6 ms·

Most comments in this thread comments on the fact that Europeans are loosing their freedom do speed, and that they will not be able to drive fast. But that's j

Most comments in this thread comments on the fact that Europeans are loosing their freedom do speed, and that they will not be able to drive fast. But that's just the title of an Australian website. In the article, and in the actual law, this is just about a *warning* to the driver, that can optionally be coupled with the cruise control, and that *can be overridden* by the driver. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_speed_assistance#Implementation_in_the_EU_and_UK https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_speed_assistance#I... Basically all cars manufacturers today already have that technology. What this law means is that the car maker can no longer make this system an overpriced option when selling the car.

userbinator 4y ago
First it's optional. Then they make it increasingly harder to disable. Then they make it mandatory. Surely everyone who has experienced abusive changes in software can see that pattern from a mile away? They aren't going to roast the frog, but instead boil it very slowly...
- varajelle 4y ago
  Well, this is like with all slippery slope argument. First they set the speed limit to 70, then to 50, then to 20, then you can't drive at all. So better not let them set any limit? What this is is just adapting an already extremely regulated field to the new technologies. Road safety and regulations has massively improved the safety of cars in the last few decades, therefore saving many lives. And yet, car driving is still one of the most dangerous method of transport, causing countless of fatalities every year.
  - userbinator 4y ago
    Especially with the earth's population being what it is, and if you want to believe in climate change too, maybe those fatalities are still too low... Speed limits have always had a discretionary factor in them. A freedom of human judgment, if you will. And indeed not being able to drive at all seems like it would fit in with the whole green globalist agenda anyway, so the slope is definitely slippery. Edit: downvoting won't hide the truth, bootlickers.
- atoav 4y ago
  Ok I'll bite. The single most thing I hate about driving car in Germany is the lack of an upper speed limit on big stretches of the Autobahn. If you cross over from any neighbouring country any driver will notice that what before was a friendly chugging along now has become a stressful battle between people who just want to go somewhere with a good compromise of speed and fuel use and speedsters who will breath up you neck even if you are going 160. No thanks. If this law were to enforce the speed limit by enforcing it in the motor control system there would still allow for unlimited speed on those stretches. Your freedom to go faster than the speed limit also interferes with other freedoms btw. for example the health of people who live close to roads, the bodily integrity of people who might fall victim to the accidents caused by it etc. If we build the roads correctly (e.g. like in more modern european places, many places in the Netherlands) speed limits become less relevant, because the shape of the street itself will limit how fast any sane person would go (not to speak of speed bumps). So if you find yourself constantly enforcing speed limits, maybe there is an impedance mismatch between the way your road feels and the limit you slapped onto the traffic sign? The obvious solution is to change the road, which might also come with added benefits (better for pedestrians, people on bicycles, therefore better revenue for local shops, restaurants and cafes etc). Quite frankly I'd have no problem if my car enforced a speed limit, if the speed limit matches the street. Going 30 in a narrow (and I mean european narrow) street feels totally appropriate. Going 30 in what could be a highway not so much.
  - nicbou 4y ago
    I drive under 100 in the rightmost line and it's not a problem, since there are trucks and campers there. Just stay out of the left lane. However speed limits make sense from an environmental perspective. The difference between 100 and 130 is quite a lot of petrol.
    - snapplebobapple 4y ago
      The environmental argument for speed limits is ridiculous because many places have a carbon tax/other taxes meant to capture the unpriced environmental cost that accrues to the commons. With the carbon tax the person doing the speeding is paying for any excess harm they to the environment they may be doing and is willing to pay that cost in order to go faster so they should be able to go faster. If you don't think the cost of carbon is properly priced argue to raise your carbon tax, don't argue to add additional special taxes for various things you don't like.
- kaffeeringe 4y ago
  Well, cool. Speeding is the main source of accidents. Even escooters know where they are and reduce the maximum speed in some zones. Nobody ever was killed with an escooter. Why can't we restrict cars to the speed they are supposed to drive? It would make driving so much easier! Is there a right to break the law?
  - lexa1979 4y ago
    Yes, you have the right to break the law if you have the money to pay your tickets.
DerekL 4y ago
*losing
palmetieri2000 4y ago
Further, a website that most Australians would consider biased towards motoring enthusiasts and not afraid of dabbling in clickbait-y crap to drive (hehe) traffic to their website (examples below). https://www.drive.com.au/news/bugatti-la-voiture-noire-for-700lk/ https://www.drive.com.au/news/bugatti-la-voiture-noire-for-7... https://www.drive.com.au/news/chinese-flying-car-begins-testing/ https://www.drive.com.au/news/chinese-flying-car-begins-test... https://www.drive.com.au/news/suv-driver-charged-more-for-traffic-offence/ https://www.drive.com.au/news/suv-driver-charged-more-for-tr... Now, I have cherry picked them in the sense that they stood out to me from their more typical motoring news or promotional material which makes up most of their content. So I don't think they are inherently worthless but they are certainly pretty low on the journalistic effort side of things.

userbinator 4y ago

First it's optional. Then they make it increasingly harder to disable. Then they make it mandatory. Surely everyone who has experienced abusive changes in software can see that pattern from a mile away? They aren't going to roast the frog, but instead boil it very slowly...

varajelle 4y ago
Well, this is like with all slippery slope argument. First they set the speed limit to 70, then to 50, then to 20, then you can't drive at all. So better not let them set any limit? What this is is just adapting an already extremely regulated field to the new technologies. Road safety and regulations has massively improved the safety of cars in the last few decades, therefore saving many lives. And yet, car driving is still one of the most dangerous method of transport, causing countless of fatalities every year.
- userbinator 4y ago
  Especially with the earth's population being what it is, and if you want to believe in climate change too, maybe those fatalities are still too low... Speed limits have always had a discretionary factor in them. A freedom of human judgment, if you will. And indeed not being able to drive at all seems like it would fit in with the whole green globalist agenda anyway, so the slope is definitely slippery. Edit: downvoting won't hide the truth, bootlickers.
atoav 4y ago
Ok I'll bite. The single most thing I hate about driving car in Germany is the lack of an upper speed limit on big stretches of the Autobahn. If you cross over from any neighbouring country any driver will notice that what before was a friendly chugging along now has become a stressful battle between people who just want to go somewhere with a good compromise of speed and fuel use and speedsters who will breath up you neck even if you are going 160. No thanks. If this law were to enforce the speed limit by enforcing it in the motor control system there would still allow for unlimited speed on those stretches. Your freedom to go faster than the speed limit also interferes with other freedoms btw. for example the health of people who live close to roads, the bodily integrity of people who might fall victim to the accidents caused by it etc. If we build the roads correctly (e.g. like in more modern european places, many places in the Netherlands) speed limits become less relevant, because the shape of the street itself will limit how fast any sane person would go (not to speak of speed bumps). So if you find yourself constantly enforcing speed limits, maybe there is an impedance mismatch between the way your road feels and the limit you slapped onto the traffic sign? The obvious solution is to change the road, which might also come with added benefits (better for pedestrians, people on bicycles, therefore better revenue for local shops, restaurants and cafes etc). Quite frankly I'd have no problem if my car enforced a speed limit, if the speed limit matches the street. Going 30 in a narrow (and I mean european narrow) street feels totally appropriate. Going 30 in what could be a highway not so much.
- nicbou 4y ago
  I drive under 100 in the rightmost line and it's not a problem, since there are trucks and campers there. Just stay out of the left lane. However speed limits make sense from an environmental perspective. The difference between 100 and 130 is quite a lot of petrol.
  - snapplebobapple 4y ago
    The environmental argument for speed limits is ridiculous because many places have a carbon tax/other taxes meant to capture the unpriced environmental cost that accrues to the commons. With the carbon tax the person doing the speeding is paying for any excess harm they to the environment they may be doing and is willing to pay that cost in order to go faster so they should be able to go faster. If you don't think the cost of carbon is properly priced argue to raise your carbon tax, don't argue to add additional special taxes for various things you don't like.
kaffeeringe 4y ago
Well, cool. Speeding is the main source of accidents. Even escooters know where they are and reduce the maximum speed in some zones. Nobody ever was killed with an escooter. Why can't we restrict cars to the speed they are supposed to drive? It would make driving so much easier! Is there a right to break the law?
- lexa1979 4y ago
  Yes, you have the right to break the law if you have the money to pay your tickets.

DerekL 4y ago

*losing

palmetieri2000 4y ago

Further, a website that most Australians would consider biased towards motoring enthusiasts and not afraid of dabbling in clickbait-y crap to drive (hehe) traffic to their website (examples below). https://www.drive.com.au/news/bugatti-la-voiture-noire-for-700lk/ https://www.drive.com.au/news/bugatti-la-voiture-noire-for-7... https://www.drive.com.au/news/chinese-flying-car-begins-testing/ https://www.drive.com.au/news/chinese-flying-car-begins-test... https://www.drive.com.au/news/suv-driver-charged-more-for-traffic-offence/ https://www.drive.com.au/news/suv-driver-charged-more-for-tr... Now, I have cherry picked them in the sense that they stood out to me from their more typical motoring news or promotional material which makes up most of their content. So I don't think they are inherently worthless but they are certainly pretty low on the journalistic effort side of things.