On July 6th, the European Union formally introduced laws that require auto manufacturers to install speed-limiting hardware on new vehicles. While speed governors have been around for years (and are becoming increasingly popular among certain manufacturers) the EU’s new rules actually require technology that takes things a step further by allowing cars to actively detect and then regulate the speed for any given road.
Having spent the last week isolated in the wilderness, your author has been blissfully unaware of any recent regulatory actions affecting the automotive sector with one exception. During one of the few moments where I had both access to electricity and 4G cell service, I noticed a slew of soul-crushing news alerts about how the European Commission had just mandated “Intelligent Speed Assistance” (ISA) systems on all new models. That makes this story a little dusty, though no less pertinent to readers who like to use their vehicle as more than a conveyance or value their privacy from behind the wheel.
As the law currently stands, there’s no specific way a manufacturer has to implement the system. While the device is required to warn the driver and/or automatically slow down the vehicle when they surpass the posted speed limit, there is no rule saying ISA has to be on. Cars only need to have the system equipped — leaving the manufacturer the decide whether it should be permanently active or not.
Regulators don’t seem to care how it’s done, just that all new models come with the capability by default. But there are a few additional items accompanying the new rules that deepen the rabbit hole. ISA systems are also required to monitor the posted limits using exterior vehicle camera systems and the EU wants to leverage “deep learning” to create a comprehensive speed-limit map to be shared between all automobiles. With privacy concerns already at the forefront of many consumers’ minds, one can see why a government-backed program to collect data from literally every vehicle on the road might not be well received. There’s already been a lot of criticism over the European Commission wanting to centralize traffic enforcement in a manner reminiscent of Chinese-style data hubs and this feels like the continent is taking another big step in that direction.
The European Road and Safety Charter makes it pretty clear that ISA systems regulating speed will be able to be overridden by drivers right now. However, there are obvious concerns that that won’t always be the case, especially since systems can be tweaked by over-the-air updates issued by manufacturers. It’s not a stretch to imagine the laws changing in a few years and the government mandating that active ISA become obligatory under certain circumstances. In fact, it might actually be more dangerous to use the system until all mapping has been completed and the systems have better accuracy at predicting posted speed limits — further encouraging regulators to wait on the more invasive modes of implementation.
Presently, the EU will only require entirely new vehicle models to have ISA installed. But things change in July 2024, when the rule is extended to every freshly manufactured automobile regardless of how old the design happens to be.
The European Commission feels confident the move will help curtain accidents, saying that excessive speed contributes to around 30 percent of fatal crashes in the EU. The concept has actually been around for almost two decades, though it wasn’t until recently that vehicle tech reached a point where it could be implemented on a large scale. The government even had previously suggested implementing ISA along with vehicle interlock systems designed to prevent drunk driving and lowing the speed limit by 1 kph — which it claimed would reduce fatal crashes by 5 percent. That assertion came by way of a larger study that roped in data from several European nations to determine whether ISA would be effective.
From the European Commission:
The EU-funded and [Society for Risk Analysis] co-ordinated [sic] project PROSPER looked into ways that advanced assisted driving technology and technology relating to speed limitation devices can improve safety, and also at the barriers for the implementation of ISA. The PROSPER project calculated crash reductions for six countries. Reductions in fatalities between 19-28 [percent], depending on the country, were predicted in a market-driven scenario. Even higher reductions were predicted for a regulated scenario — between 26-50 [percent]. Benefits are generally larger on urban roads and are also larger if more intervening forms of ISA are applied. Trials with ISA have been carried out in ten European countries: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Hungary, The Netherlands, Spain and Sweden. An earlier study in the Netherlands showed that ISA could reduce the number of hospital admissions by 15 [percent] and the number of deaths by 21 [percent]. Research has shown that ISA and physical measures to reduce road speed are complementary rather than competing methods.
The “market-driven scenario” indicates manufacturers implementing ISA on their own, while the “regulated scenario” indicates the government forcing the issue. Though we don’t seem to have a clear case of either, as the European Commission is effectively forcing manufacturers to implement ISA while not yet technically requiring drivers to use it.
[Image: Nikola Barbutov/Shutterstock]
Become a TTAC insider. Get the latest news, features, TTAC takes, and everything else that gets to the truth about cars first by subscribing to our newsletter.
I often wondered when this would happen. It was only a matter of time. The fact that it can be overridden likely won’t change in the future. After all, that would mean they cannot send you a ticket for speeding without having to have external traffic monitoring systems. The software in your car will snitch on you and report you directly to the private company profiting off the government contract to collect said data. You’ll get an alert on your phone of an incoming ticket and then once you pick up your phone to check it, boom, another ticket for distracted driving.
I guess the question is, “and this is bad why?”
I mean actual reasons why this is bad. Actual reasons this hurts you as a person/driver. I do a lot of long distance driving and I’ve honestly found that driving the speed limit gets me there just as fast, saves gas enough that I don’t have to stop and fill up on a 440 mil drive, it’s just not a real problem.
It arguably violates ones privacy and opens the door for them having less direct control over their own personal property.
It also means driving will be a lot less fun when and if “Intelligent Speed Assistance” becomes mandatory. Manufacturers likewise aren’t going to bother building high performance vehicles for regular people if ISA keeps you pegged below the speed limit.
I can see it now….every car gets a detuned 4 cylinder engine, or a Leaf battery.
Naa. Just the cars built for the poors
Art, that’s going to be everybody not in the Inner Party.
Isn’t our privacy invaded anytime we go on the internet or go in a public place where cameras are monitoring are every move. We have all had a privacy invaded to some degree for decades. I am less concerned about speed limiters on our vehicles which most vehicles have had for years than many other things.
Didn’t the court just affirm that you don’t actually have a so called “right to privacy” in this country? Additionally haven’t state courts affirmed that driving is not a right?
However I do have one. As a person that tracks my cars in a perfectly legal manner if you don’t implement this well you could really hurt my already frankly pretty sorry lap times.
“Actual reasons this hurts you as a person/driver.”
If it didn’t hurt you, it wouldn’t have to be mandated, now would it? You’d perform the restriction entirely voluntary. If you are rational, being forced to do things you otherwise would not do, hurts you. Period, per definition of rationality.
If you really are unable to figure out how having your only vehicle entirely arbitrarily restricted at the whim of Chairman Xi,……
Screw that. Driving the speed limit would add several hours on the 1,000 miles I drive regularly to the west coast. There’s almost no one around in the open desert, middle of the night, middle of nowhere, especially not cops. They have to travel in groups for officer safety and stick close to base.
I pity the fools that have no choice but to buy the new junk, can’t tell them where to stick it!
More people die from heart disease than speeding. Why not regulate what food you can eat and how much you will exercise every day? Where does the state’s control of your life end?
Its coming:
https://youtu.be/RNJl9EEcsoE
If you eat McDonald’s every day and die of a heart attack, you kill yourself. If you drive 120 mph and plow into a Suburban full of kids, you kill those kids. Most laws exist to keep people from hurting others.
@buck-50,
For you. Everything you said is relevant for you. That’s fine, but most don’t like being told to live by other people’s standards.
Can’t the mothereffing govt just stay out of a person’s business? If you think this is a good idea, you’re clueless. All government does is take away your privacy in the name of safety. BULLSHXT.
All excellent reasons to not live in Europe.
Next up: driving laws in Tanzania that really grind my gears.
“ All excellent reasons to not live in Europe.
Next up: driving laws in Tanzania that really grind my gears.”
You are mind blowing my ignorant.
Or maybe in your fantasy land, stupid liberal ideas like this one that originate elsewhere never ever get implemented over here.
In fact, nothing that ever was done in Europe has ever made it here. Nothing.
Brexit is looking pretty good now.
I wouldn’t mind this feeture if it enabled cars on expressways to travel at 100 MPH, separated by inches, like trains on rubber wheels.
They did a demonstration of that in California. Sensors embedded in the pavement are required, and every vehile must be in perfect mechanical condition.
For 100 mph, you can leave out older cars or those with less powerful engines. You’ll have to use a late model vehicle properly equipped, i.e. plugged into the borg, and leave the classic car at home.
With computers controlling the steering and speed, the driver isn’t in charge. If there’s an electronic glitch that produces an accident, who is at fault? If it’s not a computer glitch but a blowout, or a mechanical failure, is the driver/owner, or manufacturer of the part, or the carmaker liable?
The insurance companies will want to know the answers to those questions. they’ll want to know how the courts will handle such cases, and what laws are controlling.
The benefit of such monitoring eventually reaches a vanishing point, since we’ve got a thing called radar love.
2022 – Europe Now Requires Speed Regulators for All New Vehicles. 2032 – Europe Now Requires Mandatory Self Driving Mode for Cars on all Public Roadways.
Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790)
This Franklin guy sounds like he would have built one hell of a fun car.
Given his experiments, it probably would be electric.
We have always been at war with Eastasia.
Upsizing the tires a bit would fool the car – a 10% larger tire circumference would go 110KPH while the car thinks it’s at 100KPH.
This idea will crash and burn if local councils find their traffic ticket revenue dropping as a result.
I bet the systems would monitor speed by GPS, so tire size would make no difference.
I’m betting that there will be plenty of devices/tunes one can purchase that will broadcast what ever speed you wish.
This is what taxis in Korea do. Most drivers use phone GPS, and the thing goes berzerk if the driver goes one km/h over the limit.
Tires would only be sold through the government. If you need tires too soon, based on the government’s data, tough luck. Car is locked down. You get fined for wearing out you tires too soon. Three times means they take your car away as you will be incarcerated.
I agree with your overall point but I don’t imagine tire crimes are high on the list of oppression decrees.
I wouldn’t be so sure. And yet, they may have a point.
https://www.autoweek.com/news/industry-news/a40205475/tires-pollute-more-than-tailpipes-report-claims/
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/brake-tire-wear-emissions
Wow, good thing no one’s forcing the author to move to Europe.
You don’t think other regions will watch this and implement later? That’s incredibly short-sighted.
Im not sure where you live but for a variety of reasons I don’t anticipate the United States passing speed limiter requirements of this type while I’m still above ground.
@khory: European laws don’t necessarily apply here, and vice versa.
I take it you’ve never broken the speed limit.
Didn’t you just write an article talking about taking a Mustang on a California dream cruise? How can you feel safe knowing that you might have unwittingly endangered other motorists by not having something like this on the car?
Check and mate.
Some are playing checkers while Matt is playing chess.
Matt most tires have a limit on the sidewall posted by an alphabetic letter that tells you what the maximum speed the tire is rated at and many cars have speed limiters already on them. I had a 99 S-10 that when new at speeds above 90 mph the engine would cut off and when it was 80 or below the engine would come back on. The engine was not straining nor was the accelerator full depressed. I did it once and thought I had blow the engine but the engine came back on and there was no damage to the engine. My first car a 73 Chevelle Deluxe with a 350 V-8 2 barrel carburetor could top out at over 120 mph which I did on desert stretches of road on I-10 in Nevada and California. I have discovered speed limiters put in other newer cars as well. Unless you are driving a performance or sports car most newer cars, trucks, suvs, and crossovers are going to have some type of speed limiter and this is long before Biden was President or the Democrats controlled both houses. Most tires are speed rated at 118 to 124 mph. I do think it is best to have a vehicle that can go slightly above the speed limit as DenverMike has mentioned but few of us need to go above 90 or even 100 mph. If I have adequate acceleration in a vehicle to merge onto an interstate or highway and can pass safely on a 2 lane road that is enough. Acceleration to me is more important than top speed. A vehicle with slow acceleration can be just as dangerous as a fast vehicle.
If few of us need to go 90mph or 100mph, why did you do 120mph on a deserted road?
Why should I not be allowed to do 130mph on a deserted road? Why should I not be “permitted” to do 85 on an interstate highway when there are not other cars with 1000 feet of me?
Any new car today has better tires and brakes than a 1972 Chevelle.
Some of the traffic laws are arbitrary and capricious. Many of them are veneer for revenue generation for municipalities and the companies that make the equipment.
Stupid laws like that actually make the roads more dangerous, because more people are more likely to ignore traffic laws in general, leading to more anarchy.
Less is more.
We don’t need big brother to take away our mobility, especially in a society like the US where the car is necessary.
@tomLU86–Why does anyone in their early 20s go 120 mph on a stretch of road on the desert? Because they are young and foolish. With the encouragement of my older brother and driving from Texas to California and back we were covering long distances. What a 23 year old me does did was not what a 70 year old me would ever do. As for the Chevelle it fortunately had new tires put on it before the trip. It was a 73 Chevelle not a 72 for 73 the Chevelle as all the other GM intermediates was all new with the colonnade design. Speeding out in the middle of nowhere is less dangerous that speeding in an urban area if I ran off the road I would injure myself and my brother and probably no one else since there were few cars on the road. As for speeding in a rural stretch of road with no one around that is not as dangerous as going 50 in a school zone or drag racing on city streets which can endanger more people. I am not advocating for speeding or advocating for speed limiters. Limiting speed would statistically reduce accidents and road deaths and insurance companies are more interested in anything that will reduce risks and thus the amount they payoff in claims. Big brother is more likely to be influenced by the insurance industry and their lobbyists than in any altruistic intentions of politicians.
link to 73 Chevelle Deluxe 4 door https://www.curbsideclassic.com/curbside-classics-american/cohort-classic-1973-chevrolet-chevelle-deluxe-sedan-the-no-frills-colonnade/
72 Chevelle https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1CATTSD_enUS994&sxsrf=ALiCzsY8pQqNUcaB-EU29nD4VoDZYNXnGw%3A1657754184787&lei=SFLPYpy7L_vmkvQPoNulgAM&q=72%20chevelle%204%20door&ved=2ahUKEwic_7vK__b4AhV7s4QIHaBtCTAQsKwBKAB6BAhgEAE&biw=1181&bih=505&dpr=1.63
@Matt: last I checked, the United States isn’t in Europe.
If you’re that concerned about European laws, move there and vote.
Mike, you probably heard that BMW is turning heated seats and steering wheels into subscription services in Korea. Do you think it will be limited to Korea?
Whether it’s revenue generation for businesses or government overreach in Europe or North America, there will always be a group of people who will try to determine how to get you to pay for something you already have paid for. Borders are just test labs for these people. And we are the rats.
The answer to forced subscription services: don’t buy from these %$@#& companies, and let them know why.
I doubt in LA traffic FreedMike was going to set any new speed records and yes it is most unlikely we will see European laws in the USA unless insurance companies put pressure on the Government for them which would reduce their risks.
Nobody forces anyone to live in any states they don’t agree with the laws in either, and yet there sure is a lot of b!thing from you about those places, isn’t there.
Operative words, Art: “states.” As in “this country “, versus Europe, which isn’t in this country.
Nobody is forcing you to move to Arkansas. In our system states matter. Perhaps you would be happier in Europe.
Oh cmon now. Don’t be so obtuse. When hear supposed “thought” leaders saying we need to do X because it is done in Europe to be green, or Y done in Europe because of healthcare, or Z done because of guns, it’s only a matter of time before some genius at the state or federal level would want to adopt these laws.
I honestly see this very problematic. I can see it now. Our main US highway would have stacked traffic because everyone would be sitting at 60mph or 55mph during moderate or heavy traffic.
I remember years ago when a bunch of people decided to “pace” all lanes of 75 going through Atlanta at the speedlimit and traffic backed up on surface streets.
This might work if all road capacity was increased by 100 percent.
It was I-285 (at least the one I was behind) and yes, traffic piled up. The Cops eventually broke it up. That was some years ago though. I’m not sure you could hit 55 at rush hour on any Atlanta street nowadays.
Ironically I believe it was when Hannity was still an Atlanta radio guy…I remember him going on about it after the traffic report. I’m sure it has happened since though.
I doubt in most major cities you could hit 55 during rush hour traffic. From the times I have been in Atlanta heavy traffic occurs most of the time. I remember the first time I was in Atlanta in 1968 the traffic was heavy then.
I’ve hit Atlanta at Rush hour where people are going 75mph down 75 through downtown. AS long as their isn’t an accident, people speed on I-75.
Just a few months ago in Atlanta heading north on 400 and everyone was going 15-20 over and that was at 5pm on a Friday night.
“Thought leaders”. LOL. Even the phrase shows the arrogance and level of separation from reality where these bubble dwellers reside.
Yes @jkross; for a significant number of Americans the personal opinion regarding the safety of vaccines of someone with a high school education who has tatoos, and who smokes tobacco, or who in some cases has or is using illegally acquired PED’s, is as valid as that of someone with an advanced degree in epidemiology, virology or infectious diseases.
The ‘dumbing down’ of America is truly an alarming trend.
or possibly the person peddling the drug, regardless of “education” is getting paid in some form or another to “peddle” said drugs?
That would bring someplace like Detroit, which moves along reasonably well outside of the weekday rush hours, to gridlock, as the posted 55mph limit on freeways within the city boundaries is at best a suggestion, to say nothing of someplace like Chicago, where the traffic is thick even off-peak! And in my admittedly very limited experience, the speed limits there are also pretty much ignored on their expressway network
“ Oh cmon now. Don’t be so obtuse.”
Cut him some slack, he doesn’t know any better. Anything that allows the government to exert its control over us he is in full support of.
I feel confident in saying that the German manufacturers will offer an easy way to disable the system, for at least as long as unrestricted Autobahns exist.
I’m sure those will be turned into 20mph bike paths if the enviro-SS Troops have their way!
As expected the “big government is great government” crowd loves this.
But, like many bad ideas that originate in Europe, it will be here soon enough. Our insurance agencies will want this idea so they can charge us more yet lower their payouts. Or, our sub human liberal politicians will force this upon us as a “green” endeavor. “Look at how virtuous I am! By writing this bill mandating this equipment I’m saving the planet! Go me!”
Let the Europeans keep their bad ideas.
Limiting speed has less to do with the “green endeavor” and more to do with insurance companies which have been controlling what type of vehicle you can drive long before liberals, conservatives, and Fox News. the 1973 and 1974 5 mph bumper standard regulations were the result of insurance lobbyist and so were the early 70s higher insurance premiums on muscle cars classifying them as higher risk. The lobbyist have more influence on our Government than any political party whether it be the gun manufacturers, NRA, big pharma, or oil industry. He who pays the most has the most influence which is true of lobbyist and campaign funding. Its naive to think otherwise but then there are many gullible people out there and as PT Barnum said there is a sucker born every minute.
@JeffS is correct. What burns me is that Posky’s hack articles get far more comments than Corey’s well researched and well written articles about automotive history. And that we have people here supporting the idea that they can drive at whatever speed they wish, in support of ‘individual freedom’. Sorry, but there have been laws and regulations regarding driving and traffic since the advent of the automobile. And due to some of these regulations vehicles are safer then ever. And the performance of even ‘mundane’ vehicles is superior to that of most of the ‘performance’ vehicles of the ‘golden era’ of the 1950’s and 1960’s.
@Arthur–Very true about the performance of even today’s mundane vehicles. I found myself on the Interstate doing 95 mph in my Maverick hybrid and it did not feel that fast and the engine was quiet. I was unaware of my speed until I looked at the speedometer. Now I set it on cruise. Corey’s articles are excellent and give a detailed history of all the cars he covers. I have really enjoyed the Imperial and the Mark series and his series on Ford automatics is exceptional. I enjoy reading Corey’s articles and I really like Adam on Rare Classic Cars which I have learned very much from both.
“ And that we have people here supporting the idea that they can drive at whatever speed they wish, in support of ‘individual freedom’. ”
Except nobody has said that here. Are you able to comprehend what you read or do you just make things up in an attempt to prove an off-base point?
“ I found myself on the Interstate doing 95 mph in my Maverick hybrid”
Hahaha there it is.
Your Escape pickup has been recalled for (shocking) being a burn hazard. Better get that taken care of.
I see the troll has crawled out of his hole and no my Maverick has not been recalled. Do you even like vehicles?
No question these systems will make driving less fun. But we keep proving over and over again that the consequences of allowing extreme speeding on public roadways are, well, extreme. We in the US have road death rates over five times those of the leading countries in this area, and we’re just midpack – there are many places that are much worse. That’s a lot of dead people – hundreds of thousands a year, worldwide – for the guilty pleasure of opening ‘er up on a public highway.
I feel mixed emotions about these systems as applied to limited-access roads, but I’m wholeheartedly in support in environments with pedestrians, even though the system will probably cost me a minute or two on a lot of trips.
But let’s get real: drivers are perhaps the single most powerful group influencing American public policy, and nothing like this will come to America for the foreseeable future as a regulatory matter. (If people keep driving in more and more deadly ways, though, it may eventually be necessary if you want anyone to sell you insurance.)
It would be helpful if our driver education and licensing laws were as rigorous as in Europe, to address the points in your first paragraph.
We’re already getting something like this in a few years. Mandatory monitoring by all new vehicle by 2026 to make sure you (or your passenger) haven’t had a second beer. It passed as a line item in last year’s infrastructure bill. No one argued over this provision, it’s just that the lobbyist’s check cleared, and so into the bill it went. No one asked the average American.
I can’t wait for the reaction from all the municipalities who derive so much revenue from speed traps. An entirely self driven future is nearer than we think or want…
^ This!
Not to mention the other point made in these comments that if you’re going to be forced to trundle along like a good little sheep, why bother with any fun or performance vehicular choices!
The Fifth Element is here “you have one point left on your license”
If you don’t live in Europe, this does not affect you. So why all the whining?
Matt says that it takes away the right to use your property as you wish. In the US, over half the population was just told that they have no control over their own body, and no one seems to care. I am just amazed at what sets people off. I have to wonder at the mind set of these upset people that do not live in Europe.
Excellent point Charliej! Some of us do care a lot! One’s body is inviolable, subject to one’s own will alone. Hail Satan!
You also don’t have the right to be protected from crazy people with semi automatic weapons that choose to target practice on innocent people.
It’s the effects on other people that have to be balanced against the choices of the individual. A common and ancient problem. Some interesting reading: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26506086/
When have “over half the population” not had control over their own body, Charlie? They have always had control and choose to ignore the possible repercussions of their exercise of said control. Since I’ve chosen to respond to your comment, you do realize that the baby’s DNA is completely different from the mother’s, right? Therefore not her body but a distinct, unique human being. And, these same individuals who are now clamoring for this ‘right’ – especially if they couch it as ‘women’s rights’ – are potentially killing other women with this ‘right’ they claim to possess. Blind hypocrites! Truth is still truth regardless of what you or I think.
So I assume you are pro-life even in the case of rape or endangering the life of the mother. There is a separation of church and state unless we become a government ruled by religion. Some states do have exceptions but Republican political leaders have stated that if they get a majority in both houses the first legislation they want to pass will be a Federal law outlawing abortions and many Republicans oppose exceptions to rape or the mother’s life. How is this not an invasion of privacy and individual rights? This is a moral issue and religious issue.
@THX; Your statement is built on a false premise. ‘Women inherit 50% of their DNA from each parent, men inherit 51% from their mother and 49% from their father.’ Their DNA is not as you stated ‘completely different’.
It’s a waste of time supplying gestation slavers with real world facts. They inhabit an imaginary world where reality cannot penetrate, “truth” is whatever supports their position, words do not have definitions, and today’s “facts” are casually discarded and replaced with new “facts” tomorrow if it’s convenient.
Gestation slavers? Is that your new code words for people who don’t murder children? Let me guess, now its a racist thing? That seems to be the left’s go to thing when their lack of facts and morality is exposed. Why is it so hard to “choose” not to have sex with someone you don’t want to have children with? As for the rape and incest canard, it is less than .05% of abortions but even when pro life legislation allows that loophole libs like you wont support it. You want baby murder on demand with no restrictions. The left’s entire mantra could be summed up “no personal responsibility”.
*^^^^^^^* Imaginary world where reality cannot penetrate…
The pro-abortion lobby doesn’t seem to want any restrictions. They also seem unable to explain the difference between the baby 1 minute before birth and the baby 1 minute after. As if some kind of magic transformation occurs (even though the child’s DNA was already different from the mother’s). Or is it “being wanted” that does the magic trick? Infanticide was a very common practice in the ancient world. I think it’s time to find a better way and leave it in the past, along with slavery and honor killings.
Art: I respect your answer and the time you took to reply to my post. The baby is not a ‘clone’ of the mother. By the fact you presented my contention is actually affirmed – the baby is neither an exact replica of the mother nor father thus a unique individual. (50% of both parents or 51/49 of both).
Jeff S: I believe in the sanctity of all life. I could put you in contact with a woman who was raped, beaten and left for dead. She chose to carry the child full term and now, she and her husband have a -in her words – a wonderful 12 yr. old son that they are glad to be parents of. You do realize that aside from the trauma of rape, by encouraging a woman to abort the child puts her through even more trauma. I’ve been part of an interview with the woman I mentioned. Those are her thoughts and words first hand. Would you deny her story as being a made up lie? Possibly, but I choose to think you are not that selfish to do so. As an aside, I care not for folks with either an R or a D after their name – just to be clear.
@THX1136–I respect your beliefs but I believe in choice. Choice does not mean a woman has to get an abortion and I believe you about that woman but again she made the choice and she was free to do so. As for political parties I do not care for either one but to me its the one that’s closest to my beliefs. I am for the most part a moderate and I don’t like extremes. Having worked with PAC Funds in the late 70s and early 80s I know what they are and how they are used.
It would be stupid, that’s why not. Maybe you’re merging and need a few MPH over the speed limit. Or need to outrun a train collision. Or a murderous killer. Or a tornado. Didn’t anyone see the damn movie? Or a surgeon needing to get there fast to save a life. I’m sure there’s thousands more.
Screw them, I’d like to think we have brains over here.
If fully implemented, I would think it would be a matter of months before aftermarket companies find a way to “tune” these features out so it could be shut off/overridden.
Basically… yes.
Lou_BC–Back in the 70s it use to be common for insurance companies to randomly inspect cars to see if they had been modified with larger engines or performance parts to increase their speed. Such modifications would make a car higher risk thus making it more expensive to insure. Actually had this happen to my father on his 1962 Chevy II 300 which had a 194 cubic inch straight 6 with a Powerglide transmission. The insurance company actually sent out someone to inspect the car and no this was not the result of a claim or accident. The insurance inspector didn’t bother inspecting my mother’s 64 Impala wagon with the 327 Quadrajet 4 barrel which was parked in the garage with the Chevy II. The insurance company wanted to make sure that we did not drop a small block or other V8 under the hood and that we did not jack up the rear end of the car which at the time was popular with younger people who had compact cars and converted them into street racers. You see much less of that today than in the 70s now you can add a performance chip and program it to add more performance. Insurance companies are in the business to collect premiums and to pay out as little as possible so they are risk adverse.
The nanny state, always looking for a problem to solve where none hardly exists. Cars are safer than ever before. My 2015 F150 and 2019 S-class are light years ahead of the 1995 Sable I also own in terms of actual and perceived safety and features. Then I think back on the 1970’s iron I was spirited around in as a child and it’s not even close. Given our population and the number of cars on the road, we’ve largely solved this problem already.
I think this graph illustrates it pretty well:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_safety_in_the_United_States#/media/File:US_traffic_deaths_per_VMT,_VMT,_per_capita,_and_total_annual_deaths.png
SaulTigh, I think the graph you posted is a very good illustration of why we are firmly in the territory of “diminishing returns”. Nearly 40,000 motor vehicle deaths per year is still a lot, but it’s spread over 320,000,000 people. That’s one in 8,000 people per year.
I saw a variant of this in Scotland. The rental car was a Toyota Venza in Diesel Manual (but not brown,alas) wagon trim. The lane departure warning system had a camera, which also read the round speed limit signs and would flash a warning if speeding. I was having enough fun keeping it on the wrong side of the road, a road a third narrower than US roads, so I wasn’t pushing-but the system requires the unique round signs to read them, it also had a significant ‘no hit’ rate reading the signs, which were reproduced on the center display.
I attended a traffic safety conference in NYC. One of the presenters was pushing hard for this….but the others were pushing harder for in car breath testers…..and the OE makers want nothing to do with expensive systems with almost zero popular support or desire.
The breath testing lobby won. Mandatory throughout the US by 2026.
The NHTSA mandate is broadly written. NHTSA was administrately directed to explore the technology and make recommendations to “prevent impaired driving”. There was a vendor who had an in car device with one sensor in the speedo nacelle and one in one of the doors. As currently, it is expensive to do, and in questions, the vendor was having a hard time answering the question “what if you are a DD and everyone else has been drinking”. I quickly figured out that if you just drove with the windows open you would defeat it. The Vendor saw this as if he can just get HIS device implemented, he could retire to the Rivera….but he helpfully detailed for us the verbiage as enacted. The goal mandates impaired driving detection, not “breathalyer in every car”. Doing Criminal Defense, I’ve some experience with the violator class and the in car intoxlizyers…and they aren’t something OE makers will put in a car…you need a shop to maintain them, and they are NOT cheap, rented they still run about $200 per month…non starter for any OE.
How they do this is still unknown…I’m guessing an in car camera with some sort of eye detection.
To be fair, I found myself driving home recently at 3:30 am after a very long day… the “Take a Break” message on my current car was very insistent….and I did stop for a very large coffee for the last two hours of driving…first time I’d ever seen that message in 85k miles. I often joke the car is smarter than I am (C-class), but this is the first time it has proved it to me.
I’ve read that cameras are a definite possibility. I read about this last year, but I seem to recall some intermediate goalpost set for 2023, with final, mandatory implementation due in 2026. With no definite idea among manufacturers as to how this will be implemented.
According to the NHTSA (https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/Publication/813194):
“Twenty-six percent of fatal crashes, 12 percent of injury crashes, and 9 percent of property-damage-only crashes in 2019 were speeding-related.”
Perhaps Europe’s stats are similar.
That means 74% of fatal crashes occurred at or below the speed limit.
Their report goes on to discuss how many of these deaths involved alcohol, invalid licenses, age (youth), gender, bikers, etc.
Road deaths are a complicated matter, statistically-speaking.
Speed limit nannies would only solve a small part of the problem, and would spawn Prohibition-Era-style workarounds.
“That means 74% of fatal crashes occurred at or below the speed limit.”
No one wants to talk about distracted driving or laughable driver ed. Those 2 issues would likely address the majority of accidents.
First, taking away a quarter of our fatalities would be a major accomplishment in itself.
Second, that quarter of the fatalities has pedestrians and cyclists over-represented in it. Our policy should be focused especially on impacts to people who are not in the car causing the accident, including pedestrians and cyclists.
Third, there may be workarounds, but it will be a lot harder to speed without getting caught if traffic is all moving at the speed limit than it is in today’s situation. The insurance companies will happily enforce this without any governmental action.
Insurance companies aren’t as powerful or enjoy the level of independence you are implying.
They already offer discounts for using telematic devices today but can’t jack up rates on people that don’t use them because they know it would result in swift government reaction (and is probably already illegal in some states). Just Google “insurance” and “legislature” and you’ll see they get smacked around plenty.
The only way you’ll see a requirement of speed limit restriction devices on vehicles in the US is from laws and the only way you’ll see those laws is from public support. Right now that public support is nearly nonexistent.
Insurance companies can and do lobby Congress. Also insurance companies can influence state regulatory boards. Most new vehicles have some type of speed limiter built in but many will never drive fast enough to be effected by them. The only thing that could happen is to limit the speeds to a lower limit but as to if and when that could happen is anyone’s guess. That is something that I do not stay up late hours of the night worrying about.
There’s a delicate balance here. On the one hand, you’re right that insurers have to answer to state regulators and, in extreme cases, legislatures. On the other hand, the numbers don’t lie, and there is going to be a genuinely compelling case for this technology and others in the “road-aware car” category based on lower insurance rates and prevention of death and injury. The insurers and their trade associations drove the regulators to require seatbelts, airbags, and crumple zones, and the harm-reduction case for this sort of tech is just as strong as for any of those.
Passive safety like air bags and crumple zones are much easier for people to accept versus active, intrusive systems. There were huge fights over seatbelts that took a lifetime to resolve while Motorcycle helmet laws still aren’t universal.
There is basically zero public support for people blasting through traffic at 120mph or going 60mph through a school zone. But there is nearly 100% support for people to go 74 in a 65. Figure out a way to stop the extremes without impacting the common and you might be able to get somewhere.
I got my libertarian, small-town Texas brother-in-law to agree that he would accept a limiter that gave you 5 mph or 20% over the limit, whichever is greater. That would allow:
25 in a 20
30 in a 25
36 in a 30
48 in a 40
60 in a 50
72 in a 60
84 in a 70
96 in an 80
Something like that is going to be how this shakes out. It would essentially eliminate speed-related casualties while rarely coming into play for most drivers in most places.
My feeling is turn it off entirely when the posted speed limit is over 55 and don’t beep again unless you go over 105.
But ignoring the exact level of the tiers, yes, a system that only targets excessive, felonious speeding while leaving socially-accepted “commuter” speeding alone would be much more palatable to the public.
Maybe “rural interstate,” but definitely not just “over 55.’ Idiots weaving through 60 mph traffic at 85 or 90, and losing control, occasionally kill people and/or shut down the main north/south artery through our entire city, causing citywide gridlock.
Maybe Florida is unique but there’s a lot of interstates around here with a posted 55 or 60 where the traffic flow is 75.
There was an attempt to raise the speed limits to 75mph on many of our interstates and highways back in 2014 because studies were showing they were set below the 85th traffic percentile. It passed the legislature but Rick Scott vetoed it.
The roads that aren’t interstates or rural highways have enough traffic now that no one is speeding unless it is 2AM.
I suspect speed limiting technology would actually make it easier politically to raise the limits on roads like that.
Around here, 60 means 65 at most in most places because of curves and sudden lane changes, and traffic is tight enough most times of day that most people aren’t going any faster. It’s the fools who go faster anyway who are the problem.
@dal20402–Agree. I am not saying the insurance companies are wrong about many of these requirements but I am saying that anything that reduces risks and claims are what the insurance companies want. True there might be environmentalists who want vehicles that don’t go as fast but they are not the ones that have the influence to make the changes. I grew up in the muscle car era and many guys I went to high school bought and drove them especially the Plymouth Road Runner which was basically a hopped up Plymouth Belvedere with Road Runner emblems and decals. The Road Runner was probably the most popular because it was the cheapest but there were Chevelle SS, Olds 442, performance Mustangs, Camaro SS, Super Birds, AMX, Charger, Challenger, and many others. I remember some would race these cars and a few wrecked them and died. Some of the poorer guys built their own muscle cars out of old Chevy IIs and Dodge Darts. About the time of the 70 1/2 Challenger which had many performance packages including the 340 with 3 2 barrel carburetors (called the six pack) the insurance industry lobbied the state regulatory agencies to put muscle cars in a high risk category thus higher insurance premiums. There was also pressure from some of the public to limit these muscle cars but the main impetus was the insurance industry and as we all know a few years later there was the Arab Oil Embargo of 1973 which made muscle cars less popular and used ones became very cheap. Now the muscle cars are highly prized, expensive, and sought out collector cars.
They could make this a subscription based or even free option and see how many takers there are.
I think you’d get a lot of takers: parents.
I can already tell my five-year-old is going to grow into a sixteen-year-old at high risk of reckless driving. While there are plenty of other ways to be reckless in a car I would sleep a lot easier at night if his car couldn’t exceed 15% over the limit.
If you want to really sleep well, teach your kids to drive safely without distractions. A stupid 85 mph speed limiter won’t save them if they’re texting or watching YouTube while driving. And if you still want a speed limiter, please don’t foist it on the rest of the population.
I care more about not going 45 on city streets than not going 85 on the freeway.
And I’ll stop trying to foist this on the rest of the population when they stop driving up my 25 mph street at 70 mph every Friday and Saturday night.
@dal20402–Very true I have had 2 vehicles hit in front of my house by drivers going 50 mph or more down my street that has a posted speed limit 25 mph. Speeding on a freeway and interstate is not nearly as dangerous as speeding in a residential area. The most dangerous driving on the freeway is not speeding as it is weaving in and out of lanes and not signaling and there is no way to design that into cars as a safety feature. Cannot protect an idiot from themselves or other drivers. I am less concerned about having a speed limiter on my vehicles than other things and if someone wants to monitor me they will find little of interest.
Within a block of my house, in the last six years, there have been one fatality accident and two totaled parked cars (both owned by neighbors I know), all caused by extreme speeding of 50+ (in one case 70+) in a 25.
This tech would almost certainly have prevented all three.
The following links are about speed limiters
https://auto.howstuffworks.com/car-driving-safety/safety-regulatory-devices/speed-limiter1.htm
https://www.drivingtests.co.nz/resources/which-vehicles-have-speed-limiters/
https://www.quora.com/Why-do-car-manufacturers-put-speed-governors-limiters-on-their-cars
https://www.quora.com/Why-are-many-cars-limited-to-155mph-What-is-significant-about-that-speed
Mercedes and BMW have speed limiters that will not let their vehicles exceed 155 mph. Many times speed limiters are put on vehicles to keep the vehicle’s engine from blowing and to keep it from exceeding the speed for which its tires are rated at.
More links about speed limiters
https://www.torquenews.com/106/one-simple-reason-why-ram-trx-only-goes-118
https://www.ramrebel.org/threads/how-to-disable-the-speed-limiter.62872/
Matt I think to be fair and objective you need to mention that most vehicles have speed limiters and why they have them. You should have also done more research on speed limiters and whether you agree with putting them on vehicles or not and why manufacturers put them on. Do you really want to drive a high profile vehicle like a Ram Rebel or Jeep more than 118 mph? A Corvette or a lower profile vehicle is more stable at higher speeds than a pickup or suv. Additionally Matt we the readers would like to know what the actual top speed the Europeans are proposing to limit. If it is 155 mph then Mercedes and BMW already have that. As for putting in a speed regulator that regulates a specific speed for a specific area or posted speed limit we the readers would like to know if the technology exists now. Speed limiters on vehicles themselves have existed for decades but limiting to a specific speed limit is something I have not heard of before. More information would be greatly appreciated.
The way it’s written, this isn’t as big a deal as it sounds. Many of the manufacturers already offer systems that meet the requirements. Taking BMW for instance, their European models normally have a “LIM” button on the steering wheel by the cruise control buttons that provides this functionality. It’ll read speed limit signs, and stop your acceleration when you hit the limit (or a configurable amount over the limit). If you press hard enough on the accelerator (or push the button to turn the feature off), it’ll let you go past it.
To be honest, it’s a really useful feature for day to day driving so that you don’t have to watch your own speed as closely.