Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Transportation Government

New York State Bill Would Require Speed Limiting Tech In New Cars (autoblog.com) 155

Posted by BeauHD from the noble-endeavors dept.
The New York State Senate just introduced a bill that aims to improve safety around massive trucks and SUVs. Autoblog reports: Manhattan State Senator Brad Hoylman introduced the bill, which includes language requiring the NY DMV to dictate specific rules for vehicles over 3,000 pounds. One new regulation would be that the drivers of such cars have "direct visibility of pedestrians, cyclists, and other vulnerable road users from the driver's position." It's not clear exactly what enforcing that legislation would entail. However, the meat of Hoylman's bill centers on advanced safety technology. A summary of the legislation states, "Studies have shown that Intelligent Speed Assistance (ISA) alone can reduce traffic fatalities by 20%. This, in addition to Advanced Emergency Braking (AEB), Emergency Lane Keeping Systems (ELKS), drowsiness and distraction recognition technology, and rear-view cameras, would help prevent crashes from occurring in the first place."

If you've never heard of ISA, you're not alone. The term is pretty broad in what it encompasses, including speed limit recognition and alerts, speed assist, and speed limiting. The tech is common in Europe, where automakers like Ford offer it in several models. Ford's flavor of speed limiting allows drivers to set a maximum speed and automatically limit the vehicle to within five mph of the posted speed limit. It's optional, however, so drivers can turn it off when desired. If passed, the legislation would require automakers to include those advanced driver assistance systems as standard equipment in new vehicles from 2024 on.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

New York State Bill Would Require Speed Limiting Tech In New Cars More

New York State Bill Would Require Speed Limiting Tech In New Cars

Comments Filter:

  • Clickbait headline (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Joce640k ( 829181 ) on Wednesday August 24, 2022 @08:36PM (#62820353) Homepage

    They make it sound as if this will prevent manly men from driving too fast. I predict a deluge of curmudgeons.

    In reality it just another driving aid. I recently drove a Ford about 200 miles in moderate traffic without touching the pedals at all, the car did all the accelerating and braking for me. It spotted cars in front of me and adjusted speeds accordingly the accelerated to overtake them if I pulled out into the other lane.

    I liked it.

    If they want to mandate something they should mandate anti-tailgating tech. Make it impossible to drive too close when you're going at speed.

    • So you didn't "drive" the car. At best, you simply operated the steering wheel.

      • Oh, look, we got ourselves a "driver".

      • So you didn't "drive" the car. At best, you simply operated the steering wheel.

        And... These image searches immediately come to mind: trump truck [google.com] and trump fire truck [google.com]. :-)

      • Sounds like something I'd like. I'd like it even better if the car drove me to the destination and I could take a nap.

        Driving may be fun for some people, for me it's a necessary chore to transport my body or other objects.

    • Commercial trucks in Europe are speed limited to about 50mph.

    • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

      by fermion ( 181285 )
      I think my car cuts out when I reach 140. I accidentally have reached that sipped a few times entering the freeway and the engine has cut out. Good feedback

      I have driven cars with self driving safety features, and I do more or less like. The car knows the sipped limit and adjusts. I drive much more aggressively around other cars, so I donâ(TM)t like when the car is a whimper and slows down prematurely. I do like the lane keeping features

      But yes, the headline is clickbait. The key will be to insure

      • I think my car cuts out when I reach 140. I accidentally have reached that sipped a few times entering the freeway ...

        Assuming you meant MPH, you should try that on a motorcycle. I guarantee you won't want to try it again.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by lsllll ( 830002 )
          Come again? 140 MPH on a motorcycle is nothing out of the ordinary. I guess that depends on how you define ordinary, though, and how you define motorcycle. You're not even talking about a track with curves; just a ramp entering the highway. You can't go 140 on a cruiser. 140 on that ramp is what a crotch rocket was made for.

          • Re:Clickbait headline (Score:4, Insightful)

            by ufgrat ( 6245202 ) on Thursday August 25, 2022 @08:46AM (#62821851)

            140 MPH on a motorcycle on a public road is indeed, out of the ordinary. And if you've done that, on behalf of the sane motorcyclists out there, you need your license taken away. For life.

            You give the rest of us a bad name, and you raise our insurance rates.

        • 140 miles on a motorcycle is quite ... impressive. It's amazing how narrow the road suddenly gets...

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by nasch ( 598556 )

          Assuming you meant MPH, you should try that on a motorcycle. I guarantee you won't want to try it again.

          130 was fun. Is 140 significantly different?

      • Re:Clickbait headline (Score:5, Informative)

        by CaptQuark ( 2706165 ) on Thursday August 25, 2022 @02:33AM (#62821069)

        I've driven 18-wheeled vehicles in the past and many of them already have a speed limiter at about 70mph. It didn't bother me because my driving time was already projected to account for this.

        One reason many passenger cars have a 140mph speed limiter on them is because handling geometry is adversely affected above certain speeds (lateral forces, steering sensitivity, rollover forces) so they limit the top speed. Also, the standard tires they recommend are usually only rated up to 130mph (H rating) so your tires don't fly apart from centrifugal force. Tire speed rating [bridgestonetire.com]

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by mjwx ( 966435 )

          I've driven 18-wheeled vehicles in the past and many of them already have a speed limiter at about 70mph. It didn't bother me because my driving time was already projected to account for this.

          One reason many passenger cars have a 140mph speed limiter on them is because handling geometry is adversely affected above certain speeds (lateral forces, steering sensitivity, rollover forces) so they limit the top speed. Also, the standard tires they recommend are usually only rated up to 130mph (H rating) so your tires don't fly apart from centrifugal force. Tire speed rating [bridgestonetire.com]

          For the most part, speed limiters are arbitrary numbers, Japans 180 KPH, Germanys 200 KPH. Vehicle design has changed so much since these limiters were devised that any scientific basis behind them has long since changed completely.

          Different cars have different characteristics and handling. The article is targeting large SUV's and "trucks" which due to their size, height and high CoG tend to perform far worse at speed than an ordinary 4 door saloon or estate, let alone a purpose designed sports car. I th

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by ufgrat ( 6245202 )

        The quoted article says 3,000 pounds. My two door Volvo hatchback weighs more than that.

    • If that anti-tailgating tech makes it to Southern California you'll have blood on your hands rather than improving safety. Drivers see a car's space open and they're on it like syrup to a pancake. They'll dive right in no matter the safety. You'll end up with all the cars with this tech enabled making roadblocks on the highway as everyone aggressively merges in front of them.
    • If you stay out of the innermost (passing) lane I wouldn't have to rear-end you you F*cking speed Karen! It doesn't matter what speed you are traveling. If you are in the innermost (passing) lane and not passing you are breaking the law! If someone passes you while you are in the left (innermost) lane you are breaking the law and forcing the passer to break the law as well. IMO you should get both tickets you insensitive @sshole!!!!! I hope they catch you and ream you with an anal probe!

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by Rhys ( 96510 )

      You clearly didn't drive anywhere near Chicago. They like to post speed limits as "SPEED / LIMIT / 70" and then 50 feet later "BUSSES / 60" or "TRUCKS / OVER X TONS / 60". The camera system will happily spot the 60 markers and slow down, only to speed up at the next 70 sign and then slow right down again.

      It is even more exciting with the limit-over minimum-style (so "SPEED / LIMIT / 70" above "MINIMUM / 45") and they forgot to clean up a road construction cover over the 70, or a tree grew out and blocked th

    • Re:Clickbait headline (Score:4, Interesting)

      by ArmoredDragon ( 3450605 ) on Thursday August 25, 2022 @01:34AM (#62820997)

      That's called adaptive cruise, and it's been a standard feature even in low end cars for years now. I have a 2019 Corolla, which isn't an expensive car at all, that has both that and lane assist, so it even steers itself to stay within the lane markers.

      Related to the article, it also seems to be able to either read the road signs or (more likely) use GPS data to know what the speed limit is everywhere I'm driving. It displays it next to the speedometer...but I'm in Phoenix, where everybody, including the police, know that the actual speed limit is at least 25% higher than what the sign says, so that feature is kind of useless.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by dfm3 ( 830843 )
        Thanks for confirming, I figured this was just describing adaptive cruise control as well.

        Allowing a car to set (or limit) it's own speed with no way to override could be dangerous. the infotainment system in our Subaru uses horrible TomTom maps that think nearly every back road in our county has a 65MPH speed limit. Conversely, driving less than 5 over on an interstate in Atlanta, Houston, or Phoenix could be fatal.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by haruchai ( 17472 )

      While I think predictions of "fully self driving" being ready very soon are overly optimistic, at some point it will become reality.
      And when cars are good enough, no human will be considered good enough; politicians & insurers will see to that.

    • They make it sound as if this will prevent manly men from driving too fast. I predict a deluge of curmudgeons.

      In reality it just another driving aid. I recently drove a Ford about 200 miles in moderate traffic without touching the pedals at all, the car did all the accelerating and braking for me. It spotted cars in front of me and adjusted speeds accordingly the accelerated to overtake them if I pulled out into the other lane.

      I liked it.

      If they want to mandate something they should mandate anti-tailgating tech. Make it impossible to drive too close when you're going at speed.

      I had a minivan with a similar feature. It got confused by everything. Light rain or snow, curves in the road, whatever.
      It would just start beeping like crazy and disengage. I stopped using it, don't miss it.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by sinij ( 911942 )

      If they want to mandate something they should mandate anti-tailgating tech. Make it impossible to drive too close when you're going at speed.

      Lets think what it would look like when implemented. Some kind of forward-facing radar, drive by wire with some kind of cruise control module (because you have to have means to override driver's throttle input) plus a whole bunch of code. Typically ~$2K tech package would cover this. Plus, since it is safety equipment, the system must last expected car life (~12 years) and not just typical warranty (~4 years), so add another 50% on top of that.

      With average new economy car at about $25K out of the door, do

  • In Europe, or at least in France, there are automatic speed traps all over the place and you get a ticket in the mail a few weeks later. You get penalty points and when you run out of points your license get suspended. Not surprisingly the auto manufacturers are offering automatic speed limiters to help you avoid tickets.

    Iâ(TM)m surprised that automated speed traps are not coming I the US, we do have it for red lights so why not for speed limits, not that I would want that here.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Arethan ( 223197 )

      Automated traffic light tickets have legal hurdles in the US, and I suspect automated speed traps would suffer much worse. It's not about function, it's about semantics. Many locales here require that you can face your accuser, even for traffic violations. Short of ripping the camera from its mounting post and dropping its lifeless frame into a courtroom chair (so that it can still not appropriately defend its position in the matter), there's not much space for the companies that are looking to profit direc

      • Remember: Laws can change, and do. Every single day.

        Here in Spain I remember I used to drive around at 200kmh (~125mph) with a speed limit of 120kph and people would still overtake me.

        That's all changed in the last 10 years though. There's automatic cameras everywhere and everybody really behaves now. It actually feels like an improvement. Go figure. Driving is definitely a lot more relaxing.

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by lsllll ( 830002 )
          Reminds me of this one time in 2001 when I was driving in Spain in the middle of the country. I was doing 160 in a 120. Nobody else was around but me and I was driving in the left lane. I noticed a motorcycle come up on me real fast. When it was on my tail, I saw it was a cop. I was like "Oh, crap, I'm gonna get a speeding ticket." I pulled over to the right lane. He started to pass me, but slowed down by the driver window, looked at me, and did a motion with his finger to move to the right. I thoug

      • Re:Automatic speed limiting for automated speeding (Score:4, Insightful)

        by hawk ( 1151 ) <hawk@eyry.org> on Wednesday August 24, 2022 @10:20PM (#62820657) Journal

        it's not just legal problems.

        It was law enforcement that led the drive to remove them from Arizona, for example.

        There is an assumption that these would reduce accidents by improving driving.

        The reality in may places was that accidents *increased*. [just as an exam[le of how it could happen, the stomping of brakes for any yellow light leading to being rear ended]

        and then there were the jurisdictions that, systems in place, discussed how much they could increase revenue by shortening the length of the yellow light . . .

        And then you have the errors, and even legal issues such as rules of evidence

    • Automated speed traps are illegal in many states. It's because the Constitution requires that as a defendant you have the right to question your accuser. A robot cannot be an accuser.

      This is actually a way to beat a speeding ticket. Show up at court and if the officer doesn't show up in court to testify you win.

      • Why is CCTV ok as evidence then?

        Your legal system is stupid.

        • CCTV systems don't write citations. CCTV (or other sensor) footage can be used as evidence, but the system can't be the plaintiff because a robot can't be an agent of the State. In this case, automated speed traps act as a human officer by recording then issuing the citation. Hawaii got around that for a while with "van cams", vans on the side of the freeway with cameras to record, but an officer was inside to actually do the paperwork. Regardless, the citizens revolted and every radio station advertised th

          • Why does the speed have to issue the citation? Why cant they act as evidence backing a citation issued by an officer? Why does the officer have to be in the van? Why cant they issue the citation later?

            I stand by my comment about your legal system sucking.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by micheas ( 231635 )

              Why does the speed have to issue the citation? Why cant they act as evidence backing a citation issued by an officer? Why does the officer have to be in the van? Why cant they issue the citation later?

              I stand by my comment about your legal system sucking.

              That is what happens in San Francisco, California. They have a dedicated officer whose job is to review redlight citations and go to court.

          • CCTV systems don't write citations.

            Neither do speed cameras. The accuser is the State, and you can defend yourself against them if you want. Your comment makes no sense, an automated speed camera is just a tool.

            Incidentally when you contest your speeding fine in court you don't actually do so against the officer who wrote you the fine.

  • 3000 pounds (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Tony Isaac ( 1301187 ) on Wednesday August 24, 2022 @09:02PM (#62820441) Homepage

    The only category of vehicles that weighs less than 3,000 pounds, is "compact" size cars like Honda Civic or Toyota Corolla.

    https://qureshiuniversity.com/... [qureshiuniversity.com]

    If the authors say the bill is meant to limit the speed of "massive trucks and SUVs" they picked a very low weight threshold.

    • Re:3000 pounds (Score:4, Insightful)

      by dgatwood ( 11270 ) on Wednesday August 24, 2022 @09:40PM (#62820559) Homepage Journal

      The only category of vehicles that weighs less than 3,000 pounds, is "compact" size cars like Honda Civic or Toyota Corolla.

      https://qureshiuniversity.com/... [qureshiuniversity.com]

      If the authors say the bill is meant to limit the speed of "massive trucks and SUVs" they picked a very low weight threshold.

      Once you realize that your legislators understand what they're legislating with exactly the same level of consistency as Slashdot readers read the linked articles, you'll have a better understanding of why government does the things that it does. :-)

      And no, I have no idea if the article covered that. I didn't read it. :-D

      • You give our legislators a lot more credit than they deserve, IMO. Unlike slashdot readers, they aren't lazy, they're on the take. Follow the money.

    • Re:3000 pounds (Score:4, Insightful)

      by EvilSS ( 557649 ) on Wednesday August 24, 2022 @10:01PM (#62820623)
      Depends if they are talking curb weight (weight of the vehicle unloaded) or GVWR (max weight the vehicle is rated for, with passengers and cargo). If it's GVWR you will be hard pressed to find a new car under 3,000 GVWR.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by mjwx ( 966435 )

        Depends if they are talking curb weight (weight of the vehicle unloaded) or GVWR (max weight the vehicle is rated for, with passengers and cargo). If it's GVWR you will be hard pressed to find a new car under 3,000 GVWR.

        Also, 3000 pounds is 1360 ish KG. You'll find a lot of new cars will fall under that. Just not many SUVs.

        • Would you consider a Mini Cooper to be 'massive'?
          Curb weight for a 2022 4 dr Mini is only 100 lbs under that 3,000 lb limit.

  • I can't drive 55!

  • In those split-second emergency situations, having full control of your vehicle sometimes makes the difference between safety and disaster. As we developers know so well, it's the edge cases that will bite you. It's important to implement these kinds of controls very, very carefully.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by lsllll ( 830002 )
      lol. One of my (not-so-smart) beliefs is that whatever car is behind me can't hurt me. That's why I try to pass them all and I can't do that if my car has a limiter!

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by splutty ( 43475 )

      The cars that I know that have strict speed limiters also have the option to break that limit.

      Most of them as simple as flooring the gas pedal, where just pushing it down won't do it. The reasoning behind it is extremely simple and dovetails perfectly with your pointing out the problem.

      If you NEED to break the speed limit, it's almost always in an emergency. And almost all those emergencies require you to accelerate very quickly, thus flooring the pedal.

      Mind you, all that gets registered, and if flooring th

  • ....bypass it with some tape over the cameras.

  • The Reality of Today (Score:4, Insightful)

    by geekmux ( 1040042 ) on Wednesday August 24, 2022 @09:37PM (#62820547)

    "direct visibility of pedestrians, cyclists, and other vulnerable road users from the driver's position." It's not clear exactly what enforcing that legislation would entail.

    Ripping the cell phone from the addicts hand, would be a start on enforcement.

    I can already tell that rational discussion and lawmaking around Distracted Driving is going to be a lot like tabling discussions talking about obesity.

    In other words, there are far too many "victims" to table such a rational discussion, so we'll kill tens of thousands while pretending other silly shit is actually helping.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Craefter ( 71540 )

      I totally agree but I see a reason why they approach it this way: "Cell phone detection cameras" have to be paid by the government but the proposed doohickies have to be paid by you.

    • is going to be a lot like tabling discussions talking about obesity.

      UK tabling - present formally
      or
      US tabling - postpone formally (i.e. UK shelving)

  • If they want 100% safety just have nobody travel at all! Problem solved!

    I can't say much about where you live, but current speed limits seem to have an expected buffer. They don't ticket you if you're close enough to it. So much so that I tend to aim for 5-10 above the posted limit as that is also very safe, and not as slow. Most other people nearby seem to do the same.

    If you're going to enforce the speed limit, then adjust it so we're going as fast as is safe to do... Probably needs to shift based on

    • If they want 100% safety

      They don't.

      So much so that I tend to aim for 5-10 above the posted limit as that is also very safe, and not as slow.

      Yeah. I too only obey laws when they don't inconvenience me.

      Mind you while I'm taking a dig at you, the problem is more societal. I was gobsmacked when I travelled to the USA only to find that speed limits appear to be be advisory at best. In the meantime my girlfriend has a fine on her desk for going 1km/h over the posted limit, sure it's only 30EUR, but hey law's a law, and there's a reason why most people actually drive the limit here.

      • Mind you while I'm taking a dig at you, the problem is more societal. I was gobsmacked when I travelled to the USA only to find that speed limits appear to be be advisory at best. In the meantime my girlfriend has a fine on her desk for going 1km/h over the posted limit, sure it's only 30EUR, but hey law's a law, and there's a reason why most people actually drive the limit here.

        Radar detectors and CB radios are your friends in a car, especially on a long road trip.

      • Mind you while I'm taking a dig at you, the problem is more societal. I was gobsmacked when I travelled to the USA only to find that speed limits appear to be be advisory at best. In the meantime my girlfriend has a fine on her desk for going 1km/h over the posted limit, sure it's only 30EUR, but hey law's a law, and there's a reason why most people actually drive the limit here.

        There is a reason why most people don't in the US. Literally following the speed limit would only hold up traffic. Different place, different customs.

        In NYC and other big cities you can be fined hundreds of dollars for honking your horn except in an emergency. In other places in the world you'll find people constantly honking out of necessity simply to make sure other people know where they are because the roads are insane and require a level of awareness few western drivers possess.

  • I know the tech is hard, but just put pavement cuts or bumps that you don't notice until the tire is hitting them at speeds over the road's design limit. It is possible although I guess super soft tires that mitigate the vibration or some such would become a market item. :/

    • I know the tech is hard, but just put pavement cuts or bumps that you don't notice until the tire is hitting them at speeds over the road's design limit.

      It is literally impossible to do this without degrading fuel economy. As the road wears, the bumps would disappear. This is a Bad Plan(tm).

  • Just playing an alert tone when the driver is detected to be speeding qualifies as ISA. My phone already does that when I run maps.

  • No problem (Score:3)

    by nospam007 ( 722110 ) * on Thursday August 25, 2022 @04:01AM (#62821235)

    New BMWs, Mercedes, VW, etc from the EU will have that built-in anyway, the law went active last July 7th.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      The system in the EU isn't a hard limit though. It uses GPS and cameras that read speed signs to determine the speed limit, and then warns the driver if they exceed it. The driver can override it by pressing hard on the accelerator.

      Most cars also reduce power when reaching the speed limit, which makes it easier to drive at that limit. My old Leaf had that and it was quite useful. I'm looking forward to other cars having it because so many people seem unable to drive at a consistent speed and refuse to use c

  • By mandating ever more safety and emission equipment lawmakers making economy cars more expensive than ever. While I could only speculate about motivation, the end result would be working class people unable to afford to drive.

    • Why are we so hell bent on working class people driving? Give them proper public transport and stop shackling them to be forever dependent on a motor vehicle.

      Sidenote: When my workplace moved it's office to outside the city, 30% of the staff quit because they didn't own a drivers license or car or didn't want the long commute.

      Stop building cities that depend on people driving everywhere.

  • This is not a governor and you can turn it off if so desired.

    Now if they do require governors later I will not be a happy camper.

  • Ulterior motives (Score:3)

    by racermd ( 314140 ) on Thursday August 25, 2022 @08:37AM (#62821817)

    I HIGHLY suspect this action (and others like them) is less intended to "make everyone safe" and more "take control away from the public." If they REALLY wanted to make everyone safer, officials would demand better driver training programs. As it stands, it's stupid easy to get one's license and, in most states, that includes the ability to operate a vehicle/trailer combo up to 26k lbs. And renewing that license at whatever interval each state mandates usually requires little more than an eye test.

    It would be much more effective to have regular re-tests and evaluations at renewal times. And have renewals occur on a more regular basis, increasing in frequency as people age into "senior years." Funding for the increased workload would be covered by the licensees - no general tax increase required (though that is also an option).

    Technology cannot (yet) replace the judgement a human can/will make. Yes - humans are fallible but we can also more intuitively handle the oddball corner cases technology simply cannot account for. No amount of coding will ever cover the outliers. In some cases, the technology that is supposed to make us safer makes certain corner-case situations LESS safe. And so, I argue, the solution isn't MORE technology that takes the human even further out of the decision loop, but training the humans to operate better and enable the technology to better respond to human inputs.

    I will cite ABS systems as a prime example as it is one of the oldest safety technologies in our modern vehicles (short of seat belts). The technology, itself, can perform wonderfully in probably 90% of everyday situations - dry pavement, damp/wet pavement, etc. But it utterly fails on surfaces that haven't been anticipated or programmed for such as loose sand, deep and heavy snow, etc. Those are situations where locking up is the more appropriate action. And manufacturers have, at the insistence of government regulators, denied an operator of a vehicle the ability to disable ABS for those situations where ABS does nothing positive for vehicle control.

    I'm fine with the additional safety systems but I'm NOT fine with forcing them to be enabled (or unable to be disabled when needed) because "the public cannot be trusted." Train the public, then trust them to use the tools at their disposal.

    • I will cite ABS systems as a prime example as it is one of the oldest safety technologies in our modern vehicles (short of seat belts). The technology, itself, can perform wonderfully in probably 90% of everyday situations - dry pavement, damp/wet pavement, etc. But it utterly fails on surfaces that haven't been anticipated or programmed for such as loose sand, deep and heavy snow, etc. Those are situations where locking up is the more appropriate action. And manufacturers have, at the insistence of government regulators, denied an operator of a vehicle the ability to disable ABS for those situations where ABS does nothing positive for vehicle control.

      I pull fuse for ABS after torquing the snow tires every year. Got sick of having to pop the e-brake because ABS decides for me that I didn't really ever intend on stopping. Can only assume newer cars have much better ABS systems than my POS.

  • The slippery slope (Score:3)

    by RogueWarrior65 ( 678876 ) on Thursday August 25, 2022 @10:32AM (#62822189)

    All of these ideas sound good on paper and when looked at in isolation. However, the moment you give government the ability to mandate this, you've set a precedent. Vehicles are going to be always connected to the internet in the next few years if they aren't already. That will provide the "infrastructure" to facilitate software to be easily created that would allow government to dictate not just how fast you can drive but where you can drive, when you can drive, how far you can drive, how much load you can carry, etc. Oh, sure, they'll couch it in baloney like "Oh, we need to tax you in order to maintain the roads because we have less revenue from gas taxes." But everyone will be billed differently and you won't be able to find out how that works. You want to go away for the weekend? We won't actually stop you but we will make it so expensive that you can't afford it especially if you want to go to certain places. A gas tax doesn't affect how the gasoline is used. It doesn't get higher on the weekend or during rush hour. If you think this is all hypothetical, take a look at Uber and Lyft for a glimpse especially if you use those services a lot. Notice how the same trip varies in price based on supposedly availability of drivers but you don't really know what the algorithm is doing. It's proprietary, after all. Try getting an Uber in fairly rural area at 8am on a Monday morning. No cars available? Or maybe you have to wait an hour for a car to become available. How do you know for sure that that's what's really happening?

Slashdot Top Deals

"Show me a good loser, and I'll show you a loser." -- Vince Lombardi, football coach

Close