How would you even mandate it for the millions of existing cars? There's plenty of cars on the road that don't even have GPS or cameras in the first place
It’s like selling blunt knives instead of sharp knives
You’re still selling knives
And if a person wants to they’re gonna strip that inhibitor out and oh neat you just created an entirely new black market for car modding
Winner winner, chicken dinner. Someone would figure out a firmware update inside of a week.
And its essentially impossible to prevent them doing it, too.
As long as you don't remove speed cameras and other detection devices, so what?
Now you've just given the authorities an excuse to check for those illegal modifications, and an excuse to levy significant fines, if not impound the car.
I think the idea of governors and the like is pretty stupid, for a whole host of reasons.
But "people will just illegally modify their cars, and use them to break existing laws in public" isn't that "one trick that bureaucrats hate" workaround.
ADDIT - Also, given it's software related, someone bricking their car because they're fucking with something they don't understand, will get a hearty laugh from me.
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
Not even sure why you'd float the idea in the first place. It's a dubious idea with lots of technical issues and it's almost guaranteed to go nowhere, so all it does is provide material for people to point and laugh at the silly California liberals.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
Not even sure why you'd float the idea in the first place. It's a dubious idea with lots of technical issues and it's almost guaranteed to go nowhere, so all it does is provide material for people to point and laugh at the silly California liberals.
Not even sure why you'd float the idea in the first place. It's a dubious idea with lots of technical issues and it's almost guaranteed to go nowhere, so all it does is provide material for people to point and laugh at the silly California liberals.
4,300 dead people perhaps. About twice the number of people who die by homicide btw
Not even sure why you'd float the idea in the first place. It's a dubious idea with lots of technical issues and it's almost guaranteed to go nowhere, so all it does is provide material for people to point and laugh at the silly California liberals.
4,300 dead people perhaps. About twice the number of people who die by homicide btw
Not even sure why you'd float the idea in the first place. It's a dubious idea with lots of technical issues and it's almost guaranteed to go nowhere, so all it does is provide material for people to point and laugh at the silly California liberals.
4,300 dead people perhaps. About twice the number of people who die by homicide btw
Not even sure why you'd float the idea in the first place. It's a dubious idea with lots of technical issues and it's almost guaranteed to go nowhere, so all it does is provide material for people to point and laugh at the silly California liberals.
4,300 dead people perhaps. About twice the number of people who die by homicide btw
That's nationally, 4,300 is the estimate for California where this is being proposed
Carmakers don't split markets by state line. It's the same reason why the threats from the Air Resources Board over efforts to undermine CAFE standards were actual threats and not just press releases.
Not even sure why you'd float the idea in the first place. It's a dubious idea with lots of technical issues and it's almost guaranteed to go nowhere, so all it does is provide material for people to point and laugh at the silly California liberals.
4,300 dead people perhaps. About twice the number of people who die by homicide btw
Is that to speeding specifically, or reckless driving broadly? Someone doesn't need to be going fast to be reckless
0
Options
ElJeffeNot actually a mod.Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPAmod
edited January 30
I'll be honest, I don't like this law, but I can legit not think of a single time I've ever thought not being able to go 10mph over the speed limit was a safety hazard, or even that I really needed to.
If I'm trying to get out of the way of a giant truck, the truck probably isn't going 70, and my car couldn't accelerate to 90 fast enough to get out of the way, anyway. The speed limits in the barren parts of California are 70, and driving faster than 80 doesn't seem terribly vital.
Like I said, I don't like this law, but aside from technological reasons (which i think are largely legit) I can't articulate a compelling reason why beyond "mah freedums".
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
+4
Options
ElJeffeNot actually a mod.Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPAmod
That said, the arguments for dramatically increasing safety aren't super compelling, anyway. Moniker's chart shows that the fatality rate gets really high between 30 and 40 mph, but the lowest speed limits are residential at 25mph, and 35 mph is already pretty deadly. Going down a city street with a 40 mph speed limit and the effect of a limiter becomes academic.
My instinct is that the impact of this law, if put into effect, would mostly be to irritate people.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
+2
Options
TetraNitroCubaneThe DjinneratorAt the bottom of a bottleRegistered Userregular
I don't think the law has even the slightest chance of even being considered seriously, let alone passing.
I'll be honest, I don't like this law, but I can legit not think of a single time I've ever thought not being able to go 10mph over the speed limit was a safety hazard, or even that I really needed to.
If I'm trying to get out of the way of a giant truck, the truck probably isn't going 70, and my car couldn't accelerate to 90 fast enough to get out of the way, anyway. The speed limits in the barren parts of California are 70, and driving faster than 80 doesn't seem terribly vital.
Like I said, I don't like this law, but aside from technological reasons (which i think are largely legit) I can't articulate a compelling reason why beyond "mah freedums".
The argument is more I don't trust the tech, the companies or anyone in the bureaucracy to do it right.
I agree of the hard rule of 10 over is very much reasonable and the social norm anyway.
That said, the arguments for dramatically increasing safety aren't super compelling, anyway. Moniker's chart shows that the fatality rate gets really high between 30 and 40 mph, but the lowest speed limits are residential at 25mph, and 35 mph is already pretty deadly. Going down a city street with a 40 mph speed limit and the effect of a limiter becomes academic.
My instinct is that the impact of this law, if put into effect, would mostly be to irritate people.
Deceleration from 45 to sub 25 is going to be a lot easier than from say 55 or more. I don't know how much it would help, but you do have to factor in how fast is the person going after they hit the brakes. That said I am more or less in full agreement with you. I am side eyeing a lot of these arguments really fucking hard. I got a lot of questions for people who can't be bothered to try and drive a little safer. I am certain the answers wouldn't change my thoughts so I will let it be.
How does the car know what the posted speed limit is?
A lot of cars detect signage now and put a little speed limit symbol on your dashboard.
And how often do they get it wrong?
Honestly, from my experience.....never?
Outside of temporary stuff like construction, anyway.
For a counterpoint, my Honda has this and bats maybe .900. It gets quite a few wrong, and I’ve yet to figure out why. I know the speed limit 15 sign near my work it consistently reads as speed limit 100.
I prefer having it to not, mind. But yeah it’s not perfect. Also the issue where it doesn’t “know” the speed limit until it sees a sign. So in a lot of neighborhoods, it just wouldn’t work at all.
This whole thing is such a colossal waste of time and effort that frankly could be better spent elsewhere in the State.
It’s absolutely not going to make people be more conscientious drivers. A jackass who’s erratically driving at 70 instead of at their preferred 80 is still an erratically driving jackass.
It’s not going to stop drunk drivers from hitting people.
You’d be better off increasing penalty severity for speeding or reckless endangerment. Like straight up you lose your license full stop, or something.
Those people they hit are more likely survive if you limit the speed at which the drunk driver strikes them. Additional speed literally kills:
It'll never make it into law because of the politics behind it. Doesn't make it wrong, though
The answer to limiting speed isn't the use of technology that doesn't work and makes driving less safe, but better road design that addresses core speed issues.
My street has most versions of NAACTO street calming. Some people still go 40mph in between the stretches of the speed tables and chicanes. Passive solutions are important, but they are also not invincible
Indeed. My neighborhood has tight streets that two cars can barely pass each other in. Copious blind corners. Anybody with any sense could tell you that even the 25 limit is probably pushing it.
Idiots still drive 35. And kill people from time to time.
Yes design matters but you can’t completely design out recklessness.
I bet a speed governor would stop 1 percent of those deaths at most.
You think speed is a factor in only 1% of traffic deaths?
mcdermott on
+1
Options
Kane Red RobeMaster of MagicArcanusRegistered Userregular
You could conceivably mandate cars have a speed limiter set to whatever the maximum speed limit is anywhere in the US but I'm not sure how much good locking folks down to 85mph (Texas, naturally) or lower would do. Other than annoy the kinds of people who go over 85 routinely so they illegally modify their vehicle.
You could conceivably mandate cars have a speed limiter set to whatever the maximum speed limit is anywhere in the US but I'm not sure how much good locking folks down to 85mph (Texas, naturally) or lower would do. Other than annoy the kinds of people who go over 85 routinely so they illegally modify their vehicle.
Which is why I’m a bigger fan of automated enforcement. But somebody earlier in the thread was complaining about that too so I think the real issue is that everybody just wants to drive fast, safety be damned.
I don’t like the idea of governors simply because emergencies happen.
California also has it's share of single lane rural highways where you need to use the incoming lane to pass and often times 10 mph over isn't going to cut it
You could conceivably mandate cars have a speed limiter set to whatever the maximum speed limit is anywhere in the US but I'm not sure how much good locking folks down to 85mph (Texas, naturally) or lower would do. Other than annoy the kinds of people who go over 85 routinely so they illegally modify their vehicle.
Which is why I’m a bigger fan of automated enforcement. But somebody earlier in the thread was complaining about that too so I think the real issue is that everybody just wants to drive fast, safety be damned.
I don’t like the idea of governors simply because emergencies happen.
Speaking just for myself: my issue with automated enforcement is 100% about the fact that I do not trust the software to get it right.
I write software both for a living and as a hobby. Have done so for over half my life. I wouldn't trust any piece of software as far as I could chuck the computer it's running on (and I suck at throwing).
Eventually, when we can prove detection of speed zones is within the 99.9999% accuracy margin? Sure. But it's not even close to there, as many people have attested to in this thread.
(Which to me means whomever proposed this either a. Knows almost nothing about the software involved, and thus had no business bringing up the proposal, or b. Knows it's a bad idea but doesn't care and is just looking to score either brownie points with some supporters or rile up opposition. But that is different tangent.)
"Let's take a look at the scores! The girls are at the square root of Pi, while the boys are still at a crudely drawn picture of a duck. Clearly, it's anybody's game!"
To actually do this relying on reading signs isn't going to be good enough. The state would need to create an authoritative database of speed limit maps that you could then use for geofencing and the car would need a built in GPS.
And I think rather than a flat 10mph I think what you would want is more an escalation from warnings to it actually throttling the output such that you can briefly speed up in emergencies but constantly going over the speed limit is discouraged.
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
That said, the arguments for dramatically increasing safety aren't super compelling, anyway. Moniker's chart shows that the fatality rate gets really high between 30 and 40 mph, but the lowest speed limits are residential at 25mph, and 35 mph is already pretty deadly. Going down a city street with a 40 mph speed limit and the effect of a limiter becomes academic.
My instinct is that the impact of this law, if put into effect, would mostly be to irritate people.
Deceleration from 45 to sub 25 is going to be a lot easier than from say 55 or more. I don't know how much it would help, but you do have to factor in how fast is the person going after they hit the brakes. That said I am more or less in full agreement with you. I am side eyeing a lot of these arguments really fucking hard. I got a lot of questions for people who can't be bothered to try and drive a little safer. I am certain the answers wouldn't change my thoughts so I will let it be.
There's a lot of charts that do most of the maths for you.
Most of my searches were in kph (cause Australia), but here's an mph one. It's UK so it uses distance in metric, but speed in imperial (because THAT isn't confusing at all!), but it does show total in feet as well.
At 40mph, you've got a stopping distance TRIPLE that of 20mph.
Also as the chart shows, even a steady reaction time has an impact due to the speed of travel. At 20mph, your total stopping distance is equal to when you START to apply the brakes at 40mph.
This whole thing is such a colossal waste of time and effort that frankly could be better spent elsewhere in the State.
It’s absolutely not going to make people be more conscientious drivers. A jackass who’s erratically driving at 70 instead of at their preferred 80 is still an erratically driving jackass.
It’s not going to stop drunk drivers from hitting people.
You’d be better off increasing penalty severity for speeding or reckless endangerment. Like straight up you lose your license full stop, or something.
Those people they hit are more likely survive if you limit the speed at which the drunk driver strikes them. Additional speed literally kills:
It'll never make it into law because of the politics behind it. Doesn't make it wrong, though
The answer to limiting speed isn't the use of technology that doesn't work and makes driving less safe, but better road design that addresses core speed issues.
My street has most versions of NAACTO street calming. Some people still go 40mph in between the stretches of the speed tables and chicanes. Passive solutions are important, but they are also not invincible
Indeed. My neighborhood has tight streets that two cars can barely pass each other in. Copious blind corners. Anybody with any sense could tell you that even the 25 limit is probably pushing it.
Idiots still drive 35. And kill people from time to time.
Yes design matters but you can’t completely design out recklessness.
I bet a speed governor would stop 1 percent of those deaths at most.
You think speed is a factor in only 1% of traffic deaths?
The problem is that we as a society are very reluctant to strip someone of their privilege to drive because of their behavior, and this is due to how car-centric our communities are. Losing your license is effectively house arrest in way too many places. If we want to fix things, we need to make car ownership less of a prerequisite.
California also has it's share of single lane rural highways where you need to use the incoming lane to pass and often times 10 mph over isn't going to cut it
... why are you passing someone who is going the speed limit
life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
Trucks often have a different lower speed limit than cars.
But then you have more than 10mph of headroom for passing.
life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
Trucks often have a different lower speed limit than cars.
But then you have more than 10mph of headroom for passing.
It's safest to pass as quickly as possible, if a truck is going 10 under the speed limit it could be prohibitive to pass if you can't accelerate to get around them.
ButtersA glass of some milksRegistered Userregular
Also some people dive extremely inconsistently. I can't count how many times I've been stuck behind someone going 48 when the limit is 55 in a rural no passing zone, but they float up to 53 when the zone briefly opens up. Some people are allergic to cruise control and fluctuate +/- 10mph even in low traffic and it confounds me.
Any actually workable solution might work like this:
- Car automatically detects speed and maintained speed in region, and logs speeding incidences.
- Over a certain threshold, data is automatically sent to an agency for manual review.
- Loss of privileges can be enabled for repeat violators.
The issue though is trust. Everything around traffic enforcement has sucked ass forever. People may hate that asshole dipshit who goes 40mph in a subdivision and blasts through stop signs, but they hate speeding tickets and traffic cops more. Posted limits are almost always too low for how the road is designed. And I suspect that actually forcing people to drive slower than what's "natural" would have disastrous effects on attentiveness and reaction times.
The problem is that we as a society are very reluctant to strip someone of their privilege to drive because of their behavior, and this is due to how car-centric our communities are. Losing your license is effectively house arrest in way too many places. If we want to fix things, we need to make car ownership less of a prerequisite.
Amen. Even in cities with robust public transit, we don’t really yank licenses. I’ve been saying for a while though that if you want better transit, one way to get it is to create a middle class population dependent on it. Start taking away licenses from middle class professionals that can’t drive for shit, suddenly you’ve got loud voices in favor of maybe getting some trains and rapid buses moving. And improving the networks we have.
It’s at least worth a try. Nowadays? Seriously, any Americans here know *anybody* who has lost their license purely due to bad driving? Which is to say not due to an unpaid ticket, not due to driving while drunk, and not having killed somebody. Just for basic speeding and other moving shenanigans.
California also has it's share of single lane rural highways where you need to use the incoming lane to pass and often times 10 mph over isn't going to cut it
... why are you passing someone who is going the speed limit
So besides the “trucks have a lower limit” issue, you need to exceed the speed limit substantially to pass someone who is going, say, 5 under the limit as well…and in most states the law specifically allows for it.
Speaking just for myself: my issue with automated enforcement is 100% about the fact that I do not trust the software to get it right.
So to be clear when I say automated enforcement I’m not talking about governors, I’m talking about speed cameras issuing tickets. Which, I’ll admit I don’t know how accurate that tech is but I’d think we have it down pretty decently (and human review can help).
It also works surprisingly well. I know, something something road design, but amazingly a sign that says “you will 100% of the time get a speeding ticket if you speed here” seems to be surprisingly effective at getting people to slow the fuck down. I’ve seen it in action. So I think it’s definitely more an issue of desire than ability when it comes to following posted signage.
Kane Red RobeMaster of MagicArcanusRegistered Userregular
We can't even get automatic red light cameras to ticket correctly and reliably, not a chance in hell of getting automatic speeding ticket camera enforcement.
We can't even get automatic red light cameras to ticket correctly and reliably, not a chance in hell of getting automatic speeding ticket camera enforcement.
It's less reliability and more having an income stream makes it extremely tempting to design and setup the cameras wrong. The "best" use of them from many city's perspective is to maximize the number of times they go off- which of course is exactly the opposite effect you want them to be having.
Trucks often have a different lower speed limit than cars.
But then you have more than 10mph of headroom for passing.
You're also passing a longer vehicle. And if it's someone from Swift they might try and accelerate while you're passing because that firm is staffed entirely by idiots.
Don't forget the fun of what happens when you have a line of cars doing a normal 70-80 on a highway, and then one misreads a sign and speed governs itself down to 40. If that kicks on regenerative braking on an electric, that's going to be a very harsh deceleration.
Also not real sure how that enforces itself on a manual transmission, but it wouldn't surprise me if 80% of the country has forgotten they exist at all.
Granted it will never pass, but its gonna distract people all over as fox and friends go apeshit about another stereotypical Cali nanny state overreach. If it did pass, it wouldn't have any significant penetration into the market for years, if not a decade or more, given the usual replacement cycle, and probably even longer, since it wouldn't go into effect for at least a year or three to let the automakers actually implement it.
It also isn't the sort of thing that would necessarily bleed over, as it would absolutely be a software implementation, so you don't really have the texas schoolbook effect...
I feel like "it shouldn't slam on the brakes if it thinks you entered a 30 mph zone while going 80 mph" is like an obvious enough technical detail that it's practically a strawman.
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
I feel like "it shouldn't slam on the brakes if it thinks you entered a 30 mph zone while going 80 mph" is like an obvious enough technical detail that it's practically a strawman.
Have you seen the current state of AI driving? ...or at least what keeps making the news on it. *glances at Tesla*
Posts
As long as you don't remove speed cameras and other detection devices, so what?
Now you've just given the authorities an excuse to check for those illegal modifications, and an excuse to levy significant fines, if not impound the car.
I think the idea of governors and the like is pretty stupid, for a whole host of reasons.
But "people will just illegally modify their cars, and use them to break existing laws in public" isn't that "one trick that bureaucrats hate" workaround.
ADDIT - Also, given it's software related, someone bricking their car because they're fucking with something they don't understand, will get a hearty laugh from me.
Point scoring with people who don't drive.
4,300 dead people perhaps. About twice the number of people who die by homicide btw
43,000
https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/#!/PublicationList/69
That's nationally, 4,300 is the estimate for California where this is being proposed
Carmakers don't split markets by state line. It's the same reason why the threats from the Air Resources Board over efforts to undermine CAFE standards were actual threats and not just press releases.
Is that to speeding specifically, or reckless driving broadly? Someone doesn't need to be going fast to be reckless
If I'm trying to get out of the way of a giant truck, the truck probably isn't going 70, and my car couldn't accelerate to 90 fast enough to get out of the way, anyway. The speed limits in the barren parts of California are 70, and driving faster than 80 doesn't seem terribly vital.
Like I said, I don't like this law, but aside from technological reasons (which i think are largely legit) I can't articulate a compelling reason why beyond "mah freedums".
My instinct is that the impact of this law, if put into effect, would mostly be to irritate people.
It's just an excuse for people to get worked up.
The argument is more I don't trust the tech, the companies or anyone in the bureaucracy to do it right.
I agree of the hard rule of 10 over is very much reasonable and the social norm anyway.
Deceleration from 45 to sub 25 is going to be a lot easier than from say 55 or more. I don't know how much it would help, but you do have to factor in how fast is the person going after they hit the brakes. That said I am more or less in full agreement with you. I am side eyeing a lot of these arguments really fucking hard. I got a lot of questions for people who can't be bothered to try and drive a little safer. I am certain the answers wouldn't change my thoughts so I will let it be.
For a counterpoint, my Honda has this and bats maybe .900. It gets quite a few wrong, and I’ve yet to figure out why. I know the speed limit 15 sign near my work it consistently reads as speed limit 100.
I prefer having it to not, mind. But yeah it’s not perfect. Also the issue where it doesn’t “know” the speed limit until it sees a sign. So in a lot of neighborhoods, it just wouldn’t work at all.
Indeed. My neighborhood has tight streets that two cars can barely pass each other in. Copious blind corners. Anybody with any sense could tell you that even the 25 limit is probably pushing it.
Idiots still drive 35. And kill people from time to time.
Yes design matters but you can’t completely design out recklessness.
You think speed is a factor in only 1% of traffic deaths?
Which is why I’m a bigger fan of automated enforcement. But somebody earlier in the thread was complaining about that too so I think the real issue is that everybody just wants to drive fast, safety be damned.
I don’t like the idea of governors simply because emergencies happen.
Speaking just for myself: my issue with automated enforcement is 100% about the fact that I do not trust the software to get it right.
I write software both for a living and as a hobby. Have done so for over half my life. I wouldn't trust any piece of software as far as I could chuck the computer it's running on (and I suck at throwing).
Eventually, when we can prove detection of speed zones is within the 99.9999% accuracy margin? Sure. But it's not even close to there, as many people have attested to in this thread.
(Which to me means whomever proposed this either a. Knows almost nothing about the software involved, and thus had no business bringing up the proposal, or b. Knows it's a bad idea but doesn't care and is just looking to score either brownie points with some supporters or rile up opposition. But that is different tangent.)
And I think rather than a flat 10mph I think what you would want is more an escalation from warnings to it actually throttling the output such that you can briefly speed up in emergencies but constantly going over the speed limit is discouraged.
There's a lot of charts that do most of the maths for you.
Most of my searches were in kph (cause Australia), but here's an mph one. It's UK so it uses distance in metric, but speed in imperial (because THAT isn't confusing at all!), but it does show total in feet as well.
At 40mph, you've got a stopping distance TRIPLE that of 20mph.
Also as the chart shows, even a steady reaction time has an impact due to the speed of travel. At 20mph, your total stopping distance is equal to when you START to apply the brakes at 40mph.
The problem is that we as a society are very reluctant to strip someone of their privilege to drive because of their behavior, and this is due to how car-centric our communities are. Losing your license is effectively house arrest in way too many places. If we want to fix things, we need to make car ownership less of a prerequisite.
... why are you passing someone who is going the speed limit
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
But then you have more than 10mph of headroom for passing.
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
It's safest to pass as quickly as possible, if a truck is going 10 under the speed limit it could be prohibitive to pass if you can't accelerate to get around them.
- Car automatically detects speed and maintained speed in region, and logs speeding incidences.
- Over a certain threshold, data is automatically sent to an agency for manual review.
- Loss of privileges can be enabled for repeat violators.
The issue though is trust. Everything around traffic enforcement has sucked ass forever. People may hate that asshole dipshit who goes 40mph in a subdivision and blasts through stop signs, but they hate speeding tickets and traffic cops more. Posted limits are almost always too low for how the road is designed. And I suspect that actually forcing people to drive slower than what's "natural" would have disastrous effects on attentiveness and reaction times.
Amen. Even in cities with robust public transit, we don’t really yank licenses. I’ve been saying for a while though that if you want better transit, one way to get it is to create a middle class population dependent on it. Start taking away licenses from middle class professionals that can’t drive for shit, suddenly you’ve got loud voices in favor of maybe getting some trains and rapid buses moving. And improving the networks we have.
It’s at least worth a try. Nowadays? Seriously, any Americans here know *anybody* who has lost their license purely due to bad driving? Which is to say not due to an unpaid ticket, not due to driving while drunk, and not having killed somebody. Just for basic speeding and other moving shenanigans.
It simply doesn’t happen.
So besides the “trucks have a lower limit” issue, you need to exceed the speed limit substantially to pass someone who is going, say, 5 under the limit as well…and in most states the law specifically allows for it.
So to be clear when I say automated enforcement I’m not talking about governors, I’m talking about speed cameras issuing tickets. Which, I’ll admit I don’t know how accurate that tech is but I’d think we have it down pretty decently (and human review can help).
It also works surprisingly well. I know, something something road design, but amazingly a sign that says “you will 100% of the time get a speeding ticket if you speed here” seems to be surprisingly effective at getting people to slow the fuck down. I’ve seen it in action. So I think it’s definitely more an issue of desire than ability when it comes to following posted signage.
(Though yes, proper road design definitely helps substantially.)
It's less reliability and more having an income stream makes it extremely tempting to design and setup the cameras wrong. The "best" use of them from many city's perspective is to maximize the number of times they go off- which of course is exactly the opposite effect you want them to be having.
You're also passing a longer vehicle. And if it's someone from Swift they might try and accelerate while you're passing because that firm is staffed entirely by idiots.
Also not real sure how that enforces itself on a manual transmission, but it wouldn't surprise me if 80% of the country has forgotten they exist at all.
Granted it will never pass, but its gonna distract people all over as fox and friends go apeshit about another stereotypical Cali nanny state overreach. If it did pass, it wouldn't have any significant penetration into the market for years, if not a decade or more, given the usual replacement cycle, and probably even longer, since it wouldn't go into effect for at least a year or three to let the automakers actually implement it.
It also isn't the sort of thing that would necessarily bleed over, as it would absolutely be a software implementation, so you don't really have the texas schoolbook effect...
Have you seen the current state of AI driving? ...or at least what keeps making the news on it. *glances at Tesla*
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy