California Drivers May Soon Get Mandatory In-Car Speed Warnings Like the EU (caranddriver.com) 83
"Exceed the speed limit in one of the 27 European Union countries, and you may get some pushback from your vehicle," reports Car and Driver. "As of July, new cars sold in the EU must include a speed-warning device that alerts drivers if they exceed the posted limit."
The warnings can be ither acoustic or haptic, "though the European Commission gives automakers the latitude to supplant those passive measures with either an active accelerator pedal that applies counterpressure against the driver's foot or a governor that restricts the vehicle's speed to the legal limit." Drivers can override or deactivate these admonishments, but the devices must default to their active state at startup.
Now California is looking to emulate the EU with legislation that would mandate in-car speed-warning devices [for driving more than 10 miles per hour over the speed limit — in "just about every 2030 model-year vehicle equipped with either GPS or a front-facing camera"].
The article cites statistics that 18% of those drivers involved in fatal crashes were speeding.
Although the projects director at the European Transport Safety Council also acknowledges the systems may struggle to identify speed limits from passing signs — and that their testing shows the systems generally irritate drivers, who often deactivate the systems...
Thanks to long-time Slashdot reader sinij for sharing the article.
The warnings can be ither acoustic or haptic, "though the European Commission gives automakers the latitude to supplant those passive measures with either an active accelerator pedal that applies counterpressure against the driver's foot or a governor that restricts the vehicle's speed to the legal limit." Drivers can override or deactivate these admonishments, but the devices must default to their active state at startup.
Now California is looking to emulate the EU with legislation that would mandate in-car speed-warning devices [for driving more than 10 miles per hour over the speed limit — in "just about every 2030 model-year vehicle equipped with either GPS or a front-facing camera"].
The article cites statistics that 18% of those drivers involved in fatal crashes were speeding.
Although the projects director at the European Transport Safety Council also acknowledges the systems may struggle to identify speed limits from passing signs — and that their testing shows the systems generally irritate drivers, who often deactivate the systems...
Thanks to long-time Slashdot reader sinij for sharing the article.
Re: Does speeding cause cancer... (Score:2)
Obviously. Even the air does.
Correlation != Causation (Score:2)
I don't speed a lot but could it possibly be the case that uncautious drivers ignore multiple safety factors (seat belts, tires, brakes, following distance) due to a general lack of giving a fuck and that lack correlates with fatal crashes? Seems like a clumsy correlation.
Re: (Score:3)
Speed reduces reaction time relatively - if everyone is hurtling down the road at 20% over the limit (that's actually LOW where I live) then everyone still has the same reaction time to deal with other drivers braking or changing lanes or whatever.
What causes more accidents is aggressive drivers who want to go faster than the flow of traffic and tailgate, weave in and out, and cut people off.
And while I haven't actually done my own rigorous study of this... I drive the 400 series highways in Ontario all the
Re:Correlation != Causation (Score:4, Insightful)
Speed reduces reaction time relatively - if everyone is hurtling down the road at 20% over the limit (that's actually LOW where I live) then everyone still has the same reaction time to deal with other drivers braking or changing lanes or whatever.
Only when following distances are proportional to speed. From what I've observed in my decades of driving in Florida's miserable traffic, some people will still tailgate at 75MPH.
Re: (Score:2)
Only when following distances are proportional to speed.
Following distances are relevant only to a single subclass of accident. Changing following distances doesn't help reduce the impact or likelihood of pedestrian accidents, cycling accidents, T-bone accidents, running lights, right of way accidents, etc. Driving 20% slower in any of those can mean the literal difference between life and death.
Even if everyone on the road is a tailgating arsehole reducing speed still has a significant impact on accident and fatality rate.
Re: Correlation != Causation (Score:2)
And of course the thing to do when somebody tailgates you in traffic is to slow down rather than speed up. By increasing the gap between you and the car in front, you decrease your need or likelihood of breaking hard and being rear-ended by the dickhead behind you. Ultimately you still go the same speed. Tailgaters are just complete morons.
Re: Correlation != Causation (Score:3)
Re: Correlation != Causation (Score:2)
How many of those accidents wouldnâ(TM)t occur if people drove better? If they slowed down, gave more space to the car in front, took more time to look before manoeuvring?
Re: (Score:2)
Those aren't accidents. Those are mostly caused by astonishingly poor road design and bad driving.
Didn't see a bike? Check your fucking mirrors properly.
You rear end someone? You were driving too fast.
Tyre blows? Could be an accident. But also, driving too close is what usually turns it into a much worse one.
Can't see properly? Don't fucking drive at full speed then.
Re: (Score:1)
That 18% figure really stood out at me...
for being too low!
Considering the amount of people I see speeding. (I'm actually referring the UK here, with tons of speed cameras)
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
If more than 18% of cars speed, and only 18% of accidents involve speeding, then speeding may prevent accidents.
One reason may be that speeders are more attentive.
Another reason may be that they reach their destination sooner, so they spend less time on the road.
Re: (Score:1)
In my experience, on the highway the rate of speeders is over 80%.
If only 18% of those in accidents were speeding...
Personally, I think that this might be a case of "careful what you wish for", in that given the annoyance of something telling you you're speeding in an annoying way (my car tries, but it isn't annoying), people might just finally have that push to force increased speeds through.
Such as speed limits being set to the 95th percentile (IE only 5% would be going faster on average), rounded up to t
I can't dive 55! (Score:2)
what used to take hours now takes all day.
Re: I can't dive 55! (Score:2)
Well yeah you'd run out of air before that long. Why does it take you so long to reach that depth?
Re: (Score:2)
It's not reaching the depth, it's coming backup that takes so long. ;)
Versus the 98% of all drivers who speed... (Score:2, Insightful)
"The article cites statistics that 18% of those drivers involved in fatal crashes were speeding."
And it provides an excuse to judge other people instead of minding your own business or actually helping somehow.
I feel confident they're some of those people who think going slower is always safer. And that they're helping by forcing other people to suddenly slow down (while not allowing anyone to merge near them).
Re: (Score:1)
100 of all drivers who are in accidents were in automobiles. So let's ban autos... Such broken logic the nanny state of California has.
Re: Versus the 98% of all drivers who speed... (Score:2)
You ain't seen nothin' till you've lived here. Basically they legislate as if every bad Hollywood action flick could happen IRL. So they do stupid shit like ban balisongs, which are purely utility knives, because they saw Mohamed Imar Rambo Bruce Lee kill 300 men with it during the course of a single action scene.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
You ain't seen nothin' till you've lived here.
I visited LA back in '08. It was like Florida if someone had installed a state-sized dehumidifier. Funny thing was, I expected the traffic to be a lot worse the way everyone seems to whine about it. Those real estate prices were no joke, though.
Re: Versus the 98% of all drivers who speed... (Score:2)
I've only been to Orlando and Cape Canaveral. I guess technically I've been to Miami once because I was there for like a day once when I was a teenager, but I didn't drive or anything.
But at least for the Orlando-Canaveral areas, traffic is a lot better there than here. And the Florida man meme is kind of odd because people do that shit over here all the time and it's so common that it rarely seems to make even local news. Somebody here commented something like "people always drive around without mufflers j
Re: Versus the 98% of all drivers who speed... (Score:2)
Oh, and drivers out here are fucking assholes. They'll do shit like obviously break the law and then angrily honk at you for being in the way when they tried (and failed) to cut you off. All you can really do to them is give them the California howdy, just don't do it in the shitty part of town.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=qa... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Agreed. Consider their moves to ban the .50BMG caliber. Despite, you know, the rifles costing around $10k, weighing 32 pounds, each round is $10, cannot be effectively fired unsupported, etc...
VPC, in trying to argue that .50BMG needs to be banned, has to list criminal uses like: [vpc.org]
A 69 year old man the police shot when he moved towards the rifle. He did not fire it. He had numerous other rifles (2022)
2021 - A guy is "accused" of firing one. Nobody was hurt.
2019 - They have to go to Mexico and the cartels
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah the number of homicides from pistols exceeds that of rifles (any variety, assault or otherwise) by something like 9 to 1. IMO pistols actually make me nervous. They just feel so dangerous relative to their size, like they're easier to mishandle. Certainly easier to smuggle and less conspicuous. I'm way more comfortable handling rifles on the range.
Re: (Score:2)
I've said before that while I might not agree with them, I at least respect gun control proponents that target handguns instead of rifles.
The most popular criminal weapon used to be a .22LR revolver. Today, I think it's a 9mm semi-auto. .22LR, compared to a .50BMG Sniper rifle, can be hidden easily, can be carried easily, costs around two orders of magnitude less, can be thrown into a river/bay and expected to not be found for a long while, can be used semi-covertly, it keeps the cartridges, so if the
But a
Re: (Score:1)
A balingsong is not a utility knife. ...
I suggest to google
Your posts get more dumb every day. Sober up.
This is a balisong: https://www.istockphoto.com/th... [istockphoto.com]
Completely useless for anything except stabbing people.
Re: (Score:2)
I googled balisong just to double check.
I saw quite a few blades that would make for a decent utility knife - especially since per wiki, the handles are normally clipped together when open, giving you a securely open blade.
Definitely more useful than a lot of swiss army knives, which can be dangerous due to lacking a lock to stay open.
About the same as non-split folders. It might be better for people with smaller hands, I think.
Don't need smartphone cars (Score:2)
Yet another smartphone car add on, phone home add on, preventing me from driving add-on, ...
How much of this government mandated tax via 'required safety features' on cars is enough?
Car manufactures love this because they can sliver out a few percentage points profit margin from every required safety feature.
Governments love this because they get a sales tax revenue based on the vehicle's selling price.
Not wanting another incremental loss of freedom via government imposed tax via higher prices or a car slow
Re: (Score:2)
I feel confident they're some of those people who think going slower is always safer.
Somebody has to be the back markers. Accept that as their purpose as you safely and confidently pass them.
Re: (Score:2)
claims roughly 75% of drivers drive 10mph over the limit, and 22% drive 20mph over the limit in california. The statistics in the article are useless without comparing accident rates for speeding and non-speeding drivers.
Re: (Score:2)
Australia just had a massive truck crash that left a 5-foot (1.2m) deep hole in the highway. Two big trucks crashed in fog, then two medical teams crashed, racing to the scene. Yes, the slower one goes, the more likely one will be rear-ended by someone driving BADLY: But that's his problem. Your problem is making sure you don't hit someone driving SAFELY.
Never had that problem. I've had people who feel insulted by an overtaking maneuver (usually older drivers, occasionally a truck-driver) so they start
Re: (Score:2)
Is 4-foot deep.
Re: (Score:2)
And it provides an excuse to judge other people instead of minding your own business or actually helping somehow.
Driving is a privilege, one that is governed by rules and observation. You only get to mind your own business when you're doing something that doesn't have a material chance of killing someone else.
I feel confident they're some of those people who think going slower is always safer.
What else do you feel confident in? Global warming is a hoax? COVID is just a flu? I mean at this point you're discounting literal decades of research into speed and accidents which has all universally reached the same conclusion, as well as ignoring physics and demonstrating that you didn't bother applying any c
So ... (Score:5, Funny)
18% of those drivers involved in fatal crashes were speeding.
... 82% were not speeding. Sounds like a clear case to get everyone moving faster.
So there's a conspiracy theory going around (Score:2, Interesting)
It's kind of silly if you stop to think for a moment since government pays for all the roads since roads are too expensive for car companies to make and make a profit from so they need our taxpayer dollars to build the infrastructure for their product...
But it's even sillier when you see stuff like this which is clearly being driven by and pushed by the auto insurance industry. More and more y
Re:So there's a conspiracy theory going around (Score:5, Informative)
It's kind of silly if you stop to think for a moment since government pays for all the roads since roads are too expensive for car companies to make and make a profit from so they need our taxpayer dollars to build the infrastructure for their product...
The US's interstate highway system (proper name: Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways) was built at least in part to make it easier to move the military around the country as necessary.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
But it does mean before long we're going to have all of the disadvantages of cars with all the disadvantages of trains. The absolute worst of both worlds.
The disadvantage of cars is sitting in traffic crawling along at 10MPH, not a lack of being able to exceed the posted speed limit by 10MPH. Heck, here in Central Florida I often see people driving well below the posted speed limit because presumably there's something on TikTok that's more interesting than paying attention to the road.
Re: (Score:3)
This has to die,die, die. It's a terrible idea.
Re: (Score:2)
They likely don't want to control where people go,
They don't. 15 minute cities is about having most of what you need within 15 minutes without using a car. Shops, doctors, restaurants/entertainment, maybe even work. It's not and never has been about stopping people moving, it's giving people the option not to have to slog hours everywhere by car all the time.
Re: (Score:2)
This is a conspiracy theory that doesn't hold up to even basic scrutiny. When you look at actual walkable cities, people are more mobile in them. Better public transport links make getting about easier, and people are more likely to travel if they know they aren't going to get stuck in traffic.
No Problem (Score:2)
their testing shows the systems generally irritate drivers, who often deactivate the systems...
Just pull the breaker [slashdot.org]. After all, drivers are far better trained than a bunch of airline pilots.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I bet just about every airline pilot there is would pull out any system that restricts their ability to maneuver their craft for reasons akin to "highway speed limit". In fact, such a system would make the aircraft fail to certify.
Re: No Problem (Score:2)
CA (Score:2)
Nanny says no speed for you!
Sounds counterproductive (Score:2)
The article cites statistics that 18% of those drivers involved in fatal crashes were speeding.
Of course, 25% of the drivers not involved in any crashes are speeding at any given time, but never mind that.
This is excellent news! (Score:2)
If this idiotic idea doesn't die a well-deserved death, I eagerly anticipate making a lot of money by designing something that will use the car's OBD2 port to silence this annoyance, and wipe all traces of itself from the car's many computers whenever the driver decides there is a need not to get caught using it.
Re: (Score:2)
Your average cop is not a tech wizard, but trust me when I say you will not fool a traffic cop by fiddling with your car computer unless you ARE such a wizard. Truck drivers try it all the time and cops have had the tools to connect, download, and analyze the data to detect tampering for at least a decade that I know of.
Not only that, but speeding? The cop doesn't need the onboard system at all to give you a ticket... they nabbed you with radar or lidar. Breaking your onboard system is just going to be a
Re: (Score:2)
Your average cop is not a tech wizard, but trust me when I say you will not fool a traffic cop by fiddling with your car computer unless you ARE such a wizard. Truck drivers try it all the time and cops have had the tools to connect, download, and analyze the data to detect tampering for at least a decade that I know of.
There are literally thousands of parameters I can code in my car, including for safety critical systems like stability control. No cop is ever likely to connect an analyzer to my OBD port.
Not only that, but speeding? The cop doesn't need the onboard system at all to give you a ticket... they nabbed you with radar or lidar.
They have some very good detectors for that these days.
Re: This is excellent news! (Score:3)
You actually make an excellent point for another system for common cars - speed log. The police would just need to download it on the spot to prove someone was speeding. No more denial on the spot by the driver bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
The way it worked in northern NM was even more reliable. Caught speeding on a reservation (which had many of the major roads). You are absolutely 100% free to challenge it in court. The reservation court. With a reservation judge. At a time of their choosing, in the complete arse end of nowhere relative to wherever you live (i.e. not on a reservation).
So you have huge, wide, empty 3 lane roads, and people just set the cruise control and did. not. speed.
Re: (Score:2)
Regardless I'd imagine you're also correct, someone will come up with a hack that permanently disables the alerts. But if they used the system to also surveil and track citizens i
Re: (Score:2)
Without GPS data and no wireless internet connection to get speed limit data there's no way I can see it would operate.
Uh...here in the 21st century, they have cameras that spot speed limit signs.
That said, my car has this option (and I like it) and there's a spot where my car sees a speed limit sign that is meant for a side street. So it's a bit amusing where I'm driving along at 60 and it suddenly jumps up and complains that I'm going 45 mph over the speed limit.
Re: (Score:2)
My car also has the camera.
Just like with humans new to an area, or without any memory, it misses signs on occasion.
But sometimes it will recognize school zone signs, sometimes it won't. Whether the lights are going or not. So yeah, 45 mph in one of the local school zones down to 20, when the school zone isn't active.
I've also had it pick up speed signs, not just from side streets, but from a bike path along the road.
Re: This is excellent news! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In the USA, it's less speed cameras and more red-light
cameras. I'm pretty sure that it's because US politicians are sure that speed cameras would result in them being lynched. Florida passed a law that essentially killed red light cameras, by passing enough regulations that cities and red-light cameras can no longer make money with them. They all disappeared practically overnight. About safety, not money, my ass.
Another city had somebody run against the local incumbent (who normally have like a
Re: This is excellent news! (Score:2)
Isn't OBD-II read only?
Re: (Score:2)
For consumer level stuff, yes. If you're willing to pay a few thousand for a professional system, including a few thousand a year in subscription fees, you can do all sorts of things with the computer.
Will be unreliable, and an invasion of privacy (Score:2)
I'm imagining it would have to use GPS (which is not reliable enough) and a cellular connection to get speed limit data.
Unreliable GPS will mean you'll be 'alerted', or perhaps hard-limited, to a speed limit of an adjacent roadway rather than the correct limit; if you're on the freeway with a 65mph limit and a frontage road parallel to it has a speed limit of, say, 40mph, suddenly you're either annoyed for no reason, or slowed to a dangerously low speed for the freeway? Prepos
Re: (Score:2)
In my mazda it reads the signposts (and may use GPS too, don't know). Unfortunately it often gets it wrong particularly if there's a limit sign on an off ramp which it quite often reads as the limit for the main highway.
Wrong placement of speed warning (Score:4, Interesting)
Cars already have speedometer on the inside. The speed warning indicator should be on the outside of the car, visible to others (like police)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Cars have had a selectable speed-alarm on the steering-wheel panel, for 20 years. For city driving, one has to set it to the maximum city speed, reset it for the highway, then set it again for the next suburb/city: No surprise, people didn't know and didn't want it. A half-intelligent someone suggested QR codes on speed signs but didn't suggest security, so the idea failed.
Re: (Score:2)
Cars already have speedometer on the inside. The speed warning indicator should be on the outside of the car, visible to others (like police)
The thing about the speedometer is that it requires you to interpret compare and make a decision, all the while also taking your eyes off the road. You can see this in countries that have ludicrously strong anti-speeding campaigns, people spend more time looking at their dash than they do on the road. Using your speedometer less can make you a safer driver but ... physics still dictates in a situation where you are speeding the outcome will be universally worse.
Your absolute speed is not relevant to you, yo
Recently used one of these in Europe. Not good (Score:3)
For this to not be a dangerous distraction it needs to be reliable. It also has to be combined with reasonable speed limits on roads. In California, the max speed on open road rural freeways is 70mph. The speed on a crowded commute freeway near me is 65. That difference needs to be a lot higher.
Re: (Score:2)
Rental car in Italy. The warnings are both distracting and frequently wrong. I saw 10km/hour (yes 6 mph) listed by the car as a speed limit in some places where there was no such limit.
What you have here is a quirk that won't apply to America. The cars get their speed limits from their cameras. They are frequently wrong in some places in Europe where streets are segregated into roads / streets, or where two parallel streets are with different speed limits - you almost certainly did have a 10km/h speed limit, and it was probably in a parking lot or access driveway, your camera saw it.
However in America where every road is 30m and 10 lanes wide, where the concept of segregating speeds on d
Lies and omissions (Score:2)
"The article cites statistics that 18% of those drivers involved in fatal crashes were speeding. "
Some time ago I stumbled upon a statistic from the USCG that some 80% of drowning deaths are people not wearing PFDs. So I looked up the overall wear rate for PFDs and it turned out to be something like 20%.. just can't make this shit up.
Holy speed devil (Score:2)
Car trackers should be Manditory (Score:2)
I have said it before. I will say it again. And this is despite me being libertarian on most things.
Radio trackers should be on all vehicles. Capable of externally knowing your exact position down to a couple inches down every street based on a radio ping with your vehicle serial number. All vehicles are tracked equally... end of story.
As a consequence the system knows every move your car makes and if you did something wrong immediately. You get some warnings but the system itself trains you to become the b
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing is more consistently libertarian than mass surveillance.
Re: (Score:2)
Man, damn glad you're not running for congress.
The system in a car shouldn't just broadcast data from it's own GPS and speed data. The reported data can be hacked. Rather it should identify the vehicle with an encrypted serial number ...
Yeah, because encrypted data never got hacked.
and broadcast a ping that radio sensors along roads can pickup and triangulate your speed and position very accurately from.
I guess we'll spend next year's GDP to put networked sensors along all roads.
As a consequence the system knows every move your car makes and if you did something wrong immediately. You get some warnings but the system itself trains you to become the best driver you can be because otherwise you get automatic fines and citations that could lead to your license being suspended.
When there's a will, there's a way. Just yank the transmitter out, or wrap it in tin foil. Here's something that should bake your noodle. Almost all states that charge tolls offer some sort of "iPass" (in Illinois that's what they're called) which determines via RFID (or may be something else now) that your vehicle went t
Re: (Score:2)
While the 'my free-dumbs' fanatics have not said much, if you're demanding less protection from the government, you are not libertarian.
They don't need to: In the USA, no-socialism propaganda and no privacy rights, means anyone can buy your location from the corporation owning "the system".
Re: (Score:2)
As a consequence the system knows every move your car makes and if you did something wrong immediately. You get some warnings but the system itself trains you to become the best driver you can be because otherwise you get automatic fines and citations that could lead to your license being suspended. You have no chance to be a sloppy driver so everyone drives very well and accidents become extremely rare.
Take it the opposite way - figure out what behaviors are actually dangerous or not. I have the feeling that if you engage in this level of tracking, you'd discover that a lot of the "accident prone behaviors" aren't actually all that accident prone.
This also takes one of the fund raising techniques of cities away from them. Further, cops can't choose to stop you while driving anymore. The system has to give them permission in an extreme situation. You can't drunk drive or even drive tired as the system would notice from you swerving and your reaction time to other vehicles and tell you itself to pull over and if you didn't shut off the vehicle in the middle of the road after so long. It could literally tell you where and when you could pull over to sleep it off.
If they can do this much, then just take the next step, but have the computer do the driving as well.
California (Score:2)
I lived about a decade in California, and in my experience over 90% of the traffic was exceeding the speed limit if it was possible to do so. If they are now saying that only 18% of the fatalities were in incidents where people were exceeding the speed limit, there is something wonky going on. The only time traffic in LA was going slower than the speed limit was when it wasn't physically possible to do so due to traffic. Maybe traffic only flows freely about 18% of the time or something.
In any case I'm real
The technology isn't there yet. (Score:1)
safer? (Score:2)
Safer?
I live in the EU and am very much pro EU. But the way it is implemented in my view does not make it safer.
I recently bought a new car that has this. The biggest gripe I have with it is that by law the warnings go off at exactly the speed limit. I, like most drivers here, usually drive a little faster. For one the speed that your car indicates is usually higher than it really is. But also when passing a car you're supposed to this with a significant speed difference. So the result is I obviously turn i