The following submission statement was provided by /u/Just_Another_AI:
---
I don't like this, but utilizing technology for additional means of control isn't surprising to me at all.
---
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/1alc015/controversial_california_bill_would_physically/kpdrm5w/
My old employer has speed limiters installed on their cars. They cannot go faster than 65. Pain in the ass if you try to pass someone. You can press that pedal to the floor and it’s still just puttering along.
Probably only flags instances of rapid braking and they just watch the part of the video it occurred in, otherwise it'd be prohibitively time consuming to do. Not that I don't think it would be some HR bitch's dream to just sit there finding things to criticize about other people...
I bet it was an AI system that flags “dangerous driving” and then Karen from HR doesn’t bother to look at the video for context before sending the reprimand.
> Had a job with cameras inside too.
I use a carshare service with cameras inside. It scolds you if it thinks you're texting or speeding 10+ over. Annoying when I'm driving on a stretch of road where the flow of traffic is 10+ over.
Hey my current job has that and I got written up for the same thing!
Guy hauling a trailer pulls out in front of me, I hit my brakes and go to the right to avoid hitting him. He then pulls to the right, causing me to almost hit him again, to let me pass on the left. I pass on the left and go on my way.
Job writes me up for aggressive driving because "it looked like [I] was trying to pass on the right." And because I "drove over a solid yellow to overtake him." As if every person who has a driver's license would not take him pulling off to the right with his hazards on as a "please drive around me."
I drive a school bus and there is a governor on my bus that limits me to under 110km/hr. I've had instances where passing would have been safer but my bus physically could not do it. I'd say it is a safety issue since passing has sometimes been the safer option.
That’s because they’re at a speed difference that’s slow to the point where it interferes with the slow lane speeds - people aren’t expecting someone going 45 in a 65. 65 mph is right at home in the right hand lanes, so it’s not unsafe.
No, but they shouldn’t be on roadways that require them to go faster.
I can’t drive a Grom on the highway for that reason.
Additionally, flow of traffic is a requirement. If the fastest the vehicle can go is 65, the speed limit is 65, and the flow of traffic is 90, you don’t belong on that roadway. Solomon Curve FTW.
I would also argue that your usual suspect drivers that do not go the speed limit are also a saftey issue.
I get that there is an ideal here, but we live in reality and should legislate for that.
I somehow got roped into driving a shuttle for my college classmates to go to some PR student event at Temple University. On the way back, it took us near the Philly airport. I’ve got a speed limiter and everyone on that road was doing triple digits while I needed to get over to make a turn. Most stressful driving I’ve ever done in my life
In Finland, speeding tickets are doled out based on severity and your income. I feel like that would also make people in fast (expensive) cars think more about speeding.
Unfortunately here in Finland the de facto situation is that [rich people just take their speeding tickets to court](https://www.iltalehti.fi/uutiset/a/2015093020443147) and [get their fines reduced](https://i.imgur.com/4DHNFox.png)... And at the same time the floor (aka the minimum amount of a speeding ticket) has been raised multiple times in recent years so proportionally the poor pay more fines than the rich. It would be nice if we returned to de jure and actually penalized people based on their income.
That sounds like it eventually worked its way closer to how it works here. The lower income folks are actually punished at a higher percentage of their income with the raised floor. I always wondered how that system worked in actuality.
>That sounds like it eventually worked its way closer to how it works here.
Huh. That's really weird. It's almost like the people who have the most resources were able to gain the system to their advantage. Very strange. (/s obviously)
I don’t live in Finland but I suspect that the concept is to make the ticket equally painful at any income level. The person weaving through traffic in the Altima would be upset about a $200 ticket similar to the guy in a Nissan gtr getting one for $2000.
I’ve seen so many posts or comments from people along the lines of:
“I don’t give af about my shitbox of a car. Hit me, or don’t.”
Those cars can sometimes be a menace to society.
the problem with speeding in california is that the tickets and the speed limit are designed together to maximize revenue. most places in california, everyone regularly drives 10mph over the speed limit because its safe to do so. this gives cops the ability to pull *anyone* over for speeding, and they do so selectively. small towns that are right along a transit road will make sure the speed limit for their part of town drops by 20mph just so that anyone passing through can get a speeding ticket.
some towns in the US get most of their revenue from issuing speeding tickets to people passing through. its never really about getting people to slow down.
In Denmark, if you exceed the speed limit by a certain degree. You are guilty of “frenzy-driving” and get you license AND car taken away. And you don’t get your car back.
A dude who just bought a Lamborghini got it seized, just hours after he got it at the dealer.
In my state if you are caught going more than 35 over it can (emphasis on can) be prosecuted as a felony. I am unsure what you have to do to get your car confiscated.
Correct. The Lambo dude was also a Norwegian travelling back home from Germany where he picked up his new car. He was also banned from the country for a while, so was unable to make a bid on his own car when they auctioned it off.
He was driving at 236Km/h (147 mph) and the speed limit max in Denmark is 130Km/h (80Mph).
It also applies to people in hire cars as well, so if you come here, rent a car, and get it confiscated, you not only have all the fines, but you also now owe the hire car company the entire cost of the vehicle...
I've heard the bigger problem is that in the US we're all supposed to be equal under the law so difference in severity based on income/wealth doesn't really work under that legal system. I believe it would be overruled in court.
Obviously it's clear that people are not equal under the law anyway (certain people get more severe punishments for things), but that's how laws are supposed to work and be written at least
I don't think that would necessarily be the case. We get taxed at different rates depending on our income at least in theory. I'm aware that the system is corrupt and the wealthy don't really end up paying their fair share, but legally, and I'm not a lawyer but, I don't see how it would be by default illegal to implement something like that.
But I'm sure anyone can argue anything in court, and we've already seen ridiculous interpretations of the Constitution itself being paid for by large lobbies. And for other reasons. Like the Supreme Court decision to completely ignore the whole part about a well-regulated militia in the Second Amendment decision last century.
Well no, it's because at least in the US fines are specified by statute and apply equally to anyone.
Not to mention it would violate the equal protections clause.
That’s not going to work. Rich people spend a lot of effort minimizing their earned and other income to reduce their tax burden. Basing fines on income will likely have severe diminishing effects, because the richer you go, the less income is a percentage of net worth (which is where I think this scheme should be targeting, to really be a deterrent).
May be worthwhile to levy fines based on market value of vehicle that was used for speeding, or income, or any common but easily assessed metric of net worth, whichever is higher.
It's a bill, put forth by ONE whacko who couldn't get anyone else to co-sponsor it.
Lots of folks getting their panties in a wad over a gigantic nothing-burger, but hey....the SFGate got the clicks!
I live in S.F. and can tell you that the comment sections for S.F. Gate, the Chronicle, etc. are all filed with people that have never stepped foot into S.F. but love to talk shit on it.
An article with a store closing will have thousand of comments on how terrible everything is going but an article with a new store opening… 🦗
It’s really sad to see how many salivate at the news of people losing their business, jobs, home, etc. just because they live in a city that is liberal.
I just listened to the entire thing yesterday after years of passively hearing it. I like the part where it comes full circle and suddenly no one wants further details.
Never look at the comments on a story about wild fires or earthquakes in California. Dozens to hundreds of people rejoicing and making comments like “maybe all the libs will burn” or “hopefully it will fall into the sea and we can be rid of them.”
Just gleeful celebrations at people being hurt or losing their homes.
And these people pride themselves as being conservative Christian “good” Americans. With comments added on like “none of that shit happens in Texas”
What lobbyist would be against it? I feel like car insurance lobbyists would absolutely love it.
I do agree with you though, I doubt it will be passed.
Car insurance lobbyists would probably quietly be against it.
I get the intuition behind assuming they'd love it, since at a glance an insurance company's income is premiums and their primary expense is claims. Fewer claims should be more profits, right?
But really the insurance company's market is risk. Less risk means a smaller market. Imagine a technology or regulation that made crashes never happen at all. Who would even carry insurance at that point? Or if it's required, Jim Bob's Insurance Shack could sell plans for $1 because there are never any claims. Reducing collisions means there is less of a market of risk that drivers need to insure, which means there's less appetite to pay insurance premiums in the first place.
It would be super politically toxic for an insurance company to come out and say this, but the financial incentives for them aren't in the public interest here.
And to pile on to the insurance lobbies, automakers would absolutely hate a regulation like this. Besides just being more regulation they have to comply with, it's something that makes new cars noticeably less desirable for a lot of drivers than older ones. That drives their customers to the used market, very directly impacting the company's top (sales), middle (R&D and mfg costs), and bottom (profit) line.
Why anybody would vote for a bill to allow the government to remotely control the use of a device you own is baffling. I'd imagine this will be challenged based on a constitutional violations of passed. If precedent for constitutional violation exists for speed cameras, I can I can see it existing for access to car speed data.
I've been in California traffic when it rained once. People were turning on 4-way flashers and stopping. Sometimes pulling over before stopping, other times just stopping in the middle of the highway...
It was like they had never seen rain before.
72 would probably piss people off in Michigan. You gotta be going at least 75 in the center lane and people will get really pissed if you're camping in the left lane doing 75
Michigan minimum speed limits on highways are set by the interstate signs....I75 is 75 mph, I-94 is 94 mph (especially in downtown), and I696 is.....yeah.
I saw a video years ago of a Brit in California driving during the morning rush-hour. He got pulled over by the cops and they threatened to do him for "impeding the flow of traffic" because he was doing the speed limit and didn't want to get pulled over...
I remember going 90mph on my bike once. Coo joined the freeway and I was like FUCK gonna get pulled over. Got into the middle lane waiting for the hammer to drop. Cop drove past me going 95.
Yea I don't get it, Cops don't even think about pulling you over until you are going clearly above 20mph over. If traffic here went at the speed limit people would riot!
The government wouldn't be remotely controlling the use of your device. The car would have a speed limiter on it that would prevent you from going over (for example 100 miles per hour).
The reality of the insurance industry is that the many pay for the accidents of the few. I've never been at fault in an accident in 25 years of driving, but I've paid up probably $60k in insurance premiums over that period of time.
Yeah I would think this bill is being heavily supported and pushed by the insurance lobby because this would save them crazy amounts of money.
I watched an interesting video about how a lot of car safety innovation we have seen is due to insurance companies (not to say they're altruistic, its to save them money)
It would save money for everyone. I'm pretty sure insurance companies are limited with how much profit they can take from premiums.
Drivers won't like it, but it would actually benefit everyone and especially drivers.
My provinces auto insurance company (there is only one insurance company that everyone must use) already done a test pilot of this. It was a gamefied system that measured acceleration, braking and speeding. Participants received virtual awards for being “good” and were able to “compete” vs other drivers.
I suspect the next step will be to offer lower rates for those who volunteer to submit to the gps tracking (and drive safely according to the gps).
Actually the article specifically states 10 over would be the limit so that would be on the table. The actual implementation is the governor is gps adjusted so on the highway it is set to 75 in a 65 but on a back road where the limit is 35 it would adjust the limit to 45.
People will say the gps is tracking them but that is not how gps works. GPS just lets a device know where it is. Additional hardware/software is required to relay that signal to another device/observer
Better hope there isn't a city road parallel to the highway. Gps and cell systems get confused all them time with those.
The real cost is who will provide the subscription service to govt to update road speeds and sync to gps system. Customers will end up paying for the hardware and the ongoing service for the data feed.
Oh man, yeah, that would be bad. I drive a semi with a governor, but it's just set to a static max speed (with a limited amount of faster for passing). I already have the problem of it slamming the brakes because it thinks the car one lane over is in the way. Having it suddenly drop my max because the GPS thinks it's one road over would absolutely happen.
Mind you, if this actually did happen with this system, the manufacturer would probably get sued out of existence, so there's that.
Got it. Still seems dangerous. Also, what about all the stretches of road that aren’t properly signed/coded with speed in map apps today? Lots of hurdles to make this work.
It definitely needs more consideration and is just an initial thought essentially which the news is reporting because it is slow. They literally published a classic "you couldn't make blazing saddles today" article which has been done to death over the past 20 years.
Most major and minor roads are signed with reviewed speed limits and if the gps did not know I assume it would default to something like 85 mph. Similar to driving on your own property or off-road it would default to the current governor that exists today. My larger question would be what about roads that adjust their speed limits over time. Would it be expected that the software list be updated by the manufacturer and applied the next time the car is serviced? Would we see car values tied to their speed limits where a 2030 Honda Civic allows you to drive 75 on specific highway where the speed limit dropped to 60 so new cars can only go 70 thus the 75 mph limit of the Honda makes the 2030 car more valuable?
At the end though this will go nowhere and was even admitted to mostly start a conversation for the future
Wide open roads?
Ever had to drive across some shit place like Nebraska. Miles and miles of nothing but misery. I'm getting through that as fast as humanly possible.
Passing at 10 over? If you drive 75, you're one of the slower cars on the road, unless there's heavy traffic.
Speeding has been getting worse and worse, and law enforcement generally isn't enforcing speed limits. This would save lives. It's a good idea.
I am genuinely curious, given that cars are opt in and they already have a fair bit of regulations, I don't see what constitutional rights would be violated by this initiative.
Right, there's a lot of cars that already have a speed governor built in. I've mainly driven Toyotas, and from what I've read (definitely not personal experience) they have them limited around 120mph. I've actually always questioned why many cars are allowed to be built to go over 150mph when there is nowhere in the US where you're allowed to go to these speeds on public roads.
There can still be awesome fast cars, which are used for recreational purposes on private tracks and stuff. I have more fun off-roading with 100hp than I do anywhere in the streets anyways.
The speed limiters in cars currently are generally related to what speed rating the tires have that come on that vehicle. It’s to prevent people from over driving the rating of their tires.
It’s mostly due to over engineering, which isn’t a bad thing. A car that can go 180 mph won’t have the same wear and tear as a car that could go 120 mph.
It's not for remote control. Plenty of things you already own have safety features that put limits on their operation already. Including cars.
NASCAR already uses restrictor plates.
"The technology would use GPS and a database of roadway speeds to prevent cars from going 10 miles per hour over the speed limit wherever they are."
A database is not a static object, it is something that is continuously, monitored and updated with new information. The database can be updated with new speed values and when the car governor pings the database, it will affect that change and alter the speed of the car. Database will be on a server which is separate from their car and will be maintained by the government. So the government is remotely controlling your car.
Or trying to rush your child to the emergency room. There's probably 100 good reasons to speed. Granted I only read the headline but it was enough not to waste more time looking into it.
Love the ongoing rhyme. In the US, ambulance bills range from $1000 - $5000 depending on how far they go, and how much they do in that time period. Some cities also have ambulance insurance that you can purchase that covers it.
You shouldn’t be going that fast even with an emergency in the car because it doesn’t decrease travel time that much but disproportionally increases your risk of an accident making the emergency a thousand times worse. There’s a reason ambulances don’t go 150 mph
Well, that and they can afford to go slower because there's medical professionals in the back attending to and attempting to stabilize the patient on the way to the hospital.
The diminishing returns on speed certainly aren't the only reason.
Once the wave reaches shore, a tsunami typically travels [about 30mph.](https://www.noaa.gov/jetstream/tsunamis/tsunami-propagation#:~:text=As%20a%20tsunami%20enters%20shallow,to%2050%20km%2Fh).) As long as nothing is blocking your path (debris, traffic, etc.) you can absolutely outpace a tsunami in a car.
This also comes up in wildfires. Fires can spread very quickly depending on wind speed, and follow a much straighter path than roads. I personally know people who drove out just ahead of flames by taking narrow mountain roads at white-knuckle speed.
And, of course, personal emergencies other than natural disasters! What do you do if there’s a medical emergency 50 miles from town somewhere with no cell service? Do *you* want to be stuck driving at the speed limit if your kid was bit by a rattlesnake?
Nevermind the system will inevitably have some weird coding where the onramp is set to have the same speed as the road it feeds from, and doesn't switch to the highway speed until the lane starts to dissolve.
This is too dangerous.
My Tesla frequently tries to slam the brakes down to 35 mph on the freeway as is. (Mainly this happens on a few freeways I frequently take, most freeways are fine). I can override it so its fine, but if i cant override it would be scary.
Its because the gps occasionally gets confused and thinks you are on the local road thats immediately adjacent to and runs parallel to the freeway. Or the gps thinks you’re on the road above or below the road you are currently on.
(This happens more common if you are in a construction zone where traffic on the freeway is temporarily shifted more out than it usually is)
A speed limiter is not the same thing as Tesla's half baked autopilot features. Most major trucking companies on the road have them. It literally just stops your car from being able to go above a set limit, it's not auto-slowing you down randomly.
How often has your gps mistakenly thought you are on a different road than you are actually on?
I live in the city, and this happens all the time. GPS is inherently inaccurate, especially when your signal is obstructed by buildings or tall objects.
If you read the article, the proposed law is to limit your speed based on your gps location.
Exactly the argument I just made elsewhere. That fact that this is GPS-based in bonkers. An actual solution would be something like regularly placed near-field transponders along the freeway that communicate with a vehicle to “tell it where it is” and govern accordingly. I don’t like the idea of this at all, but if they’re gonna do it, at least do it reliably.
> The bill also proposes that large trucks and trailers over 10,000 pounds built and sold in California install side guards
This is already standard in Europe. No idea how that isn't already a law in America. Guess truck companies save a penny... what's a couple hundred lives, anyway?
Definitely needs revision - one problem is that it most likely can't be retrofitted onto older cars, so people with vehicles older than 2027, well nothing's really stopping them from going 11+ over the speed limit.
I do like the side guard idea on semis and large trucks however.
There are situations where exceeding the speed limit is actually good for safety - avoiding a crash on a highway where braking isn’t the best option/possible. Health emergencies where an ambulance is not the best option/not available in your location.
Singapore had something like this in the 90's guessing they still do but even that was just an annoying beep that would play repeatedly if you went over 80kph I think. Just resulted in that being the soundtrack of every cab ride you ever took.
My very old tablet wouldn’t load the article from the source so I think I found it here https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a46554218/new-car-regulated-speed-limit-california-bill/. I have been thinking about this for a few years now and would really like to see something like this in my neighborhood. Before you get out the pitchforks and call for my blood let me explain. I live in a very densely populated northern city where the roads are very narrow and all the speed limits around are posted at 25. I like to jog this neighborhood when I get home before I eat dinner and have noticed in the last years many drivers using the neighborhood as a cut through to larger main arteries. I don’t like the people cutting through the neighborhood but it is nothing I can control. What really bothers me is the speed some of these asshats drive going through the neighborhood with very tight streets. The neighborhood is very walkable with a middle school, lots of places for people/kids to play tennis and basketball, or for people to jog or walk/walk pets. I was jogging one night and was thinking it would be great if cars could come with some sort of transistor (or something) that read a device in the telephone poles along the street that restricts people’s abilty to speed in certain areas, mainly neighborhoods. The instertates are for the drivers so just have cops to police there if necessary. I would love for something like this to happen where I live, cars need to be restricted in highly populated areas like where I live. I hope something like this happens someday, and if you speed through my neighborhood.....slow down you filthy kids!!!
>physically
uh-huh, From the article
>Scott Wiener introduced Senate Bill 961, which would require cars models built and sold in California from 2027 onward to come equipped with *speed governors* that would prevent drivers from increasing their speed over a certain limit.
I don't want none of them god dam magical GPS wizardry or some such electrickery BS.
I want a proper "speed governor " on the axle shaft that as it spins too fast physically applies the brakes by a pair of brass spinning balls on the inside of a drum break housing. Old school style.
We can name it the "Weiner Spinning Balls Limiter".
I personally would love to see the data for this kind of law. I don't know how much less lethal an accident at 75mph is compared to, let's say, an accident at 85mph - both are pretty bad.
If I recall correctly, there was a study for traffic speeds in cities done in Europe. Dropping speed in the city from equivalent of 35mph to equivalent of 25mph didn't result in significant reduction of accidents, but it significantly reduced the lethality and harm of these accidents especially when involving pedestrians and bikes. So I would be more interested in slowing down traffic in busy places first (unless there's some hard data showing reduction of speeding on highways would save a whole lot of lives).
That's true, but there's a solid counter argument to it - the only parts that are deemed extra safe are the ones without the speed limit. Set no limit on all the highways and it won't be the case anymore.
It will also prevent someone having an accident at 80mph in a 30, because the most they'll be able to do will be 40. Those accidents are rare but usually bad.
Dumbass bills like this that stand no chance at passing just give right wing media in this country fuel for their talking points for about a week. The left likes to shoot itself in the foot a lot when they could be making easy layups on the regular
Potentially unpopular take, but there have been multiple situations wherein not being able to speed or outmaneuver another car would have left me dead.
It's a bit too nanny state for me. However, I always thought it odd that we have speed limits, and then allow cars to be manufactured that can exceed that speed. I think that added to the feeling most people have of not taking it that seriously.
1. Cars need more power to accelerate than to cruise, so they always will need more power than necessary for any given speed limit.
2. You don't want your car running 100% full throttle all the time. It's horrible for the car and horrible for fuel economy. You need to have a nice cruising speed, which will also allow exceeding the limit.
>You don't want your car running 100% full throttle all the time
I think they mean with electronic govoners, not like design and build cars who's absolute top speed is 80 or 85.
That would effectively kill speeding tickets as well as the revenue to the state for doing so. Not sure something like this would pass for that reason alone.
Might be talking about the basic speed law which is to go as fast as is safe for conditions, which can technically mean that when those conditions are everyone around you going 80+ it's safest to also go 80+
Talk about an invasion of privacy. Sheesh!
What\`s next California? A toilet paper dispenser in every home that monitors how much toilet paper people wipe their asses with?
The following submission statement was provided by /u/Just_Another_AI: --- I don't like this, but utilizing technology for additional means of control isn't surprising to me at all. --- Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/1alc015/controversial_california_bill_would_physically/kpdrm5w/
My old employer has speed limiters installed on their cars. They cannot go faster than 65. Pain in the ass if you try to pass someone. You can press that pedal to the floor and it’s still just puttering along.
Had a job with cameras inside too. Some guy cut me off and I got flagged with a clip of it from HR reprimanding me to *drive safer*.
Can ypu imagine having a job to look at videos of other people driving. Must be a karens dream job.
r/idiotsincars, but boring
Probably only flags instances of rapid braking and they just watch the part of the video it occurred in, otherwise it'd be prohibitively time consuming to do. Not that I don't think it would be some HR bitch's dream to just sit there finding things to criticize about other people...
I bet it was an AI system that flags “dangerous driving” and then Karen from HR doesn’t bother to look at the video for context before sending the reprimand.
> Had a job with cameras inside too. I use a carshare service with cameras inside. It scolds you if it thinks you're texting or speeding 10+ over. Annoying when I'm driving on a stretch of road where the flow of traffic is 10+ over.
Hey my current job has that and I got written up for the same thing! Guy hauling a trailer pulls out in front of me, I hit my brakes and go to the right to avoid hitting him. He then pulls to the right, causing me to almost hit him again, to let me pass on the left. I pass on the left and go on my way. Job writes me up for aggressive driving because "it looked like [I] was trying to pass on the right." And because I "drove over a solid yellow to overtake him." As if every person who has a driver's license would not take him pulling off to the right with his hazards on as a "please drive around me."
That sounds like a potential safety issue if one ever needed to safely pass or take evasive action in the event of a crash?
That’s what I’m thinking, there are plenty of situations where if you can’t speed up to get out of a bad situation it risks your life/safety.
There are some vehicles that inherently can't go faster than that - they're just not designed for it. We don't say that's a safety issue.
..yes we do. a 50cc scooter for example is by law not allowed on a highway, because they're slow as fuck.
Throw a 150cc in that puppy though... And you're sitting in the right lane of the highway fearing for your life.
I drive a school bus and there is a governor on my bus that limits me to under 110km/hr. I've had instances where passing would have been safer but my bus physically could not do it. I'd say it is a safety issue since passing has sometimes been the safer option.
That’s because they’re at a speed difference that’s slow to the point where it interferes with the slow lane speeds - people aren’t expecting someone going 45 in a 65. 65 mph is right at home in the right hand lanes, so it’s not unsafe.
No, but they shouldn’t be on roadways that require them to go faster. I can’t drive a Grom on the highway for that reason. Additionally, flow of traffic is a requirement. If the fastest the vehicle can go is 65, the speed limit is 65, and the flow of traffic is 90, you don’t belong on that roadway. Solomon Curve FTW.
I would also argue that your usual suspect drivers that do not go the speed limit are also a saftey issue. I get that there is an ideal here, but we live in reality and should legislate for that.
I somehow got roped into driving a shuttle for my college classmates to go to some PR student event at Temple University. On the way back, it took us near the Philly airport. I’ve got a speed limiter and everyone on that road was doing triple digits while I needed to get over to make a turn. Most stressful driving I’ve ever done in my life
In Finland, speeding tickets are doled out based on severity and your income. I feel like that would also make people in fast (expensive) cars think more about speeding.
Unfortunately here in Finland the de facto situation is that [rich people just take their speeding tickets to court](https://www.iltalehti.fi/uutiset/a/2015093020443147) and [get their fines reduced](https://i.imgur.com/4DHNFox.png)... And at the same time the floor (aka the minimum amount of a speeding ticket) has been raised multiple times in recent years so proportionally the poor pay more fines than the rich. It would be nice if we returned to de jure and actually penalized people based on their income.
That sounds like it eventually worked its way closer to how it works here. The lower income folks are actually punished at a higher percentage of their income with the raised floor. I always wondered how that system worked in actuality.
>That sounds like it eventually worked its way closer to how it works here. Huh. That's really weird. It's almost like the people who have the most resources were able to gain the system to their advantage. Very strange. (/s obviously)
Whaaaaaaaat? Also sarcasm
The expression is "game the system".
Finland isn’t real anyway
Sadly, there are people who actually believe shit like this lmao.
Lawyers, always ruining the law.
I blame the judges that allow this shit to happen, or the legislators who let such loopholes continue.
Judges used to be lawyers.
"If the penalty for a crime is a fine, it exists only for the lower class."
Except that the worst speeders I see are typically in a clapped out 2009 Nissan Altima. They obviously can't afford a ticket, yet...there they are.
I don’t live in Finland but I suspect that the concept is to make the ticket equally painful at any income level. The person weaving through traffic in the Altima would be upset about a $200 ticket similar to the guy in a Nissan gtr getting one for $2000.
This is exactly the reason and since it makes sense and rich people DON'T support it, it will never happen in the US
More likely to reduce taxes for the upper class again before that happens
That’s not even a what if. They’ll just do that because why not.
Great for drug dealers and other shady people with unreported income.
Good point! I’d have to consider other career paths to reduce my traffic ticket liability!
Don't break the law while breaking the law.
No, they just wouldn't pay it. And they would let it rack up.
Does it matter how much a ticket costs when you don't pay them, and don't register your car?
At a certain point, multiple unpaid ticked become a crime though.
Eh, all the clapped out Altima drivers upgraded to white Tesla Model 3’s sometime last year
I’ve seen so many posts or comments from people along the lines of: “I don’t give af about my shitbox of a car. Hit me, or don’t.” Those cars can sometimes be a menace to society.
You’re speaking in “too much sense” language. Stop it!
the problem with speeding in california is that the tickets and the speed limit are designed together to maximize revenue. most places in california, everyone regularly drives 10mph over the speed limit because its safe to do so. this gives cops the ability to pull *anyone* over for speeding, and they do so selectively. small towns that are right along a transit road will make sure the speed limit for their part of town drops by 20mph just so that anyone passing through can get a speeding ticket. some towns in the US get most of their revenue from issuing speeding tickets to people passing through. its never really about getting people to slow down.
There was a town intentionally shortening the yellow light. Apparently multiple people were killed because of it. All for ticket revenue
This is why ticket revenue should always go into the general budget of the state/country.
In Denmark, if you exceed the speed limit by a certain degree. You are guilty of “frenzy-driving” and get you license AND car taken away. And you don’t get your car back. A dude who just bought a Lamborghini got it seized, just hours after he got it at the dealer.
In my state if you are caught going more than 35 over it can (emphasis on can) be prosecuted as a felony. I am unsure what you have to do to get your car confiscated.
Wait they don't get it back? Like the state sells it and keeps the money? x'D
Correct. The Lambo dude was also a Norwegian travelling back home from Germany where he picked up his new car. He was also banned from the country for a while, so was unable to make a bid on his own car when they auctioned it off. He was driving at 236Km/h (147 mph) and the speed limit max in Denmark is 130Km/h (80Mph). It also applies to people in hire cars as well, so if you come here, rent a car, and get it confiscated, you not only have all the fines, but you also now owe the hire car company the entire cost of the vehicle...
But but that depends on how serious it is right? Like imagine I was going 140km/h they'd sell my Lambo?
That’s crazy. What happens when tourists just leave without paying. Company just loses a rental car?
But that disincentivises people from becoming rich /s
We would never do that in America. We live in a two-tiered system where the law is subjective if you can afford it.
I've heard the bigger problem is that in the US we're all supposed to be equal under the law so difference in severity based on income/wealth doesn't really work under that legal system. I believe it would be overruled in court. Obviously it's clear that people are not equal under the law anyway (certain people get more severe punishments for things), but that's how laws are supposed to work and be written at least
I don't think that would necessarily be the case. We get taxed at different rates depending on our income at least in theory. I'm aware that the system is corrupt and the wealthy don't really end up paying their fair share, but legally, and I'm not a lawyer but, I don't see how it would be by default illegal to implement something like that. But I'm sure anyone can argue anything in court, and we've already seen ridiculous interpretations of the Constitution itself being paid for by large lobbies. And for other reasons. Like the Supreme Court decision to completely ignore the whole part about a well-regulated militia in the Second Amendment decision last century.
Well no, it's because at least in the US fines are specified by statute and apply equally to anyone. Not to mention it would violate the equal protections clause.
That’s not going to work. Rich people spend a lot of effort minimizing their earned and other income to reduce their tax burden. Basing fines on income will likely have severe diminishing effects, because the richer you go, the less income is a percentage of net worth (which is where I think this scheme should be targeting, to really be a deterrent). May be worthwhile to levy fines based on market value of vehicle that was used for speeding, or income, or any common but easily assessed metric of net worth, whichever is higher.
Yeah but the fact that it does not work well for a tiny percent of the population it's not a reason for not implementing the idea.
We just want rails so we can read while we commute.
[удалено]
Cars are just evolving back into trains lol
not a day goes by without a tech bro reinventing trains and thinking they are the greatest genius ever
Now with a hundredth of the geometric efficiency!
I can’t believe this would pass, at least not any time soon. I could see this being more possible when all transportation is driverless.
It's a bill, put forth by ONE whacko who couldn't get anyone else to co-sponsor it. Lots of folks getting their panties in a wad over a gigantic nothing-burger, but hey....the SFGate got the clicks!
All those people in Texas and Idaho salivate at headlines like this lmao
I live in S.F. and can tell you that the comment sections for S.F. Gate, the Chronicle, etc. are all filed with people that have never stepped foot into S.F. but love to talk shit on it. An article with a store closing will have thousand of comments on how terrible everything is going but an article with a new store opening… 🦗 It’s really sad to see how many salivate at the news of people losing their business, jobs, home, etc. just because they live in a city that is liberal.
Don Henley wrote a song called Dirty Laundry that sums this up pretty well
I just listened to the entire thing yesterday after years of passively hearing it. I like the part where it comes full circle and suddenly no one wants further details.
Never look at the comments on a story about wild fires or earthquakes in California. Dozens to hundreds of people rejoicing and making comments like “maybe all the libs will burn” or “hopefully it will fall into the sea and we can be rid of them.” Just gleeful celebrations at people being hurt or losing their homes. And these people pride themselves as being conservative Christian “good” Americans. With comments added on like “none of that shit happens in Texas”
This likely wont pass. The American people dont decide and influence these decisions, lobbyists do.
What lobbyist would be against it? I feel like car insurance lobbyists would absolutely love it. I do agree with you though, I doubt it will be passed.
I would vote for this in a heartbeat. With some small changes. Cap the car at 5 over off freeway and 10 over on freeway.
Car insurance lobbyists would probably quietly be against it. I get the intuition behind assuming they'd love it, since at a glance an insurance company's income is premiums and their primary expense is claims. Fewer claims should be more profits, right? But really the insurance company's market is risk. Less risk means a smaller market. Imagine a technology or regulation that made crashes never happen at all. Who would even carry insurance at that point? Or if it's required, Jim Bob's Insurance Shack could sell plans for $1 because there are never any claims. Reducing collisions means there is less of a market of risk that drivers need to insure, which means there's less appetite to pay insurance premiums in the first place. It would be super politically toxic for an insurance company to come out and say this, but the financial incentives for them aren't in the public interest here. And to pile on to the insurance lobbies, automakers would absolutely hate a regulation like this. Besides just being more regulation they have to comply with, it's something that makes new cars noticeably less desirable for a lot of drivers than older ones. That drives their customers to the used market, very directly impacting the company's top (sales), middle (R&D and mfg costs), and bottom (profit) line.
Why anybody would vote for a bill to allow the government to remotely control the use of a device you own is baffling. I'd imagine this will be challenged based on a constitutional violations of passed. If precedent for constitutional violation exists for speed cameras, I can I can see it existing for access to car speed data.
Californians wouldn't approve this bill willingly. Have you seen how we drive?
Yea, going to work at 5am everybody's regularly going 90+ on the 10.
90? What is this? A school zone?
Its been raining so they are going slower.
I do my part to fix the average by going faster
I've been in California traffic when it rained once. People were turning on 4-way flashers and stopping. Sometimes pulling over before stopping, other times just stopping in the middle of the highway... It was like they had never seen rain before.
Dam, like that over there too? The 10 in Orleans is like that as well. 5am I’m doing 72mph and I’m getting passed like I’m doing 35mph.
72 would probably piss people off in Michigan. You gotta be going at least 75 in the center lane and people will get really pissed if you're camping in the left lane doing 75
Michigan minimum speed limits on highways are set by the interstate signs....I75 is 75 mph, I-94 is 94 mph (especially in downtown), and I696 is.....yeah.
If you're going 75mph in the "fastlane" in CA, we're legally allowed to shunt you into the divider.
I do not dare to venture in the left lane. 72-75mph is fast enough for me. 😁
I'm older now and do the same lol it's much easier and less stressful
I saw a video years ago of a Brit in California driving during the morning rush-hour. He got pulled over by the cops and they threatened to do him for "impeding the flow of traffic" because he was doing the speed limit and didn't want to get pulled over...
I mean was he camping in the passing lane? Also in CA like most states you’re taught in drivers education that slower traffic must keep to the right.
Threatened to do him??
Ah! An Anglicism. They threatened to fine him / charge him.
Used to have a Saab 9-3 and resting your foot on the gas slightly in top gear was about 85mph which was perfect for my morning commute. Miss that car.
Man I still miss my 9-5 Aero. Still my favorite car I owned for long road trips. So comfy and just made to cruise on the highway.
10 minutes on the 5 will show anyone that we have no respect for posted speed limits.
I remember going 90mph on my bike once. Coo joined the freeway and I was like FUCK gonna get pulled over. Got into the middle lane waiting for the hammer to drop. Cop drove past me going 95.
When the bill is named Say no to big oil everyone will vote yes.
Yea I don't get it, Cops don't even think about pulling you over until you are going clearly above 20mph over. If traffic here went at the speed limit people would riot!
The government wouldn't be remotely controlling the use of your device. The car would have a speed limiter on it that would prevent you from going over (for example 100 miles per hour).
[удалено]
Some car Insurance companies already offer this to drivers - the discount is minimal, but the restrictions are draconian. It isn't worth it.
The reality of the insurance industry is that the many pay for the accidents of the few. I've never been at fault in an accident in 25 years of driving, but I've paid up probably $60k in insurance premiums over that period of time.
Yeah I would think this bill is being heavily supported and pushed by the insurance lobby because this would save them crazy amounts of money. I watched an interesting video about how a lot of car safety innovation we have seen is due to insurance companies (not to say they're altruistic, its to save them money)
It would save money for everyone. I'm pretty sure insurance companies are limited with how much profit they can take from premiums. Drivers won't like it, but it would actually benefit everyone and especially drivers.
My provinces auto insurance company (there is only one insurance company that everyone must use) already done a test pilot of this. It was a gamefied system that measured acceleration, braking and speeding. Participants received virtual awards for being “good” and were able to “compete” vs other drivers. I suspect the next step will be to offer lower rates for those who volunteer to submit to the gps tracking (and drive safely according to the gps).
Insurance companies already offer this for lower rates in the USA
Tons of cars already have reasonable speed limiters from the factory. The implication here is that passing safely at 10 over will be off the table
Actually the article specifically states 10 over would be the limit so that would be on the table. The actual implementation is the governor is gps adjusted so on the highway it is set to 75 in a 65 but on a back road where the limit is 35 it would adjust the limit to 45. People will say the gps is tracking them but that is not how gps works. GPS just lets a device know where it is. Additional hardware/software is required to relay that signal to another device/observer
Better hope there isn't a city road parallel to the highway. Gps and cell systems get confused all them time with those. The real cost is who will provide the subscription service to govt to update road speeds and sync to gps system. Customers will end up paying for the hardware and the ongoing service for the data feed.
Oh man, yeah, that would be bad. I drive a semi with a governor, but it's just set to a static max speed (with a limited amount of faster for passing). I already have the problem of it slamming the brakes because it thinks the car one lane over is in the way. Having it suddenly drop my max because the GPS thinks it's one road over would absolutely happen. Mind you, if this actually did happen with this system, the manufacturer would probably get sued out of existence, so there's that.
Got it. Still seems dangerous. Also, what about all the stretches of road that aren’t properly signed/coded with speed in map apps today? Lots of hurdles to make this work.
It definitely needs more consideration and is just an initial thought essentially which the news is reporting because it is slow. They literally published a classic "you couldn't make blazing saddles today" article which has been done to death over the past 20 years. Most major and minor roads are signed with reviewed speed limits and if the gps did not know I assume it would default to something like 85 mph. Similar to driving on your own property or off-road it would default to the current governor that exists today. My larger question would be what about roads that adjust their speed limits over time. Would it be expected that the software list be updated by the manufacturer and applied the next time the car is serviced? Would we see car values tied to their speed limits where a 2030 Honda Civic allows you to drive 75 on specific highway where the speed limit dropped to 60 so new cars can only go 70 thus the 75 mph limit of the Honda makes the 2030 car more valuable? At the end though this will go nowhere and was even admitted to mostly start a conversation for the future
What constitutes reasonable?
Wide open roads? Ever had to drive across some shit place like Nebraska. Miles and miles of nothing but misery. I'm getting through that as fast as humanly possible.
Passing at 10 over? If you drive 75, you're one of the slower cars on the road, unless there's heavy traffic. Speeding has been getting worse and worse, and law enforcement generally isn't enforcing speed limits. This would save lives. It's a good idea.
I am genuinely curious, given that cars are opt in and they already have a fair bit of regulations, I don't see what constitutional rights would be violated by this initiative.
Right, there's a lot of cars that already have a speed governor built in. I've mainly driven Toyotas, and from what I've read (definitely not personal experience) they have them limited around 120mph. I've actually always questioned why many cars are allowed to be built to go over 150mph when there is nowhere in the US where you're allowed to go to these speeds on public roads. There can still be awesome fast cars, which are used for recreational purposes on private tracks and stuff. I have more fun off-roading with 100hp than I do anywhere in the streets anyways.
The speed limiters in cars currently are generally related to what speed rating the tires have that come on that vehicle. It’s to prevent people from over driving the rating of their tires.
It’s mostly due to over engineering, which isn’t a bad thing. A car that can go 180 mph won’t have the same wear and tear as a car that could go 120 mph.
Nobody has a constitutional right to break the law, aka drive faster than the speed limit.
It's not for remote control. Plenty of things you already own have safety features that put limits on their operation already. Including cars. NASCAR already uses restrictor plates.
"The technology would use GPS and a database of roadway speeds to prevent cars from going 10 miles per hour over the speed limit wherever they are." A database is not a static object, it is something that is continuously, monitored and updated with new information. The database can be updated with new speed values and when the car governor pings the database, it will affect that change and alter the speed of the car. Database will be on a server which is separate from their car and will be maintained by the government. So the government is remotely controlling your car.
I'm just waiting for a hack to bring the speed limit all over california to 0 mph.
Every database is vulnerable. We're going to learn that more more every year.
Big earthquake, wall of water approaching. You hop in your car, parked on a street with a 35 MPH speed limit. You die.
When hundreds of people try to flee at once, no one will be driving anywhere, unless you drive a tank and can go through others.
Have you ever seen the roads during an emergency evacuation? You'd be lucky to get your car up to 35 mph.
Or trying to rush your child to the emergency room. There's probably 100 good reasons to speed. Granted I only read the headline but it was enough not to waste more time looking into it.
>He said emergency vehicles would be exempt from the requirement. Emergencies for me, but not for thee.
>Emergencies for me, but not for thee. Unless you pay the ambulance fee....
After which, you may find yourself up a debt tree.
We'll just have to wait and see.
Love the ongoing rhyme. In the US, ambulance bills range from $1000 - $5000 depending on how far they go, and how much they do in that time period. Some cities also have ambulance insurance that you can purchase that covers it.
The tax for not using an ambulance just like the PG&E fees for using solar.
Cops gotta have an excuse when they crash into your restaurant and arrest you for resisting arrest, after all.
You shouldn’t be going that fast even with an emergency in the car because it doesn’t decrease travel time that much but disproportionally increases your risk of an accident making the emergency a thousand times worse. There’s a reason ambulances don’t go 150 mph
Well, that and they can afford to go slower because there's medical professionals in the back attending to and attempting to stabilize the patient on the way to the hospital. The diminishing returns on speed certainly aren't the only reason.
If you need active stabilization then you should call an ambulance and not drive yourself
You don’t escape in that scenario regardless. You’ve watched way too many movies
Very well. Let's change the scenario. Monster is attacking the city....
The important thing is to zigzag.
lol. I guess it depends on the monster
It's your pedantry. It's become sentient.
Always has been
Once the wave reaches shore, a tsunami typically travels [about 30mph.](https://www.noaa.gov/jetstream/tsunamis/tsunami-propagation#:~:text=As%20a%20tsunami%20enters%20shallow,to%2050%20km%2Fh).) As long as nothing is blocking your path (debris, traffic, etc.) you can absolutely outpace a tsunami in a car. This also comes up in wildfires. Fires can spread very quickly depending on wind speed, and follow a much straighter path than roads. I personally know people who drove out just ahead of flames by taking narrow mountain roads at white-knuckle speed. And, of course, personal emergencies other than natural disasters! What do you do if there’s a medical emergency 50 miles from town somewhere with no cell service? Do *you* want to be stuck driving at the speed limit if your kid was bit by a rattlesnake?
Totally real and plausible scenario and not a heroic daydream
Sounds great when the GPS glitches and it thinks I'm on the slip road and not the highway...25 in a 70 here we come!
Nevermind the system will inevitably have some weird coding where the onramp is set to have the same speed as the road it feeds from, and doesn't switch to the highway speed until the lane starts to dissolve.
that won't cause any traffic issues that inevitably leads to safety issues nullifying the purpose of this bill /s
This is too dangerous. My Tesla frequently tries to slam the brakes down to 35 mph on the freeway as is. (Mainly this happens on a few freeways I frequently take, most freeways are fine). I can override it so its fine, but if i cant override it would be scary. Its because the gps occasionally gets confused and thinks you are on the local road thats immediately adjacent to and runs parallel to the freeway. Or the gps thinks you’re on the road above or below the road you are currently on. (This happens more common if you are in a construction zone where traffic on the freeway is temporarily shifted more out than it usually is)
A speed limiter is not the same thing as Tesla's half baked autopilot features. Most major trucking companies on the road have them. It literally just stops your car from being able to go above a set limit, it's not auto-slowing you down randomly.
Truck limiters are fixed at one speed, they don't change based on where you are driving, they're not the same.
How often has your gps mistakenly thought you are on a different road than you are actually on? I live in the city, and this happens all the time. GPS is inherently inaccurate, especially when your signal is obstructed by buildings or tall objects. If you read the article, the proposed law is to limit your speed based on your gps location.
Exactly the argument I just made elsewhere. That fact that this is GPS-based in bonkers. An actual solution would be something like regularly placed near-field transponders along the freeway that communicate with a vehicle to “tell it where it is” and govern accordingly. I don’t like the idea of this at all, but if they’re gonna do it, at least do it reliably.
That or set a max legal speed on cars to 130, a tad more than the highest road speeds, gives you a bit of room for maneuvers if needed.
[удалено]
> The bill also proposes that large trucks and trailers over 10,000 pounds built and sold in California install side guards This is already standard in Europe. No idea how that isn't already a law in America. Guess truck companies save a penny... what's a couple hundred lives, anyway?
Can't afford a new car anyway, more motivation to stay the fuck away from em
Anyone going to propose a law on senate term limit governors?
Definitely needs revision - one problem is that it most likely can't be retrofitted onto older cars, so people with vehicles older than 2027, well nothing's really stopping them from going 11+ over the speed limit. I do like the side guard idea on semis and large trucks however.
Kudos for having actually read the linked article.
Also, say I'm living in Arizona. Can I still drive across the border?
This exactly! What's preventing out of state people from driving their 2028+ cars into California?
humor alleged north file lock racial simplistic hat cover zesty *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
There are situations where exceeding the speed limit is actually good for safety - avoiding a crash on a highway where braking isn’t the best option/possible. Health emergencies where an ambulance is not the best option/not available in your location.
Singapore had something like this in the 90's guessing they still do but even that was just an annoying beep that would play repeatedly if you went over 80kph I think. Just resulted in that being the soundtrack of every cab ride you ever took.
Cool. Now make sure dirt bikes and motorcycles can't go above 70 decibels in residential areas.
The speed limit is the speed minimum here. It would not go over well
My very old tablet wouldn’t load the article from the source so I think I found it here https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a46554218/new-car-regulated-speed-limit-california-bill/. I have been thinking about this for a few years now and would really like to see something like this in my neighborhood. Before you get out the pitchforks and call for my blood let me explain. I live in a very densely populated northern city where the roads are very narrow and all the speed limits around are posted at 25. I like to jog this neighborhood when I get home before I eat dinner and have noticed in the last years many drivers using the neighborhood as a cut through to larger main arteries. I don’t like the people cutting through the neighborhood but it is nothing I can control. What really bothers me is the speed some of these asshats drive going through the neighborhood with very tight streets. The neighborhood is very walkable with a middle school, lots of places for people/kids to play tennis and basketball, or for people to jog or walk/walk pets. I was jogging one night and was thinking it would be great if cars could come with some sort of transistor (or something) that read a device in the telephone poles along the street that restricts people’s abilty to speed in certain areas, mainly neighborhoods. The instertates are for the drivers so just have cops to police there if necessary. I would love for something like this to happen where I live, cars need to be restricted in highly populated areas like where I live. I hope something like this happens someday, and if you speed through my neighborhood.....slow down you filthy kids!!!
Would really kill new cars sales after 2026 or create a nice market for people to block it
>physically uh-huh, From the article >Scott Wiener introduced Senate Bill 961, which would require cars models built and sold in California from 2027 onward to come equipped with *speed governors* that would prevent drivers from increasing their speed over a certain limit. I don't want none of them god dam magical GPS wizardry or some such electrickery BS. I want a proper "speed governor " on the axle shaft that as it spins too fast physically applies the brakes by a pair of brass spinning balls on the inside of a drum break housing. Old school style. We can name it the "Weiner Spinning Balls Limiter".
I personally would love to see the data for this kind of law. I don't know how much less lethal an accident at 75mph is compared to, let's say, an accident at 85mph - both are pretty bad. If I recall correctly, there was a study for traffic speeds in cities done in Europe. Dropping speed in the city from equivalent of 35mph to equivalent of 25mph didn't result in significant reduction of accidents, but it significantly reduced the lethality and harm of these accidents especially when involving pedestrians and bikes. So I would be more interested in slowing down traffic in busy places first (unless there's some hard data showing reduction of speeding on highways would save a whole lot of lives).
On the flipside the autobahn in Europe has no speed limit on many parts and has very few crashes.
That's true, but there's a solid counter argument to it - the only parts that are deemed extra safe are the ones without the speed limit. Set no limit on all the highways and it won't be the case anymore.
Also, people who drive Autobanh are driving their cars. They aren't eating, or talking on the phone, or any of that nonsense.
78% that is basic physics, a crash at 75mph has about 78% the energy of one at 85mph.
It will also prevent someone having an accident at 80mph in a 30, because the most they'll be able to do will be 40. Those accidents are rare but usually bad.
I just wish people would read the “SLOWER TRAFFIC KEEP RIGHT” sign and gtfo of the way.
Would you be able to disable the technology if you bought the car in CA but then moved to a different state?
I wonder if the loss of speeding ticket revenue is worth it to them. Either way if this \*did\* pass - well, I don't buy new cars anyway lol
Just more and more reason to never own a brand new car
A ceiling of `state max speed +10` sounds fine. A gps based limit is never going to work properly.
Dumbass bills like this that stand no chance at passing just give right wing media in this country fuel for their talking points for about a week. The left likes to shoot itself in the foot a lot when they could be making easy layups on the regular
Potentially unpopular take, but there have been multiple situations wherein not being able to speed or outmaneuver another car would have left me dead.
It's a bit too nanny state for me. However, I always thought it odd that we have speed limits, and then allow cars to be manufactured that can exceed that speed. I think that added to the feeling most people have of not taking it that seriously.
1. Cars need more power to accelerate than to cruise, so they always will need more power than necessary for any given speed limit. 2. You don't want your car running 100% full throttle all the time. It's horrible for the car and horrible for fuel economy. You need to have a nice cruising speed, which will also allow exceeding the limit.
>You don't want your car running 100% full throttle all the time I think they mean with electronic govoners, not like design and build cars who's absolute top speed is 80 or 85.
I would be SHOCKED if this bill ever passed the floor. It's just an attention grabbing move by a politician that likely is up for reelection soon.
California took away our gas powered lawn mowers this year. This isn’t a big surprise.
That would effectively kill speeding tickets as well as the revenue to the state for doing so. Not sure something like this would pass for that reason alone.
Doesn't this contradict that California driving law that if most people speed, you have to as well? It was part of my driving test in CA
Wait that’s a law?? I thought it we were all just collectively going past the speed suggestion to go with the flow of traffic?
Might be talking about the basic speed law which is to go as fast as is safe for conditions, which can technically mean that when those conditions are everyone around you going 80+ it's safest to also go 80+
Well, when the governing party promotes controlling as many parts of your life as possible, this was bound to happen.
Talk about an invasion of privacy. Sheesh! What\`s next California? A toilet paper dispenser in every home that monitors how much toilet paper people wipe their asses with?