Controversial California bill would physically stop new cars from speeding

[ZLoth]

From SF Gate:

Controversial California bill would physically stop new cars from speeding

A California lawmaker wants drivers to stop speeding, and he wants to make it nearly impossible for your car to do so. On Wednesday, State Sen. 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.

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. For example, if a highway's speed is 65 miles per hour, drivers with this technology wouldn't be able to go faster than 75 miles per hour. Wiener told SFGATE that the bill as written applies to all roads, but he expects it to be a topic of discussion. He said emergency vehicles would be exempt from the requirement.

If passed into law, the California Highway Patrol commissioner would have to grant exceptions based on "specific" criteria for vehicles to disable the technology. The bill does not specify exactly what would qualify, but drivers and manufacturers who met the criteria would be able to fully disable the speed control, according to the bill.

FULL ARTICLE HERE

[kalvado]

Already discussed in
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=34151.0

[Max Rockatansky]

If you consider 10 MPH over stopping speeding...  The premise of this being based off GPS data is questionable at best.  Said data probably only exists for the largest of cities and probably isn't the most accurate to begin with.  The Governor vetoed a similar bill fairly recently.  But yeah, this coupled with the PHEV mandate probably will be a boon to out of state car sales if it passes.

[SectorZ]

Great, since every hair-brained idea California comes up with regarding cars is automatically put into place by my state, it'll be forced on me soon as well if passed.

[1995hoo]

It becomes a problem when the software's database doesn't match what the signs actually say. Our rental Tesla earlier this month displayed the speed limit on the dashboard screen, but there were multiple situations where it was incorrect, usually because the posted speed limit was higher than the screen showed (and it wasn't a situation of the software being confused as to whether we were on a frontage road or the main highway, either).

There's also a safety problem if the software can cause the car to brake hard when the speed limit drops. I can recall places in North Carolina where the speed limit used to drop from 70 to 55 (may still do that, I just haven't driven through those locations in a few years). If someone's tailgating you and your car automatically brakes hard to comply with the lower speed limit, you stand a fair chance of getting rear-ended.

[Max Rockatansky]

Great, since every hair-brained idea California comes up with regarding cars is automatically put into place by my state, it'll be forced on me soon as well if passed.

I wouldn't hold your breath on that happening.  Recall during the 1970s and 1980s there was California specific engines due to CARB emission standards being more strict.  I suspect the PHEV mandate will lead to something similar and possibly this if it passes. 

Should be noted that the guy sponsoring the bill (SB 961 and 960) is a hard core urbanist out of the 11th District (San Francisco and San Mateo County).  Outside his immediate sphere of influence his ideals don't seem to be held as truisms.  He was also the guy behind trying to push for the removal of what is left of the Central Freeway stub.

[formulanone]

It becomes a problem when the software's database doesn't match what the signs actually say.

I get these on some rental cars; last fall, I was travelling on Missouri Highway 100 west of St. Louis and the "Speed Limit Warning" on the dash displayed "100" in the box. Presumably it the car's millimeter wave radar is just looking for a black-and-white rectangular sign with a prominent number on it that's divisible by five.

I wish I took a photo of it...

[SectorZ]

Great, since every hair-brained idea California comes up with regarding cars is automatically put into place by my state, it'll be forced on me soon as well if passed.

I wouldn't hold your breath on that happening.  Recall during the 1970s and 1980s there was California specific engines due to CARB emission standards being more strict.  I suspect the PHEV mandate will lead to something similar and possibly this if it passes. 

Should be noted that the guy sponsoring the bill (SB 961 and 960) is a hard core urbanist out of the 11th District (San Francisco and San Mateo County).  Outside his immediate sphere of influence his ideals don't seem to be held as truisms.  He was also the guy behind trying to push for the removal of what is left of the Central Freeway stub.

Yeah but Massachusetts has gotten worse. You won't be able to buy a gas-only car in my state in 2035 merely because California passed a law stating so. No one ever voted for a bill banning gas cars, only that if California jumps off a cliff we have to follow them. Our state supreme court also said that was somehow OK.

[Max Rockatansky]

Great, since every hair-brained idea California comes up with regarding cars is automatically put into place by my state, it'll be forced on me soon as well if passed.

I wouldn't hold your breath on that happening.  Recall during the 1970s and 1980s there was California specific engines due to CARB emission standards being more strict.  I suspect the PHEV mandate will lead to something similar and possibly this if it passes. 

Should be noted that the guy sponsoring the bill (SB 961 and 960) is a hard core urbanist out of the 11th District (San Francisco and San Mateo County).  Outside his immediate sphere of influence his ideals don't seem to be held as truisms.  He was also the guy behind trying to push for the removal of what is left of the Central Freeway stub.

Yeah but Massachusetts has gotten worse. You won't be able to buy a gas-only car in my state in 2035 merely because California passed a law stating so. No one ever voted for a bill banning gas cars, only that if California jumps off a cliff we have to follow them. Our state supreme court also said that was somehow OK.

Consider the present automotive market conditions.  Does it seem like having nothing but EV cars by 2035 is the slightest bit plausible?  Even the PHEV mandate by California isn't a true EV mandate.  A certain percentage of cars (35% I think off the top of my head) can be sold with ICEs so long as they have plug-in hybrid capabilities.  All PHEV really means is what CARB defines as zero emissions vehicles.  CARB didn't up their standards on what they consider to be "zero emission."

To that end, these are measures I certainly don't endorse or agree with.  The market was trending towards EVs and cars with plug-in hybrid capabilities to begin with.  So much of the PHEV mandate is dependent on California's wider clean energy initiatives which aren't exactly going as smoothly as planned. I suspect there will be delays in the mandate or California's waiver on setting their own standards might not survive the next decade. 

[ZLoth]

There are a few choice words in regards to the California Air Resources Board aka CARB. During the 1990s, they were mandating a gasoline additive which was causing engine issues and gas line deterioration on certain cars.

[SectorZ]

Great, since every hair-brained idea California comes up with regarding cars is automatically put into place by my state, it'll be forced on me soon as well if passed.

I wouldn't hold your breath on that happening.  Recall during the 1970s and 1980s there was California specific engines due to CARB emission standards being more strict.  I suspect the PHEV mandate will lead to something similar and possibly this if it passes. 

Should be noted that the guy sponsoring the bill (SB 961 and 960) is a hard core urbanist out of the 11th District (San Francisco and San Mateo County).  Outside his immediate sphere of influence his ideals don't seem to be held as truisms.  He was also the guy behind trying to push for the removal of what is left of the Central Freeway stub.

Yeah but Massachusetts has gotten worse. You won't be able to buy a gas-only car in my state in 2035 merely because California passed a law stating so. No one ever voted for a bill banning gas cars, only that if California jumps off a cliff we have to follow them. Our state supreme court also said that was somehow OK.

Consider the present automotive market conditions.  Does it seem like having nothing but EV cars by 2035 is the slightest bit plausible?  Even the PHEV mandate by California isn't a true EV mandate.  A certain percentage of cars (35% I think off the top of my head) can be sold with ICEs so long as they have plug-in hybrid capabilities.  All PHEV really means is what CARB defines as zero emissions vehicles.  CARB didn't up their standards on what they consider to be "zero emission."

To that end, these are measures I certainly don't endorse or agree with.  The market was trending towards EVs and cars with plug-in hybrid capabilities to begin with.  So much of the PHEV mandate is dependent on California's wider clean energy initiatives which aren't exactly going as smoothly as planned. I suspect there will be delays in the mandate or California's waiver on setting their own standards might not survive the next decade.

California's PHEV allowed after the ban is 20%. Massachusetts is 0%.

You seriously don't realize how toppled over politically my state is that they'll push this through even if the results are impossible to deal with. They're even talking about banning registration of non-full EV cars after 2035, meaning you buy in another state or move to the state you're screwed. That's pretty damn extremist. Thankfully at least if California delays it, Mass gets (probably?) delayed, but it's absolutely bat-shit crazy that we have to depend on that to happen.

[ZLoth]

California's PHEV allowed after the ban is 20%. Massachusetts is 0%.

You seriously don't realize how toppled over politically my state is that they'll push this through even if the results are impossible to deal with. They're even talking about banning registration of non-full EV cars after 2035, meaning you buy in another state or move to the state you're screwed. That's pretty damn extremist. Thankfully at least if California delays it, Mass gets (probably?) delayed, but it's absolutely bat-shit crazy that we have to depend on that to happen.

Massachusetts is about 20 times smaller than California. It is also the third most population-dense state in the United States compared with number 11 California.

As far as I'm aware, there are several states which have passed legislation to emulate California when it comes to stuff such as this. Part of the challenge is that there are several "bowls" in California that traps pollution, especially the Los Angeles basin. It's BLEEP like this that had me considering escaping California for over a decade before being able to do so five years ago. Remember, almost 45% of California's population is in the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim MSA (32.98%) or the Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario (11.96%) MSAs.

[vdeane]

Great, since every hair-brained idea California comes up with regarding cars is automatically put into place by my state, it'll be forced on me soon as well if passed.

I wouldn't hold your breath on that happening.  Recall during the 1970s and 1980s there was California specific engines due to CARB emission standards being more strict.  I suspect the PHEV mandate will lead to something similar and possibly this if it passes. 

Should be noted that the guy sponsoring the bill (SB 961 and 960) is a hard core urbanist out of the 11th District (San Francisco and San Mateo County).  Outside his immediate sphere of influence his ideals don't seem to be held as truisms.  He was also the guy behind trying to push for the removal of what is left of the Central Freeway stub.

But also worth noting: many states are using California as a loophole to get around the fact that they can't set their own standards.  So, if they want stricter standards than what the federal government sets, they pass a law saying "vehicles in our state need to meet the same standards as California".  Thus, they're able to use that to get around not setting their own standards, because California is allowed to, and they're saying the California standard applies to them too.

[SectorZ]

Massachusetts is about 20 times smaller than California. It is also the third most population-dense state in the United States compared with number 11 California.

And? What does that somehow entitle me to be forced to do what California does?

[SP Cook]

- Obviously, the federal government should set one common standard in this field, as in most fields.  This is called "preemption" and it certainly should apply here.

- California is the home to junk science.  Ever notice the little stickers about cancer.  In California, EVERYTHING causes cancer.  Which, IMHO, just blunts the effectiveness of warnings about the few things that do.

- The states have no interest in 100% compliance with SLs.  The technology to force people to comply with underposted SLs has existed forever.  In fact California tried it back in the days of the failed NMSL.  Cop leaves LA, drives 55, no one passes him, pulls off when he gets to the Nevada line.  Problem solved.  Except, of course, the NO MONEY in that.  And no power either, the cop doesn't get to conduct a mini-trial beside the road and let the people he is not oppressing go with a warning.  And, since SLs are all about money, this proposal will go nowhere.  Why, if everybody obeyed the SLs, then the traffic cops might have to deal with actual criminals, and that is dangerous and generally unprofitable.

[MikieTimT]

Massachusetts is about 20 times smaller than California. It is also the third most population-dense state in the United States compared with number 11 California.

And? What does that somehow entitle me to be forced to do what California does?

This all sounds eerily like we're heading towards what pissed Americans off back in 1775.  And I think that Americans care a little more about cars than they did about tea.

[jeffandnicole]

Massachusetts is about 20 times smaller than California. It is also the third most population-dense state in the United States compared with number 11 California.

And? What does that somehow entitle me to be forced to do what California does?

This all sounds eerily like we're heading towards what pissed Americans off back in 1775.  And I think that Americans care a little more about cars than they did about tea.

Impossible. There were no Americans in 1775.

[bm7]

I'm sure nobody would find a way to get around it. Like say, putting RF shielding over the GPS module.

[kalvado]

I'm sure nobody would find a way to get around it. Like say, putting RF shielding over the GPS module.

Error 128: GPS signal unavailable, maximum speed limited to 25 MPH

[sprjus4]

I can recall places in North Carolina where the speed limit used to drop from 70 to 55 (may still do that, I just haven't driven through those locations in a few years).

Still a good amount on US-17 I recall, including in Windsor where it drops from 70 mph to 45 mph... yeah that would certainly be problematic.

[kphoger]

Waiting for the governor to ping a location on a parallel 30mph frontage road enough times to trigger an immediate slowdown on the Interstate...

[SectorZ]

Waiting for the governor to ping a location on a parallel 30mph frontage road enough times to trigger an immediate slowdown on the Interstate...

Was it you that pointed out the problems with parallel and crossing roads with slower speed limits pinging an advisory of drivers going too fast in a business setting?

[kphoger]

Waiting for the governor to ping a location on a parallel 30mph frontage road enough times to trigger an immediate slowdown on the Interstate...

Was it you that pointed out the problems with parallel and crossing roads with slower speed limits pinging an advisory of drivers going too fast in a business setting?

Yes, in the previous thread.  We used to have speed monitoring for our tech vehicles, back when they were W2 employees.  It would occasionally ping them as speeding by a LOT, but, when we dug into the data, it was pinging the speed limit on the side street crossing over or under the highway.

Then there are also speed limits that are just plain stupid and everyone ignores them for good reason.  For example, the 600 yards of US-54/400 westbound out of Augusta, KS that exist between the final cross-road and the bump up to 65 mph.  It would be stupid to physically prevent anyone getting up to 65 on the bridge.

[Max Rockatansky]

I'm sure nobody would find a way to get around it. Like say, putting RF shielding over the GPS module.

Or just drive to Reno or Las Vegas to get your next post-2027 or 2035 car.  I bought my Challenger in November 2015 in Florida right before I moved to California.  Going one state over by comparison is not a big deal.

[hotdogPi]

Unless it's your first car and you can't drive to the state line because you don't have one.