82 ms·

Virginia passes law to enforce maximum vehicle speeds for repeat speeders

• endianswap 1y ago
  > Proposals typically include a limited “override” feature allowing further acceleration during an emergency. Very cool and certainly effective design for people who already go 30+ mph over the speed limit.
• margorczynski 1y ago
  I think a general speed limit for all vehicles would be a good idea. If you want it removed then your vehicle can't travel public roads, any kind of modification of it in secret would be a crime. Not sure about the US but in Europe (at least the EU) 150km/h max would be fine, at least it would make life harder for some sociopaths that treat public roads as a racing track.
  • wjnc 1y ago
    Combine this with a -/- 10 km/h per speeding ticket for a year or two and you’ve got a pretty optimal situation!
  • nerdralph 1y ago
    In my younger years groups of friends would rent time on racing tracks in Ontario and Quebec. Mecaglisse and Shannonville tracks were a couple that I drove on, at speeds of over 220kph.
  • joshlemer 1y ago
    It really is so obviously reasonable it makes you wonder why this isn't already in place. For instance e-bikes are all speed and power limited, why aren't cars?
    • DangitBobby 1y ago
      I think this is a valid comparison. I believe eBikes are limited for safety of the rider and other cyclists they share the bike lane with, otherwise they would practically be a different class of vehicle and a menace. The exact same logic would apply to cars. It would take a lot more effort and political will to roll this out to millions of vehicles already on the road than to enforce it on a budding new vehicle category, though. That's pretty much how new safety codes always work.
    • alistairSH 1y ago
      No, they aren’t. The big brands’ sell limited e-bikes, but there’s a massive market for unlimited e-bikes that are basically electric motorbikes with nominal pedals to try and pass as bikes.
      • joshlemer 1y ago
        Well I mean, in Canada, Europe and the US these would be illegal if they're able to go more than 32, 25, and 40 km/h respectively. That doesn't mean there aren't illegal ebikes out there but I think the vast majority of e-bikes on the road comply with the legal limits.
        • alistairSH 1y ago
          40kmh? What’s that in Freedom Units? (j/k) The US is a hodgepodge of local laws. AFAIK, there is no federal speed limit for e-bikes. The class 1/2/3 designation is optional. And class 3 often conflicts with local laws.
  • _bin_ 1y ago
    This would be incredibly annoying. You what, have to tow your car to a track if you want to race? So now you need two vehicles? Given that outright street racing is common amongst blue-collar or inner-city demographics, this is an unrealistic expectation that will just push more people away from legal venues. It's a policy that says "you can't enjoy your hobby" in disguise that shows disregard for others' preferences, plus it's practically difficult.
    • NBJack 1y ago
      You seem to assume this particular demographic you speak of only does so in venues: https://komonews.com/news/local/teen-to-be-sentenced-for-high-speed-crash-in-renton-that-killed-4 https://komonews.com/news/local/teen-to-be-sentenced-for-hig... Would you be willing to say the same for firearms and their availability? It meets much of your criteria, sans perhaps the portability part and location of many enthusiasts.
      • _bin_ 1y ago
        My point is precisely that. How can you hope to encourage people to move to tracks if you require them to find a pickup that can tow cars there? If you keep closing down more and more tracks? I believe in high availability of firearms because I'm principally against prior restraint. The state doesn't get to take machineguns away from people who haven't demonstrated abuse of them to the standard of reasonable doubt. The state doesn't get to take hellcats away from people who haven't demonstrated abuse of them to the standard of reasonable doubt. That's my moral position, which I assume you don't share, so I'm trying to point out a more practical reason why this is a bad policy in terms of outcome.
        • DangitBobby 1y ago
          > How can you hope to encourage people to move to tracks if you require them to find a pickup that can tow cars there? If you keep closing down more and more tracks? I doubt most people speeding in the streets do track or street racing as a hobby, so I think track availability is pretty much irrelevant. I think I should have the freedom not to get splattered by dumbasses going 100 in a 50MPH zone. Why don't I get that freedom?
  • alexey-salmin 1y ago
    EU includes Germany with its no-limit Autobahns. Left lane usually does around 180km/h, with occasional vehicles going way past 200km/h. Even 300km/h is not unheard of. I kind of hoped more EU would become like that, not the other way round.
    • elzbardico 1y ago
      I am convinced after having spent time in Germany that for Autobahns to work in other countries, you'd need to import Germans to exclusively drive on them. If you are used to driving in the US or in the central/South America, the German driver is basically an incredibly superior species from another planet.
      • bdangubic 1y ago
        more people have driver license in los angeles metro area than entire country of germany :) in america everyone from 15/16 through their death needs a car for basic functioning life, in germany though - not as much. german driver only seem superior…
      • MandieD 1y ago
        I grew up in Texas, but have spent most of my adult life in Germany. It's not that Germans are innately better drivers, it's that there's not the same level of cultural entitlement to a driver's license. Driving is a privilege, not a right. This causes them to take it more seriously. For starters, driver education is taken a lot more seriously - it's not a one-semester elective in high school or something your parents pay $500 for you to do over a few weeks in the summer before you turn 16, and you cannot take a road test without it, no matter how old you are. People save up for driver's ed in Germany; depending on how many lessons it takes for you to learn the actual driving part, it costs anywhere from 2000 EUR to 5000 EUR. Your license will have a note if you took your test on an automatic, restricting you from driving a manual shift, so everyone makes sure to learn how to drive a manual shift for the test. They also more readily accept strict suspensions for a level of traffic tickets that most Americans would find excessively harsh - get a few 15-20 km/h (10-15 mph) over within a two or three year period, and your license will be fully suspended for a month, no "work and school" exception. DUI is also taken far more seriously - if your license is suspended for that, there aren't any "work and school" exceptions either, and if you were drunk enough, or it was a repeat offence, you might have to pass the "medical-psychological exam" (MPU) to ever get it back, involving six months without touching alcohol and a bunch of other things that I've heard are a huge pain. Part of what sustains widespread acceptance to high barriers to a license is that while Germans love to complain about how bad Deutsche Bahn (rail service) delays have gotten (even I'm starting to get irritated), it's still far more feasible to live a middle-class adult life without driving in a mid-sized city than it would be to in a comparable US metro area. You'd also have to import German road design, construction and maintenance, and I'm pretty sure my people are unwilling to pay for that. The first time I visited home after a few months in Germany, I was initially afraid I'd get caught driving like I do here. Nope, not even a temptation, because after a few months of driving here, the roads in Texas had too many random cracks and other inconsistencies for me to feel comfortable driving any faster than the other people on the road, and I even found myself driving a bit more slowly than a lot of the others! I feel far safer driving here than I do in Texas or anywhere else in the US, no matter how fast the occasional vehicle blasts past in the left lane. The price of fuel and the level of strict attention that going any faster requires keeps most people cruising at a max of 130 kmh/80 mph.
• analog31 1y ago
  An interesting thing is that I've observed a lot less speeding over the years, as more cars acquire active cruise control. Correlation or causation? Who knows. I don't think enforcement has changed.
  • sepositus 1y ago
    Personally, I tend to get irritated when someone swings 10-15 mph over/under the current speed limit. I often have to speed around them to avoid them. I probably would care less if the car just followed their erratic behavior for me.
  • cj 1y ago
    Due to local law changes, my 50k population town has had 10 weed shops open up in the past 6 months. Previous to that, the closest store was 4 hours away in another state. No idea if it's just a coincidence, but people seem to be driving way slower on average compared to last year.
    • woah 1y ago
      A drunk driver will blow through a stop sign, while a stoned driver will wait for it to turn green
  • i80and 1y ago
    The biggest change for me I've noticed is I'm vastly less likely to speed with a digital speedometer than with a dial spedometer. Adaptive cruise control also helps a lot (I was never particularly a speed demon in the first place though)
    • hollandheese 1y ago
      I think a partial reason for that is a ton of cars put 80 in the middle of the dial speedometer. So, it's bizarrely easier to see your speed accurately if you're going over the speed limit.
  • _bin_ 1y ago
• mindslight 1y ago
  Does anyone know why Virginia has always been so notoriously draconian about speeding? Is it DC-adjacent policy wonks outsized faith in the effectiveness of top-down prescriptions, lots of DC politicians flagrantly violating the law, culture clash between stuffy suburbanites and yokels (Virginia was the first place I ever saw a trans truck), or what?
  • _bin_ 1y ago
    The yankees' roads are all really bad. Old, narrow, sharp turns, and often crowded. I hate driving up there. By comparison, Texas we have long open stretches and up to eight lanes each way, so obviously it's less of an issue. I'd actually assume it's due to proximity to DC, which would tend to massively increase the population of "but the data say"-type technocrats.
    • bearcobra 1y ago
      Is it common to refer to Virginians as being Yankees? Growing up in New England I would have assumed they’d avoid the term by being in the Confederacy
      • garrettgrimsley 1y ago
        No, they're both south of the Mason-Dixon line and Richmond was the capital of the Confederacy. Texas is considered less South, culturally, than Virginia.
      • alistairSH 1y ago
        No. Outside DC metro, VA is the south (or Appalachian, which can be similar, but is distinct). These days, it’s not really about the Confederacy, just culturally.
      • _bin_ 1y ago
        Yeah, I don't really consider virginia part of the south, culturally. Maybe it was different in the past but proximity to DC has rotted any of that away.
• wffurr 1y ago
  Kinda begs the question why cars can go over 100mph in the first place. Also what the heck is with Newsom vetoing the passive ISA bill?
  • almosthere 1y ago
    From Newsome - "Federal law, as implemented by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), already regulates vehicle safety standards, and adding California-specific requirements would create a patchwork of regulations that undermines this longstanding federal framework. NHTSA is also actively evaluating intelligent speed assistance systems, and imposing state-level mandates at this time risks disrupting these ongoing federal assessments." Makes sense, everything else that CA does essentially causes things to cost more. This would be another thing. Not everyone has your salary. That said, I agree with you, cars going that fast are driven by idiot teenagers (or people that want to be a teen again) and are endangering people.
    • alistairSH 1y ago
      That arguement doesn’t make sense. We (VA) already require ignition interlocks on DUI’s cars. This isn’t much different.
      • wffurr 1y ago
        The vetoed California law would have required passive ISA, I.e. a dashboard light that comes on when it detects speeding, on all new vehicles sold in California.
    • pdonis 1y ago
      > adding California-specific requirements would create a patchwork of regulations that undermines this longstanding federal framework Which is exactly what California has been doing for decades.
  • _bin_ 1y ago
    Because engines aren't designed to be run at max output. The fact that an engine can do 150 means it's a lot nicer to drive at 75. I've driven a car that has a top speed of 85 on a good day, with a tailwind and going downhill, and it sucked. Fine for city streets but in my state we have bits of highway that have posted speeds as high as 85 and realistically most people do 9-10 over on long roads outside cities.
• mensetmanusman 1y ago
  Just remember to disable the features when nukes land. https://www.theautopian.com/if-you-ever-see-this-speed-sign-youre-probably-going-to-die/ https://www.theautopian.com/if-you-ever-see-this-speed-sign-...
  • candiddevmike 1y ago
    The scale of vehicular traffic these days make such a scenario seem quaint. The highways and interstates would be littered with cars.
    • bobthepanda 1y ago
      We already know how evacuations by car would play out; poorly. Just check out how slow it takes to do hurricane evacuations, and we know about those days ahead of time.
      • sixothree 1y ago
        Having been through a few, the general rule is this - if it normally takes 2 hours to get there, it will take 12 hours to get there.
      • mayneack 1y ago
        https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a63365174/palisades-fire-cars-problems/ https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a63365174/palisades-fire-c...
  • cormorant 1y ago
    The full relevant book was: "A guide for highway traffic regulation in an emergency". https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=ien.35556021306899&seq=1 https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=ien.35556021306899&se... The Maintain Top Safe Speed thing was envisioned for transiting across fallout-contaminated areas in the weeks and months afterwards. It prescribes there would be cops stationed at the ends of such routes, limiting the flow of cars entering so that those within the stretch would not be congested and could go fast.
• lokar 1y ago
  Better street designs is a better approach. Narrower lanes, physical barriers for pedestrians, roundabouts, etc
  • scottbez1 1y ago
    Let's do both! In neighborhoods, street design is going to be far more effective than things like electronic speed limiting, speed cameras, etc. But for dedicated rights of way for high throughout vehicle traffic, limiting speeds to engineering-based safe limits seems pretty reasonable as well.
  • vkou 1y ago
    Pretty sure the shithead that killed a family in King County two years ago, while doing 110 in a 40 zone (after already wrecking two cars) didn't give two figs about street design. Casual speeders would benefit from better street engineering. Excessive speeders don't care. They just don't understand the concept of consequences. A speed governor would have likely saved four lives, and that 18-year old man from a 17 year prison sentence, but sure, let's all wring our hands about why this is a worse alternative to taking away someone's license.
    • mjevans 1y ago
      A clear outlier case. Policy should not be made based on the 1 in 1000000 case that's going to be tragic no matter what's put in place.
      • vkou 1y ago
        > A clear outlier case. Everyone speeds a little when they think it's safe, but some people speed excessively. This is about making a remedy available to judges, as an alternative to other, less effective, or more draconic (or both less effective and more draconic), forms of punishment. And judges deal with outlier cases every single day. They job is to look at and weigh all the special cases and considerations, provided by two sides in a dispute, and prescribe one of the many remedies available to them by law. There's nothing fundamentally immoral, tyrannical, or unfair about requiring an repeat offender who has demonstrated their inability to follow the rules of the road to have a conditional license if they want to keep driving, and there's nothing immoral or unethical about using mechanical mechanisms to enforce those conditions. Because the alternative is a full revocation (which is catastrophic to the ability to make a living in this country), or prison (which is catastrophic for a whole lot of other reasons). There's a reason that prescribing ignition interlocks for DUIs results in a dramatically lower recividism rate than license suspensions, and a dramatically lower overall social harm than prison. Locks keep honest people honest, and they put up enough of a hurdle for most less-than-always-honest people to not consistently act like anti-social dipshits. You can circumvent them with effort, but we still use them. They are part of a defense in depth.
• dfxm12 1y ago
  Even a license suspension doesn’t necessarily change behavior: A federally funded study found that 75% of people with suspended licenses continued to drive. I know part of this is related to sociopathic behavior, but the bigger part of it is probably that we really need better public transit and should design walkable cities instead of cities based around cars. People still have to get to work, to the doctor, pick up their kids from practice, etc.
  • kstrauser 1y ago
    True, but my understanding is that you can get an exception for driving to work and those other kinds of things.
    • thunderfork 1y ago
      [dead]
    • dfxm12 1y ago
      I hope my point was clear. We shouldn't let dangerous drivers back on the road because it would otherwise be inconvenient for them. Designing walkable cities has benefits beyond the obvious, including keeping criminals off the streets.
      • kstrauser 1y ago
        Ah, yes. I totally agree with that. I live somewhere that you could be just fine without a car. That's the exception in my experience.
• lokar 1y ago
  I wonder if insurance would be a partial solution? Allow/encourage providers of liability insurance to raise rates on people with tickets, unless they are to the electronic limit.
  • scottbez1 1y ago
    In theory, yes. In practice typical insurance requirements are already far below realistic modern-day damages possible from vehicular collisions, and people still routinely drive without even that minimal insurance. Without better mechanisms to actually meaningfully enforce insurance requirements, changes to those requirements are unlikely to be effective. The elephant in the room in the US is that although driving is a (very dangerous and extremely socially-costly) privilege, any attempts to hold drivers accountable and take away that privilege from repeat offenders is treated as a rights violation, so instead we just accept many deaths of innocent people from repeat DUI and speeders.
    • lokar 1y ago
      Yeah, required liability coverage needs to go way up.
      • _bin_ 1y ago
        No, draconian punishment of uninsured drivers should go way up. I am already paying a lot of money to compensate for them; I shouldn't pay more. Auto insurance is extremely expensive already.
        • lokar 1y ago
          Serious accidents routinely exceed the minimum coverage. I carry extra insurance for myself for that situation. Why should I have to do that?
          • _bin_ 1y ago
            My point is the overall cost of any level of insurance is way higher than it should be because of uninsured drivers. Maybe, if we solved that, everybody should be able to afford a higher level of coverage to better account for serious accidents.
• tokai 1y ago
  Seems like an over engineered solution. Revoking drivers license and seizing the car would be cheaper and easier to implement. We don't tolerate repeat offenders in most other circumstances. So why is it that you can keep breaking traffic laws without ever really being stopped from driving?
  • tekla 1y ago
    Because revoking a license doesn't stop someone from driving, and seizing the car doesn't stop a person from driving someone elses car. Also, since we live in a card dependent world, you can argue that taking away someones car is destroying their ability to make a living (as much as I think this excuse is horseshit when dealing with dangerous driving)
    • bdangubic 1y ago
      Because revoking a license doesn't stop someone from driving, and seizing the car doesn't stop a person from driving someone elses car. same, with this law :)
    • mbreese 1y ago
      The article says that 75% of people with revoked licenses continue to drive anyway. So yes… you’re completely right. But if you don’t take away their car, then that’s the car they are most likely to use (there is no excuse to borrow someone else’s car). So maybe this is a better punishment.
    • gotoeleven 1y ago
      ?? Yes it does. You presumably go to jail if you get caught driving without a license. Or do they not have legal penalties for driving without a license in virginia? If so, then it sounds like the problem is whatever dumb laws keep people that are driving illegally from going to jail.
      • chneu 1y ago
        Driving without a license will rarely land someone in jail. It just racks up fines and then the person can never get their license back. It's why a lot of states will occasionally do license fine forgiveness.
• londons_explore 1y ago
  States can make laws all they like, but will car manufacturers actually implement this in any workable way? I bet 90% of initial implementations will be resettable back to unlimited speed with a simple factory reset or similar.
  • standardUser 1y ago
    All it takes is a simple law stating that if you circumvent the speed limiter you face far more serious penalties. Done and done. Literally no different than how we handle suspended licenses.
    • pdonis 1y ago
      > Literally no different than how we handle suspended licenses. The article points out that 75% of people with suspended licenses continue to drive.
      • JumpCrisscross 1y ago
        Criminalising driving on a license suspended for a traffic offence (note: not expired or for financial reasons) seems like the easiest no brainer imaginable.
        • esseph 1y ago
          Driving to work sounds like a financial reason
          • JumpCrisscross 1y ago
            > Driving to work sounds like a financial reason Not a get out of jail free card.
            • esseph 1y ago
              In many states they'll still let you (drive for work, otherwise on restriction) for various offenses.
• dataflow 1y ago
  But... so many people are practically forced to exceed the limit just to keep up with the rest of the traffic that's already blowing past the limit. If you force a few people to go at the limit, that's frustrating for everyone behind them in the best case at best... and I imagine possibly even more dangerous in the worst case, no? If they're going to enforce then shouldn't they try to enforce it as widely as they can?
  • JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > that's frustrating for everyone behind them in the best case at best... and I imagine possibly even more dangerous in the worst case, no? No. Waymo put the myth to bed [1]. Even if you might piss off a speeder, driving the limit in speeding flow remains safer as the handling advantage (frequency) and exponentially-lower energy in the event of a collision (magnitude) dwarf other effects. [1] https://waymo.com/blog/2024/12/new-swiss-re-study-waymo https://waymo.com/blog/2024/12/new-swiss-re-study-waymo
    • dataflow 1y ago
      Your link is about Waymo. It doesn't imply the same is true for human drivers. When I search around whether driving too slowly is too dangerous, basically every source I see says it is. Random example: https://www.allstate.com/resources/car-insurance/dangers-of-driving-slowly https://www.allstate.com/resources/car-insurance/dangers-of-... Anecdotally, I see people dangerously tailgate slow drivers too; it makes sense that everyone warns against slow driving.
      • bdangubic 1y ago
        if slow driving wasn’t as dangerous (if not more), highways would not have minimum speed. would you personally choose cars driving 15mph on a highway you are on or 90mph? between those two choices, I’d choose 90mph any day of the week and twice on sunday
        • AlexandrB 1y ago
• ufmace 1y ago
  The technical aspects of this seem concerning. I'm wondering exactly who has the authority to set a car to this mode and how the mechanism of doing so works. What happens if you sell the car or let somebody else borrow it? Or when you get another car, or rent one? What are the failure modes of it, like if the GPS glitches a little and decides you're on a feeder or surface road when you're actually on a freeway? I think we've all seen GPS guidance devices do that. If this is actually being implemented as widely as the article suggests, I guess we'll all find out the answers to these questions pretty soon, the hard way!
  • rightbyte 1y ago
    I guess it would work as a breath alcohol ignition interlock device when reselling. I.e. you just remove it.
    • AnthonyMouse 1y ago
      That's what happens if you sell the car. What happens if the thing thinks the speed limit on a 65 MPH highway is 30 MPH? Or you have some emergency situation where a higher travel speed is a matter of life and death? Machines should never enforce laws because they don't have the ability to know when doing so would be unreasonable.
      • deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
      • brailsafe 1y ago
        > What happens if the thing thinks the speed limit on a 65 MPH highway is 30 MPH? I'd presume the state would need to update its GIS record, in the meantime you'd put your hazard lights on and move over to the right lane. > Or you have some emergency situation where a higher travel speed is a matter of life and death? Suddenly while driving, or something that you'd need to use the car for in order to travel fast? In the latter case, you'd just return to the wild and live like anyone else does without the ability to travel at arbitrarily sufficient speeds to deal with any personal emergency. These situations could be accounted for prior to repeatedly breaking speed laws and moving to some backwoods area where you'd also be screwed if it broke down.
• DenisM 1y ago
  A $100 GPS/LTE dongle in the Obd2 port could alert the nearest cop, or automatically write a ticket. Seems like a much easier solution, no? Like, you floor the accelerator and as soon as you reach 100mph you get a text message with a fine and a link to pay.
• progman32 1y ago
  A page linked from the article (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zLaBRWMSSnjGzMOpoZwUSw_HeUtsHY5rOl0CBAxqmN8/edit https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zLaBRWMSSnjGzMOpoZwUSw_H...) cites a $4/day rental fee for the equipment, which works out to roughly $120/month. I understand there are assistance programs promised by the article. Can someone in the space help me understand this pricing model? Seems high to me. The faq also claims there are no civil liberties implications for this since people use gps for maps anyway. There is no government infrastructure to regularly inspect my gps mapping software's correct operation, unlike the speed limiter. It's unclear what kind of data exchange happens during inspection and what the implications are for other, non-speeding drivers of the car. Don't get me wrong, I despise speeders. I regularly compete in sanctioned motorsport and I find that the more I do, the less sympathy I have for driving badly in public roadways. I wouldn't bat an eye at a system that mechanically governs a vehicle, without the possibility of data exchange, to the maximum speed limit in the state (or a value decided by a judge). This gps system seems too easy to abuse. I'd love to hear more about the claimed statistic of 75% of suspended drivers continuing to drive. I'm surprised that addressing this has jumped to requiring modification of vehicles and GPS surveillance. What other ways of improving compliance with suspension have been tried? Why do drivers ignore the suspension?
  • viraptor 1y ago
    > Can someone in the space help me understand this pricing model? "You're effectively forced to pay, so we'll make it as high as the system can bear" model. Kind of like the prison calls, etc.
    • loeg 1y ago
      And breathalyzer interlocks, of course.
  • stonogo 1y ago
    The pricing is high for the same reason ignition interlock rental fees are high: because they have a captive market and nobody can stop them from charging whatever the hell they want. Once the first couple vendors are certified they lobby hard to make sure the state doesn't certify too many more, which would create competition, and result in reasonable prices.
• whatever1 1y ago
  So if I have this device installed is it enough proof that I can never speed again in my life ? If yes, I will volunteer to get one. Will also order a raspberry pi, for a project I have in mind.
  • Clubber 1y ago
    I doubt it, police departments issue tickets as a major source of revenue. I've heard it said if you want to get rid of police departments, just have everyone follow the driving laws. I suspect they'll allow just enough over so that police can still get their sweet, sweet tax revenue in this brave new world.
    • potato3732842 1y ago
      Kind of makes one wonder why all those politicians who spend 2020-2022 talking big talk about defunding the police didn't introduce "well everyone is already going 80 on this stretch of interstate so that ought to be the speed limit" bills in that time.
• deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
• knowitnone 1y ago
  while this is not a bad idea, why not prevent them from driving at all and massive punishments
  • viraptor 1y ago
    How many places in Virginia are car-centric enough that you realistically need one for basic daily activities and work?
    • easton 1y ago
      Pretty much everywhere except for the area inside the 495 beltway (right next to DC), where public transit is good. But even then, housing prices near metro stations are higher. You probably want a car in most places, just like almost everywhere in the US.
  • 2OEH8eoCRo0 1y ago
    Because if you don't have a car in most of the US then you're fucked.
    • bradleybuda 1y ago
      Which gives you a really strong incentive to not put other people’s lives at risk by driving recklessly.
      • esseph 1y ago
        Ah yes, the person that makes the mistake of conflating random laws and arbitrary numbers for political reasons with some sort of lack of risk awareness / mitigation. The 85% rule is and has always been bullshit.
        • sokoloff 1y ago
          Yet we’d be better off if we at least adhered to the 85th percentile speed limit process rather than having the 85th percentile speed be 75mph and the posted limit be 55mph.
• 827a 1y ago
  I would bet against these devices seeing widespread deployment or requirement. There are hundreds of counties around the rural US where a huge portion of their income comes from speeding tickets on vehicles on the one state highway going through their jurisdiction. Money talks louder than a few pedestrian deaths every year.
• 827a 1y ago
  "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin
  • Bud 1y ago
    [dead]
  • owenversteeg 1y ago
    I agree. What's next? Controlling where, and when we can drive? The groups lobbying for this bill already say that they want mandatory, automatic, remotely-controllable speed restrictions on everyone's car - they will publicly tell you as much - from there, any further erosion of our liberties is just a software update away. Do you really think that a government, in the height of an emergency, that can restrict where and when you can drive with just a simple OTA update, would resist that temptation? And to the other commenter who was saying that Franklin didn't envision modern dangers like the automobile: life was far, far more dangerous in his time than ours. The 1/3 of annual traffic deaths caused by speeding - twelve thousand in a country of 340M - works out to the equivalent of thirty five deaths across the entire thirteen colonies in Franklin's middle age, not even a drop in the bucket of the many lives paid for other liberties at that time.
    • 827a 1y ago
      The main thing I would call attention to is: There are other governments around the world who have similar technologies required on their cars, and who have distributed that technology without much negative impact to their people. I might, if I were a Japanese citizen, trust the Japanese government to handle a technology like this with the care and respect it deserves; but we are not Japan. Do you trust the current American government to do the same? Those who supported these mass surveilience and control systems under, for example, Obama and Biden, may find themselves quiet when wondering whether they support them again under Trump. Yet, this is precisely, to the T, what our Founding Fathers had considered: that no government can be trusted to do things like this, or what the NSA does, or anything like it. Even if you approve of the regime today, your approval may quickly change, but the power you granted that previous regime does not.
• blendo 1y ago
  I’ve seen cars improve a lot over that last 10-20 years. Faster, smoother, quieter, and safer, they can cruise all day at 80-90 mph. Sadly, this is completely incompatible with 25 mph city speed limits. Thus, the need for engineering kludges like automotive speed limiters. I’d really like a new vehicle classification, perhaps along the lines of Medium Speed Electric Vehicles. Designed with a top speed of 40 to 45 mph, they might make a reasonable primary vehicle for many, and a good second car for even more.
  • deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  • zdragnar 1y ago
    Such a vehicle wouldn't be able to travel on a freeway at all [1], which means the market for them is very limited. Even in cities, people will want to hop on a freeway to cut across town more quickly. [1] Most states have rules around operating a minimum speed with the flow of traffic, so cars inhibiting the flow or otherwise driving significantly slower than the cars around them are considered to be a safety hazard. Some states are more objective by posting both minimum and maximum speed limits, though I personally find that freeways with speed minimums tend to actually have more people driving slow enough to cause disruptions.
    • hammock 1y ago
      Today. But, no reason why we couldn’t change the rules to let these vehicles travel in the right lane only. Just as trucks are restricted so on certain highways.
      • zdragnar 1y ago
        Technically, everyone is expected to drive in the right most lane unless they are passing or there is a left-hand exit coming up. This would just force average speed drivers into the left lanes and slow traffic down overall, and contribute to more traffic jams as the uneven speeds cause ripple effects.
• 1970-01-01 1y ago
  Another half-measure that will be disabled by aftermarket kits. If people want to go fast, they will.
  • TulliusCicero 1y ago
    This is like, "lock your doors? Nah bro, it's entirely possible to get through any lock, therefore locking is pointless." Most of these people are just generally reckless, they're not really intent on Going Fast No Matter What. Sure, people who actually modify their cars to race around will probably go around this kind of safety measure, but even most people speeding aren't that.
    • 1970-01-01 1y ago
      >Most of these people are just generally reckless That is not a good take if you include the fact that reckless driving in Virginia is already the lowest bar in the United States. 86 MPH is a criminal act. If you are caught doing 86 MPH you are literally put in handcuffs and go to jail.
      • TulliusCicero 1y ago
        What the hell even is this comment? My point was just that these people aren't absolutely dead set on going super fast like actual racers are.
  • JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > will be disabled by aftermarket kits The presence of which demonstrates wilful intent, turning another ticket into jail time and a criminal record.
    • deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    • 1970-01-01 1y ago
      And how long until having a 500 HP muscle car is a demonstration of willful intent to speed? It's a slippery argument.
• rdtsc 1y ago
  > uses GPS to identify the speed limit on a road segment and then deter drivers from going more than a programmed amount beyond it If a lot of cars get these it would be scary that someone would hack the speed limit database and set 1 mph on all roads around a large city.
• idlephysicist 1y ago
  I wish that people would just stop looking at their phones while driving.
• GuB-42 1y ago
  There are cars that can go way over 100 mph, and they almost all speed controlled by software. High performance cars are often speed limited by software to about 150 mph. How is this legal? Cars with speed limits that high belong to the track, not public roads, with a possible exception for emergency vehicles. There are some rare (emergency) situations where "superspeeding" might help, but I can think of many others where it may kill. It is not great for the environment either. I think limiting speeds to, say, 100mph for every road legal car will be unpopular. People love their fast cars, especially the rich and powerful, and manufacturers love to sell them. But technically, it should be easy to implement, and may improve road safety. I am only talking about the top speed, powerful cars will keep their high acceleration. There is also a good chance that people will modify their cars to raise the top speed, and it is fine outside of public roads, but could result in serious penalties if caught using such a modification on public roads.
  • WalterBright 1y ago
    > People love their fast cars, especially the rich and powerful LOL. You have no idea. Street racers are usually people who have little or no money.
    • 20after4 1y ago
      Because they spent it all on performance mods for their car.
      • dharmab 1y ago
        No, because rich car enthusiasts can afford track time. Performance mods are surprisingly affordable if you do all the labor yourself.
    • xattt 1y ago
      What about the Gumball rallies? If that’s not a wealth flex over the unwashed masses, I don’t know what is.
  • deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
• allenrb 1y ago
  Speed limiters built into cars. Anti-infringement technology built into general-purpose computers. And yet, guns and ammo freely available and unrestricted outside of automatic weapons and the like? Yeah. Can’t wait to move off-grid someday. (Yes, obviously American) I’ve got enough sense to keep it slow and safe in populated areas, yet occasionally open it up elsewhere when conditions are right. Guess that’s another thing we’re going to lose in our brave new world.
  • dheera 1y ago
    I'm all for stronger enforcement of speed limits to save lives (e.g. ticket everyone over the speed limit with cameras automatically, no cops needed), but requiring shit to be installed into someone's car doesn't seem effective. They could just disconnect it.
    • cdchhs 1y ago
      Most modern cars phone home on lte/4g/5g. Police could auto-ticker speeders if they wanted to today. Probably don't want people to know how ubiquitous the tracking already is though.
      • A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 1y ago
        I am not sure why you are being downvoted. The potential for abuse is clearly in place. It did not happen in our timeline yet, because it would likely cause an uproar, but to me writing was on the wall, when, way back when, Elon sent an update to a Tesla during a disaster to change a battery behavior.
    • atoav 1y ago
      As an Hardware designer I don't think that is the problem nowadays. Make it physically hard to remove and add a gps tracker to the unit and if it doesn't move for a few days, have them proove to you it wasn't tampered with. Then the only way to do it is to break the thing open and simulate trips that match yours all the time, which requires you to MITM the connection between the GPS and the microcontroller. Aside from that cars phone bome anyways as ot is, so another way to crossreference data. This can be as nontrivial as you want it. The problem is rather that a state shouldn't treat its citizens like that. That is probably why they start with repeat offenders.
• sien 1y ago
  From the article : "Americans worried about their country’s sky-high rate of crash deaths haven’t had much to cheer lately. " This is untrue. America's motor vehicle fatality rate per billion vehicle miles has gone from 3.35 in 1980 to 1.27 in 2023. It's a dramatic reduction. In 1980 there were 51K fatalities in the US, in 2023 there were 40K. In 1980 there were 226M Americans, in 2020 there were 331M. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in_U.S._by_year https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in... Other developed countries are doing even better. But it's disingenuous not to note that the US car fatalities have improved considerably over the past half a century. For comparison, Australia has done even better : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_Australia_by_year https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_i... But in Australia there are still lots of articles bemoaning car fatalities without acknowledging the dramatic decline in car fatalities by distance traveled and per capita. Enforcing speeds for repeat speeders may well be a good idea though. In the UK applications on phones are being used for insurance policies to work out which drivers are more likely to have accidents and change insurance rates. https://www.zixty.com/how-do-car-insurance-apps-work/ https://www.zixty.com/how-do-car-insurance-apps-work/
  • cowsandmilk 1y ago
    Over the 15 years from 2008-2023, fatality rate per 100 million VMT has largely been stable, maybe increased some. I think that qualifies as not having recent wins.
    • wat10000 1y ago
      The decades-long trend of increasing safety came to an end right as smartphones took off. I don’t think this is a coincidence.
      • tonyedgecombe 1y ago
        It's probably more to do with the arrival of SUV's.
  • limitedfrom 1y ago
• robocat 1y ago
  We need to discourage dangerous drivers. I am hoping we get personal in-car police cameras. I see dangerous driving regularly, and yet there is no easy way to report drivers. Today a truck cut back in from a turning lane and cut off the car in front of me causing an emergency braking situation for everyone driving behind. Perhaps there could also be AI auto-detect of thoughtless driving that auto-sends a simple video to the driver showing their behavior? Trucks and buses really need cameras because people drive like lunatics around heavy vehicles (cutting off, insane overtaking, yadda yadda). Speeding itself is definitely dangerous in many places, but often it seems too be enforced in places where it is against the rules but not actually dangerous (enforced to get money and infraction-count incentives). My guess is that we enforce speeding in part for correlation (those who ignore speed limits often ignore more sensible safety rules?) Clearly speeding is correlated with dangerous drivers, but that doesn't mean that speeding is always dangerous per se. Dangerous drivers are not caught often enough, and catching dangerous driving would be the best signal for detecting likely harmful behavior towards others.
  • aunty_helen 1y ago
    Ok, in that case should we also explore ticketing drivers that are less skilled to a point they’re much more likely to cause an accident? What about those that drive less safe cars for themselves/other drivers/pedestrians?
  • tabender 1y ago
    > I am hoping we get personal in-car police cameras. What are you actually imagining this would look like?
    • robocat 1y ago
      I am thinking a WiFi camera with a voice activated capture of dangerous driving incidents. A peer review of incidents (phone App) or a police review (I can think of multiple funding models). Perhaps cameras are somewhat networked to capture multiple cameras when an incident is flagged? Dangerous incidents should lead to consequences (financial, licensing, insurance etcetera). My assumption is that that a majority of serious accidents are caused by a few reckless drivers. Remove those reckless drivers from the roads and we can reduce harm. The difficulty is to design a system that is fair and that isn't abused by authorities (Extremely difficult to avoid - and perception of abuse cannot be avoided). My assumption could easily be wrong: perhaps most accidents are good drivers on a bad day? I wish tailgaters could be automatically ticketed (easily detected by camera in car going opposite direction on two way roads). With cameras, we could also start to scientifically detect the right signals to detect people before they cause accidents. Lane wandering? Emergency brakers? People who cut off cyclists? I know old drivers that would never speed, but who are dangerously poor driving due to other causes. In New Zealand we have many fatalities every year from tourists who are used to driving on the right, who collide head-on with other innocent drivers because the tourist drives on the wrong side of the road on rural roads. This is detectable and fixable. I absolutely loath the idea of state surveillance, and there's a slippery slope that starts with "won't you think of the children", but sometimes thinking of the children is the right thing to do. Avoiding misuse and abuse by authorities is hard, but society has the responsibility to design systems to avoid that. Here is an article on reckless drivers: https://transalt.org/reports-list/yn29thckywv9n0qpsv4jb1ab07nryp https://transalt.org/reports-list/yn29thckywv9n0qpsv4jb1ab07... I think the article indicates (1) speeding is correlated with dangerous driving (e.g. running red lights), and (2) that adding speed limiters won't fix the problem. If hundreds of tickets didn't fix them, limiting speed won't either. (3) that people love to fix correlations but that we need to fix causations.
• RainyDayTmrw 1y ago
  Separately from whether you think a policy is good on its own merits, you have to consider whether you think the existing establishment will enforce a policy correctly, fairly, or well.
• bradlys 1y ago
  Another method for the state to collect tax dollars. Speed limits have a very low effect on “saving lives”. People will drive whatever speed they think is suitable for the road they’re on. Go out to places where the speed limit is 55mph but it’s a straight stretch with high visibility and everyone will be going 90mph+. Is everyone suddenly dying on this road? No. However, it’s great revenue generation for the local police departments to start ticketing people. If you’re concerned about the speeds of which people are going - design your roads such that they don’t make sense to go quick. (And I don’t mean ridiculous speed bumps that are wildly ineffective and just increase the amount of noise in your local neighborhood) I don’t think most people are concerned about 25 vs 30mph in cramped city roads with many pedestrians. I think most Americans get pissed off when you start saying you can’t go 80mph on what is essentially an autobahn like 280 in Silicon Valley. It’s ridiculous the speed limit there is sometimes 55 for no justification whatsoever. It’s a massive open road where you can often have visibility for miles. I’m saying this as someone living in NYC where I don’t think cars should even exist. But if you have to have cars, Jesus Christ make it efficient to get around and stop using every fucking mean possible to just tax middle class people to death. These things won’t bother anyone with any real money. I should know, I get my tickets every so often. I consider them my little tax and I get no points to my license every time. I have radar and will be installing laser jammers soon (god damn cops on 280 are running laser at midnight now, wtf).
• steveBK123 1y ago
  Good. The pandemic really opened up roads in the US to ever more dangerous Wild Wild West shenanigans. Traffic laws are one of those situations where the right and left politically accidentally land on the same outcome (via different paths) - near zero enforcement. In many cases we have the technology to solve these things and laws already there if we wanted to actually enforce them. It’s incredibly jarring returning to NYC after a week in Tokyo and realizing how insane our roads & highways are.
• sandworm101 1y ago
  Does nobody else see the pattern? Speed governers are dead-simple to install. They could be in all new cars within days through software. But they dont want simple. They want a system that needs to be installed by a contractor. Id bet good money that the people supporting these bills are the same ones who want the monopoly on the state-mandated service. If you have ever dealt with ankle monitoring companies, or those who install court-mandated breathalizers in cars, you know they are scum. They bid for/buy a state monopoly then set about milking people who have no other choices. Rather than simple software, they will want a byzantine system of install, monitoring and removal fees, preferably attached to every car in someone's household.
• illiac786 1y ago
  I don’t get that. Repeat offender => temporary removal of driving license. Done. You can make it progressive, remove it for a week, next time 3, etc. I guarantee this will calm people down.
  • cryptoegorophy 1y ago
    Yeah. That solves the problem. Repeat 3 times? Lifetime ban. Full self driving can’t come soon enough.
  • FrancisMoodie 1y ago
    It says in the article that people who lose their drivers license on account of speeding usually keep on driving anyway. I also feel like this is already the case in a lot of countries yet speeding still exists so I don't know if I agree that this is this simple solution no one is thinking of.
    • illiac786 1y ago
      Ok the problem is not the speeding then, it’s the fact people without driving licenses can drive daily without getting caught.
    • ReptileMan 1y ago
      Fairly simple solution - catch someone driving with taken license - 364 days in jail.
      • saalweachter 1y ago
        (Yes, I know I am conflating your view with other people's in this thread.) "GPS-based speed limiters are too draconian. We should throw more people in prison."
    • Clubber 1y ago
      Most police cars that I know of have license scanners and that scanner will inform police if the owner of said car has a suspended license, which results in an immediate trip to jail.
• ApolloFortyNine 1y ago
  Found another article that mentions it adjusts to the speed limit and allows you to go up to 9mph over. Its hard to find issue with applying it only to the biggest offenders, but if this does break out into all cars in 10 years we'll have yet another example of slippery slope regulations. Passing safely (single lane roads) for one would likely be more dangerous in this reality.
  • ryao 1y ago
    This seems appropriate here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOwmgEeSoms https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOwmgEeSoms Now whenever I hear someone was unable to pass on a highway because of that law, I will imagine this.
• tagami 1y ago
  My uncle has a country place That no one knows about He says it used to be a farm Before the Motor Law
• globular-toast 1y ago
  Might as well decorate their cars with warnings as well, like learners, e.g. "Warning, irresponsible driver". This seems ridiculous because it makes it too obvious what's going on, ie. allowing proven irresponsible drivers to continue using motor vehicles on the public highway.
• ErigmolCt 1y ago
  If it's narrowly targeted at repeat super-speeders with some emergency override built in, it might strike a reasonable balance. Definitely feels like one of those "good idea, but needs extremely careful implementation" situations.
  • amelius 1y ago
    Why do we even need to think about emergency speeds, honestly?
• nsteel 1y ago
  Maybe this has already been discussed elsewhere on hn but surely this is the scariest part: > U.S. Department of Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy wants to stop funding “active” transportation projects such as sidewalks The powers in the US think they don't need to sort out their embarrassing pedestrian facilities. Amazing. Shocking. I feel sorry for US residents, at least those that didn't vote this dumpster fire in.
  • Clubber 1y ago
    This is a half truth. This is what I found. "Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy warned states that they will lose federal funding for roads, bridges and other infrastructure projects if they continue to foster diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs, impede President Trump’s immigration enforcement efforts or defy other directives from the administration." It far time to stop taking what the news says at face value. They've been doing this for decades.
    • nsteel 1y ago
      I did actually look a bit harder before I commented, I'm aware of how the media works. "Unleashing American Energy" pauses (cancels) all the "Green New Deal" programs as stated in the article. There was supposedly federal funding for a lot of new public transit projects that's now gone. Maybe it'll come back later, reframed as new projects... but I think that's extremely unlikely for a lot of this. The focus is now elsewhere. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/unleashing-american-energy/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/unle...
• frereubu 1y ago
  I wonder if speeding is like other crimes, where a very small percentage of people cause a very large percentage of the problems. If so, seems like this could make a significant difference.
• souenzzo 1y ago
  another example of a problem that would not exist if there was urban planning (walkable cities) and public transport (trains/bus/etc)
• kotaKat 1y ago
  Good. Karen in her shitty Chevy Tahoe ZR1 F-Series Canyonero needs to learn that the speed limit signs say 55, not 75-85. Cops won’t do their bare minimum job we pay them to do, so it’s time for technology to close the gap.
  • bayindirh 1y ago
    This is a technological solution to a social problem, and will create more problems, instead of solving it. There was a quote about this, but failed to find it now. Hmprhrf.
• oliv__ 1y ago
  Yet another regulation to control people. Taking your freedom away one law at a time... Can't imagine what life in 2050 will look like. By that point, you will have a mandated government inspector living in your home to make sure you comply
  • jdance 1y ago
    Its pretty clear at this point that people want this kind of control implemented, its in the ”zeitgeist”. I have not figured out why, but it does seem that people are more scared then ever. Its a bit weird on HN where people generally understand this problem regarding privacy, but in other topics like this one they act like the general populace ”put the speeders in jail!”
  • jdance 1y ago
    The inspector will be AI btw :) (and the year 203x..)
• voidUpdate 1y ago
  Could I choose to have a device that lowers the maximum in exchange for lower insurance rates? I've never seen the point in speeding
  • dymk 1y ago
    You sort of can, the OBD port dongles offered by some insurance providers take things like braking and acceleration into account to determine rates
  • potato3732842 1y ago
    This product doesn't exist because it isn't actually correlated with claims paid out. For the average insured hitting stuff at 100+mph is hidden in the sub basement archives of long tail risk. It happens so rarely insurers don't feel a need to address it specifically.
• solatic 1y ago
  Cities can replace smooth asphalt with rough brick and cobblestone, and replace traffic lights with traffic circles / roundabouts. If they really want to force cars to slow down, they could, in a way that doesn't take anyone's rights away and doesn't require any vehicle manufacturer to play ball. Freedom isn't free. It's always cheaper to take away people's freedom instead of doing the hard work of building infrastructure to naturally promote traffic calming. Too bad America (left and right) doesn't believe in freedom anymore.
  • inglor_cz 1y ago
    "Cities can replace smooth asphalt with rough brick and cobblestone" There are some cobblestone streets in Prague and cars driving through them, even slowly, generate a lot of unnecessary noise. Count me out, I don't want to suffer from extra noise just because it would slow some people down. I lived in one such street for years and even with sporadic traffic, I had to open my windows at night. I hated that.
    • herbst 1y ago
      You mean the historic city center? Pretty sure that's not exactly state of the art
      • inglor_cz 1y ago
        This place: https://maps.app.goo.gl/hfDcJek99whs9Ghu8 https://maps.app.goo.gl/hfDcJek99whs9Ghu8 Cobblestone is an old technology, though. How does "state of the art" differ from what we can see on this street view?
        • HenryBemis 1y ago
          I think someone can drive 80km/h on this one. Plus they should be super-slippery in rain, right? I remember crossing Poland towards Lithuania some years back, and in some village 1h from the border had a 500m part with stones, and those stones used would force me to do 25-30km/h and not more, I feared that my tires would burst, also the noise was unbearable.
• HenryBemis 1y ago
  I am thinking a Black Mirror-like scenario, that in the peak of the episode, someone's life is at risk, and they got the speed-limiter to 10km/h (due to past offenses) and the baddie can run fast, catch them, kill them. (kinda like 15MM or Nosedive but for driving speed)
• smeej 1y ago
  Why are typical passenger vehicles even sold with the ability to go so fast? Or perhaps more pertinently, why aren't any typical passenger vehicles I've ever heard of sold without the ability to go so fast? I think the overwhelming majority (like 90%+) of people would happily buy a car that couldn't go more than 100mph. Many who only rarely leave their cities and would be happy to use alternate transportation if they did would probably buy a car that couldn't go more than 50mph. Going that fast seems like a feature most people don't care enough about that they'd be willing to pay for it, so why does the market appear to include it by default?
  • davemp 1y ago
    I’m not much of a gear head but I believe that a car would perform much worse at 0-80mph if it couldn’t physically reach 120mph. You can artificially limit it and I think that’s what folks take with.
    • robin_reala 1y ago
      Volvo limit all their cars to 110mph and no-one seems to care. https://www.media.volvocars.com/global/en-gb/media/pressreleases/268578/every-volvo-model-now-comes-with-a-180kph-speed-limit-and-care-key https://www.media.volvocars.com/global/en-gb/media/pressrele...
      • deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
  • HDThoreaun 1y ago
    Because people dont want to buy cars that cant go over 100 mph. > I think the overwhelming majority (like 90%+) of people would happily buy a car that couldn't go more than 100mph You are empirically wrong I think.
    • codelikeawolf 1y ago
      Most people driving on I-294 in Illinois would agree. Just "keeping up with traffic" normally requires you to go about 80mph. If my car topped out at 50 or 60mph, I'd be frustrated as hell.
• davemp 1y ago
  The US has really poor highway policy that encourages speeding. Many highways have a speed limit of 55mph (89kmh) left over from some ancient oil rationing law. [0] So folks are conditioned to think that speed limits are stupid, because frankly many of them are here. I regularly drive on highways that would be 120kmh (75mph) in Europe but are instead 89kmh. Most traffic ends up going 70-75mph (including traffic enforcement) anyways which makes the speed limits look like a joke when 80% of folks ignore it. Which brings me to why I think folks are generally against better speed limit enforcement here—most people regularly speed (by 15-20mph) without being unsafe. The US should first revise its limits and actually get police officers out there enforcing them before resorting to automatic limiters. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Maximum_Speed_Law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Maximum_Speed_Law
  • nkrisc 1y ago
    Enforcement should focus on the speed outliers, less on the posted limit itself. If the speed limit is 65mph, but all traffic is moving at 75mph, then I'm going to drive at 75mph. The most dangerous drivers I've seen are those going 30mph or more faster or slower than the rest of traffic. Yes, the problem is that then makes enforcement subjective and that itself can lead to abuses. But it's a sensible approach in the short term. Because of my morning routine, I often end up getting on the highway around the same time as this other driver who merges into highway traffic at 35mph, and several times they've nearly caused a crash. They're as much a menace as the idiots weaving in and out of traffic at 100mph+. In many cases the state and local police are always speeding here as well, going the same speed as everyone else (regularly 15-20mph over the limit). Fortunately I do often see them pulling over the aforementioned idiots going 100mph+. Though I wish they'd at least give warnings to the people going dangerously slow as well.
    • potato3732842 1y ago
      > Though I wish they'd at least give warnings to the people going dangerously slow as well. Same. A little "ma'am, I'm not asking you to floor it, but at least try and do a little better than a loaded garbage truck" would go a long way.
  • 1y ago
• beardicus 1y ago
  lots of "freedom"-loving pushback on this law here. sorry y'all, we live in a society and your actions affect others. you choosing to endanger my life on the road does not make me more free. i think these speeders should just lose their license to drive forever, so maybe choose to view this law as a compassionate compromise.
  • gregoriol 1y ago
    A lot of things are more dangerous than going over speed limits, and it will not be possible to prevent everything with technical gadgets.
    • op00to 1y ago
      So let’s just do nothing! Why bother doing anything!
      • const_cast 1y ago
        Yes, this is exactly my problem with this type of reasoning. You can make these arguments for anything. If we can't even get the most obvious low-hanging fruit because "aww it's slightly inconvenient" then we can't even DREAM of solving complex problems. This new "we've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas" mentality towards policy is so toxic. That's the only guaranteed way to not solve a problem! It's an anti-solution!
        • gregoriol 1y ago
          Sometimes not solving a problem could actually be better. We have to try new things, I do agree, all the time. But every time you change something, you also create ways for new problems.
          • const_cast 1y ago
            I agree with this, too. But institutions and systems need constant maintenance and tweaking. Like code, they rot in the face of an ever-changing society.
• ryao 1y ago
  > The safety argument against speeding is ironclad. Blazing-fast vehicles take longer to brake and exert more force in a crash, thereby endangering everyone else on the roadway. This is not so iron clad if you do some basic reading or thinking. Research has shown that setting speed limits blow the 85th percentile increases crashes from vehicles having less uniformity of speed. Rather than work against something that is natural, they would be better off getting the people who actually listen to the speed limits to drive faster so that they stop endangering others. Another way of looking at things is that higher speeds mean cars spend less time on the road. Fewer cars on the road implies that the distances between them are greater. Crashes only occur when distances between cars reach 0. Lower speeds as are being advocated by that article mean that the distances between cars will decrease, making things potentially more accident prone. All of those arguments about what happens in a collision do not matter when the cars never collide. For example, the German autobahn has far higher speeds than US roads and their collision rate is lower, which illustrates the benefits of having more space between cars from having them drive faster to get them off the road sooner. Finally, it is unfortunate that attempts at safety are trying to make motorists drive slower, which will cause more car accidents, causing people to push even harder for more measures to prevent them, that are likely to be just as backward.
• hermannj314 1y ago
  This has as much to do with chronic speeding as bans on encryption have to do with terrorism. It is nothing more than a foot in the door for massive police surveillance of all motor vehicles. Virginia famously cares more about police than the rights of its citizens so it isn't a surprise the weapons of the future police state are being born there.
  • dabeeeenster 1y ago
    You're using a highly regulated piece of equipment that kills over 40,000 people in America annually. What do you feel is the appropriate balance? How is this different to driving around with a mobile phone on?
    • marketneutral 1y ago
      I think the point is that we should aim to solve it without surveillance / sacrificing rights. So in this case, increasing the fines / jail time is at least one alternative.
      • deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
      • nelox 1y ago
        Seriously? It is logically no different from drink driving. No one has the right to drive. You need to qualify, be tested, licensed and competent. If you break the law repeatedly, then you should be restricted from driving by any means necessary to protect you from yourself and others.
      • _Algernon_ 1y ago
        Not sure in how incarceration can be considered a smaller sacrifice of rights than vehicle tracking.
        • pc86 1y ago
          Not sure how incarcerating people who are guilty of a crime is unconscionable but monitoring everyone all the time and eliminating the ability to move from Point A to Point B privately is totally fine and no problem whatsoever.
• graemep 1y ago
  Repeat offenders should not be allowed to drive. In the UK we have 12 points, and lose them for various offences. You get a fine, usually with the alternative of a course the first time. Speed again within 12 months and you get a fine and a minimum of three points (more if you are well above the limit). Speed again within four years and you will lose more points, and AFAIK pretty much guaranteed to be more than the minimum. Get caught speeding more than once an year and you are guaranteed to lose your license. I think this is necessary. I say this as someone who complains about some of the speed limits in my area as they are too low (20mph zones seem a bit random) - I still follow them!
  • dabeeeenster 1y ago
    The only problem is a decent percentage of people plead to the courts that they need their vehicle to work and hence get let off
    • graemep 1y ago
      That is true, but they should still face fines, lost points and higher insurance costs.
      • ChoGGi 1y ago
        You're assuming they have insurance. I think it's something like 1-5 don't have insurance in Texas.
        • Leynos 1y ago
          Interesting. It's illegal to drive without insurance in the UK.
          • vel0city 1y ago
            It's illegal to drive without insurance in Texas as well. It's also illegal to murder someone and yet people still do it from time to time. Stealing is illegal and yet stuff gets stolen. Drunk driving is illegal and yet people drive drunk. Turns out just making something illegal doesn't completely stop the action. When we build our societies where you need to drive to function it's not surprising people will continue to drive when they shouldn't. Maybe we should build our societies so people don't have to drive just to live.
• ChoGGi 1y ago
  Good, now how about red light cameras? And heaven forbid, safety inspections to remove some deathtraps? Just remember to use proper names for the legislation, like "make our streets safe again" and "keep foreigners away from schools", or you'll get an executive order.
  • dwags 1y ago
    Virginia has required yearly safety inspections
• snowwrestler 1y ago
  The Fast Company article says “Republicans in Virginia just passed a law to make it a punishment for repeated traffic violations.” But the Virginia legislature is currently controlled by the Democrats. And the delegate quoted in this local news story is a Democrat: https://wjla.com/news/local/anti-speeding-device-car-reckless-drivers-virginia-law-legislation-speed-assistance-technology-convicted-driving-over-100-miles-per-house-camera-gps-drivers-license-fines-jail-time-patrick-hope https://wjla.com/news/local/anti-speeding-device-car-reckles... That story is probably more useful than the Fast Company one. It clarifies that the new law gives judges the option to require an ISA device to be installed at the defendant’s expense. > Before the legislation, judges only had the power to suspend a driver’s license, issue fines, or sentence to jail. It does not require manufacturers to pre-install them, and it does not use the electronics built into the car. It sounds analogous to the breathalyzer devices that are an option for judges in some jurisdictions.
  • shlant 1y ago
    lol I had shared the original article to a group with the comment "rare republican policy win" and then had to immediately retract that after reading your comment
  • matthewdgreen 1y ago
    Here are the votes: https://www.billtrack50.com/billdetail/1767611 https://www.billtrack50.com/billdetail/1767611 ETA: click the "Votes" tab.
    • Brybry 1y ago
      Which looks bipartisan with Democrats strongly for it and only some Republicans against. Official state legislature bill page for future reference: https://lis.virginia.gov/bill-details/20251/HB2096 https://lis.virginia.gov/bill-details/20251/HB2096
  • jasonlotito 1y ago
    These were the sponsors. Patrick Hope (D)*, Betsy Carr (D), Holly Seibold (D) So, really not sure how the author got to "Republicans in Virginia"
• Hobadee 1y ago
  Can we all stop equating speed with being unsafe? I've heard this BS stat that speed is a factor in car deaths. If speed were really so dangerous, then planes would be one of the least safe methods of travel. The real problem is people driving outside the limits of what is safe for the road, car, situation, or themselves. This is the reason there is a 25MPH limit in school zones, where some kid darting out in front of you is likely, but the exact same road during non-school hours is often 35 or 40 MPH. Cars these days are extremely safe at high speeds, and speeding in and of itself isn't necessarily unsafe. It's when the driver does something else unsafe, and couples it with high speeds, that things get deadly.
• austin-cheney 1y ago
  I have never understood the chronic war on travel velocity. Its like the war on drugs, but far more pointless. Speed is just one of many factors, and perhaps the least significant, in the frequency and probability of traffic accidents. Speed is absolutely a factor in the severity of an accident, but not the probability of one after accounting for all other variables. For example, if you leave sufficient distance between your vehicle and the vehicle in front of you then speed is almost completely eliminated as a factor of accidents on most freeways. I really think municipalities go to war on speed just as a means to retrieve extra tax revenue.
  • matthewdgreen 1y ago
    Limiting the speed of chronic speeders doesn't seem like it maximizes tax revenue, though.
  • ponector 1y ago
    You accept speed as a huge factor in the severity of an accident but cannot understand the war against speeding?
    • ryao 1y ago
      The speed limits are set artificially low to try to reduce fleet fuel consumption, yet are well known to increase the probability of accidents since they violate the 85th percentile principle. Attempts to enforce the artificially low speed limits cause more collisions while claiming to be intended to prevent collisions. Given that, it makes perfect sense why he cannot understand it. It is unfit for its stated purpose.
    • austin-cheney 1y ago
      Even more severe than high speed is driving while sleepy, but nobody is proposing a law to regulate sleep. Also more severe than speed is the mass of vehicle. Severity is also far more impacted by vehicle mass, but I don't see any movement towards regulating vehicles be as heavy as possible. I can come up with many more examples to illustrate the stupidity of focusing on severity and speed versus frequency and probability.
• nickpinkston 1y ago
  From my cold dead right foot
• topherPedersen 1y ago
  Thank God. People on the roads are extremely reckless and we don't do anything about it. Our highways are lawless for the most part. People can drive however they feel like it. You literally have to kill someone AND be drunk before you actually get in trouble and are locked up. If you kill someone sober though, it's totally fine under our current system. In my opinion, if you get caught driving recklessly, the punishment should be that you're banned from operating 4 wheel vehicles, and only allowed to operate light 2 wheel vehicles like scooters where you will only kill yourself and no one else.
  • CalRobert 1y ago
    What's remarkable is that we already effectively banned kids from playing outside and drivers still kill many of the few that still try.
    • jjulius 1y ago
      >... we already effectively banned kids from playing outside... Do what now?
      • CalRobert 1y ago
        Once upon a time crossing the street meant walking across a 20 foot road with the occasional small car going 20-25 mph. Now it's a 4-8 lane stroad full of 6,000 pound trucks that can't see anyone shorter than 5 feet past the hood going 50 mph. How far will you let your kid walk from home alone? Anyway my point is just that pedestrian deaths have gone up even as the number of miles walked and biked (_especially_ by kids - the modeshare for biking to school has absolutely plummetted) goes down.
        • Aurornis 1y ago
          > Now it's a 4-8 lane stroad People weren’t letting their kids play near 8 lane freeways back in the day, either.
• esbranson 1y ago
  Starting off with superfluous agitprop... And ending with it. Hate for Trump is classic misdirection, it's amazing just how much propaganda is in even the most basic public policy articles. Like, damn, it was the Biden administration that told the NTSB to go pound sand.[1] [1] https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/2024-04/NHTSA-NTSB-Response_April-2024_Intelligent-Speed-Assistance_ISA-Interlock_Speeding_NCAP.pdf https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/2024-04/NHTSA-NT...
• foxyv 1y ago
  This should honestly be a requirement on ALL vehicles. Speed governors are such an easy retrofit and would save so much pain and death. Tailgating and speeding are the two biggest quality of life problems on the road today.
• michaelmrose 1y ago
  Is this going to be accurate enough not to draw the wrong speed from adjacent roadways?
• peterbecich 1y ago
  In California we have a 2023 law AB 645 which allows speed cameras in a few major cities. Unfortunately, implementation is going slowly: https://cal.streetsblog.org/2024/12/05/speed-camera-pilot-program-is-not-moving-very-fast-if-at-all https://cal.streetsblog.org/2024/12/05/speed-camera-pilot-pr...
• meristohm 1y ago
  There's a governor on my ebike that prevents the battery from pushing the bike faster than a set speed. I can pedal it faster than that sometimes, but that is a limiting factor. I'm not opposed to such governors in automobiles. If you can Flintstone it faster, go for it.
• stealthlogic 1y ago
  [dead]
• jerryseff 1y ago
  I actually fully agree with this. Don't remove the rights of normal folks not breaking the law because a few people have zero sense or respect for the safety of others. Both sides of the isle could learn a lot from this kind of thinking...