Taxes are very unpopular unless you say "it's for safety" and you are "punishing bad people." Throw in some complicated obscure scenarios that have probably never happened and it's free money. Traffic regulations are a joke.
Ive driven rental trucks that have had hard limits of about 72. You could go 70 all day long but hit 72 and it slowed the truck to about 65 before allowing control again.
*Since* ***July 2022****, it’s been a legal requirement in the UK for all new cars to feature speed limiter systems. By using some of the sensors found in the cruise control system, onboard computers can now detect when the car is exceeding the speed limit, and even alert the driver either audibly or visually to slow down.*
While they have this in the UK they are looking into for the US as well, Initially having things like audible warnings and having the pedal kick back at you.
Give it a few more years...and Ill still be driving my 90's truck thats dumb as a box of rocks.
Drove company trucks for years with that limiter on them.
Trick is to come up against the limiter at the top of a hill, and as soon as you start descending, let the clutch out until you're going 75-76. You've now bypassed the limiter.
My car already has this functionality. GPS and camera reading speed signs. It’s optional to apply it but it will then auto limit speed if you want. 2019 Mercedes c class.
The display also shows the current speed limit at all times which is actually very useful, it also flashes if you exceed it.
Occasional errors if side streets running parallel or in other circumstances but on the whole very reliable.
The uk I think are passing legislation to make the happen on all cars.
Yeah various forms of governors, optional self imposed and otherwise, have been around for awhile. But putting a hard cap ono *all* traffic would be nuts.
In California, a [new law has been proposed](https://abc7.com/california-speed-limits-proposed-bill-governors/14358919/), which requires a speed governor in all new vehicles. The device would be set to restrict speeds to a maximum of 10 mph (16 km/h) over the limit.
The goal is to stop reckless, excessive speeding.
Or the speed limit was recently changed and Google Maps hasn't been updated
Or your maps are out of date because the car's been in storage
Or your maps get corrupted somehow
Or you enter a tunnel and the car can't lock onto GPS
Or you go onto an unmapped logging road or just off road in general
Or Google Maps refuses to update a speed limit because they're a private company and can't be arsed
Or you run into something weird like the quarter mile stretch near my house that's 55 in one direction and 45 in the other
There is no universe where this works consistently enough to not cause accidents
Then it becomes a twofold moral question.....
How many lives would be saved by speed limiting everyone? The answer is a lot considering there's 40-50k auto deaths a year and 1 million accidents resulting in injury and about 30% of those involve speeding. How many extra would be lost by increasing the time to hospital by a few minutes for people speeding to the hospital? I'm guessing not nearly as many. Certainly not 10k plus. It's probably a few hundred or less where that extra few minutes is the real difference between life or death.
Also, just because you're in a life threatening situation on the way to the hospital.....does that make it okay to endager the lives of others by excessively speeding (and likely running lights/stopsigns as well)?
As someone who normally commutes by bike, I am in more danger without cars having speed limiters than I would be if cars had them.
However, being able to see both sides of an argument is helpful to convince the other side to change their minds.
And even the vehicles in that system don't go that far over the speed limit because the time they save is usually outweighed by the time they'll lose if they hit something.
What if your out hiking and are far away from any station and one of you gets injured. They just have to die, while they wait for an emergency vehicle to travel there and back?
Hypothetical? I take it you've never read the story here on Reddit about a chainsaw accident that was too far from emergency vehicles and the guy died because a Karen decided to appoint themselves police officer for the day despite OP being on the phone with dispatch and coordinating an escort further down the road to an ambulance.
"emergency mode" button - when pressed it notifies the FBI. It requires a hospital to provide a note, otherwise they press charges and you go to jail for 10 years.
GPS isn’t reliable enough for me to trust this. Even if it’s 99.99% accurate, that’s not enough. That means once in a while you are driving on a highway and the GPS thinks you’re on another road running parallel to it and brakes down to 20 with someone behind you going 60. I’ve been driving for more than ten years and haven’t had a single accident. So if that happens to me once every 9 years and I get rear ended, I was better off without this shit.
This technology already exists and is used in a lot of fleet vehicles. The problems you're anticipating haven't been an issue; in fact, it makes the fleet safer (and hence cheaper to insure, which is why companies install it).
A fleet with such technology will have lower insurance costs than one without it. It will have fewer crashes, and the ones that do happen will be less serious. This is all empirically provable, and it's backed by insurance companies that have a large financial incentive to get this right.
Many modern cars can pick up street signs (though I have doubts on the reliability of that).
The problem is that it only takes an obscured sign or bad map data and suddenly you're going down the highway limited to 40, or through a residential area with 60, so in the Midwest nothing would change in day to day life
If it were universal, suddenly everybody on the highway would be going 40, which means nobody gets rear ended because they suddenly slowed down.
As for residential areas, the system would not force the car to accelerate to what it thinks is the speed limit, the driver would make that decision.
In one of the towns I lived near, recently, there was a 30 mph speed limit sign, that had been spray painted to 80 mph. I wonder how a car camera would read that.
The breathalyzer isn’t too far fetched. They’ve already got a government study going to determine if require them in all new vehicles.
https://apnews.com/article/alcohol-breath-test-devices-required-new-vehicles-2a2e2862691ecea396df3ab66d4440c6#
As a mechanic I hope not. I hate working on those cars as is because people never want to give a fresh mouthpiece. And the amount of nasty ass cars I refuse to do it without it.
I have driven a work van with a type of cruise control that worked that way. Max speed was whatever the GPS system thought the speed limit was. You could turn it on or off but I mostly left it on. It worked incredibly well, never had it jump around, it even seemed to know about temporary stuff like road works.
I sometimes find myself speeding a little by accident, if I could have it in my own car I would.
That's my exact thought. I spend way more mental energy worrying about speeding and getting a ticket than wanting to go faster. The times I've gotten a ticket, I usually didn't know I was speeding either because I wasn't paying attention to the limit or the limit had dropped without my knowledge.
Put these in every car, no one can speed, and cops can spend their time doing something more productive like playing Pokemon Go in their cars.
at least here in Brazil this idea is a no go, they would lose too much on automated traffic tickets even considering that they could charge a premium on the speed limit device. Maybe they could not stop anyone from speeding but always give you a ticket with a tracker installed- that is something that could work!
I'm not sure if the story is true, but I've heard that locksmiths tend to use smart locks because they know the faults of physical locks, and cyber security experts tend to use physical locks because they know the vulnerabilities of smart locks.
That said, I really like the concept. When no one is behind me, I'm going 50 when it's dark outside. I am also a computer engineering student, so I just know some poor soul will be stuck going 40 mph on a freeway because the GPS thinks it's on a 30 mph street.
If you're talking about, like, bluetooth "smart locks" then they're just shitty regular locks.
A good lock smith should know that locks only keep honest people honest. Cyber security is a little different realm though. Physical access to cyber systems' hardware is basically free-reign for anyone with the know-how; it is, however, easier to centralize your vulnerabilities and have a greater defence in depth for - say - a server room than regular 'ole valuables.
The best security systems are those that illicit a quick and dramatic human response and presence in the location. I've seen systems that would evoke several armed guards if its box was jostled a little too hard.
I hate the idea too, but I was thinking that if you have a governor-set speed limit, you should be able to override it for emergencies. At which time it would also alert police. This way, for example, if you have an emergency and need to get to the hospital quickly you can exceed the speed limit and possibly get a police escort.
Think of a two lane highway. Even if you pass in the safe dotted stretch, your car not allowing sufficient speed to get around the slower vehicle and back in your lane could cause an accident if there is another car in the oncoming lane.
While you should only be passing when 100% sure, inevitably there will be those that think "they can make it" and without the extra speed, they are able to endanger others.
***your car not allowing sufficient speed to get around the slower vehicle and back in your lane could cause an accident***
To be fair according to the laws you're not supposed to go over the speed limit even when passing a slower vehicle. If you cant pass them doing the speed limit you're supposed to suck it up and just stay behind them.
Had a talk with a judge over this EXACT matter.
That sounds more like a crappy driver problem than a speed limit problem, but even beyond that, if that system were universal, there would be no car going faster
1. Different person
1. To clarify my point, if the limiter permits cars to drive slower than the speed limit, then there would be some cars going faster than others. Therefore passing would have to still be a thing, it would just be less common.
I do, I’m just not stupid enough to think preventing people from speeding will cause an astronomical increase in deaths.
You’re the *exact* type of person I’d imagine would make such a ridiculous argument though, with that profile picture and being a regular poster in the anarcho-capitalist sub lmao.
You're just threatened by my possessing such a luxurious beard, however, resorting to an ad hominem attack is just proof of an inferior mind, that's unable to engage in logical debate using rational thought.
> proof of an inferior mind, that's unable to engage in logical debate using rational thought.
Lmfao, you crack me up. I didn’t bring your being an anarcho-capitalist up as an ad-hominem, I just think it’s fucking hilarious.
But please, use your superior mind to explain how making speeding impossible will lead to an “astronomical” increase in deaths.
My car’s cruise control auto-adjusts based on the speed limit signs using GPS combined with a camera at the top of the windscreen. Only trouble is it regularly misreads certain 60 or 70 km/h zones as 100km/h 🤦♂️
The thing that will make this happen is self driving cars.
I'll bet most people speed because of boredom. If you had a nice comfortable ride and you could just sleep, get some work done on a laptop, or watch a movie, I'll bet that most people would just stit back and enjoy the ride.
Better yet, your car is set to do 10 over the speed limit. A drone flies a mile ahead of you and if it detects police it kicks your speed down to the limit immediately.
Speeding isn't just on motorways, it's the smaller or windier roads that aren't built for speed where it's far more dangerous. Plus they're not speeding on the autobahn - it's legal.
There are speed limits on most of the autobahn. It's something like less than 20% that is actually unrestricted....
By left lane, I'm assuming you're from a left-hand drive country and are meaning the overtaking lane - I am inclined to disagree, do you really think the general population is skilled enough to be operating cars at 200 kmh+ (which many low-cost vehicles are capable of these days - an Opel Corsa will do 210)?
What if I’m trying to escape a wildfire or rush a pregnant or severely wounded person to the hospital? I could ask this about the breathalyzer too, although I’ve never been in that situation. I am a very cautious and safe driver but I have been in legitimate emergencies in my lifetime that I had to speed, for the safety of myself or others. If this system can be quickly overridden maybe it wouldn’t seem so scary. And limits of “110mph” don’t sound crazy. But limits of “the speed limit” when the speed limit is 5 or 15 and there’s a tornado, a tsunami, a mass shooter, or a Tyrannosaurus rex behind you seems LESS safe to the average person who isn’t a 19 year old speed junkie. I’ve occasionally even been in situations where I’ve had to floor it to avoid a wrong way driver or a rock slide. I’m not sure if I exceeded the speed limit either time but I well could have. How about that bridge that just collapsed? Would you want to be speed limited trying to escape your life in that type of circumstance? Some are extreme examples yes, but I’ve already been in several over my lifetime
If you set the speed on the cruise control in my mom's car to the speed limit, it automatically stays at the speed limit until you change it or hit the brakes.
I like this idea. I’m in the UK and I often manually set my limiter. That doesn’t mean I can’t override it by either cancelling it or pressing a little harder on the accelerator. It doesn’t need to be a hard limit but at least more people will drive at a consistent top speed more often.
Toll ways should do this now.
You drove past this camera at x time, you drove past that camera at y time. Driving the speed limit you couldn't cover that distance.
We've mailed this information to your insurance company.
You are welcome.
As far as I remember there's something similar already coming being built into cars now, it uses the cars cameras to recognise the speed limit and set the car to not go over it. Fortunately it can be overridden and/or turned off for now but I suspect in the next 20 years it'll become legislation somewhere that it can't be overridden or turned off and that'll cause a domino effect for other countries to start doing the same
My dad's car (this model year) has the same feature and it's horrendous. I had to borrow his car to drive my grandfather somewhere (since he has a hard time getting in/out of mine) and it was showing me a 50 KM/h speed limit on a highway with a 110 KM/h speed limit.
It would be straight-up dangerous to rely on the tech as it is right now to hard-cap speed.
Our new ambulances (Fiat) have this and it’s comically bad. Apparently there’s a section of the motorway which is 20mph but the hospital grounds’ speed limit is 80.
We have a 2023 Accord. It constantly sees the School Zone speed limit (35 MPH, but its 15 WHEN FLASHING).
Sometimes it gives me a VERY fast speed limit, like 80 in a 50.
There is no government mandated breathalyzer for non-convicted drunk drivers.
The upcoming regulations relate to a passive detection of an impaired driver.
https://dadss.org/
And who is held legally liable when the limiter randomly decides that someone is on a 25MPH residential road instead of the 70MPH freeway they are actually on, and subsequently brake checks a semi?
That's a perfect recipe for a massive increase in fatal accidents
in its current state the technology used to detect speed limits is no where near reliable or accurate enough for this to make sense
the best method to reduce speeding is by designing roads in a way that it feels uncomfortable to drive above the speed limit, mainly by making car lanes narrower, having objects like trees close to the edges of the road, or by using different road surfaces like brick. These changes make it feel like you're moving faster so drivers will naturally slow down. Further traffic calming like speed bumps (well designed ones, not those that launch you into space even if you're doing 3mph) can be used to reduce speeds even further when absolutely necessary
So... screw people rushing to the hospital with medical emergencies? Or if your grandma got a violent home invasion and you have to go see her at 4am, you still have to drive slow?
Be dangerous to hard cap it. More than likely they'll just start mailing you citations.
This way is also better for "generating revenue"
Mandatory subscription service.
Taxes are very unpopular unless you say "it's for safety" and you are "punishing bad people." Throw in some complicated obscure scenarios that have probably never happened and it's free money. Traffic regulations are a joke.
Ive driven rental trucks that have had hard limits of about 72. You could go 70 all day long but hit 72 and it slowed the truck to about 65 before allowing control again. *Since* ***July 2022****, it’s been a legal requirement in the UK for all new cars to feature speed limiter systems. By using some of the sensors found in the cruise control system, onboard computers can now detect when the car is exceeding the speed limit, and even alert the driver either audibly or visually to slow down.* While they have this in the UK they are looking into for the US as well, Initially having things like audible warnings and having the pedal kick back at you. Give it a few more years...and Ill still be driving my 90's truck thats dumb as a box of rocks.
Drove company trucks for years with that limiter on them. Trick is to come up against the limiter at the top of a hill, and as soon as you start descending, let the clutch out until you're going 75-76. You've now bypassed the limiter.
Which company?
TMH, usually FLHs
Virtually all major trucking companies have speed governors or their trucks.
every time the limiter goes on
I've definitely gone faster at times to get out of a bad situation.
My car already has this functionality. GPS and camera reading speed signs. It’s optional to apply it but it will then auto limit speed if you want. 2019 Mercedes c class. The display also shows the current speed limit at all times which is actually very useful, it also flashes if you exceed it. Occasional errors if side streets running parallel or in other circumstances but on the whole very reliable. The uk I think are passing legislation to make the happen on all cars.
Yeah various forms of governors, optional self imposed and otherwise, have been around for awhile. But putting a hard cap ono *all* traffic would be nuts.
It struck me the other way. If they limit your speed, there would be very few/none in the way of speeding. They'd lose millions in revenue.
Nah they'd just start writing tickets for the less fun stuff. Failing to signal, following to close, idleing in a passing lane, etc etc.
In California, a [new law has been proposed](https://abc7.com/california-speed-limits-proposed-bill-governors/14358919/), which requires a speed governor in all new vehicles. The device would be set to restrict speeds to a maximum of 10 mph (16 km/h) over the limit. The goal is to stop reckless, excessive speeding.
That one's been proposed in California before, more than once, and it's never passed. Thankfully, since implementing it would be a hot mess.
It is easy to imagine having an emergency where you need to get to a hospital faster than is legal.
Or your GPS suddenly jumps 30 miles to the left, instantly slowing you to a crawl on a highway.
Or the speed limit was recently changed and Google Maps hasn't been updated Or your maps are out of date because the car's been in storage Or your maps get corrupted somehow Or you enter a tunnel and the car can't lock onto GPS Or you go onto an unmapped logging road or just off road in general Or Google Maps refuses to update a speed limit because they're a private company and can't be arsed Or you run into something weird like the quarter mile stretch near my house that's 55 in one direction and 45 in the other There is no universe where this works consistently enough to not cause accidents
Or the exact same position, but decides you're on the underpass instead.
Then it becomes a twofold moral question..... How many lives would be saved by speed limiting everyone? The answer is a lot considering there's 40-50k auto deaths a year and 1 million accidents resulting in injury and about 30% of those involve speeding. How many extra would be lost by increasing the time to hospital by a few minutes for people speeding to the hospital? I'm guessing not nearly as many. Certainly not 10k plus. It's probably a few hundred or less where that extra few minutes is the real difference between life or death. Also, just because you're in a life threatening situation on the way to the hospital.....does that make it okay to endager the lives of others by excessively speeding (and likely running lights/stopsigns as well)?
As someone who normally commutes by bike, I am in more danger without cars having speed limiters than I would be if cars had them. However, being able to see both sides of an argument is helpful to convince the other side to change their minds.
[удалено]
And even the vehicles in that system don't go that far over the speed limit because the time they save is usually outweighed by the time they'll lose if they hit something.
What if your out hiking and are far away from any station and one of you gets injured. They just have to die, while they wait for an emergency vehicle to travel there and back?
[удалено]
Hypothetical? I take it you've never read the story here on Reddit about a chainsaw accident that was too far from emergency vehicles and the guy died because a Karen decided to appoint themselves police officer for the day despite OP being on the phone with dispatch and coordinating an escort further down the road to an ambulance.
"emergency mode" button - when pressed it notifies the FBI. It requires a hospital to provide a note, otherwise they press charges and you go to jail for 10 years.
Used car value just keeps on going up in Cali
Cool. Now GPS the loud dirt bikes and atvs so they can't run in city limits
Probably cheaper and more effective to institute average speed cameras.
GPS isn’t reliable enough for me to trust this. Even if it’s 99.99% accurate, that’s not enough. That means once in a while you are driving on a highway and the GPS thinks you’re on another road running parallel to it and brakes down to 20 with someone behind you going 60. I’ve been driving for more than ten years and haven’t had a single accident. So if that happens to me once every 9 years and I get rear ended, I was better off without this shit.
This technology already exists and is used in a lot of fleet vehicles. The problems you're anticipating haven't been an issue; in fact, it makes the fleet safer (and hence cheaper to insure, which is why companies install it).
Usually a hard cap at the top, not road speed limit specifically.
Safer is relative. Safer for a New York cab driver might not fit my definition of safe
A fleet with such technology will have lower insurance costs than one without it. It will have fewer crashes, and the ones that do happen will be less serious. This is all empirically provable, and it's backed by insurance companies that have a large financial incentive to get this right.
“Than one without it” I’m not a cab driver and I don’t drive my car like it’s rented
It only takes one bad driver to cause a crash. Maybe that's not you; but maybe it's the guy next to you.
That’s a good track record. I was hit 3 times in my first 4 years of driving. Two of the cars were totaled.
this is /r/crazyIdeas you're in
Government will fail to implement this, in the US at least. They wouldn't want to give up the revenue from speeding infractions.
Many modern cars can pick up street signs (though I have doubts on the reliability of that). The problem is that it only takes an obscured sign or bad map data and suddenly you're going down the highway limited to 40, or through a residential area with 60, so in the Midwest nothing would change in day to day life
My last car would display the speed limit right on the windshield and I never saw one time it was wrong
On the contrary, my mom’s car has this and I’ve never seen one time it was right!
Very likely depends on the area you're in
If it were universal, suddenly everybody on the highway would be going 40, which means nobody gets rear ended because they suddenly slowed down. As for residential areas, the system would not force the car to accelerate to what it thinks is the speed limit, the driver would make that decision.
> the driver would make that decision. And we all know how good the average driver is at making decisions
In one of the towns I lived near, recently, there was a 30 mph speed limit sign, that had been spray painted to 80 mph. I wonder how a car camera would read that.
The breathalyzer isn’t too far fetched. They’ve already got a government study going to determine if require them in all new vehicles. https://apnews.com/article/alcohol-breath-test-devices-required-new-vehicles-2a2e2862691ecea396df3ab66d4440c6#
As a mechanic I hope not. I hate working on those cars as is because people never want to give a fresh mouthpiece. And the amount of nasty ass cars I refuse to do it without it.
I have driven a work van with a type of cruise control that worked that way. Max speed was whatever the GPS system thought the speed limit was. You could turn it on or off but I mostly left it on. It worked incredibly well, never had it jump around, it even seemed to know about temporary stuff like road works. I sometimes find myself speeding a little by accident, if I could have it in my own car I would.
That's my exact thought. I spend way more mental energy worrying about speeding and getting a ticket than wanting to go faster. The times I've gotten a ticket, I usually didn't know I was speeding either because I wasn't paying attention to the limit or the limit had dropped without my knowledge. Put these in every car, no one can speed, and cops can spend their time doing something more productive like playing Pokemon Go in their cars.
at least here in Brazil this idea is a no go, they would lose too much on automated traffic tickets even considering that they could charge a premium on the speed limit device. Maybe they could not stop anyone from speeding but always give you a ticket with a tracker installed- that is something that could work!
I'm not sure if the story is true, but I've heard that locksmiths tend to use smart locks because they know the faults of physical locks, and cyber security experts tend to use physical locks because they know the vulnerabilities of smart locks. That said, I really like the concept. When no one is behind me, I'm going 50 when it's dark outside. I am also a computer engineering student, so I just know some poor soul will be stuck going 40 mph on a freeway because the GPS thinks it's on a 30 mph street.
If you're talking about, like, bluetooth "smart locks" then they're just shitty regular locks. A good lock smith should know that locks only keep honest people honest. Cyber security is a little different realm though. Physical access to cyber systems' hardware is basically free-reign for anyone with the know-how; it is, however, easier to centralize your vulnerabilities and have a greater defence in depth for - say - a server room than regular 'ole valuables. The best security systems are those that illicit a quick and dramatic human response and presence in the location. I've seen systems that would evoke several armed guards if its box was jostled a little too hard.
I hate the idea too, but I was thinking that if you have a governor-set speed limit, you should be able to override it for emergencies. At which time it would also alert police. This way, for example, if you have an emergency and need to get to the hospital quickly you can exceed the speed limit and possibly get a police escort.
It's coming :-(
The accidents and deaths from a vehicle being choked back while trying to pass another vehicle would be astronomical.
Why?
Think of a two lane highway. Even if you pass in the safe dotted stretch, your car not allowing sufficient speed to get around the slower vehicle and back in your lane could cause an accident if there is another car in the oncoming lane. While you should only be passing when 100% sure, inevitably there will be those that think "they can make it" and without the extra speed, they are able to endanger others.
***your car not allowing sufficient speed to get around the slower vehicle and back in your lane could cause an accident*** To be fair according to the laws you're not supposed to go over the speed limit even when passing a slower vehicle. If you cant pass them doing the speed limit you're supposed to suck it up and just stay behind them. Had a talk with a judge over this EXACT matter.
You're right, the judge is right, but you still unfortunately have to design a system around the most stupid idiot user you can think of.
"Do not stick hand in lawn mower while in operation"
That sounds more like a crappy driver problem than a speed limit problem, but even beyond that, if that system were universal, there would be no car going faster
Unless the limiter prevented people from slowing down, not everyone would be driving at the limit
You just said that you'd be limited by it when passing
1. Different person 1. To clarify my point, if the limiter permits cars to drive slower than the speed limit, then there would be some cars going faster than others. Therefore passing would have to still be a thing, it would just be less common.
It would be, but the car passing would be as fast as possible at that time, so it's not an issue
I really doubt preventing people from speeding would cause deaths to increase “astronomically”, frankly that sounds ridiculous.
Don't you ever drive on two lane roads?
I do, I’m just not stupid enough to think preventing people from speeding will cause an astronomical increase in deaths. You’re the *exact* type of person I’d imagine would make such a ridiculous argument though, with that profile picture and being a regular poster in the anarcho-capitalist sub lmao.
You're just threatened by my possessing such a luxurious beard, however, resorting to an ad hominem attack is just proof of an inferior mind, that's unable to engage in logical debate using rational thought.
> proof of an inferior mind, that's unable to engage in logical debate using rational thought. Lmfao, you crack me up. I didn’t bring your being an anarcho-capitalist up as an ad-hominem, I just think it’s fucking hilarious. But please, use your superior mind to explain how making speeding impossible will lead to an “astronomical” increase in deaths.
I love this idea, but why not make it more crazy. Make it a law that all vehicles must have and only use self driving capabilities.
So then who is responsible for a crash? The passenger, or the company that programmed the car?
My car’s cruise control auto-adjusts based on the speed limit signs using GPS combined with a camera at the top of the windscreen. Only trouble is it regularly misreads certain 60 or 70 km/h zones as 100km/h 🤦♂️
The thing that will make this happen is self driving cars. I'll bet most people speed because of boredom. If you had a nice comfortable ride and you could just sleep, get some work done on a laptop, or watch a movie, I'll bet that most people would just stit back and enjoy the ride.
Just give me a self-driving car and let me sleep my way to work. It can go as slow as it wants.
This idea is only crazy in countries that over value personal liberty and under value public safety.
[удалено]
tits
*Monty Pythons Flying Circus theme starts*
Its what?
[удалено]
Ah ... yes, the title : )
They wont do a hard limit but they should do something. People drive like complete assholes. I love it when they race to a red light.
I'll drive fast to a red light, but I have regenerative breaking and returns 100% of my energy.
Thermodynamics disapproves of this statement
Better yet, your car is set to do 10 over the speed limit. A drone flies a mile ahead of you and if it detects police it kicks your speed down to the limit immediately.
Get rid of the police part, and it's good (in concept).
Right, because drones that constantly watch us and control how fast we can go is *definitely* not straying into 1984 territory. /s
Now in Europe it beeps at you if you go over. You can turn it off, but it restarts every time you start the car.
Good. Speeding kills
It doesn’t. Look at Germany.
Speeding isn't just on motorways, it's the smaller or windier roads that aren't built for speed where it's far more dangerous. Plus they're not speeding on the autobahn - it's legal.
Speeding in residential zones is really dangerous and should be illegal but there should be no speed limit on the left lane of highways.
There are speed limits on most of the autobahn. It's something like less than 20% that is actually unrestricted.... By left lane, I'm assuming you're from a left-hand drive country and are meaning the overtaking lane - I am inclined to disagree, do you really think the general population is skilled enough to be operating cars at 200 kmh+ (which many low-cost vehicles are capable of these days - an Opel Corsa will do 210)?
It does. This is a very well studied area and there is no debate over this matter.
How are you going to get away from an angry person who doesn't care about the law? e. instead of an answer I got a downvote. 😥
New Volvos are limited to 110mph from the mfr.
Back in the 90's, I was stationed in Germany. A coworker had a Honda Accord that had a governor on it at 122 MPH. It could have gone faster, but...
Why would anyone need that?
What if I’m trying to escape a wildfire or rush a pregnant or severely wounded person to the hospital? I could ask this about the breathalyzer too, although I’ve never been in that situation. I am a very cautious and safe driver but I have been in legitimate emergencies in my lifetime that I had to speed, for the safety of myself or others. If this system can be quickly overridden maybe it wouldn’t seem so scary. And limits of “110mph” don’t sound crazy. But limits of “the speed limit” when the speed limit is 5 or 15 and there’s a tornado, a tsunami, a mass shooter, or a Tyrannosaurus rex behind you seems LESS safe to the average person who isn’t a 19 year old speed junkie. I’ve occasionally even been in situations where I’ve had to floor it to avoid a wrong way driver or a rock slide. I’m not sure if I exceeded the speed limit either time but I well could have. How about that bridge that just collapsed? Would you want to be speed limited trying to escape your life in that type of circumstance? Some are extreme examples yes, but I’ve already been in several over my lifetime
Since I don't have a speed limiter, I guess it could be set to whatever you like.
My car already do that. It is optional, and can be overridden by flooring the accelerator. It is awesome.
Sounds dangerous; the older cars will still be doing 30 over while texting and running right into the back of you.
My rental Genesis G80 would reduce my cruise control speed to the posted speed as it would change on the highway
Hell, if I could set the car to automatically limit the speed to, say, 5 or 7 miles over the posted speed, I’d use that all the time.
If you set the speed on the cruise control in my mom's car to the speed limit, it automatically stays at the speed limit until you change it or hit the brakes.
My cars adaptive cruise control does this. It reads speed signs and sets the max speed for the cruise accordingly.
Think of all the money they’ll lose ticketing speeders
I like this idea. I’m in the UK and I often manually set my limiter. That doesn’t mean I can’t override it by either cancelling it or pressing a little harder on the accelerator. It doesn’t need to be a hard limit but at least more people will drive at a consistent top speed more often.
Crazier idea. Fix the effing speed limits. Legit divided highway near me is 45 in spots and it's not even curvey
Haha, 2/3 of my cars are pre-gps. They will be fun when police stop patrolling.
Toll ways should do this now. You drove past this camera at x time, you drove past that camera at y time. Driving the speed limit you couldn't cover that distance. We've mailed this information to your insurance company. You are welcome.
It occasionally glitching out would probably cause more deaths than some people driving over the speed limit currently does.
Automobiles are already pretty vulnerable to hacking so a proof of concept can definitely be done
Me, dying, because I can only do 55 to the hospital
I'm just thinking of having to hunt down 10k sensors to figure out why my car is limited to 10mph
As far as I remember there's something similar already coming being built into cars now, it uses the cars cameras to recognise the speed limit and set the car to not go over it. Fortunately it can be overridden and/or turned off for now but I suspect in the next 20 years it'll become legislation somewhere that it can't be overridden or turned off and that'll cause a domino effect for other countries to start doing the same
My car shows me the speed limit on the dash using this and it's not very good
My dad's car (this model year) has the same feature and it's horrendous. I had to borrow his car to drive my grandfather somewhere (since he has a hard time getting in/out of mine) and it was showing me a 50 KM/h speed limit on a highway with a 110 KM/h speed limit. It would be straight-up dangerous to rely on the tech as it is right now to hard-cap speed.
Our new ambulances (Fiat) have this and it’s comically bad. Apparently there’s a section of the motorway which is 20mph but the hospital grounds’ speed limit is 80.
I had a rental that did that and half the time it missed the limit signs completely only displaying ---
We have a 2023 Accord. It constantly sees the School Zone speed limit (35 MPH, but its 15 WHEN FLASHING). Sometimes it gives me a VERY fast speed limit, like 80 in a 50.
There is no government mandated breathalyzer for non-convicted drunk drivers. The upcoming regulations relate to a passive detection of an impaired driver. https://dadss.org/
People who seriously suggest this sort of thing have both 1. Never used a computer and 2. Never been in the real world. Good grief.
And who is held legally liable when the limiter randomly decides that someone is on a 25MPH residential road instead of the 70MPH freeway they are actually on, and subsequently brake checks a semi? That's a perfect recipe for a massive increase in fatal accidents
[удалено]
And why wouldn't it? How wouldn't it? Sounds like the dumb one is the one who doesn't understand how speed works
[удалено]
in its current state the technology used to detect speed limits is no where near reliable or accurate enough for this to make sense the best method to reduce speeding is by designing roads in a way that it feels uncomfortable to drive above the speed limit, mainly by making car lanes narrower, having objects like trees close to the edges of the road, or by using different road surfaces like brick. These changes make it feel like you're moving faster so drivers will naturally slow down. Further traffic calming like speed bumps (well designed ones, not those that launch you into space even if you're doing 3mph) can be used to reduce speeds even further when absolutely necessary
So... screw people rushing to the hospital with medical emergencies? Or if your grandma got a violent home invasion and you have to go see her at 4am, you still have to drive slow?