Virginia Will Punish Fast Drivers With Devices That Limit Their Speed (washingtonpost.com) 209
An anonymous reader quotes a report from the Washington Post: Virginia is set to become the first state in the country to require some reckless drivers to put devices on their cars that make it impossible to drive too fast. D.C. passed similar legislation last year. Several other states, including Maryland, are considering joining them. It's an embrace of a technological solution to a human problem: Speeding contributes to more than 10,000 deaths a year. Under the Virginia legislation, a judge can decide to order drivers to install the speed limiters in their vehicles in lieu of taking away their driving privileges or sending them to jail. It takes effect in July 2026.
Del. Patrick A. Hope (D-Arlington) said various advocacy groups, including Mothers Against Drunk Driving and the National Safety Council, gave him the idea. He drove a car outfitted with the technology and was impressed. "It was easy to use, and once you're engaged it's impossible to go over the speed limit," he said. "It will make our streets safer." He thinks the device is preferable to suspending drivers' licenses, a punishment that people frequently ignore because they have no other way of getting to work or the store or taking their children to school. It's an approach similar to using an interlock device that requires a person convicted of drunken driving to pass a Breathalyzer test to start their car.
Hope wanted anyone convicted of reckless driving after going 100 mph or more to be required to use a limiter for two to six months, but Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R) struck that part of the bill, leaving all use of the limiting technology up to the state courts. Hope expressed concern about the governor's amendment but will urge the General Assembly to accept it, as the legislature typically does when the bill's sponsor signals support. Drivers must pay for the speed limiters themselves. (As in D.C., indigent defendants are exempt from paying.) The limiters won't be used in Virginia on commercial vehicles. Attempting to evade the speed limiter by tampering with it or driving a different car is a misdemeanor punishable by up to a year in jail.
Del. Patrick A. Hope (D-Arlington) said various advocacy groups, including Mothers Against Drunk Driving and the National Safety Council, gave him the idea. He drove a car outfitted with the technology and was impressed. "It was easy to use, and once you're engaged it's impossible to go over the speed limit," he said. "It will make our streets safer." He thinks the device is preferable to suspending drivers' licenses, a punishment that people frequently ignore because they have no other way of getting to work or the store or taking their children to school. It's an approach similar to using an interlock device that requires a person convicted of drunken driving to pass a Breathalyzer test to start their car.
Hope wanted anyone convicted of reckless driving after going 100 mph or more to be required to use a limiter for two to six months, but Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R) struck that part of the bill, leaving all use of the limiting technology up to the state courts. Hope expressed concern about the governor's amendment but will urge the General Assembly to accept it, as the legislature typically does when the bill's sponsor signals support. Drivers must pay for the speed limiters themselves. (As in D.C., indigent defendants are exempt from paying.) The limiters won't be used in Virginia on commercial vehicles. Attempting to evade the speed limiter by tampering with it or driving a different car is a misdemeanor punishable by up to a year in jail.
I'll still find a way to be reckless. (Score:2)
If I can't go 120 on the freeway, how about I just go 70 in a 55, or how about 60 in a 25, or 50 in a 10-15mph zone...
I guess the data for the oppressive tech is readily available in map products like Google / Apple / TomTom maps etc. All they have to do is have some hooks into the rev limiter and speed limiters.
My example is hyperbole, and there's probably more severe penalties for not sticking to the speed limit, but you think the lawmakers thought about this?
What about the true need for speed in an emerg
Re: (Score:2)
I guess the data for the oppressive tech is readily available in map products like Google / Apple / TomTom maps etc. All they have to do is have some hooks into the rev limiter and speed limiters.
They need to measure g forces. The corners are the fun part.
My example is hyperbole
Mine isn't. Driving a slow car fast is much more fun than driving a fast car slow.
To be honest (Score:3)
The bigger problem I see on the roads these days is the fact that post-Covid, a lot more
folks simply don't give a damn about the rules of the road.
I see folks blowing red lights not only every single day, but at damn near every single red
light I'm stopped at.
It's become so bad I went ahead and installed front / rear dash cams just to have some record :|
of what happened after two close calls where an idiot blew through a light five plus seconds after
it's already turned red.
Re: (Score:2)
TBH, I think COVID causes brain damage. It's a vascular disease that can cause blood clots and severe headaches, among other things. We would be fools to believe that can't cause brain damage. Long-COVID "brain fog," if a valid syndrome, is a big hint. It takes a good deal of self-awareness to even realize you have that sort of problem. Milder cases will significantly impair, but go unnoticed.
What most people tend to lack, in my experience, is self-awareness. They don't know they have a problem, and they ha
Do what they do in Australia... (Score:2)
If you get busted driving dangerously or excessively fast, the cops can impound your car (either for a period of time or permanently) which is a much bigger disincentive to driving that way than just loss of license.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, they crush cars too ... like a public execution
https://www.premier.sa.gov.au/... [sa.gov.au]
Re: (Score:2)
A better solution (Score:2)
Re:A better solution (Score:4, Insightful)
I find your solution much more oppressive. You propose a device that monitors a citizen constantly and reports them to the police, which I find creepy.
The proposed solution is to require people to drive a slower car. Standard practice in my place is to strip the licence so infractors have to drive a microcar (those are drastically speed limited by construction and don't require a driving licence). You'd still need to but the microcar yourself and you also might feel ridiculed in the streets for driving it. I found it a great privacy-preserving option that Virginia allows such drivers to keep their current car just make sure technically it can't go above the stated limit .
Re: (Score:2)
You're talking about people who have already violated the law repeatedly, and driving is a privilege. I think it ought to be a right due to the way the car and oil and tire companies have fucked us over with every kind of political and commercial action imaginable up to and including literal convicted conspiracy, but I also think we ought to have working public transportation systems so it doesn't have to be.
You can't require people to drive microcars in the US because they would definitely die. That is ref
How? (Score:2)
Is it going to be a very simple limiter that imposes an overall maximum speed of that jurisdiction's fastest road? Or is it going to be a complicated, GPS + road-speed maps device, so you can't go faster than the posted limit on any road?
Either way, it's not going to work as intended.
In the former case, they'll still be able to go at freeway speeds on urban/suburban streets.
In the latter, it will cause accidents. GPS position is always an approximation, with a variable error (usually represented by a circle
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, just cut off the fuel - that won't cause any problems.
Oh, wait, if the engine gets no fuel, then it will stop running. That will cause abrupt deceleration, and likely a lack of power steering. Further, your brake lights won't go on unless you actually hit the brake pedal. Now, can you think what the consequences would be of that happening in lane 3 of a congested freeway, especially if it's raining?
If you answered, "I'm sure it'll be just fine," then I suggest testing it for yourself - just hit the fr
How will this work? (Score:2)
For something like this to work, it would have to use GPS to figure out where the car is, and then have a database of speed limits in various locations.
I'd actually support this as standard equipment on all vehicles with exceptions for law-enforcement and emergency vehicles.
Unfortunately, as another poster mentioned, GPS is not perfect and if it makes a mistake, it could cause havoc. So why not just put photo radars all over the place and mail speeders hefty fines (or revoke their licenses if they're goi
Re: (Score:2)
Photo radars really work. They take a bit of time, but once a few people have been dinged by expensive tickets or had license suspensions, people slow down when they see the "Traffic Camera" warning signs. I've seen this play out in my city. But the tickets do have to be expensive... I believe ours are $100 for going 50km/h in a 40km/h zone.
Autonomous vehicles and higher speeds are no solution. Honestly, if a trip takes 18 minutes instead of 20, who cares? AVs come with a host of downsides as per thi [youtube.com]
Self-driving cars (Score:2)
Oblig. "What could possibly go wrong?" (Score:2)
If literally anything goes wrong with their mitigation system, the State of Virginia will expose itself to enough liability to bankrupt itself and probably neighboring states.
I can't abide people who think technology is 100% reliable and rely on this absurd assumption.
It really depends on the state (Score:2)
In my state, the speed limit it 80 and the flow of traffic is sometimes about 90. It's wide open spaces, relatively straight roads and light traffic, until it snows and the prudent speed is closer to 35.
That said, I'm amazed that it's legal to sell cars that go over 100mph on public roads. There just is no lawful purpose, outside of police cars and maybe ambulances.
Re:won’t be used ... on commercial vehicles. (Score:4, Informative)
0%?
"Attempting to evade the speed limiter by tampering with it or driving a different car is a misdemeanor punishable by up to a year in jail"
Going to suck if your car breaks down or you want to travel somewhere where you'd need a rental but maybe that's a good reason not to go at 100mph...
Re:won’t be used ... on commercial vehicles. (Score:5, Interesting)
How long before cars ask to see your driver's license (or detect it wirelessly) and adjust what you can do accordingly?
Re:won’t be used ... on commercial vehicles. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I think we would skip this step and go right to wireless detection of the speed limit and global refusal to exceed.
That is actually a safety hazard to just hard cap everything at the speed limit. There are situations where you have to exceed the speed limit to avoid a serious accident. Also; the feature has to be designed so that it is safe to drive on roads where most cars don't have the feature bc they're older cars!
I would suggest what cars should do is (1) Have a global cap of 85 Mph that a road
Re: (Score:2)
You mean the idiots who still won't be able to get up to the speed limit, and everyone else stuck behind them because it will take too long to pass at only 5-8MPH faster? Just like a semi truck trying to pass another on the interstate...
Yeah, I'm all for getting those old farts off the road. If you can't comfortably drive the speed limit in perfect conditions, your driving skills are no longer good enough for you to be driving safely.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh it will be the insurance companies pushing for this. They already have devices you install that monitor your driving to get the better rates.
Note that you wouldn't get lower rates from scanning your license - you just won't be penalized with higher rates. If that makes sense.
In my state (Virginia) state law allows insurance agencies to automatically put anyone at your address on your policy automatically. My wife and I have separate policies (we both have kids but none together). Our insurance companies
Re: (Score:2)
You'd have to have speed limiters built into every vehicle for that to happen. It'd be a whole lot easier just to pass a law that requires car makers limit all cars to 75mph.
And before you claim that's where this is heading, why hasn't it been done yet then since the technology to limit cars to 75mph goes back further than the invention of the car itself? If regulators really wanted that, that's what they'd have already done a century ago.
Re: won’t be used ... on commercial vehicles (Score:2)
Reminds me of how they had that in the cars in the movie The Fifth Element.
.
You have one point left on your license.
Re: (Score:2)
When states add things like these they REALLY should add a requirement that car rental companies equip a % of their vehicles with the capability. And prices to be paid by the driver must be reasonable; Example: Not more than $200 for equipment; Not more than $100 in installation expenses, and not more than 5 a mile or $10 a month in operating expenses.
Re:Slippery slope (Score:4, Insightful)
Driving at 100mph isn't something normal people do, not even by accident. It's very hard to see how this will be abused, and it's also hard to see how it's more oppressive than the alternative - jail time or at the very least a complete suspension of driving privileges. It's arguably, far from an oppressive law, far too liberal. Someone who thinks it's a good idea to drive at 100mph on a regular Interstate is probably reckless in other respects too.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Driving at 100mph isn't something normal people do, not even by accident. It's very hard to see how this will be abused
You had me in the first half - we agree that 100mph isn't easy to do by accident.
The abuse comes in later on. Give it a year or two, and it'll be amended so it's "automatic at 100mph, on the table starting at 80", and a year or two more before it's an option for *any* speeding violation...
I say this because my county, many years ago, told us that they were going to implement red light cameras. ONLY at the 20 most dangerous intersections to begin with, and the county had a MAXIMUM of 50 they could EVER imple
Re: (Score:2)
The abuse comes in later on. Give it a year or two, and it'll be amended so it's "automatic at 100mph, on the table starting at 80",
I wish there was a way for me to bet money with the pessimistic types online who always want to insist their slippery slope arguments are likely.
Re: (Score:2)
When they started the law was to stick to the speed limit and not go through red lights.
Now the law is still to stick to the speed limit and not go through red lights.
The law hasn't changed, the enforcement of such has just got better because... SO MANY PEOPLE STILL SPEED AND GO THROUGH RED LIGHTS.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean lots of places that implemented rules BELOW THE LEGAL MINIMUM REQUIREMENT and then were forced to refund everything?
Yes, it's exactly the same problem from the other direction.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Slippery slope (Score:5, Informative)
The abuse comes in later on. Give it a year or two, and it'll be amended so it's "automatic at 100mph, on the table starting at 80", and a year or two more before it's an option for *any* speeding violation...
It's an abuse or oppressive if its taking away any of your rights. Driving is not a right, it's a privilege. It comes with strict rules and the government should be able to enforce those rules in literally any way it deems fit.
In fact if you abide by the rules of driving you will be completely unaffected.
How much you want to bet that there will be telemetry data collected and then sold to insurance companies?
Oh please. Anything to punish reckless people more. I already have a telemetry token with my insurance. Based on my driving "style" it reduced my premiums and saves me several hundred eur / year. Not a bad deal for something which amounts to "don't do anything illegal, and don't drive like a reckless idiot". Remember insurance is a guessing game, people who are good are literally subsidising people who are bad. The more information insurance companies have, the more this divide is bridged and you will be billed accordingly.
Now ... are you concerned because you didn't realise this is how the economics of insurance works, or because you're a bad driver?
Re: (Score:2)
Driving is not a right, it's a privilege.
I actually think that is a legal question that needs some 21st century testing. In fact I think when juxtaposed with a lot of other 'rights' that have been read as implied around various life style choices, etc under 1A it is pretty flimsy to suggest denying someones right to drive is not a material infringement on their right to assembly and denial represents an undue burden.
I am really we have politicians and judges out there that say it is unreasonable to expect that someone who wishes to vote can't be a
Re: (Score:3)
I wish the automatic speed limit reading in cars was more reliable. If it actually worked 99.999% of the time it would be much more useful as a limiter (with an override option).
Maybe we should think about adding radio beacons to signs. Solar powered, transmit the current speed limit to passing vehicles. More reliable than trying to read signs with a camera, or using outdated maps with GNSS.
Red light camera bring 0$ if people respect rules (Score:2)
oh and before somebody tells it is onyl 10kmh (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Someone who thinks it's a good idea to drive at 100mph on a regular Interstate is probably reckless in other respects too.
Agreed. When I read that part my first thought was "I'd kind of rather some one like this just doesnt drive"
Re: (Score:2)
That 100mph will turn into 90mph, then 80mph... Once the framework is in place, it is only a matter of turning the screws and twisting the vise.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It will definitely be for a lot more people than 100 MPH drivers, if the hew law is based on "Reckless Driving".
You see, in Virginia, Reckless Driving is not 100 MPH speeding. Reckless is driving 20 MPH over the posted limit, or in any circumstance whatsoever exceeding 85 MPH.
In Virginia, the "Reckless Driving" law is a little different than in most states. For one thing, it is a CRIMINAL offense. In most states, Reckless is a civil infraction where you get ticket, pay a fine, and perhaps even lose your li
Re: (Score:2)
Most of those things are inherently reckless ways to drive, though. For example, the last one is about police and ambulance vehicles on the job. Do you think it's prudent or safe to pass at highway speeds close to a police cruiser that pulled someone over? The law simply says to slow down or move over so that you don't run someone over.
Re: (Score:2)
Most of those things are inherently reckless ways to drive, though. For example, the last one is about police and ambulance vehicles on the job. Do you think it's prudent or safe to pass at highway speeds close to a police cruiser that pulled someone over? The law simply says to slow down or move over so that you don't run someone over.
I didn't say that you should do those things.
I said that in most places, you get a ticket.
In Virginia you get a prison sentence.
I didn't say that was bad, either..
I said that the new law under discussion here has been characterized as a "100 MPH" thing, but in fact it is an "20 over, or 85 MPH" thing, plus a lot of other things.
Reading Comprehension.
Get some.
Re: (Score:2)
I said that in most places, you get a ticket.
In Virginia you get a prison sentence.
That's not true. In Virginia, you might get a jail sentence, but seldom will unless you caused injury or serious damage, or you trigger one of the other exacerbating conditions to make it a felony. Most states [findlaw.com] are similar in defining reckless driving to be a crime rather than just a traffic offense. The only exceptions are Florida (if neither person nor property of another occurs), Kentucky, New Hampshire (where last I checked, motorcyclists were not required to wear helmets either), New Jersey and Penns
Re: (Score:2)
This has startled some national automobile reviewers, who now know never to drive through Virginia ever again
This is because all it takes a dishonest cop having a bad day to ruin your life. You assumption that this law will be applied impartially and accurately every time, all the time does not pass reality check.
Where in the hell do you think I said that?
Are you on drugs, or just stupid?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In Texas, we have speed limits up to 85mph. 100mph on an 85mph road in a capable car (i.e. a Porsche 911, not a box truck) maybe merits a speeding ticket, but isn't all that reckless. It's probably less likely to kill someone than going 45 in a 30mph residential street. On unrestricted sections of the autobahn in Germany, 100mph would make you a slowpoke in the left lane.
Most states already have a system with "points" on your driver's license where too many will result in suspension. A reckless speeding vio
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't find radar detectors particularly useful. With instant on and laser, chances are they get you before you get an alert. Meanwhile, you get constant false alarms driving with one. Despite my post above, I'm not really a big speeder anyways. I haven't been so much as pulled over in almost 20 years.
Re: (Score:2)
You have obviously never lived or driven in Louisiana, have you?
Re: (Score:2)
Driving at 100mph isn't something normal people do, not even by accident. It's very hard to see how this will be abused
I can tell you how it would be abused: Police often lie about the speed - they will say you were going 100Mph, when you weren't even speeding: deliberately because they took one look at you and the officer decided they don't like you, Or in order to meet employee performance criteria for citations. It will be their word against yours. They'll just write on the report that the rada
Re: (Score:2)
Driving at 100mph isn't something normal people do, not even by accident. It's very hard to see how this will be abused, and it's also hard to see how it's more oppressive than the alternative - jail time or at the very least a complete suspension of driving privileges. It's arguably, far from an oppressive law, far too liberal. Someone who thinks it's a good idea to drive at 100mph on a regular Interstate is probably reckless in other respects too.
It's also not difficult to do 100 MPH on a good motorway with light traffic. Especially in many modern "coddle the driver" cars. To be fair, the only time I've ever "accidentally" done over 100 MPH, was in an uuuuuber safe Volvo V70, that car was so dreary and disconnected from the driver that I didn't notice it until I looked at the speedo. To be fair this was on the I-15 just past the border heading towards LA. Nice, wide, flat empty interstate. In most of the cars I've owned (manual sports cars), you kno
Re:Slippery slope (Score:5, Insightful)
The street leading into my community is empty
Not when you are driving on it. But you make it clear they need to make the penalty a lot steeper if they want to make the rest of us safer from people like you. They ought to stop writing tickets and just impound cars that are going over the limit. Let people who speed walk home and have to figure out how to retrieve their vehicle from the pound. One purpose of legal penalties is to deter people and clearly speeding tickets are seen by some people as just another cost.
Re:Slippery slope (Score:5, Interesting)
You must be the kind of driver I routinely run into on the interstate. I'm driving the speed limit or perhaps slightly above, and maintaining a safe following distance from the car in front of me. Inevitably, some moron comes up behind me flashing his lights and having a shit fit because I'm not driving twenty or thirty miles over the limit. Then he passes me while accelerating, coming maybe a foot from my bumper, passes me, then slides back in front of me coming maybe six inches from my bumper. Then he has to slow down for the car in front of me, and I slow down to get a following distance buffer between him and me. Then some other dipshit goes off and does the same thing.
Ever wonder why sometimes traffic is backed up and then all of a sudden it clears with no apparent reason as to why it slowed down in the first place? One of the reasons is the caterpillar effect from people driving erratically. And usually when we come up to a traffic light or some other barrier I'm right behind the reckless asshat.
Re:Slippery slope (Score:5, Insightful)
Did you forget to mention that you're hogging the left lane? You're one of those people who are smug and arrogant. You think you're the better person, when in fact, you are violating the laws if you're "parking in the left lane".
If you're in fact passing people, then I understand your frustration. But you mentioned the person comes up behind you and passes you, so I have to assume you're in the left lane and said person passes on your right, which is unsafe and used to be illegal in some states. If said person can pass you on your right, then you are in fact the violator because you could have moved over. But no, not high and mighty you.
I bet you're one of those asshats who stop a long line of traffic to let one person out of a side street or driveway. Very courteous of you- to one person. But very rude and asshatish of you to the line of people behind you.
Sounds like you need behavior modification therapy to learn to live in a society and with other people. You're bordering on anti-social behavior.
Learn and follow the laws. If you don't like them, work the system we have in place to try to change them.
Re: (Score:3)
But you mentioned the person comes up behind you and passes you, so I have to assume you're in the left lane and said person passes on your right, which is unsafe and used to be illegal in some states.
Well passing on the right is still illegal here in Massachusetts but not on the highway. (It's legal to pass on the right on a divided road, illegal on undivided road.) I could also mention here in Mass the law on the highway is that the right most lane is the travel lane and the other lanes are passing lanes. Good luck getting anybody to obey that law.
Re:Slippery slope (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Can you point me to the part of the post you replied to that says he's in the left lane? Doesn't say that anywhere that I can see, but what he describes is stuff I experience just cruising along in the RIGHT lane.
Re:Slippery slope (Score:4, Funny)
The street leading into my community is empty, straight, clear, 4 miles long, nicely paved, and has a 35 mpg posted limit.
So, does your car mileage have to get above or below 35 mpg?
And I recall you drive an electric car, so ... confused.
Re:Slippery slope (Score:5, Informative)
I am yet to see a post from you that actually confirms your username.
Re: Slippery slope (Score:2)
I love that this comment is at +4, Informative
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Slippery slope (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Going 100 in an 85 zone is breaking the law.
If you want autobahn like rules, you'll need drivers who actually obey the law and pay attention to their surroundings. You'll need a driving test that actually tests you. You'll need to ban passing on the inside. You'll need drivers to stopping pulling on to the road and going straight to the middle or outer lane and putting on cruise control and not paying attention. You'll need drivers to be watching their mirrors and be prepared to pull over, especially sl
Re: (Score:2)
This is a state law, Virginia. I am not aware of any roads that have a speed limit, of 85. In fact I don't think there are any higher than 70, there may be a 75 zone somewhere in the south western part of the state I am uncertain about that.
I think it is also and has been the case here in VA that over 85 on a public road was an automatic upgrade to reckless operation. So this law really does not change the practical reality of what anyone is/was allowed to do.
Really in terms of geography most of this state
Re: (Score:2)
I would assume they already have revoking a driving license as an option for bad drivers. If not, I would question the point of licensing at all.
Compared to that, a speed limiter is a slap on the wrist. A slap might be warranted in some cases. But it's not going to stop reckless driving, which can certainly be done under 50 mph, or whatever the limit is. For repeat offenders, impounding the vehicle would be a better choice.
Re:Slippery slope (Score:4, Interesting)
Every year cars slam into (now abandoned) house on the corner of my block because they ignore the speed signs and take the blind corner too fast on rainy days. Prior to the owner of the house abandoning it, a car entered into his loungeroom sideways injuring his 12yo daughter.
I couldnt give a fuck if weird libertarians think speed limits are oppressive. I DO give a fuck about a 12 year olds right not to get mowed down by psychos.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's almost like you just made a slippery slope fallacy. People don't normally point out the problems of their argument right in the title.
By the way what is oppressive about this? Driving is a privilege not a right. You're not being oppressed in any way.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Speed absolutely is a problem, because the vast majority of people do not understand ke = 1/2 m v sq, and they do not understand stopping distances.
And you have missed the point about speed limits. Speed limits are the *maximum* safe speed for a road, as determined by traffic engineers thinking about all the factors you mentioned and lots others besides, such as other road users. You can and *should* drive slower than the speed limit if conditions make the maximum unsafe. Leaving it all to indlvidual driver
Re: (Score:3)
Speed limits are the maximum safe speed for a road, as determined by the legislation.
Why isn't everyone in Germany dead from the autobahn?
Re:This is bad (Score:5, Informative)
Have you driven on the Autobahn? It's designed for speed in places and there are strict rules that drivers follow that make it safer. Also much of the Autobahn does have speed limits at times and they are strictly followed in my experience. It's not a free for all that many Americans envision. Drivers also have more training than we get here.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed, the problem is the drivers.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed, the problem is the drivers.
When I read "contributes to 10,000 road deaths per year" I immediately thought "and what about the other 30,000. Yes, 40,000 Americans die on American roads each year (the UK is 1,600 to 1,700 per year), I suspect the bigger issues that the US will have are high levels of drink driving and people not wearing seatbelts, phone usage will probably also be up there these days.
Not that speed isn't also an issue but not wearing a seatbelt can easily make a crash at 30 MPH fatal.
Re: (Score:2)
Talk about hearing only what you want to hear. You were told that the differences re the autobahn were:
1. It’s designed for speed in places
2. It has strict rules
3. It’s not actually all unlimited anyway
4. Driver training is extensive
Your conclusion that the difference is driver behaviour (implying will, not skill) is not a reasonable inference from what you were told.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you're alluding to this anyway but to make it explicit, safety is only one thing that goes into setting a maximum speed.
For example, late at night, in residential areas, the primary consideration is noise - it's something of a coincidence that 20-30mph is both a reasonable maximum for safety in pedestrian rich areas an
Re: (Score:2)
Yes! Will be interesting to see if this changes over time as the fleet electrifies, and engine roar becomes a thing of the past. I personally believe (hope?) that EV noise emitters may be a temporary phenomenon, going away once road noise generally dies down and EVs’ low noise levels from motors become more audible.
Re: (Score:2)
>"Speed absolutely is a problem,"
Speed can be a problem, especially if we are talking about massive speed differentials from the flow of traffic. But it isn't the *pressing* problem. It is just the easiest to spot and objectively enforce, so it gets all the attention. Distracted driving, following to closely, under the influence driving, and super aggressive driving are way, way worse.
Re: (Score:2)
These don’t neatly bucket the way you suggest. Drunk drivers are much more likely to speed; distracted drivers are much more likely to speed; glancing at your phone while over the speed limit is more dangerous than when under; etc etc.
Fundamentally, the *only* reasons that cars are dangerous is because they are capable of movement. If all cars were stationary, they wouldn’t cause accidents. Modulating speed is the single most important factor in reducing road harms.
Re: (Score:3)
I think there are a few issues with this:
1) The speed limits are subject to political influence. It's not always based on the maximum safe speed for the road, nor is "safe" an objective and verifiable category.
2) The maximum safe speed for a heavily laden dump truck is not the same maximum safe speed for a Ferrari. For example, a Ferrari F8 can stop from 70mph in 141 feet. A dump truck will take 525 feet from 65mph. In places that allow high speeds like the German Autobahn, trucks are subject to separate sp
Re: (Score:2)
1) That sounds plausible for the US. Such a badly broken country. Not so true elsewhere, although my god the fuss in the UK with the intro of 20mph zones was really something special
2) Yes, different vehicles have different risks at the same speed. Again, the US is badly broken and it’s sad that you don’t have some differentiation in speed limits on the basis of risk. We do in the UK, for example (eg a cyclist is not bound by speed limits at all, becuase of the relatively lower risk they pose)
3
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, it’s Slashdot and no one can force you to elaborate, but you have kind of undermined your case by:
1. Only quoting the first part of what I said and missing out the bit about “as determined by traffic engineers”
2. Just saying no, with no rationale
Re: (Score:2)
My god but everything but everything is now shitty in the US. Really incredible to see death by a million cuts. The rest of the developed world does not behave this way, by and large
Re:This is bad (Score:4, Insightful)
Reducing it to a single number that doesn't account for skill, weather, traffic, road condition, etc is lazy and silly
If you're in front of a judge for a reckless driving offense, you've already demonstrated that you can't be trusted to account for those things, either.
Re: (Score:3)
So merely being accused of an offense means you can't be trusted?
Re: (Score:2)
I suppose I should have said "if a judge is deciding your sentence for reckless driving (jail, revoked license, speed limiter on your car)..."
At that point you've been found guilty - not just accused.
Re:Only a matter of time... (Score:5, Informative)
This is such a classic American violent fantasy, which serves its purpose of distracting the fantastist from engaging with reality. Even in the US, the vast majority of drivers have never been chased by a maniac intent on ramming their vehicle.
Re: (Score:2)
+1.
And anyway, the solution to this situation is not to try to escape - how do you even know if your car is faster than the other guy's, and also, running away tends to excite predators.
The solution is to call the police.
Re: (Score:2)
And in case of really bad situations where the bad guy stops you and gets out of the car to come harm you...make sure you have quick access to your car gun(s).....
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is such a classic American violent fantasy, which serves its purpose of distracting the fantastist from engaging with reality. Even in the US, the vast majority of drivers have never been chased by a maniac intent on ramming their vehicle.
And those of us who've driven fast (as in a nice track day) know that straight line speed is pretty useless. If you're trying to "evade" the other racers, the speed you can carry into (and out of) a corner determines how fast you actually go. There's not point in having a 200 MPH car if you have to slow down to 30 to take a corner, you'll get beaten by a 130 MPH car that can take corners at 50 or more.
Not that I'd recommend taking racing lines on residential streets (or highways for that matter).
Re: (Score:3)
I await that lawsuit as well. There is no such thing as a right to driving, and I actively enjoy reading about idiots getting slapped down in the court system for being idiots.
driving faster than the speed limit due to an emergency
If you have an emergency call the number we have dedicated to emergencies. They have these things called emergency response vehicles which are allowed to drive faster and do so more safely than you can.
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on where you live.
There are cities in the US that have 30+ minute wait times if you call 911.
It may be MUCH quicker to have someone drive you to a hospital themselves in many situations.
As the old saying goes....when seconds matter, the police are only minutes away.
Re: (Score:3)
If there's a maniac hell bent on ramming someone for driving the speed limit, guess who else becomes eligible for a reckless driving conviction. Go on, guess who is legally liable for that.
I am much more worried about the system being unreliable. My wife's car tries to read speed limit signs, and it works great about 90% of the time, but it has really unfortunate failure modes, like reading a 35 mph limit as 85 mph.
Re:Only a matter of time... (Score:4, Insightful)
Some of these limiters have a feature where they will temporarily let you exceed the limit for a short period of time, in the name of safety.
That said, if you really have a problem with people using their vehicles as weapons to ram others, you have far bigger problems. What is it, Mad Max in your country? Would a smoke screen or oil slick dispenser not be more effective?
Re: (Score:2)