8 ms·

EU says new cars must include built-in speed limiters

37 points by aginovski 8y ago

x38iq84n 8y ago
Every day, everything that comes out of EU is evil. The only effect of this is higher prices of cars and a paved way for more oppression of the ordinary citizen. Today, only new cars need to have new limiters; tomorrow they will criminalise driving a car with them disabled or broken; ultimately they will integrate it with eCall (remember when they mandated to put GPS+GSM in all new cars?) and police all drivers everywhere all the time.
- wsc981 8y ago
  I advise you to vote with your feet as I have done. I suspect you’re a tech worker so it should be easy to find work across the globe. I myself emigrated to Thailand and while Thailand isn’t perfect, for various reasons I feel more free here than in The Netherlands. Perhaps most of all since I pretty much can legally avoid paying much tax here and in my opinion taxes in The Netherlands are just too damn high.
- claudius 8y ago
  Hu? The "evil" thing here are cars (emitting poisonous gases, driving climate change, making loud noises etc.) and their reckless drivers (racing those cars in inner cities, not paying attention, claiming losing control of their vehicle was an "accident"…). Anything that limits their use and the freedom of their self-centered users is good.
  - ovi256 8y ago
    It's really narrow minded to find all drivers reckless when you clearly cite pathological behaviour that's adopted by a minority of drivers. It shows you do not evaluate this rationally and makes your argument less credible.
    - zaarn 8y ago
      I would argue that the minority of people actually observe speed limits, most people drive over the speed limit out of habit, sometimes only to overtake but a lot of drivers do it and I get a lot of road hate for driving at speed limit or below.
    - claudius 8y ago
      From personal experience, I know that most drivers I interact with on a daily basis are reckless and needlessly endanger others for their personal convenience and comfort. This starts at parking on pavements and cycle lanes, not stopping at zebra crossings, going above the speed limit and all sorts of other incursions. For example, there was recently a statistic floated around that half the people in the UK had been in an accident. Assuming that all these accidents were one-on-one collisions (unlikely, people also "lose control" all by themselves), this suggests that at least 25% of drivers drive recklessly, as they have caused an accident at some point in the past. I do not understand how 25% are "pathological". Add to this the number of people who also drive recklessly but for sheer luck have not caused an accident yet and those people who have caused accidents without involving other drivers and the above 25% go up even further. So yes, I stand by my previous comment.
  - mantas 8y ago
    Heh. That 0.001% of malicious users will just stick to old cars or modify their new ones. Gas emissions and loud noises are set to be gone pretty soon anyway. Or are you just too self centered to see through your own narrow minded BS?
    - x38iq84n 8y ago
      Downvote all you like, but it won't change a thing that those wilfully reckless drivers just won't get a new car with these limiters or will disable them and will not be impacted, unlike the millions of others who are forced to pay for more useless gadgets in their cars.
      - claudius 8y ago
        It will simply eventually become illegal to run without these limiters just as it is already illegal to use particularly polluting cars in cities (for example). Of course it will also be illegal to disable them. I don’t see how what you’re describing is any sort of credible loop-hole.
        x38iq84n 8y ago
        You are already admitting that the current proposal will solve nothing, but will require further steps: prosecuting tampering with the limiters, prosecuting driving a car without them (even unknowingly [!]) and so on. All of that to ineffectively substitute the actual work of the police at the expense of every car owner.
        claudius 8y ago
        Sorry? Cars are checked regularly (at least every two years for example in Germany) where any tampering can be detected and either reversed or further registration for the car refused. This system is already in place and the process of checking brakes, the engine, lights etc only needs to be amended by a process to check this system. I don’t see how this requires substantial "further steps".
- ElBarto 8y ago
  There are legal speed limits. Drivers routinely ignore them. EU plans a system that automatically _alerts_ drivers when when they are exceeding the speed limit (something that essentially all sat nav do). How dare they be so evil? Jeez.
  - mantas 8y ago
    If it was such a useful feature, why people aren't using it already? And initially they wanted to make cars automatically slow down too, but thankfully that was thrown out. Till next time? Mandatory breathalyzer is much more stupid.
    - benj111 8y ago
      "Mandatory breathalyzer is much more stupid." What about for convicted drunk drivers? Would these measures be more acceptable for people who have already proven themselves untrustworthy?
      - mantas 8y ago
        Why do I have to pay for breathalyzer in my car if I don't drink alcohol nor ever had problems with it?
        benj111 8y ago
        I'm not saying you do. You are unhappy with the new law. I'm asking if you would find a targeted law more reasonable.
        mantas 8y ago
        Some countries already allow convicted DUI to keep driving with aftermarket breathalyzers. IMO in some cases it's good as an optional replacement for the license suspension. If someone depends on their license that may be a good compromise to both not ruin someone's life and ensure public safety.
- CJefferson 8y ago
  I don't get why this is evil. I often fear speeding cars, particularly on country roads. I understand people wanting an engine with spare power, but why not make people follow the law if it is fairly simple to do?
  - DanielBMarkham 8y ago
    "why not make people follow the law if it is fairly simple to do?" That's quite an interesting question, because it seems so common-sense. I think I know why it's an awful idea, but I'm not sure. I could certainly imagine such a question being used in all kinds of places that I would find uncomfortable, especially with computers being integrated so much into our lives and watching everything we do and think.
  - michaelt 8y ago
    Presumably x38iq84n fears a future of always-on vehicle tracking, where a file is kept of every citizen's movements. Of course, everyone already carries a smart phone with GPS tracking, so you could argue this is no more dystopian than that.
    - x38iq84n 8y ago
      You are very correct. Today, x38iq84ns can leave their phone at home and the phone does not send tickets based on speed and does not call the cops against them based on geofencing. And because the vehicle tracking is not panacea, it will be supported by new "crimes" being prosecuted, involving any form of avoidance from tracking - inevitably trackers will break and people will be prosecuted for driving with a broken (=disabled) tracker. Determined avoiders will find their way and only law-abiding citizens (or so they think) will pay the price.
- crc32 8y ago
  There is already a speed limit, this is just enforcement isn't it? Do you agree with speed limits?
  - ovi256 8y ago
    The speed limits are out of date. For highways, the original limits were set by breaking distances. Braking systems have improved tremendously (almost all disk brakes nowadays, ESC and ABS), reducing breaking distances, while the limits were never updated. So yeah, one can disagree with speed limits.
    - TrickyRick 8y ago
      Human reactions however, have not. Don't know where you live but most EU countries have a speed limit of around 100 km/h on the highway. This gives a stopping distance of around 100m for a modern well-maintained car (Which, let's be realistic, most are not). That's a long distance. Now if you take into account that a lot of countries have higher limits (France at 130 km/h for example) and that the braking distance increases exponentially I would disagree that they are outdated.
  - x38iq84n 8y ago
    This is no enforcement as long as it's just an alert. Those who want to follow speed limits can do that already, there is this new thing called speedometer that comes with every car. More electronic gadgets solve nothing but build infrastructure for EU dystopia that monitors everybody.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - kylec 8y ago
    I disagree that the line between safe and unsafe speed can be distilled down to the same number for every car, every driver, and every weather/road condition. If you’re a good driver in a good car driving on a clear, dry day you should be allowed to drive faster than a bad driver in a bad car on a foggy/icy/rainy day.
setquk 8y ago
Non issue. This is just haptic feedback when you get to the limit. I hope it does log the speed as well as the last two accidents on the road I live on people were killed by idiots doing 40+ mph in a 20mph limit. What is a problem is fixing this shit when it breaks. Which it will because it adds to the bottom line cost of the vehicle so will be done by the lowest bidder.
- MaBu 8y ago
  If it is just haptic it's OK but the talk was at least in media that it would be an actual speed limit which in current implementation is idiotic. We have a new car which can read speed signs. In theory good idea. But tech isn't where it should be. For example when you drive on highway 100 km/h with 130 km/h speed limit and the car is warning you that you are speeding because it saw speed sign for 40 km/h on exit ramp it's a little worrying if car would actually obey speed limit. Breaking from 100 to 40 for no reason by car itself would not be good. And there are also speed signs for only some vehicles which I don't think any car can read and for example Austrian signs (30 km/h limit and then subtext "valid only for side roads"). And another thing speed signs says limit is 50 km/h. It is valid up to next intersection. Intersection that invalidates speed limit is defined as intersection with more then 4 housing units. It's sometimes hard for human to know if intersection invalidates speed limit or not. How would a car know?
- philpem 8y ago
  Some vehicles already log the speed -- it's routine in road traffic collisions to read it out of the vehicle computers. As I understand, it only covers the last few minutes prior to engine stop / loss of power. There's also the age-old method of looking at the speedometer: in a high-speed collision, the return spring tends to fail. Result is the needle gets stuck at the impact speed or close to it.
- b1r6 8y ago
  The 20mph limit is too low. Transportation is for efficiency.
benj111 8y ago
UK MEP: "It is true that cars built in Britain will have to carry these safety systems and standards if they are to be exported to the EU," Mr Dalton said. "But we have also secured improved rules" Its almost like having a seat at the table, for your biggest export market is a good thing.
- michaelt 8y ago
  If you were a Brit opposed to these speed limiters, surely you'd prefer "EU speed limiters not needed in britain" to "EU speed limiters needed, but with improved rules" ?
  - benj111 8y ago
    True, buts that's a separate issue to having a say on the rules of countries you're trading with. Plus you could replace Brit and Britain with EU (citizen) and it would still be as true.
angeal1131 8y ago
I think a speed limit is good. EU's implementation? not sure about that. What about driving by a slow driveR? you have to speed up above the limit to do that. It's about safety, and no street legal car should be driven above 140-160km/h (87-100mph) on the highway; most people do not know how to handle a car above 80mph. It's really dangerous for both that car as well everybody around. IF you drive on your own land, race track etc. then yeah, that's where it should be allowed.
- zaarn 8y ago
  >you have to speed up above the limit to do that. Atleast in germany you may only overtake a driver if you can do so without going over the speed limit. I would assume that this is that case for most western countries too, driving over the speed limit is illegal, if you do it while overtaking I see on reason why you should get an exception. And after all, it's a speed limit, not a speed average or speed minimum.
  - angeal1131 8y ago
    Issue in europe is that most roads isn't super wide. Only two-lane; at times only one.. So to overtake, you have to drive into the other lane that's driving against you... so that's when you are forced to speed up.... On highways, then yeah not a issue, but most roads isn't highways.
    - arethuza 8y ago
      If you have to speed up significantly to over the speed limit then presumably the vehicle you are overtaking was already close to the limit so why do you need to overtake? [NB Reformed speeder here - I used to speed a lot, but then got a ticket and decided to stick carefully to the limit at all times, which actually means less stress, less fuel used and I haven't noticed arriving places really any later. Have almost got in fights a couple of times though!]
    - zaarn 8y ago
      It's perfectly possible to overtake on a one-lane road without breaking the speed limit, it's something that is expected of your during the driving test if you drive behind someone sufficiently slow. Even if you go into the lane of the oncoming traffic, you are still not allowed to break the speed limit. If you're not part of the police, firefighters or ambulance drivers, I do not believe there is a single valid reason to break the speed limit.
Tharkun 8y ago
Good. People have been driving too fast for too long. Too many people die in car crashes. Speed is often the factor that determines whether you (or the pedestrian they're hitting) lives or dies. Drivers have had plenty of time to moderate their own behaviour, but they haven't. If they can't behave, they should be forced to behave.
- StreamBright 8y ago
  Speed is one factor but not everything: - Speeding - Driving under the influence of alcohol and other psychoactive substances - Nonuse of motorcycle helmets, seat-belts, and child restraints - Distracted driving - Unsafe road infrastructure - Unsafe vehicles - Inadequate post-crash care - Inadequate law enforcement of traffic laws
- b1r6 8y ago
  What if we just kept the peds out of the road? Transportation is all about efficiency. If I wanted to get somewhere slower, I'd walk.
dev_north_east 8y ago
I really dislike the prospect of more software in cars.
sschueller 8y ago
It will just alert the driver not actually limit. [1] Many systems already exists like that. Even simple ones which you can set by hand to a specific speed and it will beep when you go over. [1] ""The Commission wanted to make it compulsory that the car would automatically slow down to observe speed limits but we have secured a compromise where the system merely has to alert the driver that he or she is speeding," said Daniel Dalton, the Tory MEP for the West Midlands."
- neverminder 8y ago
  > The speed limiter device, called intelligent speed assistance, or ISA, uses GPS data and sign recognition cameras to detect speed limits where the car is travelling, and then will sound a warning and automatically slow down the vehicle if it is exceeding the limit. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/27/all-new-uk-cars-to-have-speed-limiters-by-2022-under-eu-plans https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/27/all-new-uk-car...
  - mdekkers 8y ago
    My Volvo has sign recognition, and although it is quite good, it frequently gets it wrong. It will pick up signs on the back of lorries/buses, as well as signs for i.e. a neighborhood (5kmh) without subsequently picking up the fact that I have moved out of that area, and am now allowed 50kmh. If this erroneous behavior would translate to limited speed, I'd be extremely unhappy.
- netsharc 8y ago
  Recent BMWs (at least the last 5 years?) have a speed-limiter that will limit the car to a configurable speed, even mashing the pedal to the metal won't make it pass that limit. Very convenient for driving around speed cameras.
- EvilGrin 8y ago
  Yes, I recently replaced my car headunit with an android based systema and I now have Waze as my Sat Nav. It is configurable to notify you when you are speeding[1]. More amusingly it'll tell you how close you are to the average speed for a section of road covered by average speed cameras[2]. [1] https://support.google.com/waze/answer/6386895?hl=en https://support.google.com/waze/answer/6386895?hl=en [2] https://support.google.com/waze/answer/7052887?hl=en&ref_topic=7060192 https://support.google.com/waze/answer/7052887?hl=en&ref_top...
merrua 8y ago
This article is based on this press release from the commission http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-19-1793_en.htm http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-19-1793_en.htm
imtringued 8y ago
I can already see it happening. My car will randomly decide it is actually a truck and slow down to 80km/h on a highway with a 130km/h speed limit and then I get a fine in the mailbox.
jillesvangurp 8y ago
A sensible stepping stone towards full autonomous driving in the few remaining years/decades that we are actually still allowed to risk each other's lives on the road by driving ourselves. Once this stuff gets good enough, I expect insurance and liability to make non automated driving increasingly more expensive and restricted. Obviously this plan will have a few hurdles to take before it becomes law. Also, I expect e.g. the German car lobby to not like this at all as they do like their no limits stretches of autobahn here.
hnaccy 8y ago
>The alert system will ensure drivers observe speed limits through GPS and road sign recognition cameras. So all new cars track you and can track others on the road as well? Perhaps I am irrational nut but I always dislike state and technology taking away agency from me.
ensiferum 8y ago
Right, so minor speeding is practically never a contributor in accidents. In accidents where speeding was the cause it's typically not minor, i.e. someone going 180km/h at 80km/h road. I really like the current state of affairs here in Germany where speeding is a minor office until around >40km/h at which point you'd get a 1 month driving ban. This means that when the traffic conditions permit you can easily go that 10-20km/h faster and no harm done. (This applies to landstrasse) FYI here's a table describing the fines for speeding: https://www.bussgeldkatalog.org/german-driving-laws/ https://www.bussgeldkatalog.org/german-driving-laws/ I bet in reality this is just about some instance wanting to have mandatory GPS tracking in the vehicles for their own malicious purposes.
dazbradbury 8y ago
Why not enforced collision detection? Presumably that will prevent more accidents than alerting for speed will. Most manufacturers seem to have these systems already (even if they're reserved as optional extras / high end models) - and it seems crazy that this wouldn't be the first safety measure to apply. Edit: Seems this story has been moderated: http://hnrankings.info/19498747/ http://hnrankings.info/19498747/ @dang - any idea why? Seems a few stories about EU regs, but this is focusing on motoring.
- martin_bech 8y ago
  The bills will also include forced automatic emergency breaking/collision detection.
  - dazbradbury 8y ago
    Ah nice! Thanks for enlightening me. That should be the headline (and in the article at the very least)!
hamandcheese 8y ago
It is surprising to me how many here are okay with nanny state policies like this, yet are up in arms any time government tries to do anything that limits our digital freedoms. I know this doesn’t limit freedoms, per se, since it’s already illegal to speed. But I find something about it deeply troubling.
CalRobert 8y ago
If we had a culture where killing people with your car, even accidentally, was viewed as similar to killing people with [other implement, gun, etc.] even accidentally, this wouldn't be necessary. Imagine it - person wants to go bird hunting, and the local school is great hunting grounds. A kid gets killed by some stray buckshot, and they get a fine and increased insurance costs. But we let people operate deadly devices right by streets (you know, the things made for walking until ~100 years ago), schools, parks, etc. and _even when their irresponsibility kills people_ the punishments are tiny. The only exception seems to be alcohol - but just being an idiot driver is fine. I strongly dislike the privacy implications and nanny state here. But not as much as I dislike ~60,000 dead people a year. Besides, if you carry a phone (or licence place for that matter) you've sacrificed all your privacy anyway. And really, it's more deaths than that, due to excess pollution (both air pollution and sound pollution).
- hamandcheese 8y ago
  There aren’t many ways that I can think of, aside from driving, that you can kill someone accidentally. Accidentally shoot someone? That’s almost certainly negligence, not really an accident. With cars, there are accidents. There’s also a whole lot of negligence. But because accidents do happen it’s difficult/impossible to prove negligence in most cases.
- de_watcher 8y ago
  Bird hunting and alcohol examples don't work because they have that "recreational" aspect of the activity. That is killing innocent birds and using psychedelic substances on yourself. Cars to me personally are more like a some strange kind of war: you're mildly forced to take that gun and go into a stressful environment every day.
- close04 8y ago
  > A kid gets killed by some stray buckshot, and they get a fine and increased insurance costs Killing someone in a car accident where you're to blame will result in a suspended prison sentence at the very least. It's called vehicular manslaughter unless you were obeying the laws and what happened was not intentional or reasonably preventable. Like if someone falls out of a tree under your wheels. So the comparison doesn't stand.
sadris 8y ago
Seems completely pointless as nobody will be driving cars by 2022. Self driving will be available way before then.
matthewfelgate 8y ago
Sounds like a good idea. But I wished the cars would have a limit rather than a warning.
RandomInteger4 8y ago
Built in breathaliser is a horrible idea. (1) It's an unnecessary limitation on personal freedom. (2) It's a burden to people with lung issues. (2a) It introduces the possibility or infectious disease spread, because people share cars and are less likely to clean the breathaliser frequently enough to prevent bacterial buildup. (3) These things are garbage and often don't work the first time, especially in the cold.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

37 points by aginovski 8y ago

Every day, everything that comes out of EU is evil. The only effect of this is higher prices of cars and a paved way for more oppression of the ordinary citizen. Today, only new cars need to have new limiters; tomorrow they will criminalise driving a car with them disabled or broken; ultimately they will integrate it with eCall (remember when they mandated to put GPS+GSM in all new cars?) and police all drivers everywhere all the time.

wsc981 8y ago
I advise you to vote with your feet as I have done. I suspect you’re a tech worker so it should be easy to find work across the globe. I myself emigrated to Thailand and while Thailand isn’t perfect, for various reasons I feel more free here than in The Netherlands. Perhaps most of all since I pretty much can legally avoid paying much tax here and in my opinion taxes in The Netherlands are just too damn high.
claudius 8y ago
Hu? The "evil" thing here are cars (emitting poisonous gases, driving climate change, making loud noises etc.) and their reckless drivers (racing those cars in inner cities, not paying attention, claiming losing control of their vehicle was an "accident"…). Anything that limits their use and the freedom of their self-centered users is good.
- ovi256 8y ago
  It's really narrow minded to find all drivers reckless when you clearly cite pathological behaviour that's adopted by a minority of drivers. It shows you do not evaluate this rationally and makes your argument less credible.
  - zaarn 8y ago
    I would argue that the minority of people actually observe speed limits, most people drive over the speed limit out of habit, sometimes only to overtake but a lot of drivers do it and I get a lot of road hate for driving at speed limit or below.
  - claudius 8y ago
    From personal experience, I know that most drivers I interact with on a daily basis are reckless and needlessly endanger others for their personal convenience and comfort. This starts at parking on pavements and cycle lanes, not stopping at zebra crossings, going above the speed limit and all sorts of other incursions. For example, there was recently a statistic floated around that half the people in the UK had been in an accident. Assuming that all these accidents were one-on-one collisions (unlikely, people also "lose control" all by themselves), this suggests that at least 25% of drivers drive recklessly, as they have caused an accident at some point in the past. I do not understand how 25% are "pathological". Add to this the number of people who also drive recklessly but for sheer luck have not caused an accident yet and those people who have caused accidents without involving other drivers and the above 25% go up even further. So yes, I stand by my previous comment.
- mantas 8y ago
  Heh. That 0.001% of malicious users will just stick to old cars or modify their new ones. Gas emissions and loud noises are set to be gone pretty soon anyway. Or are you just too self centered to see through your own narrow minded BS?
  - x38iq84n 8y ago
    Downvote all you like, but it won't change a thing that those wilfully reckless drivers just won't get a new car with these limiters or will disable them and will not be impacted, unlike the millions of others who are forced to pay for more useless gadgets in their cars.
    - claudius 8y ago
      It will simply eventually become illegal to run without these limiters just as it is already illegal to use particularly polluting cars in cities (for example). Of course it will also be illegal to disable them. I don’t see how what you’re describing is any sort of credible loop-hole.
      - x38iq84n 8y ago
        You are already admitting that the current proposal will solve nothing, but will require further steps: prosecuting tampering with the limiters, prosecuting driving a car without them (even unknowingly [!]) and so on. All of that to ineffectively substitute the actual work of the police at the expense of every car owner.
        claudius 8y ago
        Sorry? Cars are checked regularly (at least every two years for example in Germany) where any tampering can be detected and either reversed or further registration for the car refused. This system is already in place and the process of checking brakes, the engine, lights etc only needs to be amended by a process to check this system. I don’t see how this requires substantial "further steps".
ElBarto 8y ago
There are legal speed limits. Drivers routinely ignore them. EU plans a system that automatically _alerts_ drivers when when they are exceeding the speed limit (something that essentially all sat nav do). How dare they be so evil? Jeez.
- mantas 8y ago
  If it was such a useful feature, why people aren't using it already? And initially they wanted to make cars automatically slow down too, but thankfully that was thrown out. Till next time? Mandatory breathalyzer is much more stupid.
  - benj111 8y ago
    "Mandatory breathalyzer is much more stupid." What about for convicted drunk drivers? Would these measures be more acceptable for people who have already proven themselves untrustworthy?
    - mantas 8y ago
      Why do I have to pay for breathalyzer in my car if I don't drink alcohol nor ever had problems with it?
      - benj111 8y ago
        I'm not saying you do. You are unhappy with the new law. I'm asking if you would find a targeted law more reasonable.
        mantas 8y ago
        Some countries already allow convicted DUI to keep driving with aftermarket breathalyzers. IMO in some cases it's good as an optional replacement for the license suspension. If someone depends on their license that may be a good compromise to both not ruin someone's life and ensure public safety.
CJefferson 8y ago
I don't get why this is evil. I often fear speeding cars, particularly on country roads. I understand people wanting an engine with spare power, but why not make people follow the law if it is fairly simple to do?
- DanielBMarkham 8y ago
  "why not make people follow the law if it is fairly simple to do?" That's quite an interesting question, because it seems so common-sense. I think I know why it's an awful idea, but I'm not sure. I could certainly imagine such a question being used in all kinds of places that I would find uncomfortable, especially with computers being integrated so much into our lives and watching everything we do and think.
- michaelt 8y ago
  Presumably x38iq84n fears a future of always-on vehicle tracking, where a file is kept of every citizen's movements. Of course, everyone already carries a smart phone with GPS tracking, so you could argue this is no more dystopian than that.
  - x38iq84n 8y ago
    You are very correct. Today, x38iq84ns can leave their phone at home and the phone does not send tickets based on speed and does not call the cops against them based on geofencing. And because the vehicle tracking is not panacea, it will be supported by new "crimes" being prosecuted, involving any form of avoidance from tracking - inevitably trackers will break and people will be prosecuted for driving with a broken (=disabled) tracker. Determined avoiders will find their way and only law-abiding citizens (or so they think) will pay the price.
crc32 8y ago
There is already a speed limit, this is just enforcement isn't it? Do you agree with speed limits?
- ovi256 8y ago
  The speed limits are out of date. For highways, the original limits were set by breaking distances. Braking systems have improved tremendously (almost all disk brakes nowadays, ESC and ABS), reducing breaking distances, while the limits were never updated. So yeah, one can disagree with speed limits.
  - TrickyRick 8y ago
    Human reactions however, have not. Don't know where you live but most EU countries have a speed limit of around 100 km/h on the highway. This gives a stopping distance of around 100m for a modern well-maintained car (Which, let's be realistic, most are not). That's a long distance. Now if you take into account that a lot of countries have higher limits (France at 130 km/h for example) and that the braking distance increases exponentially I would disagree that they are outdated.
- x38iq84n 8y ago
  This is no enforcement as long as it's just an alert. Those who want to follow speed limits can do that already, there is this new thing called speedometer that comes with every car. More electronic gadgets solve nothing but build infrastructure for EU dystopia that monitors everybody.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- kylec 8y ago
  I disagree that the line between safe and unsafe speed can be distilled down to the same number for every car, every driver, and every weather/road condition. If you’re a good driver in a good car driving on a clear, dry day you should be allowed to drive faster than a bad driver in a bad car on a foggy/icy/rainy day.

setquk 8y ago

Non issue. This is just haptic feedback when you get to the limit. I hope it does log the speed as well as the last two accidents on the road I live on people were killed by idiots doing 40+ mph in a 20mph limit. What is a problem is fixing this shit when it breaks. Which it will because it adds to the bottom line cost of the vehicle so will be done by the lowest bidder.

MaBu 8y ago
If it is just haptic it's OK but the talk was at least in media that it would be an actual speed limit which in current implementation is idiotic. We have a new car which can read speed signs. In theory good idea. But tech isn't where it should be. For example when you drive on highway 100 km/h with 130 km/h speed limit and the car is warning you that you are speeding because it saw speed sign for 40 km/h on exit ramp it's a little worrying if car would actually obey speed limit. Breaking from 100 to 40 for no reason by car itself would not be good. And there are also speed signs for only some vehicles which I don't think any car can read and for example Austrian signs (30 km/h limit and then subtext "valid only for side roads"). And another thing speed signs says limit is 50 km/h. It is valid up to next intersection. Intersection that invalidates speed limit is defined as intersection with more then 4 housing units. It's sometimes hard for human to know if intersection invalidates speed limit or not. How would a car know?
philpem 8y ago
Some vehicles already log the speed -- it's routine in road traffic collisions to read it out of the vehicle computers. As I understand, it only covers the last few minutes prior to engine stop / loss of power. There's also the age-old method of looking at the speedometer: in a high-speed collision, the return spring tends to fail. Result is the needle gets stuck at the impact speed or close to it.
b1r6 8y ago
The 20mph limit is too low. Transportation is for efficiency.

benj111 8y ago

UK MEP: "It is true that cars built in Britain will have to carry these safety systems and standards if they are to be exported to the EU," Mr Dalton said. "But we have also secured improved rules" Its almost like having a seat at the table, for your biggest export market is a good thing.

michaelt 8y ago
If you were a Brit opposed to these speed limiters, surely you'd prefer "EU speed limiters not needed in britain" to "EU speed limiters needed, but with improved rules" ?
- benj111 8y ago
  True, buts that's a separate issue to having a say on the rules of countries you're trading with. Plus you could replace Brit and Britain with EU (citizen) and it would still be as true.

angeal1131 8y ago

I think a speed limit is good. EU's implementation? not sure about that. What about driving by a slow driveR? you have to speed up above the limit to do that. It's about safety, and no street legal car should be driven above 140-160km/h (87-100mph) on the highway; most people do not know how to handle a car above 80mph. It's really dangerous for both that car as well everybody around. IF you drive on your own land, race track etc. then yeah, that's where it should be allowed.

zaarn 8y ago
>you have to speed up above the limit to do that. Atleast in germany you may only overtake a driver if you can do so without going over the speed limit. I would assume that this is that case for most western countries too, driving over the speed limit is illegal, if you do it while overtaking I see on reason why you should get an exception. And after all, it's a speed limit, not a speed average or speed minimum.
- angeal1131 8y ago
  Issue in europe is that most roads isn't super wide. Only two-lane; at times only one.. So to overtake, you have to drive into the other lane that's driving against you... so that's when you are forced to speed up.... On highways, then yeah not a issue, but most roads isn't highways.
  - arethuza 8y ago
    If you have to speed up significantly to over the speed limit then presumably the vehicle you are overtaking was already close to the limit so why do you need to overtake? [NB Reformed speeder here - I used to speed a lot, but then got a ticket and decided to stick carefully to the limit at all times, which actually means less stress, less fuel used and I haven't noticed arriving places really any later. Have almost got in fights a couple of times though!]
  - zaarn 8y ago
    It's perfectly possible to overtake on a one-lane road without breaking the speed limit, it's something that is expected of your during the driving test if you drive behind someone sufficiently slow. Even if you go into the lane of the oncoming traffic, you are still not allowed to break the speed limit. If you're not part of the police, firefighters or ambulance drivers, I do not believe there is a single valid reason to break the speed limit.

Tharkun 8y ago

Good. People have been driving too fast for too long. Too many people die in car crashes. Speed is often the factor that determines whether you (or the pedestrian they're hitting) lives or dies. Drivers have had plenty of time to moderate their own behaviour, but they haven't. If they can't behave, they should be forced to behave.

StreamBright 8y ago
Speed is one factor but not everything: - Speeding - Driving under the influence of alcohol and other psychoactive substances - Nonuse of motorcycle helmets, seat-belts, and child restraints - Distracted driving - Unsafe road infrastructure - Unsafe vehicles - Inadequate post-crash care - Inadequate law enforcement of traffic laws
b1r6 8y ago
What if we just kept the peds out of the road? Transportation is all about efficiency. If I wanted to get somewhere slower, I'd walk.

dev_north_east 8y ago

I really dislike the prospect of more software in cars.

sschueller 8y ago

It will just alert the driver not actually limit. [1] Many systems already exists like that. Even simple ones which you can set by hand to a specific speed and it will beep when you go over. [1] ""The Commission wanted to make it compulsory that the car would automatically slow down to observe speed limits but we have secured a compromise where the system merely has to alert the driver that he or she is speeding," said Daniel Dalton, the Tory MEP for the West Midlands."

neverminder 8y ago
> The speed limiter device, called intelligent speed assistance, or ISA, uses GPS data and sign recognition cameras to detect speed limits where the car is travelling, and then will sound a warning and automatically slow down the vehicle if it is exceeding the limit. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/27/all-new-uk-cars-to-have-speed-limiters-by-2022-under-eu-plans https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/27/all-new-uk-car...
- mdekkers 8y ago
  My Volvo has sign recognition, and although it is quite good, it frequently gets it wrong. It will pick up signs on the back of lorries/buses, as well as signs for i.e. a neighborhood (5kmh) without subsequently picking up the fact that I have moved out of that area, and am now allowed 50kmh. If this erroneous behavior would translate to limited speed, I'd be extremely unhappy.
netsharc 8y ago
Recent BMWs (at least the last 5 years?) have a speed-limiter that will limit the car to a configurable speed, even mashing the pedal to the metal won't make it pass that limit. Very convenient for driving around speed cameras.
EvilGrin 8y ago
Yes, I recently replaced my car headunit with an android based systema and I now have Waze as my Sat Nav. It is configurable to notify you when you are speeding[1]. More amusingly it'll tell you how close you are to the average speed for a section of road covered by average speed cameras[2]. [1] https://support.google.com/waze/answer/6386895?hl=en https://support.google.com/waze/answer/6386895?hl=en [2] https://support.google.com/waze/answer/7052887?hl=en&ref_topic=7060192 https://support.google.com/waze/answer/7052887?hl=en&ref_top...

merrua 8y ago

This article is based on this press release from the commission http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-19-1793_en.htm http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-19-1793_en.htm

imtringued 8y ago

I can already see it happening. My car will randomly decide it is actually a truck and slow down to 80km/h on a highway with a 130km/h speed limit and then I get a fine in the mailbox.

jillesvangurp 8y ago

A sensible stepping stone towards full autonomous driving in the few remaining years/decades that we are actually still allowed to risk each other's lives on the road by driving ourselves. Once this stuff gets good enough, I expect insurance and liability to make non automated driving increasingly more expensive and restricted. Obviously this plan will have a few hurdles to take before it becomes law. Also, I expect e.g. the German car lobby to not like this at all as they do like their no limits stretches of autobahn here.

hnaccy 8y ago

>The alert system will ensure drivers observe speed limits through GPS and road sign recognition cameras. So all new cars track you and can track others on the road as well? Perhaps I am irrational nut but I always dislike state and technology taking away agency from me.

ensiferum 8y ago

Right, so minor speeding is practically never a contributor in accidents. In accidents where speeding was the cause it's typically not minor, i.e. someone going 180km/h at 80km/h road. I really like the current state of affairs here in Germany where speeding is a minor office until around >40km/h at which point you'd get a 1 month driving ban. This means that when the traffic conditions permit you can easily go that 10-20km/h faster and no harm done. (This applies to landstrasse) FYI here's a table describing the fines for speeding: https://www.bussgeldkatalog.org/german-driving-laws/ https://www.bussgeldkatalog.org/german-driving-laws/ I bet in reality this is just about some instance wanting to have mandatory GPS tracking in the vehicles for their own malicious purposes.

dazbradbury 8y ago

Why not enforced collision detection? Presumably that will prevent more accidents than alerting for speed will. Most manufacturers seem to have these systems already (even if they're reserved as optional extras / high end models) - and it seems crazy that this wouldn't be the first safety measure to apply. Edit: Seems this story has been moderated: http://hnrankings.info/19498747/ http://hnrankings.info/19498747/ @dang - any idea why? Seems a few stories about EU regs, but this is focusing on motoring.

martin_bech 8y ago
The bills will also include forced automatic emergency breaking/collision detection.
- dazbradbury 8y ago
  Ah nice! Thanks for enlightening me. That should be the headline (and in the article at the very least)!

hamandcheese 8y ago

It is surprising to me how many here are okay with nanny state policies like this, yet are up in arms any time government tries to do anything that limits our digital freedoms. I know this doesn’t limit freedoms, per se, since it’s already illegal to speed. But I find something about it deeply troubling.

CalRobert 8y ago

If we had a culture where killing people with your car, even accidentally, was viewed as similar to killing people with [other implement, gun, etc.] even accidentally, this wouldn't be necessary. Imagine it - person wants to go bird hunting, and the local school is great hunting grounds. A kid gets killed by some stray buckshot, and they get a fine and increased insurance costs. But we let people operate deadly devices right by streets (you know, the things made for walking until ~100 years ago), schools, parks, etc. and _even when their irresponsibility kills people_ the punishments are tiny. The only exception seems to be alcohol - but just being an idiot driver is fine. I strongly dislike the privacy implications and nanny state here. But not as much as I dislike ~60,000 dead people a year. Besides, if you carry a phone (or licence place for that matter) you've sacrificed all your privacy anyway. And really, it's more deaths than that, due to excess pollution (both air pollution and sound pollution).

hamandcheese 8y ago
There aren’t many ways that I can think of, aside from driving, that you can kill someone accidentally. Accidentally shoot someone? That’s almost certainly negligence, not really an accident. With cars, there are accidents. There’s also a whole lot of negligence. But because accidents do happen it’s difficult/impossible to prove negligence in most cases.
de_watcher 8y ago
Bird hunting and alcohol examples don't work because they have that "recreational" aspect of the activity. That is killing innocent birds and using psychedelic substances on yourself. Cars to me personally are more like a some strange kind of war: you're mildly forced to take that gun and go into a stressful environment every day.
close04 8y ago
> A kid gets killed by some stray buckshot, and they get a fine and increased insurance costs Killing someone in a car accident where you're to blame will result in a suspended prison sentence at the very least. It's called vehicular manslaughter unless you were obeying the laws and what happened was not intentional or reasonably preventable. Like if someone falls out of a tree under your wheels. So the comparison doesn't stand.

sadris 8y ago

Seems completely pointless as nobody will be driving cars by 2022. Self driving will be available way before then.

matthewfelgate 8y ago

Sounds like a good idea. But I wished the cars would have a limit rather than a warning.

RandomInteger4 8y ago

Built in breathaliser is a horrible idea. (1) It's an unnecessary limitation on personal freedom. (2) It's a burden to people with lung issues. (2a) It introduces the possibility or infectious disease spread, because people share cars and are less likely to clean the breathaliser frequently enough to prevent bacterial buildup. (3) These things are garbage and often don't work the first time, especially in the cold.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]