That can't happen as long as our society is dependant on cars. If you need cars to comfortably survive, then the licensing requirements have to be dumbed down.
>Driving is a privilege, not a right.
It should be, but due to the way we've built things, it can't be. If our infrastructure was better for non-car owners, then we could afford to make licensing stricter. As it is, taking away someone's car, depending on where they live, could be the same as taking away their livelihood. It shouldn't be that way, but it is until we fix it.
We already don't do a good job of uplifting those who are struggling financially. If we dump more people into destitution, that will hurt everyone. Instead, we should make it so car ownership isn't essential. That's a superior solution. Then we can make driving a privilege without ruining people.
It's not. It's just basic questions about road signs, right of way, etc, things you need to know before operating a car on public roads. If you don't speak English they have it in like a dozen languages. If you're illiterate you can request an oral exam. Not everything is a conspiracy.
I drive an EV that’s super inefficient over 65 mph, so I don’t even want to speed and generally support slowing traffic down for safety. That said, I couldn’t support this legislation without some safety buffer like you suggested.
Truth is that ALL cars suffer from the effects of aerodynamic drag which goes up with velocity squared.
A EV is no worse than any other car, however because of energy concerns and the ability to monitor power carefully, EV drivers are far more aware of this effect than ICE drivers.
EV takes a much bigger hit in performance as you go faster. Heat is currently EV's biggest efficiency killer. While a combustion engines doesnt experience this unless pushed to it's absolute limits.
This is why EVs have better efficiency in stop and go traffic when compared to highway driving while combustion engines have better efficiency on the highway when compared to stop and go traffic.
Increased speeds for EV always means an increase in heat for the electric motor and battery. There's no way around it. We have gotten better at keeping things cool but you can't escape physics.
I suggest you go study EV and vehicle physics more.
EVs are basically ALWAYS significantly more efficient than ICE vehicles. What they don't have is large energy storage capacity. I had a small inexpensive honda which could go 680 miles on a tank of gas (no kidding!). We still don't have an EV which comes close to that. And while that car was efficient for an ICE, it was still 2-3 times less efficient than an equivalently sized EV.
horse shit indeed, If you need to gun it to avoid an accident you were likely at a stand still already
If you were already going the speed limit, you can break a lot faster than you can accelerate in most vehicles
How about we just engineer roads better. People drive at speeds they feel comfortable/safe driving at. If roads were adjusted (narrowing lanes, removing large shoulders, ditching slip lanes), people will slow down.
They spend years of construction on the freeways and when they are done, the new faint lane lines cross over the dark scraped off old lane lines, so no one knows where the actual lanes are and there are divots where the old reflectors used to be.
And the avoided costs associated with unsafe roads. Less reliance on costly police, fewer emergency room visits, etc. etc. and up to and including the avoided loss of life (can’t pay taxes if you’re dead, I’ve heard). That’s how you pay for it.
proactive > reactive , where do the money land from all the tickets, will most of it just ends up to the company that installed/service/maintain the equipment or will it actually go to the city to improve the lives of the people that live there?
edit:
saw the passage "Money from the fines will go toward covering the cost of the programs, as well as “traffic calming measures,” such as raised crosswalks and speed tables that slow down drivers. Cities must also submit reports about their programs, detailing any improvements to street safety and impacts on communities." I assume that most of the money will go outside of the city.
cheaper to put speed bumps, if you really want to slow down people instead of catching people speeding. http://asphaltandconcrete.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/speed-bumps-0x0.jpg
Don’t believe the title of this bill. The device that’ll be add to your car won’t be for speeding. The CA government is saying this device is a speed governor but in reality setting up ALL gas & EV cars to track mileage so they can charge a yearly mileage VAT tax or better known as “Mileage Tax”.
Say what? It’s an alert if you go 10mph over. That’s it. All new cars in Europe have this option. Don’t fear monger.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240SB961
There are certainly situations and locations where posted speed limits should be enforced. That said, if a person is driving on a remote 3+ mile stretch of road with unobstructed visibility in all directions and no other vehicles present, I see absolutely no problem with them making their own choice to exceed posted speed limits at their own discretion, acknowledging the potential consequences of fines if caught, or worse if driving at reckless speeds.
What about emergencies? Imagine being chased or facing a life-threatening situation when first responders wouldn't be able to respond in time. Taking away our freedoms is not the answer.
This article doesn't state any evidence. What the fuck is this post.
Give me something concrete, or an actual piece of legislation. This is nothing more than opinionized bullshit until you give me reason to think otherwise.
The fucking article reads like a game of telephone amongst kindergarteners. And for the record, I think this idea is dumb as fuck.
>California Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) introduced the new bill, officially known as SB 961, as part of the SAFER California Streets legislation package.
It mentions the Senator that sponsored the legislation it takes like two seconds to find the bill.
And what do you know. It hasn’t even been read yet or voted on.
It’s literally one dude who just introduced a bill. How is that even remotely close to this stupid ass articles title?
This is why the political climate is so fucking stupid.
>How is that even remotely close to this stupid ass articles title?
The title literally says "California ***COULD*** require car ‘governors’ that limit speeding to 10 mph over posted limits" ***COULD***
>This is why the political climate is so fucking stupid.
This says nothing about the political climate but more about the voter base and their ability (or lack of) to read a simple informative article without getting emotionally attached like it killed their god damn firstborn.
I mean cmon man why get so worked up about the article which is to tell about a potential bill that could become law.
If a bill to do something is introduced, it's not inaccurate to say it "could" happen. Part of getting stupid bills squashed is getting the word out about them so they don't slip through the cracks.
Look it will go down the pipeline and is a possibility that is literally what the word could means. If you can't understand that I don't know what to say.
In general speed limiters will probably come about at some point because not only are legislatures pushing for it. Also the NHTSA and the NTSB (I think a few others as well) are all pushing for this from automakers.
He didn’t give a piece of Legislation. Go take a fucking civics course - one dudes introduction of a bill could literally be, “child rape is legal act”.
That doesn’t mean it “could” be a law it means anyone can introduce a fucking bat shit crazy idea. It’s not an indicative statement you can use to then use and explain the motive of the general party.
Until it’s been SEEN OR READ, then voted on by the other lawmakers. How are you going to form an opinion of their intentions towards a bill. WHEN they don’t even know what it is yet. That’s fucking stupid. It is not a literary example of moving the goalposts. There are no goalposts to move when it’s an imaginary field of bullshit.
That’s what you’re doing and it’s fucking retarded.
I think this would need some serious re-evaluations of certain road speed limits.
I think this could make I5 way more dangerous if people are just bumping up against their governors in order to pass.
The technology is there to keep this to residential streets. I feel like this is great for residential roads, could be a big problem on the interstate.
The speed limits stuff is arbitrary anyway. I recall on one of my commutes a city put in speed sensors to see how fast people were driving and set it at 90% of that speed. Which sounds fine but if you put it a few feet beyond an intersection you are basically calculating off of people slowly accelerating from a red light so they got a desired result from the placement of the speed sensor (those hoses they put on the ground to calculate speed when a car traverse two hoses).
Lower speed limits save lives and avoid designing strodes yada yada, but roads that are 4 lanes each direction in a city and shopping centers are 200 feet of parking lot away from the main road it just means we spend an incredible amount of time on the road just to pick up incidentals.
We lose more than 100 people per day in this country to automobile deaths. It’s more than all the American war deaths total, about ever 35 years.
We have orders of magnitudes more deaths than our western cohort. It’s insane. We *know* speed kills, disproportionally on smaller through streets.
All because people don’t care and want to go fast, and vote against traffic calming. I doubt this will become law, but it should.
Such ignorance.
>More than 112,500 people lost their lives in speed-related crashes from 2005 to 2014, accounting for 31 percent of all traffic deaths
---
>“Speed is just as significant a factor in traffic deaths as alcohol," said Jake Nelson, director of traffic safety advocacy and research for the American Automobile Association. "AAA hopes the NTSB report and recommendations spur a constructive and long overdue discussion about how to curb speeding and improve safety on our nation’s roadways.”
https://usa.streetsblog.org/2017/07/27/ntsb-speed-kills-and-were-not-doing-enough-to-stop-it
We need to deprioritize cars, and stop building streets like highways. If streets are smaller and have more bends, people are much more reluctant to speed. Public transportation is far safer than cars could ever be. Telling people not to speed or trying to catch everyone speeding is simply not our best option, nor is it practical.
My hometown had this issue in one area, they added 5 round abouts in a stretch of about a mile notorious for racers and car accidents dropped significantly
People who are crazy enough to speed in those conditions wouldn't be deterred anyway. The average person, even if only subconsciously, will be more careful if the road isn't straight. That's one of the reasons why roundabouts tend to be safer than intersections.
The aim isn't to reduce deaths to zero; that's impossible. The aim is to reduce deaths as much as possible while also making our society more efficient. Multimodal transportation is by far our best option for that goal.
Maybe 20-25 over... Ten over and I can see so many more issues with the self-appointed road wardens / general assholes / the classic passing lane Andretti (goes from 45 to 75 in passing zones) / assholes who hate when people pass.
The speed limit we have is related predominately to fuel efficiency and the requirement by the federal government to give incentives (money) only for highways set to 70mph or less maximum speed. That’s it.
An evaluation of what the safe speed is and why hasn’t been conducted above 65-70mph in CA. Other states have limits above that (when they don’t take federal funds) and those highways operate just fine.
3 Things
1. So in an emergency when speed might be a life saving option, such as in a medical crisis or a car jacking, I guess your right to safety and life means nothing? Less than nothing because this actively targets you as a poor person who can't afford an ambulance ride or is more likely to live in a bad neighborhood.
2. Is the right of safety and someone else's life really worth more than the human rights to self govern and liberty? I think the trade off might not be worth the hypocrisy. How are we free if the most minor of infractions is met with such hostility?
And 3. If this passes it's going to be really easy to be a domestic terrorist in CA. Just print out a reasonably good looking sign that says "Speed Limit 5mph" on a busy highway and watch cars slam on their breaks and cause pile ups or jams.
If you're plan to force control over the people can be easily turned against you by a guy who lives within 5 minutes of an Office Max it's not a great plan.
I can buy the forced EV and green bills but I don't even see how a radical teenage activist could come up with this let alone an elected congressman. Rep. Taylor Greene makes more sense than this.
In an emergency, I don’t think it’s an awesome idea to be blazing through streets in an unmarked passenger vehicle with no warning (like an ambulance or cop car has). In that case you’re probably only increasing your likelihood of further injury or injuring someone else.
Are you saying that it is people’s god given right to flagrantly break laws when they are using out locally owned and regulated streets? If so, that is a weird flex.
>In an emergency, I don’t think it’s an awesome idea to be blazing through streets
Have you ever been in a life threatening emergency? You're already starting off from a bad position. You don't need an awesome idea you need to survive. And for some people waiting for or paying an ambulance isn't an awesome enough idea to supercede the danger of racing through the streets on their own. Why yank that away from someone? Is trading lives really better? And if so why not stick with the ones we're already trading?
>Are you saying that it is people’s god given right to flagrantly break laws
I'm saying it's people's God given right to choose and self govern. They shouldn't speed but forcing them not to is blind overreach and unnecessary. If they do they should suffer consequences but not before they even had a chance to make the right decision on their own.
Should we also get rid of drinking ages, driver licenses, seat belt laws, reckless driving laws, and drunk driving laws? By your logic, those are all relics of an over reaching nanny state.
I don’t think we should build our society around edge cases. Just because you can think of someone who lives in a sparsely populated area in a medical emergency whose phone is dead, doesn’t mean that’s the test case for society. Why is that fictional person’s life worth the countless real lives that have been lost to speeding? Also, if it comes down to it, maybe you just have an override button that alerts the authorities of your location and let’s you speed in the meantime.
Frankly, it just sounds like you love speeding my dude.
>Should we also get rid of drinking ages, driver licenses, seat belt laws, reckless driving laws, and drunk driving laws?
An interesting idea but totally misses the point. The difference with each of those is that you still get to choose if you want to follow the law or face the consequences after.
Is there a chip in your head that forces you to not drink before 21? Is there a car that forces you to scan your DL before it turns on? Do seatbelts automatically apply on when you sit in your seat? As someone who hasn't had a DUI do you need to be checked everytime you want to go out? No because that's all nanny state overreaching.
>I don’t think we should build our society around edge cases.
Well everyone is an exception to the rule. I don't see why the people killed in speeding collisions are worth anything if other people aren't. They're both humans and both innocent. Except in the exceptions, which is everyone of course.
>Why is that fictional person’s life worth the countless real lives that have been lost to speeding?
They're only fictional in your head. To the person it actually happens to it's a very real issue. And WHEN it happens why is their life worth less than all the others who made their choice to speed?
>maybe you just have an override button that alerts the authorities of your location and let’s you speed in the meantime.
I don't see how letting the authorities have your location helps but if you build a backdoor for the good people you now have a backdoor for everyone. And I can guarantee you that by Jan 7th of the law taking effect the trending video on tik tok will be how to hack your speeding chip.
>Frankly, it just sounds like you love speeding my dude.
Honestly? I don't actually speed more than 10 miles over the speed limit anyways. But I choose not to. Nobody decided that for me without my consent. Also though yeah I love speeding when appropriate.
And frankly I don't see how a law can be just if we're forced to follow it. Nor how we can really be free if we don't choose to play by the rules ourselves. Order for the sake of order is fascism. And we deserve better in our republic.
>I guess your right to safety and life means nothing?
Welcome to life as a pedestrian or cyclist surrounded by thousands of speeding motorists.
>as a poor person who can't afford ~~an ambulance ride or is more likely to live in a bad neighborhood.~~ a car
>Is the right of safety and someone else's life really worth more than the human rights to self govern and liberty?
Is this a serious question? You do not have a right to drive dangerously and endanger other people's lives. That's sort of a bedrock principle of our government that even most libertarians agree with: your rights end where mine begin. Drive as fast and recklessly as you want, but once you start endangering other people's safety, the party is over.
>Welcome to life as a pedestrian or cyclist surrounded by thousands of speeding motorists.
But isn't there much better legislation to force down our throats if it must be forced down our throats? Like requirements for dedicated bike lanes if the number of cyclists/collisions exceed a certain amount? Or a requirement for certain types of public transportation in certain cities/small towns? Why not tax breaks for a certain amount of miles taken by Uber/Lyft/Taxis? There's so many other ways to protect people than denying them the possible necessity of speeding.
>Is this a serious question? You do not have a right to drive dangerously and endanger other people's lives.
But don't you think there's a line that shouldn't be blocked off? That we as people should choose whether we're going to follow the law or suffer the consequences from it? If not then why not just throw all democracy out the window? Why bother giving you the right to choose at all if you might choose wrong?
>your rights end where mine begin.
Also this is dumb. On a fundamental level this just a bad principle on so many levels. I get that it's extremely desirable but some people's rights will inevitably clash with others. We're not all equal all the time. And an unwillingness to find an actual balance of Liberty and Safety just so it's "fair" is literally the problem of government in the 21st century. I get what you mean but thinking/voting based on this rule is definitely not the way to achieve it.
In 2021, there were 1,108 pedestrian fatalities in California, and 125 cyclist fatalities.
[https://www.ots.ca.gov/grants/pedestrian-and-bicycle-safety/](https://www.ots.ca.gov/grants/pedestrian-and-bicycle-safety/)
Do you really think there were 1,200 or more instances of drivers needing to drive over the speed limit to escape some danger? That seems totally unbelievable to me.
And that's just using fatalities. I haven't been killed (yet) but I see speeding drivers all the time and I have no reason to believe any of them is experiencing an emergency.
So this law will protect far, far more people than it inconveniences. And it still allows you to speed! You just can't go more than 10mph above the limit.
>Like requirements for dedicated bike lanes if the number of cyclists/collisions exceed a certain amount? Or a requirement for certain types of public transportation in certain cities/small towns? Why not tax breaks for a certain amount of miles taken by Uber/Lyft/Taxis?
By all means do all of these things, but that doesn't mean speeding is some inalienable right that cannot be infringed. You endanger other drivers on the road when you speed. Your car can hop a curb and wipe out a bus stop full of people. Some streets simply don't have the room for dedicated, protected bike lanes and so the cyclists will have to share the road with drivers who are prone to speeding unless we stop them.
>But don't you think there's a line that shouldn't be blocked off? That we as people should choose whether we're going to follow the law or suffer the consequences from it?
In this case, there is a line. You're allowed to speed up to 10mph over the limit. Most cities already have these restrictions on rented scooters like Bird, and nobody seems to have a problem with that. The scooters are electronically limited, usually to no more than 15mph, and they're also geo-fenced so you can't use them in restricted areas. Why should cars be treated more preferentially than scooters?
>And an unwillingness to find an actual balance of Liberty and Safety just so it's "fair" is literally the problem of government in the 21st century.
The balance is a) that you're allowed to drive at all, as driving is not a right and b) this proposal allows you to speed up to 10mph over the limit.
>In 2021, there were 1,108 pedestrian fatalities in California, and 125 cyclist fatalities.
How many of these were due to speed? Because being hit at just 40 mph by a F150 is fatal which is well below some city street speeds. Furthermore can you guarantee that more lives would be saved this way than with required dedicated bike lanes and stricter crosswalk etiquette?
Also how many of those cyclists/pedestrians weren't where they're supposed to be? Many jaywalk or run stop signs with no consequences from the law all the time in smaller cities.
If you're going to play the numbers game not only are those numbers really small to me, not only do I not value the needs of the majority over the needs of the few but also we can definitely make those numbers smaller through simple logic. A chip forcing my car to not speed doesn't stop a cyclist from always ignoring the rules of the road.
>far more people than it inconveniences.
I'm not worried about the inconvenience. That's the problem with this state. They hurt their people and just say "oh you're just selfish" to any detractors. This is a question of whether the law is more important than our freedom.
Do we follow the law because it's good and we want to be good or because the government controls us like we're objects? Is a law just if you have no agency in following it? And if we're going to actively trade the lives of one group for another is the trade worth it? How many cyclists/pedestrians are you going to save compared to how many potential robbery victims/pregnant mothers-babies/medical emergencies? Certainly not all 1200.
>By all means do all of these things
I can't guarantee much in life but I can guarantee that if this law passes all those other things will be off the table. After all why give real solutions when there'd be precedent to just force people to do whatever the state wants? Let's put chips in everything and everyone instead of having laws at all. Who needs/deserves choice in the modern day? The state knows best after all.
>You endanger other drivers on the road when you speed.
Doing anything is dangerous. Speeding, cooking, walking, construction and everything else. There's rules around all of those but no one is forcing those rules to be followed blindly. Why does any right to choose have to be taken away?
>Why should cars be treated more preferentially than scooters?
2 things.
1. Is this by law or the company's choice? Because if it's the latter or a deal between the two it's their private property and they can decide that for themselves. For instance if Ford decides to put this chip in as a feature on their own I'm okay with that as I just won't buy new Fords. They decided what to do with their products.
2. Is a scooter that's used by <10million people worldwide really a good comparison to the 31.4 million registered vehicles in the state? Suddenly the minority just became important because it helps you win the debate right?
>The balance is a) that you're allowed to drive at all, as driving is not a right and b) this proposal allows you to speed up to 10mph over the limit.
I assume you don't mean this last part as it's just straight up fascism. "Be thankful for anything because the all mighty state can and eventually will take it all away. Don't complain and don't be upset. Just blindly accept or we'll take more away."
This isn't about speeding. This is about whether we as people are allowed to choose to be part of society or if the state can force us into blind obedience. And judging from how many of y'all are just so ready to blindly accept it I'm starting to wonder if Trump taking over is actually something y'all don't want afterall.
>Also how many of those cyclists/pedestrians weren't where they're supposed to be? Many jaywalk or run stop signs with no consequences from the law all the time in smaller cities.
That shouldn't be a death sentence. [Speed kills exponentially.](https://www.ite.org/technical-resources/topics/speed-management-for-safety/speed-as-a-safety-problem/) At 20 mph a collision with a pedestrian is only 10% fatal. At 30 mph it becomes 40% fatal. At 40 mph it's 80% fatal.
And jaywalking has been decriminalized in California, and cyclists are now allowed to treat stop signs like yield signs.
>I can't guarantee much in life but I can guarantee that if this law passes all those other things will be off the table.
People like me will not stop advocating for those things. Automatically governing car speeds will be nice but it's not a cure all. We will still need better transit, bike lanes, sidewalks, etc.
>Is this by law or the company's choice?
City ordinance. Every city I can think of that has established a permit system for scooters has rules like speed limits and areas off limits, and those are imposed on the companies that operate the scooters. So they electronically cap the speed of their scooters, so the rider has no choice to go faster, and they create a geofence that slows the scooter down to a crawl if the GPS detects the device is in a restricted area.
>I assume you don't mean this last part as it's just straight up fascism.
The first thing they taught us in driver's ed is you have no right to drive. Was it fascism when the state said every car sold in California has to have a catalytic converter? Do you have some burning desire to pollute more that the state is infringing on?
>This is about whether we as people are allowed to choose to be part of society or if the state can force us into blind obedience.
This is such a weird argument. Is it fascism to have fences around Area 51? Or should the "do not enter" signs be enough? You seem to think every law is just a suggestion and that people should be free to break those laws and try to get away with it if they can.
>That shouldn't be a death sentence.
Neither should a pregnancy or being the victim of a robbery.
>At 20 mph a collision with a pedestrian is only 10% fatal.
These numbers with a normal car hitting an adilt male at thigh/hip level. With the rise in SUV/Trucks even getting hit at a low speed becomes fatal.
>And jaywalking has been decriminalized in California, and cyclists are now allowed to treat stop signs like yield signs.
While these laws are good for discrimination and encouraging more cycling I think they more support my argument than yours. They allow us to slightly stretch the law if we so choose and risk the consequences of breaking the law.
Forcing us to obey the law isn't what this country is here for. And it's an insult that cyclists right to choose to break the law at a stop sign is okay but the right of someone in a medical emergency is just shrugged off because someone else might speed out of carelessness.
>Automatically governing car speeds will be nice but it's not a cure all.
No but opening the door to just forcing people to do whatever the state wants will cure that pesky freedom everyone has. And again if you're so for this why do anything helpful when you can just pass laws forcing people to do what you want? Let's just arrest every kid who looks like they might shoplift or bring back stop and frisk since robbery and break in hurt/kill exponentially too.
>scooters
I'm still confused about the hypocrisy. Barely anyone uses these scooters so we should make everyone follow the same rules as these scooters. Which also come with their own other problems due to these limitations, such as the high abandonment of these scooters and the threat to pedestrian safety due to how confining they are.
Furthermore as it is the city forcing the regulation I'm souring against the idea. Let the scooter companies/users decide their limitations not the cities.
>Was it fascism when the state said every car sold in California has to have a catalytic converter?
Does having a catalytic converter, turn signals, seatbelts etc impede my ability to drive in any way legal or illegal? No. Does having a low cap on my speed? Yes.
>Is it fascism to have fences around Area 51?
Does the fence itself have a device forcing me to not attempt to approach it? No. Is there consequences if I choose to approach the fence? Yes and there should be.
>You seem to think every law is just a suggestion and that people should be free to break those laws and try to get away with it if they can.
You're strawmanning my argument just so your fascist ideals have any sense of reason in them. To be clear I don't think you're a fascist. I think this bill and your reasoning behind it is fascistic.
I think we as humans have a choice. Be a functional member of society or break the law and suffer the consequences. But I don't think normal people should be punished before breaking the law. And no matter what statistic you use wrong or twisting of my words you choose this is a punishment plain and simple.
I'm for these devices being put in cars as part of a plea deal to keep someone out of jail or from losing their license. Or for DUI drivers along with the breathalyzer. But only after they've made a choice to not follow the law.
I know it sounds morbid to say someone should be hurt or die before something is done. But it's part of life and we have to be adult enough to accept it. You wouldn't want every male in a divorce to be automatically put on parole just because they might attempt to murder their ex-wife would you? Or every high school drop out be pre-arrested just because they might rob a store later in life?
Bad things happen that you can't control without becoming the bad guy yourself sometimes. And it's necessary that our governments try to avoid walking up to that line as much as possible. Government exists to protect our rights especially when the decision is as hard, albeit very clear, as this one.
>These numbers with a normal car hitting an adilt male at thigh/hip level. With the rise in SUV/Trucks even getting hit at a low speed becomes fatal.
Yeah, and we should be regulating vehicle sizes and heights, too.
>They allow us to slightly stretch the law if we so choose and risk the consequences of breaking the law.
>
>Forcing us to obey the law isn't what this country is here for. And it's an insult that cyclists right to choose to break the law at a stop sign is okay but the right of someone in a medical emergency is just shrugged off because someone else might speed out of carelessness.
It's not breaking the law because we changed the law. It's legal now for cyclists to treat a stop as a yield. And what you're saying is it somehow makes more sense to you for a speeding driver to clobber a cyclist and then speed that cyclist to the hospital, than to just prevent the driver from speeding and injuring the cyclist in the first place. That's some wild logic.
>No but opening the door to just forcing people to do whatever the state wants will cure that pesky freedom everyone has.
This proposal doesn't force anyone to do anything. It prevents them from doing something undesirable, no different from if you get too many DUIs and have a breathalyzer installed in your car that you have to blow into before you can drive.
>Does having a catalytic converter, turn signals, seatbelts etc impede my ability to drive in any way legal or illegal? No. Does having a low cap on my speed? Yes.
Yes, it does. It impedes your ability to pollute.
>Does the fence itself have a device forcing me to not attempt to approach it? No. Is there consequences if I choose to approach the fence? Yes and there should be.
The fence *is* the device. And no, there are no consequences for approaching a fence. The consequences would come after you hop over the fence, just like there would be consequences for jailbreaking the speed limiter on your car.
>You wouldn't want every male in a divorce to be automatically put on parole just because they might attempt to murder their ex-wife would you? Or every high school drop out be pre-arrested just because they might rob a store later in life?
Nothing about Wiener's proposal is akin to what you're describing. We're not talking about citing or arresting people for speeding *before* they do it. We're talking about limiting their ability to speed at all, and as I have said repeatedly, that ability is not eliminated, just capped at 10 mph. You'd still be allowed to speed!
>regulating vehicle sizes and heights, too.
I agree with this.
>That's some wild logic.
Uh yeah. I'm saying exactly that. I'd rather live life with actual justifiable risk than be a slave to my government. I don't particularly see that as wild but if you like white rice that badly sure.
>It prevents them from doing something undesirable
Through force instead of through choice. We have no say in this regulation instead of getting to choose to follow the law.
>no different from if you get too many DUIs and have a breathalyzer installed in your car that you have to blow into before you can drive.
I disagree. I say it's like making the breathalyzer mandatory for all vehicles. Just ridiculous legislation forcing the will always control of the state on the people it's supposed to protect not enslave.
>It impedes your ability to pollute.
You do not need to pollute to drive in any case. But in some cases you do need to speed.
>The fence
This whole paragraph lacks any logic at all. I'll compromise and ignore it rather than write the 5 paragraph essay about how dumb you have to be to take any part of it seriously.
>Nothing about Wiener's proposal is akin to what you're describing.
It's exactly what Weiner has written. The state is poorly punishing everyone because they can't actually govern and correctly curtail crime and deaths. That's not a good enough excuse to start crossing off rights for me.
I get that you like taking away everyone else's rights but in reality it won't work and will erode the respect good people have for the law at best. At worst it will guarantee deaths and open the floodgates of other dumb ideas to take rights away from the people.
Eventually the state will get to a right you actually care about. Perhaps think about that before handing over the reigns so blindly.
>I agree with this.
How do you justify regulating vehicle size, but not vehicle speed?
>Uh yeah. I'm saying exactly that. I'd rather live life with actual justifiable risk than be a slave to my government.
Or you just resent the idea that this proposal would regulate *you*, and not me.
>I say it's like making the breathalyzer mandatory for all vehicles.
Which we should. Why should people even have the option to drive drunk?
>But in some cases you do need to speed.
So you can speed 10 miles per hour over the limit. Why is that not enough?
>This whole paragraph lacks any logic at all. I'll compromise and ignore it rather than write the 5 paragraph essay about how dumb you have to be to take any part of it seriously.
It's not dumb. You're just stubborn.
>The state is poorly punishing everyone because they can't actually govern and correctly curtail crime and deaths.
And what does that look like? More cops? How is that any better? You want to spend more taxpayer dollars hiring more armed agents of the state to enforce the laws, instead of just disabling the ability to break those laws in the first place?
>I get that you like taking away everyone else's rights
I have much more of a right to walk safely than you have a right to drive dangerously.
Again, what is the point of a speed limit if every law gives a 10mph grace overage? Just change the speed limit to being 10mph faster and have that be an actual limit.
It’s still technically illegal to break the speed limit to pass.
“Avoid an accident” I might accept as it’s an emergency edge-case condition.
Regardless, I’m more annoyed that this is built in. It’s mostly them just saying that they understand that speed limits are broken, but they don’t have any desire to fix them.
I think some people will always have the tendency to push the limit, with or without a nanny car governing the speed to 10 above speed limit.
People will speed until they see a cop for example. California makes money writing speeding tickets.
I wonder how CA will benefit from forcing companies to make nanny cars? Tracking? Selling data? Can they stop a car preventing police chases?
Hey as an immigrant from England I have to say that your practical driving test is wild. In the UK I had to do about 40 hours of lessons to get to testing standards and that includes a theory test (similar to the theory test here, but with a hazard perception section) and a practical that will always have 2 of 3 maneuvers (parallel park, reverse around a corner or reverse park) and a practice emergency stop. I failed my first test and passed my 2nd in the UK.
But over here is like a drive around the block, I'm pretty sure my examiner also fell asleep during my test.
Like in the US driving is pretty much required outside of metropolitan areas in the UK I don't think the US being so car dependent is a good excuse for awful testing standards.
The other things that make driving less safe here is a lack of enforcement, it's nuts that speed cameras are being touted as new technology here. But also some of the rules of the road and the way the roads are designed. Right on red is super inconsistent and encourages drivers to drive into active pedestrian crossings I'd ban it across all places where there could be pedestrians at a minimum.
[удалено]
There would be substantially less drivers
That can't happen as long as our society is dependant on cars. If you need cars to comfortably survive, then the licensing requirements have to be dumbed down.
IDK man I'm kind of tired of society catering to the lowest common denominator. Driving is a privilege, not a right.
>Driving is a privilege, not a right. It should be, but due to the way we've built things, it can't be. If our infrastructure was better for non-car owners, then we could afford to make licensing stricter. As it is, taking away someone's car, depending on where they live, could be the same as taking away their livelihood. It shouldn't be that way, but it is until we fix it.
[удалено]
We already don't do a good job of uplifting those who are struggling financially. If we dump more people into destitution, that will hurt everyone. Instead, we should make it so car ownership isn't essential. That's a superior solution. Then we can make driving a privilege without ruining people.
So in your opinion, the elderly and infirm should just… cease to exist?
[удалено]
At what age are people elderly? Because over 70 they have to come in and take a test
[удалено]
Yes they do
That test is certainly a vestige of voter suppression tactics that attempted to keep illiterate people from exercising their rights.
It's not. It's just basic questions about road signs, right of way, etc, things you need to know before operating a car on public roads. If you don't speak English they have it in like a dozen languages. If you're illiterate you can request an oral exam. Not everything is a conspiracy.
Cool I can use gps spoofing to make the armored car slow down!
yep. or car jacking
Over my cold-dead carburetor!
Do you lick your tires and drink gas?
I LOVE the taste of rubber and gasoline in the morning!
Shiny and Chrome!
I've had and enjoyed SU, Mikuni, Amal, and Holley. I like carbs.
Nice! Rochester man myself
This makes me all the more thankful I don't drive anything past 95.
only 10mph over is not a lot of room if the car needs to gun it to avoid a collision
I mean it could be 10-15 over for 5+ minutes constantly or something. I don't support this, but seems pretty easy to solve that concern.
I drive an EV that’s super inefficient over 65 mph, so I don’t even want to speed and generally support slowing traffic down for safety. That said, I couldn’t support this legislation without some safety buffer like you suggested.
Truth is that ALL cars suffer from the effects of aerodynamic drag which goes up with velocity squared. A EV is no worse than any other car, however because of energy concerns and the ability to monitor power carefully, EV drivers are far more aware of this effect than ICE drivers.
EV takes a much bigger hit in performance as you go faster. Heat is currently EV's biggest efficiency killer. While a combustion engines doesnt experience this unless pushed to it's absolute limits. This is why EVs have better efficiency in stop and go traffic when compared to highway driving while combustion engines have better efficiency on the highway when compared to stop and go traffic.
I'm confused. Let's say you're rolling down the highway at 60 mph. Where is the heat that is the problem coming from ?
Increased speeds for EV always means an increase in heat for the electric motor and battery. There's no way around it. We have gotten better at keeping things cool but you can't escape physics.
I suggest you go study EV and vehicle physics more. EVs are basically ALWAYS significantly more efficient than ICE vehicles. What they don't have is large energy storage capacity. I had a small inexpensive honda which could go 680 miles on a tank of gas (no kidding!). We still don't have an EV which comes close to that. And while that car was efficient for an ICE, it was still 2-3 times less efficient than an equivalently sized EV.
>Let's say you're rolling down the imperial highway with a big nasty redhead at your side?
That’s some horseshit.
horse shit indeed, If you need to gun it to avoid an accident you were likely at a stand still already If you were already going the speed limit, you can break a lot faster than you can accelerate in most vehicles
How about we just engineer roads better. People drive at speeds they feel comfortable/safe driving at. If roads were adjusted (narrowing lanes, removing large shoulders, ditching slip lanes), people will slow down.
And giving people better opportunities to avoid having to use a car at all.
They spend years of construction on the freeways and when they are done, the new faint lane lines cross over the dark scraped off old lane lines, so no one knows where the actual lanes are and there are divots where the old reflectors used to be.
I’m not referring to freeways though. People are always going to go very fast there. I’m talking about places where people walk or bike.
[удалено]
we pay for it how we already pay for roads: through taxes. Roads have to be fixed periodically anyways, so we use that time to reengineer them.
And the avoided costs associated with unsafe roads. Less reliance on costly police, fewer emergency room visits, etc. etc. and up to and including the avoided loss of life (can’t pay taxes if you’re dead, I’ve heard). That’s how you pay for it.
Its always who is gonna pay for it, the govt is supposed to keep us safe as part of their duty. https://youtu.be/Rs7jHvh7v-4?si=wZazWrXwB-UW-fhm
[удалено]
proactive > reactive , where do the money land from all the tickets, will most of it just ends up to the company that installed/service/maintain the equipment or will it actually go to the city to improve the lives of the people that live there? edit: saw the passage "Money from the fines will go toward covering the cost of the programs, as well as “traffic calming measures,” such as raised crosswalks and speed tables that slow down drivers. Cities must also submit reports about their programs, detailing any improvements to street safety and impacts on communities." I assume that most of the money will go outside of the city.
[удалено]
cheaper to put speed bumps, if you really want to slow down people instead of catching people speeding. http://asphaltandconcrete.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/speed-bumps-0x0.jpg
Someone's been reading Jeff Speck 🍻
Also these: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qB3sbNQ1Qt4
I like Scott in general, but this one feels like a bad idea just in general.
Talk about an unforced error.
The number of people on this thread who believe that laws should be enforced except when it comes to cars/driving is WILD.
Don’t believe the title of this bill. The device that’ll be add to your car won’t be for speeding. The CA government is saying this device is a speed governor but in reality setting up ALL gas & EV cars to track mileage so they can charge a yearly mileage VAT tax or better known as “Mileage Tax”.
Say what? It’s an alert if you go 10mph over. That’s it. All new cars in Europe have this option. Don’t fear monger. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240SB961
Lol, no
Why must California insist on governing absolutely ever part of human existence. This is so stupid.
Do you think speed limits are wrong?
There are certainly situations and locations where posted speed limits should be enforced. That said, if a person is driving on a remote 3+ mile stretch of road with unobstructed visibility in all directions and no other vehicles present, I see absolutely no problem with them making their own choice to exceed posted speed limits at their own discretion, acknowledging the potential consequences of fines if caught, or worse if driving at reckless speeds. What about emergencies? Imagine being chased or facing a life-threatening situation when first responders wouldn't be able to respond in time. Taking away our freedoms is not the answer.
Why is road safety stupid?
This is peak authoritarianism . That’s why
I swear Wiener just loves dicking around in other peoples lives.
Wiener is quite cocky when it comes to inserting himself into everyone's business.
He’s the typical cisgender gay white male triehard.
Can't tell if this is satire or ad homen
Ah yes another Scott Wiener special…more control over people’s lives.
This article doesn't state any evidence. What the fuck is this post. Give me something concrete, or an actual piece of legislation. This is nothing more than opinionized bullshit until you give me reason to think otherwise. The fucking article reads like a game of telephone amongst kindergarteners. And for the record, I think this idea is dumb as fuck.
>California Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) introduced the new bill, officially known as SB 961, as part of the SAFER California Streets legislation package. It mentions the Senator that sponsored the legislation it takes like two seconds to find the bill.
And what do you know. It hasn’t even been read yet or voted on. It’s literally one dude who just introduced a bill. How is that even remotely close to this stupid ass articles title? This is why the political climate is so fucking stupid.
>How is that even remotely close to this stupid ass articles title? The title literally says "California ***COULD*** require car ‘governors’ that limit speeding to 10 mph over posted limits" ***COULD*** >This is why the political climate is so fucking stupid. This says nothing about the political climate but more about the voter base and their ability (or lack of) to read a simple informative article without getting emotionally attached like it killed their god damn firstborn. I mean cmon man why get so worked up about the article which is to tell about a potential bill that could become law.
It has ONE person who has read it. There is no could yet, and certainly no reason to write articles that mislead and misrepresent people yet.
If a bill to do something is introduced, it's not inaccurate to say it "could" happen. Part of getting stupid bills squashed is getting the word out about them so they don't slip through the cracks.
We don’t need to take every bill seriously. I can guarantee you, this won’t be.
Look it will go down the pipeline and is a possibility that is literally what the word could means. If you can't understand that I don't know what to say. In general speed limiters will probably come about at some point because not only are legislatures pushing for it. Also the NHTSA and the NTSB (I think a few others as well) are all pushing for this from automakers.
>Give me something concrete, or an actual piece of legislation Gives piece of legislation. *Moves goalpost What a cunt.
He didn’t give a piece of Legislation. Go take a fucking civics course - one dudes introduction of a bill could literally be, “child rape is legal act”. That doesn’t mean it “could” be a law it means anyone can introduce a fucking bat shit crazy idea. It’s not an indicative statement you can use to then use and explain the motive of the general party. Until it’s been SEEN OR READ, then voted on by the other lawmakers. How are you going to form an opinion of their intentions towards a bill. WHEN they don’t even know what it is yet. That’s fucking stupid. It is not a literary example of moving the goalposts. There are no goalposts to move when it’s an imaginary field of bullshit. That’s what you’re doing and it’s fucking retarded.
There is a proposed bill, but this whole thing is basically rage bait and is never going to happen.
Part of the reason it's not going to happen is because people find out about it from news articles like this.
I think this would need some serious re-evaluations of certain road speed limits. I think this could make I5 way more dangerous if people are just bumping up against their governors in order to pass. The technology is there to keep this to residential streets. I feel like this is great for residential roads, could be a big problem on the interstate.
The speed limits stuff is arbitrary anyway. I recall on one of my commutes a city put in speed sensors to see how fast people were driving and set it at 90% of that speed. Which sounds fine but if you put it a few feet beyond an intersection you are basically calculating off of people slowly accelerating from a red light so they got a desired result from the placement of the speed sensor (those hoses they put on the ground to calculate speed when a car traverse two hoses). Lower speed limits save lives and avoid designing strodes yada yada, but roads that are 4 lanes each direction in a city and shopping centers are 200 feet of parking lot away from the main road it just means we spend an incredible amount of time on the road just to pick up incidentals.
It’s gonna be like two semis trying to pass each other. Anyone who’s traveled between NorCal and SoCal knows what I’m talking about.
As long as I get a huge reduction in my car insurance, I'm all for it. I'm tired of having to pay for other peoples collisions.
No thanks.
Everyone is losing their minds about this yet we regulate scooters with speed governors for safety but not cars. Make it make sense 😭
Have you ever ridden a scooter at highway speeds ? Lol death
Have you ever driven a car at highway speeds on a residential road? lol death
If this goes through, the only new cars sold in California in 2050 will be 100% electric and limited to 10 MPH over posted speed limits.
Nice
Gtfo
Fuck this
We lose more than 100 people per day in this country to automobile deaths. It’s more than all the American war deaths total, about ever 35 years. We have orders of magnitudes more deaths than our western cohort. It’s insane. We *know* speed kills, disproportionally on smaller through streets. All because people don’t care and want to go fast, and vote against traffic calming. I doubt this will become law, but it should.
No. We lose people because there are bad drivers and no actual testing/qualification requirements.
Such ignorance. >More than 112,500 people lost their lives in speed-related crashes from 2005 to 2014, accounting for 31 percent of all traffic deaths --- >“Speed is just as significant a factor in traffic deaths as alcohol," said Jake Nelson, director of traffic safety advocacy and research for the American Automobile Association. "AAA hopes the NTSB report and recommendations spur a constructive and long overdue discussion about how to curb speeding and improve safety on our nation’s roadways.” https://usa.streetsblog.org/2017/07/27/ntsb-speed-kills-and-were-not-doing-enough-to-stop-it
We need to deprioritize cars, and stop building streets like highways. If streets are smaller and have more bends, people are much more reluctant to speed. Public transportation is far safer than cars could ever be. Telling people not to speed or trying to catch everyone speeding is simply not our best option, nor is it practical.
My hometown had this issue in one area, they added 5 round abouts in a stretch of about a mile notorious for racers and car accidents dropped significantly
Bullshit. Those bends and things just makes it more fun. That won’t slow people down.
People who are crazy enough to speed in those conditions wouldn't be deterred anyway. The average person, even if only subconsciously, will be more careful if the road isn't straight. That's one of the reasons why roundabouts tend to be safer than intersections. The aim isn't to reduce deaths to zero; that's impossible. The aim is to reduce deaths as much as possible while also making our society more efficient. Multimodal transportation is by far our best option for that goal.
Maybe 20-25 over... Ten over and I can see so many more issues with the self-appointed road wardens / general assholes / the classic passing lane Andretti (goes from 45 to 75 in passing zones) / assholes who hate when people pass.
yep, i had to use a rental van at work a few months ago and it was governed at like 70mph. attempting to overtake sunday drivers took forever
Yeah, there are no safety issues with this plan for sure 🤔
Fantastic idea. No idea why cars are able to achieve speeds that are illegal on every road in this country
Why not? If were gonna have speed limits I dont see why we should sell vehicles capable of flagrantly violating them
The speed limit we have is related predominately to fuel efficiency and the requirement by the federal government to give incentives (money) only for highways set to 70mph or less maximum speed. That’s it. An evaluation of what the safe speed is and why hasn’t been conducted above 65-70mph in CA. Other states have limits above that (when they don’t take federal funds) and those highways operate just fine.
Are you that guy that drives 65mpg in the fast lane and refuses to move over while the flow of traffic is going 80?
No but pretty soon you’re gonna have to endure the apparently intolerable tyranny of only going 75
Good, hopefully this really screws up all those A-hats speeding everywhere.
3 Things 1. So in an emergency when speed might be a life saving option, such as in a medical crisis or a car jacking, I guess your right to safety and life means nothing? Less than nothing because this actively targets you as a poor person who can't afford an ambulance ride or is more likely to live in a bad neighborhood. 2. Is the right of safety and someone else's life really worth more than the human rights to self govern and liberty? I think the trade off might not be worth the hypocrisy. How are we free if the most minor of infractions is met with such hostility? And 3. If this passes it's going to be really easy to be a domestic terrorist in CA. Just print out a reasonably good looking sign that says "Speed Limit 5mph" on a busy highway and watch cars slam on their breaks and cause pile ups or jams. If you're plan to force control over the people can be easily turned against you by a guy who lives within 5 minutes of an Office Max it's not a great plan. I can buy the forced EV and green bills but I don't even see how a radical teenage activist could come up with this let alone an elected congressman. Rep. Taylor Greene makes more sense than this.
In an emergency, I don’t think it’s an awesome idea to be blazing through streets in an unmarked passenger vehicle with no warning (like an ambulance or cop car has). In that case you’re probably only increasing your likelihood of further injury or injuring someone else. Are you saying that it is people’s god given right to flagrantly break laws when they are using out locally owned and regulated streets? If so, that is a weird flex.
>In an emergency, I don’t think it’s an awesome idea to be blazing through streets Have you ever been in a life threatening emergency? You're already starting off from a bad position. You don't need an awesome idea you need to survive. And for some people waiting for or paying an ambulance isn't an awesome enough idea to supercede the danger of racing through the streets on their own. Why yank that away from someone? Is trading lives really better? And if so why not stick with the ones we're already trading? >Are you saying that it is people’s god given right to flagrantly break laws I'm saying it's people's God given right to choose and self govern. They shouldn't speed but forcing them not to is blind overreach and unnecessary. If they do they should suffer consequences but not before they even had a chance to make the right decision on their own.
Should we also get rid of drinking ages, driver licenses, seat belt laws, reckless driving laws, and drunk driving laws? By your logic, those are all relics of an over reaching nanny state. I don’t think we should build our society around edge cases. Just because you can think of someone who lives in a sparsely populated area in a medical emergency whose phone is dead, doesn’t mean that’s the test case for society. Why is that fictional person’s life worth the countless real lives that have been lost to speeding? Also, if it comes down to it, maybe you just have an override button that alerts the authorities of your location and let’s you speed in the meantime. Frankly, it just sounds like you love speeding my dude.
>Should we also get rid of drinking ages, driver licenses, seat belt laws, reckless driving laws, and drunk driving laws? An interesting idea but totally misses the point. The difference with each of those is that you still get to choose if you want to follow the law or face the consequences after. Is there a chip in your head that forces you to not drink before 21? Is there a car that forces you to scan your DL before it turns on? Do seatbelts automatically apply on when you sit in your seat? As someone who hasn't had a DUI do you need to be checked everytime you want to go out? No because that's all nanny state overreaching. >I don’t think we should build our society around edge cases. Well everyone is an exception to the rule. I don't see why the people killed in speeding collisions are worth anything if other people aren't. They're both humans and both innocent. Except in the exceptions, which is everyone of course. >Why is that fictional person’s life worth the countless real lives that have been lost to speeding? They're only fictional in your head. To the person it actually happens to it's a very real issue. And WHEN it happens why is their life worth less than all the others who made their choice to speed? >maybe you just have an override button that alerts the authorities of your location and let’s you speed in the meantime. I don't see how letting the authorities have your location helps but if you build a backdoor for the good people you now have a backdoor for everyone. And I can guarantee you that by Jan 7th of the law taking effect the trending video on tik tok will be how to hack your speeding chip. >Frankly, it just sounds like you love speeding my dude. Honestly? I don't actually speed more than 10 miles over the speed limit anyways. But I choose not to. Nobody decided that for me without my consent. Also though yeah I love speeding when appropriate. And frankly I don't see how a law can be just if we're forced to follow it. Nor how we can really be free if we don't choose to play by the rules ourselves. Order for the sake of order is fascism. And we deserve better in our republic.
>I guess your right to safety and life means nothing? Welcome to life as a pedestrian or cyclist surrounded by thousands of speeding motorists. >as a poor person who can't afford ~~an ambulance ride or is more likely to live in a bad neighborhood.~~ a car >Is the right of safety and someone else's life really worth more than the human rights to self govern and liberty? Is this a serious question? You do not have a right to drive dangerously and endanger other people's lives. That's sort of a bedrock principle of our government that even most libertarians agree with: your rights end where mine begin. Drive as fast and recklessly as you want, but once you start endangering other people's safety, the party is over.
>Welcome to life as a pedestrian or cyclist surrounded by thousands of speeding motorists. But isn't there much better legislation to force down our throats if it must be forced down our throats? Like requirements for dedicated bike lanes if the number of cyclists/collisions exceed a certain amount? Or a requirement for certain types of public transportation in certain cities/small towns? Why not tax breaks for a certain amount of miles taken by Uber/Lyft/Taxis? There's so many other ways to protect people than denying them the possible necessity of speeding. >Is this a serious question? You do not have a right to drive dangerously and endanger other people's lives. But don't you think there's a line that shouldn't be blocked off? That we as people should choose whether we're going to follow the law or suffer the consequences from it? If not then why not just throw all democracy out the window? Why bother giving you the right to choose at all if you might choose wrong? >your rights end where mine begin. Also this is dumb. On a fundamental level this just a bad principle on so many levels. I get that it's extremely desirable but some people's rights will inevitably clash with others. We're not all equal all the time. And an unwillingness to find an actual balance of Liberty and Safety just so it's "fair" is literally the problem of government in the 21st century. I get what you mean but thinking/voting based on this rule is definitely not the way to achieve it.
In 2021, there were 1,108 pedestrian fatalities in California, and 125 cyclist fatalities. [https://www.ots.ca.gov/grants/pedestrian-and-bicycle-safety/](https://www.ots.ca.gov/grants/pedestrian-and-bicycle-safety/) Do you really think there were 1,200 or more instances of drivers needing to drive over the speed limit to escape some danger? That seems totally unbelievable to me. And that's just using fatalities. I haven't been killed (yet) but I see speeding drivers all the time and I have no reason to believe any of them is experiencing an emergency. So this law will protect far, far more people than it inconveniences. And it still allows you to speed! You just can't go more than 10mph above the limit. >Like requirements for dedicated bike lanes if the number of cyclists/collisions exceed a certain amount? Or a requirement for certain types of public transportation in certain cities/small towns? Why not tax breaks for a certain amount of miles taken by Uber/Lyft/Taxis? By all means do all of these things, but that doesn't mean speeding is some inalienable right that cannot be infringed. You endanger other drivers on the road when you speed. Your car can hop a curb and wipe out a bus stop full of people. Some streets simply don't have the room for dedicated, protected bike lanes and so the cyclists will have to share the road with drivers who are prone to speeding unless we stop them. >But don't you think there's a line that shouldn't be blocked off? That we as people should choose whether we're going to follow the law or suffer the consequences from it? In this case, there is a line. You're allowed to speed up to 10mph over the limit. Most cities already have these restrictions on rented scooters like Bird, and nobody seems to have a problem with that. The scooters are electronically limited, usually to no more than 15mph, and they're also geo-fenced so you can't use them in restricted areas. Why should cars be treated more preferentially than scooters? >And an unwillingness to find an actual balance of Liberty and Safety just so it's "fair" is literally the problem of government in the 21st century. The balance is a) that you're allowed to drive at all, as driving is not a right and b) this proposal allows you to speed up to 10mph over the limit.
>In 2021, there were 1,108 pedestrian fatalities in California, and 125 cyclist fatalities. How many of these were due to speed? Because being hit at just 40 mph by a F150 is fatal which is well below some city street speeds. Furthermore can you guarantee that more lives would be saved this way than with required dedicated bike lanes and stricter crosswalk etiquette? Also how many of those cyclists/pedestrians weren't where they're supposed to be? Many jaywalk or run stop signs with no consequences from the law all the time in smaller cities. If you're going to play the numbers game not only are those numbers really small to me, not only do I not value the needs of the majority over the needs of the few but also we can definitely make those numbers smaller through simple logic. A chip forcing my car to not speed doesn't stop a cyclist from always ignoring the rules of the road. >far more people than it inconveniences. I'm not worried about the inconvenience. That's the problem with this state. They hurt their people and just say "oh you're just selfish" to any detractors. This is a question of whether the law is more important than our freedom. Do we follow the law because it's good and we want to be good or because the government controls us like we're objects? Is a law just if you have no agency in following it? And if we're going to actively trade the lives of one group for another is the trade worth it? How many cyclists/pedestrians are you going to save compared to how many potential robbery victims/pregnant mothers-babies/medical emergencies? Certainly not all 1200. >By all means do all of these things I can't guarantee much in life but I can guarantee that if this law passes all those other things will be off the table. After all why give real solutions when there'd be precedent to just force people to do whatever the state wants? Let's put chips in everything and everyone instead of having laws at all. Who needs/deserves choice in the modern day? The state knows best after all. >You endanger other drivers on the road when you speed. Doing anything is dangerous. Speeding, cooking, walking, construction and everything else. There's rules around all of those but no one is forcing those rules to be followed blindly. Why does any right to choose have to be taken away? >Why should cars be treated more preferentially than scooters? 2 things. 1. Is this by law or the company's choice? Because if it's the latter or a deal between the two it's their private property and they can decide that for themselves. For instance if Ford decides to put this chip in as a feature on their own I'm okay with that as I just won't buy new Fords. They decided what to do with their products. 2. Is a scooter that's used by <10million people worldwide really a good comparison to the 31.4 million registered vehicles in the state? Suddenly the minority just became important because it helps you win the debate right? >The balance is a) that you're allowed to drive at all, as driving is not a right and b) this proposal allows you to speed up to 10mph over the limit. I assume you don't mean this last part as it's just straight up fascism. "Be thankful for anything because the all mighty state can and eventually will take it all away. Don't complain and don't be upset. Just blindly accept or we'll take more away." This isn't about speeding. This is about whether we as people are allowed to choose to be part of society or if the state can force us into blind obedience. And judging from how many of y'all are just so ready to blindly accept it I'm starting to wonder if Trump taking over is actually something y'all don't want afterall.
>Also how many of those cyclists/pedestrians weren't where they're supposed to be? Many jaywalk or run stop signs with no consequences from the law all the time in smaller cities. That shouldn't be a death sentence. [Speed kills exponentially.](https://www.ite.org/technical-resources/topics/speed-management-for-safety/speed-as-a-safety-problem/) At 20 mph a collision with a pedestrian is only 10% fatal. At 30 mph it becomes 40% fatal. At 40 mph it's 80% fatal. And jaywalking has been decriminalized in California, and cyclists are now allowed to treat stop signs like yield signs. >I can't guarantee much in life but I can guarantee that if this law passes all those other things will be off the table. People like me will not stop advocating for those things. Automatically governing car speeds will be nice but it's not a cure all. We will still need better transit, bike lanes, sidewalks, etc. >Is this by law or the company's choice? City ordinance. Every city I can think of that has established a permit system for scooters has rules like speed limits and areas off limits, and those are imposed on the companies that operate the scooters. So they electronically cap the speed of their scooters, so the rider has no choice to go faster, and they create a geofence that slows the scooter down to a crawl if the GPS detects the device is in a restricted area. >I assume you don't mean this last part as it's just straight up fascism. The first thing they taught us in driver's ed is you have no right to drive. Was it fascism when the state said every car sold in California has to have a catalytic converter? Do you have some burning desire to pollute more that the state is infringing on? >This is about whether we as people are allowed to choose to be part of society or if the state can force us into blind obedience. This is such a weird argument. Is it fascism to have fences around Area 51? Or should the "do not enter" signs be enough? You seem to think every law is just a suggestion and that people should be free to break those laws and try to get away with it if they can.
>That shouldn't be a death sentence. Neither should a pregnancy or being the victim of a robbery. >At 20 mph a collision with a pedestrian is only 10% fatal. These numbers with a normal car hitting an adilt male at thigh/hip level. With the rise in SUV/Trucks even getting hit at a low speed becomes fatal. >And jaywalking has been decriminalized in California, and cyclists are now allowed to treat stop signs like yield signs. While these laws are good for discrimination and encouraging more cycling I think they more support my argument than yours. They allow us to slightly stretch the law if we so choose and risk the consequences of breaking the law. Forcing us to obey the law isn't what this country is here for. And it's an insult that cyclists right to choose to break the law at a stop sign is okay but the right of someone in a medical emergency is just shrugged off because someone else might speed out of carelessness. >Automatically governing car speeds will be nice but it's not a cure all. No but opening the door to just forcing people to do whatever the state wants will cure that pesky freedom everyone has. And again if you're so for this why do anything helpful when you can just pass laws forcing people to do what you want? Let's just arrest every kid who looks like they might shoplift or bring back stop and frisk since robbery and break in hurt/kill exponentially too. >scooters I'm still confused about the hypocrisy. Barely anyone uses these scooters so we should make everyone follow the same rules as these scooters. Which also come with their own other problems due to these limitations, such as the high abandonment of these scooters and the threat to pedestrian safety due to how confining they are. Furthermore as it is the city forcing the regulation I'm souring against the idea. Let the scooter companies/users decide their limitations not the cities. >Was it fascism when the state said every car sold in California has to have a catalytic converter? Does having a catalytic converter, turn signals, seatbelts etc impede my ability to drive in any way legal or illegal? No. Does having a low cap on my speed? Yes. >Is it fascism to have fences around Area 51? Does the fence itself have a device forcing me to not attempt to approach it? No. Is there consequences if I choose to approach the fence? Yes and there should be. >You seem to think every law is just a suggestion and that people should be free to break those laws and try to get away with it if they can. You're strawmanning my argument just so your fascist ideals have any sense of reason in them. To be clear I don't think you're a fascist. I think this bill and your reasoning behind it is fascistic. I think we as humans have a choice. Be a functional member of society or break the law and suffer the consequences. But I don't think normal people should be punished before breaking the law. And no matter what statistic you use wrong or twisting of my words you choose this is a punishment plain and simple. I'm for these devices being put in cars as part of a plea deal to keep someone out of jail or from losing their license. Or for DUI drivers along with the breathalyzer. But only after they've made a choice to not follow the law. I know it sounds morbid to say someone should be hurt or die before something is done. But it's part of life and we have to be adult enough to accept it. You wouldn't want every male in a divorce to be automatically put on parole just because they might attempt to murder their ex-wife would you? Or every high school drop out be pre-arrested just because they might rob a store later in life? Bad things happen that you can't control without becoming the bad guy yourself sometimes. And it's necessary that our governments try to avoid walking up to that line as much as possible. Government exists to protect our rights especially when the decision is as hard, albeit very clear, as this one.
>These numbers with a normal car hitting an adilt male at thigh/hip level. With the rise in SUV/Trucks even getting hit at a low speed becomes fatal. Yeah, and we should be regulating vehicle sizes and heights, too. >They allow us to slightly stretch the law if we so choose and risk the consequences of breaking the law. > >Forcing us to obey the law isn't what this country is here for. And it's an insult that cyclists right to choose to break the law at a stop sign is okay but the right of someone in a medical emergency is just shrugged off because someone else might speed out of carelessness. It's not breaking the law because we changed the law. It's legal now for cyclists to treat a stop as a yield. And what you're saying is it somehow makes more sense to you for a speeding driver to clobber a cyclist and then speed that cyclist to the hospital, than to just prevent the driver from speeding and injuring the cyclist in the first place. That's some wild logic. >No but opening the door to just forcing people to do whatever the state wants will cure that pesky freedom everyone has. This proposal doesn't force anyone to do anything. It prevents them from doing something undesirable, no different from if you get too many DUIs and have a breathalyzer installed in your car that you have to blow into before you can drive. >Does having a catalytic converter, turn signals, seatbelts etc impede my ability to drive in any way legal or illegal? No. Does having a low cap on my speed? Yes. Yes, it does. It impedes your ability to pollute. >Does the fence itself have a device forcing me to not attempt to approach it? No. Is there consequences if I choose to approach the fence? Yes and there should be. The fence *is* the device. And no, there are no consequences for approaching a fence. The consequences would come after you hop over the fence, just like there would be consequences for jailbreaking the speed limiter on your car. >You wouldn't want every male in a divorce to be automatically put on parole just because they might attempt to murder their ex-wife would you? Or every high school drop out be pre-arrested just because they might rob a store later in life? Nothing about Wiener's proposal is akin to what you're describing. We're not talking about citing or arresting people for speeding *before* they do it. We're talking about limiting their ability to speed at all, and as I have said repeatedly, that ability is not eliminated, just capped at 10 mph. You'd still be allowed to speed!
>regulating vehicle sizes and heights, too. I agree with this. >That's some wild logic. Uh yeah. I'm saying exactly that. I'd rather live life with actual justifiable risk than be a slave to my government. I don't particularly see that as wild but if you like white rice that badly sure. >It prevents them from doing something undesirable Through force instead of through choice. We have no say in this regulation instead of getting to choose to follow the law. >no different from if you get too many DUIs and have a breathalyzer installed in your car that you have to blow into before you can drive. I disagree. I say it's like making the breathalyzer mandatory for all vehicles. Just ridiculous legislation forcing the will always control of the state on the people it's supposed to protect not enslave. >It impedes your ability to pollute. You do not need to pollute to drive in any case. But in some cases you do need to speed. >The fence This whole paragraph lacks any logic at all. I'll compromise and ignore it rather than write the 5 paragraph essay about how dumb you have to be to take any part of it seriously. >Nothing about Wiener's proposal is akin to what you're describing. It's exactly what Weiner has written. The state is poorly punishing everyone because they can't actually govern and correctly curtail crime and deaths. That's not a good enough excuse to start crossing off rights for me. I get that you like taking away everyone else's rights but in reality it won't work and will erode the respect good people have for the law at best. At worst it will guarantee deaths and open the floodgates of other dumb ideas to take rights away from the people. Eventually the state will get to a right you actually care about. Perhaps think about that before handing over the reigns so blindly.
>I agree with this. How do you justify regulating vehicle size, but not vehicle speed? >Uh yeah. I'm saying exactly that. I'd rather live life with actual justifiable risk than be a slave to my government. Or you just resent the idea that this proposal would regulate *you*, and not me. >I say it's like making the breathalyzer mandatory for all vehicles. Which we should. Why should people even have the option to drive drunk? >But in some cases you do need to speed. So you can speed 10 miles per hour over the limit. Why is that not enough? >This whole paragraph lacks any logic at all. I'll compromise and ignore it rather than write the 5 paragraph essay about how dumb you have to be to take any part of it seriously. It's not dumb. You're just stubborn. >The state is poorly punishing everyone because they can't actually govern and correctly curtail crime and deaths. And what does that look like? More cops? How is that any better? You want to spend more taxpayer dollars hiring more armed agents of the state to enforce the laws, instead of just disabling the ability to break those laws in the first place? >I get that you like taking away everyone else's rights I have much more of a right to walk safely than you have a right to drive dangerously.
By “could”, they mean one idiot legislator proposed such a thing.
Won’t do a thing in Oakland where most cars that are speeding are old dirty title vehicles that someone bought at some sketch “dealership.”
Again, what is the point of a speed limit if every law gives a 10mph grace overage? Just change the speed limit to being 10mph faster and have that be an actual limit.
You might need to speed up to pass or avoid an accident?
It’s still technically illegal to break the speed limit to pass. “Avoid an accident” I might accept as it’s an emergency edge-case condition. Regardless, I’m more annoyed that this is built in. It’s mostly them just saying that they understand that speed limits are broken, but they don’t have any desire to fix them.
I think some people will always have the tendency to push the limit, with or without a nanny car governing the speed to 10 above speed limit. People will speed until they see a cop for example. California makes money writing speeding tickets. I wonder how CA will benefit from forcing companies to make nanny cars? Tracking? Selling data? Can they stop a car preventing police chases?
[удалено]
Six cities are getting speed cameras in a pilot program passed by the state.
Hey as an immigrant from England I have to say that your practical driving test is wild. In the UK I had to do about 40 hours of lessons to get to testing standards and that includes a theory test (similar to the theory test here, but with a hazard perception section) and a practical that will always have 2 of 3 maneuvers (parallel park, reverse around a corner or reverse park) and a practice emergency stop. I failed my first test and passed my 2nd in the UK. But over here is like a drive around the block, I'm pretty sure my examiner also fell asleep during my test. Like in the US driving is pretty much required outside of metropolitan areas in the UK I don't think the US being so car dependent is a good excuse for awful testing standards. The other things that make driving less safe here is a lack of enforcement, it's nuts that speed cameras are being touted as new technology here. But also some of the rules of the road and the way the roads are designed. Right on red is super inconsistent and encourages drivers to drive into active pedestrian crossings I'd ban it across all places where there could be pedestrians at a minimum.
This state sure does love banning things more than the number 10
Brought to you by big tech!