EU Set To Mandate Speed Limiters In All New Cars (bbc.co.uk) 485
AmiMoJo shares a report from the BBC: Speed limiting technology looks set to become mandatory for all vehicles sold in Europe from 2022, after new rules were provisionally agreed by the EU. Road safety charity Brake called it a "landmark day," but the AA said "a little speed" helped with overtaking or joining motorways. Safety measures approved by the European Commission included intelligent speed assistance (ISA), advanced emergency braking and lane-keeping technology. The EU says the plan could help avoid 140,000 serious injuries by 2038 and aims ultimately to cut road deaths to zero by 2050. Under the ISA system, cars receive information via GPS and a digital map, telling the vehicle what the speed limit is. This can be combined with a video camera capable of recognizing road signs. The system can be overridden temporarily. If a car is overtaking a lorry on a motorway and enters a lower speed-limit area, the driver can push down hard on the accelerator to complete the maneuver. According to the report, Ford, Mercedes-Benz, Peugeot-Citroen, Renault and Volvo already have models available with some of the ISA technology fitted.
Includes manual override and black box (Score:5, Informative)
Two important bits in TFA are not mentioned in the summary:
1. there will be a switch to disable the speed limiter until the engine is powered off.
2. The car gets a black box that can be accessed after an accident.
Re:Includes manual override and black box (Score:5, Insightful)
The black box shows the speed limiter was set to off? Any insurance is not approved if the speed limiter is not always on?
Police ask questions as to why the speed limiter was off?
Having the ability to "disable the speed limiter" may not be allowed for everyday car use on any road.
A fully safety inspected, upgraded and approved car for a track day can ask for permission to "disable the speed limiter" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] ?
Re: (Score:3)
Germany has many motorways without speed limits; a lot of drivers and car makers really love those. I don't think German insurance companies (or German politicians) will stay in business if they make unreasonable (in the eyes of German drivers) demands.
And for the rest of Europe: insurance fees already depend on driver age, driver accident history, and power/speed/reputation of the car. This will be just one more factor to take into account to calculate the fees. I can't imagine that a road-legal car (i.e.
Re: (Score:3)
While there are motorways without speed limits here, there is also the recommended speed of 130kph on them. Driving faster means an automatical partial fault in an accident unless the driver can clearly prove that the higher than recommended speed made no difference on the outcome.
Re:Includes manual override and black box (Score:5, Interesting)
Presumably it will be like the button that disables traction control or the one that disables ABS. You can use it but if you then have an accident that would have been averted by traction control and they find out, you are going to be held liable.
Cars in Japan have had speed limiters since the 60s by a gentlemen's agreement between manufacturers. It's set fairly high (114 MPH) and performance cars often have a feature that disables it at race tracks.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
How long will that option be an option able to be used? The black box shows the speed limiter was set to off? Any insurance is not approved if the speed limiter is not always on? Police ask questions as to why the speed limiter was off?
The black box and speed limiter don't even have to be installed for them to do that. A lot of people think that you can claim insurance no matter how stupidly you behaved but insurance companies already have the right to refuse to pay out and they do it regularly. The thing is they are required to compensate you for damage resulting from reasonable behaviour, or due to random events such as forces of nature assuming you have taken reasonable precautions such as install a fire/burglar alarm or drove at a rea
Re: (Score:2)
Well trucks are work vehicles, they also track and limit driving time by law and probably location(?). Of course it still causes a lot of issues when a truck doing 80.1km/h is trying to overtake another doing 80km/h.
I agree that optional speed tracker/limiter is a great feature because sometimes you want to relax a little and not have to watch and keep track of the constantly changing signs. As long as it can be switched off easily, I'm fine with it.
Even if it's not... oh well, this will only apply to new c
Re: (Score:2)
3. If you press down hard on the accelerator it overrides the speed limiter temporarily.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
2. The car gets a black box that can be accessed after an accident.
It's already got one. OBD-II vehicles store at least a minute of logging data, 30 seconds before and 30 seconds after a critical event occurs. That includes emissions failures, engine faults, or airbag deployment. It records the state of all sensors. It knows the throttle position and the state of the brake light switch, and in modern vehicles it also knows the position of the steering wheel.
yeah, right.. (Score:5, Insightful)
And of course lets not forget exemptions for 'special' people, you know, those with urgent high level government work, like being rich and driving their uber-toys..
Of course it will create a nice little black market in bypass systems...
Of course they say it would have an on-off switch (for a compulsory system? unique), and I am sure that wont be logged and/or reported..
Lets for a moment ignore the fact that speed is not THE cause of most road fatalities (that honor falls to drunk driving, exhaustion, and distracted driving in about that order).
I wonder when they will mandate riders licenses for road use of pushbikes, along with warrants for safety, road taxes, and license plates so that red lights cameras can work on them..
Sigh.
It's a step in the right direction. (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is not that it is the cause of accidents. The problem is that it increases the risk of fatalities for all user: https://ec.europa.eu/transport... [europa.eu]. Hitting a pedestrian at 32km/h kills the pedestrian 5 times out of 100. Hitting a pedestrian at 64km/h kills the pedestrian 85 times out of 100.
My son enjoy taking is bike to go ride with is friend. I sure hope it doesn't get involve in an accident but if it ever happens, I'd prefer that the car was forcing the driver to respect that 30km/h limit in the village. And if he bypassed the system then he would have to take the responsabilities for it. And by the way, I don't understand people speeding in densely populated area. Most of the time you're doing small distances in those areas. Here in Belgium the 30km/h zones are at most 2km long I'd say. It takes 4 minutes at 30km/h, why would you risk lives of people for earning at most 3 minutes. The speed limits are not there to annoy people, they are there to limit the inertia of your car when you'll hit that wall, people, what else, the day you have a problem. And we all make mistakes and accidents. And also for those "pilots", king of the roads, even if it's not you the problem, if you are speeding on the highway and I overtake someone forgetting to look in my mirror and you hit me, it will be my fault indeed, but we will both die, if you'd respect the speed limit, we'd still be alive so that you would be able to receive the money from my insurance.
This move is a step in the right direction.
Re:It's a step in the right direction. (Score:5, Informative)
Speed is always a factor. Remember that kinetic energy is related to the square of velocity: KE = 0.5 * m * v^2.
That energy has to be disipated in an emergency, either through tyres and brakes (and to a degree, the engine) or through friction/impact.
Remember also the rate of energy disipation is normally linear. There's a point where the tyres lose traction and cause the wheels to lock up and the vehicle to skid, which is the limit to how many watts can be disipated. Because energy disipation is linear but KE is the square of the velocity, stopping is faster at lower speeds.
Too fast for the conditions (Score:5, Insightful)
Lets for a moment ignore the fact that speed is not THE cause of most road fatalities
Actually it is but not in the way you are probably thinking. My grandfather once pointed out to me a logically airtight fact. If you are the vehicle operator of a vehicle that causes any accident there is one inescapable truth in every case - you were driving too fast for the conditions. Those conditions include the mental state of the vehicle operator as well as weather, traffic, and the rest. This is always true even when other factors are in play as well (which there often are). If you hit something unintentionally at any speed (even at 1kph), it is ALWAYS true that you were driving too fast for the conditions. Sometimes the only safe speed is 0. If you are drunk any you hit something, being drunk is obviously causal but equally true is the fact that you were driving too fast for the conditions. You should have not moved the vehicle. You cannot hit something if you are not moving. A vehicle moving sufficiently slowly (possibly 0kph) by definition cannot cause a fatality.
Bear in mind that police can issue tickets for reckless driving at speeds well below the legal limit for a given stretch of road if the conditions warrant. Speed limits only apply when conditions are "normal". Once something changes "normal" (weather, impairment, distraction, disability, etc) then speed absolutely becomes a consideration.
Re: (Score:3)
Great, that's a real help in cases where it isn't possible to know in advance what the safe speed is, if there even is one, which is essentially all cases.
It's generally very easy to tell what a safe speed is. Doesn't mean you can't be wrong sometimes but it's not hard to tell if you have any meaningful experience as a driver. And the fact remains that if you cause an accident you were wrong. Driving is an inherently risky endeavor. If you cannot handle this fact then yes you should not drive.
Autobahn..... (Score:2)
As a Practice Matter... (Score:4, Insightful)
...How do you pass a car doing 45 mph on a road limited at 55 mph? The answer is, you don't, and are delayed and consigned to do 45 as long as the bozo in front of you decides to do 45, because it would take too long to pass, and some oncoming car would come out of *somewhere* to give you an exciting ride.
And then of course there is the emergency aspects of this - you're being chased, or you're attempting to get the H out of the woods before it burns down entirely, or you're just keeping in front of the mile-wide tornado, etc. etc.
You're doing the 70 mph limit on an Interstate highway, and want to get into the right lane to exit, and need to sprint ahead just a little to increase clearance with the car behind so you can get in the right lane to access the exit, and... you can't do it. And its FAR more difficult to attempt that by slowing and dropping into a space behind that car, as there may not be such a space, some pinhead without a speed limited car may come racing up just to keep you from being able to do that (every other person on the road is a prick, in case you haven't noticed), and on, and on... 1000's of reasons why this is a bad idea.
The ultimate reason that this is a bad idea is that I would never, ever, ever buy a new car again, and know a lot of people that would feel the same way. I belong to the Sports Car Club of America, about 55,000 people, so there's 55,000 "no sale"s right there. And being how this is the USA, and we are a bit 'round the bend about the freedom thing, one of the biggest reasons we have 350 million privately owned firearms in a country with about 320 million people including the kids, such a car would not make a lot of money being sold here, I think.
Re:As a Practice Matter... (Score:5, Insightful)
"How do you pass a car doing 45 mph on a road limited at 55 mph?"
You wait. Safety compromising convenience seems reasonable to me.
"And then of course there is the emergency aspects of this - you're being chased, or you're attempting to get the H out of the woods before it burns down entirely, or you're just keeping in front of the mile-wide tornado, etc. etc."
That's more complicated. You make the mistake, I think, of assuming that this will keep your more safe, but of course, people die in road accidents when there is wildfire or a tornado also.
"And its FAR more difficult to attempt that by slowing and dropping into a space behind that car, as there may not be such a space"
There may not be a space in front either. Slowing down, speeding up, both have the same effect of changing your speed relative to the car which is in your way, and both of them leave you going at a different speed relatively to the bulk of cars on the road. So both have a risk. The advantage of slowing down is that if there is a collision, you'll be going slightly slower, so more more likely to survive.
"one of the biggest reasons we have 350 million privately owned firearms in a country"
Yes, indeed, and you are prepare to accept the extraordinary numbers of gun related deaths that this causes. It's your country, all up to you. I am pleased to see that Europe is moving in a more positive direction.
Will this apply to motorbikes ? (Score:2)
hmm (Score:3)
Another condition for speed limiting (Score:3)
Rear fog lamps.
I guess other countries have similar rules to the UK which is they are only to be used if visibility is less than 100 metres.
If we're talking about mandatory speed limiters on cars, let's also have the speed limited to 40mph whenever the high intensity rear fog lamps are switched on to put a stop to the idiots in over powered cars doing 85mph in the third lane in torrential rain with the fog lamps on.
Re: (Score:2)
This should get fun.. (Score:3)
Considering my car's sign recognition camera routinely misinterprets and claims e.g. the speed limit is 140 in a 50 zone, this should get fun.
If it's on by default, I predict the sales of GPS jammers will skyrocket if this becomes the norm. Not to mention duct tape to cover the sign reading camera. Yes, even if you can actually turn it off in settings, a lot of people simply won't read the damn manual.
Reduce road deaths to zero? (Score:2)
Um, what about the poor sod driving a car who has a heart attack? Technically that is a road death.
Of course, they can end ALL road deaths by ripping up all the roads and outlawing vehicles other than horse drawn wagons on paths rather than roads. Or they could simply rename the roads as streets and have no more road deaths. But that's a big cheat, too.
{^_-}
What happens when (Score:5, Insightful)
Will the car just come to a sudden stop with all the cars behind it crashing into it?
Re: (Score:2)
It won't slam on the brakes, it will just reduce power until the car gently slows down.
A bigger danger is that GPS speed databases won't be updated. A road might be widened and the limit increased, for example. Or it might get momentarily confused by two roads that cross over each other at different elevations, as sat-navs sometimes are.
That's why for safety the driver can override the system if they need to, both by pressing the accelerator hard for a temporary override and by turning it off until next dri
Re: (Score:2)
A even bigger danger is that GPS speed databases list the road you are on as not even being there = speed limit 0
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
5mph is a (fast) walking pace. 8-9 is a slow walking pace. Cyclists travel at about 12 on average. Fit cyclists can maintain 18-20 for elongated periods of time.
For comparison, 12mph is around about the average speed of a car in a city, and 3mph is about the length of an average journey.
uhhh, not gonna happen (Score:5, Insightful)
aims ultimately to cut road deaths to zero by 2050
You can aim all you want, but cutting road deaths to zero by 2050 is a very naive goal..
Unless we won't have roads anymore....
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's the point of a goal -- something to aim toward. I think it is a goal we should have, rather than the current situation where we consider the deaths of many people an acceptable compromise.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They said that about submarines too. They were very dangerous, lots of crews lost. I think it was after the loss of the USS Scorpion that they decided to have aim for no more losses, and they actually managed to do it.
Also note that it's not zero accidents, just zero deaths from accidents.
Re: (Score:2)
[*] Current year is whenever you are reading the statement.
Gridlock Solution (Score:2)
Unless we won't have roads anymore....
Not necessarily. An alternative approach would be to simply not build any more roads and then, by about 2050 Europe will probably have reached terminal gridlock. Traffic congestion is already credited with reducing some fatalities.
MCAS for Cars! (Score:5, Insightful)
Sounds a wee bit like the ill-fated 737 Max 8's MCAS system, which overrode the pilot's climb ability when they needed it most.
Not having power when you need it to safely avoid an accident will cost lives.
But, just as with self-driving cars, more lives will probably be saved, overall, by the system. Because humans, on average, aren't great drivers; computers can, or soon will be able to, outperform them.
Yeah, that's gonna fly SO well in Germany (Score:2)
Remember Germany? The country that pretty much dictates what goes in the EU?
The country (and as far as I know the only one in the EU, if not the world) that has no speed limit because even 130km/h (about 90mph) isn't fast enough? And where the mere suggestion of a speed limit is irresponsible and against sanity and reason [stuttmann-karikaturen.de],even for their politicians?
Yeah. That's gonna work out. I can see that. Uhhuh.
Accidents waiting to happen (Score:2)
If a car is overtaking a lorry on a motorway and enters a lower speed-limit area, the driver can push down hard on the accelerator to complete the maneuver.
So the car suddenly slows down if it enters speed limit area? That means if you are switching lanes for example you could accidently ram into the next car because of this. This is just a disaster waiting to happen. Any computer controlled movements that can take place at random times are just dangerous.
Secondly if you have an emergency then this means you can't drive over the speed limit and someone could possibly die before reaching the hospital.
This is bad.
Don't Stop - Cyanide & Happiness Shorts (Score:2)
https://youtu.be/1EMqd5Nznv0?t... [youtu.be]
foreced to buy the map service or is it free? (Score:2)
foreced to buy the map service or is it free?
I Can't Drive 55 (Score:2)
One foot on the brake and one on the gas, hey!
Well, there's too much traffic, I can't pass, no!
So I tried my best illegal move
Well, baby, black and white come and touched my groove again!
Gonna write me up a 125
Post my face wanted dead or alive
Take my license, all that jive
I can't drive 55! Oh No!
Uh!
So I signed my name on number 24, hey!
Yeah the judge said, "Boy, just one more...
We're gonna throw your ass in the city joint"
Looked me in the eye, said, "You get my point?"
I said Yea!, Oh yea!
Write me up a 125
Po
Just when electric cars beat them .... (Score:2)
Now the BEV cars are beating the pants off the ICE cars in acceleration. It won't be long before they beat them in every category. With such low center of gravity, BEVs will be impossible to beat. Right now Tesla is plagued with production hell, delivery hell, service hell and self induced shoot-my-feet-with-tweets hell... But th
Time to start importing from the US (Score:2)
I think I'll wait (Score:2)
I think I'll wait for the next models, I've heard they will have Personal Commuting Integration (PCI).
Guess what vehicles are exempt? (Score:5, Insightful)
As with “gun-control” legislation, less-than-honest politicians (in the EU and the UK) have cynically, quietly excused themselves from compliance.
Not surprisingly, vehicles transporting politicians (in the UK and the EU) will never have ISA installed.
It’s good enough for us, but apparently not for them.
Shocking, isn’t it, that politicians themselves are evidently hesitant about personally enjoying all the endlessly-ballyhooed “benefits” of this new, mandatory technology.
Could it be that they don’t trust this dubious kit any more than the rest of us do?
But of course, their lives and safety are “important.”
Ours apparently less so.
It has been done before. (Score:2)
Hold on..... (Score:2)
Memes! Yes folks, the true danger to people isn't driving too fast, it is people using a picture of E.T. with a silly caption. Enough of a threat to humanity that the EU needs to eliminate it.
https://www.theinquirer.net/in... [theinquirer.net]
Behold the Self Driving Car 1.0 (Score:2)
Re:More EU rules to control transport (Score:4, Informative)
Re:More EU rules to control transport (Score:5, Informative)
Germany has been considering new speed limits since at least the 1970s but nothing ever happens.
If you've ever driven in Germany you'd know how the system works. The autobahans are full of police cars. You can overtake them at any speed, no problem, but try tailgating, using your phone, changing lanes without indicating ... acting like an asshole/idiot in any way at all and they'll be down on you like a ton of bricks.
It's not the speed that kills you when you're on a nice straight road, it's the distracted soccer moms and self-centered idiots.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not the speed that kills you when you're on a nice straight road, it's the distracted soccer moms and self-centered idiots.
I have to say the first autobahn accident I saw was pretty impressive, some guy in an s class spun across 4 lanes of traffic, taking loads of other (innocent) people out.
I know two guys killed because their one-year-old BMW literally stopped in the fast lane and they were rammed by another car 5 minutes later doing 300kmh. Somehow the driver survived.
It is the anomalies that kill you and doing race track speeds without the associated safety systems in place, such as you have on a racetrack, you will end up
Re: (Score:2)
It is the anomalies that kill you and doing race track speeds without the associated safety systems in place, such as you have on a racetrack, you will end up with deaths of both safe and unsafe drivers.
Really?
The real world called, they disagree...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autobahn#Safety:_international_comparison
The Autobahns are safer than the average motorway in the world.
German Autobahns are actually every bit as blood soaked as any other motorways in the world and these Autobahn accidents tend to be as ugly as they are elsewhere in the world: https://www.google.com/search?... [google.com] This is but one of the reason the German public has increasingly been polling in favour of a 130 kph speed limit.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
It is the anomalies that kill you and doing race track speeds without the associated safety systems in place, such as you have on a racetrack, you will end up with deaths of both safe and unsafe drivers.
Really?
The real world called, they disagree...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autobahn#Safety:_international_comparison
The Autobahns are safer than the average motorway in the world.
That's because those statistics are gathered independently by each country, and each using their own rules. And the rules in Germany are absolutely ridiculous: you only count as a fatality of a road accident if you die at the spot. Once they load you into an ambulance, and you kick it the moment they shut the door, nope, not a car-related fatality, you don't go into the stats. In most other countries you get counted as a road accident fatality if you die within a week or so.
Re: (Score:2)
That must be the dumbest reasoning I have ever seen.
What you are saying is that it is ok to put other people's lives at risk without their permission because you want to risk your life and drive at the limits 50 metres away from someone ferrying their children to school.
By the way, I did half a season in the Porsche Cup (a recurring elbow injury forced me to stop), and have risked my life in many other pursuits, so no one really calls me a pussy.
Re: (Score:2)
But also if you drive over 80mph and get involved in an accident, it's your fault unless you can prove it would have happened at lower speed as well. Doesn't matter if it was the other guy
Re: (Score:3)
We don’t do mph in mainland Europe.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, you're partly right. I've driven a fair bit in southern Germany (since I live in Switzerland), and sensible drivers are mostly safe. Mostly.
But you still have various dangers caused by the speed. A typical Autobahn only has two lanes on a side, at least in the area I'm familiar with. So take a slow truck in the right lane, going maybe 80kph. Then take a guy in his Mercedes tooling along in the left lane, at maybe 220 kph. Joe average comes up on the truck, changes to the left lane to pass.
Joe average
Re: (Score:3)
I have driven there for six years in the 80s-early 90s, plus several week long trips in recent years. Rarely ever did I see Polizi on the autobahn. But honestly, there was little need for them because everyone typically followed the rules, except for the tailgating which I saw numerous times with people quite literally a couple feet apart at 100+ mph speeds. Of the ~50 countries I've driven in, Germany was by far the best organized, and most disciplined drivers.
Re: (Score:3)
They're thick some days. I've seen them pulling over every 10th car. There was a big soccer game and the drunks were out. It takes very little to be 'drunk' by German road standards, any measurable ethanol IIRC.
Germans are a bunch of goddamn law abiders. A speeding ticket is cheap by American standards and can't affect your insurance rate, but Germans are afraid of being shamed.
I'm only a German citizen on a technicality. Rules are suggestions.
Re: (Score:2)
So the Autobahns have a sign on them where there is no speed limit. Speed limited cars will limit their speed to the posted speed limit, so driving on a Autobahn in areas with no speed limit will still mean you can drive as fast as you like in these updated cars.
Re: (Score:2)
Then you shouldn't be driving at all. Get the fuck out of my way!!!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not everyone lives in a city. Even those that live in metro areas, often have no point to point transportation options beyond cars. It's great when people are so self centered, that they project their own needs on everyone else and then demand the government dictate those limitations on everyone.
Re:Fortunately will not effect me. (Score:5, Insightful)
I think that argument cuts both ways to be honest. People who want to commute long distances tend to pretty vocal about societies providing them with good roads, about having parking spaces in the other end, and asking the people in between to put up with the pollution, the noise and the risk of death that they cause.
I think that this argument has held too much credence for a long time, and it is time we should stop. It not an argument about liberty but about what we want our cities to be for.
Re:Fortunately will not effect me. (Score:5, Interesting)
I think that argument cuts both ways to be honest. People who want to commute long distances tend to pretty vocal about societies providing them with good roads, about having parking spaces in the other end, and asking the people in between to put up with the pollution, the noise and the risk of death that they cause.
It is also important to remember that people don't always have great choices here either.
When I bought my house, I bought one on the bus line (as shitty as it is), only a 15 minute (or so) bus ride to work downtown. Great, right? My wife's employer is ALSO only a 15 minute (or so) bus ride to work downtown. Even better, right?
Fast forward two years. That employer now tells me that I am working out of an office 30 minutes away (best case) by car, way out in the sticks somewhere, and I can like it or lump it.
So, what, I'm just going to quit my fucking job? Or maybe my can sell one house, buy another house close to the new office, and my wife can quit HER fucking job, since she still works downtown! Or maybe I can just keep the job long enough to find a new job downtown - however long that takes. But in the meantime, I still have to get to work!
Hey, and you want to guess why the employer moved the office out of downtown and way out into the sticks somewhere? Because rents in the city are a lot more expensive. Who'd a thunked it??
As a side note, I routinely find myself going 80 mph+ on the highway with a posted limit of 55 mph. Fuck speed limiter devices.
Re: Fortunately will not effect me. (Score:3)
Yeah. That must be it. Since no one did.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The carbon footprint of those living in cities is, in general, lower in western nations.
Really? I hope you're adding in the extra "footprint" of trucking in all that food that is produced in rural areas.
I also hope you're adding in the extra "footprint" of all the resource development happening in non-cities that make cities possible.
Rural areas and people can survive just fine without cities. Cities and people living there can't survive without rural areas. Given this truism, which is the more "natural" way to live?
Re:Fortunately will not effect me. (Score:4, Insightful)
Real freedom is not needing to own a car (and not have it affect you in the slightest). The best cities are car-free.
No, it's being able to go where and when you want. If you're stuck on foot or relying on others you're not going to get far.
Re: (Score:2)
"No, it's being able to go where and when you want. If you're stuck on foot or relying on others you're not going to get far."
Your freedom to go where and when you want, unfortunately, contradicts my freedom to go how I want. I'd like to have a quiet, peaceful, unpolluted city, with high quality pavements and good bike routes for long distances.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"No, it's being able to go where and when you want. If you're stuck on foot or relying on others you're not going to get far."
Your freedom to go where and when you want, unfortunately, contradicts my freedom to go how I want. I'd like to have a quiet, peaceful, unpolluted city, with high quality pavements and good bike routes for long distances.
Likewise, your freedom to quiet, peaceful, unpolluted cities with high-quality pavements and good bike routes contradicts my freedom to a hustle-bustle, high-GDP, high-income and high-tech economic powerhouse city.
How about you stop trying to spin your selfish desires as "MUH FREE-DUMBS"? You want all of that, then move to the damn countryside.
Re: (Score:2)
"Likewise, your freedom to quiet, peaceful, unpolluted cities with high-quality pavements and good bike routes contradicts my freedom to a hustle-bustle, high-GDP, high-income and high-tech economic powerhouse city."
Yes, indeed. I was in Amsterdam a couple of weeks, and I was really struck by the poverty, by the total lack of development, and complete lack of technology. Lets not head in that direction.
Of course, none of that is true. Having a high-quality pavements and good bike routes help to enable high-
Re: (Score:2)
"No, it's being able to go where and when you want. If you're stuck on foot or relying on others you're not going to get far."
Your freedom to go where and when you want, unfortunately, contradicts my freedom to go how I want. I'd like to have a quiet, peaceful, unpolluted city, with high quality pavements and good bike routes for long distances.
My car and your bike are not mutually exclusive. Maybe they are if you want to ride around without any consideration for what everyone wants to do, but if you are only concerned with what you want and not anyone else then you can go fuck yourself really,
Re: (Score:2)
"No, it's being able to go where and when you want. If you're stuck on foot or relying on others you're not going to get far."
Your freedom to go where and when you want, unfortunately, contradicts my freedom to go how I want. I'd like to have a quiet, peaceful, unpolluted city, with high quality pavements and good bike routes for long distances.
My car and your bike are not mutually exclusive. Maybe they are if you want to ride around without any consideration for what everyone wants to do, but if you are only concerned with what you want and not anyone else then you can go fuck yourself really,
You're the snowflake who opined rather self-importantly that your FREE-DUMBS are more important than other peoples freedoms.
If your freedom from city life is so fucking important to you, move out of the damn city. Your freedom to swing your fist end where everyone else's nose begins.
What do cities have to do with anything? Seeing as you don't seem to be willing to share, why don't you move to the countryside where no one can bother you and you can keep your impotent rage going forever.
Re: (Score:2)
"No, it's being able to go where and when you want. If you're stuck on foot or relying on others you're not going to get far."
Your freedom to go where and when you want, unfortunately, contradicts my freedom to go how I want. I'd like to have a quiet, peaceful, unpolluted city, with high quality pavements and good bike routes for long distances.
My car and your bike are not mutually exclusive. Maybe they are if you want to ride around without any consideration for what everyone wants to do, but if you are only concerned with what you want and not anyone else then you can go fuck yourself really,
You're the snowflake who opined rather self-importantly that your FREE-DUMBS are more important than other peoples freedoms.
If your freedom from city life is so fucking important to you, move out of the damn city. Your freedom to swing your fist end where everyone else's nose begins.
What do cities have to do with anything? Seeing as you don't seem to be willing to share, why don't you move to the countryside where no one can bother you and you can keep your impotent rage going forever.
Why? I'm not the one bothered by what other people are doing. You are, so how about you get out of their faces instead of insisting that their currently legal behaviour must be made illegal.
If you can't live iwth other people without telling them how to live, perhaps you shouldn't live with them then.
Re:Fortunately will not effect me. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry have I posted a bunch of rants about how people with cars should leave cities to be a utopia for bike pricks? You seem to be very bothered that people have the audacity to drive around in cities. All I said was the ability to travel is a a good metric for freedom as it lets you go further, quicker and gives you more options. I never said you can't ride your bike or suggested the be excluded from anywhere or told anyone to do/not do anything. You go ask any kid itching to get their first car and ask them what it means to them then offer them a bike instead and see how that goes.
We appear to be in violent agreement.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd like to have a quiet, peaceful, unpolluted city...
Name ONE, anywhere on planet Earth.
Be sure to include your definitions of "city", "quiet" and "peaceful".
Re:Fortunately will not effect me. (Score:5, Interesting)
Don't be so hasty in pointing fingers.
I live in NL, in the so-called "Randstad" area, which is several of their biggest cities situated so close to each other that they form almost uninterrupted metropolitan area along the west coast. I have never owned a car, even my license expired few years ago (and I would not dare use ti without refreshment course anyway). Commuting with bicycles and trains. 300 000 km in the train, about 40 000 km on a bicycle in 17 years.
Such efficient, fast, clean train system is expensive. Really expensive. I work 65 km from home. If I purchase monthly train subscription for this trajectory only it comes to 300 Euro per month (if you subscribe for a full year; month by month it is 350). I use "always free" subscription (travel everywhere at all hours) that costs 342/400 Euros per month. So far every company I worked for covered those expenses in full. If I'd use a car they'd give me 80 Euro per month and that's that.
So, you see that a combination of living and working in the busiest metropolitan areas (I guess substantial portion of the population is concentrated there) plus the generous companies (who do this because they get some tax kick-backs to encourage people to switch to public transport) allows me to use this option. So I can work or read or just doze off during my commute which is great. Also, the women are nice to look at (major users of that transport are the middle and worker classes plus all students at all levels). Do they have plenty of issues with the system? Sure! But the cars also get stuck in jams regularly.
Did I mention I have no children? That's a big one even though helicopter parenting is not as wide spread here as in the USA.
However, once you are out in the countryside it becomes a bit difficult. Transport is available but you have to wait quite a bit. And suddenly traveling with a car is twice as fast as public transport, whereas in the metro area the trains do 140 km/hr (or 160km/hr on one specific and very busy trajectory Amsterdam-Schiphol-Rotterdam) and are as frequent as 4-6 times per hour. And thus, contrary to what some might imagine it is the rural inhabitants and those is small towns that do not use trains and buses so much but make do with cars and motorcycles.
I am not an expert but in my opinion a train system with such efficiency cannot be supported to connect everyone, everywhere for an affordable price. At least for now. But many smart hybrid-like solutions are probably available if we care to implement them. For example, I would love to have properly automated car. Very small, cheap, electric. If I can go in and say "bring me to work" and then read my books....bring it on! No traffic jams, much more efficient use of the roads, improved safety...what's not to like?
In USA I think the cities can do so much more to improve the transport and reduce the car usage. I guess you can build some high speed lines to connect the really big cities....but will it be convenient enough and affordable enough? I don't know but I have the feeling that you can win bigly there ;) And yes, I agree that the car lobby has had too much influence. Still, public transport as it is is not the answer to everything...
I guess the whole point of my ramblings is "It is complicated. Don't be hasty! Think rationally instead of ideologically"
Re: (Score:2)
Think rationally instead of ideologically
I wish Dutch politicians would take that and tape it to their bathroom mirrors.
Re: Fortunately will not effect me. (Score:2)
Re:This is going to be GRRRR-GREAT! (Score:4, Informative)
This doesn't prevent speeding. All that's being talked about is adding some "no-acceleration" pedal travel around the speed limit.
Honestly, if you could add a +- X kph to the speed limit, this is a feature I would like. Call it "speeding ticket prevention mode". ;)
I have no issues with limitations so long as they can be overridden, with the difficulty of the override being proportional to the risk. For example, I would personally like to see a hard limit of +30mph / +50kph over the speed limit that can't even be beaten by further accelerator pedal travel... but can still be circumvented by activating an "Emergency Mode" which makes your lights flash and an external siren sound. Such a hard limit should also be activated at lower speeds if the vehicle knows that it can't cope with the situation that a user is trying to subject it to, such as a hill that will make it jump, a turn it couldn't possibly take, etc.
Obviously, in places with no limit, such as on a track or Autobahn, a "+30mph / +50kph" over the limit scenario would never occur.
Re:This is going to be GRRRR-GREAT! (Score:4, Informative)
Being able to accelerate quickly and well beyond the speed limit has saved my life: Avoidance of accidents AND Avoidance of pre-planned accidents by insurance scammers and/or gang members.
Now maybe Europe doesn't experience auto accidents or have insurance scammers or have gangs! Must be a great place to live!
Re:This is going to be GRRRR-GREAT! (Score:5, Informative)
And you can, under the EU proposal. How long does it take you to floor a pedal?
The effect of flooring the pedal doesn't change. What changes is that there's a "zero action" point in the pedal's range around the speed limit, where the car only gives enough force to maintain speed. Push at all past that, and you're back to accelerating.
As a separate issue, under what I'd like to see, you'd be limited to going more than 30mph / 50kph over the speed limit without activating an emergency mode. But that shouldn't pose a hindrance to you in your "pre-planned accident" scenario either.
Re: (Score:3)
> I didn't buy cars easily capable of going well over 100mph, to not occasionally 'air them out' when conditions around were safe to do so.
And if you bothered to read the article, this would not prevent you doing this in the slightest.
> I don't need the govt. limiting me.
There is a not insignificant chance that seat belt and DUI legislation has saved your life without you ever realizing it. Your freedoms are weighed against the statistical chance of hurting others. Deal with it.
> Geez, the nanny st
Re: (Score:3)
I didn't buy cars easily capable of going well over 100mph, to not occasionally 'air them out' when conditions around were safe to do so.
I don't need the govt. limiting me.
It's not about you, or at least, not necessarily about you.
If you want to get on it, you can go to a track.
Going quickly on public roads is a hazard to others, even if nobody is around. You could go off the road and into a tree and cause a fire, or off the road and into a river and dump your crankcase lube into an ecosystem.
I like driving quickly too, but the reality is that the vast majority of public roads aren't designed for speeds like those, and the vast majority of other drivers don't behave well enou
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm happy to keep Australian speed limits where they are, thank you.
Commuted in Brisbane from suburbs to city for 20 years, in car and on motorcycle, then commuted from hills to beach for another 9 years in car and on motorcycle - the shit I've seen and personally experienced makes me glad for speed limits. Maybe the govt should focus more on police presence on the roads instead of "safety cameras" and we'd see better results. Nothing makes motorists behave better than a highly-visible police car. Driver tr
Re:UN measures, adopted by EU (Score:4, Informative)
Re:UN measures, adopted by EU (Score:5, Insightful)
How is the insurance company screwing you if you willingly don't comply with the speed limit? Speed limits are there for a reason.
Yeah, usually populist politics.
Sure, there are obviously sensible limits (residential areas, near schools etc.) but a lot of the speed limits outside the cities are more or less random, guided only by politics. There are areas where a lot of people are affected by accidents and yet the speed limit stay high, and then there are areas where nobody really lives but where lower speed limits suddenly appear. This lack of sense undermines the belief in them and then people tend to drive as they please.
Re: (Score:2)
if a politician illegally obtained the info (and it would be illegal under the new privacy law), they'd be digging their own grave.
Re: UN measures, adopted by EU (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
And why shouldn't they? What gives you the right to drive recklessly and endanger my life?
Re: (Score:2)
The lizard people flying the black helicopters and on their way to examine your colon
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone who thinks Muslins did it from a cave in Afghanistan should do the human race a favor and just kill themselves.
Anyone who thinks some Jews were able to manipulate a bunch of fanatical Muslims (including their leader sitting in a cave in Afghanistan) to execute the complex plan that ended in 9/11 should check his/her tinfoil hat carefully as it seem to be frying the brain.
Re: (Score:2)
Governments have other sources of income, which can be increased on a whim if needed to fill the coffers.
Re: Not required to be on all the time (Score:4, Insightful)
It is risk taking behavior, that has gotten the modern world to the advanced state it is in today.
Trying to always stay safe, stifles progress and innovation.
Not to mention, that life is boring without any risk.
Re: (Score:3)
It is risk taking behavior, that has gotten the modern world to the advanced state it is in today.
You mean the state in which climate change threatens all civilizations on the planet? Don't worry, we'll fix it in post