6 ms·

There is one safety feature that would universally make cars safer and not require radar or computers. Just simple speed governors based on geo-fencing and radi

by foxyv 3y ago

There is one safety feature that would universally make cars safer and not require radar or computers. Just simple speed governors based on geo-fencing and radio speed limit signs. It would be trivially easy to install on existing vehicles and much less expensive on new vehicles. In addition it would increase pedestrian safety by leaps and bounds. We do it for electric bicycles and scooters. Why not cars?

delecti 3y ago
Realistically, because politicians drive cars, and like to speed. If you read any articles on the subject, you can almost feel the author resisting the urge to say that outright.
lesuorac 3y ago
Judging by how my car shows a speed limit change from 55 to 25 as I go under bridges that could get real dangerous real fast if there's a poor implementation. Aren't all the scooters just a flat 20/25 mph cap with no dynamic changing? I think drones are the things you're looking for where they avoid flying near airfields.
- foxyv 3y ago
  Most rental scooters are geo-fenced so people don't zip around walking paths at 20+mph. Edit: Here is a quick link https://www.li.me/blog/lime-introduces-new-geofencing-technology-setting-industry-standards-for-scooters https://www.li.me/blog/lime-introduces-new-geofencing-techno...
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
dymk 3y ago
> not require radar or computers > speed governors based on geo-fencing and radio speed limit signs sounds like that requires computers > We do it for electric bicycles and scooters I've never seen a scooter nor e-bike for sale that includes such a feature. Unless you're talking about rental scooters, which doesn't make sense to compare an owned car against.
- mulmen 3y ago
  My Class 3 ebike is governed at 28mph when pedaling or 20mph on motor alone. Above those speeds the motor just turns off. I can pedal/coast above that speed but the motor does nothing. This is a legal requirement to meet the class specification.
- RIMR 3y ago
  >scooter nor e-bike for sale You're forgetting that the majority of electric scooters and bikes out there are rentals. Every single one of them has geofencing and speed governors. Currently, if you buy your own (aka, one that is "for sale"), you can do with it what you want. I wouldn't us the same argument for a car that you own, because there is significantly greater public risk associated with misuse of an automobile. The technology does exist though, and it is trivial to implement.
- foxyv 3y ago
  Speed governors have worked for much longer than the history of computers. For geo-fencing you don't need GPS and can use proximity. However, I'm pretty sure you would use a very inexpensive microcontroller with GPS in addition to an antenna for an aftermarket addition. Almost every e-bike and scooter is sold with a speed governor. This is so they meet the regulatory requirements for Class-C electric bicycles. https://www.heybike.com/blogs/heybike-blog/ebike-classes-1-2-3?gad_source=1&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIjpmsifPqhQMVEUp_AB2k6QFJEAAYASAAEgLKt_D_BwE https://www.heybike.com/blogs/heybike-blog/ebike-classes-1-2...
RIMR 3y ago
The first thing I hear people argue against is their "freedom" to drive their car without the government telling them what they can and cannot do. But you already don't have the freedom to drive as fast as you want, and the current enforcement system is to come face-to-face with a cop. I, personally, would prefer a system where my car physically will not allow me to drive over the speed limit. The problem though is that it has to apply to everyone. If 90% of the cars on the road don't have governors, and your car does, when you merge onto a highway where everyone is driving 20mph over the limit, you'll be in real danger since your car won't let you drive with traffic.
- HeWhoLurksLate 3y ago
  More speed can also be safer in some scenarios
  - flerchin 3y ago
    Like when
    - Sohcahtoa82 3y ago
      Like when everyone else is speeding. If everyone is going 80 mph, then being the one driver actually obeying the 65 mph speed limit puts you and everyone around you in MORE danger. Would it be safer for everyone to be going 65 mph? Absolutely. I'm definitely not disputing that. But speed differential is more dangerous than speed itself. EDIT: To be more accurate, speed differential makes crashes more likely, but speed overall obviously makes the crashes more likely to be fatal. Whether it's safer to go 80 when everyone is going 80 to reduce the likelyhood of a crash, or if it's safer to go 65 mph to reduce the severity of a crash if it happens is very debatable, and I'm not sure there are good enough statistics to back up either claim.
      - flerchin 3y ago
        Without data, this reads like self justification for poor behavior.
xnx 3y ago
I'd be happy with a top speed cap of 85 mph to start.
- foxyv 3y ago
  This alone would be a great start. Lately I've had at least three instances of people doing over 100mph barely avoid hitting me in the far right lane as they zig zag across the freeway. It's gotten to the point that driving after 1 AM is like being on the runway of an international airport.
CivBase 3y ago
Probably because public backlash would be insane. There is very little political or economic incentive to push something like that. It's kind of like banning alcohol. Yeah, it's bad for us (individually and collectively) but most of the population does it anyways and we're used to it. Taking that away would cause massive outrage.
- foxyv 3y ago
  I think the far more politically dangerous proposition is fighting with the automotive lobby. https://www.treehugger.com/big-surprise-car-industry-doesnt-idea-speed-governors-4852929 https://www.treehugger.com/big-surprise-car-industry-doesnt-...
grobbyy 3y ago
Because it would make roads less safe. It's very common to need to *accelerate* in emergency situations. Something like smart cruise control which drives the speed limit would be appreciated. A hard cap would not.
- jncfhnb 3y ago
  Like when
  - grobbyy 3y ago
    You're passing a broken-down vehicle, a deer that hoped into the road, a toddler, or otherwise go into the opposite lane. There is an incoming car, and you need to merge back before a head-on collision, without hitting whatever you're passing. Floor it and merge. I can name many other scenarios, but generally, emergency maneuvers are helped by good control over the car, including braking, turning, and acceleration. There are nice charts showing accidents per million miles driven by car, and the best ones I've seen are anyone, but not testosterone-promoting agile. Crash ratings are misleading since many of the safest cars in a crash also crash a lot more often and have higher fatalities overall since bigger cars are less likely to be able to avoid an accident.
    - foxyv 3y ago
      In all of the instances you mention, it is recommended that you use your brakes. NOT go faster. Who sees a toddler in the road and floors it? Are you avoiding rocket children?
      - grobbyy 3y ago
        In the situation described, I already charged lanes to avoid the toddler / deer / stopped car. The question is what I do about the incoming car I didn't notice. A) change back and hit the toddler B) do nothing, and have a fatal head-on collision C) hit the brakes, and have a non-fatal head-on collision D) speed up a little bit, so I can get back into my lane before the other car gets here
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
bsza 3y ago
Edge cases like medical emergencies, natural disasters, terrorist attacks etc., where speeding can actually save lives. You can’t account for all of those in an automated system.
- acdha 3y ago
  Those are movie plots. We know what happens in things like natural disasters: epic traffic jams because the roads have limited capacity and once people start thinking they can violate the laws they crash and make it even worse. Medical emergencies are more plausible but it’s a collection of edge cases: you have to be somewhere a long way from the hospital, without an ambulance, no traffic, and safe road conditions for much higher speeds. If all of those aren’t true, you’re either making a bad situation much worse with a crash or running off the road (the most realistic places for this situation are rural areas where it’s often not safe to go even the posted limit around every curve) or you’re not really saving enough time to be meaningful. Even the ambulances rarely drive like that in those regions despite being much better trained, equipped, and experienced with the area. Now, contrast those extremely low probability events with the tens of thousands of people killed by drivers every year and the hundreds of thousands who have life-altering injuries. How many people are we willing to write off so a bunch of people can fantasize about having the chance to play ambulance driver some day?
  - bsza 3y ago
    True, but on the other hand, it would only take one headline about people losing their lives while trying to drive off a bridge about to collapse at 20 kph to spark public outrage. We tend to be less sensitive to tragedies that occur due to an individual’s own bad decisions.
    - foxyv 3y ago
      What about the tragedies that occur every day when speeders kill strangers, friends, and family? Currently about 33 deaths per day are caused by speeding. I have yet to find a person who died because they couldn't exceed the speed limit.

by foxyv 3y ago

delecti 3y ago

Realistically, because politicians drive cars, and like to speed. If you read any articles on the subject, you can almost feel the author resisting the urge to say that outright.

lesuorac 3y ago

Judging by how my car shows a speed limit change from 55 to 25 as I go under bridges that could get real dangerous real fast if there's a poor implementation. Aren't all the scooters just a flat 20/25 mph cap with no dynamic changing? I think drones are the things you're looking for where they avoid flying near airfields.

foxyv 3y ago
Most rental scooters are geo-fenced so people don't zip around walking paths at 20+mph. Edit: Here is a quick link https://www.li.me/blog/lime-introduces-new-geofencing-technology-setting-industry-standards-for-scooters https://www.li.me/blog/lime-introduces-new-geofencing-techno...
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

dymk 3y ago

> not require radar or computers > speed governors based on geo-fencing and radio speed limit signs sounds like that requires computers > We do it for electric bicycles and scooters I've never seen a scooter nor e-bike for sale that includes such a feature. Unless you're talking about rental scooters, which doesn't make sense to compare an owned car against.

mulmen 3y ago
My Class 3 ebike is governed at 28mph when pedaling or 20mph on motor alone. Above those speeds the motor just turns off. I can pedal/coast above that speed but the motor does nothing. This is a legal requirement to meet the class specification.
RIMR 3y ago
>scooter nor e-bike for sale You're forgetting that the majority of electric scooters and bikes out there are rentals. Every single one of them has geofencing and speed governors. Currently, if you buy your own (aka, one that is "for sale"), you can do with it what you want. I wouldn't us the same argument for a car that you own, because there is significantly greater public risk associated with misuse of an automobile. The technology does exist though, and it is trivial to implement.
foxyv 3y ago
Speed governors have worked for much longer than the history of computers. For geo-fencing you don't need GPS and can use proximity. However, I'm pretty sure you would use a very inexpensive microcontroller with GPS in addition to an antenna for an aftermarket addition. Almost every e-bike and scooter is sold with a speed governor. This is so they meet the regulatory requirements for Class-C electric bicycles. https://www.heybike.com/blogs/heybike-blog/ebike-classes-1-2-3?gad_source=1&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIjpmsifPqhQMVEUp_AB2k6QFJEAAYASAAEgLKt_D_BwE https://www.heybike.com/blogs/heybike-blog/ebike-classes-1-2...

RIMR 3y ago

The first thing I hear people argue against is their "freedom" to drive their car without the government telling them what they can and cannot do. But you already don't have the freedom to drive as fast as you want, and the current enforcement system is to come face-to-face with a cop. I, personally, would prefer a system where my car physically will not allow me to drive over the speed limit. The problem though is that it has to apply to everyone. If 90% of the cars on the road don't have governors, and your car does, when you merge onto a highway where everyone is driving 20mph over the limit, you'll be in real danger since your car won't let you drive with traffic.

HeWhoLurksLate 3y ago
More speed can also be safer in some scenarios
- flerchin 3y ago
  Like when
  - Sohcahtoa82 3y ago
    Like when everyone else is speeding. If everyone is going 80 mph, then being the one driver actually obeying the 65 mph speed limit puts you and everyone around you in MORE danger. Would it be safer for everyone to be going 65 mph? Absolutely. I'm definitely not disputing that. But speed differential is more dangerous than speed itself. EDIT: To be more accurate, speed differential makes crashes more likely, but speed overall obviously makes the crashes more likely to be fatal. Whether it's safer to go 80 when everyone is going 80 to reduce the likelyhood of a crash, or if it's safer to go 65 mph to reduce the severity of a crash if it happens is very debatable, and I'm not sure there are good enough statistics to back up either claim.
    - flerchin 3y ago
      Without data, this reads like self justification for poor behavior.

xnx 3y ago

I'd be happy with a top speed cap of 85 mph to start.

foxyv 3y ago
This alone would be a great start. Lately I've had at least three instances of people doing over 100mph barely avoid hitting me in the far right lane as they zig zag across the freeway. It's gotten to the point that driving after 1 AM is like being on the runway of an international airport.

CivBase 3y ago

Probably because public backlash would be insane. There is very little political or economic incentive to push something like that. It's kind of like banning alcohol. Yeah, it's bad for us (individually and collectively) but most of the population does it anyways and we're used to it. Taking that away would cause massive outrage.

foxyv 3y ago
I think the far more politically dangerous proposition is fighting with the automotive lobby. https://www.treehugger.com/big-surprise-car-industry-doesnt-idea-speed-governors-4852929 https://www.treehugger.com/big-surprise-car-industry-doesnt-...

grobbyy 3y ago

Because it would make roads less safe. It's very common to need to *accelerate* in emergency situations. Something like smart cruise control which drives the speed limit would be appreciated. A hard cap would not.

jncfhnb 3y ago
Like when
- grobbyy 3y ago
  You're passing a broken-down vehicle, a deer that hoped into the road, a toddler, or otherwise go into the opposite lane. There is an incoming car, and you need to merge back before a head-on collision, without hitting whatever you're passing. Floor it and merge. I can name many other scenarios, but generally, emergency maneuvers are helped by good control over the car, including braking, turning, and acceleration. There are nice charts showing accidents per million miles driven by car, and the best ones I've seen are anyone, but not testosterone-promoting agile. Crash ratings are misleading since many of the safest cars in a crash also crash a lot more often and have higher fatalities overall since bigger cars are less likely to be able to avoid an accident.
  - foxyv 3y ago
    In all of the instances you mention, it is recommended that you use your brakes. NOT go faster. Who sees a toddler in the road and floors it? Are you avoiding rocket children?
    - grobbyy 3y ago
      In the situation described, I already charged lanes to avoid the toddler / deer / stopped car. The question is what I do about the incoming car I didn't notice. A) change back and hit the toddler B) do nothing, and have a fatal head-on collision C) hit the brakes, and have a non-fatal head-on collision D) speed up a little bit, so I can get back into my lane before the other car gets here

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

bsza 3y ago

Edge cases like medical emergencies, natural disasters, terrorist attacks etc., where speeding can actually save lives. You can’t account for all of those in an automated system.

acdha 3y ago
Those are movie plots. We know what happens in things like natural disasters: epic traffic jams because the roads have limited capacity and once people start thinking they can violate the laws they crash and make it even worse. Medical emergencies are more plausible but it’s a collection of edge cases: you have to be somewhere a long way from the hospital, without an ambulance, no traffic, and safe road conditions for much higher speeds. If all of those aren’t true, you’re either making a bad situation much worse with a crash or running off the road (the most realistic places for this situation are rural areas where it’s often not safe to go even the posted limit around every curve) or you’re not really saving enough time to be meaningful. Even the ambulances rarely drive like that in those regions despite being much better trained, equipped, and experienced with the area. Now, contrast those extremely low probability events with the tens of thousands of people killed by drivers every year and the hundreds of thousands who have life-altering injuries. How many people are we willing to write off so a bunch of people can fantasize about having the chance to play ambulance driver some day?
- bsza 3y ago
  True, but on the other hand, it would only take one headline about people losing their lives while trying to drive off a bridge about to collapse at 20 kph to spark public outrage. We tend to be less sensitive to tragedies that occur due to an individual’s own bad decisions.
  - foxyv 3y ago
    What about the tragedies that occur every day when speeders kill strangers, friends, and family? Currently about 33 deaths per day are caused by speeding. I have yet to find a person who died because they couldn't exceed the speed limit.