NTSB Calls for Technology to Reduce Speeding in All New Cars
ntsb.gov
ntsb.gov
So, despite drug use and a history of speeding by the at-fault driver, the rest of us must suffer. Got it.
Preventing these deaths by eliminating the ability to drive at unsafe speeds is not suffering.
[1] https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/speed-campaign-speeding...
Yes. The bureaucracy knows and loves us, {human unit #78,042,196} but most of all knows what's best for us. Compliance is mandatory. {human unit #78,042,196} has been docked 12 freedom units for your outburst. Please report to Central Brainwashing tomorrow between 10:30am and 10:45am at Brutalism Plaza.
It's not the place of the government to put limits like these on devices just because they want to avoid having to commit to behavioral change through enforcement and penalty.
> Increase active enforcement; make penalties more severe; and treat repeat offenses like DUI.
But not limit these "devices". In general I find interference with my person MORE invasive than interference with the capacity of my devices.
I mean... That kind of _is_ half of their jobs, isn't it?
Dictionary definition of the word "regulation": Rules made by a government or other authority in _order to control the way something is done_ or the way people behave.
Note: Not that I necessarily agree with a gps based speed limit facility. My car displays posted speed limits on the dashboard, and it frequently shows the wrong one, from a nearby surface road or who knows what -- a nice feature but more than occasionally wrong. I do think things like top speed governors make sense though (eg. no need for street legal vehicles to go over 100mph public roads instance).
Speed is constantly and accurately measured. Police love to say accidents are speed related, because that is always technically true; and it lends vain credibility to the most lucrative traffic law.
We have a similar problem with scheduled substances.
Personally, I'm inclined towards solutions that many would consider very harsh towards the offender. But that's softened over time as I've become more aware human's limited ability to dispense true justice. E.g., wrongful convictions in death-penalty cases.
What is your reasoning? The literature suggests that harsher penalties do not significantly affect the rate or severity of offenses. Even if you feel that those punishments are just, long jail sentences are expensive to society.
Probably the most straightforward thing is to burden people who do care about rules, eg. not only take away their license, but make it illegal to sell or furnish a car to anyone listed on an online "no drive" list.
Just to be clear, I'm talking about my instinctive gut-reaction to the issue, not my settled view. I'm not 100% sure where that instinct comes from; probably somewhere in the depths of my psyche and/or world view.
Interestingly, the large trucks and SUVs seem to be partially the result of fuel efficiency regulations.
Washington Post predicted this 12 years ago: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/cafe-lo...
Doubt they manage to close the loophole, it is too profitable.
https://www.thedrive.com/news/small-cars-are-getting-huge-ar...
https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2012/10/how-cafe-killed-co...
> Under CAFE, vehicles can be labeled “passenger cars” or “light trucks”, with the latter category required to meet less stringent standards for fuel economy and CO2 emissions. A decade ago, the Chrysler PT Cruiser was the most egregious example of this.
This plays some part in it. I am fairly tall, and have longer legs, and there are sedans that I simply cannot fit into because they do not have enough room for my legs. Nevermind a coupe of any kind.
I do have a pet theory that part of the problem with bad drivers, especially inattentive drivers is that they're far too comfortable in their cars. They sit in a big cushy drivers seat with gods-knows-how-many adjustment zones, in-seat heating, cooling..massage even. Driving becomes a time to relax rather than a time to concentrate.
I prefer sedans, but longer distance traveling is very nice in my wife's mid-sized SUV.
I call them tonka trucks.
I can’t imagine this is within the purview of the NTSB, who focus on individual safety features, rather than vehicle dimensions.
Dimensions are usually the domain of the licensing bodies that license drivers, where license classes dictate acceptable vehicle dimensions. If you want change, start there to up the licensing requirements for monstrously large passenger vehicles.
People who complain constantly about large vehicles almost never have a logical case, or even understand why they have proliferated so much in the last decade (Obama admin emissions regs).
Given the chance in an environment not distorted by emissions regs, most people will use cheaper, less safe cars, but there is no net safety upside.
That leads to an arms race with no benefit to anyone and massive costs. A prime example of when government should step in.
This is not true - the collision between two large vehicles is safer than the collision between two small vehicles.
If you are colliding at a given speed, you want as much crumple zone between you and the other mass as possible.
> That leads to an arms race with no benefit to anyone and massive costs.
It has safety benefits to everyone. As for other net costs, consumers seem to think that (after factoring in emissions regs-induced distortions), large vehicles are net better.
They already are in various cities around the world [1]
Note lots of European cities are also banning diesel vehicles, and tons of cities in Central and South America only allow you to drive your vehicle every second day. Odd license plates one day, even the next.
We're about to see massive, massive changes.
[1] https://www.businessinsider.com/cities-going-car-free-ban-20...
“Because I robbed that bank?”
“No, because you’re using gasoline. We can’t prosecute robberies less than $950k”.
As I said elsewhere in this thread..
The weasel word "related" is doing all the heavy lifting here.
Speed is constantly and accurately measured. Police love to say accidents are speed related, because that is always technically true; and it lends vain credibility to the most lucrative traffic law.
We have a similar problem with scheduled substances.
The government has strict ways to make this trade off. Human life is evaluated in dollar amounts. This might make certain emotions running high, but it’s the only way to assess. Otherwise the safest society is no society at all.
Practical Engineering channel on YT recently did a video about this.
Absolutely. Is going 103 mph fundamental to economic growth? I don't think it is.
The core argument is: Do we want 0 deaths? If so, what is acceptable number of deaths? And I shed light on how Gov calculates this.
> you just made up 103 mph number but that's an acceptable speed on Autobahn.
That's how fast the car was going in the article, and it was definitely not on the Autobahn or anything like it.
I stand that it would be a very sane/reasonable change that vehicles in the us should be limited to 85 mph (the highest posted speed limit on any road).
As far as I can tell from the actual article we are discussing, no one said this. Car mods remain 100% legal. The proposed features even allow speeding without modification.
Before it is said, I'm not talking about school zones, community, or other populated areas that have low speed limits.
We've driven away their natural predators (wolves) and they absolutely destroy every ecosystem that they're in.
IMO, the policy should be full cull, no restrictions.
There are scenarios where I would want a lot of acceleration or top speed (or both), legal consequences be damned. You're not buying a car that goes 120mph all the time, you're buying a car that can do that once if you need it to, even though you very likely will never need it.
But most importantly, because people want it and companies are willing to build it.
This all feels intuitive yet so many people on the road fail to keep a distance for no discernible reason. Is it that they think you're supposed to be close to the car ahead? Is it that they feel driving is a competition rather than a cooperative arrangement set up so that nobody crashes into anybody else?
https://www.carthrottle.com/news/all-new-cars-must-now-have-...
[1] https://therecord.media/class-action-lawsuit-cars-text-messa...
That Mercedes example is egregious AF.
If you speed, you are guaranteed to get a ticket.
I don't deny that traffic accidents are a problem, but let's not forget that traffic fatalities (both by vehicle mile and by population) peaked about 100 years ago, a lifetime before SUVs and "big ol' trucks" became a thing. They are now about 5% of that apex, trending generally downward or staying about the same[1].
If this is enacted (and probably even if it isn't) I suspect I will just drive older, dumber vehicles until we have actual self-driving cars, skipping the intervening period of having cars too dumb to drive themselves, but which think they are smart enough to police how I drive.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in...
(That's a serious question. It's how it's done in Germany.)
Unless there is legislation to prevent it we will reach a point where at the very least private insurance companies will have access to this data, provided they are willing to buy it. In an even worse scenario we'll have courts and law enforcement with access to this as well.
I can see a safety-related argument that you may need to briefly accelerate to get out of a sticky situation. I cannnot see a safety-related argument wihch says BuyMyBitcoins needs to be allowed to drive 10mph or 20mph above the posted limit for an extended duration of time.
I expect ISA in active/enforcing mode is coming, and it's just a question of whether new cars have it in 5 years or in 30 years.
If speed limits were set to the natural safe speed the road was designed for people would be far less cynical about these things.
Here’s where I think you’ll disagree with me the most. Speeding is bad but it doesn’t warrant having some big brother system to keep track of everytime someone has ever gone 10-20 over. People die because of speeders, yes, but not enough to warrant this kind of surveillance.
We still have other ways of enforcing speed limits and enhancing public safety on the roads.
Accrued points take 48 months to expire off your licence and it only takes two tickets (6 points) to lose your licence as a new driver. Experienced drivers are going to lose their licence when they hit 12 points.
On top of the £100 fines, insurers all hike their rates for people with points.
Cynics will say this is just revenue generation, but it seems to work, and £100 is cheaper than a lot of fines in US jurisdictions.
But of the people who are subject to NTSB investigations? Presumably, having caused a fatal accident, they all claim to be in that 5%.
So I imagine according to the NTSB's numbers, loads of speeding is accidental.