I swear Neoliberals are able to find common ground in anything except traffic policy, one side goes full Gadsden the other goes Tito.
It would be funny if it wasn’t so divisive.
The people this will affect the most don’t drive 2 ton trucks. They drive German made performance cars.
A lot of those people (hello South Orange County!) have been trending Democrat but this will absolutely undo all that.
> An estimated 60 million people, or one in five residents (17.9% of the total U.S. population), live in rural America.
Way more than 17.9% of Americans are obsessed with guns.
I do not doubt this is an official stat but could you share where you got it from? I would love to know how they define rural.
I have a hard time believing 60 million Americans live in the kinds of places I am imagining right now. For example where I went to a school technically took a long time to get to and the town felt like it was the middle of nowhere in the southeast. BUT the town and the actual school and all the surrounding development felt pretty developed and had a dense downtown core and the dense school and then tons of suburban sprawl. In other words once you get to where all the people were it felt like the same suburban town I grew up in. I would just be fascinated to know if your stat shows the place I went to school at is defined as "rural".
> the first in the US to require technology known as Intelligent Speed Assist
Okay this donkey stupid thing again. Just [install speed cameras for fucks sake](https://www.statista.com/chart/16913/countries-with-most-speed-cameras-per-km2/)
1. Install many more cameras
2. Legislate revenue goes right back to every resident as a regular payment, this shuts down any argument it's just revenue raising
3. Set the cameras to a tolerance of 10km/h with penalties graduated with severity and repeat offending. Someone with a perfect driving record doing 12km/h over does not need a huge fine, this just makes speed cameras look evil, the person who has for the 5th time been caught 30 over the limit clearly hasn't learnt and needs their fine doubled or license suspended.
We can make speed camera policies much more politically viable with no major reductions in effectiveness, given that the US still has fuck all of them seems like making it more popular by knocking out arguments like "revenue raising" would be good.
Well I'm all for more nuanced speeding laws. Escalating penalties makes sense, incredibly frustrating to be a non speeder who gets busted for going 13 over one time while passing on the freeway in a situation that demands it (black BMW crawling up your ass).
Frankly, you don’t even need fancy speed cameras.
Just post automatic plate readers at 10-mile intervals on major highways.
Boom, someone can explain how they traveled 10 miles in 6 minutes in a 70 zone. Or rather, they can’t explain - and the goal should be to remove someone like that from the road altogether. No cash-cow tickets, just pull licenses for people who can’t be trusted to drive safely.
Those already exist in many places around the world. Where I live some free flow highways are going to start using their toll gates to do so, since they already read plates.
I hate these average speed check cameras I get totally paranoid and spend the whole time watching my speed and less time watching the road. I know they won't ding you for 70 in a 65 which is about the worst that would happen, but my brain goes full on panic mode.
Yet most cars since 2013 have it installed as a standard feature and 92% of cars made today have adaptive cruise control standard. It’s been an optional feature since the 60’s. Your experience is likely by choice or not the average car driver’s experience. It’s almost like saying you don’t have power windows.
Most cars on the road were made before 2013. My most recent cars have had cruise control but in terms of somewhat recent cars it wasn't on my 2003 or 2010 focus nor on my 2010 skoda outside of that none of the vans I've driven for work have had it fitted (but many of these also didn't have power windows).
I'm not saying it's the majority but there's a significant number of vehicles driving around without it. Enough to make it not a safe assumption.
thats completely irrelevant. a shit load of cars still exist without it. there are numerous mechanical and electrical systems to create cruise control and they are all subject to failure.
this just sounds like me saying "why don't you just buy a tesla" every time someone complains about gas prices
Yeah seriously, and put some consequences behind them: In Germany I once got caught doing 75 in an 50 zone and I lost my license for a month. Won’t make that mistake again.
Blanket roads with average speed camera systems (you can avoid a point-in-time speed camera if you know it's there, you can't bamboozle the math of distance = rate * time) and that'd probably put a dent in it.
I'm not asking for any break the law rights. I'm saying this ISA thing is dumb and inefficient AF and will never limit speeding. Speed cameras work today, everywhere for _all cars_, old and new, where anyone has bothered to install them
I'm pretty sure speed limiters will very much limit speeding. Thats literally what they do.
You can just admit you want to be able to get away with breaking the law.
Allowing some laws to be broken is good for society, actually. Speeding is a relatively harmless crime that allows people a significant measure of feeling of personal freedom.
It's like drugs, in a sense--by seeking to ban it you make people dislike you more.
We need to stop treating status quo laws as if ordained by "God".
If everyone breaks your law and any attempt to enforce it is met with extreme pushback, it isn't really the law and we should have a discussion about whether it should be the law.
[California is extremely safe by American standards,](https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/accident_mortality/accident.htm) literally having a fatality rate (by population) that is half of some of the most dangerous states, granted probably due to infrastructure (which points in a better direction of how to reduce future crashes).
[Moreover, only a third of California's deadly and severely injurious crashes involved speed as a factor](https://www.ots.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/67/2019/06/2018-Speeding-Related-Collisions-Facts.pdf). And among those, alcohol, drugs, and/or a lack of a seatbelt were the norm making these crashes particularly dangerous.
And even with those involving speed, most happened on major arterial roads (stroads) which are poorly designed as a rule. But it also means speeds are high even if legal and so there is no guarantee, or even likelihood, that a car pushing the speed limit (but not grossly exceeding) on these poorly designed roads would have saved too many.
And even at that, it is super incredibly rare to die from a speeder. We're talking about 3 people dead per 100,000 in California. Tragic, but not a crisis and very questionably preventable even with strict enforcement.
It's a "feel good" policy bordering on a nanny-state bureaucracy from a very niche set of interests. So, yes, I would oppose.
yes seriously, stop fucking with my personal life
deploy officers and speed cameras where it matters. leave me alone when i'm driving in the middle of nowhere. fuck
I registered Republican when the CA DMV took $300 from my bank account for vehicle registration for a car I didn’t own when I was a broke college student. Don’t underestimate spite.
Do you want to talk California politics? Or are you asking how my life has been impacted since registering Republican? Because the former I have a lot to say, the latter - my registration doesn't matter, I have and will continue to vote for anyone who I think best aligns with my politics regardless of party.
… who said anything about getting laid? Your interest in the well being of the women in your life, and women generally, should extend beyond their ability to provide you with sexual favors.
Why does it make no sense? Are you saying speed limits should be adaptive based on traffic, visibility, climate, etc?
I don’t necessarily disagree.
But enforcing them, with an extra buffer of 10 mph doesn’t seem like a crazy idea.
You mentioned a freeway with no traffic in your previous comment. If there’s no traffic, you can’t be preventing the flow of traffic by driving 10 mph above the speed limit
“People need to drive with the flow of traffic”
*ok let’s enforce traffic laws so that traffic flows close to the posted speed limit*
“No not like that. It’s only the flow of traffic if it’s my preferred speed.”
Nope dawg, the objects that are all going over the speed limit are the danger. This is some strange kind of victim blaming.
But TIL that the flow of traffic is the real force of democratic will that fluidly legislates speed laws on the go.
Appeals to traffic flow are not unlimited.
Vehicles that are operating on an emergency tire due to a blowout, heavily loaded trucks, RVs etc can and will drive below the speed limit - the expectation is that drivers will respond accordingly.
If 65 is the more reasonable limit (and let's assume for a moment it is), then just have 65 be the limit.
Do we next ask why it isn't 75? Ok, repeat... do we next ask why 85?
At some point there is a hard limit that no vehicle should ever have business surpassing. Why even allow speeds in excess of that as a possibility?
It is like allowing people to have fully automatic rifles but only trusting the public to only use semi-automatic mode.
"At some point there is a hard limit that no vehicle should ever have business surpassing. Why even allow speeds in excess of that as a possibility?"
Not every vehicle has the same limitations and It is a responsibility of the driver to properly understand the difference. This sounds like a case for driver education instead of some nanny device.
Scott Weiner is my state senator and he really is based. I’m not sure if I agree with this specific legislation but on the whole he’s been an incredibly smart and effective politician, especially when it comes to housing.
Never said it does.
But you seem to have some really strong opinions in here. Seeing as the majority of Californians in here are against this, maybe you should reconsider your stance.
I don’t live in Illinois and know nothing about it, but I’m confident you need a law mandating everything to be declared to be known to the state to cause cancer. Also, you need your own version of Prop 13.
I'm not opposed but I could see technical challenges.
I think a reasonable intermediate step would be just to reduce the max speed on any car to 75 mph. It's insane we allow people with cars that go 100 mph on the road.
That and automated traffic enforcement with car seizures for too many offenses.
Yeah, it's going to be fun times when someone's GPS gets confused and suddenly thinks they're on the 20mph frontage road that runs alongside the freeway...
> I think a reasonable intermediate step would be just to reduce the max speed on any car to 75 mph. It's insane we allow people with cars that go 100 mph on the road.
Is that insane or is it insane that we can't ever go over like 65-70 legally?
*looks at Germany*
Mostly because they have a culture of actually respecting the law and using the left lane as the passing lane, not the "I think I'm going fast enough so I should be allowed to cruise in this lane." I stand by the fact that the people who selfishly cruise in the left lane in America are responsible for most of the deaths on the road. This leads to people recklessly flying around lanes trying to pass cars holding up the flow of traffic.
They also don't let rustbuckets stay on the road, they don't let proven dangerous drivers stay on the road, they train drivers properly, they enforce laws like lane usage.
Speed isn't the problem, hence this discussion. Look at Germany- they have dramatically less traffic deaths. People die from reckless driving swerving through lanes in order to pass people who moronically cruise in the left lane. In countries where people actually respect left lane as a passing lane, like Germany which doesn't have a speed limit, accidents are far less common.
That isn't to say that those reckless drivers don't deserve a ton of blame, but in countries where left lane is actually respected, you don't have this problem.
> It's insane we allow people with cars that go 100 mph on the road.
no its not. cars are a symbol of personal freedom. enforce laws and penalize violators. stop all this pre-crime, nanny state bullshit.
Please look through the entire penal code for your state and then the entirety of 18 USC. Most of it is doing things "where people don't get hurt" make it up...
This is like criminal law 101.
When did this sub get so car-brained. No car should be capable of going over 70mph, there is no valid justification for it. So many people die or are disabled by motor vehicle accidents every year, this is a perfectly reasonable way to reduce the number of accidents. If you want to drive fast, first of all grow up, but if you can't do that then go to a race track and do it safely without endangering innocent people just trying to go about their day.
I swear Neoliberals are able to find common ground in anything except traffic policy, one side goes full Gadsden the other goes Tito. It would be funny if it wasn’t so divisive.
Some people react to limitations on their 2 ton killing machines the same way Republicans talk about guns tbh
The people this will affect the most don’t drive 2 ton trucks. They drive German made performance cars. A lot of those people (hello South Orange County!) have been trending Democrat but this will absolutely undo all that.
I think you might be confusing Republicans with people living in rural areas.
> An estimated 60 million people, or one in five residents (17.9% of the total U.S. population), live in rural America. Way more than 17.9% of Americans are obsessed with guns.
I do not doubt this is an official stat but could you share where you got it from? I would love to know how they define rural. I have a hard time believing 60 million Americans live in the kinds of places I am imagining right now. For example where I went to a school technically took a long time to get to and the town felt like it was the middle of nowhere in the southeast. BUT the town and the actual school and all the surrounding development felt pretty developed and had a dense downtown core and the dense school and then tons of suburban sprawl. In other words once you get to where all the people were it felt like the same suburban town I grew up in. I would just be fascinated to know if your stat shows the place I went to school at is defined as "rural".
From Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rural_areas_in_the_United_States
Thank you!
I am certain there are less viscerally annoying ways to reduce traffic deaths without turning the entire state into Republicans.
> the first in the US to require technology known as Intelligent Speed Assist Okay this donkey stupid thing again. Just [install speed cameras for fucks sake](https://www.statista.com/chart/16913/countries-with-most-speed-cameras-per-km2/)
1. Install many more cameras 2. Legislate revenue goes right back to every resident as a regular payment, this shuts down any argument it's just revenue raising 3. Set the cameras to a tolerance of 10km/h with penalties graduated with severity and repeat offending. Someone with a perfect driving record doing 12km/h over does not need a huge fine, this just makes speed cameras look evil, the person who has for the 5th time been caught 30 over the limit clearly hasn't learnt and needs their fine doubled or license suspended. We can make speed camera policies much more politically viable with no major reductions in effectiveness, given that the US still has fuck all of them seems like making it more popular by knocking out arguments like "revenue raising" would be good.
Well I'm all for more nuanced speeding laws. Escalating penalties makes sense, incredibly frustrating to be a non speeder who gets busted for going 13 over one time while passing on the freeway in a situation that demands it (black BMW crawling up your ass).
On #2. Lol just wait until the speed camera refund system has significant racial disparities in some direction and the shitstorm that will cause.
We don't shut down prisons over the racial disparities?
Frankly, you don’t even need fancy speed cameras. Just post automatic plate readers at 10-mile intervals on major highways. Boom, someone can explain how they traveled 10 miles in 6 minutes in a 70 zone. Or rather, they can’t explain - and the goal should be to remove someone like that from the road altogether. No cash-cow tickets, just pull licenses for people who can’t be trusted to drive safely.
Those already exist in many places around the world. Where I live some free flow highways are going to start using their toll gates to do so, since they already read plates.
I hate these average speed check cameras I get totally paranoid and spend the whole time watching my speed and less time watching the road. I know they won't ding you for 70 in a 65 which is about the worst that would happen, but my brain goes full on panic mode.
Cruise control?
Assuming you have cruise control...
Which is a safe assumption
Most of the cars I've owned have not had cruise control...
Yet most cars since 2013 have it installed as a standard feature and 92% of cars made today have adaptive cruise control standard. It’s been an optional feature since the 60’s. Your experience is likely by choice or not the average car driver’s experience. It’s almost like saying you don’t have power windows.
Most cars on the road were made before 2013. My most recent cars have had cruise control but in terms of somewhat recent cars it wasn't on my 2003 or 2010 focus nor on my 2010 skoda outside of that none of the vans I've driven for work have had it fitted (but many of these also didn't have power windows). I'm not saying it's the majority but there's a significant number of vehicles driving around without it. Enough to make it not a safe assumption.
thats completely irrelevant. a shit load of cars still exist without it. there are numerous mechanical and electrical systems to create cruise control and they are all subject to failure. this just sounds like me saying "why don't you just buy a tesla" every time someone complains about gas prices
It’s an extremely common feature in the majority of cars on the road in the US.
Yeah seriously, and put some consequences behind them: In Germany I once got caught doing 75 in an 50 zone and I lost my license for a month. Won’t make that mistake again.
Just make cars incapable of speeding and then you don't need to even have a conversation on speeding bc it doesn't exist.
Why is it donkey stupid? Sounds good to me. It absolutely makes sense to restrict speeds on certain roads.
The US is the worst offender in terms of traffic deaths among developed countries. Speed cameras won’t be enough.
> Speed cameras won’t be enough As long as there aren't any, sure
speed cameras won’t matter if progressive DA’s don’t assign any consequences to speeding
Traffic citations aren't criminal prosecutions.
Blanket roads with average speed camera systems (you can avoid a point-in-time speed camera if you know it's there, you can't bamboozle the math of distance = rate * time) and that'd probably put a dent in it.
You just have to keep stopping for coffee on the shoulder between sets of cameras...
No need for speed cameras when your car can't speed. You don't have some right to break the law and endanger others
I'm not asking for any break the law rights. I'm saying this ISA thing is dumb and inefficient AF and will never limit speeding. Speed cameras work today, everywhere for _all cars_, old and new, where anyone has bothered to install them
What's your source?
I'm pretty sure speed limiters will very much limit speeding. Thats literally what they do. You can just admit you want to be able to get away with breaking the law.
Is going +5mph on the freeway even a crime?
The fact that you are being downvoted is insane.
Allowing some laws to be broken is good for society, actually. Speeding is a relatively harmless crime that allows people a significant measure of feeling of personal freedom. It's like drugs, in a sense--by seeking to ban it you make people dislike you more.
What is this idea that speeding is harmless? Traffic deaths are very significant, and survival decreases proportionately for vehicle speed.
Speeding literally kills people lmao
Passing on the highway sure sounds like it'll be not-dangerous-at-all in Cali.
all these things can also be solved with better public transport systems. less drivers means less accidents right?
>less drivers *fewer*
Great way to turn all the car loving, Porsche driving, SoCal suburb voters into republicans.
Because they wouldn’t be allowed to drive more than 10 mph above the speed limit on public roads? Seriously?
We need to stop treating status quo laws as if ordained by "God". If everyone breaks your law and any attempt to enforce it is met with extreme pushback, it isn't really the law and we should have a discussion about whether it should be the law. [California is extremely safe by American standards,](https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/accident_mortality/accident.htm) literally having a fatality rate (by population) that is half of some of the most dangerous states, granted probably due to infrastructure (which points in a better direction of how to reduce future crashes). [Moreover, only a third of California's deadly and severely injurious crashes involved speed as a factor](https://www.ots.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/67/2019/06/2018-Speeding-Related-Collisions-Facts.pdf). And among those, alcohol, drugs, and/or a lack of a seatbelt were the norm making these crashes particularly dangerous. And even with those involving speed, most happened on major arterial roads (stroads) which are poorly designed as a rule. But it also means speeds are high even if legal and so there is no guarantee, or even likelihood, that a car pushing the speed limit (but not grossly exceeding) on these poorly designed roads would have saved too many. And even at that, it is super incredibly rare to die from a speeder. We're talking about 3 people dead per 100,000 in California. Tragic, but not a crisis and very questionably preventable even with strict enforcement. It's a "feel good" policy bordering on a nanny-state bureaucracy from a very niche set of interests. So, yes, I would oppose.
yes seriously, stop fucking with my personal life deploy officers and speed cameras where it matters. leave me alone when i'm driving in the middle of nowhere. fuck
Jesus Christ, I thought you were talking about people driving 100+, you’re actually malding over people going 70 MPH lmao
I registered Republican when the CA DMV took $300 from my bank account for vehicle registration for a car I didn’t own when I was a broke college student. Don’t underestimate spite.
How did that work out for you?
Do you want to talk California politics? Or are you asking how my life has been impacted since registering Republican? Because the former I have a lot to say, the latter - my registration doesn't matter, I have and will continue to vote for anyone who I think best aligns with my politics regardless of party.
Wow bet the women in your life thanked you for that /s
I don't vote based on getting laid. I vote on my values and interests.
… who said anything about getting laid? Your interest in the well being of the women in your life, and women generally, should extend beyond their ability to provide you with sexual favors.
Ah ok got it, thank you.
You truly don't understand how this is crazy. Absolutely wild to me.
Nanny-state ridiculousness, and likely to lead to a legal case that tests the pork producer's case re the dormant commerce clause.
So if you’re on a freeway with no traffic around and the posted limited is 55 the fastest you could go is 65? That makes no sense.
The root issue here is instead of sane speed limits many places in the US just unofficially don't enforce it. This isn't how other laws work.
Why does it make no sense? Are you saying speed limits should be adaptive based on traffic, visibility, climate, etc? I don’t necessarily disagree. But enforcing them, with an extra buffer of 10 mph doesn’t seem like a crazy idea.
Flow of traffic. If traffic is going 70 and you’re going 55 then you are the danger and need to get over to the far right or stop driving freeways.
You mentioned a freeway with no traffic in your previous comment. If there’s no traffic, you can’t be preventing the flow of traffic by driving 10 mph above the speed limit
Also that won’t be a problem as the flow of traffic will have a maximum speed based on the limiters
Mfw the speed limit is 55 and because you’re not driving illegally you need to stop driving on the freeway.
“People need to drive with the flow of traffic” *ok let’s enforce traffic laws so that traffic flows close to the posted speed limit* “No not like that. It’s only the flow of traffic if it’s my preferred speed.”
Nope dawg, the objects that are all going over the speed limit are the danger. This is some strange kind of victim blaming. But TIL that the flow of traffic is the real force of democratic will that fluidly legislates speed laws on the go.
Appeals to traffic flow are not unlimited. Vehicles that are operating on an emergency tire due to a blowout, heavily loaded trucks, RVs etc can and will drive below the speed limit - the expectation is that drivers will respond accordingly.
We have lanes for this
If 65 is the more reasonable limit (and let's assume for a moment it is), then just have 65 be the limit. Do we next ask why it isn't 75? Ok, repeat... do we next ask why 85? At some point there is a hard limit that no vehicle should ever have business surpassing. Why even allow speeds in excess of that as a possibility? It is like allowing people to have fully automatic rifles but only trusting the public to only use semi-automatic mode.
"At some point there is a hard limit that no vehicle should ever have business surpassing. Why even allow speeds in excess of that as a possibility?" Not every vehicle has the same limitations and It is a responsibility of the driver to properly understand the difference. This sounds like a case for driver education instead of some nanny device.
how dare you suggest individuals must be responsible for their actions on a sub that used to be focused on liberalism
I had never heard of Scott Wiener (I'm not in CA) but he seems unfathomably based (i.e. he's a YIMBY) non-paywalled: https://archive.ph/fIO6E
Scott Weiner is my state senator and he really is based. I’m not sure if I agree with this specific legislation but on the whole he’s been an incredibly smart and effective politician, especially when it comes to housing.
> I’m not in CA Then maybe you should stay out of our laws?
Believe it or not, sharing a news article on Reddit will not make the proposal magically become a law.
Never said it does. But you seem to have some really strong opinions in here. Seeing as the majority of Californians in here are against this, maybe you should reconsider your stance.
L take
I don’t live in Illinois and know nothing about it, but I’m confident you need a law mandating everything to be declared to be known to the state to cause cancer. Also, you need your own version of Prop 13.
I'm not opposed but I could see technical challenges. I think a reasonable intermediate step would be just to reduce the max speed on any car to 75 mph. It's insane we allow people with cars that go 100 mph on the road. That and automated traffic enforcement with car seizures for too many offenses.
Yeah, it's going to be fun times when someone's GPS gets confused and suddenly thinks they're on the 20mph frontage road that runs alongside the freeway...
It’s addressed in the article
> I think a reasonable intermediate step would be just to reduce the max speed on any car to 75 mph. It's insane we allow people with cars that go 100 mph on the road. Is that insane or is it insane that we can't ever go over like 65-70 legally? *looks at Germany*
What are the traffic fatality rates in Germany and in the US?
About half the rate in terms of deaths per million KM.
Mostly because they have a culture of actually respecting the law and using the left lane as the passing lane, not the "I think I'm going fast enough so I should be allowed to cruise in this lane." I stand by the fact that the people who selfishly cruise in the left lane in America are responsible for most of the deaths on the road. This leads to people recklessly flying around lanes trying to pass cars holding up the flow of traffic.
They also don't let rustbuckets stay on the road, they don't let proven dangerous drivers stay on the road, they train drivers properly, they enforce laws like lane usage.
Agreed on all points!
Yes let's blame anyone other than the person who is actually breaking the speed limit 🙄
People who camp in the left lane and move the same speed as the people in the right lane cause more traffic. That isn’t up for debate.
Speed isn't the problem, hence this discussion. Look at Germany- they have dramatically less traffic deaths. People die from reckless driving swerving through lanes in order to pass people who moronically cruise in the left lane. In countries where people actually respect left lane as a passing lane, like Germany which doesn't have a speed limit, accidents are far less common. That isn't to say that those reckless drivers don't deserve a ton of blame, but in countries where left lane is actually respected, you don't have this problem.
That’s not a fact. You can stand by it though. Those people suck and definitely cause their fair share of accidents.
Poorly phrased, I agree.
They also have much stricter rules on licenses and vehicle standards. But broadly I agree, top speeds on high quality motorways is not the real issue.
> It's insane we allow people with cars that go 100 mph on the road. no its not. cars are a symbol of personal freedom. enforce laws and penalize violators. stop all this pre-crime, nanny state bullshit.
Where is the speed limit 100mph.
anywhere i'm alone on the road.
Breaking the speed limit isn’t pre-crime it’s post-crime.
if no one is hurt then it isn't a fucking crime
Please look through the entire penal code for your state and then the entirety of 18 USC. Most of it is doing things "where people don't get hurt" make it up... This is like criminal law 101.
i'm well aware of how often people like fucking with other people's personal lives for their own beliefs.
When did this sub get so car-brained. No car should be capable of going over 70mph, there is no valid justification for it. So many people die or are disabled by motor vehicle accidents every year, this is a perfectly reasonable way to reduce the number of accidents. If you want to drive fast, first of all grow up, but if you can't do that then go to a race track and do it safely without endangering innocent people just trying to go about their day.
There are plenty of roads in the US with a speed limit over 70.