California's Governor Vetoes Bill Requiring Speeding Alerts in New Cars (apnews.com) 179
California governor Gavin Newsom "vetoed a bill Saturday that would have required new cars to beep at drivers if they exceed the speed limit," reports the Associated Press:
In explaining his veto, Newsom said federal law already dictates vehicle safety standards and adding California-specific requirements would create a patchwork of regulations. The National Highway Traffic Safety "is also actively evaluating intelligent speed assistance systems, and imposing state-level mandates at this time risks disrupting these ongoing federal assessments," the Democratic governor said... The legislation would have likely impacted all new car sales in the U.S., since the California market is so large that car manufacturers would likely just make all of their vehicles comply...
Starting in July, the European Union will require all new cars to have the technology, although drivers would be able to turn it off. At least 18 manufacturers including Ford, BMW, Mercedes-Benz and Nissan, have already offered some form of speed limiters on some models sold in America, according to the National Transportation Safety Board.
Thanks to Slashdot reader Gruntbeetle for sharing the news.
Starting in July, the European Union will require all new cars to have the technology, although drivers would be able to turn it off. At least 18 manufacturers including Ford, BMW, Mercedes-Benz and Nissan, have already offered some form of speed limiters on some models sold in America, according to the National Transportation Safety Board.
Thanks to Slashdot reader Gruntbeetle for sharing the news.
Turn it off and pay the price (Score:2, Insightful)
although drivers would be able to turn it off.
And if you turn it off, it will be immediately reported to whatever European equivalent of LexisNexis and your insurance premiums will immediately shoot up.
Welcome to surveillance capitalism, where the consumer is led to believe he has a choice, but really doesn't have a choice.
Re: Turn it off and pay the price (Score:2, Insightful)
Capitalism never have consumers a choice beyond having 19 brands of shampoo to choose from.
Choice was always an illusion, limited to choices that made no meaningful difference in your life.
Re: Turn it off and pay the price (Score:4, Insightful)
What are you talking about? Capitalism never promised to give you any choice other than that of choosing between several competing products to find the best one for you.
Where surveillance capitalism become a dystopia is when you have the illusion of a choice: there is no real option other than the path of least resistance offered by the ubiquitous surveillance capitalists. If you dissent and choose something else, you're punished by paying more or having less convenience. The choice technically exists, but practically doesn't because the alternative choices are totally unappealing.
And then of course there's traditional monopolies, epitomized by the concentration of news and media concerns, or the agro industry, where you have plenty of different choices but they're all owned by the same few companies. That is almost indistinguishable from the former Soviet marketplace.
For all its faults, capitalism works and does give you meaningful consumer choice (but no more than that) when monopolies aren't allowed to form and operate with no morals and no restraints. The problem isn't capitalism, it's the ultra laissez-faire capitalism foisted on us by Reagan 4 decades ago.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Reagan, 4 decades ago, & all the anti-gubbermint ideology, was the product of capitalism: Regulatory capture, consolidation, monopoly, & corruption are all products of capitalism.
You could claim with equal validity those are all products of unrestrained government power. You can't have regulatory capture if governments are not allowed to regulate behavior.
Seriously though, those are really all products of human nature. Humans not angels. No matter what economic and government system you have, there will be people trying really hard to manipulate the system for their unethical gain. The trick, and the brilliance of the Enlightenment thinkers, was to try designing governments which an
Re: Turn it off and pay the price (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: "Capitalism is the only economic system I know of with a foundation of individual liberty and natural rights." - You're conflating two different things. Capitalism has nothing to do with human rights; that's what we have democracy for. A quick l
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Communism works very well in small communities. Socialism is good for limited, well-defined purposes (see public roads, utility, military, social security and health care). Capitalism is fine during the competitive phase. It's harmful to think any one model works for everything.
Our current problem is late-stage capitalism with monopolies or oligopolies plus regulatory capture. That can't be fixed with more capitalism.
Re: (Score:2)
Now the important question:
WHERE ARE THEY NOW?
Please provide examples.
And no, Commie Narnia isn't an acceptable answer.
Unless you're living there fully.
Re: Turn it off and pay the price (Score:2)
Mostly societal collapse after depopulation from disease and colonialism. Not by a lack of markets or wealth accumulation, if that's what you're getting at.
Re: (Score:2)
You sure you're not reading one of these bad 60's apocalyptic sci-fi films?
It's people man!
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't a communist nation put someone in space ? I'd call that a working communist state for a time.
Re: (Score:2)
One could argue that the way the US regulates capitalism, might as well be Laissez-Faire Capitalism. As the previous poster said: regulatory capture, tax free lobbyism, Chevron deference, the US lawmakers, etc...
Re: Turn it off and pay the price (Score:5, Insightful)
So... You're saying we need capitalism with elements of socialism?
So really capitalism does not work, without being fettered by restraints which are anti-capitalist.
It's almost like any extreme is bad and some healthy balance needs to be found.
Re: (Score:3)
It's almost like any extreme is bad and some healthy balance needs to be found.
Exactly. What a concept eh? Imagine that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So... You're saying we need capitalism with elements of socialism?
So really capitalism does not work, without being fettered by restraints which are anti-capitalist.
It's almost like any extreme is bad and some healthy balance needs to be found.
I can't handle that much sarcasm; it sticks in my throat and blocks my airway, making it difficult to breathe.
Re: Turn it off and pay the price (Score:2)
Sorry about that, although I must ask; how on Earth do use the internet?
Re: Turn it off and pay the price (Score:3)
There is no sarcasm on the Internet. How dare you impugn all those devoutly held beliefs!
Re: Turn it off and pay the price (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
What are you talking about? Capitalism never promised to give you any choice other than that of choosing between several competing products to find the best one for you.
Where surveillance capitalism become a dystopia is when you have the illusion of a choice: there is no real option other than the path of least resistance offered by the ubiquitous surveillance capitalists. If you dissent and choose something else, you're punished by paying more or having less convenience. The choice technically exists, but practically doesn't because the alternative choices are totally unappealing.
And then of course there's traditional monopolies, epitomized by the concentration of news and media concerns, or the agro industry, where you have plenty of different choices but they're all owned by the same few companies. That is almost indistinguishable from the former Soviet marketplace.
For all its faults, capitalism works and does give you meaningful consumer choice (but no more than that) when monopolies aren't allowed to form and operate with no morals and no restraints. The problem isn't capitalism, it's the ultra laissez-faire capitalism foisted on us by Reagan 4 decades ago.
Capitalism never promised us a choice, that's the free market... which as you pointed out doesn't work when taken to the extreme either.
Capitalism is quite happy with monopolies, it survives quite well when they're is only one supplier owning the entire market (Communism, as in Marxism, is the opposite where there is only one purchaser, so you end up with multiple suppliers with only one customer between them).
This is why no functioning economy is a pure capitalism, on it's own it just doesn't work at
Re: (Score:2)
yes it did: an *INFORMED* choice. Free Market and proper Capitalism relies on informed buyers and a transparent and fair market. We have neither.
Re: (Score:2)
But for sure it's better and more efficient to have solid consumer protections. The political power of a business is a hidden cost, and that's no good from an efficiency perspective.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But at the same time, ask them to make a substantive decision with real consequences and plain alternatives and they act like it's all hopelessly ambiguous. "I don't know, should I vote for the scientist with seven adopted kids who lost an arm rescuing strangers from a fire... or the cannib
Re: (Score:2)
But even if we accept the premise at face value, how much comparative choice did people have when their food supply was mostly local and limited to whatever value-add the farmer, grocer, or street vendor could provide? Somehow knowing them by name made it a freer choice than having nutrition labels and batch tracking for food safety?
Unless you're taking the com
Re: (Score:2)
Capitalism never have consumers a choice beyond having 19 brands of shampoo to choose from.
Choice was always an illusion, limited to choices that made no meaningful difference in your life.
Comments below accept the 19 at face value. Cursory research indicates that the number of global companies that manufacture shampoo is likely measured in the thousands. Even more brands and even more variety within brands. Made by multinationals, country specific, regional, Mom & Pop. Bought online or in stores. Megastores to specialty stores to farmer's markets. Regular. Medicinal. Organic. Conditioning. For oily hair. For dry hair. Volumizing. Color safe. Sulfate free. Baby. Pet.
Re: (Score:2)
And if you turn it off, it will be immediately reported to whatever European equivalent of LexisNexis and your insurance premiums will immediately shoot up.
Welcome to surveillance capitalism, where the consumer is led to believe he has a choice, but really doesn't have a choice.
I really enjoy reading your fan-fic on the weekends.
Re: (Score:2)
And I really enjoy reading your completely irrelevant rants that have nothing to do with what the OP said. You realise blackbox recording systems are present in all cars due to a push from insurance companies, and has nothing to do with governments right?
Of course you don't. You're not that smart.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You need to read more than just the marketing brochure.
Re: (Score:3)
But can you name a previous case in EU where the driver's choices inside the car would get reported?
For example, the eCall system (automatic notification of emergency services in case of an accident detected by the car, e.g. airbag triggered) is compulsory on new cars since 2018. Its presence and normal function are checked on the periodic technical inspection (on the 4th year, then every two years). In between, you can physically remove it and there has been no reports of consequences for the drivers (insu
Re: (Score:3)
You can disable the speed limit warnings and other safety features on all vehicles I've ever seen in Europe and the UK. Often it's a bit annoying to do, because they have to be enabled by default every time the car starts in order to get the highest Euro NCAP safety rating. Some manufacturers make it easier, like Hyundai has a button for the speed limit warning and a re-assignable button you can set to turn off the lane departure warning.
There are no legal or insurance consequences to turning them off, and
Re: Turn it off and pay the price (Score:2)
So this organization is incentivizing automobile manufacturers to annoy their customers. Lovely.
Re: (Score:2)
Safety is often annoying as it imposes limitations. This case is similar to the noisy warning when someone forgot the safety belt, rationale being: using the safety belt increases safety and is compulsory on public roads. Similarly, monitoring the speed and lane increases safety and is compulsory on public roads, so it warns you when you did not pay attention.
The laws does not incentivize to make it annoying, it's only their engineering choice. It is as easy for a manufacturer to make it annoying or not.
Re: Turn it off and pay the price (Score:2)
So I had a case of water on the passenger seat a while back. And just as I pulled out of the grocery store parking lot, the car started beeping and making noise at me because the water weighed enough to trip the seat monitor and the seatbelt wasn't buckled.
It was loud, annoying, and distracting. And the only way I could get it to shut up was to reach over and buckle the passenger belt around the case of water.
Distracting the driver and making him lean over and take his attention off the road to eliminate th
Re: (Score:2)
The passenger seat isn't the correct place for unsecured heavy loads. Good thing your car picked up the problem.
Re: Turn it off and pay the price (Score:2)
40lbs is a heavy load? M'kay
Re: Turn it off and pay the price (Score:2)
This story conflates speed alerts and speed regulators, two very different ideas.
Speed regulators force an upper-limit on the speed a vehicle can reach, regardless of location - an absolute limit, quite common on many very high-performance cars sold to consumers. (Well, OK, not uncommon)
Speed alerts are location sensitive and simply alert the driver when their actual speed exceeds what the car believes is the speed limit in a given stretch of road. It is location-specific, and it does not alter the speed of
Re: (Score:2)
Not quite the land of fairies, but the number of times said companies have been forced to change their services in the region, or been hit by fines for not being compliant with privacy regulations, is some indication that it _is_ more stringent there. Not perfect, but almost certainly at least a bit better than "corporations do whatever they want"-land.
Re: Turn it off and pay the price (Score:2)
Pretend you make $157K/year, and you break the law and are fined $4K. Is that really a life-altering fine?
Now, Change Thousands to Billions, it's the same impact, very little.
BUT, let's not forget, that $157B/year is PROFIT, not revenue - that $157B is what's left after they pay everyone's salaries, benefits, datacenter and office expenses, etc. so it's more like "imagine you were able to put aside .$157K/year after expenses, and after breaking the law you were fined $4K" - is that really a significant impa
Re: (Score:2)
The worst part of the logic: What if Google was on track to make $148B, but by breaking the law, they increased it to $157B. The fine brought that down to $153B. Fine=cost of doing business.
Re: (Score:3)
I do think about that. I think about how different the services are in Europe compared to America. I think about how in Europe the data is kept by the companies and not onsold, and how all three companies you list have been fined 9 or 10 digit long fines as a result. I think about how we have the ability to get our data deleted unlike in America, or personal information removed unlike in America. I reflect at how we have longer warranties for products, unlike in America, or how we are free from forced bundl
Re: Turn it off and pay the price (Score:3, Insightful)
Where the fuck do you get that European style government nanny state is capitalism? Capitalism is having the choice to install this equipment on your car, not the government prescribing it for you.
Re: Turn it off and pay the price (Score:4, Insightful)
Capitalism is having the choice to install this equipment on your car, not the government prescribing it for you.
That's not what capitalism is.
Re: Turn it off and pay the price (Score:2)
Nope, you are wrong. Oppressive monopolies cannot survive in an open market, as the minute you overcharge what the market can support, alternatives, even inefficient ones will spring up and cut you down on cost, monopolies can only exist if the demand is low and the price remains fair. Government putting their thumb on the scale in favor of established companies with regulations is not the definition of an open market.
Re: (Score:2)
No that's a capitalism that's perfect competition. From here https://www.economicshelp.org/... [economicshelp.org]
A capitalist economic system is one characterised by free markets and the absence of government intervention in the economy.
There is nothing stopping an a company acquiring power and using that power to stop competition.
Re: (Score:2)
although drivers would be able to turn it off.
And if you turn it off, it will be immediately reported to whatever European equivalent of LexisNexis and your insurance premiums will immediately shoot up.
Welcome to surveillance capitalism, where the consumer is led to believe he has a choice, but really doesn't have a choice.
Ah, but in a free market, there is an opportunity for a company to sell car insurance where they don't jack up premiums for those policyholders whose cars don't report the nanny data.
Re: Turn it off and pay the price (Score:2)
The problem in the EU is that all insurance are backed by government and reporting is mandatory by law. There is no open market in a socialist system.
Re: (Score:3)
although drivers would be able to turn it off.
And if you turn it off, it will be immediately reported ....
You could solder a resistor in parallel with the beeper; that would probably work. (simply disconnecting the beeper would probably give you an error light.)
Re: Turn it off and pay the price (Score:2)
What BS - the reporting protocol is the product of a slashdot readers fevered imagination - there is no discussion of cars 'alerting' insurance companies.
The law wanted automakers to build a location aware alert when a vehicle exceeds the posted speed limit, and that alert could be turned off by the driver. Period.
Personally I'm not a fan of politicians deciding what features a vehicle must include, but an alert that can be turned off isn't really that big a problem, aside from the added expense of the devi
Re: (Score:2)
It's a "slippery slope" argument, that the first will lead to the second.
May or may not be true; the OP was extrapolating the future rather than commenting only on what was reported in the summary.
Re: Turn it off and pay the price (Score:2)
Imagine, bad drivers that break the law pay higher insurance premiums?
Next we'll want to charge smokers for health insurance!
Crazy! /sarcasm
Re: (Score:2)
And so do drivers where the digital map and the posted speed limit signs disagree...
Save the beeps for fines and tolls (Score:2)
Why screw with the number one source of revenue for the State: DMV.
Re: (Score:3)
Why screw with the number one source of revenue for the State: DMV.
Looking at California property taxes and their general consumer taxes, you sure about that “number one” source of revenue claim?
Re: (Score:2)
Looking at California property taxes and their general consumer taxes, you sure about that “number one” source of revenue claim?
Absolutely. Everyone drives. Even the homeless. Gas tax is 18%. The court system is subsidized by traffic infractions. Mandatory liability insurance is the most profitable of them all. Sales tax on new car sales, and each resale are the most sales tax I ever pay. Mechanics, smog certificates, reg and license fees paid in advance x 40 million adds up. This is necessary due to the fact that highways and roads and infrastructure are the biggest State expense.
Re: (Score:2)
In what way would mandatory speed warnings interfere with revenue from the DMV?
Re: (Score:2)
In what way would mandatory speed warnings interfere with revenue from the DMV?
Well, in theory it would limit speeding which should lead to fewer speeding tickets.
You know what I find surprising? I can't figure out who the Bootleggers are here. Who would have stood to gain financially by having speeding alerts? Normally I'd assume it's the trial lawyers but I can't see how this lets them press more lawsuits.
Re: (Score:3)
Who would have stood to gain financially by having speeding alerts? Normally I'd assume it's the trial lawyers but I can't see how this lets them press more lawsuits.
I would have thought it would be the state. If you ignore (or even better, disable) a speeding alert and then get caught speeding, then you definitely have no defense against the charges by the state. You might have a potential case against the automaker if their speed alerts are unreliable, inconsistent, or misleading, so I'd have said it was the automakers that would be against it. Conversely, if the alert systems really do reduce speeding like I wouldn't have believed that they did (but maybe they do!) t
Re: Save the beeps for fines and tolls (Score:2)
Legally speaking the driver is responsible for the speed even if their equipment is faulty.
Speed limits on highways were introduced globally as a result of the 1970s oil crisis in an attempt to curb oil consumption. There is no real reason other than fuel consumption to go the speed California prescribes.
As far as truckers speeding, there too it is a balance between fuel consumption and losing certain types of cargo. Going 15mph over is an insufficient ticket and would often gets pled down to a simple movin
Re: (Score:3)
I would have thought it would be the state. If you ignore (or even better, disable) a speeding alert and then get caught speeding, then you definitely have no defense against the charges by the state.
IANAL but I think it would give you a better defense. "Do you know you were exceeding the speed limit?" "No, I have my speed limiter disabled so I am not aware of that. Do you have any other evidence?" versus "Well, my speed regulator was nagging me but I was ignored it."
I might imagine trial lawyers could spin more accidents as negligence. "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the defendant should have known s/he was speeding because his/her car had a speed regulator nagging them. You should award $1 bazillio
Re: (Score:2)
IANAL but I think it would give you a better defense. "Do you know you were exceeding the speed limit?" "No, I have my speed limiter disabled so I am not aware of that. Do you have any other evidence?"
"No, I have my speed limiter disabled so I am not aware of that."
"Being aware you are speeding is your responsibility, and you disabled a feature which could have helped you."
There's a number of companies working on automated trucks on freeways and I personally can't wait. I don't really care how fast they're going so long as it's a consistent speed.
I just want them to stay in their lane and not cut me off when I'm making a passing move.
Re: Save the beeps for fines and tolls (Score:2)
"Mandatory"? Did you miss the "driver has the ability to turn off the alert" part?
It just makes sense (Score:4, Insightful)
If you ever drove there you'd know this to be true.
I guarantee you any speeding alert in a car would just be distracting and ignored.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You think it's JUST (Southern) California? It's everywhere. Almost nobody goes exactly the speed limit, except maybe here in Texas where speed limits are set more sanely, and we get 75 mph limit on 2-lane state highways.
Beeping speed alert would be counterproductive to safety. Last July, I drove from Augusta, Me to Columbus, Oh, 900+ miles, then the rest of the way home to Texas 1125 miles the next day. This was all done some mph above the limit. Having the damned thing beeping for 16+ hours would
Re: It just makes sense (Score:2)
Re: It just makes sense (Score:2)
Iâ(TM)m curious how this works with California Basic Speed Law, which says you must drive the prevailing speed of traffic. You can today get a ticket for going too slow if most people are speeding over the limit but you are not. You become the hazard by trying to follow the limit. Do the beep sensors measure the relative speed of other cars?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm curious how this works with California Basic Speed Law, which says you must drive the prevailing speed of traffic.
Even with the basic speed law you can't be ticketed for driving too slow if you are driving at the speed limit.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, my granddad got exactly that, so it can happen. He was at the speed limit, because he had just moved to CA and thought the speed limit meant something, and the cop wrote him a ticket for impeding traffic. The ticket was sustained when granddad tried to fight it. *shrug* I guess this is a case of literal YMMV.
Re: (Score:2)
He was at the speed limit, because he had just moved to CA and thought the speed limit meant something, and the cop wrote him a ticket for impeding traffic.
I wish to amend my previous post to say that you can't be ticketed for driving too slow if you are driving at the maximum speed limit, which is considered the highest speed you can safely drive.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, my granddad got exactly that, so it can happen. He was at the speed limit, because he had just moved to CA and thought the speed limit meant something, and the cop wrote him a ticket for impeding traffic. The ticket was sustained when granddad tried to fight it. *shrug* I guess this is a case of literal YMMV.
What year was that?
I believe it was in the 1980s when someone took their "driving too slow but driving at the speed limit" ticket to appeal and won. From that day forward, California Highway Patrol would no longer write tickets for impeding traffic....
Re: It just makes sense (Score:2)
It would have been able to be turned off.
Manual soft speed limiter has been useful (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Two of my cars (2014, 2021) from the same manufacturer have a configurable two-stage soft speed limiter. Since I'm in an exurb, 55 mph is the max, so I set it to 72 (for exurb and urban driving) and 82 (rural interstates where 70 mph limit is standard). Yes, it chimes -- once when the limit is breached -- and it can get annoying, but it's been useful as a secondary driving aid, especially for vehicles that were engineered to drive well over 100 mph and don't feel like you're going that fast. As long as it's an alert, it's not impeding my ability to drive defensively. The so-called vehicle black box and your phone (if you use your insurer's tracking app) are what matters anyway, not the dash alert.
Yeah, I'd actually like a feature that let me know when I'm over the limit (maybe configurable to allow +5kph over). As a rule of thumb, more info is better.
GPS inaccuracies are annoying, but easily dealt with.
And honestly, speeding is one of those places where 'nudges' are super helpful. Speeding is kinda like junk food, it doesn't really help you out (don't get there much faster) but the temptation is powerful.
That's why everyone hates photo radar, especially the hidden ones, since they penalize you but d
Losing sight of the purpose of speed limits (Score:2)
Speed limits are about safety. Zero tolerance does not help safety.
It's kind of like the red light enforcement cameras that swept the country, and then were rolled back. Municipalities started cracking down, issuing tons more fines. Then they started reducing the yellow light duration to increase the amount of revenue. https://www.salon.com/2017/04/... [salon.com]. In such cases, safety is actually reduced, not improved. Cities got hung up on enforcement, losing sight of the real goal of traffic signals.
When it comes t
Re: (Score:2)
When it comes to speeding, most people stay withing about 5 mph of the posted speed limit
Most places in the world give you a typically 10% allowance on speed before it becomes a violation, or thereabouts.
Re: (Score:2)
That's my point. This in-car alert wouldn't give that same allowance and would become useless as a result, due to incessant false alarms.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You are correct, the law would have required an alert only when the driver exceeds the speed limit by 10 mph. https://abcnews.go.com/US/wire... [go.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, agreed. The 10 mph thing is in regards specifically to the California law that would have required an in-car alert. Everywhere in the US, school speed zones are strictly enforced. If the zone is 20 mph, and you're going 25, you could easily get pulled over, and the fine is doubled because it's a school zone. Most other places, you are "safe" going 5 mph over, and at higher speeds, the "allowance" is a bit more, though not a specific percentage. I've personally had an officer flash his lights in warning
Re: (Score:2)
Many speed limits are inaccurate on GPS (Score:3)
In my driving experience, speed limits reflected on Google Navigation are only accurate on major roads and highways. As soon as you get off the beaten path, many speed limits simply aren't reflected, or are wrong. I don't think any other GPS software is likely to be any better. The technology simply isn't there to make this type of alert accurate enough to be useful.
Re: (Score:2)
Day Fines (Score:2, Troll)
One possible replacement for this is to implement day fines for speeding.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-fine:
A day-fine, day fine, unit fine or structured fine is a unit of payment for a legal fine which is based on the offender's daily personal income. It is intended as a punishment financially equivalent to incarceration for one day without salary, scaled to equal impacts on both high- and low-income offenders. An analogy may be drawn with income tax, which is also proportional to income, or even levie
MOD PARENT UP (Score:2, Redundant)
An obviously brilliant policy that unfortunately upsets the wealthy who've greatly benefited being above most laws for so long. They won't allow the masses to force fairness if they can help it.
The main problem I think is that Americans suck at Math and do not grasp percentages (or fractions, Americans think 1/4 is larger than 1/3 unless it's distance.) Percentage is the only way to do relative fairness... There are many poor drivers are out there who only chase bumpers and can't read speedometer.
It won't
Speed limits are insane (Score:5, Insightful)
The vast majority of safe drivers routinely drive safely above the posted speed limit
This erodes respect for the law
In many cases, speed limits serve as a tool to harvest revenue from safe drivers
Most drivers who are sober and paying attention can easily determine a safe speed without coercion
Also, safe speed is not a single number. It varies depending on weather, time of day, driver skill and road condition
Current posted limits make sense only for driving at night, in the rain, with bald tires and borderline eyesight
We need to return to the old process where traffic engineers measure the actual behavior of traffic and set recommended speeds accordingly, reserving enforcement for truly dangerous driving
Re:Speed limits are insane (Score:4, Insightful)
The vast majority of safe drivers routinely drive safely above the posted speed limit
I'm betting the vast majority of dangerous drivers who drive way above the limit believe they're very safe. I've actually been passengers with them a few times and resolved never to drive with them again.
And even if you're somehow safe at that speed you're normalizing the behaviour for all of those reckless drivers who are severe accidents waiting to happen.
In many cases, speed limits serve as a tool to harvest revenue from safe drivers
Sometimes, and slightly more often photo radar is deployed for revenue more than safety. But speed limits really are for safety.
Most drivers who are sober and paying attention can easily determine a safe speed without coercion
Also, safe speed is not a single number. It varies depending on weather, time of day, driver skill and road condition
A few years ago I was driving down the highway on a nice sunny day, doing about 20kph over the limit.
Then a drunk driver decided to turn left into 2 lanes of steady traffic, crunched metal shortly to follow.
It's damn lucky no one was (including myself) was seriously hurt. If I'd be going 30-40 over, as I've often seen drivers do, there definitely would have been some dead bodies even if that person was an F1 driver.
It's not about you doing something dumb, it's about that other driver, small child, or animal that does something you can't anticipate. And the lower speed isn't necessarily to stop the accident but to reduce the severity, often there's just no option other than to brake and hope for the best.
Current posted limits make sense only for driving at night, in the rain, with bald tires and borderline eyesight
Sane people go a bit below the limit in bad driving conditions.
Re: (Score:2)
And even if you're somehow safe at that speed you're normalizing the behaviour for all of those reckless drivers who are severe accidents waiting to happen.
Speed is only an issue because of obstruction. "Speeding" is not inherently dangerous. We need to put an end to this falsehood.
Traffic, like all complex systems, relies on flow to reduce errors/accidents. Anything artificially impeding this flow is introducing risks and increasing the error rate.
Policing those who wilfully/thoughtlessly go out of their way to introduce these risks, however, is difficult and offers very little financial reward . Far simpler to peg your revenue stream to an easily measured me
Re: (Score:2)
What the Speed Aware
want to live (Score:2)
Apparently Newsom came to the conclusion that he did not want to get lynched by his constituents.
Reading comprehension alert (Score:2)
For all of those commenting about the evils of this bill, please read again... Governor Newsom VETOED the law.
California legislators can each introduce up to 50 bills each session. The result is that at the end of the session there are a s*load of poorly thought out bills (about a thousand) that the Governor must wade through.
Legislators need to be restrained.
The magic word... supermajority (Score:2)
In Europe... (Score:2)
I bought a new Porsche in France and of course you get a gentle beep when you exceed the speed limit. Solution? Program one of the user panel buttons to disable it, although it always turns itself back on. The same goes for lane keeping assist which is annoying as hell on small french roads.
In the end, most drivers will leave it on and thus know that they're exceeding the speed limit which isn't a bad thing. It's ok in France where speed limits on back roads are usually 80 kph and plenty fast.
I think mos
Re: Um (Score:2)
Unless it involves emissions standards...