3 ms·

From the article: "To put it simply, the system is dangerous." And then it proceeds to spend zero time at all describing exactly what is dangerous about it. Se

by dangus 2y ago

From the article: "To put it simply, the system is dangerous." And then it proceeds to spend zero time at all describing exactly what is dangerous about it. Seriously, the article doesn't even hypothesize about what makes this dangerous, it just says that it's bad. The car I drove about 10 years ago had trouble exceeding the speed limit at times because it was a diesel! It was never dangerous. Trucks including rental trucks are already governed to very low speeds and they don't cause a problem. Articles like this feel to me a little bit like the seat belt deniers of the past. They'll all have to sheepishly eat their words when passenger and pedestrian deaths go down after the program is implemented. Cars aren't toys. They are transportation devices. They kill people. They really aren't about freedom or whatever, not when I'm trying not to get killed by a maniac.

toast0 2y ago
I think there's a fundamental issue here that the posted speed limit is often not the same thing as a reasonable maximum speed that's appropriate for conditions. Speed limits are set for all sorts of reasons that don't often match up with safety, and even then, they're usually set for normal conditions; when you have great visibility, dry pavement, and low traffic, it's often not unsafe to exceed the posted limit; just the same as when there's poor visibility, wet or icy pavement, or heavy traffic, following the posted limit is unsafe. Having an alarm that distracts the driver when they're driving a safe and reasonable speed is an unnecessary distraction. And it won't help drivers maintain a safe and reasonable speed in unfavorable conditions, unless this also comes with real time updates for pavement conditions, visibility, construction, etc. For cars that have trouble exceeding the speed limit, it can be dangerous --- sometimes there are scenarios where exceeding the speed limit is the safest course of action; but experience with the vehicle would help you anticipate its capabilities, and it is what it is. Usually there's pretty clear feedback that the vehicle isn't going to go much faster, so you will tend to avoid putting yourself in situations where you need lots of speed. Rental trucks governors aren't necessarily as obvious, but that's also more of a statement that trucks should have a lower maximum limit regardless of conditions and that the rental company doesn't trust renters to be aware of safe speeds for trucks.
- stoneman24 2y ago
  There is also many places where there are extremely few posted speed signs. The A9 in Scotland from Perth to Inverness is a notoriously dangerous road (it has large sections of single carriageway [60mph] with occasional dual carriage [70mph]). It has many junctions where cars can cross lanes to leave on minor roads. So bad, it has a large system of average speed cameras to hopefully control the traffic. Driving slowly (40-50) on this long road will cause cars, buses and trucks to try and overtake even on the single carriageway sections which is risky for everybody. But very few actual speed signs, so you end confused and wondering exactly what is the correct value for that section and anxious about the next average speed camera. And that’s for experienced uk drivers, I hate to think how stressed the tourists are ?
- dangus 2y ago
  I'm confused at your argument. You're talking about inclement conditions where you're supposed to be driving below the speed limit anyway. If everyone is at or below the speed limit, there is no situation where the reasonable maximum that exceeds the speed limit. Perhaps you could safely drive faster, but nobody actually has to drive faster. And when you're driving slower your stopping distance is less, your chance of death in an accident is less. It's basic physics and accident statistics.
  - toast0 2y ago
    > And when you're driving slower your stopping distance is less, your chance of death in an accident is less. It's basic physics and accident statistics. The faster we travel, the less time we spend traveling. The posted limit is not necessarily a reasonable maximum speed; that's my point in both directions.
    - dangus 2y ago
      The math does not work that way. If you’re going 70mph you travel 16.6% further in the same amount of time. But your average stopping distance increases 240 to 315 feet, 31% increase. This also stresses your reaction time. Risk of severe injury in pedestrian accidents goes like this: 16mph: 10% 23mph: 25% 31mph: 50% So if you slow down in a pedestrian heavy area from 31mph to 23mph, you travel 30% slower but if you hit someone you’ve cut the chance of seriously injuring them in half. https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/advice/learning-to-drive/stopping-distances/ https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/advice/learning-to-drive/stoppin... https://aaafoundation.org/impact-speed-pedestrians-risk-severe-injury-death/ https://aaafoundation.org/impact-speed-pedestrians-risk-seve...
falcolas 2y ago
If you are accelerating, particularly in an EV, and your car starts screwing with your controls while pelting you with a high decibal alarm you used to only hear in an imminent collision, your chances of losing control are going to skyrocket. It happens all the time with inexperienced drivers and high performance vehicles, and consumer EVs are also high performance vehicles. Hyundai - one of the manufacturers mentioned in the article - makes an EV with a sub-3s 0-60 time.
- dangus 2y ago
  I'm confused at this argument. It sounds like the driver has already lost control? Or is this just making an excuse for assholes who accelerate too fast? Or making excuses for cars that are sold as dangerous toys instead of transportation devices? Like, yeah, maybe there should be a 0-60 limit imposed on manufacturers, too. I would think that this would be complimentary to my argument. I think it's also potentially strange to think that a chime is going to cause people to dramatically lose control of their vehicle in this imagined scenario.

by dangus 2y ago

toast0 2y ago

I think there's a fundamental issue here that the posted speed limit is often not the same thing as a reasonable maximum speed that's appropriate for conditions. Speed limits are set for all sorts of reasons that don't often match up with safety, and even then, they're usually set for normal conditions; when you have great visibility, dry pavement, and low traffic, it's often not unsafe to exceed the posted limit; just the same as when there's poor visibility, wet or icy pavement, or heavy traffic, following the posted limit is unsafe. Having an alarm that distracts the driver when they're driving a safe and reasonable speed is an unnecessary distraction. And it won't help drivers maintain a safe and reasonable speed in unfavorable conditions, unless this also comes with real time updates for pavement conditions, visibility, construction, etc. For cars that have trouble exceeding the speed limit, it can be dangerous --- sometimes there are scenarios where exceeding the speed limit is the safest course of action; but experience with the vehicle would help you anticipate its capabilities, and it is what it is. Usually there's pretty clear feedback that the vehicle isn't going to go much faster, so you will tend to avoid putting yourself in situations where you need lots of speed. Rental trucks governors aren't necessarily as obvious, but that's also more of a statement that trucks should have a lower maximum limit regardless of conditions and that the rental company doesn't trust renters to be aware of safe speeds for trucks.

stoneman24 2y ago
There is also many places where there are extremely few posted speed signs. The A9 in Scotland from Perth to Inverness is a notoriously dangerous road (it has large sections of single carriageway [60mph] with occasional dual carriage [70mph]). It has many junctions where cars can cross lanes to leave on minor roads. So bad, it has a large system of average speed cameras to hopefully control the traffic. Driving slowly (40-50) on this long road will cause cars, buses and trucks to try and overtake even on the single carriageway sections which is risky for everybody. But very few actual speed signs, so you end confused and wondering exactly what is the correct value for that section and anxious about the next average speed camera. And that’s for experienced uk drivers, I hate to think how stressed the tourists are ?
dangus 2y ago
I'm confused at your argument. You're talking about inclement conditions where you're supposed to be driving below the speed limit anyway. If everyone is at or below the speed limit, there is no situation where the reasonable maximum that exceeds the speed limit. Perhaps you could safely drive faster, but nobody actually has to drive faster. And when you're driving slower your stopping distance is less, your chance of death in an accident is less. It's basic physics and accident statistics.
- toast0 2y ago
  > And when you're driving slower your stopping distance is less, your chance of death in an accident is less. It's basic physics and accident statistics. The faster we travel, the less time we spend traveling. The posted limit is not necessarily a reasonable maximum speed; that's my point in both directions.
  - dangus 2y ago
    The math does not work that way. If you’re going 70mph you travel 16.6% further in the same amount of time. But your average stopping distance increases 240 to 315 feet, 31% increase. This also stresses your reaction time. Risk of severe injury in pedestrian accidents goes like this: 16mph: 10% 23mph: 25% 31mph: 50% So if you slow down in a pedestrian heavy area from 31mph to 23mph, you travel 30% slower but if you hit someone you’ve cut the chance of seriously injuring them in half. https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/advice/learning-to-drive/stopping-distances/ https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/advice/learning-to-drive/stoppin... https://aaafoundation.org/impact-speed-pedestrians-risk-severe-injury-death/ https://aaafoundation.org/impact-speed-pedestrians-risk-seve...

falcolas 2y ago

If you are accelerating, particularly in an EV, and your car starts screwing with your controls while pelting you with a high decibal alarm you used to only hear in an imminent collision, your chances of losing control are going to skyrocket. It happens all the time with inexperienced drivers and high performance vehicles, and consumer EVs are also high performance vehicles. Hyundai - one of the manufacturers mentioned in the article - makes an EV with a sub-3s 0-60 time.

dangus 2y ago
I'm confused at this argument. It sounds like the driver has already lost control? Or is this just making an excuse for assholes who accelerate too fast? Or making excuses for cars that are sold as dangerous toys instead of transportation devices? Like, yeah, maybe there should be a 0-60 limit imposed on manufacturers, too. I would think that this would be complimentary to my argument. I think it's also potentially strange to think that a chime is going to cause people to dramatically lose control of their vehicle in this imagined scenario.