Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Transportation AI

California's Governor Vetoes Bill Requiring Speeding Alerts in New Cars (apnews.com) 93

Posted by EditorDavid from the road-rage dept.
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.

California's Governor Vetoes Bill Requiring Speeding Alerts in New Cars More | Reply

California's Governor Vetoes Bill Requiring Speeding Alerts in New Cars

Comments Filter:

  • 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.

    • 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: (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward

        And just how many of those 19 brands of shampoo are actually owned by one company like P&G.

      • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

        by Rosco P. Coltrane ( 209368 )

        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

        • Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)

          by VeryFluffyBunny ( 5037285 )
          Reagan, 4 decades ago, & all the anti-gubbermint ideology, was the product of capitalism: Regulatory capture, consolidation, monopoly, & corruption are all products of capitalism.

          • 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

        • 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.

          • It's almost like any extreme is bad and some healthy balance needs to be found.

            Exactly. What a concept eh? Imagine that.

            • And it takes politicians who fall in line and actually enforce those rules without those rules being watered down to the point of being almost meaningless. So who (the brief sound of a stampede as the politicians filling the auditorium quickly run away)..OK then.

          • 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.

        • Many of the issues you and others blame capitalism for are actually interventions by govt that impede the free market. Politicians like to come up with solutions to problems of their own creation.
      • Capitalism doesn't "give" choices, any more than governments "give" rights. You have choices, and you either choose to make them yourself or choose to let someone else make them for you. One way or another, you're choosing.

        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.

        • Well that's the dumbest semantic hair splitting I've heard in a while.

          • Hey, just trying to add perspective to your edgy-teenager "insight" that the potato chip aisle at the supermarket isn't a crossroads of ideas.

            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)

          by q_e_t ( 5104099 )
          I am remined of Neil Peart's sage advice: If you decide to choose, you still have made a choice. Something about red cars too.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by q_e_t ( 5104099 )
            Decide not to choose. Doh, I should have double-checked before I hit submit.
          • Yeah, it's strange how many people don't recognize that. Like they're incapable of leaving a store without buying something or walking through a casino without placing a bet. "But...but...it was 50% off! I had to!"

            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

    • 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.

      • Because the recording systems already in many vehicles have never been used against a driver in court after an accident. Nope, o sirree, no computer is watching and recording everything your cars does while you drive in a black box to be held against you later. Pure science fiction.

        • 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.

    • In case you didn't notice, EU is quite aggressive wrt its citizen privacy contrary to, say, the US. So this kind of thing wouldn't pass past the parliament.

      • If you think the EU is the land of fairies where the consumer has actual, meaningful rights, you're sorely deluded.

        If sonsabitches American companies likes Google, Microsoft or Facebook, whose entire business model consists in putting people under surveillance and abusing their private data, still operate in Europe and haven't pulled out, it's because there is no real threat to their business model in Europe.

        Think about that.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Mascot ( 120795 )

          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.

        • 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

      • You need to read more than just the marketing brochure.

        • 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)

            by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

            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

        • 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

    • 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)

        by q_e_t ( 5104099 ) on Sunday September 29, 2024 @06:47AM (#64825741)

        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.

    • 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.

    • 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.)

      • 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

        • 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.

    • Welcome to surveillance capitalism, where the consumer is led to believe he has a choice, but really doesn't have a choice.

      You mean late stage capitalism? Where all business is usually an oligopoly?
      Or maybe you want some cable? Oh wait, the only game in town is spectrum. The price is wrong, bob.

  • Why screw with the number one source of revenue for the State: DMV.

    • 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?

    • In what way would mandatory speed warnings interfere with revenue from the DMV?

      • 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.

        • 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

          • 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

          • 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

      • "Mandatory"? Did you miss the "driver has the ability to turn off the alert" part?

  • It just makes sense (Score:3)

    by divide overflow ( 599608 ) on Sunday September 29, 2024 @05:42AM (#64825643)
    Practically everyone in Southern California speeds most of the time.
    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.
    • I guarantee every non-dealer auto shop would offer permanent disablement for $19.95.

    • 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

    • 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?

    • It would have been able to be turned off.

  • In explaining his veto, Newsom said federal law already dictates vehicle safety standards and adding California-specific requirements would create a patchwork of regulations.

    Um, is this like a new principle or something? (Looks at 10,000 existing regulations and laws with California-specific requirements.)

    I think you'd better clear your calendar then ...

  • Manual soft speed limiter has been useful (Score:3)

    by rfunches ( 800928 ) on Sunday September 29, 2024 @08:58AM (#64825941) Homepage
    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.

    • 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

  • 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)

      by q_e_t ( 5104099 )

      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.

      • 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.

  • Many speed limits are inaccurate on GPS (Score:3)

    by Tony Isaac ( 1301187 ) on Sunday September 29, 2024 @09:41AM (#64826013) Homepage

    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.

    • I've had this issue. I use Google Maps with Apple Play for navigation and like you said, it's fine on most major roads but if you get off the beaten path it's not so great. In my state they seem to have an aversion to putting up speed limit signs so you either have to have saw the single one they put up five miles back or guess. I'll be going whatever speed Google Maps says is the local speed limit only to find that I've been doing 35 in a 45 or 40 in a 55 (the real speed is always much higher). I think

  • 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)

      by bussdriver ( 620565 )

      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:4, Interesting)

    by MpVpRb ( 1423381 ) on Sunday September 29, 2024 @11:13AM (#64826197)

    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)

      by quantaman ( 517394 ) on Sunday September 29, 2024 @01:27PM (#64826437)

      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.

  • This post is incomplete without the righteous anger at slow asses in the left lane that do not let us, people that *do* know how to drive, live their lives in peace.

    Here it is:

    *** THE RIGHTEOUS ANGER!!! ***

    GET OFF THE FREEWAY IF YOU DONT KNOW HOW TO DRIVE!!!

  • Apparently Newsom came to the conclusion that he did not want to get lynched by his constituents.

  • 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.

  • A rare act of common sense in California. Maybe they are starting to see the light.

Slashdot Top Deals

Never say you know a man until you have divided an inheritance with him.

Close