3 ms·

You're correct on some points, though it may slow other cars by way of simply being in the way. It wouldn't work on highways with passing lanes until a high ad

You're correct on some points, though it may slow other cars by way of simply being in the way. It wouldn't work on highways with passing lanes until a high adoption rate, but a single slow car on one-lane side roads will "bottleneck" any speeders. This alone would most likely increase safety. Gradually as more people got the cars, things would get safer and safer. Once, say, 90% of cars on the road have governors, it'll be hard for a speeder to find the opportunity to speed. Economic reasons could speed up adoption too. For example, insurance carriers would likely charge less for those with the device, and more for those without it. Governments could give those with the device a break on their income taxes. But honestly, I don't think the idea has much traction. It's too emotionally charged which would make it difficult for politicians to implement it, and there are large switching costs from current cars. Self-driving cars will likely appear beforehand. Radar and governors and what-not are really all just bandaids for the real problem with cars; their human drivers.

sokoloff 17y ago
It's not clear to me that slowing traffic will increase safety in any meaningful way. Slowing traffic will, for any constant amount of "demand", necessarily increase traffic density. Increased traffic density would seem likely to have a positive correlation with accident rates that would partially offset the decrease you're hoping to see. During the transition period, I predict you'd see a marked increase in the accident rate due to the increased instances of overtaking and broader spread of speeds. (12 cars all travelling at 80 mph on an interstate is safer than 6 cars travelling at 60 mph and 6 cars travelling at 80 mph. When you figure that each car governed to 60 will have to drive 33% longer, you'd actually have 8 cars at 60 mph and 6 cars at 80 mph to get the same throughput to destination on the highway.)
- dgallagher 17y ago
  Interesting point. I know broadly that lowering speed limits tends to reduce accident rates, but that's certainly different than this (and may just be spin I've heard through the media). The only way to tell would be to run something like this through a traffic simulator, and if that found things to be safer, next study it in a sample state or country (would be difficult to do). So you're possibly right, pending results of an imaginary study. :)

sokoloff 17y ago

It's not clear to me that slowing traffic will increase safety in any meaningful way. Slowing traffic will, for any constant amount of "demand", necessarily increase traffic density. Increased traffic density would seem likely to have a positive correlation with accident rates that would partially offset the decrease you're hoping to see. During the transition period, I predict you'd see a marked increase in the accident rate due to the increased instances of overtaking and broader spread of speeds. (12 cars all travelling at 80 mph on an interstate is safer than 6 cars travelling at 60 mph and 6 cars travelling at 80 mph. When you figure that each car governed to 60 will have to drive 33% longer, you'd actually have 8 cars at 60 mph and 6 cars at 80 mph to get the same throughput to destination on the highway.)

dgallagher 17y ago
Interesting point. I know broadly that lowering speed limits tends to reduce accident rates, but that's certainly different than this (and may just be spin I've heard through the media). The only way to tell would be to run something like this through a traffic simulator, and if that found things to be safer, next study it in a sample state or country (would be difficult to do). So you're possibly right, pending results of an imaginary study. :)