6 ms·

They're also recommending speed limiters that essentially force you to follow the limits. I wonder if we'd see speed limits increase if everyone followed them

They're also recommending speed limiters that essentially force you to follow the limits. I wonder if we'd see speed limits increase if everyone followed them as-posted? Because right now there seems to be this assumption from both sides that everyone is speeding, so they post 70 because they want 80, or 25 because they want 30, etc. While DUI is a legitimate problem, it isn't clear to me though what exactly the NTSB is proposing here? They have those "breathe into" systems (interlocks), but they have hygiene and maintenance limitations. Unclear how driver monitoring systems can determine if someone is DUI (in particular when you look at edge cases, like disabled drivers that move atypically while still be authorized to drive). PS - I suspect, but cannot show data, that existing upcoming safety technology may decrease DUI caused fatalities in particular "driverless" automations like lane centering, automatic lane-changes, and autonomous navigation. While I don't consider this technology mature, it may still be safer than an inebriated driver.

plasticchris 4y ago
Even worse the only way to get them to raise limits (at least in parts of the USA) is to show that everyone dives over the limit In a section of road.
Anx2k 4y ago
On first blush I thought the same thing - what, you're going to have to blow into some tube to start your car? I can understand this for people who have been convicted of drunk driving, but for everyone? But looking around it appears they have some mechanism by which they can determine with some degree of accuracy via touch, and it's integrated into the ignition button on a car: https://www.dadss.org/touch-technology https://www.dadss.org/touch-technology They also appear to have other approaches as well, but this one seems like it would be almost transparent to the operation of the car. Honestly I have zero objection to something that worked in this fashion - I suspect it would save a ton of lives. I think the knee jerk reaction that it's somehow a big brother kind of thing is a bit disingenuous, like saying "The government shouldn't interfere with my ability to drive drunk and potentially hurt people". I think this is much more akin to when wearing seat belts became the law - people moaned and complained but at the end of the day it's better for both themselves and others in the vehicle. The speeding thing is completely unrelated and really shouldn't be mixed into this - how about solving one problem at a time well, instead of lumping a bunch together and solving none. I've had friends badly injured by drunk drivers, and in all the cases the drunk driver wasn't exceeding the posted speed limit. In one they just smashed into a parked car and hit them on the sidewalk, in one they swerved into oncoming traffic and collided head on, and the last drove into a store at full speed. Thankfully these were three different people I know, and not one incredibly unlucky person. ;)
tablespoon 4y ago
> PS - I suspect, but cannot show data, that existing upcoming safety technology may decrease DUI caused fatalities in particular "driverless" automations like lane centering, automatic lane-changes, and autonomous navigation. While I don't consider this technology mature, it may still be safer than an inebriated driver. While current self-driving technology is obviously unsafe when given total control, I think it could be turned into an extraordinarily effective safety system: program it to only take accident avoidance measures and low-level corrections like lane centering, and crank up the thresholds so it only gets invoked in clearly dangerous scenarios.
maxsilver 4y ago
> I wonder if we'd see speed limits increase if everyone followed them as-posted? Yeah, "speed limits" are primarily a political game, not anything based in reality. Roads designed for 55 get labeled 45 (in 1990) then 40 (2000) then 35 (2010) and then "road dieted" to 25 (2020). Everyone's "speeding" on paper, but not in reality -- they're going the speed they're were always supposed to go. But politically, people just decided slower=nicer for their particular stretch of street (they already live there, so 'walkability' is just fine for them, strip out all the lanes, throw garbage into the street, whatever) without really caring about how badly it would impact public transportation for everyone in general. It's a textbook "tragedy of the commons" problem. If you enforce this by vehicle, everyone's going to flip out (because the fake-posted-speed-limit is way below what any sensible person is actually safely driving) and you'll see a significant number of people instantly jailbreak their cars to fix it.
- piva00 4y ago
  > Yeah, "speed limits" are primarily a political game, not anything based in reality. This is utter absurd, it's definitely based in the reality of 1/2 m*v^2. Decreasing the speed decreases the kinetic energy of impacts, decreasing injuries and deaths. That's the reality. The fact that American roads were designed as the beastly stroads and 6-lanes inner city avenues that are present all around doesn't mean their speed limits should follow that design, the speed limit should follow what utilisation occurs around the road. You might be right that in some places speed limits can be a political stunt of sorts. Basic physics and the examples of multiple Western countries which achieved a less deadly traffic by implementing stricter speed limits (among other measures) should show you part of the reality you feel is lacking. Look at Norway, Sweden, the Netherlands and so on. USA's road fatalities per billion km-vehicle are on average double, you can do better and kill less people, in total amount of road fatalities the USA is only behind Brazil. No road in a city centre should allow for faster than 40 km/h traffic around people. A road (non-motorway) with major separation between automobiles and people in a city shouldn't exceed 60 km/h. Traffic even flows better with larger windows for smart traffic control, lower the speed, lower the average travel time.
  - landemva 4y ago
smelendez 4y ago
I suspect the edge cases will do this in. False positives are potentially discriminatory and are dangerous if they prevent someone from driving in an emergency. I also suspect many people favor letting some legally over the limit people drive, at least short distances, in certain emergency situations, like transporting relatives who can’t walk away from a fire. Exactly what those situations are seems like a subject of contention. There’s also the related interesting case of moving vehicles on private property. For instance, a couple has a few cocktails at home, their car is towards the bottom of a sloped driveway under a tree, and there’s an unexpected flash flood or high wind warning. Should the car prevent them from driving it forward a few feet to safety?
- r2_pilot 4y ago
  Well, just this past Sunday I literally had a random drunk driver pull onto my private property and proceed to wreck their vehicle in my front yard. While the interlock would have kept them from starting the vehicle originally, the stupidity from drunkenness is still present regardless of location or speed. I strongly disagree with interlocks (someone could have just cleaned their hands with alcohol sanitizer, or someone spilled a beer on their hand or on the sensor itself), but I would be more amenable to something that could be overridden immediately but with some warning notification lights on the vehicle with laws stating you will be pulled over for inspection and you(not insurance) will be responsible for any damages or accidents you caused if proven drunk driving after disabling the lock.
  - dahfizz 4y ago
    > I would be more amenable to something that could be overridden immediately but with some warning notification lights on the vehicle I think that is a pretty good solution. In any emergency/ edge case / false positive scenario, you are still able operate your car. But a "pull me over" light goes on so that cops will know to double check in "regular" scenarios.
- Gigachad 4y ago
  It would make sense to make the system possible to disable and then make speeding a much much more serious crime where unless you can prove it was an emergency or other edge case, you lose your license on first offense.
parker_mountain 4y ago
> They're also recommending speed limiters that essentially force you to follow the limits. That's not the entire truth. They want speed limiters that _can be disabled_, in the same way as the Auto Off emissions control feature. And, right now, the discussion is leaning towards first employing mandatory speeding chimes - and doing away with speed limiting functionality altogether.
nullc 4y ago
Normal procedures have them measure the n-th percentile actual speed and then derate it. So if procedures aren't changed limiters would lower speed limits.
- landemva 4y ago
  Yes, typically State DOT has published rules for speed studies and they seem to usually follow those results. I have seen speed limits on several road sections increase after speed studies.
resoluteteeth 4y ago
> I wonder if we'd see speed limits increase if everyone followed them as-posted? Because right now there seems to be this assumption from both sides that everyone is speeding, so they post 70 because they want 80, or 25 because they want 30, etc. If there were speed limiters, it would probably be reasonable to increase highway speeds in places where they are excessively low, but to also enforce the current speed limits on residential streets as hard limits or even lower them. This would massively increase safety while eliminating any concern about speeding tickets at normal highway speeds that people actually drive at.

plasticchris 4y ago

Even worse the only way to get them to raise limits (at least in parts of the USA) is to show that everyone dives over the limit In a section of road.

Anx2k 4y ago

On first blush I thought the same thing - what, you're going to have to blow into some tube to start your car? I can understand this for people who have been convicted of drunk driving, but for everyone? But looking around it appears they have some mechanism by which they can determine with some degree of accuracy via touch, and it's integrated into the ignition button on a car: https://www.dadss.org/touch-technology https://www.dadss.org/touch-technology They also appear to have other approaches as well, but this one seems like it would be almost transparent to the operation of the car. Honestly I have zero objection to something that worked in this fashion - I suspect it would save a ton of lives. I think the knee jerk reaction that it's somehow a big brother kind of thing is a bit disingenuous, like saying "The government shouldn't interfere with my ability to drive drunk and potentially hurt people". I think this is much more akin to when wearing seat belts became the law - people moaned and complained but at the end of the day it's better for both themselves and others in the vehicle. The speeding thing is completely unrelated and really shouldn't be mixed into this - how about solving one problem at a time well, instead of lumping a bunch together and solving none. I've had friends badly injured by drunk drivers, and in all the cases the drunk driver wasn't exceeding the posted speed limit. In one they just smashed into a parked car and hit them on the sidewalk, in one they swerved into oncoming traffic and collided head on, and the last drove into a store at full speed. Thankfully these were three different people I know, and not one incredibly unlucky person. ;)

tablespoon 4y ago

> PS - I suspect, but cannot show data, that existing upcoming safety technology may decrease DUI caused fatalities in particular "driverless" automations like lane centering, automatic lane-changes, and autonomous navigation. While I don't consider this technology mature, it may still be safer than an inebriated driver. While current self-driving technology is obviously unsafe when given total control, I think it could be turned into an extraordinarily effective safety system: program it to only take accident avoidance measures and low-level corrections like lane centering, and crank up the thresholds so it only gets invoked in clearly dangerous scenarios.

maxsilver 4y ago

> I wonder if we'd see speed limits increase if everyone followed them as-posted? Yeah, "speed limits" are primarily a political game, not anything based in reality. Roads designed for 55 get labeled 45 (in 1990) then 40 (2000) then 35 (2010) and then "road dieted" to 25 (2020). Everyone's "speeding" on paper, but not in reality -- they're going the speed they're were always supposed to go. But politically, people just decided slower=nicer for their particular stretch of street (they already live there, so 'walkability' is just fine for them, strip out all the lanes, throw garbage into the street, whatever) without really caring about how badly it would impact public transportation for everyone in general. It's a textbook "tragedy of the commons" problem. If you enforce this by vehicle, everyone's going to flip out (because the fake-posted-speed-limit is way below what any sensible person is actually safely driving) and you'll see a significant number of people instantly jailbreak their cars to fix it.

piva00 4y ago
> Yeah, "speed limits" are primarily a political game, not anything based in reality. This is utter absurd, it's definitely based in the reality of 1/2 m*v^2. Decreasing the speed decreases the kinetic energy of impacts, decreasing injuries and deaths. That's the reality. The fact that American roads were designed as the beastly stroads and 6-lanes inner city avenues that are present all around doesn't mean their speed limits should follow that design, the speed limit should follow what utilisation occurs around the road. You might be right that in some places speed limits can be a political stunt of sorts. Basic physics and the examples of multiple Western countries which achieved a less deadly traffic by implementing stricter speed limits (among other measures) should show you part of the reality you feel is lacking. Look at Norway, Sweden, the Netherlands and so on. USA's road fatalities per billion km-vehicle are on average double, you can do better and kill less people, in total amount of road fatalities the USA is only behind Brazil. No road in a city centre should allow for faster than 40 km/h traffic around people. A road (non-motorway) with major separation between automobiles and people in a city shouldn't exceed 60 km/h. Traffic even flows better with larger windows for smart traffic control, lower the speed, lower the average travel time.
- landemva 4y ago

smelendez 4y ago

I suspect the edge cases will do this in. False positives are potentially discriminatory and are dangerous if they prevent someone from driving in an emergency. I also suspect many people favor letting some legally over the limit people drive, at least short distances, in certain emergency situations, like transporting relatives who can’t walk away from a fire. Exactly what those situations are seems like a subject of contention. There’s also the related interesting case of moving vehicles on private property. For instance, a couple has a few cocktails at home, their car is towards the bottom of a sloped driveway under a tree, and there’s an unexpected flash flood or high wind warning. Should the car prevent them from driving it forward a few feet to safety?

r2_pilot 4y ago
Well, just this past Sunday I literally had a random drunk driver pull onto my private property and proceed to wreck their vehicle in my front yard. While the interlock would have kept them from starting the vehicle originally, the stupidity from drunkenness is still present regardless of location or speed. I strongly disagree with interlocks (someone could have just cleaned their hands with alcohol sanitizer, or someone spilled a beer on their hand or on the sensor itself), but I would be more amenable to something that could be overridden immediately but with some warning notification lights on the vehicle with laws stating you will be pulled over for inspection and you(not insurance) will be responsible for any damages or accidents you caused if proven drunk driving after disabling the lock.
- dahfizz 4y ago
  > I would be more amenable to something that could be overridden immediately but with some warning notification lights on the vehicle I think that is a pretty good solution. In any emergency/ edge case / false positive scenario, you are still able operate your car. But a "pull me over" light goes on so that cops will know to double check in "regular" scenarios.
Gigachad 4y ago
It would make sense to make the system possible to disable and then make speeding a much much more serious crime where unless you can prove it was an emergency or other edge case, you lose your license on first offense.

parker_mountain 4y ago

> They're also recommending speed limiters that essentially force you to follow the limits. That's not the entire truth. They want speed limiters that _can be disabled_, in the same way as the Auto Off emissions control feature. And, right now, the discussion is leaning towards first employing mandatory speeding chimes - and doing away with speed limiting functionality altogether.

nullc 4y ago

Normal procedures have them measure the n-th percentile actual speed and then derate it. So if procedures aren't changed limiters would lower speed limits.

landemva 4y ago
Yes, typically State DOT has published rules for speed studies and they seem to usually follow those results. I have seen speed limits on several road sections increase after speed studies.

resoluteteeth 4y ago

> I wonder if we'd see speed limits increase if everyone followed them as-posted? Because right now there seems to be this assumption from both sides that everyone is speeding, so they post 70 because they want 80, or 25 because they want 30, etc. If there were speed limiters, it would probably be reasonable to increase highway speeds in places where they are excessively low, but to also enforce the current speed limits on residential streets as hard limits or even lower them. This would massively increase safety while eliminating any concern about speeding tickets at normal highway speeds that people actually drive at.