensive to maintain.. a billionaire must have thought of it..
What about if it was some type of close range radio signal or passive transmitter that communicates to your car when speed limits change?
Then again, when I was in Germany the car I rented had the posted speed limit displayed on the digital gauges. Maybe a GPS system that brings up the speed data for the road you're on.
OR, what about a visual camera system that limits the car to the posted signage?
The cameras on my Kia read limit signs and displays the sign on the dash. I can set my adaptive cruise to change speed based on the posted signs. I have to make a 8 hour drive six times a year and that adaptive speed changing is bliss. I can even set it to posted speed +5 mph. The display will even show a yellow school zone bar on the bottom of the speed limit sign on the dash. It’s surprisingly fancy. It even picks up charges based on construction so I know it’s using the cameras and not gps.
My 7 year old Renault audibly complains if I exceed the posted speed limit.
It doesnt know about daily school schedules or roadworks speeds, nor does it physically slow my car down, but its still useful. Ive never had a speeding ticket in it. And I can turn the alert off if I want.
Seven isn't that old, what have you done to it?
Camera systems that read signage are nice, but not reliable enough. From my experience, it reads the signs on the side roads as well. And I don’t want my car slowing down to 50 km/h on the motorway because of a petrol station.
I'm currently in a rental that reads street signs and keeps the limit on the dash. Very handy for double-checking when you're suddenly not going the same speed as traffic. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic-sign_recognition
Had a Budget truck like this.
Going 70 down the Interstate when it saw a 15mph sign for a weigh station. Truck started slowing down real quick. It scared the piss out of me, and almost caused a huge pile up.
Fuck that shit.
In my experience with them by Dodge is the speed is wrong often enough where it can be a problem.
Saying 25mph when it is 45mph is one thing, but the 45mph when it is 25mph is another. There are a few rural roads where it said 30mph when it was 55mph. I would see the speed on the dash and think it was an odd speed for the road and Waze said something other than the car, so I would be in this total state of not knowing to trust the car, myself, or Waze. Eventually I just started to ignore the car and use my experience and observations weighted against Waze.
If it were a perfect system, that'd be cool.
Hopefully they improve it, sounds useful.
Has Scott Wiener ever driven on a freeway with clear traffic?
Technologically speaking, easy.
A - system turns off
B - new speed becomes the current limit
C - reported/ticket/vehicle is disabled.
So in my town there’s a speed trap that goes from 45 to 30, downhill. I slow down gradually especially when there’s snow.
Will this system communicate such things to the car? Or will the car automatically stomp on the breaks and potentially cause a spin out or collision?
I’m not talking about autopilot. It’s your job, as it is today, to reduce your speed BEFORE the limit change.
This is a good idea if they only put it in public service government issue cars.
Great. Now my house can burn down before the firefighters can get there. And when that causes me to have a stroke from the stress, my ambulance will take longer getting to the hospital, allowing more opportunity for a catastrophic outcome.
You're thinking about this wrong. Cops can't pull you over for speeding if they're stuck going 45 mph.
I heard that some countries have zero leeway for speed limit trespassing, like if it says 100 and you go 101 that's a fine time. I don't understand why that's not the case in other places, why not increase the limit by that 10 mph/kmph you allow now and stop allowing speeding at all
Because car speedometers are not calibrated by law, and can be off a few percent. Changes in temperature can change tire radius as well.
After all that you then get into court proceeding of proving speed gun calibration has to be perfect.
And again, you don't need to go exactly at the [increased] limit, you can go below it and allow for speedometer being not exactly correct
I don’t understand why that’s not the case in other places
the auto industry lobby.
The issue with this is because it doesn’t work for the actual purpose of speed limits in the US. If the goal was to set the limit at the maximum speed that is safe for that road and then not exceed it then zero tolerance would work. In the real world though speed limits aren’t about safety at all, they are purely revenue generation for police departments. They are 100% set with the intent of having people break them so that the local government can make money. People obeying a speed limit 100% of the time would literally break every single local government in the US, the current system literally can’t exist if people don’t speed.
In California, local government does not get any revenue from speeding tickets. It is one reason there is so little enforcement of traffic laws.
People will always push the limits. That leeway is there for specific situations where you'd need to speed up to avoid something or even for those who are slightly speeding without realising
The second part seems like it could be fixed by people not trying to drive as fast as they can, imo
The first one, well, now in those specific situations they just need to speed up even more because everyone is already driving limit + whatever is allowed ¯(ツ)/¯
So this reminds of this book I read called The Circle, in which everyone's fascination with technology and tracking and data collecting slippery-sloped at breakneck speed into 1984, except any stranger with an internet connection became your Big Brother.
We have many other environmental ways to encourage people to drive slower, like narrower lanes, or those long thin rumble-strip-style speed bumps, or landscaping with greenery.
BTW, why is it so hard to get information off google on traffic calming studies for freeways? Everything is about urban or suburban areas, smh. When I use "freeways" in quotes, suddenly I get a whole bunch of irrelevant results about people trying to get over their fear of driving on the freeway. Wtf google.
The point of freeways is to go as fast as possible. There’s no houses or kids playing on them. Why would we try any kind of traffic calming (aka slowing) on them? That’s probably why you can’t find any
Plenty of reasons e.g. environmental, injuries/accidents. Maybe I missed a /s though...
I'm assuming the answer is yes but I'm gonna ask anyway just in case. Have you tried using highway or motorway instead of freeway?
Oof. I generally am a supporter of Scott Wiener but this is not a winning issue. Mass transit, drugs, and lgbtq issues are his wheelhouse
This simplifies driving greatly. I'll be pedal to the metal most of the time I'm not braking.
Just add limiters for all the other laws of the road, and poof! Self-driving cars!
Why not just make vehicles that can't do insane speeds?
I had a fucking 4-cylinder Ford Ranger from the 80's that topped out at 65mph. I don't mean the speedometer stopped at 65mph, the speedometer went to 80. I mean with the pedal fully floored, that's the fastest I could go.
This is a choice by automakers, just like the oversize way-too-tall child-killing truck hoods are too.
Just making a car that can't go that fast was always a solution and honestly, the fact that we just let automakers make cars that can go like 200mph when they're supposed to be "street legal" is a fucking joke and a half. Nobody needs that shit, but every chucklefuck who wants to bang a young woman thinks some sports car is how they're gonna do it. Fucking pathetic.
Cars are designed for fuel efficiency (well, it should at least be considered.) To make an IC engine efficient, it has to be able to rev higher, and reach higher speeds. So while it can technically reach 100 mph, it's most efficient at 55.
If you make an engine with a top speed of 65mph, and run it at 65mph all the time, it's going to guzzle fuel like an alcoholic going through an angry divorce.
Plus what if the car is loaded down with 5 people instead of just 1? Or something on the roof like a roof box? Now your 65mph top speed is 50. And what about hills?
that may have been the case during the carter administration, but the efficiency curve of a modern car tops out a fair bit higher than 55.
...and EVs are just as terrible for the environment as ICEs in respect to the fact that they're not public transit. They produce more microplastic/microrubber waste from tires because they're heavier than ICE vehicles. More tires on the road, more microplastics.
EVs don't reduce traffic and while there is an energy savings, it would be a lot bigger if we were dumping all those EV batteries into trains and buses, both of which reduce traffic. (and reduce tires on the road)
Beyond this, every EV is a luxury item. I'll start giving a shit about EVs when I can get one with roll-down windows, no AC, no sensors, no rear-view camera, no stereo other than an FM radio, because then you'll see some fucking energy savings over time. Every EV has a bunch of extra shit drawing power in them.
I'm pro-EV, but not for individual consumers. Cars have broken society. It's time to return to public transit.
Especially in places like Seattle, because the promise of "going wherever you want, whenever you want" by owning your own car is a fucking joke its impossible to get anywhere in a reasonable amount of time with so much traffic. Buses and trains reduce traffic.
If it's energy savings we're actually going for, EVs as they are aren't the answer.
If the speed limit is 10 then that wouldn't help at all.
To be clear about my position on this though, it's dystopian as could be.
10mph is also slow enough to be relatively safe during an accident, which kind of makes your point more moot.
EDIT: Under 20mph is pretty safe. 20mph-35mph you're risking higher likelihood of some minor injuries in an accident. 35-55mph is when serious injuries and risk of fatality begin to happen and over 55mph you're dealing with crashes that are almost always fatal. Keeping the top speed to just barely over 55mph actually does help in a lot of ways.
In high school I drove an old Vanagon camper that could hit 65.
With a tailwind.
Downhill.
But it had a bed in the back, which was nice. Weird that my parents didn't let me keep it.
i had a high miles, no-frills mustang with the base engine (same 4cyl used in the pinto) that was basically the same. it could barely make it to 65 and it took forever to get there.
You talk as if cars are appliances. Hell, even appliances go overboard. Why does a toaster or fridge need WiFi? Why does my washer or dryer have downloadable custom cycles? Because innovation is what sets companies and products apart. It's not always done "right", but who's to judge if a feature is superfluous? You? What makes you qualified?
Cars aren't just machines to get you from A to B. They certainly can be, but they're also a fashion item, a status symbol, marvels of engineering, and a tool for testing your skill. Cars can be taken to a racetrack and driven hard. Just because something is being misused doesn't mean it should either be illegal or shouldn't be made. Your view on this is incredibly myopic. Just because you aren't into cars doesn't mean the "right" thing to do is make all cars the same. And before you suggest making fast cars track only, that would be absurd and make the hobby even less approachable. Not everyone can have two vehicles (apartment buildings that only allow one vehicle, or a city with limited parking). That would be the same as when governments require permits for a product or activity, but make the permits impossible to get.
Other countries have figured out how to handle this situation in different ways. Germany has a harder test for getting your license. Not every idiot can pass. Some countries in Europe make fines a percentage of your income instead of a flat fee. That means breaking the law hurts everyone to a similar degree, rather than rich people paying the fine without a second thought as just the cost of doing business. If you really have a problem with cars then at least get creative with your solution. Trying to stamp them out is genuinely worse than this proposed bill.
Excuse me, I live in a country where little kids are dying because to get around regulations about cars vehicle companies started pumping out giant SUVs and trucks that are outright designed dangerously and put more pedestrians in danger (you literally can't see kids over the top of the hood).
I would give a shit about "doing it a different way" if I had any faith that US congress could pass anything let alone as something as useful or "complex" as actually fining rich people related to what they're worth.
Nobody in charge gives a shit about what I think anyway, you're myopic thinking a bill like this would actually pass or that the US federal or state governments actually give a shit about the well-being of their citizens. Pro-tip: they don't.
How about also 50 km/h hard limit in city?
Absolutely horrendous. And if I can hack it out or jailbreak it I would.
And on the flipside I doubt the system for enforcing it would be particularly safe. GPS locations can be spoofed and some kind of transmitter in the sign can be stolen and moved somewhere else if not replicated outright. All a bad actor would have to do to cause a pileup would be to suddenly turn a 60mph zone into a 20mph zone at an opportune moment.
Why not just make people follow the speed limit? Why let them go 10mph over in the first place?
To allow for vehicles to pass one another before the end of this century.
If everyone is driving 10mph above the speed limit, we’re back to square one.
If they're going fast enough that the speed limit isn't fast enough to pass them, maybe you don't need to pass them.
If I'm stuck behind a tractor on the road, they're probably going 15 mph and I can easily pass them by just going the speed limit. If you're stuck behind someone going 50 in a 55, tough luck. It's not like you're losing that much time anyway.
You save like 3 minutes over 30 miles. It's nothing. People just think it's so much faster because they don't do the math.
People speeding in your neighborhood is a rich people problem. Guess who's putting themselves first in their own legislation?
Gotta love the mindset that says “breaking the legal speed limit by 10mph is not enough !”
Good.
Why would you need a car that can go 200mph? Where are you going to use it? Oh yeah typically in school zones or some shit. If the limit is 50mph, ITS FOR A FUCKING REASON.
Also, US cites and states, START DESIGNING YOUR ROADS FOR THE SPEED YOU NEED. If you design a road next to a school like a highway, don't be surprised when people drive 70mph. This simple idea is used all over the place in the Netherlands and guess what? IT FUCKING WORKS BECAUSE IT MAKES FUCKING SENSE .
/rant
Limit it to repeat offenders, like the car breathalyzers for drunk drivers.
Why not at the speed limit? It’s not a rule if it’s not enforced.
Because sometimes to avoid an accident I have to speed up slightly. If I'm locked in at the speed limit, I'm fucked. If it's 10 mph over, and I'm traveling below it, I'm not.
Because even the politicians know the speed limit is merely a suggestion, and far too slow.
Speed limits will be within about 10% of the speed drivers would naturally drive, on average, usually. Some drivers will go as fast as they possibly can regardless of conditions. Most drivers will fall within a narrow range of speeds on any given roads and speed limits, generally by law but definitely by federal recommendation, will be close to that speed.
There will be lots of one off cases where it's different from that, but for the most part, the speed limit is pretty close to what people would drive anyway. It's tough to notice that when you're the one guy that wants to go faster than everyone else.
I imagine so you could still get out of a dangerous situation by going faster. Like if you were changing lanes and suddenly there was a car that did the same thing behind you. Now you got to go faster to get some distance.
A speed limiter like this was proposed right when automobiles were coming into the mainstream. The world could be a very different place if regulations and restrictions like that had actually passed. I guess we can only dream...
Come on guys it is old technology, it will be soon the case in EU :
From july 2024 all new cars will have an intelligent GPS which prevents driver that the speed limit is exceeded (the gas pedal will be stronger). of course you can disable it, but you have to do it every time you start.
Can't wait to see drivers panic because they can't speed up in 30km/h areas (like around schools)
Edit for clarity: can't, not can. please respect people's lives in sensible areas (cities), be conscious that you can easily kill someone with your 1,5T armour. And speed up as much as you want on empty highways if you enjoy it
People (generally young men overrepresented on platforms like this) get really defensive about not being able to speed. They're the exact problem these laws are aimed at addressing, so of course they get all upset at methods to force their compliance with the laws they're regularly breaking. I've been there. I sped excessively too, then I got a really massive ticket and realized maybe that 2 minutes I was saving in my commute wasn't actually that important.
The funny thing is they could eliminate speeding pretty easily without having to make a single change to cars.
Put up a license plate reader at point a which logs the time the plate was read. Put up another one a couple of miles down the highway at point b when there are no possible ways to either get on or off.
Then the system can use the timestamps to determine The minimum speed the car must have been going to be able to make it from point a to point b. License plate data of cars that were exceeding the speed limit would be sent for review by human officers who can act accordingly.
Speeding cameras are already a thing some places, but there's been a lot of hooplah over whether the city can actually enforce fines for people caught that way.
They used to do this on some turnpike's. You'd get a paper punch ticket on entrance with the current time, every exit would calculate the amount of time you spent on the road and determine your average speed. If you were certain number of miles over they would fine you right at the exit.
But it turns out that people end up controlling whether laws happen or not. And your average person doesn't want the eye of sauron casting judgment on you unless it is truly dangerous. Speed zones around schools are for the children and enforcing speed limits and work zones really does save lives. Local people don't have a problem with speed checks on a turnpike because almost everyone on the turnpike is from out of state.
Fun fact, better versions of this exist. They do not really work, are prone to abuse by the city overseeing them, and have been known to cause more accidents than they prevent.
There's always going to be some room for random variation causing a few locations to have worse outcomes after speed cameras are installed, but the overall statistics show a reduction in both accidents and severity.
This is fantastic! Fuck cops. If the cars can do the crime, then there's no need for speeding tickets.
I use Google Maps (Android Auto). It displays the speed limit. As long as the speed limit/road database is kept up to date, it works.
In a government version, the car could download maps/limits via radio. There was once a data delivery system that did just this using commercial radio stations. Then there's no tracking involved. Data delivery is one way. Bonus is that everyone would have updated maps with current road conditions.
Speed data could come from the car or be derived from GPS positioning. Then the car would warn the driver when they are over the limit for more than 15 seconds via lights or audio warnings. That allows for temporary increases in speed for safe passing without distraction.
If properly implemented, it could even be used to regulate traffic flow to avoid congestion. Do away with speed limit signs and their inherent maintenance cost. The limit is what's displayed on your dash.
This should cost no more than $30 for an add-on unit without a map display that provides only warnings and a speed limit readout. $50 if it has the map display (assuming the government sells it at cost). It could probably be done via app for all cars offering Android Auto/CarPlay.
"Land of the free" california does not deserve to be part of thw US
I’m not saying I support the measure but I also don’t understand your statement? We curtail some freedoms to create some safety for the public. Limiting driving speed is one of them and has a massive impact on traffic fatalities in busy areas. There are other people on the road.
Just fucking electronically limit the max speed to the maximum allowed in the country. That would solve most of the issues and work 100% of the time. Also, I don't care that in your fantasy scenario you have to race to a hospital at 100mph because someone cut of his head with chainsaw and there's no ambulance service.
nah it doesn't solve the issue of crazy speeding in school areas and city center.
You can go as fast as you want on a airstrip, I won't mind, but respect the life of other people ("you" is general ofc)
If you want to race on a airstrip or a racetrack buy a race car and take it there on a flatbed. Driving racecars on normal streets doesn't make sense.
You will still have issues with people going 30mph in 20pmh zone but it's a good compromise: you're reducing the most deadly high speed crashes but the solution is extremely simple (it doesn't require GPS or image analysis) which means it will not have false positives, it will not affect the price of new cars and it will be better for privacy. It can also be retroactively applied to many existing cars so you could introduce it sooner.
Just glossing over implementation. So every car will have to have wireless communications of some sort? Will there be some government system that all California cars will have to be integrated with that tracks where they are at all times so the car can know the correct speed limit? A tracking system that surely would never be abused or turned into a surveillance device.
Not unless they think about it for five seconds.
Speed doesn't kill.
It's the sudden stop that kills you.
Be careful, or politicians are gonna draft a bill preventing your from applying too much braking force too quickly. Thats about in line with the logic on this bill.
…or the sudden start.
Belter slingshot racers know this all too well. NOTE: Spoiler for an episode in the Expanse which everyone should watch if they haven't already.
One of our cars uses GPS and a lookup to show the current speed limit on the dash. It's often wrong. This will not go well.
You realize your car already knows what speed it's driving without GPS, right?
One way I could think to implement it without any tracking or data connection connection with no data being transmitted from the vehicle would be by placing infrared strobe lights periodically along the road, possibly at the same places we already have speed limit signs. The flashing is invisible to the human eye but could be picked up by cameras on the vehicle, vary the speed or pattern of the strobe to indicate a different speed limit.
Something pretty similar is already used by a lot of emergency vehicles to trigger green lights, just the arrangement is reversed with a strobe on the vehicle and a sensor on the traffic signal.
Of course such a system would potentially be vulnerable to things like power outages (strobe can't strobe if it doesn't have power) bad weather (heavy fog, or if the camera and/orr strobe are covered in snow,) and someone could potentially circumvent it by just mounting a strobe light on their car pointed at the camera.
You could probably address the snow/fog issue by locking the car to a lower speed if no strobe is detected, maybe 25 or 35mph, because in those conditions people should generally be driving slower anyway, and then you don't have the expense of needing to put strobes around lower speed areas. And the power issue could be addressed with the kind of solar panels and/or backup batteries that already power some streetlights and such.
And for those who tamper with the system to circumvent it, we're never going to stop speeders entirely, but we can increase the fines to make up for lost revenue to keep police departments happy, they make less traffic stops and rake in the same amount of money.
The infrastructure limitation could be resolved by using infrared reflectors along the road instead of lights. Have the car shine infrared light at the reflectors so it's cameras can read the code on them (like an infrared QR code, maybe?)
Nah don’t worry, they’ll use 2.4Ghz spectrum and drown out WiFi near a road.
If we're going to use technically limitations on the vehicle side, we can simply continue to use optical recognition of speed signs instead of changing putting an IR transmitter on every speed sign. It's gotten really good in recent years.
I haven’t read the article, so just spitballing here: I have to assume the approach here is to electronically govern the engine to go no faster than the highest speed limit. I don’t know what the limits are in California, but where I live that’d mean the car would be limited to 80mph. If it was electronic, it could be adjusted if then limits were changed.
Otherwise, it’d be insane, and require the crazy infrastructure you describe. And they simply don’t have the money or the wherewithal to build an actual coverage that would allow the limiter to dynamically scale all the time.
Alternatively, I suppose you could imagine a hybrid system—ie an overall limited engine to the max limit, and then some sort of transponder that would throttle the limit down if you were near an important speed limit zone, like a school, which they could manage to deploy a transmitter at… still seems technologically challenging for the state to really pull off consistently though.
Either way, yeah not a fan or including more required tracking tech in vehicles. I don’t think I’d really hate a reasonably limited car—I really can’t justify needing to drive over 80 ever really, even in an emergency, but it would drive me insane to have the car just magically throttling down whenever it thought it was time to. See
I read the article, it definitely doesn’t bother to think about how something like this would be implemented, but certainly seems to be referring to a dynamic Limiting system… good luck.
Every car I've hired in the last ten years has the current speed limit displayed on the dashboard. It does not require the car to communicate any information, only to receive it.
That is a different question from how car manufacturers could abuse the requirement to get more data to sell, of course. But there's nothing in this bill that would require the car to collect any data that isn't already publicly displayed by the roadside.
There is already a good amount of wireless in most cars. We've had standards since the Bush administration for cars to wirelessly communicate with each other.
I personally can't wait to start hacking cars going by on the freeway to make their top speed a negative value.
That's going to be so much fun.
or the car use gps, gps is not able to track you(at least not it alane), and you still know where you are
So Uber already does this. Yes, you need to have GPS enabled, but Uber can tell when you're speeding. Same with insurance companies and their apps. The technology to determine what street you're on, what the limit is, and how fast you're going already exists.
Both of those examples are irrelevant to some of us like myself who participates in neither of those. Those are not good excuses to limit anyone's freedom through legislation.
Not Internet, that's too expensive.
Mechanical governors for ICE vehicles have been around for over 120 years. It wouldn't be hard to make an electronic version for e-vehicles.
Those are fixed speed governors for fleet fuel economy and/or manufacturer choice to prevent operators from turning their engine block into something externally ventilated. Not variable governors that require knowledge of where the car is to adapt to the local speed limit, a significantly more complex challenge, and one with a solution that is inherently insecure, privacy-violating, and almost guaranteed to instantly be abused.
Yes, but speed limits change. There's no way of reliably knowing what the current speed limit is without wireless communication.
Did you think about this for even 5 seconds?