6 ms·

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 abou

by GuB-42 2y 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 2y 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 2y ago
  Because they spent it all on performance mods for their car.
  - dharmab 2y ago
    No, because rich car enthusiasts can afford track time. Performance mods are surprisingly affordable if you do all the labor yourself.
- xattt 2y ago
  What about the Gumball rallies? If that’s not a wealth flex over the unwashed masses, I don’t know what is.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
adrr 2y ago
How will my road legal car know when it’s on a track or a closed road? Some how putting a way to disable it defeats the purpose. If its GPS controlled, people will be spoofing GPS to remove the limit, just need a raspberry pie and some other components. You’ll have unintended consequences.
- protocolture 2y ago
  They demonstrated the japanese system on topgear once, and it was disgustingly accurate. They drove onto a track and bing it opened up. No lag or anything.
  - throwaway2037 2y ago
    > it was disgustingly accurate Real question (no trolling): Is this sarcastic? If not, I don't really understand this English.
    - lostlogin 2y ago
      I’m picking the poster is from somewhere like UK/Au/NZ. You’d see this here in NZ and not blink an eye. Is a beautiful turn of phrase!
    - tsimionescu 2y ago
      This is a common turn of phrase in many languages in informal speech, using negative adjectives for emphasis, instead of positive ones. It carries a light humourus tone, as it kind of implies that the thing "had no right" to be as good as it was, so the speaker is "chastising" it for being so good. I don't think it's specific to English in any way, but maybe it's also not common in every language or culture. It may also be more common in the UK and certain other English-speaking countries, that use irony a lot in regular (informal) speech.
- NewJazz 2y ago
  You could have steeper penalties for people who use those types of systems and then go on to get into accidents and kill people. I don't think first degree murder is beyond reason for someone who installs a defeater device and drives at 100 mph and kills someone.
dreamcompiler 2y ago
> with a possible exception for emergency vehicles Ambulance and fire truck driver here. There's no good reason for emergency vehicles to ever go much faster than the speed limit, and we would experience life-changing amounts of personal liability if our driving got someone hurt. While it's sometimes important to get a patient to the hospital as quickly as possible, that's less frequent than you might think, and it's always more important to get them there in one piece. In addition our vehicles are heavy and they don't stop quickly, so physics is another good reason for us not to speed. Police cars might be another story but my personal opinion is that speeding police cars probably don't create a net benefit for public safety either.
- bombcar 2y ago
  The era of the high-speed pursuit is basically over; you have "freeway speed pursuit" and "bear in the air" mostly these days.
- chippiewill 2y ago
  > my personal opinion is that speeding police cars probably don't create a net benefit for public safety either. 100%. The UK police will happily abandon a pursuit these days, it's been shown all too often that it causes far more damage and harm than it prevents. It's usually easy enough to track fleeing vehicles in other ways (helicopter, traffic cameras, static observations) that it's simply not proportionate.
flustercan 2y ago
I'm much more concerned about someone going 40mph in a 25 zone than someone going 110 in a 75.
- jakelazaroff 2y ago
  They aren’t mutually exclusive. What reason is there ever for a car to go 110?
  - josephcsible 2y ago
    Autobahns prove that it can be safe and reasonable.
    - dharmab 2y ago
      Could that not be allowed by the GPS based limiter system that Japanese sports cars have used in Japan for decades? if carOnAutoBahn { setLimiter(155) }
      - agos 2y ago
        in german autobahns there are segments with limits, either because the road conformation does not allow "unlimited" or because of temporary road work
        dharmab 2y ago
        The Japanese GPS based limiters were accurate enough to handle that, when Top Gear tested them around 15 years ago.
  - Gareth321 2y ago
    > What reason is there ever for a car to go 110? reply What reason is there ever for a car to go above 40mph? The obvious answer to your question is: quality of life. People like getting places faster. The purpose of governance is to balance quality of life with public safety. No matter how slow the speed limits, some people will die each year, so we're not haggling over the concept itself, but rather were we draw the line. For context, it's important to remember that the Autobahn is actually safer than U.S. highways despite the lack of speed limit (https://www.ncesc.com/geographic-pedia/is-the-autobahn-safer-than-us-highways/ https://www.ncesc.com/geographic-pedia/is-the-autobahn-safer...). In fact, it's even safer than other German roads (https://www.ncesc.com/geographic-pedia/what-is-the-accident-rate-on-the-german-autobahn/ https://www.ncesc.com/geographic-pedia/what-is-the-accident-...). Speed does not appear to be a primary contributing factor in accidents and fatalities insofar as the Autobahn is concerned. Meaning arguing to reduce or restrict speed provides marginal social benefit at comparatively larger cost.
lloeki 2y ago
> People love their fast cars, especially the rich and powerful Too much correlation, not enough causation here. Only "rich people" can afford pricey cars, while there are with much certainty "non rich people" that enjoy fast cars. And there are a ton of affordable cars that can go 200kph+, or that can be riced into being able to do so.
- jiri 2y ago
  Exactly. Otoh even the most patetic and slow cars can speed in urban zone with 30kph limit without problems.
- GuB-42 2y ago
  The reason I mentioned the rich and powerful is not in a sense that you have to get rich to drive fast. In fact, with a good motorbike, you can leave supercars in the dust for the price of the cheapest cars. The reasons I mentioned this goes the other way: the rich and powerful have more influence than the average guy, by definition. And they tend to like fast cars, it is a status symbol and they can afford it, and there is no denying that driving fast can be enjoyable. It means that they are going to do what they can (which is a lot) to keep the privilege.
alexjplant 2y 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? Good question. My guess is as follows: Per the NHTSA [1] alcohol, excess speed, and not wearing restraints are the top three causes of vehicle-related deaths in the US in roughly equal measure (although alcohol edges out the other two). The German autobahn infamously doesn't have a blanket speed limit and is about as safe as other European highway systems. To me this means that a case can be made for high speeds on public roads in the interest of expediency (though, for cultural reasons, I would not personally make it for the US). I can't, on the other hand, imagine endorsing road sodas or not wearing seat belts. In other words speed is only contextually dangerous while driving drunk and not using safety equipment are inherently bad which is why I'd imagine the latter two have been legislated. Anecdotally I'd be much happier if more attention was spent on enforcement against bad driving behavior like tailgating, weaving, failing to signal, driving drunk, and running traffic signals than speeding. Nearly every brush with death I've had on public roads has been due to these, not somebody doing 95 in the fast lane. [1] https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/813705 https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/...
- anon_e-moose 2y ago
  Phone usage while driving is a big one. Flat out looking down at your lap and texting, instead of looking at the road. I have seen people do this everywhere, in the city, in the highway.
- Gareth321 2y ago
  > The German autobahn infamously doesn't have a blanket speed limit and is about as safe as other European highway systems. It's actually even safer: https://www.ncesc.com/geographic-pedia/what-is-the-accident-rate-on-the-german-autobahn/ https://www.ncesc.com/geographic-pedia/what-is-the-accident-... When roads are well designed, maintained, and drivers well educated, and within the constraints of a culture which consider the impact of one's behaviour on others, speed does not appear to be a primary contributing factor in fatalities or accidents in general. However speed is a compounding factor when accidents occur. Meaning it increases the likelihood of fatalities when accidents do occur for other reasons. Still, despite all of this, the Autobahn has a significantly lower rate of fatalities than other roads within Germany.
ErigmolCt 2y ago
The tricky part is definitely enforcement - as you said, if people can mod around it, it risks becoming another "only the responsible people obey" situation
- dvngnt_ 2y ago
  Would assume the penalty would be the same as bypassing the court-ordered breathalyzer and getting caught.
swiftcoder 2y ago
I personally would be perfectly fine with a default software limiter that can be disabled when you get to the track (or a German autobahn). If you get in an accident on a public road with the car in track mode… they get to throw the book at you
- axelthegerman 2y ago
  This!! Even modern cars have some trouble knowing the actual speed limit of the road you're currently on. In Canada I don't think the speed limit is ever higher than 110 or 120km/h - limit to 130km/h and have an override, get full on in trouble (incl loosing all insurance) when disabled. If track use only maybe even have some kind of device that isn't publicly sold to disable the speed limit there. Also I doubt any north American car is randomly gonna show up at the German Autobahn - gonna get across the Atlantic first
Gareth321 2y ago
The primary reason is political: people don't like the idea of the government living inside our cars 24x7, telling us how fast we're allowed to go. Even though most of us don't speed. Other examples of this phenomenon include: * A government mandated alcohol, cigarette, and BMI limit to prevent major health issues. * Government surveillance of our emails, messages, phone calls, bank accounts and internet activity. * Abolishing cash so all our transactions are electronically monitored to prevent fraud, money laundering, crime, and tax evasion. * Limits on free speech. There are many examples of ways in which authoritarian policies could, in theory, make society safer. Some of us are more comfortable with authoritarianism than others.
- GuB-42 2y ago
  There is that, but in this case it is not particularly authoritarian. - There is already a whole lot of regulations on what makes a car street legal, including rules that can be quite unpopular among drivers and yet important on a large scale. In particular those related to the environment. - Limiting the top speed of cars does not imply surveillance or advanced GPS-based systems. The idea is just to make it so that the car can't exceed speeds well beyond the highest speed limit in the country. - The gouvernement is already telling you how fast you are allowed to go, and will watch you for it. A 100mph limitation will only affect you if you are speeding, if you don't speed, nothing will change for you. There are some exceptions and special cases: race cars, imports, etc... but these are just details that can be dealt with, as it done today on other aspects.
  - Gareth321 2y ago
    I think you're logically correct. It's the feeling such a policy elicits which makes it untenable. I agree with your points conceptually, but the moment I would have to install a government speed limiter on my car is the moment I vote for someone else. It feels invasive, and I don't like feeling like the paternal hand of the government is all the way up my ass, controlling my gas pedal.
    - bluecalm 2y ago
pj_mukh 2y ago
California tried to do this, the bill got watered down in committee [1]. It's probably true that purely GPS-based speed-limiting is not good enough. Imagine being on a 75mph highway with a 25mph service road right next to it and the GPS not knowing the difference. Still, interesting idea that could have legs when the technology got better. [1]: https://www.npr.org/2024/09/05/nx-s1-5099205/california-technology-speeding-drivers https://www.npr.org/2024/09/05/nx-s1-5099205/california-tech...
nitwit005 2y ago
Just limit it to 70 mph max, and require some sort of application to be filed to have it disabled. If that application can't be done at time of sale, most people won't bother.
- kube-system 2y ago
  Why 70? The maximum posted speed limit in the US is 85.
  - nitwit005 2y ago
    "The highest speed limit in the country is 85 mph (137 km/h), which is posted on a single stretch of tollway in exurban areas outside Austin, Texas." I think we'll live without that one. But yes, 75 would be more correct.
    - kube-system 2y ago
      Why is 75 more correct? There are plenty of major highways with 80mph limits. Furthermore, speed limits are changed regularly. There are still cars on the road that were sold when we had lower national speed limits.
      - nitwit005 2y ago
        Because any amount of inaccurate measurement would mean they were technically going over the limit. You'd have to put a little pad in it. I didn't propose anything related to existing cars.
        kube-system 2y ago
        > Because any amount of inaccurate measurement would mean they were technically going over the limit. You'd have to put a little pad in it. I don't think it is reasonable nor do people want to buy cars that won't even go the speed limit. > I didn't propose anything related to existing cars. I am saying that your proposal(s) will be obsolete after the car is sold. Because speed limits change and cars move to different places over time. If it could be waived at time of sale, this would just be a part of pre-deliver paperwork that dealers have everyone sign. Dealers don't wan't headaches of people coming back ticked off that their car won't do the speed limit. You're not mandating safety, you're mandating a new piece of paperwork.

by GuB-42 2y ago

WalterBright 2y 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 2y ago
Because they spent it all on performance mods for their car.
- dharmab 2y ago
  No, because rich car enthusiasts can afford track time. Performance mods are surprisingly affordable if you do all the labor yourself.
xattt 2y ago
What about the Gumball rallies? If that’s not a wealth flex over the unwashed masses, I don’t know what is.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

adrr 2y ago

How will my road legal car know when it’s on a track or a closed road? Some how putting a way to disable it defeats the purpose. If its GPS controlled, people will be spoofing GPS to remove the limit, just need a raspberry pie and some other components. You’ll have unintended consequences.

protocolture 2y ago
They demonstrated the japanese system on topgear once, and it was disgustingly accurate. They drove onto a track and bing it opened up. No lag or anything.
- throwaway2037 2y ago
  > it was disgustingly accurate Real question (no trolling): Is this sarcastic? If not, I don't really understand this English.
  - lostlogin 2y ago
    I’m picking the poster is from somewhere like UK/Au/NZ. You’d see this here in NZ and not blink an eye. Is a beautiful turn of phrase!
  - tsimionescu 2y ago
    This is a common turn of phrase in many languages in informal speech, using negative adjectives for emphasis, instead of positive ones. It carries a light humourus tone, as it kind of implies that the thing "had no right" to be as good as it was, so the speaker is "chastising" it for being so good. I don't think it's specific to English in any way, but maybe it's also not common in every language or culture. It may also be more common in the UK and certain other English-speaking countries, that use irony a lot in regular (informal) speech.
NewJazz 2y ago
You could have steeper penalties for people who use those types of systems and then go on to get into accidents and kill people. I don't think first degree murder is beyond reason for someone who installs a defeater device and drives at 100 mph and kills someone.

dreamcompiler 2y ago

> with a possible exception for emergency vehicles Ambulance and fire truck driver here. There's no good reason for emergency vehicles to ever go much faster than the speed limit, and we would experience life-changing amounts of personal liability if our driving got someone hurt. While it's sometimes important to get a patient to the hospital as quickly as possible, that's less frequent than you might think, and it's always more important to get them there in one piece. In addition our vehicles are heavy and they don't stop quickly, so physics is another good reason for us not to speed. Police cars might be another story but my personal opinion is that speeding police cars probably don't create a net benefit for public safety either.

bombcar 2y ago
The era of the high-speed pursuit is basically over; you have "freeway speed pursuit" and "bear in the air" mostly these days.
chippiewill 2y ago
> my personal opinion is that speeding police cars probably don't create a net benefit for public safety either. 100%. The UK police will happily abandon a pursuit these days, it's been shown all too often that it causes far more damage and harm than it prevents. It's usually easy enough to track fleeing vehicles in other ways (helicopter, traffic cameras, static observations) that it's simply not proportionate.

flustercan 2y ago

I'm much more concerned about someone going 40mph in a 25 zone than someone going 110 in a 75.

jakelazaroff 2y ago
They aren’t mutually exclusive. What reason is there ever for a car to go 110?
- josephcsible 2y ago
  Autobahns prove that it can be safe and reasonable.
  - dharmab 2y ago
    Could that not be allowed by the GPS based limiter system that Japanese sports cars have used in Japan for decades? if carOnAutoBahn { setLimiter(155) }
    - agos 2y ago
      in german autobahns there are segments with limits, either because the road conformation does not allow "unlimited" or because of temporary road work
      - dharmab 2y ago
        The Japanese GPS based limiters were accurate enough to handle that, when Top Gear tested them around 15 years ago.
- Gareth321 2y ago
  > What reason is there ever for a car to go 110? reply What reason is there ever for a car to go above 40mph? The obvious answer to your question is: quality of life. People like getting places faster. The purpose of governance is to balance quality of life with public safety. No matter how slow the speed limits, some people will die each year, so we're not haggling over the concept itself, but rather were we draw the line. For context, it's important to remember that the Autobahn is actually safer than U.S. highways despite the lack of speed limit (https://www.ncesc.com/geographic-pedia/is-the-autobahn-safer-than-us-highways/ https://www.ncesc.com/geographic-pedia/is-the-autobahn-safer...). In fact, it's even safer than other German roads (https://www.ncesc.com/geographic-pedia/what-is-the-accident-rate-on-the-german-autobahn/ https://www.ncesc.com/geographic-pedia/what-is-the-accident-...). Speed does not appear to be a primary contributing factor in accidents and fatalities insofar as the Autobahn is concerned. Meaning arguing to reduce or restrict speed provides marginal social benefit at comparatively larger cost.

lloeki 2y ago

> People love their fast cars, especially the rich and powerful Too much correlation, not enough causation here. Only "rich people" can afford pricey cars, while there are with much certainty "non rich people" that enjoy fast cars. And there are a ton of affordable cars that can go 200kph+, or that can be riced into being able to do so.

jiri 2y ago
Exactly. Otoh even the most patetic and slow cars can speed in urban zone with 30kph limit without problems.
GuB-42 2y ago
The reason I mentioned the rich and powerful is not in a sense that you have to get rich to drive fast. In fact, with a good motorbike, you can leave supercars in the dust for the price of the cheapest cars. The reasons I mentioned this goes the other way: the rich and powerful have more influence than the average guy, by definition. And they tend to like fast cars, it is a status symbol and they can afford it, and there is no denying that driving fast can be enjoyable. It means that they are going to do what they can (which is a lot) to keep the privilege.

alexjplant 2y 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? Good question. My guess is as follows: Per the NHTSA [1] alcohol, excess speed, and not wearing restraints are the top three causes of vehicle-related deaths in the US in roughly equal measure (although alcohol edges out the other two). The German autobahn infamously doesn't have a blanket speed limit and is about as safe as other European highway systems. To me this means that a case can be made for high speeds on public roads in the interest of expediency (though, for cultural reasons, I would not personally make it for the US). I can't, on the other hand, imagine endorsing road sodas or not wearing seat belts. In other words speed is only contextually dangerous while driving drunk and not using safety equipment are inherently bad which is why I'd imagine the latter two have been legislated. Anecdotally I'd be much happier if more attention was spent on enforcement against bad driving behavior like tailgating, weaving, failing to signal, driving drunk, and running traffic signals than speeding. Nearly every brush with death I've had on public roads has been due to these, not somebody doing 95 in the fast lane. [1] https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/813705 https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/...

anon_e-moose 2y ago
Phone usage while driving is a big one. Flat out looking down at your lap and texting, instead of looking at the road. I have seen people do this everywhere, in the city, in the highway.
Gareth321 2y ago
> The German autobahn infamously doesn't have a blanket speed limit and is about as safe as other European highway systems. It's actually even safer: https://www.ncesc.com/geographic-pedia/what-is-the-accident-rate-on-the-german-autobahn/ https://www.ncesc.com/geographic-pedia/what-is-the-accident-... When roads are well designed, maintained, and drivers well educated, and within the constraints of a culture which consider the impact of one's behaviour on others, speed does not appear to be a primary contributing factor in fatalities or accidents in general. However speed is a compounding factor when accidents occur. Meaning it increases the likelihood of fatalities when accidents do occur for other reasons. Still, despite all of this, the Autobahn has a significantly lower rate of fatalities than other roads within Germany.

ErigmolCt 2y ago

The tricky part is definitely enforcement - as you said, if people can mod around it, it risks becoming another "only the responsible people obey" situation

dvngnt_ 2y ago
Would assume the penalty would be the same as bypassing the court-ordered breathalyzer and getting caught.

swiftcoder 2y ago

I personally would be perfectly fine with a default software limiter that can be disabled when you get to the track (or a German autobahn). If you get in an accident on a public road with the car in track mode… they get to throw the book at you

axelthegerman 2y ago
This!! Even modern cars have some trouble knowing the actual speed limit of the road you're currently on. In Canada I don't think the speed limit is ever higher than 110 or 120km/h - limit to 130km/h and have an override, get full on in trouble (incl loosing all insurance) when disabled. If track use only maybe even have some kind of device that isn't publicly sold to disable the speed limit there. Also I doubt any north American car is randomly gonna show up at the German Autobahn - gonna get across the Atlantic first

Gareth321 2y ago

The primary reason is political: people don't like the idea of the government living inside our cars 24x7, telling us how fast we're allowed to go. Even though most of us don't speed. Other examples of this phenomenon include: * A government mandated alcohol, cigarette, and BMI limit to prevent major health issues. * Government surveillance of our emails, messages, phone calls, bank accounts and internet activity. * Abolishing cash so all our transactions are electronically monitored to prevent fraud, money laundering, crime, and tax evasion. * Limits on free speech. There are many examples of ways in which authoritarian policies could, in theory, make society safer. Some of us are more comfortable with authoritarianism than others.

GuB-42 2y ago
There is that, but in this case it is not particularly authoritarian. - There is already a whole lot of regulations on what makes a car street legal, including rules that can be quite unpopular among drivers and yet important on a large scale. In particular those related to the environment. - Limiting the top speed of cars does not imply surveillance or advanced GPS-based systems. The idea is just to make it so that the car can't exceed speeds well beyond the highest speed limit in the country. - The gouvernement is already telling you how fast you are allowed to go, and will watch you for it. A 100mph limitation will only affect you if you are speeding, if you don't speed, nothing will change for you. There are some exceptions and special cases: race cars, imports, etc... but these are just details that can be dealt with, as it done today on other aspects.
- Gareth321 2y ago
  I think you're logically correct. It's the feeling such a policy elicits which makes it untenable. I agree with your points conceptually, but the moment I would have to install a government speed limiter on my car is the moment I vote for someone else. It feels invasive, and I don't like feeling like the paternal hand of the government is all the way up my ass, controlling my gas pedal.
  - bluecalm 2y ago

pj_mukh 2y ago

California tried to do this, the bill got watered down in committee [1]. It's probably true that purely GPS-based speed-limiting is not good enough. Imagine being on a 75mph highway with a 25mph service road right next to it and the GPS not knowing the difference. Still, interesting idea that could have legs when the technology got better. [1]: https://www.npr.org/2024/09/05/nx-s1-5099205/california-technology-speeding-drivers https://www.npr.org/2024/09/05/nx-s1-5099205/california-tech...

nitwit005 2y ago

Just limit it to 70 mph max, and require some sort of application to be filed to have it disabled. If that application can't be done at time of sale, most people won't bother.

kube-system 2y ago
Why 70? The maximum posted speed limit in the US is 85.
- nitwit005 2y ago
  "The highest speed limit in the country is 85 mph (137 km/h), which is posted on a single stretch of tollway in exurban areas outside Austin, Texas." I think we'll live without that one. But yes, 75 would be more correct.
  - kube-system 2y ago
    Why is 75 more correct? There are plenty of major highways with 80mph limits. Furthermore, speed limits are changed regularly. There are still cars on the road that were sold when we had lower national speed limits.
    - nitwit005 2y ago
      Because any amount of inaccurate measurement would mean they were technically going over the limit. You'd have to put a little pad in it. I didn't propose anything related to existing cars.
      - kube-system 2y ago
        > Because any amount of inaccurate measurement would mean they were technically going over the limit. You'd have to put a little pad in it. I don't think it is reasonable nor do people want to buy cars that won't even go the speed limit. > I didn't propose anything related to existing cars. I am saying that your proposal(s) will be obsolete after the car is sold. Because speed limits change and cars move to different places over time. If it could be waived at time of sale, this would just be a part of pre-deliver paperwork that dealers have everyone sign. Dealers don't wan't headaches of people coming back ticked off that their car won't do the speed limit. You're not mandating safety, you're mandating a new piece of paperwork.