3 ms·

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?

by wffurr 2y ago

almosthere 2y 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 2y ago
  That arguement doesn’t make sense. We (VA) already require ignition interlocks on DUI’s cars. This isn’t much different.
  - wffurr 2y 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 2y 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_ 2y 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.
- alistairSH 2y ago
  Sure but electronically limiting that car to 80mph retains the “nice at highway speed” aspects while blocking the ability to go 120mph down I-95.
  - _bin_ 2y ago
    Well 80 would be a bad limit; there are roads in Texas posted 85 which means you can do 94 without even state troopers hassling you. I don't want a static limit because I can't go race, and I don't want a dynamic limit because 1. it's not perfect and I'd really chafe against being limited to 65 or 75 as a fallback, and 2. I don't trust the government that once tried to put in a nationwide 55mph speed limit for non-safety-related reasons, and 3. I hate prior restraint. I believe it's generally wrong to limit normal, law-abiding people because of bad actors. So, if your argument is "this might be practical to reduce collision deaths", I'm not going to agree with you on that, because "reducing collision deaths" isn't as important as my values.
    - alistairSH 2y ago
      This law isn’t prior restraint - the state is trying to g to install these in repeat offenders’ cars. But, to that point, I mostly agree. I’d rather we hired some quality road engineers and urban planners who are willing to build roads and towns that aren’t car-dependent hellscapes.
      - _bin_ 2y ago
        I have less of an issue installing these in the vehicles of repeat offenders but much of the conversation here has been around more general installation or mandating of governors. I doubt that existing areas are going to see that happen. Plus, I'd rather live in a totally car-dependent area because 1. it makes it harder for people I don't want to live near to move in. Lower crime, fewer cars on blocks in front yards, etc. and 2. I like having lots of space. I like having room for a shop/lab combo. I like having space for a full-size piano. I am not willing to surrender all that for the sake of "walkability". Also 3. it's 105F in the summer here. Honestly, I'm not much interested in walkable cities in this part of the country.
i80and 2y ago
VW and Audi MEB vehicles have an interesting difference: the ID.4 is limited to 100mph, while the Audi version with the same motors and platform is not limited to said speed.
DangitBobby 2y ago
High speeds are not an added feature of these vehicles. The power output required for practical acceleration also affords sustained high speeds. To prevent those speeds, manufacturers would have to add speed governors, which Americans would not be delighted to pay for (paying to have their freedoms restricted by bureaucrats, of course). Even if they came standard, speed demons could easily remove a governor.
- mindslight 2y ago
  My understanding is that vehicles already have speed governors that constrain them to the max speed rating of their tires. (I'm not really trying to be on the opposite side of this argument though. If speed limits reflected the speeds most traffic goes, police themselves followed the speed limits, and disrupting traffic by dawdling in the middle lane stoned or with AI missile mode engaged were a law enforcement priority - then maybe I'd believe. But as it stands speed limits mostly serve as an excuse for cops to sit around playing candy crush until they selectively hassle a motorist)

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?

by wffurr 2y 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 2y 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 2y ago
That arguement doesn’t make sense. We (VA) already require ignition interlocks on DUI’s cars. This isn’t much different.
- wffurr 2y 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 2y 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_ 2y 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.

alistairSH 2y ago
Sure but electronically limiting that car to 80mph retains the “nice at highway speed” aspects while blocking the ability to go 120mph down I-95.
- _bin_ 2y ago
  Well 80 would be a bad limit; there are roads in Texas posted 85 which means you can do 94 without even state troopers hassling you. I don't want a static limit because I can't go race, and I don't want a dynamic limit because 1. it's not perfect and I'd really chafe against being limited to 65 or 75 as a fallback, and 2. I don't trust the government that once tried to put in a nationwide 55mph speed limit for non-safety-related reasons, and 3. I hate prior restraint. I believe it's generally wrong to limit normal, law-abiding people because of bad actors. So, if your argument is "this might be practical to reduce collision deaths", I'm not going to agree with you on that, because "reducing collision deaths" isn't as important as my values.
  - alistairSH 2y ago
    This law isn’t prior restraint - the state is trying to g to install these in repeat offenders’ cars. But, to that point, I mostly agree. I’d rather we hired some quality road engineers and urban planners who are willing to build roads and towns that aren’t car-dependent hellscapes.
    - _bin_ 2y ago
      I have less of an issue installing these in the vehicles of repeat offenders but much of the conversation here has been around more general installation or mandating of governors. I doubt that existing areas are going to see that happen. Plus, I'd rather live in a totally car-dependent area because 1. it makes it harder for people I don't want to live near to move in. Lower crime, fewer cars on blocks in front yards, etc. and 2. I like having lots of space. I like having room for a shop/lab combo. I like having space for a full-size piano. I am not willing to surrender all that for the sake of "walkability". Also 3. it's 105F in the summer here. Honestly, I'm not much interested in walkable cities in this part of the country.

i80and 2y ago

VW and Audi MEB vehicles have an interesting difference: the ID.4 is limited to 100mph, while the Audi version with the same motors and platform is not limited to said speed.

DangitBobby 2y ago

High speeds are not an added feature of these vehicles. The power output required for practical acceleration also affords sustained high speeds. To prevent those speeds, manufacturers would have to add speed governors, which Americans would not be delighted to pay for (paying to have their freedoms restricted by bureaucrats, of course). Even if they came standard, speed demons could easily remove a governor.

mindslight 2y ago
My understanding is that vehicles already have speed governors that constrain them to the max speed rating of their tires. (I'm not really trying to be on the opposite side of this argument though. If speed limits reflected the speeds most traffic goes, police themselves followed the speed limits, and disrupting traffic by dawdling in the middle lane stoned or with AI missile mode engaged were a law enforcement priority - then maybe I'd believe. But as it stands speed limits mostly serve as an excuse for cops to sit around playing candy crush until they selectively hassle a motorist)