Would you support technology that would limit a car's speed to the posted speed limit?

No. In some areas where I live, the speed limit is 25. What if there were an emergency? What if someone was driving a pregnant woman to the hospital? Not an emergency vehicle but a regular vehicle driven by the father or some other similar situation? If that were me, I’d want the driver to be able to go faster than 25 mph.

@jca – What if there was an override, but a very public one? What if the hazard lights button overrode this, but signaled you in some way that made it clear that you were essentially a temporary emergency vehicle?

Yes (with overrides for emergency vehicles). I live among some extremely angry, aggressive drivers and have long thought that this would be beneficial. I don’t know where we are with such technology, or whether this change would be possible or feasible.

I’d settle for technology that would ding incessantly (like when your door is open and the headlights are on) when your car is exceeding the limit, with the dinging increasing in pitch and volume as one increases in speed.

Make it annoying for the driver, not the people being subjected to their rudeness.

^ This is actually a great idea. Cars scream at the driver if they forget to put their seatbelt on. It could be like this.

Back when I used a Windows phone, the GPS app would ding politely if I went over the speed limit. I thought it was a great feature, and I ended up using the GPS on trips I normally wouldn’t just for that feature. I wish Google Maps did the same thing.

No. Those are artificial limits that take away the driver’s ability to react to emergency situations.

These sort of devices would kill more people than they saved.

Thinking about my twisty rural road again, where the posted speed limit goes from 45 to 25 around a turn, how would that work? Would the car all of a sudden brake to take the car from 45 to 25? That’s crazy. Then the driver would put it up to 45 again after the turn?

@jca: “Thinking about my twisty rural road again, where the posted speed limit goes from 45 to 25 around a turn, how would that work?”

I was thinking it could be like cruise control in that it slowly tries to bring you down to posted speed.

@elbanditoroso: “These sort of devices would kill more people than they saved.”

I find that difficult to believe. Could you explain?

No, what if you need to pass someone?

@DoNotKnowMuch: If it’s a very short distance where the car must decelerate from 45 to 25, it wouldn’t ”slowly” bring the car down to posted speed. It would have to be pretty quick. It would have to start before the sign that says 25 mph.

Nope, this is a bad idea. I do like the idea @Seek brought up though. Simple, clever and defeatable. If ever have a teenage driver I’ll build the circuit to to this myself

@jca: “It would have to start before the sign that says 25 mph.”

The goal wouldn’t be to auto-drive. (Rather, I would imagine something like this would go a long way in preparing people for the inevitability of self-driving cars.) What is possible would be to keep people from accelerating when they are going over the speed limit. The driver still has to do the appropriate slowing down in transitions between speed zones.

@DoNotKnowMuch: I got that but when it comes to the speed limit going down suddenly (as in the example of the twisty rural road), the car would have no choice but decelerate.

Yes. But I am cynical enough to realize there are frequently legitimate reasons for exceeding the speed limit. Just as the technology will be there to restrict the speed of individual vehicles to the limit, the ability to record those vehicles exceeding those limits will exist. If the drivers of such vehicles can be held to explaining their actions, I would prefer that alternative.

@DoNotKnowMuch – people would need to accelerate to get out of the way of a police car or maybe a drunk driver. The speed governor would prevent them from being able to do so, and they would be slammed from behind.

^ There are so many of these scenarios that it would ‘kill more people than they saved’”?

Fuck no! I don’t support self driving cars either. We are supposed to control the machines, not the other way around. I am not going to be held hostage in a car that I can’t control on my own.

I think that you’re silently asking a question that is other than the posted question. As you acknowledge in the details of the question “we have the technology to do this today”. So it’s not really a matter of whether or not I “support” that technology; my support is irrelevant if the technology already exists – as I agree that it does.

I think the question that you’re intending is: “Do you support laws to implement this technology automatically?”

And the short answer to that is, “No.” Though I do support the continued development of self-driving cars, because the biggest obstacle to safe driving is the issue of PEBDAS (Problem Exists Between Dashboard And Seat). I would also not support the automatic implementation of that technology, however, because humans should retain the capability of driving – as long as that is technologically possible. We’re developing aircraft that cannot fly without computer intervention, so I suppose that will also occur with automotive technology before too much longer.

No no no. How would you pass? Also, there are times you need to go faster than the posted speed limit, and not just to pass.

@CWOTUS: “I think the question that you’re intending is: “Do you support laws to implement this technology automatically?””

Good point. Yes, this is what I am really asking.

I’d support law that limits auto speed to 5 miles over the posted limit.

My opposition to this idea is strong enough that “no” would be considered full support by comparison. The best I can say about the idea is that it’s childishly optimistic and utterly impractical.

To start with, that would force all drivers to have a GPS. Granted, many of us do already (smartphones in our pocket) but that is by choice. If you don’t have enough privacy concerns to see why this is bad, then I’m not sure you would be able to understand why all the opposition so lets just move along.

Newer cars would require some retrofitting work, but even if it’s as simple as just replacing the chip in your ECU (about as difficult and time consuming as pulling two Lego bricks apart and putting them back together), that does not mean that 100% of cars on the road will have the system. I would go so far as to say that the percentage of cars on the road that would require major work alone is enough to severely limit the already-marginal benefits gained without adding the number of cars that just haven’t been in for the more minor work it would take to get a post-1996 car to work with the system.

Older cars like mine don’t have a computer controlling the engine. I have no injectors to shut off to limit the amount of fuel my engine gets when I tromp the gas, which is the usual method of governing a car. You’d have to do a a lot of work to modify my car to make it work. And I would not be willing to allow my car to be screwed up; if you knew the issues with “Malaise era” attempts at bolt-on emission controls, you’d understand.

Some may say, “Get a new car!”. I will tell them to fuck themselves. And they’d be telling every classic car enthusiast and anyone who cannot afford a new car that they are not allowed to drive, which in turn would prompt me to give graphical suggestions of exactly how they should fuck themselves. Granted, I might consider it if they had a plan to buy me a brand new car that could meet my needs, but then they’d have to do that for everyone, and I don’t think anyone’s pockets are that deep.

There are a few other reasons beyond the impracticality of implementation, but they mostly boil down to me having strong opinions on how much freedom I am willing to give up for the illusion of security. There is also a dash of cynicism about the potential for abuse. The technology involved would be hackable over a remote connection, and not all people with the skills and equipment to pull that off wear badges, so we’d probably be trading one set of safety concerns for another, the difference being that we have a few decades experience dealing with speeders and none stopping people from hacking your car.

And what would we really get from all that? Would it really be worth it? Would you be willing to spend billions (trillions?) of dollars and/or wipe your ass on civil liberties while creating a huge security concern that we couldn’t deal with just so you don’t have to tell that kid in the dropped Civic with a fart-can to slow down?

Edit – I almost forgot the safety concerns. Yeah, your car is limited to the speed limit but half the cars on the road are not. You just obstructed traffic, possibly causing more accidents than if everyone were going the same speed even if it was a bit over the posted limit. To my mind, creating a greater danger than the one you tried to protect against makes anyone who supports this idea either a hypocrite or an impractical idealist who doesn’t know how the really real world really works. Then there is this.

The rabid hunger Flutherites seem to have for placing limitations on themselves, and very importantly others, by means of the law never ceases to stun me.

I cannot think of anything I could add to improve @jerv ‘s response.

But let’s think about that for just a moment:

Enough of you have stated that you would support such laws and technology without any understanding of the cost, in freedom or dollars. This is why the very ironically called California Republic is so fuckered. The citizens vote directly for concepts with no understanding whatsoever as to the ramifications.

You all scare me to death.

Shut up and buy a Tesla Model S with the latest software. It will do what you’re asking for for yourself. Shit, it will even keep your lane for you.

Just be sure to post back bitching about how much it costs.

@SecondHandStoke – I think you may have posted this in the wrong thread.

Also, for the record, don’t take this as something that I am proposing into law. Rather, I’m engaging in a discussion in the form of a thought experiment that somewhat relates to our instincts about risk analysis. Discussions like this are not meant to trigger anyone, so I apologize for not including a trigger warning in the question. Hope you can find a safe space :).

@DoNotKnowMuch Actually, I don’t think you realize what you really asked.

No trigger warning is required though. Anyone who can’t handle being set off once in a while won’t survive real life. I mean, it’s not like you posted gory pictures of accident scenes or videos of kittens being put into blenders. It’s just that some of us are far more willing to accept small risks (people driving 75–80mph on the freeway) as the price of freedom, and are freedom-loving enough to react strongly against potential threats.

Those of us who happen to like older cars may feel doubly threatened by being told that our cars should be illegal and it will cost us thousands of dollars we don’t have to be able to drive again, probably in a car we can no longer enjoy.

Perceived threats against both our freedom and our joy will get a strong reaction, but if we lose our ability to react to threats then we lose our ability to survive in the real world. I’ll take being occasionally pissed off as a modest price for survival.

@marinelife “No, what if you need to pass someone?”

At least here in Virginia, passing can be done only within the posted speed limit. In other words, I can pass someone going 45 mph in a 55 mph zone, but my own speed can’t exceed 55. If I drive more rapidly, I’m breaking the law.

So, a system that governs speed would let me pass someone lawfully, but not unlawfully.

Provided that its linked to GPS so that the maximum speed is customised based on location.

@jerv – For context re: this question and my other question, please see the question 2 before…

“What is the purpose of the Snapchat Speed Filter/app, and is it destined to be eliminated after being blamed and involved in lawsuits blaming it for car crashes?”

I was just asking where people see this heading. Some blame the Snapchat app, others mentioned the phones (which is a common theme here), others attribute very specific behaviors rather than distracted driving, etc. I wanted to see if it was worth asking about the potential of cars: speed, etc.

I’m completely against any kind of specific behavior-based legislation, such as the anti-texting laws. The recent nonsense about the “Textalyzer” proves that scare tactics are bad for policy. If the danger is distraction, then the danger is distraction. Texting isn’t the only or worst distraction.

Anyway, I’m fascinated by thought experiments – especially when they push buttons I didn’t know existed. I’m not a “car guy”.

Also, I only support such legislation for conservatives and people in flyover country. No need to worry.

Nay, nay & thrice nay!!
As to the why, because it’s unworkable, unnecessary & bloody daft at its core

Good grief. Why are so many people so willing, eager even, to surrender as much autonomy and control over their own lives as possible?

I’m amazed that so many people become outraged by this very thought. We’re not talking about any natural or legal right, something that’s universal, inherent, and that can’t be repealed or restrained. Driving’s a privilege, granted by a state conditionally and subject to revocation.

Yes, @Darth_Algar, a driver’s license provides autonomy and convenience, but no fundamental freedoms. Neither is a civil liberty or something guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.

I’m guessing that most of these emotional responses were written by Americans. Is there any other culture that cherishes driving and automobiles with such passion?

Here in my car, I feel safest of all
I can lock all my doors, it’s the only way to live…in cars

@Love_my_doggie

I said nothing of civil liberties or rights. I said control and autonomy. Perhaps you feel comfortable being in an automobile that’s controlled by software, rather than a human driver. I sure as shit don’t.

^^^ No, you didn’t mention civil liberties or rights. I did. Please don’t overreact, and please don’t use profanity. I’d never talk to you that way.

This is a discussion. Let’s keep it rational.

@ucme Do you live in your car? If you add a portable toilet, federal tax law would consider it to be your principal residence!

This is à propos de absolutely nothing. It’s Friday night; the hubby’s at a business-related event, and I’m at home alone with the cat and dog. Anybody want to have some fun? Please?

@DoNotKnowMuch

(Trigger warning) Trigger warning??

Don’t try to dismiss the logic of my statement by accusing me of irrationally Posting While Offended ™.

@Love_my_doggie Are Friends Electric?

^^^ Tonight, they most certainly are. All of my face-to-face friends, including my sweet husband, are unavailable or otherwise occupied. I’m grateful for my virtual friends.

Very lovely nod to both Gary Numan and the year 1979, both of which I value greatly.

@DoNotKnowMuch posts a hypothetical about technology, autonomy, risk analysis, etc, and thought it would be nice to kick around in a place about….kicking ideas around (Fluther).

@MostOfFluther: “Hell no! What a horrible idea! We’re even too offended to discuss.”

@Darth_Algar: “Good grief. Why are so many people so willing, eager even, to surrender as much autonomy and control over their own lives as possible?”

huh? :)

No. That’s dangerous! Limiting to 90MPH I would support though. Except that, I’ll contradict myself and say people who want to race on a teach should be able to use their cars at higher speeds.

Does anyone else like my polite (or maybe less than polite) reminder bell?

Because seriously, I really like that feature and would love for it to happen.

@Love_my_doggie

Overreact? Seriously? You think that’s overacting? You might need to grow a thicker skin.

^^^ I recommend learning some manners. Have a lovely evening and a nice weekend.

@Love_my_doggie

My manners are fine. Evidently you have an issue with someone responding back when you tag them in a post. That’s your problem, not mine.

@doggie I wrote this on a related Q. Don’t mess with a man and his car.~

@Seek Considering that I have electrical skills and a few sets of clippers, it bothers me less than it might bother other people.

@DoNotKnowMuch That is why I questioned whether or not you realized what you were actually asking. Bear in mind some relatively recent events that have made privacy issues a hot topic that many people have strong opinions on. Those who have the technical skills to know that there is no way to make such a system without location-tracking will instinctively think of it as yet another invasion of privacy and react accordingly.

Then there are those who have strong opinions on what the limits of government power should be who see it as yet another attack upon our freedoms and react accordingly. I mean, it’s one thing to make a speed limit law and post signs, but quite another to suggest taking control away from people. Historically, there have been many governments that tried taking control from the citizens, gone just a little too far and wound up inciting a revolution and getting overthrown, sometimes violently.

I think you got a good glimpse into what the concerns of people (or at least the small subset of people who are here on Fluther) really are, and how they associate things in their mind. And maybe you’ve also gotten a little insight into how even the most well-intended of things can lead to undesirable consequences, whether it be the ramifications of governing vehicle speed to comply with posted speed limits or the slightly more meta subject of this question blowing up.

@Love_my_doggie It seems that you think of cars as just a smelly hunk of metal that costs a lot to “feed”. Many see it as the freedom to get wherever they need/want to go whenever they need/want to. If everywhere you go is either within walking distance or right on a bus/train line that has a reasonable schedule, you may not understand the importance of that freedom.

You might be interested to know that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights has something relevant to say;

“Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each State. ” – Article 13, Section 1

While one may argue whether or not that means that driving is a right, there is no arguing that interfering with a persons ability to exercise their rights is bad, and even suggesting that trivial offenses (like speeding) are worth stripping rights away, a fate normally reserved for the more heinous of criminal offenses, WILL get some strong reactions.

@dammitjanetfromvegas Before cars were a thing, there were horses, and we all know how well-loved horse thieves were. You could make it more timeless by changing it to “Don’t mess with a man and his transportation.” since we’ll probably have something other than cars in the future that serves the same purpose and forms the same attachment.

@Seek You can ring my bellend any time (wow will she hate that gag)

@ucme – I have staff for that.

Word

I have a question…are you talking about limiting the speed of the car to the highest speed limit in the country, or some sort of sensor that recognizes when you’re in a 20 mph school zone vs an80 mph Texas highway?

@Seek yes I liked the idea, I would also instantly do what @jerv mentioned only I would install a toggle switch discretely in arms reach of the drivers seat

No. I reject tech that takes control away from me. Every. Single. Time.

@Dutchess_III The question evolved a bit towards the latter; adjusting the governor to the speed limit at your location, which in turn requires location-tracking. And much of the furor is over the “Big Brother” aspect of being under even more surveillance than we are while simultaneously taking away our freedom to get away with even a minor act of rebellion like doing 37 in a 35 zone.

So it started off about cars and drifted to a discussion about freedom and authoritarianism.

@ARE_you_kidding_me Switches are for things that may occasionally get turned on. Seems like a waste of electrical tape for me to put a switch in there.

Besides, the fact that my car is a little more eye-catching than most means that I can’t get away with the sort of things that people without a huge skull on their hood can. The increased scrutiny is a more effective deterrent than an annoying dinger would be.

IF YOU WANT SUCH MINDLESS LACK OF CONTROL REGARDING YOUR TRANSPORTATION TAKE THE FUCKING BUS.

Well said twice @jerv

Looks like this thread is ripe for a “oh yeah? well…your mama!”. Or maybe a “I know you are but what am I?”

@SecondHandStoke Or a taxi.

If there was a bus, or a train, I would take it. In my area, that is not an option.

I do, however, enjoy driving at safe and legal speeds, and would thoroughly enjoy a tech product that helped me do so, even if I missed the speed limit sign among the billions of other pointless signs on the road.

@Seek I find that being rear-ended by the 37 cars behind me is less safe than driving at illegal speeds that are still within the limits of my driving skill and my car’s mechanical capability. I support police ticketing those doing 57 in a 60 zone with obstruction of traffic instead of pulling over the other 75,194 drivers doing 65–70 as people incapable/unwilling of going with the flow are more dangerous than those who do not force people to take evasive action. In my view, if those who are more concerned with the letter of the law (the speed limit) than the spirit of the law (public safety) are a far larger danger to the public than the people doing 33 in a 30-zone.

So, do you prefer driving at safe speeds, or legal speeds. Most places I’ve lived, those two are mutually exclusive.

Considering a speeding ticket can be the difference between me paying the rent or being evicted, I’ll take the rear-ending.

@Seek As stated previously, it is more likely that you will be ticketed for obstructing traffic than for maintains a smooth, steady, safe flow. It’s also worth noting that my home state has laws detailing conditional exemptions from the posted speed limit when overtaking, and is set to pass a law against driving under the posted speed limit except in the right-most lane.

As for rear-ending, if you’re lucky, you’ll just need a couple hundred dollars worth of work to avoid getting ticketed for “Defective Equipment”; taillights are not cheap, and some places do not accept that red lens repair tape. And it’s unlikely that your trunk will ever close properly again. Of course, that assumes that you only get a love-tap instead of a rougher impact that could total your car out and/or put you in the hospital.

If you think that Route 2 or I-5 are like the parking lot at the mall, or that towing, car repairs and medical bills are cheaper than driving along uninjured in an undamaged vehicle, or that getting a $124 ticket is cheaper than getting a $68 ticket or (more likely) no ticket at all, then I have no idea how to get through to you that your idealism not work in some places and may backfire spectacularly in others.

@Seek Sorry if I come across a bit strong, but your position is just mind-blowing, and at odds with EVERYTHING I know about driving. I would have a harder time agreeing with you if you said square wheels give smoother rides.

@jerv: Where I live, the freeway to work has a 65 mph limit, and many people average 80 in the left lane, driving by state troopers who allow it. Myself included, sometimes faster than 80. Anybody going slower than 80 in the left lane is getting passed and probably cut off on the right.

However, on my local road, cops sit and wait for people doing even a few miles per hour over the posted limit. Posted limit is usually between 25 and 45. It’s a curvy, rural road and I’ve been pulled over a bunch of times when I don’t pay attention. I mentioned on some thread (not sure if it was this one or another one), how once I had two people “up my ass” behind me, and I got pulled over. When I told the cop “the guy behind me was up my ass” he said “no matter how fast you go, he’ll still be up your ass.” Luckily the cop let me go. On two other occasions, I was going the speed limit on my rural roads, because I know the cops are all over, and there were people behind me, up my ass. On the two occasions I came across cops doing speed traps, I slowed and asked the cop to get the person behind me off my ass because I’m going the limit, and both times as I drove off, the cop went over to the car behind me and told them to slow down.

You seem to be advocating that
@Seek is at fault if she does not speed. You seem to be implying she’s deserving of whatever comes to her if she goes the speed limit. I don’t agree and I do feel your language is unnecessarily alarmist in your posts. @Seek is telling you that if she gets a ticket she may become homeless because money is tight and yet you persist in an alarmist rant about her car getting damaged.

In the state I’m in (NYS), if someone is too close to my rear and rear ends me, they’re at fault. Of course every state is different and @Seek is in a different state, but here in NY, if I get rear ended, the other person is paying the bill.

@jca I am worried for her safety and the safety of others on the road. And given that I’ve been on some pretty hostile roads and seen more problems caused by self-appointed highway patrol vigilantes doing 59 in a 60 than I have by people going 15-over with proper lane discipline and sufficient spacing, I will see things a bit differently from those who lack that experience with such a large number of aggressive drivers.

I am also worried that she will get a ticket for obstructing traffic; a lot of states actually do have laws against that. What is the difference between getting a ticket you cannot afford to pay and getting a ticket you cannot afford to pay?

Even if you are found totally fault-free, odds are that the claim will take long enough to settle that there will be out-of-pocket expenses. Sure, I got reimbursed for the $118 taillight after a parking lot incident with an SUV, but I was lucky to talk my way out of the ticket for a busted taillight on my way across the state to go get the replacement (the only place that had the part didn’t do shipping, and the only places that did ship that part wanted a lot more, so driving across the state was the only way to get out of it for less than a week’s wages) and I doubt insurance would’ve paid that. Who knows how many tickets I would’ve gotten driving around with a busted taillight in a region that is quite particular about that sort of thing (seriously, some places have a light fetish!) for the length of time it took for insurance to settle up. That was just a taillight too; if it had been something that took the car out of commission for even a day, that would’ve been costly even if the other guy’s insurance paid the repair bill.

As an aside, many things I’ve read indicate (and a conversation with a state trooper confirmed) that police are FAR more concerned with following distance, lane changes, and keeping things flowing smoothly than they are with speeders. The ones that get popped are those that draw attention to themselves, and just as a stone in a streambed causes notable ripples, a motorist doing the speed limit in the middle/left lanes on the freeway will create a disturbance that will draw attention to them.

Is it “alarmist” to have faced a problem and want to prevent someone else from being bit in the ass by reality the same way you have been? Is it extreme to suggest that sometimes conforming to your surroundings is sometimes physically safer than complying with the letter of the law? Most importantly, am I wrong for wanting @Seek to avoid placing herself in a situation that that she has explicitly stated she does not wish to be in?

You’re clearly not familiar with Florida law enforcement.

@jerv Why do you assume @Seek is obstructing traffic? Driving the speed limit in the right lane is never too slow in any state I have driven in, and I drive a lot of places. Might most traffic in the right lane still be going over the speed limit? Yes. But, usually not more than 5–10 mph over the speed limit and they can easily slow down. If she’s doing 65 in the left lane of an interstate, and the left lane generally moves at 75–85 then I fully agree that’s a safety issue. Assuming a 65 speed limit.

Where @Seek lives traffic is very aggressive, but still, the right lane on a freeway it’s perfectly fine to go the speed limit. Local roads near her tend to have very high speed limits, Florida is very flat, with roads that have few curves or turns, so visibility is extremely good, and so speed limits are high. On neighborhood roads, where children play, and we rely on cars stoping at stop signs, we all (all states) should be obedient to the speed limits.

Moreover, to me there is a huge difference between driving 80 and 90. 80 is kind of my limit for fast, even though when I was younger I used to push 85 sometimes. 90, feels out of control to me. Impossible to stop in time for any sudden breaking or unexpected occurrence in front of you. My husband drives over 100 on the race track just feet from other cars and solid walls, but I still don’t want him driving 90+ On the highways, even if all cars are driving 90+.

I do agree staying with traffic is important for safety, but a speed trap will pull over three people in a row for breaking the speed limit. Even more. Sure, part of it is for the revenue, but sometimes it is safety related too.

@jerv: @Seek refers to “safe and legal speeds.” You are the only one referring to her going so slow as to obstruct traffic. I agree with @JLeslie that going the limit or something like that in the right lane is not a problem. I, too, live in an area where drivers are very fast and aggressive (as I’ve mentioned) but still, if you go anywhere over 15 mph below the limit in the right lane you’ll be ok.

I guess I’m not allowed to have different life experiences or dissenting views based on non-standard experiences. I’m out of here. If I wanted to be called a freak, I could get that elsewhere.

Where is the word “freak” used in reference to you, @jerv?

What I did was point out that you are referring to something @Seek never talked about. She made reference to “safe and legal speeds” and you turned it into her going so slow that people would be hitting her.

Take a moment and think about what you are saying @jerv. There were countless times you tried to tell me how freakish I was being and I’m sure I’m not the only person you’ve done this to. At least @seek got an apology.

@disquisitive ” I reject tech that takes control away from me. Every. Single. Time.” Too late!!

Yeah, I adjust my speed however I need to, either by slowing down, but usually by speeding up, just to keep as far away from other traffic as I can.
Seems to me most people prefer the pack mentality. It scares the crap out of me.

lane discipline.

lane discipline.

lane discipline.

lane discipline.

lane discipline.

lane discipline.

lane discipline.

lane discipline.

lane discipline.

lane discipline.

lane discipline.

lane discipline.

lane discipline.

lane discipline.

lane discipline.