4 ms·

Virginia will punish fast drivers with devices that limit their speed

16 points by reaperducer 2y ago

somethingsome 2y ago
That seems very dangerous, sometimes you need to accelerate a bit to avoid an accident.
- spl757 2y ago
  It seems very dangerous because it is very dangerous. Other drivers around you are going to expect you to be able to accelerate past the speed limit during dynamic driving conditions like heavy traffic, especially on the interstate. This will make some people unable to drive in a predictable way in some circumstances. One thing that people underestimate is the danger of deviating from proper right-of-way. Letting someone go that is supposed to yield to you is an example of this. All of the drivers around you are going to expect the other car to yield, and for you to go. If you do the opposite to "be nice" and stop when you have right-of-way the other drivers around you are not going to expect you to stop the flow of traffic. It can cause confusion and that leads to accidents.
  - Sohcahtoa82 2y ago
    > Letting someone go that is supposed to yield to you is an example of this. We call them "niceholes". In Portland, it's a major problem. https://youtu.be/0rpdQvuAnqM https://youtu.be/0rpdQvuAnqM
    - mikestew 2y ago
      As a Seattle-area resident, I didn’t even need to click the link to know which Portlandia skit it was going to be.
      - Sohcahtoa82 2y ago
        Seattle and Portland have so much more in common than each wants to admit.
- ultrarunner 2y ago
  It's done for e-bikes and mopeds and has been for years. Whether it's dangerous or not doesn't seem to be an issue.
999900000999 2y ago
Pay walled, but if your catching reckless tickets you really need to have your license taken away. Your either a safer driver or not.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > Your either a safer driver or not Source? Like, are driving violations concentrated in a minority of drivers?
  - geoffpado 2y ago
    Yes. Drivers who have experienced traffic violations before are significantly more likely to experience a crash in the future: "Over half of the observational studies demonstrated that traffic offenders were more likely to commit a subsequent traffic violation or had elevated risk of crashes. […] Traffic offenders are a high-risk group for subsequent violations and crashes." - https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10634619 https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10634619 "After adjusting for confounders in the regression model, drivers with three or more driving offences had 2.25 (95% CI 1.98 to 2.57), 2.87 (95% CI 1.60 to 5.17) and 3.28 (95% CI 2.28 to 4.72) times higher rates of any crash, crashes that resulted in hospital admission or death and single vehicle crashes compared with drivers with no driving offences." - https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9510411 https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9510411
    - Dylan16807 2y ago
      5% of the population having a 3x crash rate is still only about 15% of crashes.
  - Sohcahtoa82 2y ago
    Measuring violations is a poor measure, as enforcement varies wildly, and the worst offenders are probably also the most aware of when and where enforcement happens, so are good at dodging enforcement. A better statistic would be at-fault crash rate. I imagine it follows the Pareto Principle: 80% of crashes are likely caused by 20% of drivers. I tried to find statistics to back up my intuition, but apparently statistics about fault are not tracked well. Though supposedly, on average, American drivers experience one crash per 18 years, and 77% of drivers have been involved in a crash. But those stats say nothing about fault. I got into a crash only two months after getting my license, but it was because I got hit by someone running a red light, so I was not at fault. It's been 24 years and around 300,000 miles since then, and I have yet to have another crash, though I've gotten two speeding tickets over that time.
freedomben 2y ago
I'm fully expecting this sort of thing to be mandatory for all vehicles at some point in the not too distant future. The tech has been there for years now, and I'm honestly surprised some politician hasn't honed in on it and started mandating it be used for law enforcement yet. We're barrelling toward a world where we are under constant surveilance, and tech can and will be used to ensure that laws are enforced proactively rather than reactively. I'm sure there will be pros and cons of that world, but having seen some of the absurd laws in place I suspect there will at minimum be some really painful years of evolution. I'm sure mandating everyone have these things would go over like a lead balloon with the current culture, but that will change. They're following the classic playbook of starting with just a very small and unsympathetic minority (in this case reckless drivers). They can then slowly expand the covered group from there until it covers everyone. And of course law enforcement vehicles won't be speed limited, nor vehicles carrying important people. It wouldn't be safe to limit them.
- to11mtm 2y ago
  IIRC the EU is trying to mandate breathalyzers in all vehicles. I think they're working towards GPS based speed limitation being a standard thing too. OTOH the US hasn't tried to do that yet... Fun to think about why. On one hand there's the additional cost to consumers as well as overall complexity in design (how do you make that not look like ass?) On the other hand, I'm betting that given the US justice system, at least one lobbying group would prefer more fines and/or the cost of filling up a jail cell vs preventing the action in the first place. As far as general speed limiters... IDK I'd like to be able to outrun a tornado. Also I'm guessing some car makers wouldn't like that they cannot truly market a 'top speed' of a vehicle, then you've got the track day folks who know their business would be hurt by govt-mandated speed limiters on road vehicles.
- morkalork 2y ago
  There's a whole lot of behaviours that are fine-able offenses that society lets slide. California stops, modest speeding etc. I'd like to hope we're grown up enough to recognize that and not build the torment nexus but signs are not looking good.
- 2y ago
neither_color 2y ago
>Del. Patrick A. Hope (D-Arlington) said various advocacy groups, including Mothers Against Drunk Driving and the National Safety Council, gave him the idea. He drove a car outfitted with the technology and was impressed. “It was easy to use, and once you’re engaged it’s impossible to go over the speed limit,” he said. “It will make our streets safer.” How do you reconcile "left lane is for passing, slower traffic keep right" with hard speed limits and speed regulators? I've never found a satisfactory answer besides the German highway system. Let's say all cars are electronically limited to the speed of the Beltway that goes around Virginia and Maryland in a circle around DC(55MPH). The Beltway has left exits and right exits, as well as merging traffic from the left AND the right. Sometimes you need to get across 2-3 lanes quickly. How do you pass someone going the speed limit enough to create a safe following distance and then merge over in front of them if they are going at exactly the speed limit? Merge behind them instead? What if there's someone behind you and you can't brake? In the Maryland side of the beltway, wherever there's a hard speed limit enforcement mechanism, i.e speed cameras, cars suddenly slow down when they get to the camera and then floor it as soon as they're out of its range. Locals who drive there every day just memorize the camera locations. The sudden drop in speed from people going 70+ down to camera speed creates a more unsafe situation than if we just allowed people to speed more in the left lane and actually formalized it instead of this wishy-washy gray zone system that depends on law enforcement feeling like pulling you over if you're unlucky or an outlier.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > How do you reconcile "left lane is for passing, slower traffic keep right" with hard speed limits and speed regulators? I’m okay with serial speeders losing the ability to pass.
- Sohcahtoa82 2y ago
  > What if there's someone behind you and you can't brake? The obvious answer is that you brake, and the person behind you is forced to brake as well. You can always brake. But knowing how many asshole drivers are out there, what I predict happens next is that the driver behind you decides that you're a moron slowing down for no reason and then gets into the left lane to pass you, putting themselves in the gap that you were planning on going into. They ignored your turn signal (You are signaling, right?) that would have told them that you were getting out of their way.

16 points by reaperducer 2y ago

somethingsome 2y ago

That seems very dangerous, sometimes you need to accelerate a bit to avoid an accident.

spl757 2y ago
It seems very dangerous because it is very dangerous. Other drivers around you are going to expect you to be able to accelerate past the speed limit during dynamic driving conditions like heavy traffic, especially on the interstate. This will make some people unable to drive in a predictable way in some circumstances. One thing that people underestimate is the danger of deviating from proper right-of-way. Letting someone go that is supposed to yield to you is an example of this. All of the drivers around you are going to expect the other car to yield, and for you to go. If you do the opposite to "be nice" and stop when you have right-of-way the other drivers around you are not going to expect you to stop the flow of traffic. It can cause confusion and that leads to accidents.
- Sohcahtoa82 2y ago
  > Letting someone go that is supposed to yield to you is an example of this. We call them "niceholes". In Portland, it's a major problem. https://youtu.be/0rpdQvuAnqM https://youtu.be/0rpdQvuAnqM
  - mikestew 2y ago
    As a Seattle-area resident, I didn’t even need to click the link to know which Portlandia skit it was going to be.
    - Sohcahtoa82 2y ago
      Seattle and Portland have so much more in common than each wants to admit.
ultrarunner 2y ago
It's done for e-bikes and mopeds and has been for years. Whether it's dangerous or not doesn't seem to be an issue.

999900000999 2y ago

Pay walled, but if your catching reckless tickets you really need to have your license taken away. Your either a safer driver or not.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> Your either a safer driver or not Source? Like, are driving violations concentrated in a minority of drivers?
- geoffpado 2y ago
  Yes. Drivers who have experienced traffic violations before are significantly more likely to experience a crash in the future: "Over half of the observational studies demonstrated that traffic offenders were more likely to commit a subsequent traffic violation or had elevated risk of crashes. […] Traffic offenders are a high-risk group for subsequent violations and crashes." - https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10634619 https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10634619 "After adjusting for confounders in the regression model, drivers with three or more driving offences had 2.25 (95% CI 1.98 to 2.57), 2.87 (95% CI 1.60 to 5.17) and 3.28 (95% CI 2.28 to 4.72) times higher rates of any crash, crashes that resulted in hospital admission or death and single vehicle crashes compared with drivers with no driving offences." - https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9510411 https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9510411
  - Dylan16807 2y ago
    5% of the population having a 3x crash rate is still only about 15% of crashes.
- Sohcahtoa82 2y ago
  Measuring violations is a poor measure, as enforcement varies wildly, and the worst offenders are probably also the most aware of when and where enforcement happens, so are good at dodging enforcement. A better statistic would be at-fault crash rate. I imagine it follows the Pareto Principle: 80% of crashes are likely caused by 20% of drivers. I tried to find statistics to back up my intuition, but apparently statistics about fault are not tracked well. Though supposedly, on average, American drivers experience one crash per 18 years, and 77% of drivers have been involved in a crash. But those stats say nothing about fault. I got into a crash only two months after getting my license, but it was because I got hit by someone running a red light, so I was not at fault. It's been 24 years and around 300,000 miles since then, and I have yet to have another crash, though I've gotten two speeding tickets over that time.

freedomben 2y ago

I'm fully expecting this sort of thing to be mandatory for all vehicles at some point in the not too distant future. The tech has been there for years now, and I'm honestly surprised some politician hasn't honed in on it and started mandating it be used for law enforcement yet. We're barrelling toward a world where we are under constant surveilance, and tech can and will be used to ensure that laws are enforced proactively rather than reactively. I'm sure there will be pros and cons of that world, but having seen some of the absurd laws in place I suspect there will at minimum be some really painful years of evolution. I'm sure mandating everyone have these things would go over like a lead balloon with the current culture, but that will change. They're following the classic playbook of starting with just a very small and unsympathetic minority (in this case reckless drivers). They can then slowly expand the covered group from there until it covers everyone. And of course law enforcement vehicles won't be speed limited, nor vehicles carrying important people. It wouldn't be safe to limit them.

to11mtm 2y ago
IIRC the EU is trying to mandate breathalyzers in all vehicles. I think they're working towards GPS based speed limitation being a standard thing too. OTOH the US hasn't tried to do that yet... Fun to think about why. On one hand there's the additional cost to consumers as well as overall complexity in design (how do you make that not look like ass?) On the other hand, I'm betting that given the US justice system, at least one lobbying group would prefer more fines and/or the cost of filling up a jail cell vs preventing the action in the first place. As far as general speed limiters... IDK I'd like to be able to outrun a tornado. Also I'm guessing some car makers wouldn't like that they cannot truly market a 'top speed' of a vehicle, then you've got the track day folks who know their business would be hurt by govt-mandated speed limiters on road vehicles.
morkalork 2y ago
There's a whole lot of behaviours that are fine-able offenses that society lets slide. California stops, modest speeding etc. I'd like to hope we're grown up enough to recognize that and not build the torment nexus but signs are not looking good.
2y ago

neither_color 2y ago

>Del. Patrick A. Hope (D-Arlington) said various advocacy groups, including Mothers Against Drunk Driving and the National Safety Council, gave him the idea. He drove a car outfitted with the technology and was impressed. “It was easy to use, and once you’re engaged it’s impossible to go over the speed limit,” he said. “It will make our streets safer.” How do you reconcile "left lane is for passing, slower traffic keep right" with hard speed limits and speed regulators? I've never found a satisfactory answer besides the German highway system. Let's say all cars are electronically limited to the speed of the Beltway that goes around Virginia and Maryland in a circle around DC(55MPH). The Beltway has left exits and right exits, as well as merging traffic from the left AND the right. Sometimes you need to get across 2-3 lanes quickly. How do you pass someone going the speed limit enough to create a safe following distance and then merge over in front of them if they are going at exactly the speed limit? Merge behind them instead? What if there's someone behind you and you can't brake? In the Maryland side of the beltway, wherever there's a hard speed limit enforcement mechanism, i.e speed cameras, cars suddenly slow down when they get to the camera and then floor it as soon as they're out of its range. Locals who drive there every day just memorize the camera locations. The sudden drop in speed from people going 70+ down to camera speed creates a more unsafe situation than if we just allowed people to speed more in the left lane and actually formalized it instead of this wishy-washy gray zone system that depends on law enforcement feeling like pulling you over if you're unlucky or an outlier.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> How do you reconcile "left lane is for passing, slower traffic keep right" with hard speed limits and speed regulators? I’m okay with serial speeders losing the ability to pass.
Sohcahtoa82 2y ago
> What if there's someone behind you and you can't brake? The obvious answer is that you brake, and the person behind you is forced to brake as well. You can always brake. But knowing how many asshole drivers are out there, what I predict happens next is that the driver behind you decides that you're a moron slowing down for no reason and then gets into the left lane to pass you, putting themselves in the gap that you were planning on going into. They ignored your turn signal (You are signaling, right?) that would have told them that you were getting out of their way.